Desexing Of Rescue Dogs

[Muggles]

I'd go with the ultrasound, if possible.

If not that (for whatever their reasoning) then can't they do the GA with the dog being 'more well' and do an internal? IE Do they really have to surgically open her up to see? Pardon my ignorance if this is a really dumb question.

Apart from the above, I get the impression from reading that the job has already been done? If so, what was the outcome?

ETA: I agree with WM that the best would be to go the extra yards and find someone who could and would provide the ultrasound service.

unfortunately, it is now out of my hands. I don't know what the results were but yes I would imagine it has already been done. i have been "escorted from the property" so to speak and labelled a troublemaker. Time to get back in my box i'm afraid and hunker down till the firing stops. I'm not the only carer that is not happy with this group so will have to wait and see.

[schnauzer]

Wow, such a contraversial topic for a new member. You're game... or incognito.

I would think the rescue weighedup pros and cons and did what they felt was best in the situation. What is it that concerns you? The fact the dog may have undergone a GA unneccessarily or something else?

I know how damaging GA's can be to some dogs, she wasn't well when she came into care and i felt they were putting their paperwork issues before the dogs wellbeing. (and the fact that they didn't want to have to chase it up down the track, a phone call once a month to check on her is all it would take.)

I feel like they were taking the easy option so they could rehome her and forget about it.

Why would a rescue be putting an "unwell dog" in for desexing/ga in the first place?

My vets would not even contemplate desexing an unwell dog. If this bitch were in our rescue, she would be cared for appropriately in foster care and then have an ultrasound to determine if desexed or not. I would not give a GA unnecessarily.

No dog should ever be rehomed undesexed unless old age/illness prevents it.

[Muggles]

After reading through all your responses (thank you btw) I'm worried that some of you seem to think I don't think desexing is important before rehoming. I am for it 100% but in saying that. In this instance I wasn't happy because not everything in this world is black and white. There is a lot of grey area and I felt that we needed to be able to do it differently in this case, rather than just say "this is the rule, this is the way it is".

I have rehomed alot of dogs and am still in touch with all of the new owners, I don't let a dog go to anyone that I don't spend some time getting to know. Plus we do have a desexing contract that new owners sign if for any reason the dog can't be desexed for health issues before they go to their new home, why couldn't we have done that?

I'm suprised by the amount of you that are so willing to "open her up" and see. I must be the only one thats has lost dogs on the table?

I don't want anymore unwanted litters either but hells bells what about this dog, who's looking after this dog. Not me anymore unfortunately.

Thanks for your responses, it has opened my eyes up

[WreckitWhippet]

No dog should ever be rehomed undesexed unless old age/illness prevents it.

Just on that point.

It would be an chronic iillness that would prevent the dog or bitch from being desexed, not one that they could be reasonably expected to recover from.

[schnauzer]

No dog should ever be rehomed undesexed unless old age/illness prevents it.

Just on that point.

It would be an chronic iillness that would prevent the dog or bitch from being desexed, not one that they could be reasonably expected to recover from.

Absolutely agree SBT123.

[hilaryo]

I really can't understand why the bitch isn't just taken to another vet for an ultrasound (if the current vet doesn't have a machine) to confirm whether or not she has been desexed.

I have only had time to read the first page - so maybe I've missed something.

Edited February 9, 2010 by hilaryo

[Greytmate]

Plus we do have a desexing contract that new owners sign if for any reason the dog can't be desexed for health issues before they go to their new home, why couldn't we have done that?

It is wrong to rehome a dog that is so unhealthy it cannot be desexed.

A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the dog and the reputation of rescue. Steve had a really good point.

For somebody that says they are concerned about losing dogs under GA I am really surprised at your stance. It seems selfish.

It seems that as long as you personally don't lose any dogs under GA, then that is ok for you. But its ok for a brand new adoptor to take home a sick dog, and have the new pet they have just bought and bonded with die under GA a couple of weeks later.

It is up to rescue to step up to the challenge and bring the dogs up to an adoptable state before placing them with a family. To avoid the possibility of a really horrible situation, I wouldn't like to even offer a dog to somebody until after it was healthy and desexed.

Muggles, maybe it is you cutting corners in wanting to see dogs go out undesexed. You may have been lucky so far, but any group rehoming hundreds of dogs knows that there will be a fair proportion of new owners that will not keep in contact once they have their dog, even though they agreed to stay in contact when they adopted the dog. I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed?

[poodlefan]

Greytmate:

I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed?

There is one more issue to consider.

Any bitch kept by a rescue for only a couple of weeks and rehomed undesexed may be pregnant.

No adoptive family should ever have to whelp and raise pups from a rescue bitch. And it happens. All it does is deter others from adopting - word travels.

Edited February 10, 2010 by poodlefan

[Greytmate]

Greytmate:

I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed?

There is one more issue to consider.

