pet connection

74 Comments »

1. And this is yet more proof that those shelter managers who say “It’s just too much work” to get dogs who are languishing in their area to another area where the demographics would be more favorable to their adoption are just blowing smoke out of their - well, you know!

   Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 13, 2009 @ 11:29 am

2. He’s pretty cute. I hope Yoda chills until they can become buds.

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 13, 2009 @ 11:31 am

3. He’s a cutie! Lucky you! And lucky him!

   I like the name Griffith, but if it falls through Batman isn’t taken LOL

   Comment by Wendy — July 13, 2009 @ 11:36 am

4. Frenchie. :)

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 13, 2009 @ 12:07 pm

5. Well, he’s a cute little guy! I hope his health problems are easily fixable, and am glad I was around to RT your plea for help, even if @lockshin got the job done!

   I’m a huge believer in social media as a tool to help animals. This is yet another example of the power we have in our hands to mobilize compassion on a huge scale!

   Comment by Christie Keith — July 13, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

6. Is it correct that someone found this dog on Friday, beat up by coyotes, and he’s now an eight-hour drive away today, Monday?

   Any attempt to find his owners?

   Comment by H. Houlahan — July 13, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

7. just to address h. houlahan, i am the person who found the dog, he is emaciated and intact and about (in my opinion) 1 yr. old, to not be neutered already is neglect. he is also not a runner as he would follow me outside in the front yard and not run another red flag… IF he did have an owner they were not good owners and he deserves a better home, there were no signs as i did look in the area. he is now safe and that is all that matters.

   Comment by amy disston — July 13, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

8. H. Houlahan - He’s super thin, unneutered, and appears to have been out on his own for awhile. However, after his vet visit (where I’ll have him scanned for a chip), I plan to post a “found” ad in the LA Times and on Craig’s List in LA. If an owner comes forward, we’ll get him back to them.

   Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 13, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

9. In response to H. Houlahan, I recently had an experience with my local SPCA. A picture of a dog was posted in the paper on Saturday and by Wednesday (when SPCA is closed Sunday and Monday), he had been euthanized. Shelters are unable to keep dogs very long, sometimes no more than 24 hours, especially with injuries as Griffin had. I’m sure that Jennifer would be more than willing to return the dog to rightful owners, but at least the dog is safe and will not be PTS to make room for another.

   Comment by Roxanne — July 13, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

10. “to not be neutered already is neglect”

    uh huh

    Comment by EmilyS — July 13, 2009 @ 2:32 pm

11. IF he did have an owner they were not good owners and he deserves a better home, there were no signs as i did look in the area. he is now safe and that is all that matters.

    Comment by amy disston — July 13, 2009

    No, Amy, that’s NOT all that matters.

    PUT SOME “FOUND” SIGNS UP.

    You are dead wrong that a dog you found in this condition didn’t have good owners. You don’t KNOW what kind of owners the dog had. And you have no right to judge them based on your biases or your potentially faulty assumptions.

    I know you mean well, but … in my rescue experience I had a Sheltie so badly matted that we had to shave him. His pads were rubbed raw and he was so thin you could see hip bones BEFORE his matted coat came off.

    But guess what? He had a family who loved him and had been looking for him for THREE MONTHS. He was shy (most Shelties are) and wouldn’t come up to strangers. He was in a parkland area about 10 miles from his home. He was finally turned in to rescue when he was hit by a car.

    No collar, no tag. We almost did what you did and figure he must have been a throwaway, but we shrugged and put an ad in the paper anyway.

    The reunion was sweet.

    Maybe you’ve never lost a dog or had one get away from you. That doesn’t make you a “good” pet owner, it makes you a “lucky” one.

    Now put up some damn “FOUND” signs and quit judging people.

    I know Jennifer would want this dog back in his home if he has one. And so should you.

    ****

    And by the way, if being unneutered is a sign of bad owners … well, oh hai: I have three unneutered dogs, no unintended pregnancies, and you can ask my veterinarian (or indeed Jennifer) how well they’re cared for. Again, get off your high horse, Missy, and quit judging people.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 13, 2009 @ 2:34 pm

12. Ok, I would really hate for this otherwise good story filled with good people to become an ugly showdown. Griffith’s health and well-being are most important to me. I’m leaving for the vet momentarily to address that. Next step will be to post in LAT and Craig’s List. I’m not judging anyone harshly here - I’m focused on the positive here - what efforts that good, well-meaning people were willing to go to in order to help a dog in need, which he no doubt was. If no one comes forward, their loss will be my gain.

    Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 13, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

13. Jennifer, he’s totally earlicious! I love his face.

    Bless you for taking him in - even if your search finds a desperate owner who has been looking for him and you have to give him back. Please let us know what the vet says.

    Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — July 13, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

14. Thanks, Jennifer. With Heather’s question pointing out something we all overlooked, I’m looking for this not to be an ugly showdown but rather an educational opportunity.

    1) All found pets are not abused throwaways. It doesn’t take very long on the run for a pet to look like crap. We need to make a good faith effort to find the owners of pets we find. (And a shelter’s quick-kill policy does not excuse that responsibility on the part of the finder — foster the dog while you look!)

    2) Deciding not to spay or neuter is NOT neglect. Most pets should be spayed/neutered (My own McKenzie is going in Thursday for her “procedure”), but leaving an animal intact does not in and of itself constitute irresponsibility.

    I still love the story, and I still think it’s illustrative of how animal-lovers can work together. But all the i’s have to be dotted and t’s crossed. We need to quit assuming “people are always bad.”

    Because they’re not, the most of them. And this story shows that!

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 13, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

15. You won’t find any of my dogs neutered at that age. And in 30 years, this family can count the number of planned litters in single digits. And *no* unplanned litters - no oopsies, whoopsies, or otherwise. Surgery is not indicator of responsibilty - it’s just a choice, hopefully one made with thought to the individual animals development.

    So who would we blame his wandering state on if he was neutered?

    I’m glad the Earliscous boy is good hands, but I sincerely hope any owner looking for him finds him again. I’ve been on both sides of that and nor knowing is a terribly thing.

    Comment by Wendy — July 13, 2009 @ 3:44 pm

16. Yup. I’ve reunited several “street critters” with their owners in between 2-72 hours of finding them. Some of them were quite “unlikely.” Some had traveled a LONG way from their point last seen. I was gobsmacked when the screamin’ beagle had a microchip!

    I felt bad enough that I took two dogs to my home as much as 30 miles from where we found them (both during SAR training). But we stopped at my vet on the way for a scan, didn’t wait for days to check.

    This little guy’s owner may not be wired in enough to twitter him missing. Doesn’t mean they have no right to him.

    As for “thin,” he looks sleek to me, certainly not as thin as either my Rosie* or my Sophia, who both eat like warthogs from hell and are blessed with fiery metabolisms. Sophia after the exertion and stress of a three-day SAR deployment looks like she hasn’t eaten in a month, though she keeps shoveling it in at every break. I imagine a few days or a week of being chased by coyotes and dumpster diving could do worse.

    He’s a cute dog, and I’m glad he isn’t lunch for Wile E., but having “rescued” him doesn’t mean that all one’s subsequent conduct is exempt from scrutiny.

