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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

The bolded is both factual, and an utterly garbage policy. If an animal is brought in for euthanasia, it should be put down, and the owner allowed to stay with the animal. If an animal is surrendered, the rescue should make that clear up front "If you sign this, the dog is no longer your dog, and the shelter will make whatever decisions we deem fit from this point forward, including rehoming, foster, euthanasia..."

But the whole "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one. Not the owner, not the shelter, not the dog.

FWIW, I was at HRA over the weekend and someone was there to put their dog down. They were allowed to stay with their dog to the end. Some places do it better than others.

I volunteer for a rescue. The bolded is essentially verbatim what is in our owner surrender contracts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

No. The "owner " was irresponsible.

No, the rescue was. They should have helped her. They gave her a sick dog. The shelter lied to her, so did the rescue. Now this dog has been at the rescue over a year with no family. That's not ok.

The dog has been in a foster home for a year while he was being treated. Now had they been in the business of knowinglyadopting out dogs they knew were sick they would hand adopted him out right away, but they didn’t. They took him in, paid for his care and made sure he was heathy before allowing him to be adopted again.

She gave up on him/decide she didn’t want to spend the money on him. Heck she wasn’t even willing to hold and comfort him as he was euthanized She was not lied to. The shelter form she signed stated that they have the right to not euthanize if the dog can be adopted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

The bolded is both factual, and an utterly garbage policy. If an animal is brought in for euthanasia, it should be put down, and the owner allowed to stay with the animal. If an animal is surrendered, the rescue should make that clear up front "If you sign this, the dog is no longer your dog, and the shelter will make whatever decisions we deem fit from this point forward, including rehoming, foster, euthanasia..."

But the whole "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one. Not the owner, not the shelter, not the dog.

FWIW, I was at HRA over the weekend and someone was there to put their dog down. They were allowed to stay with their dog to the end. Some places do it better than others.

So they should put down any dog that comes in just because that is what the owner wants and based on her word alone? And the "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one"- well it serves a dog that doesn't really need to be put down.

If she didn't agree with the shelter's policy then she should have had it euthanized by her vet instead of agreeing to the shelter policy, leaving the dog she claimed to love so much and walking away.

Keep in mind the people at shelter or rescues who are taking these dogs that are dropped off are not veterinarians or the ones putting the dogs down. They can not and do not make medical evaluations. They just take the owners word that they want to turn the dog over and let the trained professionals go from there. These policies are probably in place because of people will tell them to put down a perfectly healthy dog and they believe it is their right to act responsibly for a dog that is not under their care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

The bolded is both factual, and an utterly garbage policy. If an animal is brought in for euthanasia, it should be put down, and the owner allowed to stay with the animal. If an animal is surrendered, the rescue should make that clear up front "If you sign this, the dog is no longer your dog, and the shelter will make whatever decisions we deem fit from this point forward, including rehoming, foster, euthanasia..."

But the whole "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one. Not the owner, not the shelter, not the dog.

FWIW, I was at HRA over the weekend and someone was there to put their dog down. They were allowed to stay with their dog to the end. Some places do it better than others.

So they should put down any dog that comes in just because that is what the owner wants and based on her word alone? And the "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one"- well it serves a dog that doesn't really need to be put down.

If she didn't agree with the shelter's policy then she should have had it euthanized by her vet instead of agreeing to the shelter policy, leaving the dog she claimed to love so much and walking away.

Keep in mind the people at shelter or rescues who are taking these dogs that are dropped off are not veterinarians or the ones putting the dogs down. They can not and do not make medical evaluations. They just take the owners word that they want to turn the dog over and let the trained professionals go from there. These policies are probably in place because of people will tell them to put down a perfectly healthy dog and they believe it is their right to act responsibly for a dog that is not under their care.

