MovieChat Forums > Lady and the Tramp (1955) Discussion > Promotes irresponsible pet ownership?

Promotes irresponsible pet ownership?

posted 19 years ago by royalearguss
39 replies | jump to latest

Let me begin by saying that Lady and the Tramp is my all time favorite Walt Disney film, simply because I'm a die-hard dog lover and it is a masterfully woven, gorgeously animated, timeless, of-Walt's-design film and not like a lot of the computer spit up and unoriginality we see today. It's simple and heartwarming, a classic in every sense of the word.

The movie was created to tell a human-esque story through dogs. Real dogs don't "fall in love", their instinct tells them to mate. They reproduce solely to continue their species, this is ingrained within all animals. Which brings me to the point of saying that today's audiences may get the wrong idea, even if they do know it's all make believe, about the way dogs think. I know for a fact that back in the day when this wonderful film was made that it's creators and the world around them were probably not that concerned about pet overpopulation. What's more, weren't they just coming out of a war? People then didn't worry much about unwanted puppy's fates as opposed to the hardships of the era, they only needed a good-natured, adorable love story in which the main characters happened to be dogs. I can't find it in myself to call this wrong, considering especially that pet overpopulation wasn't nearly as much of a problem as it is today.

What I am concerned about are the messages being sent from certain areas of this film to present day audiences. Messages such as, once again, dogs fall in love with eachother and that it is just fine and dandy to allow companion animals to run loose unspayed/unneutered. It also gives folks hard feelings about animal shelters or "pounds". When you say the word "pound" which is automatically related to the word "animal shelter" many would visualize a dark, ominous place where dogs are kept in unhealthful conditions. They see it as a place that causes great harm to dogs and can easily bypass the want to adopt a dog from a "pound" so as not to patronize such a horrible place. It also gets people resenting animal control officers("dog catchers") or animal shelter employees; seeing them as cruel and heartless. These people do everything they can to help and place homeless animals in homes. I know many of these people from volunteering at the local shelter myself and even after years of seeing it practised they still feel very sorry for animal having to undergo euthanasia and a lot of the time ashamed that they could not do more to help it. The only ones responcible for the death of these innocent animals are pet owners themselves. Not spaying or neutering your pets because you feel that they would be much better off unfixed, backyard breeding because you want your dog to be "fullfilled", and discarding an animal with behavior problems or buying a pet without considering what it means to own a dog are all methods of completely irresponcible pet ownership. Saying all of this is ok through a form of entertainment can only encourage people to do such things. The film is not saying these things up front but when there's a happily ever after with a cute litter of puppies doesn't exactly make people think of what would happen if the owners decided they didn't six dogs running around their house.

This film is a classic but it's horrible to see it affecting the lives of our beloved companions simply because many people are uneducated about responcible pet ownership. I'd like to encourage everyone to spay/neuter, keep your canines well trained, and to donate to and voulunteer at their local animal shelter.

If anyone has thoughts on this aspect of the film I'd love to hear them.

~ "My dog is smarter than your honor student"~

[–] Your_enigma 19 years ago

Now with all due respect, can you please provide some concrete evidence towards this blatant claim of human ignorance. Your attention to detail and concern is admirable, but to what end? I have yet to hear of any tragic mating stories involving Pet owners inspired by a Disney film. I personally think you need to give human rationality a trite bit more credit as I assure you no pet owner over the age of 13 could be so painfully and (quite frankly) embarressingly lead by a cartoon of little to no outright educational value. But again, if you can provide a little evidence regarding this pendemic of irrespobsible pet ownership as bred by the ideals manifest in this film, i'd gladly reconsider.

"DON'T PANIC."

[–] GSmith9072 19 years ago

"I have yet to hear of any tragic mating stories involving Pet owners inspired by a Disney film."

How on earth would you "hear" about someone being inspired by the movie to breed dogs? Maybe the other problem is that to ignorant people, "mating stories" are not "tragic"? Most people don't think anything of breeding dogs even though it contributes to a HUGE problem. For those who don't truly 'need' purebreds, they should adopt.

