She signed to euthanize her dog last year. Now he’s up for adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We adopted from Lost Dog. I believe that the adoption agreement said that the dog should be returned to Lost Dog in the event of a medical issue or the need to rehome. The owner did not do that.

What stands out to me is that the owner paid a good amount to the shelter to have the dog euthanized and didn't stay with the pup during the process. It sucks but the least that we owe our pets is to see them through their last stage of life. Dropping off a dog to be put to sleep is cruel. The dog is scared because they are in a new place. They are alone without the human that they know and trust. And then they are subjected to a medical treatment, in this case to end their life, without the people they know best to help them.

I am glad that the dog was able to be treated and is now looking for a new home. I don't think that they dog should be returned to the woman in the story. I would be surprised if Lost Dog allowed her to adopt through them again.

The dog is in foster care. Shelter rules did not allow her there.

[Anonymous]

As many have pointed out on this thread, the shelter form said that the dog would be euthanized “if necessary.” As someone who is dealing with a sick pet and may not be able to afford all of the vet bills that would be associated with treating the pet, I can understand why the owner may have decided to surrender the pet to the shelter rather than watch a euthanasia in the vet’s office. The outcome of the story is the dog did get the medical treatment he needed and survived- so why is the decision the dog owner made so horrible? Why does that make the person a terrible pet owner? She was in a position for whatever reason she could not take care of the sick dog, so she did the responsible thing of taking the dog to qualified professionals to handle the dog. Deciding how to handle a sick pet is a very fragile decision for people- and she didn’t leave the dog abandoned, starving, or injured (or alone - obviously the dog was left with vets and qualified professionals as it got the surgery it needed). Perhaps some people would make a different choice and would hand an animal off to a no-kill shelter or a charity organization, but it seems unfair to say she was an irresponsible pet owner. Shelters exist, and she used one. We have already spent thousands on our sick pet, with no diagnosis yet. We are at a point of having to decide whether we can spend thousands more to continue to try to get to a diagnosis, and then potentially spend thousands to treat the illness (if it’s even treatable). But given we don’t really have a diagnosis and it only *may* be treatable, I have to grapple with can I handle having my pet be out there without me if I did surrender her, versus what I would view as potentially selfish and euthanizing her if she continues to decline.

What I can’t understand is why the rescue organization felt like this woman is not a suitable candidate to adopt a dog that is available for adoption. That she is “ineligible” because it was previously her pet seems like an absurd policy. I don’t think removing that policy would create the consequence some describe of everyone surrendering their pet to get free medical care and then re-adopting because there would be no guarantee you’d be the first one to try to adopt your pet, etc. but if the pet was saved and then is still available for adoption, I don’t understand why the rescue would think she was any less good of a home than a different applicant. The dog is with a foster while being treated that isn’t financially responsible for the dog at all- and the next owner was not responsible for any of the expenses either. This bright line rule that the pet rescue has set around who is worthy of pet ownership seems like the concerning part of this story- they are treating this woman like she put the dog in a dumpster. If they don’t think a person who can’t afford 7k (and probably plus for miscellaneous expenses) for an unexpected illness should own a dog- they should be charging significantly higher adoption fees (which would help fund their organization anyways).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As many have pointed out on this thread, the shelter form said that the dog would be euthanized “if necessary.” As someone who is dealing with a sick pet and may not be able to afford all of the vet bills that would be associated with treating the pet, I can understand why the owner may have decided to surrender the pet to the shelter rather than watch a euthanasia in the vet’s office. The outcome of the story is the dog did get the medical treatment he needed and survived- so why is the decision the dog owner made so horrible? Why does that make the person a terrible pet owner? She was in a position for whatever reason she could not take care of the sick dog, so she did the responsible thing of taking the dog to qualified professionals to handle the dog. Deciding how to handle a sick pet is a very fragile decision for people- and she didn’t leave the dog abandoned, starving, or injured (or alone - obviously the dog was left with vets and qualified professionals as it got the surgery it needed). Perhaps some people would make a different choice and would hand an animal off to a no-kill shelter or a charity organization, but it seems unfair to say she was an irresponsible pet owner. Shelters exist, and she used one. We have already spent thousands on our sick pet, with no diagnosis yet. We are at a point of having to decide whether we can spend thousands more to continue to try to get to a diagnosis, and then potentially spend thousands to treat the illness (if it’s even treatable). But given we don’t really have a diagnosis and it only *may* be treatable, I have to grapple with can I handle having my pet be out there without me if I did surrender her, versus what I would view as potentially selfish and euthanizing her if she continues to decline.

