ghost of miles Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Via the WFIU staff pets page (put up for our Pets Wednesday fund-drive day): Mabel, AKA Bun-Bun: Amelie: Jane and Lily: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stereojack Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 Horace (front) and Needles when they were 5 months old. They are 15 months now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted November 10, 2010 Report Share Posted November 10, 2010 One of my neighbors just came home with a rescue dog she adopted, found wandering the streets, about 5 months old. Small dog, kind of looks like one of those long-haired terrier breeds. Cute. It's in a good home now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted November 13, 2010 Report Share Posted November 13, 2010 Sorry to hear of your loss, Kevin. Always tough to lose one of these little creatures! Our cat: Our neighbours' cat, out in the staircase: The two of them, he doing some kind of submission tango: And ours again, out in the "wild": Sorry for the bad quality and for being too lazy to make the images smaller... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 My sweet dog Clancey has passed away. That's him in my avatar. If you remember, when I was divorced several years ago I left him with my ex since she had the big yard and nearby dog park. Leaving him behind was really hard for me. I have been back to KC a couple times to visit him, and he always gave me an enthusiastic greeting. I really hate that I couldn't be with him in his last days. At least he's resting now. If there is a heaven, I couldn't think of anything better than to be greeted by all our lost beloved animals in a big grassy field. Now that I would truly look forward to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 I'm really sorry to hear about that, Paul. Life can really throw punches sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 Sorry to hear about Clancey. Looks like a sweet dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 If there is a heaven, I couldn't think of anything better than to be greeted by all our lost beloved animals in a big grassy field. Now that I would truly look forward to. The Rainbow Bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free For All Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 (edited) If there is a heaven, I couldn't think of anything better than to be greeted by all our lost beloved animals in a big grassy field. Now that I would truly look forward to. The Rainbow Bridge. Thanks- there are a few books with that title that seem to be similar. Which one specifically are you referring to? Edited January 29, 2011 by Free For All Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted January 29, 2011 Report Share Posted January 29, 2011 If there is a heaven, I couldn't think of anything better than to be greeted by all our lost beloved animals in a big grassy field. Now that I would truly look forward to. The Rainbow Bridge. Thanks- there are a few books with that title that seem to be similar. Which one specifically are you referring to? Not referring to any particular book or writing, just a concept. Having pets is one of life's greatest pleasures. Losing them is one of life's great sorrows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man with the Golden Arm Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Aw man, I am so so sorry to hear this FFA. edit: (and Kevin, too ... I missed this thread since the fall) Edited January 30, 2011 by Man with the Golden Arm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 If there is a heaven, I couldn't think of anything better than to be greeted by all our lost beloved animals in a big grassy field. Now that I would truly look forward to. The Rainbow Bridge. Thanks- there are a few books with that title that seem to be similar. Which one specifically are you referring to? I assume it's a reference to the (I'm at a loss here...poem? soliloquy? I dunno), which you do NOT want to read after just losing a pet, unless you enjoy balling like a baby... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
king ubu Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Very sorry to hear that, Paul! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 Paul, I can only imagine what its like to leave a companion behind and not be there when his time comes. Its good to know your ex was there with him but I'm sure its extra hard finding out that he's gone to the big dog park in the sky. Try to remember those happy greetings and playful romps rather than the way it ended. I do like your version of heaven. If God truly loves us, its exactly how it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 There's a wonderful story running in newspapers today about the recovery of the dogs seized from Michael Vick a few years ago. Don't want to derail things here, but thought it might provide some cheer -- for Free For All in particular. Story here. And some video slide shows about the recovery process here. It truly seems to be a groundbreaking case. And the people involved in the rehabilitation of the dogs make a pretty convincing argument that this breed is the victim of a lot of misconceptions, and that recovery, even for the worst cases, is possible. Anyways, thought it might cheer FFA up a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Expat Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 I'm sorry to hear for you loss, Free For All. As both a pet parent and a Humane Society volunteer, I understand very well the genuine hurt you're