<p>
</p>
<p>Not my dilemma, but I would be leaning hard on pretending I hadn’t seen the craigslist ad.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with proceeding as the person in your scenario is doing. The dog owners were irresponsible for not having a license or other identification on their dog so that they could be found if the dog were lost. If the dog had been turned into a shelter, it would be spayed before it would be released to a new owner, if it were lucky enough to be adopted.
The vast majority of unwanted dogs in shelters are Pitts. But I think my feelings would be the same even if the dog in question were a friendly Lab. Considering how many thousands of sweet, loving animals are killed each year in shelters. preventing more unwanted animals is not much of a dilemma. Have you ever heard of a responsible breeder who would take the chance of losing their animal by neglecting to get it microchipped, or even wear an ID tag?</p>
<p>Fourteen years ago H and D were trying to adopt a stray kitten from a shelter when the kitten’s owner showed up. The shelter (PAWS in Lynnwood, just north of Seattle) would not release the kitten to the owner unless the kitten got spayed… That is the PAWS’ policy: if your unaltered pet escapes and ends up at their shelter, it will be fixed. A very nice policy.</p>
<p>I don’t see any dilemma there at all…Until there are no more homeless pets in this country, ALL animals should be spayed/neutered. If the pet owner is irresponsible enough to let the dog escape, they’ll have to deal with the fact that their dog will no longer be able to reproduce and aid in the overabundance of unwanted animals in this country.</p>
<p>The person could take the dog to the local Humane Society, after verifying that they will spay stray animals brought to them, and then contact the craigslist poster saying they’d found the dog and dropped her off at said Humane Society. Chips will fall where they may.</p>
<p>Ouch here I go disagreeing again. imo, ethically, since finder of dog discovered dog owner before any med procedure authorized, I feel the person should contact owner and offer to return dog as is. Make no mistake, I don’t like the idea of unwanted dogs, I don’t like pit bulls either, but even more than that, I wouldn’t like someone altering my property-all the while knowing it was my property.
Based on what little OP included about the story, is it fair to conclude owner is uncaring? Good coat and right weight is evidence to the contrary. I’ve had a dog or 2 stolen then released, and I’ve also had dog escape from my property. I think just because a dog is loose doesn’t prove owner is unfit. Many caring dog owners don’t have mchips. Absolutely yes, dog should have had tags; but not having a license doesn’t indicate owner doesn’t care about dog.
With some persuasion, I might buy that for practical purposes it might be best to spay this animal; but ethically? No. For someone to say “I found a dog running loose, think I found its rightful owner, but pretended not to have done so, so that I could choose to authorize a medical procedure on someone else’s dog first”- that doesn’t sound like good ethics to me. Just because finder doesn’t like it that lost dog appears to have had many litters doesn’t give finder the right to spay animal. Remember- now that it appears rightful owner is found, dog can no longer be considered a stray. I don’t believe finder has the right to “determine a penalty” for rightful owner who lost the dog. Sure, if dog was truly a stray, or if finder had no idea of owner, but since that isn’t the case it changes everything.
I suppose too, that finder could be in legal jeopardy if finder authorizes animal to be spayed then returned, and after that it comes to light finder knew owner but spayed anyway. If this is property of a breeder there might be a legal case for his loss of income. But the legal aspect is not Op’s question. I think finder must notify likely owner, and if found it’s ok to try to persuade owner to spay- but not ethically right to alter someone else’s property.</p>
<p>My usual ethical guideline (ie, the golden rule) fails me here. If the animal is considered “property” then younghoss is on point. But if the animal is more than property, which I believe it to be, then a good case can be made that you are doing the right thing by staying the current course. If it’s proper to put an animal to sleep in certain situations then why is improper to perform a much lesser procedure that’s in the animal’s best interests and society’s best interests?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How about neutering all humans until we are able to provide for all the people that are already here: food, shelter, basic medical care, education?</p>
<p>I agree with younghoss that I wouldn’t get any non-emergency medical procedure done on a dog whose owner is known to me.</p>
<p>Wait a minute. Is this a purebred pitbull? If so it might not be a simple “stray” but a valuable show dog and/or the mother of valuable show dogs. </p>
<p>If it’s clear that the true owner has been located, then I don’t think the finder’s theories on how to properly deal with stray dogs apply any more. It should be returned intact. I agree with B@rium.</p>
<p>In my heart, a dog is more than property. He is a pet, a companion, and some say a member of the family. So if my 2 legged son is found walking around without his wallet, I hope no one takes it upon themself to have him neutered(to use a canine phrase)!</p>
<p>Although not certain yet, this dog appears to be loose, rather than a stray.
