Do you like this story?
Hard decision for parents-to-be: a sad farewell to Frankie
By Mikkel Becker
October 4, 2009
Our baby is due in early November, and that has prompted changes in our family. Some have been minor and pretty fun, such as painting bland white walls bright green to match the jungle nursery theme. Others more challenging, such as preparing the dogs for the major change of having another loved family member in our home.
The one change that has been among the hardest, however, was making the difficult decision to find a new home for Frankie, our bearded dragon.
My husband and I had raised Frankie since he was a hatchling, when his lizard body and tail barely matched the length of my pinkie finger. He is now nearly two feet long, a proper beardie with a gentle spirit that still loves to be held and handfed veggies and other fruits. Frankie followed us on holiday trips to visit family and even had his own stocking and snow covered pine tree statues set up to decorate his tank at Christmas.
My husband, Pat, became more involved in pursuing his masters degree, and I worked to learn to be a dog-trainer, and these changes meant less attention for Frankie. Although before getting Frankie I heard reptiles did not mind being alone and required little attention, my experience with Frankie taught me differently, as the little horned lizard showed he enjoyed human contact. Frankie scratched the glass sides of his pen frantically with his claws towards us each time we entered the room, and he visibly relaxed and fell asleep at times when we would take him out of his pen to hold him and rub his spiny back. Although Frankie would eat food out of his bowl, his excitement level increased tenfold when we were involved in the process and hand-fed him, taking his dining experience from a mundane hungry meal microwave dinner to a five-star dining experience just by us interacting with him.
Unlike our two Pugs who could request our attention by sitting on our laps or reminding us of their needs for walks and play just by sitting next to the door or bringing over a toy, Frankie’s demand for attention was more silent as he was separated from us by a glass cage and didn’t display the same signals of need that we would notice as readily. Although he was provided for well and received some time out of his pen with us a few times a week, his life wasn’t filled with the level of interaction and vibrancy that he received when he was young. With our baby on the way, the idea of keeping Frankie seemed less fair to him.
Pat and I spent weeks debating what to do. We both decided that we didn’t want to sell Frankie, as we wanted to be as sure as we could be that he would never be re-homed again. We wanted him to go to a home where he would be given the veterinary care and physical attention by someone who had enough resources to care for him, as reptiles can be very expensive to keep, especially when it comes to buying their food. Most of all, our main requirement was him going to a family where he would be held dear and his affection needs would be tended to.
Although our small apartment would be soon be crammed with baby gear in addition to Frankie’s 55-gallon enclosure, supply cabinet and lights on top of our concern for not having enough time for him, we knew that if we couldn’t find Frankie the right home, he would stay with us.
I began calling around to veterinary and pet contacts to find someone interested in adopting Frankie. I felt a cloud of shame overwhelming me on each call. As a shelter volunteer, I felt even more ashamed at my inadequacy to be keeping a pet, and felt like I was one of those owners who throw away unwanted pets as if dropping out-of-fashion clothes at Goodwill.
I came up with excuses for why we were letting Frankie go when I talked to people about him needing a home that made it seem less shameful.
“Reptiles carry salmonella, which is a hazard to children under the age of 6,” I would tell people over the phone as I explained his re-homing need. Although the salmonella excuse could be viable, I knew in my heart that it wasn’t the core issue, but that it simply was that Frankie had dropped down our priority list. I’ve heard from people dropping off pets in the shelter system is that they “don’t have enough time to give them the attention they need.” I had always scoffed off that excuse as a cop out for not taking the responsibility for their pet, but here I was in the same situation, with the same lame excuse, but this time the excuse I had blown off had actually become one directly at the core of our situation. Rather than keeping Frankie in a mediocre situation, we both wanted a home for him where he would be deeply cherished and given the time investment required.
All of our leads hit an embankment of turndowns. As summer was drawing to a close and the baby started getting even closer to her due date, I realized the time we had left was short. With prayers lifted and all pet contacts called, all we could do was wait and hope that the right home would come.