"I assure you no pet owner over the age of 13 could be so painfully and (quite frankly) embarressingly lead by a cartoon of little to no outright educational value."

You are overestimating people. And what about the exsisting pet owners under the age of 13? Their pets don't count? You do know its a fact that an increased number of dalmations ended up in shelters after "101 dalmations". I PERSONALLY have experienced the effects of "finding nemo". People, ADULTS, wanted clownfish in goldfish bowls. NEVER overestimate people's intelligence. I have no problem believing that people accept dogs (canis familiaris) breeding as a 'natural part of life', when I personally beleive it should be strongly discouraged.

No hay banda! There is no band. It is all an illusion...

[–] milkabum 19 years ago

Altough I agree just a tad, little children, and adults watch the movie simply for fun. They will not search for this wrong doing. In 1955, the epidemic of pounds, neutering/spaying, and other pet precautions weren't that popular and known of.

[–] royalearguss 19 years ago

You can see the epidemic designer dogs have become. This fad was certainly promoted by trendy teenage girls who often consider dogs as an accessory and designer dog as the latest "thing". If you haven't seen the dramatic effects these dogs have made, talk to any shelter worker. THOUSANDS of puggles, cockapoos, peekapoos, schnoodles, whatevers are literally thrown away after proving to be less than the breeder advertized or becoming a hassle that the owner didn't see it as before. They crowd shelters, pushing other homeless dogs toward the euthanasia table, adding to overpopulation more than purebred dogs do because of their insane popularity. That way, MILLIONS die needlessly.

This was caused largely by none other than teenage youngsters, among many ignorant adults. Yes, people watch the movie for fun, but entertainment can be an enormous influence on the way people of any age think even when the veiwer isn't thinking about it or searching for it. Just the slightest assurence that letting dogs breed is okay can cause someone to believe that sort of thing should be acceptable, which is enough to kill..........most literally. 101 Dalmations was a good example. Many people went out and purchased these dogs without any regard toward the characteristics of the breed. Aggression with children and blindness is very common with Dals. Nowhere in that film do I recall it telling people to buy or breed Dalmations. But you see the effects of a "harmless" movie and how people get messages they were never intended to get. Now the breed suffers the effects of overbreeding because of the popularity, it's very long term.

I'd like to praise Disney for a recent act of thoughtfulnes. Inside the DVD case of their new release "Eight Below" it warns that the dogs in the films, Sibe Huskeys, aren't for everyone and should not be bought upon impulse. Maybe they do have a conscience after all.

My dog is smarter than your honor student

[–] mistress-baphomet 19 years ago

pardon my bad spelling. But not all Dalmations are like that (agressave to kids) I had one and she was the most tolerent dog when it came to kids she adored me i was 4 or five when I got her she'd curl up with me and other kids and let me play around with her. I think it depends on the dog personaly yes it may be a trait of the breed but thats like saying all Black people are poor un edcuated and live on welfair (no i'm not racest). Or all people who live in trailers are trashy.

[–] InstantDoodles 19 years ago

"I think it depends on the dog personaly yes it may be a trait of the breed but thats like saying all Black people are poor un edcuated and live on welfair"

That is a totally racist comment. you're saying that black people being poor and uneducated is a trait of their race.

[–] mistress-baphomet 19 years ago

InstantDoodles I was not saying that they were un educated I was calling on a bad stero type. I was trying to say that dalmations not all bad dogs . I aslo made a coment on people that live in trailer parts but nooo you don't look at that you jump on the whole "Thats rasist" band wagan because I brought up a stero and don't even try to ynder stand what i was saying if you ACTUALY read it I said "THAT'S like saying all Black people are poor un edcuated and live on welfair" I’m sorry you misread what I said but you did not read it you just assumed since I said some thing about black people. But Please try reading the whole post next time.

[–] limebalthazar 19 years ago

People will want to regard pets as playthings whether Disney does or does not make movies with cute animals.

