Hoarder? Or a nice lady trying to do her best by her pets?

Do you like this story?

Hoarder? Or a nice lady trying to do her best by her pets?

By Gina Spadafori

May 8, 2009

Nothing seems to give people a license to be judgmental like the ability to post anonymous comments. I see this on Christie’s SFGate.com columns, and on every just about every news story put online. You know what they say about opinions and assholes? (“Everyone has one.”) Problem is, the assholes seem to go out of their way to share their opinions.

So here’s the story, by my pal Cynthia Hubert at the Sacramento Bee:

[Loreita] Harrison died last week at age 80 in the company of 15 pet Persians, found by firefighters when they discovered her body on the sofa in her south Sacramento home Saturday. The cats, some with severely matted fur, and skin and respiratory problems, are in the care of the nonprofit Happy Tails pet sanctuary, per Harrison’s last will and testament.

“We are going to abide by her wishes,” said Happy Tails board President Becky Maclay. “We will try to find good homes for all of these cats. But right now, they are just really happy to have fresh food, shelter and attention.”

Elderly woman dies, leaving her 15 cats to a local sanctuary along with $7,500 for their care. Anyone who actually has a cat knows that’s not a lot of money to care for 15 healthy cats, which some of these are not. But that doesn’t keep some an idiot from accusing the sanctuary of feeding “filet minion” to their cats.

And then, there’s the hoarding comments. “Classic hoarding case,” sniffs one commenter, and others agree.

Oh c’mon.

This woman was 80 years old when she died, and it doesn’t take any stretch of the imagination to believe that her health was in decline, along with her ability to recognize and respond to the needs of her cats. That’s not a hoarder: That’s an elderly person who could have used some help, and probably didn’t realize that she needed it or where she could find it. Her husband died three years ago, but I bet before his decline the two of them cared for their pets well. It’s not unusual for a reputable, ethical breeder to keep more animals than a family who has one or two pets. It’s also not impossible to care for that many animals, and do it well.

Finally, the fact that she left her cats and some money to a well-regarded local sanctuary is not the act of a hoarder.

But that that doesn’t stop the anonymous ninnies of the ‘Net from defiling the reputation of what was almost certainly a very caring woman who was doing the best she could. I would hope that some of these know-it-alls donate a few bucks to Happy Tails, but I doubt they do anything but bitch anonymously.

I’m going to donate, and I hope some of you will, too. In the memory of Loreita Harrison, who cared enough to think about what would happen to her pets when she was gone and did the best she could while she was alive.

By the way: Have you made arrangements for your pets if something happens to you?

Filed under: animals: pets,Pet-lover life — Gina Spadafori @ 10:26 am

Comments (110)

110 Comments »

“Ninnies of the Net”. It does have a certain ring to it.

Comment by Susan Fox — May 8, 2009 @ 10:33 am
I agree with your general assessment of the situation. At the same time, “real” hoarding does often evolve from situations like this. Leave aside those truly pathological people who go from town to town acquiring animals in defiance of court orders from previous convictions. “Hoarding” can come about in just these circumstances: gradual mental decline (as in dementia) or dysfunction, isolation, and financial struggle.

My family had dozens of cats while I was a teenager. Dozens. The cats were fed and cuddled. Still this was not a good situation. Like many other diagnoses, “being a hoarder” depends on whether someone intervenes who has the authority to make the diagnosis formally. An elderly woman living alone with 15 cats, unable to care for her health or that of the cats is a “hoarder”, I believe, if that is defined as a symptom or kind of mental illness rather than as criminal behavior.

Comment by Barbara Saunders — May 8, 2009 @ 10:41 am
oh those little anonymous internet critters.

Easy to be a nice little cyber-zombie and label everything black and white. That way you don’t need to think or doubt your position or evolve your opinions.

I there honor I humbly offer this, Just substitute “blog” for “lawn” and it works really well

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 10:45 am
gah, “In their honor” I am mulit-tasking too much and doing none of it well…

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 10:50 am
That “Zombie” thing is really catchy! :)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 8, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Oh, and by the way: CHRISTIE IS DONE WITH JURY DUTY!!!

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 8, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Barbara,

That is a very thoughtful post.

I run into this issue sometimes in my advocacy work with rabbits. I will put out a call for homes when the census of shelter rabbits hits a crisis point — usually once a year, around January. I don’t do it more than that or the helpers get desensitized.

Anyway, I sometimes have folks willing to adopt who, IN MY OPINION, have more pets than they can handle. I am not in a position to approve or reject their bid to adopt, but I do relay my concerns to the shelter adoption folks.

Once, only once, one of these “overpetted” people asked me, outright, if I thought she should take another. I told her no, which I think deeply offended her. But she asked my opinion and I (tactfully, kindly) gave it.

I happened to know a lot about this person’s life. She was in a very bad unstable situation in her home and it was NOT the time to add more responsibility to the mix. She did indeed take excellent care of her pets, but she was living right up to the edge (she did not agree with me on this).

Anyway, this is a tough call for me. Some argue that if their 20 cats all get vet care they are thus not hoarders. The vet care factor seems to be the deciding factor for many people re: this judgement. I think there are many nuances to this issue.

I have too many animals in my house. I admit it. Their daily care is overwhelming. However, only one is mine. I am helping out a friend temporarily with several of hers, plus fostering two. My friends’ pets will go back to her in a month and I hope I have the sense to NOT replace them with someone (somebun) else in need.

As I like to say, I would rather recruit 20 foster homes than foster 20 animals. I need to keep repeating that. It’s just hard to find fosters for the “head case” or medical trainwreck bunnies. So easy, in the very short term, to just take them myself.

Plus, did you ever notice the competition in the animal rescue world? Among the foster volunteers? If I whine about my (X) number of fosters wearing me out, I am reminded about somebody else’s (X+5) foster animals. You have to be careful who you vent to or you can find yourself being shamed into taking (X+15) animals in.

That’s a hypothetical. I do not have 15+ here.

Comment by Mary Mary — May 8, 2009 @ 11:07 am
Yay! So our viral internet campaign impugning her honor worked?

Mwah Ha Ha Ha!

I keed, I keed,

but if y’all will send rumors to the court next time my number comes up that’d be great. ;-)

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 11:09 am
I hope to be around for a great many number of years yet, but I know that if something should happen to me, my mother would be happy to take in my cats (and I know my husband would be happy to keep at least one of them.)

My favourite animal shelter is also one of my major beneficiaries should I die. The money isn’t earmarked for the care of my own pets, since I have no intention of letting them end up in a shelter ever, but it’s important to me to provide not only for my own cats, but for the organization that brought them to me and that provides such an important service.

Comment by Anlina Sheng — May 8, 2009 @ 11:16 am
To me, a classic symptom of hoarding is refusal of asistance and unwillingness to place animals. In this case, did anyone offer to help? There is such a severe disconnect between people in both families and communities.

Persians can go downhill very quickly, these cats may have been receiving very good care until quite recently. She clearly did not have the hoarder mentality of “only I can care for these cats” as she trusted the rescue to take over their care with her passing.

I once received a call from the son of a deceased elderly gentleman who wanted me to come get his dad’s dogs. The two bulldogs were in poor shape, but vet records showed that up until 4 months previously, they were in excellent shape. The son told me that his father had
been diagnosed with cancer just months before his death, in and out of the hospital and that he’d wanted his children to find a home for the dogs but they hadn’t gotten around to it. the plan was to call AC when dad died but thankfully the man’s sister had flown in for his memorial and she called rescue as soon as she realized the situation.

Neighbors did not step up either, but maybe they thought that family was taking care of things.

The kids wanted the dogs g-o-n-e so that they could get on with divvying up Dad’s stuff.

Both lovely dogs after baths, food and a little TLC.

If there had been more animals, would this have been a hoarding situation? I don’t think so. It was just sad.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 11:29 am
Definitely food for thought. There are a few things to consider. One is that there are statutory limits as to how many animals you can keep on your property. In my county, I believe it is 4 animals in the house. I have three.

Another is the responsibility of the loving pet owner to recognize his or her limitations, in terms of finance, energy level, and chronological age. I took in my cats when I was 46. When I did so, I told myself that those were going to be the last kittens I ever adopt. I expect them to live until I am 62. At that point, replacement cats will be at least 4 years old, which would put their time of demise at 74. I really think about this. I volunteer at an animal shelter and want to scream when octagenarians (I’m good at estimating ages) want kittens.

I took friends out to dinner and had a discussion about what happens to the animals if something happens to me. I suspect there will be a brawl over the Birman, and a smaller tussle over the big dumb yellow cat. The rabbit goes to the folks who already have chickens. This includes my being ill.

15 cats is not hoarding, but it is wrong to have that many pets and not be aware of their compromised condition. So, we are quibbling over a definition. The base issue is inability to care for animals, no matter how much they are loved.

Sure, I’d love to be carpeted with kittens on my deathbed, but I know that this is not fair to the kittens, unless they are fosters who are going back to the shelter for adoption the next day.

As for the people posting mean things on the internet…that’s what my old friend Tex Coate calls “sport hassling”. Its juvenile and entertaining only to the idiot doing it. Just ignore them and keep writing about pets. You’re doing a bangup job.

Comment by Elaine Richards — May 8, 2009 @ 11:43 am
The AR sheeple have managed to paint anyone who owns multiple pets as either a “hoarder” or, if you breed, a “puppy mill”. The first label means you are mentally ill and the second means you’re greedy and evil. I’m not sure how they managed to convince so many followers that these extremes are somehow common, even prevalent in our society. Doesn’t it make sense to think that most people fall in the vast, more moderate category of “regular pet owners who have things going on their lives”?

