Puppies Born Without Front Legs

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I just want to make the point that if you have had to make a decision to PTS in difficult circumstances and then follow through humanely, then you know it's far from an easy decision and far from an easy thing to do properly so the exit is peaceful and loving. There seems to be an assumption in some of these posts that PTS is the "easy option" for the humans. Perhaps for some it is, but for the people posting in this thread who I know personally, it would not be an "easy" option. The right option is often the hard one, where you have to front up to the universe and wear the responsibility of ending a life.

Edited to add that I agree also with what Diva has posted. There is no direct comparison between humans and dogs, but that doesn't mean both aren't entitled to humane treatment.

Edited March 21, 2011 by SkySoaringMagpie

[Busterdog]

Wow busterlove so much authority and so few posts

I didn't realize there was a direct correlation between the number of posts and anything at all really. This is where the personal denigration starts is it?

All of you who stated you would have euthanised The Ark's cerebral palsy puppy have only served to prove his/her point. When you breed puppies, you are either going to keep them or sell them as show quality, rehome them as pets, or keep them as pets. In this case you are all agreeing it is not show quality, and you can't rehome it as a pet, and for whatever reason you choose not to keep it as a pet, so you would euthanise. So like The Ark said, breeders would have put this puppy to sleep. Get off your high horses. This is all about you getting offended by someone saying you would have done exactly what you said yourself you would have done. Maybe if The Ark had said some instead of most there would have been less offense taken, but I certainly haven't seen a majority of people here arguing they also would have kept that dog, seems the ones on the attack are the ones whose decision would have been to put it down.

[Kavik]

Dogs are NOT people. I don't see how people could draw a comparison between disabled people and these dogs with no front legs.

These dogs can't eat, drink or move on their own. They could easily get stuck in a position that could lead to a slow painful death if a person doesn't notice. I don't see how that is any life for a dog :rolleyes:

[Greytmate]

Busterdog, while it is technically correct to say that many breeders would put down a pup with cerebral palsy, it is incorrect to say that they would put that pup down because it wasn't good enough to breed or show.

Miniature pinscher pups can be easily sold as pets, so the idea of putting them down just because they are not good enough to breed or show is ludicrous. There can be an absolutely huge difference between show or breeding quality and pet quality, and most breeders would not ever euthanise because of that reason and those differences. The thought is sickening to most people here, breeders and non-breeders.

We come here and we can read for ourselves what many breeders think of the ethics of selling deformed dogs, we don't need to be told what 'many breeders' do. This topic has nothing to do with showing or breeding dogs, it is about dogs with very serious disabilities. Going off the topic to make a quick disparaging comment about 'many breeders' isn't appreciated at all. It seems like a sly little dig.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Greytmate

[poodlefan]

Wow busterlove so much authority and so few posts

I didn't realize there was a direct correlation between the number of posts and anything at all really. This is where the personal denigration starts is it?

All of you who stated you would have euthanised The Ark's cerebral palsy puppy have only served to prove his/her point. When you breed puppies, you are either going to keep them or sell them as show quality, rehome them as pets, or keep them as pets. In this case you are all agreeing it is not show quality, and you can't rehome it as a pet, and for whatever reason you choose not to keep it as a pet, so you would euthanise. So like The Ark said, breeders would have put this puppy to sleep. Get off your high horses. This is all about you getting offended by someone saying you would have done exactly what you said yourself you would have done. Maybe if The Ark had said some instead of most there would have been less offense taken, but I certainly haven't seen a majority of people here arguing they also would have kept that dog, seems the ones on the attack are the ones whose decision would have been to put it down.

I believe you started the personal denigration wiith your "holier than thou" accusations.

I never said a damn thing about The Ark's pup. I made my comment about two pups so severely deformed as to be incapable of any meaningful kind of movement.

Once again, please don't put words in my mouth. If the The Ark choses to keep her CP pup, as I've repeatedly said, that's her choice.

[The Ark]

Busterdog, while it is technically correct to say that many breeders would put down a pup with cerebral palsy, it is incorrect to say that they would put that pup down because it wasn't good enough to breed or show.

Miniature pinscher pups can be easily sold as pets, so the idea of putting them down just because they are not good enough to breed or show is ludicrous. There can be an absolutely huge difference between show or breeding quality and pet quality, and most breeders would not ever euthanise because of that reason and those differences. The thought is sickening to most people here, breeders and non-breeders.