    *Who is, OMFG, intact and therefore a victim of my terrible neglect.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 13, 2009 @ 3:45 pm

17. fingers crossed that this is a love connection. whatever happens griff is lucky little guy. i know of a fantastic powder supplement that really helps newly rescued dogs get stronger asap. let me know if griff’s aunt betsy can send him a care package :)
    b

    Comment by betsy rosenfeld — July 13, 2009 @ 3:46 pm

18. And whether or not a person is on Twitter has nothing at all to do with thie overall discussion. Believe me, there are many folks who are even LESS interested in getting onto Twitter than they are in carrying around a cell phone all day! And some of them are even conscientious dog owners! {gasp!}

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 13, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

19. Pat … you are missing all of Christie clever tweats (@ChristieKeith on Twitter). For the brevity-challenged, she sure tweats some zingers in less than 140 characters.

    But honestly … right now I barely visit Twitter (@petconnection is me) and I don’t have a cell phone at all. Twitter is too much distraction, and as for the cell phone … I’m waiting for to buy an iPhone, but McKenzie’s spay is what I’m spending money on this month.

    Phyllis and Wendy … Earlicious! I love it.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 13, 2009 @ 4:06 pm

20. Well, y’know . . . maybe if I could do Excel on Twitter . . . . . (not that I’d need THAT for anything!) . . . .

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 13, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

21. Ok, here’s the update from the vet (since one thing I do know is that everyone here cares about Griff’s welfare). He has numerous abrasions, soft tissue injuries, cuts, etc. Front right leg is swollen and sensitive to touch. No suspected ortho issues, though (whew). They think he’s about 2 years old. His ears were filthy, but he was absolutely docile and patient while we cleaned them, and while his blood was drawn for heartworm test (neg). He has fleas (just got a dose of Frontline) and kennel cough. He got his rabies and distemper shots, as well as an shot of antibiotics. He’ll take Rimadyl for a couple weeks. He is not microchipped.

    As promised, I will post a “found” ad in LAT and Craigslist.

    Thanks everyone.

    Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 13, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

22. Twitter is a service that works the way my brain does. That’s why I love it.

    Comment by Christie Keith — July 13, 2009 @ 4:34 pm

23. He’s a great little guy with a great attitude. And he’ll soon be in good health. Keep us posted.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 13, 2009 @ 4:41 pm

24. Jennifer, thanks for sharing Griff’s story (and thanks to everyone who pulled together to get him to safety). I’m looking forward to the next installment. However it goes, he’s a very lucky dog.

    Comment by Kim Thornton — July 13, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

25. Christie - {giggle!}

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 13, 2009 @ 5:29 pm

26. Late to the party, but:

    just to address h. houlahan, i am the person who found the dog, he is emaciated

    No, not if that’s a picture of him. He’s a nice, healthy weight—no matter how used you’ve become to the sight of fat dogs and cats.

    and intact and about (in my opinion) 1 yr. old, to not be neutered already is neglect.

    My dog, currently dozing beside me after breakfast, was intact at a year old, and for a couple of months longer. And unlike Gina and Heather and others here, I don’t even have the “excuse” of being a breeder with a carefully planned litter somewhere in the future. My dog was underweight when she arrived, and my vet didn’t think it was wise to rush her into surgery before she’d put on a half pound or so and settled in.

    There’s any number of reasons why even someone who does plan to spay or neuter at an appropriate time, may not have done so by an arbitrary date of your choosing.

    he is also not a runner as he would follow me outside in the front yard and not run another red flag…

    An acquaintance of mine took two of her dogs to a show. It was an outdoor show. There was an accident, and one of her dogs was injured. She left the other dog in the care of a friend with a different breed—and something happened to startle the dog, and she leaped out of the expen that the friend had assumed would certainly contain such a small dog. And the dog, not normally a runner, badly startled and in an unfamiliar place, took off.

    It took my acquaintance two weeks to finally locate and recover her dog, scared, underweight, scratched up, sunburned—and many miles from where she’d been lost. My acquaintance understood that dogs when lost and scared can travel a lot further than we expect, and spread posters and called vets and shelters and AC over a much larger radius than seemed reasonable—and finally got a call from someone further out than that who’d seen a little hairless dog who was too scared to come to them.

    More recently, another acquaintance’s husband responded to a car rollover accident in which a chihuahua had been riding loose in the car, was thrown out the open window, and took off in terror—again, not ordinarily a runner. Fortunately, he was found within a day or two.

    IF he did have an owner they were not good owners and he deserves a better home,

    You have no idea what kind of home he came from, or how he came to be where you found him and in the condition you found him. If were underweight, which he doesn’t appear to be, you should stop to consider how quickly a little dog at genuinely healthy weight (not with the extra padding of fat that too many people think is a healthy weight for dogs) will lose weight if it has access to water but not food, and is running scared.

    there were no signs as i did look in the area. he is now safe and that is all that matters.

    Most people have no idea how far and how fast a pet can wander when lost. Some friends of mine recovered their lost cat when the sign they put in a store that was further away than he could possibly have gone, was seen by someone living further away than that, who then called to say, “I think I’ve been feeding your cat.” There were several miles and a major highway in between where the cat was lost and where he was found.

    Someone near me lost her cat and put up signs up and down the street and on side streets and everywhere she thought the cat could possibly have gone. None on my street, though, and I called her to tell her that she needed to paper my street and surrounding streets in all directions at the least, because I knew that even his normal wandering included my street. (Innocent that she was, she hadn’t known that.) But what finally found the cat for her was an ad in the local major newspaper, which was seen by someone in the next town who were very disappointed to realize that they lovely cat they’d taken in had an owner who was looking for him.

    All too often, neither those who lose pets, nor those who find them, understand how far afield they need to look to find the pet, or find the owner.

    It’s made worse, of course, when the finder takes the position that the very fact of the animal being lost, and in rough shape after being on its own for a while, means that the owners were bad owners and don’t deserve to have their pet back.

    Comment by Lis — July 14, 2009 @ 6:01 am

27. Jennifer, thanks for the vet update. I was fearing more involvement so your report is a real relief. Do they think the swelling will just go down in that leg? No NSAID necessary, I gather? Seems like what he needs most is some TLC in a safe environment, and that he is going to have in spades.

    I confess that “earlicious” is not my original term, but one I picked up from Nancy Roberts, who used to do GSD rescue. It’s become one of my favorite terms. Nancy also used to put signs on certain GSD’s crates at adoption fairs that said “I like cats. They taste like chicken.” Nancy kills me.

    Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — July 14, 2009 @ 6:17 am

28. Here is a link to a body scoring chart:

    http://www.cvm.tamu.edu/clinic.....sdog.shtml

    LOTS of people have overweight dogs and don’t realize it. And the sad part is that even VETS can become somewhat desensitized to this. A friend’s dog was putting on weight, and her vet told her the dog was fine. I directed her to this chart and she started cutting back, and now the same vet says that the dog is now at a better weight - it’s just that he sees so many obese dogs that he no longer bothers trying to get people to correct it unless it’s getting extreme. Pretty sad state of affairs if you ask me.

    As for the “IF he did have an owner they were not good owners and he deserves a better home” comment - that seems to be part of an overall pattern in a lot of rescuers. The attitude often goes hand-in-hand with the “We’re gonna screen homes so thoroughly that almost NO ONE can qualify” position with is frequently an indicator of the subtext “No one really knows how to take care of dogs as well as I do”.

    And to give amy some credit - she is far from the only rescuer to have adopted this perspective. A lot of these attitudes have become deeply enculturated within the rescue community. At its extreme, it convinces some rescuers that it’s okay to actually go and take a dog or cat from its owners (not one that they had initially placed) if they don’t agree with the way the animal is being cared for. I’ve seen people brag about doing this on discussion boards and get cheered on by other posters. And I’m not talking about abuse cases here.

