Discussion in 'Dog News and Articles' started by Lilavati, Nov 19, 2010.
Can You “Dump” a Pet at a Safe Haven? YesBiscuit!
Personally, I think the the author was too hard on the shelter for planning to euth the dog. The shelter's job is to help as many animals get into good homes as they can, not provide thousands of dollars worth of surgery for every dog who needs it. How many perfectly healthy and adoptable animals could have been helped with that $6000?
i also didn't catch which bone disorder the dog has, but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess bi-lateral elbow dysplasia. Jack has elbow dysplasia in one of his elbows and had to have surgery plus physical therapy afterward. Now, 3 years later, he is doing much better than his vets thought he would, but it has taken effort on our part though supplements and judicious use of meds and exercise, and it will always be a condition that has to be managed.
I just don't get where the article gets off criticizing the shelter for wanting to euth the dog. Yes, the dog was treatable, but to the the tune of $6000 worth or surgery, stem cell therapy, and physical therapy. Add to that the fact that whoever adopts this dog is going to have to realize her physical limitations and manage her accordingly for the rest of her life, which makes her a special needs adoption. Shelters do not have unlimited resources, especially in today's economy.
So we are not supposed to judge the owners of the dog at all for not wanting to spend that kind of money on their pet, but it's a-ok to judge the shelter, which is responsible for the care, well being, and futures of MANY, MANY animals (likely with limited funds) for planning to put down a dog requiring thousands of dollars worth of surgery who will have to then be adopted out as a special needs animal? In addition, the shelter couldn't have been all that hell bent on euth, seeing as the rescue was able to step in and raise the funds.
Sorry, I'm just not buying what the author is selling.
the shelter whose responsibility is taking care of MANY MANY pets.. they should be fundraising and bending over backwards to pay for surgery for this dog?
..YOU, the owner, are the one who loves this dog, who believes your dog is special. you should've been the one fundraising
Its just not right for a humane society to use that kind of money for ONE dog when they have hundreds of other animals to care for. It shouldn't be expected.
and as far as im concerned, animal shelter, rescue, humane society.. I don't care what the place is called. you sign over your pet, you LOSE the right to poke and prod about what they do/ do not do.
I think the word "dump" can be used in some cases.
Such as, when somebody buys a golden retriever puppy and then brings it to a KILL SHELTER at 8 weeks old because they decide, in one or two days, that OOPs its actually work! *gasp*
When somebody leaves a small crate stuffed with three beagles at the bottom of FOHA's driveway (has happened three times over 7 years).
When somebody leaves a bulldog/pit bull mix with mange and titties to the ground in a crate at the bottom of FOHA's driveway. (She's on the website, her name is Shakira).
When somebody leaves cats in crates at the bottom of the driveway (happens a few times every several months), one of them being old, hyperthyroid, and matted.
...I could go on...lol.
What I thought was interesting was not the critique of the shelter for planning to put the dog down, for which I don't blame them, really. Its the critique of the shelter for lashing out at the owner. Although I agree with Sweet that one certainly can "dump" an animal at the shelter (one of my cats was unquestionably "dumped" at a shelter), there is also a strong tendency of shelters to blame and guilt-trip people who take their animals there . . . sometimes they deserve it. Sometimes they simply don't have a choice, or don't know what else to do.
It is far preferable to take an animal to a shelter than deny it care, or to leave it by the side of the road . . . that was the observation I wanted to share. I don't blame the shelter for planning to put the animal down. (Note the author of the article is something of a no-kill fanatic). I just wonder how many people don't take their animals to shelters (when they should) because they are a) afraid the animal will be killed or b) afraid they will be humilated and guilt-tripped for doing so.
Honestly I didn't see the author as judging the shelter for the potential euthanasia; probably because personally I would have (as the owner of the dog) put it down myself; but saw the author judging the shelter for using the term "dump" when referring to the owner surrendering the dog to the shelter.
Didn't even see it the way you guys are; and still don't.