I think Heather Havrilesky might be a tad too generous here about why there seems to be an influx of draconian, insufferably self-righteous assholes in animal rescue, particularly in big, liberal, coastal cities. She assumes it must be the nature of the work slowly molds people into inflexible, impractical meanies who get off on judging other as inadequate compared to themselves in terms of good treatment of animals, but I think it might be that rigid, holier-than-thou types are drawn to the work, and in very large cities, the population of holier-than-thou types is sufficiently large enough that animal rescue operations can be staffed completely with them, and no one of common sense punctures the bubble to remind people that their job is getting animals into homes, not passing often arbitrary judgments on perfectly acceptable people in order to feel self-righteous.
I hadn’t heard about the Ellen Degeneres breaking down in tears over the frustration of dealing with some animal rescue people until I read the article, and a quick Google search verified that certain sexist stereotypes about women who show emotion in public are creeping into the discourse about it. But it also shows how sympathetic people are to her plight, since a lot of people have been subjected to the withering and unfair judgments of the Animal People, and know how unbelievably frustrating they can be. The situation, as Havrilesky describes it, is this: Degeneres got herself a rescue dog and found, after a couple of days, that the cats weren’t having it. So she gave the dog to a very nice family, who the rescue organization leader found completely unacceptable as dog owners because they had children aged 11 and 12. So they staged a dramatic, Jessica Lynch-style, self-aggrandizing rescue operation to tear the dog out of the arms of the crying children. Degeneres no doubt is trying to guilt trip these animal rescue people into seeing sense and letting the kids have their damn dog back, but I’m sure that she is feeling pretty emotional about the whole thing, and guilty about letting the kids get excited over the dog, only to lose it to the meanie Animal People. As Havrilesky notes, the self-congratulation oozes off the statements from the owner of the rescue operation—it’s all very “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God”-esque.
Havrilesky tells a story that really gets to the heart of the groupthink and buzzing self-righteousness that characterizes animal rescue in some of your more populous parts of the country.
Discouraged but determined to find the right dog, I visited a local shelter to meet a Hurricane Katrina survivor — let’s call her “Heidi.” Heidi was in a small cage with a larger dog who was clearly tormenting her constantly — she kept moving away with her tail between her legs, but the other dog wouldn’t leave her alone. She even had some scratches on her face and body. When I mentioned this to the volunteer, she said, “Oh, they’re just playing.” (The other dog might have been playing, but Heidi definitely wasn’t having any fun at all.)
Then the volunteer noticed the metal choke collar on my dog, with its blunt prongs that turn in to keep her from pulling on the leash constantly. “If you give us that collar, we can give you another, more humane collar to replace it.”
“That’s OK, this collar works well for me,” I answered politely. My dog was leash-aggressive after being attacked by off-leash dogs as a puppy. The prong collar doesn’t hurt her, but reminds her that I’m in charge when I’m walking her by a little yapper and keeps her from bounding out of my hands and into traffic to chase a fat squirrel.
The volunteer got a somber look and left. Another volunteer appeared. “There’s no reason that dog needs an inhumane collar like that.”
“It’s not inhumane at all, actually. Plenty of trainers recommend them,” I replied lightly. “The Dog Whisperer himself told me it was a good choice for her!” It was true. I had shown Cesar Milan the collar, and he gave it his stamp of approval.
“I’m not sure we’re going to be able to let you adopt one of our dogs if you use a collar like that.”
I could’ve lied and said I wouldn’t use the same collar on Heidi, but it didn’t feel right to brush off the concern. More volunteers appeared and gathered in a group a few feet away, whispering and pointing at me, the heartless dog abuser, and my poor, suffering dog (who was bounding around the courtyard, happily playing with Heidi). Finally, one of the volunteers came over. “I’m sorry, we can’t let you adopt one of our dogs in good conscience, knowing that you’d use that collar.”
I’ve heard similar stories from people living in the big coastal cities, including a story from a friend who found her application to adopt a smallish dog from a shelter rejected over and over because there was something fishy about the combination of her having a full-time job and a small yard, and of course she couldn’t say for sure that she intended to go childless the length of the dog’s life. She finally bought a dog from a breeder,* which is something that came to mind for me frequently when the Animal People descended on Jessica, demanding an explanation for why she bought a dog from a breeder instead of a shelter. There’s echoes of conservatives who want to ban birth control, sex ed, and abortion but also don’t want to lift a finger to help people take care of all the unplanned children expected to result from that. Physician, heal thyself.
I’m not trying to stereotype the coastal cities, I promise. I think it’s really just a size issue, more than anything. There were hints of the stinkeye when I adopted Molly from a shelter—to ease their minor worries, I had to swear up and down that my suddenly “missing” cats from the extensive cat owner history I had to provide weren’t missing, but belonged to my ex-boyfriend, who is a very good cat owner, I swear. But I got the cat and didn’t get the third degree, though I did have to wonder what happens to people that are expecting to be first time cat owners and have no cat history. But my friend was struggling to adopt a dog at the time, and her experience was completely different and I could only conclude that in my medium-sized city, they couldn’t be quite as picky about personalities of shelter workers. Also, they have to compete with the outlying small towns that give you a pet, no questions asked, because they have policies of three day holds before they put animals down, and figure any family is better than dead. If the no-kill shelter got a reputation as a place you couldn’t get a pet from if you scratched your nose incorrectly in the eyes of the shelter workers, they’d never adopt an animal out. So, they have to be flexible.
But then again, maybe the shelter was just generous to me because they picked up a “one of us” vibe when I told them I used to do volunteer work for the feral cat catch-spay-release program. I’d like to think not, though, since they seemed to be moving animals out the door at a pretty good pace.
The letters to the editor are very telling—stories from people about getting rejected for very minor things and defensive Animal People bringing up scare stories about dog fighting and the like in order to justify snatching a dog from a child’s arms. There’s a hint of class issues to the whole thing:
When the above mentioned woman contacted my best friend as a reference,she was very concerned that I had once been poor, but was heartened when David embroidered and said that I had gone without *essentials* in my life to provide my cat vet care. I found her responses frightening.
*Lest there be any doubts about what a good dog mommy she is, let me say that they even schedule extracurricular activities for her on the weekends, so she can indulge breed-specific behaviors. The dog is super-spoiled.
413 Responses to “The soft bed’s better than the long walk”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’ve worked with animal rescue people, and while I can say that there a lot of self-righteous types, there’s a slight problem with the examples Havrilesky brought up.
1. Cesar Milani, aka Dog Whisperer, is not particularly popular amongst animal behaviourists. Short answer - he’s not always right, and he’s a big fan of “my way or highway”.
2. The rescue workers are absolutely right. Prong collars can actually desensitise the dog after awhile. They’re meant to be used in training situations, not on “regular” walkies. The idea behind it is to eventually move on to the standard buckle.
There are far too many owners that use the prong or chokechain 24/7, because they like the power it gives them. They’d rather rely on potentially damaging the dog, rather than on long-term training. To those in the animal rescue line, an owner who seems overly fond of the choke/prong is someone who is usually not planning to invest time in training, which is paramount for a shelter dog.
Yes, I know you’re going to say that “not everyone is like that”. However, there are enough of them, that a fondness for the prong collar sends up red flags for overworked rescuers.
I kind of disagree with you a bit.
I’ve worked in animal rescue for an organization similar to the one you describe, and I’ve got to say that there are good reasons for the policies.
A good rescue organization knows its dogs inside out and upside down. They know which dogs are OK with kids, and which aren’t. They know which dogs get along with cats, and which will give you a nice catskin rug if they can. The rescues know about issues like resource guarding, dominance, food agression, fear biting, etc. So if a rescue says a dog isn’t going to be good with kids or cats or other dogs, I tend to listen to ‘em. And it’s not that they’re being mean about it- they just don’t want the dog put down because it killed another animal or bit somebody. They want what’s best for the dog.
Additionally, rescues have the return policy for a reason. How can they trust that you’re going to give the dog to a good home? How do they know you’re not running bait dogs for a fighting ring (and yes, there are some odious people who do that). It’s not like Ellen didn’t know what she was signing- if the dog didn’t work out, she had to return it to the rescue. Besides- the dog might still have issues that you don’t know about, but the rescue does. Wouldn’t it suck for everyone if you gave a resource-guarder to a home with a toddler?
Finally, a word about the prong collar issue: they are useful training devices, but in far, far too many cases, they’re evidence of a lazy owner who doesn’t want to spend time or money training his dog, and would rather use shortcuts like prong collars, shock collars, citronella barking collars, and other rather painful devices that make it impossible for the dog to disobey. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen these being used incorrectly.
And yeah, sometimes good potential owners fall through the cracks in a system like this. There’s been several that I’ve worked with where, if I had been the one making the decision, I would have made a different one than the rescue operator, for or against the potential adopter. A lot of times, it’s a judgement call, and sometimes people make bad ones. But please don’t blame rescuers for erring on the side of caution!
Something about entities that can’t speak for themselves attracts defenders. Whether that is warranted or not.
In theory, Digger. In reality, having strict policies and self-congratulating statements about knowing the dogs inside and out creates a haven for people with some nasty power issues.
And it’s interesting that a policy designed to keep dogs out of dog fighting is being used….
To take a dog from a loving home.
That’s a classic example of a policy being a cover story for a power play.
As I heard it described, Ellen signed a contract with the pet rescue shelter that stipulated she was to return the dog back to the shelter in the event she no longer wanted the dog. The express purpose of that clause was to prevent the dog from ending up with a family the rescue shelter folks thought might not be appropriate.
It would be similar to adopting a child, having a change of heart and then giving the child to a neighbor rather than returning the child to the adoption agency. I think most people would agree that returning the child to the agency would be best course of action for all.
The lawyer for the rescue shelter stated publicly that the shelter told Ellen that the family she gave the dog to could have the dog if they came to the shelter to fill out the necessary paperwork. That seemed like a reasonable compromise to me, but Ellen’s arrogance from nouveau wealthy and powerful prevented that from happening.
There is also the understanding of the pooch’s original owner who left the dog with that particular rescue shelter believing the dog would be well placed based on the character and integrity of the shelter personnel and bylaws.
Correction: nouveau wealth and power
What is it with people generalizing and then critiquing people who care about animals? I also hear complaints of a “holier than thou” attitude that vegetarians have.
Now that I am thinking about it, I hear a “holier than thou” complaint about everyone who is passionate about the work that they do, everyone who puts a cause above all else. Including feminists.
I have grown to expect more from this blog than this. Generalizing people and then critiquing those generalizations of people?
Did my comment just get eaten? Does this work? Is this moderated?
My stepmother is deeply involved in rescue work in the southwest region of the country. And I am a vegetarian dog lover. I say these things so that people don’t think I’m a heartless, animal-hating bitch. But…I often can’t help feeling like there’s something very confused about the priorities of pet-rescue people. Many of them flip their shit if someone so much as uses supermarket kibble, but don’t bat an eye about eating factory farmed meat. Also, after living/working for a year in a homeless shelter, it makes me a little crazy that the same people who will spend thousands of dollars helping a 9 year old purebred find a home can not think it’s their problem if a human being doesn’t have a home or food or health care or shoes for their kids. But then I think, well, they’re doing good work and trying to reduce suffering; how can that possibly be a bad thing? It’s better they do that than nothing at all. And I get confused. So I probably shouldn’t judge. But I have very different priorities.
Posting again, since it seemed to have gotten lost. Apologies if this appears twice.
My stepmother is deeply involved in rescue work in the southwest region of the country. And I am a vegetarian dog lover. I say these things so that people don’t think I’m a heartless, animal-hating bitch. But…I often can’t help feeling like there’s something very confused about the priorities of pet-rescue people. Many of them flip their shit if someone so much as uses supermarket kibble, but don’t bat an eye about eating factory farmed meat. Also, after living/working for a year in a homeless shelter, it makes me a little crazy that the same people who will spend thousands of dollars helping a 9 year old purebred find a home can not think it’s their problem if a human being doesn’t have a home or food or health care or shoes for their kids. But then I think, well, they’re doing good work and trying to reduce suffering; how can that possibly be a bad thing? It’s better they do that than nothing at all. And I get confused. So I probably shouldn’t judge. But I have very different priorities.
That is perhaps inarguable, standing on its own, Digger. But (weirdly enough, for a man who owns no pets) I have followed more than a few posts like this over the past year or so. (If y’all will forgive me the weak joke, I don’t have a dog in this hunt.)In those threads, one of the patterns that keeps coming up is that in many instances, no children are acceptable to the more stringent rescue shelters. I recall one thread from some months ago (no links, sorry), where the man in question flipped through their entire binder and each and every dog’s page was marked “not suitable for children”. Every one. And when he brought this up and tried to find out if that was their indeed their policy and, if so, why didn’t they just say so, they got very shirty, snotty and confrontational with him.
