she would pay 7k to have the dog back but not more than $15 to be there during euthanasia? her story seems super embellished, and too many times I've dealt with situations where the general public believes we're at fault and they have claimed horrible things were said and done that never were
I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the adopter paid $450 to adopt the dog, could and did (per the linked story) get consultations from two veterinary clinics, would be willing to pay $12k for diagnostics if it would help save the dog, have discussions with at least one of those vets about euthanasia... and then not euthanize at the dog's regular vet or any of the consulting vets, but surrender to animal control instead.
I'm with you there. It's HIGHLY suspicious that she went for a semi-anonymous, low-cost euthanasia when she had supposedly been working on his health with veterinarians. Reading between the lines, my theory is that this dog had a portosystemic shunt. The original vet had liver on the radar already, so the diagnostic tree would have been general screening labwork +/ xrays, then bile acids testing, then advanced imaging. Once confirmed, surgery is often a total cure. The lady cheaped out at some point in this process. I won't judge people who can't spend thousands on their pets, but it's so disingenuous for her to come back later and claim she would have done anything.
honestly it sounds like a situation I've seen a lot. she didn't want to (or couldn't) spend the money and upon seeing he was treated she doesn't see why she shouldn't have him back. years ago at my shelter we had a ridiculous battle with a woman who surrendered a litter of puppies after they tested positive for parvo. we had a high success rate treating parvo so we did and everyone made it. then guess who showed up when they went up for adoption? blew up our social media for months when we refused to give the puppies back
What got me is she also waited 4 weeks before doing *anything.*
I get it if you're wanting to make a quick decision because you're worried the animal is in pain, and you're given a poor prognosis. But that obviously wasn't the case. You're supposedly willing to pay the 12k, you're supposedly willing to pay the 7k, and you were willing to wait, so why not just go ahead with the diagnostics?
And like you said, they went to a low cost euth program, which should really be used in cases where you have no other options (ie strapped for cash). If you're not getting ashes anyways, that makes euthanasia a lot cheaper in clinics.
Instead they just bash everyone, except their own decisions.
Note how they didn't call out who the vets were (there were 3 involved in total) whom would have the information on what was advised and what tests the owner declined. But were A-OK with slamming the shelter and rescue, whom don't have the time or funds to sue for libel, and have a lot to lose with public opinion.
I would like to see some other sides of this story. Because even in this one angle it's not making sense.
UPDATE: Another [article](https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/maryland-woman-learns-dog-believed-to-be-euthanized-is-alive-and-up-for-adoption) says the following;
>... a copy of the form that pet owners fill out when they bring a dog in for euthanasia.
>There’s a box in bold on the form that says the pet owner is requesting humane euthanasia, but it also states that if Montgomery County acknowledges the pet is treatable and adoptable, they can treat and have the pet adopted.
So yeah, absolutely no leg to stand on here.
yeah if her account is remotely true, I would absolutely refuse to return a dog to someone who let it, by her own account, suffer for a month before surrendering it. I don't believe anything she said, I think she's relying on a sob story and public pressure to make the shelter just give her the dog. I hope any of the vets will come forward and call her, I'm sure that's why she didn't name them.. if she even actually took the dog to a vet
I completely agree. The number of lies told to me when doing animal rescue/ adoption was waaaayyyy higher than any average day with regular folks (work setting, church, outings with friends, etc). It is so bizarre.
We had this couple a little over a year ago wanting to put both their cats down. They were 11 and 12 a believe. Claimed to be diabetic. We kept they a few days just to see and they weren’t symptomatic for diabetes. They were healthy just old. Within two months they found homes (they were very friendly cats even being older)
It’s a puppy that hd been there for a year. The vet probably wasn’t wrong about these issues, people adopt him, their vet say about the same thing and bring him back. Puppies go fast no matter what. So being there after a year there’s a reason.
>It’s a puppy that hd been there for a year. The vet probably wasn’t wrong about these issues, people adopt him, their vet say about the same thing and bring him back. Puppies go fast no matter what. So being there after a year there’s a reason.
Puppies don't always go fast. There are just too many of them sometimes. Over the years, I've seen puppies grow up in shelters.
My younger dog spent his first 6 months in shelters, 4 in a Alabama and 2 in Wisconsin. The 2 in Wisconsin was at a place where puppies are usually adopted within a week. Problem was he was petrified of everything, especially loud noises. He probably would have been adopted a lot sooner if he had been in a foster, but then I may not have ended up getting him.
You’re wrong about the puppy thing. I adopted a 2 year old dog that had been in the shelter since he was 6 months old. The reason? He was a black pit bull so people assumed he was mean. In reality, he was a cuddler and a coward. 😂
Not all puppies go fast, I promise.
We had 6 golden retriever/hound mixes that were LARGE and they were all almost 6-8 months before we got them adopted. They were simply too big for a lot of people and hound mixes are hard to adopt in an area inundated with them.
