Responsible pet owners.

[Lanny]

That seems extremely harsh to me. What if the person who surrendered the pet had Medical or Financial problems that caused them to surrender the pet? What if their situation, with   time,  improved?  However, if there were any abuse of a pet involved, then I would be for them not being able to Adopt or Purchase another pet. .  

[MercyA]

A pet is a thing you own.  It is not a member of your family. 

 

A pet is not a thing. You are scientifically and spiritually wrong. Pets are living, feeling, thinking beings. This kind of attitude is why some dogs spend their entire lives at the end of chains like lawn ornaments.  :mad: It's shameful.

 

It's not up to you to decide if my pet is a member of my family or not. 

 

As a theologically conservative Christian, I recognize that:

 

Animals are worthy of having covenants made with them by God Himself (Genesis 9:8-11, 9:12-17; Hosea 2:18).

Not even one small sparrow is forgotten by God (Luke 12:6).

Animals have souls (Job 12:10).

Animals can praise God (Psalm 148:10-13; Psalm 150:6, Revelation 5:13).

We are commanded to treat animals well (Proverbs 12:10).

Animals will be present in the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65:25, Isaiah 11:6-9).

 

OP, I don't think the people in the situation you describe should be penalized for returning their dog to the breeder or surrendering him to a no-kill shelter. I feel very badly for them. 

[Pawz4me]

A pet is a thing you own.

 

 

 

Factually incorrect.  From Dictionary.com --

 

 

 

1.

a material object without life or consciousness; an inanimate object.

 

 

 

The very first definition of "thing" precludes any living being.

 

 

Edited May 28, 2016 by Pawz4me

[TammyS]

A pet is not a thing. You are scientifically and spiritually wrong. Pets are living, feeling, thinking beings. This kind of attitude is why some dogs spend their entire lives at the end of chains like lawn ornaments.  :mad: It's shameful.

 

 

Ok.  A pet is a BEING  you own.  Fine.  Whatever.  It's still something you own and not a member of the family, not a person, not a child, not a human - not equal.

 

ETA: you may find my attitude shameful, but that's ok, I find the attitude that equates a dog with a human shameful, so ....shrug

Edited May 28, 2016 by TammyS

[hornblower]

& in fact laws are changing in some places to give pets a different status than furniture 

Dogs and cats no longer considered property in France 

http://dogtime.com/reference/dog-laws/19694-dogs-and-cats-no-longer-considered-property-in-france

[Pawz4me]

 

It's not up to you to decide if my pet is a member of my family or not. 

 

 

:iagree:

 

I've known a couple of senior citizens whose pets were the ONLY family they had.  I doubt any of us would be so hard-hearted to tell those people to their faces that the pets that brought them so much happiness and comfort were just things.  Like a coffee table book or a knick knack.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Pawz4me

[MercyA]

Ok.  A pet is a BEING  you own.  Fine.  Whatever.  It's still something you own and not a member of the family, not a person, not a child, not a human - not equal.

 

ETA: you may find my attitude shameful, but that's ok, I find the attitude that equates a dog with a human shameful, so ....shrug

 

My dog is a member of my family, and nothing you can say will change that fact. 

 

I do not believe dogs and people are "equal"; nevertheless, I believe both have great intrinstic value. It's undeniable that animals and people have much in common, including the ability to reason and to love, to feel joy and to feel pain. It takes nothing away from the value of human beings to recognize those commonalities. 

[MercyA]

& in fact laws are changing in some places to give pets a different status than furniture 

 

Dogs and cats no longer considered property in France 

 

http://dogtime.com/reference/dog-laws/19694-dogs-and-cats-no-longer-considered-property-in-france

 

Wait, animals aren't just "moveable goods"? Those crazy French.  ;)

 

Good for them.

[EKS]

Well, we gave a puppy back to the breeder after ten days.  The puppy was immediately adopted by a new family.  The fact that he was still cute and little played a huge role in our decision to rehome him so soon.  We ended up adopting an adult dog about 1.5 years later.  This dog is an excellent match for our family and just today, in fact, we are celebrating his one year adoption anniversary.

