On 2013-12-25 8:12 PM, Kalmia wrote:

> At the shelter, you'd be surprised the number of pets we keep in
> homes because of food donated by other citizens. At first I wondered
> if freeloaders would flock to us, but the folks who come for the food
> ( and it sure ain't the top grade stuff either ) are def. needy. The
> cars they arrive in you wudn't give 50 bucks for. We keep a record
> of those who receive it, but have to fill out the cards - some can
> barely write.
>
>


As mentioned in another post, my wide helps with her church's food bank,
actually a food and hygiene bank. I help out once in a while. The people
helping out do more than just offer their services. They donate most of
the goods. I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
the responsibility of a pet.

One thing that seems to be common to most of the clientele is bad
decisions and warped priorities. A lot of them have money for
cigarettes. There are a lot of young single mothers with multiple
children, likely from multiple fathers. A lot of them have tattoos and
died hair. I remember one young guy who had a designer knapsack and a
smart phone.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:
snip
I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
>spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
>food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
>the responsibility of a pet.
>
snip
What follows is a rant:
"these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
life worth living?
I just don't get the attitude that people down on their luck should
demonstrate it in every way. You (a universal 'you') are against a
higher minimum wage, you object to social services, you want to take
away women's health care, you don't want to provide birth control
measures, you begrudge phones, dogs, cigarettes, and other little
treats. You would deny them the comfort of sex but force conception
and babies on them but will not support the children. How should they
live then? Covered with sores and flies and lying in a gutter in
tattered clothes.? The short term money pinching and moralizing leads
to people without jobs, with poor health, with unwanted babies.
Economically it makes more sense to address the problems up front
instead of hiring people to pick dead and diseased people from the
gutters and bury them in a potters field.
None of us are protected from disaster where starting over or
beginning again is insurmountable. You just think you are.
Janet US

On 12/26/2013 1:33 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> snip
> I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
>> spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
>> food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
>> the responsibility of a pet.
>>
> snip
> What follows is a rant:
> "these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
> The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
> dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
> life worth living?
> I just don't get the attitude that people down on their luck should
> demonstrate it in every way. You (a universal 'you') are against a
> higher minimum wage, you object to social services, you want to take
> away women's health care, you don't want to provide birth control
> measures, you begrudge phones, dogs, cigarettes, and other little
> treats. You would deny them the comfort of sex but force conception
> and babies on them but will not support the children. How should they
> live then? Covered with sores and flies and lying in a gutter in
> tattered clothes.? The short term money pinching and moralizing leads
> to people without jobs, with poor health, with unwanted babies.
> Economically it makes more sense to address the problems up front
> instead of hiring people to pick dead and diseased people from the
> gutters and bury them in a potters field.
> None of us are protected from disaster where starting over or
> beginning again is insurmountable. You just think you are.
> Janet US
>

Well said, Janet!

Bankers give themselves $91 billion in bonuses (on top of incredibly
high salaries)... and no one bats an eye. Meanwhile, the entire
food-stamp program costs $76 billion, and everyone and their mother is
all up in arms when a food stamp recipient buys a bag of potato chips or
a candy bar.

George L

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:33:55 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>snip
> I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
>>spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
>>food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
>>the responsibility of a pet.
>>
>snip
>What follows is a rant:
>"these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
>The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
>dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
>life worth living?
>I just don't get the attitude that people down on their luck should
>demonstrate it in every way. You (a universal 'you') are against a
>higher minimum wage, you object to social services, you want to take
>away women's health care, you don't want to provide birth control
>measures, you begrudge phones, dogs, cigarettes, and other little
>treats. You would deny them the comfort of sex but force conception
>and babies on them but will not support the children. How should they
>live then? Covered with sores and flies and lying in a gutter in
>tattered clothes.? The short term money pinching and moralizing leads
>to people without jobs, with poor health, with unwanted babies.
>Economically it makes more sense to address the problems up front
>instead of hiring people to pick dead and diseased people from the
>gutters and bury them in a potters field.
>None of us are protected from disaster where starting over or
>beginning again is insurmountable. You just think you are.
>Janet US


Brava.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> snip
> I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
> >spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
> >food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
> >the responsibility of a pet.
> >
> snip
> What follows is a rant:
> "these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
> The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
> dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
> life worth living?

For whom? Doesn't a dog deserve a better quality of life than hunger
and cold on a rope on the street? Pet shelters certainly think so, from
the questions when they vet prospective owners.

I've known many people who for no fault of their own, were no longer
able to provide the needs of their much loved pet companion, and they
were responsible enough and loved it enough to rehome it to someone who
could (some of them, with me).

Janet UK

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 20:48:06 -0000, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>> snip
>> I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
>> >spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
>> >food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
>> >the responsibility of a pet.
>> >
>> snip
>> What follows is a rant:
>> "these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
>> The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
>> dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
>> life worth living?
>
> For whom? Doesn't a dog deserve a better quality of life than hunger
>and cold on a rope on the street? Pet shelters certainly think so, from
>the questions when they vet prospective owners.
>
> I've known many people who for no fault of their own, were no longer
>able to provide the needs of their much loved pet companion, and they
>were responsible enough and loved it enough to rehome it to someone who
>could (some of them, with me).
>
> Janet UK
>
The pet shelter is an admirable venue. Not all animals make it to the
shelter. Not all animals make it out of the shelter alive.
Janet US

On 2013-12-26 2:33 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> snip
> I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
>> spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
>> food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
>> the responsibility of a pet.
>>
> snip
> What follows is a rant:
> "these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
> The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
> dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
> life worth living?

