Ethical question

Re: Ethical question

Stephen Courtney — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 21:34:02 GMT

I see several pet huskies with no problems at all. I didn't think they were any more iffy than, say, border collies.Clearly I'm naive, as several caveats have been expressed by previous posters. Woops.

I think the real issue is whether or not he will get a suitable home. If there is any doubt then perhaps PTS is a kinder option - but if there is a rescue willing to take him I'd prefer to give him his chance.

Re: Ethical question

Sarah Keir — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:59:15 GMT

Yes Mark,

I think along your lines regarding suitability of huskys as pets - I think I can say the only ones in a 'suitable' home were kept outdoors in Scotland and worked in the winter, racing the sledges on wheels.

However many animals I see are unsuitably chosen pets - rabbits when they should have got rats is one that springs to mind. But then I am biased - I like rats!

Sarah

Re: Ethical question

Mark Holmes — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:50:20 GMT

In reply to Bob, I think a single rear leg is better than a single foreleg.

Re: Ethical question

Mark Holmes — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:47:57 GMT

My original post was about more then can I chop of a Husky's leg and will it get around? In my experience Huskies are one breed that is more vulnerable than most to inappropriate ownership. This one for example was being kept in a flat. In 11 years the number of people I have met that I would think truely suitable to own Huskies amounts to about one. They are not (or at least should not be) in my opinion or experience a domestic breed. They are undoubtedly beautiful but if you want to look at them get an fn picture!

Anyway given the problems with quadraped Huskies, my concern is that a tripod is more vulnerable and what are the odds on getting a home that is truely suitable.

This argument could be applied to lots of breeds but where as dogs will often manage with a "make do" home I would say that Huskies manage less well that most or oftendon't manage.

I would rather euthanase the dog now than find it still in kennels in 6 months or rehomed to one or more unsuitable people.

I have approached Husky rescue and they have similar concerns and are planning to get back to me on Monday. I think if they feel the dog will be difficult to home adequately I will put it to sleep.

This is just an opinion, it may be misguided. How do others feel.

Do I just do my job, take the leg and leave the rest to others or is that failing in my duty to the animal?

Re: Ethical question

Martin Atkinson — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:25:11 GMT

Isn't the question of why it needs a leg amputated relevant? Also it's a Husky, it may be beautiful but what is it's temperament like? IME they can be a bit 'temperamental' which may be a bigger obstacle to rehoming than being a tripod?

Re: Ethical question

Thomas Johnson — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 17:03:55 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Would you think it is more of a problem for a dog long-term losing a front leg rather than a back one? I would consider a dog losing a back leg to be better than a front one.

[/quote]

I saw a 12 year old bearded collie recently, it had a forelimb amputated 4 or 5 years ago due to a bone cyst. It manages very well on its remaining forelimb, though has arthritis in its stifles, though this is probably unrelated to the amputation.

Re: Ethical question

Michael Woodhouse — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:38:01 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

Put it to sleep unless you want to keep 'tripod'.

[/quote]

I speed read the first post and had the dog as 12 years old. A 1 year old dog I think I would go for it and re-home him. Will win the sympathy vote.

Re: Ethical question

Bob Russell — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 14:29:17 GMT

An indirect follow on question!

Would you think it is more of a problem for a dog long-term losing a front leg rather than a back one? I would consider a dog losing a back leg to be better than a front one.

My previous collie lost a front leg (very careless of him) and this caused a lot of problems as he aged. The front legs carry 60% of the weight and the back legs propel the dog forward was my simplistic understanding.

Re: Ethical question

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 17:15:30 GMT

I agree with David on this one.

Wynne

Re: Ethical question

David Mills — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:06:00 GMT

3 legged animals get adopted far quicker than others. From the dog's perspective, a lean healthy husky would do finewith 3 legs, esp if it's only a forelimb. Ethically not a problem for the animal - give it a fighting chance.

Rehoming charities can be brill - just make sure you choose a big one. Husky rescue might be a good idea but these smaller rescue charities tend to be more economical with the truth when rehoming as their costs per dog are very high and the staff/volunteers are usually unqaulified.

Re: Ethical question

Nicola Lawlor — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 14:11:20 GMT

If at all possible look into a home for it prior to surgery, or at least know of a foster home rather than a kennel until the right owner can be found. Husky rescue might be a good place to start for the right sort of owner? The biggest plus though you say it shouldn't be relevant is that it is a beautiful dog - it is relevant if only to know perhaps the dog has a better chance of finding a home perhaps?

What happened to the original owner?

Re: Ethical question

Michael Woodhouse — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:58:42 GMT

Put it to sleep unless you want to keep 'tripod'.

Re: Ethical question

Alex Gough — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:16:24 GMT

My feeling is you need to talk to the rehoming charity about how successful they think it would be to rehome it. I think amputation and rehoming is ethically acceptable if a high chance of rehoming, and not if it is going to sit in a cage for a month or two and then be euthanased anyway.

Alex