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:

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.

The shelter and rescue should have worked with her to help her get the surgery. They refused to help except if she handed over the dog. It sounds like the rescue initially refused the dog too. Now this poor dog will be in multiple homes, in foster care for over a year and no stability or love.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you pay the huge rescue fees you assume the dog is checked out and ok. THEY LIED TO HER. THEY should have helped her get the dog the medical attention. The shelter policy is she could not be with the dog. That seems to be the logical place to go. That's where I might have gone (not now I wouldn't trust them).

[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 makes no sense to force a family to surender a dog vs. help it get the medical care and be back with its family. I have to question these rescues and shelters. Dogs have attachments and its trauma to have a dog in a shelter and rehome it especially when it has a home. They wouldn't do that to a child so why is that ok for a dog? That's inhumane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you pay the huge rescue fees you assume the dog is checked out and ok. THEY LIED TO HER. THEY should have helped her get the dog the medical attention. The shelter policy is she could not be with the dog. That seems to be the logical place to go. That's where I might have gone (not now I wouldn't trust them).

Wtf are you talking about? You know what they say about assuming…..

They did not lie to her. He was adopted as a puppy and it was months before the issues arose. No shelter or breeder can or will guarantee a dog is free of all medical issues. Even breeder do guarantee healthy will do a the rescue did and offer to take the dog back if there an issue. They don’t do a full MRI on a dog that appears healthy and this dog needed an MRI to diagnosis his issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you pay the huge rescue fees you assume the dog is checked out and ok. THEY LIED TO HER. THEY should have helped her get the dog the medical attention. The shelter policy is she could not be with the dog. That seems to be the logical place to go. That's where I might have gone (not now I wouldn't trust them).

Wtf are you talking about? You know what they say about assuming…..

They did not lie to her. He was adopted as a puppy and it was months before the issues arose. No shelter or breeder can or will guarantee a dog is free of all medical issues. Even breeder do guarantee healthy will do a the rescue did and offer to take the dog back if there an issue. They don’t do a full MRI on a dog that appears healthy and this dog needed an MRI to diagnosis his issue.

They placed the dog a few months ago. They should have helped with the medical costs. They are being spiteful and nasty.

[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.

Blah blah blah. You also sound irresponsible. Glad the dog is with a better family than yours, as you clearly contributed to the issue and then gave up on the dog.

[Anonymous]

This lady refused diagnostic testing, so no one had any way of knowing what was wrong or wasn’t wrong with the dog. She clearly is either broke, cheap, or irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you pay the huge rescue fees you assume the dog is checked out and ok. THEY LIED TO HER. THEY should have helped her get the dog the medical attention. The shelter policy is she could not be with the dog. That seems to be the logical place to go. That's where I might have gone (not now I wouldn't trust them).

Wtf are you talking about? You know what they say about assuming…..

They did not lie to her. He was adopted as a puppy and it was months before the issues arose. No shelter or breeder can or will guarantee a dog is free of all medical issues. Even breeder do guarantee healthy will do a the rescue did and offer to take the dog back if there an issue. They don’t do a full MRI on a dog that appears healthy and this dog needed an MRI to diagnosis his issue.

They placed the dog a few months ago. They should have helped with the medical costs. They are being spiteful and nasty.

No, they didn’t. Look at the facts before running your mouth you dumbass.

[Anonymous]

There are so many stupid and uninformed people on this thread. I hope you aren’t pet owners.

[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 should be illegal. What a scam!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you pay the huge rescue fees you assume the dog is checked out and ok. THEY LIED TO HER. THEY should have helped her get the dog the medical attention. The shelter policy is she could not be with the dog. That seems to be the logical place to go. That's where I might have gone (not now I wouldn't trust them).

Wtf are you talking about? You know what they say about assuming…..

They did not lie to her. He was adopted as a puppy and it was months before the issues arose. No shelter or breeder can or will guarantee a dog is free of all medical issues. Even breeder do guarantee healthy will do a the rescue did and offer to take the dog back if there an issue. They don’t do a full MRI on a dog that appears healthy and this dog needed an MRI to diagnosis his issue.

They placed the dog a few months ago. They should have helped with the medical costs. They are being spiteful and nasty.

I agree with this. If the rescue was willing to go to any lengths to save the dog, why not save its ability to stay with its person who was trying to care for it, too? The owner may have been working on some less-than-great info, but seems to have been communicative, and actively trying to figure out and do what was best for the dog. That's an ideal environment. All this "we'll take him back and fix him up, but you'll never see him again" stuff just sounds spiteful and vindictive.

[Anonymous]

What breaks my heart is that families can’t be present for euthanasia for surrendered dogs.

I have needed to humanely euthanize four of my dogs, and I have been there with them until the very end. I held them all in my arms and made sure they felt loved.

Euthanasia at a vet can be expensive (my last one was close to $500) so my wish is that if the county offers the service and a family wishes to be present that they should be so that their dogs don’t die alone, scared and feeling unloved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you pay the huge rescue fees you assume the dog is checked out and ok. THEY LIED TO HER. THEY should have helped her get the dog the medical attention. The shelter policy is she could not be with the dog. That seems to be the logical place to go. That's where I might have gone (not now I wouldn't trust them).

Wtf are you talking about? You know what they say about assuming…..

They did not lie to her. He was adopted as a puppy and it was months before the issues arose. No shelter or breeder can or will guarantee a dog is free of all medical issues. Even breeder do guarantee healthy will do a the rescue did and offer to take the dog back if there an issue. They don’t do a full MRI on a dog that appears healthy and this dog needed an MRI to diagnosis his issue.

They placed the dog a few months ago. They should have helped with the medical costs. They are being spiteful and nasty.

I agree with this. If the rescue was willing to go to any lengths to save the dog, why not save its ability to stay with its person who was trying to care for it, too? The owner may have been working on some less-than-great info, but seems to have been communicative, and actively trying to figure out and do what was best for the dog. That's an ideal environment. All this "we'll take him back and fix him up, but you'll never see him again" stuff just sounds spiteful and vindictive.

Because she wasn't willing to care for it. She didn't want to spend the money to get a definitive diagnosis. Rescues are not designed nor meant to pay all vet bills for the dogs they adopt out for life. When you own the dog you pay for it's care and make the decisions on its care. If you relinquish your rights the rescue is now responsible for the dog and it's care. If they took them back, fixed them up and handed them back to owners then owners would never pay for their vet care. If people don't want to be financially responsible for the animals they agree to care for then they should foster because in foster the rescue owns the dog and, thus, is also financially responsible for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When you pay the huge rescue fees you assume the dog is checked out and ok. THEY LIED TO HER. THEY should have helped her get the dog the medical attention. The shelter policy is she could not be with the dog. That seems to be the logical place to go. That's where I might have gone (not now I wouldn't trust them).

You wouldn’t trust the shelter because this women surrendered her dog and they determined they could save its life? Huh? You make no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many stupid and uninformed people on this thread. I hope you aren’t pet owners.

Which side are you on?