Comment by YesBiscuit! — May 8, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Oh crap, I wanted my comment to be “Anonymous”.

Comment by YesBiscuit! — May 8, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
Hi, Gina

Now that Christie is back, I guess I can start commenting again! :)

It is so easy for some people to say bad comments than “light just one candle” and help out.

I am sure this woman was trying to do her best by her pets.

Thanks for the good posting.

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 8, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Back from lunch with a friend. That “zombies on your lawn” ditty is so catchy I was humming while waiting for him to show up!

Now I have to put “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” in my head to get the “Zombies” OUT!

“In the jungle … “

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 8, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
I just went to the Happy Tails website to learn more about their work.

It notes that this woman was a breeder. None of her 14 cats were spayed or neutered. They ranged in age from one year to 13 years old.

Do you think she was still actively breeding? How can you keep 14 unaltered cats and not have litters? I assume they were given some freedom outside of cages.

Comment by Mary Mary — May 8, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Mary Mary - very easily. You have doors.

Amazingly, neither cats nor dogs have ACTUALLY developed powers of teleportation or intangibility. Keeping two doors closed between any in-season animals (or, as I suspect, keeping male cats and female cats confined to separate sections of the house, given that they cycle so much more rapidly than dogs do) is nearly always sufficient. I put an extra precaution in order - my in season girls are crated and then a door is shut, and when I’m not home, the single intact male in my household is crated in the other bedroom - two doors, two crates, and three rooms between the two. Having a girl in season does NOT turn him into a brainless lunatic (well, anymore than usual- he’s the sweetest dog ever but not really all that bright ;P) slavering in his attempt to get to any female with the right bits turned on….

There are individuals that are so determined they will go through walls or over ridiculous fences. But in general, it’s really fairly simple.

Comment by Cait — May 8, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Cait,
Thanks. I’ve never lived with cats so I wasn’t sure how they’d take to being crated while in heat. I also know nothing about their heat cycles, except that our shelters admit up to 50 cats/kiten PER DAY some months. There’s an awful lot of people out there who seem unable to manage what you and many others say is simple.

I beg the people I meet via my animal work to spay and neuter, even if they argue their animal will 1) never get out 2) always live with them and 3) always live solo. Nobody can guarantee any of these, not 100%. If I had a nickel for every time I heard “it just happened …” ARGH!

Comment by Mary Mary — May 8, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Mary Mary … seems maybe you’re jumping to that “breeders are bad” assumption. Please forgive me shouting, but: ALL BREEDERS AREN’T THE SAME. (And I am DONE standing meekly aside and accepting the slur — not from you, but others — that they are.)

Now, granted, an 80-year-old woman who was struggling to keep up may well also have had problems keeping the doors closed, even though accidental breedings are not that common among reputable, ethical breeders.

But keeping intact animals isn’t a crime … well, not everywhere yet, much as the pet extinction forces behind forced spay-neuter wish it were. (Again: Most of my pets have been and are spayed/neutered; even the rabbits. But that’s my choice, and as a grown-up, intelligent, responsible person I am completely capable of preventing my intact male and intact female dog from producing anything I haven’t planned for.)

This woman needed HELP, not a heaping dose of judgmentalism from anonymous Internet zombies. It doesn’t seem to me that she was a problem to her community in any way before she died with 15 cats she loved enough to provide for after her death, even though she probably was unaware that the amount she gave was inadequate. (I bet my 75-year-old mother would think it quite generous, though!)

Happy Tails is a good group — they’re local to me — and I hope they will get a lot of donations to help these cats and others. Helping pets and people in need is the definition of a shelter, is it not? Even though it often seems as if the animal shelter industry is really about bashing people who need help, not doing what this group is doing: Reaching out for help from the community, which they would have done earlier had they only known the situation this woman and her cats were in. (As I said, this is a very good group.)

This woman was a victim as much as her cats are. Helping all is the answer. Not labeling her as a breeder (greedy, evil) or hoarder (mentally ill).

We all need help sometimes, after all.

You do not at ALL strike me as the type, but I am dead-tired of the holier-than-thou animal rescuers who are so quick to condemn everyone else to make themselves feel better. In fact, you referenced them so perfectly: The ones who ALWAYS have more foster pets than anyone else and tell you so so they can one-up you on the good that you’re doing.

Enough martyrdom. Enough judging. Enough people-hating. More help.

/rant

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 8, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
How to get rid of those “Zombies”.

I wonder if the Colorado Miller Moths will take care of them or if I have to send my cats.

By the way, the only way I would have gotten my cats (got them 9 mos. ago) at my “advanced age” was if my daughter would take them if something happened to me. The cats were not kittens, however.

I sincerely believe this woman did the best she was capable of and I wish there had been somebody there to help her.

Now, back to those Zombies—maybe they haven’t hit Colorado yet!

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 8, 2009 @ 2:36 pm
Mary Mary, none of the cats are pregnant, right?

Are your shelter’s 50 cats/kittens per day all owner surrenders? I know here during kitten season that most definitely isn’t the case. Nor is it the case any other time of the year here, so it’s kinda hard to blame owners who don’t s/n for all the cats in the shelter.

Comment by straybaby — May 8, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
“I may be just a sunflower…”

Yah, it’s stuck in my brain now too. I’ll try your suggested replacement Gina if something doesn’t jar it out later.

But it worked well for gardening today!

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
*Sticks fingers in ears* lalalalala. I can’t hear any zombies or sunflowers. lalalalala

Comment by Susan Fox — May 8, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
I do want to comment on limit laws however. Personally I think they are probably one of themost useless and easily abused set of laws inflicted on pet owners.

First, they do not guarantee care. I’ve taken in single dogs for rescue who had been severely neglected and who were living in filthy reeking vermin infested conditions. I have also been to homes with a surprising number of animal who were trained, calm, clean and loved and no bother to neighbors.

Two, they are generally ignored. Rescue and foster homes justify extra numbers because they sometimes feel that they are doing something noble therefore they ought to be excused. Regular owners break the laws because they somehow, purposefully or not, end up with an extra critter or two. Many times they will ultimately drop out of the licensing
system because they won’t license the extra dog or do not wish to be on Animal Controls radar. This causes a loss of revenue to AC and may put pets and people at risk as regular vet care may be avoided.

Responsible breeders may go over the limit by keeping a puppy if there is a health concern or taking back a dog whose placement did not work out at any age and most responsible breeders participate in rescue at some point and foster dogs or cats do tend to increase numbers.

Irresponsible breeders and pet hoarders generally don’t care and break the limit laws because they are difficult to enforce.

responsible caring people who might otherwise acquire a third or forth pet when a homeless animal comes to their attention and who do not wish to be scofflaws will pass up the opportunity.

Limit laws do not prevent puppymilling, abuse or hoarding. They cause people to drop out of the licensing/rabies compliance system and cost local governments revenue. They may discourage redemption of impounded pets when people fear for their other animals at home. They deprive homeless pets of homes (if you live in a 3 pet limit area, would say, two dogs and two cats really be that horrible? Even, gasp, three cats? If you have the time and space?) They do not prevent abuse or single or pairs of pets from becoming a nuisance or protect anyone.

We have nuisance laws and hygiene statutes and anti-cruelty laws which if enforced would be more than adequate to address the issues which limit laws claim to but ultimately fail to solve.

Time for Animal Control to become Animal Services and Care.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 3:40 pm
Amen.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 8, 2009 @ 3:52 pm
Second that.

Comment by Susan Fox — May 8, 2009 @ 4:02 pm
Sing it, sister.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 8, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
JenniferJ - AMEN!!

I’ve been trying to get our local limit laws revoked for three years now. At the present time they’ve agreed to raise our limit from two pets (which includes dogs, cats, rabbits and birds) to four pets, only two of which can be dogs.

They’ve also extended an offer to rescue groups, allowing them input regarding “special limits” for foster homes that meet certain requirements (kinda silly, since we’ve also been asked to draw up the requirements…). Anyways, I refused to take part. Entirely. Bottom line is - any number we put forward is essentially pulled out of our collective arses. That is, completely and utterly arbitrary.

To further your comment, my neighbour has difficulty preventing his two dangerous dogs from randomly attacking dogs and children who pass in front of his home. My other neighbour can’t be bothered to put their allergic pink dog on hypo-allergenic food (or groom her for that matter) and yet I’m breaking the law because I have… well, lets just say we have several more permanent residents than the by-law allows, and as many-to-twice as many rescue animals at any given time. This number is flexible depending on the medical/behavioural severity of the cases on hand at any given time.

What comes to the front of my mind most often is how it is generally the folks who have the littlest control over their own pets who feel that YOU shouldn’t have X number of pets. I take my three to work with me often, and when people comment “they’re ALL yours?!!” I’m always tempted to make some comment about how they’re welcome to come home and meet the REST of the current pack. In their head what they’re really picturing is their own, single, out-of-control barking/aggressive/marking/territorial/destructive dog waiting for them at home. I can understand why it’s difficult for these people to fathom how I can handle X+Y… what I can’t understand is their determination to make it illegal.

Comment by Kim — May 8, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
Kim, I posted it once before but my friend Kathy has THE best answer for when folks ask, inevitably “how many animals do you have?”.

Kathy lives on a 5000 acre cattle ranch and raises and shows a giant breed and also cavies for shows and her daughters 4-H.

She promptly, now, replies “54” and when they gasp and say “OMG! You have 54 pets?” she replies, “Oh, sorry, that’s the answer to the other inappropriate question, my age”.