Our answer came unexpectedly one day in an e-mail, as a veterinary contact at the Washington State University School of Veterinary Medicine who specialized in reptile care said she had heard about our situation and was willing to take Frankie for us and find him the right home with a veterinary student. We were overjoyed at the tremendous gift of a veterinarian working to find our pet a new home, especially with a veterinary student whose life revolved around animals, but we were still struggling with the same guilt for being in the situation where we needed to surrender an animal.
We set the time and date to drop off Frankie at the veterinary school, and began the process of getting his belongings together. As I packed his items, the guilt I felt was mixed with feelings of nostalgia. I remembered all of the endearing things Frankie did, from slurping water with his tongue from the end of my finger to when we’d take him outside on his leash when we would garden and how he would bask lazily in the sun. Near the end of his time with us, the attention I gave Frankie further waned, as I couldn’t bear to get any more attached and make our parting hurt even worse.
Drop-off day finally came, and I packed up Frankie and the Pugs in my car for the four-hour drive from my parent’s home where we spent summer vacation back down to Pullman, Wash., the home of WSU.
I know cell phones and driving don’t mix, neither does having a dog running around wildly in the car when you’re driving, but I had never heard anything against holding a bearded dragon while you drive, so I took Frankie out of his tank as we drove so I could spend the last bit of time with him. He gripped onto my forearm, his head cocking towards the side to stare outside the window at passing cars with curiosity. I talked to Frankie as if he could understand every word, telling him how much I cared about him, how I would miss him, and promising him he would be going to a good home. His rounded, gold flecked eyes peered up at me and his tongue flicked out periodically as if to let me know he was paying attention to what I said.
As soon as we reached the veterinary schooll, I went inside to meet with the veterinarian, who had me sign papers over releasing responsibility to her. Before I had time to go out and say goodbye to Frankie, assistants were outside in the waiting room ready to carry away Frankie and his belongings. Everyone said how cute he was as they carried him and his belongings away. It wasn’t quite the solemn goodbye I had pictured — he was taken away so quickly – but it was better that way, I suppose, and I knew he would find a home that appreciated him. The veterinarian told me she had a couple of veterinary students interested in adopting Frankie, but that she would look over the homes herself to find the very best match for Frankie and would let me know what home he went to.
A couple of weeks passed before we got the answer that we had been waiting for. The veterinarian e-mailed me to say that Frankie was adopted by a girl going into vet school who loved Frankie from the minute she met him. The two were so inseparable that the veterinarian knew they were the right match.
I still can’t shake the guilt of giving up Frankie, but I am also filled with peace at the thought that he went to a home able to provide him the attention and time he deserved and needed. I hope to never give up a pet again, but in in Frankie’s case, re-homing was the best solution for us all.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Please don’t feel guilty for doing your very best for Frankie, even at an emotional cost to yourself. And congratulations on your impending arrival — you have a lot of joy ahead of you.
Comment by Susan — October 4, 2009 @ 3:20 pm
It’s often so hard to surrender a pet you love when you know it’s in their best interests but you are caught up tightly in the huge net of guilt.
We never know when it could happen to us, not matter how loudly we protest ” I’ll never surrender my beloved…..”! We just don’t know what life will throw at us. Kudos to you for doing right by Frankie and admitting you couldn’t meet his needs, no matter how much it hurt to admit it.
Comment by Anne T — October 4, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
You did the right thing - you did what was in HIS best interest. You could have been selfish and kept him, then he would have suffered, not physically, but emotionally. He is now a much loved pet. I did it once many years ago because I knew I could not meet the needs of a second dog that I had - named Finder, and I placed him in a home where he was loved fully and completely until the day he died this past May at the age of 10. I always missed my Daffy Duck dog, but I knew he was with the best home in the world for him. I was in his life for a time and then he went on to his forever home. I applaud you for making the right choice for Frankie.