    It’s all part and parcel of the widespread attitudes that need to change in all KINDS of people if we wish to become a No-Kill Nation. It’s actually kind of a good thing that amy came here and expressed her thoughts, because it reminds us of how well-intentioned such people are, even if they are misdirected.

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 14, 2009 @ 6:19 am

29. The OTHER Pat,

    Are you part of the rescue community? If so, how have you kept yourself from becoming suspicious and fearful, which is what I think drives the attitudes you see on those discussion boards?

    I have to work VERY HARD some days to keep an open mind, to assume the best about potential adopters’ ability — not just desire, but ABILITY — to care for an animal, despite red flags I see. Maybe not flaming red flags, maybe a pink flag. There is almost always a pink flag. How does a person approach every new adopter with total lack of prejudice when she’s seen neglect over and over and over?

    I have done a tiny amount of rescue and placement on my own, but even still I have at least one blunder on my record that haunts me to this day. You had better believe I won’t make that particular mistake again. Does that make me unable to fairly assess an adopter? Probably. But I’ll keep the animals here as long as it takes to find what I consider the right home. That does NOT mean “nobody can take care of them as well as I can.” Trust me, I know plenty of people who are better caregivers than I am. That’s what keeps ME in this, the wins.

    As for this specific thread, I am NOT saying it’s OK to keep the dog without doing a thorough search for his owners. And I too think it’s great that Amy posted here, because she’s had the opportunity to learn things about dog/cat roaming that she can use in the future (and teach to others).

    What I am saying is that I GET where Amy is coming from. I understand the anger — it’s part of what makes people get into rescue in the first place. I understand the temptation for black/white thinking. The trick is to feed your head with as much information as possible, from many different sources, to keep the anger from making you do foolish things, like keeping a runaway pet from owners who may be excellent (there I go judging!) and distraught.

    Speaking of a variety of sources and voices, I really wish more people from shelters would post in these comments. I don’t work at one, but I volunteer with several and have for many years. There is a lot of anti-shelter sentiment here that goes unchallenged. Whatever happened to Stellaluna?

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 14, 2009 @ 7:47 am

30. Comment by Mary Mary — July 14, 2009 @ 7:47 am

    You wrote:
    how have you kept yourself from becoming suspicious and fearful, which is what I think drives the attitudes you see on those discussion boards?

    And later I think you answered your own question when you wrote:
    The trick is to feed your head with as much information as possible, from many different sources

    You asked if I was “part of the rescue community” and I will answer by saying I provide support in the form of donations of money, needed items, and occasional time helping out at adoption events. So I am not as immersed as some, and that’s probably got a lot to do with it. Because it’s HARD when you’re very enmeshed with a community not to become enculturated to the attitudes and mores of that community. Heck - it goes on at this blog to some extent. It’s human nature.

    So - as you said - I think the trick is to cultivate a certain amount of distance and objectivity, and a good way to do this is to “feed your head with as much information as possible, from many different sources”. Or - as some people put it - “Question everything”.

    None of that should require that a person no longer remain true to their core values, of course. But looking at new information is always a good thing, and then being honest with yourself about whether your reasons for either accepting or rejecting that new information is not only consistent with who you are, but whether it is in the best interest of the animals as well.

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 14, 2009 @ 8:27 am

31. I get where Amy’s coming from, too. Remember, I ran a rescue. People can make you crazy with flimsy reasons for giving up pets and lack of planning to keep pets.

    Funny you mention the bad placement that haunts you. I am haunted by the bad intake that haunts me.

    I got a call from a woman who needed to re-home a dog because of divorce. I met her at a parking lot, where she sat holding the dog in her arms and crying into her fur. The woman’s face was puffy and red, and the dog was kissing her.

    She told me that found a job in the state where her family lived, and that she found an apartment there, but couldn’t find one that took pets. She could barely keep from crying as she asked me how we were going to find the dog a home.

    I was cold to her. This dog loved her, and was trying to comfort her, and she was ‘throwing the dog away’ in my eyes. And she had the nerve to cry and act all sad about it! Grrrrr. I gave her no sympathy — it was all about the dog, I figured, and the dog deserved better than this woman!

    I know she drove away crying, and I know I drove away angry at her.

    OK, so flash forward to now and I can’t believe what a bitch I was. I have seen a lot of divorces, abusive situations, job-losses, disasters and other personal tragedies. This woman took the time to find breed rescue, and to ask me lots and lots of questions about our placement criteria. I have come to realize that she DID love this dog (which, duh, those were not crocodile tears, no matter what I thought at the time). She was doing the best she could.

    Many if not most people who say “I would never give up my pet” have never been so personally challenged as many of the people who do. And if we are to have compassion, it needs to be for people and animals, both.

    Do some people throw away pets too easily? Undoubtably so. But others would keep them if we helped them to do so. For the rest, taking in pets in need is what SHELTERS and RESCUES are for.

    The whole thing reminds me of how when I was growing up people used to blame battered women for their fate. They weren’t good enough wives, or they didn’t have sense enough to leave.

    Now, who would think of blaming the residents of a women’s SHELTER for their situation?

    I placed that woman’s dog in a great home and the dog lived to be 17 with that family. (Nine years ago, I came to work at the same company as the husband … small world!). I wish there were some way I could let that woman know what happened, and how sorry I am that I didn’t see that she needed my help as much as her dog did.

    When I get angry at “bad people” these days, I try to put myself in their shoes. Sometimes you don’t even need to walk a mile in them … just a few steps are enough.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 14, 2009 @ 8:53 am

32. This surely has been an interesting discussion! Just wanted to confirm for all that the following ads have been placed… in LAT starting Thurs: Dog Sweet male Riverside Blvd, Griffith Prk on 7/10 Gold hair, aprx 40lb call to id. And CraigsList: http://losangeles.craigslist.o.....70100.html. Yo-Griff update today: dogs are each asleep in separate rooms, not showing a lot of interest in each other.

    Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 14, 2009 @ 2:55 pm

33. Griff and Yo are both resting comfortably - in different rooms and without much interest in one another. Good.

    Wanted to close the loop and let you all know the following ad will run Thurs-Sun in the LAT: Dog Sweet male Riverside Blvd;
    Griffith Prk on 7/10 Gold hair, aprx 40lb, call to id. And another on CL:
    http://losangeles.craigslist.o.....70100.html.

    Thanks again to everyone. I’ll let you know how things play out.

    Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 14, 2009 @ 3:07 pm

34. I see that Jennifer has posted an ad to Craig’s List, though not the LA Times.

    Looking at the lost & found ads of Craig’s List Los Angeles, I am driven to ask, is the National Dog of Los Angeles the rocket-powered greased Chihuahua?

    I did a reality check on my own city and a couple others, and nowhere else are there so many missing or found Chihuahuas. Or any, for that matter.

    Are they all trying to escape life confined to some idiot’s purse?

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 15, 2009 @ 8:16 am

35. I have two Chi-pursedog-whawhas next door, owned by a woman who has grown bored with the fact that her tiny pets bark, bite, poop and need to be fed.

    So they are outside in the yard mostly, while she is off in her black Mercedes SUV doing whatever it is bored, affluent young women do when their pro ballplayer boyfriends are out of town. The Chis bark, they scream and they engage in redirected aggression, tearing pieces out of each other and then screaming even more.