Amanda notes a basic reality in passing,
but doesn’t sink her formidable fangs into the underlying reality: insufferable, self-righteous, bullying pricks gravitate naturally and happily to work where they can impose rules upon other people. They may have ideological differences or fiscal motives as which power throne they gravitate to but they all share common poisoned personalities of pushy appartchiks: disinclination to compromise; insufferably self-righteous; fetishistic worship of policies and procedures over substance; feeling personally threatened by questioning of whatever Authority they represent; usually hostile, dismissive and rude if not obeyed instantly; and, often, inclined to project onto the person they are dealing with. (Regarding the last-mentioned, it is usually the rudest, most confrontational person who will most quickly call security and accuse you of being rude or confrontational, for example.)The fact is, these people are as inevitable as the people who let their dogs shit in playgrounds: loathsome but tragically unavoidable.
Also, I meant to add - there are ABSOLUTELY class issues at play in animal adoption. Enough that there could be a whole separate post on that alone.
I wrote about this issue last year in this post, which has some interesting comments, both from people in the rescue business and people who’ve been turned down for arbitrary reasons.
JimB, two points:
First, it is my understanding that Ellen Degeneres has publicly admitted that she broke the contract, that she erred in doing so, that she is sorry for doing so, and that the poor kids should not be held responsible for her error. The shelter, by way of contrast, has gone into bunker mode and refused to admit that its behavior was in any way wrong. (I wonder how those children are going to view cops now, having seen them act as bodyguards for a self-righteous dognapper… just wondering…)
The other is more important:
No, not it’s not. No. It. Is. Not.Listen carefully, please: Dogs are not people. People are not dogs. It is dangerous in the extreme to conflate the two. PETA does, and ends up pissing with glee on holocaust survivors and dismissing the importance of slavery.
Of course, you are perfectly free to disagree with me. Fair enough. To enable you to adhere to your principles, therefore, your family and insurance company will be allowed to put you down when your medical bills get too high.
“strict policies…creates a haven for people with some nasty power issues.”
Ah… Ellen has the “power” issues. She couldn’t follow some simple rules in a contract she signed. She allowed the repossession of the dog by the shelter while advising the family she gave the dog to NOT to go to the rescue shelter to sign the required papers thinking the shelter personnel would cave under pressure from her “phalanx of lawyers”.
Her breakdown on TV was more about her own failure to secure the dog for her hairdresser’s family HER WAY. It was a last ditch ploy for the baby to get her bottle and it didn’t work. Ellen is just another arrogant Hollywood asshole drunk on money and power.
Digger is right, that there are VERY good reasons for such policy, but so is Amanda, in that I’ve seen first-hand that there’s a lot of power/control issues in that particular field. Part of it is that it’s something that often has very different elements coming together for a central good, and that on its own creates a lot of conflict.
Part of it is that animal humane work is for some people their “proof” that they are a good caring person, when they’re really an asshole.
Stuff the dog maybe? Tho’ dog steak sounds very yummy right now.
(what? what? … what did I say?)
Have to disagree with Digger about the prong collar. I’ve adopted a golden retreiver/lab mix from a shelter, who’s sixty pounds and VERY strong. Since I only weigh about a hundred or so, that means he could yank me around like a kite. Once he nearly dragged us both into the path of an on coming car. We got him a prong collar and he’s fine with it; he wags his tale when he hears it rattle, because he knows it means we’ll go for a walk. He’ll even sit down while we push it over his head. So, yes, sometimes they are necessary.
OT, speaking of fanatics, the Shreiking Harpy Brigade is really going to go nuts over Harry Potter when they hear Dumbledore is gay.
Please don’t insult people like that. Animal rescue workers know the difference, through a lot of personal experience in putting down the animals themselves. There is nothing wrong treating an animal adoption like that of a child - it’s about care of a living being. Please don’t use a slippery slope argument like that.
And oh, animal rescue workers generally have a healthy dislike of PETA. PETA is known for being extremely trigger happy when it comes to putting down animals.
Except that adopting an animal is absolutely nothing like adopting a child.
I am a huge animal lover, actually. Cats, really, not dogs, but though I personally don’t want one, I do have huge compassion for them.
And though I would run into a burning building to save my cats, I know that they are not the same as children. Animals are actually, as a general rule, highly adaptive. They can get used to new owners rather quickly, in most cases, barring situations of abuse and very extended prior living arrangements.
Animals, plain and simple, do not have the same rights as humans. A few examples: you can take in stray animals. My family has taken in many stray cats. A lot of the ones that we weren’t able to capture and take in were hit by cars. You could not take in a stray child that you saw walking along the street. You would, rightfully, be compelled to take that child to the authorities. Would you honestly suggest, though, that loving families who want to take in animals — and provide them with correct veterinary care — should not be able to do so? And, if for some reason you cannot keep your dog, would you suggest that taking it to a pound, where it might be killed, is better than passing it off to a family that you know you can trust?
What about spaying and neutering? I hope that you would support this practice that keeps down the already overflowing population of animals that have no caretakers. But certainly, we wouldn’t do the same to children, or even adults. At least, we wouldn’t past the 1970s or so.
Again: not the same. Ellen may have violated a contract, and that’s wrong. But that the animal workers would steal the dog from another family — even the idea that the animal workers would still have control over the animal once it has been adopted — is bullshit. You can talk about Ellen’s sense of entitlement all you want, and I might even agree with you. But don’t tell me that the animal workers don’t have a huge sense of entitlement, as well.
“It would be similar to adopting a child…”
I didn’t mean it literally. I was exaggerating for effect.
Personally I think dogs are boring. I’ve had three raccoons from the wild as pets and they are about 10 times more interesting.
Hey, don’t discriminate against Chicago just because it’s not a coastal city! I’ve heard stories of responsible cat owners in this area having to work overtime to prove their worth to overly stringent rescue shelter workers. The big cities in the Heartland have their fair share of assholes too, you know.
I noted Ms. Degeneres’ apology, etc., above, and JimB noted some misconduct that she purportedly engaged in. The shelter’s lawyers have a different version of events than Ellen and allege that Degeneres did not want to — and told the family with the children not to — fill out the paperwork to obtain the dog, preferring media and legal pressure:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303567,00.html
I hope and trust that Jesus will forgive me for referring people to Fox.
The is whole episode is yet more proof that any sufficiently ideological movement will eventually devolve into totalitarian control given enough time and enough “warriors” committed to “the cause”, no matter how clean, pure, and sacred the motivations were at the start.
Marx did not envision the Soviet Union when he wrote Das Kapital - he was trying to give workers some control over their own lives.
The Founders of the United States of America did not foresee Dick Cheney perverting everything they did in the name of “freedom” and “democracy”.
Likewise, the founders of PETA certainly wanted people to treat animals with love, respect, and dignity - and probably didn’t project that this would lead to no pet every being allowed in a home with children, etc.
Sad…
…the followers of Jesus of Nazareth begin in peace and harmony, fighting against the evil Roman Empire to gain freedom for themselves and others, following a god that emphasized love, caring for others, helping the downtrodden, etc., and a few centuries later people are being tortured, imprisoned, burned at the stake for not being christians or not following the church’s dictates to the letter…
MikeEss’s comment above is one of those gems of wisdom that arise on the blogs now and then, that seem to capture an element of truth about some situation with absolute clarity. My compliments! I work in a shelter on a small island. Neither me nor my co-workers are control freaks. Amanda’s remarks pissed me off. Then I read MikeEss’s comment and understood. I see where Amanda is coming from.
She is one of those devolved warriors.
“… a few centuries later people are being tortured, imprisoned, burned at the stake for not being christians…”
Where only a few centuries earlier Christians were “being tortured, imprisoned, burned at the stake” for being Christians.
You gotta love human nature, never a dull moment.
Amanda,
My experience says this is an LA thing, maybe NYC- when I read the Degeneres story, I was immedaitely reminded of a friend’s experience. They had gone to one rescue place and it became apparent that the only people they would allow adopt would be couples with one member working no more than half time, because the animal wouldn’t ever be allowed to be alone during a work day. It was kind of sad. We rescued one of our dogs from an awesome shelter. I think they realized that it is a crap shoot with any owners, but they also know that if they move a dog they can rescue another dog from a pound.
You know, I wub my kitty vewy much, but Animal People drive me insane. Animals are property, not people! Sure, they’re cute and often intelligent property, and should be treated with love and dignity and respect, but they’re not exactly standing up and declaring cogito ergo sum. They lick their own asses! Pardon me if I’m not falling down and begging for forgiveness for not appreciating their special unique snowflakeness.
If my building were on fire I’d rescue my kitty before I tried to put pants on, but if he were very sick I’d put him to sleep before I pauperized myself trying to keep him well. I love him, but I know he’s not people. That doesn’t make me a horrible person, that makes me someone who has some grip on reality.
Godless Heathen, you better prepare for an onslaught of hate mail. You’ve stepped over the PETA line into becoming an enemy of animals. Right now, there’s probably already a PETA strike team getting ready for the attack…
(Repent, repent!, before they are forced to take their retribution!)
I guess we’re lucky that Malkin isn’t a PETA-ite…
As far as I’m concerned, a “pet adoption contract” ceases to be binding the minute the animal is in the new owner’s possession. Allowing a shelter to take an animal away weeks, months, or years after the adoption is as ridiculous as allowing Circuit City to come to my house and take away my DVD player if I watch movies they don’t like.
Degeneres did everything right — she got the dog, determined that it was not right for her household, and got it a home where the dog and its new owners could be happy.
There was no need to consult the shelter because the shelter did not own the dog. The shelter was not buying the dog’s food or its squeaky toys. It was not providing a roof over its head. It was no longer responsible for vet visits, vaccinations, getting the dog into the tub for baths, teaching it to stay out of the kitchen trash, taking it out for a poop at 3 a.m. in mid-January, or giving it a good wrasslin’ before bedtime. The shelter did not own the dog anymore.
As far as I’m concerned, the shelter is guilty of dog theft. I think they should face charges, and the dog should be returned to its rightful owners.
Wally, you’re morally right. But are you legally right? Some jurisdictions forbid conditional sales, others permit contracts governing post-sale care and control of the property in question. Do any Pandagonians know of the validity of such restrictive covenants within their jurisdiction?
If we can take Ms. Degeneres’ own admission of breach of the contract as being a statement that California law permits such covenants, she had a foolproof method of avoiding such tiny powertrippers: not signing such a bonehead contract. I’ve got boundless sympathy for the wronged children in this case, but not for her. Multimillionaires with lawyers on call cannot complain if they sign something they don’t like.
Penn and Teller’s (”Bullshit!”) take on PETA:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY
I’ll add that I’m not arguing with any specific policies. My point is that the policies give cover to people on self-righteous power trips. Ellen might be very famous, but she’s also a lesbian, and the selective enforcement of this policy was done no doubt with the full (if subconscious) awareness that a lot of people would enjoy seeing a rich and famous lesbian get her comeuppance, regardless of the reasoning. For someone on a power trip, the size if the target makes her all the more appealing, because by sticking it to her, you make yourself feel much, much bigger. The fact that the rescue people are making a big deal out of Ellen’s fame only confirms that they’re a bit delighted with themselves that they overpowered such a powerful target.
It’s worth noting, too, that the occupation of her friend is being bandied around—hairdresser=working class=a bunch of stereotypes about how the working class don’t have well-behaved children.
Oh goodness, of all the categories of people to attack on the Interwebs, why shelter workers? Maybe they’re just surly because they’re tired of watching humans treat non-human animals like shit. Plus they don’t get paid very well. Why not pick on DMV employees?
And for the last time, PETA does not represent the interests or feelings of animal rights advocates. Stop invoking PETA every time you encounter someone who makes a big deal about animal well-being.* Animal advocates are a diverse crew with varying motivations, levels of judgment, and actions. You only notice the “angry” ones because they’re the ones who speak up.
* And yes, it is a big deal.
Two things.
One, can we not paint all AR people with the same brush, please? I’m pro-AR and I have nothing to do with PETA. Assuming that every AR supporter has ties to PETA is a little bit like how the wingnuts pretend everything they hate is funded by George Soros. There’s diversity and complexity; don’t sell that short.
Two, whether or not animals are people seems to be irrelevant to the point, because it remains true that animals are beings beyond our property. If you hurt my dog, it’s not just an affront to me; it’s an affront to my dog. Legally my dog has no recourse, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t experience the event and suffer because of it. This doesn’t mean he’s a person; it means that you have committed a moral wrong against him. That’s far more complex than property.
The “no children” thing fascinates me. As someone who personally loves animals more than children, I can tell you exactly what prejudice is in play there. Of course, I don’t support it, and it’s mean and nasty—I mentioned last night randomly that Dusty hasn’t encountered any children since the kicking incident that set off a chain of events that led to her coming into my life, but I doubt she’d care either way if she did.
Ah… Ellen has the “power” issues.
Probably. Doesn’t mean that the arbitrary, power-mongering assholes who took the kids’ dog don’t, though. In fact, it just drives home the point that they probably smelled someone powerful and decided to go after her for self-aggrandizing reasons.
There’s a hint of class issues to the whole thing.