Comment by Amanda — October 5, 2009 @ 8:26 am
I had tears in my eyes by the end of reading this post. I began reading with the thought that I might be disgusted by you giving up your pet; but instead, I felt a well of compassion for you. It’s very clear you love Frankie and did the very best you could in finding him a loving home. Though ideally, we could all stay together always, life so often throws us curve balls that require us to re-evaluate our reality. Bless you for realizing that Frankie’s quality of life would suffer in the new situation, and for making every effort to find him a loving new home.
Anne T. is right: We can all say we’d never do this or do that, but my own experience has taught me that sometimes, our options are very limited and our resources even more so. Reading this has taught me that compassion, not judgment, is something we would all do well to exercise more often.
Comment by Mary Shafer — October 5, 2009 @ 8:29 am
I too think you did the right thing. Much better for Frankie to be where he could continue to get the amount of attention needed for him to be happy. Its not as if you abandoned him at a shelter,you found a safe way to find his forever home.I know you miss him and feel guilty,but you did what was best for him. Congratulations on the the soon to be new baby also !
Comment by Leslie K — October 5, 2009 @ 8:38 am
Kel, I have very much enjoyed getting to know you and your family through my writing partnership with your dad. You are such a caring young woman, and I know you did what you did with Frankie in mind.
Of course, I have known for a few months now that you are expecting, and I have been so happy for you from the first. I am not sure your parents can yet see themselves as grandparents (!!) but I AM sure no child will ever be more loved than the baby you’ll be bringing into the world next month.
Congratulations!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 5, 2009 @ 8:46 am
Your wonderful, touching story reminded me of -how much we loved our Chinese Water Dragons - Godzilla and Zeus. They, too, responded to us much more than I expected from their little reptilian brains. Their water tubs inside of the large aquariums needed changing daily so they were allowed to romp around the room during the process. They never ran away from us - only to us for that gentle neck rub they so enjoyed. Downsizing before adding a baby is so wise. The greatest love is often giving up what we want for the benefit of the loved one!
Comment by Susan Tripp — October 5, 2009 @ 10:20 am
I’m very sorry you had to come to this decision. As you state it’s the standard ‘cop out’. Perhaps the owners of the other thousands of other pets given up due to a new baby are as genuine, I don’t know….
As it eventuated you don’t truly even know exactly *where* and to *whom* Frankie went do you ?
I really don’t mean to come across nasty, but reading this really disappointed me.
Comment by Alison — October 5, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
Kel, you made the right and brave decision.
Comment by Kim Thornton — October 5, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
I’d say this was a good story but the WSU-veterinary school of medicine contracts with the local animal control in the area I live - they take approx. 300 animal (mostly dogs) to do practice surgeries (then they are killed…er I guess euthanized) WSU has been taking homeless pets since 2003 from this area - I rescued a dog from their research lab (a gentle pit bull, I’ve had her for approx. 5 years) That vet school has caused a lot of sadness for this area in my opinion - but I’m sure there are good people there like the person who is re-homing your pet.
Comment by mary francis — October 5, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
These are very tough decisions. I’ve rehomed pets of my own twice in my life:
1) Bobby (1994), a Sheltie I kept from when I was running breed rescue because he was just so full of joy. Then I was in the hospital for a week after leaving my body — I kid you not! — in the ER.. I was so sick and so scared and so sure I wasn’t going to live. So weak I could barely move. I was off work almost three months. I just couldn’t care for him. I had one other dog who could “chill” — but Bobby could not. I placed him with a family who had him the rest of his life.
2) Pip, a GSD (2008). I wrote about him here on this blog. He was a wonderful, happy dog, very sweet. But I asked rescue to take him back because I could not keep from from body-slamming poor old Heather and because I was dealing with some health problems in my family that took a lot of my time and worry on top of book deadlines. Pip was young, strong and playing rough. Heather was fragile, elderly and living in fear of being knocked off her feet. She cried in pain the last time he T-boned her here and knocked her off the deck, breathless, and since my house is not big enough to have kept them separate, that was it for him as a member of our family. Heather had to come first. His original GSD rescue foster family is now his forever home and he roughhouses there with another young GSD named Sophie. Bless the the rescue folks for being understanding, not recriminating.
