Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To feel, well, REALLY unhappy at seeing puppy on freecycle...

65 replies

Hadeda · 19/10/2011 23:21

Digest of latest freecycle posts includes a pedigree puppy offered, 12 weeks old with AKC registration. Post says child has allergy which is reason puppy must go.
Which I can sort of understand, but really - freecycle???! Old sofa, used desk, cricket equipment, puppy; it just doesn't sit right. Couldn't she go back to the breeder? Or to the RSPCA or similar who will vet any new home carefully? Weird.

OP posts:

fourkids · 20/10/2011 00:54

Do you know what, I actually agree with you Joolyjoolyjoo and DogsBeastFiend - on a practical level anyway.

BUT this is sensationalist - neither you nor I know where this puppy will end up, and it may well end up in a lovely family.

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/10/2011 00:56

The pup may move to another loving hime, and I would hope to God it does. BUT there is a reason why freecycle don't (generally) allow this, and it's nothing to do with "sensationalism"- it's about likeliehoods and probabilities, and no doubt based on information that freecycle has been supplied with from rescues/ charities etc.

All we are saying is that if the pup is to have the best chance of going to a good home with a committed owner, with the time and funds to ensure it has a comfortable and happy life, freecycle is a bad way of going about it. As an experienced dog owner I wouldn't look on freecycle if I wanted a puppy- would you? Who do YOU think will look at that ad?

fourkids · 20/10/2011 00:56

"Shit, if I posted to express that I was in agreement with someone being negligent about caring for their child all hell would break loose. This is a creature's life we are talking of here, one which could be a bloody misery or worse if people didn't speak up for his rights."

Without doubt. But you don't know this person is being negligent. You don't know that they won't 'interview' every applicant, or visit to see their home. An assumption is being made here with no evidence. But hey, that's how it works on here...

ChippingInToThePumpkinLantern · 20/10/2011 01:00

He hasn't been treated like anything yet?? Substitute 12 week old baby for 12 week old puppy and see how you feel about it.

Championship puppies and Crufts - so what. All that means is the 'elite' of their litters are 'good lookers' - it doesn't mean that they give a rats arse what happens to the ones that aren't the cream of the litter - other than how much £££ they get for them.

Someone here - someone yes, but he/she is not here.

A person who has had a puppy for all of 5 minutes before deciding their child is allergic to it and hasn't tried to do anything to sort the issue out is hardly likely to be taking the time to do proper checks on anyone interested in the puppy are they?? I mean really???

DogsBeastFiend · 20/10/2011 01:03

But I DO know, as does Jooly, and far more than YOU do, that it is very LIKELY to happen. As I said, I'm speaking from years of experience of picking up the pieces of this sort of arrangement, knowing where it started and seeing it regularly with my own eyes, as I'm sure Jooly does too. YOU are speaking from the basis of opinion and whilst I defend and respect your right to hold and express it I will argue strongly against it because in effect what you are doing is misleading folk about the realities of a situation which is as dangerous to PEOPLE as it is to dogs.

fourkids · 20/10/2011 01:03

"As an experienced dog owner I wouldn't look on freecycle if I wanted a puppy- would you? Who do YOU think will look at that ad?"

No...But I would look in the paper, on Internet sites, on Preloved and I am not sure they are hugely different. But equally, if I was looking at Freecycle for some other reason, I might see that advert and decide I fancied another dog and when they visited me and saw that it would live in the middle of nowhere with several other well-adjusted, well-behaved, well-cared for dogs, some horses, ponies, donkeys, cats, chickens, ducks and a big raucous family, they'd probably be happy to re-home it here. then, if it were a bitch, I'd pop along and get her speyed and we'd all live here happily.

And I wouldn't like to judge the character of a person, or their ability to care for a dog properly, based on whether they read freecycle ads or not TBH. I'm sure plenty of freecyclers are very responsible pet owners.

