Rescues keeping injured animals alive

E

Equi

Well-Known Member
Joined
25 October 2010
Messages
15,336
Visit site
Just wanted to know your view on rescues keeping severely injured animals alive and spending hundreds maybe thousands on them to get them healthy again?

Just a musing.
 
I think its insane. there's a charity near me that sends chickens for operations, but then posts about how short of money it is. It doesn't make sense. I don't understand why charities keep old stiff horses alive.

The charity I do work for at the moment has the right idea i think - it works with the local council and goes into the pound and takes out any healthy young horses it can, and rehomes them. Most are unbroken young cobs, but they turn into cracking ponies.
 
Ridiculous. Saw something last week on faceache where two severely injured dogs were getting thousands of pounds of surgery with no guarantee of quality of life post surgery or indeed any life. They were asking for funds of course and people were throwing money at them.
 
What upsets me is seeing the 'nurse' vigorously manipulating a broken leg or wing to demonstrate how badly it is damaged for the cameras with no regard for the poor creature. I could scream (and sometime do!).
 
I hate it, and even more so when said animals are abroad and thousands are spent transporting them to this country and on treatment. A quick end to their pain would be the kindest thing not put them through weeks if not months of suffering.
 
equi said:
Just wanted to know your view on rescues keeping severely injured animals alive and spending hundreds maybe thousands on them to get them healthy again?

Just a musing.
Click to expand...

I'm a soft touch when it comes to injured animals (and I'm sure most of us are) but I'd rather see the thousands spent on neutering projects or similar.
 
i hate the 'keep alive at all costs' is a horrendous policy. I would far rather a dog was put to sleep than kept alive in a kennel, with no real chance of being rehomed. And the money spent on incredibly expensive operations for one dog could be used to rescue more dogs. Why keep a dog alive if it has severe behavioural issues which means it could not be rehomed, there are far far worse things in life than death and so many rescues seem to find the idea of PTS abhorrant. No one can save every dog and give it a superb quality of life, but money could be far better sense saving those that can be rehomed easily.
 
Glad im not the only one thinking it. I posted it in dog, because the one i'm thinking of is a dog. Elderly, severe burns or mange not sure but looks like burns to me, now the sanctuary are looking for money to pay for the treatment but are also appealing for CCTV companies to give them cameras so they can stop people dumping animals annoymusly.

That to me is even worse idea. If people don't know what to do with an animal or know they can't afford its care, they leave it there hoping it will get some care at least. It may be illegal, but it at least gives the animal a chance (and as in this case, the animal is getting top notch care and support)
 
Madness. Far better to have space and money for healthy dogs. I was appalled at the husky who was born with very short fores having 3D printed 'legs'. How many dogs could've been rescued for that sort of cash?

Controversially, given I have puss-cat on my knee and he's hugely DA, but adorable otherwise, I would also PTS aggressive/behavioural issues dogs. I think rescues should be spending money on re-home able dogs with positive futures, ones that can be re-home quickly to make room for the next. Sorry if it offends anyone, but I think we absolutely shouldn't be rescuing from abroad, either.
 
Many rescues gain more sympathy and support for the injured and badly neglected rescues...and they do make for better 'before' and 'after' pics :( I'm not sure if they keep them purely to give them a second chance...or that it gets a bit more public interest? Maybe a combination of both?

However, I would agree sometimes it's better to let the older, sicker and un-rehomeable animals to be put to sleep rather than treat them. They really should concentrate on the younger and healthy animals who stand much better chances of being rehomed. I saw a well known British horse rescue society spend thousands on an older horse (21 I think?) with navicular (or something similar) who had been getting operations and expensive treatment for 5 years. They themselves said she couldn't be rehomed due to her 'needs'.....she ended up getting put down. It really bothered me! Even with her just being there that was one less stable for another horse in need.....never mind the costs that could have been used to save other horses.

This, of course, is coming from the most logical place in my brain. My heart says give the badly abused and injured animals a second chance at life.
 
ashlingm said:
Many rescues gain more sympathy and support for the injured and badly neglected rescues...and they do make for better 'before' and 'after' pics :( I'm not sure if they keep them purely to give them a second chance...or that it gets a bit more public interest? Maybe a combination of both?.
Click to expand...

Thats entirely it.
 
Some things look horrific but are easily treated, mange for instance. A young dog of a lightweight breed with a badly mangled limb can go on and lead a full happy life after an amputation. A scared apparently aggressive dog can turn into a very loving individual once he learns to trust. Each case is different, sure some 'rescues' are not all they should be, but the reputable ones will quietly put a totally unrehomable dog to sleep. It is the responsible thing to do and they do it.
 
The other one is fundraising to bring in dogs from abroad. Yes I appreciate they've got a crap life but the thousands to bring one from wherever could surely be better spent to help those at home, or even in their own country to educate, and improve local conditions rather than bringing them here?!?
 
I think it's madness too for example the peel case that came to light last year most horses seized had minor things wrong most were under weight with rain scald, most were riding horses so could have been re homed into a ridden home with minimal care and money spent yet most of them were pts:( yet you see them save something that costs thousands take's months to heal and is only ever going to be a companion I just don't get it.
 
Pinkvboots said:
I think it's madness too for example the peel case that came to light last year most horses seized had minor things wrong most were under weight with rain scald, most were riding horses so could have been re homed into a ridden home with minimal care and money spent yet most of them were pts:( yet you see them save something that costs thousands take's months to heal and is only ever going to be a companion I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

sorry just seen it's a thread about dog rescues but thoughts are still the same money could go to pay for neutering and educating people with dogs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top