The dog would be better of in a home with people who can afford to feed
it. If the dog wasn't on a rope it would be able to go searching for
food or a better home.

> I just don't get the attitude that people down on their luck should
> demonstrate it in every way. You (a universal 'you') are against a
> higher minimum wage, you object to social services,

Good thing that is a universal you because I am not opposed to a higher
minimum wage.


> you want to take
> away women's health care, you don't want to provide birth control
> measures,

I did?

> you begrudge phones, dogs, cigarettes, and other little
> treats.

I specifically referred to smart phones. The data plans are expensive.
They can afford to walk around with expensive technology and the service
required to use them, but they can't afford food?

> You would deny them the comfort of sex but force conception
> and babies on them but will not support the children.

Not me. I would rather pay for birth control than to have to raise other
people's children.

> How should they
> live then? Covered with sores and flies and lying in a gutter in
> tattered clothes.? The short term money pinching and moralizing leads
> to people without jobs, with poor health, with unwanted babies.
> Economically it makes more sense to address the problems up front
> instead of hiring people to pick dead and diseased people from the
> gutters and bury them in a potters field.

No, of course not. They should be encouraged to have more kids, and day
care even though they aren't working or employable. They should all have
free smart phones and service. They need more welfare money to get more
tattoos. They should be paid more for doing nothing so they can do it
in style. And we will send the bill to you.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 13:57:24 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 20:48:06 -0000, Janet > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
says...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>> snip
>>> I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
>>> >spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
>>> >food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
>>> >the responsibility of a pet.
>>> >
>>> snip
>>> What follows is a rant:
>>> "these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
>>> The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
>>> dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
>>> life worth living?
>>
>> For whom? Doesn't a dog deserve a better quality of life than hunger
>>and cold on a rope on the street? Pet shelters certainly think so, from
>>the questions when they vet prospective owners.
>>
>> I've known many people who for no fault of their own, were no longer
>>able to provide the needs of their much loved pet companion, and they
>>were responsible enough and loved it enough to rehome it to someone who
>>could (some of them, with me).
>>
>> Janet UK
>>
>The pet shelter is an admirable venue. Not all animals make it to the
>shelter. Not all animals make it out of the shelter alive.
>Janet US

In the US:
http://www.americanhumane.org/animal...opulation.html
"Each year, approximately 8 million stray and unwanted animals are
taken in by shelters across the country. Tragically, about 3.7 million
-- nearly half -- of these animals must be euthanized because good
homes cannot be found for them. In fact, shelter euthanasia is the
leading cause of death for both dogs and cats in the United States."

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message

> http://www.americanhumane.org/animal...opulation.html
> "Each year, approximately 8 million stray and unwanted animals are
> taken in by shelters across the country. Tragically, about 3.7 million
> -- nearly half -- of these animals must be euthanized because good
> homes cannot be found for them. In fact, shelter euthanasia is the
> leading cause of death for both dogs and cats in the United States."

The idea that dogs are considered disposable in such huge numbers is truly
frightening I take on rescue dogs From the 'Dog's Trust' which never
puts a healthy dog down. Before they allow you to have them they are
chipped, neutered and healthy and they don't charge a penny. Each
potential new owner is visited and they and their home conditions assessed.
I understand that USA is hugely bigger than UK but that is a massive number
of dogs put down

I read of cruel dog owners here, and when they are caught the law deals
with them.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 2:59:32 PM UTC-6, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-12-26 2:33 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
>
>
> > you begrudge phones, dogs, cigarettes, and other little treats.
>
>
>
> I specifically referred to smart phones. The data plans are expensive.
>
> They can afford to walk around with expensive technology and the service
>
> required to use them, but they can't afford food?
>

Dave, don't you realize that if you don't support the right of folks on
public assistance to drive Ferraris that you must be a hardcore Tea Party
conservative meanie, and you must share all of their regressive values?

--B

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 2:57:24 PM UTC-6, Janet Bostwick wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 20:48:06 -0000, Janet > wrote:
>
>
>
> >In article >,
>
> says...
>
> >>
>
> >> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> snip
>
> >> I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
>
> >> >spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
>
> >> >food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
>
> >> >the responsibility of a pet.
>
> >> >
>
> >> snip
>
> >> What follows is a rant:
>
> >> "these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
>
> >> The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
>
> >> dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
>
> >> life worth living?
>
> >
>
> > For whom? Doesn't a dog deserve a better quality of life than hunger
>
> >and cold on a rope on the street? Pet shelters certainly think so, from
>
> >the questions when they vet prospective owners.
>
> >
>
> > I've known many people who for no fault of their own, were no longer
>
> >able to provide the needs of their much loved pet companion, and they
>
> >were responsible enough and loved it enough to rehome it to someone who
>
> >could (some of them, with me).
>
> >
>
> > Janet UK
>
> >
>
> The pet shelter is an admirable venue. Not all animals make it to the
>
> shelter. Not all animals make it out of the shelter alive.

And the ones that are euthanized are underutilized. If the weak-minded dog
lovers really need money for shelters and rescue operations, they should
get over their pathetic squeamishness and sell the carcasses for cash to
those who enjoy boshintang.

The money raised from selling dog and cat meat to Korea and China could help
the shelter euthanize fewer animals.

