Would You Give An Adopted Dog Back?

[Staff'n'Toller]

The dog should be returned to the original owner under the circumstances, to keep it IMO is morally and ethically wrong.

Everybody that thinks the original owner shouldn't get the dog back just because it isn't microchipped should be ashamed, if it was well cared for in a loving home and bonded with its owners they deserve it back, they made a mistake like most other humans do on a daily basis doesn't mean they should lose their dog.

What about the 8 days it would have spent in the pound as a stray before being processed for re-homing?

Does a loving home not positively identify their animals? I just lost a 14 year old dog this year who had an old trovan chip - I chipped her as a young dog - when I was a teenage owner, when chipping wasn't widely done. Given the dog's age, I can't see any excuse.

To say that morally the old owner deserves the dog back condones the fact the dog was not chipped or had collar tags. If the owner was not away at the time, and the dog was not claimed, no-one here would turn a hair about it.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Staff'n'Toller

[OSoSwift]

My dogs don't wear collars with tags unless we are out and about. So that make me irresponsible?

A friend recently had her 15 week old puppy and adult Goldie have an incident where the pup got her jaw caught in the older dogs collar, the olde dog paniced, the puppy got flung sideways into the footpath brusing her ribs and she also bruised her jaw. As a result neither dog now wears a collar unless being walked out at training etc. Is she also irresponsible??

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

I once picked a dog up from the middle of a busy road, did some door knocking but couldn't find the owners - it wasn't wearing a collar and tag. It was matted and had fleas.

I drove around to a number of local vets who were all closed (Sat afternoon), finally found an open one - they refused to take the dog. Said it was chipped and they'd contact the owners.

I was quite a long way from home - about an hour - so was forced to bring the dog with me.

Didn't hear anything the next day so I drove an hour to get to the pound for the area where I found the dog.

A couple of days later the pound rang me to see if it was OK to give the owners my phone no? She said that she needed to warn me that they were very angry with me for picking up their dog so I said no, they couldn't have my phone no.

The pound gave them a serve for the state of the dog, needed grooming (it was summer)and had sores under the matting.

I don't think those particular people deserved to have a dog personally, that's the sort of owner I would not want to give a dog back to.

I'm not so hung up on the chip, if it is the state law then the vets should be explaining all that to the owners so it doesn't get missed. There needs to be more reminders in places such as vets that you need to update microchip details if you move etc.

[~Anne~]

I've never put collars on my dogs let alone have tags attached to a collar.

Reading the comments in this thread makes me thank my lucky stars that my dogs have never been lost.

[OSoSwift]

I've never put collars on my dogs let alone have tags attached to a collar.

Reading the comments in this thread makes me thank my lucky stars that my dogs have never been lost.

Me too

[Guest Maeby Fünke]

My Pug doesn't wear a collar. His tags are attached to his Puppia harness, which he only wears when we go out.

[~Anne~]

I'm surprised the pound even rang to ask you, if the owners were angry? The pound just should have said no. How silly to even make the call "oh excuse me Dogmad, do you mind if we give these owners your number so they can abuse you?" Sounds ludicrous.

The pound gave them a serve for the state of the dog, needed grooming (it was summer)and had sores under the matting.

I don't think those particular people deserved to have a dog personally, that's the sort of owner I would not want to give a dog back to.

I'm not so hung up on the chip, if it is the state law then the vets should be explaining all that to the owners so it doesn't get missed. There needs to be more reminders in places such as vets that you need to update microchip details if you move etc.

It seems you are saying that education is needed for chips...going by that tactic, and in the same vein, isn't education also needed for the care of dogs? Sometimes it is just education and sometimes it may be a specific set of unusual circumstances that have developed. I'm not saying it is or isn't in the situation you spoke of but who are any of us to judge without facts.

Edited November 3, 2013 by ~Anne~

[Rascalmyshadow]

I never leave collars on any of my animals not worth the risk, my old poodle is not allowed to wear a collar any way due to a previous neck injury. Does that make me a bad owner?

If my car was stolen and the number plates removed does that mean anyone should be able to keep it if I wasn't able to find it in a certain time?

[4darlingdogs]

And as for bonding with the dog in 9 days. What of the owner who bonded with their pet over a 7 year period!

Exactly ! The moral thing to do here is give the dog back to the clearly loving home he had been lost from. Bonding with a dog over 9 days is nothing compared to the previous 7 years. I can't believe there are people on here who would keep the dog !

[mita]

My Tibbie girls have collars (which I check often). They have their council registration tag, an ID disc with their name & phone number, & the tag which shows they're microchipped.

Twice over the years, a tradesperson we didn't know was in the yard.... managed to leave 3 gates open... & a tibbie girl or two went off for a lone walk.

First time, 2 tib girls headed for the sound of children's voices in the home of a Day Care Mum. Marched up & 'knocked' on the front door. Lady read their ID disc & phoned me immediately. Tibbie girls brought home in a little procession of children.

Couple weeks ago, another tradesman did the same thing. I got a call from the manager of a real estate office in the next block. She was holding a staff meeting... & they saw a little 'gold dog' looking in the big window & wagging her tail. She said she saw the ID disc on the collar ... so went out, picked her up & phoned me.