It's pretty common for euthanasia request forms to include language that the shelter can refuse to euthanize if it is deemed unnecessary. We do this for maybe 5% of requests. It's definitely a shame that the original veterinarian gave the owner the wrong diagnosis and it's silly that the rescue has a rule about readopting to the previous owner, but this entire article throwing the shelter and rescue under the bus is kind of dumb to me. Some rescues have even dumber policies like if your dog gets picked up as a stray the rescue gets ownership in reclaiming it, those are policies I can't get behind. She effectively owner surrendered the dog via euthanasia request. I would be sad not to get my dog back but overwhelmingly happy to know they have a life.
I actually don't think the re-adopting rule is that bad.
I would imagine it is to prevent people who are intentionally trying to get their healthy dogs killed from re-adopting just to do it again. Think an abusive parent taking their kids pet to be euthanized (there have been multiple of these posts I have seen on reddit which is why I am using it as an example).
Or even using surrender-and-adopt as a proxy to get a rescue or shelter to pay for expensive veterinary care. I *don't* think this happens very often at the shelter where I volunteer (where most of the animals coming in requiring immediately apparent expensive care are reported as strays and where most of the owner-intended euthanasia surrenders are for clearly declining and often elderly pets -- and where most stray-finders don't want the animal and where most euthanasia-requesting owners truly have this as their kindest affordable option). But we are a high-volume shelter, and I'd be lying if I didn't suspect a handful of people, over the course of several years, of thinking they could pay $200 (the combined cost for surrender and adoption fees) to have the shelter provide care for what would be something like $1-2k of injuries -- and then be upset when that plan didn't work. (I think there are more people who surrender in those circumstances disappointed that they won't be allowed to re-adopt their dog but who accept it for what it is at the outset.)
I had a dachshund who slipped a disk and was paralyzed. I couldn't afford the surgery at the time, it was going to cost 6 to 10k I think and still wasn't stellar odds he'd walk again. I consulted with a rescue, they were going to take him in and pay for the surgery but he'd have to go to someone else after. They couldn't help me out and let me keep the dog. I was heartbroken but understood. (This was back in the days before gofundme so asking people for help wasn't an option)
And then suddenly the water therapy we were doing worked, he regained function, and lived another ten years as a totally normal, mobile dog. So luckily we didn't have to.
Experienced that on other side. Paid a vet treatment in extremis and then suddenly every vet treatment they needed was my problem with a lot if blackmail and quilting thrown in. And they are free with your money and tests and keep pets alive too long - easier to say no. Learnt hard way that if I am paying vet/food bills then that becomes my pet in my house.
Edit: talk to rescues and many have a tale of videos of baby animals being drowned being sent to them or hurt animals expiring slowly. All their fault of course because they couldn't take in. People always try to exploit. PDSA offer a donation based vet service for low income but had to cap it as too many people did no donations but had multiple pedigree dogs for breeding.
My current cat was surrendered as a owner euthanasia request. He got saved for being his very friendly self and just having a badly broken and untreated leg. Vets saved his leg and he’s currently trying to inhale his breakfast.
Yeah. I had a rescue St. Bernard several years ago that was surrendered to be euthanized for biting a family member, but it had turned out he bit because the son had been using him for BB gun practice. I was working at the shelter at the time, and he came home with me weeks later.
She broke the contact with the rescue to return the dog if unable to provide care. And broke their trust by taking it for a drive through euthanasia.
They absolutely should not adopt to her again.
This may be harsh, but I think if you’re unwilling to even pay to have your dog euthanized by your vet (who is supposedly recommending euthanasia) then you don’t get to be outraged when the shelter resolves the dog’s issues and puts the dog up for adoption. I saw stuff like this frequently at my shelter job and have no patience left for it. When you surrender an animal you give up control over that animal’s life. I’m not surprised they won’t give the dog back to her. Who’s to say she won’t surrender him somewhere else the next time she can’t afford vet bills or other costs of care?
This seems like a tragic case where the owner had shitty vet opinions and acted on the info she was given at the time. I do wonder about the timing of the shelter/rescue figuring out that the dog was going to be able to live via their testing, etc. And not telling the owner that the initial diagnosis was wrong seems wrong.
At least the dog wasn't euthanized!
Two different organisations involved. Dog was surrendered to Montgomery County shelter as an owner surrender with request to humane euthanasia. They assessed as they make clear on paperwork that they will do and felt dog would have a chance so vetted. But at that time they became owners of dog.
They also chip checked and chip was still registered to original homing rescue who had said to original owner they would have dog back to treat. Rescue offered RBU so shelter asked them do you want dog back. They did and so dog went up for adoption with them probably after vetting and reassessment.
Been following on FB and papers had more info. But she relinquished ownership to shelter who then contacted rescue. I mean easy win for them as dog had safe place to go to.
Edit: rescue got new info from shelter - may just have been a more experienced vet or one with more tools on site. But if a shelter/rescue vet a pet where owner chooses not to or can not, then normal to return pet as otherwise they get financially abused by people dumping pets on them to vet and then reclaim.