Oh, there’s more than a hint. As soon as my husband saw the story, he said, “Well, of course they freaked out — they thought the dog was going to a rich and famous TV star, and instead it ended up with a hairdresser!!! who wasn’t going to be able to get all of her rich and famous friends to adopt from them.”
There’s also a class issue that people outside of Southern California may not realize: Pasadena, where the organization is located, is very much Old Money. Beverly Hills and Bel-Air are for the nouveaux riches. Pasadena is where the Right Kind of People live.
Which makes it especially funny that JimB is complaining about Ellen being nouveau riche, since that’s probably part of what was going through the rescuers’ minds: “My god, how could we ever allowed someone to adopt a dog who thought a hairdresser was an appropriate owner! Clearly she’s not the Right Kind of Person after all!”
I’ve done animal rescue for years and it’s a complicated issue. From my experience:
1. The longer you’re in animal rescue, the more you learn to hate people. You wouldn’t believe the horrible crap we see, on a regular basis. Yeah, we’ve got horror stories, because one quarter of the human population are total bastards to their animals, 50% are somewhere in the middle and the other 25% are absolute saints, and it’s very hard to tell who is who.
Generally speaking, the more grizzled veterans are the ones who are the most inflexible and paranoid. Not always, but that’s what I’ve noticed. They’ve been burnt too many times.
2. Yes, for some volunteers, there’s definitely a power trip aspect involved. My family, when we were fostering for an individual who ran a rescue organization, didn’t follow her vet instructions exactly as she wanted for one of the sick dogs we were caring for. The lady flipped out and took away all our fosters, including one we were about to adopt who my family adored. It was a power move, plain and simple, and the worst part was, she then put the dog into hiding so we couldn’t find out who adopted the dog and how it was. Crazily enough, the lady came back later and asked us for help, because we were damn good fosters. It took her a while to realize we weren’t ever going to help her or talk to her again.
3. That said, there are generally speaking, really good reasons for why certain dogs aren’t allowed in certain homes. Toy breeds generally aren’t allowed in homes with children because we’ve seen too many little dogs kicked like soccer balls by 5 year olds or with broken legs. We insist people bring the dog back to us if it doesn’t work out because if they don’t, we usually find the dog on a side of the road or in a shelter, oftentimes abused or abandoned by the family they were handed off to. Still, there’s got to be flexibility. If the kids are close to 14, for example, and the family’s a good match, go ahead with the adoption.
4. Again, there’s got to be flexibility and some organizations and rescuers don’t have it. I use a prong collar myself on the abused Rottweiler I have, because he’s terrified of men and I don’t want a biting incident. My little sister, who used to do home visits, would outright reject a family if they had ever used an electric fence. Now that she’s a little older, she realizes how biased she was. Flexibility is the key, and humans aren’t always known for flexibility.
I guess to sum up: There are definitely some people in animal rescue who are on a power trip, much of the time though, people are acting on previous experience and their own biases, if they’re giving you a hard time getting an animal. What I tell most people is: It’s usually not personal. We really don’t know most adopters from Adam. We try to get to know you, but we’ve got an application and maybe one face to face meeting to get acquainted and that’s it. We try our best, but we’re human and we can screw up.
I wish some organization’s out there would be more flexible too, because as has been mentioned, you’ve got a situation now where certain areas have much less of a pet overpopulation problem, and group’s are getting picky, then there are the poorer, more rural areas where most animals in the shelter are being euthanized and these animals would be grateful for any home they could get, as long as they weren’t being abused. It’s an inequitable situation. More needs to be done to help these rural shelters (though to be fair, a lot of the rescue groups team up with these rural shelters to help with the overflow. Three of my family’s adopted rescue dogs came from West Virginia or Rural PA).
Amanda: I’m not saying that there aren’t some people with power issues in rescue, but not everyone is like that. More often than not, the rules are there to CYA for the rescue, the adopter and the dog. In some places, rescues can be held liable for adopting out a dangerous dog (hence, why you have to have a ridiculous amount of insurance to work with pitties in Ohio), as can the owner. And it’s for the kids’ protection too: Ellen didn’t have children, so a dog that’s not good with kids wouldn’t have been an issue for her, but it would have been for the family that she gave it to.
seeker: Some rescue ops specialize in difficult cases- mine had its fair share.
There was a beagle/pointer mix (we’ll call him Churchill) who had some protection issues. When I was first introduced to him, I had to be the only one in his run- if someone else was there that he trusted, he would immediately go into Protection Mode, and I wouldn’t be able to get near either. I had to let him sniff my hand, accept a treat and a pat on the head, and only then could I put the choke collar over his head and take him outside. When walking him, I could not allow anyone to approach me, even to shake my hand, because he would have percieved that as an attack on me, and acted in defense. There was a very specific type of home Churchill had to go to, and after some time, we finally found it. He is a good, healthy, smart dog who would lay down his life to protect his human, and while I wouldn’t have wanted to see him put down, there is no way on God’s Green Earth that I would have let him go to a home with kids or other dogs.
Dogs like Churchill stay in rescue organizations for longer because they are harder to adopt out; maybe the shelter in question just had more cases like Churchill.
Blue Jean: If your dog wags his tail when you get out the prong collar, you’re not the person I’m talking about.
He associates the prong collar with good things, like going for a walk, smelling stuff, and being with his people, and not with the punishment that some people use it as.
Or, I don’t doubt Ellen is pulling rank but she’s still not the one who got a sadistic trip out of depriving children of their pet.
She is one of those devolved warriors.
Wow, I note that it’s not everyone, point out that I’ve done animal work, am a squishy animal person, but venture the smallest criticism of the behavior of some people, and suddenly I’m a fascist in your eyes.
How is that supposed to be an argument against the tendency to extremist nonsense in Animal People, again?
Oh goodness, of all the categories of people to attack on the Interwebs, why shelter workers? Maybe they’re just surly because they’re tired of watching humans treat non-human animals like shit. Plus they don’t get paid very well. Why not pick on DMV employees?
I’m sure all of the upper-class housewives who run Mutts and Moms would just love to have you refer to them as underpaid employees instead of the generous benefactresses that they see themselves as.
I do notice that it’s not the actual animal shelters that tend to have this problem. I had to fill out a bit of paperwork when I adopted my first cat from the LA County Animal Shelter, but they were eager to have me find a pet that I liked. It’s the private organizations who decide that they’re morally better than those horrible shelters that kill animals.
Though, after bashing private organizations, I should give a shout-out to Happy Strays here in Los Angeles. We’ve adopted two cats from them and they were very good. We did sign a contract (even the county shelter makes you sign something), but they were definitely more interested in getting the cats into good homes than they were in power-tripping every aspect of the cat’s life. And Keaton and his new little sister are very happy with each other.
Heh. My grandparents complained once about the batshit insane qualifications for adopting animals out in California, when they were talking about how they had gotten one of their collies. Of course, that was when they were stationed there, after my grandfather got back from Korea.
I’d never adopt from a place that reserved the right to repossess an animal, though. My pets are members of my family, and I’d be no more okay with some jackass who may or may not have even worked for the organization when I got the animal taking them away than I would be okay with some random person trying to make medical decisions for them, feed them random crap, or discipline them while they were in my custody.
why shelter workers?
Some shelter workers. I’ve met plenty of nice ones. But the equation of some shelter workers with all shelter workers going on here really shows how groupthink kicks in—I can really see how the most power-tripping ones in very crowded cities become the dominant and possibly only voices.
Amanda: I’m not saying that there aren’t some people with power issues in rescue, but not everyone is like that.
Thank god I devoted a lot of my post to explaining how it wasn’t everyone, that hasn’t been my experience, in no small part because there’s controls against the most sadistic people setting the standards. Or else the accusations that I’m accusing everyone would have merit.
preying mantis: I think you misunderstand the return policy. In all the cases that I’ve seen, the rescue only reserves the right to take the animal back only if you can’t care for it. How are they going to know if you can’t care for it, by reason of moving, illness, or just not working out? They don’t check up on you- you have to tell them.
I really stand by the return policy- while I think a lot of things are a judgement call and involve a lot of grey areas, the return policy is generally a good idea.
Blue Jean–prong collars can be very useful, but you don’t put them on over the dog’s head. Open it by pinching one of the prongs out of the other and put it on that way (like a necklace with a clasp). Here’s info:
http://leerburg.com/fit-prong.htm
I have a 25-pound terrier mix that can knock me off my feet. Prongs can definitely be useful with a strong-willed, strong-bodied dog. I’ve heard them referred to as “power steering,” which I think is pretty accurate.
Now I’m curious to check on exactly what our return policy is, but Keaton is laying on the pile that the adoption packet is in. Silly kitty.
When he gets up, I’ll post it.
(Trust me, when the 12-pound cat decides to lay on a pile of stuff, it’s easier to let him lay there, especially since all cats have the “go limp” instinct to make themselves twice as heavy when they don’t want to be picked up.)
It’s not the policy, it seems to me. Obviously, the dog-fighting example is a good one. But it’s fascinating how dog-fighting is brought out to justify the policy of taking dogs from 12 year olds who love them.
As for the small kids/toy dogs thing, I’d have more sympathy if there weren’t examples of the policy being used to justify depriving small kids of medium sized dogs or big kids of dogs. Again, I’m sympathetic to animal people who secretly believe that animals dislike children—we all project our prejudices on animals and pretend that they share them. But the reality is, whether you like playing with kids or not, dogs love it most of the time.
Amanda: I think we’re misreading each other’s posts. Maybe a better way to say it would have been: Yeah, sometimes the policies can create a haven for people with power issues, but these are the exceptions and not the rule. Rescues have to work together because it’s such a big job, and with few exceptions they tend to police themselves. Besides, the rules are there for good reasons, and I’m sure if you ask a few people in the more restrictive rescues nicely about it, they’ll be more than happy to tell you about the cases that made them necessary.
Some of your phrasing- turning a return policy and the fact that the rescue wants to do a thorough vetting of the family that their dog is going to into a power/class thing- made me a bit uncomfortable with the width of the brush you appear to be using. I apologize for misreading your statement.
JimB said:
Well, this is interesting. For someone who professes enough respect for animals to compare animal adoption, even figuratively, to child adoption, this kind of cavalier admission that you have no problem with just adopting raccoons out of the wild certainly is revealing. It reveals a great deal of ignorance, whether willful or not, about how best to care for animals, and perhaps a great deal of arrogance: “I love animals, so it’s okay for ME to just adopt whatever I want.” But Ellen, well, she broke a CONTRACT when she gave a dog to that nice family. What a BITCH!
The feeding or adoption of wild animals is reckless and irresponsible, where both your health and the well-being of the animals are concerned. Raccons are vectors for countless diseases, and taking them in doesn’t do the local over-sized, human-dependent population any good. Thinking that you somehow know better is foolish. You don’t. I’m disinclined to take seriously someone who opines about animal rights and compassion on the one hand while casually admitting their own irresponsible, anti-compassionate (because compassion may be intended, but the end result is the opposite) adoption of wildlife.
http://www.petfinder.com/statement.html
This sums it up rather nicely.
Amanda, before you started this thread you apparently were not aware that the rescue shelter had told Ellen and the hairdressers family that all they had to do was go fill out some paperwork and the dog would be given to the hairdresser’s children. So the facts put the shelter on high ground and it’s Ellen who’s not looking so good.
Rather than admit that, you make a number of character smearing guesses as to what the shelter’s real motives were in the incident.
What were Ellen’s motives in advising the hairdresser’s family NOT to go to the shelter and simply fill out the paperwork since you can read the “subconscious” of people’s minds? Did she simply want to save the working class family some time? Or gasoline to help reduce global warming? Or did she get offended that someone didn’t recognize her worth as a rich Hollywood star and bend over backwards to give her what she wanted.
Usually your instincts are to side with the little guy (or gal in this case) against the bullying well-connected. I don’t understand your inconsistency in this case.
Jill Soloway has a really funny story about how people project their subconscious prejudices and sense of self onto their dogs, like a friend of hers who sleeps around a lot accusing her dog in baby talk of being a slutty girl, or this weird urge she had to believe that a dog she liked secretly harbored fantasies of not being appreciated. Dogs more than cats really lend themselves to this sort of projection, because they’re so compliant and eager to please you. And of course, quiet. That’s why my eyebrows twitch ungenerously when I hear someone go on about how absolutely sure, for instance, a shelter worker is that all the dogs in a place don’t like children.
Cats certainly make themselves available to this sort of projection, but not to the same degree. Still, the shelter completely fumbled the ball on assessing Molly’s personality—they described her as friendly and warned me she might develop into an aggressive cat. After two days of having her, I realized there was not an aggressive bone in her body. Now, she is best described as sweet, but submissive and almost painfully shy.
Thanks for the link, Louise. This part leapt out at me:
Wow. Regardless of where one stands, is this not the most backhanded bit of patronizing softspeak you have ever seen?Ellen signed the contract, and it is very standard for rescues to have language in their contracts clearly saying that if you are ever unable to keep the dog, it must be returned to the rescue. This is because rescues want their dogs to go into homes that have been screened. As Digger noted, the rescue workers know the dogs’ history and issues.
