Pet placements: Judge not, lest ye be judged
By Gina Spadafori
October 12, 2007
This morning I was really happy to see Candace Shilling write on Itchmo about going to Nathan Winograd’s “Redemption” presentation in Chicago. (On his blog you’ll find the calendar of all the cities he’ll be visiting.) Shilling had the same reaction I did on being introduced to the Winograd’s arguments: Like many others who write about pets and care about pets, I had believed all that I’d been told about “no-kill” — that it “cherrypicks” adoptable pets and sends the others elsewhere for others to kill, that it only works in affluent urban areas where shelter organizations have massive endowments and so on.
And of course, I believed the No. 1 thing said about it: That it doesn’t work.
On that last point, you have to give the shelter industry some credit: If there’s any group of people who should know what doesn’t work, it’s them. After all, they’ve been working hard at policies that don’t work for more than a 100 years!
But this point Shilling made is one I’ve been thinking about, a lot:
How often in our attempts to get an animal the best home, are we denying them a great home? Are we really saying death is better than a first-time pet owner without a vet reference? Better than someone outside the city limits because we insist on home visits? Death is not better than a little uncertainty.
When I was doing breed rescue, fostering and placing about 30 dogs a year, we had rules for the kinds of homes we were looking to find. Basically, they were homes like ours, where lives revolved around the animals, no couch was off-limit, the best food was provided and veterinary care even for minor situations never waited for lack of time or finances.
But over time, I started breaking the rules. The woman who lived in an apartment (what? no fenced yard?), the elderly couple (why, the dog will outlive them!), the tattoed man who rented with his teenaged son in a dicey part of town (how many piercings does that kid have, anyway?). I didn’t come at them with a clipboard and the atitude that they (or anyone else) had anything to prove to me. I listened. To their words and to their hearts.
And guess what?
Of the more than 100 dogs (all neutered, vaccinated, wormed and vet-checked, housetrained as well) I placed in the three years I ran the rescue, these three homes did more than anyone else to stay in touch, to let me know how much they loved their dogs and how happy they were to have them. The dogs lived their entire lives in their new homes, and all three of these “rule-breaking” placements either called me or sent me a note to let me know their dogs had passed from old age. The elderly couple decided after their Daisy died they were not able to take another dog. No one told them they couldn’t have another pet; they decided for themselves, responsibly. Both the other homes have adopted other dogs since.
But still, many rescue groups and shelters insist on making it nearly impossible for people to adopt pets. The funny thing is, my own first dog should not have been placed with me, by the rules many groups follow. I was a college student, my roommate didn’t want a dog and the apartment complex had a 25-pound weight limit that would have banned my dog if they weighed him. (He was 27-28 pounds.)
I didn’t pencil out as a home for a dog by the rules, and yet I loved and cherished that dog all his life, and no person or animal before or since has done more to set me on my life shared with animals, and my career writing about them.
When we make it so difficult for people to adopt pets who need homes, we push them straight to the pet-stores, where puppy-mill dogs can be had by pulling out a credit card (a transaction that guarantees the continuation of the misery and cruelty of the mass production of pets). Or to clueless backyard breeders, who couldn’t care less about health or temperament.
The thing is, how do we know when we set up all these rules for adopters that we are choosing homes that are any better than the ones we prefer? Where are the long-term studies that follow up?
Recently, a friend decided to give in to her son’s begging for a dog. She had her misgivings. Both she and her husband work, and the family is always on the move — school, work, soccer, the whole crazy suburban thing. Their home is on a small lot. They’re not bad people — far from it — but I, too, wondered if they’d have time for a dog.
The old Gina would have told her a dog wasn’t going to work, and I wasn’t going to put my “expert” stamp on her plans. (I am the Pet Placement God! The One Who Knows Who Is Worthy!) Instead, I steered her to a couple of outstanding rescue groups, and told her I’d help her every step of the way.
Three months later, it’s hard to say who’s happier: my friend, my friend’s family or Lucy, the dog. The rescue group didn’t make her feel like a criminal for daring to ask to adopt a dog. The family is still busy and the yard is still small. But Lucy runs with the husband in the morning and is walked by the children in the afternoon. Everywhere a dog is allowed, she goes. She is a member of the family, and my friend cannot stop gushing about her.
They love her, and cannot imagine life without her.
And if Lucy had ended up at many shelters, she’d never have seen the adoption floor, much less been given a chance at a home. That’s because she’s a black retriever mix, and shelter experts say people don’t want large black dogs. Better to kill on intake rather than work to find a home. People are bad, so why bother?
Fortunately, Homeward Bound Golden Retriever Rescue and Sanctuary didn’t see things that way.
The end of the year is nearing, and with it, the final consideration of charitable giving for the end of the tax year. This year, I’m not giving to any animal groups that consider “business as usual” the only way to go forward. Instead, I’ve giving to those groups — most of them small — that try harder, and won’t accept “because there’s no other way” as the roadmap for the future.
Homeward Bound is the first to get a check. For Lucy.
Update: NorCal Aussie Rescue will also be getting some of the money that used to go elsewhere. For Sammy.
I’m on my third Homeward Bound dog, and I think they do a very good job of balancing the need to find a “good” home and the need to find a home. Yes, they do do home visits, but their criteria don’t seem unreasonable. One of my dogs, Ukiah, was with them for quite some time (I think over a year). He is a big black dog (looks a lot like a flatcoat) and is shy—two counts against him. Because he is nervous around men and children, he was difficult to adopt (I’ve had him for two years and he is A LOT better now!). But Homeward Bound stuck by him—and I sure am glad they did. He is a WONDERFUL dog!
Comment by Arlene — October 12, 2007 @ 9:12 am
FCR Rescue appreciates Homeward Bound’s work as well. We just ID’d and help place two FCRs that were at the sanctuary. Their photos are currently on Homeward Bound’s site at http://www.homewardboundgolden.....oldens.htm (scroll down to see Riley and Mattie’s photos.)
Comment by Patti — October 12, 2007 @ 9:18 am
Balance and common sense. In my case, I have a 5 lb. Papillon, and whether or not I have a fenced yard is immaterial, because there are hawks in this area, and I NEVER allow him to run unsupervised. And yet - just yesterday I was perusing the listings on a Papillon rescue site, and over and over again I saw “Fenced yard required”.
I know of a wonderful person in Poodles who decided to respond to a Petfinder listing for a Toy that needed a home. This woman takes her dogs with her EVERYWHERE, and they are some of the most well-trained and well looked after dogs you’d ever hope to meet. But she was turned down for the rescue Toy. Why? No fenced yard.
*Guidelines* are fine, but judgement and common sense should come into play, as well. And this goes for breeders as much as it does for shelters and rescues.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 12, 2007 @ 9:56 am
Thanks so much for your post!
I recently started volunteering at a shelter, where I show animals to prospective adopters. Yesterday a couple with no pet ownership experience and three small children came to adopt a dog.
They didn’t really fit my image of the ideal adopter; I envisioned a childless household where pets (like my cats) would be the center of attention. I talked to the adoption manager, who said you can’t really make judgments based on quantifiable factors. Instead, she tries to gauge people’s commitment to including pets in their lives.
It’s so true that uncertainty is better than death for the dog - and having the couple I met adopt is better than forcing them to buy from a puppy mill.
Comment by Isabel — October 12, 2007 @ 10:24 am
Great article! The point that by denying many people consideration for a pet due to details of there current lives we drive them to petstores and PennySaver ads is an important one. By deying folks access to support and education and quality animals, we guarrantee the next wave of ill chosen, abandoned pets.
As for placement criteria,”Exceptions prove the rule”. I was on paper a less than ideal home when I got my first dog. I was renting an apartment and in school fulltime, but I was devoted to that dog.
Now I have small children. The boys and the dogs exist harmoniously (98% of the timeat least) Pets, especially dogs taught me a great deal growing up. Conventional wisdom in many shelter or rescue organizations and for many good breeders is that you don’t place in a home with children, period. I personally use the kids as a gauge for how competent the adults will be! Well mannered sensible balanced children and a whole family united behind the dog as a new family member spell success. Out of control, mean, or hyper-active kids and frazzled parents is a big big big red flag.
NorCal Bulldog Rescue (part of BCARN), of which I am a member, operates on the principal that the new home does not have to be perfect. Individual issues are taken into consideration and the final say is down to the person who conducts the home check. For the dog who spent 3-5 years locked in a garage or basement or ignored in a backyard, a small house or condo, regular meals and daily human affection and attention is heaven. The elderly couple whose worst pet owning sin might be overfeeding is heaven. The single person or couple who work full time but are willing to pay to have a dog walker in everyday twice a day while they are gone is heaven
Comment by Jennifer J — October 12, 2007 @ 10:34 am
The breeder of my dog (Papillon - Toy breed) does not have hard and fast rules concerning children. However, she insists on watching the ENTIRE family interact with the dogs as part of her decision.
And do you think she’s watching how the kids behave and interact with the dogs? Sure - but at LEAST as much as that, she is watching how the parents are *monitoring* those interactions, and how well they’re keeping their kids under control. This works out far better for her than a blanket “I don’t let my dogs go to homes with children” policy.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 12, 2007 @ 10:43 am
As I’ve posted before the Wisconsin Humane Society does and excellent job with a total NO KILL policy.
They do not do home visits but check out the animals very well and to screen adopters with a 2 page pre-adoption form.
Kids have to come with their parents and are quized about the responsibilities of owning a pet.
Red flags raised include a previous pet surrender to the shelter and they do a basic background check but not a complete one Ill admit.
At times they do become overwhelmed but they get teh job done!
Other things they do is to raise funds by selling pet food and other supplies and they also have a “Bed & Barkfast” boarding kennel on the other side of the building that makes great use of the staff in a paying business.
They charge $120 for a dog and less for a cat and have a half price program for a second adoption at the same time.
The sell sponsorships for their weekly newspaper adoption billboard and the manager her writes a pet collumn for the paper too.
I think this could easily be the model for other areas although I will allow that poor urban areas will have a tougher time.
I think that this could also be helped by greater cooperation between shelters where some of the pets could get exported to other areas.
