Don't breed your dog unless you have £1200 spare

cinderellacomplex

ANGLICANPAT wrote: »

The average person wont religiously go out with the dog on a lead in their garden every time it needs to attempt a wee (many are not house trained remember) . They might the first week, but experience tells rescues that people sooon get bored with this when it rains or whatever, and 'take the chance' in letting the dog out in the garden on its own.

The fencing thing was just an example but IMO it is attitudes like that which create problems for rescues. You need to put a little faith in people and try and figure out if they are the kind of person who WILL religiously take their dog out on a lead. I've certainly done it before, and would do it regardless of fencing with any new dog to get them used to going outside to do the toilet and not for a play. Anyway, it doesn't even take leaving your house if it is THAT rainy.. you can just clip the dog onto an extendable lead and stand in the doorway!

Maybe it's not ideal in the rescues' opinions but it is a valid choice if someone doesn't want to fence their garden to rescue standards (the garden in question was a large, walled garden.. but the wall was apparently too short, being only a standard garden wall and not a fortress.. ) Surely using a more flexible judgement of the situation instead of hard and fast rules is a better option for the.. how many was it that FC said? 9000 a year dogs that end up being PTS. Rescues go on and on about these numbers and then lay down strict rules which prevent good people from rehoming or fostering their dogs.

Believe me, I am not the only one losing sympathy for certain rescues because of this (I should note that there are some rescues which do use a degree of free judgement in assessing whether or not family/garden arrangements are suitable with regards to certain dogs, I am by no means taking a swipe at the entire rescue system)

I should have been more clear about the good homes part, I meant that good homes are not hard to find for well-bred border collie puppies.

ANGLICANPAT

Youve already shown in your previous posts Cinderellacomplex , that you are dog knowledgable , and do have a responsible attitude when it comes to dealing with your own, but honestly, I really think you are crediting too many other people with the same outlook as yourself . Truly, if you were doing this over a long period, you would really get a shock over just how irresponsible, lazy, and chance taking, huge numbers of seemingly nice, sensible would be dog owners are. Ive been doing this for decades, and it never ceases to amaze me . Of course you might get the odd checker who acts on a gut feeling and makes the wrong call, but thats got to be better than placing a dog in a risky or easy come easy go environment.

chucknorris

Silveralice wrote: »

Of course we only know what was written in the paper, not the true facts. As a vet, I know very well that sometimes what appears in the media bears little resemblance to what actually happens in these cases. A common solution to this problem would be for the vet to do the Caesar, maybe without charge, on condition that the !!!!! and puppies are signed over to a rescue organisation - then the welfare of the dog is provided for but the owners don't get free treatment, and it means that the vets can do the odd charitable op FOC without being bankrupted by a stream of people wanting free treatment on the grounds they can't pay. I wonder if that was among the options the owners were offered? Sounds like a lot of money for a Caesar, though, unless it was out of hours (or danger money!!!)

Thanks, I'm really glad you posted this. Of course vets have to be mindful of their profitability (after all it's a business not a charity) but I'm pleased to learn that some vets would have proposed a third alternative where the dogs survived.

foreign_correspondent

Silveralice wrote: »

Of course we only know what was written in the paper, not the true facts. As a vet, I know very well that sometimes what appears in the media bears little resemblance to what actually happens in these cases. A common solution to this problem would be for the vet to do the Caesar, maybe without charge, on condition that the !!!!! and puppies are signed over to a rescue organisation - then the welfare of the dog is provided for but the owners don't get free treatment, and it means that the vets can do the odd charitable op FOC without being bankrupted by a stream of people wanting free treatment on the grounds they can't pay. I wonder if that was among the options the owners were offered? Sounds like a lot of money for a Caesar, though, unless it was out of hours (or danger money!!!)

I have read elsewhere that the b1tch had been in labour for two days before she got to the vets - of course this may not be true, but if so, I expect that the situation may have been quite compromised by the time the vet saw her.

Also, finding a rescue organisation with places for staffies is hard at the best of times... it says in the article that "Croft Vets of Cramlington said offers were made to the family in an attempt to help but they were refused." - maybe this option was suggested and refused...

