SPCA: And you were complaining about the RDCO?

[juz516]

I am the poster that, hypothetically, inferred that a "friend" may take this dog and sell the puppies for the profit....I apologize for the way it was worded, and realize that these people that took Fifi did what they did out of kindness, and am happy that the dog(s) have great homes. On the other hand, I do not trust the SPCA from interactions I had many years ago (not in Kelowna) and also realize that things may have changed, for better or worse. I am sure there are people with the SPCA that are there for all the right reasons, but am also sure there are "fanatical" people involved as well. Hence why I said what I did. I did not mean to demean anyone...but I do know that some other people I know of (also not from Kelowna) were basicly denied the option to own a pet because of their ages so this, also, is not unheard of. I do not believe, if that is the case, it is right to be biased on age.

[Always Sunny]

none of these cruel assumptions are proof get your facts strait

As should you.

By "cruel" assumption you mean taking an excerpt from the interview where the older gentleman admitted that he regretted not spaying the dog? The dog that got pregnant because it wasn't spayed and was allowed to interact with non-neutered dogs. That's truth, not a cruel assumption.

[Lore]

because i believe animals are here to service humans,humans are here to service other humans and a deity if they wish.we are not here to serve animals .we care for them to serve humans.the spca denied this man his human rights. i've heard so any people say i like animals better than people and seen so many people dress there animals up and confine the in human like environments .this is CRUELTY.these are not animal lovers .if you truly loved animals you would set them all free.no these are animal worshipers .they have put animals supposed needs above humans and the animal is there deity.

So how did the SPCA deny this man his human rights?
Are you saying because he is human and the dog is "just" a dog that what that man wants (or needs) is more important than the dogs wants and needs?
I personally do not get your way of thinking at all.
My pets are not here to "serve" me. They exist just as I exist and it is my responsibility to take care of them.
I chose to take on that responsibility.
I care for them because I love them.
Somehow I don't think you will understand what I am saying.

[zookeeper]

the right to own a young dog despite your advanced years.

No one questioned his "rights" to own a dog until he surrendered it, and for the reasons he did so.

[GenuinelyInterested]

So how did the SPCA deny this man his human rights?
Are you saying because he is human and the dog is "just" a dog that what that man wants (or needs) is more important than the dogs wants and needs?
I personally do not get your way of thinking at all.
My pets are not here to "serve" me. They exist just as I exist and it is my responsibility to take care of them.
I chose to take on that responsibility.
I care for them because I love them.
Somehow I don't think you will understand what I am saying.

I agree. My pets serve me well. They provide me understanding and patience, many hours of enjoyment from just throwing a ball, to long walks,and the shear joy of their company when humans are not available. They treat me with respect, they offer so much when I need it, and expect so little in return. They are there, at the door and happy to see me every day. I get so much enjoyment out of watching them hang their heads out the window while I drive.
They serve me very well and I reward them every chance I get.

[kibbs]

So how did the SPCA deny this man his human rights?
Are you saying because he is human and the dog is "just" a dog that what that man wants (or needs) is more important than

because this human was elderly he was discriminated against and preference shown.If you believe he is unfit to care for a dog .then i would agree he shouldn't have one .allowing a dog to get pregnant doesn't mean your a bad dog owner .he took the dog to the vet .he loved and cared for the dog and when he needed help he was robbed,because he was older not because he was a bad owner .when it came time for the adoption .there was the choice the old guy or the young family.both capable of looking after the dog .his rights were violated when the dogs needs were considered before his .sure it might have been a better suit but that does not give them the right to discriminate against him.If you are a dog worshiper .you will feel no compassion for this man.

[GenuinelyInterested]

because this human was elderly he was discriminated against and preference shown.

What is with you and your anger towards us older/elderly?