Between fosters and my personal pets and foundlings who have just shown up never to leave, the number of dogs and cats (and currently a pot-bellied pig X, a senegal parrot who hates me and a brain damaged lizard, don’t ask.) at my place varies tremendously. And your right, the people who have an almost obsessive fascination with the NUMBER of animals we keep either do not like pets or have one or two barely managed pets at home.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
According to an excellent and very detailed study done at Tufts, there are three general types of animal hoarders.

It looks like Ms. Harrison might technically fit into the “Overwhelmed Caregiver” category. These are folks who have some awareness of their problem and have typically acquired their animal passively. Their problems are typically triggered by changes in circumstances. While they are initially able to provide proper care for their animals, as their situation changes and/or they acquire more animals, they become overwhelmed and lose the ability to provide even minimal care for them. These people typically lack problem-solving skills, see their animals as family members and are generally passive and cooperative. They are also generally the easiest type of hoarder to work with and are the most likely to “recover” from their problems.

IMO - For those of us who breed, foster and/or keep multiple working or pet animals: “there but for the grace of God…”

Comment by Janeen — May 8, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
I just have a problem with classifying someone who only in the recent past became unable to fully care for pets as a hoarder of any stripe.

These were not passively acquired pets since she was apparently a persian breeder.

If it had been three cats, however matted, no one would be thinking hoarder.

None of the cats were pregnant from what I can glean. None is younger than one year so some good control was being practiced. Persians are extreme bracycephalics which leaves them very vulnerable to upper respiratory disease and they mat very easily so these guys could have gone downhill in a matter of a few months as her health declined.

So I am thinking poor woman who lost her husband and loved her babies and cared enough for them to plan for her death, and how sad no one stepped in to help.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 6:26 pm
It’s easy to judge when you are standing on the outside and don’t have the facts. It would be my guess she was an excellent caregiver up to a certain point. Was that point the death of her husband? Was it due to the decline in her health? How can we comment without knowing the facts? She made plans for them after her passing… that speaks volumes. Only $7500? I would imagine to an 80 year old, that is a lot of money. Remember, this means she was born in the late 20s or early 30s. And again, we don’t know the facts. Perhaps she didn’t have much more than that.

There are a lot of people that try to do the right thing for thrown away cats and dogs. Most of which would simply be snuffed out in the hands of local authorities. We sit by until they come on the 10 o’clock news for being busted by animal control and then we throw nasty comments at the tv screen about these terrible people.

Why can we not develop a program where we HELP these people… put up fences, build dog houses, provide assistance with pet med and flea preventative? On a certain level, they provide a service. They provide homes for the unwanted.

Several months ago in Illinois, animal control confiscated 28 cats from a woman only to euthanize 19 of them because they did not have room for them at the shelter. At the least, they had LIFE with the woman. She could have been assisted and the cats saved. The fact that they occupy LIFE seems to mean nothing or to be much less important than LIFE is to us humans.

Lighten up and let’s help these people.

Comment by beni — May 8, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
You know, sometimes, out of love, people do things that are unwise.

This poor woman probably loved these kitties very much…and could have been afraid that if she asked for help, they would take her beloved babies away from her.

People are so quick to point their accusatory, judgmental finger at others, instead of helping those who really need their help.

Unless someone gave themselves to this situation…then I feel that they have no room to say anything against this woman.

Comment by Marcy — May 8, 2009 @ 8:06 pm
Gina, you wrote:

“Mary Mary … seems maybe you’re jumping to that “breeders are bad” assumption. Please forgive me shouting, but: ALL BREEDERS AREN’T THE SAME. (And I am DONE standing meekly aside and accepting the slur — not from you, but others — that they are.)”

First of all — I have a HUGE heart for elderly people. My own mother is 81 and a bit fragile. I am not condemning this woman for what’s happened to her pets.

I wasn’t jumping to the “breeders are bad” assumption. But when I read that this elderly woman was a breeder with 14 unaltered cats, which to me (a non breeder) sounds like a person who is still planning to make litters of kittens, it did make me wonder how “responsible breeding” is defined in end of life planning for the breeder.

At what age does a responsible breeder retire? If taking back the kittens you breed is part of being reponsible, at what point do you realize that you probably won’t be able to honor that promise? Or is age irrelevant? People die unexpectedly all the time.

What WOULD have been a sufficient amount of money to leave to this rescue?

I would like to think that if I dropped dead tonight that my friend Kelly would adopt my pet, as she has promised she would. But what if something happened and she couldn’t? Should I have a Plan B (I don’t) and a Plan C? I don’t.

Comment by Mary Mary — May 8, 2009 @ 8:11 pm
As a writer and someone who got a near-perfect score on her English SAT and who went to a pretty good journalism school, it’s my professional opinion that calling an “overwhelmed caregiver” ANY category of “hoarder” is contrary to any rational definition of the word “hoard.”

I will never agree that an “overwhelmed caregiver” is a category of hoarder.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 8, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
If I had the room, I would adopt one of them. I’m max’d out at 2 Persians, and a Mixed Breed.

Comment by Marcy — May 8, 2009 @ 8:17 pm
At what age does a responsible breeder retire? If taking back the kittens you breed is part of being responsible, at what point do you realize that you probably won’t be able to honor that promise?

Comment by Mary Mary — May 8, 2009

Speaking for myself only, I would say, um, let’s see … how old am I? Oh, yes: 51. :)

But seriously, I think your point is excellent, and that any reputable breeder should recognize when it’s time to stop. Yes, a young person could die very early, but I think it’s reasonable when any decent actuary would bet you aren’t likely to live another decade or so, you need to not be breeding anymore.

But again, to the best of my knowledge, none of this lady’s pets were pregnant. And owning an intact pet is neither a crime or a sign of neglect.

As for the money, I still think for a child of the Great Depression, she probably thought she left a fortune for them. But realistically, I think a minimum of $500-$1000 per year, per pet for every year they are likely to be alive would be a good starting point.

I actually do have plans for my pets in my will. The retrievers are going to their co-owner and breeder, Drew is going to my friend Peggy, Eddie the parrot is going to my “Birds For Dummies” co-author Dr. Brian Speer and Christie is getting the cats to re-home. All with money to help offset expenses.

The chickens … I haven’t worked that one out yet, but I bet neighbor Judy would take them.

Needless to say, I am certainly hoping not to need any of these plans to be put in place anytime soon.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 8, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
And Kyrie has faithfully promised not to eat Clara and Ilario.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 8, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
I wasn’t jumping to the “breeders are bad” assumption. But when I read that this elderly woman was a breeder with 14 unaltered cats, which to me (a non breeder) sounds like a person who is still planning to make litters of kittens, it did make me wonder how “responsible breeding” is defined in end of life planning for the breeder.

There were no kittens. And apparently none of them were pregnant.

The story says that some of the cats were in carriers when the firefighters came in—the girls in season, perhaps?

This is a woman who, even at the very end, when her ability to keep the cats groomed had declined, was still able to prevent her cats from breeding.

The Persian coat is high-maintenance, and can get very matted within days without grooming. They are bracycephalic, so extremely vulnerable to upper respiratory infections.

Knowing that she was capable of preventing them from breeding, she may have been unwilling to subject bracycephalic Persians to the risks of anesthesia for spaying and neutering.

Your desire to brand her as “irresponsible” and Janeen’s determination to define her as, at least, some variety of hoarder, strikes me as deeply creepy.

Comment by Lis — May 8, 2009 @ 9:02 pm
Lis,

I am not branding this woman as irresponsible. I understand that she did not have kittens within the past year.

My question is about breeding in general, “responsible” breeding in particular. This woman’s story simply raised some issues —advance age, unexpected death of breeder — I had not considered before.

I am using quotes around the word responsible because posters here use the adjective regularly to define different types of breeders. I am not using it to show sarcasm.

I know very little about breeding. I know a TON of animal owners and I do not know a single person — not one! — who has two unaltered cats or dogs. So my comments might sound like criticism but they are not meant that way. Until I started reading this blog, it simply would never occur to me that someone would have multiple unspayed unneutered animals UNLESS they were planning to breed them at some point. So my immediate question on reading her story was why an 80-year-old woman was still breeding, or planning to.

NOT that it would be a crime or neglectful if she did breed. But how would it fit into the model of responsible breeding?

I hope this clarifies where I’m coming from.

Comment by Mary Mary — May 8, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
But, Mary, there’s zero evidence that she was still breeding or planning to breed. For someone that has the knowledge and the discipline to prevent their intact animals from breeding, there are excellent reasons not to risk anesthesia on bracycephalic cats or dogs.

I think there are very few people who would think it was a good idea to breed a new litter at 80, because of the probability of the breeder dying well before the cats from that litter. But where exactly is the cutoff? Can’t really give any particular age, because circumstances differ so widely. Some breeders have partners who would take the kittens or puppies back. Some breeders, a son or daughter is also a breeder, whether the same breed or another one, and would back up Mom or Dad’s guarantee to take back the puppies or kittens. And some people, like this lady, seem to be all alone as far as caring for their animals.

Those are all different situations, and would cause a responsible breeder to have different ideas about how old was too old to be producing another litter.

What this woman needed was for someone to help out with her pets, when her own health declined so sharply. Her own family apparently didn’t live close enough to help, but they knew how much she cared about the cats and apparently actively advocated for her wishes regarding them to be respected. If she had asked for help outside her family, how many would have decided that the “help” she needed was to have her animals taken away from her, because being old and ill and widowed, with the exact same animals you had before those conditions applied, is apparently enough to be labeled a hoarder. :(

Comment by Lis — May 8, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
There are also folks like Rachel Paige Elliot, and Anne Rogers Clark (May we see their like again!), who are active well into their 8th and 9th decades, with breeding progrmas that will outlive them through the people they mentored.