Such decisions are indeed loaded with shame, guilt and a sense of failure. But I believe we need to cut people some slack when they really do the best they can for the animals they are re-homing. Which I did, and which Mikkel did. None of these pets were thrown away like yesterday’s fashions. The decisions made for them were responsible, and they were not taken lightly.
Same as with Jennifer’s rehoming of Griffy.
It’s easy to say, “I would never …” until your life changes and you have to. And if that happens, you can and should do what’s best for the pet and others involved.
I admire Mikkel’s bravery in writing about a subject she knew might get her ripped. But in so doing, I knew she hoped we’d get some discussion going. Animal activists need to stop being so damn judgmental, and we’ve discussed that here before. It may make some people feel morally superior, but it’s NOT helping pets or people overall — quite the contrary, in fact.
Let me just also point out that this change of attitude is a big part of what the no-kill movement is about: Making shelters live up to the word “shelter,” and turning them into places that proactively and creatively engage their communities to find good homes for good pets. Instead, too many now are places that people avoid because they know they’re going to get trashed as bad, evil people by the staff for having to give up a pet they often love.
I’ve heard shelter staffers snark at the “crocodile tears” or “just for show” tears of someone giving up a pet. They’re not for show: These are people whose hearts are often breaking.
Been standing in those shoes, and I know the heartbreak is for real. And so, I bet, do many of you.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 5, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Mikkel,
Thanks for a heartfelt story on your difficult decision, especially on a reptile. Know that good homes are found. I adopted a corn snake that a cub scout group was trying to find a home for. They called the zoo I volunteered at and the reptile keeper put us together. I had that snake for many years until she died of old age and I loved her and still miss her. Later I took in an iguana from a divorcing couple until I found the right home for him where he was doted on (they even took him on walks on a leash!) Thanks for making the effort to find Frankie a good home.
Comment by kb — October 5, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
I gave away my little Inca in the morning to my daughter because I could not keep Inca in the house and she was a disaster cat when roaming free in the neighborhood: i.e. tangling with a dog, running up a tree, sprinting into the street, etc.
I took little Inca home again in the evening for keeeps. I missed her and so did her stepsister, Sophie. I built a fence that encloses most of my back yard, except for the tiny garden. Inca is so happy having so much room (which includes, grass, squirrels, birds) that she stays out there for hours.
When I did give her away there was tremendous guilt and a deep feeling of failure—as well as missing her lively spirited ways. She always is in a hurry when she walks and sprints around the house like she is late for an appointment, with her feet prancing and her hips wiggling to keep up.
Doing what is best for the animal(s) is more important to me than worrying about what other people say—as long as the law is not called in.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — October 6, 2009 @ 6:22 am
Just want to correct any misimpression I might have given. Inca does have free range of the inside of my home whenever she wants.
Boy, when writing one must think of so many things the reader might interpret the wrong way.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — October 6, 2009 @ 6:42 am
Rehoming a pet can be traumatic. It can also be extremely comforting when the decision results in better harmony and quality of life for all involved.
Sometimes, to really shine, a pet needs to be in a different dynamic. I’ve seen agitated, uptight animals undergo 180s when placed in different environments.
For the disappointed, angry and accusatory, I can only point out that when you are yelling that there is no way to be sure of safe homes, that rehoming is betrayal etc…Do you realize that you are negating the entire validity of shelters, rescues and fostering? Millions of animals find loving new homes, sometimes there are mismatches and bad placements and poor homes but FIRST homes can be as bad or worse! Please stop blaming, flaming and guilting. As a rescue volunteer I would rather get the pet before things have gotten to the point of crisis. As an occasional breeder, I lose much sleep over placement and ALWAYS will take back a dog NO questions asked to assure that it has a sound safety net that WILL be used if needed (guilt tends to alienate people). As an owner, I strive to always put the welfare of an animal ahead of my, or your, feelings.
Kel, good for you guys for making a tough, hard decision. You went above and beyond to do right by Frankie.
