Puppies Born Without Front Legs

[Greytmate]

My position on things was that the dogs were alive and in need and that the time to pts them has passed but I was a little scared to say it.

That is a point I would like to discuss.

The very saddest thing about a person or an animal dying, is the grieving by the living who loved that person or animal. I believe the ones who have died do not suffer in death.

Those who grieve do suffer, the more that one surrenders to love that person or animal, the deeper the grief.

The time to put an animal to sleep is any time after it is known that suffering will soon be inevitable. We have quite a few experienced vet nurses posting here, and their professional opinion is that these pups will suffer. I know they will suffer, because I have a good basic knowledge of canine physiology and psychology. Experienced breeders that know a lot about dogs know the pups will suffer. But to the average dog owner, they just look like a happy, healthy pups with a bit missing.

That doesn't mean that I am demanding that every problem dog be euthaised at birth, or by the rescuer. I believe that breeders and rescuers have the right to keep their dog alive, if they have enough love and hope, and the dog isn't suffering yet. It is their dog after all.

If they have made an attachment, and surrendered to love, and the dog isn't in pain yet, who am I to tell them when to kill their own dog?

Experienced ethical breeders and rescuers know not to surrender their love to animals like these, because unfortunately many dogs requiring rescue do have physical problems, and birth defects do happen sometimes. They know to euthanise the dog or pup before they fall in love with it. Most have learnt the hard way the consequences surrendering your love to an animal with serious problems. Or they have seen it happen to others.

Most importantly, ethical breeders and rescuers do not encourage or allow anyone else to form a deep emotional connection to the animal. They do not advertise the dog. They do not sell the dog. They do not give that dog to somebody else.

I've read on here about breeders doing everything possible to save a pup without knowing if it would be healthy long term. Same with rescue spending money on very ill animals with no guarantee of long term health or survival. Everyone does their best at the time.

But we do know that these pups will not be healthy long term.

We know that a dog's skeletal system can take a certain amount and type of strain over a set time frame. We know what will happen to the skeletal system of a dog with two missing limbs. We know the system will fail in at least two ways. The only question is whether it will take months or years to fail, and which way it will fail first.

We know that dogs instinctively tend to hide expressions of pain.

We know that a dog's instincts are triggered strongly, when the dog is excited by something, adrenaline will block out pain.

We know that dogs don't have the self-awareness that human disabled people have, to safely adapt their lives to avoid serious injury.

Having worked with physically and intellectually disabled young people I would readily take on an animal with special needs meeting the costs and doing my best in conjunction with my vet to know when human intervention wasn't enough. I can't be the only person willing to do that for an animal.

You are not.

But do you go out looking for special needs dogs to take home? Some people do, and they do it for attention.

When you bought your dog, did you go with 'special needs' as part of your criteria? Or did you have other criteria? Most normal people have a list of positive attributes they desire in a dog, not negative ones.

I can understand how Anne might see things a little differently when she rehomes a breed where demand outstrips the number of dogs she has to rehome. If somebody has been waiting for a special breed, and there is limited opportunity to own one, that person is more likely to accept a dog with problems.

This is very different from a person that passes on a healthy example of the breed or type of dog they they want, in order to purposely take on a problem dog.

I also wondered what someone like the Bionic Vet would be able to do with their missing legs? To me I would want to know what is happening inside their skeletal and muscular structures and if their organs were ok before deciding on pts, but accept that others see things differently.

I thought the same Jaxx. I remember seeing some man with a GR or lab pup on an Aussie show (Bondi Vet maybe?) that had to have frames around all its legs and they had to be screwed regularly to make the limbs straighter. I cried thinking you can't explain that kind of ongoing pain to an animal and I doubt I could do it because of that - how much intervention is too much? The dog seemed to accept things quite well though and still ambled around like a pup. What the Bionic Vet is doing is very informed and ground breaking stuff for animals. It did not seem experimental. He is very clear on why he is doing it and at what point he stops and has lots of technology available to him to do it. The show on that cat and how quickly it recovered mobility - even jumping on its first use of its new legs, was quite amazing. It showed no signs of pain and even the vet was shocked at its progress. Not sure I could do it but the cat now has a life that wasn't possible before. For some owners and animals it will be the right thing to do.