What I can’t understand is why the rescue organization felt like this woman is not a suitable candidate to adopt a dog that is available for adoption. That she is “ineligible” because it was previously her pet seems like an absurd policy. I don’t think removing that policy would create the consequence some describe of everyone surrendering their pet to get free medical care and then re-adopting because there would be no guarantee you’d be the first one to try to adopt your pet, etc. but if the pet was saved and then is still available for adoption, I don’t understand why the rescue would think she was any less good of a home than a different applicant. The dog is with a foster while being treated that isn’t financially responsible for the dog at all- and the next owner was not responsible for any of the expenses either. This bright line rule that the pet rescue has set around who is worthy of pet ownership seems like the concerning part of this story- they are treating this woman like she put the dog in a dumpster. If they don’t think a person who can’t afford 7k (and probably plus for miscellaneous expenses) for an unexpected illness should own a dog- they should be charging significantly higher adoption fees (which would help fund their organization anyways).

According to the rescue, she didn’t surrender the dog to the shelter after diagnostic tests were run and she found out what surgery the dog needed and that she couldn’t afford it; she didn’t pay for diagnostic tests in the first place. The vets she consulted were making a guess about what was wrong with the dog, based on its reported symptoms and simple examinations. The rescue offered to take the dog back and have their vets evaluate it. She declined. She didn’t pay a vet for euthanasia, she took the dog to the cheapest place that would euthanize (the shelter), even though they don’t allow people to be with animals when they’re euthanized. She signed away her rights to the dog. The shelter didn’t observe the same symptoms the woman had, so they contacted the rescue to see if they’d take the dog back. The rescue was informed that the dog had been surrendered for euthanasia. They took the dog back and assumed the financial burden of his medical bills. A year and a half, thousands of dollars, and two surgeries later, the dog is well and able to be adopted. Nobody did anything wrong, but the dog doesn’t belong to the woman anymore, and she’s probably not the best candidate to adopt a dog with a complicated medical history. Everyone in this story did the best that they could for this dog. I don’t know that the rescue has said that this woman is ineligible to adopt any pet ever again, but they’re not returning this dog to her, which is not unreasonable.

I’m very sorry your pet is suffering. It’s awful to feel powerless to help a sick pet. I wish you the best of luck during this difficult time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The outcome of the story is the dog did get the medical treatment he needed and survived- so why is the decision the dog owner made so horrible? Why does that make the person a terrible pet owner? She was in a position for whatever reason she could not take care of the sick dog, so she did the responsible thing of taking the dog to qualified professionals to handle the dog.

The rescue where the dog was born (which is not the shelter) offered to take the dog back. They would have treated it or, if it really was as sick as she thought, euthanized it kindly. Instead of doing that, she dumped the dog at a shelter. So no, she did not do the responsible thing.

I don't know whether the rescue would have allowed her to adopt again if they'd never found out about the shelter: dogs do sometimes need to be euthanized, so they may have given her the benefit of the doubt that it was sick. But the rescue did find out about dumping it at the shelter, and the fact she violated their policy + rejected their offer of help + all the fishy information about whether the dog was even sick = they are not trusting her again.

Your idea that the rescue should cover vet bills for any adopted dog whose owner doesn't want to, and then let that owner re-adopt, is a terrible policy that will prevent the rescue from helping new dogs. They are not a library where you can check out a dog when you have the time and money for it, and turn it back when you have other priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The outcome of the story is the dog did get the medical treatment he needed and survived- so why is the decision the dog owner made so horrible? Why does that make the person a terrible pet owner? She was in a position for whatever reason she could not take care of the sick dog, so she did the responsible thing of taking the dog to qualified professionals to handle the dog.

