Same with other pets too.

Posted by: Mr. Chief | October 26, 2007 05:59 PM

Well, well, well, too busy! Think you're back yard looks better with a dog in it! Meet the posters of the month!! Maybe a burglar will avoid you're place if the dog is cared for!!! Just a thought!!

Posted by: Carla | October 26, 2007 06:28 PM

I love the dogs, too many dogs suffer too much in this world, why the bad people can not see, that the dogs are so nice, beautiful company for us? I hate the bad people

Posted by: liliana | October 26, 2007 07:16 PM

It breaks my heart to see dogs have to suffer like this. No one should have to live restrained in such a manner. Dogs are social creatures, like us. Can you imagine living your life 24/7 at the end of the chain, forced to lie in your own shit and piss, watching the world go by and you unable to participate? How can people be so cruel? And what makes us think these same people aren't planning something more heinous..not that, in my book, treating dogs like this isn't the cruelest thing imaginable. I close my eyes and I see a world without chains...for people or for animals. I can see it...can you?

Posted by: TJV | October 26, 2007 09:09 PM

I see this dog every day on the way to uni. It's very depressing, it's in a crappy front-yard, chained up and everytime it sees me, it gets up and tries to charge at me, only to choke itself, and it keeps trying to get off and continues to yelp. I might film it one day, but the people are ALWAYS home. I go past their house 10 times a week, and I've been doing this for over a year and they're never not home. And this guy is crazy I think, he stands outside and nearly every day I've walked past he's got sand paper and he's sanding his truck, I once saw his truck and all the paint was gone, I think he's moved on to his car. And plus, I wouldn't want to distress the animal more. And my uncle, he's pretty much a dope. He has this dog he got from a pet store, and they feed it devon and a bunch of other processed crap, no dog food. And it lives in his shed most of the time, and he's high quite a bit, so the dog would get stoned too, I'm sure. And when people come around, the dog doesn't get fed - so it attacks people to get them to leave, unfortunately this leads to more neglect. I really feel sorry for the little guy, but he[my uncle] just won't let me intervene. Perhaps posters like this will get it through some stupid people's heads. Animals are not a commodity or toys, they are living, breathing animals that require a LOT of maintenance. But with people in my country popping out babies for the kicks they get out of the baby bonus; only to neglect their children, I can see why people would spend money on buying a dog for the few kicks they get out of owning it, and then just ignore it most of the time. Society really needs a good lesson in responsibility.

Posted by: AnimalLib | October 26, 2007 09:48 PM

Same goes for other pets.

Posted by: Mr. Chief | October 26, 2007 11:38 PM

Pictures speak louder than words.
So if anyone looks at the pictures above, and still wonders why we are animal rights' activists, then what else can we say that hasn't been said already.
And if there could be any more proof of why we don't get offended by their derogatory comments to or about us, then all they have to do is look at the pictures again to realize that all the attempted insults in the world mean nothing - absolutely nothing - compared to what they are seeing.

Posted by: Ariel | October 27, 2007 07:43 AM

I couldnt agree more. I have never understood why some people will get a "pet" only to not take care of it. Also, dont get a "pet" for your children and expect them to care for it. Most kids like to have puppies and when the newness wears off they dont have much to do with the animal. The parent will get rid of the dog because the children could not care for it. When you are a parent and bring an animal into your home then you have to realize you will be the caretaker for that animal and not your children. Children will help but they cant be responsible for the animal.

Put aside some money for vet care and health care for your animal. So many people will get rid of a sick animal or put it "down" due to lack of funds. When you bring an animal into your home as a pet then you make the commitment to caring for that life. If you cant handle that responsibility then be responsible and do not get a pet. Its only fair.

Posted by: Darla Majick | October 27, 2007 08:39 AM

Excellent point! If more people were made aware of the responsibility of living with companion animals, far fewer would bring them home to begin with, and the burden on the shelters would be significantly eased. Also, it would be one way to control the endless supply from the breeders - no demand, less supply. Good for Southern Hope for publicizing this.

Posted by: Susannah S | October 27, 2007 09:21 AM

people are just nasty assholes to do that to any animal

Posted by: Tracy H | October 27, 2007 09:26 AM

I agree with you. People should not get an animal if they can't care for it. If you can't look after the puppies/kittens e.t.c then neuter your pet. Make sure you can look after one first.

