Desexing Of Rescue Dogs

[hoffpig]

Too many dogs. Rescue knows this all too well. Desex, desex, desex - and since there are way too many dogs, well, I haven't read all the posts but I heartily endorse desexing all dogs. Go Rescue!!!

[Tim'sMum]

As Muggles said...she/he was willing to hang on to the dog for a while to see if she came into season. If ultrasound wasn't an option (cost perhaps?) then Muggles keeping her for a while certainly was....especially as she had been unwell.

Not desexing is unethical....but putting an unwell dog under GA, unless it is an emergency, is also not exactly ethical.

[Muggles]

As Muggles said...she/he was willing to hang on to the dog for a while to see if she came into season. If ultrasound wasn't an option (cost perhaps?) then Muggles keeping her for a while certainly was....especially as she had been unwell.

Not desexing is unethical....but putting an unwell dog under GA, unless it is an emergency, is also not exactly ethical.

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)

[Muggles]

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?

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.

[Greytmate]

I've just re read your reply and no where did i say she was "So unhealthy she couldn't be desexed"

You said this Muggles.

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?

That is what I was responding to Muggles.

It is as clear as day that you think it is acceptable to rehome an undesexed dog that is too unhealthy to be desexed.

That is as dodgy as a used car salesman selling a car with a known and dangerous fault, and promising to 'fix it up later if it needs it'. Unfortunately people do get sucked in by it though, as they feel sorry for the dog.

I am not surprise the rescue group has excluded you, and if you are feeling excluded here on DOL, perhaps it is your own attitude that is the problem.

I would never lower my standards, so it is up to you if you think you can raise yours. Don't start topics for discussion unless you are prepared for people to disagree. If you are feeling personally attacked, then stop trying to justify dodgy practices that are actually illegal in some parts of Australia.

[Greytmate]

At a time where we are trying so hard to let people know of all the advantages of getting a dog from rescue...

We get some dodgy person investigating ways that they can get unwell, undesexed dogs into home of people that apply to adopt a rescue dog. And then they think they have the right to hassle the person by phone for the next few months, in the hope that somehow (over the phone) they will be able to tell whether the dog is coming into season or not.

Yeah that really makes people want to get a dog from rescue, doesn't everyone want an unwell dog?

[dogslife]

Just a quick comment here.

I was involved in a recent rescue where the dog was all skin and bones.

We wanted to wait until we have fattened her up before she was desexed and it was expected to take 3 months.

We found a new family who are perfect, and they wanted her.

They offered to take her and once she was fat enough have her desexed at their cost.

We did discuss it. It would have meant a new family taking in a sick starved dog and feeding her up before desexing.

One option was to sign the family up as carers and then once she was well, go ahead with the adoption.

In the end we decided to hang onto her in rescue and then send her to the family after desexing, as she gained weight faster than predicted.

Its never black and white......sometimes issues are grey.

ps. i am sorry that you feel under attack at DOL. Sometimes people express themselves badly in writing......... hang around...there is a lot of good stuff here.

[poodlefan]

As Muggles said...she/he was willing to hang on to the dog for a while to see if she came into season. If ultrasound wasn't an option (cost perhaps?) then Muggles keeping her for a while certainly was....especially as she had been unwell.

Before you leap onto that charger to defend Muggles TM, best you review the his/her initial posts. They said no such thing.

He/shehas changed his/her tune. Initially the view was:

Surely they could keep a check on her after rehoming to see if she came into season before putting her through an unnecessary op.

and

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.

and

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.

No Muggles, I don't think you get the point at all. Responsible rescues do not rehome unwell, potentially prengant pups under any circumstances.

You bagged out the rescue who refused to rehome a potentially pregnant dog. Seems to me you need to grasp that for responsible rescues there are no shades of grey when it comes to rehoming undesexed. It simply doesn't happen.

No point in throwing your bike in the bushes and leaving simply because people wouldn't agree with you. Based on this track record, your rescue career will be short lived. If you think DOLers are a handful, God help you dealing with surrendering idiots, pound staff and wacko potential adopters.

Edited February 11, 2010 by poodlefan

[Tim'sMum]

I adopted a cat (many years ago) and left her at the Vet for desexing, only to have the Vet ring and say that they found an obvious desexing scar when they shaved her tummy (she was a Persian) and pulled her out of the GA straight away. She had definitely been desexed and never came into season. I would have thought any Vet would have a fair idea if a scar was due to this dog being desexed already....eg: in the right position on the abdomen, stitch scars on either side of the cut etc.. Even after 5 years I can still see the straight scar of the cut and stitch marks on one of my dog's bellies....a rescue dog by the way and a failed foster.

Apart from the cost of further surgery,which is quite probably unnecessary....I find it amazing that a rescue organisation would consider surgery on a dog that was not in good condition, having previously suffered a parvo like illness?

Whilst every rescue dog should be desexed (and one of mine was done at 6 weeks, with which I have no issue) I think there are grey areas like this where a dog can be left in foster care for a time to ensure that is was desexed...and is given time to reach peak condition if the rescue organisation still insists on the surgery. Actually the money spent on the surgery could have been spent on an ultrasound anyway and would probably be a cheaper option....even if it had to be done at another vet.

How can possibly unneccesary surgery on a dog recovering from illness be justifiable....especially when a foster carer is willing to keep the dog a bit longer and there are other ways of determining whether the dog had been desexed or not?

I think Muggles was right in questioning the actions of the rescue organisation in this sitaution.

[poodlefan]

I think Muggles was right in questioning the actions of the rescue organisation in this sitaution.

And to advocate that it should have been rehomed unwell and undesexed?