The bionic vet exists to fill a niche in the market. If your adult dog lost a limb or was injured permanently, wouldn't you want to fix that? Many people would, and I can understand people wanting that. But I do not think prosthetics are suitable at all on a growing pup. A vet may agree to treat the dog, but if you ask them what they advise, you sometimes get a different answer.

[Steve]

Look there is a difference between someone seeing a dog like this and feeling pity for it and deciding to be in a position where they want to give it a life and someone who is responsible for that life as they hold the balance in their hands as it is born.

What is best for the dog? As a breeder or a rescue person who is there on the spot as they take their first breath its got to be about that and human emotional crap cant be allowed to override that. Its part of the responsibility of what we do.

It makes humans feel warm and snuggly to "save" or work to have a dog with special needs linger on - dosing them with meds, cleaning up after them, stroking them, manipulating their lives around them but that doesnt make it right for the dog. The dog exists to provide the human with feelings of being needed more and depended on not because it is getting any more out of life than surviving another day. People who intervene to rear animals with these types of issues prey on that and its truly disgusting. Those stories like where the RSPCA spend a mint and allow a bloody cat which has 3rd degree burns all over because some bastard set it alight on a train station suffer and suffer for months make me sick and if people cant see that is not in the animal's best interests then there is a definite need to have laws to prevent it.

If I am diagnosed with an incurable disease which will make me linger on my choice would be to linger less and not be a burden on the people who love me - we watch people suffer like this because we have no choice why on earth would we do it to a dog if it were not for our own gratification? Given the choice what do you think the dog would do for itself? Simply go to sleep peacefully or take the option of a pitiful existance where humans get to say how wonderful they are because they think its O.K. to watch it exist - dependent and suffering, waking up every day to face drugs and pain to get to eat and wee.

This bleeding heart crap which puts human emotion over what is best for the dog almost makes me see the point peta make when they rattle on about animals being used for human gratification.

[Souff]

..... which puts human emotion over what is best for the dog almost makes me see the point peta make when they rattle on about animals being used for human gratification.

Oh Steve, how I hate to admit that PETA doctrine is right about something !!!!

Also, some points made by Greytmate are so very, very true and makes important decisions many times harder to make.

"We know that dogs instinctively tend to hide expressions of pain."

"We know that a dog's instincts are triggered strongly, when the dog is excited by something, adrenaline will block out pain."

Having seen elderly dogs, that are in both severe physical and mental deterioration, think that they can still do zoomies when a certain person arrives to visit ..... an activity that was always associated with that person's previous visits when the dogs were young .... is the worst thing to watch. Their eyes spark up but their physical talents cannot match the spark. The rush of adrenalin does not last for the exercise. So very very sad. Not all dogs in pain have dull cloudy eyes either - some have the clearest most beautiful eyes right up until the last.

Many dogs have an innate ability to hide pain and this makes making the tough decisions so very much harder. Particularly when you are looking at a puppy and this is why you must consider the longer term complications. You will never come to the best decision if you dont face up to the dogs long term prospects.

As Steve has said, this is OUR RESPONSIBILITY, no matter what role we have with the pup or dog: breeder, owner, rescue worker, vet, carer. If the owner does not have the knowledge then it is up to informed people around them to make sure that the owner knows about the consequences and the options, and that they have a responsibility to make a decision.

The litmus test for me is always: "Would this dog/pup survive in a natural pack situation?"

Humans domesticated dogs but the instincts are still much the same as those of non-domesticated animals and this is much of what we love about them.

A pedigreed pooch of today might not look like a wolf but when natural survival instincts kick in, we are reminded that not a lot has changed.

The longer term quality of life for the animal is the most important thing to consider, not the look on the dog's face.

If this has not been considered properly and we feel good about having given this dog another chance at life, then yes, PETA are correct.

Souff

Edited March 15, 2011 by Souff

[~Anne~]

Overall, I agree with much that has been said. I feel strongly that I am able to clearly look at all sides of the argument.

I believe the dogs should have been culled at birth, without question, and I do also acknowledge that the animal welfare org in this example is using the dogs as a ploy to the possible detriment of animal welfare.

My difference of opinion seems to largely stem from the determination of 'suffering'.

I have an epileptic dog, as I am sure the majority of people reading are possibly aware. His condition is obviously not in the same category as these Chihuahuas however, but I am hoping to illustrate a point.