    They killed one of my chickens (I don’t blame them for this, since the chicken got into their yard), and they threaten me when I go into the chicken yard. They are the nastiest collective 8 pounds of flesh and teeth on earth.

    I find myself wishing *they* would run away from home. Or, really, that she would take care of them and just take them with her. In a purse would be fine.

    ***

    By the way … wouldn’t it be nice if the emerging social media person for the HSUS would come back and answer questions? I’ll drop her a note and suggest it.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 15, 2009 @ 8:40 am

36. My toy fox are often mistaken for chis.

    People do toy dogs a huge disservice by treating them as surrogate infants or fashion accents, then wondering why they end up as nasty, bitey neurotic monsters.

    From day one, mine are treated as dogs. No behavior unacceptable in a 100 pound dog is somehow OK in a 6-8 pound dog. Any time I’m at the vet with one, generally just routine stuff as they are healthy hardy little buggers, the staff raves over their temperaments, the fact I can hand them off to anyone, the fact they are not shrieking, drooling, snapping cringing little monsters.

    Do they like to be handled by strangers? Not really. Many toys don’t. Do they tolerate it, oh yes. Do they approach people of any age size and shape in a friendly manner? Yes. You never know, there could be a cookie involved

    Many of the chis and other small toy dogs who end up homeless have developed behavioral issues because they do not get treated like dogs. Call yourself anything you want. Mommy, Daddy, a “pet parent” but people PLEASE raise your toy dog like a dog. They and you will be far far happier.

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 15, 2009 @ 9:11 am

37. Sigh. The “I don’t have to train my dog because s/he is little” mindset that those of us with well-behaved little dogs have to deal with the fallout from.

    I take it you’ve been asked to re-home these little ones? I’m sure it goes without saying that you’ll remind the new owner(s) that little dogs need training/structure too . . . . .

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 15, 2009 @ 9:14 am

38. What do y’all mean when you criticize folks who regard their pets as surrogate babies?

    I’ve long wondered, because I do see mine as my feline and canine children, and I do indulge them shamelessly … but on the other hand, I don’t allow them to behave badly, or dandle them about, or dress them in frilly lace, or take them where they’re not welcome … none of which I’d do to a poor child, either.

    So … it seems to me that what y’all are talking about has squat to do with ‘surrogate babies,’ but rather … doll-babies, perhaps, living toys for the narcissistic.

    Now ‘scuse me while I go smooch a pooch and tell him he’s my itsy-bitsy darlin’.

    Comment by Eucritta — July 15, 2009 @ 9:31 am

39. I’m finding I’m much more indulgent with Faith, no doubt because she was born here.

    I’m really having to remind myself that she’s a 25-pound, 14-week-old hell-on-wheels puppy, not a fragile, blind little newborn who is just the most precious thing ever.

    Bad pet parent, spoiling Fido so!

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 15, 2009 @ 9:45 am

40. Eucritta, the people doing what is being criticized as treating their pets as “surrogate babies” would make really lousy, over-indulgent, and capriciously harsh parents to human children, too.

    People who act like good parents towards their four-legged kids, and provide love, discipline, exercise, good nutrition, and education according to their abilities and needs, are described as, and often describe themselves as, “treating their dogs like real dogs.”

    Comment by Lis — July 15, 2009 @ 9:55 am

41. Gina, it’s because in your mind’s eye, she’s still as tiny as she was on the day she was born (all 520 grams/1.15 pounds of her!)

    And Eucritta, I really don’t care if people dress up their dogs or even if they refer to them as their furkids. As long as they insist on proper social behavior - whether the “kid” in question is human or otherwise! (And you definitely do NOT sound like an offender! G!)

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 15, 2009 @ 10:00 am

42. Thanks, guys. I like to think I’m not an offender, at any rate, and Bertie recently did us proud at a local antiques shop that welcomes dogs (the Antiques Society in Sebastopol, Calif. for those interested … they’ve got treats behind the counter, too).

    Comment by Eucritta — July 15, 2009 @ 10:43 am

43. I tried posting two different times yesterday and it didn’t work for some reason… I did post a Craigs List FOUND ad for Griffith as well as an LAT ad. The latter starts tomorrow and runs through Sun.

    Just as an aside and for those who are curious… A trainer came to the house last night and after working with Griffith told me she doubted he’s been walked on a leash before. He’s also not house-trained. I’ll hope any owner that does come forward is open to some dialogue about giving Griffith a little more attention and training. He’s a smart little sponge who is responding well to my corrections and encouragements.

    Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 15, 2009 @ 11:06 am

44. Jennifer, how is Griffith’s health today?

    Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — July 15, 2009 @ 11:33 am

45. Thanks Phyllis for asking! Griffith is doing well. He is still limping, but it’s going to take some time. We went on a walk around the block and he did fine. His scabs (from the bites/cars) are starting to fall off and his blood test came back totally normal. He has a good appetite and likes to sleep.

    In fact, he dreams A LOT. I wonder what crazy adventures he’s had in the last while that are fodder for the cute little woofs he makes while he’s sleeping.

    Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 15, 2009 @ 11:44 am

46. Oh, and in other good news… while I’m in DC next week, my trainer (Megan with Common Sense Dog Training) is going to take Griffith and he’ll get a week’s worth of intensive training, and some swimming therapy in her pool.

    The dog just keeps getting luckier every day.

    Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 15, 2009 @ 1:09 pm

47. Gina/Other Pat/Mary Mary - I can understand where each and every one of you are coming from.

    I run a private rescue, and have co-founded a group in my city trying to improve the animal control situation.

    And some days, I can be very, very bitter.

    I don’t mean to be - I really don’t. Most days I’m not. But there are days…

    I can totally sympathize with the placement that went wrong, the surrender gone poorly, and having to overcome the idea that no one is good enough.

    I’ve really relaxed over the past year. However, I still get wound up when I get emails like “We are looking for a basset hound, female, brown and white, no older than four months, for around $100. Thank you!”

    Yeah… I’ve NEVER had a basset in (not a popular breed around here) and certainly don’t get dogs to order. As for a $100 adoption fee, that wouldn’t cover the initial visit, let alone the speuter of an 80lb dog. I mean, we rarely even break even on adoption fees, but we are not a charity in that sense.

    Lately I have taken to searching out pet owners who honestly can not afford our adoption fee and matching them with pets who have been in the system for longer than I am comfortable with. At first it didn’t sit well with me - I’ve always been one of those rescuers who (whether I would admit it at the time or not) took income into the equation of application review.

    Thanks to the tireless efforts of Gina and Christie, I can admit that I was wrong.

    However, I still fight those gut urges to get angry, angry, angry.

    Also, I completely sympathize with the sentiment expressed earlier - I don’t know for SURE that this home is “worthy,” but I do know for SURE how I can take care of this pet. The way I have always explained it is that I am responsible for this little life. Whether the pet in question was simply a throwaway, or whether it was lovingly surrendered (more and more of the latter with this economy) I feel an intense responsibility towards every rescue that passes through my hands.

    I may not be so intensely personal about it if I was in a shelter as opposed to running a rescue out of my own home, with ALL the pressure on me and only me.

    Others’ experiences may vary, and I’d be very interested to hear them!

    Comment by Kim — July 15, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

48. Kim,

    Thank you very much for that post. The volunteer work I do is a hybrid … I do some direct rescue in my home (very limited), but mostly I work with and through the local shelters. I recruit volunteers, I teach classes, I produce events, etc.

