9 week old male Corgi puppy

[MyPemCharlie]

Poor Toby, and poor you after putting in all that effort to help. The woman sounds like a total wacko. Hopefully whatever family member ends up with the dog will be better equipped to give it everything it should have.

[MyPemCharlie]

Do the SoCal people know she is planning to give the pup to someone else now, and is there anything they can do I wonder to make sure the "family member" is a qualified rescue home?

[bleegeorge]

Thanks for your support, all of us feel horrible. I really thought we had all our bases covered. I had the woman sign ownership over to me, then I signed ownership to the rescue. I was told that there is something called a "haven law" that allows a pet owner 3 days to change their minds. Is this a real law?

Even so, I would have fought harder for him, but the rescue felt that they didn't want litigation or bad press. I understand, and know that it is better to spend time on all of the others that we can do something about, rather than just one that is out of our control. I think the learning experience for me is in the future (once I let this go) is that I will modify the procedures of rescue work.

[bleegeorge]

The rescue has an idea she won't keep him, since she spoke a lot about the family member who wanted him. I too think that anyone else would be a better home than her. Since Toby has been micro-chipped, at least he will show up on the radar if he ends up in a shelter. She was also offered the ability to call the rescue again for help in the future if needed. The foster family was very kind and nice to her, doing everything in their power to continue being helpful.

[Louwants]

I know that there is a law that gives people 3 days to change their minds on contracts, so that is probably what she fell back on. You did an excellent job in trying to get Toby to a rescue group, for which, I for one, am grateful.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by LaRogue

I have to say this is a surprise to me. Since it's not "medical" treatment, the vet can't refuse and say to the owner to take the dog elsewhere?

That might be an option with some vets. However, most will do it, as they know the owner can go to the humane society or shelters. Some vets will try to talk them out of it and some will offer to place the dog for them. Just depends.

Still if they insist the vet has to put the dog (or cat) down.

Peggy

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

We have found yet another law in the USA that needs sifting - giving a vet no choice to say: no not here, go somewhere else , is inhuman, unbelieveable and undemocratic. I wonder if the Chinese have a better system. So let's rephrase that - no vet in Oceania, Europe and parts of South America, Asia and Africa would be compelled to euthanise a healthy and able animal especially a young pedigree pup.

Shoot the Chinese kill pets in front of their owners if they don't have rabies shots, not a better system IMO.
Chinese county slaughters 50,000 dogs - Pet health - MSNBC.com
Let Us Now Kill All The Dogs / China slaughters tens of thousands of canines with giant clubs. How appalling is it?

I'll bet the laws in some of the countries you mention are very similar to the US.

And there would be a downside to changing the law, and yes, the AR people are trying to do that. They want to make us "guardians" of our animals not owners. And yes, that means that the choice for care may be taken from us. While that may save a healthy dog it might also stop someone from treating a dog with cancer should someone think that it's cruel to put a dog through chemotherapy. Or it could prevent you from putting down an old dog when YOU know it's time but someone else thinks that you should be doing a treatment that might or might not help. Sometimes an owner knows when enough is enough and an outsider might not.

While is sounds awful to euthanize a healthy pet, IMO, it's still better that an "owner" have the right to make the decisions and not an outsider or government agency.

Peggy

[Michael Romanos]

Peggy, I think you talk a load of garbage on this subject.

[glencorgi]

And you Michael are very naive on the legal language ramifications of guardianship language.

Debbie

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by glencorgi

And you Michael are very naive on the legal language ramifications of guardianship language.

Debbie

Thank you Debbie!

Peggy

[Chip's Mom]

In my humble opinion it is totally wrong to euthanize a 9 week old puppy for any reason. This is a fine example of why the peta folks are winning alot of their cases because of incompetent pet owners. In no way should anyone uphold this kind of practice just to save their rights as pet owners. It is cruel and inhumane no matter how you look at it. As far as publicity is concerned, the longer people hide their heads in the sand and don't speak out against this kind of thing, the longer it will go on.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

Peggy, I think you talk a load of garbage on this subject.

Michael you can belive what you want. I for one (and I'm not alone) am really tired of you responding in a condesending, belittlling, and demeaning manner. The rest of us on this forum are just as good as you are and our opinions and posts are just as valid as yours.

I think it's time you started to show the rest of us some respect. You demand it for yourself but you do not return it to the rest of us.

I am not making things up as you seem to think.

I have written an article on the Animal Rights movement. When the newsletter it's in is on line I will post the link. It is backed up with links. Many of which are the words of the Animal Rights people themselves. I will find out when it will be on line.

Peggy