Please Don't Bite My Head Off

[SwaY]

I agree, I would have thought groups would go for the easy to rehome dog, vs a costly dog.

Easy to rehome and low costs dogs would surly mean you could save more in the long run?

Just because a dog might need costly vet work doesn't mean it is not worth saving.. There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case..

No one is saying they are not worth saving, I am saying why do some rescue groups always rescue the expensive cases and then call for public donations - if you have the funds to take on the expensive cases then that is great, but if you don't why do some keep doing it?

Sometimes you don't know what you have got until you get a dog in your vets hands, other times you can see the $ signs before you even put your hands on a dog.

[mita]

I try to balance out my rescues.

For example... I can take about 5 younger, easier to rehome dogs to one special needs one. I have been doing that for a while now and it seems to be working for me. The balance of adoption money left over from some adoptions are then put towards older or sicker dogs that need a lot more vetwork done. That way I feel like I can help all types of dogs where possible. I never take on more than I can chew and I never committ to a dog I am unable to financially support.

I totally agree with your way of working that factors in some more vet costly dogs, but within a costing plan.

In fact, its just such a rescue that I'd be likely to donate to, when a special case is selected.

Head and heart very well balanced.

[Greytmate]

I agree, I would have thought groups would go for the easy to rehome dog, vs a costly dog.

Easy to rehome and low costs dogs would surly mean you could save more in the long run?

Just because a dog might need costly vet work doesn't mean it is not worth saving.. There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case..

I disagree. I think fewer dogs would be put to sleep, not more. There are finite resources available for rescue, and so if thousands of dollars are spent on costly vet work on a few dogs and extra months of time put into their rehabilitation, many healthy dogs will miss out on a place in foster care.

There is also a risk with some health problems that spending money won't fix the problem anyway. There will always be vets willing to take money and offer hope to rescuers.

I don't like to see people that have chosen to take on dogs with expensive problems begging the public for help. It promotes the perception that rescue dogs have problems, and that can deter a lot of people who may be looking for a good pet.

A dog that is healthy has a much better chance of living a happy pain-free life, and it is these dogs that are being killed if too many resources are directed into treating unhealthy dogs.

It's not helpful to use emotive terms like "not worth saving". Rescuers choose who they can save. You choose who you save. Would you describe all of the dogs that you have not rescued as "not worth saving"? Or are there other reasons you have not taken in every single dog from your local pound and found a home for it?

[MissMolly]

I agree, I would have thought groups would go for the easy to rehome dog, vs a costly dog.

Easy to rehome and low costs dogs would surly mean you could save more in the long run?

Just because a dog might need costly vet work doesn't mean it is not worth saving.. There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case..

I disagree. I think fewer dogs would be put to sleep, not more. There are finite resources available for rescue, and so if thousands of dollars are spent on costly vet work on a few dogs and extra months of time put into their rehabilitation, many healthy dogs will miss out on a place in foster care.

There is also a risk with some health problems that spending money won't fix the problem anyway. There will always be vets willing to take money and offer hope to rescuers.

I don't like to see people that have chosen to take on dogs with expensive problems begging the public for help. It promotes the perception that rescue dogs have problems, and that can deter a lot of people who may be looking for a good pet.

A dog that is healthy has a much better chance of living a happy pain-free life, and it is these dogs that are being killed if too many resources are directed into treating unhealthy dogs.

It's not helpful to use emotive terms like "not worth saving". Rescuers choose who they can save. You choose who you save. Would you describe all of the dogs that you have not rescued as "not worth saving"? Or are there other reasons you have not taken in every single dog from your local pound and found a home for it?

Yes rescuers, choose who they save, so if they save dogs that have health issues and the public are willing to help with the costs if the rescue group can not fund it themselves, what is the big issue.

I have a dog I chose to save from the pound here with me and I was lucky to have a rescue group that put their hand up to pull her from the pound under duty of care.. Her vet costs are quite high and we are still having set backs every now and again, if i knew then what the cost would be I would still have taken her from the pound.

Dogs that need costly treatment are not normally adopted straight from the pound, it is mainly thought rescue groups that these dogs make it out of the pounds.