But, of course, instead of saving a few more animals, they prefer to delude
themselves with ideas about dignity, and infantile ideas like the ****ing
Rainbow Bridge.
>
> Janet US

--B

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:48:48 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:

If they can't afford to feed themselves they
>
> should not be getting pets. Nor should they be having children.

Dave: ever consider that ppl can fall on bad times AFTER they take on a pet? Or maybe they take on the pet of a deceased family member? Shit happens. It ain't all Cleavers.

On 2013-12-26 4:32 PM, Ophelia wrote:

>
> The idea that dogs are considered disposable in such huge numbers is
> truly frightening I take on rescue dogs From the 'Dog's Trust' which
> never puts a healthy dog down. Before they allow you to have them they
> are chipped, neutered and healthy and they don't charge a penny.

That is part of my beef with the local humane societies. They charge
almost as much for a mutt or a rejected pure bred as it costs for a pure
bred pup. People end up not adopting them because of the high fees.
Then they have to feed and house them and provide medical care for all
the unwanted dogs and cats.

On 2013-12-26 6:07 PM, George Leppla wrote:

>> No. I am thinking of the people who are already out of work and on
>> welfare of homeless and living on the street you get pets. It is just
>> one more bad life decision that they have made. The companion who counts
>> on them for love, shelter and food is going to end up hungry because the
>> poor person has no money to buy them food and has to depend on the
>> generosity of strangers. If they can't afford to feed themselves they
>> should not be getting pets. Nor should they be having children.
>
>
> Yes, let's sterilize the poor before we give them food stamps. No sense
> feeding more *******s than we already do.
>
> Unbelievable.
>
What is unbelievable is that you would suggest that I was suggesting
that the poor should be sterilized. I said they should not be getting
pets of having children if they cannot afford to look after that. There
is absolutely nothing in what I wrote that suggests that it should not
be a personal decision. I have no problem stating that I think that it
is irresponsible for a person to have children they cannot afford to
care for. I also think that it is irresponsible for them to go ahead and
have more kids and to expect others to support them.

On 2013-12-26 6:22 PM, Kalmia wrote:
> On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:48:48 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> If they can't afford to feed themselves they
>>
>> should not be getting pets. Nor should they be having children.
>
> Dave: ever consider that ppl can fall on bad times AFTER they take
> on a pet? Or maybe they take on the pet of a deceased family member?
> Shit happens. It ain't all Cleavers.
>

How naive are you Kalmia? Those homeless panhandlers with canine
props..... do you think they had those dogs (and tattoos) when their
careers soured?

On 2013-12-26 7:18 PM, John J wrote:

>> That is part of my beef with the local humane societies. They charge
>> almost as much for a mutt or a rejected pure bred as it costs for a pure
>> bred pup. People end up not adopting them because of the high fees.
>> Then they have to feed and house them and provide medical care for all
>> the unwanted dogs and cats.
>
> When you take a pet, you have to feed, house and look after it. That's
> nobody's fault, is it?

I meant that they humane society has to feed and house all the dogs and
cats that they can't find homes for because they adoption fees are so high.

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 7:28:00 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-12-26 6:22 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:48:48 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >
>
> > If they can't afford to feed themselves they
>
> >>
>
> >> should not be getting pets. Nor should they be having children.
>
> >
>
> > Dave: ever consider that ppl can fall on bad times AFTER they take
>
> > on a pet? Or maybe they take on the pet of a deceased family member?
>
> > Shit happens. It ain't all Cleavers.
>
> >
>
>
>
> How naive are you Kalmia? Those homeless panhandlers with canine
>
> props..... do you think they had those dogs (and tattoos) when their
>
> careers soured?

Do you paint all receivers of free pet food as homeless panhandlers? WRONG, guy. The vast majority of our clients are elderly couples who struggle to get by on soc sec., don't live in the best neighborhoods, maybe have a disabled kid at home.....

There is a vast number of citizens who fall between the Cleavers and the panhandling bunch. Why won't you at least entertain the thought that I could be somewhat closer to the reality of the situation?

Go work at a shelter for a few months and catch the drift of why such places exist.

Naive Me.

On 2013-12-26 7:35 PM, Kalmia wrote:

>>
>>>> should not be getting pets. Nor should they be having
>>>> children.
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Dave: ever consider that ppl can fall on bad times AFTER they
>>> take
>>
>>> on a pet? Or maybe they take on the pet of a deceased family
>>> member?
>>
>>> Shit happens. It ain't all Cleavers.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> How naive are you Kalmia? Those homeless panhandlers with canine
>>
>> props..... do you think they had those dogs (and tattoos) when
>> their
>>
>> careers soured?
>
> Do you paint all receivers of free pet food as homeless panhandlers?
> WRONG, guy. The vast majority of our clients are elderly couples who
> struggle to get by on soc sec., don't live in the best neighborhoods,
> maybe have a disabled kid at home.....

Excuse me, but I was replying to your comment about people falling on
hard times after they get the pet. Now you are talking about elderly
couples struggling to get by on social security???? They didn't know
they are on a tight pension and their dog is 70 years old too?

>
> There is a vast number of citizens who fall between the Cleavers and
> the panhandling bunch. Why won't you at least entertain the thought
> that I could be somewhat closer to the reality of the situation?
>
> Go work at a shelter for a few months and catch the drift of why such
> places exist.
>


I did mention that I sometimes help out with a food bank and that we
donate a lot of food and hygiene products. Yes, I see a lot of the
people who use them. They need help..... but I reserve the right to
question their priorities when I see the luxury items them can afford
when they (IMO) confuse their priorities..... things like smart phones
and tattoos.