Here is their page on petfinder.com along with links to their adoption forms, published pictures, etc…
http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/lhs.html
Scout says Hi!
Both Brandy and Scout came from there. Its a fine fine place and I think could serve as a model!
Bernie
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — October 12, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Another point. Many of the dogs for which homes are needed are themselves less than perfect. Old dogs, dogs with health problems both curable or chronic but treatable, dogs with disabilities, dogs who may not be what the vast majority of people would consider in anway attractive (sorry but it’s true).
The same goes for other species as well.
Now if you’re PETA or another radical group or one of the many shelters out there who feels killing anything with a problem is justified then there is no problem. Just kill ‘em all. Adopt out the young and healthy light colored under 50 lbers and call it good.
I personally believe there is a “butt for every seat”. If the dogs are not “perfect” then how can we expect every potential home to be so? The perfect home is the one that is “perfect” for that dog
Comment by Jennifer J — October 12, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Jennifer & the Other Pat: You are so on target. Every situation has to be judged individually. But of course, that’s a lot more difficult than just saying NO.
A fenced yard? For those of us who live in the city - that’s just fantasy island. But we do have parks, and plenty of people go jogging with their dogs.
Vet reference? If you are new to a city or its a first pet, how the heck do you get a vet reference?
The only hard and fast rule I’ve seen is that if you are a renter, you must have a letter from your landlord. This makes sense to me - I can’t tell you how often I see animals up for adoption where the reason is “landlord wouldn’t allow” or “moving-can’t take pets”. Now why anyone who has a pet would move somewhere that didn’t allow them is beyond me. Guess what, unless you are moving to a barracks in Iraq, you just don’t move to a bulding where you can’t keep your pet.
People will constantly suprise you. I have one friend who is a spendaholic but leaves her little dog for way too many hours every day. She doesn’t have a dog walker, and the poor creature always has bathroom accidents during the day. No wonder the dog is a neurotic nervous mess. Honey, if you can afford ski vacatons in Europe, you can afford a dogwalker.
Two other friends have 4 cats. Between them they just make ends meet. But their cats which are all older, get their medication, and vet visits with no dollar spared. In fact after losing two elderly cats, they adopted an older cat from a shelter. The shelter didn’t knock them out of the running because of their limited finances - instead they arranged for some needed dental work and other items to be taken care of before the adoption was complete.
And the new cat (who is 10)seems to be very happy in his new home.
Comment by 2CatMom — October 12, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
This is a great post. Smart, deep, wise and well said. Smoking!
Patrick
Comment by PBurns — October 12, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
Thank you, thank you, THANK you!
I love and support rescue organizations. Many do a wonderful job for no money and less thanks. Most are really amazing people who want very badly to help pets.
But how many good potential owners have turned to commercial breeders because they’ve been turned away by rescue groups as the unintended result of well-intended rules?
I have two unrelated friends, now happy and responsible pet owners, who were turned down by multiple groups for one reason or another (In one case, having a full time job was enough to rule you out as a placement. So how is the new owner supposed to pay the vet bills?)
Luckily, after months of frustration, both friends eventually found rescue groups that worked with them. But how many people are willing to keep looking that long?
Thanks, Gina. Your recommendation about donations is excellent. And I have to add that it’s important to tell the groups you give money to *why* you’re supporting them. The note with the check always gets read.
Comment by LauraL — October 12, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
LaurelL raises an excellent point. Another friend of mine lost a 15 year old cat about a year old. The last few years she had to administer fluid and finally insulin which she faithfully did.
After a year of grieving she’s finally ready to add a cat(s) to her home again. One rescue refused her because of the too many hours away from home. She stated an average of 10. Well if you work a full time job - that’s 8 hours. You might not have a paid lunch - let’s add a half hour for that. And of course there’s the commute (how about 1 hour in total). Now say she stops on the way home at the grocery store (30 min). There’s your 10 hours. I don’t know many working friends who (excluding those that work at home)spend less time away from home.
So she is penalized for being honest. I wonder how many people who say they work from home are really home all day. No trips to Starbucks? No couple of hours at the gym in the middle of the day? Hey, most ‘stay at home moms’ spend a lot of their time chauffering their kids, running errands, shopping, etc - all legitimate activities, but they are not at home are they?
I told her she should say 8 hours max because apparently there’s a number that the shelter has in mind and its smaller than 10.
And to the shelters I say, get real. This women was doing IVs for 2 years to keep her cat going and you don’t think she’ll be a responsible pet parent??
Comment by 2CatMom — October 12, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
2CatMom,
I agree. Cats especially are very independent.
We occasionally go out of town and just leave a huge bowl of food and water out for our 3 cats and when we come home at best they will come out and greet us.
Scout, my little Setter is another matter. We take him to the Humane Society’s Bed & Barkfast where we got him. Although he does not like this and always looks sad and depressed its the best we can do! By these people’s standards maybe we should not have Scout? I think if he could talk he would have something to say about that and it would not be very complimentary.
Adpotion standards have to be reasonable. People and animals make all kinds of accomodations to be together and being left alone is part of the deal. They are not intfants and easily get used to the routine.
Should we apply a lower standard to children? Will we require stay at home moms (or dads) to allow adoptions? Should we outlaw day cares?
I think not.
Certainly, good food, a warm place to sleep and the love and attention a person can give them all of the rest of the time is a better alternative than a dank pen at the shelter leading to a meaningless end.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — October 13, 2007 @ 5:41 am
I agree with your article. I also think what you’ve written applies to responsible breeders, too. Some have an incredible amount of hoops to jump through.
One note, though, NorCal Aussie Rescue supported AB1634. When you send a check, might want to comment that it’s despite their support for a misguided bill.
Comment by kabbage — October 13, 2007 @ 6:26 am
Thank you so much for this post, it made me cry to remember my own frustration! I was a first time pet owner just over a month ago (well technically I still am)and I was turned away by over 10 shelters and rescues before I jumped through dozens of hoops to get Libby from our local SPCA. I even had a phone call ignored so that a dog I wanted to could go to a young couple, I got an email later saying “oops, I guess I missed you, but if this young, dog loving couple with a large backyard and no small children don’t want him I will definitely contact you” It still makes me angry to think about it.
I’m still a 21 year old student, paying my own way through university but now I have an extremely spoiled and loved beagle border collie (aka pretty but not the brightest ^-^) because someone decided to take a chance on us both.
Comment by Chanin — October 13, 2007 @ 7:09 am
One more story (and then I’ll shut up, I promise). When I went to adopt my two cats apparently one person at the shelter didn’t think I was a good candidate because “I asked too many questions!”
So sorry, see I hadn’t had a cat in 25 year and I heard a few things had changed - like this new fangled clumping litter, food that didn’t come from grocery stores and changing protocols on shots, dental work etc. And because I am a RESPONSIBLE ADULT I wanted to make sure I knew the latest thinking on these things. I just don’t know when to shut up, do I?
Actually, in the end I bought Cats for Dummies (co-authored by a brilliant woman)and got my self up to speed.
Comment by 2CatMom — October 13, 2007 @ 10:04 am
I’m so glad you liked it! I’m hugely proud of Cats For Dummies. The Cat Writers Association gave it awards for the best work in feline behavior, best work in feline nutrition and best work on responsible cat care.
My co-author, Dr. Paul Pion, is not only the founder of the Veterinary Information Network but also one of the world’s top veterinary cardiologists. He discovered the link between taurine deficiency and dilated cardiomyopathy, leading to the reformation of all cat foods and the saving of about 100,000 feline lives a year.
I love all my books, but some a just a little more “special” than others.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 13, 2007 @ 10:17 am
I stopped sending money to a national animal welfare organization when I found out they were using their money to undermine our rights as pet owners. Now I’m applying the same standard to local humane/SPCA/rescues.
I won’t send money to any rescue group, such as NorCal Aussie Rescue, that supports AB 1634. The rescue group that I’ve been a long-time supporter of, National English Shepherd Rescue, is a strong opponent of AB 1634.
Comment by Laura — October 13, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
I stopped fostering for a local shelter when I discovered that I was ineligible to adopt an animal from them.
See, I’ve got intact dogs at home. Have been known to breed a litter every four years or so. So I’m apparently unworthy of owning a neutered cat, for example. Perhaps the bitch will breed the sterile cat? I dunno.
My bitch tried to mother the kittens I raised from newborns for them. Where do they think that came from? I notice that shelters are often quick to turn to experienced breeders when they get a pregnant animal in, but the whores are discarded when the need passes.
This same shelter used to send me “hard case” dogs to foster, and officially pretend not to know that I was rehabbing and training them while sometimes employing techniques that weren’t on the PC playlist. “See no evil…”
Ahh, bite me. Craig’s List is overflowing with kittens, too, free ones just as cute as the ones in the shelter, not exposed to all those institutional upper respiratory diseases, and not surgically invaded at six weeks of age — all without the gonad exam on my other animals. The immediately previous poster supports National English Shepherd Rescue; that’s who I volunteer for now. Coincidence?
If shelters and rescues dis their own volunteers this witlessly, is it any great shock that ordinary would-be pet owners give up and go elsewhere?
Comment by Heather Houlahan — October 14, 2007 @ 4:50 am
I’m going to talk to the NorCal Aussie Rescue folks, because of course I can’t give money to a group that’s for mandatory spay-neuter, either.
But I know they’ve dealt for years with a couple of Aussie puppy mills, so their stand may have much do to with that, and not with the consideration of AB 1634’s non-effect on puppy-miller — and grave effect on the reputable, responsible and ethical breeding of Australian shepherds, including stock dogs.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 14, 2007 @ 6:51 am
Gina - its a great book, really! I’d never bought any book from the Dummies series before, but of the three books I bought when I adopted my cats - yours is by far the best.
Comment by 2CatMom — October 14, 2007 @ 10:52 am
Gina, thank you very much for talking with NorCal Aussie Rescue about the problems with mandatory spay/neuter laws. It’s possible (though unlikely) that they are erroneously listed as a supporter of AB 1634. I’ve heard about other rescues and police departments that are incorrectly listed as supporters of the bill.