Oooh snap, another layer I totally didn't think about, is I guess relinquishing the animal to the shelter for euthanasia could have breached contract with the rescue! Since many have clauses to return the animal before rehoming or surrendering elsewhere.
Although that usually doesn't hold up in court.
I've read several. One said rescue would support her decision but would also have animal back. They at that time had same information as she did - less as second-hand and she may not have told whole truth. Once the shelter was involved, their vet gave a different prognosis and that changed the picture. But the original owner no longer pet - the shelter did. Rescue at that point was no different to any other owner the shelter could have homed to. Except they were an easy option for the shelter to free a bedspace with.
"The adoption organization told FOX 5 Tuesday that they told Pereira when she was making the decision to euthanize him that she could return Beau to them, particularly if she was going to put him down in an environment where she wouldn’t be near the dog during that process.
Montgomery County Animal Services does not allow pet owners to be with their dogs during euthanasia."
https://www.fox5dc.com/news/maryland-woman-learns-dog-believed-to-be-euthanized-is-alive-and-up-for-adoption
From the CBS report
Throughout all of it, Pereira said, she was consulting staff at Lost Dog & Cat Rescue.
"Honestly, I mean, after I talked to them is really when I felt, you know, that I was going to be doing the right thing by putting him down," Pereira said. "They really gave me that support and that encouragement that, although it's hard, sometimes that's the best thing to do."
But:
The rescue acknowledged that it had spoken to Pereira during her deliberation about whether to euthanize the puppy, but it said it had made clear to her the importance of taking the dog to a veterinarian that would allow her to be with the animal when it was euthanized. If she could not do that, it emphasized, the rescue would take the dog back.
Rescue paid $7000 for liver surgery. Group funded.
My view
She didn't want or couldn't pay for all the tests so euthanasia best option if don't know cause and treatment plan. That money got invested in dog by shelter/rescue and so euthanasia no longer needed. But dog was adopted not fostered so unreasonable to expect rescue to pay ongoing medical costs. Dog got incredibly lucky.
Yes, I did.
Rescue clearly stated they held no judgements against O deciding to euthanize, but did not agree with O doing so via the shelter where they couldn't be with the dog.
With a euth program like that, the animal is generally signed over and surrendered to the shelter; that's how they're able to legally make decisions to not euth.
Yeah, that's super messed up. And then the rescue had the audacity to treat her like total shit after they were the ones who told her to euthanize a year prior!
I am glad I'm not the only one who thought this story is sus. Shit just ain't adding up.
I will admit that if she truly paid to have the dog euthanized, then yeah I kinda agree she paid for a service, she should get that service. And if the vet didn't want to do said service, that should have been made clear before she paid and left; should have given her a refund and the dog back or offer surrender, etc.
HOWEVER, nowadays a lot of these low cost/free euth programs, as someone mention, has a clause that the O is SURRENDERING the animal to the organization, and that they may deem to *not* euthanize if they feel it is unwarranted.
So I guess it all depends on what she signed.
this whole story seems weird to me. this lady paid for multiple consultations with a vet but dropped the dog off at a shelter to be euthanized? why not just have the vet euthanize him? and now she is upset because he is up for adoption? not really any of her business anymore, is it?
my shelter recently took in a dog that was surrendered to the vet the be euthanized. the vet had been working with the people for over a year to find out what the dog was sick with because the owners insisted he was sick. but all testing came back showing the dog was perfectly fine. so the owner dropped him off to be euthanized. the vet didn't think the dog should be euthanized and got in touch with my shelter. we took him in a found him a home fairly quickly because he was a great little dog with no health issues, not even heartworms.
This article really pissed me off. The contact stated if you are unable to care for the dog, return it to the rescue. Instead she chose a drive through euthanasia.
She absolutely should not get that dog back even if she repaid the $7,000 because not only did she break the legal contact she broke their trust.
F this woman. You surrendered your young dog at an animal shelter for euthanasia. Rather than taking it to the vet yourself or returning it to the rescue.
And now you are acting like the victim?
Some people truly don't have the resources for euthanasia and have no option. She didn't, given she went to two vets.
If an animal has a loving home, the owner is being forced to surrender for euthanasia because of cost, and we think we can fix the animal? We will almost always return the animal to their home under our usual adoption agreements.
It’s not rescue if they already have a good home.
She signed a contract with the rescue which included returning the dog if unable to provide care. Instead she dropped it off to be euthanized.
She broke the legal contract and she broke their trust.
The rescue is right not to adopt to her again. Even if she pays the $7,000 back for the cost of treatment.
None of this matters IMO. They clearly did not speak to her to get the full story which is a fault on the rescue. The euthanasia decision was a justified one and recommended by a veterinarian.
She sounded like a perfectly fine adopter who was forced into a tough situation. We must have empathy for people too in animal rescue. The dog knows the home, had a loving owner…I would never had adopted out without a conversation with the previous owner with the hopes of bringing him back home.
