Do you like this story?
Pets another victim of mortgage mess, stumbling economy
By Gina Spadafori
January 20, 2008
Lots of stories have been popping up on pets ending up in shelters because of foreclosures. Cynthia Hubert, my former colleague at The Sacramento Bee, has a good piece on this sad trend in this morning’s paper:
As thousands of area families surrender to foreclosure their dreams of owning homes, many are also leaving their dogs and cats behind.
Area shelters are filled with animals surrendered in recent months by people forced to move to apartments or other places where their pets are unwelcome, and managers are blaming the housing meltdown for the surge. National animal groups have noted a similar trend.
“Very clearly it would appear that the economy and the mortgage situation in particular are interfering with the ability of people to care for their animals,” said Leilani Vierra, director of the Placer County SPCA. About three people a week are surrendering pets to the shelter because of “a loss of a home or becoming homeless,” she said.
Here’s the rest. At least these people took the animals to a shelter. Realtors and property managers have been saying that a lot of people just move — and abandon their pets.
Mixed media: You have to wonder about the sick minds that would come up with this ad campagn. I’m not sure a writing campaign would help, but thanks to Carol for the tip.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Yes, I wrote about this in my blog several months ago as San Bernardino reported a large surge in the local area that appeared to coincide with the housing market mess.
Realtors in the local area are now reporting that sales have resumed after a lull. Not sure what that means in the long run but it is something people should think about.
Also, there tends to be a bit of discrimination toward pet owners in general…so I’d encourage people to do a pet resume when looking for places to rent.
I have a podcast with the topic and how to up on iTunes under Ark Animal Answers.
Comment by Diana Guerrero — January 20, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Why are pets are being dropped off at animal shelters by those in foreclosure? Makes no sense to me.
If the human is still living in the home that’s in the process of being foreclosed, then the individual and pet move out to a place that’s affordable.
If the human needs to seek a new residence you simply find one that is affordable and accepts the pets.
What am I missing here?
I seriously have to wonder that these people who drop off the pets at shelters just can’t be bothered going to any trouble finding a new place that takes animals.
And that statement, “Sheltered pets will have a better chance at finding a new home, Shain said, and even if they must be put to death “at least they will be euthanized painlessly” rather than die a “horrible” death in the streets, she said, really irked me in the worst way. Euthanized my a**. Tell me what’s kind about killing an animal that’s scared out of its wits because his family abandoned him.
Comment by Lynn — January 20, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Lynn, HSUS loves to advocate killing animals…. it’s so much “kinder”, you see. Killing Vick’s victims would have been so much “kinder” than giving them the chance for new homes under the auspices of experts… Lucky for the dogs (all but the 2 deemed unsafe/unhealthy) people seem to be listening less and less.
Please don’t blame the people losing their homes…
I note that the Sacramento shelter spokesperson is very explicit that they don’t kill for space.. they are doublekenneling, putting animals in the s/n area and looking for other places to put pets. GOOD FOR THEM!
Comment by EmilyS — January 20, 2008 @ 12:41 pm
Lynn, not that easy to find rentals that are as pet friendly as we would like. i am going to have a hard time when i move. my dog is not on most restriction lists for breed, but she is for size. i also have multiple cats so i get screwed by limit rules/laws. the number of pet friendly places is lower and the ones that are out there have size, breed and limits to contend with in many cases. i have the luxury of planning right now, but if i had to move in a pinch on a seriously restricted budget (with possible bad credit) . . . .
Comment by straybaby — January 20, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
I think that straybaby is right about how difficult it is to find a any rental, much less something nice that will take pets. Around here, there are no legal limits, but it is very hard to get anything that will accept more than one cat.
That said, it seems that there are far too many people who don’t seem to try very hard to take their animals with them. Sometimes they just tie them up in the backyard and leave. They are probably much better off coming to the shelter where they will get good care and a chance at a great forever home.
And then, on a whole other level, is this front page news from yesterday’s Times-Standard (Humboldt County, California)-
“Investigators are still piecing together a case of animal cruelty at an abandoned trailer, which may lead to dozens of felony counts against the person responsible for the more than 30 animals found dead there.
Lt. Steve Knight of the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Department said there were 35 dead animals and more than 80 animals that were saved from the Avalon Drive site in Cutten first brought to their attention by a neighbor on Thursday.
Knight said it looks like the animals, most of them reptiles, were abandoned some time ago.
”We believe several weeks,” Knight said.
The last time anyone was seen at the residence was Dec. 26.”
For the rest, go to http://www.times-standard.com and scroll down to “most viewed stories”
I went over to the shelter on Friday and found staff busily getting the animals settled in.
At the trailer was a dead dog, live kittens, two very thin ferrets, which will have to go to Oregon since they are illegal in California, and a collect-a-whole-set of reptiles, including two rattlesnakes (also illegal and how stupid is that), two chameleons (panthers, I believe), a monitor lizard with attitude, two bearded dragons, 53 turtles plus a tarantula.
