1. Welcome to Pit Bull Chat!

    We are a diverse group of Pit Bull enthusiasts devoted to the preservation of the American Pit Bull Terrier.

    Our educational and informational discussion forum about the American Pit Bull Terrier and all other bull breeds is a venue for members to discuss topics, share ideas and come together with the common goal to preserve and promote our canine breed of choice.

    Here you will find discussions on topics concerning health, training, events, rescue, breed specific legislation and history. We are the premier forum for America’s dog, The American Pit Bull Terrier.

    We welcome you and invite you to join our family.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

    Dismiss Notice

Who should own them?

Discussion in 'Dog Debates' started by fearlessknight, Mar 12, 2008.

  1. bahamutt99

    bahamutt99 Stealth ninja

    With regard to the laws, no, I don't think there should be laws which make it more difficult for otherwise-responsible po' folk to own pets. I don't think there should be anti-tether, or mandatory spay/neuter. I do agree with a mandatory vet care minimum, just don't consider spaying/neutering to be mandatory for a pet's well-being. If the government is going to insist that things like fences (or insurance policies, or specific kennels, or expensive elective surgical procedures, etc.) are mandatory, then they should pony up some help for the people who were doing just fine without those things. If a person meets the minimum standards for keeping a pet -- food, water, shelter, containment, vet care when needed -- then no new laws are needed to bring them up to par with other people who give more to their animals, IMO.

    On the topic of public assistance and pets, it depends on the situation. If a person is on welfare and buys a new puppy, hell no. (As I said in an earlier post, I think that should apply to people who are on public assistance and still choose to smoke and/or drink, have cable TV, etc.) BUT... If a person already has animals, and they temporarily go on public assistance, I don't think they should have to give up their animals in order to continue receiving benefits. There are bumps in the road, but that doesn't mean you kick all the passengers out of the car just because you hit one. Fix your flat tire and keep going with your family intact. (Wow, was a really funkdified analogy, or is it just me?)

    As far as comparing things to peoples' personal situations, what's wrong with that? If it enables people to gain a greater understanding of and empathy for the discussion by referring to stuff that they've gone through in their own lives, I'm all for it. No, not everybody is like anybody, but to suggest that a person's own experiences have no bearing on the topic at hand is really quite cold. Empathy, people. Compassion, decency, understanding. Not everybody is an idiot, or a leech, or an unfit dog owner. Maybe we can just assume for a moment that we are all just people with different points of view.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 14, 2008
  2. Rai_77

    Rai_77 Good Dog

    Now this, I agree with! :D Awesome analogy, btw. I actually have a family member who is on SSI and welfare due to a mental disability. She will never be able to work. Yet she just got one dog, then decided she needed a playmate, so she got another. That made no sense to me. This is not a temporary poor situation, she will always be poor, and always get gov't aid, and if something bad happens to one of those dogs, there is no way she can afford to care for it. Also, since she can't work, it's not as if anyone would loan her the money...how is she supposed to be able to repay it? On top of it all, she lives in one of the scuzziest areas of town and is raising a daughter. IMO, it would have made more sense to spend the money that she spends on the two dogs to try to get a healthier environment to raise her kid in. Also, she's just made it harder for herself to be able to rent another place in the future. In her defense, she does feed them very high quality food and has a very cheap vet that she goes to, who is actually very good. But should a real emergency arise, like the one I recently with through with my dog, she wouldn't be able to handle it. She doesn't even own a car to be able to get to the ER vet if she had to.
     
  3. Rai_77

    Rai_77 Good Dog

    ;) I don't mind sharing it, or I wouldn't have. I just didn't appreciate what was being implied. My income doesn't dictate my character. And I am more than willing to take food from my own mouth to feed my own, kid and pets when it's necessary.
     
  4. Rai_77

    Rai_77 Good Dog

    I'm sure it was intentional! ;)
     
  5. Miakoda

    Miakoda GRCH Dog


    Eh. My reply somehow didn't make it on here. That's odd.

    Anyways, I stand by what I said originally. And then again later on. :D

    What I mean is that people, who rely on the government and US taxpayers to pay for their way of living, have no business getting a dog. Until you can properly care for and afford to pay for yourself and/or your family, leave the extra wants out of things.

    However, if you are just "poor" and manage to make ends meet to provide for yourself and/or your family and you decide to get a dog, if you can pay for it then have at it.

    BUT, (here's where I think I confused you FK) I don't believe in the government making laws preventing people of certain income levels from obtaining a dog. While I personally still don't believe that many shouldn't have pets b/c of their income level, the government has enough b.s. laws on the books and still can't manage to enforce the legitimate ones. I don't believe that the government should have a say in whether or not someone who doesn't not rely on them and the taxpayers to make ends meet should not get a pet, or some should not be allowed to drive certain makes/models of cars, etc. etc.

    For example, the most dogs I've ever owned at once was 14. Throw 2 horses into that mix. And add a special needs child. Money was tight, I'll be the first to admit. However, the government has NO say-so in stating how many dogs & horses I can and cannot own just because they believe I have too many.....or even have to many for our income level. We make numerous sacrifices to have these dogs. For example, we don't go on vacation, we don't order pizza except for maybe once every other month (& we always use coupons), we don't eat out at restaurants, we don't have to buy namebrand clothes (although my husband is a HUGE Air Jordan shoes fanatic :rolleyes:), we don't have to fill our home with expensive knick-knacks, etc. etc. We make those choices and that's our right to do so.
     