 

There are a lot of reasons why someone might surrender an animal, not all of which have to do with being an unfit pet owner.

[momof4babes]

& in fact laws are changing in some places to give pets a different status than furniture

 

Dogs and cats no longer considered property in France

 

http://dogtime.com/reference/dog-laws/19694-dogs-and-cats-no-longer-considered-property-in-france

I want to ask you this since you are familiar with rescues.

 

What I don't understand, is why they wouldn't give the dog back in this situation.

The family is more than willing to put forth every penny they could scrape together. Approximately $3000.

The family loves the dog very much, and it seems like a good place for dogs.

 

This is a HS family with 6 kids, 2 dogs.

Their dogs go with them everywhere, and are rarely alone. They get frequent exercise, and lots of love. Both of the dogs are very close. It would seem to me that the best interest of the dog would be in not ripping them away from a loving family.

 

I'm just not sure I wrap my head around it.

Please enlighten me.

[Jean in Newcastle]

When our dog Libby was hit by a car, we were facing huge bills and immediate decisions. We opened a Care Credit account which gave us the option (which we took) to pay those bills with no interest over a certain period of time (one year,I think). Even so,money was tight and we needed to limit what ended up on that Care Credit account. Staying at the emergency vet hospital with round the clock nursing cost $200 a day. They wanted her to stay at least a week. We took her home after one day.

 

I provided her with that round the clock nursing. At that point she was totally paralyzed and I had to flip her every 3 hours to prevent bed sores. I had learned from the vet how to fed her and to give her water and meds and how to give her therapy. The first two weeks were super intense. I lived by the alarm clock in order to meet all the needs. That was how we resolved the financial part of the equation.

 

(In our case there was a quality of life/suffering equation as well. No one knew if Libby would end up completely paralyzed or not. If after two weeks, she was still unable to eat, drink, move at all, we would have made the hard decision to put her to sleep. We didn't have to though. She now zooms around on 3 legs. Only one leg remains permanently paralyzed. )

 

Edited to add spaces to make it easier to read. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited May 29, 2016 by Jean in Newcastle

[liber]

A pet is not a thing. You are scientifically and spiritually wrong. Pets are living, feeling, thinking beings. This kind of attitude is why some dogs spend their entire lives at the end of chains like lawn ornaments. :mad: It's shameful.

 

It's not up to you to decide if my pet is a member of my family or not.

 

As a theologically conservative Christian, I recognize that:

 

Animals are worthy of having covenants made with them by God Himself (Genesis 9:8-11, 9:12-17; Hosea 2:18).

Not even one small sparrow is forgotten by God (Luke 12:6).

Animals have souls (Job 12:10).

Animals can praise God (Psalm 148:10-13; Psalm 150:6, Revelation 5:13).

We are commanded to treat animals well (Proverbs 12:10).

Animals will be present in the new heavens and new earth (Isaiah 65:25, Isaiah 11:6-9).

 

OP, I don't think the people in the situation you describe should be penalized for returning their dog to the breeder or surrendering him to a no-kill shelter. I feel very badly for them.

What kind of covenant? A covenant is a contractual agreement where both parties agree to something. What are the animals supposed to do on their end to not break covenant?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Ok regarding animals having souls.  Why is it that several religious people seem to be under the impression they do not? 

 

Honesty asking.  I don't believe in the concept of a soul anyway, but again, several people have told me that per their religious beliefs animals are no in the same category as humans. 

[liber]

My general take away from this thread is - just put the animal down and save yourself a lot of money and worry.