[kibbs]

By "cruel" assumption you mean taking an excerpt from the interview where the older gentleman admitted that he regretted not spaying the dog? The dog that got pregnant because it wasn't spayed and was allowed to interact with non-neutered dogs. That's truth, not a cruel assumption.

doesnt make him a bad one you assume he didnt spay the dog because he didnt care,and was a bad owner he said he regretting not spaying the dog but did not give reasons why .your cruel assumption is that he is a bad unsuitable dog owner .the spca didn't even say that ,they just said they preferred the other people.that is why it is discrimination an violation of his human rights.

[kibbs]

What is with you and your anger towards us older/elderly?

read the thread geni im standing up for the elderly here, only said old guy i didnt use the k word

[Lore]

because this human was elderly he was discriminated against and preference shown.If you believe he is unfit to care for a dog .then i would agree he shouldn't have one .allowing a dog to get pregnant doesn't mean your a bad dog owner .he took the dog to the vet .he loved and cared for the dog and when he needed help he was robbed,because he was older not because he was a bad owner .when it came time for the adoption .there was the choice the old guy or the young family.both capable of looking after the dog .his rights were violated when the dogs needs were considered before his .sure it might have been a better suit but that does not give them the right to discriminate against him.If you are a dog worshiper .you will feel no compassion for this man.

This is where we are thinking different in that I do not believe it was age discrimination but rather that he was unfit to care for the dog.
That is why he took it to the SPCA is because he could not care for a dog about to give birth to numerous puppies.
If the dog had never become pregnant then maybe (?) they could have cared for the one dog.
However, I'm not even sure of that given the dogs medical condition (diabetes insipidus). How long was that condition going on before the dog came to the SPCA?
Bottom line is that if you sign your pet over to the SPCA it is no longer yours.
That info would be in the paperwork that you sign.
If you do not read and comprehend it then that is not the SPCA's fault.
I am very happy the dog is now healthy,cared for and loved.

[Always Sunny]

doesnt make him a bad one you assume he didnt spay the dog because he didnt care,and was a bad owner he said he regretting not spaying the dog but did not give reasons why .your cruel assumption is that he is a bad unsuitable dog owner .the spca didn't even say that ,they just said they preferred the other people.that is why it is discrimination an violation of his human rights.

So...why then didn't he spay the dog?

Human rights: Inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being.

Owning a pet is NOT a right it is a PRIVILEGE. A privilege that was surrendered when Fifi was surrendered to the SPCA.

Fifi had a RIGHT to a safe place to live without undue stress. Without a human taking the responsibility to take the measures necessary to provide that to her...Fifi and her puppies wound up back in a shelter environment, and needed to be again rehomed to this foster home. Far from ideal for a dog who had a tough life up to that point.

[kibbs]

So...why then didn't he spay the dog?

why don't you ask him i don't need to .he seems like a good human id trust him with my cat .

[kibbs]

Bottom line is that if you sign your pet over to the SPCA it is no longer yours

read the thread and you will see exceptions have and should be made . What are they "THE PET NAZIs" ?

[Always Sunny]

why don't you ask him i don't need to .he seems like a good human id trust him with my cat .

I'm asking you the question. You seem to know him better than the rest of us making "cruel assumptions". So please humour me...why do you think he didn't spay his dog?

doesnt make him a bad one you assume he didnt spay the dog because he didnt care,and was a bad owner he said he regretting not spaying the dog but did not give reasons why .your cruel assumption is that he is a bad unsuitable dog owner .the spca didn't even say that ,they just said they preferred the other people.that is why it is discrimination an violation of his human rights.

My opinion on this, like many others is that these original owners were not able to provide the proper care for this dog. This isn't a matter of ageism for a lot of us here. It wouldn't matter to me whether they were 29, 49, or 79...they surrendered the dog because they weren't able to care for it properly.

Change the ages and keep the other details of the story the same and I bet a lot of you would be changing your tone.

[kibbs]

Lets take a hypothetical situation .If you were alone in the world living on a fixed income and you have a dog you love dearly.you get sick and have to be put in a medically induced coma .you could wake or not.what can you do with your dog who would you turn to for help?most old people would think the spca.i think they would think differently now.