His routines and seizures, medication and health, rule my life and my family. I have been told on many occasions to euth him due to the severity of his condition. I have been told I am cruel keeping him alive. I have heard the silent recriminations from friends, family, colleagues and forum members. However, in my opinion he is not suffering. In my opinion he has a full and happy life. My opinion differs from others, I know this.

I am aware that one day I may have to euth him. I am prepared for this. I will not let him suffer.

The difference between me and many others on the issue, is as I said above, the determination and possibly the definition of 'suffering'. What one considers suffering may not be viewed the same as another.

My position on things was that the dogs were alive and in need and that the time to pts them has passed but I was a little scared to say it.

That is a point I would like to discuss.

The very saddest thing about a person or an animal dying, is the grieving by the living who loved that person or animal. I believe the ones who have died do not suffer in death.

Those who grieve do suffer, the more that one surrenders to love that person or animal, the deeper the grief.

The time to put an animal to sleep is any time after it is known that suffering will soon be inevitable. We have quite a few experienced vet nurses posting here, and their professional opinion is that these pups will suffer. I know they will suffer, because I have a good basic knowledge of canine physiology and psychology. Experienced breeders that know a lot about dogs know the pups will suffer. But to the average dog owner, they just look like a happy, healthy pups with a bit missing.

I disagree about the assumption or belief the dogs will suffer or even be made to suffer. I understand that people can become blinded by emotions when their dog is suffering and they choose to prolong the life of the animal. We do not know the strength or weaknesses of any future owners of these dogs though. Why is it assumed they would allow the dogs to suffer?

We are also assuming that the dogs will experience physical pain that will cause them to suffer in the future because of their deformity. I am sure there will be instances of pain or discomfort, but I am not sure that this pain and discomfort would be too much greater than a dog with an atopic allergy, or fleas, or dry eye or any other health issue related to dogs.

I believe the size of these deformed dogs is also relevant. If the dogs were a larger breed, it would be a different scenario.

But we do know that these pups will not be healthy long term.

On the other hand, do we know they won't be?

We know that a dog's skeletal system can take a certain amount and type of strain over a set time frame. We know what will happen to the skeletal system of a dog with two missing limbs. We know the system will fail in at least two ways. The only question is whether it will take months or years to fail, and which way it will fail first.

Do we? (re: bolded part). Do you? Does anyone? Unless you have experienced this exact thing, how could you know? You can project on what may occur if you have the knowledge and understanding of the skeletal system and by this, I would think that the knowledge would have to be detailed to be able to try to project, but no-one knows in all reality what will happen precisely.

I can understand how Anne might see things a little differently when she re-homes a breed where demand outstrips the number of dogs she has to rehome. If somebody has been waiting for a special breed, and there is limited opportunity to own one, that person is more likely to accept a dog with problems.

I find this statement somewhat disturbing and perhaps I am reading it wrongly. You are assuming that I perhaps unintentionally or intentionally overlook some issues, or that my re-homing practices may be somewhat altered because of demand? That the needs of the dog are not seen as acutely because of the demand?

I look at re-homing any dog, be it a Pug or a Poodle, with the same eyes. The needs of the dog are foremost. The home I am looking for is one that caters to that dog. One that caters to the dog's emotional and physical needs both present and future, regardless of how demanding those needs are or are not.

Yes, these little dogs that are the subject of this thread should have been culled at birth. But they're alive. They're happy. They're receiving professional care.

As an endnote: The 'bleeding hearts' comments irk me no end steve. The comment is made purely in a derogatory sense and those that say it, know this. It is rude and it is wrong to use such terminology. It is no better than using the phrase 'tree hugger' to label someone who cares for the environment. It is derogatory and I would love for it not to be used because it creates a situation where people who defend their positions on keeping animals alive feel they are under attack. I realise it wasn't aimed at me in this instance though, and I truly doubt anyone could consider me a 'bleeding heart'.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Great posts in this thread

For me it is always what is best for the dog, no matter how hard it is for me to face the consequences.

[Steve]

Overall, I agree with much that has been said. I feel strongly that I am able to clearly look at all sides of the argument.

I believe the dogs should have been culled at birth, without question, and I do also acknowledge that the animal welfare org in this example is using the dogs as a ploy to the possible detriment of animal welfare.

My difference of opinion seems to largely stem from the determination of 'suffering'.

I have an epileptic dog, as I am sure the majority of people reading are possibly aware. His condition is obviously not in the same category as these Chihuahuas however, but I am hoping to illustrate a point.

