[yorkietalkjilly]

I'm ranting as loudly as possible because people don't take responsibility for their own lives, let alone that of their dogs and the dogs are DYING because of it. And now we have someone apparently pointing the finger of judgment at those who have to rescue - or am I not allowed to use that term or be judged as needing therapy - them, find them a vet, nurse them back to health and sanity and try to place them in a forever home. And according to the writer of that article, those who are left with the full responsibility of the dogs are I guess never to say to the owners that maybe they should have not let things go so far or let it get so bad for the dog! Enabling those who often own dogs they can't afford to care for, obviously never train them yet expect them to grow up knowing how to behave, never plan that they will get serious ill or injured and then hand them over when times get tough are the very reason WHY millions of pets are being surrendered and killed each year in this country. But the writer of that article thinks the rescuer should just quietly and humbly take that person's dog off their hands and assume full responsibility for it and its care and costs, shut their mouths, never suggesting there was always a better way and asking how in the world did they let things get so bad for the dog? Is that the message the writer was sending? As I said, I didn't quite understand her article. At times, she even took the person who finally rehomes the dog to task for calling what they did "rescuing" it. When usually, that's exactly what it was.