Like B@r in post 8, I know people that I don’t feel it’s in their best interest or societies’ for them to have kids. But just because I feel that way doesn’t give me the right to medically prevent them from doing so. I can try to persuade them not to, but my rights end there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>this is exactly what I would do. I wouldn’t spend my own money to spay the dog and probably would not take it home. Off to the Humane Society or Animal Rescue League it will go.</p>
<p>A responsible owner who was a responsible breeder - say the dog was valuable - would have had it microchipped and/or tagged.</p>
<p>For what it is worth - when I elected to microchip my Golden Retriever, the breeder that I got him from was quite upset. She was against micro-chipping claiming that it had been shown to cause cancer in lab rats. Since it was a done deal (e.g. chip was already in place), I pretty much ignored her - but thought it might be relevant here.</p>
<p>I would not spay the dog as it is not my decision.</p>
<p>My interpretation here, but a couple have used “let the chips fall…” phrase, and I think they meant by that- too bad for the owner getting dog spayed without his knowlege or consent; if he was more careful this wouldn’t have happened. Do those that have used that phrase really realize the “chips” could fall on the finder, as I suggested in the last part of my post 6?
Really, would finder want to defend his position in court, with this story: “I found him Judge, and even though I thought I found his owner, I ignored that info and authorized him to be spayed, because that’s what I thought best for society.” I wouldn’t want that as my defense ethically or legally.</p>
<p>The breeders I know still microchip, but, all responsible owners have a name tag on the collar, even if they don’t abide by the law and license their dogs.</p>
<p>Dogs are not children, and laws that apply to children don’t apply to dogs. Children don’t breed by the time they are a year old and produce 30+ puppies in their lifetime (Pitts have 5-10 dogs per litter) as dogs will do if left to breed at will. We also don’t euthanize thousands of humans every day, as we do with dogs and cats in this country, the result of irresponsible owners and backyard breeders who allow their dogs to breed at will, which results in mixed breed pups who are turned over to the shelters if they can’t sell them. (It’s pretty tough to find owners for Pitt bull mixes. Check out your nearest shelter- they are the majority of sad cases you’ll find there.)
A lost , untagged dog picked up by the humane society will be spayed before release to anyone, so bringing the found dog to the pound would result in a spaying paid for by the county- the taxpayers. The only problem with bringing an animal to the pound in our area is that most of them are killed, again, paid for by the taxpayers. Spaying would occur whether the person who found the dog paid for it or the county paid for it.
