Puppies Born Without Front Legs

[tdierikx]

What a hoot, all those registered breeders, line breeding purebreds, being castigated by the RSPCA - someone outcrosses, the dogs are deformed, the RSPCA is strangely silent.

Apparently it's ok to have deformed pups as long as you aren't a cruel purebred breeder??

Well said Jed...

T.

[Steve]

A couple of years ago there was a litter of Maremmas where half of the litter had legs missing some had no front legs, some only one front leg and some only half legs.

It was traced to chemical excposure - similar to thalidamide. All PTS within minutes of birth. However, you are right to have 3 in one litter with an identical deformity is something pretty spectacular. The fact that someone made the call to keep them alive and raise them - that they have decided to inflict that life on them and the families which will take them when they had a choice because they are not human is incredible.

If ever anyone needs a demonstration on why laws are needed for rescue orgs this is one of them. If they have no commonsense then perhaps only laws will be able to help the dogs and the people who get sucked in to take them.

There is so much going on in rescue which is unjustifiable and if its O.K. for rescue to demand tougher laws on breeders its time they had a better look in their own back yard.

[tdierikx]

Ah, but Steve, these cute little mutants will bring in huge donation dollars...

T.

[Lady Flying Furball]

We can PTS a puppy with a birth defect because it will cause financial strain on the family and its bad for business but we cannot PTS a deformed human baby even tho it will cause financial and emotional hardship for more years then the animal would have.

We can PTS an animal that is suffering becuase its the humane thing to do but we cannot PTS a human that is suffering because that is murder.

A human has the right to live regardless of the circumstances. An animal doesnt, they are at our mercy.

Just my 2 cents.

Yes, life is life, but I could be being too Buddhist for this forum

[mac'ella]

I was wondering what degree of malformIty would justify PTS? I am in total agreeance in this case but if its a case of non debilitating cases would a lot of breeders pts a pup so others wont know their dogs have a potential defect, or find it a pet home.

I have 2 such dogs a white boxer which 13yrs ago wasnt accepted like they are now and a STB with a shortened toe, which the breeder was going to keep as a pet himself until we offered to take her as we wanted a pet only which would be desexed.

[mr.mister]

We can PTS a puppy with a birth defect because it will cause financial strain on the family and its bad for business but we cannot PTS a deformed human baby even tho it will cause financial and emotional hardship for more years then the animal would have.

We can PTS an animal that is suffering becuase its the humane thing to do but we cannot PTS a human that is suffering because that is murder.

A human has the right to live regardless of the circumstances. An animal doesnt, they are at our mercy.

Just my 2 cents.

I very much have to agree with this.

[Steve]

Its not about just financial strain and its definitely not about it being bad for business. Good grief what an offensive thing to say.

I happen to believe its what is best for the dogs. Its bloody hard work matching people and homes and even when you start out with a 4 legged perfectly normal animal with everything going for it there is no guarantee that it will be a forever home.Things people think they can cope with or things people can deal with today isnt necessarily what will remain the same for the next 15 years or so.It places a much higher risk on the chances that something will go wrong and that the dog will suffer.

People love their new dogs to bits - especially when they are young and cute and especially if they can get a bit of mileage out of saving something out of the ordinary but life changes and to allow a dog to start out with that kind of handicap when there are so many healthy animals which have to be bumped off because there are not enough homes is in my opinion stupid.

As a breeder Ive made a committment to be there as long as humanly possible to offer support and be a back up if something goes wrong and take the dog back and if I chose to allow a dog with no front legs to live one day it is at high risk to be back with me and Im not sure me and my family would enjoy that much.

They send them back because they pinched the christmas ham, because they chewed the leg of the furniture.Rentals are hard enough to get with a normal dog without one thats taking chunks out of the walls with its cart. Where it has to have wheel chair access to get down the steps to do a wee and be constantly supervised in case it gets snagged or bogged.

I work with people every day who have been wealthy and secure one day and homeless the next. They battle to keep their normal dogs. Shit happens and it happens more often to dogs especially dogs which are special needs. It restricts your choices and your lifestyle if you are going to do it properly and what you think you can cope with today changes tomorrow.

So while we may not agree on what is best the suggestion that anyone here would want to quietly take them to God for some frivolous reason and not because we see it as best for the dog is nuts.

[fifi]

Its not about just financial strain and its definitely not about it being bad for business. Good grief what an offensive thing to say.

I happen to believe its what is best for the dogs. Its bloody hard work matching people and homes and even when you start out with a 4 legged perfectly normal animal with everything going for it there is no guarantee that it will be a forever home.Things people think they can cope with or things people can deal with today isnt necessarily what will remain the same for the next 15 years or so.It places a much higher risk on the chances that something will go wrong and that the dog will suffer.

Thank you Julie, I was just trying to compose something along these lines.