Having trouble getting a job??? Sure... go out and spend hundreds of
dollars on tattoos up the side of your neck and on your face. Spend a
wad on that dozen earrings on each ear.... They are always considered to
be an employment asset.

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 7:49:49 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2013-12-26 7:35 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
>
> >>>> should not be getting pets. Nor should they be having
>
> >>>> children.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>> Dave: ever consider that ppl can fall on bad times AFTER they
>
> >>> take
>
> >>
>
> >>> on a pet? Or maybe they take on the pet of a deceased family
>
> >>> member?
>
> >>
>
> >>> Shit happens. It ain't all Cleavers.
>
> >>
>
> >>>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How naive are you Kalmia? Those homeless panhandlers with canine
>
> >>
>
> >> props..... do you think they had those dogs (and tattoos) when
>
> >> their
>
> >>
>
> >> careers soured?
>
> >
>
> > Do you paint all receivers of free pet food as homeless panhandlers?
>
> > WRONG, guy. The vast majority of our clients are elderly couples who
>
> > struggle to get by on soc sec., don't live in the best neighborhoods,
>
> > maybe have a disabled kid at home.....
>
>
>
> Excuse me, but I was replying to your comment about people falling on
>
> hard times after they get the pet. Now you are talking about elderly
>
> couples struggling to get by on social security???? They didn't know
>
> they are on a tight pension and their dog is 70 years old too?

Looks like you just won't concede that there could be valid reasons for ppl to seek free pet food.

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:53:39 -0800 (PST), Kalmia
> wrote:

> One guy brings in a 50 lb. bag of dog food every week. No county money is spent on this program - we are just a transfer depot. If we had to take in the animal, here come the expenses.
>
That is a very thoughtful donation!

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 12/26/2013 7:56 PM, Kalmia wrote:

>>
>> Excuse me, but I was replying to your comment about people falling
>> on
>>
>> hard times after they get the pet. Now you are talking about
>> elderly
>>
>> couples struggling to get by on social security???? They didn't
>> know
>>
>> they are on a tight pension and their dog is 70 years old too?
>
> Looks like you just won't concede that there could be valid reasons
> for ppl to seek free pet food.
>

No. I am saying that people who cannot afford to feed their animals
should not have pets. You invented the situation of people whose lives
go don hill after they already acquired their pets and then backed it up
with the case of elderly people who are living on meager social security.

Pets rely on their owners for food shelter and exercise. A happy animal
is one that is well fed and gets lots of exercise. If people cannot
provide the things that animals need they should not be keeping them
solely for their own amusement.

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2013-12-26 4:32 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>
> >
> > The idea that dogs are considered disposable in such huge numbers
> > is truly frightening I take on rescue dogs From the 'Dog's
> > Trust' which never puts a healthy dog down. Before they allow you
> > to have them they are chipped, neutered and healthy and they don't
> > charge a penny.
>
> That is part of my beef with the local humane societies. They charge
> almost as much for a mutt or a rejected pure bred as it costs for a
> pure bred pup. People end up not adopting them because of the high
> fees. Then they have to feed and house them and provide medical care
> for all the unwanted dogs and cats.

I adopt older medical issue dogs. Locally they have a seniors to
seniors program and he dogs are free. I instead donate about what the
cost would be (around 200$) and take the tax deduction.

Most recent adoptee: Iowna, akc registered pure bred beagle with many
blue ribbons as an agility dog. She went blind from Glaucoma when she
was 9. We adopted her just before she turned 11. Aunti Mabel before
her (RB now), a deaf beagle-sight hound mix with severe food allergies
(deaf due to ear infections related to the allergies). Aunti Mabel was
believed to be 18yo when we adopted her and she lived to be 20.5.

Here you pay a nominal fee of 7$ per dog every 2 years. Almost all the
shelters are no kill in the local area. Yes, SPCA and so on.

The costs here at the local no kill shelters cover the cost of
spaying/neutering and basic shots. The normal vet bill for that is
more than the fee for adoption.



--

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 12/26/2013 7:56 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Excuse me, but I was replying to your comment about people falling
> > > on
> > >
> > > hard times after they get the pet. Now you are talking about
> > > elderly
> > >
> > > couples struggling to get by on social security???? They didn't
> > > know
> > >
> > > they are on a tight pension and their dog is 70 years old too?
> >
> > Looks like you just won't concede that there could be valid reasons
> > for ppl to seek free pet food.
> >
>
> No. I am saying that people who cannot afford to feed their animals
> should not have pets. You invented the situation of people whose
> lives go don hill after they already acquired their pets and then
> backed it up with the case of elderly people who are living on meager
> social security.
>
> Pets rely on their owners for food shelter and exercise. A happy
> animal is one that is well fed and gets lots of exercise. If people
> cannot provide the things that animals need they should not be
> keeping them solely for their own amusement.

Try just once to rehome an older dog or cat. Also it's cruel to both
the owner and pet to not letthem have what time they have left together.

--

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:


I will only single out this line from amid this steaming heap of
horseshit.

>There are a lot of young single mothers with multiple
>children, likely from multiple fathers.

I find it amazing that you are able to mentally conduct paternity
tests by gazing upon a woman at a food bank.

Neat trick, asshat.

