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.
Then give the owner a chance to pay the bill. ? Why send it to a new home. Am I missing something?
The rescue’s reason:
“LDCRF does not re-home an owner-surrendered dog with its former adopter/owner,” Floyd said in her written statement. “Our mission is to save adoptable and safe-to-the-community dogs from euthanasia.”
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.
Yeah but that’s not what happened here. Read the article.
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
Yeah but that’s not what happened here. Read the article.
- She took it to her Vet.
- Vet said it was best to put the dog down.
- She took the dog home instead
- “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.
- “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.
Yes, to be euthanized. Because she was told by three different vets AND the shelter staff that euthanasia would be the best action. And then the shelter staff turned around, kept the dog, performed a liver surgery, and is now refusing to make it right to her.
Yeah. Hell I might be making some phone calls to a shelter VM when I get off work.
Encourage you all to do the same.
If the surgery hadn’t worked and the dog had suffered more, what a different story this would be. Owner makes painful decisions to euthanize animal that is suffering. Shelter says they’ll do it but she can’t watch. Decides not to do it and makes the rest of the dog’s brief life miserable.
now that you mention it - thats really fucking weird. Anytime I have had to euthanize one of my animals, ive always been allowed to be there with them.
Yeah, she did sign it - what I said applies. But other factors are being overlooked - this clearly isnt as black and white as the shelter seems to be making it.
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.
I’m very sorry to hear about your cat. What was your cats name and can you tell me a fond memory of your cat?
Sorry, but I’m not ready to talk about them yet.
I’m assuming they do this to prevent people from abusing this as a way to get someone else to pay for veterinarian bills and then adopting the pet right back.
At least they didn’t re-Noem it.
Kinda sounds like she threw the puppy out and someone else fixed it and won’t give it to her. Which seems reasonable to me.
Didn’t read the article, did you?
Removed by mod
This is a bad take my dude. I can assure you this an agonizing choice she needed to make and I’m sure her heart is broken. I’ve worked in rescue for a hot minute - I’ve seen this - it’s not easy at all., for anyone involved.
I volunteered at a shelter for two years and it’s definitely easy for some people (those that don’t give a fuck about animals): I was volunteering there one day and this guy came in with a happy and healthy looking Samoyed and said “I want to have her put down, she bit my kid”. Luckily the shelter refused to do so.
some people dude
She didn’t want to pay for the surgery. Someone else did.
My. Dude.
You definitely didn’t read the article in it’s entirety, and it shows.
Not reading the article and being aggressively confidently incorrect is basically this guy’s MO
She can pay $7k and get the dog back.
You can pay $0 and read the article.
She offered exactly that, they refused. Hell, even to begin with she was willing to pay the $12,000 she was originally quoted, but was told there was a very slim chance that it would be successful and that euthanasia was the best course of action. The shelter even coached her into putting the dog down.
You really should read more before you run your mouth.
If she was willing to pay, why did she not? The shelter is crap clearly, but the place she took it to to put it down was another place who clearly felt different. It’s a different owner now. It’s up to them.
Correct because she was told by multiple parties to not do the surgery and euthanized. She followed vet, rescue, and shelter recommended advice - then the shelter fixed the dog and she’s offering to pay for the surgery that she didn’t know would save its life.
Also, I wasn’t trying to be a dick. I apologize for the way I addressed you.
When she pays $7k, and the new owner agrees to give up the dog, she can have it back.
(Apology accepted😘)
Maybe you can apologize for being so rude without knowing what’s going on? They apologized to de-escalate but clearly you’re just going to use that as a reason to keep being a jerk
deleted by creator
The content of the fucking article, mr. smughead.
You didn’t read the article and act smug nonetheless, my. Dude.
She can pay $7k and get the dog back.
No, she cant. RTFA
I’m convinced he’s just not literate enough to make it through a whole article with so many big boy words
It’s a (very obvious) troll, that’s all.
Because the new and rightful owner refused. As the should.
She didn’t want to pay for tests that she was told were unlikely to do any good anyway. She said she is willing to pay them back for the surgery.
RTFA.
Someone was.
