RSPCA

Comments

• VeggieLibbyX April 6, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.

  I dont believe people really care! As sad as it is!

  Laws( I find) Dont seem to work!
  But I think its worth the effort and who knows maybe something will pay off! My advise is keep trying ! :)

  Link to this comment

• animalrspca February 9, 2010 at 7:32 p.m.

  Definetly this will encourage owners to care and look after their animals properly so if any animal gets lost then it can be safely renuited with its owner it should be compulsory and done a few weeks after birth!

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia December 23, 2009 at 10:17 p.m.

  for as long as we think of ourselves as Gods
  with rights to take a life be it a dog /cat/what not
  and failed to understand that we are no more relevant to mother nature than any other of our fellow creatures ....
  for long as anyone think of himself/herself as a God allmight there will be no peace upon this earth till one grasps that we are nothing in the greater scheme of things!
  this planet has existed before you came on it and will continue to

  to think a human more important than any other creature is ludicrous... just because other animals do not speak your linguo that does not make them less

  only different .....

  Link to this comment

• PaulAndrew December 17, 2009 at 6:31 p.m.

  londiniumgaia, n19 is hardly crime free for a start.

  http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/datatable.php?ward=00aggq&borough=ek&period=year

  Link to this comment

• PaulAndrew December 17, 2009 at 6:22 p.m.

  The only way chips like this can help I would say would be for the chip to be able to report the health of the animal its in. Monitoring heart rate etc.

  I think it would be a great step forward for sure!!

  Link to this comment

• dpinn1 October 6, 2009 at 7:10 p.m.

  Microchipping can certainly bring back a lost pet. But I don't think it will enourage people to be more responsible because pets should be cared as much loved I dont see why a chip can make a difference.Im not to sure if it should be compulsory I think its the owners choice. However I do think chipping your pet is worthwile.

  Link to this comment

• tattooedgirlie September 21, 2009 at 12:52 a.m.

  PETA NEEDS YOU!!
  Come participate in a fun, one-of-a-kind demonstration on Saturday, 3 October, to urge Selfridges to stop selling foie gras
  To create foie gras - French for "fatty
  liver" - up to 2 kgs of a mixture of grain, maize and fat is pumped into
  the stomachs of ducks and geese through a pipe two or three times a day for
  three weeks. As the birds' livers become diseased and expand to up to 10 times
  their normal size, the animals become sick, and many are unable to move. The
  pipes sometimes puncture the birds' throats, which may cause them to bleed to
  death.
  Foie gras production is banned in the UK and more
  than a dozen other countries. More than 60 per cent of Britons believe that foie
  gras sales should also be banned. Not one supermarket will sell foie gras in
  the UK. Foie gras has also been pulled from the shelves of House of Fraser,
  Prince Charles has banned it from Royal menus and the Pope has denounced it as
  cruel.
  We'd like to make this demonstration as
  large and noticeable as possible. Won't you please join?
  The demonstration will take place outside Selfridges at 400 Oxford Street at 11 am and last for 30 minutes. However, we will meet in a location close to (but not in front of) Selfridges at 9:45 am sharp to talk through the event.
  Our goal is to get 100 compassionate people out for this eye-catching demonstration. Each participant will be given a duck mask to represent the ducks and geese who are used to make the fois gras sold at Selfridges. Some people will also hold signs, while others will distribute leaflets.
  It's important that you please RSVP writing to RoseG@peta.org.uk with "Birdie" in the subject line of your e-mail. The meeting location, dress code, lyrics of the chant, instructions on the dance and other fun details will be sent (to people who RSVP) closer to the date of the demonstration.

  Link to this comment

• Sue September 10, 2009 at 5:28 p.m.

  Hey kinkiii - that isn't such a bad idea!!! Funny how the simplest of ideas are often the best! Obviously though it isn't that simple in terms of how to implement and enforce it but the general concept makes sense. That way nobody who wanted a pet for all the wrong reasons would be approved and licenced as an owner. I don't suppose that would stop them getting one of course, but I think people need to understand that when pet ownership goes wrong, it isn't automatically the fault of the animal. It is just that the pet seems to be the one which ends up paying the price.

  Link to this comment

• kinkiii August 16, 2009 at 2:01 p.m.

  wot bowt if the owner has to be licenced to own a dog not the dog. Thats better idea so can be sure that all dogs go with someone who knows what the animal needs in life

  Link to this comment

• sw179518 July 31, 2009 at 5:13 p.m.

  If that kind of thing (microchipping) was compulsory, of course it would help! But everyone would have to stick to it (or even better-it being made the LAW!-)

  Link to this comment

• playdo July 17, 2009 at 11:39 p.m.

  micro chipping should be law. it shows responsibility

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 June 20, 2009 at 8:07 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - microchipping is a cost effective way of tracing pet back to owner. End of. Pet NHS will cause more problems than solutions, and yes education on animal welfare is a must. I thought you said that you were scared to go for a walk in the area that you live in because you are terrified of having your dog attacked by another dog/s. So it seems to me that your area does have some social problems.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 19, 2009 at 6:02 p.m.

  N19 is it was a town or ity on its own would be twin with Limerick in Ireland also known as stab city
  we have some of the best dogs fights in the country
  Rod Stewart was born and bred down the road in Archway and so was Gillian Anderson it seems
  Alan Carr lives down the road from me
  where G'Day
  The RSPCA Harmsworth animal hospital is
  the Animal Hospital series was filmed there
  and the least goes on.....

  never a dull moment in N19 ....

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 17, 2009 at 10:21 p.m.

  I live in one of the most sophisticated, crime free ,areas of North London where nothing ever happens Mags

  N19

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 June 15, 2009 at 10:33 p.m.

  In any case - to get back to the question of this blog - yes, microchipping will result in more responsible dog ownership. I have resisted this for my dogs but reading about the problems that people have had from buying from puppy-farmers and from living on estates where dogs run wild and dangerous - bring it on.

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 June 15, 2009 at 10:30 p.m.

  londiniumgaia - where on earth do you live? I have no problem from any shop buying and getting a loaf sliced! I also buy ALL of my goods in pounds and ounces/ pints, etc - I don't use any shop that doesn't allow this. I have to tell you that way back in the 1970s when we were asked to vote for going into the EU I voted NO, and have been against the constraints imposed since BUT they are not so bad as you make out, and I am rapidly coming to the view "Better in Europe than in America". It's because of our slavish following of American ways that our young people now have to pay for their university education - one of the biggest disgraces of our modern administrations.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 13, 2009 at 12:40 p.m.

  what next? how thick the slices how many slices on each loaf if seeded how many seeds this Eu control freaks are not in the least OTT noooooooooooo

  PET NHS will be a reality but meanwhile I cannot think of anything else that would help put under control the bad pet people as everything else I can think of seem to lead to more problems not solutions
  education is the only way forward and it should be made compulsory in school curriculuns
  is the only otehr thing I can think of without any further negative consequences...

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 12, 2009 at 6:41 p.m.

  I wnet to get some bread and in that supermarket a sign read due to new EU laws we can no longer provide sliced bread from our bakery if you wish to have it sliced please see a member of staff IT BEGS BELIVE!!!
  but those nuts control freaks called the EU apart why is the point of micro? they can say the pet was stolen got lost over and over again police time and recourses wasted again and again to proof otherwise?
  prisons filled with people who cannot afford to keep their pets nothing that is cumpolsory works in my view there is always another way
  and micro in my view won't make a difference as such at all

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 June 12, 2009 at 2:44 p.m.

  Londiumgaia - the microchip has been proved to reunite pet with owner, whether that pet has been lost, stolen or dumped. If necessary the owner can then be fined/prosecuted. The microchip deters people from dumping their animals because they would fear getting caught. You could argue that if someone dumped their pet, then they may also be cruel enough to cut the chip out. But I don't think this would happen too often - because a lot of people aren't cruel enough to inflict this sort of pain on their pets. Many animals are dumped for financial reasons, particularly when the owner feels they have no other choice.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 10, 2009 at 2:38 p.m.

  doing a continental is all very well maybe for some but the ludricous amount of useless directives from the eu is overwhelming
  the UK and the EU will never think alike and why bother with them is beyond me as I think this country would be better off without being part of the EU or at least opting out of some of their silly demands that do not match UK requirements at all

  that goes for our animal welfare as well

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 9, 2009 at 10:13 p.m.

  nope sorry Sue don't agree
  microchiping is not soemthing that makes a difference as such
  dog found dead in a ditch read micro knows the "onwer" and then what?
  dog in dog fight read micro then..?
  its useless really execpt for locating a lost pet if and when found but then again a pet might be happier lost or with someone else hence not getting back if free to roam around and get back to previous person

  Link to this comment

• Sue June 9, 2009 at 9:47 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia. Hannah is right, microchipping has never been compulsory, but we used to have dog licences. I know that not everyone likes the thought of microchipping, and indeed, not everyone believes it is safe, but it is a very clever system by which dogs can be identified and traced to an owner. In addition to this, other important information about a dog can be stored on a microchip, which could save its life, eg. if it gets lost and is suffering with a medical condition requiring vital medication. A dog registration scheme presumably would depend on people feeding data into a computer correctly, and is fraught with potential for human error. I think microchipping is the simplest way of keeping a record of a dog's history. If every vet treating every dog made a practice of always scanning the microchip, a vet could tell at a glance if a stray brought in was vaccinated, neutered etc. The owner could be traced, assuming the requirement to keep the microchip up to date had been complied with. If vets checked microchip information routinely, this would help detect when details are out of date and when pets may be stolen. I personally am of the view that rabies vaccines should be compulsory for all domestic pets in this country. At the moment, my dogs are both vaccinated against rabies because they have passports. It is only a matter of time I think before rabies hits the UK. We have done very well to keep it out so far with our strict quarantine requirements, but if our border control can't stop thousands of human illegal immigrants from getting in, how soon will it be before a rabid animal is smuggled in? Still, that is for another debate.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 8, 2009 at 11:33 p.m.

  registering was compulsory some time ago me thinks and it appears that in Eire you have to buy a license for your pet = registering
  not sure thou
  all in all all that stuff means nothing and would not bring changes in the long term this recession will be over and things will get back to normal and its the long term that matters not short time like putting a plaster over a wound that needs stiching...
  I am as always in favor of going to the root of a problem and the wording which makes the law what it is needs changing asap form there things can only get better as with that new and different responsibilities can and might or will arise regarding pet keeping and animals in general...

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 June 8, 2009 at 5:17 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - Compulsory microchipping has not been tried and tested yet, and I'm sure if it was it would have many benefits. You are right, the answers should not be to fine people for their crimes, as this may not get very far because of reasons you have already said. I think over time the best thing is microchipping, regulated breeding, and plenty of education!! If you are against microchipping, what about compulsary registering? But this would not work without microchipping. Why are you against microchipping?

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 8, 2009 at 4:07 p.m.

  PET NHS
  I WILL BE REALITY ONE DAY
  microchiping and all those ideas that have been tried and tested are not a solution they did not work out first time around and there is very litlle chance it will work out this time
  I shall give this issue further thought and see what I can come up with..other than PET NHS

  we cannot either fine people all of the time ect as if they have no money to pay the fines we cannot fill the prisons up with no fine payers and so it goes on
  I destest the idea of having my dogs microchiped and really makes no difference other than when they get lost or stolen ...whcih it will nOT happen
  we shall think and find something
  we all should put our thiking caps on..

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 June 6, 2009 at 10:15 a.m.

  Loniniumgaia - pet NHS will NOT become reality, so we need to find alternative ways to deal with the problems such as microchipping.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia June 3, 2009 at 5:41 p.m.

  thank you Sue
  PET NHS
  is a lovely thought from a lovely person am I great or what? have faith in the human race some have to organically grow to understand things better the chinese is no exception I am not made of the same stuff as you hence will never watch these real horror films
  There's nothing less British than the BNP the British Nonsense Party!
  we can serve as an example to other nations with the PET NHS but yes I can see your point of view as well ! plenty of work to do for our fellow creatures if they are to stand a chance at all!

  Link to this comment

• Sue June 1, 2009 at 4:48 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - Pet NHS is a lovely thought, and I know how much you want it, but realistically it won't ever happen. In some countries, as Hannah rightly says, there are NO animal rights whatsoever. China is one of them certainly and the level of cruelty to all animals there has to be seen to be believed, but I warn you that if you go looking, as I have, you will not sleep easily in your bed at night! I am quite a tough person, but I have lain awake and cried all night after watching footage of dogs being slaughtered inhumanely and some skinned alive for food in China. My tears were tears of impotent rage that a government, or anyone human could stand by and let this sort of cruelty and barbarism go unchallenged. The answer of course is that these people have no humanity, and they deserve none in return. I think that although our system is far from being perfect, we already have one of the best animal welfare systems in the world, while dogs and cats in China are being tortured and killed for meat in public at horrific markets in places like Guangzhou. If you couldn't watch the TV documentary the other week because it would upset you, then trust me, you don't want me to go into any more graphic detail about what is going on in China at the moment, and in the few moments it has taken you to read this, another dog will be lying battered in a river of blood on the streets of Guangzhou while passers by with their children hardly bat an eyelid. This could not happen in the UK. Compared to this, a Pets NHS means nothing. If I could stop the meat trade in China - that for me would be a worthwhile result. Stamping out irresponsible ownership of pets in the UK would be great. Outlawing certain breeds and giving pet owners free veterinary care is fairly low on the list by comparison to these other things which trouble me much more.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 31, 2009 at 9:06 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia – no, but Britain is pretty clued up on animal welfare issues, and is willing to try and solve these issues – not like many other countries, where animals have no rights at all. Some countries do have good welfare standards too. I don’t think its possible for there to be a law on “the right of nature”… like I said, humans have taken over the planet… and they will always come first (unfortunately). I think that there are more important issues than pet NHS to deal with first – such as puppy farming, dogs being used as weapons, farming welfare, animal transportation, fur, battery farming… I think the majority of pets in the UK lead a pretty good life in general. Perhaps money could be put into these points that I have just raised instead. I also believe that pet NHS would not relieve the burden of animals on the RSPCA – as there’d probably be double the amount of pets in the country if pet NHS was to come into force.
  I’m not sure who your last email was aimed at but I have no children.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 31, 2009 at 2:30 p.m.

  you have children I do not you have a responsibility for them and all things on earth and they voted yes

  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/24/equador.conservation

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 31, 2009 at 1:44 p.m.

