What Is So Broken In People That Causes Us To

[Cuko13]

Great article, I agree. Love my boy but I've never been doubtful of my ability to pull the plug when his time comes. I will happily spend that final breathe with him and be able to give him that ending satisfaction of seeing my face and hearing my voice while his pain slowly washes away and he falls asleep. I'd imagine for that one second he'd be close the happiest he's ever been.

Could never understand dogs with cancer clearly past their years being kept alive. It I purely for the humans benefit. Part of owning a dog is taking responsibility to make those tough decisions.

[WoofnHoof]

It is difficult to know sometimes, my little Lulu is getting older, sleeping more etc so I know I will likely have to make a decision at some point, but she is a very full on little dog who doesn't let anything stop her, so even though her eyesight is going and she runs into things she just gets back up and keeps going, so yeah going to be hard to really know when it's too much for her since nothing seems to phase her.

I dont get were this everything must be saved mentality came from, if you breed dogs and mention culling your the worst person in the world. Today a video came through on facebook showing a puppy with no front legs dragging itself along the ground they were all saying how cute. Sooner or later somebody is going to do crowdfunding to buy it legs. When l was researching liver shunts came across a rescue organization that was prepared to spend 10k plus for a malumute that had a shunt. To me it would have made more sense to let the dog go so they can rescue other healthy dogs

I have a shunt dog, not a rescue but if surgery is successful there is no reason the dog can't live a full life, I certainly couldn't make a judgement that one life is more important or worthy than another.

I also think that people confuse private rescue organisations with some sort of public service, donated funds are not "public" money, they are funds transferred from one private entity or individual to another, therefore there is no accountability or requirement for a private organisation to spend the money on anything other than what they choose to, it's no different to an individual making a decision about their own animal. If people who donate their own money don't agree with how it is spent they are under no obligation to donate again. No point getting self righteous about the decision a "rescue" makes without also being judgemental about a decision any private individual makes. The outcome is the same after all, a dog that needs expensive surgery to live a healthy life is no different to one that doesn't in the long run, so what people are really carrying on about is money, and how other people are spending it.

[Loving my Oldies]

I also think that people confuse private rescue organisations with some sort of public service, donated funds are not "public" money, they are funds transferred from one private entity or individual to another, therefore there is no accountability or requirement for a private organisation to spend the money on anything other than what they choose to, it's no different to an individual making a decision about their own animal. If people who donate their own money don't agree with how it is spent they are under no obligation to donate again. No point getting self righteous about the decision a "rescue" makes without also being judgemental about a decision any private individual makes. The outcome is the same after all, a dog that needs expensive surgery to live a healthy life is no different to one that doesn't in the long run, so what people are really carrying on about is money, and how other people are spending it.

Well said, Woof.

I haven’t read all the posts, but I do feel that some people make their dogs do it tough simply because they can’t make the decision, it is just too hard and frightening for them. Sometimes it can be very hard to recognise/understand that the time has come. And, of course, some times, it is very very clear.

Even in the latter cases, it can be hard and just so gut wrenching. For sure you are letting your pet go and you are ending their suffering, but you are also “killing” them, that there is no turning back. That is so scary. For people who have not been through this, it can be an enormous and difficult decision to make. And even when you’ve been through it many times, as I have, it is still difficult even when you know it is absolutely and 100% the right thing to do. Having the power of life or death does not rest lightly on some shoulders.

[tdierikx]

I agree DDD... it's never an easy decision... even when it's the only decision you have to make for your loyal friend and companion of many years. And it's even worse when it's your heart dog... 'cos it never stops being as raw as the day they had to leave you - I still weep copious tears and miss my beloved Woosie so much, and she left me in 2004... crying now just typing her name... *sob*

I'm all for treatments for animals who have a prospect of a decent quality of life aferwards... but not as fussed on prolonging questionable quality of life because we humans can't bring ourselves to "kill" our pets. It is the most noble deed you can do for them when the time comes IMHO... putting them above our own hurt and feelings of loss...

