Letters to the Editor
-
Doesn't anybody read the papers any more?
I have only skimmed the letters this article generated, so I might not be the first to bring this up, but it is very easy to get a puppy or kitten before they ever reach the shelter; just look in the classified ads for some thing like "Free to Good Home". I have gotten several dogs this way over the last twenty years (and a couple of strays that just wandered up and wouldn't leave) and they were all great pets, although of indeterminate lineage. If more people would get these mutts in the first place it would greatly decrease the number of dogs that end up in shelters and rescue organizations.
-
has anyone been to the Mutts and Moms website?
The website has been deactivated because it was overwhelmed, but I visited it days ago when this flap started.
The thing that struck me, and unfortunately I can't quote because the site is down, was the section about what they looked for in adopters. They had two requirements. One was that you be willing to give them a large donation. It went something like this:
"Dig down deep in your heart and ask yourself, are you willing to give us a lot of money? We feel that willingness to give us a lot of money is a good indicator of what sort of home life you will be able to provide for your pet. This is not an adoption fee or a sales price, it's a completely voluntary donation, but you're required to give us at least $500."
(Funny definition of 'voluntary' there. No wonder Mutts and Moms lost its non-profit status.)
I'm wondering if part of the reason they were so offended at Ellen's actions is that they wanted a second adoption fee and by finding a home for the dog herself she had bypassed their organization.
-
Physicians, heal thyselves....
Frankly I found Ellen Degeneres' tearful apology far more fitting to the situation than Ms. Havrilevsky's column, here. Wanna talk self-righteousness? Look in the dang mirror.
Having dealt with a number of "rescue" and quasi-rescue situations, I'm not exactly surprised by the tone of this conversation. Dismayed, yes. Surprised, no. Rescue people do come across as brusque. They suffer from the same shortage of time with which reputable dog breeders cope. They're trying to conscientiously do a job for which they volunteer their time, and there's huge demand, and they burn out. They try to use screening instruments to cope with the overwhelming raft of people looking for dogs, and that's regarded as impersonal and arrogant. I see the result in lots of these letters.
The rescue people here are not the problem. The problem is overwhelming, and it has to do with irresponsible dog ownership. Anyone want to go to an animal shelter of any sort and say that's not so?
Among my experiences with a rescue group: a dog list server drama over a Newfie cross who was being transported across the country to his owner. The driving handoffs broke down halfway. A couple of former rescue folks who'd gotten dragged in (against their better judgment and the bylaws of their past -- which almost universally won't allow intervention when a dog's owned) raised flags all over the place. The rescue folks were shouted down by a succession of voices talking about how arrogant rescue people are. It turned out that the owner involved was a "collector." She was on the list begging for help, and meanwhile she'd bought a handful of other animals -- puppies, cats, birds. Having been called on the question of why she was asking others for help and meanwhile spending money on new animals, the owner began accusing the rescue folks of discriminating against people who weren't wealthy enough.... And so on. The owner was able to play a long succession of people off against the rescue types.
Rescue people are pretty much overwhelmed by the task they've given themselves. They're simply trying to give dogs they love -- often a specific breed they love, whose particular problems they know form long experience -- good homes.
And folks? If you haven't asked 'em why they're taking the approach they're taking, then it's you who's being self-righteous. Ignorantly so.
-
There are GREAT rescues out there
I adoted an older dog who had been dumped on the freeway
Some kind person picked her up.
She sat in a cage at a kill shelter; someone who worked there called sheltie rescue and told them about her; she's a shelte mix.
Sheltie rescue got her immediately, saving her from the needle.
A foster mom kept her for a month. I had called around, looking for a small dog -- someone passed the information on to other groups, and I got a call from the foster mom regarding
the little dog. I met her, filled out an application, brought a letter from my landlord, had a nice talk about my deceased sheltie, and took the new dog home that day.
I've met the kind of rescue people in the article, but PLEASE don't be discouraged! There are wonderful rescues out there: NARF is great, N.I.K.E. is great (covers part of northern Ca., Rocket Dog Rescue is WONDERFUL, as are the people running it. Milo, too.
-
Cutting them slack
"My bottom line: people doing difficult, thankless, inherently generous pursuits deserve A LOT of slack. period."
I disagree. They don't get to violate moral rules to follow their pet rescuing ideals. Violating a moral rule to follow an ideal is fanaticism. Fraudulently representing to the police ownership of a dog they sold to someone else violates the moral rule not to deceive. This moral rule was violated to follow the moral ideal that pets deserve to be placed in a perfect, so-called "forever home." "Obey the law" is another rule the shelter fanatics violated.
Fanaticism is being mentioned repeatedly in these letters for a reason: a substantial number of pet rescuers violate moral rules to advance the moral ideals of animal rights. Violating a moral rule to follow religious commands is religious fanaticism--the comparison to animal rights fanaticism, is valid, provided one understands that the comparison has to do with violating a moral rule to follow a moral ideal (a controversial one, involving animal rights).
Shelter workers often decide to cut themselves the moral slack to necessary to violate the privacy of their clients, to follow controversial moral ideals. They often develop, over time, a profound sense of entitlement commensurate with their self-importance.
I purchased a silver Persian cat from a breeder at a cat show. No one else wanted him--he's probably the best thing that ever happened to me. But I have stopped telling people where I got him after being subjected to self-righteous condemnation by rescue volunteers who insist that I adopt a pet from them (or should I say, share joint custody of a pet with them), but who wouldn't consider me fit to adopt any of their animals.