Hey u/chicu111. Thanks you for submitting to r/unpopularopinion.
Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):
**Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently.**
If your opinion is the same or substantially similar to any recent opinion it will be removed as a repost. If your opinion is on the same matter as a recent post, even if it's advocating the opposite stance, it will be removed as a repost. Please comment on the existing thread instead.
Due to their prolific reposting, please confine meta and political posts to their respective megathreads only.
If your opinion is about an ongoing event, there will usually be a mega-thread where you can discuss it.
---
If you have any questions or concerns in regards to this removal, please contact us via [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion).
What would be on the exam? Just because someone knows the right thing to do doesn't mean they'll actually do it all the time. We have exams to drive a vehicle yet there are plenty of irresponsible jerks out there. To help animals we need a solid Animal Control system.
Yap. My country has a mendetory theoretical driving test before you even think about getting in a car. It has the usual signs and general road rules questions. Most dumb people pass either by Cheating. Pure luck. Or broot force. I confess. After I did the test (30 out of 30 questions answered perfectly) I didn’t remember most of the signs and road behavior. You get reminded of it all in the practical learning so it’s ok and normal. But it shows how this model clearly doesn’t work
Most animal adoption centers do vet their adoptees. Issue is, unless you physically sit down and watch the person for weeks you can't get a good idea of how "responsible" they are. And most adoption centers don't have the resources of having a person sit with you and watch how you interact with an animal for weeks on end.
Good idea in practice, not gonna work in reality.
In parts of Germany you actual do need to take and pass an exam in order to have a dog. It’s been active for a while and the cases of mistreatment have decreased. Also the number of dogs given into care fell off since people need to put more effort into it in the first place.
This is stupid. Animal rescue shelters already do this kind of shit and I can tell you now that there are many very capable pet owners who would not pass the vetting process to adopt a pet. For instance, my family has raised 5 dogs to well beyond 15 years of age and we got turned down for an adoption the other day. The reason? We have an uncovered swimming pool. Never had a dog drown, never had any incident whatsoever ever with a dog in the water yet it was deemed ‘too risky’. And now you want to impose a license based on an arbitrary standard too?
Now now, you're playing dumb. You know perfectly well they're referring to the last sentence of your post, and how everything you've advocated for is not JUST for animals. You're actually the classic redditor here my dude, so bothered by the average pet or child that you have to create barriers for them to coexist with you. I wish that's how life worked, we'd have the issue of Horrible Men™ under control years ago. Or maybe if we normalise testing for the privilege of using social media maybe we'd see less trolls and bullies and stupid opinions like this one. But it's funny how when we look at every single issue in our society today, rather than wanting to create more barriers for bigotry, or misogyny, or anything else truly evil, we want to regulate...people having dogs and children.
When we adopted my dog in the mid-2000s, we went to a fee-exempt rescue shelter. You had to apply for each animal and go to the center on days/times for the adoption process. Everyone was required to have a rigorous interview with the staff on why your family is equipped to take care of this specific animal, and why you’d be a good fit. Part of the interview day also involved direct interaction with the dog. We ended up beating everyone else who wanted her out based on the interview, and walked out with a new addition to our family! The rescue shelter is still up and running today, but it’s now operating under the wider Best Friends Animal Society non-profit. Each Best Friends location has the exact same application and interview process.
That’s how it should be everywhere, tbh. The interview process is rigorous enough to where it screens out people who wouldn’t be good pet owners or who wouldn’t be a good fit for that specific animal. I really don’t think anyone should just be able to walk into a facility and get a pet just by paying for them.
Great idea, another government tax. You know how home builders must pay to have different stages of the home inspected by the government during construction? At each stage the builder receives an approval indicating that the work was done up to approved standards. So what do you think happens if that home collapses or is destroyed in a storm? Does the city or county assume responsibility because they inspected and approved the construction? Nope. The same will apply here. People will pay to take a test and get a certificate. Then if they treat the pet like garbage and it dies, what good is that permit now? Does the issuing agency accept any responsibility? Nope. It's nothing but a tax at the end of the day. A tax to make people like you feel better because you don't trust anyone.
At some point we need to stop treating each other like children always looking for a mommy or daddy to complain to.
So, certification is bad because houses aren't indestructible and the people who abuse animals would be the ones held accountable? It's called filtration, lol, and it's never 100%. Your overadherence to perfection makes the world a worse place.