    The point you raise about judging adopters on their income is one I struggle with a lot. In my experience, it sure does seems like people with money (however that is defined) really ARE more suitable adopters because —- from what I have seen over and over again —- they are MUCH more likely to provide vet care, routine and emergency, when their pet needs it.
    Anyone can provide attention and affection and, we hope, food. But what about VET care?

    I wonder what you think about a situation I ran into recently. I met a man at the shelter. He and I were chatting. He told me he had a pet who broke its leg. He told me he couldn’t afford the surgery, so he had the pet euthanized. I told him how sorry I was and then I was pulled away to do other things.

    Later I found out was at the shelter that day to adopt a new pet! And he did! He went home with one. Hope it doesn’t get hurt or sick.

    >:-\

    I do not know if he told the adoption counseler that he withheld medical treatment for his pet. I do not know if the shelter would have denied him the new animal had they known he equated broken leg = euthanize.

    That surgery would have cost about $500.

    Now, was this guy a “good” owner? Or was he someone who did not deserve a new animal?

    If he had adopted directly from me and euthanized over a $500 surgery, I would have freaked, and I would NEVER (there goes that word I don’t like to use) … OK, I HOPE I would never hand another animal over to him.

    Although, knowing how I usually am after I calm down, I would probably do intense coaching with him about vets that take payments and other resources, and, once he adopted from a shelter (not one of MY animals), I would stay in touch with him, offer help, try to head off crises.

    Where do you draw the line with the money issue? A person might be able to give food and shelter to a pet, but if they can’t afford vet care … then what?

    I don’t know how resourceful this man was. I don’t know if he shopped around to different vets, asking about fees, or if he asked about making payments, etc.

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 7:02 am

49. A hunnred bux? Your “bad” prospectives are willing to spend a hunnred bux?

    The worst we get are people who expect the dog to be free.

    A dog who was pulled from a kill pound (we pay anywhere from $7 to $100 for pull fees, depending on where), driven maybe several hundred miles to a foster home, neutered, vetted, sometimes plenty of vetted (one of my recent guys needed a dental specialist for a tricky broken tooth) — but guaranteed, a few hundred for neutering, vaccinations, and parasite control, fed and loved by an unpaid volunteer for months, received hours and hours of training — in many cases, donated professional training (thousands of dollars worth), sometimes taken to a stockdog trainer and started, and through it all, carefully and realistically evaluated so that we can make the best possible match. Then, frequently, transported to you. A healthy, vetted, trained, young adult dog who is ready to become your friend and partner.

    But the real bottom feeders are indignant that there is (a) an application process with reference check, and a contract, and; (b) a $200 adoption fee.

    “Why, you think those people would be grateful that I’m willing to give a dog like that a home!”

    Announcing right out that they consider the “rescue dog” a piece of trash, and themselves saints for even considering it. Why, we should pay them for taking him.

    What prevents the bitter? The fact that 95% of our prospective adopters (and all the successful ones) are NOT like this. The adopters who take the old, the shy, the Oh God he is dysplastic and consider them precious gifts. The ones who take the young dog with potential and exceed that potential, refusing to make excuses because “He’s just a rescue.” The ones who send foster-mom those Christmas pictures every year, forever. The ones who come back for another dog, the ones who think of fundraisers and make it happen in our time of special need. The ones who contribute every year, so that we can keep those adoption fees hundreds of dollars lower than our costs.

    Hard to be cynical when there are people like that in the world, all loving the same dogs I’ve loved.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 16, 2009 @ 7:06 am

50. Mary Mary —

    When I was young and broke and my dog needed $3000 worth of surgery, I did everything I could to be sure he got it. Meanwhile, all the rich folks I knew clucked their tongues at me and told me they’d have just put him down. Replacement dog is cheaper, dontcha know.

    They thought nothing of affording a yacht a vacation home though.

    Well off people might have more than enough money for routine care and emergencies, but that only matters if they actually care to use it for a dumb ol’ pet.

    Comment by E. Moon — July 16, 2009 @ 7:18 am

51. Oops — yacht or a vacation home. Typing skills haven’t woken up yet, it seems.

    Comment by E. Moon — July 16, 2009 @ 7:19 am

52. The point you raise about judging adopters on their income is one I struggle with a lot. In my experience, it sure does seems like people with money (however that is defined) really ARE more suitable adopters because —- from what I have seen over and over again —- they are MUCH more likely to provide vet care, routine and emergency, when their pet needs it.
    Anyone can provide attention and affection and, we hope, food. But what about VET care?

    I wonder what you think about a situation I ran into recently. I met a man at the shelter. He and I were chatting. He told me he had a pet who broke its leg. He told me he couldn’t afford the surgery, so he had the pet euthanized. I told him how sorry I was and then I was pulled away to do other things.

    What I think is this: You don’t know what this guy’s income was. The only thing you know is that he didn’t provide the surgery. You don’t know whether he made $15,000 a year and is evidence for your theory that poor people can’t provide good care, or $150,000 a year and is evidence against your theory.

    You only know that he didn’t provide the surgery, and said that he “couldn’t afford” it.

    Comment by Lis — July 16, 2009 @ 7:29 am

53. E. Moon,

    I hear you. I also wonder if they said that to you because some affluent people can be pretty good at telling less affluent people how to spend (not spend) their money — know what I mean?

    Of course they will spend $1000 for an MRI for their dog but if a “broke” person does that it’s wasteful or foolish.

    And of course their dog is even more worth it because it has papers and they paid $3,000 for it and your dog is, well, just a poundpuppy.

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 7:40 am

54. Jennifer, how wonderful that Griffeth can spend a whole week with your trainer and have access to her pool for some therapy. Those ears alone should keep him afloat.

    You may come home to a phenomenally improved earlicious boy!

    Any response from your ads?

    Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — July 16, 2009 @ 7:46 am

55. A post of mine on this thread has gone poof. Gina?

    Anyway, the $500 surgery thing.

    That both is and isn’t a lot of money.

    My main concern would be not the decision to euthanize instead of treat, but two conceptual failures:

    1) Pets are interchangeable, it’s cheaper to get another than to repair this one (the DVD player principle);

    2) Nothing could possibly go wrong with this new one — I can afford it just fine.

    I’m not at all saying “poor man should not have pet.” I am saying “Man who can’t/won’t spend $500 on one pet has no business taking on new pet.

    (And of course, when a bad leg break is involved, the poor man’s solution has often been amputation — cheaper, often fewer complications during recovery, and frankly, the long-term prognosis is often better. I think sometimes the urgency to “save the leg” on a dog or cat is more about the surgeon’s ego than the patient’s welfare.)

    Comment by H. Houlahan — July 16, 2009 @ 7:52 am

56. Lis, I was with you conceptually up until the part about him going in for his “replacement pet”. The points H. Houlahan outlines capture my feelings well. Did that added “twist” have any effect on your reaction to the story?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 7:56 am

57. Lis,

    That is a very good point. You are right. I don’t know his income.

    I admit I made an assumption based on where he lives. Also, more than that, I made the assumption based on the fact that he seemed very upset about losing his pet, and spoke lovingly about him. So I figured he couldn’t afford the treatment — why else would he put down a young animal that he clearly loved? Over $500?

    I am not affluent and I would pay that without hesitating over a beloved animal. What if it were $100? Or $25?

    Lis, one correction. It’s not that poor people CAN’T provide vet care. It’s that I think they are LESS LIKELY. There are no absolutes in any of this. When I hand over an animal, I am trying my imperfect best to make a decision based on many factors. I am not so small-hearted or close-minded to think that poor people don’t deserve pets. I know plenty of low-income people who find a way to get treatment for their animals when they need it. But the cost of care is something I am very candid about when counseling a potential adopter.