[–] mdxc87 19 years ago

Just want to say that in the time period in which the movie is set, spaying and neutering probably wasn't regular practice, if it was ever done at all. After all, surgery with anesthesia (please forgive spelling) was only about sixty years old for humans.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jschillig 18 years ago

You're to be commended for speaking out on the issue...people like you rock! But do understand that, as others in the thread have said, that the movie was made in 1955, when pet overpopulation, spaying, and neutering weren't so much in the public consciousness. And at the turn of the century, where the movie actually takes place, such issues were even *less* so.

I do think that the movie deserves props for actually showing what becomes of unwanted pets in a shelter. ("Through the one-way door, sister...")

It's possible people could use the movie as a springboard for talking to kids about issues like these.

And as a side note...the knee-jerk "blame Disney" business (not on this thread, but by many other people) for the Dalmatian issue makes me want to scream. The problem isn't with Disney...all they did was make a movie out of a novel for entertainment. (One might just as well blame Dodie Smith for writing the original 101 Dalmatians novel!) The problem is with the mentality of people who treat living creatures as fads or toys...and as long as that mentality persists, it won't matter whether it's 101 Dalmatians or any other TV show or movie that features a pet.

[–] sixfeet_marlitharn 18 years ago

im sorry, i didnt read some of the posts, but i got excited, i want to tell a story about this english teacher of mine.

(ill make this short)
I gave her a puppy and thought her to take care of it. after a few months, there was a party at her house. and i couldnt find the dog. when i asked her she said she doesnt know what im talking about. and she doesnt remember what "dog" im talking about.

this english teacher is a big fan of disney movies. i dont know if shes just crazy or what.

im just saying. there are people out there... that are just like that.

I dont have low self-esteem,
i have low-esteem for everyone else.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MetFanMac 18 years ago

No Disney movie promotes anything except good morals.

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

[–] bailey52 18 years ago

ah yeah, not going to read any of this, but what about the movie's blantant racism?

[–] MetFanMac 18 years ago

Such as??

Supermodels...spoiled stupid little stick figures mit poofy lips who sink only about zemselves.

[–] bailey52 18 years ago

are you kidding me? the cats? nearly every charcter of the movie...?

[–] jonrod 18 years ago

Heh.. every early dog movie ends with two dogs falling in love. Balto did the exact same thing, and there are more puppies in balto 2. Its kinda of an influnce but people who are fans of balto and white fang and those movies might think that wolves and wolf dogs are cool. I see that you have a realistic point of view, that pets are not plaything, or a fashion thing, just a materil thing. That's what most ignorant people are. I didn't care for my dog, but once I started getting involed, I hit something. Point it is the care and relationship that counts. These movies are specfically from the dos point of view, I knew its unrealstic how its human like, but it gives good insight on their side (If you've read white fang it has the same effect.), its because so the adiunce can relate to the animals (I do stroeis simlar to this, about dogs getting together.). It's not realstic, but it's the best way.

[–] bailey52 18 years ago

but what about the blantant racism in this movie...is anyone listening to me. I'm all alone...

[–] xyzzybaluba 18 years ago

It was 1955...enough said.

[–] rosarypliers 16 years ago

Not only that, but the movie is set at the beginning of the 20th century…nobody spayed their pets back then. Castration of male animals has been practiced for a very long time, but not castration of females, which involves surgery. And the pound as depicted in the movie was probably very close to reality. There were also self-employed dog catchers. Here's a caricature of a 19th century dog catcher:
http://images.zeno.org/Literatur/I/300-228/bwe1435a.jpg

[–] friendoffilm 11 years ago

"but what about the blatant racism in this movie...is anyone listening to me. I'm all alone...

What racism? I see no racism in this movie whatsoever. That's just a lot of bunk, which I'm not buying into. Race was not even a factor in this movie, despite when it was made and first came out.

[–] mnoe 14 years ago

I gave her a puppy....

I admit, I don't know the context of this "gift" -- but there are very few circumstances when it is okay to give a LIVING CREATURE as a present.

It's a big responsibility to be have a pet, and it is a decision that should be made by the person who will live with the animal. Not by someone who thinks a puppy or a bunny or a kitten or an Easter chick will make a "cute gift."