T.

[mita]

Choosing the 'time' is the hardest thing to do. A good vet, who was enormously soft-hearted, said to me he'd never regretted he'd put to sleep one of his beloved pets too soon.... but one that was too late haunted him.

I agreed with him that the saying, 'Put a pet out of its misery' is a sure sign it's too late (unless of course it's sudden trauma). I try to pick a point just before the pet's life could be described as misery. And, when there's no treatment that will reverse... or the treatment is too harsh for that particular pet. I want to save my pet, as much as possible, from sliding down into an inevitable misery.

Another vet said the question he asks himself about his pet & delaying any decision... is, 'Am I making this decision for my own needs only...or for the pet's'.

Even with what I think are the best questions I can ask myself, it still doesn't make it easy. But it's the pet I want to make it easiest on...not me.

Edited January 7, 2017 by mita

[Maddy]

When making decisions about my own animals I'm more of the opinion that it's "better a week too early than a day too late". I think it's a very complex issue. Vets will never tell you it's time. And people often look for that reassurance from someone they trust. Rescue is a whole other story.

Maybe both the clinics I use are unusual but when Bosley was going downhill, one vet suggested that I consider "whether or not it was time to pull the pin" and the other, from a different clinic, told me very clearly that euthanasing Bosley while he was still under GA would be what he would choose, when I asked his opinion.

In fact, thinking back, euthanasia within a particular time frame was suggested by my vets for the last four dogs I've lost. Their opinion of my dogs' quality of life influences my decisions greatly and I would be reluctant to go back to a vet who wasn't speaking up in the best interests of my animals.

I do think that some rescues spend their limited funds inappropriately and rescue the wrong dogs. Sometimes an old or crippled dog makes people want to save it because it is clearly in need. Sometimes it is also the very frightened dog that doesn't trust anyone that appeals to people because 'Poor thing. It is so scared. It must have been ill-treated.' I hate it when a healthy young, but maybe ugly?? dog doesn't make it. But I am not in a position to comment really because I can't help anything.

The trouble with the "ugly" dogs is that they can end up sitting in rescue for extended periods of time, taking up space that may have held several "prettier", more adoptable dogs in that time.

For greyhounds, in my experience, it tends to be black dogs who are a bit plain or aren't very outgoing. The two longest foster periods I've had were both black dogs and both were with me for over 12 months each. Now, it's true that they eventually got homes but equally, how many fawns or blue could I have rehomed in that time? Do we also euthanase the ugly dogs, considering they can end up a significant drain on resources? If it's strictly about sensible use of resources, the answer to that question must surely be "yes".

Personally, I think that you have to do the best you can by the dogs who come into your care. This doesn't mean seeking out every old, black, crippled dog you can find but giving a reasonable chance to the young, the old, the pretty and the ugly, equally. Some rescues take dogs from pounds so they have some control over what they get. Many others take surrenders and won't turn dogs away for welfare reasons. Rescue can be a really difficult balancing act of resources at the best of times and to be blunt about it, these sorts of threads that quickly turn into rescue-bashing garbage, annoy me. If you don't like the way other people run their rescues, feel free to get out of your armchair and do it yourself.

[tdierikx]

At the end of the day, rescues operate on their own agendas... they choose which animals they will take in, and how much time, effort, or money they are prepared to spend on each. If we, as the public, disagree with their decisions, then we can choose not to donate money or resources to that rescue, yes?

That said, I sometimes wonder that some people in rescue get into it for reasons that aren't always in the animals' best interests. It can be a fine balancing act to get things "right" as often as possible and satisfy public opinion... some people are good at getting that balance right, and others seem to thrive on the drama and attention a "special case" garners them - regardless of the outcome for the animal in question.

There are a few rescues that appear to be more consistent in their decision making processes, and take on only what they can handle well with good outcomes for the animals in their care... and we should be holding those rescues up as the great examples they are... rather than giving attention (good or bad) to those we perceive are not getting it "right".

T.

