Jump to content
Rebanne

What Is So Broken In People That Causes Us To

50 posts in this topic

tdierikx   

Rescues and rescuers still have the choice what they take in and what they allocate resources to... your choices may be different to rescues that I've worked with in the past, but that doesn't mean that either of us are "wrong" in the choices made...

I get the sense that you are having a bit of a dig at a rescue that I worked with previously - which shut down a few years ago and the owner is now retired. For the record, I'm not bagging your rescue or your choices... I'm simply stating that the public who make donations are within their rights to select who or what they choose to support based on their own values.

T.

And I'd be willing to be money that rescues whose choices you question probably feel the same way.

And we are all free to question each other, and choose who we want to support and who we don't, yes? It's still about choices... *grin*

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maddy   

Rescues and rescuers still have the choice what they take in and what they allocate resources to... your choices may be different to rescues that I've worked with in the past, but that doesn't mean that either of us are "wrong" in the choices made...

I get the sense that you are having a bit of a dig at a rescue that I worked with previously - which shut down a few years ago and the owner is now retired. For the record, I'm not bagging your rescue or your choices... I'm simply stating that the public who make donations are within their rights to select who or what they choose to support based on their own values.

T.

And I'd be willing to be money that rescues whose choices you question probably feel the same way.

And we are all free to question each other, and choose who we want to support and who we don't, yes? It's still about choices... *grin*

T.

You're free to do whatever you like, I just think it's unfair (or perhaps even dishonest) to tear down other groups with very vague statements, while ignoring or purposely not mentioning that some of your own decisions could be considered as bad, if not worse. I'm all for open discussion, as long as it's actually open, and not just open where it suits certain people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

And we are all free to question each other, and choose who we want to support and who we don't, yes? It's still about choices... *grin*

T.

You're free to do whatever you like, I just think it's unfair (or perhaps even dishonest) to tear down other groups with very vague statements, while ignoring or purposely not mentioning that some of your own decisions could be considered as bad, if not worse. I'm all for open discussion, as long as it's actually open, and not just open where it suits certain people.

Let's get something straight here... the rescue I was with (that you are obviously referring to) closed down around 4 years ago, and I did not run it, nor make the decisions as to how it ran. I was a volunteer and foster carer is all. We took in our fair share of special needs (read abuse and neglect) cases over the years also, but people seem to conveniently "forget" that part of our rescue's work. Most had a good outcome, but some didn't, and hard decisions had to be made at times regarding animals we had grown to love, but were simply not able to have a decent quality of life afterwards, or to be safely adopted out. I learned a lot during my time with that rescue - and the main thing was that it's NOT all happy endings and feelgood moments... it can be hard work and emotionally draining actually.

There is nothing vague in my statements regarding spending time and resources on animals that have little prospect of resonable quality of life after those resources have been allocated to them - nor my statements regarding allocation of same to those that CAN have a decent quality of life afterwards.

Calling me dishonest and inferring that I am unethical because I chose to donate my time and energy to helping care for rescue animals - regardless whether YOU believe they should have been allowed to exist in the first place - is a bit rich. I made my choice to donate that time and energy to that rescue, just like you made the choice to do the same with the rescue you are with.

I still stand by my statement that everyone in rescue is free to make the choices they do for their own reasons, and that the general public is also free to make the choice as to which rescues they will donate money or resources to.

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know a lot of rescues that when I hear them being criticised it is for "keeping animals alive" when people feel that they should be put down. I know one rescue in particular which is often criticised for this. But my take on it is that those animals are under veterinary care, and therefore some of the responsibility also lies on the treating vet in terms of their advice to the client and their treatment of the animal. Most decent vets I know are not going to happily keep an animal suffering if they don't think a good long term outcome is a likely result. And at the end of the day the vet is the only one in a position to really assess the animal properly and evaluate its prospects of recovery. So in other words if the treating vet is happy to treat the animal then I don't really see why anyone should have an issue with it. Again IMO it's no different to a private individual making a decision with their vet about the treatment of an animal. In my many years of dealing with vets I've only come across one who did not recommend euthanasia when it was warranted, thankfully she was suspended for one of many offences and I hope she is no longer practicing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maddy   

And we are all free to question each other, and choose who we want to support and who we don't, yes? It's still about choices... *grin*

T.

You're free to do whatever you like, I just think it's unfair (or perhaps even dishonest) to tear down other groups with very vague statements, while ignoring or purposely not mentioning that some of your own decisions could be considered as bad, if not worse. I'm all for open discussion, as long as it's actually open, and not just open where it suits certain people.

Let's get something straight here... the rescue I was with (that you are obviously referring to) closed down around 4 years ago, and I did not run it, nor make the decisions as to how it ran. I was a volunteer and foster carer is all. We took in our fair share of special needs (read abuse and neglect) cases over the years also, but people seem to conveniently "forget" that part of our rescue's work. Most had a good outcome, but some didn't, and hard decisions had to be made at times regarding animals we had grown to love, but were simply not able to have a decent quality of life afterwards, or to be safely adopted out. I learned a lot during my time with that rescue - and the main thing was that it's NOT all happy endings and feelgood moments... it can be hard work and emotionally draining actually.

There is nothing vague in my statements regarding spending time and resources on animals that have little prospect of resonable quality of life after those resources have been allocated to them - nor my statements regarding allocation of same to those that CAN have a decent quality of life afterwards.

