Ray Darcy Show advertising pups

Sigma Force

On a mission to get preg..duh the dog was in heat, all dogs in heat are on a mission. What ignorant stupid, irresponsible owners. Spaying, secure fencing and adopting another dog or young pup would of had a better effect without adding to the unwanted puppy population.

Idiots.

ryan84

I think I am done listening to ray darcy. This moring I turned it on earlier than usual in the hope that I would hear them say something about responsable dog ownership.

Instead he told the story of the dogs again and how someone, on hearing the story, decided to get one of the pups. And how wasn't it great that their kids 'had an early christmas present'

I have text and emailed about it now. I really hope someone involved in animal rescue rings them and gets to talk on air.

gimmick

What is wrong with someone taking one of the pups as an early Christmas present? Not all Christmas dogs end up in the gutter. Maybe this one will not and end up having a great life in a lovely home?

gregers85

ryan84 wrote: »

I think I am done listening to ray darcy. This moring I turned it on earlier than usual in the hope that I would hear them say something about responsable dog ownership.

Instead he told the story of the dogs again and how someone, on hearing the story, decided to get one of the pups. And how wasn't it great that their kids 'had an early christmas present'

I have text and emailed about it now. I really hope someone involved in animal rescue rings them and gets to talk on air.

Ray Himself adopted one of the pups is it??

ISDW

Deleted User wrote: »

I was going to do a big long post on the inconsistencies in this post and then touch on the fact there are over a million dogs suffering and killed each year due to humans and this number seems to be ok as collectivly we are not bad owners of dogs , I was also bring up the similarities with people who dont buy Nike or walk around in Nike what with the Karma issues involving child labour but as dog owners we choose to ignore etc....

But i decided to post on something that you are correct about below......



and she chose to breed her dog just as humans have been doing all along.

But lets be clear about one thing here. By the fact you are allowed to own a dog you are excepting the fact that over a 10000 of these animals going to be put down every year and by walking your dog in public chances are you are going to drive up sales of these animals hence adding to this already high number.

I guess you mean accepting, not excepting? So by me being a responsible owner, exercising my dogs properly, I personally am responsible for thousands of dogs being killed?

OK, lets take your argument further than dogs. By people having children, and allowing them out of the house to play, or go to school, just by allowing them to be out in public, they are then encouraging others to also have children, thereby adding to the overpopulation of the planet and meaning that thousands of children in 3rd world countries are dying. So, for every child born in Ireland, at least one dies in africa.

Just to clarify for you, my dogs don't wear Nike or Adidas for that matter. Their collars, leads and harnesses come from people I know personally that manufacture them, adults, not children working in a sweatshop.

Sorry Dre, but your arguments don't make sense to me at all. You own a dog(s), so do you take responsibility for the dogs that are being mistreated and killed? Its a bit like people who think animals such as cows, pigs etc should stop being farmed. If that happened, it wouldn't mean we would have fields full of happy cows grazing, living long lives. It would mean that the vast majority of them would be slaughtered, but their meat wouldn't be used. I'm not sure if you are saying thats what should happen with dogs - they should all be killed now, and nobody have any in their lives to stop future dogs being killed?

fatmammycat

Also she didn't 'chose' to breed her dog, the dog apparently in a fit of 'depression' sought out a pregnancy. :rolleyes:

Priori

Perhaps not so bad in itself, but it would have been much more responsible had there been an advertisement from a volunteer from a charity like Dog Action Welfare Group looking to rehome their dogs, which is a far more deserving cause.

Let's hope that none of the puppies that were rehomed don't get abandoned post-Christmas...

Odysseus

I have been think on this one, I understand what people are saying she should be responsible for her pet, it should have been netured, it should not be able to wander. Again yes more should be done to address the amount of poor animals that are PTS.

However, is the main point here not that these pups will hopefully be saved from that? It would be nice to see it happen, but I doubt we will ever see a regular spot on a radio show to rehome those waiting to be PTS.

If that is not the case what am I missing, as I said the main thing for me would be those pups getting another chance, forget about the owner, hopefully she will cop on and this won't happen again.

planetX

Odysseus wrote: »

I have been think on this one, I understand what people are saying she should be responsible for her pet, it should have been netured, it should not be able to wander. Again yes more should be done to address the amount of poor animals that are PTS.

However, is the main point here not that these pups will hopefully be saved from that? It would be nice to see it happen, but I doubt we will ever see a regular spot on a radio show to rehome those waiting to be PTS.

If that is not the case what am I missing, as I said the main thing for me would be those pups getting another chance, forget about the owner, hopefully she will cop on and this won't happen again.