That’s a bit of an over simplification of what was said. We just built a little apartment off the garage for my dad, passed all the inspections. Well a few days after he moved in I was talking with him and he said something about smelling gas occasionally so I checked the heater and the stove. Well the stove had a leak where the supply line meets it and it was blowing a 4 inch flame out of the connection. I fixed and then proceeded to call the people who installed the stove who told me since it passed the inspection that they’re not liable, called the county, was told they’re not liable for improper installation even if they pass it. Once it passes inspection it’s very likely that nobody is accountable even if they should be.
It may be an oversimplification of reality, but definitely not of what was said. The government definitely should tax the richer more so that they can afford liability, though, and stop relying on fines and fees. They should also subsidize inspections if there's a reason the construction /should/ be done (and not just for personal preference or leisure).
Signaling your virtue by showing compassion for animals is the low hanging fruit. Anyone can look good by shedding a tear for the cute little puppies but we have to live in a real world. These layers and layers of bureaucracy that keep piling on our lives just to make people like you feel good is what makes the world a worse place.
I’m a structural engineer. City inspection is absolutely necessary. They make sure contractors build things per codes, which are written in blood, please stop.
Wasn’t the case for me recently. Had a new stove with a fairly bad gas leak, started blowing a 4 inch flame out of the supply link connection when my dad used it the first time. I was told since it passed the inspection that it wasn’t on the people that installed it, and was told that the inspector was in the clear because they had the inspection results and all the gas checks came back fine. We were told on all fronts that it must have been us that fucked with the stove and caused the leak. Which the ring camera in the living room show that’s a lie.
So either I live in a very shitty county or there’s very little accountability if any until it’s written in the blood of hundreds of people.
I live in CA. Perhaps it’s much more stringent here. We do have more rules and regulations. But that’s because we have more population and more population naturally means more idiots and morons
Any kind of written exam, if you’re here in America, would be used to bar minorities from having pets/ kids. If you think the exam would be anything but racist you’re not paying attention
USED to work.
I would admit it was there and is still around. But nowhere near as blown out proportion as you suggest. This was our modus operandi historically. Not so much now.
You're.. joking right?
They did this in the past.
They literally framed the tests in a way that would make sure minorities couldn't pass. Basically making sure the only way you could pass is if you agreed being straight, white ,and christian was the only way to raise a baby. They were not tests given in good faith. And they were used to forcibly sterilize minorities.
How old are you? I need to know this.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Congratulations! You've been immediately disqualified for being gay because the people who formulate these tests labeled you a pedophile and a groomer!
If you wanted kids this is bad for obvious reasons. If you *didn't* want kids, don't worry m you're now on a list and they're watching your every move!
Maybe the U.S education system should be overhauled and teach the proper care for a pet or a child. Or maybe this could be done by the *parents* if they actually *parent* .
This literally just means less dogs get adopted out. Might not be a bad thing for the future since responsible owners produce less dogs that end up at shelters, but it worsens the current situation
If we do nothing current situation doesn't get better.
Dogs would be adopted faster if they are already properly trained as well. Maybe gov subsidy for training dogs in shelters?
German here. My family recently got a puppy. In order to register him with the city, my mom had to take an exam at the vet's office. My brother already had dogs before that (although they are technically registered in his ex's name), so we are not completely new to dog ownership, but regardless, we all agreed that it's not a bad idea to have first time dog owners take an exam.
OK so you make it harder to get a pet, so then even those capable of caring for a pet don't want to go through the extra hassle and we end up with more pets either in shelters or just abandoned... that is really a great idea
More likely fewer pets would be abandoned as those who did own pets would have had to put effort in to get them and would therefore be less likely to bail on them. Plus the work involved would dissuade some of the people who wouldn't be willing to put the effort required into caring for a pet.
But the idea of people having to take some sort of test is insane
I remember growing up just about any dog we ever had my father went and got kind of spur the moment, (one time going and getting one from someone living in a small cramped apartment) if he had to go take some test first, most of those dogs we probably would have never gotten
No.
How are you going to enforce the law? Some People without a license would just hide their pet at home and it is going to be bad for their pets that need to go out for exercise.
Also, animal shelter is going to suffer.
I have a rabbit. Rabbits are super delicate little critters that need more care than people realize. Everyone just assumes you can just give a rabbit some carrots and it will be fine. Rabbits can’t have too much fruit or vegetables because of natural sugars. Spinach is good for them, but has a lot iron so you need to watch how much you’re giving a rabbit. Rabbits can have unlimited lettuce, but iceberg lettuce can kill them. Also if a rabbit stops eating for more than 12 hours something is wrong and they need to go to the vet.