I’m currently reading Nathan Winograd’s “Redemption”, and find it to be very enlightening. Thanks to you and Christie for the recommendation!
Comment by Laura — October 14, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Thank you.
I love that rescues exist. It breaks my heart that although in my life I’ve had and loved seven dogs, none of whom were ever neglected or hurt or unloved, i would still not qualify as an option by these rescue shelters.
So an innocent dog will be shipped off to be killed rather than have to live through the horror of sleeping on my bed, having a doggie door to a fenced in yard, having free reign of the sofa, chairs, floor, and my heart, and always getting to taste whatever it is I’m eating.
yes. I can see why death seems a better option.
Comment by vamphile — October 14, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
On the news today - Ellen Degeneres adopted a dog from an organization called “Mutts and Moms”. When Iggy turned out to be too rambunctious for Ellen’s household, she gave him to her hairdresser, whose two little girls apparently really loved him.
However, the adoption paperwork stated that the dog would go back to them if the placement didn’t work out (a fairly common requirement in adoption contracts, and one that I basically agree with).
So Mutts and Moms went and repossessed the dog, and left Ellen Degeneres in tears on national TV.
I JUST saw the story, so I don’t know all the details. I’m hoping that Mutts and Moms would be amenable to doing a home evaluation on the hairdresser with the goal of going ahead and placing Iggy there.
Anyway, I’m afraid this one is going to get a lot of airtime and reflect badly on the whole concept of rescue and taking dogs back. Here’s one (of many) news story on it:
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7194663
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 16, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
I used to be a member of the Sacramento SPCA and supported it financially as much as a could. I am no longer a member due to the treatment I received from one of their adoption counselors three years ago when I went searching for a new dog friend. This individual was insensitive and condescending. It didn’t matter to her that my 4 prior dogs had lived until they were 13-14 years old and my cats were approaching 18 years old and part of this could be attributed to consistent vet care. When I indicated that my new prospective dog might sleep in the garage at night, she came unglued and lectured me about dogs being pack animals and needing to always be around people.
I didn’t have a chance to explain that my last dog (a border collie) had been rescued from a drug house. He was delighted to have peace/quiet, roof over head, heaping bowls of food, and long loving ear rubs. He also enjoyed visits to the local dog park. And yes he slept in the garage, (and yes he herded an occasional rodent displaced by my neighbor’s landscraping into the house ) but his life was much better than it had been while at the drug house. And when he was diagnosed with bone and skin cancer at about age 13, his passage across the rainbow bridge was gently assisted by the vet.
I left that interview very hurt and angry.
Today I have another dog, who is also a rescue in another way. She is an absolute gem. We go to the dog park almost every day. She has become my retirement companion. She sleeps in the house at night —and probably thinks she owns the whole house. My last cat died a year ago at the ripe age of 21 years.
(Gina- I will let you decide if this should be posted)
Comment by glock — October 16, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
This is an excellent post and it gives a different prospective to pet rescue and placement.
The comment from The OTHER Pat is right on. I too hope that Mutts and Moms does a home evaluation on the hairdresser. I read or heard that the hairdressers children had become very attached to the dog.
Comment by Larry — October 17, 2007 @ 6:50 am
I’m appalled at this situation — but not because of the AGENCY’s actions…of ELLEN’S. And her “people.” I know people who have adopted from these agencies before, and the agencies are trying to do a good thing by handling the process almost as carefully as a regular adoption agency would handle a baby. People agree to return the dog to the agency if for whatever reason they cannot keep them — that ensures that the dog will NEVER be dumped anywhere, or placed with a bad home, etc. A friend of mine adopted his dog after two previous familes returned him to their agency — and thank God they did! These organizations are run by GOOD people, who are there to LOOK OUT FOR THE SAFETY AND BEST INTEREST OF THE DOGS — NOT to look out for self-involved celebrities who like to think that the rules don’t apply to them. I am so sick to death of these people trying to play the “celeb” card, especially in the way Ellen is doing…when SHE is the one in the wrong here!!
And don’t get me wrong — I’ve always been an Ellen fan, but in this case, I think she is 150% OUT OF LINE. SHE made the mistake, and while it might seem easy enough to just “work out the details” and let the agency formalize the new arrangement with this family of Ellen’s choosing, that is up to the AGENCY. NOT Ellen, and NOT Ellen’s hairdresser. And most importantly, NOT the American public. I am appalled that Ellen, in an effort to absolve herself of her own guilt, stoops to using her television show to try to make the AGENCY look like bad people, simply for doing EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO. The agency has not misrepresented themselves here, and they have done nothing wrong. And if in the end, this hairdresser’s family doesn’t fit the agency’s criteria for adoption of this particular dog, then that’s just too damn bad. I’m sorry that the daughters of these people are heartbroken, but you know what? Nobody died here…we’re talking 2 WEEKS they had this dog. Suck it up, get over it, and take it as a lesson in disappointment, girls. It won’t be the last time in your life you have to face it, so enough with the tears, already — despite the bad example you have in your hysterical Auntie Ellen. (Overreact much??? My God!)
I’m sorry, but Ellen is going to have to shoulder ALL of the responsibility for this one herself (Portia, too)…and I just think it’s BEYOND disgusting that she gave such a hysterical, weepy plea on her television show to try to sway the “Ellen-ites” of the world to get on her irresponsible bandwagon here.
Now these poor women who run this GOOD organization are now receiving death threats from Ellen’s idiotic fans? I’m sorry — but THAT is what’s wrong here. NOT the actions of the agency. If Ellen wants to have guilt about something, why doesn’t she save it for THAT. If anything happens to this agency or the people who run it, Ellen can consider herself 100% responsible for causing it. Do you suppose she’s going to break down on TV about THAT, too? If anything, I want to see her get her S together and go on TV to APOLOGIZE — not just to the girls that she disappointed, but to this agency — she should say she’s sorry for giving their efforts a bad name, and for setting them up to be a target for violence. She should ENCOURAGE the efforts of agencies like this, and urge her viewers to adopt from them, NOT to threaten them. Give me a Goddamn break. She, and everyone else who is rushing to take Ellen’s side in this, need to GROW THE HELL UP and pay attention when there are rules/contracts involved with something like an adoption. I’m sick of all the bellyaching over this from people who don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.
Comment by LG2 — October 17, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Ellen DeGeneres is far from being the first adopter to fail to comply with all the conditions of her adoption contract, nor will she be the last. What makes her different - of course - is the celebrity status that provided her with a platform from which to speak out about what happened.
But I run into a LOT of people who are unaware of how commonplace takeback clauses are in adoption contracts. And when you tell them about it, a lot of those people express outrage that someone retains first refusal over a dog they’ve “sold” to someone else. Sometimes I can convince them of the value of this “safety net”, but often I cannot.
That being said, I can see where DeGeneres - who did not read her contract - was taken COMPLETELY by surprise (and shock) when she was told that Iggy had been forcibly removed from his new home. Under the circumstances, she was probably not particularly inclined to view a takeback clause as a “safety net”, and under the circumstances - in THIS situation - I don’t believe that is how the takeback clause is being used.
A takeback clause is supposed to ensure that a dog never finds him or herself homeless. And it is also supposed to ensure that the new home is a good one.
In the grip of their anger, Mutts and Moms refused to even do a home evaluation on Iggy’s new home, simply citing their “no kids under 14” rule. And yet, they have apparently made exceptions to this rule in the past.
Their argument that DeGeneres gets treated like everyone else doesn’t even hold water, since they apparently required neither an application nor a home check from DeGeneres before placing the dog with her:
http://www.people.com/people/a.....46,00.html
So it’s an ugly situation from all sides.
But what I hate is what I see coming - down the road, I just *know* I’m going to begin hearing people say “Oh, you don’t want to get your dog from a *rescue*. You know, they can just come and take them back any time.”
I seriously fear this whole episode will be one more thing that drives the American public to commercial “your plastic is good enough” breeders.
It could have been SO much different.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 17, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Petfinder.com Co-Founder Betsy Saul Responds to Ellen DeGeneres Pet Adoption Controversy
(PRNewswire/ Oct 17)
“This is a heartbreaking situation for everyone involved,” said Saul. “We understand and sympathize with Ellen and the family to which she gave Iggy. We also realize how important it is for adoption groups to put
regulations in place to protect each and every pet that comes into their care. Statistics indicate that over a half million pets who are adopted from shelters and rescue groups land back in a shelter during their lifetime. For this reason, adoption groups put assurances in place to serve as a safety net for their adopted pets — both at the point of adoption and throughout the pet’s life. The upside of this event is that Ellen, Mutts and Moms and the hundreds of people who have emailed and called Petfinder.com about this issue want to see this little dog in the best home possible. If we could ensure that same future for all the pets available on Petfinder.com, our job would be accomplished.”
Along with Nathan’s book, I believe this timely incident will break the subject of shelters and placement wide open. Perhaps positive change may now be possible with this far reaching publicity. As an animal lover, Ellen could be of incredible help to turn things around for all the dogs left behind. She needs to read the book and have Nathan on her show to talk about it. This is a time of opportunity.
Comment by Nadine L. — October 17, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
A little from column A, and a little from column B will be my two cents.
I’ve worked in rescue for years…nay, decades. I know why the “rules” are in place (for the exact reason the rescue/shelter exists!), and I know exactly why those rules are sometimes relaxed, and when it is generally a good bet to do so.
The most common argument I hear is, “Rescue groups make adopting a dog harder than adopting a child.” And I’ll admit, I’m somewhat ambivalent about such comments.
On the one hand, I think, ‘Great! At least children can contact, authorities, at some point, to tell them of the suffering they’re enduring. Dogs suffer in silence. Plus, people do things to dogs they’d either never, ever do, or would never, ever get away with if they did them, to children. Again, dogs suffer in silence…completely helpless to improve their situations.’
On the other hand, I would strongly disagree with the criticism, itself. It is in no way more difficult to adopt a dog from the vast majority of rescue groups/shelters. People who make such claims are either unaware of the stringent child adoption process, or are just being insufferably argumentative.