Enjoy this wonderful time, there’s nothing really like it. Oh, and sleep while you can……. :-D
Comment by JenniferJ — October 6, 2009 @ 9:56 am
@ Jennifer J;
Nobody has “yelled” on this thread at all. In fact your comment was the most aggressive so far.
I realise I’m in a minority (of 1 at last count), but I stand by what I said.
Rehoming because of dynamic in the household is one thing - the old chesnut of a new baby is not the same thing at all.
Perhaps I should try to prove that I’m an even more responsible/selfless person than Mikkel and rehome all of mine ?
Let me think about that….NO.
Comment by Alison — October 6, 2009 @ 11:56 am
@Alison,
You’re not alone. I feel bad for the author that she had to give up Frankie. Ultimately, only she will know if that was the right decision for her (and her family).
We may think her decision was acceptable because it was in Frankie’s best interest. Perhaps, we should admit the ugly truth that the author’s life changed and there’s no place in it for Frankie. The same way a parent may get a puppy for a child then 10 years later, does not want the puppy-now-dog anymore. The latter story may not have a baby-on-the-way and we don’t hear the heart-wrenching story from that family, but that does not make it any less than this author’s situation.
I’m not judging the author and her decision. Like I said, only she knows if what she did was right for her. My problem is with people who would support the author and her “selfless” action but then criticize the above family for treating the dog as “throw-away pets”. They are 2 sides of the same coin.
Thanks for the dialog.
Comment by Justine — October 6, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
To be fair to you, Alison, I hear the story all the time of people ignoring their pets or reliquishing them after the baby arrives.
It is very maddening to me that some of them just drop off their pet at a shelter because they had their “mothering experience” in owning a pet, a practice run. Now that they have the real baby, the pet is no longer needed.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — October 6, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
I see a couple of differences here. In the maddening stories so many of us have heard, the new parent or parent-to-be literally stops loving a previously-beloved pet when a child comes along. And that’s hard to hear and not become angry over.
But that’s not what Mikkel is writing about. She didn’t re-home Frankie because she stopped loving him. Rather, she re-homed Frankie because she loved him so much that she couldn’t bear to see him no longer receiving the attention that once was his.
Another maddening tale many of us are aware of is the “serial adopter” who gets a pet, then gets rid of the pet when it becomes too much work or is inconvenient for some reason, and then a while later gets ANOTHER pet who is - in turn - discarded, and so on.
Now if Mikkel kept adding more pets after getting rid of Frankie and then kept “discovering” she didn’t have time for them, either, then I might be inclined to be pretty unhappy with her.
But that hasn’t happened. And I’d be surprised if it did. I’m pretty sure Mikkel isn’t in a hurry to let herself in for this kind of heartache again any time soon, and I’d bet she won’t be adding any more new pets to her family until her child is older and she knows she will have the time to give the pet that the pet deserves.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
I agree with you, The OTHER Pat, that this is not what Mikkel is writing about.
I believe Mikkel was very responsible in going to great lengths to find a loving home for her pet. I also believe her decision was justified as well as difficult to her.
I am speaking about others who do not try to find a good home like Mikkel did, and just drop off their pets at a shelter, or worse.
Allison might be referring to those individuals, and that is why I am trying to defend her. However, in reality, I should not judge anyone at all, for I do not walk in their shoes.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — October 6, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
Mikkel made the right decision.
Let us pray more people are so responsible in finding a good home for their pet(s) if need be.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — October 6, 2009 @ 2:20 pm
But that’s not what Mikkel is writing about. She didn’t re-home Frankie because she stopped loving him. Rather, she re-homed Frankie because she loved him so much that she couldn’t bear to see him no longer receiving the attention that once was his.
Following that logic, when are the Pugs going ?
Comment by Alison — October 6, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
I think Alison has a point - plus the experience I had with WSU-veterinary school and the impact that school STILL has on my community with taking homeless animals from the local AC(for experiments and teaching surgeries then are killed) - I would really do some careful follow up…re-homing is something to be done with great care I do think….a gut-wrenching experience no doubt.
