Post by dun4u on Oct 30, 2008 13:32:09 GMT
I sometimes watch programmes such as Pet Rescue etc., and am horrified when dogs are being re-homed and the 'new' owners decide to change the dog's name.
Perhaps in the event of the said dog being a stray and only being named by the rescue people for convenience (usually 'Lucky') it isn't quite so bad as the name was only meant to be temporary and the dog hasn't become too accustomed to answering to it.
In most other cases, though, these dogs are being re-homed through no fault of their own. Their owners have had to give them up for financial or health reasons and their beloved dogs have answered to their given name for some years. Their name is their passport to reacting to the speaker and complying with what is required of them. It is probably the most important sound to them- it can mean so many good things.
To change a dog's name when it's mature and become reliant on it is, to me, basically cruel. I wonder if, when the new adoptive owners have had the poor re-named animal for a while, they are wondering why it doesn't respond to their requests.
The same, I suppose, applies to horses. Once they have a 'stable-name' no matter what it is, it should not be changed.
I also believe that it is very un-lucky to change a name. Some years ago, a girl I knew bought a really nice ex-police horse from Reading Market and immediately changed his name to 'Rupert', after the actor Rupert Campbell-Black. His original name, Statesman, was, to me, much more suitable and he'd had that name for about 10 years. Within five days of buying him he'd had a horrific accident with a cattle-grid and was on box rest for nearly a year. Am I too supersticious?
What do you think?
Perhaps in the event of the said dog being a stray and only being named by the rescue people for convenience (usually 'Lucky') it isn't quite so bad as the name was only meant to be temporary and the dog hasn't become too accustomed to answering to it.
In most other cases, though, these dogs are being re-homed through no fault of their own. Their owners have had to give them up for financial or health reasons and their beloved dogs have answered to their given name for some years. Their name is their passport to reacting to the speaker and complying with what is required of them. It is probably the most important sound to them- it can mean so many good things.
To change a dog's name when it's mature and become reliant on it is, to me, basically cruel. I wonder if, when the new adoptive owners have had the poor re-named animal for a while, they are wondering why it doesn't respond to their requests.
The same, I suppose, applies to horses. Once they have a 'stable-name' no matter what it is, it should not be changed.
I also believe that it is very un-lucky to change a name. Some years ago, a girl I knew bought a really nice ex-police horse from Reading Market and immediately changed his name to 'Rupert', after the actor Rupert Campbell-Black. His original name, Statesman, was, to me, much more suitable and he'd had that name for about 10 years. Within five days of buying him he'd had a horrific accident with a cattle-grid and was on box rest for nearly a year. Am I too supersticious?
What do you think?