I guess I'm not a good pet owner. There is no way I would spend thousands of dollars on a pet. I love my cat but if she needed that level of care, she would be put down. I'm not putting my family into financial hardship for a pet. Nor do I think people should have thousands in reserve to care for a pet or to sell things off or go into debt to afford expensive care to be considered a good pet owner. I guess it comes down to me not giving my pets the same status in the family as a human. They are not equal.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I guess I'm not a good pet owner. There is no way I would spend thousands of dollars on a pet. I love my cat but if she needed that level of care, she would be put down. I'm not putting my family into financial hardship for a pet. Nor do I think people should have thousands in reserve to care for a pet or to sell things off or go into debt to afford expensive care to be considered a good pet owner. I guess it comes down to me not giving my pets the same status in the family as a human. They are not equal.

 

And truth be told if humans were treated similarly, what would happen if we didn't have half a million dollars to take care of a medical problem for one of our humans?  And there was no such thing as insurance, etc.?  We'd be faced with doing the same thing.  I don't have that kind of money and all the pancake breakfasts in the world aren't going to pay for that.

 

In fact, it isn't unheard of.  Sometimes people run out of money for their care and they basically aren't treated anymore.

[Murphy101]

Ok regarding animals having souls. Why is it that several religious people seem to be under the impression they do not?

 

Honesty asking. I don't believe in the concept of a soul anyway, but again, several people have told me that per their religious beliefs animals are no in the same category as humans.

Catholics do not according to the magisterium believe animals have souls like humans have souls, but you'll find many who feel otherwise anyways.

 

However, whether they have a soul or not, or the same type of soul as humans so that they can attain heaven too, doesn't matter to this point either. Also according to the magisterium, we have dominion over them and thus it is our obligation to be good stewards. A good steward for example does not beat and starve his livestock. If for no other reason than it does not produce the best results and demonstrates a couple deadly sins (sloth, wrath...) Neither would a good steward let his livestock suffer nor let his human family suffer for the sake of the livestock. And before anyone gets their undies in a bunch about the use of the word livestock, livestock in this sense refers to any animal the person has stewardship of.

[hornblower]

I want to ask you this since you are familiar with rescues.

 

What I don't understand, is why they wouldn't give the dog back in this situation.

The family is more than willing to put forth every penny they could scrape together. Approximately $3000.

The family loves the dog very much, and it seems like a good place for dogs.

 

This is a HS family with 6 kids, 2 dogs.

Their dogs go with them everywhere, and are rarely alone. They get frequent exercise, and lots of love. Both of the dogs are very close. It would seem to me that the best interest of the dog would be in not ripping them away from a loving family.

 

I'm just not sure I wrap my head around it.

Please enlighten me.

 

 

I've said above that I'm not always supportive of this line of thinking but I think I can explain it: 

 

The thinking goes like this: 

 

"this family's asking for help like this is prima facie evidence of being an unsuitable pet parent. What about the next bill, the next emergency, the next torn ACL, the next ingestion of foreign object etc etc etc?" 

 

 

What you're asking the group to do is to give out money to families.

 

What the group sees themselves as is a provider of services & a new better life to the animal. Also, one little wrinkle is that often the rescues are able to negotiate discount rates but the discounted rate services aren't available if the pet isn't legally theirs.

 

The biggest reason is probably that they'd be swamped with requests. Wouldn't everyone sign up for this program? Free vet bills yay! 

 

Most groups, even ones that don't run programs like this, have their inbox stuffed daily with requests for help with vet bills or surrender animals.  

 

Some groups set the bar at 'you must surrender' to deliberately deter people from asking/applying. The family might get further ahead if they say "I have $3k, & I can pull another $1k from other accounts &  I have a loan lined up for $2K from a family member & I am running two yard sales next  month and expect to bring in another $500.... I'm just short a small amount, can you guys give me some ideas or help promote my yard sale or anything...?" 

 

 

btw, there are some groups that will take a pet on & then let the family apply to adopt it back & there are others who try to help with vet bills so the family can keep looking.  Also like Jean mentioned, the Care Credit option and other financing options exist. 