My Rittie came from a breeder in her 70s who is cutting down to mostly owning stud dogs and specials and breeding few/no litters herself while concentrating on judging, but most of her breeding program has gone to a protege. This doesn’t mean she won’t continue to own the breed- or appear on the name of litters as a co-breeder. I suspect that’s what most reputable breeders do.

If you’re not supposed ot have a dog before 25 (because you might be an irresponsible college student- and then you’re a first time dog owner who should only get an adult rescue dog) and you’re not supposed to get a puppy after 60 because it might outlive you… that doesn’t leave much time to be a reputable breeder and contribute to the greater world of dogs!

Comment by Cait — May 8, 2009 @ 10:29 pm
We don’t know details, we do know that she had no kittens under a year and provided for her cats after her death. She may have been sprightly and active and became suddenly ill.

She may have had a younger breeding partner who was supposed to help out but something happened.

We’ve had a few large-ish surrenders of 6-10 dogs at a time to rescue and none of them came with a trust fund!

If we got a call from a breeder asking us to take over their dogs and giving us ANYTHING I’d be thrilled. Both to help and at the thoughtfulness they showed in planning for the dogs care even if it was not enough to cover everything. We offer “re-home” in these situations rather than rescue.

We’ve had a couple of unexpected illnesses and deaths in my division of our national club this past year. The dogs have been taken in and adopted or placed through friends and other club members.

Mary Mary, intact, unbred, well cared for pets used to be normal. Yes, there were litters born that were unplanned, generally to the same sorts of dogs and cats who produce todays ill or unplanned litters with the same sort of owners.

Maintaining intact pets is no different than maintaining a multi-species household. You just adapt to the situation. Have maybe a few more gates and fences and pay attention to your pets. The amount of energy and stress etc… required to keep my girls virginal or at least not-in-a-family way? More or less none.

I know when my girls are in heat. Way back when, I educated myself on the details of canine reproduction, hormone sequences etc… And I accepted that they would not be able to run together all the time. Over two decades of intact dogs of both sexes under one roof, no accidents.

The sexual status of someone’s pets ought not determine if they are a “good” or “bad” pet owner. Sterilization, especially early on, is associated with increases in behavioral problems, orthopedic problems and increased risk of cancer. And it sure as all get out is not the cure all for behavioral issues it’s touted to be. That being said, most of my dogs will be altered at some point in their lives. I believe in low cost/high volume spay/neuter, provided it is voluntary, as not everyone wants to or will be able to manage intact pets. But it should be a choice made by the owner and their vet and done for the benefit of the animal and his/her family.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 10:49 pm
By the by, I don’t mean that all people who have unplanned litters are scummy or evil or anything (although statistically speaking some probably are, human nature and all) Some of those owners will be irresponsible with their pets, but many others will be decent people in situations making it difficult to prevent “accidents” but who still face many of the obstacles today as in the past in getting pets altered. As in lack of services, financially challenged, lack of access etc… Yet another reason to support wholeheartedly programs that get low cost services where they are needed. And more than three days a year too
.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 8, 2009 @ 10:58 pm
Animal hoarding is an ill-defined phenomenon, despite efforts to be all sciencey and organized about typifying it; the term is sometimes defined and applied in reference to a psychological condition believed to be a form of OCD, other times to the social effects of the collection of animals — on neighbors, on the community when the owner of many pets is unable to follow through on proper husbandry (sometimes due to death) of a number of animals that is large enough to be troublesome to available resources.

The “overwhelmed caregiver” is more of a social definition of hoarding than the psychological profile of the classic collector, or the chilling “exploiter hoarder.”

I’m also having people claim, in a particular case, that someone is not a hoarder because she was selling animals. But everything else quacks like a duck, ya know? Exploiter hoarder qua puppymiller. Two bad tastes that go bad together.

Comment by H. Houlahan — May 9, 2009 @ 6:11 am
I don’t think that $500 per cat is an unreasonable amount to leave to a shelter or rescue, when the request is that they be rehomed.

If requesting lifetime care, that’s another thing.

When she earmarked that money, she was no doubt healthier, and her cats were healthy and well-groomed, too.

Healthy, well-groomed, well-bred Persian cats would no doubt fly out the doors to adopters, leaving the rescue with a modest financial windfall, for the adoption fees would come close to covering expenses — neutering and a brief period of care.

I don’t think that a lifetime-care dowry for every pet is a reasonable standard to apply to others. It may be one to which an individual holds him or herself in making final arrangements, but I am not comfortable watching people judge others for failing to meet this financial benchmark.

Having too many experiences of young fathers who dropped dead unexpectedly or frankly went out and got their fool selves killed, and left dependent children with no life insurance — I know for whom I’m reserving my posthumous bitch slaps.

Comment by H. Houlahan — May 9, 2009 @ 6:30 am
Mary Mary, I am so grateful you’re sticking around. You’re a real asset to the discussions here.

I tell you, the combined IQs and passion of the regulars here is inspirational and more than a little humbling to me sometimes.

Today is some serious deadline work for me and for Christie. We’re working on a big writing project, and want to get a big hunk wrapped so we can spend time with our respective Moms tomorrow.

I’ll be checking in, though.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 9, 2009 @ 6:56 am
Heather’s right. If you actually look at the Tufts study I referenced you’ll see that it isn’t an opinion piece written to vilify hoarders - it provides diagnostic tools and treatment information for troubled people. Information put together to help identify those who need help and to describe the type of help most likely to help them based on their situation and personality type.

You may not see it as politically correct to call someone an “overwhelmed caregiver” - but if that description helps a friend, relative or health care professional identify the problem and get the individual help before their situation escalates to a legally actionable, unsanitary or untreatable level of ‘hoarding’ - I’m all for it.

“Hoarders”, “puppy mills” and “pornography” are vague and emotionally charged terms. Even though no one seems to agree what these things are, we’re all absolutely certain we can recognize them when we see them. I wonder, is it better to stop using these terms altogether, or to be more thoughtful and precise in continueing to use them?

Comment by Janeen — May 9, 2009 @ 7:06 am
i’m sorry but why did she have 15 cats to begin with .. that is the reason why people call her a hoarder .

Comment by barb walker — May 9, 2009 @ 8:11 am
There is no evidence the woman and her husband didn’t care about and care for that many cats — and care for them well — all their lives.

The number of pets someone has doesn’t define how well they’re cared for, nor does a number define someone as a hoarder.

We all know people who can’t handle a single pet. This woman handled many, all her life. And her last will and testament shows she cared about then. As has been noted in the discussion thread, those cats could have been well cared for up to just a few weeks ago, when the woman’s health declined.

Throwing accusations at people don’t help anything. Helping people helps pets. Period.

But thanks for adding another zombie comment without putting the slightest amount of thought or effort into it.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 9, 2009 @ 8:14 am
I had a young neighbor who had three cats she let out all day and sometimes all night. One she would not let in the house, even in the winter, and he had to live in the garage with the smelly car. He had a cat door, though.

I would feed her three cats, plus my two. When she moved, one got lost—the one I offered to take but she wouldn’t give her to me unless I take her other one.

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 9, 2009 @ 8:45 am
To finish before my words get gobbled up again, Gina, you are so right in saying it is better to help out when we feel able to—instead of enjoying venting our anger, justified or not.

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 9, 2009 @ 8:48 am
It’s not that I find the term “overwhelmed caregiver” offensive. I think it’s a great term. What I said is that an overwhelmed caregiver is not a hoarder. And it has nothing to do with political correctness. It has to do with the definitions of words. Hoard means to “save up as for future use.” It has an implication of secretiveness to it, as in, “treasure hoard.”

When my mom was being treated for cancer last year, I was an overwhelmed caregiver. If I’d had a longhaired cat or dog, or an animal in need of some kind of ongoing care, trust me, I’d have had problems. And I only have two dogs! But that didn’t make me a hoarder, and if I’d had six dogs or 12 cats or whatever, it still wouldn’t make me a hoarder. I’d still just be an overwhelmed caregiver.

There has to be some kind of delusional process going on before you call someone a “hoarder.” That your pets are fine, that they’re better off with you than without you no matter what, that you lie or deny how many animals you have, whatever. Just having life throw you a curve ball and being overwhelmed doesn’t meet the “simple definition of the word” test for me.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 9, 2009 @ 9:03 am
You may not see it as politically correct to call someone an “overwhelmed caregiver” - but if that description helps a friend, relative or health care professional identify the problem and get the individual help before their situation escalates to a legally actionable, unsanitary or untreatable level of ‘hoarding’ - I’m all for it.

Janeen, I didn’t object to calling her an “overwhelmed caregiver”; in the last weeks or months of her life, with her husband gone and her health in decline, she undoubtedly was. What I objected was calling that any variety of hoarding.

These cats were apparently well cared for until quite recently. Even with her decline in ability to provide proper care, she was still successfully preventing them from breeding. She had planned ahead and provided for the cats—and I would bet that most of those sneering at a “mere” $7500 to provide for the rehoming (not lifetime care) of fifteen cats, haven’t made better provisions themselves, despite the fact that any of us could drop dead tomorrow.

I will continue to object to language that attempts to conflate a loving pet owner who has become ill, with someone who compulsively collects animals in the belief that they are “saving” them, despite lack of care, inadequate food, filth, and uncontrolled breeding.

Comment by Lis — May 9, 2009 @ 9:17 am
what is the need that she was fulfilling with 15 cats that is the question .. obviously lonliness is one and why is it that for example i am alone and lonely yet i only have Benni my dog and others have the need to have the multitude of pets and get more and more and then get themselves in situations like this lady did .. FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Comment by barb walker — May 9, 2009 @ 9:30 am
“Hoarder” is short hand for “screwed-up, delusional, neglectful, abusive, dirty, smelly” in animal related parlance.