In any event, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for anyone who’d choose the easier route of a pet shop, or backyard breeder, purchase, over simply learning about why the rescue’s rules are in place and accommodating that. Personally, I haven’t come across any rescue group’s rules I thought were totally out of line. And if someone believes them to be, he/she is free to go elsewhere. Whether you’re buying a house, renting a car, or adopting a dog, don’t sign a contract you don’t plan to honor.
I have relocated a lot in my lifetime. Years ago, I was newly back in the big city, and ready to adopt a dog. Having lost most of my contacts in the local animal welfare community during my absence, I figured the interview process, with references, would more than make up for a personal introduction.
The thing is, I lived in a condominium. The only local rescue for my breed of choice simply didn’t approve homes without a fenced yard. Period. My references counted for nothing, as they were refused. Case closed.
Sure, it left a momentary bitter taste in my mouth. I’m not going to say I provide dogs with the all-time best home ever to have existed, but that is certainly my aim (and I get pretty darn close, I think). And not in a silly “my dog is my surrogate child” way, either. I mean down and dirty, providing a good home for a dog, where they’re raised to be successful in human society, and are kept healthy, mentally stimulated, well fed, and allowed as much “doggy” time as humanly possible. I don’t yell at animals or choke them, yet I am able to get them to volunteer for pretty much anything I want. Thus they have full, active lives with the most freedom I ever see dogs afforded. I’ve never abandoned a pet, either. In short, my track record is excellent.
Without tooting my own horn any longer, let’s just say I believe I provide a very good home for dogs, no matter what my circumstance (or theirs). Yet this rescue group denied my application.(?!?)
It’s been many years since then. I’m well-known in the local animal welfare community now. I’ve even been involved with that same rescue group. I’m the one who can potentially push to approve someone who doesn’t have a fenced yard, if their reasons are valid. I can differentiate between some novice, who has rose colored glasses about keeping an active dog in a condo., and one who’s walked the walk, and knows exactly what she’s getting herself in for.
Invariably, what I find in just about every conversation about what’s best for dogs is the justification always goes back to what the humans want, and what’s in some person’s best interests. For me, that’s where I draw the line…and it’s not a difficult line to see, either. It’s the dog’s best interests, above all else (at least as much as I can afford).
In light of the Ellen Degeneres situation, I recently read one woman’s claim she’ll never adopt a rescue dog again because of policies like the one that required Ms. Degeneres to return the dog to the rescue, if she needed to re-home it.
Had this person been in front of me, I would’ve asked her if it wouldn’t be easier to simply comply? Build that fence. Provide those character references. Make a commitment to keeping that dog, in sickness and in health, for the rest of its natural life. If that’s too difficult, she probably shouldn’t have a dog at all. And, if that’s the case, the reason for the rescue group’s policies is crystal clear.
No one seems to care about the fear and trauma the dog suffers when handed off to a stranger. People continue to talk about how this may harm the children (as in the ‘Ellen’ case). The precise reason the non-transfer clause exists in virtually every reputable rescue group’s/shelter’s/breeder’s contract is to prevent precisely what Ellen did. People don’t always abandon dogs while setting them on fire and cackling gleefully, like a demon. Many times they abdicate their responsibilities to their dogs, with the very “best of intentions”. The dog is still harmed, as a result, though.
Once the dog is outside the legal grasp of the rescue group, there is absolutely no one to protect it. Only the most blatant cases of outright animal cruelty are investigated by authorities, much less prosecuted. All the work a rescue group does to process a dog and adopter, is all down the drain if the family gives the dog to someone who hasn’t been properly vetted, and who is answerable to no one, and who hasn’t even been instructed on what is, and isn’t, acceptable dog care (such as tethering, long periods of crating, hitting, etc.).
Personally, I don’t see a lot of controversy, except from those who believe their “right” to have a dog outweighs the dog’s right to the best possible home.
The fact remains, because the majority of dog owners are irresponsible (60-80% of all dogs are re-homed at some point), we have a significant need for animal shelters, rescue groups, and other forms of ‘safe haven’ from human negligence. All any rescue group wants to do is find a good home for a dog; one that’ll be the last. Everything else is predicated on that.
And with all the criticism of dog rescue I’ve heard in light of the ‘Ellen’ situation, I have to laughingly say, “Sure. All the tireless, overworked rescue groups are the problem, and not the millions of dog owners who fail act responsibly in the care of their dogs, and abandon them to those very rescues.”
Rrrrriiiiiight. The rescue groups are the problem…
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Jorie, this particular case isn’t about “rescue groups.” It’s about this rescue group, which appears to have gone for maximum confrontation from the moment Ellen said she had given the dog to the hairdresser’s family. They are not presenting themselves as people whose first concern is the well-being of the dog.
And in the back of my mind in all this is the fact that this rescue is not fostering the dogs; they board them all, at $300 a month per dog. They’re living in cages, just like if they were in a municipal shelter. That bothers me; it’s not what I expect when I hear “rescue organization.”
Comment by Lis — October 18, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Hi, Lis.
You may have misunderstood. When I wrote, “…with all the criticism of dog rescue I’ve heard…” I was talking about the fallout for the entire rescue community (not just that one organization in the ‘Ellen’ case).
I only briefly touched on the ‘Ellen’ incident. I don’t know anything about that particular rescue group, nor do I know anything about Ms. Degeneres, or the hairdresser, for that matter. My point was merely that a ‘no transfer’ clause is not only common to all reputable breeders/rescue groups/shelters, but it is vital part of the adoption process. In fact, a rescue group with such a contract has a moral, ethical, and possibly even legal, duty to recover the dog after the terms of the contract were broken.
Personally, I wouldn’t be involved with any organization that didn’t have or ENFORCE a ‘no transfer’ clause as part of its adoption process. (If it’s not enforced, then it’s no protection for the dog, at all.)
Anyone who abandons a dog (especially for the lame reason given by Ms. Degeneres) is probably the single worst person to select a new home. “A dog is for life.” Anyone who can’t live by that simple truth should never be in the position of determining what is, and isn’t, a good potential home for a dog. It’s like having the pedophilic father decide who gets to adopt his kids.
The overwhelming majority of animal cruelty is committed BY OWNERS who both claim to have provided a good home, and swear they love their pets. The reason shelters and rescue groups exist is because 60-80% of dogs are abandoned by owners who claim they love their dogs, and have provided a good home for them.
Responsibly re-homing dogs is not an easy process. And it’s never satisfied with how “nice” someone appears or claims to be. Short of hoarding all these animals ourselves, home checks, interviews, reference checks, and legal responsibilities, are the best we can do for those animals. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction. It’s much better than just trusting that someone will provide a resonsible, loving home for a dog.
“How do you know they’ll give the dog a good home?”
“Because they’re attractive, and have a nice home and a decent job. But not just that. They promised ‘with cream and sugar on top,’ of course.”
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
I’m really confused by this… first of all, of COURSE nearly all dogs who are born are rehomed. Whether puppies are born to small hobby breeders or puppy mills, in a foster home, to a rescue group, or in a shelter, they’ll be “rehomed” after birth.
I’d want to see the source and breakdown of that statistic before I used it to say that “the majority” of pet owners are irresponsible and bad.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 18, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Jorie, in one post you said “60-80% of all dogs are re-homed at some point”. In your next post you said “60-80% of dogs are abandoned by owners”.
These do not mean the same thing. Re-homing a dog is not necessarily abandoning the dog. Which is it, and what study supports the claim?
I personally know of few dogs who were “abandoned by their owners”. Obviously many are, witness the number of dogs in shelters. I do not believe it could add up to 60-80% of all dogs.
I personally know of many dogs who were responsibly re-homed. It’s far less than 60-80% of all dogs though.
For example, many years ago I adopted a dog from friends when the they were expecting their first child. This adult dog, with no history of aggression, started getting snappish toward the pregnant wife. I had no children, had cared for their dog when they traveled, and was happy to adopt her. This is not “abandonment”. It’s responsible dog ownership.
FWIW, nearly all working police dogs were once someone’s pet dog. They were obtained as young pups to be a family companion, not with the intent to be a future police dog. They end up being rehomed, usually as young adults, because they become too pushy, active, bold, etc… too much dog for their family. In most cases these dogs are not “abandoned”, they are responsibly rehomed. Thank goodness they are, because there would otherwise be very few dogs in law enforcement.
Comment by Laura — October 18, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
Christie asked “What proof is there that these obsessively controlling placement strategies result in more permanent and appropriate homes than a careful but less rigid screening process? Cite me some cites. Show me something, anything, indicating that this works.”
Petfinder’s statement about the Mutt’s & Mom’s fiasco says “Research, however, suggests that there is no difference in the success rates of the adoptions between organizations that screen heavily versus those that have more open adoption policies.”
http://www.petfinder.com/statement.html
The source of the research is not cited.
Another way to look at this is, which strategy saves the most pet lives, and benefits the most human lives? A more open adoption policy is likely the winner when we look at it this way. As the saying goes, “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”
Comment by Laura — October 18, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
Jorie, given that you freely admit you know nothing about Ellen Degeneres, and nothing about this rescue group, and nothing about the hairdresser and her family, you’re making a raft of rather extreme assumptions. In fact, if Ms. Degeneres weren’t a public figure, your comparisonto a pedophile father would probably be actionable.
“Lame reason”—She said it wasn’t working out with her cats. Cats as well as dogs are individuals; sometimes they don’t get along, and sometimes you can cure that with patience and the right training techniques, and sometimes you know pretty quickly that this is just a match-up that isn’t going to work. She hasn’t given us chapter and verse on the details of her three cats; if one or more of them is elderly, and things were going badly with a new addition, sorry, the long-term and elderly member of the household takes precedence. Dogs are for life; so are cats.
She didn’t dump the dog, or subject it to the presumed trauma of being given to total strangers. The hairdresser and her kids saw the dog every day; the dog saw them every day. It’s no great reach to conclude that Iggy and the kids liked each other; otherwise, the family wouldn’t have been interested in taking the dog.