Comment by mary francis — October 6, 2009 @ 3:04 pm
Comment by Alison — October 6, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Following that logic, when are the Pugs going ?
From Mikkel’s article: “Unlike our two Pugs who could request our attention by sitting on our laps or reminding us of their needs for walks and play just by sitting next to the door or bringing over a toy”
A dog is more mobile and can come to you. Mikkel’s point was that it was different for a caged animal. You have to go to them. And she was honest about the fact that it was becoming more difficult to do so, and that would continue to become more pronounced with the arrival of the child. The dogs are able to advocate for their needs in a way that Frankie could not.
I wish she could have kept Frankie, too. But would you really have preferred that she hang onto him given the situation she’s tried to be very honest about describing here?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 6, 2009 @ 4:03 pm
Alison,
I too wondered about the dogs. And if Frankie were there first.
Comment by Mary Mary — October 6, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Darn this story really bothers me - re-homing is ok if you have to do it and can stand it - recently a woman in the news re-homed a human baby, caught hell too but sometimes things happen - easy to judge others - but Frankie really should be checked on to make sure he really is in a HOME - not in a WSU research lab somewhere. It’s a bad place….believe me.
Comment by mary francis — October 6, 2009 @ 4:58 pm
Ah, should have been more clear. I was not specifically referring to any comments on this thread.
I should have been more clear on that point. My apologies for any misunderstanding.
My point, or points are that circumstances do change, family dynamics do change and that pets sometimes will be the beneficiaries, rather than the victims, of moving to a new family.
Jennifer Fearings recent story on Griffith being a good example.
While no yelling occurred here in this thread, there is a lot that happens to people when they are compelled, voluntarily or by changing circumstances, to rehome an animal. Even when yelling is absent, there is generally a rush to judgement. Everyone and every family has different capabilities, capacities and their own set of circumstances. The most important thing should be the animal and it’s welfare. The welfare of the people and remaining pets needs to count for something too. There needs to be an aknowledgment that not everyone who makes the choice does so lightly, selfishly or without great consideration.
Frankie could have languished in the shadow of new responsibilities. Frankie hopefully is now enjoying the level of attention he was accustomed to.
It’s easy to be angry with people who “dump” an animal who was “practice” for children etc… but it’s just not always a black and white issue. If the dog/cat/parrot/reptile what have you, ends up in a solid and caring situation, especially when great effort is made to help get them there by previous owners, why is that such a terrible sin?
It’s easy to see it as betrayal or abandonment from a human view point, but generally the animals do not carry that burden forward with them.
Comment by JenniferJ — October 6, 2009 @ 5:12 pm
Following that logic, when are the Pugs going ?
Comment by Alison — October 6, 2009
Mikkel is now working on a post about preparing the pugs for the baby, just FYI.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 6, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
JenniferJ—I think you are right in believing the animal does not feel betrayal or abandonment if his new home meets his physical and social needs.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — October 6, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
I, too have heard the “new baby” excuse too many times… but have come to the conclusion that rather than looking down on people who find it necessary to give up a pet (whether it’s because they have stopped loving it, or love it too much to see it neglected, or whatever) we really should support these people.
IMO, the bigger problem is the people who really would NEVER give up a pet, even if something catastrophic happened and they could no longer provide for it adequately. To me, being a responsible pet owner ALSO means being able to recognize when you can no longer provide the very best home for that animal - and then doing the best you can to find it a better home. It’s just too sad that most “shelters” are no such thing, and people without extensive pet savvy contacts may find it impossible to locate a suitable home.
But people who believe that NO ONE can care for the animals as well as they can are the ones to worry about.
Comment by Barb — October 6, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
agree with Barb’s point.
And wanted to clarify my last comment. I do believe many animals can and do feel loss, grief and bereavement. But in general, they are blessed to live in the moment, and have an amazing ability to rebound, recover and move on. I am constantly amazed by the resiliency of animals.
