Unwanted and abandoned (From The Argus)

I think your headline today should have been 'LOCAL NEWSPAPER INCREASES PRICE BY 45%' - the last time I buy it - outrageous... I hope you don't end up feeling abandoned....

Please add Seaford dog rescue to your list! www.seaforddogrescue
.co.uk they don't run with kennels, only with foster families which is much less stressfull for the dogs and cats, although this does mean they are desperate for more volunteers; the more they have the more they can help!!! Also anyone looking to adopt should check out their website or facebook page, they have some truly beautiful dogs in. Thankyou xx

Mark63 wrote:
I think your headline today should have been 'LOCAL NEWSPAPER INCREASES PRICE BY 45%' - the last time I buy it - outrageous... I hope you don't end up feeling abandoned....

You don't have to buy it, no-one's forcing you. Just read it online, the only annoying thing about that is that you have to put up with loads of adverts.

plantwoman wrote:

Mark63 wrote:
I think your headline today should have been 'LOCAL NEWSPAPER INCREASES PRICE BY 45%' - the last time I buy it - outrageous... I hope you don't end up feeling abandoned....

You don't have to buy it, no-one's forcing you. Just read it online, the only annoying thing about that is that you have to put up with loads of adverts.

Agreed, an of course the appalling quality of the writing.

F in L wrote:

plantwoman wrote:

Mark63 wrote:
I think your headline today should have been 'LOCAL NEWSPAPER INCREASES PRICE BY 45%' - the last time I buy it - outrageous... I hope you don't end up feeling abandoned....

You don't have to buy it, no-one's forcing you. Just read it online, the only annoying thing about that is that you have to put up with loads of adverts.

Agreed, an of course the appalling quality of the writing.

....Plus the fact it omits letters occasionally such as the d in the comment above, duplicates posts and the spell checker is in US English.

plantwoman wrote:

Mark63 wrote: I think your headline today should have been 'LOCAL NEWSPAPER INCREASES PRICE BY 45%' - the last time I buy it - outrageous... I hope you don't end up feeling abandoned....

You don't have to buy it, no-one's forcing you. Just read it online, the only annoying thing about that is that you have to put up with loads of adverts.

Download and use ADBLOCK simples

There is no spell-checker on this site, you plonker - it's your browser that's underlining words.
Mahybe get a grown-up to show you how to use the internet?

B0ll0cks - *maybe

We've all lost the point of this article! These places either want help to re-home the animals in question &/or to donate them some money to assist with their running costs.

Six unwanted dogs are picked up by wardens every single day across Sussex

Is it the same six dogs every day (like the teenager who was reported missing 173 times) or is it different ones?

Gaz the great wrote:
We've all lost the point of this article! These places either want help to re-home the animals in question &/or to donate them some money to assist with their running costs.

Perhaps the article is too grown up for most tory readers who put all there money into cars and houses,not animals
As for the price of the Argus you poor Tories will have to make cutbacks like the rest of us maybe buy toilet paper now which is cheaper than the Argus as we know thats all the Argus is good for.
I hope these poor animals get a home soon as so many healthy ones are put down

chrisinbrighton wrote:

Gaz the great wrote:
We've all lost the point of this article! These places either want help to re-home the animals in question &/or to donate them some money to assist with their running costs.

Perhaps the article is too grown up for most tory readers who put all there money into cars and houses,not animals
As for the price of the Argus you poor Tories will have to make cutbacks like the rest of us maybe buy toilet paper now which is cheaper than the Argus as we know thats all the Argus is good for.
I hope these poor animals get a home soon as so many healthy ones are put down

I take exception to your comment as its clearly the non Tory voters who are the problem here.

How many of the great benefit claiming society, who have these status dogs and then find they can't afford them, actually vote Tory? Chris maybe you can provide a useful insight here so that intelligent folk can understand the context of your comments?

Quidam diebus sunt canis, alias diebus lampost.

ruberducker wrote:
Quidam diebus sunt canis, alias diebus lampost.

What are you cabbies like?