[~Anne~]

I never worry that I went too early because animals don't understand the concept of time, I regret the one I went too late on.

Yes this. I don't ever worry that it is too soon. What is too soon? It's just too soon for yourself, your pet doesn't know, because your pet is not on this earth anymore. But being too late - that haunts me.

That's the crux though. It's an individual's perception of when the right time is. We're all different and so when you think it's the best time, the person next to you may have thought it was too late or too early.

It's not an exact science.

I've euthanised 3 dogs in as many years. I still don't know if I made the decision at the right time for each of them. As the person who makes the decision, I guess this not really knowing feeling will always haunt me.

[tdierikx]

It's never going to be the right time for we humans having to say goodbye to our beloved companions... and that's where the doubt comes in... purely human emotion, and perfectly normal to doubt our own decision making at the time. We need to remember that hindsight is 20/20 too, and wondering "what if I'd tried xyz" will always factor in after the fact.

T.

[~Anne~]

It's never going to be the right time for we humans having to say goodbye to our beloved companions... and that's where the doubt comes in... purely human emotion, and perfectly normal to doubt our own decision making at the time. We need to remember that hindsight is 20/20 too, and wondering "what if I'd tried xyz" will always factor in after the fact.

T.

Totally agree.

[_PL_]

I've PTS 4 retirees this year under circumstances which other rescuers may have chosen to make the dog fight to live.

This thread hurts like shit.

BTW in our case, certain donations are specifically designated by donors to go to the dogs in Forever Care (the retirees).

[asal]

I personally don't find it fair labelling those attached to their pets as being "broken" to be honest. Sure, as outsiders it's easy for us to sit back and say, 'hey, you need to put your beloved pet to sleep' when our emotions aren't so deeply invested. I understand completely what the article is trying to say, but unfortunately when it's regarding a loved one, sometimes a logical and rational thought is the last thing on our minds.

In myself I like to think I have the strength to do right by my pets, but I have deep understanding for those who struggle. Sometimes it does anger me to the point of wanting shake these people into seeing that their pet is suffering, but again, as the outsider, it's a no brainer.

I agree. We wouldn't have dogs if we didn't believe we could give them a good life. It's not always obvious when that's no longer the case, but everybody seems eager to voice an opinion.

I've sent dogs over the rainbow bridge earlier than others would have done - my heart-dog most painfully; her degenerative myelopathy was not advanced, but she was terrified of falling.

I've also kept dogs alive, knowing that they had a quality of life that other people didn't recognise. My heart-dog's grand-daughter lived happily with more advanced DM; she learnt to prop her hindquarters against the clothes hoist while she showed a puppy how to dig.

My oodle rescue lived a vibrant life in the world of smell, still able to track me through the paddock long after he lost both sight and hearing.

Too often, I've prolonged my pets' lives against my better judgement, at the urging of vets. I've seen them die harder because of it, when their circulation has become too poor for rapid administration of the final anaesthetic. Most recently, my elderly Birman developed unexpected kidney failure. The vets sent her home, knowing that they'd been unable to get her to eat or drink. After a day of forcibly administering food and water, I returned to the vets. They talked about dialysis, and made me feel cruel when I opted for euthenasia. Her blood pressure was so low that they had to inject the anaesthetic directly into the heart.

People are too ready to judge others for their decisions.

Funny in a way that title, as so many agree, I included, we only just recently had to let our part of the family pony go a day short of her 36th birthday she looked so good she could have won a halter class but her old knees and hocks had become too stiff to let her get up unaided anymore, once quality of life has gone the compassionate thing to do is let them go.

Yet what is so broken about our system that our aged parents cannot be permitted the same compassion? No mother should discover her daughter had been begged by her grandmother to smother her with the pillow to end her suffering, surely?

