PDSA as bad as RSPCA!

[fishfish 17]

At the end of the day the PDSA exist and sell themselves as a service to treat animals when the owners really cannot foot the bill, so you can't really knock folk for seeing them as an acceptable option to rely on.

 

 

exactly my point,thanks.

[BULLDOUG 199]

This is my last post on this thread.

 

I hope you all stay safe and your dogs stay safer.

 

Enjoy your dogs look after them and try and help others if and when you can.

 

Karma

 

D

[R. Docks 154]

If you can't afford to keep a dog, then you shouldn't have one. It's different if you already have a dog and find yourself on hard times, but in the same way as I believe that people who rely on state benefits shouldn't breed children, people who are on benefits shouldn't be getting pets either.

 

Life is hard for all of us sometimes, and there are systems out there to help; but that doesn't mean that everyone has a right to use them.

[Qbgrey 4,080]

If you can't afford to keep a dog, then you shouldn't have one. It's different if you already have a dog and find yourself on hard times, but in the same way as I believe that people who rely on state benefits shouldn't breed children, people who are on benefits shouldn't be getting pets either.

 

Life is hard for all of us sometimes, and there are systems out there to help; but that doesn't mean that everyone has a right to use them.

good post that,if you make a choice on getting a dog you should be able to care for it,same with kids thats the reason this country on its knees to many people holding thier hand out when they are fit and able of gettin a job.vets are a business they will keep you hanging on for treatment and observation overnight etc to take more dollar,and after a week and 1000s of pounds they will tell you the dog needs pts.

[staffs riffraff 1,068]

I hate to be the one that throws a negative comment in here ..... BUT ....... i fail to see why people RELY on the PDSA. Yes vets bills are expensive, but IMO the moment you decide to get a dog, you also decide to take on the responsibility, including the financial outlay.

 

If MY dogs are in need of vet assistance, i take them and I foot the bill for MY dogs.

 

 

I don't mean to be a dick, but i'm guessing you are taking that view because you CAN pay for any problems your dog has. I know where you are coming from, but for many people, the ridiculous profiteering of the veterinary profession means that if they did not RELY on the PDSA, then they would forever be barred from having a dog or accept the fact that they cannot give it the treatment they require. Working dogs are part of a working class culture, but these days if you didnt have the PDSA, properly cared for dogs would become for the rich only.

 

 

That's just a thought, and i'm not saying the system isnt abused to f**k, and i know you can get insurance, but even that still has an excess on it and may be prohibitive for some folk.

 

 

As do i see your point to some extent, however i still believe that if you own a dog you are responsible for its welfare. Because i "can"?? i can because i work extremely hard, i can because i pay insurance every month, i can because i have a moral view that i would never expect anyone to pick up my dogs vet bill. Even if my business folded tomorrow and i was destitute, i would still borrow the money or as strong stuff pointed out, i'd sell something to pay the bill. Thats just me, its how i was brought up.

 

A charity like the PDSA as you have pointed out is there for those that really need it, the point i was making in my first post was, even if this guy really needed it, he shouldn't have that as his only option to "rely" on them for the dogs welfare. Its the expectation that someone else will foot the bill that i disagree with.

 

So the PDSA is there to help people that 'REALLY NEED IT', i.e they have absolutely no way of funding the dogs medical care. But then your saying that they should not 'rely' on it as their only option. In many cases it IS their only option. Not everyone has a way to raise a couple of grand, or can fork out insurance payments, excess etc. SHould these folk be banned from keeping dogs? If they fall on such hard times should they have their dogs seized? pts?

 

Its very easy to have that moral view, if you have never been in such a position. If you found yourself destitute, but your dogs were healthy, would you get rid, just in case you ended up with a high vet bill at some future point?

 

Its all very well saying 'thats how i was brought up' - to borrow the money, or sell something if you were destitute. But if you had money to borrow, things to sell, you are not really destitute. The plain truth is, many folk dont have anything to sell, and dont know anyone who is any better off than themselves.

 

At the end of the day the PDSA exist and sell themselves as a service to treat animals when the owners really cannot foot the bill, so you can't really knock folk for seeing them as an acceptable option to rely on.