Posted by: Blackwolf | October 27, 2007 11:10 AM

those pictures are disturbing, shame on its owners

Posted by: carolyn | October 27, 2007 02:32 PM

I am glad to see how this Humane Society is trying to make people more aware of the responsibility of having a dog.

Posted by: Margarita | October 27, 2007 11:29 PM

This are great news, other states should follow Georgias steps.

Posted by: silvia | October 28, 2007 03:46 PM

como puede ser posible que la gente sea tan cruel de hacerle esto a los animales.

Posted by: andrea | October 28, 2007 04:50 PM

how crule

Posted by: Anonymous | October 28, 2007 08:49 PM

You go!

Posted by: Dawson | October 28, 2007 08:56 PM

I agree 100%! You shouldn't get any pet if you can't take care of it! YOu're just putting it up for MORE dissapiontment!

Posted by: XxBernicexX | October 28, 2007 10:28 PM

Those are seriously heavy ads.

Great job done.

Posted by: Jaclyn | October 29, 2007 09:10 AM

So true. All animals cost a lot of money. If you can't afford to house, feed and keep up with the medical issues a person should not own any animal. They depend on us for everything, like a child only they can't tell you when they feel sick or are unhappy. Our shelter lists approximately what it will cost to maintain the animal you adopt for a year. Unfortunately a lot of people are impulse buyers and buy from pet shops, the paper or a breeder and they don't know what they are in for. Its expensive but the reward is great!!!

PD

Posted by: pd | October 29, 2007 10:18 AM

Isn't the official PETA position that nobody should have a pet of any sort for any reason regardless of whether they can take care of it?

Posted by: Tracy | October 29, 2007 11:22 AM

I agree with the above statement. It hurts me to see a poor dog or puppy left outside chained up with some rinky dink dog house covering his head. Sometimes I don't even see that dog house and I just want to take the animal away from its ungrateful owner. Dogs are special additions to any family and they need to be treated with just as much respect as anyone else in your family. You wouldn't chain your children up outside would you?

Posted by: erica | October 29, 2007 11:30 AM

This is a crime. The punishment should fit the crime.

Posted by: ma moore | October 29, 2007 01:06 PM

Sadly i must said.... that owners deserve one week of exactly the same treatment!!
a week chained outside, in a tree.. no shelter... an just water and leftovers every 2 days

Posted by: Nina | October 29, 2007 02:42 PM

Great job, Jack, posting this ad campaign.

It is unforgettable.

Posted by: kelly | October 29, 2007 02:43 PM

I can not stand the fact that people still think that pets of any kind are "owned".....When you decide to bring a dog or any pet for that matter into your home if you do not have the proper means to take care of it don't get it that plain that simple. You are doing more injustice to an animal in need of a home if you do not have the proper means to care for it.

I have worked on many projects trying to ban chained dogs...I still can not wrap my mind around the fact that anyone would get a dog with the intent of chaining it to a tree...what fun is that for you or the dog?

Animals should be treated as part of the family...this means you provide food, clothes, shelter...Medical care...hearworm medicine...shots up to date...and LOVE! I am by far not rich, but I manage my money to make sure that all of my two dogs needs are met!

Posted by: Dana | October 29, 2007 02:47 PM

That ad reminds me very much of my boyfriend's mother's poor little dog. She neglects it so much. Ties it to the bottom of her deck on a 3 foot chain where it stays outside for hours in the cold and only able to take a few steps. She doesn't pick up the dog poo either. It's everywhere. Forgets to feed it alot, it's water is always filthy dirty when there is actual water in it. When it's not outside it is in a crate. She doesn't give it any attention at all. Does not pet it, nothing. Just feeds it when she remembers and lets it outside. This dog is the sweetest, most gentle dog I've ever known. I'm the only one who shows it any love. I feel terrible everytime I go there and have to see that poor dog like that. She deserves so much more then they give her. I wish I could take her home with me.

Posted by: So sad | October 29, 2007 03:07 PM

ma moore

How about the punishment: being shot. Small caliber for more minor crimes, howitzer class for the worst crimes.

