Considering how many pets got dumped after the pandemic, its worth the question
Should People Have to Pass Rigorous Psychological Assessments before Being Allowed to Own a Pet?
Comments
- 1
- 2
I think the question should be “Should People Have to Pass Rigorous Psychological Assessments before Being Allowed to have children? Although there is a high rate of people surrendering their pets and it’s traumatising for me to think some won’t be rehomed at least the decision has be made in the best interest of the animal.
Of course they should….,
The same should be compulsory to have children as well!
Yes because I’m sick of the arrogant pet owners in my neighbourhood who either:
a) refuse to clean up after their dog,
b) let their dogs run wild off leash attacking people or other dogs with zero control over the dog, and
c) let their dogs roam around kids playgrounds scaring kids and acting like they have every right to do it.
petdog ownersThe answer isn't more laws though… those people will still do it anyway. What we need is less laws… so we can give the animal or ignorant/arrogant owner a good hard Will Smithing.
Anyone wanting to own an American pit bull or a Rottweiler, or any mixed breeds there of, should definitely first undergo a rigorous psychological test. Most would fail. I’d also make it retrospective for current owners. Most would fail.
It would also be nice if there was a psychological test to weed out prospective owners of any breed who’d let their dog sh*t on a public footpath and not clean it up.
I mean that sounds great until some people who fail the test decide to have children instead
The problem is many people with psychological problems are those that would respond best or benefit the most from having a pet.
Well that explains SloMo and slurping Albo posing for photos with their dogs.
Twitter users need this policy. Frustrating when news sites take a single random tweet and write a whole article around their comment like they're some leading visionary on the topic - zero background check.
I would say yes, but not rigorous.
Also it should only be aimed at the attributes that will influence their care for a pet.
For example someone with sever depression, who will treat their pet like the center of their world. Should absolutely be able to have a pet.Also it may not be viable as it would add significant cost and time to the process that people may not be able to afford. But ideally yes, I would like this to be part of the process.
I would be far more supportive of these things before having children.
Based on the number of humans and other pets who get mauled to death by pet dogs, I'd say YES.
Going by human death count, the Pit Bull is regarded as the most dangerous dog in the US. Between 2005 and 2014 alone, 203 Americans were mauled to death by a Pit Bull, and quite a few of those deaths were the dog’s owner. Rottweilers are regarded the second most dangerous by the number of people it has killed.
Google the budget the RSPCA burns every year!
Imagine for a moment proper law enforcement would get the same positive attention!Plus the RSPCA doesn't even do half the work people think they do. Someone threw a stray kitten over our fence giving it some kind of brain damage. I phoned the RSPCA. They told me they wouldn't come and to phone the local council ranger instead. Every "charity" is like this… more about using "the cause" to raise money that mostly goes towards their own career/perks.
OP must be off getting ready to adopt a kitten….
I just want to take this opportunity to apologise to everyone for my pet goldfish's death. I admit I was ill trained and ill prepared for such a huge responsibility as a young child. Rip Blinkywinky
You're a better person than me. I don't even remember their names. But they had proper burials in a matchbox.
Not sure I'd go as far as psychological test lol but definitely some kind of extra checks, or penalties, for negligent pet owners, in particular those who own cats and let them roam about at night and all the related problems much like with feral cats.
Let's focus on children first. Would probably improve the problem with pets in the long run. Plenty of people having children who shouldn't.
You should at least have to prove you have the means to support pets or children before having them.
Should People Have to Pass Rigorous Psychological Assessments before Being Allowed to Own a Pet?
Imagine the madness where you sit a test to see if you can own a cat. Only in todays (tomorrows) upside down world.
Forget pets. With over 50% of pregnancies unplanned people should have to be assessed before having kids!
This seems a flimsy assumption. Do you have evidence that more pets got dumped after the pandemic or is it something you have invented or assumed?
What sort of evidence would you be looking for? RSPCA VIC is indicating they are receiving 150/month where 50/month was the average pre-xmas.
https://news.com.au/lifestyle/home/pets/uptick-in-pandemic-p…
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/mornings/inc…
https://www.9news.com.au/national/dogs-surrendered-rescue-sh…
People want to start treating pets like humans then pets should also subject to all human laws
Most here just want to be part of some woke outrage trend.. lol
When you use the term woke you actually label yourself btw.
I don’t go on social media when someone’s outraged whenever they hear or see a bad pet owner and trying to get like’s commenting to bring justice to pet owners
Wot you talkin’ bout Willis?
Rescue cats don’t recover from their trauma, I dunno about dogs but I’m sure they have specific memories about getting dumped for whatever reason and it’s hard for them to get over it. We had a rescue and he was quite a good cat - he was very adaptable to his situations - but a friend got one and it is a absolute (profanity)
^ true, I know someone who rehabilitates strays. Kittens that miss the initial bonding period (I think it's only like first ~8 months of age) become exponentially more difficult to domesticate afterwards. 0% the cat's fault, 100% fault of the humans that made them strays in the first place.