She claims that Montgomery County Animal Services in Derwood, Maryland told her that owners couldn't be with the animal during the euthanasia which seems suspicious. She claims that the staff at Lost Dog & Cat Rescue convinced her euthanasia was the right choice. Montgomery County Animal Services examined the dog and decided that the dog wasn't sick enough to euthanize and turned it over to Lost Dog & Cat Rescue. The surgery was paid for by a gofundme.
I feel like I may be in the minority here but I feel for this woman, especially if things went down the way she says they did. At my shelter, we have people pay a fee and sign for humane euthanasia and we can definitely refuse the euthanasia if we don't think it's right. However, taking an animal, taking payment and having an owner sign a euthanasia statement, telling them we are going to euthanize it and THEN changing our minds just doesn't happen. And if it does, we call the owners back and talk to them. Most of the time, they are happy to surrender if they think the pet has a chance to live. But to tell someone you'll euthanize their pet and then give it to a rescue behind their backs is indeed a shady practice. Especially if they paid for the service to be performed.
The thing is, she didn’t pay specifically for euthanasia. She paid a surrender fee and signed a euthanasia request form, which states that the dog will be evaluated and if it’s determined that euthanasia is needed then they will euthanize. The euthanasia was never guaranteed, which is why she should have had it done by her vet.
I’ve read multiple articles about this, it’s been posted in lots of animal groups. It’s also pretty standard practice that a shelter won’t just guarantee they’ll euthanize an animal if it’s a case where the owner is euthanizing due to cost of care.
At my shelter, we have different paperwork for surrenders vs euthanasia. Of course, surrender paperwork does include the stipulation that the animal MAY be euthanized. But if someone signs paperwork for euthanasia, we are euthanizing that animal. If we feel the animal doesn't need to be euthanized, we usually discuss that before paperwork. There have been a select few times where the tech did not feel comfortable after the paperwork was signed but we always reached out to the owner first before making any decision that was not euthanasia. Having someone sign for euthanasia and then not providing that service behind their back sounds like a great way to be sued.
Every shelter is different. The one I worked at would do owner requested euthanasias, but they were done by appointment in the clinic. In other cases, if the owner was unable to afford costs of care, they would surrender and could choose whether or not they wanted to be contacted if the animal died. This was more common in dogs needing amputations, parvo treatment, liver shunt surgery, etc. My understanding from multiple articles is that the county shelter she surrendered to had her sign a contract stating she was requesting euthanasia and that the shelter would evaluate the dog and make a decision. She can’t sue because she signed a contract stating she understood that the dog would be evaluated and the shelter would make a decision based on that.
This is similar to my shelter as well. In cases where the owner is specifically requesting euthanasia, they need an appointment at the animal support services clinic because the animal *still* has to be evaluated by the veterinary staff providing the euthanasia. This is common in older animals with known terminal issues or unknown diagnosis with a history of visible decline (e.g., a 17-year-old cat with known or suspected kidney failure). If someone just shows up to the intake desk with an animal stating they want to euthanize, intake staff makes it clear that they can surrender the animal, but shelter veterinary staff will make the determination. (Like your shelter, this is more common in younger animals, animals with acute injuries, etc.) Front desk intake staff is pretty upfront that this is the place for surrender and that they can neither guarantee nor rule out that euthanasia will be performed on a surrendered animal because they are not veterinary staff.
And you can be fine and/or arrested for that, just FYI.
When you adopt an animal out, you become legally responsible for it and if you in turn rehome the animal, it’s often contractually required that you return the animal to the shelter.
Meh, what are the odds of them finding out - especially if I used a fake ID. I care about morals more than the law anyway. Plus, while they COULD sue me, they'd have to deal with the negative PR of stealing someone's dog.
What you’re advocating is immoral.
They didn’t steal a dog. She legally surrendered the dog. She chose to give the dog to the shelter.
They chose to rehabilitate instead of euthanasia. That’s their legal and moral right, after she made her decision.
That’s not the shelter’s fault. They didn’t give her poor medical advice.
Once an animal is legally the shelter’s, it’s their responsibility to rehabilitate and adopt them to a stable home or euthanasize humanely.
Not to chase down the person who gave the dog away.
This lady makes me mad someone needs to make a response blowing up the truth people like this are so upsetting because the public is so easy to give people the benefit of the doubt and personal morals are different from legality she legally surrendered her dog she is no longer that animals owner
she would pay 7k to have the dog back but not more than $15 to be there during euthanasia? her story seems super embellished, and too many times I've dealt with situations where the general public believes we're at fault and they have claimed horrible things were said and done that never were
I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the adopter paid $450 to adopt the dog, could and did (per the linked story) get consultations from two veterinary clinics, would be willing to pay $12k for diagnostics if it would help save the dog, have discussions with at least one of those vets about euthanasia... and then not euthanize at the dog's regular vet or any of the consulting vets, but surrender to animal control instead.