His routines and seizures, medication and health, rule my life and my family. I have been told on many occasions to euth him due to the severity of his condition. I have been told I am cruel keeping him alive. I have heard the silent recriminations from friends, family, colleagues and forum members. However, in my opinion he is not suffering. In my opinion he has a full and happy life. My opinion differs from others, I know this.

I am aware that one day I may have to euth him. I am prepared for this. I will not let him suffer.

The difference between me and many others on the issue, is as I said above, the determination and possibly the definition of 'suffering'. What one considers suffering may not be viewed the same as another.

My position on things was that the dogs were alive and in need and that the time to pts them has passed but I was a little scared to say it.

That is a point I would like to discuss.

The very saddest thing about a person or an animal dying, is the grieving by the living who loved that person or animal. I believe the ones who have died do not suffer in death.

Those who grieve do suffer, the more that one surrenders to love that person or animal, the deeper the grief.

The time to put an animal to sleep is any time after it is known that suffering will soon be inevitable. We have quite a few experienced vet nurses posting here, and their professional opinion is that these pups will suffer. I know they will suffer, because I have a good basic knowledge of canine physiology and psychology. Experienced breeders that know a lot about dogs know the pups will suffer. But to the average dog owner, they just look like a happy, healthy pups with a bit missing.

I disagree about the assumption or belief the dogs will suffer or even be made to suffer. I understand that people can become blinded by emotions when their dog is suffering and they choose to prolong the life of the animal. We do not know the strength or weaknesses of any future owners of these dogs though. Why is it assumed they would allow the dogs to suffer?

We are also assuming that the dogs will experience physical pain that will cause them to suffer in the future because of their deformity. I am sure there will be instances of pain or discomfort, but I am not sure that this pain and discomfort would be too much greater than a dog with an atopic allergy, or fleas, or dry eye or any other health issue related to dogs.

I believe the size of these deformed dogs is also relevant. If the dogs were a larger breed, it would be a different scenario.

But we do know that these pups will not be healthy long term.

On the other hand, do we know they won't be?

We know that a dog's skeletal system can take a certain amount and type of strain over a set time frame. We know what will happen to the skeletal system of a dog with two missing limbs. We know the system will fail in at least two ways. The only question is whether it will take months or years to fail, and which way it will fail first.

Do we? (re: bolded part). Do you? Does anyone? Unless you have experienced this exact thing, how could you know? You can project on what may occur if you have the knowledge and understanding of the skeletal system and by this, I would think that the knowledge would have to be detailed to be able to try to project, but no-one knows in all reality what will happen precisely.

I can understand how Anne might see things a little differently when she re-homes a breed where demand outstrips the number of dogs she has to rehome. If somebody has been waiting for a special breed, and there is limited opportunity to own one, that person is more likely to accept a dog with problems.

I find this statement somewhat disturbing and perhaps I am reading it wrongly. You are assuming that I perhaps unintentionally or intentionally overlook some issues, or that my re-homing practices may be somewhat altered because of demand? That the needs of the dog are not seen as acutely because of the demand?

I look at re-homing any dog, be it a Pug or a Poodle, with the same eyes. The needs of the dog are foremost. The home I am looking for is one that caters to that dog. One that caters to the dog's emotional and physical needs both present and future, regardless of how demanding those needs are or are not.

Yes, these little dogs that are the subject of this thread should have been culled at birth. But they're alive. They're happy. They're receiving professional care.

As an endnote: The 'bleeding hearts' comments irk me no end steve. The comment is made purely in a derogatory sense and those that say it, know this. It is rude and it is wrong to use such terminology. It is no better than using the phrase 'tree hugger' to label someone who cares for the environment. It is derogatory and I would love for it not to be used because it creates a situation where people who defend their positions on keeping animals alive feel they are under attack. I realise it wasn't aimed at me in this instance though, and I truly doubt anyone could consider me a 'bleeding heart'.

Yes when I use the term bleeding heart it is derogatory and you are right I do know this. It is no more rude or wrong to use the terminology to describe an ill placed desire to save everything with a heart beat than it is to use the terminology of any other descriptive word which may conjure up negative behaviours.

I dont use the term blleding heart to describe someone who is rescuing dogs I only use it to describe those who have gone over board just the same as I wouldnt use the term tree hugger about someone who cares for the environment until they showed me they were idiots and that they have in my opinion taken the whole thing way too far.

