mita

I agree. Even the debate within this thread has highlighted how some people have looked ahead & prepared the way for any separation. It's also shown that, ethically & even in the law, the interests of the animal are above its status as property. If that weren't a fact, we wouldn't have welfare laws. Exactly what those best interests would be, has to be sorted out. I know of a most loving small dog owner who said she's left instructions that her 2 small dogs are to be PTS in the event of her death. She said she honestly didn't believe anyone else in her family would care for them as she has. But, interestingly, out of the blue in more recent times, she's asked friends she trusts would they take them. And I know we would. Most lovingly. But other people might not be so lucky.

You don't have to apologise to me, T. :) You haven't done anything that I haven't done myself at some time. So no moral high ground from me! :) :)

Using emotional language to criticize people for using emotional language, is granting the right to emotional expression only to your selves. You're overlooking the fact that numbers of people have debated the issue in this thread with rational arguments. And that other external sources have also commented, in rational ways, on the Toffee 'situation'. It's an ethical issue and, as such, is worthy of debate. Because of this thread, I've been looking up one of the Veterinary Journals in which every month an ethical issue, just like this situation, is set out for comment & debate. Some scenarios revolve around different views by vet & by owner about the rights & wrongs of PTS in particular cases. And, interestingly, there's a clear argument made that the interests of the animal exist above any status as property. I wonder if any vet approached to put Toffee to sleep, declined because of his/her interpretation of the ethics in this case. Pure speculation, of course. Certainly the vet assistant quoted made it clear he wouldn't agree PTS. What is obvious, is that a vet finally passed it as OK with his/her interpretation of ethics.

Dr Libbye Miller again. It's about working at reducing risk as far as humanly possible. It's not about 'no risk'. There's no such thing: The fanciers of the breeds, those you see exhibiting their dogs at Westminster and other dog shows, work very hard to eliminate serious genetic conditions. They screen their breeding stock with every available test. They research pedigrees before breeding into other lines, to check for similar clearances in those animals. They contribute money to research organizations to further the work being done to track down genetic problems. They contribute blood, cell samples, etc. from their own animals to help with DNA and genome studies. They have made great progress so far, and they continue to work hard at it.... Are there unethical breeders? Certainly, there are. Just as in any group of humans, you will find the good and the bad... If you are looking for a nice family pet from a breeder who will be there for you forever, you need to do due diligence. You won't get that from a pet store. You won't get that from the guy selling dogs out of his pickup truck in the WalMart parking lot... Yes, it takes a little more time and effort to find someone who really cares and does all the work to breed the healthiest, happiest puppies possible and then stands behind those puppies.

By the way, widening the gene pool within a breed is considered important in the p/b dog breeding world. Specially so, with rare or less common breeds. As this article shows, modern technology makes this easier. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/genetics/article3728614.ece In my own breed of interest.... uncommon in Australia, but not rare....a number of the registered breeders import bloodlines from other countries to widen the gene pool. And some are exported, too.

Thanks for the info that, contractually, guide dogs in Australia continue to be owned by the program.

You've just give your conclusion based on weighing up your own values. That's what ethical positions are all about. It doesn't make you more or less hard-hearted. My position is that comparisons do not wipe out individual cases as worthy of ethical consideration. And that also doesn't make me more or less hard-hearted. Likewise, it's a value judgment & people differ on their values.

This article points out, more technically, why claims that crossbreeds always have 'genetic superiority' is not science. Also says the very term 'genetic superiority' is a value judgment & not science. Explains why Dr Miller describes such claims as 'junk science'. Scroll down to From Wikipedia on Answers. com: heterosis (hybrid vigor). Next to pic of mixedbreed dog. Couple of paragraphs under Controversy: Worth printing out, too: http://www.answers.com/topic/heterosis-1