This was not a perfectly healthy dog. It was a dog that required thousands of dollars of medical care, even at a discounted "rescue rate". If a shelter is willing to take that on, what are they taking away from resources that could've been spent on healthy dogs? And, okay, say that's the call they make. That should've been clear. Allowing the lady to leave thinking the dog would be put down, only to have it miraculously reappear later, is a headfsck that could've been easily avoided, and served no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

The bolded is both factual, and an utterly garbage policy. If an animal is brought in for euthanasia, it should be put down, and the owner allowed to stay with the animal. If an animal is surrendered, the rescue should make that clear up front "If you sign this, the dog is no longer your dog, and the shelter will make whatever decisions we deem fit from this point forward, including rehoming, foster, euthanasia..."

But the whole "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one. Not the owner, not the shelter, not the dog.

FWIW, I was at HRA over the weekend and someone was there to put their dog down. They were allowed to stay with their dog to the end. Some places do it better than others.

So they should put down any dog that comes in just because that is what the owner wants and based on her word alone? And the "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one"- well it serves a dog that doesn't really need to be put down.

If she didn't agree with the shelter's policy then she should have had it euthanized by her vet instead of agreeing to the shelter policy, leaving the dog she claimed to love so much and walking away.

Keep in mind the people at shelter or rescues who are taking these dogs that are dropped off are not veterinarians or the ones putting the dogs down. They can not and do not make medical evaluations. They just take the owners word that they want to turn the dog over and let the trained professionals go from there. These policies are probably in place because of people will tell them to put down a perfectly healthy dog and they believe it is their right to act responsibly for a dog that is not under their care.

This was not a perfectly healthy dog. It was a dog that required thousands of dollars of medical care, even at a discounted "rescue rate". If a shelter is willing to take that on, what are they taking away from resources that could've been spent on healthy dogs? And, okay, say that's the call they make. That should've been clear. Allowing the lady to leave thinking the dog would be put down, only to have it miraculously reappear later, is a headfsck that could've been easily avoided, and served no one.

My statement above about "These policies are probably in place because of people will tell them to put down a perfectly healthy dog and they believe it is their right to act responsibly for a dog that is not under their care." wasn't meant to say this dog was healthy, but that it is in place to protect ALL dogs. She CHOSE to drop the dog off at a shelter instead of returning him to the rescue. They would have taken him back, but she chose to not go that route. The shelter was then obligated to return him to the rescue.

The shelter she dropped the dog off and the rescue that spent money to help the dog are two totally different things, although I stand by both. The shelter where she dropped the dog off clearly sated that they evaluate the dog before euthanasia and reserve the right to not kill the dog and to adopt it back out if appropriate. If she didn't read the fine print, that is on her. If she absolutely wanted this dog dead and to see that with her own eyes she should have paid for the vet to euthanize and been there by his side instead of abandoning him at a shelter. She gave up on the dog, decided it wasn't worth her time or money to get further diagnostic testing and when she signed him away she GAVE UP HER RIGHTS TO THE DOG. At that point those who took on the responsibility or caring for this dog get to make all decision on his behalf. You can agree or disagree that the money should have been spent on him, but at the end of the day the person or organization entrusted with his care gets to make that call.

I am also not convinced she loved this dog all that much, because if she did she would be happy to see he is alive and doing well instead of playing the victim and dragging the rescue's name through the mud. Instead it sound more like she would rather see him dead than know she made the wrong decision in not perusing further diagnostic testing.

[Anonymous]

The neuro surgery thing sounds like a guess. If the vet told her they would perform that surgery without doing diagnostic testing first then that sounds very unethical. More likely she couldn't or refused to pay for the diagnostic testing, and since the dog was suffering, the vet recommended to euthanize.

It's unlikely that this woman, and arguably many people except the top tier of society, would be able to pay for this dog's extensive medical care. I read the rescue's letter someone linked, and it says the dog required TWO surgeries and an MRI. At a private vet that would cost FAR MORE than $7k.

I am personally conflicted about putting a dog through that much medical care. It must have suffered terribly and been scared without its person. I know rescues do it because they are committed to saving every dog, but I have to question how much suffering it's ok to put an animal through.

