Meath Dogs need a Meath Dog Pound

by Catlady Wed Jun 27, 2007 16:14

The fact that Meath has no pound for Meath dogs is another example of ridiculous planning in this country....

If a person's dog somehow becomes lost, gets stolen and abandonded (as often happens) and is picked up by a dog warden, the owner would have to be bloody Sherlock Holmes to have even the faintest hope of being reunited with them!!!! How are elderly people (often living alone with just their beloved dog for company and protection), those with no transport or no web access to even begin their search if there isn't even a phone number available???

Pounds are bloody depressing places at the best of times, but at least if your dog goes missing you can go and check the local one to see if they have turned up there... UNLESS YOU LIVE IN MEATH THAT IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone with a titter of wit knows that the only solution to the problem of "disposable" dogs (and cats for that matter) in any society is an enforced law on spaying and neutering. We'll be dreaming of that for a long time yet, but to compound the problem by not providing a place locally for strays and not providing a means for people to adopt from pounds or even to find their lost dogs smacks of incompetency, blatant negligence, and downright irresponsibility on the part of Meath Co. Council.

by iosaf Wed Jun 27, 2007 18:48

There is an old logical riddle which goes "how far can a dog run into a wood?". The answer is "halfway after that he runs out of the wood!". It got me thinking.....
Dogs as we all know are a domesticated lupine subspecies, meaning they are a member of the wolf family. Meath as we all know is a land mass of 234,490 hectares (3.3% of the total area of the state) its highest point is the cairn at Carnbane East which is 279 metres above sea-level. Dogs due to their breeding come with many different capabilities of both speed and distance running as well as size of leg.
Though almost all dogs can outpace a human on the sprint hardly any dog can beat the endurance and distance of a marathon runner. The fastest dogs are without a doubt the greyhounds which can average a speed of about 40miles per hour over a short stretch. The quickest Irish greyhound by the name of "Oyster peace" won a race on the flat of 375 yards with a stunning speed of 16.73 metres per second.
http://www.igb.ie/view_results.aspx?track=Bsk&date=28-M...-2004
But most dogs don't hit 45miles per hour. & hardly any dog can keep that speed up over a kilometre. The only dogs who seem to be bred for endurance are sledge dogs or huskies. These breeds pull an average weight of 11 kg over distances from "(8 to 130 km) or more a day. Speed is needed to travel the distance in a reasonable length of time. Racing sleddogs will travel up to an average twenty miles per hour (32.2 km/h) over distances up to 25 miles (40 km). Over longer distances, average travelling speed declines to 10 to 14 miles per hour (16 to 22 km/h). In poor trail conditions, sleddogs can still usually average 6 or 7 miles per hour (10 or 11 km/h). Sled dogs have been known to travel over 100 miles in a 24 hour period." http://www.answers.com/topic/sled-dog

Ok. so now we have the background.

My problem is this. If you're a stray dog in Meath which way would you go and how far would you manage to get? Let us put out of our minds the wonderful and mythical Lassie who through 9 incarnations and 20 years of telly series managed to cross the continental USA. No Meath dog is doing that. I don't think any intelligent dog would other going uphill to Cavan (whose highest point at 667 metres on the Fermanagh side would be daunting even for a alien army squaddie). But I'm not convinced that all the stray dogs are going to end up in Louth.

I humbly put foward the suggestion that dog pounds are not set up on a county basis but on a properly and scientifically and topographically based method taking into account the average wandering distance, gradient and so on. After all no Meath dog knows it is a Meath dog. For our canine friends there are no borders or frontiers, GAA affiliations - just licences, microchip implants & really really decent smells.