Boron

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:32:49 -0000, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
>"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>
>> http://www.americanhumane.org/animal...opulation.html
>> "Each year, approximately 8 million stray and unwanted animals are
>> taken in by shelters across the country. Tragically, about 3.7 million
>> -- nearly half -- of these animals must be euthanized because good
>> homes cannot be found for them. In fact, shelter euthanasia is the
>> leading cause of death for both dogs and cats in the United States."
>
>The idea that dogs are considered disposable in such huge numbers is truly
>frightening I take on rescue dogs From the 'Dog's Trust' which never
>puts a healthy dog down. Before they allow you to have them they are
>chipped, neutered and healthy and they don't charge a penny. Each
>potential new owner is visited and they and their home conditions assessed.
>I understand that USA is hugely bigger than UK but that is a massive number
>of dogs put down
>
> I read of cruel dog owners here, and when they are caught the law deals
>with them.


These euthanization numbers used to be 5 or 6 times higher in years
gone by. There are more no-kill shelters and much more active animal
rescue these days.

First dog I ever got as an adult was from a no-kill shelter in NYC -
Bide-a-Wee. Best $12 I ever spent.

Boron

On 12/26/2013 8:56 PM, cshenk wrote:

>> Pets rely on their owners for food shelter and exercise. A happy
>> animal is one that is well fed and gets lots of exercise. If people
>> cannot provide the things that animals need they should not be
>> keeping them solely for their own amusement.
>
> Try just once to rehome an older dog or cat. Also it's cruel to both
> the owner and pet to not letthem have what time they have left together.
>

I was not originally referring to people who have dogs and find
themselves in unfortunate circumstances. I was referring to those who
are already in bad shape and get a pet that they cannot afford. It is
IMO irresponsible.

On Thursday, December 26, 2013 8:03:30 PM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 14:53:39 -0800 (PST), Kalmia
>
> > wrote:
>
>
>
> > One guy brings in a 50 lb. bag of dog food every week. No county money is spent on this program - we are just a transfer depot. If we had to take in the animal, here come the expenses.
>
> >
>
> That is a very thoughtful donation!

Luckily, we have some younger, studly types who can heft the things into the stock room. : ))

On 12/26/2013 2:33 PM, Janet Bostwick wrote:

> What follows is a rant:
> "these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
> The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
> dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
> life worth living?
> I just don't get the attitude that people down on their luck should
> demonstrate it in every way.


I think some clarification is in order. "these people" fall into
different categories. There are some that, through no fault of their
own, are out of work and having a tough time. Some years ago I was out
of work for a time and it was tough. I don't mind lending a hand.

There are though, some people that prefer to work the system rather
than work a job. Yes, I can name names too. I know one of these people
and have offered work for a fair wage, but he does not show up. I
prefer not to give to such a person.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-12-25 8:12 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>
>> At the shelter, you'd be surprised the number of pets we keep in
>> homes because of food donated by other citizens. At first I wondered
>> if freeloaders would flock to us, but the folks who come for the food
>> ( and it sure ain't the top grade stuff either ) are def. needy. The
>> cars they arrive in you wudn't give 50 bucks for. We keep a record
>> of those who receive it, but have to fill out the cards - some can
>> barely write.
>>
>>
>
>
> As mentioned in another post, my wide helps with her church's food bank,
> actually a food and hygiene bank. I help out once in a while. The people
> helping out do more than just offer their services. They donate most of
> the goods. I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind spending
> money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet food. If
> those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on the
> responsibility of a pet.

I disagree with you there. What if they had the pet and lost their job?
Then what? There are enough homeless pets around.
>
> One thing that seems to be common to most of the clientele is bad
> decisions and warped priorities. A lot of them have money for cigarettes.
> There are a lot of young single mothers with multiple children, likely
> from multiple fathers. A lot of them have tattoos and died hair. I
> remember one young guy who had a designer knapsack and a smart phone.

Oh yes. Have seen the bad decisions many times.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-12-26 6:22 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>> On Thursday, December 26, 2013 3:48:48 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> If they can't afford to feed themselves they
>>>
>>> should not be getting pets. Nor should they be having children.
>>
>> Dave: ever consider that ppl can fall on bad times AFTER they take
>> on a pet? Or maybe they take on the pet of a deceased family member?
>> Shit happens. It ain't all Cleavers.
>>
>
> How naive are you Kalmia? Those homeless panhandlers with canine
> props..... do you think they had those dogs (and tattoos) when their
> careers soured?

Did it ever occur to you that the homeless dog found them? Note that I have
only ever once seen a panhandler with a dog. It was a couple. The woman
looked rather embarrassed and ticked off. I felt sorry for the dog and had
I had a can of dog food, I would have given it to her.

But... After seeing them in the same spot for two weeks in a row and him
holding up a sign that they were traveling and ran out of money, I wasn't
buying any of it.

The week after that there was a sign in that spot that said "No
panhandling".

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> Do you paint all receivers of free pet food as homeless panhandlers?
> WRONG, guy. The vast majority of our clients are elderly couples who
> struggle to get by on soc sec., don't live in the best neighborhoods,
> maybe have a disabled kid at home.....
>
> There is a vast number of citizens who fall between the Cleavers and the
> panhandling bunch. Why won't you at least entertain the thought that I
> could be somewhat closer to the reality of the situation?
>
> Go work at a shelter for a few months and catch the drift of why such
> places exist.
>
> Naive Me.