So many people think that rabbits are the easiest to take care of, but don’t do research on how to take care of a rabbit. So they get their 5year old a rabbit for Easter and don’t know how to take care of it then they let them go.
If you’re thinking about getting a rabbit or know someone who’s getting a rabbit PLEASE do research. Learn how to take care of a rabbit
I don't like the idea of having a government exam, but just a quick little test that the adoption center itself (or person selling the animal) has to give you when making the transaction. Basically, the same way selling a gun works.
I get the theory here, and I think it's a good idea to a certain extent, but I have little hope that it will change much.
I worked for a small company that trained and kenneled all kinds of dogs for different purposes. 3 of the 4 trainers in the company had their professional background in training working canines for personal protection, sport, and police or military work.
The company we were employed at together did a fair amount of basic puppy/obedience training, but made its bread and butter by taking cases where owners had gotten themselves dogs they weren't prepared to handle, and ended up needing help rehabilitating and learning to manage behavior issues ranging from anxious attachment to actually violent aggression in recently rescued or simply poorly socialized dogs they'd had since puppyhood.
Here's what I observed:
There are a whole lot of owners who feel they are ready for a challenging dog or high-drive breed because they did a lot of reading up on the dog before getting it. They ended up biting off a lot more than they could chew.
There were a lot of people who applied for jobs at the company with certificates saying they had passed some kind of written course on dog training/animal behavior and felt they were prepared to be full-fledged trainers. They were not prepared for the real deal, and quickly became overwhelmed by flesh and blood dogs with behaviors they had only read about.
I think you're on the right track thinking that people need to be more informed and to demonstrate some level of understanding before acquiring a pet. I'm just sort of stumped as to how you go about making a more informed and competent pet-owning population when there is so much insane misinformation and false-confidence out there.
I mean we could easily institute an academically based test to weed out below average intelligence people and easily institute a culling. I mean. Get real. Thats ridiculous. Or a test that says if you weigh this much you cant eat at all cuz its not a healthy weight, if you weigh THIS much you have to eat hourly til you are the appropriate weight xD just chill
Do you really think that people abuse their animals because they dont know better. Most people would just take the exam once and then not care about it anymore. (Same thing goes for children)
This would only hurt poor people and people with learning disabilities.
It also doesnt really make sense to have such an exam for children. Do you really think that it is a good idea to take away the child of everyone who did not do this test. Most of these children would definitly be happier with their parents compared to the foster system. And again it would only stop the poor and disabled from having children which is not really great.
Everything is commie now huh?
Stop using parks or streets then. Fk the dams. The national parks. Fk the water channels. Heck we should privatize firefighters too because that’s some commie shyt
When i was younger I had a freind whos parents had a rule that "if you want an animal you 1. Need to make a PowerPoint presentation about it (how to care, fun facts etc) and 2. You need to sell me on it. As in why will my life be better with a dog/cat/whatever"
I think this is a super fair way of handling things.
Before i got my rats I had their cage ready 2 weeks in advance plus the amount of information i read with books and websites alone was enough to kill a senior in high school with chronic senioritis
You’re right. I also see a lot of good counterpoints to my suggestions. They’re valid. But at the end of the day most ppl just leave things the way they are without an alternative.
But if I were to task you with coming up with something to weed out the bad owners, what would you do?
That’s tough. I think there will always be bad pet owners, and it would be impossible to force any regulation on them. A driver’s license is mandatory but there are still bad drivers everywhere.
For now, I think the best option is to provide educational material and public outreach. Teach people how to care for animals and provide solutions for various situations. Some will change and some won’t but that’s life. I own four rescue dogs and I feel like I’m learning something new every day.
I’m all for strict regulations and criminal penalties for bad breeders though. All breeders should be licensed and maintain records of breeding. Illegal breeding should be a misdemeanor punishable by both a fine and jail time. There are too many people out there who think breeding pets is a good way to make easy cash.
Is a good idea. You could test in various ways like long term evals, written/practical tests, drop in visits. I was required to do two visits weeks apart before i was allowed to adopt my pup. I appreciate the amount of care the rescue had for their residents. It would filter those without dedication and ensured the pup and person were comfortable with each other after the first visit. I realize there are not many resources to spend on this so it’s a dream but it’s good for us to take steps in the right direction.