  To Sue
  thank you for your compliments

  support PET NHS and laws giving nature a chance to fight back in court just like you and me

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 31, 2009 at 11:07 a.m.

  wrong
  no country in the world ahs in its legislation the rigt of nature
  in theirs nature has a right to exist and to regenerate... its thge only way to fight global warming in my view if not too late
  other than that PET NHS
  is in my view a solution to iresponsibiple pet onwership and much more all those charities could get on with other bussinesses concerning the welfare of our fellow creatures...

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 30, 2009 at 11:56 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - I would say that this country already has pretty good welfare laws and in general pets are well cared for, and animals are considered important. The law does not need changing. The few people who do abuse animals are the ones who need to change. Abusing animals IS breaking the law, so changing a law will make no difference to those who already chose to break it.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 30, 2009 at 10:09 p.m.

  in the legislation of Ecuador its included the RIGHTS of nature and its RIGHT to regenerate.
  nature has no voice and no rights but should have the same as humans the same as our other fellow creatures
  what is considered a third world country is really it turns out more likely to serve as an example to other countries to follow if its not too late hence a solicitor can take to court the case of say whales distraught and/or dolphins by some sub exersising in their area ect...
  we have to move forward what seems absurd today to some will have to become reality one day but it take courage ...

  there is no point in going backwards only if its to learn and move on

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 29, 2009 at 9:32 a.m.

  Hannah - I suspect Londiniumgaia is very young, and in a sense it is nice to think that some young people care so much about animal issues and want to contribute to a forum such as this. The only thing is that when you are young (as you know) your head is filled with idealistic fantasies about the sort of world you would like to live in if everyone was nice and the world was a kind place to live. I supsect Londiniumgaia has not yet had the experience to understand that life is cruel, and I think that over the years, with more experience of the world around her, she will come to realise that life is not quite that black and white. With regard to her repeated calls for a pets NHS (lovely idea) she will come to understand that economics largely dictate what we can and can't have. She currently has no concept of this, which if she is not yet of working age, is not surprising. So Londiniumgaia - no criticism of you here, I think you care about animals, but just need to see a bit more of life and gain more experience of the world around you. I can guarantee that in ten years time, if you are still championing the cause of animal rights, your viewpoint on most of these issues is likely to be very different.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 28, 2009 at 6:07 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - if pets weren't classed as our property, then we would not have sole responsibilty for them. Why do we bother to look after pets? Because they need a home, they need us to feed them, they need to be cared for - they cannot look after themselves properly.

  Sue - I feel like giving up on this one. How anybody cannot seem to underderstand the basics of pet ownership and why society is the way it is when it comes to pets is beyond me. 'Owning' a pet does not make the pet any less important than a human! I think londiniumgaia is looking into things too much.

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 28, 2009 at 5:59 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - I understand that you find the idea of pets being classified property unpalatable, as do I, but what rational alternatives are there? Besides, what if you lost one of your beloved dogs? What if someone nicked them? If you didn't own your dogs, what right would you have to get them back? Difficult one that isn't it? The truth is, odd as it seems to think of a pet as an item of property, there are times when it suits us that this is how they are classified.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 28, 2009 at 3:37 p.m.

  the law needs changing ASAP animals kept should not be classified as property or things

  that would not Sue in any way exonerate you from your obligations same as the kiddos under 16
  so when your pet reach the age of 16 and over you are free of blame should anything happen :) just kidding

  long overdue if indeed that the law does classify pets as property and the farm animals and the wild ones?

  PRESPOSTEROUS I SAY !!!!

  that is at the root of it all then...
  PET NHS same as us
  for our fellow creatures!!! to all!!

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 28, 2009 at 11:27 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia and Sammy - I think the issue is that if the law did not classify pets as property, then the law could not hold humans responsible for their behaviour. So if my dog bit you or your child, I could wriggle out of my obligations under the law. If my dog is not property, I do not own it, therefore it is responsible for its own behaviour, I am not to blame and cannot be compelled to keep it under control. How can I control something which does not belong to me? Similarly if it fouls in a public place, I can't be fined because I have no responsibility - are you getting my drift? Dogs are not capable of rational human thought processes, they are dogs, not humans, and although some dog owners are not fit to own them, on the whole, it is to the benefit of dogs to have owners, who give them food, shelter and care. This is why they are classified as property. I don't like the sound of it any more than any of you, because the implication is that we can treat them any way we want, and some sick people do, but in the majority of cases, dogs live long and happy lives as "property" owned by humans.

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 27, 2009 at 11:08 p.m.

  are you saying our pets should be entitled to the same as we are. if so i agree.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 26, 2009 at 7:04 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - It isn't the law that pets ARE property - but under law, pets are named as property. Changing the wording of a law from 'property' to a different word will not make a difference to whatever it is you are thinking

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 26, 2009 at 7:02 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - What is the law you are talking about that needs changing?

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 26, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.

  the law is an ass said Oliver
  if indeed that is the case

  and whats there to stop anyone form changing this law and bring in in line with this 21st century?

  nothing and nobody
  so let's go for it and change it this law needs revising and so petition the PM that is so.....

  PET NHS!!!!

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 26, 2009 at 6:28 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - Sue is right, pets are seen by the law as property. This does not sound right, and in theory it isn't as like you say, animals and humans should have the same rights. Unfortunatly we now live in a world where the human has 'taken over' - so this isn't possibly any more in most cases. Pets such as cats and dogs wouldn't really exist (to the extent they do now) in this country if there wasn't such a high demand for them to be owned as pets.

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 26, 2009 at 12:41 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - sorry to tell you this but in LAW a dog is classified as "property" - much as I HATE the fact. My dogs are family members, as are my cats, but the law does not recognise this as to do so you would really have to classify them the same as humans. So we do "own" dogs, strictly legally speaking, and we are responsible for their behaviour aswell as their welfare.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 25, 2009 at 1:56 p.m.

  my point is you do not OWN the dolphins and wales in the sea but you still responsible for them and their habitat as we are responsible for creating this mess that we are in ....
  we depend on them ... and them on us... if you ask an indian in the amazon jungle he will tell you tales of some of the animals like the uiapuru a bird that when he sings all other birds in the jungle stop to listen to him so beautifull is his song or Beatrix Potter and Peter Rabbit and Squirrel Nutkin and so you shall find everywhere on earth
  loving and respecting our fellow creatures is too a way of being responsible and caring for them so PET NHS is just that!!
  one day maybe if a super rat imune to all poison emerges or/and we have to go organic the ratters like the yorkie will come handy again ...

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 24, 2009 at 11:22 p.m.

  during Victorian times a breed was created called the yorkie for short

  they were bred to catch rats TODAY IN THE 21st century they are the size of a rat and are companion dogs mostly

  times changed we have to move on with it
  we live in a different reality today and see things differently

  the Victorian needs are different to ours ....
  you don't own a dolphin or a whale in this 21 st century not flipper oh noo :)

  WE CO- EXIST with our fellow creatures this planet is going through such drastic changes because of this sort of mentality and PET NHS is a solution in my view and a fair one at that too!!

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 24, 2009 at 6:30 p.m.

  Dear Hannah

  spiting against the wind is not my forte but in your case its obvious that I have to soldier on and try and educate you a bit
  this sort of mentality is misleading and might cause offense as well
  this is the 21st century ....
  you are responsibble for your mum gran kiddos but you do not OWN them they are animals just like your other ones...
  the other animals are not your property the building you are in is ..
  you car is... your hat..your shampoo bottle is...
  not a living breathing thing !!!
  when the likes of you grasp that and the penny drops the other animals that do not speak your language nor think like you won't be needing others to speak out for them ....

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 8:27 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia – you may not have used the word “own”, but that is what we do. We “own” an animal, we have responsibility for the animal, we chose the animal! It doesn’t chose us! Your a nutcase!

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 23, 2009 at 4:31 p.m.

  did I say onwed? nope!!
  be part of a family more likely to be the case...
  as for them to be in the wild

  I agree

  I too would dearly like to be in the wild and free from it all at times ..

  and yes having them destroyed is not the easy option but the necessary one..

  we should never have bred them as such in the first place ....
  its all human fault so unless all these characteristcs that make them UNRELIABLE and DANGEROUS change there is no other option
  sorry as I am for them its kinder all around me thinks...
  PET NHS NOW !!!! lets go for it!!!

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 23, 2009 at 9:37 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia - you're right they're not items. This is coming from the person who is saying it's a human RIGHT for animals to be OWNED?!! A small condtradiction I'd say!

  I'm sure if animals had freedom of choice, most of them would probably want to be free in the wild! And it's not me calling for thousands of staffies and rotties to be destroyed!

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 22, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.

  our fellow creatures are NOT ITEMS ....

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 21, 2009 at 5:48 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - if pets are not luxuries, then why is it OK for humans to "own" them? You do talk about animal rights a lot. I think your are taking the word "luxury" too literally (not luxury as in Gucci handbags). What I, and probably Sue, mean by luxury is - an 'item' that is not essential to own (such as food/shelter/medicines).

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 21, 2009 at 9:55 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia - your reference to Churchill is correct, and of course the lady he was speaking to was Lady Aster. As to whether you should buy a Gucci bag or a puppy, go for the Gucci - it will prove cheaper in the long run -and it won't bite you!

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 20, 2009 at 10:06 p.m.

  it makes no sense no
  but its funny
  my pets are certainly not items of luxury or of any sort
  they have no voice and can borrow mine to let you know that they too have rights same as you.... and me
  too funny this sort of mentality
  WHAT SHOULD I BUY TODAY A GUCCI BAG OR A PUPPY?

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 20, 2009 at 6:22 p.m.

  Sue - I agree I don't think my parents know what it involves. Londiumgaia says that microchipping is publicised at vets - many people don't visit vets on a regular basis though, particulaly those who may have less money than others. I think that perhaps some other form way of advertising would be an advantage. Perhaps flyers through doors or something that can tell everyone about it. I know this would be expensive though and am not sure where any funding would some from. Many people don't visit vets on a regular basis though, particulaly those who may have less money than others.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 20, 2009 at 6:15 p.m.

  londiumgaia - you sounded drunk to me too! The reason we pay VAT on most things except food, is because food is an essential, and pets and animal feed is not - it is a luxury. If people inn this country did not have pets, then pets wouldn't exist, neither would the need for pet food. Therefor pets and pet foods are something we chose to purchase. Obviously by owning a pet, you have also got to buy its food. But if we did not have a pet, then we would not have to buy the food. Make sense?

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 20, 2009 at 4:37 p.m.

  no I am not drunk nice hearing from you again Sue although it would help it seems
  that great man Churchill once had one fo his assistances come up to him and say " Sir you are drunk!" to which he replied " Madam you are ugly!" " but I shall be sober in the morning!" all in all my point was you pay vat on almost everything execpt food and maybe printed material but I ma not sure if the second is true human food but animals food has got vat on it my point is why? the food is important to our fellow creatures as our food is important to us the principle is what mainly matters here and the view that come with it....

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 20, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia - what on earth is all that unintelligible drivel in your last post supposed to mean? Can't even respond to it. Were you drunk or on something when you wrote it?
  Hannah - tattooing of the ear is the method of ID for racing greyhounds, and when they are discarded, their ears are often cut off to avoid identification. I do believe that some people have tried to cut out microchips, which must be an horrifically painful experience for the dog if done ante-mortem. I am aware that a lot of work is being done to improve the lot of these dogs, and I personally think that the only thing which needs to change there is the one thing we have no control over, and that is the attitude of some callous individuals. As for microchipping generally, I know that most animal welfare organisations do publicise the benefits of microchipping, and vets do advertise it in surgeries. I think the extent to which vets actively encourage microchipping probably varies from practice to practice. I had all my pets microchipped as soon as they joined the family, and so no vet ever had to encourage me to do it. I think it is probably the case that some older people don't actually understand the technology, and I think there is a tendency in todays modern world to assume that everyone is up to speed, hence no need for further explanation. Possibly your parents aren't quite sure what it involves, and quite honestly, if they have had pets for years and managed quite well without microchipping, why would they see the need to change at their time of life? I microchipped my cats because they go into a cattery when I go on holiday. I microchipped my dogs for the same reason, and it is also a requirement for their passports. Worry about losing them is a much lesser consideration for me because it rarely happens, so your parents probably just don't see any pressing need. They may wish they had microchipped if they lost one of their cats, because there is nothing worse than not knowing what has happened to them. At least if they are microchipped, there is a better chance of them being reunited, but it doesn't offer any guarantees. One of my cats has been missing for over 2 years and she was microchipped and wearing collar ID.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 19, 2009 at 11:38 p.m.

  the whole attitude will one day change as and when people become more civilized

  the government sees pets as luxury items even it appears cat and other pet food is taxed as a luxury item

  when some will reach the civilzed stage you shall notice that other mammals besides ourselves and all other fellow creatures are not ITEMS nor LUXURY OBJECTS
  we have the same responsibilities towards them as we do towards all living things

  when the penny drops we then shall have the NHS FOR PETS albeit those who holds us back....

