Why isn’t looking after a dog just common sense?
I’ve always liked having pets around. For me the attraction has always been in the company. Pets are always around, they’re always happy to see you and they’re happy doing whatever you’re doing (and if you’re not careful, eating what you’re eating).
Still I’ve always tried to be a responsible pet owner and despite maybe wanting a small to medium sized dog over the years have always come to the conclusion my lifestyle doesn’t really cater to one.
Dogs need walks and slightly more attention then cats. Also a yard doesn’t hurt for them to play around in.
I’m pretty sure all that information was something I picked up back in primary school if not earlier. It’s just common sense. You get a dog and this is what the dog needs at a minimum.
Seemingly not so. Today the RSPCA have proposed tougher penalties for those found to be neglecting their dogs.
Under the legislation, they would have to regularly exercise dogs, ensure animals are not kept chained up and give their pets adequate food and water.
If the proposal becomes law, dog and cat owners across Australia would face prosecution, fines of up to $12,000 fines for animal cruelty and magistrates could consider jail in extreme circumstances.
But then I can’t help but think who are these pet owners that need to be told to walk their animals and give them adequate food and water?
Who the hell buys a pet and then doesn’t give it food and water?!
It saddens me that an organisation like the RSPCA, who are obviously on the frontlines of domestic animal cruelty, feel that penalties like this need to be introduced to get the message through.
How irresponsibly detached has our society become if there’s pet owners out there who need to be coaxed into providing their pets the basics of just food and water?
I have no idea how they plan to police this other then perhaps a dob in system, although I imagine it won’t be much more different then how the RSPCA currently catch animal abusers.
Either way however it winds up being policed good on the RSPCA for taking the initiative and protecting defenseless pets.
I really hate reading about those stories of heartless cruel neglect and maybe with the introduction of these proposals we’ll hopefully see an end to it.
December 5th, 2009 at 2:59 pm Suzie(Quote)
It’s the same as parenting. Some people have kids and then don’t bother to feed or change them.
December 6th, 2009 at 3:48 am Yi(Quote)
i’m going to starve my dog in protest against this stupid role… as soon as i get a dog.
December 6th, 2009 at 1:42 pm Glynne Sutcliffe(Quote)
The RSPCA are out of control, a loose cannon destroying all social civility. It is not a matter of cruelty to animals, it is matter of power, and the RSPCA’s capacity to either threaten or bring prosecutions. They already abuse their prosecutory powers in almost every case they bring before the courts. Our legal system doesn’t have such a good reputation anyway – we can’t let the courts become even more corrupted by the RSPCA. Note that they always choose soft targets – people who are for one reason or another unable to obtain an adequate legal defence. The primary criterion is that those who are selected for prosecution are chosen because they are older, and whatever small assets they may have accumulated can be transferred either to the RSPCA or to the lawyers in the case, who are usually in a strong long-term alliance with the RSPCA. The charge is usually ‘neglect’ rather than deliberate cruelty. Real animal abusers are almost never prosecuted. There are very strong parallels between RSPCA cases and earlier precedents set by, for example, the Inquisition in the 15th and 16th centuries and the witch trials of the 16th and 17th centuries. Consult the Wikipedia for details. Then start analysing RSPCA media coverage as a prime instance of the power of a really sophisticated PR department of which Goebbels would be proud. They must laugh hysterically with every media release they put out. Remember that the power of the Ten Commandments lay in their being a tightly edited set of proscriptions, NOT prescriptions. If we allow the RSPCA or anyone else for that matter, to prescribe how we should organise our everyday life there will never be an end to the sins we can be said to have committed, not by commission but by omission. These proposed dog-walking rules are in the same category as the new interest of the RSPCA in monitoring horse, dog and cat obesity levels. They have already run and won obesity cases. Yet their mania for de-sexing everything in sight is the main reason for animal obesity. There is an increasing public awareness of the self-serving character of the RSPCA game, and the social evils for which it is responsible. See, for example, a recent blog written by Elcin Kurtulus, at http://theconservativeblog.co.uk/?p=715 .This excellent critique had over 120 comments attached within 4-5 days, all revealing some new aspect of RSPCA perfidy.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:22 pm Boris(Quote)
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/british-celebrities-on-animal-cruelty-charge-for-eating-rat/story-e6frfku0-1225807498216 The RSPCA will lose all credibility if they decide to prosecute people for eating a rat. The nanny state was supposed to be being returned to a sense of reason, but ridiculous prosecutions such as this mean that the rspca can forget about getting any donations from me. I happen to be a pet owner, but I also live in the real world.
December 7th, 2009 at 1:31 am ozsoapbox(Quote)
Lol I read about that and was going to do a writeup but you beat me to it.
I don’t think the problem was that they ate rat on the show, but rather it was killed for the show which they’ve classified as entertainment purposes.
I do agree it’s kind of stupid to one day be championing making people look after their pets properly and then the next instigating criminal action against someone killing a rat for a television show.
I mean how are you supposed to humanely kill a rat for human consumption anyway?
Are the RSPCA going to ban all material on television that features meat in the future too, where does it stop?
December 8th, 2009 at 12:18 am Digger(Quote)
It is about finding more excuses so RSPCA can prosecute for more profits. A visit from RSPCA will not only take your animals, it will take your house in legal fees and RSPCA shelter charges. The poodle woman in Queensland is lined up for $1.4 million in RSPCA shelter charges. Ruth Downey had $300,000 in RSPCA legal fees, not counting her own. Google “ruth downey” and “rspca poodles” look at http://www.petmafia.com.au
December 8th, 2009 at 11:09 pm Bushrat(Quote)
Wots this about eating RATS!!?? Should I be afraid?
I once ate snake on a survival course I did, guess that makes me a really nasty type!
I agree with you Suzie, about parenting, it’s a shame that the powers that be couldnt put this much effort into that!
Having said that, my dog is my best mate. She sleeps on the foot of my bed every night, never complains about me snoring or passing gas, and always has a kind bark to say about me!
By the way, did you hear the one about the dog who went to the post office to send a telegram?
The bloke behind the counter looked at the dog and said “Right, what do you want to say?”
The dog said, “Woof, woof woof, woof, woof woof woof”
The bloke wrote it down and saifd to the dog “You have space for one more woof”
To which the dog replied, “Are you nuts? That wouldnt make any sense at all!”