I have a few problems with this.
Everyone here is picking on the owners, but all the article says is that they “declined” the medical bills - when an animal is that damaged, most people do so and put the dog down. Heck, many outsiders accuse them of cruelty if they try to “save” the dog that obviously is going to suffer a lot anyway. It didn’t read “refused” or any other really hostile implication.
2nd, what’s with the Rescue (whose methods I always question anyway) taking the dog? Did the owners ask them to take it? Or did they just barge in and self-righteously commandeer him?
3rd, why not just let the owners keep the dog and set up a relief fund for them to pay for his medical? Even the Rescue could help with that as a liason, rather than taking the dog.
I know not all the facts are in here; maybe the owners simply didn’t want to go through all that, but these are things I still wonder about since they’re not answered. I don’t want to make assumptions as others are doing.
LOL I love FR but one of my nightmares is ending up in a news story on here through some strange twist of fate and being damned to hell by millions of members eager to pile on to whatever misfortune struck.
Agreed. I had to put down a good dog when she just got too sick. The vet couldn’t say she had a decent chance even if I had all the treatment I could given to her. If my dog got shot up protecting my family and house though, I’d think he deserved a bit more effort on my part to keep him alive.
If the dog didn’t have a good chance at a healthy life I’d agree the best plan would be to put him down.