I’m going to touch on a very controversial subject but I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t voice my opinion. If you’re easily offended or an “animal right’s nut”, look away now.
A little back story…
An event happened in my own county a short time ago where a dog was picked up by animal control in very poor, painful condition and taken straight to a veterinarian for treatment. The dog was treated for about a week’s time, according to statement released by the county’s Public Information Department, that the dog was in such poor condition that it was decided between the animal control officer and the treating veterinarian that the most humane thing to do would be to euthanize said dog.
While the dog was being cared for, animal control was also in contact with a rescue that had expressed interest in transporting (& funding) for further medical care for the dog’s extensive injuries. According to the rescue, they phoned to setup transport for dog and was told the dog had declined and the decision was made to relieve the dog’s suffering. This, of course, didn’t sit well with the rescue and some community people; the reason for the Public Info Department releasing their statement.
This poor creature had 2 severely damaged front legs, including missing portions of front paws. Can you imagine the pain this poor thing was in? The pictures I saw it may have also had some significant damage to rear paws. Overall, very bad shape.
I truly believe the last act of kindness that could be done for this poor baby was to let her cross peacefully. If this frail soul had of been put through the pain and suffering of surgeries and then recovery process not only would it have been long but the expenses accrued would have probably been astronomical.
When is enough, enough?
This rescue claims to have had the funds to care for her condition but it leaves me wondering… If rescues continue to pull the hard, sick, injured animal cases the funds drain quickly. The thousands spent on those cases could have saved hundreds, less hopeless cases. The thousands this rescue claimed to have could have saved 10+ less medical dependant animals from euthanasia. If they’d of gotten ahold of this case, and treated her and she eventually made it through to better health how many dogs would have died because the money wasn’t there to help? The perfectly good, adoptable dogs that are getting killed in shelters because they weren’t hurt, sick, dying are being looked over by rescues.
This just doesn’t make sense to me. Not all can be saved, and on another note, not all should be saved either.
It’s all about them heart strings. Any case that can tug at those hearts and open those pocket books are what rescues want. Donations start rolling in when you post a gorey picture of a dying animal.
I saw recently a rescue was found to still be harvesting money from the public long after the dog the donations were intended for had passed away. It’s one thing to ask for donations but to ask for donations towards a dog that has already passed away is a bit misleading and unethical in my opinion.
Rescues will claim that those hard cases help pay the bills for others, while that may be true to an extent, the majority of that money raised will go to helping the severely injured leaving a thin portion to use on maybe 1 or 2 vs lots more. Rescues don’t seem to see the bigger picture, they don’t want to educate the general public. People want to save these severe cases for their own selfish feelings.
Enough is Enough
See the bigger picture, help more dogs and let the severe cases go. Cry, remember them, help others pets in better shape in their memory but give those that have the best chance the extra time to find their chance.
Disclosure: Some links on this page are affilate links, meaning, at no extra cost to you, I will earn a percentage of sale made from that link.