(she had gangrene and took 6 weeks to die an agonising end, she could not be saved so what was the purpose of withholding a compassionate end? she had asked me to do the same, had no idea until recently she had also done the same to my child, I knew she would be better off, but feared the law, with hindsight I did the wrong thing,she lingered another terrible 4 weeks, no one deserves that, that is hard to cope with)

she had already suffered unimaginable agony for the previous 3 MONTHS? because the two doctors asked to see her

at the nursing home were too incompetent to diagnose a broken hip despite my protests she was obviously in extreme pain after a fall from her bed one morning, could find no one to investigate why a perfectly ambulatory woman prior to the fall was incapable of moving let alone walk afterwards. only after she developed gangrene in the resulting ulcers on her heels and I am talking bone exposed here was she transferred to a hospital. the medical board did investigate my complaints. the doctors concerned told the board it was the patients fault for saying the pain was in her knee (I had made such a fuss a second doctor had been brought in for a second opinion)

and two xrays proved the knee was fine, never occured to either to xray the hip and they did not tell me they had only xrayed the knee both times I had finally got them to have xrays done, so she was moved from bed to wheel chair twice a day at minimum. according to an orthopedic surgeon the pain of a broken hip radiates to the knee, the poor pair were sent for retaining and counseling, all paid for by the medical board. no such compassion or counseling assistance for me or my daughter or the rest of the family though.

So do not presume some doctors actually know what they are doing just because MD is at the end of their name.

Edited January 7, 2017 by asal

[Maddy]

At the end of the day, rescues operate on their own agendas... they choose which animals they will take in, and how much time, effort, or money they are prepared to spend on each. If we, as the public, disagree with their decisions, then we can choose not to donate money or resources to that rescue, yes?

That said, I sometimes wonder that some people in rescue get into it for reasons that aren't always in the animals' best interests. It can be a fine balancing act to get things "right" as often as possible and satisfy public opinion... some people are good at getting that balance right, and others seem to thrive on the drama and attention a "special case" garners them - regardless of the outcome for the animal in question.

There are a few rescues that appear to be more consistent in their decision making processes, and take on only what they can handle well with good outcomes for the animals in their care... and we should be holding those rescues up as the great examples they are... rather than giving attention (good or bad) to those we perceive are not getting it "right".

T.

Well.. no, not really? as I pointed out, some rescues take dogs from pounds so they can pick out the superficially healthy dogs (who may end up having hidden health problems anyway) but for rescues who take surrenders, you get what you get and sometimes, what you get is health issues. I had two dogs dropped off to me once with matching cases of raging kennel cough. As much as it annoyed me to have to deal with that, the only other option for the dogs was the trainer dropping them off at the vet to be put to sleep, on his way home. So you make the best of a shitty situation because that's all you can really do.

Also, I feel it's worth pointing out that one person's waste of resources is not necessarily another's. Powerlegs rescues oldies and while many of us would agree that oldies definitely deserve that chance, some people would argue that rescuing old dogs is a waste of resources because they won't live as long and pounds are full of young animals. I took back a very eldely greyhound who could not be rehomed again and although it was a "waste" of my resources, I fed her and cared for her until she finally died. It was a "waste" of money but I'm not in rescue to look after the welfare of my bank account

There's certainly a difference between rescuing a dog so elderly/poorly that it can barely walk and rescuing an older dog or a dog with treatable health problems but the thing is, none of us have crystal balls and even with really good vets and all the information, what seems like a sensible call can still end badly. I wholeheartedly disagree with silly shit like putting prosthetic legs on dogs (because I don't think it improves their quality of life) but most of us are just trying to get it right and don't need the added crap of people arguing over how much/little is right. You can't please all the people, all the time, especially not when the everyone has their own ideas about what is reasonable in terms of resource allocation.

I think it could also be argued that pregnant bitches should be spayed, rather than allowing puppies to be born. The future desexing/vacination/microchipping of the puppies would far outweigh the cost of ending their lives in utero, so why are rescues creating more costs for themselves? Because they think it's right? Yeah..