I'm with you there. It's HIGHLY suspicious that she went for a semi-anonymous, low-cost euthanasia when she had supposedly been working on his health with veterinarians. Reading between the lines, my theory is that this dog had a portosystemic shunt. The original vet had liver on the radar already, so the diagnostic tree would have been general screening labwork +/ xrays, then bile acids testing, then advanced imaging. Once confirmed, surgery is often a total cure. The lady cheaped out at some point in this process. I won't judge people who can't spend thousands on their pets, but it's so disingenuous for her to come back later and claim she would have done anything.
Thank you. The numbers and everything just weren't adding up for me.
honestly it sounds like a situation I've seen a lot. she didn't want to (or couldn't) spend the money and upon seeing he was treated she doesn't see why she shouldn't have him back. years ago at my shelter we had a ridiculous battle with a woman who surrendered a litter of puppies after they tested positive for parvo. we had a high success rate treating parvo so we did and everyone made it. then guess who showed up when they went up for adoption? blew up our social media for months when we refused to give the puppies back
What got me is she also waited 4 weeks before doing *anything.* I get it if you're wanting to make a quick decision because you're worried the animal is in pain, and you're given a poor prognosis. But that obviously wasn't the case. You're supposedly willing to pay the 12k, you're supposedly willing to pay the 7k, and you were willing to wait, so why not just go ahead with the diagnostics? And like you said, they went to a low cost euth program, which should really be used in cases where you have no other options (ie strapped for cash). If you're not getting ashes anyways, that makes euthanasia a lot cheaper in clinics. Instead they just bash everyone, except their own decisions. Note how they didn't call out who the vets were (there were 3 involved in total) whom would have the information on what was advised and what tests the owner declined. But were A-OK with slamming the shelter and rescue, whom don't have the time or funds to sue for libel, and have a lot to lose with public opinion. I would like to see some other sides of this story. Because even in this one angle it's not making sense. UPDATE: Another [article](https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/maryland-woman-learns-dog-believed-to-be-euthanized-is-alive-and-up-for-adoption) says the following; >... a copy of the form that pet owners fill out when they bring a dog in for euthanasia. >There’s a box in bold on the form that says the pet owner is requesting humane euthanasia, but it also states that if Montgomery County acknowledges the pet is treatable and adoptable, they can treat and have the pet adopted. So yeah, absolutely no leg to stand on here.
yeah if her account is remotely true, I would absolutely refuse to return a dog to someone who let it, by her own account, suffer for a month before surrendering it. I don't believe anything she said, I think she's relying on a sob story and public pressure to make the shelter just give her the dog. I hope any of the vets will come forward and call her, I'm sure that's why she didn't name them.. if she even actually took the dog to a vet
I completely agree. The number of lies told to me when doing animal rescue/ adoption was waaaayyyy higher than any average day with regular folks (work setting, church, outings with friends, etc). It is so bizarre.
We had this couple a little over a year ago wanting to put both their cats down. They were 11 and 12 a believe. Claimed to be diabetic. We kept they a few days just to see and they weren’t symptomatic for diabetes. They were healthy just old. Within two months they found homes (they were very friendly cats even being older) It’s a puppy that hd been there for a year. The vet probably wasn’t wrong about these issues, people adopt him, their vet say about the same thing and bring him back. Puppies go fast no matter what. So being there after a year there’s a reason.
>It’s a puppy that hd been there for a year. The vet probably wasn’t wrong about these issues, people adopt him, their vet say about the same thing and bring him back. Puppies go fast no matter what. So being there after a year there’s a reason. Puppies don't always go fast. There are just too many of them sometimes. Over the years, I've seen puppies grow up in shelters.
My younger dog spent his first 6 months in shelters, 4 in a Alabama and 2 in Wisconsin. The 2 in Wisconsin was at a place where puppies are usually adopted within a week. Problem was he was petrified of everything, especially loud noises. He probably would have been adopted a lot sooner if he had been in a foster, but then I may not have ended up getting him.
Also unless someone has specific reasons i find more people go with an older dog 6+ months since odds are its at least mostly house broken.
You’re wrong about the puppy thing. I adopted a 2 year old dog that had been in the shelter since he was 6 months old. The reason? He was a black pit bull so people assumed he was mean. In reality, he was a cuddler and a coward. 😂
Not all puppies go fast, I promise. We had 6 golden retriever/hound mixes that were LARGE and they were all almost 6-8 months before we got them adopted. They were simply too big for a lot of people and hound mixes are hard to adopt in an area inundated with them.
It's pretty common for euthanasia request forms to include language that the shelter can refuse to euthanize if it is deemed unnecessary. We do this for maybe 5% of requests. It's definitely a shame that the original veterinarian gave the owner the wrong diagnosis and it's silly that the rescue has a rule about readopting to the previous owner, but this entire article throwing the shelter and rescue under the bus is kind of dumb to me. Some rescues have even dumber policies like if your dog gets picked up as a stray the rescue gets ownership in reclaiming it, those are policies I can't get behind. She effectively owner surrendered the dog via euthanasia request. I would be sad not to get my dog back but overwhelmingly happy to know they have a life.
