Muggles

It is wrong to rehome a dog that is so unhealthy it cannot be desexed. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the dog and the reputation of rescue. Steve had a really good point. For somebody that says they are concerned about losing dogs under GA I am really surprised at your stance. It seems selfish. It seems that as long as you personally don't lose any dogs under GA, then that is ok for you. But its ok for a brand new adoptor to take home a sick dog, and have the new pet they have just bought and bonded with die under GA a couple of weeks later. It is up to rescue to step up to the challenge and bring the dogs up to an adoptable state before placing them with a family. To avoid the possibility of a really horrible situation, I wouldn't like to even offer a dog to somebody until after it was healthy and desexed. Muggles, maybe it is you cutting corners in wanting to see dogs go out undesexed. You may have been lucky so far, but any group rehoming hundreds of dogs knows that there will be a fair proportion of new owners that will not keep in contact once they have their dog, even though they agreed to stay in contact when they adopted the dog. I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed? I've just re read your reply and no where did i say she was "So unhealthy she couldn't be desexed" I said when she first came into care she hadn't been well so thought an unnecessary GA would have been foolish and just to set things straight once and for all, if we had done an ultrasound and she was not desexed I would get her "under the knife" in a flash. Good luck to you all and Thank you to those of you that gave me your opinions without personal attack. This will be my last visit to DOL forums. The majority of you seem a tad "on edge?" and just a little scary.

THANKS TIM'S MUM, WOW I CAN'T BELIEVE HOW OFF TRACK (& PERSONAL) THESE PEOPLE CAN GET. NOW I KNOW WHY PEOPLE STEER CLEAR OF DOL. (I THINK I MIGHT JOIN THEM)

It is wrong to rehome a dog that is so unhealthy it cannot be desexed. A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the dog and the reputation of rescue. Steve had a really good point. For somebody that says they are concerned about losing dogs under GA I am really surprised at your stance. It seems selfish. It seems that as long as you personally don't lose any dogs under GA, then that is ok for you. But its ok for a brand new adoptor to take home a sick dog, and have the new pet they have just bought and bonded with die under GA a couple of weeks later. It is up to rescue to step up to the challenge and bring the dogs up to an adoptable state before placing them with a family. To avoid the possibility of a really horrible situation, I wouldn't like to even offer a dog to somebody until after it was healthy and desexed. Muggles, maybe it is you cutting corners in wanting to see dogs go out undesexed. You may have been lucky so far, but any group rehoming hundreds of dogs knows that there will be a fair proportion of new owners that will not keep in contact once they have their dog, even though they agreed to stay in contact when they adopted the dog. I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed? you have not understand my point at all. i think you need to read it again, maybe a bit slower and with your glasses on? she is not, not being desexed because she is too unwell. its because the vet said they think she is already done and they weren't keen on opening her up and either was I. I did not want this dog (or any dog for that matter) opened up unnecessarily. How is that me wanting to cut corners? I would have happily kept her for as long as it took. I have never rushed a rescue. If i had been given the option for her to have an ultrasound i would have jumped at the chance, but i was told that it wasn't an option. are you a foster carer? why are you attacking me? calling me selfish??? I have never said i think dogs should be rehomed undesexed, but in this case i wanted another option. AGAIN I REPEAT I DO NOT LIKE DOGS OPERATED ON IF ITS NOT NECESSARY. THATS ALL IM SAYING.

After reading through all your responses (thank you btw) I'm worried that some of you seem to think I don't think desexing is important before rehoming. I am for it 100% but in saying that. In this instance I wasn't happy because not everything in this world is black and white. There is a lot of grey area and I felt that we needed to be able to do it differently in this case, rather than just say "this is the rule, this is the way it is". I have rehomed alot of dogs and am still in touch with all of the new owners, I don't let a dog go to anyone that I don't spend some time getting to know. Plus we do have a desexing contract that new owners sign if for any reason the dog can't be desexed for health issues before they go to their new home, why couldn't we have done that? I'm suprised by the amount of you that are so willing to "open her up" and see. I must be the only one thats has lost dogs on the table? I don't want anymore unwanted litters either but hells bells what about this dog, who's looking after this dog. Not me anymore unfortunately. Thanks for your responses, it has opened my eyes up

unfortunately, it is now out of my hands. I don't know what the results were but yes I would imagine it has already been done. i have been "escorted from the property" so to speak and labelled a troublemaker. Time to get back in my box i'm afraid and hunker down till the firing stops. I'm not the only carer that is not happy with this group so will have to wait and see.

thanks westimum, i was feeling well and truly out numbered. the flame suit is a already a little singed but still useable.

whilst i can definitely see both sides, it doesn't feel right. maybe rescue just isn't for me

wouldn't a ceasar scar leave a much bigger scar?

i think my time with this particular rescue group has come to an end. this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I know how damaging GA's can be to some dogs, she wasn't well when she came into care and i felt they were putting their paperwork issues before the dogs wellbeing. (and the fact that they didn't want to have to chase it up down the track, a phone call once a month to check on her is all it would take.) I feel like they were taking the easy option so they could rehome her and forget about it. how exactly was she ill? I'm guessing something that adds a risk factor to GA? Most rescues would hold off until the dog was well enough to go under without added risk, it just means more time in foster care, which should not be an issue. at first they thought it was parvo but she was negative???

they like to get them in and out quick. there are never enough carers so there is always time issues. i can see everyones point but aren't there exceptions to the rule. its not like i wanted them to lie to the new owners and say she was desexed, i just wanted them to wait, the vet said if she was going to come into season it would only be a matter of a couple of months. How hard is it to stay in contact with a new owner especially if they are aware of the situation.

i've only been involved in rescue for a few years. obviously i haven't had time to harden up yet.

I know how damaging GA's can be to some dogs, she wasn't well when she came into care and i felt they were putting their paperwork issues before the dogs wellbeing. (and the fact that they didn't want to have to chase it up down the track, a phone call once a month to check on her is all it would take.) I feel like they were taking the easy option so they could rehome her and forget about it.

Did the vet have ultrasound equipment? Not all of them do. Maybe they didn't i wasn't told the reason.

I would like to think in this instance you could advise the new owners of the situation. it doesn't happen all that often. i really think this is an exception to the rule. seems a tad drastic to me.