~Anne~ Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) 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. Is that any more or any less offensive than implying or outrightly stating that a reputable rescuer wouldnt re-home such a dog I wonder? Edited March 16, 2011 by ~Anne~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) Apologies, double post. Gobfrey Shrudlu at work again Edited March 16, 2011 by Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jed Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 (edited) A dog born with a disability has no other experience, and no comparison, so he is not sad about the disability, he knows no better. So the level of suffering seems normal to him. He may seem "happy" either because he is or because he knows no better. What criteria do we use to make a judgment on whether he is happy or not? What is the benchmark? Our emotions should not form any part of the equation. Our only query should be "what is best for this animal". The Ark I'm sure many breeders would have put her down because she isn't a candidate for breeding or showing, Like fifi, I too find that remark quite offensive and insulting. Whether a pup is a candidate for breeding or showing is never a factor in decisions of this kind I and most others make as breeders. Plenty of pups are born with wrong colour/wrong markings - and there has never been any question of not letting them live. Decisions of those kind are made - and fortunately, I haven't had to make it often - on health issues, plus the quality ol life for the pup, not how I will feel if it is pts, not whether it is show or breeding or pet quality. It's not about me, it 's about the pup and the eventual dog. Breeders have power, they must use it wisely and well. I allowed a blind-from-birth pony to live for 29 years - because, properly cared for and handled, there was no suffering. Her other senses took over. Some accommodations were made for her blindness. If people were not told she was blind, they were never aware. Sweet-E- Newf, I am hoping you will answer my question soon? Edited March 16, 2011 by Jed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifi Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 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) :D 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. :D fifi edited for spelling and to bold the text because I'm peed off. Is that any more or any less offensive than implying or outrightly stating that a reputable rescuer wouldnt re-home such a dog I wonder? Pardon ? I'm not sure what you mean there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Souff Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 post='5204085' date='16th Mar 2011 - 07:41 PM']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 I also find this assumption very offensive and ask that the poster withdraw the statement. Many breeders have people waiting years for a puppy and the most important things to be considered when the puppies are being assessed is to ensure that they are healthy and that they have all of its anatomy in place, so that they can have the best possible chance of a long, healthy life with their new owner. It is very wrong to assume that breeders ONLY think in terms of the pup's future in the show ring or as a breeding animal. Very wrong. There are now many fewer dogs being shown in show rings, and many fewer pups that go on to be stud dogs or breeding bitches. The greater majority of pups go to pet homes and breeders have a responsibility to ensure that the pups are healthy and complete. If they are not, then the breeder could risk legal action - another factor that breeders now need to consider when they decide to breed dogs. Souff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 So sad.....on so many levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) A dog that will never eat or drink unaided. A dog that will never urinate or defecate in a designated place without assistance and will need to be cleaned every time. A dog that will never run, dig, or swim. It will never greet you at the door or gate, fetch or play in any meaningful way. A dog that is defenceless and helpless without human intervention. It could not be left alone for long. A dog that probably could never be kennelled and would be a real burden to anyone who had to mind it. That's not a dog to me. And that sure isn't much of a life. Agree with the posters who said the humane thing would have been PTS at birth. I have no doubt this level of disability and helplessness will attract a certain kind of owner. They'll pride themselves on 'saving' them. Lets hope they're in it for the right reasons and for the long run. But lets not kid ourselves that they're really getting a pet. What they they are getting is a living breathing animal whose deformity will make it extremely vulnerable to abuse either intentional or otherwise. Pity has always been a very poor reason to obtain a dog. I worry that these pups will be used for attention seeking purposes by people who will fail them in the end. I hope to hell neither of them have luxating patellas. Arguments comparing these pups to babies are fatally flawed. An entire welfare system exists to provide support and care for parents and children with disabilities (such as it is). There is no comparable system for dogs. All they'll have is an owner. No checks, no respite care, no assistance. The whole thing is grotesque. The only reason I'd apply to take on one of these pups is to do what should have been done for them at the get go. Give the poor buggers their wings. Edited March 21, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) 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. Rehoming a dog because it is not fit to rehome is not the same as a puppy not being a candidate for breeding or showing. You cant rehome the mini pinscher pup, because right now you don't know whether it will keel over or not. I'd euth a cerebral palsy pup and my canine chiro specialist would tell me to do the same. keeping a puppy alive until it suffers enough for your emotion to stand aside is not heroic. Edited March 21, 2011 by lilli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalathebear Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) 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. Many not all. Unless you're certain you've been included within the many classification, it seems strange that you'd choose to be offended. Asking for a withdrawal seems even stranger ... Edited March 21, 2011 by koalathebear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) 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. Many not all. Unless you're certain you've been included within the many classification, it seems strange that you'd choose to be offended. Asking for a withdrawal seems even stranger ... This thread is about the benefits of adopting legless dogs lol! strangeness took centre stage a loooong time ago Edited March 21, 2011 by lilli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalathebear Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) This thread is about the benefits adopting legless dogs lol!strangeness took centre stage a loooong time ago True. I have Kelpies/Kelpie-ish dogs so leglessness would not play out well for them I guess I was just trying to ascertain the reason for the above posters' feelings of affront. Perhaps they were under the misapprehension that 'many' was being used as the noun for 'majority'. For clarification 'many' only means 