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 19, 2009 at 8:40 p.m.

  Hannah . yes microchipping is publicised and is carried out at the vets. I actually had my dog chipped whilst she was under anaesthetic being neutered.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 19, 2009 at 6 p.m.

  Sue – I certainly feel like I have been hitting my head against a brick wall! It’s difficult to keep repeating my opinions over and over again... a little frustrating too, not only that but I don’t think the people on hear who are ‘for’ pet NHS actually read what I write properly, otherwise I wouldn’t keep being called a snob! All your ideas regarding micro chipping seem good. I do also think that the only problem is the people who are difficult to get through to – the same type of people who are possibly involved in crimes and those who end up abandoning animals in the first place. Like you say, these problem people are one of the reasons microchipping is important (the other main reason being missing pets – accidental or not). I’m really not sure what ideas I can come up with to make this type of people microchip their pets. I don’t really have a lot of knowledge on this particular subject, but perhaps it could be made compulsory for greyhound breeders to chip all of their dogs, but again, this may not help. How would it be regulated, and those who ‘throw away’ unwanted dogs may even try cutting out the microchip? – is this possible (I’m not sure). I also think that microchipping is not advertised very well... when I say this I mean that other than through work, I have never really seen anything out there to tell the public about microchipping. I’m not sure if it is publicised at all – is it at vet surgeries? Perhaps people just need to be told about it more – quite a simple idea, would obviously need some sort of funding though. Neither of my parent’s cats I chipped, and I bet if I ask them if they would consider having them chipped, then probably neither of them would know what it meant! They are not stupid or anything (!) but I just don’t think they have ever been told about it before (not even by me for some reason).

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 19, 2009 at 3:58 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - if anyone on this forum is experiencing a "difficulty to comprehend", it is surely you! Your Pets NHS for the benefit of people, not animals, is a complete and utter non-starter. You can't like animals very much if you are prepared to suggest a scheme which would result in abject misery for millions of household pets. I am not going to explain it again, Hannah has already hammered her head against a brick wall trying to get the point across that it would only encourage a "throw away" attitude towards pets as disposable commodities. We shouldn't have pets because it is our right. We shouldn't have pets on a whim. The only reason to have a pet is that we are genuinely committed to offering the animal a home for life, and all that goes with it. But not if you get your way! Well, thank heaven you won't because the tax payer will not fund such a ridiculous idea, and neither will the Government.

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 19, 2009 at 3:46 p.m.

  Hannah - I agree that a form of animal registration could be beneficial, and if it was put onto the statute books then the Government would probably have to fund it, but I think it would be very expensive and I don't think that they would ever come up with enough money to do it properly. Like anything else, if we lack the resources to do it properly, including giving the Courts wider powers to punish breach, then it will just be a waste of whatever money they do throw at it. We already encourage microchipping. The people who won't agree to have their pets linked to them by any means are people who do not value their pets. Look what people do to greyhounds to erase any link between the dogs and themselves. Certain people just do not want their dogs to be traced back to them, so not only do we have the problem of trying to administer a system, but we also have the problem and the expense of trying to police the evaders, which is an almost impossible task. We already encourage microchipping (or equivalent) as part of the onus on responsible owners, and I believe that more and more people are coming round to the idea, but I suspect it will take time. One of the biggest incentives to microchip is the fear of losing a pet, but then, we are mainly talking here about people who are already responsible owners. The irresponsible owners won't comply with any system which identifies them as the dogs owner, and losing the pet won't be an incentive to comply because they don't care about losing it. A while ago I thought about suggesting that all boarding catteries and kennels, aswell as insisting on vaccinations, might make it a condition of boarding that all animals were microchipped. This way, if someone broke in and let all the animals out, the owners would have a fighting chance of having their pet identified. If compulsory microchipping was introduced, I also thought of a sort of case management system for all vet clinics, private or charity, which identifies animals by their microchip numbers. Those not microchipped would automatically be entered on a different database with their owners details, to which enforcement agencies would have access. But it wouldn't work, because if some people thought vets were policing them, they would let their animal suffer instead and not seek veterinary care.

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 18, 2009 at 11:37 p.m.

  quite agree with you londiniumgaia

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 18, 2009 at 9:14 p.m.

  it may be difficult to comprehend but it will be a reality one day...
  today through my letter box came a leaflet in it it said
  from the UK £50 million EVERYDAY goes towards the EU.
  EVERYDAY? and no money for our NHS FOR PETS?
  for everyone working non working the pensioner and
  the young wanna be baddie ....
  it would help much more than any registration system of intimidation and waste of police time

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 18, 2009 at 5:10 p.m.

  To Mags53 - Yes I agree the debate had gone a bit far - it's difficult to hold back the opinions when people come up with strange ideas though!
  I think that compulsary registration could work. Perhaps the state could help/subsidise those who may need help with paying for microchipping for the pet that they currently own? I'm not sure if this would happen though. Then after a certain date it could be the owners own responsibility to chip their own. In general I think that compulsary microchipping will help encourage responsible ownership. (Pet NHS would encourage the opposite to responsible ownership).

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 18, 2009 at 10:46 a.m.

  Mags - thank you! This is exactly how I feel on the subject. Sammyd - neither Hannah nor I have ever said that poor people who cannot work shouldn't own a pet, or can't own a pet. Not everyone who cannot work is poor, and not everyone who works is well off. Owning a pet in the first place should not be about exercising a human right to have something. The only consideration when deciding to have a pet is whether you as an individual or a family are able and committed to giving the animal a good home for life. That means providing for all its needs, and paying the costs which come with that. Most pensioners make great pet owners and not all pensioners are hard up. I think the only limitation on pensioners having pets is their health. Most wouldn't have a dog unless they were fit enough to take it for walks, but they could have other pets, and a lot do. The point which Hannah and I have been trying (in vain it seems) to press home is that responsible pet ownership depends on people making sensible and realistic choices. I have two dogs - why not 10? Answer - because I can't afford it. Simple enough to do the maths isn't it? I had one child - why not 3? Same answer, because I was working and wages (unlike benefits) do not increase when women have another child. In fact, the opposite is often true when you work, so as far as children are concerned, you could argue that it is the employed who get the raw deal. I don't know about where you all live, but you don't find many working families here with 10 kids!
  So cut the crap calling Hannah or me snobs. We earn the right to our opinions about how taxpayers money should be spent, as does anyone who works. Sammy - I don't think anyone holds it against you that you work part time. That is your choice as you have a family. Lucky you - I had no choice, I had to work full time so I had to limit my family. My beef is with people who do not work but who think it is their right to demand that I (and others)contribute even more tax to finance their whims. And no, I will not be working to pay for a pet NHS, and neither will most other sensible working people. Londiniumgaia, you remind me of a child in a shop stamping its feet because mummy won't buy any sweeties! You don't get things in life just because you want them.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 17, 2009 at 11:51 p.m.

  sorry Hannah if thats your view then it was my mistake however my posts were not directed at you personally
  not everyone makes choices but maybe everyone should not everyone is cut to be a vet or a doc or a nurse but the one who designed the building would not have it erected/built without the brick layer and so on the shop assistance daughter wanted a dog all her life was never allowed one
  the NHS FOR PETS would bring into light more iresponsible onwers then the tried and tested ideas of the past relive many charities of their endless effort to keep going and fundraise they could be taking care of neglecting animals much better and not be so overwhelmed and educate kids and fight to clarify things as have it in the national curriculum responsible pet keeping ect
  EVERYONE WHO WANTS A PET SHOULD HAVE ONE!
  that is my view I fail to see why we should in this day and age deprive people and not give them a free choice .... ask how much it costs to run an animal hospital every month and ask how much a reception for a group of people at 10 Downing St costs for example...

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 May 17, 2009 at 10:20 p.m.

  This debate has become rather personal and way over the top. I think that anyone who thinks that the workers in this country should pay more income tax so that everyone can get free veterinary care need to wake up and get real - I make myself afford to pay for my pets - I don't earn much and basically go withoput myself so that I can have them. Any old person can afford to buy, feed and care for something like a budgie (or even a cat), so lets let that one go. If someone is not working then they are already getting tax payers money to live themsleves, I don't want to also have to pay for them to keep a pet - that I am afrid is life - it is rubbish I know but hey, the world does not owe anyone a living. Now lets get back to the reason for this post - should there be compulsary registration - well obviously not because the state won't pay for it!!

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 17, 2009 at 10:17 p.m.

  londiniumgaia - there is a BIG difference between having kids and owning a pet! It becomes a womans maternal instinct to have a child! Think about it! You may not have dogs, as I assume you already have one? What about all the elderly people you were talking about and people who cannot afford a pet. Are you saying that a pet NHS won't spur these people on to get a new pet? Why do you keep saying that I think that only well off people should have pets!? In practically EVERY post I have written I have explained who I think should and shouldn't own pets. I'll say it again - if people know that they can look after a pet responsibly, no matter how much money they have, then they could have one. There is no law to say that only well-off people can have a pet!
  "some of us are good at laying bricks others at desiging a building others at being many different things ....
  lets take the shop assistant at your local store she/he could not probably afford a pet in your line of thinking however she /he works as hard as you do and has nothing much to show for a lifetime of work and dedication to that local store is that fair?
  is she/he less important than you?" My answer to this - it is peoples choice where they want to work. In the end ANYBODY can make a decent life for themself if they really have the determination. I do not look at people who work in a grocery sho any different to anyone else. Why would I? I don't know their circumstances do I! Your right, nobody choses to grow old, but everyone will get there one day, and we will all end up in the same boat. This blog is supposed to be about microchipping not paying for people to keep pets!

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 17, 2009 at 9:40 p.m.

  do you think that people went on to have more kids since the NHS was put into existence?
  not really
  it did not make much of a difference on that front and I highly doubt it will on the pet front as well
  the vets and nurses will then be able to keep a better eye on what goes on and take apropriate action as well as with humans you can go the bupa way or the nhs or go the rip off pet insurance way or the nhs for pets
  I would not have more dogs because of free vet care and highly doubt most will
  if only people who are relatively well off should be allowed to have children and pets then what kind of line of thought is that?
  where will it all end?
  some of us are good at laying bricks others at desiging a building others at being many different things ....
  lets take the shop assistant at your local store she/he could not probably afford a pet in your line of thinking however she /he works as hard as you do and has nothing much to show for a lifetime of work and dedication to that local store is that fair?
  is she/he less important than you?
  not in my book ..she /he isn't ....
  nobody chooses to grow old or be treated like a leper because they grow old...
  or that puppy who was abandoned because she/he is no longer cute!
  abandon by some well off or better off than .... that can afford to buy a newer model.....

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 17, 2009 at 9:10 p.m.

  Sammyd - I'm not perfect at all in any way, I'm certainly not a snob, but if I couldn't afford a pet then I wouldn't personally have one, because I wouldn't want the pet to have a low quality of life. This does not mean that people on low incomes cannot give a pet a quality life, as that is not the case at all. The point I was trying to make was that if you know that there is no way you can afford it, then it's best not to have one. I think that where me and Londiniumgaia's main disagreement is the arguement about whether it is a 'right' to own a pet. Loniniumgaia think's that it is a right, and I completely disagree. Since when was it common knowledge that it is a human right? I agree with you that it can be awful for some pensioners, who live alone, who cannot afford a pet - I know this too well. But I think that many of the elderley accept this. Or am I wrong? If an elderly person wanted to own a cat, then I think that a lot of them can afford that. I have a couple of cats and they are relatively inexpensive to keep. But a dog on the hand is a different matter. Many of the elderly do not have the strength to walk a dog and give it the care they need. Again though, this all depends on the situation. Say for example, pet NHS existed, and all of the elderly who wanted a cat was now able to have a cat because vet care is now free. Would these people be able to provide adequate food for the animal? I think it is so easy for you both to say that this is a perfect idea, but I am just using a little common sence; have either of you looked into how this would work and where the barriers would be set? Would it be a free for all? There's just so much to think about. I suppse this is a little unfair on me, because you are both coming out with some really rediculous ideas, I then disagree with them and get labelled a snob?! Do you know much about the way the government works? The Labour party was voted in by the majority of the UK because they are supposed to give equal rights to everyone - a lot of people have different views on this. They are about equal rights. You think me and Sue (I assume) only think of the employed, that is not true, I just use my common sense. Perhaps I think that you two only think of the un-employed. I'm not sure if the pet NHS is to the benefit of animals at all. Shame on you both.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 17, 2009 at 9:10 p.m.

  Sammyd - Call me what you will, it is a little inappropriate though. Londiniumgaia is telling ME that my money pays for his/her things already, so it wouldn't make any difference to myself if I had to pay more taxes towards a pet NHS - I think I have a right to have my own opinion in this matter. You could sit there and tell me your money goes towards my bills, but you'd be wrong, as I work and pay my own bills. I'm glad you are a responsible mother/father/pet owner. It's great that you are able to look after your daughters and dog. It sounds to me like you are a good owner for your dog. If you are worried about vet treatment then charities such as PDSA and RSPCA can help you with your bills. PDSA is especially helpful in this area. It may also possible to negotiate costs with a local vet - but obviously this can vary from vet to vet. I'm not saying that poor families shouldn't own a pet. I just think that people would take more responsibilities.

