Comments on: Oooooh, this makes me mad

By: Dr. V

Dr. V — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:50:11 +0000

Of course there are. To be honest the original article seems a bit biased towards the owner. There is no official relinquishment policy. It depends on the individual veterinarian.

By: jo-ann and jerry

jo-ann and jerry — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:31:46 +0000

Going back to the first post, what the poster wrote does not include pertinent parts of the story as I can tell…we are still very confused as to the whole surrendering of pets policy. Some of the comments on this subject seem very biased. There are at least two sides to every story….

By: Dr. V

Dr. V — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:33:51 +0000

I (and most vets I know) have liability insurance. Lawsuits are not uncommon, and the threat of lawsuits are very common.

By: Dr. V

Dr. V — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:10:56 +0000

I suppose it depends on the practice, but most vets who take in relinquishments do it because there is a very adoptable pet with a treatable condition, that the owner cannot afford to treat- and the vet cannot bear to euthanize so they eat the cost of treating the pet. Sometimes they get paid, sometimes not.

“If the animal makes a recovery, why shouldn’t the owner have the pet back?” Why should I treat a pet for free and then give a pet back to someone who cannot afford to treat it? They’ll be back again in a year the next time something happens expecting the same. The person to whom the pet is adopted will be expected to be able and willing to provide necessary care.

I want to be more sympathetic- I have tried, but when you are confronted with this sort of thing on a daily basis you quickly realize that you can sympathize yourself out of business very quickly if you help everyone who feels they deserve it.

By: joann-n-jerry

joann-n-jerry — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 01:02:06 +0000

I may be missing something, but my take on the relinqueshment as described in this article is that the pet owner cannot afford to pay for care so the vet says we will treat the pet if you give it to us, or we will minimally treat the pet, and if the pet makes a miraculous recovery, we will put it up for adoption? How does the vet get paid by doing that? Does a prospective adopter pay the vet bills? If not what is the problem with giving the pet back to the owner who could not afford to pay for treatment at that time? Is it because the owner may not be able to care for the pet in general because they cannot afford the treatment? Can someone explain a little more about the relinquishing process, and why if an animal makes a recovery the owner should not have there pet back? thanks.

By: Chile

Chile — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:40:50 +0000

Is it common that the former owner sues, do you know? I wonder how many successfully get their pets back? It sickening. They didn’t want to pay for the care or man up and take the responsibility but want the dog after it’s been fixed. What the hell.

Stupid woman.

By: Dr. V

Dr. V — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:12:37 +0000

I’m surprised they allow their “unwanted” pets into rescue at all- I suppose they will do whatever costs them the least. I never knew about the big Amish puppy mills until a year or two ago- pretty surprising.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:07:19 +0000

The rescuer who has taken dogs from this breeder before is heartbroken, distraught and enraged. The go-between between the rescuer and the breeder is now under instructions not to wait, if this guy calls, she is to go right away and get whatever it is he is turning over.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:03:05 +0000

Sara, you mention in the end amputation was only choice after the grafting failed. Any more, when I see a dog come into rescue with a badly mangled leg or torn acl, I vote for amputation. From a rescue stand point, the dog still has a good quality of life without having to endure multiple surgeries, castings and the like while not straining the limited rescue funds.

By: Dr. V

Dr. V — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:56:38 +0000

OMG Lisa…that quite literally made me sick to my stomach.