Most of the pet food donations here are for seniors. They may not even be
low income but can't get out to get it. There is also a place near here
that takes up donations for pets who need expensive operations to save their
lives. I help them when I can. They used to have a little store and did
monthly tag sales in a big building. But they couldn't afford all that
overhead so now just do the tag sales in a garage of a house. We don't
often need the things we are selling but we will go by there when we can and
try to buy a few things or just give them a few dollars.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Excuse me, but I was replying to your comment about people falling on hard
> times after they get the pet. Now you are talking about elderly couples
> struggling to get by on social security???? They didn't know they are on
> a tight pension and their dog is 70 years old too?
>

I'll tell you what they probably didn't know since this is the life of my
parents now! And we as a family didn't have to go through this with my
grandparents because they lived in KS. Relatives who lived closer had to
deal with it.

And I had just written out a huge long reply but wiped it out as I know I
would get grief from it plus do not want to give too many particulars.

But... Unless you have personally had to put someone into a nursing home or
assisted living recently, you likely don't know how much it costs. And
things might be different where you live. Also here, if you have a certain
kind of insurance, and were in the hospital then need to go into a rehab
place for say...a month or two...and by rehab I mean the type of care and
physical therapy you might need following some broken bones or a
stroke...your insurance won't pay! That rehab place was more for one week
than what most elderly people ever made in a month, even when they were
working!

Imagine paying about $200 a month for a house payment on a big house, having
it paid off for years, then finding out as I heard on TV the other night
that the averge cost of a nursing home here is $15,000 a month! Imagine
having to go into a nursing home yourself or having to put your wife into
one. Then learning that because of the way the insurance is here (again I'm
sure it is different there) that you can not even sell your house to raise
money until you or your wife have been in the nursing home for 2 full years.

That's reality bub!

When we bought this house I insisted on a place with no stairs. I knew that
would be one less worry. But I didn't know about a type of insurance for
long term care (again probably doesn't apply to your country). And that is
something that seniors should have. But not likely something they could
afford. And even at my age (54) I can not afford it.

I have no clue what will happen to me when I am a senior. Senility runs in
my family. I am already disabled and have health problems. It's no picnic!
>>
>> There is a vast number of citizens who fall between the Cleavers and
>> the panhandling bunch. Why won't you at least entertain the thought
>> that I could be somewhat closer to the reality of the situation?
>>
>> Go work at a shelter for a few months and catch the drift of why such
>> places exist.
>>
>
>
> I did mention that I sometimes help out with a food bank and that we
> donate a lot of food and hygiene products. Yes, I see a lot of the people
> who use them. They need help..... but I reserve the right to question
> their priorities when I see the luxury items them can afford when they
> (IMO) confuse their priorities..... things like smart phones and tattoos.

Do you really have the right to question that? Sure I know people make bad
choices and many make them again and again and again. We've all seen it.
It is what it is. See it too many times and you are well within your rights
as a private citizen to not assist some other private citizen (even a
relative) that you are having problems with. But work at a food bank? Not
sure you really have the right to pick and choose who gets what. I'm sure
there are some somewhere who might get away with not giving to someone who
is clearly abusing alchohol or drugs and perhaps they may even be able to
test such people. I don't know there. Just surmising. But I could see
that happening. Here, people who have had trouble with the law can not get
help from the state. That in and of itself creates homeless people. It's a
viscious cycle and not one we are likely to solve, ever. Not for anyone
anyway.

As for tattoos, they can get done at home with some cheap India ink or other
things that are cheap. I won't give particulars but I have seen those
prison shows and they talk of what they do in there! I don't happen to like
tattoos and would never get one but... They also don't have to be
expensive! So just because someone has one or more doesn't really mean
anything to me.

> Having trouble getting a job??? Sure... go out and spend hundreds of
> dollars on tattoos up the side of your neck and on your face. Spend a wad
> on that dozen earrings on each ear.... They are always considered to be an
> employment asset.

As I said, they don't have to be costly at all. Neither do earrings. And
you can pierce your own for free, assuming you have the tools which you
likely do. Again not giving particulars but yes, I do know how to do it.
Earrings don't have to be expensive either. I own quite a few pairs and due
to my propensity for losing them, I refuse to wear any that cost over $25
per pair and I have only ever had a few that were that much. I am far more
likely to wear the $3-5 ones. People get earrings as gifts. They also
steal them. Stealing them is pretty easy. And no, I never did that but I
did work in a store.

People do make stupid decisions. And for me, getting odd piercings and
tattoos would be something that I would think that would fall in that
category. And yet? Living here in the Seattle area and even in CA, I was
and still am surrounded by people who have such things. They work in all
manner of things, even teachers and medical professionals. Things like that
are just dead common and so is the hair "die" that you mentioned. I also
know quite a few ways to dye your hair at home using things you might
already have. Beet juice, coffee, tea, chamomile tea, Kool Aid... Or you
could spend $1 and get something from Dollar Tree. Dye doesn't have to be
expensive. I dye my own hair and for a great many years, I could make one
box of hair dye last at least a year. I used a little bowl and a paintbrush
to mix up about a teaspoon at a time and go after all the grays. I could
still do that now but I have better things to do with my time and can easily
afford hair dye. I buy mine on sale and with coupons.