 

The thing is that it's one thing to say I'm trying really hard and I just can't figure out how to close the gap, and another to say "well, I don't think it's worth it but if your group does then can I get that money?" because that's how it sometimes seems, kwim? 

 

And -I know it's not in this case - but in many cases the reasons for the big bills are a period of neglect. The prevention wasn't done and what would have been a 500-1000 bill a couple years ago grows into a huge bill now. 

 

 

More generally, I would encourage anyone to read this blog a bit. It's for a sanctuary / rescue that takes in senior and medically fragile/ special needs pets abandoned at shelters who are likely not going to be adopted. She didn't want them to die in shelters sad and alone & over 10 years ago had this vision of creating a rescue. The woman is an RN - not a multimillionaire or anything and she works herself to the bone (afaik she still works f/t on top of all this.) I think sometimes people need to spend time seeing what it looks like from the other side. Like this blog post: the money pit  but really check out the entire blog. Carol writes almost daily. See their animals here.  I just think the general public sometimes doesn't realize how great the need is, how overwhelmingly swamped most rescues are & how much demand for their services there is. Sometimes knowing the circumstances can help people maybe understand why some rescues make the decisions they do....

[MercyA]

What kind of covenant? A covenant is a contractual agreement where both parties agree to something. What are the animals supposed to do on their end to not break covenant?

 

Some of God's covenants are conditional, requiring obedience from another party, and some are unconditional, being more of a promise or pledge. In the covenant made after the flood, no conditions were placed either on Noah and his sons or on the animals:

 

"And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

 

Apparently the animals need do nothing; God will keep His covenant with them regardless.

[Tanaqui]

People aren't dogs.  Dogs aren't worth $8k in expenditures.

 

You're entitled to that point of view, however, I think it's reprehensible for you to try to make other people feel bad for not sharing it.

 

[eternalsummer]

I don't see anything wrong with people who are emotionally attached to their pets to whatever legal extent they wish to be, nor do I presume to tell other people what (legal) things they can do with their money.

 

We don't eat factory farmed food (ever) or any dairy at all (as there seems to be no financially feasible way to avoid separating mother and baby cow/goat/sheep to get the milk) or eggs that come from chickens that were sexed.

 

However, if there were two things drowning in a pool in front of me, and one were a dog and one were a human baby, I would save the baby.

 

Not only would I save the baby (regardless of whether I knew the dog or baby personally), I would morally expect every other human being to save the baby, every time.  There is an instinctive biological drive to propogate your own species at the expense of others, and when the consequence is neutral (that is, you're not killing the dog to get better eyeliner, or a tasty hamburger, but to save the life of a child), I think this instinct is well-placed.

 

I have read studies that say up to 40% of people would save their own dog over the baby; that amazes me.

 

 

I can see the OP from the rescue's POV - they want their dogs to go to families that can and will afford whatever it takes to keep the dog healthy and happy.  That's fine; they're a private organization.  I can also see it from the family's POV - $8000 is a lot of money, and most families will have to decide what to give up in order to fund the surgery (should it even be possible).  Can't they get another dog from a different source later on?  It seems like a bad fit with this organization, which wants more committed (and presumably wealthier) families.

Edited May 30, 2016 by ananemone

[liber]

Some of God's covenants are conditional, requiring obedience from another party, and some are unconditional, being more of a promise or pledge. In the covenant made after the flood, no conditions were placed either on Noah and his sons or on the animals:

 

"And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth."

 

Apparently the animals need do nothing; God will keep His covenant with them regardless.

So he made a covenant not to destroy his creation. I don't read that as animals as being on par with humans.

[Tanaqui]

I have read studies that say up to 40% of people would save their own dog over the baby; that amazes me.

 

That's a little surprising to me as well, can you cite this?

 

[eternalsummer]

That's a little surprising to me as well, can you cite this?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201306/would-you-save-puppy-or-child-burning-building

 

It wasn't like a scholarly journal or anything :)

[abcmommy]

There are pets in the shelters here who had to be surrendered because military families were transferred out of the country or could not take their animal with them where they went.  Things like that are definitely valid reasons for surrendering.

