Suggestions For Those Who Like To Share Grusome Dog Pics

[~Shepherd~]

What would be a better way to show concern for canine (animal) welfare, as I dont believe this method is proactive, just obsessive and unnecessary.

[Brennan's Mum]

I don't know, but I have deleted a few randoms from FB for sharing too many gruesome pictures. I support the need to prevent animal cruelty, but at the same time, one of these pictures in particular was so 'icky' it still gives me the chills a year later just thinking about it

[~Shepherd~]

I don't know, but I have deleted a few randoms from FB for sharing too many gruesome pictures. I support the need to prevent animal cruelty, but at the same time, one of these pictures in particular was so 'icky' it still gives me the chills a year later just thinking about it

I now have to go to bed with the image of a stack of dead pups lined up. Deleted 3 posts all the same pic. They are friends, difficult sitch but better ways of communicating I think.

[Shaar]

I go with the idea of "what's done is done", I don't need to see photos of something that had already happened... nothing I can do about it now so why show me? All it does is upset me.

Links to petitions relating to aniaml cruelty trying to get harsher sentencing or posts related to a recent horrible dog-related event that promote donating to certain "helpful" organizations fine... but no photos please.

[_PL_]

If you mean facebook, I really don't know. It's quick and easy to hit the 'share' button - regardless of motive (and I'm certain some do it out of horror).

The worst one I saw was a rape victim ... a dog, it was horrific. I can't un-see those images and didn't share them no matter how much I wished for the situation to change. Sometimes it's just too much and puts off more people that it enlists to the cause.

[~Shepherd~]

If you mean facebook, I really don't know. It's quick and easy to hit the 'share' button - regardless of motive (and I'm certain some do it out of horror).

The worst one I saw was a rape victim ... a dog, it was horrific. I can't un-see those images and didn't share them no matter how much I wished for the situation to change. Sometimes it's just too much and puts off more people that it enlists to the cause.

TOTALLY AGREE, I just delete and dont read.

[Greytmate]

Do you want to show concern, raise awareness or change behaviour?

I don't agree with the gruesome pictures either, they really horrify and repel people. Using visualisation instead of words is a good idea though, as you can say so much with images.

Here is an interesting alternative from US Artist Chris Jordan.

10,000 dog and cat collars.

Click on the pic once to zoom in, and then once to zoom out.

[moosepup]

10'000 a day, despicable.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I started out by posting on my wall saying that I thought posting pictures of graphic animal cruelty was gratuitous and worse than unhelpful, it perpetuates the crime of the abuser by giving it wider distribution - unless there is a very specific call to action that FB participants can do and even then I'd question why we need to see a picture. Mostly there isn't, it's just "isn't this terrible?". Well, you don't need me to tell you that, so don't share the pain around. I got some defensive reactions, people who consistently post that kind of thing are often doing it for emotional reasons that mean they don't cope well with criticism or a suggestion they are contributing to a problem.

So then I started hiding people who did it. And then FB did one of its enhancements and got rid of my ability to do that. So now they are just off my friends list.

Edit: To answer the question, contribute to rescue, support Governments who fund programs to work with offenders and compliance programs

Edited September 10, 2011 by SkySoaringMagpie

[sas]

The company I work with deals with childrens charities, their policy is to show 'happy' pictures....this is where your money goes and what the end result is.

I can tell you I haven't watched any of the recent cow export videos because I don't need to see it to understand it.

People don't need to be shocked by images to act.

[dogbesotted]

i once saw a large billboard of dog collars each representing a dog who had been killed as unwanted or stray.. it was a most powerful image...

graphic photos haunt me and are not necessary for me to abhor acts of cruelty

H

[snippet]

I would rather not see them, they do haunt you and if they don't there is a problem. I just delete them.

[Bilbo Baggins]

Do you want to show concern, raise awareness or change behaviour?

I don't agree with the gruesome pictures either, they really horrify and repel people. Using visualisation instead of words is a good idea though, as you can say so much with images.

Here is an interesting alternative from US Artist Chris Jordan.

10,000 dog and cat collars.

Click on the pic once to zoom in, and then once to zoom out.

Those photos are amazing.

[Atanquin]

i think people use them to get the message across because some people don't realize how bad a situation is until they see it i think some pictures used are OTT but that is the reality and it is what happens its like some people will eat meat but few know how the animal is killed or how it has been looked after before slughter and once they have seen a cow killed in a meat works they will go of eating it.

[Muttaburra]

The case I wish to present here is for an example

I am a follower of a particular member of facebook

Another follower posts an appealing picture of a dog so I look at their album.

I am then presented with a photo of a dog being skinned alive in China.

Now for the record, I suffer from post traumatic stress syndrome, so now, after viewing such appalling imagery, I have a pain in the back of my head like I am about to have a stroke. My whole day is devastated by the image which I have not subscribed to, days of nightmares follow.

Nor would I think any children or very young people need to be traumatised by this, yet the site I subscribe to does not show such images, it is another subscriber that gets to have it's post showed because it is "liked" by my subscriber.

Frankly I call this "hijacking" and very unethical, no matter how worthy the hijacker feels their cause may be, they are piggy-backing on the efforts and popularity of the people they follow, and not on their own steam.

The big impetus for me to help (via support with the website) of Jack Russell Rescue, was the love of the breed and the need of so many Jack Russells in pounds. I did not need to see graphic images of dogs dying, just the statistics of dogs euthanaised in Australia was enough to prompt me into action.

I believe that "graphic warnings" should always be given if someone wants to post distressing material. A "picture may be worth a thousand words", however for some a few words may be enough.

[tdierikx]

I have seen first hand some cases of cruelty that I wouldn't share photos of... but photos of the same dog happy and healthy AFTER treatment and rehabilitation with a few words to describe what treatment and rehabilitation was needed should suffice.

Our rescue does take photos of the cruelty cases we get on entry - many never get aired as they can traumatise others - but we need them for our records, especially if the dog needs long term care to rehabilitate.

What never ceases to amaze me is the happy and friendly nature of so many dogs that have had humans do bad things to them... so trusting... it chokes you up knowing what they have been through and still manage to have trust in humans.

As for activists posting graphic images all over the internet... well... some of those images are manufactured too. Some people will do just about anything to get others to join their cause... grrr!

T.

[~Shepherd~]

I am in the same boat, even if you report images, its too late. I have quite a few school aged kids who age who access my info. At least Troy was clever enough to set up a closed forum for distressing stories. Surely the internet super powers could make it a little better for those who dont deal well with sickening images.