9 week old male Corgi puppy

[bleegeorge]

Too much for me, I look forward to the article.

[Peggy]

Originally Posted by bleegeorge

Too much for me, I look forward to the article.

Anyone who would like to see it send me your email address, my address is taflar@allwest.net

Peggy

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Chip's Mom

In my humble opinion it is totally wrong to euthanize a 9 week old puppy for any reason.

I hope you don't mean this as literally as you said it Bonnie. There are many sound reasons as to why a 9 week old puppy might be euthanised. Congenital issues which impact health and quality of life, illness, etc.

This is a fine example of why the peta folks are winning alot of their cases because of incompetent pet owners.

Irresponsible owners, owner retention and relinquishment ARE the major problems today. However, PeTA has NO problem killing healthy adoptable animals.

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.

And the option is what? The vet refuses to follow client's wishes and what happens to the animal then? It gets dumped by the side of the road? dumped out in the country? Dropped off at the shelter/pound? Kept by the owner and ignored?

Back to the original issue of this thread - this owner played the ultimate emotional blackmail card. Why did she change her mind? Odds are the puppy will be going to the relative. Once family found out she gave the puppy up, family pressures may have come to bear; she was put through the ringer for her decision. There are a number of psychological play outs behind the scene as to why the change of heart, but I agree with the SoCal rescue folks, that puppy isn't going to stay with the original owner.

Debbie

[Chip's Mom]

No Debbie I didn't mean it literally as it sounded. You know me too well. LOL I don't like PETA either. There are other alternatives then a healthy 9 week old pup being euthanized though and I wouldn't uphold euthanization on a healthy pup simply because it is an animal rights issue either so I think maybe some of us misspoke.

[bleegeorge]

We now think that due to the micro-chip being registered to the rescue, Toby will have a chance to be rescued again, if he ends up in another bad situation. Toby is a very confident puppy, and if these people don't train him, he will become too much to handle. I was informed last night that any "haven law" or cooling off period doesn't apply to pets. So, legally he still belongs to the rescue. I don't believe it is worth pushing, a lot of people are vindictive. I don't want to see anything negative affect Toby because of any sort of legal battle.

So, it is over for now.

[MyPemCharlie]

That's a rather frustrating outcome for Toby and all the humans involved in trying to guarantee him a good home. I would wish that whichever family member will own him, would at least be required to fill out the application form and have a home-check (if SoCal does that) to ensure a suitable home (by the Rescue group standards). Waiving the adoption fee would be a good compromise, I would think. They can't require dog training I'm sure, but I would expect any Corgi would be too much to handle without some basic dog training skills on the part of the owner. Sounds like the original owner had none.

[bleegeorge]

I agree with you, but that didn't happen. I think the relatives that ended up with him are going to find out REALLY fast how much of a handful he is. My husband and I were amazed how strong minded he is at such a young age, and we have raised two Corgis of our own. He isn't potty trained, bites a lot with his razor sharp teeth and is a little agressive with the adult dogs. I just hope they don't resent the rescue, and contact them if he becomes too much for them.

[Michael Romanos]

Peggy and Debbie - I suggest you get your facts right.
A leading NZ vet and canine behaviour specialist and lecturer, Kevin Stafford has spoken to two visiting American vets and they say: "bullsh*t, American vets do not have to kill an animal just because their clients want them to do it. American vets are no different in this respect as any other vet in the world."
I will post this on a new thread because it is quite important.

[glencorgi]

Well having been the receiver of one that was literally snuck out the back door and under the radar at an individual vet's own risk - jeopardizing her job and career, at least in that clinic, it was what was required.

Debbie

[Moviesnob]

Originally Posted by Michael Romanos

I will post this on a new thread because it is quite important.

Sit on it, dude. You needing to get your jollies by constantly drawing out ridiculous arguments on topics you have no reliable knowledge on is not important.

In any case, I did some googling. All I found was a bunch of inconclusive stuff that says it's up to the vet, and no official law or word either way. The general concensus is that since pets are viewed as "property" the owner can do what they want with their "property" - and that includes having them put down if they feel the need. While this sounds ridiculous, as I'm guessing most on this forum love their dogs and wouldn't view them as "property" I'm guessing that if this went to court, it would be ruled that the owner can do what they want with their dog (as long as it's not consisting of animal cruelty, within the boundaries of the law, etc etc).

Can a healthy dog be put to sleep?
OK--will a vet put down a dog just beacause the owner wants it put down? - Yahoo! Answers

[MyPemCharlie]

Legally, we do want to keep the terminology of pets as "property" though of course most of us also consider our pets as companions, best friends, etc. This seemingly insignificant terminology is another battling point between the Animal Rights and the Animal Welfare groups. The AR folks want the terminology changed from "Owner" to "Guardian", which from a legal standpoint "guardianship" essentially gives the dog "human rights". If your pet were diagnosed with a terminal illness, having "rights" could take away your current option to chose treatment or humane euthanasia. "Guardian" sounds warm and fuzzy, but it is part of the bigger AR philosophy that humans should not own any other animal.

[Michael Romanos]

Moviesnob - I think you got the point when you said "it is up to the vet" - that is what my original point was: vets are not COMPELLED to euthanise/kill an apparantly healthy and able animal. I am certain a court would uphold this premise. I have relations who are very good lawyers but there is little need to ask them because thhe answer is pretty obvious.