Here is me thinking the topic could be " Should we get rid of this Government for wasting $5.5 Billion of tax payers money on a change of mind on subs" but no just another post on attacking poor people because they wouldn't have $200 to fix a pet. This site has sunk so low these days.
Forget pet owners, folks should have to pass a psychological assessment before being allowed to breed.
So you agree with me!
While I love pets I don't like this new trend of trying to police morality by introducing new laws.
You might as we do a financial assessment as well.
Yes, and babies.
Ignorance is hard to test for. All of my pets have been due to circumstances lining up and our home was the best place for them, and lived fantastic lives. I'll be buggered if any more hoops are placed on our lives simply because idiots continue idioting.
Yes especially every cat owner who let their cats out to roam around killing native wild life, jump on peoples cars and scratch and damage them. Roam inside private property damaging the property and causing damage to gardens and plants.
About the supposed dog dumping in Sydney. I keep hearing the rumour that people in North Shore Sydney are bored of their dogs or couldn't train them so are dumping them. From what I have heard in my local dog park the price of dogs is cheaper than last year during lockdown. I think maybe that's why people think there must be excess supply from dog dumping causing the prices to be cheaper. Pretty sure it's just that demand was really high for dogs going into lockdown though.
How are people dumping dogs anyway… don't they all have microchips now, meaning owners get fined or have to pay for it to be put down when it's captured?
Pretty sure people are saying 'dumping' for any way of getting rid of your dog. Bit like when you dump a girl. So I'd say they are just selling these expensive dog breeds for much cheaper or giving them away to someone that will look after them.
I really don't think it's an issue as long as someone takes care of the dog at the end of the day
My trashy downstairs neighbours had two kittens, one starved to death and RSPCA rescued the other when they got evicted and abandoned it. Also I'm surrounded by barking dogs on all sides so yeah I'd really love to see some mandates around pet ownership, particularly proof of means/stable home and some education about dog training.
Perhaps passing a course in logic would be better.
For the stupid dog owners that let their dog run around and race up to passers by, then pipe up with 'don't worry, wouldn't hurt a fly'. Or 'Brutus come here' (completely ignored)
Or cat owners who let their lethal hunter out at night and say 'Fluffy would never attack a native animal'. And knowing it is a fact of life it is going to crap somewhere….Sick of both owners, animals not to blame..
Good idea. But who's going to administer the testings, keeping of records, enforcement etc etc. And how much funding it is going to need?
There are lots of things that could be in place not just your idea, but it always comes down to cost vs benefit.
So for this case, unfortunately the cost doesn't justify its benefits or essentialness.
There are so many homeless / rescue dogs that need a home. This would put people off adopting a dog and these dogs would end up in kill centres. You could maybe have this for purchasing a puppy, but where it falls out is where the puppy is being bought for a child. Not to mention who Is going to pay for this? a new tax? We already live in a draconian state. Would be better to severely punish offenders who abuse animals.
Probably a financial means test as well, all that food, vet trips, vaccinations, desexing etc is not cheap
Yes. People should be required to pass a simple course or education programme about dog ownership it’s pitfalls and responsibilities.
Dog ownership is 10-15 year commitment not while puppy is cute commitment or the pandemic lasts commitment. Then I can get it euthanised commitment or throw it on the street for someone else to look after commitment.
Seen it happen. People like that are scum. Their the ones who’s parents should have had “parental responsibility classes” before being able to have children.
Will it ever happen? Never ever. We don’t live in an ideal world, unfortunately!
There are no such assessments that could be utilised for that kind of purpose as far as I know.
Even if there were some tests that could somehow measure tendencies of abandonment or something that we can adopt for the purpose, people's behaviours are results of so many factors that I don't think you can determine whether someone will do something.
I am all for some kind of education and stricter rules and more supports for the pet owners (financial and whatnot). Psychological assessments would be useless imo, a background check on history of pet abandonment probably is easier, cheaper and likely more effective.
Wouldn't this exempt every single female from ever owning more than one cat ??..
If pet dumping is why you think someone should have a psychological assessment, then certainly not - because dumping it proves they finally came to their senses. ;-p
Besides, if people weren't banned from giving away pets on sites like f-arse-book or charged $$$ by certain other places (supposedly there for the benefit of animals while begging for $$$ from every other source too), then virtually no-one would need to dump them.
