Rescued from Abuse, Two Starved Puppies Recover

I fully agree with Mitzi (formerly Cindy). The mere thought of my former name makes me flash back to times I need to erase from my memory. And I suspect that goes double for a dog, in whom logical reasoning is usually secondary to instinct. These poor girls have been traumatized! In their minds, hearing the names they were called by their abuser may call forth memories of the monster that hurt them. These dogs need to know that they're safe now. Why would we choose to remind them of their heartbreaking past every time we call their names? No, we should try very hard NEVER to make them think of what happened to them under those old names. Besides, dogs are SO smart -- they'll learn their new names easily!

I WANT TO THANK MITZIE FOR WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT RENAMEING PETS. SHE IS RIGHT ABOUT RENAMEING OURSELVES. I TOO CHANGED MY NAME AT 48 (LATER IN LIFE) I NEVER KNEW WHY I WANTED IT CHANGE UNTIL TONIGHT AND MITZIE MADE PERFECT SENCE TO ME WHY I CHANGED MY NAME.WHEN I WAS YOUNGER EVERYTIME I HEARD MY NAME CALLED OUT IT WAS A BAD SITUATION.I WAS ABUSED VERBALY BY MY FATHER AND I ALWAYS CRINGED WHEN I HEARD IT CALLED.MY FATHER WAS THE TYPE TO HIT FIRST AND NOT ASK QUESTIONS. I MOVED TO FLORIDA IN 1983,I KEPT THE GIVEN NAME TILL I GOT MARRIED TO MY PRESENT HUSBAND.TOLD MY MOM THAT BEFORE I LEAVE G-DS GREEN EARTH I WILL LEGALY CHANGE IT.I WAS MARRIED IN MY NEW NAME AND GAVE ME A WHOLE NEW OUT LOOK ON MY LIFE. I THINK IT WAS THE BEST THING I EVER SPENT MONEY ON AND I AM A NEW PERSON BECAUSE OF IT.

I know. That would have been so sweet if they could have been kept together. The most important fact is they are HAPPY.

I actually don't think the the name is so critical compared to the care and love they receive. But I, too, feel that it was a shame that the two couldn't have been kept together so that they each had the other's support and company. This seems more important than names. Still, it is a good thing they have done for one of the poor dogs.

I was thinking the same as I was reading through these comments. Not only do some of the animals not even know those names, of those who might, the name may not be associated with anything good at all. Instead, the word that represents their name to humans, would instead have preceded or accompanied other nasty behavior by the abusers as they said any name they gave the animal in sentences that included everything from pejoratives to other scarier sounds in conjunction with meanness. If the animals were not kicked, beaten, etc., but were neglected, the name would mean absolutely nothing at all. On the other hand, after being rescued, whatever the "nice people" said to them, including what we consider a name and they possibly interpret as a call, would be more inviting. Pets would not understand "names" the way we do. They would only hear it as a sort of "love word" or "special call sound" that the humans make as the humans pet or feed or otherwise show affection. It could as well be a purr and they would recognize it the same way. It is just a special sound for them that they eventually associate with a call to receive something even if that something is merely a winking acknowledgement. They know that their own kind makes sounds too when they are happy or sad or angry, so for humans to make a special sound when we want to acknowledge the kitty or puppy, he would probably think of it the same way. So, each of us could have a different sound for that feeling of pleasure and after the cat learned that different sound and associated it with each of us feeling happy with them, the kitty or puppy would respond to ALL of the different ones used by all of the different people because of the association. The name only has a different special significance to humans -- as "names" instead of merely our own personal "purring" sounds when we see that kitty. So, any person using any name long enough while simultaneously doing something nice to that animal will become the same thing to that animal eventually. By the same analogy, the specific "sounds" that were previously associated with any sort of meanness would be tantamount to the meanest of hisses to a cat or the meanest of growls to a puppy. Someone new using that same sound may initially be met with the reaction that animal would have had to associating that sound to the bad. In the case of neglect, the previous "owners" would most likely have not used a name enough for the animal to even recognize that particular sound as representing anything at all. People who neglect don't generally talk to the animals all that much. So, in a "just in case" sort of practice, it is probably better to avoid the old name like the plague, choosing instead a new "sound" of our own personal "purr" or "good bark" that the animal can associate with something good coming from us. Everyone using the same new sound would merely reinforce that new sound as one that means good things for lots of humans to the animal, sort of like when all dogs who are of a particular breed make the same barking sound. Humans often forget to think like the animals might instead of thinking that the animals can be taught or are able to think like the humans.

That is so true. Our dog will answer to just about anything that sounds affectionate. He even comes running when I call our cats. Maybe that's because cat food is so yummy. Anyway, I guess my point is that dogs don't have an emotional attachment to their name. I think to them, it's just a sound their human makes when s/he wants the dog's attention.

Absolutely rename for you and your pet

I think the breed you're thinking of is Presa Canario, which were the type of dogs that killed Diane Whipple.