The rescue where the dog was born (which is not the shelter) offered to take the dog back. They would have treated it or, if it really was as sick as she thought, euthanized it kindly. Instead of doing that, she dumped the dog at a shelter. So no, she did not do the responsible thing.

I don't know whether the rescue would have allowed her to adopt again if they'd never found out about the shelter: dogs do sometimes need to be euthanized, so they may have given her the benefit of the doubt that it was sick. But the rescue did find out about dumping it at the shelter, and the fact she violated their policy + rejected their offer of help + all the fishy information about whether the dog was even sick = they are not trusting her again.

Your idea that the rescue should cover vet bills for any adopted dog whose owner doesn't want to, and then let that owner re-adopt, is a terrible policy that will prevent the rescue from helping new dogs. They are not a library where you can check out a dog when you have the time and money for it, and turn it back when you have other priorities.

She did not dump the dog. The shelter had the program. Two vets said it would be costly and invasive. Is that best for the dog. Now the dog lingers in foster care with no one wanting to adopt but the owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The outcome of the story is the dog did get the medical treatment he needed and survived- so why is the decision the dog owner made so horrible? Why does that make the person a terrible pet owner? She was in a position for whatever reason she could not take care of the sick dog, so she did the responsible thing of taking the dog to qualified professionals to handle the dog.

The rescue where the dog was born (which is not the shelter) offered to take the dog back. They would have treated it or, if it really was as sick as she thought, euthanized it kindly. Instead of doing that, she dumped the dog at a shelter. So no, she did not do the responsible thing.

I don't know whether the rescue would have allowed her to adopt again if they'd never found out about the shelter: dogs do sometimes need to be euthanized, so they may have given her the benefit of the doubt that it was sick. But the rescue did find out about dumping it at the shelter, and the fact she violated their policy + rejected their offer of help + all the fishy information about whether the dog was even sick = they are not trusting her again.

Your idea that the rescue should cover vet bills for any adopted dog whose owner doesn't want to, and then let that owner re-adopt, is a terrible policy that will prevent the rescue from helping new dogs. They are not a library where you can check out a dog when you have the time and money for it, and turn it back when you have other priorities.

She did not dump the dog. The shelter had the program. Two vets said it would be costly and invasive. Is that best for the dog. Now the dog lingers in foster care with no one wanting to adopt but the owner.

She could have retained her rights and been with the dog when it was euthanized by her vets, as the rescue advised her to do. Instead she signed over ownership to a shelter when the rescue had told her to return the dog to them if she was not going to be with it when euthanized. It doesn't matter if she wants the dog back now. She proved herself to not be a fit owner when she wasn't even willing to be with the dog during his final moments and went against what the rescue advised her to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The outcome of the story is the dog did get the medical treatment he needed and survived- so why is the decision the dog owner made so horrible? Why does that make the person a terrible pet owner? She was in a position for whatever reason she could not take care of the sick dog, so she did the responsible thing of taking the dog to qualified professionals to handle the dog.

The rescue where the dog was born (which is not the shelter) offered to take the dog back. They would have treated it or, if it really was as sick as she thought, euthanized it kindly. Instead of doing that, she dumped the dog at a shelter. So no, she did not do the responsible thing.

I don't know whether the rescue would have allowed her to adopt again if they'd never found out about the shelter: dogs do sometimes need to be euthanized, so they may have given her the benefit of the doubt that it was sick. But the rescue did find out about dumping it at the shelter, and the fact she violated their policy + rejected their offer of help + all the fishy information about whether the dog was even sick = they are not trusting her again.

Your idea that the rescue should cover vet bills for any adopted dog whose owner doesn't want to, and then let that owner re-adopt, is a terrible policy that will prevent the rescue from helping new dogs. They are not a library where you can check out a dog when you have the time and money for it, and turn it back when you have other priorities.

She did not dump the dog. The shelter had the program. Two vets said it would be costly and invasive. Is that best for the dog. Now the dog lingers in foster care with no one wanting to adopt but the owner.

and that "program" involved her signing him over and gave them the rights to make medical decision on the dogs behalf.

Is that best for the dog.-- If she wanted the rights to decide what is best for the dog she shouldn't have signed him over to the shelter.