Everything has to be held for evidence and Lt. Knight will do everything in his power to nail whoever did this for every felony county he can. I don’t think it’s known yet whether the “owners” have gone permanently or were away on a trip. Either way, they are toast in this town. The Times-Standard editorial ” called them “…creeps,..who should be punished by being put in a room with the rattlesnakes”. Actually, I’d go with the monitor lizard myself. Quite delightfully nasty.
Comment by Susan Fox — January 20, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
I have seen notices on Craigslist about pets needing homes due to the mortgage situation, so people are trying to rehome their pets. I have occasionally provided people with links to local breed rescues.
At this point, providing financial support to rescues and shelters may be the most useful approach that some of us can take…
Comment by glock — January 20, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Here’s another one I just came across:
http://www.foreclosurecats.min.....cuers.html
Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 20, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
Why are pets are being dropped off at animal shelters by those in foreclosure? Makes no sense to me.
If the human is still living in the home that’s in the process of being foreclosed, then the individual and pet move out to a place that’s affordable.
If the human needs to seek a new residence you simply find one that is affordable and accepts the pets.
What am I missing here?
The reality of seeking rental housing that will accept pets—even without the additional problems of doing so because you are losing/have lost your home due to foreclosure.
When I was a tenant, had only cats, and had no financial black marks, it was hard enough to find decent housing in a neighborhood I wanted to live in, that would accept my pets without upping the rent to something I couldn’t afford. In the end, it almost always depended on a recommendation from a friend who was already a tenant or friend of the landlord. I spent six years renting from an old friend, and several more years in an apartment owned by someone who was a competitor of my own employer—he said he knew who had checked my references.:)
The point is, I almost always had some time, and I had no financial black marks, and I had only cats. I didn’t have crises going on in my life making it even harder for me to engage in good decision-making.
Someone who is losing their home due to foreclosure because they can’t make the payments is not the most attractive prospective tenant to a landlord who depends on receiving those rent checks regularly. Someone who has been living in a good-sized house with a good-sized yard may have good-sized dogs who are not attractive to landlords, or who may even create insurance issues for a landlord who might rather be dog-friendly but feels he can’t afford the increase in his insurance rates. Depending on how quickly or slowly the family realized they really were not going to be able to pull this out, they may have very little time. And in the crisis of losing their home, they may be under too much emotional stress to be at their peak of quality decision-making.
The ones who take their pets to shelters are at least trying to do the right thing by them.
Comment by Lis — January 20, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
The Dobe people have been freaking out about this ad for 2 weeks now and I think a bunch of people finally were able to get thru to the company. They took the ad down and aplogized.
Comment by Judi — January 20, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Thanks to all of you for your explanations. My view is simple: a pet is a kid. I wouldn’t leave a child behind or in a shelter if I couldn’t find lodging. I would find a way. I would, too.
I hope I won’t offend anyone here, but the mortgage situation was on the radar screen when the people purchased their homes. Did they think the escalated rates would just go away? In any case, it’s a sad situation and I feel most for the pets.
Along those lines…..here in southern CA a lot of television news coverage has been given to the 400 - yes, 400 - animals abandoned by a hoarder up in the Lancaster area. It gets bitter cold up there at night and there was no food for the animals, and water little water there was, was contaminated with gasoline.
Check out this website:
http://cbs2.com/local/Dogs.Pigs.Cats.2.633982.html
If you don’t know about the “Gentle Barn” - check them out, too.
Comment by Lynn — January 20, 2008 @ 8:20 pm
Lynn, I’m fairly sure that it’s not legal for landlords to turn people away for having children. It is - however - completely legal to turn people away for having pets.
Should that be changed? You bet - and as I recall, it’s one part of Winograd’s overall vision.
But in the meantime it is harder - MUCH harder - for people to move with pets than with children. And as usual, the pets lose.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 20, 2008 @ 9:06 pm
Surely in most places landlords can legally decline a rental applicant with pets. My contention is that I would live in my car before I’d give up a pet.
We in CA know that catastrophes happen. Those of us with pets who have been in a catastrophe e.g., wildfires, earthquakes, mudslides] have learned to make plans for our pets in anticipation of disasters.
Sadly the people involved in personal foreclosures saw the writing on the wall well enough in advance to act and make contingency plans if they really cared enough about their pets’ well-being.
Comment by Lynn — January 20, 2008 @ 11:49 pm
Lynn,
i think there is some degree of denial/fear going along with the foreclosures. and some job losses also. i could live in a car (if i had one!), but if i had kids, maybe not. i was running out of time when i found my current place. literally found it 4 days before i had to be out of my apt. finding an affordable apt with 3 cats was HARD. i’m collecting referrals now for a move i’m planning in a year. i figure having 2 pastors in my building might help :) and my LL has seen me through 15yrs of pets, but that does not change the fact that i have 5 cats and one “of those Dalmatians”. i have researched areas that look to be more pet friendly on the whole as i get to chose where i want to live. i just need to be in a certain rage of my family and i’m not restricted by jobs or kids in school. i would not want to have to do this under duress. another thing to keep in mind, those that are moving back with family may have restrictions put on them. my family rolls their eyes at my “zoo”, but they would take us all in. many others aren’t so lucky.
and since i’m moving back to CA, you can bet i’ll be expanding my emergency plans! i think the only disaster i’ve missed so far is flood/mudslide.
