<p>@Lizard, I would say there are enough people like that. Not saying they are in the majority, unfortunately, but there are enough of them that if I were trying to find a home for a pet, I would make sure to find one willing to take on the financial cost. Even as OP illustrated with her expenses, pets are expensive. Anything from an accident to bad genes will cost a lot. There are of course options like insurance (but for cats and dogs only), but ultimately I wouldn’t want to adopt to someone unless they would make medical decisions in the best interest of the pet, putting cost aside. Without knowing either party, an attorney who is ‘begging’ for the dog sounds much more promising. </p>
<p>There are so many people that seem to think D will back out. I wouldn’t bet against her just yet. And I think she deserves first shot at adoptingthe dog. I think the problem here is that many people on this thread, OP included, just don’t understand how it’s possible to feel that strongly about a dog, and therefore assume alterior motive or D backing out. Personally, I completely get where D is coming from. I think both her and younger sister are absolutely correct. None of us know the D personally, of course, but I can easily see why she would want the dog without alterior motives. I think she has the right to be first in line for adoption. </p>
<p>acollegestudent, have you read the whole thread? The London daughter said she wanted the dog, but then did nothing whatsoever to follow through. You keep saying that the OP is keeping this daughter from the dog. Not so!</p>
<p>Maybe I am missing something, but I saw one post by OP saying D backed away a little, and I don’t think she even explained what it meant (did, for example, D just suggest sharing part of the transportation cost). Every other comment by the OP says D has been begging for the dog. </p>
<p>Furthermore, note the OP started out by saying she wasn’t sure she would give the dog away. Maybe she was sending mixed signals herself. Ultimately, there is nothing wrong with D backing off if she thought mom was considering keeping the dog. I don’t blame D for that. Ultimately, the dog IS mom’s responsibility, so the ideal situation would be mom keeping him. </p>
<p>All I am suggesting is letting D be first in line. If OP decided to give up the dog, she needs to be honest and say thatshe is DEFEINITELY not keeping him and ask D if she wants the dog (as well as allow her a few months to get the paperwork, ticket, money together). </p>
<p>Well, I actually agree with you to a large extent, acollegestudent. I admit that I had never met the dog I am about to take in, but I was actually passionately hoping that they would let me have him from the day I heard about his arrival. I was certain that it would be a disaster for him (Or any other puppy. An adult dog might have been okay.) I am the only person in the family with the time, expertise, and home setting that enables me to really take care of a dog. (At least the way I think it should be done. I am about as opinionated as you on that subject. ) I found it torture to hear reports on how he was living and behaving from mutual relatives. So I understand that it is possible to be quite passionate about the welfare of a dog one doesn’t know well.</p>
<p>If the D really wants him, I see no reason not to give her first crack at taking him. But if she is going to do so, she needs to step up to the plate and tell her mother that she is making arrangements. It isn’t as difficult as it used to be to ship a pet to the UK.</p>
<p>From what has been posted here, it seems that the OP has been willing to let the D take him, but the D hasn’t taken any concrete steps yet. At 30, I think she is old enough to act like an adult. Perhaps the OP needs to tell the D that she is welcome to take the dog, and that she will comply with whatever steps are necessary on this end. But a definite plan is needed. </p>
<p>If the D doesn’t come through, it would be MY preference to give the dog to Corgi Rescue. They will very carefully screen potential adoptees, and they will take responsibility for rehoming him if it doesn’t work out. He won’t end up in a pound some day.</p>
<p>I think the mom has to first make clear that she is even giving up the dog. It’s unfair to expect D to take steps when OP herself never explicitly said (even on this thread) that she is giving him up. Also, I kind of disagree that mom is OK with D taking the dog. If you reread her posts she constantly questions D’s motives for wanting the dog, even calling her a ‘martyr’, as well as her situation in life (aka, D is too busy). To me, it seems OP kind of doesn’t want the D to have the dog. </p>
<p>I think if OP can’t personally find a responsible home for the dog, she needs to find a way to keep him. </p>
<p>Tell the D you are planning to give up the dog. If she wants him, fine. But, you can’t handle it financially or otherwise and shouldn’t be obligated to just because everyone else has moved away and made it your problem. </p>
<p>Well, whose idea was it to get the dog in the first place? Who had to approve it? I would venture to guess it was the OP. That’s why rescues will only place a dog in a household where all adults want the dog, and will be the ones responsible for its care. Far too many people view dogs as disposable. (Not referring to the OP, here.)</p>
<p>I grew up on a farm, too. Yes, we had some livestock. But we always got that livestock knowing full well they were a commodity to buy and sell. Different with a dog. A dog was a pet we got by choice with the full intent of doing our best to keep it safe, well, and happy until its death.
Even now, wife and I muse that when we lose our current 2 housedogs that we do not intend to get another. We do not wish to be tied to our house for years, with new dogs after these dogs pass. So expecting years of committment ahead that we are not willing to give, we will choose not to have more.
The OP is in a tough spot. The Op was the adult in the household when the pet was accepted. That is why I don’t agree with some that now the college age or young adults should have to take the dog-or else.