That said, it's a special kind of strange how people claiming to be "animal lovers" get their knickers in a twist over pet dumping, yet they're oblivious to their own sadistic urge to imprison and inflict suffering on an animal most (or all) it's life.
i.e. If you're on a farm (a cat for mice), or cattle station (dog for sheep), or own a car wrecking yard (guard dog for fence) then I get that… but most people get a cat, dog, budgie… then go to work all day leaving their new prison inmate suffering alone. They come home and the cat rubs against their legs, purrs, goes to sleep in their lap… the dog shakes like a giddy schoolgirl over the latest Bieber wannabe… and they have the arrogance to take that as confirmation they're "good people". Spoiler alert: Those are signs the pet is finally RELIEVED its MENTAL ANGUISH, TORTURE, BOREDOM and SOLITARY CONFINEMENT that has finally ended for the day.
Such people should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. It could be argued the dumper is kinder because they set the pet free, outside, no longer jailed inside the same yard/house 24/7/365, free to do and go where and when it pleases, and from what I've seen in "good pet owner" homes… probably eating better too.
Jailers get home, take THEIR dog for a walk to 5h|t on EVERYONE ELSE'S grass, then pat themselves on the back as if picking it up with their hand protected inside a plastic bag and leaving the foul substance smeared where the resident might sit to play with their toddler or kneel to change their mower blades makes it magically clean. It's THEIR animal, so stop letting it drag THEM where it wants to sniff the urine of seven others, then squeeze out a toxic log after they've fed it filthy canned or bagged food when they wouldn't dream of eating the same one or two packaged foods every meal their entire life.
These are some of the reasons why I wonder about the mental health of people with pets. Another one is during summer… I have to wonder what's worse… the person who doesn't waste electricity keeping their house cool all day for an animal - or the one who does. And while cats aren't as bad, dogs make even the "cleanest" owners house STINK. Of course they all vehemently deny this (just as every staffy owner thinks it's other staffy owners who are the problem), but anyone who doesn't own one can instantly smell the stink the moment they enter - it's in the carpet, their clothes, their hair… and contrary to what they all tell themselves (and us) steam cleaning once every six months doesn't get rid of it… they're just used to the stink - much like smokers can't smell their own disgusting stink through everything. Steam on each foot of carpet for seconds doesn't solve months of sweaty dog balls and dripping urine. The only way is to rip up the carpet and discard it after doing the same with the dog.
And these are the "better", "cleaner" owners… there's plenty more who do nothing about the stink, sweat, drool, fleas, hair… ugh - dirty, unhygienic people.
Then there's the prison-guards-in-training who say ridiculous things like: "Cujo is a family member" or "poo-poo my shih tzu (5h|t zoo) is my cute widdle furbaby"… Really!? So if you had a baby, you'd lock it inside most of its life, alone, bored stiff, while you go to work and out with friends enjoying your life at restaurants and parties… meanwhile you feed it from a can or plastic bag every meal, then walk it on a chain to 5h|t on your neighbours yards because you don't want the foul substance on your own yard?
Oh and there's the ones who pay thousand$ for operations because they're too insecure/needy/selfish to finally give the pet relief from it's miserable existence. Meanwhile friends/family/other people are in genuine need, struggling financially, some shivering in the cold or starving to death… these remind me of the the Auschwitz guards who fed their alsatians then watched with callous indifference as fellow human beings turned to sacks of skin and bone before expiring.
See… there's more than one way to see things. ;-p
Oh… and we need LESS government interference in our lives, not more. Then we wouldn't be turning into a real life idiocracy (see last two years as the perfect example).
They should have one before breeding their own crotchspawn…
- Nanny state at its best(worst)
- First world problem at its best (worst) (stop giving taxpayers money out) and,
- Is “should people be tested before marriage? next? Followed by the below,
Before having kids? Before taking on a political job? Before getting a drivers license? Before getting a passport? Before allowed to swim in the ocean/public pool? Before owning their own house? Before getting a mortgage? Before getting a personal loan? Before getting a credit card? Before making a friend? Before your social credit score is “excellent “? Before you are an “Aryan” from a Nordic country? What else? Bring it on! Lets make “super human” who had been tested for everything!
Yes. Taking care of another living being is a privilege, not a right.
Ordinarily I'm against nanny states and their endless rules, but this is one thing that should be regulated.
Well, its a little bit of a relief that around 60% of people have an element of compassion/empathy
The results are skewed though because most people who couldn't give a stuff won't read the thread… (it's mainly pro and a few anti animal ownership people who will click into here in the first place). It's kind of like posting, "Should Hyundai drivers be required to take an additional driving test before being allowed on the road"… and even that would draw more clicks from people wondering, "What the heck is that about!?".
I'm for any hurdles to reduce the number of dogs I'm AU, Therefore less barking
Yeah I'm in two minds about that… again, less government interference, not more. But otoh I'm sick of dogs barking at night. Someone walks along the street at 2am, one flea factory gives a low "woof", so the one three doors away hears that and gives a real bark instead, and seconds later every mongrel in the suburb is barking its head off, with about 10% of owners who don't usually hear their "like a member of the family" because they're at work… are yelling, "For f's sake SHUDDUP BUTCH!" and slamming their doors.
