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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've fostered with Lost Dog and Cat Rescue Foundation.

It sounds as if the vets the owner consulted failed to diagnose the liver shunt.

This is not the owner's fault, nor the County's fault, nor LDCRF's fault.

What everyone should focus on is that this dog is alive and well! Even the owner recognizes that, despite being a victim too - deprived of her pet because of a misdiagnosis.

I don't think anyone is faulting anyone, but some are arguing that the policy was unfair or that she shouldn't have the animal because she couldn't afford it. I, personally think that if she can pay back all the fees that the dog incurred she should get a change to readopt. But I don't think it should be for free.

Some people are. And adoption is never free, PP. There is always a fee - even though it's never the thousands of dollars that animals actually cost the organizations. Rescues and foundations like LDCRF operate with grants and donations, and they charge an adoption fee to reduce their costs.
Since these are large operations operating primarily with volunteers like me who donate their time and labor, it would not be cost-effective to bend the rules and make exceptions. That would take our time away from helping more animals. In this case, the dog has found a family anyway. The owner can adopt another pet.

Actually adoption is often free - because the primary goal is to get pets out of shelters, and into homes. Shelters are really full - especially going into summer, but these days all year round. There are sponsored adoptions, free adoption promotions, summer-long free adoptions, etc. It's because shelters need space for the pets coming in, and pets do better in homes than sitting in a kennel in a loud, scary environment - which even the best shelter is.

In almost every instance, I'd say this dog should of course go back to their owner - and we should celebrate this as a story about a dog saved from death, and a family reunited. I have to assume there are some details we aren't hearing about, that this doesn't seem to be what's happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really cruel she used the shelter the out this pup to sleep instead of a vet where she could be there and comfort the dog. That’s enough for me to believe she shouldn’t get them back.

Not everyone can emotionally handle watching a euthanasia. Maybe she was required to return the dog to the shelter per an adoption contract.

There would never be a contract saying you have to bring a pet to a shelter to be euthanized instead of being able to be there with the pet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really cruel she used the shelter the out this pup to sleep instead of a vet where she could be there and comfort the dog. That’s enough for me to believe she shouldn’t get them back.

Not everyone can emotionally handle watching a euthanasia. Maybe she was required to return the dog to the shelter per an adoption contract.

There would never be a contract saying you have to bring a pet to a shelter to be euthanized instead of being able to be there with the pet.

I’ve seen contracts that require return and that you must ask permission before euthanizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really cruel she used the shelter the out this pup to sleep instead of a vet where she could be there and comfort the dog. That’s enough for me to believe she shouldn’t get them back.

Not everyone can emotionally handle watching a euthanasia. Maybe she was required to return the dog to the shelter per an adoption contract.

There would never be a contract saying you have to bring a pet to a shelter to be euthanized instead of being able to be there with the pet.

I’ve seen contracts that require return and that you must ask permission before euthanizing.

Those are with rescue groups and I think they would be unenforcable - and frankly, terribly cruel. They would not be with a shelter.

[Anonymous]

The dog was from a local rescue called Lost Dog & Cat (LDCRF). In response to the news story, they posted a detailed timeline about what happened: https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

According to them, the owner contacted them about the sick puppy and they offered to take it back, and also advised that if she put it down, she should stay with the dog for the euthanasia. She didn't do either of those things. The county shelter she surrendered it to called LDCRF, presumably because either the owner or the tags said it originated with LDCRF. (The WaPo story reports that the shelter surrender form says it reserves the right to evaluate animals surrendered, and treat and adopt them out.)

I am curious how the news got this story, and why they didn't interview the vets who appear to have screwed up the diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really cruel she used the shelter the out this pup to sleep instead of a vet where she could be there and comfort the dog. That’s enough for me to believe she shouldn’t get them back.

Not everyone can emotionally handle watching a euthanasia. Maybe she was required to return the dog to the shelter per an adoption contract.

There would never be a contract saying you have to bring a pet to a shelter to be euthanized instead of being able to be there with the pet.

