Pet-dumper caught on camera as Sussex charity calls for help (From The Argus)

Their faces and actions are now a matter of public record so find them and punish them.

Wrong? Yes! But seems to me this action was more out of desperation than laziness or nastiness. Surely anyone would see the cctv or signs and know that they and their reg number would be clearly displayed.....quick call to dvla via right people and youre caught....hopefully.
...

This kind of publicity is not helpful! It is far better that they are left at the charity than thrown over a hedge or worse in a black bag.
The former indicates a level of care and concern, the latter, sheer unforgivable cruelty which we should do everything we can to prevent!

10.30 p.m. -> video in daylight and gates open!!
6 miles away it is almost dark at 6.15 p.m. - mistake?

it is surely best to leave an unwanted animal at a charity then God forbid anything else. It is also best to give the charity all the information they need, they will not judge you, so why just dump them if you care for them.

Are you all vegans?

If not you are hypocrites of the first order!

wonderfull this article will encourage people to just simply drive into the countryside and black bag in a ditch unwanted animals.

At least she took them to a responsible place if you do this people will dump them in rivers and motorways so don't put someone down for this maybe it wasn't hers and she annonously rescued them !!!

Surely not! wrote:
Are you all vegans?

If not you are hypocrites of the first order!

stupid person

This article doesn't mention if Raystede are actually agreeing to take in any animals at the moment or not - if people are desperate then this will be the result if they can't get anyone to agree to take in their animals if they have to find them somewhere else to live ie having to move from one rented place to another and new landlord refuses to take any pets.

Some places are a nightmare to get them to take in an animal.

When my father died he had arranged for the RSPCA to receive a £1000 donation in return for taking pet cat - when I contacted them they first insisted on a fax being sent to them from the solicitors dealing with the estate confirming the amount being donated! They then took 12 weeks to take the cat in - meanwhile hubby and I had to drive 50 miles a day to look after the cat and feed and water it! We couldn't take it in as our rescue cat - which came from the RSPCA - is one that won't tolerate any other cats and one of my children is allergic to cat hair and this cat was long haired, which is worse for my child - so we had to deal with this for 12 weeks - thanks RSPCA, I won't forget this and I'd recommend anyone who's thinking of following the RSPCA's TV advert stating they'll look after your cat when you die - IGNORE THIS AS IT'S TOTAL RUBBISH - they would quite happily see your cat die before they did anything to help.

WTF is it with people? Take the animal IN to the shelter instead of leaving it outside in a bloody box! Even if she anonymously rescued it what's stopping her from taking it inside? The reason is people are stupid and selfish and don't want to come face to face with anyone at the shelter, to spare their selfish selves any potential embarrassment. Never mind not taking responsibility of the animal itself by dumping it, they can't even take responsibility for the decision to rehome. Anything for an easy life, unlike the trauma they are inflicting in the animal. There are homeless animals for two reasons... selfish people who don't neuter, and the same selfish people who take an animal on when they are ill equipped to do so in the first place. Don't move to rented accommodation if the landlord won't allow pets, simple! And if it's so difficult to find pet friendly landlords then why get a pet in the first place??? Idiots.

How utterly heartless and cowardly! This woman (or man, it's hard to tell) has clearly been devious and despicable. The doors seemed to be open so why did this horrible person just leave it in the car park!
Probably somewhere inside they had a
granule of guilt about dumping it and had not got the guts to show their miserable face at the reception who knows. Regarding previous comments about non pet friendly landlords. Owners of pets have a duty of care, I too live in a flat with a stray I have taken on as most rehoming centres now have waiting lists. It is an intolerable situation but if people take on a pet they should be flexible as to where they will live and work their guts out to find a pet friendly landlord. Pet friendly rentals Brighton might be able to help.
Otherwise, offer to pay an additional deposit and sign a special pet tenancy (see Dogs Trust downloable tenancies) but whatever you do try and hold on to your pet through these tough times as rehoming centres are bursting at the seams and sadly many are now having to euthanize some of the older less rehomable pets due to lack of space and shortage of good homes. It is a heartbreaking situation and I urge people who have room for a homeless pet to seriously consider giving an abandoned pet a home to free up much needed space at animal shelters. I think it is shameful to buy a pet when so many need rescuing and advertising of pets for sale should be banned 'shame on the Friday Ad'. Finally, I once again plead with landlords and letting agencies to be more flexible about pets and consider new pet tenancies with additional deposits. This would make an enormous difference to the amount of pets being abandoned unnecessarily! Also, as more and more people live alone and more and more are set to rent in future years. This is something that needs urgent reconsideration and a radically more flexible approach. It is downright cruel and causes enormous heartache to both pet and tenant to force them to part.
There is another way that covers landlord, letting agent, tenant and pet - come on let's do it! If a legal agreement is available
that protects a landlord with an additional deposit, I am struggling to find any reason for landlords/letting agencies not to rent to pet owners!

qm wrote:
This kind of publicity is not helpful! It is far better that they are left at the charity than thrown over a hedge or worse in a black bag. The former indicates a level of care and concern, the latter, sheer unforgivable cruelty which we should do everything we can to prevent!

Exactly!