Ellen was wrong to rehome the dog without talking to the rescue group. She was wrong not to have read the contract. The rescue group was wrong not to have done the home visit; their usual procedures got waived when they were working her for additional donations, apparently.
I’d say that they were wrong not to have evaluated the dog for suitability for a household with cats, but since they board all their animals in kennels in preference to fostering them, they weren’t really in a position to do that, were they?
The refusal to even consider evaluating the hairdresser’s family was wrong. Having an age limit on children for small dogs makes sense; making that age limit fourteen is just frankly bizarre. Do they know any real live kids? I doubt it! Any family should be evaluated individually for their suitability for a particular dog; having a sane limit of nine or ten doesn’t mean they’d have to give a particularly fragile small dog to a family with a particularly rambunctious or irresponsible nine-year-old.
They were wrong to get into the house under false pretences, promising a home visit, and instead bringing in the police to seize the dog in the harshest possible way—apparently primarily out of a desire to “punish” Ellen, judging from their own comments.
Take-back clauses are in shelter, rescue, and breeder contracts to protect the animals—but that’s not how this one was used, this time.
Comment by Lis — October 18, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Christine,
The 60% statistic was arrived at through a number of sources studying dog poplations, abandonment rates, etc. When I crunched the number myself, about 10 years ago, as part of a larger research effort, I found it to be 65%. HSUS estimates the figure to be 80%. If you’re not happy with our work in preparing these numbers, feel free to do your own research, and let me know what you find.
For the record, abandoning is what makes re-homing necessary. Strictly speaking, 60-80% of all dogs are “abandoned” or “surrendered” depending on which term offends you least. (I consider abdicating the lifetime responsibility one has for his/her dog to be abandonment, whether the dog is provided with a new home immediately, is surrendered to a shelter, or is dumped in the woods.)
Unfortunately, not all abandoned dogs have the opportunity to be actually be re-homed…which could, possibly, account for the discrepancy in the figures (i.e. maybe 80% of dogs are abanoned at some point, but only 60-65% are successfully re-homed).
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Laura,
I am not aware of the source for that comment either. I have no inside knowledge regarding the “Petfinder.com” web site or its employees.
Regardless, it is one of the most basic rules of dog ownership: “A dog is for life.” The only correct answer to the question, ‘When is it okay to abandon a dog?’ is ‘Never.’
Funny enough, I just heard media reports are coming out that Ellen may have adopted and abandoned as many as nine dogs. I don’t know if this is true, of course. But, if it is, it certainly hints at why she might not think it’s such a big deal to just give a dog away to someone else.
Which is basically what I was saying all along. The person who just gives a dog away is not the best person to be selecting the new home. They don’t “get” it.
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
Jorie, I just want to be sure I’m not misreading you—you regard all rehoming of dogs, for any reason, to be “abandonment” ? Is that correct?
I can’t help but notice that your answer to Christie, about the source for the 60%-80% abandonment figure lacks any of the kind of detail would allow anyone other than you to evaluate the quality of your research—or perhaps I should say “research.”
Where, exactly, did you see these “reports” that Ellen “may have” “abandoned” (I assume that should correctly be read as “gave up” or “rehomed”—making the so far unsupported assumption that anything happened at all) “as many as” nine dogs? What kind of detail was offered in support of these claims?
You probably can’t quite grasp this, but your extremist positions make your vague accusations even less convincing.
Comment by Lis — October 18, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Jorie, I think that we should always enter into pet ownership with the intent that “a dog is for life” and make efforts to ensure that this happens. However, I totally disagree that any rehoming constitutes abandonment, or that this should never happen. Oftentimes rehoming is in the best interests of everyone, including the animal.
Comment by Laura — October 18, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Posted by Lis — October 18, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
“Jorie, given that you freely admit you know nothing about Ellen Degeneres, and nothing about this rescue group, and nothing about the hairdresser and her family, you’re making a raft of rather extreme assumptions. In fact, if Ms. Degeneres weren’t a public figure, your comparisonto a pedophile father would probably be actionable.”
That was supposed to be a joke, right? For the record, it would be “actionable” (giggling)(I have a law degree) if I actually stated Ms. Degeneres was a pedophile. Clearly, any reasonable person would see that I was making an a-n-a-l-o-g-y. (Of course, there I go assuming people can be “reasonable”.)
Lis also wrote: “’Lame reason’—She said it wasn’t working out with her cats.”
Yes. If you won’t even attempt to work on training, you shouldn’t get a dog. Dogs don’t arrive on the planet perfectly trained to live in human households. It takes some work…even more so for a rescue, in most cases. Know this. Embrace this. Don’t use it as an excuse to harm a needy dog, again.
Training dogs and cats to live amicably together is far from insurmountable. I’ve done it more times than my 17-year-old cat would care to discuss…if he could speak english.
It’s the poor trainer who blames the dog for her own incompetence.
The funny thing is, Ellen allegedly already returned another dog to this same rescue group, for the same “reason”.
Bit of a pattern developing, n’est-ce pas?
Lis also wrote: “The refusal to even consider evaluating the hairdresser’s family was wrong.”
That’s not your call. It’s theirs. You didn’t sign a contract with them. Neither did the hairdresser. I, too, said it would have probably been the best outcome if that could have happened. But I also pointed out it wasn’t my decision, either.
If I found out, say, the last dog I placed (who was a particularly heartbreaking, costly, and time consuming case) had been “given away” to some unapproved home, after all the work I, and others, did, I would be livid. Forget about just exercising the rescue’s right to take back the dog. I might litigate.
Lis, you go on to call into question other policies of the rescue group at the center of the ‘Ellen’ case. Sure, it’s your right to give your opinion. But, at the end of the day, it’s irrelevant. The rescue group has its policies, and no one is forced to be sign one of their contracts. The reason the ‘no transfer’ clause exists is to prevent this precise scenario. It’s not as though it’s being used as a technicality.
There isn’t a cell in my body that believes the rescue group took the dog back to “punish” Ellen. Only a moron couldn’t see “bad publicity” written all over this.
Like any reputable breeder/rescue group/shelter who actually enforces the contracts they make people sign, I believe they did so purely to ensure the dog went to a home they consider suitable. (Of course, that might be vastly different than what I consider suitable. But, then again, I have apparently impossibly high standards for the care of dogs. You know, where their needs come before those of sympathetic child figures or popular television show hosts.)
It’s any breeder’s/rescue group’s/shelter’s right to set their own policies. Every dog should have a properly-screened, responsible, loving home to go to (and it is our duty to do everything in our power to ensure that happens…even if it is costly, or seems hopeless, or even silly).
I’ll buy the whole “my neighbour will give the dog a good home” argument when there aren’t millions of dogs being abandoned by “loving” owners each year. I’ll believe it when I stop seeing dogs being choked by their owners as they walk down the street. I’ll believe it when someone can no longer take a dog into a shelter or a veterinary office and demand it be killed because they either no longer want it, or it has some fixable behavior problem.
Here…let me tell you a story.
A man really loved Huskies. He loved the look of them. He went out and bought a little female Husky, without his wife’s approval. They knew nothing about dog training, and dog ownership certainly didn’t change that, in and of itself.
The dog was difficult to control on walks, and the wife began to fear it. It was never housetrained, so it was relegated to the backyard. They talked of getting rid of the dog.
Instead, inexplicably the man came home with a male Husky. He imagined he could make a tidy little profit breeding the two dogs together. Now both poorly-trained dogs lived in the yard and were a constant nuisance to neighbors.
They eventually had puppies, but the couple found it difficult to get rid of them. They weren’t well-bred, so they were of no interest to those looking for responsible Husky breeders. They were selling them, so they were of no interest to people who understand the importance of acquiring dogs from ethical adoptive sources. Eventually, with a some of the puppies unsold, they took them to a local pet store that was willing to sell them to anyone who could pay.
In the mean time, the male was growing increasingly aggressive, due to the lack of exercise and socialization afforded the dogs. Left unsupervised most of the time, he eventually got loose and attacked a child. The owners decided to have him destroyed, rather than risk legal action against them.
The female was their pride and joy, to hear them tell it. But she was still a handful, and she was beginning to show signs of aggressive behavior, herself. The couple decided to get rid of her. “…Surrender” people like to call it. It sounds nicer.
The local shelter took-in the pretty dog, and tried to adopt it out. The first time, the family couldn’t housetrain her, so they returned her to the shelter. Some time later, a couple happily adopted the dog, knowing about the housetraining issues. The night they brought the dog home, she seriously bit the woman. So, they returned her to the shelter right away.
With that bite, the shelter had little choice but to kill her. It would be too great a liability to adopt her out again.
The person who interviewed the original owners of the dogs did so after all this took place, as part of a story on the history of shelter dogs. Apparently, those two people keep pictures of the two dogs, and still longingly look at them. “We love those dogs,” they say (in the present tense), even though, in every meaningful way, they are responsible for their deaths.
That’s some kind of “love”.
I could tell you about my fool neighbor who recently acquired an intact male Labrador Retriever he keeps chained 24/7. (Plans to breed him, dontcha know.) After numerous times taking the “escaped” dog home, I offered to help with training, if they’d be interested. The owners said they’d like to take me up on that offer because the dog is growingly increasingly destructive and difficult. (Apparently the wife and children are becoming afraid of it.) I asked how often they exercise him, and was told, “Never.” I explained all the benefits of exercise, socialization, and obedience training, and how dogs are pack animals. That was when I was told they keep the dog chained in their garage, and have no plans to ever allow it inside the house. Got that? …Ever.)
An outwardly well-off, attractive family with two adorable looking children, they’re torturing this dog in unspeakable ways. If they were actually physically harming it, at least I could contact authorities. But denying it even its most basic emotional and physical needs, is perfectly legal.
I have literally hundreds of similar stories to tell. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t buy the plea that most people will give a dog a “good” home.
I’ll readily admit I don’t have the answers. I do the best I can, based on decades of experience, and just plain common sense. Simply handing over a dog to someone, without any form of screening or recourse, is a crap shoot, at best. I do know dogs deserve better than that.
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
Laura, I agree that re-homing is often in the best interests of the animal. Goodness knows I believe that. The thing is, the culpability rests with the human who chose to bring home the dog.