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 16, 2009 at 4:39 p.m.

  thats absolutely right londiniumgaia !!!

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 16, 2009 at 3:44 p.m.

  HEAR HEAR!!

  thank you Sammy

  NHS FOR PETS FOR ALL

  and democracy is not an expectator's sport if you are part of one in my view you ought to take part in it and learn about what goes on

  WWW.THEYWORKFORYOU.COM
  check it out

  NHS for pet will cost nothing compared to the millions being wasted ...

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 16, 2009 at 2:01 p.m.

  Hannah you do come across as a middle class snob.You tell Londiniumgaia YOUR money goes towards his bills. I could sit here and say my money goes towards yours but I dont. I work part time because I have two daughters and a dog to take care of and dont ever neglect that responsibity. I am in full favour of an nhs for pets because I struggle if I need treatment for my dog. Insurance is in place now but I find it hard. I also disagree that poor families who cannot work should not own a pet. This would include millions of pensioners living alone with no company simply because the state does not provide free vetinary care!! Im with you londiniumgaia. You have a heart for ALL .These two only want the well off to own pets.I also think our money should be spent on pets rather than wars. There are no idealists in this country anymore its sad you two cannot think of anyone except the employed and fit. shame on you

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 16, 2009 at 10:16 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia – I don’t see what the war has to do with pet NHS (apart from money obviously). As part of the EU, it is our responsibility, as it is other countries that are part of the EU, to help the country in question. This would be by keeping the peace, helping villagers, helping to re-build, helping victims of the country, helping mothers and children and generally trying to combat terrorism which is extremely important to world welfare. It is easy for people like us to say that we are wasting money on wars, but what are we to say? What would happen if we didn’t have soldiers in war zones? I would say that £12 million is just small fry compared to what a pet NHS would cost. If there is, for example 25 million households/families in the country and each person had 1 pet (at the least) then pet NHS would run into the hundreds of millions to run each year. I wouldn’t want my tax money to pay for other people’s luxuries. Do you pay tax? We would not be relieving RSPCA or PDSA of anything. I imagine only a very small percentage of the RSPCA’s annual income goes towards helping with vet fees. Pet NHS would mean there would be thousands, even millions, more pets in the UK. How would this help with welfare issues? Animals would not be better off only humans. Explain how pets would be better off? If a pet wasn’t owned by someone who couldn’t afford it then there’d be no problem to start with.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 16, 2009 at 12:26 a.m.

  so here was the president of pakistan wining and dining in pall mall and meanwhile his people were fleeing the new war zone and they were not warned of the aproaching army at all only when the whole thing started did the population realized they were better off taking off and Gordon gave this fellow to take home with him £12 MILLION to help those fleeing and what does he cares about his people? not at all? where is that £12 million going? take a wild guess and war on terror? expensive bussiness but could be a lot cheaper if people acted with more integretity to say the least
  and NHS for pets is a waste of tax payer money ?
  NHS FOR PETS is the future and hospitals are all set up and ready and can and should be funded by the tax payer or would you prefer the money that goes down the drain every year eg. something like £50 million exploited on loopholes by the ones who already have a million ot two only by the way ....
  wake up and go for it
  NHS for pets is something we own our fellow creatures fammily members and relive the RSPCA NSPCA MAYHEW and so many others of having to raise their own cash to keep going forever and so they could concentrate on other things as well...
  for all juts like the human NHS is long overdue if you ask me....

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 11, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.

  Hannah - I can't help but agree with all you say. I accept that some of the things I say in my posts look like I am stereotyping certain groups of people, but my work brings me into daily contact with unemployed families, where the children are neglected and wild, don't get to school on time or at all, and if they do, they often arrive tired, dirty and unkempt. The family pets fare no better, but the social workers are only concerned with the welfare of the children, so the family pet is low priority even with the authorities. In most of these cases the family home is neglected and dirty and yet the parents find the money for alcohol, drugs and have the latest in electronic home entertainment, flat screen plasma tv, the latest mobile phones, ipods, cd and dvd players etc - In a lot of these cases, these things replace the attention which the parents no longer feel the need to give to the children or the pets in the family. These people have no other responsibilities, and yet the few they do have routinely go unmet, with the result being that often the school staff or neighbours will make a referral to social services. Very occasionally a working family will come under the scrutiny of social workers, but not often. Most working parents these days DO make proper childcare arrangements. Child Tax Credits help with the cost of childcare if the family qualifies. My daughter went to her grandparents after school, which worked well. I have found, again through my working experience that people tend to adopt the same attitudes to their children as they do to their pets, so you would rarely find a family which doted on their children and neglected the pets, or vice versa. So you can probably see where my views, seen in some quarters as prejudice, or snobbery, come from. I don't blame anyone who thinks of me as a middle class snob. But I came from a very poor family and was later raised in a childrens home after 9 years of abuse which led social services to act. I didn't start life from a privileged background. Since that experience, my life has been devoted to working hard, achieving the best I could, and making sure that my daughter and my pets never went through what I did. I am proud that in spite of my background, I have made something better of my life, and I see nothing wrong with that. Nobody who knows me would call me a "selfish middle class snob" so Sammyd - if that was aimed at me, you are quite wrong!

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 11, 2009 at 9:44 a.m.

  Sammyd - I can't work out who you are calling a "selfish middle class snob", me, Hannah or both of us. Whichever it is, I do not see that people who contribute to the welfare of their fellow humans by working and paying taxes can rightfully be labelled as selfish. I acknowledge the fact that not everyone who wants to work is lucky enough to be able to do so, but there are many more who don't care that they don't work and are happy to take the handouts. Personally, I have a problem understanding why anyone who is fit to work would not go all out to find gainful employment. I have taken jobs before which paid me very little, just to be able to feel I was making a contribution to society. I think it probably has something to do with having a bit of pride. Now, after many years of hard work, I am a family lawyer. I can tell you from my own daily experience that the vast majority of families who come under the scrutiny of social workers are unemployed families. This has always puzzled me, particularly given your comments about how a parent who is there all the time can give better care to their children and pets. Yes, that should make sense shouldn't it? But in practice, the opposite seems to be true. I work full time. I didn't work to give my daughter designer clothes. She wouldn't wear them. If challenged she always told her school friends that she didn't need them because she had a personality! My dogs do stay at home during the day, or they go with my fiance to work because he is self employed, but they get 3 decent half hour walks a day, are fit, well fed, well behaved (behavioural problems in dogs usually stem from them not being happy), and they come with us on all our holidays. Yet in my job, I come regularly across unemployed families where the dogs never get taken for a walk, are ill fed, have behavioural problems and are chained up all the time and starved of attention. These people are home all day, so what excuse do they have? It works both ways of course, not all working people are responsible and not all non-working people are irresponsible. It is all about making responsible life choices, something which many people seem incapable of doing, to the ultimate detriment of their children and their pets.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 10, 2009 at 9:27 a.m.

  Sammdy – Firstly, no-one is denied the right to own a pet. People make decisions for themselves. If I had no job and no money and decided to get a pet, I would face the consequences of doing so. Some people don’t work and can afford pets, I suppose people take the risk of hoping that their pet won’t become ill, they can also rely on the PDSA and RSPCA for help with veterinary bills. I am against pet NHS and I have brought this up with my family who also say it is a bit of a far-out idea. My pets are quite elderly now so are starting to get various problems. It is always a bit of a pain to have to fork out for a vet bill, but don’t you think that is part of the responsibility of owning a pet? I agree, it is the animals that matter, and the pet NHS only is a benefit to humans, not pets. I disagree though that I am not a ‘middle class snob’ as you say. Calling me names like that is spurring me on to go on a defensive. My money already goes towards your bills I expect. It seems to be that YOU are quite uneducated on these kinds of things and think that the simple answer to everything is to take everyone else’s money and taxes to pay for your luxuries – I am not a bottomless pit of money. I also disagree with the fact that people who do not work are better owners for dogs. Its all about individual cases. There are many dog lovers who work full time, and the majority of dogs will have been trained to stay in the house throughout the day and be content with their own company or better another dog if the owner has two. Often there can be more love in a relationship between dog and owner by the owner working. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. Dogs love the fuss they get when the owner comes home, they can then go for a nice excitable walk together. In some cases, if you spend the whole day with your dog, both can give little attention to each other because daily life becomes too predictable. Obviously this is not the case with everyone, but there are millions of dogs whose owners go out to work, and have a wonderful life. There can also be owners who go out to work who do not give their dogs the love they need. This can happen with non-working families too, some give enough love and care, and some don’t. I don’t think you can generalise a subject like this. Neither will I generalise who should and shouldn’t own a dog or pet. As long as you feel yourself that you can look after the pet, then you could have one. If you know that there is no way you can afford it, it is just common sense not to get a pet – the pet would be better off not in that kind of situation. This is all about priorities like you say.

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 9, 2009 at 11:26 p.m.

  I do agree vet care should be there for all. I do not think any LOVING owner should be denied the right to own a pet based on income.All this talk of not owning a pet if you cant afford the vets fees is wrong. I imagine the people against NHS for pets have enough money to pay vets fees ,for those who dont its the animals that matter NOT YOUR SELFISH MIDDLE CLASS SNOBBERY on who can and cant own a pet. In the case of dogs full time working owners are no benefit to the quality of their lives. Love and attention cannot be given to a dog if the owner is leaving it alone for long periods of time and in this respect those who spend less time working are a much kinder option for the dog which i also think is true of mothers with their kids.love and time is what kids need not designer clothes and daycare with strangers. pririties!!!!

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 8, 2009 at 1:16 p.m.

  The questions in my last post were aimed at Londiniumgaia, sorry for not making it clear.

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 8, 2009 at 9:28 a.m.

  I agree with Hannah. I know the government wastes money, it may be a national scandal, but that is not what we here are concerned about. Also I agree with Hannah that this idea that everyone should have the human right to have a pet, backed up by free or heavily subsidised veterinary healthcare is completely impractical. And it would not benefit animals, only people. We do have organisations which provide for those who find themselves in financial hardship. There will always be daft people who will take on a pet they can't afford when they know they can't afford it. These same people will be getting rid of the pet as soon as the cost of keeping it means they have to make uncomfortable choices between meeting the needs of the human members of their family and the needs of the pet. Just tell us one thing - are you a taxpayer? If you are not, then you have not earned the right to an opinion about how taxpayers money should be spent. You have the general right to an opinion obviously, but unless and until you are one of the people paying out ever increasing percentages of your monthly income to subsidise people who are draining rather than contributing to the economy, you really have a bit of a nerve in suggesting that we (the taxpayer) are not doing enough for you already!

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 7, 2009 at 6:01 p.m.

  londiumgaia - but those who need help with vet care DO get help with vet care, from the RSPCA, PDSA and sometimes local vet. What more do you want?
  I do not know the reasons behind why the government pays out money towards affairs in other countries - and if it benefits myself (if the money was to help keep the peace then I'm all for it) - so I will not comment on something I don't know much about. I do not need help with my vet bills so I don't see the need to have free vet care. If a pet NHS scheme was set up, then the extra money I'd be paying in taxes is probably the same amount of money I'd be spending on vet care in the first place.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 7, 2009 at 5:52 p.m.

  no free food only vet care
  once people thought the NHS was pie in the sky and we would have gone down the same road as the USA and bupa us all same for our fellow creatures you can go private if you wish but vet care should be there for all like the NHS
  thats the idea
  the other day Gordon gave £50 million to Afghanistan and where does it go in such corrupted government who could care less about its own people? swiss bank accounts..
  same as Mugabe same as Sadam so why not put that money which is YOUR TAX PAYER MONEY towards our NHS FOR PETS and yes it would create jobs just like the other NHS and help control a lot more what goes with our fellow creatures
  its a matter of alocating the money to the different places that is all

  if you work and pay your taxes would you rather not have your pet cared for free of charge or would you rather pay for those corrupted people's lifestyle? so they can eat caviar everyday at your expense?

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 7, 2009 at 5:05 p.m.

  Sammyd - Sue is right, if you already have a pet and are struggling to make ends meet with regards to vet bills, then there is the RSPCA, PDSA and as Sue says, vets are usually happy to help and will come to some sort of compromise with the owner to save the pet from suffering. This is why the RSPCA help with vet bills - to save the pet from suffering, which is the most important thing. I think what londiniumgaia is saying though is that EVERYBODY should be entitled to have a pet if they want it - and get free food and vet care, because it is a human RIGHT, which I most definatly disagree with because this would not be in the animals best interest, but the owner's. I think that current veterinary help that we already have is sufficient.

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 7, 2009 at 4:02 p.m.

  Sammyd - if I had a problem affording veterinary treatment I would go to a PDSA or RSPCA clinic, a Community Vet Clinic (there is one local to me at an animal rescue centre where the vet comes in and offers her services at lower prices than standard for those struggling to pay). In fact, I am not too proud to admit that, on the basis that I have several pets, which are obviously very expensive, I DO already use the community vet clinic occasionally, but on other occasions, depending on cost and convenience (I do not have to make an appointment to see my regular vet, but I do for the Community vet clinic),I go to my regular vet. Because most of these clinics operate only at certain times, or require an appointment, then in an emergency I would probably have to go to my local vet and make an arrangement to pay by weekly instalments or monthly if the treatment was expensive. I think most people in genuine cases of need would find that their local vet would be sympathetic to such an arrangement if the alternative was that the animal would not receive the necessary treatment and would suffer as a result.