Meanwhile a dog pound in Meath would save some our best friends.

by Catlady Wed Jun 27, 2007 19:09

"Meanwhile a dog pound in Meath would save some our best friends"

... and give distraught owners some hope of finding their lost buddies.

by iosaf Wed Jun 27, 2007 19:56

I fear the hypothetical waggytailed lost one who defied topographical sense & chose the nothern route out of Meath and thanks to its part husky genes crossed the border into wee ulster and then in a day profiting from the half a labrador genetic contribution of its sire before last swam the remaining short distance to Scotland would be waiting a while for collection.
Which means all dog pounds need a linked system to share photos and descriptions of the animals they get or other means of identification need to be considered.
I live in a society where all dogs which travel are tagged with microchips at the nape of the neck. I've attached the photo of the standard chip used in the Spanish state which is put sub-cutaenously on the left side of the neck. The suggestion of offering "pet passports" was first made by the self-styled "Lord Sutch" of the "monster raving loony party" but what seemed like a joke in the early 70's is now an international standard. http://www.pettravel.com/passports.cfm The regulations against "dangerous breeds" which sprung up in the 1990's in Europe (the Bull Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Rottweiler, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileriro, Tosa Inu and Akita Inu breeds have all been listed as potentially dangerous) were accompanied by a brief rabies hysteria and though that disease is now eradicated in western Europe, a waggytailed one with stamina might just carry it in again..,

So we see that serious consideration of this problem - (pets are lost - owners wish to be reunited with lost pets - pets are often destroyed hastily whilst owners are looking in the wrong county) brings the Irish to consider a technology which many on the civil liberty side of human society find "sensitive" to say the least. A surprising number of South Americans carry the smaller human equivalent of these chips. Indeed I've known one young woman from Colombia whose parents tagged her so as to locate her if she were abducted and then took the extra precaution of not telling her where the chip had been put... (so she couldn't tell her hypothetical kidnappers where it was to cut it out). Alas, we haven't really seen them used for long enough to judgewhether or not they are safe.

But it's worth debate - is it not? Which is better? a dog pound for every county or other area of similar size? or a state wide microchip implantation scheme with fewer collection points for lost animals?
Both would create employment but only the latter would offer scientific types a chance to establish doggy migration routes in Ireland & thus answer my question - "which way would a stray dog go?"

I for one am with Bernie (& catlady) on this I think the best solution is a dog pound for Meath. I'm surprised there isn't one already, as a kid I remember going as part of the DSPCA to visit an animal refuge in Meath & would have thought there were sufficient animal lovers in the county to support such a pound. But often it is not so. In Barcelona we have two animal pounds but unclaimed chipped animals are destroyed quite quickly though there is a woman in Germany who organises adoption for some of the smaller breeds.

a dog (or cat) microchip tag - now common practise in Europe. (the tag is 4 times the size of a human one)

by Catlady Thu Jun 28, 2007 14:56

Regarding microchipping, I did hear something on the radio the other day - talk of introducing legislation requiring all owners to have their dogs microchipped, and perhaps linking it to the cost of the dog licence... it was due to owners not taking responsibility for dogs roaming and causing damage rather than for the dogs welfare, but I do think it is a good idea. Quite how this legislation would be enforced I am not sure, given the number of owners who allow their dogs to wander the streets day and night, not giving a damn whether they cause traffic accidents, become lost or injured, attack sheep or children etc. Also, the fact that people allow their dogs to breed, having litter after litter of puppies who are destined to be drowned, to end up dumped on the roadside, or in a pound would make tracking owners of younger dogs next to impossible, even if the mother were chipped. Unless a scheme of mandatory sterilization were to be introduced at the same time, we'd end up back at square one, with responsible owners having sterilized and microchipped dogs who they didn't allow to wander, and the irresponsible fools continuing as they have always done.

But in the meantime, a pound is urgently needed in Meath, to try and stop the pointless killing of dogs like the ones pictured below - from the most recent batch killed by Dundalk.

DEAD

DEAD

DEAD

DEAD

DEAD

by Can't stand dogs Fri Jun 29, 2007 00:27

So an owner who is careless enough or irresponsible enough to "lose" a dog or allow it to stray expects the taxpayer to pick up the tab and provide an infrastructure of convenient local county based pounds so s/he can be reunited with the mutt?!