[Plan B]

If I've read the original post correctly, I think the point that's being made is - public donations are never a given. They are supposed to supplement rescue, not fund it (not including the legitimate fundraising events, etc that are important, I think it's moreso about the constant asking for your money). And for those who cannot afford to cover the vetwork for certain dogs, is it responsible for them to pull the dogs from the pound, and solely rely on public donations? If they can't afford to care for the dog and donations end up not coming in, what happens then?

[Greytmate]

I agree, I would have thought groups would go for the easy to rehome dog, vs a costly dog.

Easy to rehome and low costs dogs would surly mean you could save more in the long run?

Just because a dog might need costly vet work doesn't mean it is not worth saving.. There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case..

I disagree. I think fewer dogs would be put to sleep, not more. There are finite resources available for rescue, and so if thousands of dollars are spent on costly vet work on a few dogs and extra months of time put into their rehabilitation, many healthy dogs will miss out on a place in foster care.

There is also a risk with some health problems that spending money won't fix the problem anyway. There will always be vets willing to take money and offer hope to rescuers.

I don't like to see people that have chosen to take on dogs with expensive problems begging the public for help. It promotes the perception that rescue dogs have problems, and that can deter a lot of people who may be looking for a good pet.

A dog that is healthy has a much better chance of living a happy pain-free life, and it is these dogs that are being killed if too many resources are directed into treating unhealthy dogs.

It's not helpful to use emotive terms like "not worth saving". Rescuers choose who they can save. You choose who you save. Would you describe all of the dogs that you have not rescued as "not worth saving"? Or are there other reasons you have not taken in every single dog from your local pound and found a home for it?

Yes rescuers, choose who they save, so if they save dogs that have health issues and the public are willing to help with the costs if the rescue group can not fund it themselves, what is the big issue.

The big issue is that the money raised could be used to rehome a greater number of dogs. The big issue is the numbers of dogs being put to sleep. And so that is why I think the available resources should be used to cover as many dogs as possible, and not concentrated on a few unhealthy dogs, while so many more healthy dogs are euthanised. Your argument that a 'lot more dogs would be put to sleep' makes it sound as though you care about numbers being put to sleep, but if you think that taking in unhealthy dogs in favour of healthy dogs is the way to do reduce the numbers PTS overall, you are wrong.

Most people wanting a permanent pet do not want an unhealthy dog or a special needs dog, and so if a rescue group is primarily concerned about getting as many dogs into good homes as possible, they will want to put their efforts into taking dogs that have the best chance of being healthy, happy pets.

This topic isn't about what you are prepared to spend personally on your own pet, it is about rescueorgs taking on more than they can handle and then desperately begging for outside help in the hope that they can fulfil their own obligation to provide for the dog's welfare and fulfil their own obligation to provide sound and healthy dogs to buyers. It's just irresponsible to take on a dog without knowing in advance whether you are likely to be able to meet all obligations.

[tdierikx]

If I've read the original post correctly, I think the point that's being made is - public donations are never a given. They are supposed to supplement rescue, not fund it (not including the legitimate fundraising events, etc that are important, I think it's moreso about the constant asking for your money). And for those who cannot afford to cover the vetwork for certain dogs, is it responsible for them to pull the dogs from the pound, and solely rely on public donations? If they can't afford to care for the dog and donations end up not coming in, what happens then?

Damn! Where's the LIKE button??

T.

[MissMolly]

I agree, I would have thought groups would go for the easy to rehome dog, vs a costly dog.

Easy to rehome and low costs dogs would surly mean you could save more in the long run?

Just because a dog might need costly vet work doesn't mean it is not worth saving.. There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case..

I disagree. I think fewer dogs would be put to sleep, not more. There are finite resources available for rescue, and so if thousands of dollars are spent on costly vet work on a few dogs and extra months of time put into their rehabilitation, many healthy dogs will miss out on a place in foster care.

There is also a risk with some health problems that spending money won't fix the problem anyway. There will always be vets willing to take money and offer hope to rescuers.

I don't like to see people that have chosen to take on dogs with expensive problems begging the public for help. It promotes the perception that rescue dogs have problems, and that can deter a lot of people who may be looking for a good pet.

A dog that is healthy has a much better chance of living a happy pain-free life, and it is these dogs that are being killed if too many resources are directed into treating unhealthy dogs.