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 7, 2009 at 3:16 p.m.

  Sue if you needed an injection or operatiopn or your kids did you wouldnt have to worry if you could afford it so if you were out of work or just coulnt afford vets then your pet should not have to suffer either thats all we are saying

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 7, 2009 at 9:33 a.m.

  Sammyd - I don't think any of us who have posted on this forum are suggesting anyone should have to "give up" their pets if they don't or can't work. I love my pets more than anything in the world and even if I had to go without to feed them, I would do it rather than give them up. I think possibly the point Hannah and I have both made is being lost in the emotional response to the issue. Basically what we are saying is that BEFORE people take on pets, they should take a hard look at what is involved and make a sensible decision as to whether they can realistically afford a pet. As Hannah rightly points out, this is not a case of people being told they "can't" have a pet. This is a case of responsible people making sensible decisions for themselves. Increasingly, there seems to be a sense in our society that everyone should be able to have anything they want - and free! The idea of a pet NHS is great. It just isn't practical, as Hannah says, and we can't afford it. When I want something, I have to decide if I can afford to have it, and if I can't, I either accept that I can't have it, or I save for it. Whilst I have a job, I still have to budget like most other people. Working people tend to limit their families to what they can afford, or wait longer to have children until they can afford them. I had to limit my family to one child for this reason, although I would have liked more. If I had an endless pot of money, I would have a kennels and take in rescues, but I don't. We can't all have things just because we want them. If you can have anything you want at no cost to yourself, then you are luckier than me or Hannah, and most other people in this country.

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 6, 2009 at 8:59 p.m.

  listen when people cant work for whatever reasons why should they give up their dog cat or whatever. They dont have to give up their kids. NHS for pets is a reasonable thing .Pets need LOVE that costs nothing .If they get sick then they should be entitled to the same as humans. Why not??

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 6, 2009 at 6:26 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - You said that it is hurtful for someone to have to be told that they cannot have a pet because they cannot afford it. My responce to that (in my last post) was - why do they need to be told that they cannot afford something with such as the responsibility of looking after an animal. Can they not make this decision for themself? It is very unfortunate that some of the elderley cannot afford to keep a pet, but that's just life. Giving people what they want - where do we draw the lines?
  I suppose pet NHS does seem like a nice idea (yet impractical), and it seems like a nice idea that everyone who would like a pet to make themselves happy could have a pet. But we don't live in a country where we can just get what we want at the touch of a button. Most people can deal with this, some can't.
  And yes, there are plenty of people who can work but who cannot be bothered - what about the amount of benefit fraud? There is no need for a lot of the population who are on benefits to be on benefits. I hear of a lot of people (in my local town/city in particular) who say that it is just easier to live off benefits, that way they also get council housing and heaven only knows what else.
  "everyone 's pet should have access to free vet care" - explain why my pets and I should have free access to veterinary care - I don't need it. As mentioned before, the RSPCA and PDSA (not sure who else) will help with vet bills for those with a little less money.
  I do not agree that it would make everyone happier all around. How would more jobs be created? - would existing vets not fill the posts? And wouldn't this be a threat to private vet surgeries? How would pet NHS help keep track of irresponsible pet owners? I also DON'T think that it would lessen the burden on the RSPCA because I believe that there would eventually be a much higher population of animals in the country. If everyone decided they wanted a horse, then everyone will get a horse. This will in effect cause the mistreatment of more and more animals. More animals means more animal welfare issues. Free vet bills will not mean kinder pet owners.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 5, 2009 at 5:02 p.m.

  ok ok
  all is well
  I just thought it was and IS a good idea but obviously it will need time untill people understand the need for it

  you may have come across the lazy ones I have not we have had different experiences in life thats is all I am not a social worker and do not think I have the structure to be one nor your experience..

  There is more hunger for love and appreciation in this world than for bread
  Mother Teresa

  everyone 's pet should have access to free vet care is my view and that would not encourage people to have more pets or be more inresponsible on the contrary it would lessen the burden on the RSPCA and PDSA and many others and it would be a lot easier to keep track of the bad pet keepers and create employment as well .... vets and nurses ...
  everyone would be happier all around and you could have your horse!! many need rescuing and I have come across people who share horses..Potters Bar way and Enfield Barnet they live there .... and they are posties !!!

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 5, 2009 at 1:08 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - I asked you on an earlier post if you had left school yet. You didn't respond to that one, though you seem to have something silly, irrelevant or out of touch with reality to say about most other of my comments, and those too of Hannah and Mags, both of whom I agree with. Your NHS for pets idea is idealistic and pie in the sky and will never happen because taxpayers will not be expected to fund it. People on benefits can get free or very subsidised veterinary treatment via the RSPCA and PDSA clinics, so I don't understand why you have got a bee in your bonnet about extortionate vet bills. If having a job and not being happy to fund the lifestyles of people who are happy to live on handouts makes me in your opinion a snob, then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. I have acknowledged that some people can't work. This is not about whether you can, can't, want or don't want to work, this is about animals, and how responsible pet ownership can be promoted. It is easier to be responsible if you can afford it. That doesn't mean that all people who can afford pets give them the best care, and it does not mean that those who can't afford it neglect their pets. But pets, like children, cost money. They are a financial responsibility aswell as anything else they may be, and it follows logically that if you have a job, you are better able to shoulder that responsibility. Why would I give up work? Why would I ever expect other people to pay for my life? There are people who want jobs, and there are people who don't. There are lots of people in this country who are quite happy to sit in front of the TV while others work to keep them. If you can't acknowledge the truth of this, you need to get out more. It is blatantly obvious that you are still a child, with a child's experience of life, and debating with you is like dealing with a petulant child throwing teddies out of a pram! Thank heaven for people like Hannah and Mags, who do seem to have some grasp of reality. Sorry if this seems harsh. It is good that you care about animals, but you also need to be grounded in reality, and this is where you come unstuck.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 4, 2009 at 7:46 p.m.

  I think that its horrendous that anyone should be denied treatment on any grounds when its there and avaiable need to contact your local mp and more and shout loud and clear to make changes occur
  WWW.THEYWORKFORYOU.COM
  sorry if my comments were insensitive on that matter

  now

  why should they be told Hannah? they as? this "they" have feelings just like you and every one has a pontential of some sort and everyone should be entitlled to have a pet cared for with love in a responsible manner
  the elderly who are isolated /lonely /social excluded? they cannot afford a pet so thats is it? a pet to many elderly mean the world to them unless they win the lottery so to afford the vet fees
  "they" should not have a pet?
  sorry we shall have to agree on disagreeing on these issues .....

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 4, 2009 at 5:57 p.m.

  Silly wars? It's not as simple as that Londiniumgaia. Yes it the choice of the government to do what they think best with funds, paying for other people's pets is not one of them. People not being able to afford things is just part of life. Like I said, I can't have a large breed of dog that i've always wanted, because I can't yet afford it, so I don't get one. The same goes with everyone else. I can't see how it is "hurtful" - why do they need to be told they can't afford a pet? Can they not make that decision for themselves? You talk about this subject like it's suddenly happened, people are losing jobs all the time (obviously more so now), it's just life. Most people who have pets can afford them, so it's not a big a problem as you think. Get with the real world.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 4, 2009 at 11:03 a.m.

  as it goes a few yorkies have teared my heart apart...

  I cannot relax next to rotties and staffies
  sorry if this causes offense
  the police does not use them as they are not reliable.....

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 4, 2009 at 10:58 a.m.

  true mags that is not aceptable that the drugs are not avaiable because of lack of funds I would be devastated were my mum be in the same situation but if I cannot afford to have a mum then I should not have one lol just kidding are we going the BUPA way?
  the drugs should be avaiable why is there money for silly wars ? and not the breast cancer medicine? its the choice of governments to allocated the funds
  don't you think its hurtfull to tell people they should not have a pet because they cannor afford the extortionits vet fees ?
  do you think people are going to stop having pets because of that?
  and one has a job today and not one tomorow should you get rid of your pet if you loose your job? where is this going to end?
  staffies and rotties are strong animals their bites can be fatal never heard of a yorkie tearing someone apart have you?

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 May 4, 2009 at 10:24 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia - where on earth do you think the NHS gets its funds from? There isn't enough money to pay for medicine for people - the people who pay their taxes to fund the NHS. How would you tell the children of a woman suffering from breast cancer that she is being denied the drugs to extend her life due to lack of funds, but someone has a pet that they can't really afford to keep so the money is going to pay vets fees for them. If someone hasn't got enough money to have a pet of their own, then there are animal charities who need walkers/volunteers - offer to care for the pet of someone who has to be at work/in hospital. You need to get in touch with the real world and the issues faced.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 4, 2009 at 9:43 a.m.

  londiniumgaia - how is it a RIGHT for all pets to have their own NHS. But its not a RIGHT for staffies to live, or rottweilers?

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 4, 2009 at 9:27 a.m.

  londiniumgaia - to be honest all I care about is the welfare of all animals, especially my own pets. I take them to the vets when they need treatment, feed them when they are hungry and give them plenty of care etc. I will not pay out money for people who cannot afford to keep pets, neither will most people.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 4, 2009 at 9:25 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia – But where would all the funding come for such a huge scheme?! Taxpayers will refuse to pay yet more money for those who don’t work and chose to have a pet that they can’t afford. (There are many people who work and pay taxes that can’t afford to keep a pet – but people who work usually have a stronger money ethic).
  The people who CAN afford to keep pets would not want to pay into the NHS scheme – because there would be no need for them to.
  The RSPCA can’t run on taxpayers money, which is why it is non government funded and relies on public donations. This will never change, if it did, it would be massive, and I bet they wouldn’t get as much money as they do now. Taxpayers money will not fund the RSPCA because it is not a “people” charity. This is because many people in the country do not own pets, and so do not need to pay tax into something that won’t benefit their self.
  You have some odd theories, I don’t know about you but I don’t live with the same ethics as a cavewoman! You fail to understand, that just because you or anyone else cannot afford a pet, that means animals are badly treated? It makes no sence at all. By having a pet NHS there would be more pets in the country, meaning more unwanted animals and more suffering. Having free health service for pets will only help the lives of the owner, not the pet.
  The RSPCA did not come into existence to subsidise people who could not afford their pet care, but to work towards animal welfare of animals, whether that means changing laws, taking horses away from rich people in mansions who do not look after their houses, to paying out money for people on benefits.
  Explain how having a pet is a human right? And would it benefit the pet?
  Police and courts will always need to exist, they are not just there for people who commit hideous crimes, what about protests, controlling crowds, divorces (courts) and the list goes on.
  You do think up some very extreme views, most I’m sure will never happen, such as no more police, courts, and a pet NHS. Perhaps you should write to your local government about these ideas.
  “may I point out that one candidate to be a Prime Minister was brought up by a single mum in a council estate in south London David Davis”. Well this is great, it just goes to show that anyone can make a good living for themselves, as I explained in another of my posts.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 3, 2009 at 3:04 p.m.

  NHS for pets would work on the same lines as the other NHS where everyone makes use of it
  those RSPCA animals hospitals the PDSA ones as well as clinics run by the Mayhew for example and so many others that are already all set up but should run on tax payers money same as the other NHS for the benefit OF ALL working and non working its not going to be an extra burden on tax payers its a matter of relocating the money to this purpose that is all
  for as long as we treat even our own fellow women and men and children with such a disdain and a barbaric manner we have not changed a bit since we used to live in caves so what are the chances of our other fellow creatures having a chance?
  people will always have pets always no matter what their financial situation is thats why the likes of the RSPCA and many others came into existence in the first place
  having a pet will never be a privilige nor a luxury item but a right for as long as people exist
  thats is reality!!
  one day maybe there will be no need for the police to exist or courts or social workers or any government or any type of control when that day comes we have finnaly grown up and become civilized!
  may I point out that one candidate to be a Prime Minister was brought up by a single mum in a council estate in south London David Davis
  and check a litlle chap called Charles Chaplin
  his mother was section and he grew up in soup kitchens and the world would be so much poorer a place without them !!!

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 9:12 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia – Yes, as a democratic country we are all entitled to our own opinions, I am also entitled to my opinion, whether I work in animal welfare or not.

  “you pay taxes to a great deal of things and the NHS for pets would not make any difference really”
  Not true. Many of those who have to pay taxes struggle enough as it is. NHS for pets would be another tax bill for us to pay, only for the money to help non-working people – not animals or those who do pay taxes. I’m not sure if you pay tax or not, I assume you don’t. Why should I pay even more of my wages into something that is not going to benefit myself or my own pets? And I’m sure a lot of other people would feel the same way.

  Explain why animals don’t get the same rights by not having a pet NHS? If those who can’t aford a pet in the first place chose to own a pet, then it is the owners fault for not being able to look after that pet properly . If someone who didn’t earn a wage didn’t have a pet, then that pet wouldn’t exist to need rights in the first place. How about you lend me some money so that I can own a large breed of dog that I have always wanted, because according to you isn’t it the dog’s right?

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 May 2, 2009 at 7:28 p.m.