I can scarcely conceive of a WORSE way to spend public money.

Owners: it's YOUR dog, microchip him, fit an identity collar and keep the thing from being loose in public so he doesn't bite us non pet-loving people, excrete dog shit or spread disease. (Ugh, who wants to be licked or nuzzled by something that was previously licking god knows what in the drains or fields) Under the Control of Dogs Act, all dogs in a public place are required to be accompanied AND kept under "effective control" It's your responsibility as a dog owner not mine as a citizen to sort out your pet issues.

by Catlady Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:47

I agree entirely that it is up to dog owners to take care of their animals, as should be clear from my previous posts. The fact is that many people DO NOT, and unless sufficent laws are introduced and ENFORCED, we will continue to have a situation where dogs roam the streets. However, the fact that these dogs are allowed to roam is not the fault of the dogs, is it?

In addition, even the most responsible dog owner can find themselves in a situation where their dog has gone missing. My elderly aunt had her dogs stolen, for example, and it is often the case that these dogs are subsequently abandoned by the people who stole them (particularly in the case of pedigree dogs who are spayed, were stolen to make money from breeding them, but who obviously are of no financial interest once it becomes apparent that they do not come into season). Dogs can escape on occasion despite the owners vigilance (particularly in the case of elderly but loving and well meaning owners), and a compulsory system of microchipping would go a long way towards helping in thses situations, as once the dogs were picked up by a warden, the owner would just be a phone call away, saving tears, time, money and most importantly, lives.

The owners who are careless/irresponsible (and unfortunately there are many) don't care one way or the other whether there is a pound or whether they are reunited with their dog, and expect nothing of the taxpayer in this regard. it is easier to just get another puppy in this throwaway society of ours.

As far as I am aware, it is the dog licence fee which funds pounds rather than the non-dog-owning taxpayer.

"It's your responsibility as a dog owner not mine as a citizen to sort out your pet issues"
The problem I have with this statement is twofold. Firstly, many stray dpgs were dumped, and therefore have no "owner". So when these animals are left to wnader the streets, they become the problem of every citizen. Were there no wardens or pounds in operation, it would, I imagine, be dog-haters like yourself who would be the most inconvenienced, and rely on volunteer rescue workers to do their best to sort out a problem which they in no way created. Whilst there are many such groups and individuals in operation, time and funding is always a problem and as i am sure you can imagine, for every dog rescued from the streets, there are always going to be many many more, due to unchecked breeding and irresponsible uncaring individuals. This is neither the fault of rescues nor of people like myself who have dogs which are well cared for and never ever allowed to wander or stray bite people or "spread disease" (and I must say that in all my years with dogs, cats and other animals, the only diseases I have ever caught have been from human animals!!!). I don't like treading in excrement anymore than anyone else, and it is a matter of simple courtesy to clean up after your dog if he or she does their business while out on a walk.

Secondly, we live in a country where taxes are used according to the way our elected government see fit. I have a problem with many of the ways in which they do so, but providing a place for people to be reunited with members of their family is not one of them. I certainly have other problems with pounds, but realise that the root of the problem lies in the irresponsibility of humans - citizens of this country. As I said, to the best of my knowledge, it is the dog licence fee which funds pounds, so this is not really an issue unless you pay for one. But if you do, one could reasonably expect that in the event that your dog DOES get lost, get stolen, or whatever, that the money you have spent on the licence will cover the costs of at least having a hope of recovering him or her. For the licence payers in Meath, this is clearly not the case at present, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of wanted and perfectly rehomeable dogs, and it is to this end that AFAR are working.

