Castanet

zebrawoman wrote: They had the ability to make different choices and they didn't make them. I fail to see why this is the SPCA's fault.

Well said. In my mind it boils down to they are blaming the SPCA for their own mistakes instead of taking ownership.
I do sympathize with the loss of the pet though.

gardengirl wrote:I think someone at the SPCA made a mistake. They appear to have not explained things adequately to this couple.
It doesn't sound like they understood that by surrendering the dog, it would then become available for anyone to adopt.

As for their age, I don't see what that has to do with anything. My mother is 79 and gets up at 5:30 every morning to walk 3 miles. We got her a dog about 2 years ago and she is the best pet parent you could imagine. Everyone in the family also loves the dog and should anything ever happen to mom, the family would pretty much fight over who got to take the pup.

Obviously somewhere along the line there was some miscommunication (likely a couple instances...especially whoever told this couple they would lend their dog to the SPCA).

The bottom line is that a poor choice was made to bring the dog to the SPCA for the birth of the puppies. The SPCA will obviously do all that they can, but a veterinarian would be more qualified for the job. On top of that the dog was diagnosed with diabetes, so the more responsible thing would be to bring Fifi back to the vet who diagnosed these conditions (pregnancy and diabetes) and have her treated properly.

I don't know if someone can provide more information on this (I'm more recent to BC and not sure of the policy) but isn't there a fee to surrender an animal? Perhaps if these 8 (?) puppies were birthed outside of the SPCA and then surrendered it would cost the couple a lot more than if they were born in the shelter. Not saying it's right...but maybe another reason for the decision.

Always Sunny wrote:Obviously somewhere along the line there was some miscommunication (likely a couple instances...especially whoever told this couple they would lend their dog to the SPCA).

The bottom line is that a poor choice was made to bring the dog to the SPCA for the birth of the puppies. The SPCA will obviously do all that they can, but a veterinarian would be more qualified for the job. On top of that the dog was diagnosed with diabetes, so the more responsible thing would be to bring Fifi back to the vet who diagnosed these conditions (pregnancy and diabetes) and have her treated properly.

I don't know if someone can provide more information on this (I'm more recent to BC and not sure of the policy) but isn't there a fee to surrender an animal? Perhaps if these 8 (?) puppies were birthed outside of the SPCA and then surrendered it would cost the couple a lot more than if they were born in the shelter. Not saying it's right...but maybe another reason for the decision.

I agree, as I've already stated several times...they were given poor advice.
I don't know the reasons, but perhaps this friend that told them to ask for help from the SPCA was under the impression that since they assist people with spay/neuters that they would also assist this couple in whelping their pups. They obviously did not understand the implications of asking them for help. They obviously had no intention of giving up their dog.

Mistakes were made by both parties....and when the couple kept insisting that they loved the dog and wanted her returned, someone should have taken the time to explain things clearly before making them sign those papers. They were told that if the papers weren't signed and the dog surrender right then, no help could be provided. Sounds pretty misleading to me.

There is no reason to believe they were not more than willing to take the dog back to their own vet for treatments and medications.

There is a fee to surrender...but, there would have been no need to surrender the pups. Small breed puppies sell easily and quickly...so from a financial standpoint, it would have benefitted them to keep the pups and sell them privately.

As for how the dog got bred...we all obviously know about the birds and bees...but there are many pet owners out there that really don't know a lot about the eustrus cycle of dogs. It doesn't make them irresponsible, just not well educated on the subject. They could well have believed that once a dog stops bleeding, she is no longer in heat. With a dog that small, with long black hair...it could have been completely possible that she kept herself maticulously clean and the owners did not even notice any blood. None of us know how or why the dog got bred.....which doesn't give anyone the right to conclude that the owners were inept or irresponsible.

They were MISLEAD into believing it was for temporary care...they were very clear that they did not want to give up their pet. They were told the dog could not be helped if they didn't sign the papers. They were told that they could just re-adopt her after the pups were weaned.

Enough already. I get that you are upset about the story. But it's their story. Why would the SPCA discriminate against these people? What is the win for them?

I saw the video and while they seem like nice enough folks, their story is crap. While sitting in front of a gas burning fire place, the gentleman suggests that he and his wife wondered whether or not with the winter upon them they would have an adequate place or home for the pups?

Bull cookies. The reality of a house full of puppies was more than they were prepared to deal with.

That they wanted the dog back is not under contention. They just didn't want to deal with the inconvenience of the added puppies or the cost of the spaying.

If they walked into the SPCA and asked if the society would be willing to, at their expense, spay the dog, care for the puppies and adopt them out and then give the dog back, why the hell would the society tell them anything other than the truth that that is not what they do nor can they afford to become interim caregivers for those who do not have the means to at least temporarily look after their pets?

You have to be able to see that this story is full of holes.

I admire your spirit though.

mexicalidreamer wrote:
Enough already. I get that you are upset about the story. But it's their story. Why would the SPCA discriminate against these people? What is the win for them?