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 7:57 am

58. Lis, I was with you conceptually up until the part about him going in for his “replacement pet”. The points H. Houlahan outlines capture my feelings well. Did that added “twist” have any effect on your reaction to the story?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 7:56 am

    I wonder if you misread my post.

    My point was this: Mary Mary is assuming that the guy “couldn’t afford” (as he said) the $500 surgery because he was low-income. I say, she has no evidence that he was low-income, high-income, or middle-income. She only knows he said he “couldn’t afford” the $500 surgery.

    He may have had what she would consider an ample income if she were screening him as a potential adopter, and still made the heartless decision to kill rather than treat.

    Going for replacement pet right after, when whatever factors that made him say he “coudn’t afford” a $500 emergency for his previous pet, yes, I agree, that’s appalling.

    But that wasn’t the point I was responding to.

    That is a very good point. You are right. I don’t know his income.

    I admit I made an assumption based on where he lives. Also, more than that, I made the assumption based on the fact that he seemed very upset about losing his pet, and spoke lovingly about him. So I figured he couldn’t afford the treatment — why else would he put down a young animal that he clearly loved? Over $500?

    Mary Mary, I did not include this information in my response because you did not include it in your original description. Yes, that sounds like someone who quite likely truly could not afford the $500, and should think carefully about the wisdom of taking on another pet right now.

    E. Moon,

    I hear you. I also wonder if they said that to you because some affluent people can be pretty good at telling less affluent people how to spend (not spend) their money — know what I mean

    Of course they will spend $1000 for an MRI for their dog but if a “broke” person does that it’s wasteful or foolish.

    You’re assuming as fact that they would pay it, but that’s an assumption truly without supporting evidence. Jon Katz would not spend $1000 for an MRI on his dog, Orson, “the best dog in the world,” and his dogs are the source of his income.

    Income is not nearly as significant a factor as you would make it, in a person’s willingness to do what their pets need.

    Obviously, if a rich person wants to spend $1000 on an MRI for their pet, doing so will not be a challenge, will not involve scrimping or borrowing from family and friends, or maxing out the credit card. And yes, there are things expensive enough that a poor person will be forced to euthanize where a wealthy person could have easily treated. But income alone is not sufficient to determine what will or willnot be done, when the rubber meets the road.

    Comment by Lis — July 16, 2009 @ 8:14 am

59. Mary Mary - I’m with you. He would NOT have received a dog from me, although I can assure you that our local shelter would have provided him with a dog, no problem.

    My rationale is this - while I have been able to overcome my urge to insist that adopters be middle class at least (for the record, I consider me and my husband to have low to middle class income and we care for our pets more than just fine..) I can not overlook the “replacement” dog issue.

    I’ve had two memorable situations where people sat in my living room visiting with a rescue dog and casually told me about 1) a dog who was euthanized because of chronic ear infections (chronic meaning six months, the dog being two years of age) and 2) another young dog, this one would get diarrhea if he ate ANYTHING outside his regular food. The owner was “sensitive to odor” and had the dog put down so that she didn’t have to clean up crap any more (cause, ya know, making sure the dog doesn’t eat anything is just WAY too much effort).

    Both individuals were kindly asked to leave.

    In regards to affording daily supplies, that’s where I really have trouble. I’m a dog food nazi - no, really. I recently adopted out a little JRT with ligament and joint issues, and got a call the next day that the dog had diarrhea… but she had only given the ten pound dog four large milk bones. My head almost exploded, and it took EVERY bit of restraint to calmly tell her that this dog has never eaten anything artificial, any corn/wheat/soy and certainly four large milk bones are excessive.

    I brought her a case of teenie weenie all natural grain free human grade biscuits to drive the point home.

    While I find that 90% of the time I can educate people regarding the food issue, the costs are definitely a concern. Of course, most of us know that feeding good food is cheaper in the long run than feeding cheap food (and more of it!) but when the owner is sitting in the store comparing a $9.99 bag to a $19.99 bag, it can be a hard sell.

    Like I said, I’ve come down quite a bit… but there are still some things I won’t deal with and an individual who appears to care for his dog as little as the man in your story is over my line of tolerance.

    And yes, I said “appears.” No, I don’t know for sure. But while screening potential homes, all I have to go on is appearances and gut feelings. Unfortunately…

    Anyone know what a used lie detector goes for these days?? ;O)

    Comment by Kim — July 16, 2009 @ 1:55 pm

60. In regards to affording daily supplies, that’s where I really have trouble. I’m a dog food nazi - no, really. I recently adopted out a little JRT with ligament and joint issues, and got a call the next day that the dog had diarrhea… but she had only given the ten pound dog four large milk bones. My head almost exploded, and it took EVERY bit of restraint to calmly tell her that this dog has never eaten anything artificial, any corn/wheat/soy and certainly four large milk bones are excessive.

    I brought her a case of teenie weenie all natural grain free human grade biscuits to drive the point home.

    You didn’t discuss feeding with them before sending the dog home with them? Why not? Too busy scanning their pay stubs and tax returns to be sure they were the right economic class?

    While I find that 90% of the time I can educate people regarding the food issue, the costs are definitely a concern. Of course, most of us know that feeding good food is cheaper in the long run than feeding cheap food (and more of it!) but when the owner is sitting in the store comparing a $9.99 bag to a $19.99 bag, it can be a hard sell.

    Y’know, when I was younger and less information was available, I had both dogs and cats who were healthy, happy, and well cared for, on food that today I wouldn’t let in the door. And today, my sister and I strongly disagree about what constitutes “good food” for our respective animals, but again, they’re healthy, happy, and well cared for.

    These days, no matter how much more information is available to anyone reading this blog, you have to remember, it depends to a great extent on being internet-savvy and information literate. There are a lot of people who love their pets and take good care of them, who could not find or independently evaluate this kind of information to save their lives—and in many cases, if you tell them, you have to remember that you may be contradicting their vets.

    It is possible, perhaps, to have a more constructive, less judgmental, attitude.

    Comment by Lis — July 16, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

61. Let’s tone down the snark, please. The interests of animals are best served when we can all discuss these issues civilly and learn from each other, even when we disagree.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 16, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

62. Lis, put your beatin stick away, k?

    Perhaps you failed to read the entire post, or the post before that, or the post before THAT?

    I get it. I still have trouble with it. I admit it.

    What more do you want me to say? Would you prefer I carried on with business as usual and simply posted here that I was the picture of rescue perfection (as I can only assume you are, given the tone of your response).

    For the record, I have a LARGE amount of information that goes to every adopter when they apply. They are the take-it-or-leave-it rules. You will NOT tether your dog unattended. You will NOT debark/declaw your pet. You will NOT leave the pet outside unattended. You agree to feed a high quality diet free of corn, wheat, soy, by-products, artificial flavours/colours/preservatives. Etc, etc.

    The woman I just adopted to (the JRT) is retired. After purchasing a bed, crate, bowls and toys, I took 1/3 of the adoption fee in a postdated cheque. She needed a dog, and this dog needed her.

    I am not a cold-hearted nut. I am not a holier-than-thou lunatic. I am not an elitist.

    But I am not going to lie and say that I don’t have reservations about adopting to people who quite possibly can not afford an emergency, or who are unable to provide the pet with at least quality food.