We come here and we can read for ourselves what many breeders think of the ethics of selling deformed dogs, we don't need to be told what 'many breeders' do. This topic has nothing to do with showing or breeding dogs, it is about dogs with very serious disabilities. Going off the topic to make a quick disparaging comment about 'many breeders' isn't appreciated at all. It seems like a sly little dig.

I hadn't entered into this again because I find all of this appalling, however to insinuate that I have nothing better to do than have a "sly little dig" is pathetic. What sad little people you are. And greytmate you are happy to say "most people" wouldn't euthanise but that is not ALL. I personally know some that would do so, and have done so, in the blink of an eye. And "many" (as per my one, oft-quoted remark) is not ALL either. Talk about me taking it off topic, FFS.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Wow busterlove so much authority and so few posts

I didn't realize there was a direct correlation between the number of posts and anything at all really. This is where the personal denigration starts is it?

All of you who stated you would have euthanised The Ark's cerebral palsy puppy have only served to prove his/her point. When you breed puppies, you are either going to keep them or sell them as show quality, rehome them as pets, or keep them as pets. In this case you are all agreeing it is not show quality, and you can't rehome it as a pet, and for whatever reason you choose not to keep it as a pet, so you would euthanise. So like The Ark said, breeders would have put this puppy to sleep. Get off your high horses. This is all about you getting offended by someone saying you would have done exactly what you said yourself you would have done. Maybe if The Ark had said some instead of most there would have been less offense taken, but I certainly haven't seen a majority of people here arguing they also would have kept that dog, seems the ones on the attack are the ones whose decision would have been to put it down.

pot calling kettle black ....and all that other stuff.....you opened that can of worms by denigrating quite a few people who have contributed a lot to this forum.

[poodlefan]

What sad little people you are. And greytmate you are happy to say "most people" wouldn't euthanise but that is not ALL. I personally know some that would do so, and have done so, in the blink of an eye. And "many" (as per my one, oft-quoted remark) is not ALL either. Talk about me taking it off topic, FFS.

Who's that directed at?

This thread isn't (or wasn't) about your pup and your decision.

It was about two severely deformed Chi pups.

What you choose to do with a pup you bred is off topic IMO. Clearly you disagree.

Edited March 21, 2011 by poodlefan

[Crisovar]

Well I would put down a pup with CP, but I have never put down a pup because it didn't meet my show or breeding standards, in fact I know very few breeders who would. If The Ark does well that is sad.

This thread is about about two pups born without front legs and I won't repeat PFs post listing just some of the reasons why they should have been PTS.

What the future holds for these poor mites is anyones guess, but they are animals of a species designed to walk on 4 legs, they are of a breed that is known for patella and often hip issues, they are going to struggle through whatever life they have on 2 legs unable to survive without great assistance, that is appalling.

[Steve]

Wow busterlove so much authority and so few posts

I didn't realize there was a direct correlation between the number of posts and anything at all really. This is where the personal denigration starts is it?

All of you who stated you would have euthanised The Ark's cerebral palsy puppy have only served to prove his/her point. When you breed puppies, you are either going to keep them or sell them as show quality, rehome them as pets, or keep them as pets. In this case you are all agreeing it is not show quality, and you can't rehome it as a pet, and for whatever reason you choose not to keep it as a pet, so you would euthanise. So like The Ark said, breeders would have put this puppy to sleep. Get off your high horses. This is all about you getting offended by someone saying you would have done exactly what you said yourself you would have done. Maybe if The Ark had said some instead of most there would have been less offense taken, but I certainly haven't seen a majority of people here arguing they also would have kept that dog, seems the ones on the attack are the ones whose decision would have been to put it down.

No its not about for what ever reason - its about the dog suffering.

[Miranda]

The issue for me is this:

If a breeder kept those puppies and homed them they would be castigated and told they were a bad breeder BUT a rescue can do exactly the same thing and they are made out to be heroes.

This is wrong on so many levels as it should not matter where these pups were whelped as IMO humans should leave their emotions out of this and start thinking about the quality of life(or lack thereof) that these dogs will have.

These pups will need so much critical care throughout their lives and if the new owners cannot meet those needs the pups will need to be re-homed or be pts.

We really do need to think about the ethics of this situation and tease out the ethical issues as there are many.

To tease out these issues surely we must come from the position of what is best for the dog and look at this issue critically and honestly?