I saw the video and while they seem like nice enough folks, their story is crap. While sitting in front of a gas burning fire place, the gentleman suggests that he and his wife wondered whether or not with the winter upon them they would have an adequate place or home for the pups?

Bull cookies. The reality of a house full of puppies was more than they were prepared to deal with.

That they wanted the dog back is not under contention. They just didn't want to deal with the inconvenience of the added puppies or the cost of the spaying.

If they walked into the SPCA and asked if the society would be willing to, at their expense, spay the dog, care for the puppies and adopt them out and then give the dog back, why the hell would the society tell them anything other than the truth that that is not what they do nor can they afford to become interim caregivers for those who do not have the means to at least temporarily look after their pets?

You have to be able to see that this story is full of holes.

I admire your spirit though.

People are sure reading a lot into their story that isn't actually there.
I didn't see anywhere in their story that said they wanted nothing to do with the puppies...and what he said was that they weren't sure the space they had made up for the pups was adequate. I also don't recall them asking the shelter to spay their dog while she was there.
No, it wasn't the right place to take their dog...but I see more holes in the three seperate and completely different statements made by various workers at the shelter than I do in this couple's.

Exactly, Mex. They tried to work the system so they wouldn't have to pay for pet care and got called on it. Then made up a boo-poo story to cover their arses.

Janalta - great opening post. Let's not donate to a charity that takes in a dog in distress, cares for her through to the other end of whelping, diabetes, etc, finds her a wonderful home. Sounds like a horrible charity to me.

Well...I guess we'll go get the pet a puppy mill....

you suck SPCA .

I'll call you in the morning to tell you that myself...Or should I do that in person ?

Just so you know who's property NOT to set foot on.

MAPearce wrote:Well...I guess we'll go get the pet a puppy mill....

you suck SPCA .

I'll call you in the morning to tell you that myself...Or should I do that in person ?

Just so you know who's property NOT to set foot on.

Puppy mill?? What on earth are you talking about?????....

What's in it for the SPCA? Well, let me see. How about the exorbitant adoption fee for a cute dog and cute puppies? I'll bet there's been well over a thousand dollars made on this...probably much more. And the age thing? What's that all about? I didn't know people over a certain age (whatever age that is) are not capable of looking after a pet. Shame on anyone and especially the Kelowna SPCA for even suggesting this! Their motives are not always in the best interests of the animal. And no, I'm not knocking the volunteers....they give their all, unconditionally. But I do have a real problem with the paid employees of this "charity" who take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner. This absolutely sickens and disgusts me.

The family has decide to adopt a dog... Why should I let some @$$hat from the SPCA decide how and when they'll rip my ,my wifes , or worse , my childrens hearts out ??

If the SPCA would have rather the old folks care for as many puupies as thet could and then throw the rest in a sack with a boulder in it and toss it into the lake instead of caring for the animal and the pups ,then letting them "re adopt, I think I'd be better off saving the life of a PUPPY MILL DOG..

I'll find one..There's gotta be more than one puppy mill around here.
AND cheaper than the SPCA

The SPCA did the right thing.
They exist to provide care for animals who are in need of help.
That is what they provided for this dog. The previous owners did not.
Also when you surrender an animal (I have surrendered strays) you have to sign a form
which you should be reading first. Once you sign that form the animal is legally the SPCA's.
They can do what they want with the animal.
Again, they did the right thing in this case.

Shelly01 please take that thousands of dollars, subtract vet/medicinal cost, then food, overhead since all is documented (yes even charities have to have a 'paper trail') make sure to compare that to the monthly overhead and then tell me how much they made on one dog and her puppies.

MAPearce wrote:The family has decide to adopt a dog... Why should I let some @$$hat from the SPCA decide how and when they'll rip my ,my wifes , or worse , my childrens hearts out ??

If the SPCA would have rather the old folks care for as many puupies as thet could and then throw the rest in a sack with a boulder in it and toss it into the lake instead of caring for the animal and the pups ,then letting them "re adopt, I think I'd be better off saving the life of a PUPPY MILL DOG..

I'll find one..There's gotta be more than one puppy mill around here

But they didn't. They assumed responsibility for the dog and her pups. Cutting your nose off to spite your face is not generally a smart thing to do but, if you insist on supporting 'The Puppy Mill Industry' that's your choice and I'll not take another word you say seriously from now on.

MAPearce wrote:The family has decide to adopt a dog... Why should I let some @$$hat from the SPCA decide how and when they'll rip my ,my wifes , or worse , my childrens hearts out ??

Why would there hearts be ripped out? Are you planning on surrendering your dog? I would adopt from the SPCA because it means I saved a life. I don't always like the SPCA and what they do. But that's not the dog(s) fault.

ifwisheswerehorses wrote:Shelly01 please take that thousands of dollars, subtract vet/medicinal cost, then food, overhead since all is documented (yes even charities have to have a 'paper trail') make sure to compare that to the monthly overhead and then tell me how much they made on one dog and her puppies.

Thank you - I was just about to post almost those exact words - you saved me the time.