I do think she made mistakes and I wouldn't adopt to her again if I were the rescue. It sounds like she did choose not to be with him when she left him to be put down, and I know there are people who make that decision but I think they shouldn't own pets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

No. The "owner " was irresponsible.

No, the rescue was. They should have helped her. They gave her a sick dog. The shelter lied to her, so did the rescue. Now this dog has been at the rescue over a year with no family. That's not ok.

The dog has been in a foster home for a year while he was being treated. Now had they been in the business of knowinglyadopting out dogs they knew were sick they would hand adopted him out right away, but they didn’t. They took him in, paid for his care and made sure he was heathy before allowing him to be adopted again.

She gave up on him/decide she didn’t want to spend the money on him. Heck she wasn’t even willing to hold and comfort him as he was euthanized She was not lied to. The shelter form she signed stated that they have the right to not euthanize if the dog can be adopted.

How is this a good thing that the dog has been in a foster home for a year, instead of with its owner who loves it. The foster folks are not adopting or keeping the dog so the dog will be in at least three homes, if not more.

She was lied to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The neuro surgery thing sounds like a guess. If the vet told her they would perform that surgery without doing diagnostic testing first then that sounds very unethical. More likely she couldn't or refused to pay for the diagnostic testing, and since the dog was suffering, the vet recommended to euthanize.

It's unlikely that this woman, and arguably many people except the top tier of society, would be able to pay for this dog's extensive medical care. I read the rescue's letter someone linked, and it says the dog required TWO surgeries and an MRI. At a private vet that would cost FAR MORE than $7k.

I am personally conflicted about putting a dog through that much medical care. It must have suffered terribly and been scared without its person. I know rescues do it because they are committed to saving every dog, but I have to question how much suffering it's ok to put an animal through.

I do think she made mistakes and I wouldn't adopt to her again if I were the rescue. It sounds like she did choose not to be with him when she left him to be put down, and I know there are people who make that decision but I think they shouldn't own pets.

The rescue gave her a dog with serious medical issues and wouldn't help her. They should not be a rescue and shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

The bolded is both factual, and an utterly garbage policy. If an animal is brought in for euthanasia, it should be put down, and the owner allowed to stay with the animal. If an animal is surrendered, the rescue should make that clear up front "If you sign this, the dog is no longer your dog, and the shelter will make whatever decisions we deem fit from this point forward, including rehoming, foster, euthanasia..."

But the whole "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one. Not the owner, not the shelter, not the dog.

FWIW, I was at HRA over the weekend and someone was there to put their dog down. They were allowed to stay with their dog to the end. Some places do it better than others.

I volunteer for a rescue. The bolded is essentially verbatim what is in our owner surrender contracts.

She went to the county to get the dog euthanized, not a rescue. You don't know what she signed. This is the county:

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/animalservices/Ownerresources/euthanasia.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The neuro surgery thing sounds like a guess. If the vet told her they would perform that surgery without doing diagnostic testing first then that sounds very unethical. More likely she couldn't or refused to pay for the diagnostic testing, and since the dog was suffering, the vet recommended to euthanize.

It's unlikely that this woman, and arguably many people except the top tier of society, would be able to pay for this dog's extensive medical care. I read the rescue's letter someone linked, and it says the dog required TWO surgeries and an MRI. At a private vet that would cost FAR MORE than $7k.

I am personally conflicted about putting a dog through that much medical care. It must have suffered terribly and been scared without its person. I know rescues do it because they are committed to saving every dog, but I have to question how much suffering it's ok to put an animal through.

I do think she made mistakes and I wouldn't adopt to her again if I were the rescue. It sounds like she did choose not to be with him when she left him to be put down, and I know there are people who make that decision but I think they shouldn't own pets.

The rescue gave her a dog with serious medical issues and wouldn't help her. They should not be a rescue and shut down.

They did offer to help her. They told her that if she was not going to be with the dog when she put it down that they would take it back. They will always take back a dog they adopt out. She opted to not give it back to them, but instead chose to drop it at a shelter to be euthanized alone.

