mita

Yes, it's a case of situational ethics. And in the highly specified situation I described... the dog did 'go with the owner' by proxy. Totally different case scenario if no already existing confidence in an available good home.

Yes, I'm that person.... & the dog was young & healthy... & I had confidence that there was a good home available .... then I'd place the dog in that home.

My previous answer about attitude to another's different ethical choice: Someone else would not make that choice but would PTS the dog .... saying they wouldn't betray the person's wish. But I'd weigh up the young dog's 'best interest' to live out its life.... against the thinking of a person suffering & facing death. Ethically, neither of those solutions would be right or wrong. Each of us would say we made a call according to how we sorted thro' our own values. Best any of us can do. I am with Jo on this one. You can make no guarantees for the dog's safety after the dog leaves your care, therefore you rehoming the dog is not in the dog's best interests. The same measures apply to rehoming any dog as well as possible. The dog I rehomed for the elderly lady who's health is failing (& facing the prospect of death in the near future) is doing nicely in the new home. You seem to be arguing that I should have said to her..... there's no 100% guarantee of your dog being safe in a new home, it'd be better PTS.

You're really are getting very emotional. I still have the same view of my values in the specific scenario I've described. Made my ethical choices in relation to it.

My previous answer about attitude to another's different ethical choice: Someone else would not make that choice but would PTS the dog .... saying they wouldn't betray the person's wish. But I'd weigh up the young dog's 'best interest' to live out its life.... against the thinking of a person suffering & facing death. Ethically, neither of those solutions would be right or wrong. Each of us would say we made a call according to how we sorted thro' our own values. Best any of us can do.

I didn't call the friend 'irrational'. I said the fear, which I'd specifically teased out.... that she feared for the dog's future was not rational, because there already was confidence in a new home. If no such confidence or reassurance already exists, then it's not an irrational fear.

*nods* Yes, if possible, take your own young, healthy dog to be PTS ... because others may have an entirely different ethical view of what you're asking. And people will make their own decisions about the ethics of their own actions, as they should.

I said the little dog would 'go with the owner'.... & it did, by proxy.\ It was dealing with a fear I'd already established as irrational.

No point in directing to the fact that my scenario depended on the fact that I already had certainty of a good home. And only after I couldn't persuade the owner of that. And I've already posted how I helped rehome a small dog for an elderly lady who wanted to do it, before she died. Which I did .... to the best of homes. And I finished my post by saying how the little dog ' remains on my radar' ....& how I placed myself as second on the queue. You won't be asking me to PTS your young, healthy dog after you die.

It has become mine because the owner has indicated I was now to act on its behalf, following her death. Same applies to the someone else who'd make a different choice, if in the same situation. That person, too, would've got the nod to act on the dog's behalf, after her death. In both our cases, that permits us to take a next action. I would rehome. The other person would take it to the vet to be PTS. We both would simply have made different ethical choices. And even tho' it doesn't fit my value system, I wouldn't abuse the person who made the opposite choice. No, the owner has asked you to pts the dog after the owner dies. If the owner simply leaves you the dog then yes, do what you like. The first scenario puts you in breach of trust. So you'd be the 'someone else' in this scenario. You'd PTS/ Your value system would say that a dying person's wish to have a young healthy dog PTS is not over-ridden by a consideration that the dog is young & can live a life. My value system reverses those... especially as I'd carefully found out from the owner that their reason was a genuine fear for the dog's future. Which I already knew was unfounded. So there was no real reason to fear for the dog's future. It was not a rational fear. I'd put a photo in the casket & rehome. So the little dog would 'go' with the owner, by proxy. This is what ethical decision making is all about. Your referred to your value system.... I, to mine.

It has become mine because the owner has indicated I was now to act on its behalf, following her death. Same applies to the someone else who'd make a different choice, if in the same situation. That person, too, would've got the nod to act on the dog's behalf, after her death. In both our cases, that permits us to take a next action. I would rehome. The other person would take it to the vet to be PTS. We both would simply have made different ethical choices. And even tho' it doesn't fit my value system, I wouldn't abuse the person who made the opposite choice.

yes thats how I would have felt if Id said yes and not kept my promise. Interesting, isn't it .... when the examples are real ones in our own lives. Sort of sheds a different light. I think I'd ask the person why they were making the request for a still-young dog to be PTS. If it was that they genuinely feared for its future .... and if I had some certainty there could be a good rehoming ... then I'd ask how he/she would feel about that. It can be awfully hard, tho', to be having discussions like that with someone who may be in great pain, affected by medications or in a distressed state that's hard to imagine. But I might agree that the young dog 'go with them', if there was no chance for a clear discussion about rehoming (even tho' it was pretty certain). Then I'd put a photo of the dog in their casket & rehome the dog. Someone else would not make that choice but would PTS the dog .... saying they wouldn't betray the person's wish. But I'd weigh up the young dog's 'best interest' to live out its life.... against the thinking of a person suffering & facing death. Ethically, neither of those solutions would be right or wrong. Each of us would say we made a call according to how we sorted thro' our own values. Best any of us can do.