Dogs don’t get to choose where, or how, they live. It’s irresponsible to get a dog without being committed to its lifetime care. Sadly, this is the norm, rather than the exception.
Education is the best, plausible solution, but it falls on deaf ears when the majority of people adamantly protest that their current level of care is acceptable.
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Laura,
I read your 6:01 comment, and I’m really not going to dignify your “attempts” to discredit me by going point for point. You clearly need to be right in everything you’re saying, even without any supporting documentation of your own, or even having relayed any relevant experience re-homing a large number of dogs.
Since I don’t have the energy to defend my character, along with my position, I’ll hand it to you Laura. You’re absolutely right and I’m absolutely wrong. All dogs in shelters should just be given to anyone who wants them, and there should be no traceability, and no screening of homes. (There’s no point, right? Because, according to some person on the Internet, and an unnamed report, people who carefully place their own dogs with relatives and co-workers are just as good as rescue groups who carefully screen potential adopters.)
You’re right, Laura. There’s no evidence that any dog has ever been abandoned, much less abused, by someone who claimed to love it or give it a good home…or even that that’s a common occurrence. Therefore, we don’t need to worry about the dog’s care behind closed doors, or ten years down the road. What matters is today, and a smiling face taking the leash is a happy ending for everyone.
Boy…I’m glad the homeless dog situation is solved. I can save thousands of dollars a year, now. Maybe I’ll travel more. Thanks!
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
Education is the best, plausible solution, but it falls on deaf ears when the majority of people adamantly protest that their current level of care is acceptable.
Jorie, the current level of care IS acceptable in the majority of cases. That’s the point here, and we’ve made it again and again: There’s too much control-freaky judgmentalism going on by shelters and rescue groups. And as we’ve asked you, oh, a dozen times now, please cough up some proof for your assertion that “the majority of people” aren’t caring for their pets.
Aren’t caring for their pets BY YOUR STANDARDS? Possible. But we get thousands e-mails from pet-lovers who read our columns and blog posts every year, and the majority of THOSE PEOPLE are good people trying to do their best.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 18, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Oops…I meant “Lis, I read your 6:01 comment”
Sorry, Laura. :-(
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 6:55 pm
I’ll readily admit I don’t have the answers. I do the best I can, based on decades of experience, and just plain common sense. Simply handing over a dog to someone, without any form of screening or recourse, is a crap shoot, at best. I do know dogs deserve better than that.
Why do you keep positing only those two choices? Adoption free for all vs overkill?
Now, let me tell you a story.
A litter of puppies was born of an accidental breeding of a working cattle dog and the rancher’s hunting Chessie. The rancher decided to drown them. A woman stopped him, took all six, and found them homes. One of them with me.
A young man had a lovely pit bull mix named Lita. He’d trained her at classes at the SFSCPA, took her to work with him every day. He had AIDS and when he developed dementia, his roommates called the person designated to care for her, and she took her and found her a good forever home. Actually, I took her and found her a good forever home when that first dog, Scarlett, didn’t get along with her.
One woman was in Lousiana when Hurricane Katrina struck. She had two chows and refused to leave them. They died together.
Another woman, a woman I know personally, got in her van and drove to the hurricane area and personally cared for and rehomed over 50 dogs.
Five men I know, in a band, annually hold a fundraiser to benefit pit bulls in rescue.
A company I work for started a website to find new homes for animals and provide free web hosting services to rescue groups. Everything free, no strings attached in any way, and the site accepts no advertising and has no marketing of any kind associated with it.
PeopleSoft founder David Duffield and his wife Cheryl gave $200 million to start Maddie’s Fund and work toward making America a no kill nation.
A 12 year old girl featured on a PBS documentary has been walking dogs at her local shelter every day for a year.
My brother and sister in law adopted a three legged senior cat they found in the street after the 1989 San Francisco earthquake.
Every day all over the country, volunteer feral colony caretakers go out in the heat and the rain to feed and check on their colonies. They trap the new cats and have them vetted and altered.
A woman I know has adopted and cares for 12 senior and special needs dogs, some disabled.
All of those are also people, pet owners. Every one of those horror stories you tell also has good people, people who would help if they knew about it, people who are helping.
There will always be cruel and abusive people. They are cruel to their pets and cruel to their children and cruel to their employees.
But by focusing only on this, and extrapolating out from it to everyone, by stopping looking at people as individuals and working to create good outcomes with flexibility and instinct and compassion instead of judgments and rules and suspicion, you might intend to teach those pet owners a thing or two, but the ones who pay are the animals.
Stop acting like any relaxing of your guard will mean anything goes. There’s a whole lot of room on the spectrum between those two extremes.
And stop painting everyone with the same brush. There are millions of loving, generous people out there, the same ones who gave millions and millions of dollars to help Katrina animals, who volunteer at their local shelters, who take in the pets of their friends and family members when they need shelter.
They may not live up to your lofty standards, but they love their dogs and cats, and their dogs and cats love them.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 18, 2007 @ 7:00 pm
Word.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 18, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
Posted by Gina Spadafori, October 18, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
“And as we’ve asked you, oh, a dozen times now…”
Really? A dozen? (Sorry, I’m developing an sarcastic streak in light of all the hostility comin’ my way.)
“…cough up some proof for your assertion that “the majority of people” aren’t caring for their pets.”
Not only have I given countless examples, I have hundreds…thousands I could offer. (Did I mention that I’ve been involved with animal welfare since the 1970’s?)
People who choke their dogs, are behaving unethically. I see this a dozen times a day, or more. I want to choke them! (“How do you like it?”) (Ever seen the subcutaneous bruising and trauma caused by tight collars? It’s very disturbing.) But people just won’t do the work to train their dogs. They just won’t. I’ve tried. We all try to get people excited about having a well-behaved dog. But they just won’t put in the work.
About 7 years ago, I conducted one survey, where we asked dog owners if they did any kind of obedience training on their dogs. After crunching the numbers for different kinds of dogs, the results were around 80% of the owners of small dogs had done zero obedience training. It was flip-flopped for large dogs, at about 80% having done some. Some dog owners grow tired of the badly behaved dogs they’ve raised, and use that as a reason to abandon them or even kill them.
I fully accept that people can only do the best they can. As much as you want to make me out to be an ogre, I’m not. That said, there’s so much information freely available about responsible dog ownership. It borders on negligence to go out and get a living, breathing, feeling dog having done less research than one might do in buying a ‘handwash only’ sweater.
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
People who “choke their dogs” —- presumably by using a collar you don’t like — aren’t behaving unethically. They’re behaving without information.
They’re not trying to hurt their dogs. I’ve been a dog trainer, too, and I know the challenges. If the message isn’t getting through, you might consider changing the way you deliver it. Try not treating people like ignorant trash who don’t meet your standards.
“They won’t. I’ve tried,” you say. Then you need to stop and let someone else try. The way you approach things is not working. And is isn’t going to change until you do, or you get out of the way.
Amazingly enough, if you treat people well, they will often (although of course not always) rise to meet your expectations.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 18, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
An awful lot of us who run community gardens have branched out into starting dog parks.
The biggest shock for me as a community garden organizer going into the “dog world” has been the total mistrust of one’s fellow human beings to educate oneself on what needs to be done to create a harmonious life for everyone around one.
In community gardening, we just assume that folks will be inspired to learn both how to care for plants and how to grow a greater community. Our listserve and conferences are all about both and we freely share what works, what doesn’t and how we can improve life for everyone.
So, when I wrote up the 501c3 for our dog park, I made education one of our missions so that we could hold seminars, training sessions, etc.
Then, I went out into the dog world to get funding for the dog park. I could not believe how many organizations (trainers, shelters, obedience groups, etc) told me that they would not advertise or support our dog park because “dog owners don’t want to learn about dog behavoir” and “dog owners don’t want to change.”
Bull-PUCKIES, folks! There are plenty of dog owners who don’t know jack, but if you provide them the information in a non-judgemental “here, this might help your relationship with your dog” manner, the chances are very good (of course, there are always jerks — as I tell my associates “The Public Is a Pain In The Butt, But The Alternatives Are Worse”) that they will actually listen to you and try to make things better both for themselves and their dogs.
So, our dog park’s Yahoo Group has files and websites on dog behavoir. We trade URLs and stories. I found this great handout from a dog park in Kentucky on canine body language that we hand out if we think a dog is stressed.
The majority of our members WANT a better relationship with their dog — that’s why they joined the dog park. We believe that they can learn and so we give them the tools so that they CAN create a better relationship with their dog. If we didn’t believe that and we didn’t try, I’m sure our dog park would be a mess — however, it’s all about creating a community where folks look out for all the life forms around them and do their best to learn and apply what will work for everyone.
My message, as a community organizer for nearly 20 years, is to learn to read people as well as you can read the dogs. Dealing with life forms (plant or animal) is all about juggling both sides of your brain — the logic/scientific/what studies show works and the emotional logic/pattern sense/where have I seen this before and what did it tell me. It takes both to be successful and sometimes you are going to screw it up. Don’t be so afraid of screwing it up that you shut down the intuative side of your brain — don’t be so afraid of being lied to that you can’t tell when someone is telling the truth. Learn to balance both sides of your brain — to appreciate logic and to genuinely appreciate when someone is showing you their heart.
The world will be better for all lifeforms when we can all do this.
Comment by Dorene — October 18, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
Christie,
You wrote,
“A litter of puppies was born of an accidental breeding of a working cattle dog and the rancher’s hunting Chessie. The rancher decided to drown them. A woman stopped him, took all six, and found them homes. One of them with me.”
I’m not really sure what this is supposed to prove/mean/demonstrate.
Six dogs are living in misery, for all I know. Okay, five, since I’m sure you’d profess to be a good dog owner. For all you or I know, five of them may have produced more litters of unwanted puppies, adding to the problem. How many are chained all day? How many are allowed to roam and were hit by cars? How many have been bounced around from home to home?