Comment by JenniferJ — October 6, 2009 @ 10:50 pm
But people who believe that NO ONE can care for the animals as well as they can are the ones to worry about.
Comment by Barb — October 6, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
That’s a totally different subject, and (imo) irrelevant here.
I do not disagree with you, of course pet ‘hoarders’ are a problem.
Comment by Alison — October 6, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Actually I see them as being related. I found myself reflecting on the temptation towards wholesale condemnation of anyone who rehomes a pet for reasons we “don’t approve of” and it’s similarity to discussions we’ve had here about adopters enacting blanket rules on who cannot adopt an animal given situations we “don’t approve of” (e.g. no fenced yard, children in the home, presence of other unneutered pets, etc.)
In that discussion, most of us came down in favor of looking at individual circumstances - evaluating each potential adopter on their own merits and using some judgement rather than imposing “blanket rules”. Because imposing inflexible “blanket rules” can serve to keep animals out of what might turn out to be very wonderful homes indeed. So in the best interests of the animal, individual assessments should trump “blanket rules” every time.
Similarly, I find myself thinking that we should also strive to avoid “blanket condemnations”. The current example, “She gave up the pet because she has a baby coming” has traditionally been cause to demonize the pet owner. But perhaps in some cases it IS in the best interest of the animal. And so - just as in the example of individually evaluating potential adopters - maybe we DO owe it to the animals to try and let go of some of our preconceived notions and be more willing to evaluate each situation on its merits before automatically assigning blame.
Perhaps we need to create an environment where it is okay for people to admit that perhaps they are NOT able to provide the best possible home for that animal, after all (thus addressing some aspects of the “hoarder mentality”). And an environment where it is okay for a person to walk into a shelter and say “I am no longer able to care for this animal” without being shamed for it (thus encouraging people to surrender animals rather than abandoning them out in the country somewhere). Not a wholesale “pass” to just go through pets like popcorn, of course - all of this also needs to be incorporated into an overall scenario where potential new owners are educated about the responsibility they are about to take on and provided ongoing support as the new ownership process gets underway.
But in the event that a pet and a home just don’t work out - no matter what the reason - then isn’t it really in the best interests of that animal to get it out of that home and into one that is a better match?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 7, 2009 @ 7:06 am
I was out standing in my (well, someone else’s) field yesterday, so I’m just catching up.
But I think Pat and others have again put their fingers not only on the problem but on the solution: Looking at each situation individually.
That, along with dropping the judgmental ‘tudes against people who need to rehome would go along way to helping to get the general pet-loving public to stop thinking that hard-core animal rescuers are mostly misanthropic loons. As Christie so often writes, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” (Which Voltaire stole from her.)
Seriously, the bile that gets spit at people who don’t follow whatever party line is in favor — on feeding, training, adopt vs. buy — is really off-putting to people who are or could be responsible animal owners.
And frankly, I think it’s highly interesting how much of that bile gets spit at young, pregnant women. Why is that?
Furthermore, what the hell difference does it make if Frankie was there “first”? Isn’t the point that each pet be in an optimum situation for that animal? And why the assumption that the Pugs will be next? They’re not going anywhere, because they are able to adapt and have their needs met as the family grows. They ARE in the optimal situation for them — they love kids. The baby will enhance their lives.
Really, come over to the light. This constant bashing of people who need to rehome or God forbid use a shelter — which is supposed to be able offering shelter for animals who need it while being rehomed — is counter-productive. Anyone ever heard that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 7, 2009 @ 8:39 am
I’m pretty sure that I’ve not implied that I condemn every choice to rehome as wrong. If I have given that impression, then it wasn’t deliberate, or the way I feel.
I would feel more comfortable in Mikkels case if she had made more effort to rehome directly. As it’s turned out she really has no idea where he truly went. Why couldn’t the person who said she’d find a home simply have put the individuals into direct contact with Mikkel.
And as far as spitting bile at pregnant young woman, I didn’t get the impression from any of the posts here that this was happening ??