It's not helpful to use emotive terms like "not worth saving". Rescuers choose who they can save. You choose who you save. Would you describe all of the dogs that you have not rescued as "not worth saving"? Or are there other reasons you have not taken in every single dog from your local pound and found a home for it?

Yes rescuers, choose who they save, so if they save dogs that have health issues and the public are willing to help with the costs if the rescue group can not fund it themselves, what is the big issue.

The big issue is that the money raised could be used to rehome a greater number of dogs. The big issue is the numbers of dogs being put to sleep. And so that is why I think the available resources should be used to cover as many dogs as possible, and not concentrated on a few unhealthy dogs, while so many more healthy dogs are euthanised. Your argument that a 'lot more dogs would be put to sleep' makes it sound as though you care about numbers being put to sleep, but if you think that taking in unhealthy dogs in favour of healthy dogs is the way to do reduce the numbers PTS overall, you are wrong.

Most people wanting a permanent pet do not want an unhealthy dog or a special needs dog, and so if a rescue group is primarily concerned about getting as many dogs into good homes as possible, they will want to put their efforts into taking dogs that have the best chance of being healthy, happy pets.

This topic isn't about what you are prepared to spend personally on your own pet, it is about rescueorgs taking on more than they can handle and then desperately begging for outside help in the hope that they can fulfil their own obligation to provide for the dog's welfare and fulfil their own obligation to provide sound and healthy dogs to buyers. It's just irresponsible to take on a dog without knowing in advance whether you are likely to be able to meet all obligations.

I did not say that less dogs would be pts, and yes i do care about the numbers that are pts as too many dogs and cats are being pts, I know that most pounds and shelters would not adopt a dog or cat out that has serious/costly heath issues, so yes more animals would be pts if rescue groups did not take on these animals.

Where have I refered to what i would spend personally on one of my own pets?

I think that in all cases you can not possibly know how much a certian dog or cat will cost before you take it from the pound..

[SwaY]

If I've read the original post correctly, I think the point that's being made is - public donations are never a given. They are supposed to supplement rescue, not fund it (not including the legitimate fundraising events, etc that are important, I think it's moreso about the constant asking for your money). And for those who cannot afford to cover the vetwork for certain dogs, is it responsible for them to pull the dogs from the pound, and solely rely on public donations? If they can't afford to care for the dog and donations end up not coming in, what happens then?

Damn! Where's the LIKE button??

T.

Agreed

[Greytmate]

I did not say that less dogs would be pts, and yes i do care about the numbers that are pts as too many dogs and cats are being pts, I know that most pounds and shelters would not adopt a dog or cat out that has serious/costly heath issues, so yes more animals would be pts if rescue groups did not take on these animals.

You said "There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case."

I am arguing that fewer dogs would be put to sleep. Not more.

Where have I refered to what i would spend personally on one of my own pets?

In the post where you wrote "Her vet costs are quite high and we are still having set backs every now and again" You said that this dog was your dog, so I assume it isn't a dog that is available for others to adopt. If not you paying the high vet costs, who is? How is this relevant to the topic?

I think that in all cases you can not possibly know how much a certian dog or cat will cost before you take it from the pound..

Of course. But you can estimate whether you are likely to be able to cover the costs before you choose to take a dog in, and if it is unlikely you will be able to cover the costs, the dog's welfare is very much at risk. Pleading afterwards for funds is not a very efficient way for a rescue to operate. And as PlanB asks, if the fundraising doesn't work, what happens then?

[MissMolly]

I did not say that less dogs would be pts, and yes i do care about the numbers that are pts as too many dogs and cats are being pts, I know that most pounds and shelters would not adopt a dog or cat out that has serious/costly heath issues, so yes more animals would be pts if rescue groups did not take on these animals.

You said "There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case."

I am arguing that fewer dogs would be put to sleep. Not more.

Where have I refered to what i would spend personally on one of my own pets?

In the post where you wrote "Her vet costs are quite high and we are still having set backs every now and again" You said that this dog was your dog, so I assume it isn't a dog that is available for others to adopt. If not you paying the high vet costs, who is? How is this relevant to the topic?