Still…I’ll play…
“A young man had a lovely pit bull mix named Lita. He’d trained her at classes at the SFSCPA, took her to work with him every day. He had AIDS and when he developed dementia, his roommates called the person designated to care for her, and she took her and found her a good forever home. Actually, I took her and found her a good forever home when that first dog, Scarlett, didn’t get along with her.”
I, too, worked with an arm of a community animal shelter that helped keep pets with their handicapped, ill, or elderly owners. Pets benefit people in so many ways. It’s good to be able to keep happy pets with owners who want them. However, just because someone is ill, or old, or has a sympathetic story, it doesn’t mean he/she is a good, responsible, ethical dog owner.
“One woman was in Lousiana when Hurricane Katrina struck. She had two chows and refused to leave them. They died together.”
I don’t know if leaving your dogs to die in a hurricane is the hallmark of responsiblity. Is it still a heartwarming tale of dedication and love, if a mother chose not to flee (on foot, if necessary) with her two children, and they all died together?
“Another woman, a woman I know personally, got in her van and drove to the hurricane area and personally cared for and rehomed over 50 dogs.”
Yes…there are many generous and dedicated people out there. I count myself one of them. I couldn’t go, as I was out of the country at the time. Otherwise, I probably would’ve been one of the ones there. I donated a lot of money, that’s for sure.
“Five men I know, in a band, annually hold a fundraiser to benefit pit bulls in rescue.”
Me too…minus the band part. I can’t give you an exact figure but, over the past decade or so, I’ve donated at least $20,000 fighting BSL. Gosh. It’s probably much more than that, actually.
“A company I work for started a website to find new homes for animals and provide free web hosting services to rescue groups. Everything free, no strings attached in any way, and the site accepts no advertising and has no marketing of any kind associated with it.”
Okay…you’re going down a path that, while charming, has little to do with convincing me that my years of seeing how irresponsible most people are in the care of their dogs, is inaccurate.
“PeopleSoft founder David Duffield and his wife Cheryl gave $200 million to start Maddie’s Fund and work toward making America a no kill nation.”
Great. I have a well-known, affluent neighbor who does charity events for a local shelter. His aggressive Golden Retriever can be found wandering, unsupervised, out the open driveway gate, and threatening anyone who passes by. Not a good dog owner, despite his charity work.
“A 12 year old girl featured on a PBS documentary has been walking dogs at her local shelter every day for a year.”
Nice girl. I did my first volunteer work for an animal shelter when I was just 8-years-old (mostly cleaning cat cages, as I recall). Does that mean I’m automatically a good dog owner?
“My brother and sister in law adopted a three legged senior cat they found in the street after the 1989 San Francisco earthquake.”
Personally, I’ve never purchased an animal. My parents taught me about responsible, ethical animal ownership from the start. All my dogs, cats, horses, etc., including those we had when I was a child, have all come from rescue situations. I trained dogs for years, and saved countless dogs from euthanasia over fixable behavior problems. My 9-year-old dog is one of those who was going to be killed. When I started working with my local shelter as one of their aggressive dog experts, I was able to encourage them to adjust their policies, and put more effort into rehabilitation.
“Every day all over the country, volunteer feral colony caretakers go out in the heat and the rain to feed and check on their colonies. They trap the new cats and have them vetted and altered.”
Yes. I know. I have donated money to them. They wouldn’t be needed if people would be responsible for their pets.
“A woman I know has adopted and cares for 12 senior and special needs dogs, some disabled.”
Nice woman. A gem, probably. Too bad there aren’t more like her.
“There will always be cruel and abusive people. They are cruel to their pets and cruel to their children and cruel to their employees.”
While there is a lot of actual cruelty out there, I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about the less-obvious ways so many dogs suffer in silence, every single day, with owners who use them for their own needs, and don’t ensure the dog’s needs are met. …Owners who choke their dogs; yell at them; ignore them; or worse. Owners who abandon millions of dogs to shelters each year.
Millions of dogs aren’t being abandoned by a handful of dog owners. …And those are just the abandoned ones.
“They may not live up to your lofty standards, but they love their dogs and cats, and their dogs and cats love them.”
And my point isn’t about you, or me, or our “standards”. It’s about a black and white standard of care for a socially-dependent animal that shouldn’t be left alone most of the time; that shouldn’t be choked or hit or yelled at; and one that definitely should have one pack, throughout the majority of its life.
I love how I’m accused of being black and white when I’ve been saying one thing, and one thing only, all along. What people consider acceptable care, is too often completely unethical. It doesn’t meet the most basic emotional and physical needs of dogs, and thus is unacceptable.
Do most people intentionally harm their dogs? I doubt it. Can dogs be harmed by their owners’ ignorance or apathy? Absolutely.
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
My point is, Jorie, you have made pet owners the enemy. You speak of them with contempt. But the world is also full of acts of kindness and compassion that can be recognized, rewarded, and nurutured. You can acknowledge that woman for stopping the senseless death of six puppies without rushing to the future those dogs must have had on the ends of chains or trapped in an endless cycle of careless reproduction. I only know what happened to Scarlett, who lived out her life in my care, and nothing about what happened to her littermates. But it doesn’t change the fundamental compassionate acts and heart of every single person in this little list.
Can dogs be harmed by ignorance? Of course.
Can ignorance be cured? Yes, it can. But not by contempt, dismissal, rejection, and scorn.
Can dogs be harmed by apathy? Of course.
Can apathy be cured? In many cases, depending on the cause, yes. But if the choice is going on as you are, and being treated like a callous idiot, it will never happen.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 18, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
Jorie … your misanthropy is too much for me tonight. You need therapy. And you need to get out of animal welfare work until you can quit hating people. You’re part of the problem, kiddo, and I’m sorry that through your bitterness and judgmentalism you cannot see it.
That’s it for me, folks. My unhappy, ill-treated animals and I are going to bed.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 18, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
And you wonder why people are getting turned off by the idea of applying for ownership to people like you . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
“And you wonder why people are getting turned off by the idea of applying for ownership to people like you . . . . . . . . .”
That was - of course - directed to Jorie (NOT Gina or Christie!)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
Posted by Gina Spadafori — October 18, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
“People who ‘choke their dogs’—- presumably by using a collar you don’t like—aren’t behaving unethically. They’re behaving without information.”
It’s too bad you didn’t use the word “assume”. You know what they say about that…
Most training equipment can be used effectively. And while I’m no fan of the choke-type collars, I’m talking about c-h-o-k-i-n-g, not the kind of collar being used. I’m talking about the act of cutting off the dog’s airway, and bruising or even tearing the delicate tissue of the neck. That is reprehensible, no matter what the excuse.
But this is exactly what I’m getting at. You say it’s okay to harm a dog in this way because the person doesn’t know any better.
And that’s fair enough, I suppose. I mean, people only know what they know. But I can’t imagine anyone arguing that it’s ethical behavior to knowingly choke a dog. I mean, it’s not silent or unseen. If I can see the dog is being choked, so can the owner. It’s what we do with that information that determines if we’re behaving ethically. If you keep choking your dog, well…
You know, when I wrote a detailed guide to dog ownership, some colleagues told me it was great, but I’d never convince most people to rise to the occasion. Others felt threatened, because they believed my guide was labeling them as bad owners, themselves. (And we’re talking about other dog trainers, behaviorists, etc.) When it is suggested a way of doing things is not ethical, the person can either consider the idea reationally, or he/she can become defensive, and vehemently justify why the status quo is just fine. Some of them chose the latter.
Sure, that guide is nowhere near as widely adopted as I would like, but it has been adopted. Several community groups, dog organizations, and who knows how many dog owners, have made it the basis for their minimum care.
I should point out it is just that: a minimum. I channeled all the restraint I could muster, in trying to make it a first step towards a more responsible way of keeping dogs. People have to be brought along slowly, I’ve found.
For the record, I have never treated anyone like “ignorant trash”. Your comments are insulting, to say the least.
“’They won’t. I’ve tried,’ you say. Then you need to stop and let someone else try. The way you approach things is not working. And is isn’t going to change until you do, or you get out of the way.”
Good grief. I shouldn’t have to tell my life story just to share my views on this subject. But, for the record, I’m retired now. I’ve been there. Done that. The most common comment I used to get from strangers while in dog training mode? “You’re so patient.” & “It must be something to have you as a trainer.”
“Amazingly enough, if you treat people well, they will often (although of course not always) rise to meet your expectations.”
Right back at ya’. I was always known for my generosity and patience, especially with novice dog owners. Should I have treated novice dog owners like I’m being treated here? Just wonderin’.
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 8:18 pm
Posted by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 8:10 pm
“’And you wonder why people are getting turned off by the idea of applying for ownership to people like you . . . . . . . . .’
That was – of course – directed to Jorie (NOT Gina or Christie!)”
Actually, I’ve never seen a lull in applications for adoption, and I’ve facilitated dozens, if not hundreds, of adoptions, myself. I haven’t heard any complaints at all. In fact, you folks may be the very first to make such hate-filled allegations about me. (I’d be hurt if they had any merit at all.) My views on what is or isn’t responsible dog ownership does not, in any way, demonstrate whether I’m kind or not.
All the apparent psychics aren’t very good at their forutne telling.
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 8:26 pm
Do you tell all these people what you REALLY think of them?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
Dorene, I loved your remarks.
I know they’re a backhanded criticism of my comments (even though the essence of those comments was taken too literally…but that seems to be the theme for this evening).
I’ve always tried to embody the spirit of the old saying, “When you know better, you do better.” If anything, those who actually know me and have worked with me would probably say that sums up my strategy for dealing with irresponsible and novice dog owners, or in any area of my life, really.
As someone with a few years of experience behind me, I can readily attest “you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar.” I suppose the controversy erupts when one is not trying to catch flies at all, but to describe the problems common to fly catching.
I’m very practical. I like to make things happen. When I spearheaded a plan to make all local parks off-leash for certain periods of the day (thus increasing access and alleviating over-use of the fulltime leash-free areas), just as some cities have successfully done, my biggest opponent wasn’t the legislators or dog haters. It was dog owners; specifically those who lived near an existing off-leash park, and worried the extra attention and media coverage might risk the off-leash status of their local parks.