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/10/2011 01:09

I'm not saying that freecyclers are not responsible pet owners! Just that responsible people looking for a puppy won't look for it on freecycle.

you might see that advert and decide you fancied another dog? It's all too easy, isn't it? That's kinda the point. So it wouldn't be a thought out decision. It wouldn't be a "well, we sat down, looked at the family finances, looked at the time commitment, looked at all the ins and outs, decided the time was right for a puppy and went about it in a responsible way" kind of decision, would it?

And I personally would NOT look in the paper/ on internet sites/ on preloved. Nor would I encourage any of my clients to do so.

fourkids · 20/10/2011 01:10

DogsBeastFiend, you have absolutely no idea who I am or what I do. Nor do you have any idea upon what I base my opinions.

Which is just the way things are going to stay. Like many people, I value my anonymity on here.

However, as I said, I basically agree with you on a practical level. But slightly resent the new turn of events which seems to be insinuating that people who use freecycle (I am not one of them BTW) are feckless folk who couldn't care for a dog properly (I base that on the "Who do YOU think will look at that ad?" question).

FearfulYank · 20/10/2011 01:10

Puppies and all sorts of animals are on Freecycle here all the time.

DogsBeastFiend · 20/10/2011 01:14

And if that dog which you bought from Preloved, after the owners visited you and convinced you that he was great with chickens and kids, killed your hens and bit your child, you'd be fucked. Worse still the poor dog would be likely to have been taken to the vet and PTS because the owners were liars and after getting rid of their dog fast for a quick buck and because you had impulsively fallen for a free ads dog without any assessment.

You don't believe me? Browse Doghouse and see the MNers that's happened to. See HERE.

Read about the MNer who did just as you describe above and whose new pet was bought from the free ads, bit a neighbours child and was a result killed all in the space of a weekend.

People wanting rid of a dog can LIE. They do it to us in rescue, by fuck they'll do it to you.

fourkids · 20/10/2011 01:15

"you might see that advert and decide you fancied another dog? It's all too easy, isn't it? That's kinda the point. So it wouldn't be a thought out decision. It wouldn't be a "well, we sat down, looked at the family finances, looked at the time commitment, looked at all the ins and outs, decided the time was right for a puppy and went about it in a responsible way" kind of decision, would it?"

No, it wouldn't. But it would be fine and dandy here, I can assure you.

I do, however, understand your point, and agree that for many families/people buying/accepting an animal on a whim would not be sensible.

But I don't accept that internet sites/preloved/papers are necessarily bad ways to find puppies or kittens, or many other types of animal for tha matter.

Prospective owners should interview prospective vendors as much as it should happen vice versa.

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/10/2011 01:18

OK, fourkids, to turn it around a little. Supposing you had a family heirloom, something valuable to the tune of £600 or so, and you didn't really want it any more. Would you stick it on freecycle?

the point is that freecycle is there for things that people no longer want or need, that don't have any value for them any more (hence the reason they are being given away free), but that someone else could get some use of. This poor puppy isn't a "thing" with little or no value, and doesn't deserve to be treated as such. (IMO)

DogsBeastFiend · 20/10/2011 01:18

"DogsBeastFiend, you have absolutely no idea who I am or what I do. Nor do you have any idea upon what I base my opinions."

You're right..but I can tell you what you're NOT. You're not someone who has experience and knowledge of the reality of dog abuse in the manner in which I and Jooly have described it, you're not someone who has had to pick up the pieces and seen this sort of danger first hand and you're NOT someone who has a clue about how to obtain or rehome a dog responsibly.

fourkids · 20/10/2011 01:18

DogsBeastFiend, I'd be less likely than many to get myself in that position TBH

fourkids · 20/10/2011 01:20

"This poor puppy isn't a "thing" with little or no value" - agreed

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/10/2011 01:24

Glad we agree on something

DogsBeastFiend · 20/10/2011 01:25

ANd btw, the thing about interviewing... talk's cheap. Again. LOOK at the link I gave in my previous post.

Sat you have a dog. You interview me. I'm articulate (well, on a good day), well spoken and come across well. I can say all the right things. So you sell me your dog.