 

 

I disagree.  To me this is not legit at all.  People who face these sort of situations SHOULD NOT GET ANIMALS.

 

My friend took 2 cats and a dog to Korea.  Her husband also took her and their kids.  He probably could have rehomed them but he apparently had grown fond of them.

[hornblower]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201306/would-you-save-puppy-or-child-burning-building

 

It wasn't like a scholarly journal or anything :)

 

but it is reporting scholarly studies :) 

[abcmommy]

Catholics do not according to the magisterium believe animals have souls like humans have souls, but you'll find many who feel otherwise anyways.

 

However, whether they have a soul or not, or the same type of soul as humans so that they can attain heaven too, doesn't matter to this point either. Also according to the magisterium, we have dominion over them and thus it is our obligation to be good stewards. A good steward for example does not beat and starve his livestock. If for no other reason than it does not produce the best results and demonstrates a couple deadly sins (sloth, wrath...) Neither would a good steward let his livestock suffer nor let his human family suffer for the sake of the livestock. And before anyone gets their undies in a bunch about the use of the word livestock, livestock in this sense refers to any animal the person has stewardship of.

Catholic dogs go to heaven.  Methodist dogs should speak to their pastors.   ;)

 

(I assume here that people saw that fake sign exchange on fb years ago.  Its still funny... I could link it but Im not sure its worth the trouble.)

 

IT IS.  I decided.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2228641/posts

 

Anyway.  My dog has a soul but I do try to avoid referring to myself as her mother.  Tho I did so want a red headed baby...

Edited May 30, 2016 by abcmommy

[eternalsummer]

but it is reporting scholarly studies :)

 

fair enough, and I think there's a certain projection bias in thinking that something that seems really obvious to me should be obvious to everyone else.

 

There are a lot of things I believe, esp. re: animals, that  I can't believe other people don't agree with me about.

[Tsuga]

That people who can find another way don't use them as a surgery fund. 😞

 

Yep. This. I think it's a totally reasonable policy. Nobody can really afford $8k on a dog. You'd get people driving up in a BMW and claiming that they can't afford it because they're daughter has to go to soccer camp. People. Do. Not. Get. It. At. All.

 

yeah, I don't understand why the breeder isn't take the dog back, or paying for the vet bills. This is a congenital defect. The family should NOT be dinged for returning this dog, as it isn't about them not taking care of the dog, it is about the dog being other than promised. Puppies should NOT need hip surgery!

 

I disagree. A HUGE reason that we cannot get a pet and that we would not ever get a purebred with a high potential for genetic defects, is that we can't afford it. I don't get people adopting an animal as adults, grown adults with kids, and thinking it won't cost that much. Pets are freaking expensive. $8k is absurdly high but everybody knows that that breed is highly prone to hip dysplasia... I'm not saying they should never be allowed to adopt again but I could see making them take a class. It's pretty nuts, IMO, to be like "what, puppies get sick"? Yes! Yes they do. Expect the worst.

 

Why don't animals deserve the same care anyone else does? What makes homo sapiens sapiens so special? 

 

 

 

We're not objectively special. We're just special to one another. I'd sooner save a person over a dog, a dog over a chicken, a chicken over an ant. I don't know why. But I eat meat.

 

 

Re: The military getting moved: I have to tell you, it was not exactly the shock of my life when we learned we'd be posted outside of our home of record. If you are military, you will move. Please either (a) prepare to pay out your behind for pet-related costs because no, the US military will not pay for that, OR (b) don't join the military. And as I have posted before, pet abandonment is a huge issue. People would leave pets in apartments, leave them locked in houses, drop them off at the park and just flipping LEAVE.

 

Soldiers have as much a right as anybody to have a pet but if I had a soldier or spouse wanting to adopt a pet I'd want to see a plan and a note signed from the command before adopting an animal out to them.