There's a sharp critique of how 'hybrid vigor' is being claimed as making mixed breed dogs biologically superior to purebred dogs .... from a vet, Dr Libbye Miller. If someone genuinely wants to be informed, then give it to them to read. http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=443915662016&id=1584362759 Sample opening paragraphs. But read the lot, not long & not a word wasted. Note that permission is given to repost. Or print it out to pass on: "Adorable mixed breeds" get cancer, epilepsy, allergies, heart disease, and orthopedic problems just like purebreds. I see it every day in my veterinary practice but mixed breed dogs aren't tracked like the purebreds so they have a reputation as "healthier" that is actually undeserved in many cases." It is so sad that a lot of folks, including young veterinarians these days, buy into the "hybrid vigor" baloney. The vet schools have been infiltrated by the Animal Rights Extremists, who are teaching them this junk science in order to push their agenda. All animals have a certain amount of genetic load, which is to say there is absolutely no animal without some genetic problem of some sort of another. Know anyone who wears glasses? Has allergies? Thyroid problems? Weak knees? Flat feet? A skin condition? Arthritis? A gapbetween their front teeth? These are all genetic imperfections. No human is genetically "clean." Neither is any individual of any species on earth. So this idea that dogs should not be bred because they might have a genetic problem, and that breeders are somehow "evil" for breeding them, is ridiculous. Every single individual of every single species has at least a few genetic conditions.... And the rest, too!

Are there suitable names yet for this trio of white angels? :)

Doggie Rescue in Sydney puts the label 'Apartment Friendly' on some of the dogs they have for adoption. It seems to be based on the observations of the foster-carer ... I don't know what criteria those dogs have to fit to get labelled 'Apartment Friendly'.

It's already been pointed out in this thread that it's legal in that US context. A vet assistant checked it out: One poor vet assistant brought some of those extremists down on his head when it was thought he was the one who did the PTS. He didn't. He said it was legal, but he thinks it was morbid, in that the dog's body was in the open coffin with the owner. His own ethic would be to rehome. What's being discussed is the ethical question .... & your ethics are based on your values. And people have different values. So not surprising there's different views in this thread: Vets have to work thro' ethical questions, too. This paper points out that even tho' animals are legally classed as objects of private property, welfare legislation underlines the fact that animals have intrinsic interests which must be protected regardless of the property status'. That's not an animal rights' person .... it's from a textbook for Vets on ethics in their profession. Acknowledges that real debatable ethical dilemmas come up for vets: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yJkfkID6vwMJ:www.forensicvet.com/media/uploads/Veterinary%2520Professional%2520Ethics%2520TS.pdf+Canadian+Veterinary+Journal+Ethical+problem+of+the+month&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg6IuR2VHodkWS7vgsT0Gr0YypRMiYDy107z4lPCvEN5Z7GzhtZyQfnb9CqJ55GJOLmHjDaSknHCGotz4gORaDou-dGRdctMrVcdZfUuE6MJdyS2UBefY0ab1tbHOPiOnNvg69C&sig=AHIEtbS8gRUBm4iWFYt9vLvxa98_GrevaA As to the Australian scene... & given we're talking about a trained guide dog .... we don't know if there's any contractual obligation with the Guide Dog Association in this country.

Take some Bis-Pectin. :)

:) Yes, big or small, it's the activity level throughout the day. Size is not the determinant of that. I also like BK's take on 'mess making' & 'getting messed'. Says people have to work out their personal tolerance levels (same for general grooming needs). Applies to any pet dog, wherever.: LONG EARS,WET BEARDS,AND FUZZY FEET A Metrodog is exposed to all manner of dirt on his daily walks. Metrodogs with long ears and/or beards that drag on the sidewalk when they sniff or fuzzy feet that can track in the dirt when they come home require more maintenance to keep clean and tidy. Fastidious housekeepers may never be happy. Other people don’t give it a second thought. You just have to know your personal tolerance for that sort of thing.

I agree, Mrs RB. He really challenges the blanket rule that people should go for small dogs only in apartment life. He points out that some of the larger breeds actually have a lower activity level in their maturity. i love that phrase 'a walking couch' .... just how many folk describe their pet greyhounds. :) If you can ever get your hands on the whole book, it's a great read. With lots of the tips applying to pet dog ownership... where ever you live.