'the majority' when you say: "the many" e.g. music for the many As used above, many just means "a large number of people". Nowhere near a majority or all and hardly offensive really unless you're determined to be snotty in which case, go nuts ... Edited March 21, 2011 by koalathebear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miranda Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 This thread is about the benefits adopting legless dogs lol!strangeness took centre stage a loooong time ago True. I have Kelpies/Kelpie-ish dogs so leglessness would not play out well for them I guess I was just trying to ascertain the reason for the above posters' feelings of affront. Perhaps they were under the misapprehension that 'many' was being used as the noun for 'majority'. For clarification 'many' only means 'the majority' when you say: "the many" e.g. music for the many As used above, many just means "a large number of people". Nowhere near a majority or all and hardly offensive really unless you're determined to be snotty in which case, go nuts ... I also found The Ark's comment offensive. If I had a legless puppy or one suffering from cerebral palsy I would also opt for euthanasia, but for humane reasons not because it was unsuitable for showing or breeding. There are usually only a few puppies in a litter that are suitable for showing or breeding anyway and I certainly don't pts those that don't make the grade. However I wouldn't hesitate to pts any puppy that was born deformed or carrying a genetic disorder that prevented it from leading a normal life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalathebear Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) The Ark - since everyone else is offended, I'm grievously offended, too. There can be no reparation or restitution for this affront. It's to be pistols at dawn, name your seconds. I'll bet you killed Elvis, too. :p Edited March 21, 2011 by koalathebear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) The Ark - since everyone else is offended, I'm grievously offended, too. There can be no reparation or restitution for this affront. It's to be pistols at dawn, name your seconds. I'll bet you killed Elvis, too. :p Have you considered that the Ark implied that many breeders would kill "pet quality" dogs? The idea that "many breeders" consider pups not worth showing or breeding should get a needle is offensive - or it is to me. Comparing those dogs to the pups in this thread is ludicrous. Edited March 21, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 From the mouth of a 10 year old child, who recently read the book "A Dogs Purpose". "The breeder should have noticed something was wrong and put them to sleep so they would have a better second life :p because their life will not be fulfilled in their two legged dog form". "It's hardly cute...just very sad." My daughter asked me to put this in after she saw the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifi Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The Ark - since everyone else is offended, I'm grievously offended, too. There can be no reparation or restitution for this affront. It's to be pistols at dawn, name your seconds. I'll bet you killed Elvis, too. :p I've yet to see you make an informed or less than facetious response in any thread I have seen your posts, so I'll just ignore your taunt as you seem unable to have a reasonable debate or conversation in regards to breeders. fifi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalathebear Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) I've yet to see you make an informed or less than facetious response in any thread I have seen your posts, so I'll just ignore your taunt as you seem unable to have a reasonable debate or conversation in regards to breeders. Breeders like The Ark are wonderful, compassionate and giving and a real credit to the 'profession'. I just think it's a little unfortunate that people are so quick to take offence when she's not here to clarify her post. Given the person she is, I think it highly unlikely that she intended to offend anyone or to incur the ire that is being displayed here. I don't want to make the situation worse - I am sorry if you thought it was a taunt. I just hate to see such a nice person being wronged. Edited March 21, 2011 by koalathebear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ravenau1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 This thread is about the benefits adopting legless dogs lol!strangeness took centre stage a loooong time ago True. I have Kelpies/Kelpie-ish dogs so leglessness would not play out well for them :p I guess I was just trying to ascertain the reason for the above posters' feelings of affront. Perhaps they were under the misapprehension that 'many' was being used as the noun for 'majority'. For clarification 'many' only means 'the majority' when you say: "the many" e.g. music for the many As used above, many just means "a large number of people". Nowhere near a majority or all and hardly offensive really unless you're determined to be snotty in which case, go nuts ... I also found The Ark's comment offensive. If I had a legless puppy or one suffering from cerebral palsy I would also opt for euthanasia, but for humane reasons not because it was unsuitable for showing or breeding. There are usually only a few puppies in a litter that are suitable for showing or breeding anyway and I certainly don't pts those that don't make the grade. However I wouldn't hesitate to pts any puppy that was born deformed or carrying a genetic disorder that prevented it from leading a normal life. So you're suggesting that The Ark is being inhumane by not euthing her (much loved and cared for) puppy, and YOU'RE offended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max#1 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 The Ark - since everyone else is offended, I'm grievously offended, too. There can be no reparation or restitution for this affront. It's to be pistols at dawn, name your seconds. I'll bet you killed Elvis, too. :p Have you considered that the Ark implied that many breeders would kill "pet quality" dogs? The idea that "many breeders" consider pups not worth showing or breeding should get a needle is offensive - or it is to me. Comparing those dogs to the pups in this thread is ludicrous. To PF and others who were offended: don't you think getting that implication from the Ark's post is taking it a bit far? Aren't we all here on this forum for the same basic reason? Or is it to beat each other up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 To PF and others who were offended: don't you think getting that implication from the Ark's post is taking it a bit far? Aren't we all here on this forum for the same basic reason? Or is it to beat each other up? I'm sure many breeders would have put her down because she isn't a candidate for breeding or showing, What else do you think The Ark meant? :p If The Ark choses to explain her comment, that's fine by me. Until then, I'll be inclined to take it literally. If a breeder choses to keep a pup because it's not suitable for rehoming or a rescuer choses to keep a dog that's unsuitable for rehoming so be it. When they judge others for doing something different to what they choose to do, then it can be offensive, whether intended or not. And what you keep vs what's suitable for rehoming can be quite different. That's the crux of the debate in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now