 

Not because I'm a jerk but because I know how it actually works. It is not nice. You cannot count on people to be responsible.

[redsquirrel]

The people who surrendered what is now our cat did so because she was miserable in their home.  She has a dog phobia and does not get along with other cats. On her own she is an angel. Well, that might be overstating things, but I'm her favorite so she's an angel to me :Angel_anim:

 

When I got her I had to sign a pledge that I wouldn't get any other animals as long as she is with us.  The shelter told us that the people who surrendered her loved her but she was alternating between hiding all the time and aggressively attacking the other cats and the dogs in the house. Again, she has been nothing but a normal house cat here..and a good mouser to boot! A little less affectionate that some, she's not a total lap cat, but she sleeps with me and is always up for a snuggle.

 

I would hate to think that her former owners couldn't ever adopt another animal just because they knew that surrendering one was the right thing to do. They had her spayed, they took good care of her, she just didn't like it with them.

[Tanaqui]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animals-and-us/201306/would-you-save-puppy-or-child-burning-building

 

It wasn't like a scholarly journal or anything :)

 

No, but it's a start :)

 

Most of those people are saying they'd save their OWN beloved pet over a stranger. Which admittedly is strange to me (and I'd expect a highly intelligent cat to save another highly intelligent cat over a beloved human), but the number drops way down when we get to whether we'd save our pet over our brother or sister. So I guess this is consistent with a view that you save those you love first...? I mean, no offense ananemone, but I definitely love my cat more than I love you :p (I'd probably save you over her, though. I mean, assuming you were both equally unable to rescue yourselves, and I *was* able to save you. It's got to be a lot easier to haul a 7 pound cat out of a burning building than a somewhat-greater-than-seven-pounds human out, so, you know, it might be that I can't save you at all, in which case, why should my cat suffer? Moral of this story: Avoid moral dilemmas in burning buildings. They're not a place for sound reasoning!)

 

Edit: I'd definitely save a baby over my cat, though. My cat can run, and is generally smart enough to avoid fire. Babies can't, and - no offense - aren't. In the long run they'll be much smarter than any cat, but in the short run, save the baby.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Tanaqui

[myfunnybunch]

We surrendered a dog. She was unsafe for our young children and our cats. We'd spent tons of time, and $$$ on a trainer, even, trying to help her adapt.

 

The contract from the rescue we'd adopted her from said we had to return her to them, but they wouldn't take her back. We took her to a local shelter, which eventually found her a kid-free home with an experienced dog owner.

 

We were very honest about our experience, and were able to successfully adopt our current dog (as a pup) a year later from a different shelter.

[MercyA]

So he made a covenant not to destroy his creation. I don't read that as animals as being on par with humans.

 

If by "on par," you mean, "equal with," I agree with you. That doesn't mean animals aren't valued by God and shouldn't be valued by us. The fact that He made a covenant with the animals, not just about the animals, is what is interesting to me.

[ktgrok]

I disagree. A HUGE reason that we cannot get a pet and that we would not ever get a purebred with a high potential for genetic defects, is that we can't afford it. I don't get people adopting an animal as adults, grown adults with kids, and thinking it won't cost that much. Pets are freaking expensive. $8k is absurdly high but everybody knows that that breed is highly prone to hip dysplasia... I'm not saying they should never be allowed to adopt again but I could see making them take a class. It's pretty nuts, IMO, to be like "what, puppies get sick"? Yes! Yes they do. Expect the worst.

 

 

 

In a breed with hip dysplasia you expect it years down the line, when you have either had time to save or to get pet insurance. Not in the first few months of life. That is a defect, and part of what you are paying so much for with a breeder is to have a puppy that is healthy. 

 

I worked in veterinary medicine for 20 years. I know what stuff costs, and 8K is on the far outer edge of expectation. If we limit who can get dogs to those that can afford 8K in the first few months we would have to euthanize a whole hell of a lot more dogs than we already do, because very few people could afford a pet at all. 