People who keep their animals alive for their own benefit be that to get pity and gather donations or for their own needs and who are not capable of seeing how the decisions they make are not best for the animal need to feel they are under attack and re assess their emotions just as any one who is making any decision which makes an animal suffer should be.

[megan_]

Re: your dog Ann, I see two major differences:

i) Your dog (most probably) lives a pretty normal life 90% of the time, right? Even if he had a seizure a day, he'd still have 23+ hours a day of being a normal dog

ii) You aren't trying to sell your dog and profit from it. The people that "rescued" these dogs aren't the ones that are going to be looking after them in the long run. They're selling the dogs.

Rescue dogs do suffer in the long run because of the pity market. People feel sorry for them but feel that if you want a nice, normal dog you should get a puppy - they aren't broken, second hand etc.

There are many happy, healthy, well adjusted rescue dogs that should be promoted. After all, that is what the vast majority of people want.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Anne, how do you know these dogs are happy?

Edited March 15, 2011 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[~Anne~]

Re: your dog Ann, I see two major differences:

i) Your dog (most probably) lives a pretty normal life 90% of the time, right? Even if he had a seizure a day, he'd still have 23+ hours a day of being a normal dog

ii) You aren't trying to sell your dog and profit from it. The people that "rescued" these dogs aren't the ones that are going to be looking after them in the long run. They're selling the dogs.

Rescue dogs do suffer in the long run because of the pity market. People feel sorry for them but feel that if you want a nice, normal dog you should get a puppy - they aren't broken, second hand etc.

There are many happy, healthy, well adjusted rescue dogs that should be promoted. After all, that is what the vast majority of people want.

(Edited to add - I agree that 90% of the time he is fine, but the comments and negative reactions I receive are also related to him beuing 'drugged up' as anti-convulsants tend to slow dogs down somewhat and there are numerous health risks associated with their use.)

My dog was a rescue dog. I adopted him. He came into rescue after a discussion with a vet about euthanasing him more than 7 years ago in Victoria. I paid no money for him though, and in fact, I was given money that was raised to assist him! The rescuer that allowed me to adopt him is ethical, has high values and morals and I respect her a great deal.

I did feel sorry for him and I actually was not actively looking to adopt a dog when I heard about him. I adopted him as I knew I had the knowledge and ability to deal with his condition. I am also well aware that there would also have been some motive there related to my feelings and how it made me feel good to help this dog. No-one is truly selfless, we all do things that make us feel good. We are all driven by ego.

Adopting a poor little epileptic dog that was at risk of being euth'd appealed to me and, at the same time, I knew I was in the position to help deal with his future needs. I only had one Pug at the time, had only just started concentrating on rescuing Pugs myself, and the timing was right to add another dog.

Had he been a normal healthy Pug, I would not have considered adopting him. Is that wrong? Is that bad?

The dogs that I have re-homed with disabilities I have charged an adoption fee for. Cookie, whom some here will recall, is a prime example of a deformed dog, with a debilitating injury on top of the deformity, that I personally rescued and re-homed. As a rescuer, I wasn't looking to profit even though I did sometimes make a profit, and I don't think that the people in the subject story are looking to profit from the dogs in question. At least not financially at any rate. Cookie is still very happy to this day. I feel no qualms about rescuing her or re-homing her, and I am also quite sure that the Vet who sought me out to assist feels no issue with re-homing a deformed and injured dog.

Cookie will, without any doubt, suffer some pain in the future and possibly does already. When and if this happens (if it hasn't already) her pain will be managed and when the time comes, I am sure her owners will euthanase her when the pain can not be managed.

I don't believe I was exploiting any rescue I re-homed, although I can see how these little Chihuahuas are open to exploitation and appear to be exploited.

Anne, how do you know these dogs are happy?

From the clip they appear to be. The behaviour and the body language both suggest they are.

Edited March 15, 2011 by ~Anne~

[Greytmate]

We know that a dog's skeletal system can take a certain amount and type of strain over a set time frame. We know what will happen to the skeletal system of a dog with two missing limbs. We know the system will fail in at least two ways. The only question is whether it will take months or years to fail, and which way it will fail first.