[Loving my Oldies]

It's never going to be the right time for we humans having to say goodbye to our beloved companions... and that's where the doubt comes in... purely human emotion, and perfectly normal to doubt our own decision making at the time. We need to remember that hindsight is 20/20 too, and wondering "what if I'd tried xyz" will always factor in after the fact.

T.

IMHO, it is more not knowing what is the right thing to do for some people, rather than just being led by their emotions. If you have had one dog from the time it was a puppy to when it was frail, elderly, sick, well you don’t have any experience with treatment and management apart from what a vet tells you - and some of them are not very good as in any profession.

I was incredibly unlucky with my first dogs - two little Maltese - as were they in their genes. Both died young, the girl (3 and a half) from a malformed heart and the boy (8 and a half) of cancer. I used to be amazed when I encountered dog owners who went the the vet once of twice a year for worming and other tablets. What sort of experience do those people have to draw on when their dogs get old. You can’t expect people to know it all. So how can you know what is the right thing to do when you have never lived with any other dog?

Yes, of course there are people who allow their dogs to suffer because they allow their own feelings to govern their actions instead of recognising or understanding the needs of the dog.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to call them broken. All about education and as someone famously once said something along the lines of: there are things we don’t know that we don’t know.

[tdierikx]

At the end of the day, rescues operate on their own agendas... they choose which animals they will take in, and how much time, effort, or money they are prepared to spend on each. If we, as the public, disagree with their decisions, then we can choose not to donate money or resources to that rescue, yes?

That said, I sometimes wonder that some people in rescue get into it for reasons that aren't always in the animals' best interests. It can be a fine balancing act to get things "right" as often as possible and satisfy public opinion... some people are good at getting that balance right, and others seem to thrive on the drama and attention a "special case" garners them - regardless of the outcome for the animal in question.

There are a few rescues that appear to be more consistent in their decision making processes, and take on only what they can handle well with good outcomes for the animals in their care... and we should be holding those rescues up as the great examples they are... rather than giving attention (good or bad) to those we perceive are not getting it "right".

T.

Well.. no, not really? as I pointed out, some rescues take dogs from pounds so they can pick out the superficially healthy dogs (who may end up having hidden health problems anyway) but for rescues who take surrenders, you get what you get and sometimes, what you get is health issues. I had two dogs dropped off to me once with matching cases of raging kennel cough. As much as it annoyed me to have to deal with that, the only other option for the dogs was the trainer dropping them off at the vet to be put to sleep, on his way home. So you make the best of a shitty situation because that's all you can really do.

Also, I feel it's worth pointing out that one person's waste of resources is not necessarily another's. Powerlegs rescues oldies and while many of us would agree that oldies definitely deserve that chance, some people would argue that rescuing old dogs is a waste of resources because they won't live as long and pounds are full of young animals. I took back a very eldely greyhound who could not be rehomed again and although it was a "waste" of my resources, I fed her and cared for her until she finally died. It was a "waste" of money but I'm not in rescue to look after the welfare of my bank account

There's certainly a difference between rescuing a dog so elderly/poorly that it can barely walk and rescuing an older dog or a dog with treatable health problems but the thing is, none of us have crystal balls and even with really good vets and all the information, what seems like a sensible call can still end badly. I wholeheartedly disagree with silly shit like putting prosthetic legs on dogs (because I don't think it improves their quality of life) but most of us are just trying to get it right and don't need the added crap of people arguing over how much/little is right. You can't please all the people, all the time, especially not when the everyone has their own ideas about what is reasonable in terms of resource allocation.

I think it could also be argued that pregnant bitches should be spayed, rather than allowing puppies to be born. The future desexing/vacination/microchipping of the puppies would far outweigh the cost of ending their lives in utero, so why are rescues creating more costs for themselves? Because they think it's right? Yeah..

There is still a choice made to take on any animal - be it from a pound or as a surrender. You still have the option to say no... or to allocate resources as you feel necessary to treat issues that are treatable. No-one is bagging rescues for unforseen issues arising with an animal they have taken in in good faith (well, I'm not anyways).

