[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [pyrnet] Re: Family Jewels



Well I am NOT about to attack you,Lene, as a matter of fact I'm glad you acknowldged this...and tactfully. I could not wrap my brain around it enough to say anything sooner.. I think over the last months  most of us who have been here, are quite familiar with Newman! I personally look forward to hearing about him,and his family. "I" would never have assumed just from what I read that ANYTHING other than love and commitment was ever an issue here and I would invite Jess to peruse the archives and get a better picture. Humour is something we all have used here , it helps us get thru difficult times and I think (in this case) the humour is inevitable. I don't think the comment from Jess "you really  shouldn't have a pet if you can't take care of it" was at all called for....IMO , "Newman's Mom' is bieng responsible , and OBVIOUSLY prepared to do what she can,  clearly evident with all the inquiries, she has posted . I agree wholeheartedly that owner resposibility goes further , than just the spay/neuter certificate. Everyone's circumstances are different...thankfully with the insight and wisdom of all the people on the lists we all work together, helping to teach, coach ,and comfort each other, and kindly offer direction that may help.. Sorry, but  I also believe that some posts should be sent privately, to avoid hurt feelings and misunderstandings. 
-----Original Message-----
Sent: February 20, 2002 12:27 PM
Subject: [pyrnet] Re: Family Jewels

Jess writes:
 
"My advice to you at this point: take the dog and get it done.  Fight with
your husband about it later, but do not allow your dog to be harmed by his
stubborn and selfish behavior.

Otherwise find someone to adopt the dog.  You really shouldn't have a pet if
you're not prepared to take care of it."
 
Really this is too much. What gives you the right to accuse someone of not taking good care of their dog, just because they (in this case the husband) choose not to have the dog neutered.
I am not against neutering, I respect all the good reasons for doing it, but there is no reason why people should not be both caring and responsible dogowners, even if they do own an intact male. Just because Newman is intact does not mean he will ever father a litter, time enough to point fingers if and when he does.
It is perfectly possible to have an intact male and keep him from mating, it is simply a matter of good fences and closed doors. It may be more difficult than to own a neuter, but that is a personal choice.
Most males in Europe are unneutered, and most of them never father a litter, just as most of them don't mark inside their homes. I really don't think the American males are so very different.
To talk of harming the dog by not neutering seems rather out of proportions to me, after all being intact is a perfectly natural thing.
 
To avoid misunderstandings I will repeat, I have nothing against neutering, but I sometimes get fed up with the intolerance show to people who choose not to neuter.  Keeping the pet from reproducing is what makes an owner responsible, not whether the pet is neutered or not.
 
Okay, ready for the attack.
 
Lene Nielsen