 

I think its also a bit different if your dogs are pets you do a bit with, and if your dog really is something that you use to help you and your family survive.

 

 

some people wont listen mate like we have said would you get rid of dog or keep it and hope for best and try your hardest to get out of the situation you are in/no one seems to answer that question

 

 

 

Answer what question exactly??? If i was the very lowest i could get financially would i keep my dogs?? In that situation my friends would already of stepped in and offered to take the dogs till things improved for me.

right so what if your friends couldnt afford to look after them either and they had an accident when you was in that position? so your answer to the question of(severe financial hardship nothing to sell or no one to borrow off no one to look after the dogs for you) thenyouwould palm the dog off ?

you say you would askthe vet to come to an arrangement you say what if he said no all or nothing then what?

and as the O.P said they sell themselves to be helping people out that are in need at that specific time and get donations and such on that basis so why shouldnt people use it if needs must however i agree that it shouldnt be used as a free vets and used as the only cover for someones dog but in an emergency i dont see what the problem is

[Bulldogman 55]

What i find difficult to understand is why so many so called dogmen need to be at the vets so much, wormers ect are available over the counter now and most dogmen can can deal with usual cuts and things. Ok missing eye is something different but feeding any dogs together is a receipe for a fight?if the dogs not insured is the car?

 

I have full insurance for my dog, a great relationship with a vet i trust and even when out of work have managed to pay my premium to ensure he is covered.

 

As for having kids and affording them, she gets two lots of child benefit that i dont even see, i will happily forego this if the government give me the massive amounts of tax back, that i am forced to pay every month. Also they can abolish stamp duty, council tax, vat and everything else then i will happily pay for what i use!!

Edited March 19, 2011 by Bulldogman

[leegreen 2,151]

Sorry if I've missed anything but why was there 2 dogs working or other wise in the kennels/run what ever, unsupervised with bones? recipe or disaster. Hope your dog gets better but it's now only got one eye, is it a running dog?

Edited March 19, 2011 by leegreen

[Hannah4181 260]

I hate to be the one that throws a negative comment in here ..... BUT ....... i fail to see why people RELY on the PDSA. Yes vets bills are expensive, but IMO the moment you decide to get a dog, you also decide to take on the responsibility, including the financial outlay.

 

If MY dogs are in need of vet assistance, i take them and I foot the bill for MY dogs.

 

 

I don't mean to be a dick, but i'm guessing you are taking that view because you CAN pay for any problems your dog has. I know where you are coming from, but for many people, the ridiculous profiteering of the veterinary profession means that if they did not RELY on the PDSA, then they would forever be barred from having a dog or accept the fact that they cannot give it the treatment they require. Working dogs are part of a working class culture, but these days if you didnt have the PDSA, properly cared for dogs would become for the rich only.

 

 

That's just a thought, and i'm not saying the system isnt abused to f**k, and i know you can get insurance, but even that still has an excess on it and may be prohibitive for some folk.

 

 

As do i see your point to some extent, however i still believe that if you own a dog you are responsible for its welfare. Because i "can"?? i can because i work extremely hard, i can because i pay insurance every month, i can because i have a moral view that i would never expect anyone to pick up my dogs vet bill. Even if my business folded tomorrow and i was destitute, i would still borrow the money or as strong stuff pointed out, i'd sell something to pay the bill. Thats just me, its how i was brought up.

 

A charity like the PDSA as you have pointed out is there for those that really need it, the point i was making in my first post was, even if this guy really needed it, he shouldn't have that as his only option to "rely" on them for the dogs welfare. Its the expectation that someone else will foot the bill that i disagree with.

 

So the PDSA is there to help people that 'REALLY NEED IT', i.e they have absolutely no way of funding the dogs medical care. But then your saying that they should not 'rely' on it as their only option. In many cases it IS their only option. Not everyone has a way to raise a couple of grand, or can fork out insurance payments, excess etc. SHould these folk be banned from keeping dogs? If they fall on such hard times should they have their dogs seized? pts?