Posted by: Caboose | October 29, 2007 03:43 PM

If anyone knows of a person or persons' neglecting or abusing their animals (pets). There are ways to HELP! Offer to take the dog for walks especially if its a family member or friend maybe the person would be greatful. I know the dog sure would. Or educate them, maybe their too ignorant to know whats the right way or wrong way to look after their pets. Lastly if you feel it's really bad then get them out of there and call the Humane Society in your area. It's better to be in their care then living miserably and knowing it's happening.

Posted by: Carla | October 29, 2007 05:47 PM

ariel, how many posts here or anywhere support the abuse you see above? Negligence is to be abhorred.

I am anti-abuse, just not anti-use.

Posted by: rojo | October 29, 2007 09:50 PM

Dont go overboard with a/r. We still want to care for pets.

Posted by: Caboose | October 29, 2007 11:19 PM

To Animal Lib and So Sad:
Both of these animals need to be reported to the ASPCA or to your local humane society. This is NOT a life for any animal, let alone an animal as sociable as a dog.

I will never understand why people get dogs if they mean for that dog to live outside away from its "pack." A rotten life for a dog!

Posted by: Susannah S | October 30, 2007 09:11 AM

Fortunately I have never seen any dogs in my area that even come close to being treated or looking like the dog in the picture, BUT if I did, I KNOW I would NOT hesitate for one moment to call the authorities - and I would be right there waiting for their arrival. It wouldn't bother me one bit that the "owners" knew who called. And any other animal who I would know of that is being abused, those animals would be out of there immediately!
I'm for action for the animals by law, not for sparing the feelings of the abusive "owners" who might get upset.
Otherwise, I have spoken in person with several of my local police officers to be alert for abused animals and encouraged them to be up on animal abuse laws.

Posted by: Ariel | October 30, 2007 11:08 AM

rojo,
Please answer this seriously:
1.do you really have a reading comprehension disorder? OR
2. do you crave attention so badly, that you purposely misinterpret or twist what I write just to have something to say to TRY to get one up on me?
To answer your question - since apparently you weren't able to grasp the intention of my comment - I made two broad statements that would be inclusive of the entire blog site for anyone who doesn't get the drift and speaks out against animal rights' activism. For anyone who is anti and sees that picture, I believe it should be self-explanatory to them. Therefore, how much worse can attempted nasty words towards us mean ANY thing compared to the suffering of abused animals.
Yes, neglect should be abhorred, but people who are anti-a/r's can't, don't, or won't understand why we choose to be a/r's activists, who do our best to actively stop the neglect. And you know darn well that there have been and still are plenty of commenters on many of these forums who oppose what we do despite a situation as pictured.
Also, let me give you an example: surely you are more than aware of the vast amount of anti comments with the Vick's situation alone. How many times have you read: "they're only dogs."

Next, your comment: "I am not anti abuse, just not anti use." That is a contradictory belief.
3. How in the world, rojo, do you think animals arrived at the point of being "used" if not having gone through or are going through some form of abuse?
To me, that gives the impression that it is ok with you for animals to be abused only under certain circumstances.
Now that I have gone to length to explain my comment to you, please have the courtesy of answering questions #1,2, and 3 that I posed to you.
(unless you decide to twist my comments in this post as well to seek attention, provided that you don't have a reading comprehension disorder)

Posted by: Ariel | October 30, 2007 04:36 PM

There is a thing called "Freecycle" that is kind of like Craigslist, but for different local areas. I don't know if it's nationwide but we do have it in this area. It is for people wanting and giving away stuff for free.

ANYWAY, I am SO SICK of people wanting collars, food, beds, you name it for their animals!! Dogs, cats, ferrets, you name it.

I had enough this morning and answered one who wanted a "shock collar" for their dog.
Told them that was cruel and anyway if they could not afford this stuff they DID NOT NEED A DOG.

So looks like I'm gonna be busy doing this...now that I've started...

And of course that doesn't even touch the people giving away dogs and cats...

I had to email the moderator and tell them to get the WANTED: BLACK CAT ad OFF immediately...for God's sake people have no sense. Explained about Halloween, etc...JEEZ.