Were breeding to be stopped, there would be homes for most of these unfortunate creatures and the whole problem would disappear over time. Even if microchipping to be made compulsory, we would still need wardens and a place for the dogs to be taken while the owner were contacted. A chip does not mean one simply presses a button in one's house and the dog magically reappears. Wardens and pounds are not there to protect the animlas, but to protect the general public from straying dogs, and in that sense, it IS up to all citizens to fund them. Were the advice of groups such as AFAR followed in the first place, the situation of overbreeding and stray animals would not be a problem.

by Can't stand dogs Mon Jul 02, 2007 18:31

Catlady,

I'm not convinced by your line of reasoning. Remember the OP and your own earlier post were all about the need for a Meath pound so that Meath dogs could be reunited with their owners and not put down. Only when the absurdity and self-indulgence of this was queried did you suggest that pounds and dog wardens were really for the benefit of the citizenry at large rather than the animals and owners themselves! Well, yes, I agree that us non-animal obsessed citizens have an interest in not being bitten, crapped on, infected and bothered by stray dogs. No problem there. But, then, if that's the objective, it doesn't matter WHERE the pound is located. Meath citizens don't need a Meath pound to be protected from Meath strays. But Meath dog owners still want one. So we're back to public money. Now, I don't know how much it costs to run a pound but I'm pretty sure it doesn't come cheap. A hundred grand a year? More? Much more, possibly? Anyway, a dog license costs the princely sum of €12.70. Yes, 12 euros and 70 cents. For which you REALLY expect a full blown pet reunification service on a county by county basis? Even though most strays are the result of irresponsible owners rather than "hard cases" such as theft (rare, I should think) or elderly, forgetful owners. Just microchip the bloody thing and it doesn't matter where the pound is.

by Catlady Mon Jul 02, 2007 20:12

Oh dear "Can't stand dogs". You seem to be very upset about the idea of a pound being opened for Meath dogs.

I honestly see no inconsistencies between my posts. There are many reasons why this pound should exist, and while I didn't include all of them in my original post, none of the reasons I mentioned contradict the other.

I agree entirely that the vast majority of stray dogs is the fault of inconsiderate humans who do not take their responsibilities as caretakers seriously. My point is that these are the same people who will fail to microchip their animals, purchase licences, and control their dogs in the first place. The idea of microchipping as a means of stopping these dogs from inconvieniencing people like yourself will therefore never be an efficient method of doing so (unless as I said, laws were introduced and enforced).

You said: " Only when the absurdity and self-indulgence of this was queried did you suggest that pounds and dog wardens were really for the benefit of the citizenry at large rather than the animals and owners themselves!"

I stand by my statement that pounds exist in order to solve the problem of strays - to protect people and livestock. Were their function to be aimed at helping stray/abandoned animals, we would not have the Meath situation in the first place, and pounds would be run like rescue centres - with all the necessary home checks, sterilization of animlas before being rehomed, and a no-kill policy. This, as I am sure you realize, is far from the case. In order to adopt from organisations such as the ISPCA, one's suitablilty as a responsible owner is vetted and follow-up checks are also done. In addition, a donation is required which covers the cost of sterilizing the animal to prevent further overbreeding. This is not the case with pounds. The fact that i clearly wish that all pounds were replaced by rescues does not alter the fact that pounds are still necessary (unfortunately) and that people who pay a licence in Meath ought to have the same opportunity to reclaim their dogs as anyone else in the country. The licence does indeed cost 12 odd euro, but you forget to mention that this is a yearly charge. Given that my last dog opassed away at 18 years of age (without ever having gotten loose or strayed) and was always covered by a licence, I paid well over 200 euro towards the running of the local pound, just for one dog. I really don't think it unreasonable to expect that, for such a sum, I would have had the possibility of reclaiming her had she somwhow managed to stray or be stolen. (Dog-napping has, incidentally, become a serious problem in recent times and has been the subject of many newspaper articles, although unfortunately I don't have any to hand.)

If by absurd and self-indulgent, you mean the desire to see a reduction in the numbers of perfectly healthy and rehomable animals needlessly killed in this country and the desire to see loving (if imperfect - who isn't?) owners from Meath afforded the same opportunity to recover their lost animlas, then I'm afraid our definitions of what constitutes absurd and self-indulgent are entirely incompatible.