 

Its very easy to have that moral view, if you have never been in such a position. If you found yourself destitute, but your dogs were healthy, would you get rid, just in case you ended up with a high vet bill at some future point?

 

Its all very well saying 'thats how i was brought up' - to borrow the money, or sell something if you were destitute. But if you had money to borrow, things to sell, you are not really destitute. The plain truth is, many folk dont have anything to sell, and dont know anyone who is any better off than themselves.

 

At the end of the day the PDSA exist and sell themselves as a service to treat animals when the owners really cannot foot the bill, so you can't really knock folk for seeing them as an acceptable option to rely on.

 

I think its also a bit different if your dogs are pets you do a bit with, and if your dog really is something that you use to help you and your family survive.

 

 

some people wont listen mate like we have said would you get rid of dog or keep it and hope for best and try your hardest to get out of the situation you are in/no one seems to answer that question

 

 

 

Answer what question exactly??? If i was the very lowest i could get financially would i keep my dogs?? In that situation my friends would already of stepped in and offered to take the dogs till things improved for me.

right so what if your friends couldnt afford to look after them either and they had an accident when you was in that position? so your answer to the question of(severe financial hardship nothing to sell or no one to borrow off no one to look after the dogs for you) thenyouwould palm the dog off ?

you say you would askthe vet to come to an arrangement you say what if he said no all or nothing then what?

and as the O.P said they sell themselves to be helping people out that are in need at that specific time and get donations and such on that basis so why shouldnt people use it if needs must however i agree that it shouldnt be used as a free vets and used as the only cover for someones dog but in an emergency i dont see what the problem is

 

 

Your being ridiculous now!! What if, what if what if?!?! FFS! You don't agree with my opinion, so what, deal with it, stop trying to make up ridiculous scenarios that you think will make me change my opinion! The world is full of people you disagree with.

 

If all of the above was to happen, i'd be so bloody depressed i'd probably shoot myself to end the misery of my life !

[poacher3161 1,766]

The PDSA are a big help to the thousands of pensioners who rely on them [bANNED TEXT] their pets get ill going on some of the comments mayby people of a certain age shouldent be allowed to keep pets.

[BULLDOUG 199]

The PDSA are a big help to the thousands of pensioners who rely on them [bANNED TEXT] their pets get ill going on some of the comments mayby people of a certain age shouldent be allowed to keep pets.

 

I ve said for years that a dog licence should be brought back and in order to obtain one we should all have to pass a Basic training and husbandry test, its not rocket science to obtain a K9 good citesenship etc... this way we would have a governing body making sure standards were met, how many people would own a dog then?? the lazy teen or dosser would be put off or educated.

[lamping lurchers 34]

ANOTHER 6 PAGES OF SHITE, if you cant afford the bills or insurance then dont get a f*****g dog

[Blooded 62]

anyone unemployed or claiming benefits should by law not be allowed a dog.and i no snob brought up in atrailer and worked my arse off.

 

I work part time so can i have 1 dog :laugh:

 

 

You can have 1/2 of a dog

[leegreen 2,151]

but feeding any dogs together is a receipe for a fight?

 

I stand while my dogs eat (4 of them all workers) always have done always will do. If something so much as even looks like strife, nip it in the bud. Food its the ruin of harmony.

[iworkwhippets 12,510]

but feeding any dogs together is a receipe for a fight?

 

I stand while my dogs eat (4 of them all workers) always have done always will do. If something so much as even looks like strife, nip it in the bud. Food its the ruin of harmony.

 

Quite right, 3 doggies here, one of em my edest bitch the jumped up never come down sniveling little tic, likes to wallop the lot, and in the begining the lip used to come up, not any more, ive towd her any more of it and shes thro the door, and it works, eh, hey im not daft

[staffs riffraff 1,068]

I hate to be the one that throws a negative comment in here ..... BUT ....... i fail to see why people RELY on the PDSA. Yes vets bills are expensive, but IMO the moment you decide to get a dog, you also decide to take on the responsibility, including the financial outlay.

