Archives
May 2008
5/31/08
5/30/08
5/30/08
5/29/08
5/29/08
5/27/08
5/24/08
"We're Not" (Reply)
5/23/08
5/23/08
5/22/08
5/22/08
5/20/08
5/20/08
5/18/08
5/16/08
5/16/08
5/15/08
5/15/08
5/14/08
5/14/08
5/12/08
5/12/08
5/12/08
5/10/08
5/10/08
5/9/08
5/9/08
5/8/08
5/8/08
5/6/08
5/5/08
5/3/08
5/2/08
5/2/08
5/1/08
5/1/08
Saturday, May 24, 2008
2:29:00 PM EDT
Written by mandy787 Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
2:29:00 PM EDT
"We're Not" (Reply)
CDonian Writes: With all due respect ... the Lucky Fund thing went far beyond misunderstanding or lack of due diligence.
It wasn't just that 12 of the 54 dogs he held were chipped, one had a rabies tag, and a couple spotted their dog being offered for adoption.
Rather: It was about hoarding/cruelty. The conditions, and the dogs' health, were so deplorable that he was charged with 54 counts of "torturing and injuring animals," a/k/a animal cruelty. (He's out on bail as the case continues. His friend -- who took a dog from a neighbor's yard -- faced separate larceny charges.)
It wasn't just that 12 of the 54 dogs he held were chipped, one had a rabies tag, and a couple spotted their dog being offered for adoption.
Rather: It was about hoarding/cruelty. The conditions, and the dogs' health, were so deplorable that he was charged with 54 counts of "torturing and injuring animals," a/k/a animal cruelty. (He's out on bail as the case continues. His friend -- who took a dog from a neighbor's yard -- faced separate larceny charges.)
Reply: As said more than once, I don't personally know this particular organization, the people involved or the details of the case.
Yesterday, I simply wrote about the general dilemmas rescuers face when finding lost animals on the streets. In the particular case cited, we returned the lost cat to the owners. But, that was because the cat had been well cared for, neutered and obviously loved. I would not do the same were it a case of an animal who was abused, neglected or repeatedly unsupervised.
I do recall a story on the news about a year ago, involving some owner who was threatening to sue a rescue organization for advertising the owner's "lost" dog on the Internet. The dog was reportedly found wandering in the neighborhood. (I'm presuming this is part of the case being discussed).
My question: Who would the owners sue if their dog had been killed by a car?
The driver of the car? The city council or the federal government for allowing motor vehicles? Car manufacturers?
My point over these past few days is that OWNERS are ultimately responsible for what happens to their pets (putting aside those unique cases of tainted pet foods or incompetent veterinarian or other professional care).
The other point I have made repeatedly in this blog is that, "The biggest challenge rescuers and rescue organizations face is to "KNOWN WHEN TO SAY, WHEN."
Know when you are at your limits. Know what your finances will allow you to rescue and care for responsibly. Always be prepared for the unpredictable. Never "assume" anything.
On and on.
Just the other day, I wrote of a woman who could never say "No" to anyone seeking to drop off cats for whatever reason.
Despite medically treating (for parasites and URI) and adopting out approximately 200 cats for this woman over a period of a few years, fighting with others NOT to give Alice any more cats and even losing two of my best volunteers, the situation still ended up being one like that you describe: Too many animals (140 cats) living in squalor and deplorable, crowded, unhealthy conditions.
But, really who is truly to "blame" for these all too common "collector" situations?
It's easy to point fingers at the "crazy cat lady" or the "bad rescue group."
But, in most cases, the people don't go out seeking animals or "stealing" them from peoples' yards!
Alice barely had to leave her house to get cats. (To her credit, Alice did bring unneutered cats to the vet for sterilization, shots and FeLv testing. She separated Leukemia positive cats from the others). She merely had to answer her phone and people were only too happy to drop cats off at Alice's door and walk away.
I made that mistake once of giving a feral cat to Alice, but did not "walk away" from the situation.
I tried to do what I could to help to get cats out of Alice's place and into responsible homes.
It would have been far easier to report Alice to Animal Control, have all the cats picked up and euthanized and perhaps see Alice on the news as the "crazy cat lady."
