Kristie Pereira said she's tried to get Beau back after learning he was never euthanized but said the rescue organization she got him from has refused to rehome the dog with her.

Kristie Pereira said she’s tried to get Beau back after learning he was never euthanized but said the rescue organization she got him from has refused to rehome the dog with her.

Exhausted and short on options after consulting two veterinary clinics, Kristie Pereira made the gut-wrenching decision last year to take her desperately ill puppy to a Maryland shelter to be euthanized.

So she was stunned last week to find the dog up for adoption at the same pet rescue organization where she had gotten it.

…

Calls to the shelter confirmed that her dog had not been euthanized after veterinarians there didn’t think he needed to be. The shelter instead called Lost Dog & Cat Rescue and turned the puppy back over to them.

The rescue confirmed that Friday in a written statement, giving an extensive timeline showing that its veterinarians found no neurological issues with the dog. After tests diagnosing a liver problem and a $7,000 surgery — paid for through a GoFundMe campaign — the dog was declared healthy.

  • citrusface@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    6 months ago

    It’s a valid reason. If you surrender the dog because you don’t have the resources to take care of the dog, then that’s it - youve made a one time deal. Your ownership for the animals life.

    She signed the animal away. She saved its life by surrendering it, but now she needs to move on with the knowledge that the dog will be safe and loved - the end result is no different for her. She no longer has the dog.

    It’s not meant to be harsh. It’s the reality of rescue. The rescue has to protect itself and the animal. When she’s in a better place, she can adopt again - there are so many animals that need help.

      • citrusface@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        6 months ago

        I have read it now, thank you. I am at work and just made a quick assumption.

        In most cases I would still stand by what I said above. There has been a few times a cat has come to us to be euthanized and we managed to pull them back from the brink of death and we’ve adopted them back out to other people after considering the animals welfare.

        This sounds like a PR nightmare - and there are always exceptions to policies.

        In this case - it would sound like she might have legal ground as she was coached by the rescue to put the dog down. I amend my opinion as stated above and side with her. I would fight my rescue if this happened where I volunteer.

        I will leave my other comment as is for posterity.

        Edit - formatting, clarification, and grammar

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 months ago

        Yeah but that’s not what happened here. Read the article.

        1. She took it to her Vet.
        2. Vet said it was best to put the dog down.
        3. She took the dog home instead
        4. “Following several sleepless nights with Beau clearly in pain, Pereira said she took Beau to Montgomery County Animal Services” So she didn’t take the dog back to her vet but to a shelter.
        5. “paid $15 for him to be euthanized. She was told that the shelter’s policy does not allow people to stay with their pets as they are put down.”

        Not that I would have assumed this outcome, but it does sound like she signed the dog over to the shelter to be euthanized (for $15). My guess is her vet would charge more, but would have been with the dog when it was put down. So it DOES sound like she signed over the dog to the shelter.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          6 months ago

          Just as a comparison we recently had our cat euthanized (they were end of life and in pain) and it cost us ~200 CAD for the euthanasia and ~300 CAD for cremation. Vet services can be quite expensive and it’s extremely sad that people without disposable income wouldn’t be allowed to be with their pet through euthanasia.