They did remove the ad but I hope I wasn't too late.

Posted by: Tamara | October 30, 2007 08:14 PM

Animal Lib, talk to those people! Ask if you can take the dog for a walk.

Ask if you can buy the dog, and find a new home.

Be really friendly and helpful and bring treats and work them up to it

Posted by: kelly | October 30, 2007 09:38 PM

ariel, maybe I interpret things differently. It in no way is meant to be one-upmanship nor attention seeking for that matter, I'm sorry if you take it that way.
My comment basically was: I don't have to be an activist in order to understand the suffering depicted. Nor do I expect to see an "anti-activist" to find fault with such a cause.

That you brought up "derogatory comments"etc in such context as this article, insinuates(unintentionally maybe)opposition from "anti's" in all areas, and hence this too. I apologise if I took your comment wrongly.

re:vick, I admit to not following this topic closely(never heard of Vick before here), but it's totally mind-boggling to think anyone would defend such actions, let alone be involved with dog-fighting.

I am not anti abuse, just not anti use.

I guess this is where we differ, because I can't equate the long term suffering via neglect and/or deliberate physical abuse like the above cases, to an animal farmed for the purpose of humane slaughter which doesn't live in fear or pain everyday. Of course there can be such neglect on farms, but not all farming should be tarred with the same brush because of it, just as we don't pillory all pet owners for the above crimes, perpetrated by a minority.

My thoughts on abuse revolve around intent and purpose.
For instance, the person who starves or beats his/her dog has a markedly different intent to that of an abbatoir worker.

I guess it's why I don't take kindly to holocaust comparisons. The intent behind destroying an entire race of people for no other purpose than ideology is very different to raising
animals for food. It is not animosity toward the animals, nor an attempt to wipe them out. Neither do animals destined for slaughter have reason to live in fear or endure starvation.

In summary use does not mean abuse. An animal of no use can evidently face bigger problems.

Posted by: rojo | October 31, 2007 08:58 AM

Hello Ariel!

Anytime any non-human animal is 'used' it is abused. Animals are used on factory farms, in slaughterhouses, on fur farms, in labs, in circuses, in swimming with dolphins programs, on children's petting zoos, in horse and dog races and the list goes on. I wonder how it would feel if it found itself among cannibals. Your explanation was definitive and concise. Maybe third grade reading comprehension class would be of some help for it. Peace!

Posted by: Ana | October 31, 2007 09:02 AM

Ana,

So when I come home from work and ask Oliver if he wants to go quail hunting and he goes in orbit around the house while I am getting ready he is in Labradorian saying, "Please, I am so ready to be used?" I hadn't thought of it that way. I thought we were just hunting companions.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | October 31, 2007 12:43 PM

Cochran

Your lack of respect and sarcastic comments to animal advocates and vegans are deplorable. Therefore, I choose not to respond to any idiocy you refer to me. Please don't defile my name in any of your posts. Save your stupid arguments/comments for those that are interested in responding to you. There are many on this blog that have repeatedly said that it is wasteful arguing with you and I concur. Your pomposity is tiresome. Even people I know that eat animals have never ridiculed me for being vegan but have always displayed the utmost respect for my beliefs. That's because they are truly professionals and intelligent.

Posted by: Ana | October 31, 2007 04:03 PM

rojo,
I know that your comments can be as diverse as mine, depending on the situation. Now, since I think we can come to some mature understanding here -according to your last post- this is what I would like to say - without any underlyng motives or meanings intended:
1. I gather from your post that you lean towards animal welfare, which means having the beliefs of a/w orgs. that are against animal cruelty, yet they are more limited to just comfortable conditions for certain animals. If that would best describe your intentions, then you would do good for a/w orgs. Now, since this is an animal rights' site, a/r's goes beyond the abuse, etc., and goes beyond just the comfort for animals.
2. Often enough, you have sided with the die-hard anti's, or at times, they took it upon themselves to align you with them, yet you made no attempt to disassociate yourself from them. So how otherwise can you expect anyone to clearly understand your position, which you have now clearly stated in your post (without any intermittent snide remarks).
3. You want me to understand that not all farms animals are treated with cruelty, and therefore, not all farming should be painted with the same brush. Well, rojo, I do understand that but only to a certain extent because inhumane factory farming is the dominating norm anymore.
I always had animals, I was raised to love animals, and not to discriminate against anyone. And after dealing with MORE than my share of cruel, nasty, and heartless people (un-related to animal issues), I found my niche in a/r's activism that is totally anti-cruelty and doesn't discriminate against the suffering of any animals. Anyway, briefly, that's where I'm coming from, and I suppose a lot of our views as a/r's activists are misinterpreted because they are very extensive and in-depth views.

