General Wildlife Thread

[Gungirl]

Originally Posted by EmbraceCalamity

That's really terrible and completely inexcusable.

~Maggot

Really? Now a days, depending on the animal and the issue I would still take care of it myself rather than let an animal suffer. Back in the 50's and 60's that was just what you did. Unless you lived during that time don't judge it.

[Lankyrob]

Originally Posted by Gungirl

Really? Now a days, depending on the animal and the issue I would still take care of it myself rather than let an animal suffer. Back in the 50's and 60's that was just what you did. Unless you lived during that time don't judge it.

This was why i questioned the comment, i have ended the suffering of many mammals and birds (not had to deal with reptiles yet, thankfully).

I dont see it as terrible or inexcusable to save an animal from a lengthy trip to a vet when it is already past being saved?

[EmbraceCalamity]

Originally Posted by Gungirl

Really? Now a days, depending on the animal and the issue I would still take care of it myself rather than let an animal suffer. Back in the 50's and 60's that was just what you did. Unless you lived during that time don't judge it.

That's not at all what I said. Read it in context. The person said that their dog had rabies, and I said that's what rabies shots are for, and they said that back then people didn't provide shots to their pets. They just let it get sick and then went "oh well" and went to get shots for themselves. Now I don't know how long they've been around, so maybe they didn't exist back then, but if they did, then such things happening are terrible and inexcusable.

~Maggot