Sheridan

It has become mine because the owner has indicated I was now to act on its behalf, following her death. Same applies to the someone else who'd make a different choice, if in the same situation. That person, too, would've got the nod to act on the dog's behalf, after her death. In both our cases, that permits us to take a next action. I would rehome. The other person would take it to the vet to be PTS. We both would simply have made different ethical choices. And even tho' it doesn't fit my value system, I wouldn't abuse the person who made the opposite choice. No, the owner has asked you to pts the dog after the owner dies. If the owner simply leaves you the dog then yes, do what you like. The first scenario puts you in breach of trust. So you'd be the 'someone else' in this scenario. You'd PTS/ Your value system would say that a dying person's wish to have a young healthy dog PTS is not over-ridden by a consideration that the dog is young & can live a life. My value system reverses those... especially as I'd carefully found out from the owner that their reason was a genuine fear for the dog's future. Which I already knew was unfounded. So there was no real reason to fear for the dog's future. It was not a rational fear. I'd put a photo in the casket & rehome. So the little dog would 'go' with the owner, by proxy. This is what ethical decision making is all about. Your referred to your value system.... I, to mine. Right, so in your own way you're saying that if I follow the owner's wishes, I am being unethical. Well, now you're just being rude.

It has become mine because the owner has indicated I was now to act on its behalf, following her death. Same applies to the someone else who'd make a different choice, if in the same situation. That person, too, would've got the nod to act on the dog's behalf, after her death. In both our cases, that permits us to take a next action. I would rehome. The other person would take it to the vet to be PTS. We both would simply have made different ethical choices. And even tho' it doesn't fit my value system, I wouldn't abuse the person who made the opposite choice. No, the owner has asked you to pts the dog after the owner dies. If the owner simply leaves you the dog then yes, do what you like. The first scenario puts you in breach of trust.

yes thats how I would have felt if Id said yes and not kept my promise. Interesting, isn't it .... when the examples are real ones in our own lives. Sort of sheds a different light. I think I'd ask the person why they were making the request for a still-young dog to be PTS. If it was that they genuinely feared for its future .... and if I had some certainty there could be a good rehoming ... then I'd ask how he/she would feel about that. It can be awfully hard, tho', to be having discussions like that with someone who may be in great pain, affected by medications or in a distressed state that's hard to imagine. But I might agree that the young dog 'go with them', if there was no chance for a clear discussion about rehoming (even tho' it'd be pretty certain). Then I'd put a photo of the dog in their casket & rehome the dog. Someone else would not make that choice but would PTS the dog .... saying they wouldn't betray the person's wish. But I'd weigh up the young dog's 'best interest' to live out its life.... against the thinking of a person suffering & facing death. Ethically, neither of those solutions would be right or wrong. Each of us would say we made the call according to how we sorted thro' our own values. Best any of us can do. Who are you to decide what is in the best interests of a dog that isn't yours?

Can someone tell me who the kerry was?

Hardly. But you have such strong views on this I thought you'd help a sister out :laugh: Thanks for helping prove my point by the way. Oh, people have strong views but when it comes to stepping up then that's another matter entirely.

I admire BFAS a lot. They're firmly of the opinion that the majority of dogs can be retrained into a family situation. They took on the bulk of Vick's dogs, some of whom were in shocking condition mentally and physically. I did stop following them on FB after an anti-AKC rant from their CEO, though.

But they aren't in Australia and have to comply with stupid Animal Lib types making up all the rules... T. True, though the whacktivists are far more active in the US. However, people have complained about the condition of the pens at Moorook and that concrete is the only way to prevent disease in a shelter.

Funnily enough, the dogs at the Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Utah are on dirt most of the day in their pack runs and they seem none the worse for it. Best Friends also has life long residents who are none the worse for it.

You're the one banging your discordant drum. You've made a judgement about a dead woman and her family based on a Daily Mail Online article. Wow. The woman is DEAD. She made a decision based on the dog she knew. You didnt know the dog but you take it upon yourself to call her an arrogant, self centred and self righteous person. You dont know her either! This matter should never have made the tabloids. Funerals are private matters and the fact this has ended up with death threats to the son at this time as well as a Vet assistant is just disgraceful! Yes, that's what gets me. The increasing hysteria in this thread is based on a media article and as we know, these are always accurate. No one here knew the woman, her family or the dog. Whether or not the dog suffered or what was going through anyone's mind is simply speculation.

The over-emoticon weeping and wailing in this thread is getting a trifle nauseating.

I have a question: which RSPCA was it? They do not seem to have been created equal.

Yes, that's what I mean. What's she like without being left with sounds?

I can understand and sympathise to why she did it.

What kind of sound do you leave her?

It's not about breeding, it's about behaviours of both the desexed and undesexed dog in that situation. And again, a show dog is far more used to other dogs than the average. But the rescue might not be edit: not saying I agree, just trying to see both sides blackjaq said she was refused a rescue because she had an entire showdog. I know, but I'm saying the rescue dog might be the one that doesn't get along with an entire dog, not the other way around. I don't understand the logic, to me it seems to be along the lines of having a blanket rule of not letting people have a rescue dog if they work out of house - but people run rescues as they see fit, and probably have the rules they do because they've had issues in the past. Surely if the issue was the dog applied for the rescue should have said, 'Sorry, needs to be an only dog.'

I'd like to know how they planned to police that one.

It's not about breeding, it's about behaviours of both the desexed and undesexed dog in that situation. And again, a show dog is far more used to other dogs than the average. But the rescue might not be edit: not saying I agree, just trying to see both sides blackjaq said she was refused a rescue because she had an entire showdog.

It's not about breeding, it's about behaviours of both the desexed and undesexed dog in that situation. And again, a show dog is far more used to other dogs than the average.

Behave, Miss Roo, and have a lovely time Jelly!

Perhaps the people you get are not experienced dog handlers but I'd suggest that some who apply for dogs in rescue are. A blanket no seems counterproductive to rehoming.

That's the policy of a number of rescue groups and done with the best of intentions. It can't be one rule for one and one for another. Whilst your showdog may be beautifully behaved, any undesexed male/female purebred/crossbred may not welcome a male/female friend and an owner may not be experienced enough to spot signs of problems. I suggest that a show dog is far more likely to get along with other dogs because a dog who doesn't in the show ring is unlikely to be in the show ring for long. Your choice of course but you are potentially removing a good and experienced home for a reason that doesn't make much sense. I have issues with breeders that don't take back their dogs in the same way I have issues with a rescue refusing a breeder who has bred a dog or a breed rescue to take a dog because a general rescue thinks they know better than people experienced with a breed. I have issues with anyone who doesn't treat a dog. I have issues with anyone who doesn't do a good rehomimg and I suspect this happens with rescues far more often than it does with registered breeders. You can rant all you like about breeders but I think yours is aimed more at BYB rather than those who inhabit DOL and if so, it might be helpful if you differentiate between the two.

Really? Who are these registered breeders? I've never come across such a breeder and I doubt whether people other than you have.

Oh, the ingrate! :laugh:

Ummm... I think you'll find that the dog in question was pts by the people who "rescued" him from MUP... turns out that MUP was quite right in her summation of said dog and that he needed to be given his wings, but the "professionals" decided that as MUP was new to the game, they knew better and made a big deal of taking him on - and eventually had him destroyed anyways. So maybe we need to give MUP the benefit of the doubt on this issue, yes? T. I am going on how she treated the dog while the dog was with her. I suggest you reacquaint yourself with the threads in question.

I don't think you should be rescuing at all. This isn't based on your breeding practices at all because I know nothing about them. It's based on a dog having to be rescued from you.