  6. Rai_77

    Rai_77 Good Dog

    It's a lot like landlords requiring you to make 3x the rent amount before they'll even consider you. Sure, I'd be a ton more comfortable financially if my rent only took 1/3 of my take home pay, but if I'm willing to sacrifice and make it work, then that should be an option available to me. It's not really, imo, a landlord's business how I (and I'm using 'I' in the general sense) pay the rent (obviously so long as I'm not doing anything illegal on the property). The point is that I do pay the rent on time, and keep up with the property and don't cause any problems.

    Also, if you are low-income, I don't see a problem with needing to borrow money in the event of an emergency, the issue is having that already worked out prior to an emergency occurring. IOW..have a plan to be able pay people back, and know who you can borrow from, if you need to. And make sure you know where there are vets that will work with you, take payments, barter, whatever you need to get it done. One should also have money or skill necessary to get proper preventative care to lower risk as much as possible (you can save a TON by doing vaccs at home, wish I had the stomach to do it!)
     
  7. GHOST

    GHOST Puppy

     
  8. fearlessknight

    fearlessknight Good Dog

    We are the same way! If for no other reason, eating out is bad for you! Name brand clothes are a waste of money and as you pay for a name! (Depends though on your idea of name brand...Tommy H. Ecko, that shit is what I speak of! Not Old navy and the like!)

    Gotcha Mia, thanks for explaining! I appreciate it, I was starting to wonder there for a minute! LOL

    I do not agree there should be laws passed like that either, as I stated previously, but like I also said....I do agree with the line of thinking, as far as there being a lot of people (because of income) that should not own them....It's like, I understand what they are doing, but they are going about it the wrong way IMO.....
     
  9. Rai_77

    Rai_77 Good Dog

     
  10. bahamutt99

    bahamutt99 Stealth ninja

    Fearless says: I agree, except with having minimum standards would that fall a little into the guardianship/(childlike) situation? I am asking because I agree with you completely, but i also feel it would do that in the end...if they lay down a set of "rules or requirements" then it would lead to something bigger...at least IMO it would!

    I say: Well, if you think about it, there already are minimum standards in most communities. For example, its illegal to just leave one of your animals to suffer if its injured or sick. You have to either get it vet care, or take it to an animal shelter and sign it over. Its illegal to fail to provide basic needs: food, water, shelter. I don't see these ideals in and of themselves leading to something more scary. Its the AR movement that does that, and they're going to keep trying regardless.

    Except, I personally think that the S/N program (being it is what they want) should be $10 a set price no matter where you go and $5.00 on group litters! JMHO! The way I see it is..If they want it to be done so damned badly they need to lower the price, so that it CAN be done!

    Here also, many places have started offering low-cost spay/neuter clinics. We have one in Tulsa. Its not $10, but $40-45, which is still a damn sight better than what a vet will charge you to do it. I'm not sure where they get their funding, but I'm glad they're around. They also offer $5 rabies shots. When I lived in St. Louis, they had programs like 10-spot spay, which is like it sounds, a coupon which costs $10 and is good for spaying a pet at participating clinics.

    So there are already people interested in offering these things to the public. But I agree 100% that if the government is going to require spay/neuter, that the government needs to be stepping up and funding these clinics themselves.
     
  11. fearlessknight

    fearlessknight Good Dog

     
  12. fearlessknight

    fearlessknight Good Dog

    Somehow my last post quoted Ghost, when he in fact did not say this. And not only that, It took me I think 5 hours to actually post that damned thing, because I started then the phone rang and then I left and then then then....and then that damned thing was botched to hell and back, because I was trying to finish it while dinner was on the stove! LOL....what a night it has been! SO pardon the ignorance please! (because that post was about ignorant)!

    So, I will correct myself here!

    Almost all states use "the food stamp CARD" It is food stamps....in the form of a card! I am sure you understand that! :no2:
    I do know not about some places, but I know 4 states that do in fact...... here (SC) (NC..I forgot about them) being 2 of them, that you can not only HEAR what they are using, but you can see as well! It tells the whole world, and not only that when you go through the cashiers line, they ask, credit or debit? The customer then has to respond "food stamps"......
    while there is no more paper/play money that is used for "food stamps" it is still called "food stamps" The for that they use is now different, but the program is still "Food Stamps"
     
  13. RottNPitLvr

    RottNPitLvr Little Dog

    You can't legislate common sense in regards to pet ownership. You are going to have irresponsible owners on all levels of the "food chain". Why legislate ownership to the poor when there are some that are responsible with their pets? This would be a different form of BSL, along the same lines of mandatory S/N laws, insurance restrictions, rental living, etc, the list goes on... Why add on to that?
     
  14. airwalk

    airwalk Little Dog

    The government is you and me. It's our money, so it would be you and I funding these programs.
     
  15. simms

    simms Good Dog

    I agree!
     
  16. Rai_77

    Rai_77 Good Dog

    Yes, it still the 'food stamp' program, b/c back in the day, you actually used stamps. I have yet to see anyone say 'food stamps', actually, the cashier doesn't even need to ask, you just hit the 'ebt' button (EBT - electronic benefits transfer card)
     
  17. fearlessknight

    fearlessknight Good Dog

    Not all state, stores or cashiers are the same.....I am basically pissed, because IMO, you called BB a liar, and I for one do not appreciate it!
    I find it funny, that ANYONE can tell you what did or did not see or hear! Unless of course you were there....Just because you live in CA, does not mean that all towns, stores and cashiers operate the SAME WAY!
     
  18. bahamutt99

    bahamutt99 Stealth ninja

    We're also the ones funding animal shelters, so I don't feel bad about helping to pay for spay/neuter clinics.
     

Share This Page