Do we? (re: bolded part). Do you? Does anyone? Unless you have experienced this exact thing, how could you know? You can project on what may occur if you have the knowledge and understanding of the skeletal system and by this, I would think that the knowledge would have to be detailed to be able to try to project, but no-one knows in all reality what will happen precisely.

We do know.

In almost the same way that an engineer can calculate that if part of a support structure is removed from a building, it will eventually lead to collapse, people specialised in canine movement can calculate what the effects will be of removing part of a dog's skeleton.

I don't have to be an engineer or an expert in canine movement to know what is in store for these dogs.

Selling dogs like these is totally incomparable with deciding to keep an epiliptic dog. It is the sale of these dogs that is offensive, not their existance.

[pikespooches]

Are dogs evolving????

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Anne, I had a little dog that was happy happy happy but one the day she stopped playing and seemed subdued but still happy.

Took her to the vet and she had a serious problem with the bones in her neck and it had been there for some time.

I knew that dog, she had lived with me for 15 years and I never knew how much pain she was in on that day or the months prior to that day. She was put on pain medication and the difference was significant.

I felt awful because I did not pick up she was in pain. It taught me how stoic some dogs are and now I am much more careful when assessing whether a dog is pain free and to be honest, I do not believe these dogs are pain free.

ETA The dog had seen the vet in those months as well and he hadn't picked up she had a problem either.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[~Anne~]

I am not sure of the relevance of the point you are making Jaxx??

'Any' dog could be in pain that is not picked up is essentially what you have stated. Dogs can be stoic. I know all this and I agree with those points.

Edited March 16, 2011 by ~Anne~

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I am not sure of the relevance of the point you are making Jaxx??

'Any' dog could be in pain that is not picked up is essentially what you have stated. Dogs can be stoic. I know all this and I agree with those points.

My point is that we don't know that these dogs are happy and we don't know they are not in pain.

This means that it is necessary to be very careful not to think these dogs are ok based on how they look, ie looking happy.

[~Anne~]

I am not sure of the relevance of the point you are making Jaxx??

'Any' dog could be in pain that is not picked up is essentially what you have stated. Dogs can be stoic. I know all this and I agree with those points.

My point is that we don't know that these dogs are happy and we don't know they are not in pain.

This means that it is necessary to be very careful not to think these dogs are ok based on how they look, ie looking happy.

Ahh, ok. The converse of what I stated.

Yes, true, they may not be happy and they may be happy. I guess we will never know.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I am not sure of the relevance of the point you are making Jaxx??

'Any' dog could be in pain that is not picked up is essentially what you have stated. Dogs can be stoic. I know all this and I agree with those points.

My point is that we don't know that these dogs are happy and we don't know they are not in pain.

This means that it is necessary to be very careful not to think these dogs are ok based on how they look, ie looking happy.

Ahh, ok. The converse of what I stated.

Yes, true, they may not be happy and they may be happy. I guess we will never know.

Yes, I agree, we don't know for sure.

[Souff]

Are dogs evolving????

Are you asking if they are evolving into crippled creatures with no forelegs?

[~Anne~]

I think pikes was be facetious.

[The Ark]

Wow..... This tugs at the heartstrings.

I am currently raising a mini pinscher pup with cerebral palsy, and whilst her disability is nothing like the one these babies have to deal with I'm sure many breeders would have put her down because she isn't a candidate for breeding or showing, nor would I be comfortable rehoming her as a pet at this stage if I can't be sure she won't deteriorate (even though I have someone willing to take her) - but gosh she has been a fighter, and at no point could I give up on her. I think it's an individual thing. I am monitoring my baby very closely, and if at any stage it seems like she is not happy (and I know dogs are great at hiding pain) then she will be given her wings (it is hard to even type that). I've had her checked for everything I can, and am working with a canine chiropractor to ensure she grows as well as she can.

[fifi]

I am currently raising a mini pinscher pup with cerebral palsy, and whilst her disability is nothing like the one these babies have to deal with I'm sure many breeders would have put her down because she isn't a candidate for breeding or showing, nor would I be comfortable rehoming her as a pet at this stage if I can't be sure she won't deteriorate (even though I have someone willing to take her)

I'm sorry, I find that statement offensive, Maybe those 'many breeders' might have put her down from an ethical, humane point of view, based on her expected quality of life, NOT because she wasn't potential ribbon winning or pumping out puppies as their motive.

fifi

edited for spelling and to bold the text because I'm peed off.

Edited March 16, 2011 by fifi