Comment by straybaby — January 21, 2008 @ 12:44 am
I hope I won’t offend anyone here, but the mortgage situation was on the radar screen when the people purchased their homes. Did they think the escalated rates would just go away? In any case, it’s a sad situation and I feel most for the pets.
The fact that many—very many—of these people were lied to and taken advantage of by brokers who got paid higher fees for selling riskier mortgages rather than safer ones, is very well-documented. Financially sophisticated people were taking advantage of the less sophisticated, and often the less educated. They trusted that the bank or mortgage broker wouldn’t give them a mortgage they couldn’t reasonably be expected to be able to pay, they didn’t realize that the lender’s lawyer wasn’t protecting them against the possibility that all that complicated legal language might say something different than what the broker was telling them it said…
When I bought my house, the bank’s mortgage officer tried really hard to sell me on the “advantages” of a 5/1 ARM. If I’d fallen for it, I’d be one of these people facing foreclosure—and at the moment I’m unemployed. I’d be up the creek without a paddle. But I’m a law librarian, my sister’s a lawyer, I was able to call on a lawyer friend to represent me in the transaction, rather than the bank…
Yes, some of the people being foreclosed now should have known better. Others didn’t have the resources many of us reading and posting here have, didn’t understand the language of the contracts they were signing, and trusted people who knew they didn’t understand and were consciously taking advantage of them.
Comment by Lis — January 21, 2008 @ 5:50 am
Well, my husband and I did live in our van for almost a year in order to keep our dogs. We had too many large dogs to even think about renting or staying with relatives. We planned carefully for our decision and lived in relative comfort on property that we bought (no credit check) and made payments on (very remote, no electricity, phone, dirt roads.) Our dogs lacked for nothing during that time, although the humans did have to eat a good deal of ramen and spaghetti. We are now homesteading, working towards becoming more self-sufficient.
This is NOT an option for most people. We are self-employed and can work anywhere; most people are tied to a community through their jobs. We have no children; living in your car with children is a NO NO of high order, and you will always be looking out for social services. Living in your vehicle is VERY DIFFICULT if you do not have a legal place to park it. Living in a vehicle with pets is even more difficult. It can be impossible depending on climate; do you leave the animals in the car when it is very hot or very cold while you go to work? How do keep warm if it’s very cold at night?
There is also a great deal of stigma against people who undergo foreclosure. Your relatives and ‘friends’ will tell you how stupid you were to sign a bad deal, or berate you for getting in over your head. It gets so bad you refuse to talk about it. I have refused contact with many close relatives because they would not SHUT UP about how stupid it was to live in a van just to keep your dogs. People judge you something awful. You end up going it almost completely alone, and many people cannot function in a crisis without the support of family and friends.
It is very easy to say you would live in your car to keep your pets; in practice it is very difficult. I have done it and I would not judge someone who chose to give up their pets due to losing their home.
Comment by Jessica — January 21, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
We bought a house because we couldn’t find an apartment that would take the kind of dog(s) we wanted to get. We looked hard. Several months. ‘combined weight under 50 lbs’ seems to be the mantra of the industry.
Apartments don’t take dogs. Homeless shelters don’t take dogs. Social services takes kids who live in cars or under bridges.
And I hate hate hate to sound like the troll, but the question is burning at me: what would the ‘concerned rescue’ you got your pet from think about you living in your car with them? I’m betting that’s breach of contract and grounds for confiscation.
-C
Comment by ellipsisknits — January 21, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
Financial planners say to have six months of living expenses saved and not touched, but I doubt many of us do. So what if?
You don’t have to have signed on to a sub-prime mortgage to be in a mess. I have friends who needed two incomes to get a home (urban California is an expensive place to be, even if you live modestly). If one half of a couple becomes sick, you’re screwed, and that’s what happened to my friends. If you’re a single home-owner (as I am) you don’t even have the fall-back of having a second income to muddle through with if something happens.
Although there are surely those who dump pets at the slightest problem, many other people try their best to keep it all together. Yes, I have also known people who lived in a camper rather than give up a pet. That may be an emergency get-by short term, but it may not be in anyone’s interest (even the pet’s) long-term. Sometimes it’s better to give a pet up, for the pet.
I try not to judge, but rather to help when and where I can.
Who among us is without sin? Not me.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 21, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
very good points Gina.
one of the things i have noticed on the rescue lists is pet owners waiting until the last minute to give up pets. why, because they don’t want to. and i can totally see that. why would you try and find a home for the pets you love without trying every which way you can to hang on and keep them? it’s a catch 22. and in all honesty, i would prob get caught in it.
i think along with 6 months living expense, a back up situation is a good plan . . . not always possible, but something that should be in mind.
Comment by straybaby — January 22, 2008 @ 12:58 am
How would someone help those homes that are being abandoned due to foreclosure and leaving their pet/s behind? At least someone could get water and food to the animal/s. It takes quite a lot of time before each home is processed and a person actually goes to the property; in the meantime, the animals don’t always survive. Sooo sad.:(
Comment by Sugie VE — March 29, 2008 @ 2:57 pm