Letters to the Editor
-
LA is a different world in breed rescue
I've been involved with breed rescue for 30 years. I've been a forever home, a foster home and an advocate. Some of the most amazing, selfless people I've ever met have been through breed rescue. Then, there are the self appointed martyrs. And nutjobs.
A lot of rescue groups grew out of a desire to get breeders to take responsibility for their cast offs. Many of the restrictions make a ton of sense. I work in Chow Chow rescue. Chows are drifters. We require a fenced yard. Even though that annoys people, I still believe it is the right call. However, I have not hesitated to use a pronged collar like the author's on a strong determined animal. That's a great tool for the right dog.
In working in breed rescue on a national basis, I've found that LA is markedly different that the rest of the country. I've run across multiple breed rescue groups in LA that spend tens of thousands of dollars on sick and dying dogs, doing hip replacements, chemo and dialysis. I'll never forget a story on one LA rescue site that detailed the 30K spent on advanced life support for a dog that lived an extra 6 weeks. That just would not happen where I live. Ill dogs with poor quality of life would be humanely euthanized. It is hard enough to find homes for healthy abandoned dogs.
Many independent rescue folks cherry pick the health dogs for themselves or their friends and leave for the adoption fairs the blind, geriatric, diabetic dogs. I've seen that a lot. No one should feel badly for wanting a healthy pet.
-
author of the dog bible's response to ellen
check out tracie hotchner's blog for her two cents worth on this matter. i'd pay a lot more than that for tracie's good sense.
http://www.traciehotchner.com/blog/
-
The Importance of the Contract
The point that I think gets overlooked in this debate is that the woman signed a contract. She admits she didn't read it. The rescue organization did exactly what it said it was going to do if she didn't abide by the contract. End of story.
Any organization that would do otherwise would not be considered credible.
-
Did the M&M folks vote for Nader, too?
Just wondering, because to deny death row dogs perfectly good homes because the prospective adoptive families aren't "perfect" reminds me of the assholes who voted for Nader rather than compromise their "ideological integrity" by voting for Gore and/or Kerry. Look where that got us. More suffering, anyone?
We've got three dogs--one adopted from the county animal shelter in St. Louis 5 years ago (pretty much no conditions, just a promise to spay her, which we promptly did) and two through private rescue groups here in Augusta, Georgia. Again, they required us to neuter our two boys, but we would have done that, anyway. Maybe the South is more reasonable in this one respect because indifference and brutality toward animals down here is rampant, and these groups recognize that they need not find "perfect" homes, by some arbitrary criteria, but "good enough" homes. In our case, we've got a fenced in yard for romping around, but the dogs live inside and we walk each of them twice a day, provide the best vet care we can find, feed them the good stuff, etc..... And yeah, we have "choke" chains, but so what...our dogs are happy and healthy (knock on wood) and can't wait to take a walk!
Obviously, L.A. is a totally fucked up place where people have lost all perspective. On the one hand, dogs are dressed in frou-frou outfits and tucked into handbags (they're NOT accessories, people!) and on the other hand, dogs die every day for wont of the "perfect home."
My advice? Vote for the Democratic nominee and get your dog from a shelter or reasonable rescue group. It's the truly humane choice.
-
You got it!
Subterraneanne is exactly right.At least at the rescue where I work, the point is to find a home that is good enough, because, as anyone with any sense knows, perfect does not exist. As long as we have confidence that potential adoptive families are not going to beat the animal, keep it in unsafe conditions, neglect it, or otherwise harm it, they are more than welcome to the animal of their choice. We do have some rules, animals must be fixed, and they have to be returned to us if they are no longer wanted by the adoptive family (this is to protect the animal from abuse down the road, we like to know where our animals end up). Sometimes we may not recommend a particular animal due to know behavioural issues (doesn't like cats, kids, other dogs, men, etc.) but there is always another animal and more often than not we can make a great match. We don't force older, or sick dogs on people, and it has been my experience that these little guys are often adopted very quickly, anyway.
Its true, you meet some godawful people when you do this sort of thing, and I can see where it might make you really bitter, but when you place a big 10 year old dog who has been neglectd for years and needs hundreds of dollars in surgery with somebody who just absolutely loves him anyway, it restores your faith a little bit.
-
Pets vs. children
"But it amazes me that in a country with the kind of wealth we have, we still can't solve the problems of homeless, unloved children, yet people are out there dedicating all their energy and money to saving the homeless pets. Please, please, PLEASE stop comparing dogs and cats to children."
When millions of homeless children are being euthanized every year, I'll gladly have some sympathy for your position.
As for the Ellen issue, the solution was simple. Ellen could have followed the terms of the contract she agreed to and returned the dog, or if that was too much of a problem she could have opted to adopt from someone else in the first place. Rescues are not about catering to people, they are about what's in the animal's best interest. If that makes some people lean toward being over-zealous, I'd rather have that than have them adopt animals with little regard for where that animal is going.