It's the message being sent out - that it's ok to project human emotions onto a dog and cause unwanted puppies to be born through neglect, and that nice radio listeners will help you home the puppies as little xmas presents for children. Each of her puppies has taken a home that a pup in the pound could have taken, and we are protected from the horrible truth that is the destruction of thousands of perfect dogs every year.

Odysseus

planetX wrote: »

It's the message being sent out - that it's ok to project human emotions onto a dog and cause unwanted puppies to be born through neglect, and that nice radio listeners will help you home the puppies as little xmas presents for children. Each of her puppies has taken a home that a pup in the pound could have taken, and we are protected from the horrible truth that is the destruction of thousands of perfect dogs every year.

I see and I agree, however, are we not faced with the fact that this person has six pups, they can either be PTS now, taken to a rescue [thereby taking up spaces] or find them homes?

Yes this person could do with a few lesson on pet care and responsiblity, but that can be said of a lot of dog owners here. Even with that I don't know if you can even get through to this type of person, I just see the positive of the second chance [for the pups] as the main thing.

planetX

Odysseus wrote: »

I see and I agree, however, are we not faced with the fact that this person has six pups, they can either be PTS now, taken to a rescue [thereby taking up spaces] or find them homes?

Yes this person could do with a few lesson on pet care and responsiblity, but that can be said of a lot of dog owners here. Even with that I don't know if you can even get through to this type of person, I just see the positive of the second chance [for the pups] as the main thing.

She should have to take them to a rescue and pay the surrender fee - or pay for euthansia, it's not cheap, that might get through to her. Why should she be helped by a national radio station, rather than people who put their own time and money and emotions into trying to make a small dent in the animal suffering created by other people.
They could at least offer to help her on the condition that she donates a certain amount to a dog charity

DBB

Odysseus wrote: »

I just see the positive of the second chance [for the pups] as the main thing.

There is no doubt that for these individual pups, as individuals, it is nice that they got homes: I can only hope the homes were screened, and that the owner is prepared to take them back if things don't work out... pups don't get handed back too often, it's when they untrained, loutish 1-2 year olds that they get surrendered, because nobody's bothered their butts doing a bit of training with them.
I also hope that their new owners will take care that the pups don't perpetuate the problem started by their mother's owner.

As with puppy farmed dogs, buying/adopting a dog because, sure doesn't it take them out of a bad situation, or sure, doesn't it take the problem out of the hands of the woman who was on t'wireless, is good for that individual dog (on paper anyway). But when you take a step back from it, there is no escaping the fact that buying/adopting such dogs is (a) taking a problem off the owner's hands, making them less likely to do anything pro-active to stop it happening again, and/or (b) perpetuating the misery of the broodstock.

There is a part of me that always winces a bit when a group of puppies hits the headlines like this... somehow, out of somewhere, a whole load of potential owners come out of the woodwork, clamouring to adopt one of these famous pups.
But... where were all these people before? Why weren't they quietly going to their local rescue to quietly adopt a dog that's in at least as much trouble?
Or do these cases which hit the media put an idea in peoples' heads that it might be nice to own a famous cutey fluffy puppy, and promote impulse adoption? There will always be genuine people taking such famous pups on of course, but I always fear that many of the poeple who come forward to adopt them are not doing it for the right reasons.

Odysseus

Cheers DDB, a very clear and concise post, there really is nothing written that that you could rationally argue against. I don't have a dog myself, I used to have english bulls when I was younger, but I have to forgo that pleasure at the moment as I'm not in a position to supply one with all the care and attention it would require.


Now back to the topic, it is not that I disagree with what most of the posters are saying, I don't. What I see from posters in this forum is an expression of the reality of how complex being responsible for a dog is. It is not a case of getting one, firing it out the back, going out to feed it once a day and maybe taking it for a walk now an then; or may more often if someone in the house is on a diet and it facilitates them to take the poor animal out for a walk.

I just don't know how realistic it is to expect the same form of committment from your average owner as the type of committment shown by members of this forum. I try to support a few reptile rescues and I have tried to look at this owner as if the where not pups but reptiles, and I come to the same conclusion that if once they were rescuedand went to decent homes that would be the main thing for me.

When I see certain threads it is often not the content I would disagree, if is often the approach taken; maybe it is just me, maybe it is the ways it is difficult to get tone across in posts, but the message is often expressed in a very judgemental way. Now just to be clear I'm no shinking violet, but attacking a person is not the best way of educating people.

People who post here, have clearly put much more time, money and committment into being a responsible pet owner, but the trick is how to pass on that information that people have to share; in a way that it will be heard.