Posted by: Ariel | October 31, 2007 05:37 PM

Hi, Ana! : )
I was going to enhance your comments to ccmd, but meantime, I headed over to the heading "a Hunting Dog."

Probably by now you read ccmd's pathetic, lame excuse for an "apology," so his comments there were very "appealing" to address. : )

Anyway, I don't think he really realizes how much of a juvenile mentality he has, and he really should be sincerely ashamed of himself - but his over-inflated ego, well...he really, really does have problems that he has to admit to himself in order to get the psych. attention that he needs.
It doesn't make any sense why anyone -who is supposed to be in their right state of mind- and is against a/r's, feels they need to waste their time on an a/r's blog site.
Oh well, catch you later...take care! : )

Posted by: Ariel | October 31, 2007 07:58 PM

Ana,

Don't be so thin skinned. I couldn't care less what you eat. I just don't agree with your stance on animal "use."
Peace.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | November 1, 2007 09:40 AM

Hi, again, Ana! : )
Once again, the "highly educated" md(?), has proven his lack of reading comprehension and/or lack of reading retention. I clearly read and understood in your post to him: "Please don't defile my name in any of your posts."
Yet, once again he addressed you. Perhaps he doesn't know the definition of "don't," "defile," "my name" and "in any of your posts," as well as doesn't comprehend: "Save your stupid arguments/comments for those who are interested in responding to you."
So I will "interpret" what you very clearly meant in a much simpler manner:

"Do not respond to any of my comments because I can't be bothered with your stupid comments that express the mentality of a juvenile delinquent."
If that "interpretation" isn't quite correct, it still speaks to him for me. : )

Posted by: Ariel | November 1, 2007 12:21 PM

ariel,
1, yes I would say I lean toward animal welfare, more accurately from a deliberate cruelty/neglect viewpoint. A swift death in whatever form(slaughter/hunting/euthanasia) doesn't bother me, but prolonged pain and agonising death does. I guess I'm only putting myself in their position. My grey area in this respect is animal testing for meaningful gain.

We differ mostly on the animal rights issue, primarily on the "no animal use" agenda. Especially where unsound science/reasoning(in my view) is used to push such an agenda.

2, I rarely dissociate myself from anyone at anytime, and I don't believe I've ever supported any viewpoint not inline with my own. I take each post on it's merits(or lack thereof), it shouldn't be assumed that because I agree/disagree with a particular post means I agree/disagree with all posts from that author.

3, many aspects of factory farming are distasteful, but I doubt any of the practices have been put in place to hurt animals for the owners satisfaction. I originally grew up on a dairy farm, and know that every animal was so valuable that every effort was expended to ensure their health. I also know my dad had a tear in his eye when we sold the herd to move on to different enterprises. A factory farm no doubt, but one where the animals were well looked after.

I share your views on nastiness, but not on the sweeping aims of activism. eg the chooks in my backyard are so content they won't mind me eating those eggs, a relationship of mutual benefit. They don't have to suffer, even in death.

Posted by: rojo | November 1, 2007 01:00 PM

Hi Ariel!

Exactly my sentiment! Cochran actually thinks I am thin skinned! LOL!!! Animal advocates are resilient, courageous and compassionate. These are attributes a coward like him doesn't understand. His ridiculous apology is just pathetic. Then in another comment he makes it a point to tell who he is going to kill---how infantile. Though he considers himself so refined and superior he makes the same stupid comments that the other yokels say on this blog that hate/abuse/use/kill animals. Apparently this loser has too much time on his hands.

Stay well Ariel! Peace! :)

Posted by: Ana | November 1, 2007 03:28 PM

Oh Ana, is your name too important to be used when someone argues with you?