Oh and there is also such a thing as a hair model. I do know people who
have done this. Beauty school use them. They use them for their students
to work on. Volunteer for this and you will get a free or at least vastly
reduced hair cut and/or color. You may not always get exactly what would
prefer but you won't have to pay for it. Or you might have a friend or
relative who does hair for a living and is willing to do yours for free. I
don't know about Canada but in this country, anyone can walk into a beauty
supply shop and buy salon quality hair color with no license. With license
and you don't pay tax on it plus in some cases you'll get a cheaper price.
Hair color in and of itself isn't expensive. It's all the time it takes to
apply it, especially if you want ombre, highlights, lowlights, bialage or
any of those types of techniques. So if your friend or relative is able,
they might well do this for ya for free! Alas, I am not lucky enough to
know any such people. I am pretty good with hair color and perms (not that
I do perms any more) but never was any good at cutting hair.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/26/2013 7:56 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but I was replying to your comment about people falling
>>> on
>>>
>>> hard times after they get the pet. Now you are talking about
>>> elderly
>>>
>>> couples struggling to get by on social security???? They didn't
>>> know
>>>
>>> they are on a tight pension and their dog is 70 years old too?
>>
>> Looks like you just won't concede that there could be valid reasons
>> for ppl to seek free pet food.
>>
>
> No. I am saying that people who cannot afford to feed their animals
> should not have pets. You invented the situation of people whose lives go
> don hill after they already acquired their pets and then backed it up with
> the case of elderly people who are living on meager social security.
>
> Pets rely on their owners for food shelter and exercise. A happy animal is
> one that is well fed and gets lots of exercise. If people cannot provide
> the things that animals need they should not be keeping them solely for
> their own amusement.

Sounds like you're not a pet owner, Dave! You could put a cat in a big cage
with a lot of food and a wheel to walk on. Do you think that cat is happy?
Ever put a cat in a cage, Dave? Try it. Then try to pick up that cat about
a week later. See how bloody your arms will be. Perhaps even your face.
The cat won't like it.

To me that would be akin to putting your wife in a cage with a bunch food.
Even gourmet food. Oh and put a treadmill in there too. So she can
exercise. Ha! I am picturing that now. Even though I have no clue what
your wife actually looks like.

Pets are family members. Most people would no more give one away than they
would their own son or daughter.

Sure, some people think of pets as disposable little play things. Some
people think of their kids like that too. Doesn't make it right.

Many, perhaps even most pet owners would sooner go without food themselves
than to let their pet go without a meal.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...

> Try just once to rehome an older dog or cat. Also it's cruel to both
> the owner and pet to not letthem have what time they have left together.

Yes it is. Sometimes that pet is all they have left.

When we had the nasty raccoon incident this past summer, daughter and I
spent over a week outside looking for our two cats. We eventually got mom
back and gave up her daughter for dead. Nobody ever found the body so we'll
never know for sure. But I could tell from the look on Jazzy's face and the
way she was acting that she was not going to come home without her daughter.
When we adopted them, it was with the stipulation that they would not be
separated. She had other kittens but was just really attached to this one
and would not stop crying when Bali was taken to be spayed. She only
stopped when she was brought back.

I think it is also fair to say that we did everything in our power to get
those cats back including hiring the pet detective and pet psychic plus all
of the other ordinary things one would do. And when we did finally catch
Jazzy in the trap, dehydrated, skinny and injured, we were all very happy.

She knew we had food and water in here and a nice soft bed. But she wasn't
going to give up on her daughter. Until... Well, I can only figure that she
did see the body or just knew in some way that she was gone.

But we didn't want Jazzy to be depressed so we got her another kitten as
soon as she was healed. And I think it was the best thing we could have
done. She helped us raise her and took her in as if she were her own. We
are all a family now. And we wouldn't want to lose either one of them!

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...

> I was not originally referring to people who have dogs and find themselves
> in unfortunate circumstances. I was referring to those who are already in
> bad shape and get a pet that they cannot afford. It is IMO irresponsible.

Who does that? If you adopt a pet here, you have to prove that you can care
for it. They don't let just anyone adopt. Now if they are using other
means to get one? Dunno. But I can see as I said... Homeless man hooking
up with homeless dog. Or cat. That makes sense. And no harm in that since
the pet was already homeless. At least now they have someone to love!

"Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 12:07:54 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> snip
> I don't mind helping once in a while and I don't mind
>>spending money to buy things to be given out, but I draw the line at pet
>>food. If those people can't feed themselves they should not be taking on
>>the responsibility of a pet.
>>
> snip
> What follows is a rant:
> "these people?" What a nice, all-inclusive term of scorn.
> The homeless person and the dog on a rope are friends well met. The
> dog was homeless too. You would deny them both companionship to make
> life worth living?
> I just don't get the attitude that people down on their luck should
> demonstrate it in every way. You (a universal 'you') are against a
> higher minimum wage, you object to social services, you want to take
> away women's health care, you don't want to provide birth control
> measures, you begrudge phones, dogs, cigarettes, and other little
> treats. You would deny them the comfort of sex but force conception
> and babies on them but will not support the children. How should they
> live then? Covered with sores and flies and lying in a gutter in
> tattered clothes.? The short term money pinching and moralizing leads
> to people without jobs, with poor health, with unwanted babies.
> Economically it makes more sense to address the problems up front
> instead of hiring people to pick dead and diseased people from the
> gutters and bury them in a potters field.
> None of us are protected from disaster where starting over or
> beginning again is insurmountable. You just think you are.
> Janet US

Sadly there are some people who think that people who are poor, homeless,
stupid, etc., don't deserve anything.