CFC

The fencing issue - with many dogs going into rescue as strays, it stands to reason that fencing needs to be secure. Some dogs have wanderlust. With a huge garden, there isn't much difficulty in fencing off a small section to make part of it secure.
I have an 80 foot garden, not enormous. The end of my garden isn't secure as the wooden fence panels keep coming down due to nuisance neighbours, so I bought stakes and wire fence and put it across to make a secure fence 12foot closer to the house than the end of the garden. Job done for 70 quid!

madget_2

cinderellacomplex wrote: »

You need to put a little faith in people and try and figure out if they are the kind of person who WILL religiously take their dog out on a lead.

If only it were that easy. Unfortunately, ANGLICANPAT is quite correct with regard to the difficulties in rehoming.

As AP writes, you seem to be a good and responsible dog owner yourself, cinderellacomplex. Thankfully, there are many other people like you but, sadly, there are plenty of others who aren't.

Some people start off with the best of intentions and then let things slide. Then there are others who want to adopt an animal at any costs and will say whatever they think the rescue centre want to hear in order to do so. Granted, there is often a little room for flexibility in certain cases, but you need to be so incredibly careful - animals' wellbeing and even lives are at potentially at stake here.

We follow-up on initial homechecking in order to ensure that our rescuees and their new owners are coping and settling in together. Unfortunately, an awful incident occurred before a follow-up took place on one occasion.

The dog concerned needed to be in a household without cats, and the woman was very clearly and specifically told that it hated cats and should be kept apart from them. This seemingly and very plausibly responsible and knowledgeable new owner took it upon herself to get a cat from somewhere soon after she adopted the dog, and before the follow-up visit from us. She then rang us to complain that the dog had attacked and injured her new cat! Furthermore, she accused us of not having advertised the dog as needing a cat-free home and denied all knowledge of ever being told this - though she most definitely was, both over the phone and then again in person.

However, we keep copies of everything and were able to show her both the advert in the local newspaper and the rehoming information for the dog, both of which emphasised the absolute necessity of a cat-free home. Not only did the poor dog have to be rehomed again, her poor cat was injured in the process.

As I say, I only wish it were that easy.

KVet

foreign_correspondent wrote: »

I have read elsewhere that the b1tch had been in labour for two days before she got to the vets - of course this may not be true, but if so, I expect that the situation may have been quite compromised by the time the vet saw her.

Also, finding a rescue organisation with places for staffies is hard at the best of times... it says in the article that "Croft Vets of Cramlington said offers were made to the family in an attempt to help but they were refused." - maybe this option was suggested and refused...

It was 12 hours before they seeked veterinary attention. There is a LOT more going on to this story than the picture that was painted in the paper. Prob can't comment more as all the information I saw about it was on a private Vets Only forum but the Veterinary Practice really should have been able to give their own view across rather than a harsh quote that makes them seem all about the money.

foreign_correspondent

KVet wrote: »

It was 12 hours before they seeked veterinary attention. There is a LOT more going on to this story than the picture that was painted in the paper. Prob can't comment more as all the information I saw about it was on a private Vets Only forum but the Veterinary Practice really should have been able to give their own view across rather than a harsh quote that makes them seem all about the money.

That is interesting - I think the responsibility for the outcome here rests firmly with the owners of the dog - no one can blame the vet for refusing to allow the poor animal to continue to suffer.

jackieglasgow

FC I would have thanked your post another ten times if I could have. I don't believe for a minute the vet put the dog to sleep because of money, it was to end the poor soul's suffering. Whether the owners loved their dog or not they were incredibly irresponsible and stupid to allow things to get the stage where they could not save her life, whether it was time, money, or whatever that was the barrier.

foreign_correspondent

Jackie - sad as it is, I just think if that was my dog, and if by some dreadful error of judgement I had let her get pregnant and ended up in the situation the OP had, I could only be thankful to the vet for saving her from further suffering... and I would be too busy blaming myself for my own idiocy to be running to the papers complaining about the vet.