Absolutely heartbreaking situation. As I mentioned in comment on previous article re the desperate plight of Lost Cats Brighton and many other animal shelters 'bursting at the seams' with abandoned pets. I call upon landlords and letting agents to relax their rigid and uncompromising policy on lets with pets as a matter of urgency.
To deny a tenant, many of which are single dwellers of the company of a beloved pet, forcing them into the truly heartbreaking position of surrendering their pet is immoral and cruel. The knock on effect is charity animal shelters unable to cope with the tsunami of abandoned pets, bringing them financially to their knees and increasingly putting them in the terrible position of having 'no option' if homes cannot be found to put them down! This is appalling and totally unnecessary
when there are now special Lets with Pets tenancies downloadable (see Dogs Trust website) where terms are put in place which protects the interests of landlords, tenants and their pets. Pet Friendly Properties Brighton is leading the way, but needs more and more agents and landlords to come on board. There are many benefits to both landlord, letting agency and tenant with regard to having a 'pet friendly' rental (with terms and deposit) again see Dogs Trust website and Pet Friendly Properties Brighton's website. Of course other aspects contribute towards this desperately sad situation and I applaud the Argus for starting a campaign to rehome abandoned pets.
However, a change of thinking by landlords and letting agencies would be a huge step towards addressing some of the major issues as to why this situation has spiralled to this tragic and uunnecessary point! Landlords and letting agencies are you listening?

Roundbill wrote:
B0ll0cks - *maybe

LOL

Juleyanne wrote:
Absolutely heartbreaking situation. As I mentioned in comment on previous article re the desperate plight of Lost Cats Brighton and many other animal shelters 'bursting at the seams' with abandoned pets. I call upon landlords and letting agents to relax their rigid and uncompromising policy on lets with pets as a matter of urgency.
To deny a tenant, many of which are single dwellers of the company of a beloved pet, forcing them into the truly heartbreaking position of surrendering their pet is immoral and cruel. The knock on effect is charity animal shelters unable to cope with the tsunami of abandoned pets, bringing them financially to their knees and increasingly putting them in the terrible position of having 'no option' if homes cannot be found to put them down! This is appalling and totally unnecessary
when there are now special Lets with Pets tenancies downloadable (see Dogs Trust website) where terms are put in place which protects the interests of landlords, tenants and their pets. Pet Friendly Properties Brighton is leading the way, but needs more and more agents and landlords to come on board. There are many benefits to both landlord, letting agency and tenant with regard to having a 'pet friendly' rental (with terms and deposit) again see Dogs Trust website and Pet Friendly Properties Brighton's website. Of course other aspects contribute towards this desperately sad situation and I applaud the Argus for starting a campaign to rehome abandoned pets.
However, a change of thinking by landlords and letting agencies would be a huge step towards addressing some of the major issues as to why this situation has spiralled to this tragic and uunnecessary point! Landlords and letting agencies are you listening?

I urge landlords to tighten up existing policy and restrict tenancies to no dogs and for existing arrangements to be run off as soon as possible where status dogs are involved.

Lets face it, people who have pets need to be with them all day, people out at work can't do that!

I asked my pet terrier the other day how he found life as a dog.

"Ruff", he replied.

Somethingsarejustwro
ng proclaims to be intelligent yet completely misses the point!
We are not talking about irresponsible status dog owners here or generally advocating bad pet care practice. The vast majority of pet owners in this country are not status dog owners nor do they in any way fit the criteria he is desperately trying to stereotype them under! The majority of pet owners in this country love their pet be it cat, dog or otherwise and take every step to ensure it's all round welfare. These pets are effectively very much part of the family. It is ridiculous for him to state people should not have pets if they work, has he never heard of
pet sitters, walkers, creches for dogs!
Of course there are some people who have lifestyles and homes which make pet ownership impractical and indeed should not have pets. However, millions of people in this country are pet owners and most of them love and care for their pets
extremely well and responsibly. Somethingiswrong is failing to look at the bigger picture and trying to pigeonhole all pet owners. At at time when homes are desperately needed for our nations homeless pets and good caring owners are being unnecessarily 'torn apart' from their beloved pets by some unflexible landlords, we need a sensible compassionate approach to this tragic unnecessary problem and stereotyping all pet owners is unhelpful and downright callous!

Juleyanne wrote:
Somethingsarejustwro

ng proclaims to be intelligent yet completely misses the point!
We are not talking about irresponsible status dog owners here or generally advocating bad pet care practice. The vast majority of pet owners in this country are not status dog owners nor do they in any way fit the criteria he is desperately trying to stereotype them under! The majority of pet owners in this country love their pet be it cat, dog or otherwise and take every step to ensure it's all round welfare. These pets are effectively very much part of the family. It is ridiculous for him to state people should not have pets if they work, has he never heard of
pet sitters, walkers, creches for dogs!
Of course there are some people who have lifestyles and homes which make pet ownership impractical and indeed should not have pets. However, millions of people in this country are pet owners and most of them love and care for their pets
extremely well and responsibly. Somethingiswrong is failing to look at the bigger picture and trying to pigeonhole all pet owners. At at time when homes are desperately needed for our nations homeless pets and good caring owners are being unnecessarily 'torn apart' from their beloved pets by some unflexible landlords, we need a sensible compassionate approach to this tragic unnecessary problem and stereotyping all pet owners is unhelpful and downright callous!