"George Leppla" > wrote in message
...
> Well said, Janet!
>
> Bankers give themselves $91 billion in bonuses (on top of incredibly high
> salaries)... and no one bats an eye. Meanwhile, the entire food-stamp
> program costs $76 billion, and everyone and their mother is all up in arms
> when a food stamp recipient buys a bag of potato chips or a candy bar.

Agree. I remember the scene from a movie where a homeless mom bought a
candy bar for her daughter's birthday. It was all she could afford.

I also hate it when people assume. My friend went into pre-eclampsia when
she went into the hospital to give birth to her third child. She did
divorce that husband. He turned out to be an alcoholic and by that point
they were rather poor due to his doings. Anyway... The Dr. made a comment
to her, "Must be all those potato chips you've been eating!" She said that
she wanted to slap him. Said she would have loved to have been able to buy
some potato chips. And she doesn't even *like* potato chips. She just said
having the option to have bought some non-essential food would have been
great! She said they did always have food in those days but it often wasn't
quite enough food as they were just barely squeaking by.

I do know how people judge though. I am on disability and I have had people
make horrid comments to me. They seem to think that I should only be
spending my money on absolutely essential items and I shouldn't be allowed
to buy someone a gift. No matter that I also have a husband who is working.

And he too is collecting disability on top of his retirement and the income
he has from his job. And they make comments about that too. How he should
leave that job for someone who has no income at all.

They also make comments about people I know who are working 2 or 3 jobs to
make ends meet. They think if a person has a job they don't have a right to
another one too.

And when I was working, I was single and had no kids. People I worked with
actually told me that I had no right to that job and I should leave it for a
parent with kids! Seems I can't win no matter what I do.

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...

> For whom? Doesn't a dog deserve a better quality of life than hunger
> and cold on a rope on the street? Pet shelters certainly think so, from
> the questions when they vet prospective owners.

That's not what they think here in our overcrowded shelters! They take a
dim view of people who turn in their pets when they can no longer afford
them or have to move or someone is allergic or any of the other reasons they
give.

As for a person who is homeless, chances are they hooked up with a homeless
pet too. And chances are at many of the overcrowded shelters in *this*
country, those pets will be euthanized shortly after they go in there.

Of course I am not saying that any pet should be homeless any more than any
person should be homeless, but things do happen!
>
> I've known many people who for no fault of their own, were no longer
> able to provide the needs of their much loved pet companion, and they
> were responsible enough and loved it enough to rehome it to someone who
> could (some of them, with me).

Then they got lucky if they could do that. But I'd be willing to bet that
most people aren't going to find someone to do that.

"Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
...

> In the US:
> http://www.americanhumane.org/animal...opulation.html
> "Each year, approximately 8 million stray and unwanted animals are
> taken in by shelters across the country. Tragically, about 3.7 million
> -- nearly half -- of these animals must be euthanized because good
> homes cannot be found for them. In fact, shelter euthanasia is the
> leading cause of death for both dogs and cats in the United States."

That is very sadly true. And because we took in one feral cat and tamed
her, we've since been asked to take in some more. Not necessarily to keep
but to foster. Although we would love to do that, I think it wouldn't be
fair to Jazzy to bring kittens in and give them away. Plus feasibly, we
haven't the time to do it. It was different this past summer when we were
mostly at home. But we have too many other things going on. Plus there
would be expenses, I would assume. We can afford two cats. We can't afford
more and our house isn't big enough.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
>
>> http://www.americanhumane.org/animal...opulation.html
>> "Each year, approximately 8 million stray and unwanted animals are
>> taken in by shelters across the country. Tragically, about 3.7 million
>> -- nearly half -- of these animals must be euthanized because good
>> homes cannot be found for them. In fact, shelter euthanasia is the
>> leading cause of death for both dogs and cats in the United States."
>
> The idea that dogs are considered disposable in such huge numbers is
> truly frightening I take on rescue dogs From the 'Dog's Trust' which
> never puts a healthy dog down. Before they allow you to have them they
> are chipped, neutered and healthy and they don't charge a penny. Each
> potential new owner is visited and they and their home conditions
> assessed. I understand that USA is hugely bigger than UK but that is a
> massive number of dogs put down
>
> I read of cruel dog owners here, and when they are caught the law deals
> with them.

There is a show on here or it used to be called Animal Cops. One year when
Angela was in summer dance camps I came home and watched it in marathon
form. Case after case of mostly animal abuse. In some cases it was an
animal that was hit by a car or fell in a well or some such thing but mostly
abuse by owners or by well meaning animal hoarders who could not see that
they were really abusing the animals. Watching it sickened me and yet I
couldn't bring myself to stop watching it.

Then there are the hideous commercials. They show sick, tortured and dying
animals looking up at you with sad eyes. The voice tells you, "Every day in
this county, an animal is abused..." Or something like that. They want
your money to help them.

Then there are the countless videos that your friends and relatives post on
Facebook showing some animal being abused.

And in this neighborhood we have some sicko doing things to animals! They
fed our neighbor's dog a piece of bread with sewing needles in it.
Thankfully the dog didn't hurt but he did have to go to the vet to have the
needles removed from his mouth and make sure there were none swallowed or
other damage. Not long after that, someone let the same dog out. It was
probably the same person.

When I was a kid, someone went to my friend's house and poisoned her
chickens. On the same street, dog was tarred and feathered. There are
some really sick people out there.