KarenT wrote:
WTF is it with people? Take the animal IN to the shelter instead of leaving it outside in a bloody box! Even if she anonymously rescued it what's stopping her from taking it inside? The reason is people are stupid and selfish and don't want to come face to face with anyone at the shelter, to spare their selfish selves any potential embarrassment. Never mind not taking responsibility of the animal itself by dumping it, they can't even take responsibility for the decision to rehome. Anything for an easy life, unlike the trauma they are inflicting in the animal. There are homeless animals for two reasons... selfish people who don't neuter, and the same selfish people who take an animal on when they are ill equipped to do so in the first place. Don't move to rented accommodation if the landlord won't allow pets, simple! And if it's so difficult to find pet friendly landlords then why get a pet in the first place??? Idiots.

Oh so everyone who rents shouldn't have a pet who are you one of Cameron's soldiers ! Are you one of those married **** who expects hubby to support you cos without hI'm you'd be a renter who shoudnt have pets ,kids or exist !!!

lillylou wrote:

KarenT wrote:
WTF is it with people? Take the animal IN to the shelter instead of leaving it outside in a bloody box! Even if she anonymously rescued it what's stopping her from taking it inside? The reason is people are stupid and selfish and don't want to come face to face with anyone at the shelter, to spare their selfish selves any potential embarrassment. Never mind not taking responsibility of the animal itself by dumping it, they can't even take responsibility for the decision to rehome. Anything for an easy life, unlike the trauma they are inflicting in the animal. There are homeless animals for two reasons... selfish people who don't neuter, and the same selfish people who take an animal on when they are ill equipped to do so in the first place. Don't move to rented accommodation if the landlord won't allow pets, simple! And if it's so difficult to find pet friendly landlords then why get a pet in the first place??? Idiots.

Oh so everyone who rents shouldn't have a pet who are you one of Cameron's soldiers ! Are you one of those married **** who expects hubby to support you cos without hI'm you'd be a renter who shoudnt have pets ,kids or exist !!!

No you idiot, I'm not married and have a hubby supporting me! Why on earth would you assume that? I work and pay my own bills - is that a notion that you have difficulty getting your head around for some reason? "Having a pet" isn't a right - it's a decision you make because you are in a position to take care of one. If your landlord is okay with it then fine, if not then it's a selfish and stupid thing to do. When it comes time to move for whatever reason then finding a pet-friendly landlord should be your first priority, and not just dumping the animal because the flat you want has a no-pet policy. If it is indeed as difficult as some suggest to find pet-friendly landlords, then that is just a fact as it stands and you're taking a big risk getting a pet when the chances are that your circumstances are not going to allow you to give that pet a forever home. I have three animals, a dog and two cats, but despite wanting pets all my life I didn't have any until my circumstances were secure enough to do so, and I went straight to Raystede and Shoreham Dogs Home, not some pet shop or breeder out to make cash. Too many people get pets for their own reasons, and then when it becomes "inconvenient" the animal is the first thing to go. It's selfish and wrong.

plantwoman wrote:

qm wrote:
This kind of publicity is not helpful! It is far better that they are left at the charity than thrown over a hedge or worse in a black bag. The former indicates a level of care and concern, the latter, sheer unforgivable cruelty which we should do everything we can to prevent!

Exactly!

"Level of care and concern"??? Are you serious? I do volunteer work at an animal shelter and I would say that about 70%+ of all animals left outside in boxes end up escaping before we can even get to them. So basically it's no different to turfing them out to fend for themselves. There is NO level of care here, just a very high level of selfishness, wishing to avoid any potential confrontation from the shelter employees, or just sheer laziness because they can't be arsed to come round during opening hours. The truth is we NEVER treat people who come in to rehome pets badly or make them feel guilty. We do our utmost to tell them they have made a responsible and caring decision, as all we care about is what's best for the animals.

KarenT wrote:

plantwoman wrote:

qm wrote:
This kind of publicity is not helpful! It is far better that they are left at the charity than thrown over a hedge or worse in a black bag. The former indicates a level of care and concern, the latter, sheer unforgivable cruelty which we should do everything we can to prevent!

Exactly!

"Level of care and concern"??? Are you serious? I do volunteer work at an animal shelter and I would say that about 70%+ of all animals left outside in boxes end up escaping before we can even get to them. So basically it's no different to turfing them out to fend for themselves. There is NO level of care here, just a very high level of selfishness, wishing to avoid any potential confrontation from the shelter employees, or just sheer laziness because they can't be arsed to come round during opening hours. The truth is we NEVER treat people who come in to rehome pets badly or make them feel guilty. We do our utmost to tell them they have made a responsible and caring decision, as all we care about is what's best for the animals.

Oh and forgot to mention, out of the approximately 30% of animals that are still in their boxes by the time we get to them, a considerable amount end up eventually dying of either hypothermia, shock or dehydration, especially if they are old. THESE are the facts that should be publicised - and then maybe people might think twice about doing something like this.

mictrix wrote:

Surely not! wrote:
Are you all vegans?

If not you are hypocrites of the first order!

stupid person

Why stupid? People that claim to be animal lovers and aren't vegan are hypocrites.