Am I just heartless?

Ok pure curiousity here.

For those who have said they don't like when a rescue takes on a harder to place dog and spends so much time and money on that one dog, rather than spending that time and money on 10 other dogs, you do know that to take in an animal, most rescues need to have a place for it to go/a foster home, right? So if there's only that one foster home available, to take one dog, the rescue really couldn't help 10 dogs in that time necessarily. Or it's not like if there's 2 foster homes available, because they have that harder dog, the other home is not sitting empty, it likely is, as well, helping another dog.


It's just something that people apparently don't really think about, because we get a lot of that :-/ "but if you didn't take in that difficult/sick ferret, you could take in 10 more!" when we really couldn't, cause there'd be nowhere for them to go...

Well, not at the same time, but you probably could move at least several young, healthy highly adoptable dogs through the rescue in the months it takes for the really hard luck cases to recover. I'm sure you could board a couple of adoptable animals until they found homes for the cost of multiple surgeries etc that some of these dogs need.

It's about the money for me honestly.. not so much the space.
These places drop thousands on ONE dog for example.. and then end up needing MORE and asking for more via donations just for basic care (food, water, basic vet) for the other animals in their care.

IMO the priority should be the majority. Save the money for the animals they are caring for long term instead of dropping A LOT on one animal all at once and then later having problems due to lack of funds.

Yes that $5000 could rehabilitate/save that ONE sad case.. but it could also keep the place running and pay for food, basic vet care, and rent for the entire shelter.
Instead of the place turning around later and needing MORE just to keep afloat.. or worse, have the rescue close and then not be helping anyone.

What Xandra and Fran said.

Yea, you can't fit 10 dogs in 1 foster home at the same time, but if it takes 2 years to get a dog healthy enough to be adopted out you could've used that foster for at least 3-8 "regular" dogs. You could take that kennel devoted to the human aggressive dog in the "no kill" (hate that term) shelter that will most likely live out his life there (so, 10 years?) and fill it with 15-40 more adoptable dogs. Not to mention that I personally find it horribly inhumane to isolate a dog in a kennel for years and years because they can't be handled by anyone except a select few people.

Similarly, like Fran said, how far can $5000 go if it's used to pay pull fees and basic vetting on "regular" dogs instead of the one high needs, hard luck case?

Totally agree. Some of the dogs I had in as fosters that had issues were really hard to adopt out. I had one dog for five months until I returned her (I asked them to make arrangements to move her for two months!) to another foster home. In the same time span I would normally have 3-6 dogs depending on their ages.

I am "heartless" as well. I do not doubt that saving that one hard case dog is so so worth it, but sometimes saying goodbye is the better choice.

Honestly, if any of my current and future dogs are ever diagnosed with cancer, I refuse to do chemo and/or radiation. If they ever require extensive surgery with months of crate rest with no guarantee of a better life, I will not do it. I would much rather my dog live a shorter, better quality life, than a life that is prolonged for mostly my benefit.

I agree with this and mostly the bolded part. Why should the dog live a prolonged, unhappy life?

If this is heartless, I'm heartless as well, I guess. I heard of a dog who is so fat it can't walk, and has breathing problems, and suffers from seizures. That doesn't sound quality of life to me, does it? I wouldn't keep a dog alive if it didn't love life. If the dog is hating life and it's quality of life is extremely low, then you might as well say good-bye. It will go up to doggy heaven, and enjoy it up there too.

I watched my dog deteriorate before me as I tried every last hope of keeping him living longer. Looking back, I wish I had put him out of his misery earlier, but at the time I was so determined to make him better, I entirely lost sight of life versus living.

I think rescues that make every last effort to save a dog's life are incredible. I really commend them for loving and caring so much about each creature, but sometimes "giving up" on a dog is the more loving choice.



This poor puppy is a perfect example of when is enough, enough?
http://arfontario.com/AwanUpdate.asp

Just saw this one...a rescue is trying to help this owned dog..sorry but this dog looks MISERABLE.

Smh..3 years like that? I can understand a mild chronic disorder or something not being properly managed, but this just seems horrific to keep him alive.

Good lord, I can't imagine that dog is living a happy life like that

If it feels as bad as it looks the only humane thing to do would be to put that poor dog out of its misery

For me I usually don't donate more for the ones with sob stories.

BUT yes they are spending a lot of money on special case dogs. But groups that do one special case every year or two I don't see that big of a problem. yes they are spending a lot of money but the ones I usually see end up with excess once it hits FB or Reddit. That excess is used on other dogs. So if spending a ton of money to save a dog with a sad story saves that dog and others with the extra money flow it generated I don't see too much of an issue.