Good post Jaxx's Buddy, this must be the first thread that you and I have ever agreed on something

[wuffles]

What sad little people you are. And greytmate you are happy to say "most people" wouldn't euthanise but that is not ALL. I personally know some that would do so, and have done so, in the blink of an eye. And "many" (as per my one, oft-quoted remark) is not ALL either. Talk about me taking it off topic, FFS.

Who's that directed at?

This thread isn't (or wasn't) about your pup and your decision.

It was about two severely deformed Chi pups.

What you choose to do with a pup you bred is off topic IMO. Clearly you disagree.

Pardon? How is a post comparing one situation to another similar situation, off topic? That's what discussions are about -- adding our own opinions and experiences to the mix.

However, people being "offended" and making multiple posts about that one post and even asking her to retract an innocent statement that they took the wrong way, is taking a thread off topic. IMO.

And yes, this post is off topic

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

The issue for me is this:

If a breeder kept those puppies and homed them they would be castigated and told they were a bad breeder BUT a rescue can do exactly the same thing and they are made out to be heroes.

This is wrong on so many levels as it should not matter where these pups were whelped as IMO humans should leave their emotions out of this and start thinking about the quality of life(or lack thereof) that these dogs will have.

These pups will need so much critical care throughout their lives and if the new owners cannot meet those needs the pups will need to be re-homed or be pts.

We really do need to think about the ethics of this situation and tease out the ethical issues as there are many.

To tease out these issues surely we must come from the position of what is best for the dog and look at this issue critically and honestly?

Good post Jaxx's Buddy, this must be the first thread that you and I have ever agreed on something

I am sure we almost agreed once before ;)

[LizT]

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 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.

;) :D :D Smart Kid.

Thanks Steve. She wants to read more about what is being said about the three little Chi's but she is part of an "anti-bullying program" at school so I probably shouldn't let her LOL :D

Edited March 21, 2011 by LizT

[poodlefan]

What sad little people you are. And greytmate you are happy to say "most people" wouldn't euthanise but that is not ALL. I personally know some that would do so, and have done so, in the blink of an eye. And "many" (as per my one, oft-quoted remark) is not ALL either. Talk about me taking it off topic, FFS.

Who's that directed at?

This thread isn't (or wasn't) about your pup and your decision.

It was about two severely deformed Chi pups.

What you choose to do with a pup you bred is off topic IMO. Clearly you disagree.

Pardon? How is a post comparing one situation to another similar situation, off topic? That's what discussions are about -- adding our own opinions and experiences to the mix.

However, people being "offended" and making multiple posts about that one post and even asking her to retract an innocent statement that they took the wrong way, is taking a thread off topic. IMO.

And yes, this post is off topic

The situation isn't remotely similar IMO.

These pups are severely deformed (to the point of being dependent on humans for everything) and being rehomed.

The Ark's pup has a disability that still allows movement and is being kept by the person who bred her. Indeed, the Ark has commented that rehoming the CP pup shouldn't be an option unless the extent and nature of her disability can be established.

I think we all agree that the best interests of the pups should dictate their future. What we're disagreeing about is what that future (if any) should be.

Why that discussion should result in insults beats me.

Edited March 21, 2011 by poodlefan

[BJean]

Wow busterlove so much authority and so few posts

I didn't realize there was a direct correlation between the number of posts and anything at all really. This is where the personal denigration starts is it?

All of you who stated you would have euthanised The Ark's cerebral palsy puppy have only served to prove his/her point. When you breed puppies, you are either going to keep them or sell them as show quality, rehome them as pets, or keep them as pets. In this case you are all agreeing it is not show quality, and you can't rehome it as a pet, and for whatever reason you choose not to keep it as a pet, so you would euthanise. So like The Ark said, breeders would have put this puppy to sleep. Get off your high horses. This is all about you getting offended by someone saying you would have done exactly what you said yourself you would have done. Maybe if The Ark had said some instead of most there would have been less offense taken, but I certainly haven't seen a majority of people here arguing they also would have kept that dog, seems the ones on the attack are the ones whose decision would have been to put it down.

No I don't need to keep a doomed puppy alive until the point where it suffers enough to override my own emotion.