As for rescues that don’t adopt out to ANY homes with children, I would agree that might be going overboard. More than likely it’s because they are so afraid of a child being bitten that they don’t want to take the chance. So many times dogs who go through the rescue process have been traumatized before, and their behavior can be unpredictable. This is exacerbated around kids, whose own unpredictable behavior can make even temperate dogs nervous.
Yes, there are some assholes with power trips in rescues. Yes, we are hyper- and maybe over-vigilant in screening new homes for them. That’s because we deal with a lot of jerks, and we see animals go through a lot of heartbreaking stuff, and there’s no doubt a lot of rescue workers get jaded.
I just hate that animal rescuers are being painted with such a broad and bad brush in the media over this.
Ellen is the asshole here. She broke the contract. And now she is going all over TV causing bad press for animal rescue organizations. This was a private dispute and there was no reason for that. Thanks, Ellen. You’re doing a lot for animals.
“And, if for some reason you cannot keep your dog, would you suggest that taking it to a pound, where it might be killed, is better than passing it off to a family that you know you can trust?”
A rescue isn’t a pound. Most rescues don’t even have a physical shelter building - they rely on volunteer foster homes. They don’t euthanize without a medical reason.
I know this is totally the wrong blog for me to raise this
correspondent spectre but
I think this is absolutely as true for the CSED types.
[anybody’s who’s been on the receiving end of the child support enforcement types know what I’m sayin’]
So-o sorry, boss.
Yeah, sometimes the policies can create a haven for people with power issues, but these are the exceptions and not the rule.
I agreed. In the post. Most people do not live in the overcrowded coastal cities (and Chicago). But the number of stories flying out of specific areas, namely LA, NYC, DC, and Chicago, of shelter workers that won’t release a dog to you unless you fit a very specific and ever-changing criteria can’t be waved away so easily, especially now that we’ve seen someone take it to the point that they had a dramatic home invasion to snatch a dog from a family that’s main crime was being grateful to get a puppy. I was just trying to speculate why those communities have such hellions running the show, people who have seem to have forgotten their basic mission is to get dogs into homes. Once you stampede into a home to take a dog from a good family, you’ve completely lost perspective on what you’re supposed to be doing in the first place.
Ah, here it is:
This, to me, seems like a perfectly reasonable clause, which is why I signed the contract. If I can’t keep the cat and I find it a new home myself, they want me to tell them so they can keep track. If I can’t find a new home on my own, they’ll have me bring it to their Saturday adoptions and put it up on the website or, in the worst case scenario, put it back in a foster home with their organization.
This is quite a bit different than what Mutts & Moms seems to be claiming they can do, which is, “We can show up at the new house and repossess the animal if you give it away without our approval.”
That’s part of what’s so weird about the Mutts & Moms story. For people who don’t think that pets are property, they sure acted like repo agents. Was Harry Dean Stanton with them?
Rather than admit that,
Okay, admitted. Still doesn’t make it right to take a dog from a loving family as a show of muscle, to make yourself feel important and possibly to snit a little at people who are too low class to deserve “your” dogs.
JimB, be fair; you can’t take someone to task for uncritically accepting Ellen’s word whilst uncritically accepting the word of their opponent’s lawyer. All we know is that assertion is what was said by the lawyer for the shelter, who says that they “have the emails” [to prove it].While I neither believe nor disbelieve him it does rather smack of “we haff documents!”, so I laughed a bit. Besides, if I had a dollar for every time some opposing litigant or lawyer crowed that they had documents proving X when the documents said no such thing I would be posting this from a beach in the Caymans. In any event, we also do not know the context of the refusal. It is quite possible (and wholly in keeping with the confrontational dynamics of such situations) that Degeneres and the family were treated like shit and refused to come on down for a second helping, or it was made clear to them that they could fill out the paperwork but wouldn’t have any chance of adopting because of the first breach of contract. I lost count of the number of cases I saw where such offers to come in and negotiate or sign a new agreement had far less to do with settlement than they did with making a despised opponents jump like a monkey through a hoop or three.
Oh, one other thing about the Fox interview linked to above. Look how quickly the lawyer moves to the “arrogant hollywood asshole and we’re just the little people” meme. Who knows, it might be true. Or it might not. I wonder, though, if this dispute had been between, say, reliable Republican Clint Eastwood and an animal shelter Fox would have lept into it that way. Probably not.
You know, for a rescue organization that is supposedly so careful in their adoptions, they sure screwed up by putting a dog that didn’t get along with cats into a home that already had cats, didn’t they? I thought that was one of the basic things that they screen for.
Actually, the one thing that the Animal People self-righteousness—like the quote that seeker has—is that of the parenting drive-bys. Parenting drive-bys are constrained mainly by the rights of parents to their children, but imagine if there was a situation where busybodies could in fact enforce their various rules on parents of children, could demand that you give up your children if, say, you had to apply for S-CHIP or you wanted to raise them atheist or you were a single parent. Imagine if those people had an ounce of power to enforce their unfair beliefs on you. The dog collar thing is like giving the pro- and anti-circumcision people power to take your kids away on that one issue.
Also, in our contract we have a requirement that dogs adopted from us not be put in prong collars unless under the direction of an animal behaviorist. Of course, I work for a Chihuahua rescue, so I don’t think that’s unreasonable.
I agree that some dogs need to be on prong collars or they’d never be able to leave the house. Aggressive dogs, mainly. For dogs whose issue is pulling on the leash, I know a lot of folks who have had big success with the Halti and the Gentle Leader. My boss used the Gentle Leader on her humongous Boxer and when he was a puppy and now he is great on walks, even on a regular leash.
“preying mantis: I think you misunderstand the return policy.”
I don’t have a problem with a return policy, which is why I didn’t say “return policy.” Repossess, last time I checked, was not synonymous with return.
I do, however, have a huge problem with policies that let shelters yank an animal out of the home it was placed into because they don’t agree with prong collars, or the dog being given the run of the yard while no one’s home, etc. And while I would not characterize it as a plague on the animal shelter landscape, there have been some pretty fucked up instances of it happening, and there are quite a few whose contract includes that.
Also, dude, the raccoon thing? What was wrong with leaving them in the wild or finding a place in a sanctuary for them?
Grolby, you sure have a lot to say with so little to go on. In geometry, did you constantly try to fit a plane to a singular point? I ask because you mention vectors.
In the comments, after (in my opinion rightly) being accused of generalizing animal rescue people in big cities you say:
I think I have an idea why people might think you are accusing everyone. From your post:
And in terms of saying it hasn’t been your experience, let’s review your words again:
Enough qualifiers there? First you describe your somewhat perhaps arguably decent treatment and then say that you “have to wonder” if other people get treated as well as you, meaning aggressively interrogated.
Maybe the argument that you are accusing everyone does have merit.
Re: lack of priorities
We had a once stray lab that we took in because no one else would once she got hurt and needed medical care. I could not watch a dog be put down because she needed stitches which is what the animal control said they would do.
Lucky was a great dog but had two horrible habits that we could not break her of: She ran and she chased cars. If the door was open, or the gate was open, off she went. And she did not come back until she felt like it. Nothing we did, no amount of training would break her of this habit. I’ve heard many lab owners say it’s just part of the breed. They do that.
Through various moves and so on, we ended up living in a busy area on a busy road so we made sure we had fences all around the property and gates because not only did we have the dog, my son was 18 mo old at the time. We had a fence and gates but Lucky would jump the fence or dig under it and we could not keep her inside no matter what we did. She chased cars in traffic and almost got hit 1,000 times. We didn’t want her to get hurt, nor could we afford the liability if she caused a wreck. So, I called the Lab Rescue to see if we could give the dog directly to them rather than taking the chance she wouldn’t be found by them before she was put down.
The Rescue person told us to electrify our fence. When I explained that I had an 18 mo. old child and that wasn’t an option, she said, “Well, the dog was there first. But I guess we all have our priorities now don’t we?”
“Why, yes.” I said, “Yes, we do.” And took the dog to pound.
(Turns out, the lab rescue found her there, and gave her a new home. I know this because one day, Lucky came running into our yard, fat as a tick. I called the pound who told me to call the rescue people to find out who had adopted her, and they came and got the dog. The adoptive folks said, “Now I see what you were talking about.”)
I agree, and I didn’t mean to imply that it was. However, I have worked in a no-kill shelter. And they are not all so great. It’s run by people who absolutely LOVE animals, but the building is overcrowded, the smell of ammonia makes you want to vomit and if one animal gets ill, a lot do, and animals die. Yes, I do know this from person experience — my family adopted a kitten from this shelter, she became incredibly sick right after we got her home, almost died and would have if we had not been able to watch over her 24/7 (she’s very healthy and doing well at 8 years old, now). They have the best of intentions, but that doesn’t make it a good environment. Being non-profits, they’re not all lovely, pristine facilities.
And though I would give an animal to that shelter before a pound, I can’t imagine ever dropping an animal off and leaving it in those conditions. I feel that it would be a much worse thing to do, since it could easily live in that shelter for years, than outright giving it to someone I know can care for it.
As a side note, why the hell is a volunteer foster home better than anyone else’s? Yes, there are abusive situations, but the case with this dog was not one of them. Isn’t stability with a good family better than a foster home where the dog will sit around waiting for the world’s most perfectly-perfect parents?
I do think that if you can’t find a safe, good home for your pet, you should return it to the shelter. But the shelter telling anyone who they can give their animal to is bullshit. Period.
Amanda, I think you’re turning this into a class issue when I don’t think it is. A power trip? Yeah, OK, I’ll buy that. But the women in question run a freakin’ pet store. How is that so vastly above a TV star’s hairdresser?
What Ellen did was illegal. What the family in question did was illegal. The rescue was well within their rights to get the dog back.
I like this take on the whole situation.
Just to emphasize an important point made earlier: I don’t take a person’s compassion towards animals seriously if that person has decided to support the meat factories (aka factory “farms”).
preying mantis: If the rescue organization had a problem with you using prong collars, electric fences, cats, kids, etc., they wouldn’t let you have the animal in the first place, and suggest you go elsewhere. The reason why it was taken out of this situation is because 1) Ellen broke the contract, 2) The family techincally didn’t own the dog, and 3) Ellen couldn’t care for the dog anymore, so the rescue now gets it.
The last raccoon I had the privilege to care for was returned to the wild by a professional rehabilitator. It along with a sibling had dropped out of a hole in a dead tree by the side of a road because they were starving. There was a large raccoon a few hundred yards up the road run over. I was driving by and saw a woman holding back a large dog on a leash. The dog had bitten into the sibling and it was dying. I stopped the car, got out and noticed two other siblings’ crushed on the road as well. I threw a towel over the lone family survivor and took him home. The guy I was scheduled to play racquetball with that day was not too happy I missed our play date.
I kept him through late spring and into October. I had always told my kids how wonderful raccoons were and they got a chance to see first hand. The thing had the run of the house and taught himself to use a litter box. He also learned to let himself out of the house by opening the screen door where he’d go climb his favorite tree and come in when he got hungry. Besides a few thousand dollars of damage inside the house, it was a great experience for everyone involved and I agonized as to what to do with him.
I know about disease vectors and the law. By phoning enough rehabilitators, I found one who would not kill it as required by law to see if it was rabid, since it had come into contact with humans, e.g. including my five children. It was kept in isolation from human contact through the winter and successfully released in the spring. Was it irresponsible keeping it? Yep. Do I regret it? Nope.
Yeah, Digger, you keep pointing that out and I think that all of us agree that this is what actually occurred. We understand why the animal was taken from the family’s home and that it was legal for them to do so.
What you seem to be missing is that, while we acknowledge this, it doesn’t make the situation right. Ellen broke the contract. Okay. She shouldn’t have done that. What the hell does that have to do with yanking the dog from the new owner’s home? Just because they could doesn’t mean they should have. “Legal” is not always “ethical.”
Remember the case from a while back where an elderly woman was given a ticket for crossing the street too slowly? Well, technically she was breaking the law. Technically, the cop was enforcing the law. But the cop was still an asshole and he was still wrong.
Pointing out the legality does not help your cause because I don’t see anyone debating whether or not this was a legal move, only if it was an ethical, humane and appropriate one.
Amanda, I think you’re turning this into a class issue when I don’t think it is. A power trip? Yeah, OK, I’ll buy that. But the women in question run a freakin’ pet store. How is that so vastly above a TV star’s hairdresser?
They’re in Pasadena. The hairdresser probably lives in Torrance or Gardena. Maybe Culver City, if she’s lucky.
Seriously, if you don’t understand what Pasadena means in Southern California, at least watch Mildred Pierce.
All of us in LA know exactly what it means that this organization is based in Pasadena.
This certainly is a class issue.
A rich celebrity signed a contract, decided not to follow it, then had a public meltdown when they didn’t get their way. I admire the shelter’s courage for standing up against the wealthy and powerful.
I feel sorry for the family who got the dog; they trusted a friend and employer and got screwed for it. If they are the good household they claim to be, I hope they can adopt another dog.