feeling. The fact that you put Clancey's needs before your own shows how much you loved him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 There's a wonderful story running in newspapers today about the recovery of the dogs seized from Michael Vick a few years ago. Don't want to derail things here, but thought it might provide some cheer -- for Free For All in particular. Story here. Saw that piece in the Times and it was pretty cool to see how well so many of those dogs are doing. One thing really aggravated me though, and that was the unremarked hypocrisy of the people who insist that the dogs deserve a second chance but dismiss out of hand the idea that Vick should possibly be allowed to adopt a dog as part of his rehabilitation. Completely hypocritical - dogs deserve a second chance but their owner, who went to prison, served his time, can't be allowed a second chance as a pet owner. I respect those who have a different view of whether Vick should be allowed to play football, or if he got off easy (I surely wish he could have been sentenced to more jail time), but at the same time I have no doubt that Vick wants to prove he can be a responsible, loving dog owner. In fact, if he did adopt a pet, I would bet dollars to donuts that within six months there would a cover story about his dogs in People, or another profile on 60 Minutes. Maybe that's what the people who oppose Vick owning dogs again don't actually want - they don't want him showing he can be a loving dog owner, they'd rather use him in their clear good vs evil dog-fighting narrative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 ... One thing really aggravated me though, and that was the unremarked hypocrisy of the people who insist that the dogs deserve a second chance but dismiss out of hand the idea that Vick should possibly be allowed to adopt a dog as part of his rehabilitation. Completely hypocritical - dogs deserve a second chance but their owner, who went to prison, served his time, can't be allowed a second chance as a pet owner. I respect those who have a different view of whether Vick should be allowed to play football, or if he got off easy (I surely wish he could have been sentenced to more jail time), but at the same time I have no doubt that Vick wants to prove he can be a responsible, loving dog owner. In fact, if he did adopt a pet, I would bet dollars to donuts that within six months there would a cover story about his dogs in People, or another profile on 60 Minutes. Maybe that's what the people who oppose Vick owning dogs again don't actually want - they don't want him showing he can be a loving dog owner, they'd rather use him in their clear good vs evil dog-fighting narrative. I tend to agree, with some hesitation. You certainly wouldn't want him having a dog and then have that trigger some sort of behavior on his part that would endanger the dog. I just don't know enough about how the whole psychology of criminal behavior works. Or enough about Vick's own rehabilitation. It's a bad analogy, but you wouldn't put a "reformed" child molester around children again for the sake of the child molester's rehabilitation. ... Kind of like that. Criminal behavioralists (or whatever they're called) might have something useful to say about whether he's at a point where he should be allowed to own a dog. I know he talks to at-risk kids about his experience, but that's a court-ordered deal, I'm sure, and I find myself wishing he would do more on his own. Devote a chunk of his salary toward animal rescue groups, for example. He may already be doing that, just don't know. It's all these "don't know" parts that throw up caution flags. I guess in the end, if he really wants a dog, he should take the legal steps necessary to try and get that done. His positive actions in that regard would speak louder to me than anything he says about 'wanting' to own a dog. And they would speak louder than any protest by animal-lovers who just reflexively oppose him ever having a dog again. I'm just happy to see that the dogs he did criminally abuse have made great strides in their recovery, and that the whole story might help adjust everyone's attitudes about the breed, and about what can be done for abused animals. We shouldn't just assume -- as was initially the case with these dogs -- that they can't be helped and that the only solution is to put them down. Far from it, it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Expat Posted January 30, 2011 Report Share Posted January 30, 2011 (edited) Saw that piece in the Times and it was pretty cool to see how well so many of those dogs are doing. One thing really aggravated me though, and that was the unremarked hypocrisy of the people who insist that the dogs deserve a second chance but dismiss out of hand the idea that Vick should possibly be allowed to adopt a dog as part of his rehabilitation. Completely hypocritical - dogs deserve a second chance but their owner, who went to prison, served his time, can't be allowed a second chance as a pet owner. There's no hypocrisy. The surviving dogs served their time (in Vick's "prison"), they went through rehabilitation, and now they've got a second chance at life. Vick served his time, he went through rehabilitation, and now he's got a second chance at life. Not wanting him to play football or turn around his life would be hypocritical (and counterproductive); not wanting him to have a dog just seems prudent. Pet ownership shouldn't be about what's best for Vick, it should be what's best for the pet. All things being equal, putting a pet in the hands of someone