Tufts may have tried to make hoarding into a broader definition that includes kinder, gentler forms but the term does not belong to Tufts and the word has firm, negative associations in the minds of the media the public and animal rights/welfare/control settings.

Say hoarder to the average person and they will almost certainly assume you are talking about “the crazy cat lady living with a billion cats and dead cats on the counter and roaches and disease etc…”.

I do not believe “overwhalmed caregiver” to be derogatory. Everyone will be there at some point, but hopefully only for a short period of time due to circumstances beyond control.

Watch that certain program on National Geographic that drives Heather nuts, :-) or any of Animal Planets various Animal Precinct type shows and you’ll hear the word hoarder used. No definition or explanation given. You are just supposed to know that it means that the people involved are incapable of care, have mental illness and that animal must be taken from them. While the actual circumstances may be infinitly variable, the use and implication of the word “hoarder” is not.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 9, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Barb, she and her husband bred persians, probably as a hobby and a passion. And they probably considered them to be family and loved them dearly. Because contrary to the kool-aidesque propaganda, serious breeders love their own animals and most other animals too. I am happy for you and your dog that you are content. Some of us choose to have more than one or two animals.

Numbers alone do not define the relationship.

If she bred cats and had a need to have “more and more”, believe me, she could have had HUNDREDS. Instead at her death, she had 15, none under a year and none pregnant and she provided for them after her death

Comment by JenniferJ — May 9, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Look, it goes like this (typically).

Animal control, or the health department, or the humane society is notified of a situation where there are a lot of animals, they are not being cared for appropriately, and it’s having an impact on the animals’ welfare and the neighbors, or possibly dependent humans (kids, elderly, disabled) in the household.

From a public health and animal welfare standpoint, “Houston, we have a hoarder.”* That’s how it gets typed by the authorities/helping professions.

Now, having labeled the situation a “hoard,” and finding that this is an accurate description (large number of animals not well-cared-for, not a fastidious neighborhood busybody, cat-hater, etc. who made a complaint about a situation where health and welfare are not compromised), those charged with intervention need to determine what kind of person owns the hoard.

An exploiter? A deluded “rescuer?” Or someone who has become overwhelmed for some internal or external reason? The approach is different in each case.

It’s a bit like the way we type lost people in search and rescue incidents. One of our most common types of calls is the “critical wanderer” — the elderly or impaired individual who is known or suspected of suffering from dementia. When our lost person questionnaire indicates that the elements of a critical wanderer profile are present, we must plan the search with that profile in mind. (Such individuals behave very differently than other lost people, and can be maddeningly difficult to find.)

Sometimes we find, in retrospect, that all we had was a person over the age of 80 who got into some trouble in the woods. He or she did not have the behavior profile of a dementia patient. But the search was still a “critical wanderer” search, and data from it goes into an ongoing study of how best to find and help such individuals.

Because that’s the best way to do things so that we can help the next time.

*I’m old enough to remember when we labeled them “collectors.” The change in terminology to “hoarder” did come from Patronek et al’s work that types the individuals in the same category as those who hoard inanimate objects; frequently these persons are one and the same, and the two behavior suites and cognitive conditions are often, not always, very similar.

Comment by H. Houlahan — May 9, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Heather, thank you for that explanation. The problem in this particular case with the term is that it’s not being used by professionals, charged with the assistance to the cats or the family involved, but being tossed out by people unassociated to the situation, anonymously on the internet and with derision. And using a the number and reproductive status of the pets as all the proof needed.

I can certainly see that from the perspective of public health and animal welfare workers, the broader use of the term hoarder would be helpful in preparing an effective response and resources needed for a wide variety of situations.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 9, 2009 @ 10:04 am
What worries me most is this attitude that, if someone has 15-20 animals, there’s something -wrong- with them. Whether or not the animals are actually cared for properly or not seems to not even factor into that judgment — simply -having- that many makes people assume the worst about a person, and doubt how they could ‘really’ love that many animals.

It’s the same attitude that allows pet-limit laws to get passed, since folks assume that anyone who has more than 4 animals must have something wrong with them on principal, so may as well ban having more than that! As if a hoarder would even obey the law in the first place…

Comment by Pai — May 9, 2009 @ 10:08 am
*I’m old enough to remember when we labeled them “collectors.” The change in terminology to “hoarder” did come from Patronek et al’s work that types the individuals in the same category as those who hoard inanimate objects; frequently these persons are one and the same, and the two behavior suites and cognitive conditions are often, not always, very similar.”

Ye gods, I went into a home to pick up a dog once and the people, an elderly couple, had never thrown out a single letter, magazine or newspaper for the 32 years they had been in the home. Literally floor to ceiling piles. There were more than a few places that you had to edge through sideways. It was dangerous and a sad situation for all involved

Comment by JenniferJ — May 9, 2009 @ 10:09 am
Benni my dog and others have the need to have the multitude of pets and get more and more and then get themselves in situations like this lady did .. FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Comment by barb walker — May 9, 2009

Barb .. the “situation” she got in was losing her husband and turning 80. I got news for ya, babe: Happens to the best of us.

Don’t judge. Help.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 9, 2009 @ 10:11 am
se ei went through my own mini compulsion this year after seeing benni’s little sisters born this year . but i was able to say no after considerable talking with myself and reasoning it all out with myself why is it that some people can say no and others can’t

Comment by barb walker — May 9, 2009 @ 10:13 am
barb … you’re behaving like a holier-than-though, judgmental twit.

What part of “these cats were well-cared-for until shortly before this nice lady’s death” are you not getting?

Is it even possible for you to find some compassion for a woman who loved and cared for her pets, while she was alive and after she was gone?

Don’t judge. Help.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 9, 2009 @ 10:17 am
i have news for you you don’t need to be rude i am not .. i was trying to understand and yes i can understand more now soo i guess i’ll shut up now and go crawl under my rock

Comment by barb walker — May 9, 2009 @ 10:19 am
“se ei went through my own mini compulsion this year after seeing benni’s little sisters born this year . but i was able to say no after considerable talking with myself and reasoning it all out with myself why is it that some people can say no and others can’t”

If more than one dog is not right for you, I applaud your decision. But why would the decision of another person in different circumstances to add a new companion to their family be a wrong one?

For some NO pets is the right number. Other people keep multi-species, multi-animal households humming along beautifully and it’s the right choice for them.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 9, 2009 @ 10:23 am
barb…please don’t project your abilities or lack thereof onto others.

I would love to have another cat or two, but right now, I don’t have the space or time or money or energy to take care of them the way I’d like.

Another friend of mine has 9 cats, but she has a large home and more energy than most people half her age. Her house certainly is cleaner than mine and every cat is loved and well taken care of.

And I would never say she had too many cats because I couldn’t take care of 9. Get over yourself!

Comment by 2CatMom — May 9, 2009 @ 10:46 am
My guess is as follows:

The woman stayed alive as long as possible so the cats wouldn’t end up at a shelter.

She gave all the money she had left to Happy Tails for the cats’ care. At 80, so many people do not even have that much.

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 9, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Have I mentioned that I love this forum? ;O)

Incidentally, last year the local SPCA was called to a “hoarding” situation involving just under 50 cats. They, of course, investigated.

What they FOUND, however, was a well-to-do retired man who was living in a VERY large home with yes, some 50 cats. He had hired help in the form of caregivers and maids who also helped him groom, feed, clean, medicate and socialize the cats.

Every single cat was plucked off the street. From there it was taken directly to a veterinarian, tested, altered, vaccinated and treated for any medical issues. It was then brought back to the house and after a quarantine period, integrated into the group.

He would then contact local (and not-so-local) rescue groups and have them post the cats on their websites. By contacting so many different sites, and having his helpers take part as well, he managed to stay off the radar of any one group (as in “Hello, this man has FIFTY cats listed with us!).

The most unadoptable cats had become permanent residents. Those requiring daily medical care, those with behavioural issues, and those with “imperfections” that made them less likely to be adopted such as missing limbs/eyes, excessive scarring, etc.

The house was impeccably clean, the cats were maintained indoors, the vet records were all accounted for, and in the end only a handful were found to be truly permanent residents. He also provided the inspectors with his scrap book - photos of the hundreds of cats he had saved over the years.

The SPCA inspectors (amazingly) did the only thing they could do. They quietly praised the man, patted him on the back, and went gently into the night. Case closed, right?

Ah, not so fast. The same neighbour who had complained about the cats (apparently there was some neighbourly dispute YEARS earlier that had escalated day over day until he finally erupted and called animal control - note that the dispute had NOTHING to do with the animals in question who were in no danger and not posing an issue to anyone) then called Animal Control.

Under the local limit law, he was found to be in excess (the limit here is 2) and was threatened with a $5,000 fine for every cat ABOVE two if he didn’t surrender them or re-home them within 48 hours. One should also note that our local animal control euthanized over 7,000 cats and kittens last year, in a city of only 500,000 people - and really has NO need for additional cats who don’t really need their “help.”

The SPCA stepped up and expressed that they had inspected the home and the situation top to bottom and were thoroughly satisfied that everything was in order and the cats (and the residents) were doing just fine, thank you very much. Animal Control, however, moved forward anyways and there was a mad dash among local rescue groups to find space for almost 50 cats in an already overwhelmed foster system.

And here’s the best part. Animal Control also happily shared their story with the local newspaper, who splashed the “Crazy Cat Man” story of the downtown cat hoarder all over the papers for a week. After all, it wouldn’t be complete unless they got credit for “stepping in when the SPCA wouldn’t.” You know, for the animals and all.