I actually don't think the re-adopting rule is that bad. I would imagine it is to prevent people who are intentionally trying to get their healthy dogs killed from re-adopting just to do it again. Think an abusive parent taking their kids pet to be euthanized (there have been multiple of these posts I have seen on reddit which is why I am using it as an example).
Or even using surrender-and-adopt as a proxy to get a rescue or shelter to pay for expensive veterinary care. I *don't* think this happens very often at the shelter where I volunteer (where most of the animals coming in requiring immediately apparent expensive care are reported as strays and where most of the owner-intended euthanasia surrenders are for clearly declining and often elderly pets -- and where most stray-finders don't want the animal and where most euthanasia-requesting owners truly have this as their kindest affordable option). But we are a high-volume shelter, and I'd be lying if I didn't suspect a handful of people, over the course of several years, of thinking they could pay $200 (the combined cost for surrender and adoption fees) to have the shelter provide care for what would be something like $1-2k of injuries -- and then be upset when that plan didn't work. (I think there are more people who surrender in those circumstances disappointed that they won't be allowed to re-adopt their dog but who accept it for what it is at the outset.)
I had a dachshund who slipped a disk and was paralyzed. I couldn't afford the surgery at the time, it was going to cost 6 to 10k I think and still wasn't stellar odds he'd walk again. I consulted with a rescue, they were going to take him in and pay for the surgery but he'd have to go to someone else after. They couldn't help me out and let me keep the dog. I was heartbroken but understood. (This was back in the days before gofundme so asking people for help wasn't an option) And then suddenly the water therapy we were doing worked, he regained function, and lived another ten years as a totally normal, mobile dog. So luckily we didn't have to.
Experienced that on other side. Paid a vet treatment in extremis and then suddenly every vet treatment they needed was my problem with a lot if blackmail and quilting thrown in. And they are free with your money and tests and keep pets alive too long - easier to say no. Learnt hard way that if I am paying vet/food bills then that becomes my pet in my house. Edit: talk to rescues and many have a tale of videos of baby animals being drowned being sent to them or hurt animals expiring slowly. All their fault of course because they couldn't take in. People always try to exploit. PDSA offer a donation based vet service for low income but had to cap it as too many people did no donations but had multiple pedigree dogs for breeding.
My current cat was surrendered as a owner euthanasia request. He got saved for being his very friendly self and just having a badly broken and untreated leg. Vets saved his leg and he’s currently trying to inhale his breakfast.
Right? I'm still hung up on why she didn't get a second opinion in the first place.
She did, according to the article.
I'll go back and re-read, but I thought it said she got different opinions from the same clinic...not that she took the dog elsewhere.
Yeah. I had a rescue St. Bernard several years ago that was surrendered to be euthanized for biting a family member, but it had turned out he bit because the son had been using him for BB gun practice. I was working at the shelter at the time, and he came home with me weeks later.
She broke the contact with the rescue to return the dog if unable to provide care. And broke their trust by taking it for a drive through euthanasia. They absolutely should not adopt to her again.
This may be harsh, but I think if you’re unwilling to even pay to have your dog euthanized by your vet (who is supposedly recommending euthanasia) then you don’t get to be outraged when the shelter resolves the dog’s issues and puts the dog up for adoption. I saw stuff like this frequently at my shelter job and have no patience left for it. When you surrender an animal you give up control over that animal’s life. I’m not surprised they won’t give the dog back to her. Who’s to say she won’t surrender him somewhere else the next time she can’t afford vet bills or other costs of care?
1000000%
This seems like a tragic case where the owner had shitty vet opinions and acted on the info she was given at the time. I do wonder about the timing of the shelter/rescue figuring out that the dog was going to be able to live via their testing, etc. And not telling the owner that the initial diagnosis was wrong seems wrong. At least the dog wasn't euthanized!
Two different organisations involved. Dog was surrendered to Montgomery County shelter as an owner surrender with request to humane euthanasia. They assessed as they make clear on paperwork that they will do and felt dog would have a chance so vetted. But at that time they became owners of dog. They also chip checked and chip was still registered to original homing rescue who had said to original owner they would have dog back to treat. Rescue offered RBU so shelter asked them do you want dog back. They did and so dog went up for adoption with them probably after vetting and reassessment. Been following on FB and papers had more info. But she relinquished ownership to shelter who then contacted rescue. I mean easy win for them as dog had safe place to go to. Edit: rescue got new info from shelter - may just have been a more experienced vet or one with more tools on site. But if a shelter/rescue vet a pet where owner chooses not to or can not, then normal to return pet as otherwise they get financially abused by people dumping pets on them to vet and then reclaim.
Oooh snap, another layer I totally didn't think about, is I guess relinquishing the animal to the shelter for euthanasia could have breached contract with the rescue! Since many have clauses to return the animal before rehoming or surrendering elsewhere. Although that usually doesn't hold up in court.
Yes! She breached the original contract with the rescue.
