How far do you take rescuing animals

A discussion on another forum (same title), and got me thinking the same.

How far should we actually take "rescuing" animals? Should dogs sit in kennels for years waiting for the "perfect" home, should injured Ducks, be nursed back to health and then re released, or simply put out of its misery, should one "rehome" cockerels FTGH or put them in the pot as we used to?

Do we as humans, keep animals alive in order to make our selves feel better?

Yep it's all to make ourselves feel better. Animals have no concept of their own mortality.

Dogs should not sit in kennels for years - we should be channeling money into fixing the root of the problem (ie too many dogs, bad breeders etc) and not for the sake of keeping an animal alive.

We comment (as in me and OH) all the time about these wildlife programmes where they fight to rescue and rehab animals that are already abundant and in no chance of being endagered any time soon.

By all means end an animals suffering, but why on earth pay thousands of pounds to rescue, say, a duck, when there are plenty of them anyway?!?!?

People concentrate on individual animals too much rather than the population as a whole, IMO.

I don't agree with dogs sitting in kennels for years I think it does them more harm than good TBH But I have rescue dogs, cats....some with deformities but they are in perfect health now.
As for injured ducks.....well we have a rescue in Coleshill that only do this kind of work and they make their own funds so if they feel they can get the Duck returned to the wild/rehomed why not!
I have had two Cockerels from rescue one has gone to the bridge now after me having him quite some time, the other is still with us, he went from a mangled thing to a beauty....fiesty beauty at times....but a beauty all the same.
I think if its possible to rescue any animal thats fine as long as the animal doesn't continue to suffer

Once upon a time I would've been all for nursing them back to health and fighting the argument you're putting forward. But after getting Louie and seeing what he required.. my opinions have changed.

Whilst I think it's great these animals have sanctuary and can be saved and helped then released I do think sometimes it is a little pointless and more so we feel we are doing good. I have to say though, endangered animals/species should be looked after, more so than ducks and rabbits - wild of course (as an example).

Not long ago there was a pigeon that had been injured either by my dogs or took down by something my dogs had scared off. I dithered about putting it in a box and taking it to the vet or ending it's life there and then.. a fox beat me to the latter due to my dithering. And knowing I could've saved the extra half an hour of pain it was in annoyed me.

From a pet owners POV though, I would do anything for my animals until that animal told me no more and then I would end the suffering. IMO it it people that don't know when to give up or quit that do more harm than good, both in the pet world and in the wildlife areas.

I agree that more could be done, instead of spending money fixing a swans leg because of tangled fishing wire - spend the money on wages for the wardens to walk around and ensure no one is fishing in the first place. There was a country park/fishing lake near my parents that had a dog drown because the weeds hadn't been dredged in ages, an avoidable tragedy both on the owners part (dogs aren't allowed to swim) and on the Wardens. There are also sail boats there, what if the boat had capsized and the weed tangled the person?
Similarly with fencing, wild animals wouldn't get caught up in it if it was maintained properly. I could go on.

I suppose I'm leaning on the fence, part of me thinks - go for it rescue as many animals as possible - the rest of me - well as above.

I tried to rep you - but it won't let me

no probs.....think Swans are protected thats why they get alot of help...Queens birds and all that When I worked for the RSPCA we had alot of dealing with them....even if they are ungrateful sods

I wasn't saying they shouldn't be helped, just preventive measures taken more than the help afterwards. It's like getting anything new, not taking care of it then spending all the money on fixing it, rather than maintaining it healthily throughout - goes for laptops too

True.

Tricky one with lots of grey areas.

One thing that stands out to me is on these wildlife rescue programmes, they are rescuing birds/animals that are absolutely terrified. Why put them through that and think it is right for the animal?

Helen

It is a minefield.

I am a member of a couple of poultry forums, and the sheer number of FTGH cockerels, and older (and non laying) hens is madness.
Rescues spend money "helping" dogs (and cats) with behavioral issues and serious health problems. If its your own pet then fine, but when its in a rescue...should the animal not be put out of its misery?

And yes, the "Injured Mallards" they are not in decline, they are not endangered, why spend £££'s saving them? Seems madness to me