[yorkietalkjilly]

I'm confused. The article seemed pretty judgmental but maybe it's just my mood today having just watched a video of a row of starving, abused dogs, many of them shaking and ill, semi-starved and hurt. Who is she unhappy with - the rescuer that took the dog or those that place them? She seems hung up with the term rescue when what it's called doesn't matter one whit but giving a scared, hurting dog proper care, love and rehab after it's come from a nightmare does matter greatly to most of us. I think they are angels on earth and if they want to use the term rescue, who cares? I know the poor dog doesn't.

With the huge number of dogs being abused and neglected, overbreeding and overbuying apparently perking along, huge numbers of dogs relinquished into shelters, abandoned and left to die on their own or confiscated and put to sleep in this country in the millions each year, perhaps it's time dogowners in this country start to look at their fitness or ability for having a dog before they get one and reasonably come to terms with whether they can keep the dog once times go bad for them and the dog is having to do without. I'm the first person to care about hurting and severely disadvantaged people going through terrible times but when I see cages full of thin, ill or injured rescue dogs with draining, crusted eyes and broken bones and dogs scared out of their wits of humans, cowering in the backs of their cages and turning away from an outstretched hand in horror, I quickly lose any tendency to feel very sorry or try to understand many of them. But who is doing all the shaming and guilting she is talking about - I couldn't get that.