 

Honestly, I'd give the dog to the breeder, or put it down. 

[ktgrok]

Souls or not, I believe dogs will be in heaven, because it wouldn't be heaven without dogs. 

[gypsymama]

There are lots of irresponsible pet owners but I don't see most of these people going to shelters to begin with. The fact that someone is even willing to do the interviews and applications at a shelter is a good sign. Most people that are irresponsible pet owners IME only get animals (usually free) from other avenues like craigslist or picking up strays. Or in the case of a relative they buy all their pets from a breeder because they're too selfish/spoiled/insertadjectivehere to get a "mutt" or dog that they "don't know what's wrong with that thing" from a shelter. 

 

As far as the humans vs pets thing I agree that all life is valuable. I would want to do everything I could to save my animal but there are limits. Forget the easiest to save and use the house burning scenario if a house is on fire with kids and dogs your first thought should be the babies in there and getting them out. I would never save my dog over my kids and I would hope no other human would. This is a good point though... if there are truly humans that would save an animal before a human perhaps we should add that to all sitter apps. If the answer is yes animals are exactly the same as humans then assume the person is unfit. I'd never want to leave my children in the care of someone that would even consider saving an animal before my kids. (And yes I've had this exact argument with my cat loving sister when she made one of those "I'm like a mother because my cats are my babies" comments)

 

We put a lot of thought into it before getting our dog. He was an owner surrender because of changes to the family's situation. He was originally the pet of a young girl who has now married and had a baby. She and her husband were working very long hours plus needing to spend time with the dog and baby when they got home. Max suffers separation anxiety (as well as some jealousy :P ) and he was destroying things. He was very depressed as well. They put him up for adoption and we met for a bit before deciding. Everyone is happy. Max is very loved here and gets to spend nearly all his time with my family of 5. We hike, camp, etc that he loves and now gets to go do nearly every week. Some one is home with him nearly all the time. He goes everywhere possible with us including vacations, soccer games, etc. Just because their life situation changed doesn't mean they were bad pet parents and I don't think they should be prevented from getting animals in the future. 

 

[gypsymama]

OP, is this dog a Golden Retriever? Our Max is a golden and has hip dysplasia, also diagnosed at a few months old. When we adopted him the opportunity for surgery has long passed. I would attempt to get the surgery if at all possible but I have seen many dogs with hip dysplasia that go on to live for years without the surgery (Max is 8 now). He does have issues but no more than he would with arthritis or similar. I would discuss it with this dog's vet and see what options there are. A second opinion wouldn't hurt. We have two regular vets for this reason and just keep copies of all medical records. Max is on glucosamine/chondroitin supplements daily and has a prescription anti-inflammatory/pain med to take as needed. There are a few other options available if/when it comes to that but for now this is sufficient. He gets the supplement daily and the med on days that he does more like our family hike days. We are also about to add a chiropractic naturopath vet to his med team so we get more options for care. I'd get a second opinion to decide if this surgery is really necessary. It may be possible for the family to keep the animal and treat his dysplasia in another way. 

[momof4babes]

OP, is this dog a Golden Retriever? Our Max is a golden and has hip dysplasia, also diagnosed at a few months old. When we adopted him the opportunity for surgery has long passed. I would attempt to get the surgery if at all possible but I have seen many dogs with hip dysplasia that go on to live for years without the surgery (Max is 8 now). He does have issues but no more than he would with arthritis or similar. I would discuss it with this dog's vet and see what options there are. A second opinion wouldn't hurt. We have two regular vets for this reason and just keep copies of all medical records. Max is on glucosamine/chondroitin supplements daily and has a prescription anti-inflammatory/pain med to take as needed. There are a few other options available if/when it comes to that but for now this is sufficient. He gets the supplement daily and the med on days that he does more like our family hike days. We are also about to add a chiropractic naturopath vet to his med team so we get more options for care. I'd get a second opinion to decide if this surgery is really necessary. It may be possible for the family to keep the animal and treat his dysplasia in another way.