I think that in all cases you can not possibly know how much a certian dog or cat will cost before you take it from the pound..

Of course. But you can estimate whether you are likely to be able to cover the costs before you choose to take a dog in, and if it is unlikely you will be able to cover the costs, the dog's welfare is very much at risk. Pleading afterwards for funds is not a very efficient way for a rescue to operate. And as PlanB asks, if the fundraising doesn't work, what happens then?

HP would have pts two more dogs last week due to heath reasons if rescue didn't take them so yes I think more dogs would be pts..

No where in my posts did I say this dog was my dog***.. A rescue group pulled her from the pound under duty of care as she was very ill and would not have survived if left in the pound. They have been covering her vet costs.

It is relevent because she would have been pts if not for a rescue group that does take on dogs that have health issues..

***But after a couple of weeks I knew she had to stay with me so yes I am adopting her and covering all her vet costs but this is a personal choice.

Edited January 22, 2012 by MissMolly

[Guest muttrus]

If I've read the original post correctly, I think the point that's being made is - public donations are never a given. They are supposed to supplement rescue, not fund it (not including the legitimate fundraising events, etc that are important, I think it's moreso about the constant asking for your money). And for those who cannot afford to cover the vetwork for certain dogs, is it responsible for them to pull the dogs from the pound, and solely rely on public donations? If they can't afford to care for the dog and donations end up not coming in, what happens then?

Damn! Where's the LIKE button??

T.

Agreed

THANKYOU it sounds better written that way :)

[Greytmate]

No where in my posts did I say this dog was my dog***..

I'm not sure what the stars mean, but here is what you said.

I have a dog I chose to save from the pound here with me and I was lucky to have a rescue group that put their hand up to pull her from the pound under duty of care.. Her vet costs are quite high and we are still having set backs every now and again, if i knew then what the cost would be I would still have taken her from the pound.

Nowhere in your posts have you been been very clear about anything. You don't make it very clear that the dog you have is not yours or who is responsible for its vet care. It seems as though you chose to take a dog from the pound with health issues, you used a rescue org to obtain it from a pound, the rescue org then spent money on vet bills, and now you are keeping the dog.

So you are going to cover all her costs by reimbursing the rescue group for all of the dog's vet costs to date?

That is a lot of resources put into one person getting one pet, especially if you are having setbacks. But if it is your own money I have no objections to that.

My point is that the same amount of time and effort could have been used to rehome a higher number of healthy dogs. There is a large market of people that want healthy pets. But my guess is that the overall number of dog being PTS is not as important to some people as being needed by one 'special' dog. That is fine for you to feel that way, but I strongly object to you using total numbers of dogs put to sleep as an argument for people to choose to rescue unhealthy dogs ahead of healthy ones. There is no shortage of healthy dogs needing homes and they are not all in HP. There is not an unlimited amount of money that the public will donate to rescue, and not all dogs can be saved.

It is beside the main topic which is basically about people taking on way more than they are able to without knowing how they are going to meet their obligations. Putting dogs at risk. Unless you are asking people for donations to help your dog, I am not sure why you are using the dog you have as an example in this thread.

[MissMolly]

No where in my posts did I say this dog was my dog***..

I'm not sure what the stars mean, but here is what you said.

I have a dog I chose to save from the pound here with me and I was lucky to have a rescue group that put their hand up to pull her from the pound under duty of care.. Her vet costs are quite high and we are still having set backs every now and again, if i knew then what the cost would be I would still have taken her from the pound.

Nowhere in your posts have you been been very clear about anything. You don't make it very clear that the dog you have is not yours or who is responsible for its vet care. It seems as though you chose to take a dog from the pound with health issues, you used a rescue org to obtain it from a pound, the rescue org then spent money on vet bills, and now you are keeping the dog.

So you are going to cover all her costs by reimbursing the rescue group for all of the dog's vet costs to date?

That is a lot of resources put into one person getting one pet, especially if you are having setbacks. But if it is your own money I have no objections to that.