As regards public money. As I said, to the best of my knowledge, pounds are funded by the dog licence fee, and it is therefore dog-owners who cover the costs. When it comes to mis-use of public funds, I will just draw your attention to the fact that the 2005 Irish Government book of estimates pledged just over €4 million to the Combat Poverty Agency, €7.8m to the Education and Welfare Board, just over €15m to the National Education Psychological Service and around €69m to the horse and greyhound-racing industries... two industries rife with cruelty and the subject of international campaigns.

The startlingly high figure relating to greyhound racing (especially when one considers the pathetic sums allocated for worthwhile causes as mentioned above) is particularly poignant in the context of this discussion and your concerns about your taxes, considering the refusal of Bord na gCon to implement an adequate policy, backed up with THEIR money, to deal with the "disposable dog" problem they themselves are highly instrumental in creating. I can assure you that nothing like this amount of public money is used either for rescue charities OR for the running of pounds.

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but I get the distinct impression that your problem with the idea of a pound for Meath dogs has less to do with your worries about your taxes, and more to do with a dislike of dogs and/or anyone who attempts to improve the way they are treated in this country. There are plenty of examples of the ways in which our county councils waste money in huge quantities which would warrant examination. However, given the number of dog owners and dog lovers who support the creation of a Meath pound, and the fact that these pounds are funded primarily, if not entirely, by the dog licence fee, I feel sure there are other areas than this one which ought to be of more concern to someone genuinely worried about the way their tax money is used.

by Can't stand dogs Mon Jul 02, 2007 21:36

Catlady,

The fact that public money is wasted on all sorts of nonsensical activities is hardly justification for further wanton waste.

And a "Meath pound for Meath dogs" is precisely such a wanton waste. Yes, of course it's not the worst example of such waste but I don't see any postings calling for MORE money for the other wasteful causes you mention. If there was a posting calling for a Meath tribunal to generate income for Meath lawyers I'd slag that off too!

Look, it's very simple. If Meath owners want to be reunited with their pets, let them microchip them. Then it doesn't matter in what county the pound is located. If they can't be bothered to do that, then, sorry, it ain't my responsibility.

And yes I know the dog license is an annual payment. I very much doubt that there are enough dog licences in the county at €12.70 each to cover the annual cost of giving the pampered pooches of Meath their very own pound. Not to mention the cost of dog wardens and other doggie costs.

by Catlady Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:40

"The fact that public money is wasted on all sorts of nonsensical activities is hardly justification for further wanton waste. "

This is true. I do not agree however that the provision of a pound in Meath is a wanton waste. You yourself agree in previous posts that stray dogs are a problem. While you are happy to see these animals, be they lost/stolen companions or abused and neglected strays, callously killed rahter than retrieved or rehomed, I and the majority of people, are certainly not. To equate this with generating more income for fat cat solicitors is ridiculous in the extreme.

"If Meath owners want to be reunited with their pets, let them microchip them. Then it doesn't matter in what county the pound is located."

Not true. How is a person with no car supposed to get to another county to collect their dog? Walk???? At least if the distance to be covered is not too great (and therefore not too expensive if you're on a budget), one might have the option of persuading a nice taxi driver to take the trip. Dogs aren't welcome on buses.

You are also ignoring the fact that even if the dogs are microchipped, unless there is someone with a scanner to check for one, it is pointless. What happens to Meath dogs is that they are dumped in a makeshift "shelter", with no public access, before removal to Dundalk where they are killed the next day. I have no evidence to suggest that they are checked for a chip, and considering there isn't even a phoneline for people to ring for Meath dogs, I doubt very much that such a system is in place. Basically, if you are in Meath and your dog disappears, you have no hope of finding him or her if picked up by a warden. No access to the place they are kept while waiting to be killed, nobody to ring and ask. Is this really fair on either dog or owner???

"...it ain't my responsibility."