Calling me dishonest and inferring that I am unethical because I chose to donate my time and energy to helping care for rescue animals - regardless whether YOU believe they should have been allowed to exist in the first place - is a bit rich. I made my choice to donate that time and energy to that rescue, just like you made the choice to do the same with the rescue you are with.

I still stand by my statement that everyone in rescue is free to make the choices they do for their own reasons, and that the general public is also free to make the choice as to which rescues they will donate money or resources to.

T.

You made a decision to be involved in that rescue, that was your choice :shrug:

And to be clear, I didn't say you were dishonest because you chose to help animals. I said you were dishonest for attacking other rescues while not owning your own decisions (and even now, whitewashing some of the very questionable things that went down). None of us are perfect and rescue can be shit at the best of times, without people holding others up to standards that they, themselves, don't even come close to.

Getting cut because you think someone is doing to you, as you were doing to others, now that is a bit rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

I'm not attacking anybody... just voicing an opinion that might differ from theirs or yours is all. I don't make any decisions for other rescues other than to choose to donate my time or resources... or not...

We all know that there are people in rescue that really shouldn't be... for a myriad reasons... not least of which, when things go pear shaped, those types that manage to give rescue in general a bad name.

And as for questionable practices... you were there and can verify if the rumours were/are true, can you? Because that's all it was... rumours... I should know, I WAS actually there. But it's so much more fun to keep rumours circulating without any proof, and bringing them up years later to try to score some sort of "moral victory" when someone doesn't necessarily agree with your point of view, isn't it? Beats me...

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebanne   

Come on ladies give it up or take it private or I'll get Troy to nuke the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rescue does seem to attract a large number of "if it has a pulse, it must be saved" types... and I sometimes wonder whether some people are in the industry for the animals, or for their own personal "feelgoods".

I've had to make the heart-rending decision for a few rescue animals who were physically healthy, but mentally broken enough to not be adoptable safely. I've held my share of rescue animals while they were given their wings. It's not fair to keep an animal indefinitely who's every day is a torment of emotional issues. It is not fair to keep such an animal indefinitely in the vain hope that some member of the public wants to adopt an animal with severe issues... what normal person really wants to devote years of their lives trying to manage such issues in a pet?

Spending massive amounts of money on diseases and ailments that leave an animal compromised in some way, and needing management for the rest of their lives is also a bugbear of mine. Some "rescuers" seem to thrive on the drama and attention they receive when they put out their pleas for funding help to deal with such issues... and I sometimes wonder about who/what exactly these people are doing it all for... because I don't believe it's for the animals' sake.

It is hard to know exactly when to make that particular call with any animal in your care... and even moreso when it's a beloved family member you have shared your life with for years. Westiemum, you made the right choice at the right time for Mac... no 2 bones about it, OK? And you will get it right for Sarebear when her time comes too... *hugs*

T.

Good write up Rebanne and so true.

I often questioned myself with Ollie dog years ago - where do you draw the line for treatments of terminally ill animals??

I stopped all his treatments and he still lived another few years, so we did well. But when his time arrived, it was quick and my gut told me he had enough. I still remember the vet saying that he could put him on a drip for the day but I would be back there again next week but it would buy us some time..

We had all the time, we needed - Ollie's timing was beyond bad (we had lost my husband just 3 weeks earlier) but I just couldn't bring myself to 'make him last another week - just for us'.

So we said goodbye and it broke my heart but I also knew he was at peace.

tdierikx - the save them all brigade are a nightmare. I see so many of them on the facebook groups donating money to save dogs that really shouldn't be saved.

One recently was an really aggressive dog that even bit the hand of the handler when testing the dog with food - but they were still trying to save it. There were at least another dozen in the pound that were nicer dogs, would be better candidates for rehoming.

But no - they put a 'this dog has been abused in the past and we must fix it' tag and then scream for donations... There are so many fraudsters in rescue now it isn't funny.

Last week a 'rescuer' had a female (not spayed) beagle in care and was selling her for $400 on a buy, swap, sell page because she has spent enough money on her and won't get her money back, if she has her spayed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BDJ   

I have read this thread and was hoping that it might give someone who was the owner (or decision maker) of a sick and/or elderly dog some food for thought

Unfortunately it has ended up being (or at least sounding like) a slanging match about rescues :(:confused:

To try and bring it back to what I read in the original question - it is sad for people who are outside and looking in to see any animal suffer. Euthanasia should never be an easy decision. Some times it can be very clear cut, but never easy. Unfortunately some people don't make that decision when it is in the best interest of the animal. And sometimes the 'best interest of the animal' is very hard to determine, and is extremely subjective.

Personally I don't care if someone (or a group of people) want to spend $$$$$$ on a particular animal - their choice, their $$$$$$.

I feel for the animal when the people making the decision don't do what is best for the animal WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS.

Having a vet who has honest conversations, looking at the whole existence of the animal - how much of their last week was comfortable and without pain? Is it short term pain for long term quality of life? And if so, how much pain, for how long will they have it and how long will they be pain free?

All of these questions are hard, and subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogsfevr   

Most just don'y want accept it or do the dead ,i think plenty feel if they wait long enough it will die which is a horrible thought .

We get people who board there old dogs & you would be surprised how many hope they die whilst in the kennels ,some i swear board over the weekend just hoping it will happen.

Not only is that attitude disrespectful to us it also shows how little respect some have for there own dog to want it to die in a kennel.

It is often hard the first time but over the years we have learnt that doing it at the right time is way more comforting at that time than regretting & living with the decision to hang on for selfish reasons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×