Please note Posting Guidelines rule 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 as these address conduct in discussions.
Offending posts will be deleted shortly - please do not respond to them.
Thank you.

I have a life, but thanks. Funny that you accuse me of throwing insults around yet then come back with an insult. Hmmm...

I'm sorry but I DO find it sick and uncaring that someone would put down a dog because they had to amputate a leg. I DO find it sick and uncaring that a person would put down a dog for having the wrong color eyes or the wrong ear set or whatever other "breed standards" are out there. That's MY opinion and you can think it makes me "look bad" but I really don't much care what you think of me.

I don't see how someone can say they love their dog yet decide the dog cannot live a healthy happy life with three legs. It boggles my mind. I CAN understand it if that leg is cancer-ridden and removing it will not give the dog much, if any, more time. I CAN understand if the dog has other issues (like hip issues or arthritis) and removing the leg will result in even more pain or being unable to walk at all. I CAN understand if removing the leg will give the dog a poor quality of life in some way. There are shades of grey in everything. But a happy, healthy young dog? I do think that's very wrong. I know quite a few happy healthy young dogs who have lost a leg for one reason or another who live normal dog lives doing normal dog things and have an awesome life. The thought of ending those lives simply because they had to lose a leg makes absolutely no sense to me and I cannot imagine how someone can claim to love their dog and yet choose to euthanize due to something like that. It seems more like a convenience euthanasia since the dog wouldn't care about the removal of the leg.

The thought of ending those lives simply because they had to lose a leg makes absolutely no sense to me and I cannot imagine how someone can claim to love their dog and yet choose to euthanize due to something like that. It seems more like a convenience euthanasia since the dog wouldn't care about the removal of the leg.

Yet another sweeping generalisation based on your knowledge of a FEW dogs.

Are you a qualified chiropracter, osteopath, hydrotherapist, physiotherapist in either the canine or human world?

Because having had personal experience of being off a leg for 6 months which has led to a lifetime of spinal problems; taking my dog to physio, hydro and chiropractic appointments (for prophylactic reasons in order to keep them in tip top condition); attending several seminars given by such professionals I can verify that there is substantial evidence based information attesting to the various health problems incurred by dogs that have only three legs.

Your views, experience and knowledge need to be expanded, and perhaps this will also broaden your mind.

It's not like there are millions of three-legged dogs out there to base this off of. How many three-legged dogs have YOU known?

Are you?


Was this dog's leg amputated or was he not able to use it? From my understanding there's a very big difference because having a leg there that is unusable makes the dog's gait much more awkward. It's dead weight and it's harder to deal with for a dog than just not having that extra weight hanging there. I'm sorry your dog ended up having severe problems but not every dog does. The dogs I know regularly see vets, have x-rays, are examined, and are doing just fine months and years after having a leg amputated. Maybe as they get into their senior years they will have some more problems (though one is 12 and still running around like it's nothing; vet says the dog is pain free and everything looks good), but many dogs do anyway.

If by "expanded" you mean "believe that some dogs don't deserve a chance at life" then thanks, but I'll pass. You're making some pretty wild assumptions about what I know and don't know.

All that being said, you would also cull dogs who don't meet breed standards and most of those are not dogs with three legs or deaf or any other medical issue. Most dogs who don't meet breed standards are dogs who have the wrong eye color, the wrong ear set, who are too large or too small, etc.. I'm not sure I'll ever understand that. I don't think I ever WANT to understand that.

It was MY leg not the dogs..............

I'm sorry your dog ended up having severe problems but not every dog does.

Precisely my point, ALL dogs are individuals, some have issues some do not, and the point I was making is that I do not NEED to be a health professional as I consult them regularly both for my own dogs health and for professional reasons, and the information on the three legged dogs has been extrapolated via these professionals who DO see a great many three legged dogs.

I don't need you to understand anything other than people have different views, if they did not, forums would be pointless, everyone would have the same dogs etc etc.

Whether you agree with me or not is irrelevant, that is not my goal; my objective is to play devil's advocate to your narrow perspective and to demonstrate that life is not as simple as you try to make out, for dogs or owners or breeders.

Oh. LOL. That thought had crossed my mind but then the next sentence had something about taking your dog to physio and I got confused. I don't think we can really compare a human's physical problems to a dogs since we walk in rather different ways.

And that's MY point too. All dogs are individuals and so why do some not deserve to live? I'm not sure why I need to be a health professional to understand the physiology of a three-legged dog but you don't have to be? I mean, that WAS your point in asking if I were a health professional wasn't it? I'm not. But I've spoken to vets on such issues before and I've read a lot of information from various vets on it. I also have friends with three-legged dogs and have heard (admittedly second-hand) what their vet's opinions and thoughts on it were. All have agreed that dogs can live long happy lives with a missing leg.

I'm well aware of that. I'm not sure why you think I'm not. It seems you're arguing your points just as strongly as I am. It doesn't mean I have to think those person's views are right.

I never said life was simple. However I do think the choice as to whether or not to cull dogs who do not fit breed standard is pretty simple: Wouldn't do it. It's really that simple. If I were a breeder, all my dogs would be given a chance to live unless they had some severe medical problems. It really IS that simple to me. It seems equally as simple to you: you would do the opposite. Also a simplistic view and a narrow perspective. I'm not sure why I have to expand MY mind and MY perspective when yours is equally as narrow.

In some cases I think you'd be sick and uncaring NOT to put a dog to sleep instead of amputate. If right this minute I had to make the choice between amputating one of Rupe's legs and putting him to sleep I'd go with the amputation. He's 7 years old, fit and healthy and I think he'd adjust quite well. If Shadow at 7 years old had needed a leg amputated he'd have been put to sleep because there is no way on earth he'd have coped. His 3 remaining wobbly legs would NOT have been able to make up for the amputated leg and he'd have been miserable not being able to do anything he enjoyed.

I would think a tripod dog would have more joint/skeletal problems than a dog with 4 legs but if those problems can be managed and the dog have a good quality of life....

That's why I said there were many grey areas and mentioned that if a dog had other physical problems (hip dysplasia, for instance) that would make amputation give the dog a horrible quality of life then euthanization would be kinder. But in a young healthy dog with no joint problems then I do think it's very wrong to euthanize and I do think it's uncaring.

You said that "after" your generalisation to the comments made by another member, that anyone who put a dog to sleep, rather than remove a leg was a "sick individual"

People make choices for their pets every day, they dont need to be made to feel they are less of an owner than you because they disagree with you.

That's fine, you feel its uncaring, your opinion, but please dont condemn others for having different ones.

P.S I did not come back with a personal comment, I simply pointed out to you to take stock on your comments to others,,,

For every owner who has had to make a "split second" decision for their dogs, which ended in euthanasia, to be called "sick" is totally uncaring and unnecessary.

I said that in response to her particular situation. Which I did find sad and uncaring.