The easiest thing is to just give the dog back to the owner. I’d probably do that myself, but I would completely understand it, and even admire it, if the person who found the dog went ahead with the spaying before contacting the owner, as it’s in the best interest of the dog and society to spay her. If the dog’s owner is in the business of using this dog to sell Pitt bull pups but doesn’t bother to license or otherwise provide identity for her in the case of getting out, well, tough luck. A dog tag with a phone# costs $6.95.</p>
<p>Younghoss -
not really - to spay or not to spay is the decision of the local Animal Shelter. To be sure if the dog was properly marked I would make every attempt to find the owner. </p>
<p>Animal shelters make their rules according to the custom of the community. If the shelter has a policy of spaying before releasing then that is between the owner and the shelter.</p>
<p>Our shelter has a 3 day rule. Adoptable dogs who are turned in are held for three days then neutered and put up for adoption. People HAVE lost their pets this way.</p>
<p>Again - IF this dog was valuable - in the monetary sense - as a breeding dog the owner would have tagged or inserted a microchip. That is common sense. Mark what is valuable to you.</p>
<p>I would not spay the dog; ethically, it’s not my call if I know where the owner is/how to find the owner. In addition to that, she may be nursing still, and her litter would be better off with her returned sooner rather than later (and with her unspayed).</p>
<p>No one knows what may have happened to the dog’s collar/tags. Dog may have jumped out of the car after a vet visit or run out the door at the vet’s (that’s happened at my vet’s), broken the collar so it fell off, or any number of other things. The owner is not necessarily responsible for the dog not having a collar (just as you aren’t necessarily an irresponsible parent when your kid walks out the door without his ID).</p>
<p>I’m all for neutering animals, but ethically, this is not my call.</p>
<p>(I had a neighbor who found out the hard way that her dog didn’t tolerate being anesthetized. The dog, a Chow, died when at the vet’s for a routine procedure that required anesthesia. In addition to the ethics of the situation posed, I wouldn’t take the chance with someone else’s dog and possibly being responsible for a bad outcome.)</p>
<p>wow I didn’t realize that chips caused problems- 
I didn’t even think about it at the time.
I don’t know anything else about this case- I lean toward protecting the dog- but I also wouldn’t take one vets opinion as gospel and unless the dog had been obviously mistreated- I would return to owner intact.</p>
<p>Yes Mom4, those are probably the rules at a shelter. But what a shelter may or may not do is not relevant here. I’m guessing you mentioned a shelter’s policy only as a side note. just as I mentioned possible legal consequences only as a side note. This case is what seems to be a healthy dog that got loose, not one dumped, abused, or untraceable.</p>
<p>The Op tells us that before any medical action was taken, the finder thinks they have located the rightful owner, and wants to know what to do next. I believe having knowlege of the (likely) owner before any procedure done is the biggest factor. The Op wants to know if it is ethical to “pretend” not to be aware of the likely owner and to spay dog on finders’ own authority.
Some here think finder should spay the dog at my expense(as a taxpayer) then contact who they think is the rightful owner. Some here think finder should spay the dog at their own expense then contact who they think is the rightful owner. Some think spay the dog as a penalty (chips fall) to an uncaring owner who may not want the dog spayed then contact the owner- that’ll teach him. Some feel contact the (assumed) rightful owner and give the dog up ‘as is’ if that is actually the proper owner.</p>
<p>For me, I say the last one. And if it turns out the fellow who lost the dog is NOT the owner of the one found, then it’s ok to turn dog over to dog authorities. At the moment, it appears the rightful owner is easily contacted.<br>
I cannot consider a dog having no tag as justification for spaying IN THIS CASE since it is believed the owner can be contacted. I also can’t make the leap to assume because this dog appears to have gotten loose the owner is unfit. Is that owner, and me, the only 2 people ever to have their dog get loose? Has no one else here ever had a dog get loose?</p>
<p>Cronie and I agree, dogs are property legally, and not children. Thats why I brought up that example in my post 10. I feel in this case since (likely) rightful owner can easily be contacted it would not be ethically right to disregard that contact info, and spay the dog- no matter who’s expense, and then contact the owner.</p>
<p>Owlice is right there, and I didn’t think about that angle. If this is a mother pit that has recently given birth as is suspected, the pups could die due to finders choices. I’m not fond of pits at all and my town outlaws them but as a pet owner I’d hate to see pups suffer and die unnecessarily.</p>
<p>Just last week our Yorkie slipped her collar and got loose. We got her back, but she ran to many neighboring yards (few fences here) first. In our previous house she dug under the fence a few times, but luckily her collar remained on, and someone called me from a few blocks away.</p>
<p>I would try to find the owner. If you want to mention the spaying to the owner if found, go ahead, but it is better ethics to return lost property than to neuter the dog of someone else. If you can’t find the owner, then I would say that you could give it to a shelter that spays etc.</p>
<p>P.S. Both my dogs are spayed.</p>
<p>You have changed you mind, EK4? Initially you said you’d lean toward ignoring the (likely) owner?</p>