(I like to think that the twelve year old in this case has learned that animals have legal rights too, and that maybe celebrities and adults can’t always be trusted.)
Amanda wrote:
>She finally bought a dog from a breeder,* which is >something that came to mind for me frequently when >the Animal People descended on Jessica, demanding >an explanation for why she bought a dog from a >breeder instead of a shelter. There’s echoes of >conservatives who want to ban birth control, sex ed, >and abortion but also don’t want to lift a finger to >help people take care of all the unplanned children >expected to result from that. Physician, heal thyself.
Is this paragraph arguing that people who favor adopting loving dogs from overcrowded shelters are similar to the people (anti-choice Republicans) who _favor_ policies that promote homeless, hungry mammals?
If not, I am uncertain what it means.
“If the rescue organization had a problem with you using prong collars, electric fences, cats, kids, etc., they wouldn’t let you have the animal in the first place, and suggest you go elsewhere.”
In a perfect world, yes. In a world where one person’s definition of “inhumane” or “unsuitable” varies from another’s, people do get (shock, gasp, etc) new pets or have kids (or marry someone with kids) after adopting from a shelter, and any particular staff members you deal with might not have brought their A game to adoption services that day, not so much.
Not to mention that the organization is what you sign the contract with, and if they go through half their staff and take a turn for the crazypants, you still have to contend with that fluctuation. Arguing that they didn’t consider this, that, or the other “unsuitable” when you got the animal does not help much when the contract states that they retain rights to the animal, period, and now they do consider those things unsuitable.
A rich celebrity signed a contract, decided not to follow it, then had a public meltdown when they didn’t get their way. I admire the shelter’s courage for standing up against the wealthy and powerful.
Sorry to break it to you, but the people who run the shelter are also wealthy and powerful. They’re Old Money, and Ellen is just a TV celebrity who overstepped her boundaries. Do you really think that most rescue organizations have the resources to hire lawyers who can get a warrant served and bring the cops with them to confiscate the animal within a few days?
Sweet Jesus, I wish you people understood anything at all about Southern California and our cities.
Was it right for Ellen to give the dog to the family to begin with? Was that ethical?
And is the family in question really all that great? I am working class, and I love dogs. There is nothing wrong with this. But so’s my cousin who let his dog get pregnant and still won’t get her spayed. He should not have a dog. I work 10 hour days and overtime, and I can’t always be home to walk a dog. I do not- and should not- have a dog. I have no doubt that they could afford a dog, but should they have one? Would they have time to take care of it? Did their last three dogs die early of preventable causes or “run away from home”? Did they have a fenced in yard, or something to restrain Iggy for his own protection? Were the 11 and 12 year old girls in question responsible, or was there evidence that they might mistreat the dog? I don’t know, I wasn’t there, and neither was anyone else on this blog. So with this in mind, did Ellen do the ethical thing by giving the dog to them?
Sometimes to clean up a mess, you have to make a bigger mess, and I think that’s what happened here. The rescue acted ethically by taking a dog that they owned out of a situation they could not control.
“Okay, admitted.”
My respect for you just went way up, not that it wasn’t already up there to begin with. Hope I have the character to do same when it’s my turn.
“Still doesn’t make it right to take a dog from a loving family as a show of muscle,…”
Agreed! No doubt that the adults behaved like children in front of the children.
“Sweet Jesus, I wish you people understood anything at all about Southern California and our cities.”
I live in SoCal and know exactly what you’re taking about.
I don’t live in greater LA, but in the Inland Empire the city of Redlands is the local equivalent of what you’re referring to - Old Money vs. everybody else…
Thank you, Mike.
Seriously, people, we’re not talking about poor underpaid shelter workers vs. a rich celebrity. We’re talking about two sets of rich people fighting with each other.
You can pick Godzilla or Gamera as you choose, but please don’t think that they’re not equally matched, or that Godzilla is beating up poor, sweet, defenseless Gamera.
Sigh, Ted. Highlighting words you find hitting close to home doesn’t equal generalizing all people. However, that you zeroed in on those words does make me wonder why you find the portrayal of those that are self-aggrandizing and have lost perspective such a touchy issue.
Digger, the more you defend the action of taking a dog from a good family that will provide it a good home, the worse you are making your case for the return policy for extreme situations. Obeying the letter of the law and not the spirit is the issue here, and it’s a huge sign of someone on a power trip, and the crying children aspect really puts the sadist aspects into view.
If the policy is there to keep dogs out of bad situations, then why is it being used to take a dog from a good home?
It’s being used to punish people for breaking a rule, albeit in a way that not only didn’t hurt anyone but gave a dog a good home. Once the rule becomes about itself and about maintaining power over a situation, then it can’t quite be defined as “for” another reason. In this case, and in many, the rule is “for” someone to get the last word in and show people who’s boss.
Amanda: How do you know it was a good home?
Also, the a priori assumption you’ve made that the working class family can be assumed to be less responsible than a middle class one and has to be proven innocent made me recoil, I’m afraid. I’m not entirely convinced that they’re working class the way we’d define it, anyway. Hairdresser to the stars may pay very well. But to the Old Money types mnem describes, even going down to middle class might seem like a demotion for the dog.
But it does go to show why people get so fucking aggravated with Animal People. You’re in court, accused of animal abuse and have to struggle to redeem yourself, when there’s all these assumptions. (Hairdresser? I knew one once who didn’t get her dog fixed, never mind that this one already is. Oh my god, that pick-up is ratty, I bet they kick dogs. You both work?! Heartless.) Again, that wasn’t my experience, but it may just be that I have a great shelter (I suspect), or hell, I might at first glance fit the profile well.
Again, imagine if this came into play with kids, if people had authority in some to take the baby if you circumcised him and some had the authority if you didn’t, and your views were irrelevant.
Amanda: How do you know it was a good home?
Digger: How do you know it wasn’t?
I don’t. That’s why I trust the judgement of the rescue responsible for it.
It’s called Right of First Refusal.
“Because an ROFR is a contract right, the holder’s remedies for breach are typically limited to recovery of damages. In other words, if the owner sells the asset to a third party without offering the holder the opportunity to purchase it first, the holder can then sue the owner for damages but may have a difficult time obtaining a court order to stop or reverse the sale. However, in some cases the option becomes a property right that may be used to invalidate an improper sale.”
I don’t. That’s why I trust the judgement of the rescue responsible for it.
Even though they didn’t even investigate the home, but showed up, took the dog and said, Well, maybe we’ll let you have it back if you can prove you meet our standards?
Again, you’re picturing poor, beleagured animal rescuers with few resources. These ain’t them.
Wow, what a sticky situation.
I agree most with Sovay (#39), who I think outlined very well the “yes, but” aspect of this argument. Admittedly, as a wildlife rescuer myself, I learned to hate humans more and more with every passing day. It’s very easy in this situation to become a bitter soul who loses the balance between “what’s good for the animals” and “what’s doable by the community”.
I don’t blame Ellen for giving up the dog. There is no 100% foolproof way of assuring a relationship between owner, dog and other animals in the house. The cats said “no”. Hey, that happens. Ellen should have returned the dog to the shelter at that point. At that moment, that would have been the best for the dog. By not doing so, she created this situation and I cannot find sympathy (though I do empathise) in her tears. She is learning a valuable lesson that she needs to learn.
That being said, the shelter did not consider the best needs of the dog either. Had the dog been aggressive against children, I could support their decision but the reasoning they gave does not support destroying the relationship that dog formed with the family. In their zeal to punish Ellen, they harmed the family and the dog. In being indifferent to the needs of the community they serve, they also harm other animals that need to be adopted but probably won’t be because of the anger this issue caused.
Amanda, thanks for pointing out another “sin” many animal lovers commit (and one I have been guilty of myself from time to time): personification of our animals. Many animals suffer needlessly not only from people treating them like simple property, but also from people who treat them like small people. A dog owner, for example, who brings a new dog into their home and expects that everyone will become the best of friends may be setting the scene for disaster by trying to introduce the dogs the same way (s)he would introduce two human friends. I think anyone who gets angry at Ellen for giving up on the dog may not be considering that Ellen doesn’t get to control whether or not the dog gets to be friends with the cats.
And I never said that the working class family was less responsible- you’re misreading me again. I said my cousin is irresponsible, and it would be irresponsible of me to get a dog. However, working class families exist that are responsible, and I’d be happy to let them have the pick of the litter. As do middle-class families who don’t discipline their kids and let them pull on beagles’ ears (one of our dogs has a bite on his record that shouldn’t be there because of that little brat), don’t fence in their yard, and assume that housetraining means getting the newspaper when Spike goes on the floor.
Dogs should not go to people who can’t take care of them, regardless of class. Dogs should not go to people who can’t take care of them, regardless of race. Dogs should not go to people who can’t take care of them. Period.
I can’t help thinking that some of the outrage over picky animal adopters is a deep-seated belief in dominionism over animals.
I eat meat and have a pet cat, so obviously I share in this. But it seems like some people take it a step further and think they should be able to do whatever they want with an animal. Any question about their ability to care for an animal, their knowledge of how to take care of that animal, sends people into paroxysms of rage.
You talk a lot about power, Amanda. I think there is also a power issue over animals here. Adopters get in the way of obtaining power over animals. Hence the rage. Don’t do a little dance around this while trying to distract by pointing at homophobia and sexism and classism*. Look within yourself, you are not immune to power issues.
*there may be potential for discrimination on some or all of these points to exist, but potential doesn’t mean reality.
Mnemosyne, Pasadena (my home town, once upon a time) is hardly as uniformly old money as you’re implying. The south edge of town (particularly along the San Marino border)? Sure. The entire city (population 130,000)? Nonsense.
It’s quite possible (likely, even, from their behavior) that this particular outfit is old-money, but it’s absurd to claim that you can know that by the fact that it’s centered in Pasadena.
Or has the town changed so dramatically since I left Southern California in ‘99?
It’s quite possible (likely, even, from their behavior) that this particular outfit is old-money, but it’s absurd to claim that you can know that by the fact that it’s centered in Pasadena.
Pasadena + Lexus SUV shown on Channel 4 news + expensive lawyer = money.
Yes, there are poor parts of Pasadena. There are poor parts of every city. I think you’re underestimating Pasadena’s mystique and what it represents to the rest of the area.
Of course, I’m in Glendale, so I may just be jealous.
I don’t. That’s why I trust the judgement of the rescue responsible for it.
I trust someone’s friends more than the arbitrary judgments of strangers. And without good evidence to the contrary, your belief that Ellen would have just handed the dog off to people who’d put it in dog fights is pretty hard to swallow. And I don’t actually think you think this family was that likely to be dog abusers. But you are demonstrating the groupthink that causes people to fall in line behind the petty power dealers. And your swipes at this family were dripping with stereotypes of working class people, or else why drag up a story of a working class family you know that didn’t treat the dog right, as if that’s evidence alone to be especially suspicious?
She is learning a valuable lesson that she needs to learn.
I’m sorry, but taking this finger-wagging, scolding tone with a grown woman is kind of weirding me out. She learned, and I think we all did, the valuable lesson that some people don’t care whose toes they step on or whose children they make cry when getting their petty victories. She didn’t follow the rules, but I’m not infatuated enough with the rules to care. In a sane world, her decision to give the dog to a family she thought would care for it was smart, and the idea that the rules should trump common sense—that this is a good thing—concerns me.
There’s something just a little eerie about the idea that we have to pass all our decisions through the filter of self-appointed experts. I can only imagine how people must shudder to think of how I got Dusty, which was by having a friend of my mother pass her on to me—no application or self-flagellating necessary!—just because she knew my mother and trusted her when she said I would provide a good home.
Adopters get in the way of obtaining power over animals. Hence the rage.
Actually, no they don’t, not in the slightest. If you can’t get a dog from a shelter, go buy yourself one from a breeder. Done and over! And now one more dog languishing in a shelter and one more breeder encouraged to keep going.
But again, the a priori assumption of ill will lurking in the hearts of your average pet owner is astounding. I realize there’s a lot of bad people out there, but to assume that most people want pets to lord themselves over them (but not you, of course! we can trust, with no outside evidence, the goodness of your heart while others can’t be extended the same trust) right away, and should be treated as guilty until proven innocent is kind of freaky.
Fair enough. I missed the Lexus SUV, which puts it squarely on the San Mario border. (For those of us who grew up closer in, San Marino is the center of what you describe. It’s against the law in San Marino to let your lawn die. Not HOA C&Cs–there aren’t any HOAs in SM–against city law. The police cite offenders. Terrifying place.)
Also, to be fair, Pasadena’s gotten wealthier as a whole since I was a kid (as has the entire region). I still tend to think of it as the Foothill Boulevard of my youth–a collection of car lots, body shops, and surplus stores.
But yeah, if they’ve got Lexi and lawyers, it’s that Pasadena. That area’s home to some profoundly accomplished people–but also a lot of folks who are like George Bush without the brains, talent, or humility. *shudder*
20-year shelter administrator here. My main reaction to this story and all its follow-ups has been a long, deep sigh.