  Foodsforlife - they didn't replace the dog licence with the rod licence - the rod licence has been in place for very many years and was a requirement when dog licences were compulsary. The dog licence was 37p (or thereabouts) when it was stopped, all that it was was a licence per dog and was not a way of identyfying the dog.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 2, 2009 at 1:25 p.m.

  democracy dear is about people being respected for their opinions even if you do not agree with them everyone can have their own litlle soap box ...

  just because someone works with animals that does not count nor means anything at all

  I think its important for people to realize that they should treat their frustrations and angers and other personal problems and not use those who are vunerable as a punch bag for their shortcomings

  having said that

  you pay taxes to a great deal of things and the NHS for pets would not make any difference really
  to think that our fellow creatures should not have the same rights as we do is to me a bit of an outdated view this was once the same view people held of children ...who too are still such a vunerable group

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 9:57 a.m.

  Sammyd – do you think your right about your opinions like this? Don’t call people who get up everyday and go to work SNOBS. I work in animal welfare, Sue works in social services, without people like that, that do these kinds of jobs, children’s and pet’s lives would be in a mess. And your calling us “out of touch”? I'm not sure if you work, but londiniumgaia and possibly yourself need to realise what its like to go to work and get half of your money taken away at the end of each month to go towards helping other people who do not work. If it wasn't for working people giving over all their cash, there'd be no benefits.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 9:50 a.m.

  Why would Sue want to stop working to go on benefits? As you already know, no body CHOSES to go on benefits (which in my opinion is not true). People on benefits can be happy, but many won’t bee able to afford luxuries that working people can afford, which is why people chose to work! I guess that if Sue didn’t work, then she wouldn’t be able to afford her dogs and cats. And this is something that she’d probably accept if she didn’t work. I’d love to own a large dog, but at the moment I don’t think I have a large enough garden to suit the need to this dog. Therefore I won’t get one until I can afford it.
  Our NHS and a “pet NHS” are too completely different things. The NHS is already something that I pay for out of my national insurance and tax, which will and does benefit myself already. I can afford to keep my cats because I earn a steady wage. Why should I start paying for other people’s pets too? I don’t pay towards the NHS to help other people with their medical care, I pay it so that if I need to go to the doctors, hospital or dentist, I can get treated, with the costs coming from what I pay into this scheme from my monthly taxes. If YOU want to pay into a pet NHS scheme then by all means do – you will then get free pet treatment and so on.
  Unfortunately, those with money also are able to make more choices in life and appear to have more rights, such as what car they buy, what pets they’d wish to own, where they live, what clothes they want to buy. This is why we have more freedom to do what we want. The world revolves around money, sadly for some – its just life.
  Animals do have rights, and the RSPCA upholds those rights. The pet NHS would do nothing for pet’s rights, only giving humans what they want – this is where I think you’re getting confused. No one is saying scrap benefits because it is greatly needed to those who are disabled etc, but this doesn’t mean that working people will dish out more and more of their own money – which is where government’s money comes from.
  “No need for RSPCA, PDSA….” Are you kidding, where do you think all laws come from in the first place to give animals their rights?
  “if only the rich can have pets then places like the RSPCA and others would need not exist”. No, because who says that people with lots of money look after their pets better than someone with less money? The point is, if you can’t afford a pet – don’t get one! And don’t rely on tax payers to pay for you! People in this country will never ALL become rich. Where do you get your bizare thoughts from?!

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 May 2, 2009 at 9:49 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia – I agree, it can be awful for the elderly on pensions who cannot afford a pet which can mean the difference between living in happiness and loneliness. I don’t think NHS for pets is the solution though. The lady from the article you mentioned cannot afford to feed her cat, let alone the medication it may possibly need. Are you saying pet NHS should pay for pet food as well? What people would be eligible for pet NHS? Would it be people who are on benefits only or would everybody be entitled to use the service? If it was only for the elderly and people on benefits, then why should the rest of us have to fork out even more money and taxes to pay for other’s pets, which I do class as “luxuries”. If it was for everyone in the country, then it will cost a hell of a lot of money. Would everyone be entitled to free pet food and free medication and food the pet NHS take our pets away when people feel they cannot be bothered to look after them anymore? If we all had to pay extra here to pay for the pet NHS, then our taxes would probably double. According to the tax payers of the country (which I assume is the majority of people), there would be no point in having a pet NHS because they can afford it themselves already, and the guess most of the people will NOT want to pay for the privilege of other people to own a pet. Apart from those who are unable to work for various reasons, I have heard of plenty of people that do not work, there are many people in this country who like the lazy lifestyle of getting free money and not having to bother working. There are too many immigrants in this country, many of them do not work. Londiniumgaia, I don’t think your argument is to benefit animals, but to benefit people who are elderly and those who cannot work.
  “Animals are no less important then any of is they have no voice”. Well of course, which is why there are millions of people in this country who own a pet/s that look after their animals with love and respect and can afford to look after them. By allowing everyone who wants an animal to basically have any animal they desire, we would need to breed thousands more pets to feed the demand – all for the RIGHT of the human? Would these pets have any dignity? Having a pet NHS will not help the welfare of animals, only humans.

  Besides, the RSPCA will subsidise vet bills for pet owners when a veterinary bill is too expensive. This money comes purely from people who generously donate their money to the RSPCA. Is this not good enough for you? For some people it’s more more more take take take.

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 1, 2009 at 8:36 p.m.

  SUE Social services dont go near middle class families asyou know. This is how they get away with neglecting their children. I know this because most of my kids parents work full time and get home between 6 and 8 in the evening. their kids have to fend for themselves. My kids are cooked a meal EVERY night and my dog is walked loved and fed properly. You cannot equate poverty with neglect when its the kids of workaholics that get no attention. most people on benefits would LOVE to have a job but sometimes people have to get by best they can and they dont need snobs like yourself telling them they cant own a dog OR have help with vets fees. I think you are out of touch with the real world I agree wiyh Londiniumgaia

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 1, 2009 at 7:21 p.m.

  oh dear oh dear the mind boggles
  Dear Sue
  since you show some much resentment and anger what is there to stop you from "working" and go on benefits? you can lead the life of those you seem to be resentfull/jelous/lacking understading of/ of?
  is the other NHS an endeless pit of this and that? why should private vets be so expensive?
  what makes you think or anyone else that you have rights that other do not have? one day you have all that and more and it might all be gone the next? since when you and others like you think you are G.. judge and jury of everything and everyone?
  to critize is all very well but solutions are needed the more primitive and barbaric people are the more they resemble the other beasts in the natural world
  say survival of the fitest ect so those on benefits should cease to exist and the benefit system scraped ?
  no
  there are differences between us and other beasts we have a concience moral/ values and much more than other species have not as they are lucky enough to be free of all that palaver we are not...
  I can give you no end examples of people who were born in deprived areas with everything against them and made a huge difference for the whole world to see
  NHS for pets is a solution that is humane and will work for all and not unlike what people might say be against good pet keeping on the contrary you yourself might then be able to have all your cats and dog and maybe horse looked after as they look after you and family in the other NHS
  no need for the RSPCA or PDSA the MAYHEW or so many others who do a marvelous job albeit their difficulties
  to be poor is not a criminal offense and that does not make anyone less able nor do the poor love their pet any less than anyone else
  if only the rich can have pets then places like the RSPCA and others would need not exist
  maybe one day when everyone is rich this talk will cease but meanwhile thats reality
  we are responsible for disimating whole habitats and the species that depend on it and for all the other animals as well ....
  its the animals who are vunerable its about them not me me me us us talk all of the time!!!
  your line of work is out of order most of the time needs revising asap needs to be brought into line with the 21st century but thats your battle...if you wish to take it up
  SAMMYD rocks!!! :)

  Link to this comment

• Sue May 1, 2009 at 3:19 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia and sammyd - vet bills ARE expensive, and I should know because I have 2 dogs and 7 cats, all vaccinated, microchipped and neutered/speyed. Because I am not unemployed, the RSPCA clinic doesn't provide me with cut price or free veterinary treatment. But the PDSA and the RSPCA do provide these services for those who can't afford a private vet, so in a way, we already have a sort of NHS equivalent for our pets. I don't believe, other than possibly an increase in these types of facilities, that we will improve on that in any meaningful way. And remember that we are unique in this country in having an NHS. In most countries, people pay for all their medical treatment, usually by way of healthcare insurance. You said in an earlier post (I think) that other countries would be likely to follow our example if we had a pet NHS. Well, if their health system is based on having healthcare insurance, then I would bet my boots that they would adopt the same approach to pets. A pets NHS would be a bottomless pit of expense. Not only would the funds have to be there to set it up, pay the workers and the vets (who would not work there unless the pay was on a par with private practice because they all have student loans to repay), but there would be all the other running costs, which would get higher and higher as more people took advantage of the facilities offered. If people thought that owning a pet was a cheap option, then more people would own pets, but that would result in a corresponding rise in people abusing pets, and a corresponding rise in the cost of treating abused pets, and prosecuting abusive owners. It is not the case that just because someone can afford a pet, they will make a great owner. I do agree that a person's affluence is no indicator of whether they will be a caring pet owner. Many are not, and many happy, well cared for pets live on Council estates. But, in general (and we can only generalise on these discussion forums), people who can't afford, or do not have the ability to care for themselves or their children, should not take on pets. Sammyd - sorry, you said that nobody has the right to say that kids should be taken off people on benefits. You are wrong. I work with Care Proceedings all the time. Children are not removed because parents are poor, they are removed because parenting is poor. Usually (but not always) the two are interlinked. Rarely are the parents working, which should mean that they have all the time in the world to be the best of parents. Rarely have I come across care proceedings being taken against a working family. So whilst you talk about "latch key kids" in your post, as someone who does this sort of work all the time, I don't see it. I would be interested to know where you come by all this information unless this is your field of work, as it is mine.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia May 1, 2009 at 2:07 p.m.

  DAILY EXPRESS
  first of May 2009

  The look on the face of the elderly lady outside the sanctuary said it all.

  Carrying an empty basket which had earlier contained her tabby cat she glanced back at the door through which Bobby’s fate would be decided.

  All she could hope for was that someone would take her 10-year-old cat and give him a good home.
  Tears welling she said: “I can hardly afford to feed myself properly these days and will be going to live with my sister as I’ve had to give up my flat and she’s not allowed animals in hers. I don’t know what else to do.”

  NHS FOR PETS!!!
  thats going forward not backwards to old and tried ways like pet registration!
  everyone wants to work even is they say they don't there are many psychological reasons behind things people say I HAVE YET TO MEET ANYONE WHO DOES NOT WANT TO CONTRIBUTE
  the extornionist rates private vets are allowed to charge should come to an end under new legislation and be regulated
  those animals are no less important than any of us they have no voice
  I lend mine to them !!
  as others do

  Link to this comment

• sammyd May 1, 2009 at 9:53 a.m.

  I suppose it might make people more responsible about their dogs if we brought in dog registration or microchipping.I agree with Londiniumgaia to a degree in that where the state is paying for children animals should have that same respect because just as children dont ask to be born into poverty neither do animals. MOST ppeople WANT to work. Circumstance sometimes prevents this either through illness or as is now unemployment. Nobody has the right to say those kids should be taken off people on benefits so nor should they do with family pets. If people are out working all day their dogs are not getting any attention and their kids are banged up in nursery then after school childcare then left as latch keys whilst mum and dad are only providing money. A poor income doesnt equate neglect to animaqls and I do believe there should be help available for vets fees etc which there is to a degree anyway. In short i dont agree that affluent people make better or more responsible dog owners than people living in council housing at all

  Link to this comment

• Sue April 30, 2009 at 1:35 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - I don't mean to get rude here or label you in any way, but have you left school yet? Your views are of the idealistic and unrealistic kind which make me think when reading them that you have not seen much of life! Nobody has complete freedom and free will in this world, much as idealists such as yourself would want to see that change. For example, the right to a family - many working people (who I think you feel are in a privileged position) have to wait until they can afford to start a family because their incomes do not increase (unlike welfare benefits) with each child they produce. I recall when Paul Potts won Britain's Got Talent saying that one of the best things to come out of his success was that now he and his wife could afford to start a family. How easy do you think it was for him to watch people on benefits having endless children at public expense when he and his wife couldn't afford it? I would like a horse. I love horses, but I don't own a large property with a paddock and I couldn't afford to pay livery or veterinary care. So I can't have a horse can I? I don't see it as my RIGHT. It is a simple matter of economics, which people who live off the backs of others don't seem to have any concept of because the state covers all their day to day needs. Why should the taxpayer fund peoples whims to own pets? Why should anyone, except the people who make that choice for themselves? And you are wrong in saying that a pets NHS will become a reality. No it jollywell won't!! The money is not there. I don't care what you think about the Olympics. I don't do sport and consider that it is probably a waste of resources, but government funding is generally earmarked to be used for certain purposes. It is not an open pot which can be dipped into to fund anything. I would imagine that if any money was going spare, it would be utilised towards public services, NOT to subsidise people who decide to take on pets they cannot afford.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia April 29, 2009 at 9:20 p.m.

  ONLY the government is to pay for the NHS for pets not the charities

  second the id card stupidity absurdity thingie is going to cost an ESTIMATE 5 million the Olympics too had an estimate which was far from the truth we have to today so its anyone's gues how much this will cost but it will not go ahead anyway

  just the fact that you fail to comprehend that our fellow creatures need the same care as we do goes a long way to show that the supose animal lovers caring people have a long way to go yet
  I might here be spiting against the wind but the NHS for pets will be a reality ... this that was a shining beacon to so many other nations will return to being that one day and the NHS for pets will be a reality then... no ifs no buts an example other countries will follow
  when we learn to treat the vunerable with respect and dignity be it our animals the homeless the elderly the menatlly ill those out of work and so on then maybe the penny will drop ....
  everyone would like to make a living for themselves to live with dignity not from hand outs
  councils as anyone in governnment is there solely to serve the people not to run your life
  to have a pet is everyone's right and for as long as people and pets exist this right will be execercised albeit those who think otherwise
  not one of us is G.. or judge and jury ...