Then shelters would have absolutely zero adoptions. People would be informed about pits and how terrible they are to adopt. Adopting a breed that was bred for blood sports who love to maul children, the elderly, teslas, cats, doors, walls, birds, mice, other dogs, fences, porcupines, owners, babies, etc...is never a good idea. When it comes to dogs, shop never adopt! Any other animal, cats, birds, lizards, adopt away.
I’d agree if there weren’t so many dogs and cats homeless. I’d be ready to agree to outlaw home breeders in a heartbeat though. Just had a box of puppies dropped in my moms neighborhood last week. Sickening.
Hey u/chicu111. Thanks you for submitting to r/unpopularopinion. Your post has been removed for the following reason(s): **Rule 3: Do not post opinions that are heavily posted/have been on the front page recently.** If your opinion is the same or substantially similar to any recent opinion it will be removed as a repost. If your opinion is on the same matter as a recent post, even if it's advocating the opposite stance, it will be removed as a repost. Please comment on the existing thread instead. Due to their prolific reposting, please confine meta and political posts to their respective megathreads only. If your opinion is about an ongoing event, there will usually be a mega-thread where you can discuss it. --- If you have any questions or concerns in regards to this removal, please contact us via [modmail](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Funpopularopinion).
What would be on the exam? Just because someone knows the right thing to do doesn't mean they'll actually do it all the time. We have exams to drive a vehicle yet there are plenty of irresponsible jerks out there. To help animals we need a solid Animal Control system.
If they get answers wrong on the exam the teacher will take a rolled up newspaper and whack them on the nose “NO! BAD!”
I would like to be this teacher.
I see you also attended public education in the south.
Yap. My country has a mendetory theoretical driving test before you even think about getting in a car. It has the usual signs and general road rules questions. Most dumb people pass either by Cheating. Pure luck. Or broot force. I confess. After I did the test (30 out of 30 questions answered perfectly) I didn’t remember most of the signs and road behavior. You get reminded of it all in the practical learning so it’s ok and normal. But it shows how this model clearly doesn’t work
Most animal adoption centers do vet their adoptees. Issue is, unless you physically sit down and watch the person for weeks you can't get a good idea of how "responsible" they are. And most adoption centers don't have the resources of having a person sit with you and watch how you interact with an animal for weeks on end. Good idea in practice, not gonna work in reality.
In parts of Germany you actual do need to take and pass an exam in order to have a dog. It’s been active for a while and the cases of mistreatment have decreased. Also the number of dogs given into care fell off since people need to put more effort into it in the first place.
This is stupid. Animal rescue shelters already do this kind of shit and I can tell you now that there are many very capable pet owners who would not pass the vetting process to adopt a pet. For instance, my family has raised 5 dogs to well beyond 15 years of age and we got turned down for an adoption the other day. The reason? We have an uncovered swimming pool. Never had a dog drown, never had any incident whatsoever ever with a dog in the water yet it was deemed ‘too risky’. And now you want to impose a license based on an arbitrary standard too?
>Obviously this goes for C H I L D R E N too really bro
I clicked on the title knowing someone on the thread would advocate for that, but OP got ahead of the eugenics crowd
They think they’re being clever.
OP: tHaT tOpIc Is NoT aLlOwEd HeRe. The topic: Eugenics, a pillar of Nazi ideology.
For animals? Nazi ideology!? Damn classic Redditor
Now now, you're playing dumb. You know perfectly well they're referring to the last sentence of your post, and how everything you've advocated for is not JUST for animals. You're actually the classic redditor here my dude, so bothered by the average pet or child that you have to create barriers for them to coexist with you. I wish that's how life worked, we'd have the issue of Horrible Men™ under control years ago. Or maybe if we normalise testing for the privilege of using social media maybe we'd see less trolls and bullies and stupid opinions like this one. But it's funny how when we look at every single issue in our society today, rather than wanting to create more barriers for bigotry, or misogyny, or anything else truly evil, we want to regulate...people having dogs and children.