They also did not knowing adopt out a dog with medical issue. They spend a ridiculous amount of money on dogs they take in with medical issue and do not adopt them out until they have been treated and cleared. No rescue or even breeder knows what medical issues may arise. She even stated these issue showed up months after she adopted him. Again, every article stated that they told her they would take him back, but never heard from her again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She did not exactly give up the dog. She went to two vets who diagnosed the dog with a serious issue and either an expensive surgery and who knows if it would help or to euthanize. She didn't know what to do, didn't have the money for the surgery (which sounds like it was wrong) and brought it to the shelter for advice/euthanized. When they choose to have the vet look at the dog, which was appropriate as that vet was probably the one euthanizing, the vet said something else, cheaper surgery and dog was ok. They should have contacted the owner immediately when they said the dog didn't need to be euthanized as that was what she agreed/signed for.

That's the problem right there. She gave the dog up and signed him over to the MCSPcA shelter. When she did that she was NO LONGER the owner and had NO rights to the dog. When she signed the paperwork to give him to MCSPCA she checked the box stating that they would evaluate him and only euthanized IF necessary. She brought him there to be killed, NOT for advice. They never told her "we'll look him over and call you if we find a fixable diagnosis". She gave up on the dog and gave up her rights to him.

Now I do agree that it is unfortunate that the initial vets she visited did not properly diagnose or give her a good outlook and, as a previous poster noted, that is the real story here. But instead of that being the story new organization have thrown the rescue under the bus when all they did was the opposite of this woman- not give up on him and spending thousands to save him and give him a good quality of life. Now they are facing criticism from a bunch of keyboard warriors, many of whom lack reading comprehension skills, who read one story, and one side of the story at that, and want to persecute them in the court of public opinion. They do incredible work and work insanely hard to save the lives of dogs and cats.

This woman does not deserve to get this dog back.

The bolded is both factual, and an utterly garbage policy. If an animal is brought in for euthanasia, it should be put down, and the owner allowed to stay with the animal. If an animal is surrendered, the rescue should make that clear up front "If you sign this, the dog is no longer your dog, and the shelter will make whatever decisions we deem fit from this point forward, including rehoming, foster, euthanasia..."

But the whole "maybe we will, maybe we won't" serves no one. Not the owner, not the shelter, not the dog.

FWIW, I was at HRA over the weekend and someone was there to put their dog down. They were allowed to stay with their dog to the end. Some places do it better than others.

I volunteer for a rescue. The bolded is essentially verbatim what is in our owner surrender contracts.

She went to the county to get the dog euthanized, not a rescue. You don't know what she signed. This is the county:

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/animalservices/Ownerresources/euthanasia.html

We do know what she signed because the shelter had stated what she signed and that included a clause that they can choose not to euthanize if they find it is not necessary. Again, she gave up her rights to make any more medical decision on his behalf when she signed off and left him at the shelter. If she felt so strongly that he need to be euthanized immediately she should have paid her vet to do so and been by his side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the rescue’s statement. It seems the owner didn’t do any diagnostic testing and decided to euthanize based on someone’s opinion only. I cannot imagine being so irresponsible.

https://www.lostdogrescue.org/amoshart/

They are covering up their tracks. She called them for help and they refused to help her directly. They could have helped her find a vet and helped with the costs if that was an issue. Lots of better ways to handle this.

No. The "owner " was irresponsible.

No, the rescue was. They should have helped her. They gave her a sick dog. The shelter lied to her, so did the rescue. Now this dog has been at the rescue over a year with no family. That's not ok.

The dog has been in a foster home for a year while he was being treated. Now had they been in the business of knowinglyadopting out dogs they knew were sick they would hand adopted him out right away, but they didn’t. They took him in, paid for his care and made sure he was heathy before allowing him to be adopted again.

She gave up on him/decide she didn’t want to spend the money on him. Heck she wasn’t even willing to hold and comfort him as he was euthanized She was not lied to. The shelter form she signed stated that they have the right to not euthanize if the dog can be adopted.