I'd imagine there would be some contractual arrangement when a vision-impaired person is allocated a guide dog. It's a service that's been provided ... & there's no cost to the person. I looked up the Guide Dog Qld website & it seems there's ongoing relationship with the Association. Interesting to know if anything like 'disposing' of the dog is covered in any such contract. Surely it'd have to be. There's an enormous amount of money invested in the training, placement & support. Also on that website is reference to how the pet public can apply for a rehomed dog: New life and family Our dogs make wonderful pets and sometimes just need a loving home. It is for this reason we accept applications from community members interested in purchasing our re-homed dogs. Even though the dogs are offered for sale, we allocate them based on assessment as there are certain criteria that need to be fulfilled including having a fenced yard and being able to accommodate the dog indoors. Applicants should understand that our dogs are accustomed to a certain level of human contact. We expect our dogs to remain inside the home with regular human contact and stimulation such as exercise and the ability of the owner to meet feeding and veterinary costs. Click here to download the Application Form for a rehomed dog.

A well known & respected American dog trainer/behaviourist, Brian Kilcommons, wrote a book called Metro Dog because so many people in cities like New York live in apartments & own dogs. He set out what potential owners would have to think through .... then how to manage living in an apartment with a dog so all goes as well as possible. He's summarized it, on this page. http://www.greatpets.com/corporate/our-businesses/gp-publishing/metro-dog/ I found the full book Metro Dog in my local council library. Full title: Metrodog: A Guide to Raising Your Dog in the City by Brian Kilcommons & Sarah Wilson Also from that website, seems Brian K visited Australia last year. Click on Home on that website to get an idea who he is.

Great news. :)

A newspaper report (Daily Mail) seems to point to the owner being religious. But if and how that translated into a personal belief Toffee would 'go to heaven' with her, I couldn't guess. Paying tribute to Mrs Stadler, the DeBaun Funeral Home refused to comment on its involvement in displaying the euthanized dog but said that she had been a 'dedicated homemaker' whose favourite book was the Bible. Whichever way, it's not a rational way of looking at all the options for a still young dog .... who'd likely have a guide dog training organisation behind him to facilitate a new good pet home. I've seen it done here in Australia. Persephone's also knows of an example. In both cases, the dogs not only got good, reliable pet homes .... but a number of their skills still helped people. I sure admire, hugely, the elderly lady who sought help, from people who knew what they were doing & with a good track record on care for animals ... & made sure her little dog was happily settled before her health failed further or she died. Interestingly, I was second in line for that little dog, so she'll always stay in my radar.

Yes. I read that bit and thought 'I wish!' :laugh: But would we have to feed him/her? Could turn into a bit of a nuisance ... sitting around waiting for something to happen!!! :)

Thanks, Pers, I get what you meant now. BTW, the family that got the dog from Guide Dogs found he's brilliant with their elderly father (who's not blind!). Many of the guide dog trained behaviours made him a good & easy companion.

You're saying that the UK Guide Dog's director is basing her assessment solely on money making. I've said that it wouldn't be all that unusual for a guide dog's owner to die & for the source organisation to have experience with rehoming. More a matter of being part of the usual process of dealing with guide dogs. I know a family who applied to Guide Dogs (Australia) for a dog that was not being used in that capacity for some reason. They got one.

I liked the question, 'Do you have a vet around your home'? Like, who has a vet perpetually wandering around their home ... waiting for your pet to get sick.

You've made an assessment of your dogs' behaviour over time & based your decision on that. Not on the sole reason that you don't want to be separated from them on your death. Seems a fair position, to me. After all, any question of rehoming would have to be based on assessment. Toffee didn't get the benefit of that. It's telling that the person in charge of Guide Dogs UK disagrees strongly with what was done with Toffee. I'd imagine a guide dog being left because of its owner's death wouldn't be all that unusual & they'd know from experience that rehoming can likely be done.

Congratulations. And the Ku-Ring-Gai Council is lucky to have someone with your experience & knowledge.