The points I make are serious and well thought through and look at addressing root-cause, rather than doing what we tolerant Brits are well practiced in, i.e. mopping up the mess that ensues from being over tolerant to dysfunctional minority groups.

Therefore if steps are put in place that stop dogs becoming homeless the problem goes away.

Say the average lifetime of a dog is 20 years (similar to a mortgage on property purchase) and the annual upkeep costs are £500 (without insurance - £750 with) then we have a lifetime cost of £10 - £15K.

How can it be deemed responsible for anyone without supporting unencumbered income to take on such a commitment in the first instance.

My main point is that people already receiving state subsidy should not be permitted to increase their financial exposure, given the obvious consequences of failure to afford ongoing upkeep.

My secondary point is that as many of the people who have these so called status dogs are clearly the cause of antisocial issues impacting others, by putting some basic commonsense principles in place these issues and future homelessness of dogs could be avoided.

If you can work out ways to manage exceptions then keen to hear your thoughts?

As to being callous, no just realistic and its high time people were made accountable for their actions!

The problem will remain if we continue to allow puppy farms to mass produce animals and dump them on rescues at 5 years approximately when they produce fewer pups. It is easy money and the poor creatures are kept in appalling conditions. If people went to rescue centres for a new pet ( puppies and kittens as well as older animals), the puppy farms would go out of business. Responsible owners will of course neuter their pets. Many tears animal rescue has dogs and puppies and many are fostered throughout Britain. Please adopt.

I get the strong impression somethingsarejustwro
ng is not a particular fan of animals and if this is the case perhaps he would make a better argument in some subject he has actual real knowledge of, rather then making sweeping narrow viewed comments on the type of owners HE would deem suitable for pet ownership if, as it appears, there are any that would fit his incredibly harsh standards at all! Behind his facade of 'ban them all' lies a man who is clearly incapable
or willing to explore more humane options for both pet and owner. Thank heavens he is not in the driving seat of power as I fear if he was, this nation would be devoid of any pets, unless perhaps you were landed gentry or member of his favourite party! The fact is somethingsarewrong millions of us love our pets and will continue to do so and although I do not advocate irresponsible pet ownership in any form.
The compassionate pet lovers in this country will try to go some way to finding a solution rather than making cheap swipes at those who do!

The Argus- I previously asked in a comment if you could add Seaford dog rescue to your list, and have heard nothing back.
We are a small rescue compared to the likes of 'Dogs trust' but that makes the promoting even more necessary for us.
We currently have a lot of dogs in our rescue, and two of them have been with us 6 months. One of them has only had ONE person ask to meet her. There is nothing wrong with these poor dogs, and the right person is out there somewhere. Please help us find them!
Also as a rescue we run with foster homes only! Which means we don't use kennels which is less stressful for the dogs; therefore we are in desperate need of more volunteers and foster parents. The more fosterers we have the more dogs we can help.
Thankyou for your time, and I hope you will take notice.

Juleyanne wrote:
I get the strong impression somethingsarejustwro

ng is not a particular fan of animals and if this is the case perhaps he would make a better argument in some subject he has actual real knowledge of, rather then making sweeping narrow viewed comments on the type of owners HE would deem suitable for pet ownership if, as it appears, there are any that would fit his incredibly harsh standards at all! Behind his facade of 'ban them all' lies a man who is clearly incapable
or willing to explore more humane options for both pet and owner. Thank heavens he is not in the driving seat of power as I fear if he was, this nation would be devoid of any pets, unless perhaps you were landed gentry or member of his favourite party! The fact is somethingsarewrong millions of us love our pets and will continue to do so and although I do not advocate irresponsible pet ownership in any form.
The compassionate pet lovers in this country will try to go some way to finding a solution rather than making cheap swipes at those who do!

The principles I advocate are designed to address the very issues this story highlights and I am disappointed that you don't seem able to appreciate my thoughts.

The problem statement is

***Ms McSpirit says that the economy is the main contributing factor.

She said: “People are losing their jobs and having to move out of their houses which often have sky-high rent rates.***

I don't want to get into a lengthy exchange with you and for your benefit and comfort, I can confirm that I have family pets, who aren't at risk in the way that many others seem to be.

I hope you will now take time out to re-read the full story and my various posts and will recognise that they are made with the best intent (not cheap swipes). Once you are in that thought space we should put our collective energy into constructing a plan to move forward into implementation, although do need your practical ideas on how we can manage exceptions first.