My point is that the same amount of time and effort could have been used to rehome a higher number of healthy dogs. There is a large market of people that want healthy pets. But my guess is that the overall number of dog being PTS is not as important to some people as being needed by one 'special' dog. That is fine for you to feel that way, but I strongly object to you using total numbers of dogs put to sleep as an argument for people to choose to rescue unhealthy dogs ahead of healthy ones. There is no shortage of healthy dogs needing homes and they are not all in HP. There is not an unlimited amount of money that the public will donate to rescue, and not all dogs can be saved.

It is beside the main topic which is basically about people taking on way more than they are able to without knowing how they are going to meet their obligations. Putting dogs at risk. Unless you are asking people for donations to help your dog, I am not sure why you are using the dog you have as an example in this thread.

Maybe you should read my posts better Greymate, I said that a rescue pulled this girl from the pound, yes at my request due to her health and I was fostering her, I did not just decide to keep her, I spoke to the rescue group and asked if I could adopt her they agreed I also told them that I would cover all her past vet costs and her future vet costs, they did said I did not have to cover costs but I told them I would.

I am not asking for donations!!

I am not saying all dogs are in HP (what a stupid statement to make) I just said two more dogs would have been pts last week.. I for one am happy that rescue groups with also take those dogs that need a little more TLC as well as those that are healthy..

I am using the dog I have as an example of a rescue group helping an animal regardless of costs.. It is each rescues choice to help whatever dog they wish too, healthy or otherwise..

Edited January 22, 2012 by MissMolly

[tdierikx]

So - how many healthy and more easily rehomable dogs were pts at HP last week MissMolly? And how many of those could possibly have been helped with the money and resources spent on the 2 not so healthy ones taken by rescue?

I personally believe that rescue needs to be done with both head and heart - and resources allocated accordingly. Constant touting for donations to cover costs is a put off... and as Greytmate suggested, it can give people the false belief that many rescue dogs are "broken" in some way - which we all know isn't exactly true.

Not all dogs in pounds can, or should, be "saved" - for some, it's possibly the best thing for them to be given their wings. Not all pounds pts in an uncaring manner either.

T.

[MissMolly]

So - how many healthy and more easily rehomable dogs were pts at HP last week MissMolly? And how many of those could possibly have been helped with the money and resources spent on the 2 not so healthy ones taken by rescue?

I personally believe that rescue needs to be done with both head and heart - and resources allocated accordingly. Constant touting for donations to cover costs is a put off... and as Greytmate suggested, it can give people the false belief that many rescue dogs are "broken" in some way - which we all know isn't exactly true.

Not all dogs in pounds can, or should, be "saved" - for some, it's possibly the best thing for them to be given their wings. Not all pounds pts in an uncaring manner either.

T.

No heathly rehomeable dogs were pts at HP last week..

[Nic.B]

I only rescue on a very small scale with my local shelter.

Rightly or wrongly I am not able to assist other shelters, this is happening in my own back yard, we have enough dogs to care for in my local area and fitting dogs into my own home or with foster carers is a very individual process.

The argument between people re; If you save this dog (with needs) as opposed to 5 other dogs listed for pts is irrelevant.

Some foster carers suit a dog with special needs. Some suit large breeds, or specific breeds.

You work with what you have and what you can achieve.

If a small breed/ large breed based rescue wants to assist a dog with special needs you would have to be crazy (from a pound and shelter perspective) to then expect them to take every other dog instead of that one.

Rescue are specialised in different areas.

If I rang you today GM about 4 greys in the pound and you said no, would that motivate you to take the kelpies or cattle’s or working breeds or JRT'S? Not to mention the SWF’s.

You are right, you are not paying the vet fees.

You are being unfair IMO on Miss Molly and other posters.

How many Greys have you taken from HP? RF or BP?

While you worked with GAP you were supported with donations from the racing industry and you were paid a full time wage.

Some of us don’t have that luxury.

[sas]

Nic, that is so inappropriate to bring up private phone discussions you had with GM.

[Nic.B]

Nic, that is so inappropriate to bring up private phone discussions you had with GM.

I didnt MEH, and have never spoken with GM over the phone or even via Pm?

[mita]

Nic, that is so inappropriate to bring up private phone discussions you had with GM.

I didnt MEH, and have never spoken with GM over the phone or even via Pm?

And you didn't say you did, in your post, Nic. You started your sentence with, 'If....'. You set up a hypothetical situation of a phone call.