Yikes.

im sorry, i didnt read some of the posts...

Please go back now and read the posts from people who have volunteered in animal shelters where the cute little gifts are put to death when they're not adopted by somebody else.

last 2 dvds: La Habanera (1937) & Accattone (1961)

[–] I_have_a_brain_cloud 11 years ago

Just wanted to reply to those who said that at the time the movie was made, spaying and neutering pets was not a common practice. I grew up in Los Angeles in the '50s, and all of our pets were spayed and neutered. I think these practices have been available for a very long time.

Just looked it up--here's an article about "de-sexing" pets in the 20th century. Spaying and neutering became pretty common in the '50s.

Un-neutered dogs and cats, be they male or female, are very difficult to keep as pets unless you live in the country and they are just allowed to roam at will when the mood hits them . . . or you are an irresponsible bottom-feeder and allow them to do that wherever you live. Jim Dear and Darling do seem like the kind of people that would (after a litter or two) have their pets de-sexed, even though that is a bit of an anachronism for the era the movie portrays, not the era in which it was made.

I'm English,and if there's anything more deplorable than our cooking,it's our lovemaking

[–] cjgalwey 15 years ago

I'd quite like to revive this thread, because there is even more to be said about irresponsible treatment of dogs (and children) in Lady and the Tramp. Not that I think anyone is going to be misled by it at this remove in time, but it's jaw-dropping to see how primitive attitudes to pet-ownership were as recently as 1955.

Jim-Dear and Darling's abysmal treatment of their dog was not pointed out half as strongly as it should have been. Of course we were supposed to sympathise with Lady, but the point should have been rammed home that if you behave like this you may well have a psycho dog on your hands and your baby could be endangered!

Jim wrapping the puppydog up in a hat-box to give as a Christmas present!!! I hope everyone would have the sense not to try this at home, but you can't be sure.

Pampering the dog, then neglecting the poor animal just because the woman's
pregnant!! How could a wealthy young married couple presumably setting out to start a family be so irresponsible? Either find the energy to treat your dog properly, or don't get one in the first place.

The babysitter bringing her cats, letting them wreck the joint, terrorise the dog and intrude on the baby! And then all this hysteria about a rat! The cats were a sight more likely to harm the baby than the rat would have been!

And to put all this in perspective: 'Darling' was such a useless, couldn't-care-less mother she left her almost new-born baby behind in the care of a dog and an unintelligent elderly aunt just because she wanted to go visiting somewhere! What would have been so difficult about taking the baby with her, especially with all the money she and Jim-Dear clearly had? Breastfeeding, of course, was out of the question ...

Crumbs, this is a charming period piece of a movie, but thank God we've moved on!

[–] furienna 15 years ago

Cjgalwey brings up better points about poor pet ownership than what the OP did. I'll never see neutering and spraying as good things (maybe necessary, but never good), but Jim-Dear and Darling were really bad dog owners, when they neglected Lady, just because they were expecting a baby.

Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden!

[–] bunnie_133 14 years ago

Another point: puppies usually given as Christmas gifts might indicate a lack of thought of actually adopting the animal. It's not uncommon for Christmas puppies to wind up at shelters, and the event of a new baby causing neglect of the dog isn't uncommon either. The relative was hostile towards the dog she was trusted to care for and brought over a couple of cats that wrecked the furniture. And maybe it's just me, but I thought that the rat posed less of a threat than a couple of destruction-happy cats that wanted to steal the baby's milk. There was also an angelfish in the goldfish bowl. -shrugs-

I think the problem here is that the movie was made in 1955 and portrays the early 1900s, yet manages to promote the ideals of the day: not neutering leads to puppies and therefore joy, and animal control is inherently bad and just wants to get the job done.

Culture inherently guides us in our actions. Films are part of our culture and do impact us, even negatively. Finding Nemo boosted the popularity of clownfish. As a result, many new clownfish owners found themselves with pets they had no idea how to care for that subsequently died. I love this movie, but that doesn't bar me from discussing its unintentional impact.