I’ve seen contracts that require return and that you must ask permission before euthanizing.

I think it’s possible I signed one of those and I certainly ignored it years later. Compassionate euthanasia was between me and my vet. I would have fought anyone who tried to come between me and my old dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dog was from a local rescue called Lost Dog & Cat (LDCRF). In response to the news story, they posted a detailed timeline about what happened: https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

According to them, the owner contacted them about the sick puppy and they offered to take it back, and also advised that if she put it down, she should stay with the dog for the euthanasia. She didn't do either of those things. The county shelter she surrendered it to called LDCRF, presumably because either the owner or the tags said it originated with LDCRF. (The WaPo story reports that the shelter surrender form says it reserves the right to evaluate animals surrendered, and treat and adopt them out.)

I am curious how the news got this story, and why they didn't interview the vets who appear to have screwed up the diagnosis.

I doubt the vet screwed up anything. The rescue probably funded the vet care. Under no circumstances should the owner get the dog back. I am practical about what I can do and not do for my pets, but if I choose to put one down, I am there for it to the bitter end. Poor dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are stupid if you get a pet and do not get pet insurance (or be sufficiently prepared to handle these large expenses). Point blank period.

Pet insurance is expensive and doesn’t cover everything.

If you can’t afford insurance, you can’t afford a pet.

You are very judgy. So only the uber rich should have a pet? Or children?

Yeah, I am judgy because I work in animal rescue and see the absolute idiocy of some people. I am not Uber rich by any means but have pet insurance. When I first got my dog, it was under $30 a month.

I would rather invest that money than get pet insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The dog was from a local rescue called Lost Dog & Cat (LDCRF). In response to the news story, they posted a detailed timeline about what happened: https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

According to them, the owner contacted them about the sick puppy and they offered to take it back, and also advised that if she put it down, she should stay with the dog for the euthanasia. She didn't do either of those things. The county shelter she surrendered it to called LDCRF, presumably because either the owner or the tags said it originated with LDCRF. (The WaPo story reports that the shelter surrender form says it reserves the right to evaluate animals surrendered, and treat and adopt them out.)

I am curious how the news got this story, and why they didn't interview the vets who appear to have screwed up the diagnosis.

The shelter does not allow owners to stay with dogs while being euthanized. So, none of this makes sense. The shelter and rescue should have contacted her. This is horrible for the dog to be bounced around like they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dog was from a local rescue called Lost Dog & Cat (LDCRF). In response to the news story, they posted a detailed timeline about what happened: https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

According to them, the owner contacted them about the sick puppy and they offered to take it back, and also advised that if she put it down, she should stay with the dog for the euthanasia. She didn't do either of those things. The county shelter she surrendered it to called LDCRF, presumably because either the owner or the tags said it originated with LDCRF. (The WaPo story reports that the shelter surrender form says it reserves the right to evaluate animals surrendered, and treat and adopt them out.)

I am curious how the news got this story, and why they didn't interview the vets who appear to have screwed up the diagnosis.

I doubt the vet screwed up anything. The rescue probably funded the vet care. Under no circumstances should the owner get the dog back. I am practical about what I can do and not do for my pets, but if I choose to put one down, I am there for it to the bitter end. Poor dog.

The owner was lied to by two vets and the rescue. The vets said this dog was seriously sick and should be put down or an expensive surgery and who knows if it would give the dog quality of life. The third vet through the shelter knew what to do and saved the dog instead of euthanizing. The owner thought she was doing the right thing based off two vets advice. She got two opinions. The shelter and non-profit lied to her to resell the dog. They don't have the dogs best interests, just their financial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of y’all can’t read. The shelter is a totally different thing than the rescue where she got the dog. Anyways, she sucks and hope she doesn’t get the dog back.