Yes, the puppy is a golden.

 

They have decided to keep the puppy and hope for the best.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I just wanted to add that Libby has a doggie acupuncturist that has made a  huge difference for her.  And you know that it isn't a placebo effect since obviously she has no expectations from the treatments. 

[gypsymama]

Yes, the puppy is a golden.

 

They have decided to keep the puppy and hope for the best.

 

I'm glad they've worked it out. I would definitely get a second opinion and talk it over well with the vets. Our Golden has two vets plus I'm adding a chiro and NV. Our dog was 7 when we brought him home so surgery was never an option for us. His previous owners had opted out of surgery (I'm sure due to the high costs!). He has done well on supplements plus meds when needed for pain. I also keep him on a grain free diet to help with overall health and to control weight gain which can make the dysplasia worse. Talk it over honestly with the vets and I'm sure there are options that aren't such a financial burden. Good luck to your friends and their puppy. Goldens are awesome dogs  :001_wub:

[Valley Girl]

It depends entirely on the situation.

 

We take our responsibility as pet owners seriously. However, we returned a shelter pup after 6-7 months because it turned out to have a very nasty temperament when DH was not around. Lots of love, care, and work with a trainer did not help. The children were frightened of it. I was frightened of it. Even the vet agreed we could not keep a dog like that. I felt extremely guilty about "giving up" on a pet for whom I was responsible but not as guilty as I would have felt if we'd kept him and someone had gotten hurt. There was just something seriously wrong with that animal. Our current rescue mutt has no such problems and is a beloved member of the household.

 

Sometimes the problem is the animal, not the people.

[TravelingChris]

We were a military family for over 27 years and had pets the entire time.  They all moved with us except one.  That one was a rescue lab who had severe separation anxiety.  We got her through a rescue organization from a women who worked 12 hour days and it wasn't working out.  Since we were a homeschooling family, we were home.  We even took her on vacations.  So her separation anxiety decreased a lot.  But then we were assigned to Europe and the animals would be boarded for about a month while we would be moving and finding a new place to live.  They would have to fly in crates.  We took our two cats but rehomed the lab at a home of a vintner.  Those people were home almost all the time too.  We rehomed her for her own benefit.  She would have been totally miserable in a month long stay at a kennel. We had done a good job taming her separation anxiety and had found her a good home.  And yes, we were able to adopt another dog when we returned from Europe who did not have separation anxiety and who would have been moved to anyplace we were stationed to.

[StaceyinLA]

Honestly, I would put the dog down. A puppy that needs $8k in medical care before it's even reached adulthood needs to leave the gene pool. For sure I wouldn't be draining the $3K out of the emergency fund, unless it was a "pet emergency fund" that was over and above my household emergency fund. That's not being a responsible wife/mother.

 

I don't think much of a rescue that requires someone to surrender a dog under those circumstances.

 

ETA: actually, first I would go back to the breeder, the breeder should take the dog back

As sad as it is, I really agree with this. I do believe the breeder should be responsible, but, if the breeder didn't offer health guarantees, that's another scenario.

 

I have had pets that I loved dearly, but none I would have ever justified spending thousands of dollars on (well, all at once - I'm sure we have spent thousands on many over the years). There's just no guarantee that even with the surgery the dog won't have problems.

[Peach]

I just wanted to add that Libby has a doggie acupuncturist that has made a  huge difference for her.  And you know that it isn't a placebo effect since obviously she has no expectations from the treatments. 

 

 

This is absolutely worth trying. I worked with an acupuncturist (as their assistant) for a few  years here in Montana. She did a lot of work with horses as well as people. One of her regulars was a Persian cat that was 15 years old and had terrible arthritis. Every 2 weeks his owner would bring him in. He was always really stiff at that time, and after treatment would be up walking around as normal and be good to go for the next couple of weeks. Since it didn't take long to do, the treatments were pretty cheap as well.