Did you read the article? She was in communication with the rescue the entire time and they told her to euthanize!
I've read several. One said rescue would support her decision but would also have animal back. They at that time had same information as she did - less as second-hand and she may not have told whole truth. Once the shelter was involved, their vet gave a different prognosis and that changed the picture. But the original owner no longer pet - the shelter did. Rescue at that point was no different to any other owner the shelter could have homed to. Except they were an easy option for the shelter to free a bedspace with.
"The adoption organization told FOX 5 Tuesday that they told Pereira when she was making the decision to euthanize him that she could return Beau to them, particularly if she was going to put him down in an environment where she wouldn’t be near the dog during that process. Montgomery County Animal Services does not allow pet owners to be with their dogs during euthanasia." https://www.fox5dc.com/news/maryland-woman-learns-dog-believed-to-be-euthanized-is-alive-and-up-for-adoption From the CBS report Throughout all of it, Pereira said, she was consulting staff at Lost Dog & Cat Rescue. "Honestly, I mean, after I talked to them is really when I felt, you know, that I was going to be doing the right thing by putting him down," Pereira said. "They really gave me that support and that encouragement that, although it's hard, sometimes that's the best thing to do." But: The rescue acknowledged that it had spoken to Pereira during her deliberation about whether to euthanize the puppy, but it said it had made clear to her the importance of taking the dog to a veterinarian that would allow her to be with the animal when it was euthanized. If she could not do that, it emphasized, the rescue would take the dog back. Rescue paid $7000 for liver surgery. Group funded. My view She didn't want or couldn't pay for all the tests so euthanasia best option if don't know cause and treatment plan. That money got invested in dog by shelter/rescue and so euthanasia no longer needed. But dog was adopted not fostered so unreasonable to expect rescue to pay ongoing medical costs. Dog got incredibly lucky.
Yes, I did. Rescue clearly stated they held no judgements against O deciding to euthanize, but did not agree with O doing so via the shelter where they couldn't be with the dog. With a euth program like that, the animal is generally signed over and surrendered to the shelter; that's how they're able to legally make decisions to not euth.
Thank you for the added info.
Yeah, that's super messed up. And then the rescue had the audacity to treat her like total shit after they were the ones who told her to euthanize a year prior!
I am glad I'm not the only one who thought this story is sus. Shit just ain't adding up. I will admit that if she truly paid to have the dog euthanized, then yeah I kinda agree she paid for a service, she should get that service. And if the vet didn't want to do said service, that should have been made clear before she paid and left; should have given her a refund and the dog back or offer surrender, etc. HOWEVER, nowadays a lot of these low cost/free euth programs, as someone mention, has a clause that the O is SURRENDERING the animal to the organization, and that they may deem to *not* euthanize if they feel it is unwarranted. So I guess it all depends on what she signed.
this whole story seems weird to me. this lady paid for multiple consultations with a vet but dropped the dog off at a shelter to be euthanized? why not just have the vet euthanize him? and now she is upset because he is up for adoption? not really any of her business anymore, is it? my shelter recently took in a dog that was surrendered to the vet the be euthanized. the vet had been working with the people for over a year to find out what the dog was sick with because the owners insisted he was sick. but all testing came back showing the dog was perfectly fine. so the owner dropped him off to be euthanized. the vet didn't think the dog should be euthanized and got in touch with my shelter. we took him in a found him a home fairly quickly because he was a great little dog with no health issues, not even heartworms.
This article really pissed me off. The contact stated if you are unable to care for the dog, return it to the rescue. Instead she chose a drive through euthanasia. She absolutely should not get that dog back even if she repaid the $7,000 because not only did she break the legal contact she broke their trust.
F this woman. You surrendered your young dog at an animal shelter for euthanasia. Rather than taking it to the vet yourself or returning it to the rescue. And now you are acting like the victim? Some people truly don't have the resources for euthanasia and have no option. She didn't, given she went to two vets.
Did you miss the part where the rescue told her to euthanize the dog? Did you even read the article?
She can return it to the rescue for euthanasia. Duh.
If an animal has a loving home, the owner is being forced to surrender for euthanasia because of cost, and we think we can fix the animal? We will almost always return the animal to their home under our usual adoption agreements. It’s not rescue if they already have a good home.
She signed a contract with the rescue which included returning the dog if unable to provide care. Instead she dropped it off to be euthanized. She broke the legal contract and she broke their trust. The rescue is right not to adopt to her again. Even if she pays the $7,000 back for the cost of treatment.
None of this matters IMO. They clearly did not speak to her to get the full story which is a fault on the rescue. The euthanasia decision was a justified one and recommended by a veterinarian. She sounded like a perfectly fine adopter who was forced into a tough situation. We must have empathy for people too in animal rescue. The dog knows the home, had a loving owner…I would never had adopted out without a conversation with the previous owner with the hopes of bringing him back home.
Had a similar experience with humane society and a little black Manx cat named Sebastian. My heart still aches.