Some say the hubby made a promise to stay but moved out and moved on. That’s a case where 2 adults chose each other and the choice turned out, well, not to work. A husband, wife, or child can move on and be independent; a dog cannot choose his family, but a family chose him.</p>
<p>acollegestudent, first of all, thank you for toning down the emotions in your posts and giving us some perspective on your personal attachment to animals. </p>
<p>My take on London D: she does not want the responsibility of being Stan’s caretaker and yet she does not want her mom to give the dog to someone else. Therefore, she keeps procrastinating about taking him to London - she keeps coming to the US and leaving without the dog (according to the OP, she did not even stay with her mom last time - I hope I got that right). There is a lot of talk and not a whole lot of action. I know a few people like that - to them, if one keeps dragging their feet, something will eventually happen without them ever needing to lift a finger. What I mean by that is that when mom eventually gives the dog away, London D will be the “good” one in the eyes of her little sister, and her mom will be the “evil” one. If she really wanted the dog, she would have bought her mom a ticket to visit her in London and to accompany the dog to come to the UK and also arranged for Stan to get all needed “immigration” paperwork.</p>
<p>BunsenBurner, I feel that’s kind of unfair to the D. First of, we only have one side of the story. But even forgetting that, mom never came out with the firm decision. Even on this thread, from the very beginning she left the possibility of keeping the dog open. Why should the D commit when there is a possibility mom may be keeping the dog? Maybe she even feels if mom just takes a deep breath and calms down, she will keep the dog. OP herself said at one point she wasn’t really in a state of mind to make such a major decision. </p>
<p>Given the tension, I don’t see why D should buy MOM a ticket to London or come stay at her house. </p>
<p>I don’t think how mom looks in the eyes of either D will or should change regardless of older D taking the dog. I understand their feelings. The dog is mom’s responsibility, not older D’s. If I were the little sister, I wouldn’t blame an older sibling for not taking the dog. I would absolutely blame mom for giving up the dog, regardless of older sister’s actions, especially given the fact younger D feels the dog got her through tough times - if someone gets your child through tough times it kind of puts you in their debt, whether you like it or not. </p>
<p>Clearly, we have very different readings of older D. I don’t think she is just posturing to impress her sister. </p>
<p>The fact remains that OP cannot afford to keep the dog. And that will not change even if “mom takes a deep breath and calms down.” OP put $6000 on a credit card to cover Stan’s medical expenses. She also works full time and travels frequently which makes it more difficult to give the dog proper care. OP’s children should understand the financial realities of life, and if they do not then perhaps this is a good time for them to be introduced to the idea of financial constraints.</p>
<p>I am coming late to this conversation, though I have been reading it from the beginning. I am wondering what generally happens to pets when a pet owners finances change and they can no longer afford to take care appropriate care of a pet? Would we judge them for keeping a pet and taking inadequate care of the pet? Or, would we say “You made a commitment to that dog 5 years ago, when you had double the income and no ideas of being laid off and not able to find another job. And, the only way to keep the commitment is to keep the dog, even though you can’t care for it properly.” </p>
<p>I tend to think that the commitment is not in keeping the animal no matter what. The commitment is in making sure the animal is well taken care of while you have that control. People’s lifestyles change all of the time, for a variety of reasons. And, none of us can clearly read several years into the future. None of us know with certainty what we will be doing, where we will be, even a year after adopting a pet.</p>
<p>Sometimes, heartbreaking as it may be, the humane thing to do is to find another responsible person to take care of the animal.</p>
<p>I think part of the problem, as has been mentioned before is that the OP hasn’t made a firm decision, and doesn’t seem to be sure she wants to give away Stan. Even if this thread, she hasn’t expressed with certainty what her wishes are. It also doesn’t seem to me that she has found an acceptable option (the family who takes care of Stan when she is gone cannot take him). So, maybe if OP makes a decision about what she wants (regardless of what it is), and if the decides to get rid of the dog, finds someone suitable to take care of him, then she can give an ultimatum to London daughter. As of now, it’s not a credible threat.</p>
<p>But in the first post, the Op did not tell us she cannot afford proper care of the dog. Given that, This isn’t a case where, as bajamm says, the finances change and the owner can no longer afford the pet. I think the cost is inconvenient, and awkward. Not the same thing. Perhaps the costs outweigh the joy of this pet.
If the cost was absolutely prohibitive, the Op would not really have a tough decision, but given the uncertainty, I think it is obvious it isn’t so.
But I certainly can see that now is not a good time to ponder if the OP should have permitted the pet “way back when” with some lifestyle changes very forseeable. What’s done is done, and it’s a tough spot to be in now.</p>
<p>I also nowhere saw that costs are prohibitive. Personally, I don’t think that part of growing up is learning that if lifestyle changes or financial situation changes you give up a pet. Personally, I think it’s just the opposite. Growing up, to me, means you make a commitment to a living thing, you keep it. And yes, that may mean charging an emergency to a credit card. It may also mean giving up a lot of things, but a living creature, animal or human, certainly comes before that. </p>
<p>People give up pets all the time. A very responsible couple I know had a dog for two weeks before finding it a new home after deciding they were just not dog people. They also have two adopted kids. It’s really not the same thing. imho.</p>
<p>There is a difference between “my circumstances have changed beyond my control” and “I didn’t think long term enough at the beginning”
They’re two different situations and they are not comparable. </p>
<p>That’s where we disagree, Actingmt, barring serious circumstances (life-threatening illness, becoming homeless, etc.) I would never consider someone giving up a pet because they are “just not dog people” responsible. Definitey wwould not rely on those type of people. </p>
) I found it torture to hear reports on how he was living and behaving from mutual relatives. So I understand that it is possible to be quite passionate about the welfare of a dog one doesn’t know well.</p>