Do people have to pass a rigorous psychological assessment before being allowed to have children?
If you want to see State's intervention on people's capacity, let's start with children first… At least we might be able to avoid a bunch of child abuse and resulting personality disorders through generations, and irresponsible pet owners.
The problem also lies in “the test”. Picking correct answers and doing it are two separate matters. By common sense, everyone can pass the test
It creates a barrier to entry, which imo weeds out the worst.
It's like putting a provisional plate on your vehicle. It's a piece of plastic that provides no benefit of safety. However if you get caught without one displayed, it shows you can't be a responsible driver.
People who'd want a pet would lie in a test. People who'd want to get a drivers' licence cannot lie about their knowledge in a knowledge test.
Psychologists are not lie detectors, even if you discount the possibility that a person who's talking may believe what others perceive as lie as the truth which would complicate the matter significantly that is.
The cost and time to get a psychological assessment would be enough to deter many owners.
Whether or not the assessment is a farce is kind of irrelevant
@Davo1111: I feel like that is only going to allow rich people to even consider getting a pet. Even worse, that is not going to stop irresponsible people who can afford those sessions.
It kinda goes into, why are we taking up something thats already stretched so thin (I think it was 1/3 of the psychologists who cannot currently take a new client because they have no capacity) and what's the point of doing something that's not cost effective or has a point?
If it is to deter someone by making it more costly, it's probably better to make people to invest their time into getting a pet.
Like needing to attend multiple sessions on the weekend on how to raise a pet and what having a pet would entail in the long run, and allow people to get a refund and allow them to not attend all the sessions if they do not feel they are up for it. At least that has some purpose behind it from my perspective.
@iridiumstem: who said it needed to be multiple sessions?
I believe that most of the drivers licence tests are completely redundant and don't make you a better driver. However the hoops required to get a full licence puts more inherit value on the licence itself.
Maybe education sessions are more beneficial than a psychological assessment, either way it's a hurdle im for.
and allow people to get a refund and allow them to not attend all the sessions if they do not feel they are up for it.
In turn means that wealthy people wont attend.
@Davo1111: I think it's fairer that the deterrant is time based, since people can choose to spare time or not (annual leaves, etc), whereas income, not many can choose their hourly pay.
$210 dollars (since that's what is charged for a 55 minutes session with a psychologist, some psychologists request the initial assessment session to be a longer session) is a lot of money for some, something that they don't have to worry much about for others.
As with the driver's licence, it tests people's knowledge of the road rules, which is different from driving skills I suppose, but I think it's something you need the knowledge of to know what is not allowed on the road.
No, because people have different and many reasons for not being able to care for their pets during/after the pandemic.
- Relationships ending.
- Having to move or downgrade into a smaller or rented house.
(In Australia, everyone pretty much rents. It's hard to own a house these days.) - Not being able to work or losing work due to the pandemic.
- The mental fatigue/depression etc it caused.
It's not surprising that more pets were given up, it's the same as if it were in a war zone like Ukraine or the floods in NSW.
I'm sure we could list out examples why someone had to surrender the animal. But don't deny that many people are not responsible or underestimate the time required for pet ownership.
There have been many articles about an increase of dogs being put down or dumped around holiday time.
You can't put down a pet or dump it, it's illegal.
You're required by law to get them microchipped, which is registered under your name and address etc…
Giving people a psych evaluation is ridiculous. Maybe enforcing them to have the pets checked at the vet every 3 years ensures they are keeping them healthy and alive is better. Also, have them Report when they are selling/giving them up for adoption and a reason as to why.
Since the sale of pets is not governed and would be impossible to police, mandating anyone from stopping buying/ owning pets is then also impossible..
I like the idea though..
You could try and enforce this at registration but then owners won't register their pets..
Pet sales should be registered & taxed, like a car. Yes, even goldfish.
(Even though i would like some barriers to entry for pet ownership, i know it wont happen)
Registration can be on a federal level. make it an offence to have a non tagged animal - and illegal for vets to work on untagged animals.
Most councils make it an offence to have an unregistered pet.
mandating anyone from stopping buying/ owning pets is then also impossible..
You can buy a new or used car, unlicenced. But it's enforced, so compliance is high.
Unfortunately I only see detriment to the pets health in these scenarios, it would be inhumane to not perform vetinary duties..
Cars need public roads to be useful so will be caught on tolls, hwp..
Pets can be bought for cash from unlicensed breeders who do not tag or immunise and sit in someone's backyard there entire life and nobody would know.. no way the police or government/ council would know unless someone complained about noise/smell.
It's not feasible unfortunately.
Trust me I do wish for more competent owners, mistreatment of campanion pets is inhumane..
- 1
- 2
However will humanity cope? Lol.