[Greytmate]

I hadn't entered into this again because I find all of this appalling, however to insinuate that I have nothing better to do than have a "sly little dig" is pathetic. What sad little people you are. And greytmate you are happy to say "most people" wouldn't euthanise but that is not ALL. I personally know some that would do so, and have done so, in the blink of an eye. And "many" (as per my one, oft-quoted remark) is not ALL either. Talk about me taking it off topic, FFS.

You probably have heaps of better things to do. I know that most people are not all and many people are not most and I know when I read a negative comment about a group of people.

In the middle of justifying why you think its good to keep a severely disabled dog alive, you mention that some other people (many breeders in fact) would euthanise a healthy dog for what seems like a frivolous reason.

Is there some sort of implied logic there that I am missing?

What does killing healthy pups have to do with this topic? What does it have to do with you? Why bring up an apalling practice in the same post that you try to justify your own practice?

Your comment upset people, and it doesn't put breeders in a good light. When you say that 'many' people do something, you imply that it is not uncommon. Now you back down and say 'some'. Which is probably more accurate than 'many', but still a very harsh and irrelevant criticism.

Your sly dig has been called out for what it is. If the offense you caused was truly unintentional, you wouldn't be back here calling other people sad or pathetic.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Greytmate

[fifi]

Greytmate.

that is all

fifi

[koalathebear]

greymate: to be fair though, I still think that most people here would realise that 'many' does not imply 'most' and that a breeder with as much integrity as The Ark would not be seeking to cast aspersions on others.

It is definitely the case that there are breeders out there who would put a dog to sleep for other than health-related reasons. For instance in this thread a very well-regarded breeder responded to the query: "Do healthy dogs really get put down because of colour? Why can't they just be pet homed? That's so sad... unless there are serious health issues of course." The answer was: "I wouldn't think twice to make sure a black and tan, liver, blue or fawn doesn't make it past the first few hours. I'd be taking a serious look at how they've come about and making sure I take measure to prevent them popping up again."

There have been other instances as well (don't have the time to chase them down) and as a non-breeder I wouldn't seek to judge those breeders because I know there are a variety of reasons including not wanting to popularise non-standard colours, limited breeder resources when suitable pet homes can't be found etc. All I'm trying to say is that if garden variety readers like me don't take The Ark's comment as a slur on other breeders but just an observation - it really isn't necessary to get so upset/offended by it. That being said, I also realise that if people are offended then they are offended and there's nothing that can be done to defuse that.

As an 'outsider', from what I can see - everyone in this thread clearly loves and cares about dogs a lot and takes the issue of quality of life very seriously and I would hope that that would be enough to overcome forum/internet misunderstandings ...

[LizT]

greymate: to be fair though, I still think that most people here would realise that 'many' does not imply 'most' and that a breeder with as much integrity as The Ark would not be seeking to cast aspersions on others.

It is definitely the case that there are breeders out there who would put a dog to sleep for other than health-related reasons. For instance in this thread a very well-regarded breeder responded to the query: "Do healthy dogs really get put down because of colour? Why can't they just be pet homed? That's so sad... unless there are serious health issues of course." The answer was: "I wouldn't think twice to make sure a black and tan, liver, blue or fawn doesn't make it past the first few hours. I'd be taking a serious look at how they've come about and making sure I take measure to prevent them popping up again."

There have been other instances as well (don't have the time to chase them down) and as a non-breeder I wouldn't seek to judge those breeders because I know there are a variety of reasons including not wanting to popularise non-standard colours, limited breeder resources when suitable pet homes can't be found etc. All I'm trying to say is that if garden variety readers like me don't take The Ark's comment as a slur on other breeders but just an observation - it really isn't necessary to get so upset/offended by it. That being said, I also realise that if people are offended then they are offended and there's nothing that can be done to defuse that.

As an 'outsider', from what I can see - everyone in this thread clearly loves and cares about dogs a lot and takes the issue of quality of life very seriously and I would hope that that would be enough to overcome forum/internet misunderstandings ...

Very true Koalathebear

I distinctly remember reading on this forum a thread a few years ago about a Rodesian Ridgeback breeder who culls puppies born without a ridge...clearly not a deformity issue, however she stated there were great difficulties in homeing a non ridge ridgeback (I would imagine most people who want a Rigeback also want the ridge?!) This was her difficult decision as a breeder and one she had to deal with. As breeders we all have to make decisions regarding the future of litters we breed, pre and post birth. I ceratinly wouldn't make a judgement on another breeders choices if I haven't walked in her shoes.

Edited March 22, 2011 by LizT