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 April 29, 2009 at 6:35 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - after reading your next post -
  "councils and housing associations should not interfere in anyone's private life in any way shape or form FULL STOP"
  But isn't it the council/government who would be in charge on "pet NHS"? We can't have everything the way we want it. If councils didn't interfere with our lives then this country wouldn't have police, hospitals, safe roads etc etc. I'd like to also state - owning a pet is not a basic "human right"!! Is your idea of having a pet NHS for the sake of humans or animals? The money being borrowed by the government cannot be spent on things such as this. I agree that our fellow creatures should be treated how we like to be treated, and they can be, buy responsible owners who have the time, money and love to look after them - if we are to get real.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 April 29, 2009 at 6:26 p.m.

  "why do we have a NHS for humans not pets?"
  Because we pay monthly taxes to pay towards the NHS - (which will one day benefit ourselves) which is in financial trouble as it is. Why should those who do not own pets, pay for other peoples pets to get treatment?
  How is owning an animal a right? No-one has a right to look after an animal unless they can financialy afford and look after it, pets are not objects. This people in the country are becoming more and more reliant on everyone else to get them out of their messes. For example, "no win no fee compensation", this is the reason why the country is becoming so P.C and health and safety crazy, because organisations are constantly at threat of being sued. People need to start being responsible for themselves, and their own pets.
  I agree, it is sad that the some of elderly cannot keep pets that would mean so much to them. A lot of the time this is because of mobility problems and general old age. There is too much to go into on this part of the subject.
  EVERYONE has the opportunity to make a real go of life, and earn themselves a wage, sometimes its tough, sometimes its easy, but it won't be given to us on a plate.
  Besides, wouldn't a pet NHS mean more pets, more unwanted pets in animal homes. People will go out willy nilly buying whatever pets they want thinking that they won't have to pay the price when something goes wrong. This really isn't the sort of thing this country needs.
  I also agree with Sue - landlords should be able make their own rules on their housing be it "no pets/no children". No one is forced into a contiuous life of "poverty".
  For example - the pet NHS costs 700 million pounds a year to run, where will this money come from? Tax payers pockets - so we could save our money from going on taxes, and instead just pay for our own veterinary fees.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 April 29, 2009 at 6:25 p.m.

  Sue & Londiniumgaia - hmm NHS for pets... sounds like a nice idea - but not very practical. It wouldn't help animals welfare, it wouldn't help cash strapped people either, as we'd be paying a hell of a lot more taxes to fund such a big cause! And the ones that can afford to pay the taxes are the ones who perhaps can afford to keep pets. So really - we'd just be paying for peoples vet fees who don't work (either through no fault of their own or not) and who can't afford to look after their animals in the first place. This is not fair on taxpayers - especially those tax payers who do not own a pet.
  I disagree with your quote "people are free to make choices they often do some are lucky to be in a place where its possible to have pets I am one but in reality there should be legislation in place to make sure EVERYONE SHOULD BE ENTITTLED TO HAVE A PET". Unfortunatly if you can't afford to keep and feed an animal, then you shouldn't own one. Those that do not pay their way do not get to chose something like this. Even though the pet may get plenty of love, it may not get the other things it needs to live a healthy life - such as medication and veterinary treatment. Its as simple as that, iits got nothing to do with the area you live in - but how much money you have. I think Sue was saying that it just seems the case that those on a lower income do generally live in places such as council housing - that doesn't mean she was demeaning these people in any way. There will never be a legislation meaning that EVERYONE WILL BE ENTITLED TO HAVE A PET. To be honest, if people are that desparate for a pet, then they will get one - one way or another. Those that cannot get a pet, basically means that they shouldn't have a pet - whether this is dut to financial reasons, size of accomodation, mental stability, disabilities (obviously depending on severity), the list goes on. Again, I'm not demeaning any of these people, but in reality it would not be practical for some of these to own a pet, and I bet they all realise this too.

  Link to this comment

• Sue April 29, 2009 at 4:24 p.m.

  Londiniumgaia - what interesting theories you espouse. NHS for pets funded by cash strapped animal welfare charities in conjunction with the government, who I agree waste money right left and centre, but that doesn't mean that any of it will be winging its way towards setting up a free healthcare system for our pets. Even the much lauded NHS is on its knees because of lack of funding, so if the government is cutting back on healthcare for people, it isn't really going to prioritise animals is it? And you want ME to get real?

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia April 29, 2009 at 12:45 p.m.

  Dear Sue
  I 'm not judge and jury of anyone Sue and although I undertand and see your point of view we shall have to agree to disagree on many issues
  I HAVE NOT MET A PERSON TO THIS DAY WHO WOULD NOT RATHER BE WORKING than wasting their life away they need maybe a litlle push but the will is there
  and yes its digracefull that families get tired of their pets and novelty wears out...
  or they get old and the families discard them ...I feel we need to push forwards to this twenty first century regardles of these obstacles...
  the people who no consideration or respect or act humanly towards their pets you may find are the same that behave as such towards others and worst of all to themselves... those are a few cases comapred to the vast marjority that does not make it right but ALBEIT them we must go forward ...

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia April 29, 2009 at 12:45 p.m.

  Dear Sue
  thanks for encouraging this rather healthy/heated debate if I may
  freedom means just that people will have pets even if they cannot afford it there is no two ways about it
  it is everyone's right to have a pet as its everyone's right to have a family and friends
  my pets are part of my family as important to me as any other member of my family and friends
  those landlords who have a no children no pet policy should be dealt with by a NEW LEGISLATION THAT WILL MAKE UNLAWFULL THAT THEY IMPOSE THIS SORT OF RESTRICTIONS AT ALL
  who on earth are these people ? voted in today and out tomorow to decide FOR ANYONE how do live their lifes ? get real!!!
  thats freeedom mate !!
  councils and housing associations should not interfere in anyone's private life in any way shape or form FULL STOP
  just becasue you live in their property that does not give them the right to unfringe on YOUR BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
  ok now the non working people with loads of children
  did it ever occur to you that they might want to work?
  there are many other charities besides the RSPCA and yes there should be NHS hospitals for pets funded by the government
  there is plenty of money in the pot( now being borrowed but..) so much so that just no long ago £50 million was given to Afganistan and most of that money as so much of the fake foreign aid I say fake because the government is very aware that most of the money is going nowhere but to swiss bank accounts held by the leaders of those countries and dear dependeds in fact
  but they remain loyal and at times muppets and at what a a cost?
  so there is plenty if need be but won't go on about politics and the games people play with our daily lifes ....
  people who are unemployed should not expect....
  I disagree I perhaps have to bring to your attention the privileged position you find yourself in
  today in this recession many will loose their jobs and their pets and if those hospitals run by the RSPCA and other charities were part of the NHS for pets that would not happen
  again vet bills are not regulated and they should be if you had to pay a bundle to see your doctor you would be up in arms ... those animals cannot do it themselves its my voice I give them...
  our fellow creatures should be treated with the same consideration as any other on this land that is my view

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia April 29, 2009 at 11:59 a.m.

  sorry about some mistakes in my last post
  the colluding between private vets paractises and their clients not the insurance company

  having a pet is not a privilege but a right!!!
  animals are NOT LUXURY ITEMS

  Link to this comment

• Sue April 29, 2009 at 10:08 a.m.

  Londiniumgaia - I presume some of your comments were aimed at my last post, which I have no issue with because this is what we have these debates for. I do not have any problem with the idea that anyone who wants to have a pet should have the freedom to make that choice, if they can afford it, BUT, I do not agree that it is every person's RIGHT to own a pet. Many private landlords throughout the country do impose a "no pets" and indeed, often a "no children" rule on their tenanted properties, and there is usually a very good reason for this. I am less concerned with the rights of humans than the rights of animals to a loving, caring environment in which to thrive. I see in my work experiences every day examples of families, rarely of the employed variety, whose idea of being productive is not working, but having more and more children to boost their benefits income. They are not ashamed of this as this is their RIGHT, even though the likes of me have to foot the bill. In many, but not all cases, they also have at least one dog in the household, which again is okay if the dog is loved and cared for. The reality is that often the dog has been acquired "for the kids", who when they tire of it move on to the next novelty. Then the poor dog is shoved out in the yard in all winds and all weathers, no longer important, no longer loved, and no longer looked after. More often than not the families whose lifestyles follow this general pattern live in social housing. These people can't afford the cost of looking after a dog properly, and yet, amazingly, many choose to have more than one. The state pays for their children, but not their dog. You seem to be advocating an NHS for pets. Nice idea, but the world doesn't work like that. Everything costs money. Where do you get the notion that there is a big pot of money sitting somewhere just waiting for a doggy NHS system to be set up? And where do you get the idea that the RSPCA (wholly reliant on public donations) can afford to financially support such a scheme? The RSPCA DO already run clinics and provide veterinary care either free or at very reduced rates to those who can't afford to pay vet bills, but at the end of the day, animals are like children, if you can't afford them don't have them! I don't know if you are a taxpayer, but as one myself after over 30 years of employment, I do not see why I and others like me should be expected to financially support the cost of upholding the "right" of everyone to incur the expense of having pets without any consideration as to who will pay the price. This is not an attack on the unemployed, since not everyone can work. But if you live at public expense, it is NOT your right to have everything you want and expect the state and the taxpayer to pick up the tab.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia April 28, 2009 at 8:42 p.m.

  this is really something very close to my heart and infuriates me when some have the nerve to think of themselves as judge and jury of the who is who of the should have a pet at all
  people are free to make choices they often do some are lucky to be in a place where its possible to have pets I am one but in reality there should be legislation in place to make sure EVERYONE SHOULD BE ENTITTLED TO HAVE A PET
  if their acomodation met a minimum size criteria FULL STOP
  
  why do we have NHS for humans and not for pets?
  why are those animal hospitals not run like the human NHS

  ON WHAT GROUNDS SOME THINK THAT HAVING A PET IS PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT ?

  it should not be

  that would encorage responsible ownership too
  The NHS for pets would open doors to have much more come to light than being hidden underground

  the elderly can have and afford pets which sometimes can mean much more than most imagine to them
  old people's home should too allow people to come in with their companions no ifs or buts about that

  we should too have lesgislation in place to make sure those absurd prices charged by a private vet is no longer possible
  to some being a vet seems like winning the lottery WRONG!!!
  then the pet insurance con
  sure pet insurance is all very well yet again for those who can afford it NOT many can in my area for example N 19
  DOES THAT MAKES US LESS HUMAN AND NOT ABLE TO HAVE PETS?
  no
  the whole pet insurance vet colluding palaver is well worn out by now

  in all this discracefull behaviour the pet remains something between a dear one and a gold mine
  WRONG

  when we learn to treat those vunerable with compassion dignity and respect then we can call ourselves truly civilized
  some way to go yet

  today many will loose their pets although no fault of their own
  this should no longer happen....
  NHS FOR PETS.
  there is money there for it and what it lacks is the will come on the RSPCA and the public give this thought and cause your voice ...

  Link to this comment

• Sue April 28, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.

  I agree with Mags that if things like microchipping or similar were to be made compulsory, then it should be done at the earliest stage, before the ultimate owner acquires the dog, and that it should be illegal to sell the dog without a microchip. I also agree that ear tattooing is the reason why some dogs end up abandoned or killed with their ears chopped off. People who illtreat animals, as we have seen, will do ANYTHING to avoid getting caught, and the welfare of the animal is their least priority. So compulsory microchipping or ear tattooing does carry with it a serious risk of unspeakable cruelty to some animals from owners desperate to avoid being traced. Dogs will be killed by their owners in all sorts of unmentionable ways and their bodies disposed of. Two greyhounds were washed up on our local beach with their ears cut off a while back. Greyhounds are a prime example of why I would not support ear tattoos.
  Some people think compulsory registration and/or microchipping should be free and some think it should be expensive. There is force in both arguments. I think that the cost of setting up and administering any sort of effective system is going to be the main dictator of the cost, so maybe argument on this point is futile. Still, we don't want to price dogs out of good homes. People on modest incomes who could afford a dog at a pinch and would priorise it if push came to shove might think twice about getting one. So potentially a good home would be lost for a dog who might have been very well cared for in that family. People on low incomes who get dogs often don't think at all, and I can't see that changing. To people who get a dog without forethought, the dog is a disposable item, and when the time comes to dispose of it, they will cross that bridge then. Unfortunately very often so does the dog - Rainbow Bridge that is.

  Link to this comment

• foodsforlife April 28, 2009 at 10:37 a.m.

  We have to have some way of tracking who owns which dog, and a way to keep those from having dogs who are not responible owners.

  It's crazy to have stopped the dog licence and replaced it with a rod licence (for fishing)!!!

  There are young thugs in London with dangerous dogs totally irresponsible and innapropriate dog owners, openly beating their dogs in public.

  Police seem powerless or unwilling to do anything

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 April 27, 2009 at 8:02 p.m.

  Worldtuner - ear tattooing is done in this country as an alternative to Microchipping. In fact, it is compulsary to tattoo a racing greyhounds ear - that's why they sometimes suffer so badly when they're no longer wanted, easy to trace you see - that's the problem with being able to trace the owner, it will cause some animals to suffer at the hands of wicked people. Also, many breeders of dogs that I know have their whole litter microchipped when they are very young and well before they go to their new home, that's when it should be done. If it's going to become compulsary to microchip then it should be done when they are young and it should be an offence to sell a kitten or puppy unless it is microchipped.