    I UNDERSTAND that these feelings may not be acceptable in this circle. I am working to get over them while still maintaining my own values and not omitting the responsibility I feel for the life of each and every one of these critters.

    What probably bothers me the most about your little diatribe is the fact that while chastising me for judging people, you certainly are not shy about judging/making assumptions about me.

    I’m not about to apologize for being honest. If you feel that I don’t run my rescue up to your own personal standards, then perhaps you would like to deal with the 200-500 animals that pass through my doors every year.

    Sheesh.

    Comment by Kim — July 16, 2009 @ 3:04 pm

63. Hey Kim, I have a lot of respect for your introspection and self-honesty. Making self-change is HARD, and I applaud you for starting the difficult work.

    I do need to ask (and there is no snark implied here) whether or not you were posting here during the 2007 Pet Food Recalls. Because a hard lesson a lot of us learned at that time was that there wasn’t always as much difference between the “cheap” foods and the “premium” foods as many of us had been under the impression that there was. This is probably not the right thread for this particular discussion, but it was a real wakeup call for a whole lot of people.

    Takehome message for me and a lot of other folks: Don’t assume you know what is in that bag or can of pet food, no matter WHAT it says on the label!

    Another topic which has been discussed here before and is probably mis-placed in this thread is a pragmatic re-examination of the rules you put in place for your rescue which - while well-intentioned - may still be keeping dogs and cats out of good homes. The height of that discussion took place in the aftermath of the Ellen DeGeneres flap, and the idea we were examining had to do with overly-strict adoption policies and whether and how necessary a lot of them really were.

    Some examples are rescues that require a fenced yard, rescues that prohibit declawing of cats, and rescues that prohibit debarking of dogs. Although for many rescues these kinds of things are no-brainers, you’d be surprised how many other viewpoints were examined during some pretty in-depth and thoughtful re-examinations of previously held assumptions.

    Anyway, since it’s been a while since “The Ellen episode”, maybe Gina or someone might feel moved to start a new topic on balancing adopter requirements against getting animals into caring homes?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 3:27 pm

64. The OTHER Pat,

    I appreciate that little history lesson. It helps me, as a newcomer to this blog.

    I have noticed that, if there is any extreme collective view here in terms of screening adopters, it leans toward “all adopters are assumed to be perfectly fit and capable until proven drastically otherwise.”

    That has surprised me, because I run in rescue/shelter circles where we “joke” about looking up adopters’ Social Security numbers, running their fingerprints, sitting outside their homes in dark cars at 3 a.m.

    What we end up doing is providing 24/7 (literally) availability for crisis medical calls and other big and small problems, and we take back the animals if needed. Joyfully? NOPE. Minus a lot of complaining to each other? NOPE. I try to coach owners about ways to keep the animals, but it rarely works out that they do. I smile at them when they hand the animal back. I promise updates and I give them (if they want any). But I hate when a placement fails.

    There are a few landmines here, which is why I don’t post very often. I will look up the Ellen thread. I think it will be very educational.

    KIM — 200 to 500 animals? Wow. That is very impressive.

    Comment by Mary Mary — July 16, 2009 @ 3:49 pm

65. Here’s one for you:

    http://www.petconnection.com/b.....be-judged/

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 16, 2009 @ 5:19 pm

66. First, 500 animals was at our peak when we were bringing dogs over the border. Our adoption numbers have slowed to the point where we’re doing about 200 a year, although this year looks like it’s going to be less than that number due to a lack of fosters and adopters (no room at the inn!).

    Also, that number is “animals”, not “dogs.” We also take in small animals, although rarely, however we do handle a large number of birds and parrots.

    The OTHER Pat - not only was I around during the 2007 recalls, I was in the thick of it. I actually work in the industry, on the retail end.

    While so many people believe that they were shocked to learn there is little difference between crap and premium, I have a much different take on the situation. I believe people were shocked to learn that the food they had been sold as premium was no such thing.

    I have real issues with foods such as Nutro, Eukanuba, Science Diet, Royal Canin, Techni-cal and Nutram being referred to as “premium.” Actually, it seriously increased the pressure in my skull…

    These corn, by-product, soy and peanut hull filled creations are by no means premium. They do, however, charge a premium price to pay for premium advertising.

    That said, I agree with Gina’s point of view that no matter what you’re buying (Instinct or Ol’ Roy) you should be able to count on the product not being responsible for the toxic death of your pet.

    The idea that all foods are created equal is just as incorrect as the assertion that Science Diet is “premium.” There ARE some commercial foods that are different, even if they are in fact co-packed (something that’s damn near impossible to avoid unless you’re a HUGE company or you’re co-packing everyone else’s food!).

    When I refer to premium foods in my contract, my criteria for those foods rules out the vast majority of foods that consider themselves “premium.”

    As for the rest of our adoption criteria, we have relaxed substantially. The first six months we were involved in rescue we were…. well, difficult to deal with, no doubt.

    However, we don’t have very many demands in our contract aside from the obvious - no debarking, no declawing, no tethering/outdoor living (within reason), good food must be provided, proper veterinary care (although this is admittedly subjective) no hitting or physical abuse in training (and no, proper corrections do not qualify as physical abuse, we mean actual abuse!), and of course the animal must be returned to us if they are unable to keep them. This last one rarely comes into play, and the very few times it has we have generally provided support, advice and advertising to assist the owner in re-homing.

    As for criteria for adopters, we don’t go so far as to declare everyone fit until proven otherwise. Instead we tailor the criteria to fit the individual animal. We only require fenced yards for animals who have a history of bolting. We only restrict children if the dog’s temperament and/or size makes it necessary, etc, etc.

    Could we relax further? Of course. Will we? Perhaps. Our local humane society adopts to anyone who is under the legal limit in a home with altered pets and of course, if they have the check. Subsequently we get disturbingly large numbers of recently SPCA adopted dogs knocking on our doorstep because the owner quickly realizes that they are a terrible fit for that pet. :O( This alone keeps me cautious.

    At the moment we have a pretty low rejection rate (omitting the completely obvious ones like people who email me with lines like “that dog is coot, where can i pik it up?”) and a VERY low return rate. I’m satisfied with our current program - however, we are always re-evaluating both our procedures AND ourselves.

    Off topic, yes… but an interesting discussion nonetheless!

    Comment by Kim — July 17, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

67. “I have noticed that, if there is any extreme collective view here in terms of screening adopters, it leans toward “all adopters are assumed to be perfectly fit and capable until proven drastically otherwise.”

    No, not really. I think most of us here who do rescue placement go a lot on “feel”. If it does not feel right, it does not happen.

    When I say “benefit of the doubt” I mean I do not have many written in stone, predetermined requirements. Dogs get placed with someone whom I have good feelings about based on their answers to questions and meeting them in person.

    Kim, so the local humane will not adopt to homes with intact pets? Huh. Has it occurred to them that someone adopting an altered pet is LESS likely to breed than the intact dog owner who ends up buying another intact pet from the paper because the HS turned them away?

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 17, 2009 @ 7:04 pm

68. JenniferJ - I’m not sure that anything with a basis in logic or common sense has occurred to them.

    With intact pets in your home, you are an unfit adopter AND an unfit foster home.

    Yet they will adopt out a husky puppy to a retired, inactive senior because he “thought it was cute!” with nary a word about hair, exercise, training, exercise and hair. Honestly… I can’t think about them without my head reflexively shaking back and forth.

    There is also rampant corruption at the top of the chain of command. It’s a sad, sad state of affairs.