Any bitch kept by a rescue for only a couple of weeks and rehomed undesexed may be pregnant.

No adoptive family should have have to whelp and raise pups from a rescue bitch. And it happens. All it does is deter others from adopting - word travels.

There is another issue too.

I wouldn't put an unwell dog through a behaviour assessment. For the test to be fair, the dog should be healthy.

[LizT]

Greytmate:

I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed?

There is one more issue to consider.

Any bitch kept by a rescue for only a couple of weeks and rehomed undesexed may be pregnant.

No adoptive family should have have to whelp and raise pups from a rescue bitch. And it happens. All it does is deter others from adopting - word travels.

Absoutely right, My inlaws adopted a lovely Miniature Daschund from a pound several years ago. She was thin but soon began to put on weight, had quite an appetite...and six puppies quite unexpectantly one evening.

[Muggles]

Plus we do have a desexing contract that new owners sign if for any reason the dog can't be desexed for health issues before they go to their new home, why couldn't we have done that?

It is wrong to rehome a dog that is so unhealthy it cannot be desexed.

A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the dog and the reputation of rescue. Steve had a really good point.

For somebody that says they are concerned about losing dogs under GA I am really surprised at your stance. It seems selfish.

It seems that as long as you personally don't lose any dogs under GA, then that is ok for you. But its ok for a brand new adoptor to take home a sick dog, and have the new pet they have just bought and bonded with die under GA a couple of weeks later.

It is up to rescue to step up to the challenge and bring the dogs up to an adoptable state before placing them with a family. To avoid the possibility of a really horrible situation, I wouldn't like to even offer a dog to somebody until after it was healthy and desexed.

Muggles, maybe it is you cutting corners in wanting to see dogs go out undesexed. You may have been lucky so far, but any group rehoming hundreds of dogs knows that there will be a fair proportion of new owners that will not keep in contact once they have their dog, even though they agreed to stay in contact when they adopted the dog. I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed?

you have not understand my point at all. i think you need to read it again, maybe a bit slower and with your glasses on?

she is not, not being desexed because she is too unwell. its because the vet said they think she is already done and they weren't keen on opening her up and either was I.

I did not want this dog (or any dog for that matter) opened up unnecessarily. How is that me wanting to cut corners? I would have happily kept her for as long as it took. I have never rushed a rescue. If i had been given the option for her to have an ultrasound i would have jumped at the chance, but i was told that it wasn't an option.

are you a foster carer?

why are you attacking me? calling me selfish???

I have never said i think dogs should be rehomed undesexed, but in this case i wanted another option.

AGAIN I REPEAT I DO NOT LIKE DOGS OPERATED ON IF ITS NOT NECESSARY. THATS ALL IM SAYING.

[WreckitWhippet]

AGAIN I REPEAT I DO NOT LIKE DOGS OPERATED ON IF ITS NOT NECESSARY. THATS ALL IM SAYING.

But unless the vet could/would sign off on an ultrasound, that the bitch has been speyed, then it is necessary to open a bitch up to determine if it indeed has been done.

Once again if the bitch was not well enough to undergo a GA, then she was not well enough to be rehomed and should have remained in care, until such time as she was fit and healthy.

Desexing contracts have no place in rescue, all dogs and bitches should be desexed by the rescue or sold with confirmation that it has alread been done. The exception to the rule is those animals with a chronic illness .

[Greytmate]

Plus we do have a desexing contract that new owners sign if for any reason the dog can't be desexed for health issues before they go to their new home, why couldn't we have done that?

It is wrong to rehome a dog that is so unhealthy it cannot be desexed.

A balance needs to be struck between the needs of the dog and the reputation of rescue. Steve had a really good point.

For somebody that says they are concerned about losing dogs under GA I am really surprised at your stance. It seems selfish.

It seems that as long as you personally don't lose any dogs under GA, then that is ok for you. But its ok for a brand new adoptor to take home a sick dog, and have the new pet they have just bought and bonded with die under GA a couple of weeks later.

It is up to rescue to step up to the challenge and bring the dogs up to an adoptable state before placing them with a family. To avoid the possibility of a really horrible situation, I wouldn't like to even offer a dog to somebody until after it was healthy and desexed.

Muggles, maybe it is you cutting corners in wanting to see dogs go out undesexed. You may have been lucky so far, but any group rehoming hundreds of dogs knows that there will be a fair proportion of new owners that will not keep in contact once they have their dog, even though they agreed to stay in contact when they adopted the dog. I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed?

you have not understand my point at all. i think you need to read it again, maybe a bit slower and with your glasses on?

she is not, not being desexed because she is too unwell. its because the vet said they think she is already done and they weren't keen on opening her up and either was I.