  Link to this comment

• worldtuner April 27, 2009 at 4:36 p.m.

  I believe the ear tattoo is only carried out in Europe, at present, unless Brussels have other ideas.
  I love baby too: I don't think it's a good idea to raise the microchipping to a high price, following my predictions of 8 months ago, of those who are in a lesser position or have lesser love for their animals will dump, kill or starve them, the high cost of microchipping will only make matters worse, so yes it should be compulsory to chip the animal but also to have them insured, would it be a good idea to combine in the law a power of authority to the RSPCA to inforce the animal law, of course there are those that, will try everything to avoid it, the same as car tax, this is why animal ownership is very important to all

  Link to this comment

• i_luv_baby_boo April 27, 2009 at 2:24 p.m.

  I think that compulsory registration would be a good idea BUT i think it should be at quite a high price, only because then it will give them a chance to think will i be able to pay this and if they can't then they should not have a pet because they are expensive (and believe me i know i have 4 cats and a dog) so then if they are not willing to pay then they don't deserve a pet. I have read some comments about it being free but then if they try to claim the poverty is the reason they can't pay then they should not have a dog as as well as having to pay for food you have to have insurance and pay for vet bills. So i advise if you are looking to get a dog and you are not willing to pay then DON'T get one. Because you can get dogs quite cheep so people who are poor get one and don't think ahead then can't pay for food for it or vet bills and they are the people that leaves dogs tied to trees.

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 April 26, 2009 at 7:54 p.m.

  Angien - foul isn't it, and the reason that I am wary of ear tattooing for pets as that is often why the ears are cut off - no ears - no tattoo - no identification of owner; it's also possible to cut a microchip out. I worry in case my dogs/cats go missing in case someone does something to them. It's all a nightmare - the problem is that the RSPCA are unable to remove animals from owners until the pet is almost at deaths door from neglect and when the people are brought to the court they get little more than a slapped wrist.

  Link to this comment

• animallover57 April 24, 2009 at 8:26 p.m.

  Before buying a pet, people should consider the rights and wrongs of owning a dog - how much would you pay if your dog was sick, or vets appointments - what would happen if your dog needed treatment? These questions should all be thought about deeply and maybe pet owners would think twice before buying that bundle of fluff.

  Link to this comment

• angien April 24, 2009 at 6:10 p.m.

  I believe there should be some type of legislation and if compulsory the registration fees should be free to all, that way when and if caught the person who hasn't registered their animal can't claim poverty as an excuse. Also microchipping should be free or a nominal fee only, its the only way to ensure compliance. We need to do something and quick, only a few days ago a dog was found tied to a tree near where I live and some (unmentionable name calling) thug had cut its ears off, the dogs going to make a full recovery they say, can you really say that about its mental health? I hope the person who did this gets there's and whatever it is it isn't nice.!!

  Link to this comment

• Sue April 23, 2009 at 4:33 p.m.

  Dorothy - my dog was dumped too. Everyone seems to more or less agree on some sort of licensing/registration system, and some agree about microchipping. What all the arguments don't address is the fact that only the responsible owners will engage in this process. We talk about COMPULSORY compliance with various laws and regulations, but who physically goes around checking up who has a dog and whether it is legal? Let's face it, the government in this country can't keep track of the humans who live here, and whether they live here legally. Now you would think that would be simple when so many of them are claiming benefits and have hospital or other records, but evidently not. So how does anyone expect them to keep track of all the dogs, particularly those being bred in back yards by all and sundry? And where are the massive financial resources it will take to implement all these new laws to come from? Is everyone really deluding themselves that there is going to be a big government fund allocated to deal with this issue? I know what will happen. The millions of responsible caring dog owners will rush to register their dogs and make sure they are on the right side of the law. The people who don't care about animals will dodge their legal responsibility, and nobody will have the resources to do anything about it. At the end of the day, this doesn't just boil down to a will to eradicate irresponsible pet ownership, it boils down to money, like everything else in the world today, and I would bet my boots that the money is not going to be there.

  Link to this comment

• Jess_loves_animals April 22, 2009 at 5:55 p.m.

  Before people just go out and buy dogs i really think that they should carefully take into consideration how much time and money they will be able to spend taking care of a dog so that both dog and owner can enjoy a happy and healthy relationship.

  Link to this comment

• montyboy6 April 22, 2009 at 2:21 p.m.

  i do agree with some sort of registration for dog owners but am totally against microchiping infact all types of tagging .

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia April 21, 2009 at 11:54 p.m.

  The National Curriculum
  responsible pet ownership

  understanding of our fellow creatures what is important to the most commonly held type of pets
  when kids learn what makes them tick and therefore interact better with their pets and love them they should grow up to be responsible pet onwers
  there is no point in going back to tried and tested things only forward
  some problems faced in some areas of the UK like N19 London is not faced in others
  so local solutions for local problems is too to be considered and the banning of the fighting dogs breeds no ifs and no buts ....

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 April 21, 2009 at 7:35 p.m.

  tmostert - on what basis do you set the figure for dog ownership at 3? Is that 3 if you live in a country mansion with 500 acres as well as if you live in a 1 bedroom flat on the ninth floor? It seems an arbitary figure, dogs are pack animals are are happy to live in groups as big as you can manage to feed, groom, exercise and generally care for. Just because someone has lots of dogs (or cats, etc., etc.) doesn't mean that they are unable to care for them.

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 April 21, 2009 at 5:28 p.m.

  tmostert - I agree a some sort of licensing should happen, but I think that there are plenty of responsible dog owners, with plenty of area and enough money, who should be allowed more than 3 dogs.

  I think microchipping is a good start as well and should prob be made compulsary especially for dogs. I think that if a law on this was brought in, the responsible dogs onwers would follow but irresponsible dog owners (who shouldn't even own pets in the first place) will dodge the law, there for getting the situation knowhere. This of course may not happen.

  Link to this comment

• londiniumgaia April 21, 2009 at 3:21 p.m.

  no I don't see anything being compulsory as beneficial to anyone nor to our fellow creatures
  people as in pet onwers have to grow up and learn about the responsibilities involved in having a pet things will come about when things are done from the heart not by force
  it will only drive this whole issue underground as in pet onwers who abuse their pets as in dogs fights ect although some breeds were bred for that purpose and are doing what comes natural to them..
  its not a solution at all
  if their pets become really dear to them they will not be subjected to any wrong doing and there are so many other reasons as well the elderly can hardly afford their heating or food why should they too have to suffer even further with unncessary expenses? and the list goes on
  it has been tried and tested and it did not make a different
  done and dusted been there got the T goodbye silly idea!
  thank you for your attention
  Paula Benjin and Lucy

  Link to this comment

• dorothy20 April 21, 2009 at 1:43 p.m.

  l quite agree with claireprefersanimals, all dogs should be registered to their owners. l also think licencing should be brought back, as there is more cruelty now, and people could be brought to book, when caught. All dogs should be microchipped,it is not expensive, and it would deter people from dumping dogs on the streets.My little dog that l got from a rescue home had been dumped, and so their was no background on him.SO, "PLEASE BRING BACK THE DOG LICENCE" !!!

  Link to this comment

• tmostert April 21, 2009 at 12:56 p.m.

  I am of the opinion that the licensing system should be returned - and that a person at any given time should only be able to own no more then 3 dogs etc. The fact that any person can get and animal at any given time and place is just not right! Do you watch Reality Zone on DSTV - Animal Cops etc...If we could only have a system like this in place, people would think twice before taking on the responsibility of keeping a pet. Every action has a consequence and we that call yourselves human need to be kept to that.

  Link to this comment

• vanessavit April 16, 2009 at 12:25 p.m.

  Yes, but is not enough. It may help to detect the owner but the punishments for people who abandons or treat animals badly should be very severe.

  Link to this comment

• Mags53 April 14, 2009 at 8:39 p.m.

  Getting your pet microchipped is not that expensive really. My dogs are all registered - with the kennel Club, they all have had their hips scored and the results registered with the Kennel Club, my oldest has just had his eyes tested and this is registered with the kennel Club. I will have them DNA profiled and this will be registered with the kennel club (non-pedigree dogs can be registered with the Kennel Club by the way). I am not happy about getting my dogs microchipped, I like the idea that if I'm ever so careless as to let them become lost that somehow they will be able to be traced back to me - not at all happy about having a foreign body inserted into them. And, before anyone says that it's all ok I know of MANY cases where the 'chip' has moved or broken. I worry that just to make me sleep easier that I'm doing something alien to my dog, I didn't get my children microchipped either!!

  Link to this comment

• Jimmy-Jen April 14, 2009 at 1:15 p.m.

  The RSPCA are right about this. The poor dogs love thier owners, but the owners dont treat them with love.
  I think that the dogs should be microchipped, incase the dogs get lost or stolen.
  But it might not encourage the owners of the dogs to take much more responseiblity. Mircochiping the puppies or dogs cost a lot of money.
  If familys wish to have a dog but don't have the money to microchip it, then that would stop the whole idea of it.
  The amount of money stops the people who wish to get a dog from getting one. That means that there would be more dogs who are wanting to be adopted, stopping from getting a chance to live.

  Link to this comment

• Sue April 14, 2009 at 11:39 a.m.

  Horse Love - I agree with you, save for one thing you say. You say that a Registration Scheme would not cost any money. I beg to differ. If a scheme was set up, it would need to be administered properly and run efficiently by people who would have to be paid to do it. Volunteers are not the answer, we need people who are paid and are therefore accountable. So there would have to be a source of funding, and this may present a problem when animal welfare issues come some way down the funding priority pile!

  Link to this comment

• Horse Love April 13, 2009 at 8:27 a.m.

  It seems typical of the goverment to ignore the underlying issues behind massive social probs. I, for one, think it would be a good idea to introduce dog regestration. It wouldn't cost any money, would help with the problem of strays and if it helped deal with the problem of dogs used in violent crime even better. I also think it's unfair, that it gives dogs a bad name, when they are used as status symbols even though they are really just obeying they're owners. I love dogs and wish I could have one but unfortunately my parents wouldn't let me have one.

  I also had a tug of nostaglia when I heard David Grant was retiring from being director. I remember reading his occasional colounm in 'Animal Action', 'A day in the life of a RSPCA hospital director' and I loved the cat!

  Link to this comment

• Hannah67 April 12, 2009 at 8:45 p.m.

  I think responsible owners will think that dog registration is a great idea, but irresponsible owners would may in general chose not to comply if this was made law.

  Link to this comment

• Sue April 8, 2009 at 4:53 p.m.

  A registration scheme would be brilliant if we could make it work. The people who make up the whole reason why such a scheme is necessary are the same people who will not willingly participate in it because of course, they have no interest in being responsible dog owners, they have no interest in the welfare of the dogs they own, and they certainly don't want to accept responsibility for their own actions. The majority of responsible dog owners will of course embrace the idea and will be queuing up to register their pets, but they are not the problem. Backstreet breeders will always supply dogs, and from what I have seen, the bull type breeds, to thugs who will use and abuse them as they always have. This of course is the situation so long as any dog registration scheme contains loopholes, excuses, or other means of defeating the object of the exercise. So if it can work, then brilliant. Perhaps we can learn from the other countries where it does work. Sadly there seems to be little commitment to the cause of animal welfare from governments and politicians, and nor does the law mete out the sort of punishment which would deter cruelty. My 2 dogs and 7 cats are ALL microchipped. I believe strongly in it and would of course support any scheme which was workable and which improved the lot of the domestic companion animal.

  Link to this comment

• donnabert April 8, 2009 at 4:04 p.m.

  It might create the unintended consequence of people, instead of abandoning unwanted pets, killing them instead, since they are traceable.

  Link to this comment

• claireprefersanimals April 8, 2009 at 12:43 p.m.

  Possibly, people won't want have animals,or have them and abuse them if they think they can be traced.
  But on the other hand all the council estate type thugs that have Staffordshire bull type dogs, won't be bothered to chip a ''fighting'' dog.
  I think that dogs, and all pets should be registered to their owners.
  That may help deter cruelty or at least trace abusive owners.

  Link to this comment

• Sasha1991 April 7, 2009 at 9:07 p.m.

  I think it generally will, there will of course be some exceptions as there is with everything.
  It will encourage more responsible ownership because if the dog has been brought to an animal hospital with severe injuries or is very unhealthy with a lack of nutrition or skin conditions that could have been preventable or treated, then the owners will be more easily identifable and it will make teaching them about proper care or taking the proper actions to improve the dogs situation a lot better. If an animal has had its chip scanned on more than one occassion with reoccuring injuries or health problems that are related to ownership than it provides proof for action against owners and so on.
  Therefore, people fearing legal action or the loss of their dogs will feel more inclined to provide their pet with proper treatments, nutrition and adequate shelter so not to put the dog in any situation to put them at risk of health complications.
  If the microchip costs money it will prevent a lot of people from simply purchasing a puppy or dog, because it is cute. Money plays a factor in the purchase of some families who wish to have a pet. If it is too much to pay for the chip than it may be too much to provide for the animal.
  Im not really educated on this so this is basically just how I feel about it, my facts/knowledge are perhaps wrong. But I feel that it would be beneficial to the quality of life the dog is subjected to.

  Link to this comment

Login to start adding your voice to the blog