As mentioned in my previous comment somethingsarewrong, we urgently need landlords and letting agencies to reconsider their often rigid 'no pets' policies with regard to responsible pet owning tenants. There is absolutely no reason why a tenant should be forcibly parted from their beloved, well behaved pet when there are now available pet tenancies downloadable from the Dogs Trust site and through forward thinking agencies such as Pet Friendly Properties. With these available tenancies pet owners pay an additonal deposit in the event of any mishaps and may agree to pay for the property to be professionally cleaned when they leave. It is even suggested that responsible pet owners have a CV of their pet proving the pet in question is routinely seen by a vet for flea treatment and previous references from landlords provided to prove the pet poses no particular problem. With these measures in place, there is no reasonable or acceptable reason for landlords or letting agents not to be pet friendly, this is the way forward and will make an enormous difference to the plight of distraught tenants being forced to abandon their pets. This will also take some of the pressure off animal sanctuaries who are 'bursting at the seams' at present and who are being put in the intolerable position of either having the turn an abandoned animal away through lack of space or euthanize otherwise healthy pets! I think that answers your question and is absolutely common sense. I repeat this is not an issue regarding status dogs, this is an issue of ordinary responsible pet owning tenants in this country!

Juleyanne wrote:
As mentioned in my previous comment somethingsarewrong, we urgently need landlords and letting agencies to reconsider their often rigid 'no pets' policies with regard to responsible pet owning tenants. There is absolutely no reason why a tenant should be forcibly parted from their beloved, well behaved pet when there are now available pet tenancies downloadable from the Dogs Trust site and through forward thinking agencies such as Pet Friendly Properties. With these available tenancies pet owners pay an additonal deposit in the event of any mishaps and may agree to pay for the property to be professionally cleaned when they leave. It is even suggested that responsible pet owners have a CV of their pet proving the pet in question is routinely seen by a vet for flea treatment and previous references from landlords provided to prove the pet poses no particular problem. With these measures in place, there is no reasonable or acceptable reason for landlords or letting agents not to be pet friendly, this is the way forward and will make an enormous difference to the plight of distraught tenants being forced to abandon their pets. This will also take some of the pressure off animal sanctuaries who are 'bursting at the seams' at present and who are being put in the intolerable position of either having the turn an abandoned animal away through lack of space or euthanize otherwise healthy pets! I think that answers your question and is absolutely common sense. I repeat this is not an issue regarding status dogs, this is an issue of ordinary responsible pet owning tenants in this country!

I don't think you have grasped that the issue here is too much supply and not enough demand for dogs; further compounded by status dogs being acquired by people who do not have the wherewithal to keep them.

Now we have that clear, lets work on getting the basic principles in place to address the over supply and affordability issues.

Your arrogance is astounding! I am extremely aware of the issues concerning the scale of abandoned pets. However,
you continue to demand answers and I have responded with solutions which you clearly 'brush aside' only to continue
with your negative approach. We are going round in circles somethingsarejustwro
ng, it is well known that 'you cannot debate with a closed mind'!. Your obsession with the issue of status dogs is clearly preventing you from seeing the bigger picture concerning the plight of the majority of abandoned pets that do not fit this narrow criteria. Animal sanctuaries are doing an amazing job against all odds, The Argus is spearheading a positive campaign. I applaud those who are coming forward to offer a home and those who donate, give food, blankets, fundraise, campaign. Those who just sit there whingeing and finger pointing serve no useful purpose other than to irritate those who are desperately trying to 'make a difference' and actually do something positive for animal welfare in this country!

Juleyanne wrote:
Your arrogance is astounding! I am extremely aware of the issues concerning the scale of abandoned pets. However,
you continue to demand answers and I have responded with solutions which you clearly 'brush aside' only to continue
with your negative approach. We are going round in circles somethingsarejustwro

ng, it is well known that 'you cannot debate with a closed mind'!. Your obsession with the issue of status dogs is clearly preventing you from seeing the bigger picture concerning the plight of the majority of abandoned pets that do not fit this narrow criteria. Animal sanctuaries are doing an amazing job against all odds, The Argus is spearheading a positive campaign. I applaud those who are coming forward to offer a home and those who donate, give food, blankets, fundraise, campaign. Those who just sit there whingeing and finger pointing serve no useful purpose other than to irritate those who are desperately trying to 'make a difference' and actually do something positive for animal welfare in this country!

I think you misinterpret logic as arrogance and with respect your solutions are simply to create more capacity to deal with the symptoms, rather than to address the very cause.

Whilst superficially your efforts may be perceived as positive, on closer inspection they are serving to perpetuate and indeed worsen the position. What we need is strong focused action on addressing the problem acquisitions, especially in the status dogs space where statistics tell us we have a growing problem.