How is this a good thing that the dog has been in a foster home for a year, instead of with its owner who loves it. The foster folks are not adopting or keeping the dog so the dog will be in at least three homes, if not more.

She was lied to.

Ya, she loved him so much she signed away her rights and left him at the shelter to be euthanized alone, without a familiar face around.

and who lied to her? She checked the box knowing the shelter could choose to not euthanize and she never called them back to confirm he had been euthanized. No one told her "oh he died last week" she just made that assumption.

The only people who wronged her were the vets who gave her an incorrect diagnosis and that is what the real story should be about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the dog needed a $7k surgery. Most normal people wouldn’t be able to pay that.

We surrendered a dog to Montgomery county in order to save its life.

We’d just adopted the dog about 6 weeks before, and while crated, he ate a substantial amount of a blanket that was used for bedding. He ended up with blocked intestines and required surgery. The animal hospital (on Nebel Street in north Bethesda- don’t EVER go there, btw) quoted us $8,000 for the surgery plus more for recovery and follow up care.

We were heartbroken. We couldn’t afford that. We were considering having the dog euthanized. The techs said if we surrendered the dog to the county, the county would pick up the tab for the surgery, thus saving the dog’s life - but we’d never see the dog again.

So we cried together as a family and said goodbye to our dog and signed the papers and surrendered him to Montgomery county. The hospital started prepping him for surgery immediately.

Right before we left, one of the techs told us she’d call us because she needed to tell us something but couldn’t talk to us about it at work. We were puzzled. But it made sense shortly afterwards…

A few hours later, after we were home….and feeling empty and heartbroken and devastated and crying as we cleaned up all of the dog toys and his crate and tried to remove any reminders of our dogs presence …. the phone rings.

It was the Dr at the animal hospital. The Dr who quoted us $8,000 plus for the surgery. She said “it wasn’t as bad as initially thought, and the surgery was now only $2,900 instead of $8,000.

We were confused. We said “we’ve already signed the paperwork to surrender the dog to the county”….”we’re happy that he’s going to be OK, but we’ve already surrendered him”.

The Dr then said “oh we can just throw that paperwork out”. You can get your dog back right now. Just come pick him up and pay, he can go home tonight”.

At this point, we were already an emotional mess and had just endured the further trauma of sanitizing our home of any reminders of our new dog, and had convinced ourselves that we did what was best for the dog in order to save his life. We would just have to accept that we had to give him up to save him…

So we said we couldn’t really afford $3,000 anymore than we could afford $8,000…. which probably wasn’t too far from the truth…we might have been able to, but it would’ve been a real squeaker and left us vulnerable to another emergency. The dog was saved. That was the most important thing. He’d go home and live - but with some other family. Not us. So we accepted that.


A couple hours later, the vet tech from earlier called us. She was off work now and was able to speak freely without anyone overhearing her.

She told us the dog would be absolutely fine, and the county only pays $1,200 for such surgeries. That’s what the county would be paying them for our dog. Not $2,900. Not $8000+. Nope. $1,200. The hospital quotes to the moon, hoping they’ll get people to pay it. If they can’t, they offer the surrender program, just like they did to us. Then after the procedure, they come back again with a lower quote and offer to “make the whole surrender thing disappear”…. Hoping we’d go for it. We didn’t. So they got what the county pays. $1,200. We could’ve easily afforded $1,200. We would’ve jumped at that. But they quoted us $8,000

We almost euthanized the dog because of the original $8000 quote! And we were heartbroken to give the dog up, but at the time we thought it was the only way we could save his life, and we were GRATEFUL for the chance to give him up if it meant it would save his life. Now we find out it was just a pricing strategy to soak us tor as much as they could get out of us, and $1200 would’ve been enough?

And we would’ve never known any of this were it not for a disgruntled employee telling us about the whole scam.

We never pursued any action against that animal hospital (on Nebel Street in north Bethesda) but I will tell as many people as I can what that place did to our family. The anguish that they put us through.



So I’ve learned enough about animal hospitals to give the woman in this story the OP posted the benefit of the doubt. She may have been in a situation just like the one we were placed in.