Well, it's entirely your prerogative to hold this view of any injustice. I do find it rather cold-hearted however. By the same token, one could assert that other injustices are not one's responsibility - such as people starving, women being abused, children slaving away in sweatshops around the globe to provide us with cheap goods and so on. My view is that in a civilized society, each of us has a responsibility to reduce suffering where possible, particularly where that suffering is entirely pointless, easily alleviated, and caused by ourselves, the human race, in the first place. The situation of dogs being needlessly killed fits all of these criteria.

"I very much doubt that there are enough dog licences in the county at €12.70 each to cover the annual cost of giving the pampered pooches of Meath their very own pound. Not to mention the cost of dog wardens and other doggie costs."

The wardens are already there, and other costs, such as the cost of feeding them during their time waiting for death, and then killing them, are already being paid. As for your reference to "pampered pooches", you must be either very naive or completely heartless.

The fact is that we all live in a society where collective resources are pooled in order to protect weaker individuals (well, in theory anyway although ir ealise that many of the weaker individuals are often all but ignored). If you are not happy with this, you have the choice of coming here to moan about "your money"(which is certainly not going to change anything as this campaign is already well on the road to success and has international backing), drop out of society, pay no more taxes, and become a subsistence farmer, or alternatively, launch a campaign of your own to prevent the creation of this facility. Otherwise, try to realise that we all benefit to some extent from the way our society works (you could end up unemployed tomorrow, for example, and I'm sure you wouldn't object to receiving benefits paid for by othe tax payers even though you aren't "their responsibility") and then attempt to make your peace with the fact that while you might not give a damn about the distress this situation with Meath dogs is causing, an awful lot of people do, and that it is their right to call for a solution, even if it does cost a few measly quid.

by Can't stand dogs Wed Jul 04, 2007 12:24

Catlady,

A wee bit of deconstruction might be in order.

You are harping on about YOUR misrepresentations of my postings. You attribute concern for "taxpayer's money" or "my money" to me and go on from there to paint me as heartless and uncaring. Look back and you will see that I never, not even once, referred to "my money" or "taxpayers money." At all times I was careful to use the phrase "public money" Why? Because in reality there is no such thing as "taxpayer's money" or "my money" when it comes to taxes that are lawfully due to be paid. The money then becomes "public money" rightfully owned by the collective citizenry and rightfully applied to such purposes as are determined by law. This, correctly, includes the protection of weaker members of society and I am morethan happy to pay my fair share of this cost. And indeed to benefit from it when necessary. Concern for "taxpayers money" is a position typically adopted by right-wingers in an appeal to naked greed and covers an agenda of tax cutting, reduction of public services and unwillingness to redistribute society's resources. I resent being pigeon holed into this category because I query the waste of public money on sibsidising pet ownership. Dog ownership is not a public good with the limited exception of eg guide dogs, perhaps. It imposes public costs in terms of wardens, pounds, spread of disease (eg toxicariosis), attacks and bites (think postmen, children etc.), barking noise. Now, IF dog owners are willing to pay the full economic cost of providing a pound/rescue service through a realistic license fee (and not a measly €12.70 a year) then, fine, let the state provide the service.

Otherwise don't ask the rest of our to pay for dog owners insistence on keeping THEIR pets. OK?