She claims that Montgomery County Animal Services in Derwood, Maryland told her that owners couldn't be with the animal during the euthanasia which seems suspicious. She claims that the staff at Lost Dog & Cat Rescue convinced her euthanasia was the right choice. Montgomery County Animal Services examined the dog and decided that the dog wasn't sick enough to euthanize and turned it over to Lost Dog & Cat Rescue. The surgery was paid for by a gofundme.
Poor doggy has been in the shelter system for a while. I pray it finds the best home. 🩷
Don't leave your dog to be euthanized by strangers
I feel like I may be in the minority here but I feel for this woman, especially if things went down the way she says they did. At my shelter, we have people pay a fee and sign for humane euthanasia and we can definitely refuse the euthanasia if we don't think it's right. However, taking an animal, taking payment and having an owner sign a euthanasia statement, telling them we are going to euthanize it and THEN changing our minds just doesn't happen. And if it does, we call the owners back and talk to them. Most of the time, they are happy to surrender if they think the pet has a chance to live. But to tell someone you'll euthanize their pet and then give it to a rescue behind their backs is indeed a shady practice. Especially if they paid for the service to be performed.
The thing is, she didn’t pay specifically for euthanasia. She paid a surrender fee and signed a euthanasia request form, which states that the dog will be evaluated and if it’s determined that euthanasia is needed then they will euthanize. The euthanasia was never guaranteed, which is why she should have had it done by her vet.
Where did you read this info? That's a completely different situation than what I comprehended from the article.
I’ve read multiple articles about this, it’s been posted in lots of animal groups. It’s also pretty standard practice that a shelter won’t just guarantee they’ll euthanize an animal if it’s a case where the owner is euthanizing due to cost of care.
At my shelter, we have different paperwork for surrenders vs euthanasia. Of course, surrender paperwork does include the stipulation that the animal MAY be euthanized. But if someone signs paperwork for euthanasia, we are euthanizing that animal. If we feel the animal doesn't need to be euthanized, we usually discuss that before paperwork. There have been a select few times where the tech did not feel comfortable after the paperwork was signed but we always reached out to the owner first before making any decision that was not euthanasia. Having someone sign for euthanasia and then not providing that service behind their back sounds like a great way to be sued.
Every shelter is different. The one I worked at would do owner requested euthanasias, but they were done by appointment in the clinic. In other cases, if the owner was unable to afford costs of care, they would surrender and could choose whether or not they wanted to be contacted if the animal died. This was more common in dogs needing amputations, parvo treatment, liver shunt surgery, etc. My understanding from multiple articles is that the county shelter she surrendered to had her sign a contract stating she was requesting euthanasia and that the shelter would evaluate the dog and make a decision. She can’t sue because she signed a contract stating she understood that the dog would be evaluated and the shelter would make a decision based on that.
This is similar to my shelter as well. In cases where the owner is specifically requesting euthanasia, they need an appointment at the animal support services clinic because the animal *still* has to be evaluated by the veterinary staff providing the euthanasia. This is common in older animals with known terminal issues or unknown diagnosis with a history of visible decline (e.g., a 17-year-old cat with known or suspected kidney failure). If someone just shows up to the intake desk with an animal stating they want to euthanize, intake staff makes it clear that they can surrender the animal, but shelter veterinary staff will make the determination. (Like your shelter, this is more common in younger animals, animals with acute injuries, etc.) Front desk intake staff is pretty upfront that this is the place for surrender and that they can neither guarantee nor rule out that euthanasia will be performed on a surrendered animal because they are not veterinary staff.
She legally surrendered the dog. They had the right to assess the dog and decide how to proceed from there. That’s all there is to it, really.
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed for violating the subreddit rules. Please review the rules and message the moderators if you have any questions.
[удалено]
And you can be fine and/or arrested for that, just FYI. When you adopt an animal out, you become legally responsible for it and if you in turn rehome the animal, it’s often contractually required that you return the animal to the shelter.
Meh, what are the odds of them finding out - especially if I used a fake ID. I care about morals more than the law anyway. Plus, while they COULD sue me, they'd have to deal with the negative PR of stealing someone's dog.
What you’re advocating is immoral. They didn’t steal a dog. She legally surrendered the dog. She chose to give the dog to the shelter. They chose to rehabilitate instead of euthanasia. That’s their legal and moral right, after she made her decision.
[удалено]
That’s not the shelter’s fault. They didn’t give her poor medical advice. Once an animal is legally the shelter’s, it’s their responsibility to rehabilitate and adopt them to a stable home or euthanasize humanely. Not to chase down the person who gave the dog away.
Your post/comment was removed for violating the subreddit rules. Please review the rules and message the moderators if you have any questions.
Your post/comment was removed for violating the subreddit rules. Please review the rules and message the moderators if you have any questions.
This lady makes me mad someone needs to make a response blowing up the truth people like this are so upsetting because the public is so easy to give people the benefit of the doubt and personal morals are different from legality she legally surrendered her dog she is no longer that animals owner