Comment by Alison — October 7, 2009 @ 11:05 am
And as far as spitting bile at pregnant young woman, I didn’t get the impression from any of the posts here that this was happening ??
Comment by Alison — October 7, 2009
No, not here. Discussions here tend to be pretty high-level, civil and well-considered — although not alway in agreement of course, which is great for expanding everyone’s horizons.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 7, 2009 @ 11:30 am
Alison, some of the things being discussed in this thread (e.g. the automatic condemnation of a woman who gives up a pet when she becomes pregnant or after the baby arrives) arise from experiences many of us have had over the years with rescue organizations, owners in distress, general discussions with people we know, etc. They’re scenarios that seem to get replayed time and time again in the world of pets and the people who own them. And they frequently follow the same “script”. In this discussion, a lot of us are reflecting on the need to re-write that “script”, and why doing so could be in the best interests of the animals.
You’ve brought up some of that “script” in your comments. Not all of it, but some of it. So I can understand your feeling of being targeted. Maybe it will help if you understand that some of what feels like responses aimed directly at your comments are actually part of a more broadly inclusive discussion overall.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 7, 2009 @ 11:32 am
When I heard Nathan Winograd speak (nearly 2 years now) he read a letter from Dear Abby from a lady with terrible problems, husband getting out of prison, he was going to beat her up again…on and on and no mention of animals…Mr. Winograd then made his point - he said there would always be the sort of distressed person who wrote the letter to Dear Abby - what is needed is a safety net for the animals they often times discard - it was a light bulb moment for me - we don’t kill orphan children - why are we killing healthy orphan dogs and cats - social safety nets should be a given…we’re taxed for a service not provided….Frankie’s family has responsibly improvised as best they could a new home with no safety net…..
Comment by mary francis — October 7, 2009 @ 12:13 pm
I knew afterwards I misspoke when I talked about new moms giving away their animals. I was just trying to defend Alison. Whenever I try to defend anyone, I get into trouble—got to get some tape to tape my mouth shut like they did in grade school when someone spoke out of turn.
The real problem is, however, too little love available to the vast amount of pets out there.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — October 7, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
OK this is NOT intended to be picking on anyone or confrontational, but rather to illustrate things we take for granted that need to be re-examined for the best interests of pets, owners etc…
mary francis has a cited a good example of the sort of paradigm shift we need.
My only quibble is the use of the word “discard”
—what is needed is a safety net for the animals they often times discard —-
If this woman who Winograd was reading the letter from was a victim of domestic violence, in fear for her life and also happened to be a pet owner, then relinquishing pets is safer and more responsible than keeping them. Discard, (and I know it was not meant this way! :-) ) is a charged word implying that such a person, in losing their animals, throws them away like refuse or garbage with no thought or concern.
One of my fosters came from that precise sort of situation. An elderly woman was beaten up by her son and he was getting out on bail. She was going to her sister’s home and could not take the dog. She was crying and shaking when she gave him to me.
Language is a very powerful thing. The “script” OTHER Pat was referring to is rife with terms that are emotionally loaded. They have been purveyed so much that we often use them without thought to their implications. “Adopt” and “adopter” is wholesome and good, “owner” or “buyer” is somehow skeevy or immoral. Owners don’t “give up” a dog they cannot keep which may suggest loss on the owners part, they “surrender” “adandon” , “discard” or “dump”
And I am not even going to open the can of worms on “breeder” here, it’s not the point of this thread.
Part of adjusting our POV to focus on what is ultimately best for all involved, pets and people alike, means looking at the terminology we use and considering the connotations when we choose our words.
Comment by JenniferJ — October 7, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
JenniferJ you are right on - discard isn’t an appropriate word in a situation that requires sensitivity and understanding - how about simply,”can no longer keep” - I continue to learn….
Comment by mary francis — October 7, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
I kinda like “free agent” myself!
XD
I have two “free agents” at home right now. Fingers crossed. I have some serious interest in both.
Comment by JenniferJ — October 7, 2009 @ 11:22 pm