A few things:
First of all, anyone who quotes Cesar Millan as an authority brands herself as more naive than wise. His methods are outdated and largely discredited.
There’s a broad spectrum of animal rescuers. And the ones at the “freaky” end of that spectrum are the bane of the other Animal People’s existence. There’s a certain type that we know all too well: The person (usually female, alas) who, after seeing too many cases of abuse and neglect, begins to believe simultaneously that 1) she can/must save ALL the pets in need, and 2) most humans can’t/shouldn’t be trusted with them. At its extreme, that’s the personality type that often leads people to become animal “collectors.” It’s a very tricky and well-documented problem in the shelter/rescue world, and most of us are aware of it and interested in resolving it.
Class is ABSOLUTELY an issue in the adoption and rescue world; I’ve spent much of my career trying to address that issue. However, in this case, I think it’s perhaps overblown. I do have some personal experience with this rescue group, and they’re not the old-money snobs some of you assume them to be. And celebrities’ hairdressers—here in LA, at least—are hardly considered “working class.”
I’m not a fan of draconian adoption contracts. They’re often unrealistic, usually off-putting, and frequently unenforceable anyway. I’m an advocate for reasonable contracts, coupled with guidelines that allow for flexibility and plenty of common sense. Good faith is the key to successful adoptions.
And on that score, I’m not sure either party in this dispute has succeeded. Here’s one thing I know for sure: Both Ellen and Marina (Baktis, of M&M) believe themselves to be proponents of animal adoption. The number-one factor that deters people from adopting animals is bad PR and unflattering stereotypes of shelters (think “Lady and the Tramp”). And Ellen and Marina have just made that problem a hundred times worse.
Marina was a stubborn, shortsighted idiot for staging a raid to “rescue” a dog who, by all accounts, was perfectly safe and content. But Ellen, by taking the story on air, was equally shortsighted, as she’s probably just discouraged a whole lot of animal lovers from adopting their next pet. I happen to love Ellen, and I’m not saying she needed to lie; I’m just genuinely sad that this ugly incident has made far more headlines than all her previous good work for the critters.
I am usually a lurker on this site but I felt the need to comment on this subject. I currently work in animal rescue as transporter taking dogs from point A to point B. Usually from where I live in rural West Virginia to rescues in the DC area. I have to agree with some people on here about the things you see in animal rescue and how it hardens you towards people. I like to think I can keep my head above the water when it comes to that but it is hard. I have worked with lots of people and rescues over the six years I have been a volunteer and I totally agree that you see a lot of the higher ups in the organizations with the power trips. It is quite disturbing especially when I lived in the DC area. But now that I moved to rural WV more of the people I meet out here are rational and just want to find the animal a good home. They aren’t as power crazy. Also I have found that a lot of people in rescue do judge other animal owners if they don’t do everything right according to their standards. But I totally agree in the boonies it just doesn’t happen as much as in the cities.
Amanda, I’m just going to say this and leave it alone for a little while. You’ve gone beyond misreading me, and you’re setting me up as a straw man by putting words in my mouth that I did not say. Moreover, I wasn’t using stereotypes- I was using my own family, and I’m sure that I said that. Calling them stereotypes is in extremely poor taste, and I think you realize that. That said, remind me to tell you about the firefighter that adopted one of our beagles, and the rescue owner wouldn’t even let him pay the adoption donation. Or about my dog growing up with a working class family, a sheltie that lived to 15 and died of a stroke in his sleep.
I have a lot of respect for you, and I’ve been reading Pandagon since before you moved the site, so I’m not going to storm off in a huff. I just think we need to give this conversation a little time to cool off and approach it with more level heads, OK?
I trust people who make animals their livelihood, and regardless of whether the rescue operaters are rich/poor/old money/new money/homeless/gay/straight/black/white/orange with green stripes, they make it their business to know what is best for an animal. I would trust them over almost anyone else about this dog, whether or not she happened to be my friend. Would you trust your banker friend over your dentist to determine if a tooth needed pulling?
And no. I don’t think this family was involved in a dogfighting ring- that was an extreme example, and I believe I already said it wasn’t necessarily applicable for this family. (If anything, it’s the kids- too many dogs end up in the system because the kids get bored with it and the “adults” don’t have time to take care of it, but that’s besides the point.) Animal abuse and neglect can happen anywhere, in any class- Michael Vick, anyone? Fox hunting? Puppy mills? Those people ain’t poor! That’s why rescues can’t make snap judgements with anyone, regardless of how good it looks on the surface.
I’m also a bit astounded that it’s supposedly so obvious to give the pet back to the shelter if you can’t keep it. If, god forbid, I had to get rid of Molly, my last resort would be giving her back to the shelter—I figure they have enough to do without having to put up with me. Ideally, I’d give her to friends who I trust to take care of her, which means the transaction would happen outside of the control of the shelter people, which would only piss them off if they had a whole story about how only *they* can be trusted to figure out who’s a good pet owner and who’s not. I’d like to think/hope our local shelter has more sense than that.
Wow, Michael Vick. So, you’re accusing Ellen Degeneres of handing her dog to people who put it into dog fights without a scrap of reason to think that. I don’t actually think that you think the hairdresser’s family was putting the dog in dog fights. I’m sort of reminded of how the specter of women who get abortions for “shallow” reasons is invoked to give outsiders final word on whether or not a woman “deserves” her abortion.
You can include Toronto among the cities where this kind of thing is the norm.
A friend of mine wanted to adopt a cat from a reputable rescue agency and they subjected him to all kinds of questioning about income, living situation etc., and practically made him swear on the bible that he would never let the cat outdoors or de-claw the cat. This was a full-grown cat and a ‘mutt’ - both factors that make it hard to find cats homes.
I couldn’t help thinking that with my income level and the fact that I work outside the home and am single, I probably wouldn’t have been allowed to adopt a cat from them… To put that in perspective, I have 2 cats, both healthy and happy and getting to be a ripe old age. I adopted them from an acquaintance who could no longer keep them due to allergies - they were brothers who had lived together all their life and would hate to be separated, they were full grown ‘mutts’ and also… well, sort of ugly (I love them, but they are!). They would almost certainly have not been adopted at a shelter and probably put down.
This is all a rambling, long-winded way of saying that I think some rescue agencies really have their priorities screwed up. They also seem to enjoy their position of sitting in judgment of potential pet adopters a little too much IMO.
There’s a broad spectrum of animal rescuers. And the ones at the “freaky” end of that spectrum are the bane of the other Animal People’s existence. There’s a certain type that we know all too well: The person (usually female, alas) who, after seeing too many cases of abuse and neglect, begins to believe simultaneously that 1) she can/must save ALL the pets in need, and 2) most humans can’t/shouldn’t be trusted with them. At its extreme, that’s the personality type that often leads people to become animal “collectors.” It’s a very tricky and well-documented problem in the shelter/rescue world, and most of us are aware of it and interested in resolving it.
Sounds accurate to me. And I’m sure the holier-than-thou control freak crusaders are very good at setting the tone in a lot of places, because of course, if you cross them, you get accused of horrible things—like say, if you suggest that it’s not the worst thing in a world for a person to give a pet to a family they know and trust without going through the adoption process again—Michael Vick gets thrown in your face. Self-righteousness turns very quickly into a situation where people fear defying the hardliner for fear of being accused themselves—look at how effective red-baiting is as a technique to see. I don’t imagine it takes but one person in an insulated group to start grand-standing about how everyone’s an abuser but her to get everyone else to be scared shitless of being flexible for fear of being accused themselves.
Marina was a stubborn, shortsighted idiot for staging a raid to “rescue” a dog who, by all accounts, was perfectly safe and content. But Ellen, by taking the story on air, was equally shortsighted, as she’s probably just discouraged a whole lot of animal lovers from adopting their next pet.
Fair enough—I’m sure that most of her viewers live in ye ol’ flyover states, where the shelters are still stuck in the era of “try to get them out the door so we don’t put them down” thinking. I hope people aren’t discouraged, because it’s hardly that bad in most places. I know my sister got her dog from a kill shelter, and they basically just verified a couple facts and handed over the dog. I do believe that was during the post-Katrina era, though, and the shelters were completely overwhelmed.
“If, god forbid, I had to get rid of Molly, my last resort would be giving her back to the shelter—I figure they have enough to do without having to put up with me. Ideally, I’d give her to friends who I trust to take care of her, which means the transaction would happen outside of the control of the shelter people, which would only piss them off if they had a whole story about how only *they* can be trusted to figure out who’s a good pet owner and who’s not.”
OMG! Don’t you realize that shelter workers must be degreed and licensed, with 100’s of hours of specialized training in both animal psychology and human psychology? Only trained, professional shelter workers are in any position to determine who may or may not be allowed a pet.
Each compatible animal companion match is pre-screened for you across 29 Dimensions of compaitibility!
Or not…
(How the world got through the last few millennia without them I’ll never understand…)
Perhaps this is an odd question to ask 110 comments in, but what exactly is a “rescue agency”? I gather from the descriptions that we’re not discussing SPCA-run city pounds (the source of my own cat). Why would someone go to one of these agencies instead of to the SPCA?
speaking of draconian adoption contracts - i have been fostering and am considering adopting a dog from an LA-based rescue group. this group microchips their dogs and their contract does not allow transfer of the microchip registration to the adopter.
is that kind of contract even enforceable? i was able to accept the intrusive questions, the background check, letting them come into my home and poke around, but this microchip provision is about to prevent me from adopting this dog. i can’t stand knowing that this dog could be taken from me at any time, no matter how much time i have spent loving her and spending coutless hours and dollars caring for her. if these people can’t trust in their own rigorous vetting process and let go of the dogs once they are adopted, why do they even try and find homes for them in the first place?
Class is ABSOLUTELY an issue in the adoption and rescue world; I’ve spent much of my career trying to address that issue. However, in this case, I think it’s perhaps overblown. I do have some personal experience with this rescue group, and they’re not the old-money snobs some of you assume them to be. And celebrities’ hairdressers—here in LA, at least—are hardly considered “working class.”
It’s more Hollywood Class than social class: as a TV star, Ellen is in a position to publicize the rescue group and make them look good. Her hairdresser is not, so letting her have the dog is not nearly as useful. The hairdresser isn’t going to have photo spreads in In Style with her expressing her gratitude to the wonderful rescue organization that let her adopt this adorable dog.
Of course, this calculation has now backfired on them and the good publicity that they were hoping to garner by letting Ellen adopt one of their dogs has turned into bad publicity because they swooped in and took the dog away from the person Ellen gave it to.
Sorry, but it’s hard for me to feel oh-so-sorry for them that they managed to blow the publicity benefits that they were hoping to get by having a TV star adopt one of their dogs.
Some of them are breed specific, and some are just fostering programs that run through places like PetFinder. They get a little hardened because they specialize in getting abandoned animals into new homes—when you see a lot of ugly behavior from people, it can get hard to remember that most people are not ugly. My local no kill shelter is a bit different, at least in terms of cats. They get a lot of cats from abandonment, but they also get a lot of kittens from picking up feral litters. Getting cats from feral programs (which pick up cats, take the kittens, fix the cats and release the adults, who are better off feral than trying to be adopted) means you get animals to adopt out from really nice people, the feral cat people.
OMG! Don’t you realize that shelter workers must be degreed and licensed, with 100’s of hours of specialized training in both animal psychology and human psychology? Only trained, professional shelter workers are in any position to determine who may or may not be allowed a pet.
MikeEss, I usually love your comments, but you really don’t need to insult shelter employees. What we do isn’t simple, it isn’t easy, and it isn’t unimportant.
When I was a shelter administrator, I had to be equally knowledgeable about animal behavior, veterinary health, marketing, fundraising, media relations, and conflict resolution. I went to work every day with 200 to 300 lives in the balance, and a huge community of animal lovers ready to excoriate me in person and in the press if I made a decision they didn’t agree with. Make fun of the freaks if you must, but don’t be nasty about the work the rest of us do.
Getting cats from feral programs (which pick up cats, take the kittens, fix the cats and release the adults, who are better off feral than trying to be adopted) means you get animals to adopt out from really nice people, the feral cat people.
See, in my local area, the Feral People are some of the nuttiest. Generalizations are perilous.
Some of this is reminding me of the people who exploded in rage when Bill and Hillary Clinton gave their cat Socks to Betty Currie when the left the White House because of Bill’s allergies. Because, of course, it was horrible and evil and neglectful for them to give their animal to someone they’d known for 10 years.
Lizard, I’m just pointing out the stupidity of arguing that only a shelter worker can determine whether somebody is okay or not.
To judge that other “non-professional” people, like say Amanda, are not capable of judging whether a friend is compatible with a pet is arrogance of a high order, because they might secretly be fighting the animals (or eating them).
Our last cat showed up in front of our old house a week before we moved. She needed help, had a great personality, and we took her in. We moved her with us and she’s been one happy cat for the last few years.