by headshot Wed Jul 04, 2007 17:29

Working dogs are not being well represented in this exchange of views I fear. & I'm aghast. We're a leftwing site. For the workers. Working dogs include more than the seeing eye / guide dogs. There are sniffer dogs for explosives, sniffer dogs for drugs Then there are sheepdogs doing their upmost in all weathers to ensure the safety of flocks. No-one who has had a modest flutter can quickly forget the pleasure of watching an athletic honed greyhound cross the finishing line for little more thanks than a slab of raw meat and guaranteed shags. Then there are guard-dogs which just growl and pin you to the floor with the massive jaws breaking through your flesh whilst you answer questions. Still - they won't eat you. You need a pig for that. Apparently the best thing to do is cut up a corpse into six pieces and pile it all together. And when you got your six pieces, you gotta get rid of them, because it's no good leaving it in the deep freeze for your mum to discover, now is it? Then I hear the best thing to do is feed them to pigs. You got to starve the pigs for a few days, then the sight of a chopped-up body will look like curry to a pisshead. You gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies' digestion. You could do this afterwards, of course, but you don't want to go sievin' through pig shit, now do you? They will go through bone like butter. You need at least sixteen pigs to finish the job in one sitting, so be wary of any man who keeps a pig farm. They will go through a body that weighs 200 pounds in about eight minutes. That means that a single pig can consume two pounds of uncooked flesh every minute. Hence the expression, "as greedy as a pig".

Perhaps we could rehabilitate the lost dogs and retrain them as sniffer dogs.

by Catlady Sat Jul 07, 2007 16:34

Public money/taxpayers money issue first... I really think you are spiltting hairs here - i never referred to you as being right-wing and the thought of pigeon holing you as such never even entered my head. However, I will refrain from referring to taxpayers money/your money from here on in as I have no wish to offend you, even accidentally.

That aside, you did say "This, correctly, includes the protection of weaker members of society and I am morethan happy to pay my fair share of this cost."

So where is the problem then???

You also say " Now, IF dog owners are willing to pay the full economic cost of providing a pound/rescue service through a realistic license fee (and not a measly €12.70 a year) then, fine, let the state provide the service."

First of all, it would be up to the state to increase the fee - if they feel this necessary in order to cover the costs of a pound for meath, then so be it - I would certainly have no problem with that. However, I do think that it would be better to actually enforce payment of the current fee. In addition, you have provided no evidence to suggest that "public money" is actually used to run pounds in the first place.

You also refer to "the waste of public money on sibsidising pet ownership."

I'm not sure what way you think this works, but I can assure you that I am in no way subsidised for any of my companions!

"Dog ownership ..... imposes public costs in terms of wardens, pounds, spread of disease..."

Eh, no wrong again. Keeping a dog imposes no public costs. No dog I have ever had has cost the public a penny. What generates these costs are those people who abuse, abandon, overbreed and generally fail to take proper care of their companions. I resent being pigeon-holed into such a category, particularly as I devote more time than I can afford to tyring to combat such behaviour.

"Otherwise don't ask the rest of our to pay for dog owners insistence on keeping THEIR pets. OK?"

I never did, OK? And neither does this campaign. You seem to have misunderstood the issue entirely.

by Salina Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:37 salina_covach at hotmail dot com

I can believe you think opening a pound in meath is a waste of taxpayers money.....

currently, dogs that get lost have practically no chance of being reclaimed by their owners (if they have in fact gone missing and not just been dumped) because there is no pound there for the owners to go to, to look for their dog.
The dogs are kept in a private ''sanctuary'' that keeps the dogs for 5 days, so unless the owners are phsychic, they won't know where to go to find their dogs. This ''sanctuary'' then hands them over to another pound to be killed. So basically, they have no chance of survival.

Not all owners are careless, and accidents do happen that are beyond the owners control that cause the dog to escape, maybe it dug under the fence or perhaps somebody left the gate open. every individual case is different.

You may hate dogs but most people like dogs and don't want to see them being killed unnecessarily. any decent person wouldn't like to see any animal being killed when there was a chance they could be saved if someone did something about it! (in this case, either the county council or the government)

by Michelle Clarke - Social Justice and Ethics Fri Aug 24, 2007 20:26

While walking in on the Canal today with my Jack Russell, I met another dog walker with his three dogs. He told me that his three dogs had been photographed by a photographer from Newstalk radio station.

There is a month allocated to encourage people to locate a family pet. Website is www.findadog.ie

Michelle Clarke

Quotation
Denis Diderot (1713-84), French philosopher
Order
'Watch out for the fellow who talks about things in order! Putting things in order always means getting other people under control'