What you don't know is that I have 3 large ones already and I really can't properly afford to insure, care for and have the TIME or the resources for another. Nor would my landlord be happy with it, I suspect.

Oh... you DID check that I own my own home or that my landlord will allow me to have a 4th dog, didn't you? You SAW the paperwork and made the phone calls to verify it?

No.

You didn't.

Because the type of folk you're almost championing DON'T.

But this rescuer, if the boot were on the other foot and you came to me to adopt a dog, wouldn't even bother to call you back. Because I do it the RESPONSIBLE way.

DogsBeastFiend · 20/10/2011 01:25

Rollocks! SAY you have a dog, not SAT you have a dog!

fourkids · 20/10/2011 01:37

Joolyjoolyjoo, I think your points are well made, and I agree with them on the whole. (Only thing I disagree on is that a breeder might insist they could have the dog back if I didn't want it, once I'd bought and paid for it. As it happens, if I ever wanted to rehome a dog - which I don't - the first thing I'd do is ask the breeder if they knew anyone who'd be in a position to help. But that would be my choice)

I didn't even disagree with the sentiment at the beginning that freecycle wasn't the best place to advertise a puppy! I only asked what evidence there was that the puppy had been treated in any way badly (there was none). Then I drank a glass of somehing chilled and white, and someone looked like they wanted a good old ding dong and all the shouty capital letters sucked me in.

What I am slightly coming at at a tangent is the sensationalist stuff on this thread.

When people work in any emotive area, they can start to see things from a slightly skewed angle. The majority of dogs are well or at least adequately cared for, Like the majority of children. It may not always be done the way we would like it to be, but it is actually OK. The minority are not cared for adequately. It is not, for example, the norm for dogs to end up being used to train other dogs to fight for sport. I'm not, of course, saying it doesn't happen - I'm saying that to assume that it is likely shows a degree of immersion in the area.

fourkids · 20/10/2011 01:39

DogsBeastFiend, who exactly do you think I am championing??

FearfulYank · 20/10/2011 01:49

You insure your dogs?

There are free dogs and cats in the paper ALL the time here, honestly. That's how I got mine...

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/10/2011 01:56

fourkids, I assure you that I am not a sentamentalist when it comes to dogs. I love them, I treat them to the best of my ability, I sometimes even euthanase them.

My 16 years of vet practice have made me very slightly jaded, possibly, because I do see cases of neglect (which are mostly down to ignorance, rather than malice) and cases where people just have not done their homework before rushing out and getting a puppy, which end in tears for all concerned

I have people calling me saying that they think that their dog might have broken its leg, but they have NO money. I don't know them, but the thought of that dog suffering is horrible. I ask them if no one can lend them the £20 to have their poor animal looked at/ treated. They say no. They are not entitled to free vet treatment as they are working. I usually see the dog, but I do want them to pay a token amount. Why should I "lend" them the money? I don't know them! But OTOH I can't stand the thought of the poor animal in pain. So I say I will see them. But then it's not convenient for them to come today- it will need to be tomorrow. Or maybe the next day? I say, OK, first thing tomorrow. But they don't want to get up that early

I deal with people like this day in, day out. They got a dog, but don't have funds/ aren't willing to pay for treatment. I end up feeling bad, for the animal, but I didn't make the decision for them to get a dog. I just wish people would think more. Or care more.

Joolyjoolyjoo · 20/10/2011 02:00

FearfulYank- it's all very well getting a dog for nothing, but what if it breaks its leg? A recent client of mine just spent £4000 on a broken tibia (shin) at an orthopaedic specialist. Do you have funds in place for that sort of thing? That's what insurance is for.

FearfulYank · 20/10/2011 02:11

I've never heard of anyone having pet insurance, honestly. I can see the reason for it though.

I wanted a free dog because I thought it was silly to shell out hundreds of dollars for a pedigreed dog when I could get a sweet mixed breed pup for nothing. And he's the very best dog in the whole wide world, so good decision on my part. :)

LetTheSlaughterBeGincognito · 20/10/2011 02:53

I think pet insurance is standard, isn't it?!

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread