Who gets the dog?

[PSmitty]

According to Mr. Ortolani he was in a bad situation, and fearing for his life he made the decision to abandon his dog. I will say that I understand this. My wife and I had to abandon her as well. When we found her on Saturday we knew that we would be unable to bring her out ourselves and with extremely heavy hearts we left her on a rock knowing that she may die. That being said, this is as far as my understanding goes. Despite being forced to abandon her, we came back for her. When I left the trailhead on Monday morning I fully expected to find that she had passed away, yet I went anyway. Dozens of people devoted their time and effort to find a dog they had no connection with other than a photograph and the idea that looking for her was the right thing to do. I could make numerous other arguments but I believe that this is the heart of the issue.

 

Yup. I want to get past it all, and say, ok, he made a mistake, all is forgiven. But I just can't quite do that...

[juliepoudrier]

Sure we're all sinners. Making some effort to get the dog off the mountain, instead of leaving her and letting someone else find her and rescue her, would have gone a long way toward redemption in my eyes.

 

Mara,

I did not read that whole thread on the climber's forum, but it sounds as if they were using ropes to move her *after* she became hurt and could no longer walk. In other words, they attempted to bring her out, but eventually gave up and got themselves out. As I said, I see nothing wrong with making that choice.

 

I do see something wrong with not making any real effort to enlist aid in getting her off the mountain. I agree that if the people who saved her want to keep her they should be given that opportunity.

 

I can even see Eileen's argument that he deserves a second chance, even though he certainly didn't give his dog a second chance; someone else did. I wouldn't argue to ban him from ownership of other dogs, for example.

 

If he does get the dog back, he needs to make a very generous donation (beyond paying expenses), time or money, to a charity of the rescuer's choice. No, money won't redeem him, but maybe it would be there to help the next time a rescue like this is needed. And if it's time he donates, then maybe that time could be used toward educational efforts so if, God forbid, some other pet owner finds him/herself in a similar situation they'll know resources are out there to help. <--This latter sort of thing would go a long way toward redeeming the owner, IMO. Work so that others learn from your mistakes.

 

And Paula,

I agree with you. We all make mistakes. But not all mistakes are the same, and I find it difficult to dismiss the lack of action of the owner *after* leaving the dog on the mountain as a simple mistake. A mistake is miscalculating whether the hike was suitable for the dog. A mistake is not taking enough water along. A mistake is not having a contingency plan should any member of the hike be injured. I have a hard time labeling his inaction after he was safely home as a mistake (I thought she was dead. Seriously? A dog has cut paws and can't walk. No animal, humans included, dies of lack of food or water for a day or two. Exposture is another story, but dogs are much better equipped than humans to survive in that regard.) It's how we conduct ourselves after the fact of a mistake (if we define the mistake as taking her in the first place and then leaving her behind and not as his failure to do anything once he was back in civilization) is most telling. And that's where I get hung up on this one.

 

Chances are he'll get Missy back. I just really wish he would use this whole thing as an opportunity to educate others, but somehow I doubt that will happen. I honestly do believe that there should be consequences for poor choices.

 

J.

[Maralynn]

 

I did not read that whole thread on the climber's forum, but it sounds as if they were using ropes to move her *after* she became hurt and could no longer walk. In other words, they attempted to bring her out, but eventually gave up and got themselves out. As I said, I see nothing wrong with making that choice.

 

Pretty sure I saw in the thread where the owner said that they had used a rope and harness to get her up part of the way as well. Trying to find it again..

 

I did find this from someone else who had met the owner on the trail with the dog before she was abandoned

That being said, when I encountered her and the two men with her, they were a long way from what I would consider dog-friendly terrain (the top of Bierstadt .) It took me an hour (of albeit disorganized climbing) to get down to where I met them. It would have been a hell of a ramble for a dog chasing after a critter to be all the way down there if she bolted from the top. If they were hiking that with her: shame.

 

And the dog was outfitted with a harness going into the climb. I'm thinking if he had to lower her down with a rope and harness, it seems like a pretty dangerous climb to get her up there without them.

[Jexa]

Eileen- I agree we should consider what is best for Missy. Which is why I believe the original owner should NOT get her back. Sure, she would probably greet him with wagging tail. How many abused dogs still love their owners, and come back to them tail wagging after they hit them (not saying he ever hit her, just using as an example)? In my experience, most will. Dogs often love their human regardless of their actions, in some cases simply because they don't know anything else. That doesn't mean he's offering the best home for her. Why not give her to the people who demonstrated the great lengths to which they are willing to go to ensure this dog is healthy and happy?

 

I would argue we have every reason to think he would neglect her in the future. As Julie says, it's not about his mistake. We all make mistakes, we all make bad decisions at one time or another. Usually we are lucky enough to get away with little to no repercussions for our mistakes. In this case, he was spectacularly unlucky. It doesn't sound like anyone involved, or anyone here, is blaming him or judging him for leaving her after he made his mistake. It's ALL about his actions (or lack thereof) afterwards that prove that he isn't willing to go to any effort at all to take care of his dog, especially considering it was his fault she was in that predicament. If I made a mistake that I believed might lead to my dog's slow, painful death alone, I'd be losing my mind trying to help them.

 

 

Also, though I certainly don't have the facts, the article made it sound as though he was identified as Missy's owner, not that he came forward. Once his name was already out there, THEN he started to say how sorry he was. Funny, once everyone knew who he was he sure figured out how to reach a whole lot of people using the Internet real quick. To me his actions speak a whole heck of a lot louder than his words.

[Laurae]

Best outcome for this dog and her rescuers!

[terrecar]

Yay!

[Falon's Mom]

I agree! The rescuers went through alot to get her down off that mountain. I am glad that they get to keep her.

[bcnewe2]

All I can say is I'm glad that I'm not sitting in that place of having to decide. Yes we all make mistakes but this wasn't one mistake it was a series of mistakes. HOw many are we allowed before we are held accountable.

 

I'm gald Missy is safe and hope where ever she ends up that she is a happy dog.

[Eileen Stein]

As all trial lawyers know, people love a good, satisfying story, and will fit whatever facts are available, however skimpy, to the archetype. That must be why some people have said that the climbers would not even wait til morning but set off in the dark (when the article clearly states they started up in the morning), that they climbed through a blizzard (apparently there was a snow squall at one point, but the pictures clearly show there was no blizzard, and no snow on the ground), that they risked their lives (people generally don't bother to take a lot of pictures in life-threatening situations -- these were mountain climbers, for heaven's sake -- they do this for fun, and here they had the opportunity of a mission of mercy to enhance their hobby). (I know, I know -- how dare I disparage the heroism of these brave rescuers!)

 

And to complement the goodness of the hero, there has to be the evil of a real villain. So the dog owner can't be just a weak individual who panicked when he got over his head in tough circumstances, made a few ineffectual attempts to rescue the situation afterwards, and then retreated into denial when overwhelmed by what he saw as the hopeless consequences of what he had done. No, he has to be a cruel, heartless guy who never cared anything for his dog, who didn't come forward until he was outed (try as I might, I can't see where this is said or implied anywhere in any of the articles), who doesn't deserve to have a dog ever again (or it might be okay for him to have another dog, but not the dog he has a five-year bond with), and who deserves to be [fill in desired mode of punishment].

 

Obviously, the hero deserves the dog, just as the knight who slays the dragon deserves the prize. You don't need to know anything about the hero's history or potential as a dog owner to know that. Well, if the prize were a hoard of gold, I would be down with that. But if the prize is a dog or a damsel, I think the dog or damsel's feelings should be the major consideration.

 

The owner raised the dog from a pup and owned her for five years. If he appears to have been a good owner to her during that time, if there's no evidence of abuse or neglect prior to this incident, I would have liked to see the dog decide.

[Jexa]

Very happy to hear! Hope Missy has a blissfully easy, happy life for the rest of her days! And glad it sounds like the guy who abandoned her there is doing the right thing for the right reasons.

[Jexa]

Eileen- several of us have mentioned multiple times that there is no way for us to know all the facts.

 

As for the blizzard, I lived in the mountains of Colorado for 4 years. Summer storms up there are violent, strike with little warning, are over quickly, and rarely leave much evidence behind. Even the guy who left her said he assumed the storm had killed her. Since, as you point out many times, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, I'm sure you'll agree we also shouldn't jump to conclusions about the rescuers. You seem awfully willing to cut the original owner every kind of slack, and the rescuers none. I understand you're annoyed because it fits the archetypal good vs evil storyline...well, that archetype exists for a reason. Does that make the people who got her down perfect and the guy who left her there evil? Of course not. And no one here ever implied as much.

 

 

I'm sorry, but even realizing the media sensationalizes everything and we do not have all the facts, you cannot ignore the simple truth: he did not try to go back for her. That's abandonment. Clearly it was possible to go get her, because someone did. He claims to be an experienced hiker, knew where she was left, and still did not go back for her. Those are the facts we do have, and frankly theyre the only ones that matter. He chose not to go back for her. End of story.

 

 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he shouldn't own dogs again, thats not something I agree with. Should he get *this* dog back? Nope. He abandoned her, he relinquished his claim to her. Let the people who demonstrated they will do what it takes to keep her safe, even when it was someone else's mistake she was there, keep her. It seems as though you think she'll be unhappy in her new home, and I'm interested as to why that is. Many dogs that end up in shelters as the result of being lost (just lost, not abandoned) go on to new homes very happily, despite having a decent family before. Heck, kids from incredibly abusive homes still want to go back to their parents because it's what they know. I don't agree that "letting the dog decide" is putting her best interests first. Regardless, she deserves a happy life free of any more such drama and pain, and I hope she gets it.

[Laurae]

That must be why some people have said that the climbers would not even wait til morning but set off in the dark (when the article clearly states they started up in the morning), that they climbed through a blizzard (apparently there was a snow squall at one point, but the pictures clearly show there was no blizzard, and no snow on the ground), that they risked their lives (people generally don't take a lot of pictures in life-threatening situations -- these were mountain climbers, for heaven's sake -- they do this for fun, and here they had the opportunity of a mission of mercy to enhance their hobby). (I know, I know -- how dare I disparage the heroism of these brave rescuers!)ould have liked to see the dog decide.

 

There were two attempts to rescue Missy--the first one was on the night of the discovery, in the dark, and it was dangerous. They did not find the dog. Others in their community thought that was a foolish, running-on-emotion response and waited until morning to begin the trek. This latter group included one of the two people who actually located the dog in the first place. They were successful in finding and bringing the dog down from the mountain.

[juliepoudrier]

Eileen- several of us have mentioned multiple times that there is no way for us to know all the facts.

 

As for the blizzard, I lived in the mountains of Colorado for 4 years. Summer storms up there are violent, strike with little warning, are over quickly, and rarely leave much evidence behind. Even the guy who left her said he assumed the storm had killed her. Since, as you point out many times, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, I'm sure you'll agree we also shouldn't jump to conclusions about the rescuers. You seem awfully willing to cut the original owner every kind of slack, and the rescuers none. I understand you're annoyed because it fits the archetypal good vs evil storyline...well, that archetype exists for a reason. Does that make the people who got her down perfect and the guy who left her there evil? Of course not. And no one here ever implied as much.

 

 

I'm sorry, but even realizing the media sensationalizes everything and we do not have all the facts, you cannot ignore the simple truth: he did not try to go back for her. That's abandonment. Clearly it was possible to go get her, because someone did. He claims to be an experienced hiker, knew where she was left, and still did not go back for her. Those are the facts we do have, and frankly theyre the only ones that matter. He chose not to go back for her. End of story.

 

 

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he shouldn't own dogs again, thats not something I agree with. Should he get *this* dog back? Nope. He abandoned her, he relinquished his claim to her. Let the people who demonstrated they will do what it takes to keep her safe, even when it was someone else's mistake she was there, keep her. It seems as though you think she'll be unhappy in her new home, and I'm interested as to why that is. Many dogs that end up in shelters as the result of being lost (just lost, not abandoned) go on to new homes very happily, despite having a decent family before. Heck, kids from incredibly abusive homes still want to go back to their parents because it's what they know. I don't agree that "letting the dog decide" is putting her best interests first. Regardless, she deserves a happy life free of any more such drama and pain, and I hope she gets it.

Jexa,

Thank you for a well-reasoned response that reflects my thoughts on this subject so well.

 

J.

[Laurae]

Jexa,

Thank you for a well-reasoned response that reflects my thoughts on this subject so well.

 

J.

 

I agree with everything you posted as well, Jexa. Thanks for posting.

[Eileen Stein]

 

Eileen- several of us have mentioned multiple times that there is no way for us to know all the facts.

Indeed. But many of the same people are not deterred by that from deciding who should get Missy.

As for the blizzard, I lived in the mountains of Colorado for 4 years. Summer storms up there are violent, strike with little warning, are over quickly, and rarely leave much evidence behind. Even the guy who left her said he assumed the storm had killed her.

What he actually said, according to the article, was, "Many confidants comforted me by saying that she was probably gone from injury." And the abandonment and the rescue were about a week apart, weren't they? The severity of the storm when he left her says nothing about the conditions during the rescue. The pictures are our best evidence of that.

Since, as you point out many times, we shouldn't jump to conclusions, I'm sure you'll agree we also shouldn't jump to conclusions about the rescuers. You seem awfully willing to cut the original owner every kind of slack, and the rescuers none. I understand you're annoyed because it fits the archetypal good vs evil storyline...well, that archetype exists for a reason. Does that make the people who got her down perfect and the guy who left her there evil? Of course not. And no one here ever implied as much.

What conclusions did I jump to about the rescuers? That they enjoy climbing? I think there's ample evidence for that. No one needs to cut any slack for the rescuers -- without a doubt they acted admirably and did a good deed, and I never suggested otherwise.

I don't know about "perfect," but certainly many here more than implied that the people who got her down were good and heroic, and the guy who left her was cruel and heartless. Didn't they?

I'm sorry, but even realizing the media sensationalizes everything and we do not have all the facts, you cannot ignore the simple truth: he did not try to go back for her. That's abandonment. Clearly it was possible to go get her, because someone did. He claims to be an experienced hiker, knew where she was left, and still did not go back for her. Those are the facts we do have, and frankly theyre the only ones that matter. He chose not to go back for her. End of story.

If all you care about are the legalities and what the owner "deserves," then okay, those are the only facts that matter, end of story. The point I was trying to make is that Missy has feelings, and if a dog has a happy home and a bond with her owner, then it is a positive good for the dog to be able to stay in that home and with that owner. My longtime dogs could get used to another home, but they would rather be with me. Suppose Missy would rather be with her owner? Does that count for nothing? I just care more about Missy getting her just deserts than whether her owner gets his just deserts.

As for "Clearly it was possible to go get her, because someone did," you might as well say of a shell-shocked or PTSD soldier, "Surely it's possible to fight on, because others have done it."

I'm not sure where you get the idea that he shouldn't own dogs again, thats not something I agree with. Should he get *this* dog back? Nope. He abandoned her, he relinquished his claim to her.

Again, you are making a legal argument, and that would be fine with me if what the guy abandoned was a valuable piece of hiking gear. When it's not an inanimate object, I think property law is not the only consideration. Earlier you said you thought we had every reason to think he would neglect Missy in the future if he got her back. If you really thought that, why would you think it's okay for him to own another dog? Is it just Missy he would neglect? I just can't get my head around the idea that it's okay for him to get a new dog, that has no bond with him, but not okay for him to have the dog that does have a bond with him.

Let the people who demonstrated they will do what it takes to keep her safe, even when it was someone else's mistake she was there, keep her.

What they demonstrated was that they were able and willing to rescue a dog on a mountain. That demonstrates little or nothing about how they would be as dog owners in ordinary life. I'm not saying they wouldn't be good owners -- I'm just saying we have no information about that one way or the other.

It seems as though you think she'll be unhappy in her new home, and I'm interested as to why that is. Many dogs that end up in shelters as the result of being lost (just lost, not abandoned) go on to new homes very happily, despite having a decent family before. Heck, kids from incredibly abusive homes still want to go back to their parents because it's what they know. I don't agree that "letting the dog decide" is putting her best interests first. Regardless, she deserves a happy life free of any more such drama and pain, and I hope she gets it.

I think it's often hard for a five-year-old dog to leave the only home and owner it's ever known and adjust to a new one. Sure, most of them end up happy if the new home is a good one -- some of them from Day 1 and some of them after a long period of adjustment -- but why put a dog through that unnecessarily? The fact that a dog may love its abusive owner and want to stay with him is no reason to cheapen and discount the feelings of a dog who loves its non-abusive owner and wants to stay with him. I have had the good fortune to find a couple of lost dogs and restore them to their owners. Even though I provided well for them while they were with me, their happiness when they saw their owner again was unmistakeable. Unless you think dogs are incapable of forming bonds with their people, I think someone who truly cared about the dog's welfare (and not just about meting out rewards and punishments to humans) would take those bonds into account.

[Eileen Stein]

There were two attempts to rescue Missy--the first one was on the night of the discovery, in the dark, and it was dangerous. They did not find the dog. Others in their community thought that was a foolish, running-on-emotion response and waited until morning to begin the trek. This latter group included one of the two people who actually located the dog in the first place. They were successful in finding and bringing the dog down from the mountain.

 

Thanks for that clarification, Laura. I didn't reaize there had been an earlier, unsuccessful attempt by others.

[Jexa]

I couldn't care less about what the guy deserves. This has nothing to do with what he does or doesn't deserve, it has everything to do with what Missy deserves. It seems as though you think I hate this guy. I don't, at all. I feel immense pity for him because I can't imagine what it would be like to leave your dog thinking they would die. Sure, my pity stops short of agreeing with his decision to not go after her, but I'm also impressed with his attitude post-incident. From his quote in the recent article it sounds as though he recognizes that the people who got her are willing to go to lengths to take care of her that he is not.

 

 

As for the storms, you're right I didn't double check and overlooked the fact that there were two storms, the one he left her in and the one when they were trying to rescue her. From the article: "Bad weather was moving in, and the canine, whose feet were blistered and bleeding, was unable to walk." Im on my phone and can't easily find it, but I believe he mentioned that because he left her with bad weather moving in he assumed she wouldn't survive. Regardless, my point stands that those storms are furious and quick- and this is one of the conclusions you were jumping to- that we cannot assume based on the photos that the rescuers didn't deal with a storm.

 

And here is where I take huge offense to your reply. I think overall we'd been having a mature, well argued discussion until you compared this guy's experience to soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines with PTSD due to battle. Are you kidding me? As someone in the military, whose husband is also in the military and is currently deployed, with many friends who HAVE experienced PTSD, I am shocked, and I have to admit upset, that you would compare someone's stupid mistake and subsequent abandonment of a dog to coming home from war with PTSD as though we should treat them the same. In what universe are they similar? Remorse because you made a mistake and then assumed your dog died, only to find out she hadn't and someone else actually went back to get her is in NO WAY anywhere NEAR PTSD. And that's enough from me on that subject before I work myself up. Any more than I have, anyway.

 

I say don't prevent him from getting dogs in the future because I don't believe the government has the right to do that. That doesn't mean I think he *should* get any more dogs. I guess thats me caring more about the legality of it than future dogs' welfare.

 

And do you honestly believe that the rescuers' demonstrating that they'll rescue this dog from a mountain NOT say anything about how they'd be as owners? It sure says a lot to me. Of course it doesn't say everything. But really, you don't think it says *anything*?

 

 

Sure it's sometimes hard to adjust to a new home. Ask kids who were taken away from their families because they were deemed unsuitable for kids. But they're expected to deal with it because it is in their best interest. Do you automatically give your dogs whatever they want because you're worried about their feelings? Of course not, you realize that some things they don't like are good for them, even if they don't. Of course my dogs would rather be with me than a stranger. But if I wasn't willing to look out for their safety, then they would be better off adjusting to a new, better home. My first dog growing up was very bonded to his first owner. He beat him, starved him, and chained him to a tree with no food or water. But he was the only human that dog had known. It's classic abusive psychology to be bonded to the abuser. Should I have returned him to this abusive man just because he was bonded to him? Again, I'm not saying this man ever hurt Missy on purpose, but simply having a bond is not reason to return her to him.

[Eileen Stein]

The parallel with PTSD is this and only this: that different people have different thresholds when it comes to what they can handle emotionally, physically and psychologically, and the fact that Person A can function effectively in the face of X is no evidence that Person B could function effectively in the face of X if he really wanted to.

 

And yes, when you posted earlier, "let's abandon his butt up there for a few days and tell him we'll just assume he didn't survive," it did lead me to think that you had some punitive feelings toward him.

[juliepoudrier]

Eileen,

I'm not quite understanding your bonding argument, especially coming from a working dog culture where dogs are passed from one home to another and *do* bond with the new owner. Have you bought a trained dog? And if so, do you feel that the dog couldn't be happier than you than he might have been with his previous owner, who may have been the only owner he ever knew? I had a conversation with a fellow handler some months ago about this very topic. Her feeling was that moving a dog on to a new owner might make all the difference in the world for *the dog* because of the present owner is unhappy with it (for whatever reason) there can never be real happiness between the two.

 

I realize that this moving a dog on that doesn't suit you in hopes of giving it a better or happier situation isn't the same thing as one person "losing" his dog to another person for reasons that may have been beyond his control (that's debatable of course and is very much at the center of this discussion). But, I think that it still puts a hole in the argument that a dog (any dog) is or will be inherently happier with one owner (perhaps the original owner) vs. another.

 

This is a subject I personally struggle with. One of the reasons I have so many dogs is because I do worry that the new home won't be up to my standards; that is, that my dog won't be as happy in the new situation as it would be with me, given the length of time we've been together and the routines that the dog surely has come to know and love, not to mention the connection we have with each other. I'm facing that situation right now because I have two who are not getting along, and the vet bills are mounting. Logically, I should let the younger dog go, because the older dog doesn't deserve any more trips to the vet. Logically, I need to do better with my management. Logically, the young dog would probably do fine in a new home. Emotionally, I am unable to actually make that decision. But at some point, unless my management changes work, I will have to face that particular music. But all of this decision (or nondecision)-making is about me as much as it's about the dog(s).

 

Here's a real life example similar to the original story: I lost my dog in a state park far from home (here's where it lacks similarity because I lost my dog and the person in question left his, for good reasons). What if I opted to leave the area and do nothing more about it, and later someone else found her and saved her? Would I think I had a leg to stand on regarding getting her back? Should the decision about that (who gets her) be based on what I did or didn't do? I think so. In my case, I alerted everyone I could. I started making flyers. I went back to the place where I lost her and hiked the entire trail looking and calling for her. I canvassed the homes in the nearby area. I was far from home, and although I knew some people in the area, I was new to that culture and so didn't know anyone really well, and as we were all attending a big event, it's not as if folks could drop what they were doing and help me find my dog.

 

Again, this is a different situation of course, but still, if I had just up and left, and then later said "Well, I knew there were a lot of caves (sinkholes) in the area and figured she just fell down one and was dead" and so did nothing more to find her in the days or weeks following her loss, do I really have a right to expect that her rescuer(s) would give her back to me? No. Do I think she'd love me anyway and be happy to be back with me? Yes, of course. Do I think I am more deserving of having her than the person who heard about her and took it upon him/herself to go find her when I did not? No. If that scenario had actually played out (and thank God it didn't), then I don't think I could in good conscience say that my desire to have her back more important than her rescuer's desire to keep her. Losing her would have broken my heart, but if I had done nothing to save her myself then I don't think I could have made a convincing argument for getting her back.

 

One could make the same argument here. How do we know that her rescuer would give her a better home than I did? We don't. Just as we don't know when we sell a dog, for example, that the home it's going to is going to be better than the one it just left. How do we know that her original owner, had she gone back to him, wouldn't have made another similar mistake or, on the other side, perhaps been extra careful with her for the rest of her life? We don't. But if you believe, as I do, that part of the covenant of owning a pet is the willingness to always try to do what's in the best interests of the pet (and that includes not leaving it to die), then I don't see how it's possible to argue that an owner who left her behind and didn't go back for her or approach others to go back for her is the best place for her to be.

 

JMO of course.

 

J.

[OurBoys]

I think it's often hard for a five-year-old dog to leave the only home and owner it's ever known and adjust to a new one. Sure, most of them end up happy if the new home is a good one -- some of them from Day 1 and some of them after a long period of adjustment -- but why put a dog through that unnecessarily? The fact that a dog may love its abusive owner and want to stay with him is no reason to cheapen and discount the feelings of a dog who loves its non-abusive owner and wants to stay with him. I have had the good fortune to find a couple of dogs and restore them to their owners. Even though I provided well for them while they were with me, their happiness when they saw their owner again was unmistakeable. Unless you think dogs are incapable of forming bonds with their people, I think someone who truly cared about the dog's welfare (and not just about meting out rewards and punishments to humans) would take those bonds into account.

I think it depends. To reunite a lost dog with its owner, yes, 99% of the time it’s going to be happy to see their owner and go back home with them. Dogs who believe their life is in danger are another story.

 

I’ve pulled a number of dogs from shelters. Some were there due to owner surrender (no longer able to take care of) or their owner died. I’m sure these people loved their dogs because they seemed well taken care of but shelters are scary places for dogs. I also believe the dogs in some of these shelters can smell death in the air and/or the fear from other dogs. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the dog will bond with me after I bring it home and give it a bath. Even if the dog doesn’t like getting baths, it’s as if they realize I’m washing that experience away. (That’s the best way I can describe their change in attitude.)

 

What Missy went through is nothing like what shelter dogs go through. She knew she was injured and in pain. I believe she knew she was going to die. I believe she knew her rescuers saved her life because she couldn’t do it herself and because of that, I wouldn’t be surprised if Missy transferred her bond from her previous owner to her rescuers. She might enjoy seeing her former owner again but if she had to decide who to live with, I wouldn’t be surprised if she chose her rescuers. Dogs can be loyal that way. If shelter dogs can bond quickly with the person who pulls them, I have no doubt Missy could/would bond quickly with the people who saved her.

[Jexa]

The parallel with PTSD is this and only this: that different people have different thresholds when it comes to what they can handle emotionally, physically and psychologically, and the fact that Person A can function effectively in the face of X is no evidence that Person B could function effectively in the face of X if he really wanted to.

 

And yes, when you posted earlier, "let's abandon his butt up there for a few days and tell him we'll just assume he didn't survive," it did lead me to think that you had some punitive feelings toward him.

 

 

 

Sooooo let's return the dog to the man who apparently can't handle emotionally the fact that he left her up there to die based on your logic. Sure. Makes total sense to me. I'm going to ignore the fact that you are still trying to claim this guy deserves the same consideration as a veteran with PTSD.

 

And yes, in a perfect world karma would exist and those who do wrong would have their wrongdoings inflicted on them. In this case, it would be to leave him up there and assume he died. That doesn't change the fact that this discussion is not about what he deserves, it's about what Missy deserves. I just really don't care about him or what he wants. I do care about what's best for Missy, and hopefully that's what she'll get.

[Eileen Stein]

Again, this is a different situation of course, but still, if I had just up and left, and then later said "Well, I knew there were a lot of caves (sinkholes) in the area and figured she just fell down one and was dead" and so did nothing more to find her in the days or weeks following her loss, do I really have a right to expect that her rescuer(s) would give her back to me? No. Do I think she'd love me anyway and be happy to be back with me? Yes, of course. Do I think I am more deserving of having her than the person who heard about her and took it upon him/herself to go find her when I did not? No. If that scenario had actually played out (and thank God it didn't), then I don't think I could in good conscience say that my desire to have her back more important than her rescuer's desire to keep her. Losing her would have broken my heart, but if I had done nothing to save her myself then I don't think I could have made a convincing argument for getting her back.

Julie, I well remember when you lost your dog -- it was at the Lebanon finals, wasn't it? -- and how distressed you were (and we all were for you) -- and how you did everything humanly possible to get her back. I'm quoting this paragraph because I think it illustrates just how hard it is not to think of all this in terms of who deserves to have the dog and who doesn't. Even when you're trying to frame this in terms of where will the dog be happiest, still "Do I think I am more deserving of having her than the person who . . ." creeps in. I know that you know that I'm not saying the original owner deserves her more.

 

Yes, I'm part of the working dog culture where dogs change hands, and usually (sometimes never, but usually) adjust to the new owner, and sometimes end up happier there than they were before. The ease with which people move them on is something that non-working-dog people generally find incomprehensible and sad. Why is that? Because most people know that a dog forms a bond with its owner, and they feel for the dog when that bond is broken. If the original home is not a very good one, or if the owner is unhappy with the dog, or if the dog is a trained dog who would not get to work anymore in his original home, most of us recognize that despite the initial dislocation and sadness the dog is likely to feel, the end result will be for the better.

 

But none of those factors are apparently at play here. (And the work, which serves to help in building up the bond between a working dog and its new owner, is also apparently not available to help here.) We have no reason to think that the original owner here did not provide a good home for the dog. We have no reason to think the rescuer would provide a better one. (Lots of people who love dogs and would go all-out to rescue a dog in trouble would not pass muster with most folks on these Boards when it comes to the nitty-gritty of how they maintain, train and discipline their dogs. I can't believe any rescue would give a dog to this guy based just on what we know. I certainly wouldn't place a pup or dog with him based just on what we know.) If we did have reason to believe the new home would be better than the old one, I would feel differently. But in the absence of any reason to believe the dog would be better off in the new home than in her old one, and when the owner wants to keep the dog, why is it better for the dog to put her through the sadness and dislocation, even if it will pass in time? I feel that way especially when she has been through such a traumatic experience. Regardless of whose fault that was, I think that what she has been through makes it even more desirable that she be given the opportunity to go home to her owner now if she appears to want that.

What Missy went through is nothing like what shelter dogs go through. She knew she was injured and in pain. I believe she knew she was going to die. I believe she knew her rescuers saved her life because she couldnt do it herself and because of that, I wouldnt be surprised if Missy transferred her bond from her previous owner to her rescuers. She might enjoy seeing her former owner again but if she had to decide who to live with, I wouldnt be surprised if she chose her rescuers. Dogs can be loyal that way. If shelter dogs can bond quickly with the person who pulls them, I have no doubt Missy could/would bond quickly with the people who saved her.

I just don't believe dogs' minds work this way. While dogs do know what death is when they see it, I don't believe, for example, that dogs know that they themselves will die, or that they can formulate the idea that someone "saved their life." Most normal dogs who've had a normal upbringing will cling to a person who's saved them from a bad situation, especially if that person is treating them lovingly. And the more helpless and scared they are feeling, the more they will cling. But Missy almost certainly has made no moral judgment about her owner, or transferred her affections from him. I also think it would be very, very easy to determine who she is bonded to now, and impossible to mistake that for "enjoy[ing] seeing her former owner again." Actually, in my experience with trained dogs sold on in maturity, they generally don't enjoy seeing their former owners again. Once the bond has really shifted to the new owner, they are uncomfortable and uncertain when they see their former owner again, and try not to notice him/her. I think it would be very easy to discern her feelings. And to me -- in the absence of any evidence the original owner was abusive or neglectful before this terrible occurrence -- she should go with the person she is drawn to and be in the place that feels right to her.

[Maralynn]

The owner raised the dog from a pup and owned her for five years. If he appears to have been a good owner to her during that time, if there's no evidence of abuse or neglect prior to this incident, I would have liked to see the dog decide.

 

The owner made the decision for her when he took her up into the mountain then made the choice to leave here there.IMO, He relinquished his rights much like someone who turns their dog over to a shelter. SIgn that intake paper and you no longer own the dog. AFTER he made that choice, someone else came along, wanted her and took the responsibility to get her off the mountain.

 

If it was a shelter situation, and the former owner saw his dog happy and cared for in a new life 2 weeks later would he be able to step forward and say "I changed my mind and you should give me my dog back because I had her for 5 years and she was happy with me" should the new owners be expected to let the dog make the choice?

[Eileen Stein]

If it was a shelter situation, and the former owner saw his dog happy and cared for in a new life 2 weeks later would he be able to step forward and say "I changed my mind and you should give me my dog back because I had her for 5 years and she was happy with me" should the new owners be expected to let the dog make the choice?

 

No, of course not. But if you think the two situations are comparable in the ways that matter, and that my views should logically lead to a "yes" answer to this question, then obviously I have not explained myself very well, and I don't think I could do any better with further attempts.

[juliepoudrier]

FWIW, I just watched the Ellen segment where she had the eight rescuers on. The person who wants to adopt Missy, now called Lucky (and currently in a shelter), already owns two rescue German shepherds. Of course that still doesn't tell us a great deal about him, but at least he's someone familiar with keeping dogs.

 

J.