    Also, they’re a shelter that claims “no kill” by allowing animal control next door to take in all pets, and then cherry picking the most adoptable. Got a dog who has gone kennel crazy? A cat who develops a disease? No problem! Simply transfer said animal back over to animal control! After all, they never claimed no-kill, and the SPCA didn’t actually push the plunger, so no foul!

    Grrrr….

    Comment by Kim — July 17, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

69. Common sense is regrettably UN-common.

    Shelters which operate this way poison the idea of no-kill. The upper ranks of these places are also usually at the fore-front of pushing BSL, limit laws and MSN in their communities.

    Far easier to lay blame than self examine.

    Comment by JenniferJ — July 17, 2009 @ 9:29 pm

70. Actually, the SPCA did speak out against the BSL (although they have the option of not taking in hard to adopt pit bulls, and they don’t perform AC services, so it really didn’t matter to them either way), they are on board for a larger limit than our current (ONLY TWO! TOTAL! Cats + dogs + rabbits) and we’ve been lucky enough to avoid the MSN conversation.

    MSN was brought up during a few of our meetings and I truly believe I was instrumental in having it knocked off the agenda pretty quickly. They all know what a piranha I can be about things (removing the limit law is my current baby and we’ve been going back and forth for two years - them suggesting doubling or tripling the limit, me responding with a stern “NO limit is the only acceptable limit”).

    A low cost spay/neuter clinic is also in the works, but mostly because our group (made up of local rescue groups) has been putting together plans to raise funds to start a private clinic. And how terrible would it be for a private group to be seen as more proactive than the province’s largest “no-kill” SPCA?

    Our position is that a low cost clinic is necessary and we don’t give a good doG damn who runs it, as long as it’s managed properly and ethically (available to EVERYONE for starters).

    It’s sad, but we’re just waiting for the agenda to emerge… as it inevitably will.

    The only thing that’s sadder than our SPCA is our animal control/city hall.

    Comment by Kim — July 18, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

71. BTW - I am now officially referring to it as “UN-common sense”.

    Thank you.

    ;O)

    Comment by Kim — July 18, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

72. The trouble with common sense, as I see it, is that despite its name it’s largely intuitive. So, when we rely on it, we’re mostly relying not upon what we know, but what we think we know.

    If what you think you know is fact-based, reasonable and kind, then you’ll do well. If it’s based in ignorance, then you won’t.

    Comment by Eucritta — July 18, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

73. I think that applies to just about everything our minds do, Eucritta.

    I tell my clients all the time - you don’t know what you don’t know until you know it.

    Comment by Kim — July 19, 2009 @ 1:06 pm

74. Griffith update… he was neutered and microchipped today at the wonderful spay clinic run by the Sacramento SPCA.

    I have never been so happy to wait in line as I was TWICE today (dropping him off and picking him up). I had delightful conversations with the other folks who were there to have their animals spayed/neutered. It was clear they valued the opportunity the SPCA was providing and loved their pets dearly.

    Many were picking up dogs they had adopted over the weekend for the SPCA so I got to witness their joy at taking their new canine companions home. I swear shelters could make money letting saps like me sit behind some glass window and watch those moments - they just fill me up with so much faith and happiness.

    Griffith is home now, tired and shamed by his e-collar, but is sleeping it off.

    Didn’t get any responses to the CL or LAT “found” ads I posted, so we’re gonna assume he’s up for grabs and I’m claimin’ him!

    Comment by Jennifer Fearing — July 20, 2009 @ 7:14 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Syndication

• Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
• Subscribe to the Comments RSS

Recent Comments

• Jamie on: Unsaved: When the shelter that "rescues" a dog turns around and kills her
• Kim Campbell Thornton on: Politics of pet food safety: live-blogging Marion Nestle at CWA
• Sandi K on: Politics of pet food safety: live-blogging Marion Nestle at CWA
• Mary Haight on: Politics of pet food safety: live-blogging Marion Nestle at CWA
• Carol V on: Politics of pet food safety: live-blogging Marion Nestle at CWA
• Gina Spadafori on: Politics of pet food safety: live-blogging Marion Nestle at CWA
• Dr. Narda on: Ancient insight into modern pet personality types
• Bev on: Thanksgiving: Your pets and being grateful
• Rori on: Seasonal safety: Simple precautions will keep your pet healthy over the holidays
• Christie Keith on: What do shelter cats need to stay healthy? Space

Categories

• 2007 food recall
• administration
• animal charities
• animals: pets
  • behavior
  • medical
  • news
• animals:general
• Books
• contest
• Disasters
• dogcars.com
• dogmobiles
• feral cats
• Foreclosure pets
• GoodMorningAmerica
• GPE
• Gratuitous blogging
• Life
• Media
• No Christmas Puppies
• No Kill
• Pet-lover life
• pit bulls
• polls
• products
• puppy mills
• Syndicatedcolumn
• The blogroll
• The Making of a Therapy Dog
• Ultimatebooks
• Uncategorized
• Westminster
• Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
• Worth a click

Recent Posts

• Politics of pet food safety: live-blogging Marion Nestle at CWA
• Live from White Plains: David Frei on animal-assisted therapy
• What do shelter cats need to stay healthy? Space
• Beleaguered director to leave San Francisco SPCA
• PETA loves dog killers
• Scamming for Tramadol: A former vet tech gets busted
• Truth in advertising: So, I shouldn’t have mentioned the dogs … or the bumper sticker?
• Thanksgiving: Your pets and being grateful
• Canine influenza: What is it, what it’s not and what you should do
• Will our food — and our pets’ — be safer soon?

• Pet Connection Team

  • Each post is the opinion of the person who wrote it (click for our biographies).

• Search

• Read more from the Pet Connection team

  • -Dr. Marty Becker
  • -Gina Spadafori
  • Christie Keith
  • Dr. Narda Robinson
  • Dr. Tony Johnson
  • Keith Turner
  • Kim Campbell Thornton
  • Liz Palika
  • Mikkel Becker Shannon
  • Phyllis DeGioia
  • Susan and Dr. Rolan Tripp

• Worth reading

  • A Dog’s Life
  • Alltop: Pets
  • Ark Animals
  • B-More Bulldogs
  • BadRap
  • Best In Flock
  • Daily Vet @ PetMD (Dr. Patty Khuly)
  • Did A Cat Shit In Here?
  • Disapproving Rabbits
  • Dog Art Today
  • Dogged
  • Dogster
  • Dolittler
  • DrawTheDog
  • Food Politics
  • Frogdog Blog
  • Fugly Horse of The Day
  • Full Cry: A Hound Blog
  • Guinea Pig Connection
  • ICanHasCheezburger
  • KC Dog Blog
  • Land of PureGold
  • Lassie Get Help
  • Little Cat Diaries
  • Nathan Winograd
  • Ohmidog!
  • OncoDVM
  • Patricia McConnell
  • Pet Health and Nutrition
  • Pete the Vet
  • Petfinder blog
  • PetHobbyist.com
  • PetSitUSA
  • Raised By Wolves
  • Retrieverman
  • Sarah Andrew’s RockAndRacehorses
  • Smartdogs
  • Speaking For Spot
  • Terrierman’s Daily Dose
  • The Cat’s Meow
  • The No Kill Nation
  • Tortiball
  • Vet Blog @ Dogster
  • Vet On The Edge
  • Wildrun
  • Winn Feline Health
  • Worms and Germs
  • YesBiscuit!
  • Your Pet’s Best Friend

• Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008