[–] furienna 14 years ago

It's not uncommon for Christmas puppies to wind up at shelters, and the event of a new baby causing neglect of the dog isn't uncommon either.

That sounds just sad.

The relative was hostile towards the dog she was trusted to care for and brought over a couple of cats that wrecked the furniture. And maybe it's just me, but I thought that the rat posed less of a threat than a couple of destruction-happy cats that wanted to steal the baby's milk.

To be fair to Aunt Sarah (which isn't easy, since she was a bitch, but still...), I don't think she knew how devious her cats were. They made it all look like Lady's fault. And I have a version of this story on an old audiotape, where there never was a rat threatening the baby, but there was a fire instead, which I really prefer, because it made a much more believable story.

Culture inherently guides us in our actions. Films are part of our culture and do impact us, even negatively. Finding Nemo boosted the popularity of clownfish. As a result, many new clownfish owners found themselves with pets they had no idea how to care for that subsequently died. I love this movie, but that doesn't bar me from discussing its unintentional impact.

But still, it's not Disney's fault, that people are stupid enough to get a pet without finding out how to take care of it.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] friendoffilm 11 years ago

But still, it's not Disney's fault, that people are stupid enough to get a pet without finding out how to take care of it.

Whether people have seen Lady & The Tramp or not, there've always been people who are stupid enough to go out and purchase pet animals without doing even the slightest research on how to feed, house, and otherwise care for them.

That doesn't happen nearly as much nowadays, however, because many, if not most pet stores, legal breeders and shelters/animal rescue league programs screen prospective buyers before selling pets to them, to make sure that they'll live up to their responsibility in taking care of them. This also goes for pet birds, as well as pet dogs and cats, btw.

[–] RavishingAngel 15 years ago

You do realize that this movie was meant to be from a dog's perspective, right?

The only issue with the hat box is the potential lack of breathing holes (but considering the fact we don't see the box from all sides, we have no idea whether there were any or not). Otherwise, what exactly is the issue?

And what is "abysmal" about their treatment of her? For maybe a couple of days they're super excited about having a baby and don't spoil their dog. So what? They didn't neglect her.

We were supposed to see the cat's as being horrible and evil because very few dogs see cats as friendly and good (so far as we humans see it, anyway). Also, I'd be pretty concerned if a rat was around my child!

And how DARE parents go on vacation for a couple of days while their trusted relative babysits their child! They should have their baby taken away from them for allowing a perfectly capable adult to watch their kid. *rolls eyes*

[–] AvenueQResident 14 years ago

The puppy being given in a wrapped up hatbox, was actually based on a similar real-life event that Walt Disney did for his wife.

[–] mnoe 14 years ago

The cats were a sight more likely to harm the baby than the rat would have been!

Well, maybe THOSE cats! But I take exception to your slander of real cats. Hmmf.

last 2 dvds: La Habanera (1937) & Accattone (1961)

[–] friendoffilm 11 years ago

"Well, maybe THOSE cats! But I take exception to your slander of real cats. Hmmf."

No matter how devious Aunt Sara's cats were, I'd still be more worried about a rat being in contact with and harming a newborn baby than I would if the cats were around him/her.

[–] little-miss-chocolate 15 years ago

There is no such word as "unhealthful". The word you want is "unhealthy".

I'm anespeptic, frasmotic, even compunctuous to have caused you such pericumbobulations...

[–] mnoe 14 years ago

There is no such word as "unhealthful".

Double-check your dictionary.

last 2 dvds: La Habanera (1937) & Accattone (1961)

[–] PrincessMagical 15 years ago

You take this film much too seriously. No offense.

Your chains are still mine, you belong to me! - The Phantom Of The Opera

[–] shortsteel 15 years ago

Why can't you just watch the movie and enjoy it for what it is. It is a cartoon movie, not real life. The only messages that this movie may be sending out is about how stupid people act when they have bred up a litter of humans. Animals are more intelligent about offspring than humans. If your worried about the affects this movie will have on today's youth, it should lean more toward humans being neutered than dogs. But, that's my opinion.