Letters to the Editor
-
I completely agree with Heather.... but I empathize with the agencies, a little bit
... and also, with the agencies. No organization wants to pour so many resources and so much love into an animal they've rescued, only for that animal to wind up back in the pound in a year or two because of yet another owner who was unable or unwilling to keep their pet after some life change or another. They want people who are willing to make the kind of committment most of us would make to a new child... instead of the somewhat more tenuous one many of us would make for, say, a new spouse.
When "things don't work out" with a pet after a year or two often enough, I can see why rescuers (and also breeders) have trouble "letting go." Unfortunately, many of them become of busybody matchmakers who think they know better than you do what kind of pet you are most compatible with. I've yet to find a person who could tell me what kind of HUMAN I'd be most compatible with, never mind which dog... arranged marriages may be the norm in many cultures, but we Americans like to make our own mistakes.
I've been a dog-owner for 5 years, and I got my dogs the way I find pet-friendly apartments- by doing my homework and being in the right place when the right opportunity to materialized. My first dog was an owner-surrendered pet came from a shelter that was not so rigid as to demand I have a fences yard (particularly for a dog who climbs fences), but did make me sign a form acknowledging that a yard was preferred, but not required so long as I understood my dog would need daily, leashed walks. The second came from a woman who took him in as a stray and ultimately couldn't keep him for personal reasons... while I am sorry she gave him up, at least I know- and hopefully she knows- he has a good home with us.
Unfortunately, I am sure Batkis was falling over herself to provide one of her rescued dogs to a movie/TV star couple with a big yard... and no one is accusing Degeneres and DeRossi of not trying hard enough to make things work. That only goes to show that none of us has a crystal ball. I am sure it never occurred to Degeneres that things might not work out, and when they didn't, she didn't dump the dog off in a shelter or an unfit home. I understand where the agency is coming from- that they feel they have to enforce the rules equally in all cases or lose credibility in future situations where owners who are genuinely unfit accuse them of favoritism toward celebrity clients. But in this case, I genuinely believe that while the shelter perhaps should have reserved the right to rehome the dog, the common sense thing to do might have been to perform the home visit and, in light of the obvious bonding that had taken place between the animal and the girls and the barring any clear and obvious threats to the animal's safety and well-being, allowed the family to keep the pet on a probationary basis, under similar terms- and if money was a concern, perhaps with the condition that DeGenerous be willing to pay for routine vet exams or some other type of "puppy-support" that would cover expenses the agency is worried would otherwise go unmet.
-
Wow, what a self-righteous bullsh*t article
Heather writes at length saying she understands why dog-rescue people become rigid. Then she lashes out at them for it anyway -- calls them "mouth breathers" (WTF?). Heather wants to have it both ways: She wants to claim symapthy with the people who have these demanding jobs, then she wants to rip into them when they actually have balls enough to hold people to the contracts they sign.
Ellen was an idiot for ever making this problem public. She should have given in and taken the blame among her friends because she's the one who blew the deal. She should have kept it private. Instead she aired it to the world and set up the dog-rescue organization for outside abuse. Which they got in spades.
Now Heather Havrilesky is piling on the excuse, armchair-analyzing everybody in the profession but specifically the people in the Ellen case. When is it our turn to armchair-psychoanalyze you based on a set of bullshit assumptions, Heather? A woman who makes a living sitting on her ass watching TV? Please let me know because I'll happily be first in line to use my creative-writing skills on your sorry psyche.
-
And I thought I was having a bad day.
I mean, my car's tie rod broke, putting it into the shop for the weekend at least, and forcing me to rent a car and abandon a dear friend who needed a ride. And I'm late delivering a video project to a comedy music artist who asked for my help.
But then I read this. Heather Havrilesky trying to address a real-world issue. I feel happy now!
For the longest time, her "skills" have been exercised only on television, which most people don't care about, and my criticisms of her make me look like one of those evil heterosexual males oppressing a witty, bubbly bon vivant. But she decided to step into the realm of pets, an issue about which people actually care, for better or worse. And she's getting fried with angry comments from the largest volume of letters she's ever received at Salon.
I think I can feel blissful about my broken tie rod now.
-
It's about time
Heather Havrilesky is right on with her expose' of some (if not most) of the private animal rescue services. Her hope that some will see what's happened and reform is probably misplaced. She said it early in the piece -- it's about control -- like the petty bureacratic control little people wield to excess because they don't have control over anything else in their lives. It's too bad it's not better known so that people like Ellen DeGeneres, who couldn't be expected to understand the true situation, would know what they're dealing with.