[MissMutt]

Actually, it's not so hypothetical, as it's something I read on a local Pets forum.

Woman has two Pit Bulls. I believe she's had them their whole lives, if not, at least a very long time. She needs to give them up ("no-time" ) and the odds are not stacked in favor of them. One is 10, the other is 8. One of the two is definitely animal aggressive, the other might be as well. Both have food allergies.

Which is the better option if a private re-home or foster situation is not present: humanely euthanize the dogs, or board them somewhere (vet's office)/bring them to a shelter (either kill or no-kill)?

Interested in getting some opinions on this.

 

[emily445455]

What? She doesn't have time for her old dogs that has had almost all their lives? Goodness gracious!!! I don't have any suggestions though.

 

[FourIsCompany]

Both options are pretty bleak. But I don't believe in euthanizing an animal because someone doesn't have time for it. So, I would choose to board them. At least they would have a chance of being adopted or taken by a rescue organization if they were at the shelter.

 

[BigBlackDogGal]

"No kill" shelters can be misleading because some will not accept dogs that have a history of biting or who try to bite the employees. If this woman were to take them to a shelter she should do her research on their policies. Although if she's taking them to a shelter anyway, she probably doesn't care

 

[marsha=whitie]

What would it hurt to keep them until they pass? she's dealt with them this long...

 

[MissMutt]

What would it hurt to keep them until they pass? she's dealt with them this long...

That's exactly what I said in the thread. sigh. Stupid people.

FiC I think you hit it: both options are quite bleak. Honestly, of the two, I would prefer euthanasia. But that's just me and I respect other people's opinions. Some other woman jumped all over me for suggesting "killing healthy dogs." I didn't challenge her viewpoint, I simply stated mine, and she went off on me like I'm some sort of ruthless murderer.

 

[HORSEandHOUND]

My first choice would be a pit rescue. If she can't find one I'd vote for euth. Its kinder than suffering in a shelter eating crap food before being euthed

 

[MonicaBH]

If I couldn't find a suitable permanent home for my own pets after a whole-hearted effort, I would likely euthanize.

Recently on my local Craigslist I saw an ad for a 15 year old poodle, and another for a 12 year old dog... and several cats that were >12 years old. My first thought was, why stress these poor animals out? Give them the respect and dignity they deserve and just euthanize them.

 

[pugmom]

If you can afford to board them....why not just keep them and pay someone to come by and walk/feed them...and just keep them home?

 

[MissMutt]

Pugmom, I meant board as in someone taking the dog and keeping it boarded until it finds a home. Not at the expense of the owner. A lot of rescues around here do that at vet's offices. I disagree with it.

 

[emily445455]

What would it hurt to keep them until they pass? she's dealt with them this long...

That's what I thought too.

 

[rosemaryninja]

I would either keep them till they pass or euthanize. Even in the unlikely case that she is able to find homes that will accommodate senior aggressive dogs with special dietary needs... it's not really fair to uproot these dogs so late in their lives.

 

[princesstiffany]

if for some reason i could not care for my dogs (although them being older, i do agree she should keep them until they do pass) i would:

-contact family members who could maybe take them in
-contact breed rescues
-find a foster home

and if it came down to a crappy shelter life or euthanize, i would choose the latter. if they end up at the shelter, their last days will be stressful and strange and with their issues, it would not be fair to put them through that( if it was a kill shelter and they didnt get adopted in the alloted time).

 

[FourIsCompany]

Honestly, of the two, I would prefer euthanasia.

I respect your opinion. And there are actually cases where I think that decision should be totally left up to the owner.

But handing them over to an organization has the POSSIBILITY of ending with them being adopted by someone who LOVES senior pitties and would give them 5 more years of a wonderful life. Euthanasia takes that possibility away. That's why I chose the one I did. Because of the possibilities.

I didn't challenge her viewpoint, I simply stated mine, and she went off on me like I'm some sort of ruthless murderer.

That's too bad. That attitude really shuts down open discussions.

 

[sheltiemom]

Personally I would keep the dogs the remainder of their lives, I think we all would, but if there were some extreme situation and I couldn't, I would first try very hard to rehome them myself, family or friends would be great, but I would also consider something like craigslist and screen very well....second option I would try is a rescue, breed specific and then all breed...honestly I wouldn't consider taking them to a shelter or euthanasia either one an option...I guess a shelter would be preferable to euth since they would at least have a chance, unless the combination of aggression and skin problems made them unadoptable, as in, the shelter would put them down anyway, then I guess euth, but jeez, something very bad would have to happen to me for me to entertain either of those options.

 

[Willowy]

I do think that elderly animals (I'm talking 20-year-old cats, 15-year-old dogs, etc.) whose owners can't keep them should be euthanized by their regular vet with the owner present. This would be the least traumatic for them, IMO. Plus I think it forces the responsibility for their deaths onto the owners, instead of giving them a warm fuzzy feeling when they dump their pet at the shelter, because "oh, they'll find him a good home". For an old pet to have to live 2 weeks in a small cold cage at a noisy shelter before being put down is inhumane.

Now, are 8- and 10-year-old pits old enough to be consider "elderly"? I don't know, I'd have to see their condition. Some 10-year-old dogs are elderly and some aren't.

Ideally, if the owner wants to re-home them, SHE should be responsible for finding a suitable home for them. If the only other option is to take them to a kill shelter, or a non-sanctuary-type "no-kill" shelter, then I believe euthanasia by their regular vet with the owner present would be best for them.

I think that if my only options were to take my pets to a shelter or to euthanize, most of them would be euthanized. Only a few of them are adoptable enough to make it out of a shelter alive, and I wouldn't torture the others by leaving them at the shelter to be killed.

 

[KenyiGirl]

In this situation, with such a currently unpopular breed, with dog aggressive, allergic senior dogs, I would euthanize. That's sad she's giving up her pups, but I think in this instance putting them to sleep would be better than putting them through living in a foreign kennel and then trying to rehome them...