Dont be such a softcone.

Posted by: Caboose | November 1, 2007 08:41 PM

Ariel,

My lame excuse for an apology was, in fact, someone impersonating me. I did not post any apology, one of your comrades did.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | November 2, 2007 12:15 PM

And hi, again, Ana! : )

Resilient, courageous, and compassionate - yes, those are the three most profound points that the anti's keep failing to get through their heads about a/r's activists.
I've brought to attention time and time again that a/r' activists do not get offended. And it would be in their best interest to finally realize that we are NOT going away - EVER! In fact, as you know, a/r's activism is getting stronger and stronger by the day throughout the whole world. And that can only be because of resilence, courage, and compassion - very, very, very deep and strong convictions. Virtuous attributes can NEVER be conquered.
Keep up the GOOD fight - because as we know, good ALWAYS wins over evil!

Posted by: Ariel | November 2, 2007 09:31 PM

rojo,
1. I'm glad to hear that you have that much sympathy for animals because - believe it not - there a LOT of people who don't even have that much. And they would scoff at your views.
As for animal testing, that has repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly been proven to be inaccurate, so there is no gain from it. The ONLY gain from it is the "scientists" financial gain for conducting such atrocities - that are not only sadistically barbaric, but also archaic.
Now as for the unsound/unreasoning views you have for a/r's activism, perhaps -emphasizing "perhaps" - that is because you have such strict limitations on your views, meaning, you are not open to learn. There is indeed more than enough scientifically proven studies that have been done by unbiased sources. There are biased sources whose maintain motive is for money.
I don't really understand when someone says they are being "pushed" into a/r's activism beliefs. You, I, or no one can be pushed into believing something we choose not to believe or to believe.
2. So since you don't believe in a/r's activism, then I'm sorry to say that you have often disassociated yourself - especially proven with your comments directed against a/r's activists' comments.
3. I cannot begin to speculate how you run your factory farm, but can only go by what you say. That being so, then it is totally different from how the factory farms are run in the U.S., which are horror chambers for the animals. And it only goes to being worse for them at the slaughterhouses. Their whole lives are a living hell.
4. It's ironic that you mentioned being raised on a dairy farm and about your dad because I had started to write about that in my last post, but it was getting too lengthy. My dad used to take me with him when I was a kid to our local dairy farms. He used to get manure for our garden. I'll never forget to this very day that when I petted the cows, how much they loved it. So that's why I said I do understand that cows on farms, well, they used to be taken care of as I remember.
Anyway, may I kindly and sincerely suggest that you put your good views about animal welfare towards an a/w org. (but I would be cautious about certain a/w orgs. since the big ones do more for personal gain than they do for the animals). You would be helping to make a difference for the animals who needlessly suffer. So surely that would take you into a positive direction that would be very productive for the sake of the animals.
As for a/r's activism, not ALL a/r's activists totally agree on methods, etc. NO org. on earth -be it religious, charitable, whatever - is perfect. And that is because wherever people are involved, nothing can be perfect because human beings are fallible - and not everybody can be pleased. BUT with REAL a/r's activits, it's not about what pleases or displeases us. It's about the animals ONLY.

Posted by: Ariel | November 3, 2007 02:01 AM

Well as apologies go it was pretty good, even if the author gave him/herself away at the end. Interesting to know it wouldn't be accepted by some anyway .

Posted by: rojo | November 3, 2007 03:05 AM

Yeah CCMD, SOCIALIST comrades.

Posted by: Caboose | November 3, 2007 07:31 PM

I work at an SPCA and I think posters are amazing, so many people are blinded by the 'I want a dog/cat/bird/etc' yes, there is nothing wrong with owning an animal, but that includes feeding it, vet bills, make sure it has love etc.

I would rather have someone surreder their animal and fess up to the fact they can't care for it and have it in our shelter then turn out like those poor creatures....dogs just want to love their families and they will no matter how shitty someone treats them and we shoudl take that lover for granted.

It's not a right to live with an animal it's a privilage to have such an amazing creature (as a dog or any animal teach you the way it sees the world and love you the way only an animal can love and trust....

Posted by: loki21 | December 12, 2007 05:07 PM