[Anonymous]

We adopted a dog with diabetes that the owners wanted to put down. Vet convinced them to surrender instead. It's been 4 years and thousands for eye surgery, eye treatment, special food, insulin, you name it! But he's lived 30% more past his diagnosis and I think he's happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, the dog needed a $7k surgery. Most normal people wouldn’t be able to pay that.

We surrendered a dog to Montgomery county in order to save its life.

We’d just adopted the dog about 6 weeks before, and while crated, he ate a substantial amount of a blanket that was used for bedding. He ended up with blocked intestines and required surgery. The animal hospital (on Nebel Street in north Bethesda- don’t EVER go there, btw) quoted us $8,000 for the surgery plus more for recovery and follow up care.

We were heartbroken. We couldn’t afford that. We were considering having the dog euthanized. The techs said if we surrendered the dog to the county, the county would pick up the tab for the surgery, thus saving the dog’s life - but we’d never see the dog again.

So we cried together as a family and said goodbye to our dog and signed the papers and surrendered him to Montgomery county. The hospital started prepping him for surgery immediately.

Right before we left, one of the techs told us she’d call us because she needed to tell us something but couldn’t talk to us about it at work. We were puzzled. But it made sense shortly afterwards…

A few hours later, after we were home….and feeling empty and heartbroken and devastated and crying as we cleaned up all of the dog toys and his crate and tried to remove any reminders of our dogs presence …. the phone rings.

It was the Dr at the animal hospital. The Dr who quoted us $8,000 plus for the surgery. She said “it wasn’t as bad as initially thought, and the surgery was now only $2,900 instead of $8,000.

We were confused. We said “we’ve already signed the paperwork to surrender the dog to the county”….”we’re happy that he’s going to be OK, but we’ve already surrendered him”.

The Dr then said “oh we can just throw that paperwork out”. You can get your dog back right now. Just come pick him up and pay, he can go home tonight”.

At this point, we were already an emotional mess and had just endured the further trauma of sanitizing our home of any reminders of our new dog, and had convinced ourselves that we did what was best for the dog in order to save his life. We would just have to accept that we had to give him up to save him…

So we said we couldn’t really afford $3,000 anymore than we could afford $8,000…. which probably wasn’t too far from the truth…we might have been able to, but it would’ve been a real squeaker and left us vulnerable to another emergency. The dog was saved. That was the most important thing. He’d go home and live - but with some other family. Not us. So we accepted that.


A couple hours later, the vet tech from earlier called us. She was off work now and was able to speak freely without anyone overhearing her.

She told us the dog would be absolutely fine, and the county only pays $1,200 for such surgeries. That’s what the county would be paying them for our dog. Not $2,900. Not $8000+. Nope. $1,200. The hospital quotes to the moon, hoping they’ll get people to pay it. If they can’t, they offer the surrender program, just like they did to us. Then after the procedure, they come back again with a lower quote and offer to “make the whole surrender thing disappear”…. Hoping we’d go for it. We didn’t. So they got what the county pays. $1,200. We could’ve easily afforded $1,200. We would’ve jumped at that. But they quoted us $8,000

We almost euthanized the dog because of the original $8000 quote! And we were heartbroken to give the dog up, but at the time we thought it was the only way we could save his life, and we were GRATEFUL for the chance to give him up if it meant it would save his life. Now we find out it was just a pricing strategy to soak us tor as much as they could get out of us, and $1200 would’ve been enough?

And we would’ve never known any of this were it not for a disgruntled employee telling us about the whole scam.

We never pursued any action against that animal hospital (on Nebel Street in north Bethesda) but I will tell as many people as I can what that place did to our family. The anguish that they put us through.



So I’ve learned enough about animal hospitals to give the woman in this story the OP posted the benefit of the doubt. She may have been in a situation just like the one we were placed in.

This may very well have been the case, and if so, this story should be about poor veterinary practices and high prices, not about how a rescue and shelter wronged this woman.