The sickest thing is that the public outrage was aimed almost entirely at the man in question. What was he possibly doing with 50 cats? No one cared what Animal Control was doing, asking for the surrender and subsequent destruction of 50 animals who had been rescued, vetted and cared for by this man as if each one were a human being.

Personally, I think the public opinion would have been MUCH different, had the rescues not stepped in and taken the cats. After all, the end result was that the cats were safe. Had the end result been 50 dead cats… people may have looked a little closer before submitting this man as a hoarder.

The epilogue to this story is that the man put his home up for sale shortly after. He moved a few miles down the road, to a part of the city that isn’t covered by the by-law. Last I heard, he had 30 or so rescued cats in his residence. All are posted on pet store bulletin boards, websites and newspaper articles.

My apologies for the long post… but this story is what started my issue with the limit laws. I mean, I’ve always been over them. Sometimes in single digits, sometimes in double digits - but I’ve always made good friends with the neighbours (including making sure each of them rescues at least one pet through me!) and flown under the radar as much as possible. However, reading the story and subsequent backlash from the community, so quick to villify this man whose only crime was compassion and charity - it makes one wonder where the line really is drawn in the sand. If the line has creeped up this far… what’s to stop it??

Comment by Kim — May 9, 2009 @ 4:26 pm
Yes, well, some arbitrary limit law does not a hoarder make — despite the truly ovine way that so-called “citizens” pile on to proclaim someone a dangerous deviant when he or she is “one over.”

I think we should all be empowered to bitch-slap anyone who presumes to yap out “What does she need X dogs/cats/hedgehogs for anyway?”

They are the same ones who seem to believe that children in Africa starve whenever someone pays a thousand dollar vet bill — but their own gas guzzler, trophy house, trip to Vegas is not subject to discussion.

Comment by H. Houlahan — May 9, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Well said, Heather!! :O)

Comment by Kim — May 9, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
“They are the same ones who seem to believe that children in Africa starve whenever someone pays a thousand dollar vet bill — but their own gas guzzler, trophy house, trip to Vegas is not subject to discussion.”

Can we adapt this to a tee-shirt or bumper sticker? I’d love to just warn folks not to go there ahead of time!

Comment by JenniferJ — May 9, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
Why is that? I swear three-quarters of my hate mail is from people who think spending ANY money on “just a pet” means you hate people and are actively deny people assistance. And again, the absolute crap THINGS most people spend on isn’t even challenged.

It’s funny: Three-quarters of my hate mail is from pet-haters who think I love animals too much. And one-quarter is from animal-rights advocates who think I don’t love them enough.

The same thing happens with Christie’ SFGate.com columns: Scattered throughout the discussion are all these people writing, “Why are we wasting space on PETS!” I wonder: “Why are YOU wasting time reading about pets if you aren’t interested?”

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 9, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
No way does the woman in question sound like a hoarder, as I understand the term.

For someone to ask why another person “needs” to have X number of animals is the same type of person who would say that you should have no problem letting the police into your house when they knock on your door, if you have nothing to hide. Sorry, in this country, at least, it doesn’t work that way. Thank the gods.

Ferhevinsake, people glance at me sometimes when I say we have four, count ‘em, four cats. Four fully vetted, well-fed, spoiled and loved felines. That’s what works for us. Your needs may vary. And, you know what? That’s OK.

And the people who are so threatened by any show of caring about animals that they take the time to send hate mail to this blog need to Get. A. Life.

Comment by Susan Fox — May 9, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Minor comment:

When I lived in Framingham, MA and heard about the only 3 cat to a household rule, I was shocked. It took me quite a while to get over such a controlling rule.

I do not dare ask what the rule or law says where I live now!

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 9, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Yah, because hoarding NEVER happens where a limit law exists.

And MSN works and BSL is actually helpful to pit bulls and monkies will fly outta….

Whoops, I digress.

As for the haters and “how could you spend money on a dog when kids in El Salvador don’t have shoes” crowd…

My father, rest his soul, yelled at me for spending 1500.00 to save my dog when he got into some organophosphates.

This was 22 years ago so figure about 3500-4000.00 easy today.

I had to beg the clinic to let me make payments, my then fiancee now hubby came through with a “loan” (nope, have not paid him back. XD)

Six months later my parents shi-tzu was run over in their driveway. My father was the one who insisted on the specialist and gratefully forked over four grand.

His response when I pointed out his contradictory stance? Well, Sam was a “good” dog.

No the point was Sam was HIS dog. His dog, his choice. His money, his choice.

If someone can fork over the better part of 100,000.00 for a “fast” car they never will drive over 80 MPH (and pay a shitload extra for higher insurance, registration and so forth) and no one thinks the less of them, I can and will spend my money on my dogs as I see fit.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 9, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Oops. Gina, I used a naughty word in my last attempt to post and I think the spam filter grabbed it.

Hey, up to 75, you’re only one or two Zombie/Troll visits from another 100 comment post!

Comment by JenniferJ — May 9, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
JenniferJ—I wondered how not spending thousands on one’s animal is going to feed the hungry people in any place around the globe.

Do all the people that have the wherewithall but don’t spend on animals—do they feed the hungry children and adults in America or elsewhere?

I am afraid we know where it goes. It goes on spending on their own personal desires—animate or inanimate!

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 10, 2009 @ 7:10 am
I think what amazes me the most is that people have such a great need to have others conform to their way of living. Look at almost every hot button social issue (gay marriage is my favorite one here) and you’ll see people who are threatened by someone who has chosen to live by a different set of standards.

Whenever you ask these people “how someone else’s behavior on this matter effects them” you will get a variation of the same answer. Its morally wrong, its not a proper choice, its against the law, which all translate to “its not what I choose to do.”

And if that doesn’t work, demonize the non-conformers. 15 cats = hoarder, gay = child-molester, against the war = unpatriotic.

We are a nation of sheep (my apologize to sheep here)! We profess to admire
individualism, but really, we want conformity, as long as it conforms to our belief system.

Comment by 2CatMom — May 10, 2009 @ 7:59 am
2CM

I think you’re so right. In other places, when I write about the problems with industrial agriculture — concentrated animal feeding operations a/k/a factory farms — I get slammed for being a dupe of the animal rights agenda, or even a sekrit animal-rights operative.

Last night I was reading (in the current New Yorker) a long article about education reform in L.A. The man who spearheaded a charter high school had been utterly vilified by the establishment — school administration and teachers union both — in a way that reminded me of the hot flaming arguments over who’s “right” when it comes to animal issues.

We’d rather keep doing what doesn’t work harder than try something new.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 10, 2009 @ 8:05 am
I don’t think that for average Jane or Joe Conformist that the criticism of others choices has much to do with moral outrage.

It’s all about comfort. Personal comfort.

The sheeple out there, they don’t like to feel uncomfortable. They don’t want to have to alter the thought patterns and opinions that give them an easy black/white view on things. That’s hard work, may feel uncomfortable, increase stress and could mean that their prior actions, assumptions were wrong.

And there is almost certainly a fear of losing standing amongst their own peer group if they stray from the tenants of whichever corner of society they have spent years ensconced within. Xenophobia is a deeply ingrained survival instinct (stay with the pack, avoid the unkown, keep ypur societal bonds tight) and it takes a conscious act of courage and will to overcome it.

If it makes someone feel uncomfortable and they drift within a circle of people who are of like mind, denial of villification of those who practice what is for many a cultural or even personal taboo becomes a bonding experience. And the comfort derived from this is a powerful reinforcement.

The whole “with us or against us” tow the party line and swallow the whole package stuff gets old, but it’s predictable.

Baaaaaa…..

Comment by JenniferJ — May 10, 2009 @ 9:27 am
“denial OR vilification”

need. coffee. now.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 10, 2009 @ 9:29 am
Gina! Zombie sheep!

http://www.blacksheep-themovie.com/

OK, transgenic, GMO were-sheep zombies but still! :D

Comment by JenniferJ — May 10, 2009 @ 9:36 am
“There’s something wrong with the sheep.”

aaaiiiiiii-yeeeeee!

(But at least it doesn’t have a catchy theme.)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 10, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Having known a “hoarder” (I was called in to help clean up when she had gone out of town for a couple of days), I know that most people like this are extremely well-intentioned. They try to do the right thing. But it gets the better of them. It is a psychological disorder in the same way people hoard trash, magazines or junk. The best thing for all concerned is to nip the problem in the bud. If you see it happening, get the SPCA involved as early as possible.

Comment by Melissa McNeely — May 10, 2009 @ 10:22 am
JenniferJ- “The sheeple out there, they don’t like to feel uncomfortable. They don’t want to have to alter the thought patterns and opinions that give them an easy black/white view on things. That’s hard work, may feel uncomfortable, increase stress and could mean that their prior actions, assumptions were wrong.”

YUP. Biiiiiiiig YUP.

How do I know? Because a dozen or so years ago, I was in that flock. Not entirely, mind you, but certainly about a lot of animal issues. Hunting = WRONG. Intact pet = BYB. Unvaccinated pet = irresponsible owner. And so on and so forth.

Boy, did I receive an education the hard way. I’ll spare you the details, but only when looking back can I truly say that yes, it was simply about the comfort zone I had myself in.

Even now, I will admit that I have to actively open my mind when taking in something new. My instinctive reaction is “That’s not the way it’s done!” or “That’s not the way it works!” It SHOULD be “Could it safely be done that way?” or “Could it work that way for myself or others?” And then the logistical part of my brain kicks in to gear and begins to dissect the situation… pulling out all of the hypothetical ifs, ands or buts.