That being said most of the ones I see are other states. I only recall seeing maybe two in the last 5 or 6 years that were actually in my area.

Three YEARS.

There is a cat that survived with a jar on her head for 20 days I saw on facebook today. She is hanging by a thread, the point they make is she has made it this long, and is fighting and deserves the chance. I sure hope they are right, and I pray she makes a full recovery. I have taken quite a few hurt creatures wild and domestic to the vet with the hope of helping them and hoped that I was not prolonging their agony. There were a couple I wish the Vet would have just told me it was too late. ONe was a box turtle I found with maggots, and another was a duckling wiht a broken clavical. A puppy that was seperated from the Mama at 3 days, along with 2 other litermates. They made it, this puppy got staph in his leg and he died at the vet's in a great deal of pain. I never wanted to do that to him, but there was no way to know, the other two recovered and tho it took them a long time to catch up they grew into fine yellow labs. So my heart goes out to the little cat, and I will hope that their efforts will turn out right. If I had money, I would send it to her. All I have is artwork to give so that won't do her any good but it will help others.

Idk, it's a very individual thing and if a rescue wants to specialize in medical hard cases, as long as the dog's quality of life is considered and they are doing things responsibly and ethically, I have no issue with it.

You could play the "how many dogs could you save" game all day. There are far more people who want to adopt labs or small dogs than pit bulls, so should rescues not ever deal with pit bulls because they could move 3 or 4 labs or yorkies for every pit bull? With Jacks health issues I could have probably funded a couple of dozen dogs from intake to adoption with the amount of money I've spent on his vet bills. Should I have therefore euthed him when we found out about his elbow dysplasia because there were other perfectly sound dogs out there that needed homes?

There is a woman on another dog board who prefers to adopt dogs with health issues. She has the time, money, and knowledge to deal with various health issues so she gives a second chance, a good home, and a good life to dogs who would likely otherwise be euthed for taking up too many resources. I don't see a problem with that.

IMHO, the beauty of private rescues is that those involved in said rescues can specialize in various breeds, types, ages, medical issues if they choose to, and people can choose to help by donation/fund raising or not.

I firmly believe you cannot save the wrong life. Whoever you save is a great deed.

Agreed with sillysally and Paige.

If a rescue wants to focus on hard cases, and you don't agree with it, well, nobody is forcing you to donate to them. Some people will, others won't. Those that do donate, it doesn't mean that money is being taken away from another dog in need, I mean, who's to say those people would donate elsewhere if that certain rescue wasn't around?

Yeah. While I think it's amazing people can save a large number of dogs it's just as amazing to save the life of one. I haven't saved a 100 dogs but I have given one a very nice life. Bandit has had a few HUGE vet bills. I could've donated and saved lots of dogs who weren't sick and just have put him to sleep. But I chose to save his life instead. Which I know is different but still.


I don't think it makes anyone heartless though to want to donate to people who aren't selling a sop story. All dogs deserve the help and put your money where ever you want to. I am like that too.

I think it's very, very, very different to spend your own money on your own dog... rather than a rescue spending thousands of donated dollars to one VERY special needs dog. I don't see the comparison at all in those two situations, one dog is owned, the other is homeless!

No one is saying it's not nice that some one has a bleeding heart for suffering dogs who need serious medical help, surgery and care. That is a nice thing to do. But a rescue spending all of those resources on one dog who may or may not survive, who may or may not be adoptable once they recover, is not realistic when millions of healthy adoptable dogs are dying and I don't think that's deniable. I've fostered many dogs and put fourth a lot of my own money, but I wouldn't spend the money I could use towards a dozen dogs on one dog that isn't even a guarantee. I think what bothers me is seeing rescues who always have super sick dogs who require thousands of dollars in donations, not just a few special cases here and there, but constantly? I don't think it's fair to be biased towards special needs cases, when so many healthy dogs die for no reason.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...4048541355.161733.327265306355&type=1&theater This is the non graphic pic, but the story is written there. Beaten with a baseball bat and then shot right down the throat.

Well I tell ya what. IF I had anything to spare I would be sending to this dog. Any dog that is tail thumping to all those that are helping her, after what has been done to her, she should get all the help she needs. If you can't see the link I apologize in advance.

As long as they are honest about where the donations are going to, it's not like they're "lying" or anything. If people want to send money to help the animal, all the best to them!

We had a ferret come in once that ate a poisonous newt that should have killed him right away. This ferret is, as far as I know, alive and well to this day. Sure, he's not about to win any beauty contests (well, I'm not sure what he looks like now, 2 years after the fact) but I can promise he's no worse off than if he were dead.