Friday, March 14, 2008

Cruelty and pet ownership

There is a story in the news about a woman in Colorado who is getting fined for dying her poodle pink. Pink was chosen to raise awareness for breast cancer. This blog link sums it up quite nicely:

What astounds me is that this is considered cruel treatment of the dog.

First, poodles are NOT rabbits and chicks which is why the law there was created in the first place. Apparently people were dying bunnies and chicks them to sell around Easter time. Using gimmick to push product because that is the spirit of Easter after all. Let's forget that a few weeks later the kids get tired of the blue/green/yellow holiday pet and mom or dad dumps them off at their local rescue. But I digress.

I agree that bathing a rabbit or chick is a cruel thing to to to color them. They are not animals that are normally bathed so they do not take to it well. A rabbit that is over stressed can easily have a heart attack and die. Chicks can overheat which can also cause them to die. Dogs on the other hand, especially a highly groomed breed such as a poodle, have no such issue. Poodles are groomed more than many humans are in some cases! So to say staining the dogs fur with vegetable juice or other dye as cruel is quite bizarre to me.

How about we concentrate on the dogs living on the end of tie out chains 24/7 or dogs being used in fighting rings. What about the hoarders that are taking in dogs and not feeding them or getting them medical care? What about the people moving out of their homes leaving behind their dogs abandoning them to starve to death? How about we find REAL cruelty to fine an owner for? I have a hard time believing this town has none of those other issues going on within their jurisdiction.

Dogs do not care what color their fur is. Some might even like it if it gets them extra attention. Dogs care about food, attention and good care. Unless the dying process includes using acid or product harmful to a dogs skin I see no cruelty here. I think the people need to consider the intent of this law, not just the letter of it.

As to the issue of guardianship vs ownership here are my personal thoughts on the subject. I own my dogs because I either bought them or paid an adoption fee for them. One I was given as a gift. While they are not objects, because they are living beings, they are something we can acquire similarly. Because of this I consider myself their owner. However I also consider them companions to me because we spend time together having fun or just relaxing with each other. Their presence is comforting and entertaining to me as I hope I am to them as well. I am also their guardian because I provide care for them. I feed them, exercise them, train them and oversee their medical care. I guard them from danger.

Owner. Companion. Guardian.

Which word is more important depends on the individual. Sadly some are using the words to push an animal rights agenda. Unfortunatly not all that is labled animal rights is all that helpful for the animals in question. Peta is just one poster child for animal rights gone awry. In some cases or places, legally it may be better for us to be their owners. Because in court, should something happen, they are considered worth more if they are our property. So legally it can be a bit of a sticky wicket depending on your own local legislation.

I wish it wasn't about the terms, and more about the expectations of what proper care is. Good food, clean water, warm comfortable housing, regular medical care, basic training, daily attention. That is my basic list of what every dog (and pet) should receive to be considered properly taken care of. It is unfortunate that so many pets fall short of that list because of the apathy of it's human owner. Perhaps those are who we need to target, instead of the pink poodle owners. Just a thought.


Caveat said...

Would I dye my dog bright colours? Probably not, I don't like dogs to be made into fools for the amusement of people.

Do I care if somebody else wants to do it? Not at all.

Do the dogs care? Nope, they don't think that way.

I fully agree that there are more pressing matters that need attention and quite frankly, it really isn't anybody's business.

It's of some interest that unscrupulous conformation exhibitors often dye their dogs. A friend who is a long-time breeder and judge pointed it out to me. Once you're aware of it, it's very obvious. Bright red Brussels Griffons, anyone?

The Boulder bylaw needs a review. As usual, good intentions are not enough to write precise legislation that achieves a worthwhile objective - to avoid subjecting animals to inhumane treatment in order to turn a profit.

Now, that's a subject we can all talk about all day long :>)

Marie said...

Unfortunatly there will always be cheaters out there doing things to show dogs they shouldn't be. What needs to happen is that AKC STOP rewarding those handlers with wins. AND people who know better should report it to the AKC reps.

UKC has MUCH better show rules. Much less of that crap happening because it isn't tolerated by them at all. Of course they seem to have a better mentality about showing in general anyhow but that is fodder for another post.

P.S. I LOVE your blog!

Caveat said...

Yes, it should be reported or at least noticed and penalized by judges. One problem is that some judges aren't familiar with some breeds - such as Griffs, especially the smooths, because they aren't very common.

I've never understood the point of hairpieces, dye jobs, deceptive clips and other tricks to make a dog look closer to standard.

I thought the whole point was breeding dogs, not making them over. You've probably guessed I'm not involved in The Fancy LOL

I love your blog, too. I'll be checking out DogStar more often if you are writing over there.

LuvDogs said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.