I don’t see this as being unique to dog owners. People, in general, are most concerned about their own wants and needs. Only when they’re reassured about those, are they willing to expand that circle of concern to others.
When I would specifically ask some of these folks what they felt dog owners who lived far away from the closest off-leash park should do, the most common response was, “It’s not my problem.”
The best successes have been through education, in all areas dealing with dogs. I know enough about dogs to know that making education fun is the best avenue to success. Thankfully, that kind of work is behind me now. (It was hard, hard work, and extremley time-consuming.) But I still have views I plan to continue to share, and they’re based on a great deal of education and experience, whether people like what I have to say or not.
I really wish dog owners were so willing to change. But I haven’t found that to be true, no matter how much I wish it was. We’ve made great successes in voluntary spay/neuter education, for example. But if anyone is suggesting that most dog owners are ready and willing to become responsible (by even the broadest terminology), I have to admit I have not seen evidence to support that. Millions of dogs will be abandoned in the next 12 months. That, alone, doesn’t sound like responsible ownership to me. And that doesn’t cover all the other forms of negligence or callousness, either.
To borrow from Dennis Miller, “It’s the few rotten million that spoil it for the other eleven.”
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 8:50 pm
But this is exactly what I’m getting at. You say it’s okay to harm a dog in this way because the person doesn’t know any better.
No, she didn’t. She said the people doing it are not evil, and their behavior can be changed by education rather than by punitive measures, because they want to treat their dogs properly and train them correctly.
For the record, I have never treated anyone like “ignorant trash”. Your comments are insulting, to say the least.
You’ve been treating everyone here like ignorant trash, and displaying the same attitude in your comments about all pet owners.
Right back at ya’. I was always known for my generosity and patience, especially with novice dog owners. Should I have treated novice dog owners like I’m being treated here? Just wonderin’.
The attitude you came in with is simply being reflected back at you, after attempts at normal discussion failed. You might consider trying a different approach.
Comment by Lis — October 18, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Posted by The OTHER Pat — October 18, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
“Do you tell all these people what you REALLY think of them?”
This is what I find amusing. Just because someone is behaving in a way that I know to be unethical (in terms of the dog), that doesn’t mean I judge them.
I know that might be hard for some EXTREMELY judgmental and sanctimonious people to comprehend.(!)
If I understand what you’re hinting at, you’re imagining that I have to deal with someone I consider to be an irresponsible dog owner, and then wonder if I tell them “what I think of them”…as though I make personal judgments based on their actions.
No. I don’t. And what I mean by that is, I don’t judge them. I may not like their actions. That doesn’t mean they’re not otherwise perfectly nice people. In fact, most dog owners are perfectly nice people. I’d rather be with a bunch of dog owners than politicians.
No matter who “nice” someone is, it’ll never make yelling at their dog, or leaving it alone for hours and hours every day, “okay”.
Maybe it’s the dog trainer in me. When I get an aggressive dog, I don’t hate it when it acts out. I don’t think, “What an awful dog.” In fact, I think, “Poor dog. Never had a person to show it how to be successful in human society.”
I don’t allow the behavior to continue, though. And I set about ensuring that behavior stops.
Just because I don’t like a behavior, that doesn’t mean I revile and vilify the entire individual. No one is all good or all bad. (Not even me, if anyone here can believe that.) (gack) Only a fool throws the baby out with the bath water.
So, to answer your question, I don’t “think” anything in particular “of them”. If I see them doing something that harms a dog (physically or emotionally), I will tell them though. Failure to do so would be just as unethical (and cowardly).
Comment by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
I’m very practical. I like to make things happen. When I spearheaded a plan to make all local parks off-leash for certain periods of the day (thus increasing access and alleviating over-use of the fulltime leash-free areas), just as some cities have successfully done, my biggest opponent wasn’t the legislators or dog haters. It was dog owners; specifically those who lived near an existing off-leash park, and worried the extra attention and media coverage might risk the off-leash status of their local parks.
Since I don’t believe there’s been such a proposal around here, I don’t think we’re in the same area. However, if there were such a proposal here, I’d oppose it, but not for the reason you so generously suppose. I’d oppose it because, while I’d love for there to be more safe, fenced off-leash dog parks in the area (and there are proposals for more; we’ll see), I do still want to be able to walk my little dog—who should not be off-leash in an unfenced area; she’s not remotely ready for that—without worrying about other people’s off-leash dogs.
The solution to the problem of not enough dog parks is to push for the creation of more dog parks—not to further complicate the lives of people whose dogs, for whatever reasons, are not, or are not yet, good candidates for being off-leash in an unfenced area.
As someone with a few years of experience behind me, I can readily attest “you catch more flies with honey, than with vinegar.” I suppose the controversy erupts when one is not trying to catch flies at all, but to describe the problems common to fly catching.
Have you found that this mode of “describing the problems” is productive for you in promoting useful discussion? Or do you generally find yourself confronted by hordes of stupid and hostile people when you “describe the problems” ?
Comment by Lis — October 18, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
This is what I find amusing. Just because someone is behaving in a way that I know to be unethical (in terms of the dog), that doesn’t mean I judge them.
Now, this one is downright funny.
(Don’t worry, Jorie; you needn’t think I’m bothering any further to attempt to converse with you further, since you don’t want that. Just noting this bit with amusement.)
Comment by Lis — October 18, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Posted by Jorie — October 18, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
“This is what I find amusing. Just because someone is behaving in a way that I know to be unethical (in terms of the dog), that doesn’t mean I judge them.”
What I find amusing is that you don’t think you are judging someone, when you “know” them to be acting in an unethical manner. Isn’t the definition of ethics the judgement of right & wrong, good & evil, responsibility & irresponsibility, based on social norms and customs? It is totally a judgement call. Perhaps you have a very strick idea of what is right & wrong (with no grey area in between), and to me that makes one “judgemental and sanctimonious.” Most of your posts have been preaching (to a blog frequented by animal lovers no less) that most pet owners are unknowingly or knowingly causing their animals pain. What kind of response were you hoping for? Many people here also have quite a few years of experience in placing animals in new homes (whether it be rescue/shelter/breeder) and just don’t see things from the same point of view. I completely agree with Gina’s article that sometimes you can take a chance on placing an animal in home that might not be perfect on paper, and have it end up being perfect for that animal. If I have a really strong feeling about someone (either good or bad), I trust that over what words on a piece of paper say. If you call that judgemental, so be it. My judgement hasn’t yet let me (or any animal in my care) down.
Comment by Jessica — October 18, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
This may have already been addressed, but.. seriously.. since when is ensuring another pet’s safety a ‘lame’ reason to make the decision to re-home a new pet?
Yes, training is certainly available that can improve the relationships between one’s pets- but given the fact that a dog can easily (and quickly) cause serious bodily harm to a small animal (such as a cat) if he is so inclined, why would you take the risk? IMO, safety *must* come first. Anything less would be grievously irresponsible.
If the dog was incompatible with Ellen’s family, he is better off with a family better suited to his needs and quirks. If his presence infringes on the health and well-being of the resident cats, he is better off in a family without cats. It was a poor match. Personally, I respect the decision of Ellen and her partner to recognize that and address it, rather than making the selfish choice to condemn both Iggy and their cats to a lifetime’s worth of a less-than-ideal (and potentially dangerous) living arrangement simply because they could not bear to part with him.
Isn’t it in everyone’s best interest for a pet to have a home that suits him?
Comment by Gwen — October 19, 2007 @ 12:57 am
Jorie: I think you have raised some good points, but as someone whose professional job is to assess peoples’ qualities to work in an organization and a team environment, I would have to assign you a failing grade.
Here’s what I see that makes you a bad team player:
No acknowledgement that anyone elses point has legitimacy. Working to get a goal done requires you to LISTEN as well as to speak. It requires compromise. It means accepting that sometimes 98% is good enough.
You seem to think you have all the answers. Wonderful. But everyone, including you can learn new things. But you have to LISTEN.
No acknowledgement that your comments are incredibly caustic and sarcastic. You get more done in life by making friends than making enemies. If you don’t know how you are coming across, then you have some serious self-perception issues. You can be the smartest person in the world, but no one wants to play with a bully.
Contempt for your client. We all have to deal with people we consider our intellectual or moral inferiors. Guess what - they are still people. If animals are entitled to a minimum of respect, so are people. And your dislike, distrust, and disrespect come through loud and clear.
If you want to get things done in life, learning to work with others (even if they really aren’t very smart) and learning how to listen and compromise are key skills.
I’m guessing that you have found yourself in numerous positions where you don’t fit in with people very well. That a lot of your dislike of other people comes from an inability to see yourself as others see you. So when you get negative feedback from people, instead of evaluating it objectively, you immediately knee-jerk into a ‘people are bad attitudes.’
I hope you will respect my expertise in this area - I’ve been evaluating employee performance and behavior for 20+ years. I’ve met numerous good people like yourself, who like those errant dog owners, want to do the right thing but tend to be untrainable to looking at their behaviors objectively.
Comment by 2CatMom — October 19, 2007 @ 8:33 am
The thing that struck me overnight — and yes, I do dream about these things! — is the overwhelming response to the rolling waves of pet-food recalls. If, as Jorie continues to assert, the “majority” of pet-owners aren’t up to (her) standards, then I wonder what all the fuss was about. Surely the two million people who flooded this site to get answers and share their grief were the majority — and they very much care about their animals.
I wonder how many of the people who wept over the loss of a pet to tainted pet food would have passed Jorie’s test to be a good enough to have a pet at all?
I cannot help but be glad she’s retired. That’s one less “people are bad” shelter worker to get out of the way of of the change to a no-kill nation.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 19, 2007 @ 8:41 am
On a lighter note - Gina - you dream about this stuff?
Most of us have to make due with showing up to an important meeting naked, getting lost, and forgetting to study for the big final exam dreams.
Comment by 2CatMom — October 19, 2007 @ 10:29 am
I’m strange that way. When I was working for The Sacramento Bee (20-odd years, a lot of them on the copy desk) I used to dream of headlines for stories I was editing.
I’d rather dream of pets. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 19, 2007 @ 10:42 am