involved with a dog fighting ring isn't in the best interest of the pet. Unfortunately, all things aren't equal and many dogs and cats don't have good homes and live awful lives, so a case could definitely be made that Vick's home, assuming he has experienced a sea change in his view of dogs and cats, would give them a better chance than being on the street or in a shelter. Maybe that's what the people who oppose Vick owning dogs again don't actually want - they don't want him showing he can be a loving dog owner, they'd rather use him in their clear good vs evil dog-fighting narrative. I assure you that there is no shortage of demons out there to posterize as part of a narrative, and most who are involved in the pet welfare community aren't looking to add to the already sizable shortage of good homes for needy pets. Vick may be special on the football field, but he's a dime a dozen in animal cruelty cases. If someone doesn't want Vick owning a pet, it's because they don't think it's a safe environment, and if someone in the animal welfare industry thinks that Vick's home would be a good one for a needy pet, they're not going to deny it to protect some "narrative". We've got too many of those than we know what to do with. What we have a shortage of is loving pet owners. If Vick is ready to become one, then I think that's awesome. Good for him and good for the pet. Edited January 30, 2011 by Chicago Expat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 One thing really aggravated me though, and that was the unremarked hypocrisy of the people who insist that the dogs deserve a second chance but dismiss out of hand the idea that Vick should possibly be allowed to adopt a dog as part of his rehabilitation. Completely hypocritical - dogs deserve a second chance but their owner, who went to prison, served his time, can't be allowed a second chance as a pet owner. That is completely absurd. To say that the dogs, which were abused, deserve a second chance is completely different from saying the abuser deserves a second chance. How is this hypocritical? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 One thing really aggravated me though, and that was the unremarked hypocrisy of the people who insist that the dogs deserve a second chance but dismiss out of hand the idea that Vick should possibly be allowed to adopt a dog as part of his rehabilitation. Completely hypocritical - dogs deserve a second chance but their owner, who went to prison, served his time, can't be allowed a second chance as a pet owner. That is completely absurd. To say that the dogs, which were abused, deserve a second chance is completely different from saying the abuser deserves a second chance. How is this hypocritical? I really have to do this? Really? Try this on for size then: The dogs are being give the chance to be loving canine companions rather than vicious, dangerous wild animals. Animal activists approve. Vick asked for the chance to be a loving human companion of a canine rather than raising them to be vicious, dangerous animals. Animal activists are terribly upset at the thought. I assure you that there is no shortage of demons out there to posterize as part of a narrative ... I am sure there are but exactly how many of them are world famous athletes like Michael Vick? I seem to recall some hip-hop guy got caught in this business but I would submit that Vick is the poster-child for the evil of dog-fighting and that further, animal activists need Vick to stand in for every one of those other anonymous demons. And the last thing they want to see is Vick scoring any sort of publicity coup by showing that he can be a good canine companion. See Mark, there is more hypocrisy: The animal activists plead for the chance to show that this breed can be loving and decent members of a human family. But under no circumstances should Vick be allowed to show that he can be a loving and decent "parent" to dogs, ever again. And I totally don't get this "he did it before, he'll do it again" idea when it comes to an athlete celebrity like Vick. Does anyone have any belief that dog-fighting proves some sort of psychological deficiency, like pedophilia? Its a crime about making money (via heartless treatment of animals). Does anyone believe Vick needs to abuse animals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Expat Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 I assure you that there is no shortage of demons out there to posterize as part of a narrative ... I am sure there are but exactly how many of them are world famous athletes like Michael Vick? I seem to recall some hip-hop guy got caught in this business but I would submit that Vick is the poster-child for the evil of dog-fighting and that further, animal activists need Vick to stand in for every one of those other anonymous demons. And the last thing they want to see is Vick scoring any sort of publicity coup by showing that he can be a good canine companion. See Mark, there is more hypocrisy: The animal activists plead for the chance to show that this breed can be loving and decent members of a human family. But under no circumstances should Vick be allowed to show that he can be a loving and decent "parent" to dogs, ever again. And I totally don't get this "he did it before, he'll do it again" idea when it comes to an athlete celebrity like Vick. Does anyone have any belief that dog-fighting proves some sort of psychological deficiency, like pedophilia? Its a crime about making money (via heartless treatment of animals). Does anyone believe Vick needs to abuse animals? I did some