I did not want this dog (or any dog for that matter) opened up unnecessarily. How is that me wanting to cut corners? I would have happily kept her for as long as it took. I have never rushed a rescue. If i had been given the option for her to have an ultrasound i would have jumped at the chance, but i was told that it wasn't an option.

are you a foster carer?

why are you attacking me? calling me selfish???

I have never said i think dogs should be rehomed undesexed, but in this case i wanted another option.

AGAIN I REPEAT I DO NOT LIKE DOGS OPERATED ON IF ITS NOT NECESSARY. THATS ALL IM SAYING.

No need to be so rude. I was merely answering your question. Please read in your question (quoted above) where YOU talk about rehoming a dog with health issues.

We all get that you do not want the dog operated on needlessly, nobody wants that. But there are many worse things that could happen than that, and you seem to be completely ignoring all of them.

I have been fostering for over ten years and running a large rehoming organisation for over five years. I am not attacking you, but your question did deserve a response.

I am sorry you are disappointed that people have a different opinion than you, but some of us have invested a lot of time and effort into this sort of thing and understand the potential risks.

It is normal that every rescue dog undergoes at least one GA. Only a very few get to escape that. If you are unable to accept a risk that a dog in your care might die under GA, why would you want to potentially put a new adopter in that same position? That's the part I find selfish.

[centitout]

Greytmate:

I would ask why you would adopt out an unhealthy, undesexed dog rather than spend more time working with it until it is healthy and desexed?

There is one more issue to consider.

Any bitch kept by a rescue for only a couple of weeks and rehomed undesexed may be pregnant.

No adoptive family should have have to whelp and raise pups from a rescue bitch. And it happens. All it does is deter others from adopting - word travels.

Absoutely right, My inlaws adopted a lovely Miniature Daschund from a pound several years ago. She was thin but soon began to put on weight, had quite an appetite...and six puppies quite unexpectantly one evening.

My mum had the same thing happen with one from the RSPCA-we had no idea she was pregnant at the time.

[dogslife]

I think that this has gone a little off topic but I will try and answer the questions

I have experience as a rescuer and as an owner.

My first pound dog was sold as desexed as she had a scar that might have been from surgery but my vet and I were not convinced as the scar was not quite right. This was back in 1986.

We decided to operate and she was NOT desexed. She was my baby for the next 14 years til she died and I am glad that I made sure that she never became a mum.

I have been involved in rescue for over seven years. I have learnt that many people who buy dogs from rescue often tell you they will do stuff but never do.

I would not trust the average person to check and see if the dog came into season. Its not worth the risk.

If possible I would prefer that the dog undergo a non invasive process but that is not always available.

In Rescue, sometimes the choices are not ideal but I would always do everything to ensure that a dog left rescue desexed. We don't need more puppies.

[tdierikx]

I foster care young pups myself... and ALL are desexed before rehoming. My job is to make sure that they are ready (read fit and healthy, big enough and old enough) BEFORE they get booked in to the vet for their operations. They also learn valuable socialisation skills with other dogs (my dogs) and people in a home environment. My rescue coordinator trusts MY judgement as to when my young charges are ready for their surgeries - as I'm the one with them in my possession/care...

We haven't lost any rescue pups under GA yet... and that's not just down to luck...

I have never personally lost one of my own dogs under a GA, but I have had one that came close to bleeding out on the table because the vet ignored my instruction to test her clotting factor prior to surgery (she had Von Willebrandts(sp?)). Needless to say that we don't go to that particular vet any more... I have also had a dog that reacted badly to sedation, but handled GA just fine - anything requiring sedation in a normal dog, my boy was knocked out completely for instead.

I understand your concern about the dog you had in your care, but if the rescue was itching to "turn her around and out the door quickly", then they didn't seem to have had HER best interests at heart, did they?

T.

[Kirty]

Desexing contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. People lie.

[dogslife]

Desexing contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. People lie.

Agreed...

I also have never lost a dog under GA

#touch wood#

[Erny]

I also have never lost a dog under GA #touch wood#

And I hope it remains that way, Dogslife.

My brother lost his dog as he was coming out of the affects of GA. It is only one. But it is one I will never forget, so the concern remains quite strong for me.

[lucylotto]

Wow, such a contraversial topic for a new member. You're game... or incognito.

I would think the rescue weighedup pros and cons and did what they felt was best in the situation. What is it that concerns you? The fact the dog may have undergone a GA unneccessarily or something else?

I know how damaging GA's can be to some dogs, she wasn't well when she came into care and i felt they were putting their paperwork issues before the dogs wellbeing. (and the fact that they didn't want to have to chase it up down the track, a phone call once a month to check on her is all it would take.)

I feel like they were taking the easy option so they could rehome her and forget about it.

Yes, I agree. Avoid GA and wounds at all costs. Last resort only. (fraid that the nurse in me talking)

I lost my beautiful Lab to GA during routine desexing. We were devastated. She was perfectly healthy, no underlying conditions that would predispose her.