She signed paperwork to be euthanized. That is what the shelter said they'd do. Instead they choose not to and handed the dog back to the rescue to resell. The shelter should have contacted her and told her and said what would you like us to do we can save your dog. Both acted unethically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dog was from a local rescue called Lost Dog & Cat (LDCRF). In response to the news story, they posted a detailed timeline about what happened: https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

According to them, the owner contacted them about the sick puppy and they offered to take it back, and also advised that if she put it down, she should stay with the dog for the euthanasia. She didn't do either of those things. The county shelter she surrendered it to called LDCRF, presumably because either the owner or the tags said it originated with LDCRF. (The WaPo story reports that the shelter surrender form says it reserves the right to evaluate animals surrendered, and treat and adopt them out.)

I am curious how the news got this story, and why they didn't interview the vets who appear to have screwed up the diagnosis.

The shelter does not allow owners to stay with dogs while being euthanized. So, none of this makes sense. The shelter and rescue should have contacted her. This is horrible for the dog to be bounced around like they are.

She did not have to take it to the shelter at all, ever. If your beloved dog needs to be put down, you have your vet do it or you use a service that sends a vet to your house. You don't turn it over to the pound (although, that is what saved the dog's life).

As for the dog, it's 1.75 years old now and living in a foster home. The owner gave it up at 5 months old (i.e., over a year ago), after owning it just a few months. It likely doesn't remember her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are stupid if you get a pet and do not get pet insurance (or be sufficiently prepared to handle these large expenses). Point blank period.

Pet insurance is expensive and doesn’t cover everything.

If you can’t afford insurance, you can’t afford a pet.

You are very judgy. So only the uber rich should have a pet? Or children?

I’m on Medicaid I’m so poor, and I budget pet insurance into my costs of living - because I couldn’t live with myself if I lost my dog to preventable illness or fixable injury on account of my poverty.

Yes, I do without a lot of things so I can afford her insurance. My phone is 5 years old and frustrating to use for more than talk/text because it is so clunky. I have a super cheap phone plan. I have no streaming services or anything else for entertainment beyond what I can access via the library. I eat a lot of beans and rice - but that’s healthy so no worries!

Not even close to uber rich, but the dog is a priority because she’s my #1 anti-depressant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of y’all can’t read. The shelter is a totally different thing than the rescue where she got the dog. Anyways, she sucks and hope she doesn’t get the dog back.

She signed paperwork to be euthanized. That is what the shelter said they'd do. Instead they choose not to and handed the dog back to the rescue to resell. The shelter should have contacted her and told her and said what would you like us to do we can save your dog. Both acted unethically.

The paperwork said the shelter would treat and adopt out the dog if the shelter deemed that appropriate (source: Washington Post). She wasn't contacted because she gave up the dog. It's pretty reasonable for them to assume she'd taken all the vetrinary steps she was willing to. The fact her vets (two vets?) were wrong is terrible and if anything, that is the story - not the shelter/rescue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The dog was from a local rescue called Lost Dog & Cat (LDCRF). In response to the news story, they posted a detailed timeline about what happened: https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

According to them, the owner contacted them about the sick puppy and they offered to take it back, and also advised that if she put it down, she should stay with the dog for the euthanasia. She didn't do either of those things. The county shelter she surrendered it to called LDCRF, presumably because either the owner or the tags said it originated with LDCRF. (The WaPo story reports that the shelter surrender form says it reserves the right to evaluate animals surrendered, and treat and adopt them out.)

I am curious how the news got this story, and why they didn't interview the vets who appear to have screwed up the diagnosis.

The shelter does not allow owners to stay with dogs while being euthanized. So, none of this makes sense. The shelter and rescue should have contacted her. This is horrible for the dog to be bounced around like they are.

She did not have to take it to the shelter at all, ever. If your beloved dog needs to be put down, you have your vet do it or you use a service that sends a vet to your house. You don't turn it over to the pound (although, that is what saved the dog's life).

As for the dog, it's 1.75 years old now and living in a foster home. The owner gave it up at 5 months old (i.e., over a year ago), after owning it just a few months. It likely doesn't remember her.

Dogs can remember. And, even so, this is horrific that if she gave him up at 5 months the dog has been in foster care/shelter/rescue for over a year and the only person that wants the dog is the real owner. She should get him back. She was mislead by many people. This shelter and rescue are unethical.