Almost ten years later, I still don't know what the "right" answer was in that situation.
Was I, in fact, an "enabler" to it by helping Alice place cats? Did I negate the welfare of the many cats to help the few? Did I "rationalize" to myself that as long as the cats had food, shelter and a minimal of care, we could eventually get them out of the situation? After all, how many "owned" animals have food, shelter and virtually nothing else? How many "owned" dogs spend their lives on the end of a chain in a backyard in all kinds of weather? Why does the media, the law and "Aninal Control" seemingly care nothing about those situations? Are they not every bit as cruel as someone taking in too many animals?
Despite my pleas to Alice not to take in more cats and others not to give her cats, the situation was one, I ultimately had little control over.
Looking back, I realize I tried to take the "middle road" in that circumstance. Not reporting a suspected "hoarding" situation, but doing what I could to manage and alleviate it. For those roughly 200 cats that did get out of Alice's house and into loving homes, the decision was a positive and wise one. For the 140 who remained, it arguably wasn't. (Most of them however, eventually went to Peace Plantation).
I write all this now not as "defense" for any organization, rescuer or group I know nothing about, but simply to illustrate the very difficult dilemmas and circumstances rescuers (and sometimes those who help them) can get themselves into.
Most of these evolve from the basic tragedy of "Too many animals and too few responsible, committed homes" as well as a public (including many Animal Control shelters) that too often looks to Rescue as the "solution" to the problem.
As Ulysses1515 said so accurately and truthfully yesterday:
We're not. -- PCA
*********
Written by mandy787 Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | digg this
This entry has 2 comments: (Add your own)
-
Bravo! Once again you have made the most reasonable, rational and intelligent assessment of the situation. Nothing is black and white. I am always astonished at how vehemently upset the public gets, disgusted, appalled and outraged when a "hoarder" is discovered. The righteous are very quick to point fingers and condemn. However, even as we speak, the Spalding Animal Control facility in Georgia continues to gas its surplus animals. Where are the righteous to protest??? I can hardly sleep sometimes after seeing the paltry few faces posted to the Spalding's Happy Endings page. How can the taxpayers live with that abomination? Right under their noses and paid for with their tax dollars? I am not defending the Lucky Fund, nor anyone else that forgets their limit - but, as you pointed out, look to the cause. As Oprah said on her puppy mill show, we are the "ones with the brains." Why do we allow pet overpopulation and exploitation to continue when we have the power to stop it? Why is it never part of a political campaign? Why do I have to hear friends and relatives say to me that they would respect me so much more if I did what I do for little orphaned children instead of animals? Perhaps the righteous should reconsider at whom to direct their anger. PS - Amongst some of the faces of the dogs "rescued" out of the deplorable conditions at the Lucky Fund were very definitely some Spalding dogs. Ironically, they are still alive today because of the "hoarding" (misguided though it was) of these people.
5/25/08 1:49 AM
I agree with you that companion animal overpopulation is a societal problem that requires everyone's help. It is not fair (or logical) to expect a handful of people or organizations to take in every unwanted animal, or for the public to villainize "crazy cat ladies" and rescuers who end up taking on more than they can really care for.
One downside of the no kill movement--in my opinion--is that people have been led to believe that sanctuaries and rescue efforts are the answer to the problem and that every animal can be saved. Unfortunately, there are far more animals for sanctuaries and rescue groups to accomodate. It's important that we also focus on education and sterilization...that is the only way we can begin to address the source of the problem, rather than just the symptoms.
I hope the sad story of Tiger Ranch Sanctuary in PA, where hundreds of very ill cats were confiscated a few months ago, will serve as a wake up call to the public and the rescue community. Rescue groups from all over the country brought truckloads of cats to that sanctuary. The woman who ran it never turned away any cats and apparently took in thousands of animals a year. I don't know how anyone could think that caring for that many animals would even be possible. Many of these cats came from high-kill rural shelters in the South, and while I understand the desperation one reaches when seeing so many little lives lost, it seems irresponsible and shortsighted to simply redistribute cats from one state to another without ensuring that the cats will be properly cared for. Perhaps we need to focus on the larger picture and not just on temporarily making ourselves feel better because we've "saved a life."