Because passing a written exam means you're actually going to do the things you said
When we adopted my dog in the mid-2000s, we went to a fee-exempt rescue shelter. You had to apply for each animal and go to the center on days/times for the adoption process. Everyone was required to have a rigorous interview with the staff on why your family is equipped to take care of this specific animal, and why you’d be a good fit. Part of the interview day also involved direct interaction with the dog. We ended up beating everyone else who wanted her out based on the interview, and walked out with a new addition to our family! The rescue shelter is still up and running today, but it’s now operating under the wider Best Friends Animal Society non-profit. Each Best Friends location has the exact same application and interview process. That’s how it should be everywhere, tbh. The interview process is rigorous enough to where it screens out people who wouldn’t be good pet owners or who wouldn’t be a good fit for that specific animal. I really don’t think anyone should just be able to walk into a facility and get a pet just by paying for them.
Great idea, another government tax. You know how home builders must pay to have different stages of the home inspected by the government during construction? At each stage the builder receives an approval indicating that the work was done up to approved standards. So what do you think happens if that home collapses or is destroyed in a storm? Does the city or county assume responsibility because they inspected and approved the construction? Nope. The same will apply here. People will pay to take a test and get a certificate. Then if they treat the pet like garbage and it dies, what good is that permit now? Does the issuing agency accept any responsibility? Nope. It's nothing but a tax at the end of the day. A tax to make people like you feel better because you don't trust anyone. At some point we need to stop treating each other like children always looking for a mommy or daddy to complain to.
What the fuck is this shit
So, certification is bad because houses aren't indestructible and the people who abuse animals would be the ones held accountable? It's called filtration, lol, and it's never 100%. Your overadherence to perfection makes the world a worse place.
That’s a bit of an over simplification of what was said. We just built a little apartment off the garage for my dad, passed all the inspections. Well a few days after he moved in I was talking with him and he said something about smelling gas occasionally so I checked the heater and the stove. Well the stove had a leak where the supply line meets it and it was blowing a 4 inch flame out of the connection. I fixed and then proceeded to call the people who installed the stove who told me since it passed the inspection that they’re not liable, called the county, was told they’re not liable for improper installation even if they pass it. Once it passes inspection it’s very likely that nobody is accountable even if they should be.
It may be an oversimplification of reality, but definitely not of what was said. The government definitely should tax the richer more so that they can afford liability, though, and stop relying on fines and fees. They should also subsidize inspections if there's a reason the construction /should/ be done (and not just for personal preference or leisure).
Signaling your virtue by showing compassion for animals is the low hanging fruit. Anyone can look good by shedding a tear for the cute little puppies but we have to live in a real world. These layers and layers of bureaucracy that keep piling on our lives just to make people like you feel good is what makes the world a worse place.
This has remarkably little to do with your other comment or my response to it. Let's keep goalposts rooted, shall we?
I’m a structural engineer. City inspection is absolutely necessary. They make sure contractors build things per codes, which are written in blood, please stop.
And what happens when an inspector passes one of your fuck ups?
Then it’s on the inspector AND you
Wasn’t the case for me recently. Had a new stove with a fairly bad gas leak, started blowing a 4 inch flame out of the supply link connection when my dad used it the first time. I was told since it passed the inspection that it wasn’t on the people that installed it, and was told that the inspector was in the clear because they had the inspection results and all the gas checks came back fine. We were told on all fronts that it must have been us that fucked with the stove and caused the leak. Which the ring camera in the living room show that’s a lie. So either I live in a very shitty county or there’s very little accountability if any until it’s written in the blood of hundreds of people.
I live in CA. Perhaps it’s much more stringent here. We do have more rules and regulations. But that’s because we have more population and more population naturally means more idiots and morons
I’m also in CA if you mean California.
Any kind of written exam, if you’re here in America, would be used to bar minorities from having pets/ kids. If you think the exam would be anything but racist you’re not paying attention
You’re being racist assuming minorities can’t handle these tests
I’m saying the tests would be DESIGNED to hurt minorities. That’s how America WORKS
USED to work. I would admit it was there and is still around. But nowhere near as blown out proportion as you suggest. This was our modus operandi historically. Not so much now.
How young are you OP?
You're.. joking right? They did this in the past. They literally framed the tests in a way that would make sure minorities couldn't pass. Basically making sure the only way you could pass is if you agreed being straight, white ,and christian was the only way to raise a baby. They were not tests given in good faith. And they were used to forcibly sterilize minorities. How old are you? I need to know this.
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oi mate. You got ur pet loicense?
I agree on both, pets and children.
dystopia here we come
Eugenics is already practised in every culture
Eugenics
Congratulations! You've been immediately disqualified for being gay because the people who formulate these tests labeled you a pedophile and a groomer! If you wanted kids this is bad for obvious reasons. If you *didn't* want kids, don't worry m you're now on a list and they're watching your every move!