At the time, though… if you had asked I would absolutely have said it was about morals and/or values. And I would not have been lying, for I truly believed that it was. It’s not denial, folks - it’s ignorance.

The only solution to ignorance is education… trouble is, some people (like me) have to learn the hard way.

Comment by Kim — May 10, 2009 @ 10:29 am
If you see it happening, get the SPCA involved as early as possible.

Comment by Melissa McNeely — May 10, 2009

So all but the most highly desirable of the pets can be killed, and the owner vilified.

Fail.

This woman was not a hoarder. Read the thread before you judge a woman who took care of her cats very well until her final decline — and left them and what she no doubt thought was a fortune to care for them after her death.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 10, 2009 @ 10:30 am
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 10, 2009 @ 8:05 am

We’d rather keep doing what doesn’t work harder than try something new.

Or as Albert Einstein once said “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Your twist on Einstein’s quote put me in mind of this totally mind-boggling video I was directed to the other day. Around time marker 2:15 is where the rant becomes particularly salient to this discussion. The idea that if we haven’t brought “them” around to “our” way of thinking, it’s simply because we didn’t try hard enough. I had to stop the video and clean my screen of coffee spew at that point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....1377494.05

Yup. The mindset truly transcends the issue(s) under discussion . . . . . . . . .

Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 10, 2009 @ 10:44 am
Extinction bursts in action, Gina! :P

The hard thing with ‘get the SPCA involved as early as possible” is that Melissa? When’s as early as possible? Is it when your elderly relative buys a puppy and you don’t think they should have any pet, let alone a puppy? (Even though they live in their own home and ARE actually an adult, responsible person.) Is it when your daughter-in-law gets her third obedience dog because the other two, at ages 8 and 10, are no longer competing? Is it when your adult child who is no longer dependent on you gets involved with showing, trialling and breeding, or fostering for rescue and has more pets than *YOU* think is okay (and you apply a House-Beautiful-is-coming-to-photograph-in-an-hour standard of cleanliness to justify your complaints of ‘filthy!’)?

Comment by Cait — May 10, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
Oops, hit enter too soon. Is it when your ex gets a dog of a breed you don’t like, or a second cat, and you see a way to turn the screws a little more?

Comment by Cait — May 10, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
NESR had that last one, EXACTLY.

Lady lived in a rural area and had a small farm. She had four or five dogs of her own, and actually fostered for us in the past.

Limit law in that township was two dogs. Any number of horses, goats, emus, whatnot — two dogs. Don’t care what your acreage is. Don’t care if it’s three elderly Maltese on a hundred-acre horse farm. Two dogs.

When her divorce turned ugly, the ex gleefully finked her out to the town, which was EAGER to enforce their ridiculous social engineering on a citizen whose dogs had never bothered anyone.

Fraggin bastages.

So, three wanted, owned dogs in Rescue, taking up the places that could have been allotted to dogs in kill shelters.

Comment by H. Houlahan — May 10, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
Being a rebellious person inside I never wanted to be just a follower.

I didn’t want to do things that did not seem sensible to me.

Most of the time I was on the outside of the group because I did not want to be a “sheep”.

It is cozy being inside the group and adopt all the group’s beliefs—if you can be such a person.

When it comes to animals—I just see them as beings like ourselves. As I have commented before, we are all mammals.

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 10, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
I’m catching up from recent travel… WOW, great discussion thread.

Regarding limit laws: Bill Bruce, the director of Animal Services in Calgary, is often asked why Calgary has no pet limit law. [For those who are unaware, Calgary is widely regarded as having the best animal control program in North America]. Bill’s response is that he looked at the statistics for Calgary’s “problem dog” homes, and they were disproportionately single dog homes! To those who ask, he fires back, why limit multi-dog homes when they aren’t causing trouble? He has the same answer for why Calgary has no BSL — the statistics do not indicate that there is any problem breed.

Gee, what a novel thought. Animal control laws that are based on facts and reason, rather than emotion and baseless “we need to go after the irresponsible ________ !” (fill in the blank}

More on Calgary
http://saveourdogs.net/2009/04.....%e2%80%9d/

Comment by LauraS — May 12, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Seems as if people have to say the soundbite that pops into their head without thinking: “Hoarder,” “only ‘bad’ pet-owners don’t spay-neuter,” “no one NEEDS that many pets,” etc.

I would have said such things myself, not that long ago.

People have to be challenged to open their minds and see that their auto-response isn’t grounded in reality, and that new ways to deal with old problems are here, and they are very possible to put into play.

The key is to stop vilifying, and start helping.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 12, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
“I volunteer at an animal shelter and want to scream when octagenarians (I’m good at estimating ages) want kittens”

WHY??.. this is outrageous.. a shelter worker who prefers to see a kitten stay at the shelter .. or worse .. than let a person have it who could love and care for it.. no matter how long they live.. HEY.. shelter worker.. we have many productive citizens who are in their senior years. One of my dearest friends who just turned 80 got her latest “poo mix’ only last year…no dog could be better cared for or have more attention..if you are so good at guessing ages.. perhaps you should voluteer at a midway or carnival instead.. because your bigoted nature and comments are not only wrong.. they are offensive…to me and to many of my senior friends..Shelter animals deserve better than people like you…talk about screaming.. you can hear me in SF and I live pretty far away.. YOU ARE WROND

Comment by bestuvall — May 12, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
well sorry WRONG.. typos happen.. even when youare not a senior.. LOL

Comment by bestuvall — May 12, 2009 @ 3:51 pm
I have to answer this one.

I am almost 79. Yes, I adopted two cats about 2 or 2 and l/2 yrs. old. Yes, one cat was given up because the woman had a baby that would pull the cat’s tail. The cat had to stay at the shelter in a sickly state for a year until I took her into my home.

The other cat was also sickly from another rescue place and was there for four months.

Yes, I am providing for someone else to take care of them if I cannot.

I went to one fancy adoption place for a black cat a while ago and the girl at the desk told me that the cat was promised to someone else.
It was hard to believe because the cat was still there. Prejudice isn’t just about adopting babies, is it? We seniors are the the most stable animal parents if we are in good health!

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 12, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Additionally old people can sometimes climb ladders to get their cat that is stuck up a the tree, meowing so pitifully that it was too hard to come down.

My little Inca got out and climbed up a tree (there was a skinny fox across the street, also).

My 70-yr. old neighbor provided the ladder and my 80-yr old husband climbed up and got the cat down. Inca is now sleeping soundly in my bed.

The humane society said they do not come out for that. Luckily, we “old” people rescued her.

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 13, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Thank you to all of you for your comments.

I don’t think I’m a zombie, but I might be a hoarder.

I know some of you (many!?) probably could/would label me as such. I am most certainly an overwhelmed caregiver. Oddly enough, the person who has offered to help me is the rescue group that was raided by animal control as a hoarder! The charges didn’t stick, but they continue to villify her nonetheless.

I found this post disturbing and wonderful and scary. I am these people! (Although I’m not 80 years old…yet.) But I’ll get there…or I won’t, and I’ll need to face (or abandon) these issues prematurely!

Providing $500-$1000 for every year your pet is likely to live after your death toward their care is absurd. That’s like expecting adopters to have a $2500 emergency medical fund in the bank before you let them adopt an animal! (Lets just kill them now, it will be cheaper…)

We are ALL going to die, and we can always euthanize an animal later…why must we have a perfect plan in place right here and right now instead of allowing spontaneous life to evolve and progress?

Can somebody post something about what is adequate care? Dolittler points out that obedience work is hard on the canine neck…shall we NOT train our dogs then?!

A friend of mine doesn’t turn the light on if her dog is sleeping because she doesn’t want to disturb her. (She also paid $500+ to have a tumor removed on a rodent that happily lived six months longer.)

I barely have the answers for me, so I certainly am not going to offer you YOUR solutions! But I truly appreciate the willingness of all to talk about it and look at it. Talking helps me lots.

I get the part about “It’s my money, and it’s my animal.” I also understand the sheeple mindset of seeing your one out-of-control dog and extrapolating that to pet limit laws. But I also see that we’re a rather messed up culture in that we seek to control that which is not within our ability to control.

I guess it’s only natural that Animal Control should turn to killing. It’s a guarenteed answer. The ultimate control of any situation. That critter will NEVER pose a problem to the system again. The best part of my life is the out-of-control parts. Maybe somebody should just shoot me now.

Comment by LynnO — May 13, 2009 @ 11:45 am
LynnO

I’m not sure you should assume “many of us” would label you as a hoarder.

I do not know you, your situation, etc… I’ve never seen your pets or home. Many of us here have occasionally gotten a bit overloaded by not being able to say no to a dog or other animal that needed a place to be however temporarily.

Numbers and not getting the laundry or dishes done do not a hoarder make

Most of us feel overwhelmed from time to time.

If you are at the point wherein you cannot provide your animals with needed veterinary care, nutrition, exercise, attention, then perhaps some could be re-homed. If you are reaching the point where your mental and physical health as well as those of the animals in ypur care are suffering and you cannot see it or will not act to remedy it, then we head into “hoarder” territory.

If you recognize that and are willing to let animals go if need be, then you and they will probably be in good shape.

Asking veterinarians, groomers, trainers, etc in your area for ideas might open up opportunities or provide ideas on how to place hard to home pets.

I have not read all the comments to Dr Khuly’s collar article, but the point I gleaned from her article was that collars and other tools are so often misused or used to control by physical force, none of which is training. Training means not having to rely of brute strength or direct physical control the vast majority of the time.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 13, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
Thank you Jennifer.