 

If MY dogs are in need of vet assistance, i take them and I foot the bill for MY dogs.

 

 

I don't mean to be a dick, but i'm guessing you are taking that view because you CAN pay for any problems your dog has. I know where you are coming from, but for many people, the ridiculous profiteering of the veterinary profession means that if they did not RELY on the PDSA, then they would forever be barred from having a dog or accept the fact that they cannot give it the treatment they require. Working dogs are part of a working class culture, but these days if you didnt have the PDSA, properly cared for dogs would become for the rich only.

 

 

That's just a thought, and i'm not saying the system isnt abused to f**k, and i know you can get insurance, but even that still has an excess on it and may be prohibitive for some folk.

 

 

As do i see your point to some extent, however i still believe that if you own a dog you are responsible for its welfare. Because i "can"?? i can because i work extremely hard, i can because i pay insurance every month, i can because i have a moral view that i would never expect anyone to pick up my dogs vet bill. Even if my business folded tomorrow and i was destitute, i would still borrow the money or as strong stuff pointed out, i'd sell something to pay the bill. Thats just me, its how i was brought up.

 

A charity like the PDSA as you have pointed out is there for those that really need it, the point i was making in my first post was, even if this guy really needed it, he shouldn't have that as his only option to "rely" on them for the dogs welfare. Its the expectation that someone else will foot the bill that i disagree with.

 

So the PDSA is there to help people that 'REALLY NEED IT', i.e they have absolutely no way of funding the dogs medical care. But then your saying that they should not 'rely' on it as their only option. In many cases it IS their only option. Not everyone has a way to raise a couple of grand, or can fork out insurance payments, excess etc. SHould these folk be banned from keeping dogs? If they fall on such hard times should they have their dogs seized? pts?

 

Its very easy to have that moral view, if you have never been in such a position. If you found yourself destitute, but your dogs were healthy, would you get rid, just in case you ended up with a high vet bill at some future point?

 

Its all very well saying 'thats how i was brought up' - to borrow the money, or sell something if you were destitute. But if you had money to borrow, things to sell, you are not really destitute. The plain truth is, many folk dont have anything to sell, and dont know anyone who is any better off than themselves.

 

At the end of the day the PDSA exist and sell themselves as a service to treat animals when the owners really cannot foot the bill, so you can't really knock folk for seeing them as an acceptable option to rely on.

 

I think its also a bit different if your dogs are pets you do a bit with, and if your dog really is something that you use to help you and your family survive.

 

 

some people wont listen mate like we have said would you get rid of dog or keep it and hope for best and try your hardest to get out of the situation you are in/no one seems to answer that question

 

 

 

Answer what question exactly??? If i was the very lowest i could get financially would i keep my dogs?? In that situation my friends would already of stepped in and offered to take the dogs till things improved for me.

right so what if your friends couldnt afford to look after them either and they had an accident when you was in that position? so your answer to the question of(severe financial hardship nothing to sell or no one to borrow off no one to look after the dogs for you) thenyouwould palm the dog off ?

you say you would askthe vet to come to an arrangement you say what if he said no all or nothing then what?

and as the O.P said they sell themselves to be helping people out that are in need at that specific time and get donations and such on that basis so why shouldnt people use it if needs must however i agree that it shouldnt be used as a free vets and used as the only cover for someones dog but in an emergency i dont see what the problem is

 

 

Your being ridiculous now!! What if, what if what if?!?! FFS! You don't agree with my opinion, so what, deal with it, stop trying to make up ridiculous scenarios that you think will make me change my opinion! The world is full of people you disagree with.

 

If all of the above was to happen, i'd be so bloody depressed i'd probably shoot myself to end the misery of my life !

 

 

that rediculous scenario as you put it is what some folk are in. aint trying to make no one change their minds just cant stand judgemental people when one day they could be in that situation themselves and some people work 12 hours a day 6 days a week and still cant afford a big vet bill of say 500 quid. and its obvious that you think money so important as you would probably end the misery of your life if that was the case then i would end the misery of my life if i thought like you my opinion and the lest i am saying on this good luck with the dogs mate hope you get them sorted