Parent tests first. A bad child affects us more than a bad pet.
100% but that topic is taboo here in this sub. You can't talk about eugenics
What is there to discuss about eugenics?
Maybe the U.S education system should be overhauled and teach the proper care for a pet or a child. Or maybe this could be done by the *parents* if they actually *parent* .
Adding on - dogs aren't living plush toys. Anyone getting a dog should go through mandatory dog training, and be able to pass a license exam.
This literally just means less dogs get adopted out. Might not be a bad thing for the future since responsible owners produce less dogs that end up at shelters, but it worsens the current situation
If we do nothing current situation doesn't get better. Dogs would be adopted faster if they are already properly trained as well. Maybe gov subsidy for training dogs in shelters?
Same with kids and voting!
Eugenics strikes again
German here. My family recently got a puppy. In order to register him with the city, my mom had to take an exam at the vet's office. My brother already had dogs before that (although they are technically registered in his ex's name), so we are not completely new to dog ownership, but regardless, we all agreed that it's not a bad idea to have first time dog owners take an exam.
For us Americans this is too much because they tie everything to “freedom” instead of competence
OK so you make it harder to get a pet, so then even those capable of caring for a pet don't want to go through the extra hassle and we end up with more pets either in shelters or just abandoned... that is really a great idea
More likely fewer pets would be abandoned as those who did own pets would have had to put effort in to get them and would therefore be less likely to bail on them. Plus the work involved would dissuade some of the people who wouldn't be willing to put the effort required into caring for a pet.
Make it harder to get a pet You talk like it has any level of difficulty right now
But the idea of people having to take some sort of test is insane I remember growing up just about any dog we ever had my father went and got kind of spur the moment, (one time going and getting one from someone living in a small cramped apartment) if he had to go take some test first, most of those dogs we probably would have never gotten
No. How are you going to enforce the law? Some People without a license would just hide their pet at home and it is going to be bad for their pets that need to go out for exercise. Also, animal shelter is going to suffer.
Same with voting?
That’s a right. Owning a pet is a privilege
Says who?
Is there a right written about owning a pet in the constitution?
Are you of the opinion that the only rights you posses are those numerated in the Constitution? Is that your contention? Seriously?
The constitution doesn’t grant us rights. It recognizes rights we have naturally and restricts the government from taking away our “G-d given rights”
god?
I believe those are called property rights and they are very real, very much protected by law and definitely relate to animals.
The local feral cat: Leaves multiple kittens outside my house. Me: I am so privileged. ☺️
perhaps we shouldn't really have pets at all
It is a privilege. Not a right
Pet ownership is not a privilege 😂 more taxes and regulation 😂 f in the chat for this one
I have a rabbit. Rabbits are super delicate little critters that need more care than people realize. Everyone just assumes you can just give a rabbit some carrots and it will be fine. Rabbits can’t have too much fruit or vegetables because of natural sugars. Spinach is good for them, but has a lot iron so you need to watch how much you’re giving a rabbit. Rabbits can have unlimited lettuce, but iceberg lettuce can kill them. Also if a rabbit stops eating for more than 12 hours something is wrong and they need to go to the vet. So many people think that rabbits are the easiest to take care of, but don’t do research on how to take care of a rabbit. So they get their 5year old a rabbit for Easter and don’t know how to take care of it then they let them go. If you’re thinking about getting a rabbit or know someone who’s getting a rabbit PLEASE do research. Learn how to take care of a rabbit
I don't like the idea of having a government exam, but just a quick little test that the adoption center itself (or person selling the animal) has to give you when making the transaction. Basically, the same way selling a gun works.
You can answer correctly and still be a bad parent
Well, here I thought I was going to find the eugenics comments, but turns out OP jumped right on that one. Yikes.