I gleaned the same point from Dr. Khuly’s blog…but I know that some will “twist” it just as they are currently twisting Christie’s raw food diet article!
I guess my point is that perfection is a negative. Like the Breed Ambassador idea…it only gives justification for culling the less than perfect (which, in reality, is ALL of us!)

I currently have 17 foster dogs available for adoption. All but one are listed on petfinder, several have been posted for years! (I should be posting the one instead of commenting on blogs, but, well, it’s sorta my therapy…)

Several of them are aged, several of them are special needs/feral. I’d LOVE to find homes for any/all…even though I’ll miss some of them terribly. A few have been adopted and have returned (more than once!) I’ve fostered hundreds, and heaven help me if they all came back.

My vet is my sponsor and I couldn’t afford to have any of these fosters if she didn’t help me not just with them, but with my other animals as well.

I live on the edge. I justify my collection because I say: “Their other choice was dead…and this is better.”

Most everything is spayed/neutered. (ALL the fosters are, and all but one of my own dogs, and most of those I board are altered as well.)

My current feed invoice is $899.72…but that includes $433 for 20 pounds of old dog supplement that should last me six months. (I have about a dozen dogs that are 10+) The kibble should maybe last me a month…except when I’m boarding and my numbers go even higher, but then I get paid and that helps cover the expenses for ALL the animals.

I know I could do better. I think the point is that we ALL can do better…but it’s easier to offer a sound bite or a quick judgement to make ourselves feel better by putting somebody else and their “style” or their “choices” down. My biggest gripe is that once you’ve put down their choices, the next step is the government or the “do-gooders” stepping in to put down their animals! (So much for sheltering…)

Comment by LynnO — May 13, 2009 @ 12:38 pm
LynnO,

Is there nobody that can help you?

I am pretty much phobic about asking for help (or accepting it). However, when I got into this animal thing several years ago, I decided that I would rather recruit 20 foster homes than foster 20 animals.

It is so much easier for me to just take the animals myself … in the short run. Only in the short run.

I work through the shelters to recruit foster volunteers. It is very frustrating for me to work THROUGH an outside agency, but ultimately — for me, given the resources I have to work with — it is more effective than trying to foster all these animals myself. I have some close friends who take that approach and I do everything I can to help them get animals out the door — because they are too busy feeding and caring for the animals to be out recruiting adopters or other fosters.

Over the years I’ve had some snide comments about the (relatively) small number of fosters I take, and the vacations from fostering that I take sometimes. But agin … I’d rather be recruiting 20 helpers than trying to do the work of 20. I am finally, years into this, seeing that approach pay off.

Comment by Mary Mary — May 13, 2009 @ 12:53 pm
I don’t think you need to put aside the $ for your animals when you are gone (unless you are able to), but you do need to make arrangements for your animals if you want them to be safe.

I have two friends that have agreed to be the primary and secondary caregivers for my cats if somethings happens to me. They are doing it because they are my friends and they like my cats. As it happens, I have left $ from my life insurance policy for each cat’s future caretaker. But they don’t know that and they aren’t expecting it. My final backup is the shelter that I adopted them from is no kill and they will take back any cat that finds itself homeless. I trust them to figure out what is best given their own circumstances if the time comes.

But knowing that my parents are not pet people, I wouldn’t want them to decide what happens to my cats. Not that they would intentionally do something bad, but they wouldn’t know a great shelter from the dog pound.

Comment by 2CatMom — May 13, 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Gina,

I am crying for two reasons:

You got over 100 in this posting!

The second is a much larger reason—the fate of millions of cats, dogs, and other animals who are not wanted.

Here I was, feeling sorry for myself because I feel I am not doing as good a job as I want with just two cats. However, so many people out there are trying to help as many animals as they can.

It astounds me how many people are sacrificing so much of their lives to help animals in need.
I had better stop feeling sorry for myself. and just marvel at the great souls in the world!

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 13, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
LynnO,

A lot of the general population has no idea about Petfinder. When I was placing a 3 year old toy fox for someone a few months ago, I put an add in the paper. Had TONS of inquiries. Most were very disappointed as she went quick. I sent them to PetFinder but was really surprised to have to explain what Petfinder is to most of the people who called me.

While it may seem that everyone is on line and knows about Kijiji, Craigslist etc… a lot of people still look in the paper’s classifieds first. And like many papers, the one I used includes online listings for free. Had many calls from that too.

What about seeing if the local TV or paper or radio stations would be interested in doing a “senior dogs make great pets!” type of a piece featuring some of your pensioners?

We have a breed rescuer in the Phoenix area who started calling and writing every magazine, tv station paper etc.. in the area about the dogs, the fundraisers, you name it.

The first time local news aired a story about the bulldog beauty pageant they held for rescue, it got such a response that they now cover it annually, the rescues been in two local magazines and on the cover of another. The exposure has meant homes for some pretty marginal-at-best dogs in terms of age, health etc…

The point is it’s free publicity. She gets donations towards food and supplies and has rounded up many foster homes through the exposure.

Now, I am a pretty private person. I have to push myself to do things like call the paper or write to the editor or ask for help. It’s all outside my comfort zone but sometimes we have to push our own limits. I look at it as personal growth, and hold tight to the old adage “You don’t know until you ask”.

Not saying that these things are the right approach for you, you may in fact have already attempted these things, but if not, they might be worth giving a shot. I would also add that many newspapers will discount adds for rescues

Comment by JenniferJ — May 13, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Mary Mary (are you married?!) Thank you too…

I got into this whole thing because I wanted to help homeless animals. Trick is, I’m pretty tolerant, and so I was overwhelmed with “difficult” critters… maybe because so many choose to save the “easy” ones?

I AM a groomer! (Although if I paid myself $10 for every time I trimmed my own critters nails I’d still be broke…)

I’ve found dozens of foster homes, I’ve placed hundreds of dogs. I’ve seen good and caring people get turned down because they don’t have a fenced yard. I’ve seen breeders refuse to take back a dog because the adopter/buyer “ruined” it…

I founded a rescue group and they kicked me out because I questioned the arbitrary rules they wanted to make and I pushed the limits and made people uncomfortable. They called me divisive.

I’ve been banned by local Animal Control because I have a “conflict of interest” (apparently being willing to help more than one way is too interesting?! Or maybe it’s too much conflict to argue with them when they want to kill an animal you’re willing to take?)

Most of my geriatric dogs are NOT available for adoption. They are my own beloved pets. I’m pretty convinced that nobody could love them more than I do (and I venture the lady in the original post felt exactly the same way about her 15 cats, intact or otherwise.)

Maybe I could get these five pups adopted pretty quick. (They’re seven months old now and I’ve had them since January.) But their likely adopters will be young military families and I question how well they’ll do and how long they’ll last…but it would get them gone from here and off my food bill. But then I won’t have the joy of playing with them and teaching them…and if all the rest of my foster dogs got adopted I wouldn’t have enough dogs to play at the races, which is how I showcase these “unwanted” critters. (Yea, okay, losing isn’t a very impressive showing for most…but hey, we’re not dead!)

I’m actually pretty good at finding foster homes… better than finding adopters maybe? Instead of being in charge, I’m simply a volunteer for another rescue group. And that “group” (mostly a caring individual) is where the buck stops. If I have a problem I can technically “give back” an animal. But you know what? She’s in the same boat, only her’s is bigger! She has cats AND dogs! And she’s just as compassionate as me and she specializes in the aged, the deformed and little temperamental beasts.

She just paid for ten more bags of kibble for me…to be delivered next week. I might could cut back my own order some now. But I really aught to share it with some of those “other” foster families that I found.

We ALL need support!!! I just want all you posters here (zombie and otherwise) to know that your support is most appreciated. Questioning is good. Finding your own answers is perfect…but “declaring” the correct answer for somebody else just isn’t going to help.

Thanks. (And don’t worry, the dead lady doesn’t care that those people are calling her a hoarder, she loved her cats and took care of them to the best of her ability and I venture there’s a very full cattery in heaven where she’s having a VERY good time!)

Comment by LynnO — May 13, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Funny … I didn’t think of this as being able to generate so many thoughtful comments.

The criticism of this nice lady just, to put it mildly, irritated me to no end.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 13, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
Yes, Gina, picking on a dead lady who loved all her animals when alive seemed nasty to me.

Comment by Colorado Transplant — May 13, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
I think it struck a heck of a nerve!

But as with breeder-defamation, if the moderates don’t start calling BS when the radicals on either end begin labeling anyone who does not adhere to their narrow list of requirements to be “OK” as being “insane” “greedy” “heartless” “ignorant” (or much worse) then we allow extremists to advance their agenda, whatever side they are on.

Comment by JenniferJ — May 13, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
Though I read the blog, I haven’t posted here in quite a while. But this story really struck a nerve with me.

In rescue work I have, for too many years, listened to all the negativity towards basically anyone who isn’t a “perfect” pet owner - and have yet to meet two people who agreed on that definition of perfect. But to speak poorly of this woman or to call her a “hoarder” (which, might have an actual psychological definition but, trust me, is used in most circles as just an insult)…is base!

She left a written will and $7,500 for her 15 cats! How often does a shelter or rescue receive a $500 donation each for relinquished pets? To me, that was very generous and showed that this woman cared and took the time and effort when she was well enough to decide what would be best for her cats.

If she died and the cats weren’t mentioned in the will and no donations were made, then the bickerers would be complaining that she should have made a will and left money for their care. But she DID act responsibly and compassionately and it’s STILL an “irresponsible” act? geez. …d’med if you do…d’med if you don’t

Comment by Joy — May 13, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Facebook	Twitter	Google Buzz	Digg
Technorati	StumbleUpon	Delicious	Email

pet connection

Do you like this story?