You've described ethical debate well. It will always be based on individual people's values so there'll be different views. I hope the NSW ethics classes will continue so children can learn young that's so.

I'lll guarantee they would not be able to tick the boxes in the criteria that I'd set out, for how companion dogs need to be kept, bred & raised. And the items would not be my opinion ... they'd be based on evidence from studies.

No doubt it's an ethical issue ... & it seems it's turned up in a few DOLers' lives. The thing with ethics is that you have to work thro' your own values. So people can come up with a different 'take' on exactly the same situation. Bit O/T, but it's why I liked the idea of those ethics classes in NSW schools.

My gawd, those photos! I can see why you were thinking magical names. So gorgeous it's hard to believe they're real. And they've got the 'look' already ... happy, healthy & confident. Even know how to look at the camera!!!!!!

I agree ... and often a good thing.

But, Steve, those bloody large scale commercial operations would find it impossible to tick off the criteria I'd set out. So would the minority of breeders with maybe lesser numbers of dogs, but who've lost the plot... or never found it. Frankly, I'd bet that the majority of registered breeders would do fine .... operating the way they already are. SSM's example shows how one breeder manages her dogs for their best interest in her situation & with her breed. As she pointed out .... it shouldn't be a case of one size fits all. It's how a breeder sorts things so that essential criteria for care can be ticked off. And people might differ ... like WH suggesting another option of outsourcing to 'pet type' homes.

Large dog farmers should be under scrutiny, not people on a small scale who often use a combination of kenneled environments, fenced property runs and the house & its surroundings. These smaller scale people are less likely to keep their dogs in a kennel setting for the majority of their time. Your example of how you use kenneling is in a minority of your dogs' time. The big problem is that large scale dog breeding is not suitable for producing or keeping companion dogs. It's a fraudulent business, if puppies (or mature dogs) are sold to be pets from places that operate in this way. Frankly, it's as much a consumer issue as it is a welfare issue. And it's not 'touchy-feely' stuff, it's a matter of neurological development. I'd like to see consumer pressure question those large scale operations & head in the direction of dogs/puppies raised in ways that promote socialisation in its full context. Trying to fit dog breeding 'rules' in with large scale breeding, which shouldn't exist, is transferring problems onto those who breed in ways that should exist. The starting point should be a set of reasonable criteria for keeping & raising dogs. And so long as a breeder can tick off that his/her situation allows for them (& be available for checking by the authorities).... then all is fine.

Aaaaaaaaaah! It falls into place. Those BF people know what they're doing ... & so do you folk.

Socialisation involves becoming acquainted with the lives that humans normally live.... & all that goes with it. Humans do not live the majority of their lives shut away in concrete-floored accommodation with little or no experience with natural light, fresh air and the normal grass & ground... and even everyday environmental noises. Socialisation is not only a pair of human hands touching and the scent & sound of humans. It's also about the social context in which humans live. If dogs are to become hardwired as companion dogs for humans .... they need to share that particular context alongside the humans they've learned to trust.

But they aren't in Australia and have to comply with stupid Animal Lib types making up all the rules... T. You made me curious & I looked it up. Sounds very well thought out & run. They group the dogs for best doggie socialisation. There also seems to be top veterinary care & general training. Doesn't surprise me it attracts volunteers. And the dogs look healthy, happy & confident (bit like your place, T). http://bestfriends.org/The-Sanctuary/How-The-Sanctuary-Works/Information---Admission-Policies/

I was only talking about purebred breeders, Steve, because they show their dogs & put them up for scrutiny against a standard. One of the best people in my breed of interest follows a system something like WH described. She only has few dogs herself & a few other people show & keep a couple of hers. No wonder the dogs I've got from her ... are brilliantly socialised. Whoever keeps scores or hundreds of dogs on one property ... First tick or cross in the box has to be .... is there socialisation of both parent dogs & puppies?

And I like the name Mojo. Why does it sound Japanese to me?

WH, you've come up with something that helped me get over the horror of reading in the OP that up to a couple of hundred dogs could be on one property. Any issue about 'keeping' dogs should start with socialisation. Other requirements, like their accommodation, flow from that. Yet exactly what socialisation is .... & what it entails... rarely gets a look in, in threads like this. It's about how dogs become hardwired.. And it doesn't apply only to the puppies.... there's a link between puppies' development & the degree of socialisation of the mother dog. So any system that ensures dogs are kept in numbers & circumstances that allow for socialisation within the lifestyles of humans, is fine by me. And I won't have to be appalled to read of dogs being kept in scores & hundreds with unfortunate ramifications for their neurological hardwiring.