It is also the choice of the general public to decide which rescues they wish to donate time and resources to... usually based on their own opinion of what is "right" or "wrong" with regards to how rescues allocate their funds. Not much we can do about that though... *grin*

If rescue can't agree on what is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to what they do, then how are the general public supposed to work it out?

T.

[Maddy]

At the end of the day, rescues operate on their own agendas... they choose which animals they will take in, and how much time, effort, or money they are prepared to spend on each. If we, as the public, disagree with their decisions, then we can choose not to donate money or resources to that rescue, yes?

That said, I sometimes wonder that some people in rescue get into it for reasons that aren't always in the animals' best interests. It can be a fine balancing act to get things "right" as often as possible and satisfy public opinion... some people are good at getting that balance right, and others seem to thrive on the drama and attention a "special case" garners them - regardless of the outcome for the animal in question.

There are a few rescues that appear to be more consistent in their decision making processes, and take on only what they can handle well with good outcomes for the animals in their care... and we should be holding those rescues up as the great examples they are... rather than giving attention (good or bad) to those we perceive are not getting it "right".

T.

Well.. no, not really? as I pointed out, some rescues take dogs from pounds so they can pick out the superficially healthy dogs (who may end up having hidden health problems anyway) but for rescues who take surrenders, you get what you get and sometimes, what you get is health issues. I had two dogs dropped off to me once with matching cases of raging kennel cough. As much as it annoyed me to have to deal with that, the only other option for the dogs was the trainer dropping them off at the vet to be put to sleep, on his way home. So you make the best of a shitty situation because that's all you can really do.

Also, I feel it's worth pointing out that one person's waste of resources is not necessarily another's. Powerlegs rescues oldies and while many of us would agree that oldies definitely deserve that chance, some people would argue that rescuing old dogs is a waste of resources because they won't live as long and pounds are full of young animals. I took back a very eldely greyhound who could not be rehomed again and although it was a "waste" of my resources, I fed her and cared for her until she finally died. It was a "waste" of money but I'm not in rescue to look after the welfare of my bank account

There's certainly a difference between rescuing a dog so elderly/poorly that it can barely walk and rescuing an older dog or a dog with treatable health problems but the thing is, none of us have crystal balls and even with really good vets and all the information, what seems like a sensible call can still end badly. I wholeheartedly disagree with silly shit like putting prosthetic legs on dogs (because I don't think it improves their quality of life) but most of us are just trying to get it right and don't need the added crap of people arguing over how much/little is right. You can't please all the people, all the time, especially not when the everyone has their own ideas about what is reasonable in terms of resource allocation.

I think it could also be argued that pregnant bitches should be spayed, rather than allowing puppies to be born. The future desexing/vacination/microchipping of the puppies would far outweigh the cost of ending their lives in utero, so why are rescues creating more costs for themselves? Because they think it's right? Yeah..

There is still a choice made to take on any animal - be it from a pound or as a surrender. You still have the option to say no... or to allocate resources as you feel necessary to treat issues that are treatable. No-one is bagging rescues for unforseen issues arising with an animal they have taken in in good faith (well, I'm not anyways).

It is also the choice of the general public to decide which rescues they wish to donate time and resources to... usually based on their own opinion of what is "right" or "wrong" with regards to how rescues allocate their funds. Not much we can do about that though... *grin*

If rescue can't agree on what is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to what they do, then how are the general public supposed to work it out?

T.

Because expecting everyone to agree to a set of guidelines when it's an entirely subjective question is absurd? I think allowing rescue dogs to have puppies is very wrong, but others (like you) would disagree on that point. Are the lives of unborn puppies worth the resources? Who knows, because that is a values question, not something rational that can be worked out with a calculator.

Is it right to bag another rescue's use of resources when your own could legitimately be questioned?