searching around, but I can't find any official statements by the "animal activists" you claim "need" Vick to stand in for anything. The worst thing I could find was the Best Friends group saying they didn't think Vick should be allowed to have a dog again, which is not an extreme response, especially by the people who are witnessing the fallout of Vick's enterprise on a daily basis. Yes, it's good to keep dogs away from people who have abused dogs in the past; this is not some aberrant response. Then there's these other comments you make about animal activists calling Vick's behavior pathological and calling them hypocrites. I know I didn't say or imply this, and you're making these statements directly beneath my quote. It reads like a whole lot of bad assumptions piled onto a lot of strawmen. And let me add, for those of us who have had to go in and deal with the fallout of animal abuse, it's a pretty easy leap to make to understand why we believe some people should not be allowed to own pets ever again. I don't know if Vick should be one of those people. Because unlike the strawmen you pile on up above, I think a redemption story about Vick changing his view on the value of a pet's life would be a good thing for the animal welfare society. It's a discouraging thing to try to explain to people that dogs and cats shouldn't be viewed as expendable as a pair of old sneakers just to see them get treated exactly that way. But maybe a front page story or two of a celebrity changing their views so that they do value the life of a pet, maybe that people would listen to. Vick as the "evil dog hater" provides no benefit to the pet welfare community. People are gonna look up to Vick no matter what because of his talent on the football field, and if while they're looking up to him they see him also as a pet abuser, well, there isn't gonna be anything good that comes out of it; they might view pet abuse as no big thing. However, if instead of a pet abuser, they see him as someone who values the life of pets, if they view him as someone who thinks that dogfighting and pet abuse is wrong, good grief, that's what we need people to be understanding and believing. Cause lemme tell ya, I don't care whether it's me or my co-volunteers or Vick who gets people to change their minds about pet welfare, I just want to see it done. I think that's something everyone on this thread can agree with. But the decision on whether Vick is able to adopt a pet (once his probation is over) will be in the hands of whichever local organization he goes through, and I have no doubt that they will do whatever they think is in the best interest of the pet. I have a hard time believing that a real advocate of pet welfare would do anything different. If they think Vick has made a change and would give a loving home to a dog, then he'll have his adoption approved. If they think he hasn't changed his views and this is all about publicity and the dog won't be in a safe environment, then the adoption application will get denied. Like I said, it should be as simple as what's in the best interest of the pet. And the daily job of humane society volunteers is hard enough that they're gonna deny a pet (one which they're taking care of every day under very tough circumstances) a good home. Also, who is Mark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Mark is Moose. Or rather, Jazzmoose is Mark. I think you'll find many members here, Dan among them, who are devoted animal lovers, including some who've been involved with volunteering, animal rescue and care for special needs animals. So you're not alone. Thank goodness! The linked article above includes quotes from at least two people, if I remember right, who oppose Vick owning a dog. It's pretty typical of these kinds of articles. Dan's point, I think, is that these kinds of stories invariably celebrate the dogs' successes while dismissing Vick's, and that the assumptions about whether or not Vick should have a dog are based more on an emotional response than they are an even-handed assessment of Vick's rehabilitation. Vick saying that he would like to have a dog in the future is a positive thing that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago Expat Posted January 31, 2011 Report Share Posted January 31, 2011 Vick saying that he would like to have a dog in the future is a positive thing that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted February 1, 2011 Report Share Posted February 1, 2011 One thing really aggravated me though, and that was the unremarked hypocrisy of the people who insist that the dogs deserve a second chance but dismiss out of hand the idea that Vick should possibly be allowed to adopt a dog as part of his rehabilitation. Completely hypocritical - dogs deserve a second chance but their owner, who went to prison, served his time, can't be allowed a second chance as a pet owner. That is completely absurd. To say that the dogs, which were abused, deserve a second chance is completely different from saying the abuser deserves a second chance. How is this hypocritical? I really have to do this? Really? Try this on for size then: The dogs are being give the chance to be loving canine companions rather than vicious, dangerous wild animals. Animal activists approve. Vick asked for the chance to be a loving human companion of a canine rather than raising them to be vicious, dangerous animals. Animal activists are terribly upset at the thought. I'm sorry, but I still seem to have trouble equating the victims to the perpetrator... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.