You may wish to re-read this story and comments, when hopefully matters should become much clearer?

Somethingsarejustwro
ng. Your name suits you perfectly.

thevoiceoftruth wrote:
Somethingsarejustwro

ng. Your name suits you perfectly.

Whereas yours suggests contradiction!

I assure you somethingsarewrong I have no intention of re reading your narrow minded, arrogant 'blurb'! There is nothing clear about your comments nor is there any hint of an acceptable way forward!
You are completely 'stuck' like a record on the status dog issue and completely incapable of seeing the reality that numerous other breeds and types of pet that do not fit your fixed narrow criteria are being adversely affected and my solutions are positive and make complete sense. Perhaps it is you who need to re read and absorb some of the comments listed here as your negativity and obsessive stereotyping has fast become somewhat tiring!

Juleyanne wrote:
I assure you somethingsarewrong I have no intention of re reading your narrow minded, arrogant 'blurb'! There is nothing clear about your comments nor is there any hint of an acceptable way forward!
You are completely 'stuck' like a record on the status dog issue and completely incapable of seeing the reality that numerous other breeds and types of pet that do not fit your fixed narrow criteria are being adversely affected and my solutions are positive and make complete sense. Perhaps it is you who need to re read and absorb some of the comments listed here as your negativity and obsessive stereotyping has fast become somewhat tiring!

The principles I have advocated, are as now suggested several times designed to address the very issues this story highlights and I am disappointed that you still don't seem able to appreciate my thoughts, or value the clarity of the actual factual problem statemenst, which is..

***Ms McSpirit says that the economy is the main contributing factor.

She said: “People are losing their jobs and having to move out of their houses which often have sky-high rent rates.***

***A worrying statistic from a recent survey Dogs Trust Survey has found a sharp increase in abandoned so called “status dogs”.

Between 2010 and 2011 there was a staggering 91% increase in abandoned Bull breeds, Rottweilers and Akitas.

In 2010, 240 of the dogs were picked up by wardens compared to 469 the following year.

The animals have become a status symbol over the last five years with the often bulky looking breeds synonymous with gang culture.

Jenny Wells, manager at Patcham RSPCA, said that it was an “increasing concern”.***

You can pretend their is no issue with status dogs however, I hope you will follow my suggestion of re-reading the full story and my various posts (and associated stories) and will recognise that the points I raise are made with the best intent and in the interest of addressing the root cause, rather than stimulating the symptoms further as your current stance appears to be.

When you finally have all the facts and are able to 'remove your blinkers' we should put our collective energy into stopping the problem, once and for all.

Juleyanne wrote:
I assure you somethingsarewrong I have no intention of re reading your narrow minded, arrogant 'blurb'! There is nothing clear about your comments nor is there any hint of an acceptable way forward!
You are completely 'stuck' like a record on the status dog issue and completely incapable of seeing the reality that numerous other breeds and types of pet that do not fit your fixed narrow criteria are being adversely affected and my solutions are positive and make complete sense. Perhaps it is you who need to re read and absorb some of the comments listed here as your negativity and obsessive stereotyping has fast become somewhat tiring!

Boring isn't it?! I'm getting really tired of reading endless posts from this person. However, he (I assume it's a he) will no doubt post again because he always has to have the last say. Someonewhoisalwayswr
ong, policing this mad hatter scheme of yours would be hugely expensive and completely unworkable. Not sure bankrupt Britain has really got the cash for this 'war on dogs'. If you think it's the solution then fair enough, but please stop patronising anyone who disagrees with you.

thevoiceoftruth wrote:

Juleyanne wrote:
I assure you somethingsarewrong I have no intention of re reading your narrow minded, arrogant 'blurb'! There is nothing clear about your comments nor is there any hint of an acceptable way forward!
You are completely 'stuck' like a record on the status dog issue and completely incapable of seeing the reality that numerous other breeds and types of pet that do not fit your fixed narrow criteria are being adversely affected and my solutions are positive and make complete sense. Perhaps it is you who need to re read and absorb some of the comments listed here as your negativity and obsessive stereotyping has fast become somewhat tiring!

Boring isn't it?! I'm getting really tired of reading endless posts from this person. However, he (I assume it's a he) will no doubt post again because he always has to have the last say. Someonewhoisalwayswr

ong, policing this mad hatter scheme of yours would be hugely expensive and completely unworkable. Not sure bankrupt Britain has really got the cash for this 'war on dogs'. If you think it's the solution then fair enough, but please stop patronising anyone who disagrees with you.

The facts speak for themselves and being facts are the truth!