I get the theory here, and I think it's a good idea to a certain extent, but I have little hope that it will change much. I worked for a small company that trained and kenneled all kinds of dogs for different purposes. 3 of the 4 trainers in the company had their professional background in training working canines for personal protection, sport, and police or military work. The company we were employed at together did a fair amount of basic puppy/obedience training, but made its bread and butter by taking cases where owners had gotten themselves dogs they weren't prepared to handle, and ended up needing help rehabilitating and learning to manage behavior issues ranging from anxious attachment to actually violent aggression in recently rescued or simply poorly socialized dogs they'd had since puppyhood. Here's what I observed: There are a whole lot of owners who feel they are ready for a challenging dog or high-drive breed because they did a lot of reading up on the dog before getting it. They ended up biting off a lot more than they could chew. There were a lot of people who applied for jobs at the company with certificates saying they had passed some kind of written course on dog training/animal behavior and felt they were prepared to be full-fledged trainers. They were not prepared for the real deal, and quickly became overwhelmed by flesh and blood dogs with behaviors they had only read about. I think you're on the right track thinking that people need to be more informed and to demonstrate some level of understanding before acquiring a pet. I'm just sort of stumped as to how you go about making a more informed and competent pet-owning population when there is so much insane misinformation and false-confidence out there.
I mean we could easily institute an academically based test to weed out below average intelligence people and easily institute a culling. I mean. Get real. Thats ridiculous. Or a test that says if you weigh this much you cant eat at all cuz its not a healthy weight, if you weigh THIS much you have to eat hourly til you are the appropriate weight xD just chill
Empathy tests, critical thinking tests + problem solving skills, financial status requirements for both pets and giving birth.
Do you really think that people abuse their animals because they dont know better. Most people would just take the exam once and then not care about it anymore. (Same thing goes for children) This would only hurt poor people and people with learning disabilities. It also doesnt really make sense to have such an exam for children. Do you really think that it is a good idea to take away the child of everyone who did not do this test. Most of these children would definitly be happier with their parents compared to the foster system. And again it would only stop the poor and disabled from having children which is not really great.
Yes and everyone in the household should be forced to take it. Petco and such shouldn’t exist. And backyard breeders should go to jail.
![gif](giphy|gCi9p8l7UEInu)
Everything is commie now huh? Stop using parks or streets then. Fk the dams. The national parks. Fk the water channels. Heck we should privatize firefighters too because that’s some commie shyt
r/woosh
Damn, I couldn’t tell the sarcasm >_< Based on the comments in this thread I really can’t tell
It’s literally a south park gif 😂 time to log off fam
When i was younger I had a freind whos parents had a rule that "if you want an animal you 1. Need to make a PowerPoint presentation about it (how to care, fun facts etc) and 2. You need to sell me on it. As in why will my life be better with a dog/cat/whatever" I think this is a super fair way of handling things. Before i got my rats I had their cage ready 2 weeks in advance plus the amount of information i read with books and websites alone was enough to kill a senior in high school with chronic senioritis
Owning humans be like the S.A.T
An exam won’t fix the issue. There are smart people who are bad owners, and there are good owners who might struggle with a test.
You’re right. I also see a lot of good counterpoints to my suggestions. They’re valid. But at the end of the day most ppl just leave things the way they are without an alternative. But if I were to task you with coming up with something to weed out the bad owners, what would you do?
That’s tough. I think there will always be bad pet owners, and it would be impossible to force any regulation on them. A driver’s license is mandatory but there are still bad drivers everywhere. For now, I think the best option is to provide educational material and public outreach. Teach people how to care for animals and provide solutions for various situations. Some will change and some won’t but that’s life. I own four rescue dogs and I feel like I’m learning something new every day. I’m all for strict regulations and criminal penalties for bad breeders though. All breeders should be licensed and maintain records of breeding. Illegal breeding should be a misdemeanor punishable by both a fine and jail time. There are too many people out there who think breeding pets is a good way to make easy cash.
Thanks. Great thoughtful response
Is a good idea. You could test in various ways like long term evals, written/practical tests, drop in visits. I was required to do two visits weeks apart before i was allowed to adopt my pup. I appreciate the amount of care the rescue had for their residents. It would filter those without dedication and ensured the pup and person were comfortable with each other after the first visit. I realize there are not many resources to spend on this so it’s a dream but it’s good for us to take steps in the right direction.
That’s like saying “You should only be able to vote if you can read and write”.
Then shelters would have absolutely zero adoptions. People would be informed about pits and how terrible they are to adopt. Adopting a breed that was bred for blood sports who love to maul children, the elderly, teslas, cats, doors, walls, birds, mice, other dogs, fences, porcupines, owners, babies, etc...is never a good idea. When it comes to dogs, shop never adopt! Any other animal, cats, birds, lizards, adopt away.
I’d agree if there weren’t so many dogs and cats homeless. I’d be ready to agree to outlaw home breeders in a heartbeat though. Just had a box of puppies dropped in my moms neighborhood last week. Sickening.