This is just the most amazing story. My heart goes out to you for what you lost, and I'm rejoicing that Armani was returned to you. Just amazing; what a true miracle!

To HollyandMommy: I just want to add my congratulations for you getting your sweet Armani back! This is truly a miracle come true -- one you had no way to even think it was possible to hope for! I can't imagine the people who worked for AC doing this to pet owners! They obviously do not understand how we feel about our pets! But I don't want to dwell on any of the bad part -- I just want to wish you all well and hope the injuries will be taken care of or at least not interfere too much with Armani's happiness. Your little one must be so happy over being reunited with the ones he loves too! I just cannot imagine how happy you must be! To get a second chance with your beloved pet is something special! I am so sorry these rotten AC people kept you away from your baby for a year but you can now make up for lost time and enjoy every minute together! Wish you well and will continue to keep you in my prayers for Armani's health issues and the upcoming trial. What a wonderful story -- at least the part about being reunited!

Wow, just wanted to share this article I found today. On the same subject as this thread!

Woman finds 'euthanized' dog alive with new owner

Wow...identical story....Can't believe this is happening everywhere.

Actually, that story is different. This person asks for the dog to be euthanized, because he didn't want to pay for treatment. The vet turned the dog over to a rescue, which paid for treatment and the rescue found the dog a new home. When the new owner contacted the microchip company to switch the microchip into her name, they contacted the old owner. At least, the old owner allowed the new owner to keep the dog.

This is actually a huge problem; people don’t want to pay for treatment and if the bill is more than what a new puppy would cost, they just say, put it to sleep, but many vets have a heart and know the dog would live. Can’t blame the vet, they have to run a business and pay their rent and staff, they can’t work for free; people would take advantage of them. I member here told a story about visiting her vet and overhearing a couple tell the vet to put to sleep a healthy lab, who had been hit by a car and only suffered a broken leg, they would pay to have it set, so they said put it to sleep. Many people think they “own” the pet so they should have a right to kill it, but I’m glad there are vets out there who know that this isn’t right.

I DO believe in miracles, and I know first hand, the Power of God.....but I also am very, VERY, cautious....PLEASE be very careful and while we are all praying that you get your precious little man back, please TRY not to get your hopes up tooooooo high...."expect nothing and be pleasantly surprised!" However, if you did not witness with you own eyes, your little dog being killed by the pitt, this may very well work out in your favor!

In reference to the case in the link just posted, the gal left a badly hurt dog with a vet thinking it was going to be put down. I feel the vet is most likely wrong, but it is hard to comment on because I don't believe we have all the facts. From the news article it states that the vet told the owner that there was only a 20% likelihood the dog would survive and it would be very expensive. Not wanting the dog to suffer or having to spend a lot of money for a dismal outcome they opted to have the dog put down and signed on the dotted line. What we don't know because they did not say is exactly what was on the contract she signed. If it stated that the dog was to be put down and the people paid for that service I think that is what should have happened. I was faced with similar situation when my yorkie was attacked by a much larger dog, the ER vet said they could try all sorts of extreme measures and a specialist would have to be called in, but even if all that was done, he was not sure he would live and would never be the same. We did not speak about the costs but obviously it would be expensive. I made the decision to have the dog put to sleep rather than put him through several surgeries and who knows what else. Unlike the people in the story I stayed with him when he was put down and took him home to bury him, but not everyone has that option. However if I had to leave him and later on found out despite the vet telling me the chances of survival were only 20% that he was given away to be treated without consulting me or giving me the option later on to pay the vet bills and get my dog back I would be LIVID and raise all sorts of hell. I am also surprised if the vet truly believed a dog only had a 20% chance that the rescue group would opt to spend money treating her.

Something just does not seem right with this picture, it's odd that the media did not get any comments from the vet or report exactly what was written on the paper the lady signed. If the contract they signed stated the dog was being left with the vet to do what he thought was best for the dog, then they have no beef, but if it was for the dog to be put down and they paid for that, I think that vet was wrong and should be in a lot of trouble.

Like Nancy stated I also agree that there are people willing to give up a dog at the drop of a hat because they either don't have or don't want to spend money at a vet. So in that case surrendering the dog to a rescue group is a great option. But a dog attack with a 20% chance of survival is much different than a broken leg.

great response dblain. I couldn't agree with you more. It would be interesting to find out what the contract read.

I also find it odd that she didn't stay with the dog when it was put down. On the other hand, when I had to put my Rottie down I said my goodbyes and didn't want to be in the room when she passed (my father passed away in front of my eyes a year before and I couldn't handle). (I have her ashes too)
I do regret the decision but....she was there to be put down, not rehabilitated.

I wonder if I can find this article somewhere else in more detail, azcentral always has the vaguest articles.

All right so this is much better:
http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/n...-to-new-owner/
The form did say it might not be euthanized.

The lady that took the dog from the vet to the rescue got fired,.

Interesting story and sounds the same just add on the paperwork.

The woman said that the vet said 20% chance of survival; we really don't know what the vet actually said. I'm just saying that a lot of dog owners will not pay more than what they think a dog is "worth." Also, now she wants the cost of euthanasia returned to her, oh puleeze . . . I would love to hear the vets side of the story.

Well, I hope this person is still around some place doing good deeds. Again, not sure what to believe, maybe they needed a "fall guy." I think the vet could get into trouble if he did it.

I dunno, if a vet told me that my dog would suffer and only had 20% chance of survival AND if he did survive it would be severely disabled....I would want to end the pain....

good find Beecee, but still unanswered questions. First off the clinic does not seem like it is running a good practice if dogs can just disappear from their care and basically get smuggled out of the office. Sounds like if the dog was that easily transported it might not have been as bad as the vet said or the gal claimed the vet said. When did they find out that the dog that was supposed to be put down went missing, how long ago did the gal get fired, did this happen to other pet owners. If the form said the dog might not be put down then why did they charge and why did the girl get fired for taking it someplace else. Still holes LOL I should have been a reporter because I ask so many questions.

Nancy based on this outcome I know it sounds like a great thing this gal did but why not give the owner first choice. Or perhaps the owner is lying now, who knows. But regardless a vet cannot have an employee or a policy that turns over sick and hurt dogs to rescue groups without fully explaining that to an owner. Besides where would it end if you had an employee like that, what if they felt you were an unfit owner could they make it look like your dog was worse than it was to get you to leave it so it could be smuggled away. Going behind a pet owners back, regardless of the outcome is just not right and could lead to lots of problems down the line. However having a well thought out optional surrender policy that is completely explained in writing and verbally in front of a witness to a distraught pet owner might be a good idea for both the vet and the owner. Having been at a vet's office during a crisis I know how hard it is to comprehend all the options you are being given.

The big question is the word "If". I would too, I'm just saying we don't know what the vet said.

Maybe they had a good reason for not wanting the original owner to get the dog back? All I know is that dog owners will request that vets put a dog to sleep for minor reasons, and I think this is so wrong.