Liath, I am mortified by what you could think would motivate an ethical breeder or rescuer to euthenase badly disabled puppies

You have obviously never stood beside a breeder at the vets, at two in the morning while you and the vet weep over a puppy you've helped birth - as you hold it's little body to your chest for it's last heartbeat.

Making this decision, Knowing that it's future would have been one of no mobility, pain and increasing degeneration of its useful limbs, even in the most proactive and loving of homes.

How sad that you think the financial side would be a motivator. The puppies in this thread will get to a few years old, and their owners will be faced with the sad reality of the hindlimb & spinal strain, and possibly years of medications, finally being too much for their little bodies to cope with. Where will the rescue that passed them on be at that time :D

fifi

[Nekhbet]

We can PTS a puppy with a birth defect because it will cause financial strain on the family and its bad for business but we cannot PTS a deformed human baby even tho it will cause financial and emotional hardship for more years then the animal would have.

We can PTS an animal that is suffering becuase its the humane thing to do but we cannot PTS a human that is suffering because that is murder.

A human has the right to live regardless of the circumstances. An animal doesnt, they are at our mercy.

Just my 2 cents.

not every culture agrees with you there. Some will also dispatch of or abandon disabled children due to either traditional taboos, lack of resources or not being able to stand the suffering. EVen in our own people are left to die and medical help toned down or removed totally when nothing further can be done.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Keeping these puppies alive IMO is very cruel.

They can't run and do zoomies, they can't cock their leg on a tree, they won't be able to roll over to have their belly rubbed, they are completely and totally helpless without humans.....how cruel is that.

I think it is goulish to keep them alive.

They should be given their wings to stop their suffering and because it is the right thing to do.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[fifi]

Keeping these puppies alive IMO is very cruel.

They can't run and do zoomies, they can't cock their leg on a tree, they won't be able to roll over to have their belly rubbed, they are completely and totally helpless without humans.....how cruel is that.

I think it is goulish to keep them alive.

They should be given their wings to stop their suffering and because it is the right thing to do.

Exactley, and for the people who think they should be kept alive, I wonder how you'd feel to find one of these pups drowned in its own even shallow, water bowl because it could'nt manouver or push its upper body back out ?

fifi

edited for terrible spelling

Edited March 14, 2011 by fifi

[Snoopy21]

A little off topic - but would a bitch generally kill deformed or sickly pups herself? I have seen cats do the same and wondered if perhaps the bitch would have taken care of these pups herself if left to it.

[fifi]

I've seen bitches just leave a sickly or 'different' pup away from the nest to let them perish, but never seen a bitch actively kill a disabled pup.

as a vet nurse have seen the result of a bitch maiming & killing pups if she feels threatened or stressed.

fifi

[mr.mister]

Years and years ago my parent's friend had a group of German Shepherds as guard dogs, and they were always 'just having litters'. One litter was born with some sort of deficiency, and their legs were all stiff or something (I can't quite remember, but they weren't quite right). The lady went up to the house to get something, and upon returning found the bitch finishing off the last puppy - she'd eaten them all, apparently.

[Steve]

A puppy without front legs would normally die in the whelping box without human intervention because how would they move to get to their mUm?

Edited March 14, 2011 by Steve

[persephone]

how would they move to get to their mUm?

and also they couldn't suck normally ..front feet are needed to grip and stimulate the breast..

[~Anne~]

They're terribly cute.

Sadly, they should have been euth'd when born. However, they are alive, they are being assisted and trained to live with the deformity, and I am sure they will live long happy lives.

The mindset of "euth at any opportunity" can be just as wrong as the "save everything" train of thought. There should be a balance.

[Kelly_Louise]

They're terribly cute.

Sadly, they should have been euth'd when born. However, they are alive, they are being assisted and trained to live with the deformity, and I am sure they will live long happy lives.

The mindset of "euth at any opportunity" can be just as wrong as the "save everything" train of thought. There should be a balance.

I totally agree with the above.

[ellies mum]

They're terribly cute.

Sadly, they should have been euth'd when born. However, they are alive, they are being assisted and trained to live with the deformity, and I am sure they will live long happy lives.

The mindset of "euth at any opportunity" can be just as wrong as the "save everything" train of thought. There should be a balance.

Well said Anne.......this is a very hard debate with no winner as they are alive..and will be adopted.

i wish them love and luck in there road ahead....................it will be a tuff one........................for them.

[Aussienot]

They will be adopted for the wrong reasons. They will be adopted for the cute factor, which will fade, and the "novelty" factor, which will wear off quickly when reality sets in. They will also be adopted by the sympathy martyrs (I'm the only one who can save her).

No intelligent, caring and informed owner in their right mind wakes up one morning and thinks, "I'll go out and adopt a deformed, disabled dog today."