Most of the cats we’ve ever had were strays that showed up, or were taken from a shelter where they already had a death sentence, or from a litter somebody was giving away.
I may be deluded in the eyes of the inner sanctum of animal protectors, but I figure me and my family (who are all cat-lovers) gave a lot of cats very happy lives over the last 45+ years.
And I resent the idea that I and mine are not good owners and are not capable of making good decisions regarding our animals.
It seems very much like the attitude (which Amanda touched on above) that some women are in a position to judge when THEY need an abortion, but others just can’t be trusted with such awesome responsibility…
Lizard, I’m just pointing out the stupidity of arguing that only a shelter worker can determine whether somebody is okay or not.
For the most part, we agree.
However, there’s a common, condescending assumption that shelter work requires no brains, no training, and no education—you’d be amazed how many people feel that “I love animals!” is sufficient qualification to earn them a job in any capacity at a shelter—and your previous comment seemed to buy into it wholesale. That’s what made me bristle.
I wasn’t really pissing on shelter workers, who I’m sure have a difficult job that many of us would not like. I didn’t mean to come across like that and apologize for giving that impression…
At least here in Los Angeles, there are two broad categories of groups that adopt out animals: municipal and county shelters staffed by city or county employees, and private rescue groups that are staffed by volunteers or sometimes part-time employees.
If you go to the LA County Animal Shelter, or the Pasadena Humane Society, you’re dealing with animal professionals who get paid a crappy wage to do really heartbreaking work. These are the people you see on those shows like “Animal Rescue.” They’re also the ones who have the incredibly sucky job of having to euthanize animals who can’t be or haven’t been adopted.
The private rescue groups are very variable. Some are run by wonderful amateurs who sacrifice a lot of their time to find stray animals and adopt them out to good homes. Others are run by weirdo petty tyrants who make you do a song-and-dance before you’re allowed to get one of “their” dogs. Most rescue groups fall somewhere in between.
There’s a lot of tension between the two, because the shelter workers are often regarded as cruel animal torturers who love putting animals to sleep. Shelter workers, on the other hand, get annoyed that the rescue groups cherry-pick the most adoptable animals and leave the rest behind and then blame the shelter for euthanizing them when they can’t find homes.
Famous lesbians and children of the proletariat - unite against the oppression of animal rescue volunteers!
Thanks for the explanation, Mnemosyne. I’ve only really dealt with the Humane Society places. I always felt sorry for them–they come in for tons of crap because they put unadopted animals to sleep, often from the same folks who find in “inhumane” to spay or neuter their animals.
And, if anyone doesn’t know what a catch and release feral program is:
http://www.uta.edu/campuscats/
I read this blog religiously, but haven’t felt the need to comment until now.
Yes, there are some ‘power issues’ in rescue (as there are in government, the military, law enforcement.. ok, everywhere), but I don’t think this story is a good demonstration of them.
The group had a puppy they rescued, they placed it in an appropriate home, Ellen violated the contract and it ended up in an inappropriate home. The public reason for it being inappropriate is that there were children in the home. Some breeds should not be placed with children, I have watched again and again as families get denied for adopting a pekingese or a similar breed, we suggest a different dog, and they get mad and go out and buy one, come back when the puppy is 10 weeks old and brag about how much the kids love her, and then come back when the puppy is 8 months old and beg us to take her because she just bit their toddler. That aside, who knows what other factors made the family inappropriate? Maybe they gave away their last 4 dogs, maybe they refuse to take animals to the vet, maybe they have a record of letting animals run loose and get hit by cars.. why does having a cute, sad little blond girl make them automatically a good home for this particular puppy?
As someone who spent 4 years fostering cats and kittens, I probably have a different perspective than the rest of you. I feel like I have a right to decide where those kittens and cats end up. What gives me that feeling? Weeks of sleepless nights bottlefeeding, biweekly vet appointments, applying eye cream thrice daily, pulling 30 ticks off a cat that just came out of the ‘E-room’, giving SubQ fluids, giving medicated baths.. the list goes on. After investing insane amounts of my (and my family’s) time, energy and money in these kittens, I want to choose their families. I don’t feel like this is a power trip. If I adopted out a fragile, small kitten to a no kids home and found out two weeks later that she was in a house with kids, you bet your ass I’d be on their doorstep getting that kitten back. Not because it made me feel ‘powerful’, but because I don’t want my fragile little foster charge that my whole family got attatched to getting smushed and returned to me a month later with a broken leg they don’t want to treat. (No, I don’t hate kids, I adopted cats and kittens out to homes with kids all of the time. But it was kid appropriate cats and kittens- yes, there is a difference).
So if you want to find a rescue on a power trip story, please find a real one. If you want a way too dramatic celebrity story, this one is perfect.
The private rescue groups are very variable. Some are run by wonderful amateurs who sacrifice a lot of their time to find stray animals and adopt them out to good homes. Others are run by weirdo petty tyrants who make you do a song-and-dance before you’re allowed to get one of “their” dogs.
In a nutshell, M.
Felines? If fixed feral rescues are going to barns where they get ADEQUATE nutrition, vet care and daily pats. I’m happy.
Canines? We’re a bit pickier…because strays often come with issues, and we do insist on matching dog to family. But do we turn down folks for not being able to recall off the top of their head which heartworm medication brand they use? Or because folks never vaccinated indoor felines for feleuk, (which has fuck all to do with one’s fitness to own a dog? Or because folks, decades ago, gave up their family pet to a shelter when finances were bad and chronic medical problems were unaffordable? True stories of being judged unfit to own a dog. I think I’ve heard it all, and yes…there are some real nitpickers out there.
I think we’re all forgetting one simple thing: does this agency actually have a no kill policy or not? Because if so, I would have a little less sympathy for Ellen’s pleas for sure. It’s one thing if this pooch is to take that long last walk, and another if he could simply be returned to a rescue home to wait for the perfect home to come along.
If the rescue group would have likely sent a returned dog to be put to sleep (but seldom do private animal rescues do this, btw), then I would totally have done the same thing: I would have found another home for the dog, contracts be damned, repercussions be what they are. I would have had the high moral ground for it too: “I couldn’t let Iggy die”.
But if the worst that could have happened to Iggy was to go back to the offices of its rescuers two days later to wait for a new opportunity to have a forever home? Why didn’t she return him? It seems she returned another dog to the same group once before… which would arouse suspicion right there about the choice of family she handed the dog off to. Not because the family could not take care of it, not because the rescuers were making a judgment on the family, but because this happened so quickly (it takes more than two days for most any cat to adapt to the continued presence of just about any living creature, up to and including humans). Given Ellen’s own timeline, the question that comes to mind is: is it possible Ellen adopted the dog not with the intent to keep him, but with an intention to gift it on her hairdresser all along? It’s a perfectly legitimate question here, and it would raise a flag for me if I were an animal rescuer. I would wonder why this subterfuge would be necessary. So Ellen messed up right then and there.
If it is true that she also told the new family not to talk to the rescue group, that was also a ridiculous move there. It’s the “it’s my gift to give, who are you to care?” approach that rescuers usually get burned by. Yes, dogs (and cats) are not children, and can be schlepped from house to house if needs be. But if you went into it convincing the rescuers that you don’t see the dog as a possession to be given away freely and undiscriminately (see below), but as a companion, why turn around and act as if the pup is just another thing to be given away? I can see the people running the rescue, regardless of how inflexible or not they are, would have felt betrayed by such an attitude.
Also ask yourself: what if Iggy’s new home hadn’t worked out for some reason (say, one of the new owners developed an allergy to him?), and the dog needed to be rehomed yet again? How could the rescue group be able to find that out, and make sure that Iggy did not end up in a kill shelter, should no one else offer to give it a home? The right of first return clause in a pet adoption contract is there to make sure such a scenario does not materialize.
That isn’t to say that the rescue group didn’t mess up at all. My own beloved orange cat was adopted as a kitty from a local rescue group here in Austin. They weren’t extremely picky, but they didn’t necessarily have me walk off with him as soon as I said I wanted him either.
I had to swear up and down that he would never be declawed (and he wasn’t and won’t be, I let him get away with most things short of murder - it just worked out that way); provide a next of kin who would be willing to assume care of him if my husband and I should die (we went with someone in our family who we knew would do just that); agree that if my next of kin could not assume that responsibility when/if it came at any point in the future, the cat returned to them; allow the person who ran the group to make a home visit before I could have him come home to us. And yes, most of that stuff sounded ridiculous and a bit insulting at first, to the point that my husband almost backed out of it despite liking the kitten as much as I did. But we wanted the cat, and in retrospect I’m glad that we were granted not just the opportunity to designate someone else to take care of the cat in lieu of us, but a pretext to think about it in the first place. So many people go into it lightly, never thinking about who the animal could go to if things don’t work out the way they are supposed to. And if it is morbid to think about how the cat would survive you, it’s still something you would owe to a loving companion, not to mention an extra requirement that will turn off the wrong people, while allowing plenty of responsible people to give it a try. Perhaps that’s something that Moms and Mutts should have look into: asking adopters to find someone who could take care of the mutt if they cannot before they are allowed to adopt.
In short, I don’t know that anyone is blameless here, except for the two kids. Ellen should have known better, the hairdresser should have known better, and the rescue people should have known the damage was done already, and just decided to blackball Ellen from adopting again from them and other organizations that partner up with them (which is a clause in some pet adoption contracts, btw: I signed one such contract) and called it a day.
1. “Animal People” needs a better, clearer definition. You’re lumping a whole lot of dissimilar people into one, big pot, painting everyone with the crazy brush. You sound like a prejudiced bigot.
2. There are NO regulations on dog trainers, dog breeders, or dog groomers. Anyone can hang up a sign, claim they’re an expert, and take your money. Citing Caesar Milan’s advice is NOT citing fact. He is a popular, celebrity dog trainer. He is not a veterinarian, a scientist, or an expert on humane treatment. Prong collars are widely considered inhumane.
3. Ellen screwed up. She should have followed the contract. Iggy was not supposed to go to a family with children.
4. Mutts and Moms screwed up. They shouldn’t have adopted out a non-neutered dog. And they should have hired a publicist to handle this situation, because Ellen obviously did. She taped her tears a day before they aired. Ellen’s on-air break-down was deliberate and planned.
5. Enough of your prejudice, already!
No in fact, that’s your delusion. There are not “echos” of anything. You just interpret things how you want to and you ignore the reality because it’s more convenient, that way you don’t have to question any of your assumptions that humans have the right to dominate, kill, and torture non-humans. The only serious similarity between anti-choice people and pro-animal-rights people is that we’re in the minority.
Lurker here, first time posting…
This sort of thing doesn’t surprise me one bit. I once mistakenly tried to “adopt” from a rescue…big mistake. Sorry, but I will never allow some stranger into my private home for an “inspection.” Call my vet for a background/history if you wish, but to call my employer (along with my previous employers!), my neighbors, my family members and my BANK (!!!!) is going over the line. Way way WAY over the line.
Adding to the experience- here’s just some of their Rules: the animal is never allowed outside (okay, I’m strictly an indoor cat person, that’s fine), the animal MUST have its own ROOM (huh? wtf?), the animal MUST eat only RESCUE-APPROVED food (wait…whut? Sorry Charlie- I’m the owner & paying the feed bill…it eats what I buy, like it or lump it), you must always have a minimum balance in your bank account at ALL TIMES, no children in the home, no other pets in the home, no Teflon cookware (wtf?). BTW- those are only the Rules I can remember off-hand (I know there were like five pages of them, most of which were completely batshit-insane).
For pity’s sake, I was trying to adopt a cat, not buy a new car or adopt The Golden Child! The “rescue’s” snarky and rude attitude is ultimately what made me walk away. I will never EVER support animal “rescue” and I will be the first person to warn others against it as well.
PS- don’t think that it’s only on the coasts or big cities that the Batshit Brigade runs the show. I live in the Midwest (one of the fly-over states) and rescues/shelters here are in the tight iron grasp of the radical AR nuts.
This is a cool thread. I tend to go with Amanda here. Lots of people really do have control issues and they really do try some pretty stupid shit, especially because they believe that if someone signs a piece of paper, violation allows certain…penalties. I think the comment about the “letter” and the “spirit” of the law one of the more germane parts of this thread.
OTOH, as I had read in the various dairies about Katrina’s aftermath, there are a lot of good people and a lot of bad people in animal shelters. Some of the the bad people were taking lost pets and putting them into new homes and refusing, with considerable legal expense, to permit original owners to claim them, because apparently, they made the judgement that the pets are in a better home.
It’s hard to believe that we’re over 125 comments in and no one has raised the issue of how inherently offensive it is to imply that the purchase of a pet is equivalent to the adoption of a child.
Folks, they’re animals. They are not children. I love my dogs, and I’ve had rescued, mixed and deliberately bred dogs in my life. I don’t own my child. She is not the moral, ethical or spiritual equal of my dogs. I know no one who has both human children and animal children who cannot recognize that distinction, yet I know a number of animal lovers who profess that there is no difference. In fact, a few years ago my first dog died and I ran into a (childless by choice) acquaintance at the vet; she was picking up meds for her dying Dobie. The next time I saw her, she struck herself from the future-babysitter list by explaining that she understood how distraught I was because her dog had died. And it’s just like losing a child.