Speaking only for myself.... I want our dogs to be easily seen as 'carrying' ID which will make it quick & easy for a finder to make contact.

Amazing how a simple ID disc can get a lost dog home ... whether the finder knows anything about microchips, or not.

Edited November 3, 2013 by mita

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

I'm surprised the pound even rang to ask you, if the owners were angry? The pound just should have said no. How silly to even make the call "oh excuse me Dogmad, do you mind if we give these owners your number so they can abuse you?" Sounds ludicrous.

The pound gave them a serve for the state of the dog, needed grooming (it was summer)and had sores under the matting.

I don't think those particular people deserved to have a dog personally, that's the sort of owner I would not want to give a dog back to.

I'm not so hung up on the chip, if it is the state law then the vets should be explaining all that to the owners so it doesn't get missed. There needs to be more reminders in places such as vets that you need to update microchip details if you move etc.

It seems you are saying that education is needed for chips...going by that tactic, and in the same vein, isn't education also needed for the care of dogs? Sometimes it is just education and sometimes it may be a specific set of unusual circumstances that have developed. I'm not saying it is or isn't in the situation you spoke of but who are any of us to judge without facts.

I know, I was gobsmacked that the pound thought I might like to speak to the owners who were so angry with me ...

My vets (and others) send out newsletters. Perhaps a small footnote could recommend owners check their pets' chip details but something in the surgery noticeboards etc etc. People are all so busy that small but important details are forgotten.

[~Anne~]

You know for what it's worth we talk about 'responsibility' all the time on this forum. We use the phrase 'dogs are for life' and we talk about them being our responsibility for the life of the pet. Here is an owner trying to show her responsibility toward her pet of 7 years and people are so quick to write off her responsibility.

She didn't have the dog chipped. So what. It wasn't law when the pup was born was it? If it was t law then, is she legally obligated to have it chipped later or is it like in NSW where animals born prior to the introduction of microchipping didn't have to chip them. Was it sensible the dog wasn't chipped? Probably not. Would they have been able to contact the owner given she was overseas, even if he was chipped? There is a good chance they may not have been able to.

So for this she deserves to lose her pet of 7 years because someone who has owned it for 9 days has become attached to it. Granted, they adopted it legally. It's no ones fault. But you can't tell me that the attachment they have formed after 9 days is as strong as the attachment the owner had for their dog, and the dog had for their owner, that was developed over the 7 years.

What about the dog. Through no fault of its own it has been lost from the environment it had known for 7 years, possibly been traumatised through wandering and the pound process, and then it is put into an unfamiliar home environment.

Edited November 3, 2013 by ~Anne~

[lilypily]

I don't know Drummond personally. Is it a rural area? If so how many people realistically would chip there dogs if they live on large acerage/farming communities

[persephone]

The dog should be returned ..and yes, I would do it .

[Staffyluv]

I don't think she deserves to lose her pet - but she did, under the circumstances that happened..

I have to admit that I am torn on this subject.. I do feel for the old owner. But I also know that adopting a dog, thinking it is yours and then 9 days later someone turns up and says, 'that's my dog' - would be horrible..

I know, I would not have given Ziggy back, so I simply can't say that the new owners should give the dog back - but I do feel sorry for the original owner.

[lilypily]

There was a poll in yesterdays paper here. I havent got exact numbers (i'v already used the paper) but they asked over 1200 people if the dog should be returned to the original owner. Near 85% of people said yes.

Where does registration come into it? Microchipping gives you 100% legal ownership, but surely registration must mean something?????

As sad as it is and I believe the dog should be returned to it's owner, perhaps the lesson here is if you're going on a holiday, don't trust family, friends or neighbours to look after your dog. Pay up and put them in a kennel. Money well worth spent for peace of mind.

[persephone]

lilypily .. I think that a microchip would have been scanned and the owner contacted ... not then adopted out .

[lilypily]

lilypily .. I think that a microchip would have been scanned and the owner contacted ... not then adopted out .

Oh yes absolutely. I'm living in fairy land to hope that one day the pound would contact surrounding councils looking for a match.

[~Anne~]

There was a poll in yesterdays paper here. I havent got exact numbers (i'v already used the paper) but they asked over 1200 people if the dog should be returned to the original owner. Near 85% of people said yes.

Where does registration come into it? Microchipping gives you 100% legal ownership, but surely registration must mean something?????

As sad as it is and I believe the dog should be returned to it's owner, perhaps the lesson here is if you're going on a holiday, don't trust family, friends or neighbours to look after your dog. Pay up and put them in a kennel. Money well worth spent for peace of mind.

Microchipping does not give you legal ownership. Microchipping is purely a tracking and registration system. The chip may be used to help you prove ownership but many other considerations, such a receipt of sale, would also be used. None of them on their own prove ownership.

[~Anne~]

lilypily .. I think that a microchip would have been scanned and the owner contacted ... not then adopted out .

She was overseas and may not have been contactable though.

I'm not sure how common this is but I know of dogs where only a letter has been sent to the address on the database and no effort has been made to ring anyone.