With regards to the bolded point.. when you're rescuing greyhounds (and possibly other working breeds), saying no to a surrender could (and very likely would) mean that dog's death. So yeah, you have the option to "just" say no. But it's not a simple issue. It comes back to (again) personal values. Having a profitable rescue would be great (I hear puppies are good sellers) but I'd rather have my morals intact

[tdierikx]

There is still a choice made to take on any animal - be it from a pound or as a surrender. You still have the option to say no... or to allocate resources as you feel necessary to treat issues that are treatable. No-one is bagging rescues for unforseen issues arising with an animal they have taken in in good faith (well, I'm not anyways).

It is also the choice of the general public to decide which rescues they wish to donate time and resources to... usually based on their own opinion of what is "right" or "wrong" with regards to how rescues allocate their funds. Not much we can do about that though... *grin*

If rescue can't agree on what is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to what they do, then how are the general public supposed to work it out?

T.

Because expecting everyone to agree to a set of guidelines when it's an entirely subjective question is absurd? I think allowing rescue dogs to have puppies is very wrong, but others (like you) would disagree on that point. Are the lives of unborn puppies worth the resources? Who knows, because that is a values question, not something rational that can be worked out with a calculator.

Is it right to bag another rescue's use of resources when your own could legitimately be questioned?

With regards to the bolded point.. when you're rescuing greyhounds (and possibly other working breeds), saying no to a surrender could (and very likely would) mean that dog's death. So yeah, you have the option to "just" say no. But it's not a simple issue. It comes back to (again) personal values. Having a profitable rescue would be great (I hear puppies are good sellers) but I'd rather have my morals intact

Rescues and rescuers still have the choice what they take in and what they allocate resources to... your choices may be different to rescues that I've worked with in the past, but that doesn't mean that either of us are "wrong" in the choices made...

I get the sense that you are having a bit of a dig at a rescue that I worked with previously - which shut down a few years ago and the owner is now retired. For the record, I'm not bagging your rescue or your choices... I'm simply stating that the public who make donations are within their rights to select who or what they choose to support based on their own values.

T.

[Maddy]

There is still a choice made to take on any animal - be it from a pound or as a surrender. You still have the option to say no... or to allocate resources as you feel necessary to treat issues that are treatable. No-one is bagging rescues for unforseen issues arising with an animal they have taken in in good faith (well, I'm not anyways).

It is also the choice of the general public to decide which rescues they wish to donate time and resources to... usually based on their own opinion of what is "right" or "wrong" with regards to how rescues allocate their funds. Not much we can do about that though... *grin*

If rescue can't agree on what is "right" or "wrong" when it comes to what they do, then how are the general public supposed to work it out?

T.

Because expecting everyone to agree to a set of guidelines when it's an entirely subjective question is absurd? I think allowing rescue dogs to have puppies is very wrong, but others (like you) would disagree on that point. Are the lives of unborn puppies worth the resources? Who knows, because that is a values question, not something rational that can be worked out with a calculator.

Is it right to bag another rescue's use of resources when your own could legitimately be questioned?

With regards to the bolded point.. when you're rescuing greyhounds (and possibly other working breeds), saying no to a surrender could (and very likely would) mean that dog's death. So yeah, you have the option to "just" say no. But it's not a simple issue. It comes back to (again) personal values. Having a profitable rescue would be great (I hear puppies are good sellers) but I'd rather have my morals intact

Rescues and rescuers still have the choice what they take in and what they allocate resources to... your choices may be different to rescues that I've worked with in the past, but that doesn't mean that either of us are "wrong" in the choices made...

I get the sense that you are having a bit of a dig at a rescue that I worked with previously - which shut down a few years ago and the owner is now retired. For the record, I'm not bagging your rescue or your choices... I'm simply stating that the public who make donations are within their rights to select who or what they choose to support based on their own values.

T.

And I'd be willing to be money that rescues whose choices you question probably feel the same way.

[Loving my Oldies]

Ladies, take your argument to the rescue sub forum. Euthanising rescued dogs and your own pets is different.

[Maddy]

Ladies, take your argument to the rescue sub forum. Euthanising rescued dogs and your own pets is different.

Rescue was brought up in the OP, several times?