It is the most thoughtlessly demeaning statement about adoption in specific and parenting in general that I would ever expect to see from some of you that I had to bring this up myself.
I think we’ve gotten past this, but I’d just like to remark on the comments about how animals aren’t people.
Using that argument shows an intense amount of disrespect for the person you’re talking to. I’m an “animal person,” and most of us have some pretty controversial opinions - we’re vegetarians or vegans, we try to increase legislation protecting farm animals, we try to make sure that there’s a penalty for setting a cat on fire. Whether you support PETA or not, identifying as an animal person comes with a bunch of social disincentives. This is actually true in the AVMA, which might indicate how deeply this runs.
So here’s the point - we’re not doing this for the fun of getting yelled at. We’re not idiots - we know that people aren’t animals. We just realize that “not the same” does not mean “completely inherently different.” It’s the similarities we care about - they can feel pain, they feel emotion, they have likes and dislikes. You can say they’re property, but, while you can take an ax to your VCR, you can’t do that to your dog. If you’re going to talk about animal rights, do so rationally. I’ve talked with people who can. But otherwise, you’re the ones who end up looking you can’t string together a coherent logical argument.
Incorrect. … Twice.Bad sentence construction aside, the fact that none of us actually said that presumably cuts no ice with you.
Prong collars are widely considered inhumane.
I’ve actually used the prong collar many, many moons ago, rehabbing a pair of early adolescent dumped blue tick hounds…we were their last hope. No breed rescue spots available…in fact, no breed rescue at all.
…midsized big, hidiously loud, superbly muscled, strikingly beautiful creatures, high energy, utterly untrained, destructive and unsocialized, impervious to disapproval and apparently to pain, not a mean bone in their bodies…but just plain thuggish in their determination to do precisely what they pleased, when they pleased. The basically good nature saved their impossible asses…we worked with them for half a year, primarily developing social skills. They ultimately went as a pair to the “tire man,” and lived out their lives happily roaming in and out of stacks of tires on their hurricane fenced six acres.
My right shoulder still aches.
Yah, we used the prong collar. I would do it again, if I had to.
Llelldorin asked,
There are lots of reasons:
1. some people want a particular breed and many rescue groups are breed specific
2. some rescues specialize in certain types (not necessarily breeds) like “small” or “young” or “last chance”
3. some rescues train the dogs before they adopt them out
4. rescue groups in general know the dogs, whereas the local pound doesn’t know Abe from Abby.
5. rescue groups dogs are often healthier than pound pupppies, or their health issues are known and under control. The pound has such a high turnover rate that dogs come in and go out before their stitches (from neutering) heal.
I adopted my dog from the pound. But I considered adopting from a rescue group because I volunteered with their shelter and knew that they trained the dogs and really got to know them. Ultimately I just adopted from the shelter that had the right dog for me - and that happened to be the pound.
Amanda said:
You are generalizing. If you weren’t generalizing, you would have said “animal extremists” or “crazy animal people” instead you said “animal people” as in ALL animal people.
And you have a history of bashing on big city vegans. You said something like “Veganism is a result of the urban bubble” which is just plain false.
“Get rid of”!? Would you use that type of language to describe how you would treat challenges of adopting a child?
Adopting a dog is serious and shouldn’t be taken lightly. it’s a sad fact that animals are property and so all sorts of strange measures are taken to safeguard them through the legal system with contracts and microchips. It’s a shame, but that’s how it is until we get rid of this ridiculous property status for animals. They are no property, to be handed over to whomever you see fit. They are living beings who deserve the best protection possible.
As I was reading about Ellen and this story with Iggy, I thought, what would I do? Take my dog back to the shelter or find another home? And for me, the obvious answer is neither. I accepted the responsibility of my dog and I wouldn’t “get rid of” him. Ever. He’s part of my family. The only situations I should worry about are the ones where I am incapacitated and cannot care for him.
jab wrote,
That’s the trouble with property status. Contracts and microchips are currently the best way to protect animals. When I hire a petsitter or take my dog to doggy day care, I have to rely on contracts because those businesses are not regulated the way human day care is. Animals are property, pure and simple. That’s how the pet food industry is getting away with poisoning them. That’s how factory farms get away with torturing them.
Property status is the original expression of almost all oppression. Women as property, children as property, non-whites as property. Property status applied to living, breathing, sentient beings is just plain evil.
Elaine Vigneault, your response to jab’s comment (”if these people can’t trust in their own rigorous vetting process and let go of the dogs once they are adopted…”) misses a very key point: We are moving towards treating all adults like children in this culture. Why can’t some of such organizations let go (etc.)? Because the notion of `my fellow citizen the responsible adult’ is rapidly being whittled down to “over 18 children who have to be told what to do”. (The gain for the fascists and busybodies of the world being, naturally, that children have few rights and don’t have to be listened to even if they are right.)
In this diseased culture such agencies’ endless holds are symptomatic of the death of the very notion of the citizen rather than an embodiment of property values. If it was a true property issue then the transfer of ownership would end matters, period, rather than lever them.
It’s hard to believe that we’re over 125 comments in and no one has raised the issue of how inherently offensive it is to imply that the purchase of a pet is equivalent to the adoption of a child.
I raised that point myself (animals are not children), and so did others, actually. It’s just that using “adoption” there is shorthand for “I paid a fee to take this animal home”, and a good one at that. That said, while I agree that pet adoption is not the same as child adoption, I also resent people calling a pet adoption a mere “purchase”. You purchase a handbag, or an iPhone. A pet adoption is more like “being granted the right of taking care of this pet” than “possession”. Thus “adoption” fees do two things:
1. reimburse the rescuer for taking care of your companion up to the time you take (and truthfully, in most cases those fees merely defray that cost for them, rather than cover it).
2. guarantee to the rescuer that you are willing to invest in that companion rather than giving it away willy nilly
There is no such thing as purchasing an animal in that sense, it’s more of a committment to exchange care for the animal for the companionship that the animal provides to you. I think that if you looked at it as a “purchase”, that gives you the perceived right to do with the animal whatever you want, including giving it away like an ill fitting pair of shoes, or abusing it when it does not bend to your will. Call me a crazy cat lady for looking at it that way, but at least thinking of it as a “transfer of custody” reminds me that my own pet is not a creature to bend to my will, but one with its own wants and needs, and that’s important when it comes to pets (because if you do think of them as creatures that bend to your will, boy will they drive you insane to prove you wrong).
Tabanica is absolutely right on here. Those of you who’ve had your feelings hurt by “animal people” likening humans to animals haven’t for one second put yourself in our positions. Imagine what it’s like to have strongly held, fact-based beliefs that are hated and ridiculed constantly by the majority, even by those people whom you deeply respect and admire?
Wearing a “feminist” label or “atheist” label or “liberal” label gives you some idea of the venom spewed in the direction of “animal people.”
Seeker, your last sentence shows how you misunderstand the problem. Transferring ownership is what puts the animal at risk because there are the Bill Frists of the world who adopt cats to torture them and THERE’S NO LEGAL PUNISHMENT unless the tortured cats belonged to someone else. It’s not about restricting what the new pet parent can do; it’s about protecting the pet.
Prong collars. I hadn’t even heard of them until today. However, they don’t sound all bad.
I once took a friend’s purebred boxer out for a walk, using their choke chain. The dog was straaaaaaaaaaaaaining at the leash to get away and run towards some kids in a park. Sonofabitch broke the chain using leverage and his neck muscles, and took off towards the children. I ran after him, falling behind rapidly, naturally. It was the only time in my life — truly and desperately and in fear for what might happen — that I deeply wished I was armed.
That time turned out to be a false alarm. He just wanted to play. That time. He later turned on a child and put him in hospital. The dog was destroyed.
No, the idea of a prong collar doesn’t sound all that bad.
I should clarify:
Frist tortured cats by experimenting on them. Currently, animal cruelty laws do not prohibit people from “donating” their pets to be experimented on in laboratories in cruel, torturous ways, like IAMS does.
Elaine Vigneault, your last sentence shows how you misunderstand the wider problem: that some people do horrible things is not grounds for treating everybody as if they will all do horrible things. Rationales such as yours are of a kind with the rightists who argue that civil liberties should be whittled down to nothing, a doggy-fueled variant of “well if you’re not hiding anything why shouldn’t the police be able to stop and search you?”
Again, this is deeply offensive:
“Get rid of”!? Would you use that type of language to describe how you would treat challenges of adopting a child?
Animal rights nuts are correctly understood as nuts by everyone who understands that animals are not people, they are property. There are ethical and pragmatic reasons that is true under the law.
Asserting that the law should be changed to fit your values puts the burden on you o explain why. Don’t tell me I’m less moral than you because I know the difference between adopting a child and buying a dog, make the sale.
Continuing to compare this situation to adopting a child is beyond rude.
I think that we’re just polarizing this thread here. There is a happy medium where pets are not living things that I own the same way I would own a pair of shoes, but they are not thought of as children either. Most of animal lovers fall in there, and find the word “adoption” in conjunction with getting a non-human companion is the least ambiguous approximation of what one does when getting a pet: you find a non-human that lives with you, and you take care of it, as part of the bargain of benefiting from its companionship.
I don’t think of my cat as a child, but I also think it’s wrong to look at him as a “purchase”: that implies that I bought the animal’s affection off with the mere act of paying a fee, and that’s clearly not the case. You build a bond with them over time, which is not the same bond as you would with a child, that I would grant you. That said, “purchase” rubs me wrong the same way “adoption” does to you, PhoenixRising.
Elaine, I get it…but please believe I was thrilled to “get rid” of the “Schwartznegger Twins.” Double thrilled they went to a true character in our community…
Please do not read too much into…”getting rid…”
I’m sure the Psycho Vet Tech buddy will be calling in the near future…with an issue involving a family undergoing trials who need to “get rid” of the beloved family dog.
From ahunt: “Felines? If fixed feral rescues are going to barns where they get ADEQUATE nutrition, vet care and daily pats. I’m happy.”
100% agreement here. With our 2 barns, we frequently see feral cats hang around- but we were “adopted” by a big mean (to other cats) Maine Coon Cat mix a decade ago, who scares away all competitors. It took Ernie awhile to trust us, but he eventually did- then after a trip to the vet’s for rabies, etc and Frontline (we found he had already be neutered), he has been a permanent fixture. Hates the car and travel box, but endures it.
As he’s gotten older, I’ve switched him over to dry kitten chow; he’s not able to catch as many mice, squirrels or birds as he used to. And try as I might, he will not come inside the house- but will come into the porch to cuddle into old towels on very cold, snowy days (I usually carry him up from the barn when the snow is too high for him and he purrs the whole time). He’s a tough old bastard, barely has a left ear from all of his battles, and ugly as hell. Yet he patiently lets me trim his mats, lets our girls cuddle him, and goes on daily walks with me and the pug. He is very much a part of our family.
Just to the anecdotes…
I recently (July) adopted a cat from a volunteer cat rescue group. I was nervous about being considered an acceptable home since we had no pets at the time and my husband and I work a lot, but we had a very good experience.
They did include in the contract that the cat go back to them if we can’t keep her. However, they did not give us any grief about the cat being alone during the day or the fact that we might have a baby in the next five years. They did ask all of those questions, but didn’t seem concerned by our truthful answers. And we live in one of those coastal cities that are getting a bad rap.
So for anyone out there looking for a cat in the DC area, we had a good experience with King Street Cats in Alexandria, VA. As suggested by the name, they only have cats.
Seeker, there is a big difference between not transferring the microchip info and searching your home or vehicle.
Also, I was explaining why they do it. I wasn’t suggesting it’s necessarily the right thing to do.
Phoenix,
Oh boo hoo. So sorry you’re deeply offended. I’m deeply offended that you’re demanding that I detail an entire philosophy of thought that’s developed over decades just for you because you’re offended by a few words I typed in the comments. If you’re truly interested in why I believe what I do, you can read extensively at my blog or at the numerous vegan and animal rights blogs I link to. It’s not my duty to educate you just because you’re offended by my choice of analogy.
Seeker, I think you’re kind of missing the point. Reputable rescues don’t randomly intrude on peoples’ privacy to see if they’d be a good pet owner, and crucify them if they’re not. You kind of have to contact them and say, “Hai, I’m interested in adopting a dog. What’s your criteria?” And then they tell you what you’re getting into, make sure you have the information, make sure you know that dogs can’t live on white bread and that they will run away if not restrained, make sure you’re not lying about who you are and where you live, and then you get the dog. And if they don’t think you’ll make a good owner, you can ask them why and attempt to change things. And if it turns out that it doesn’t work out, you can give the dog back to the rescue (but only to the rescue, unless other provisions were made in advance with the full knowledge and cooperation of all parties involved, except, of course, the dog).
And guess what- if you do that, you’re not a bad person. You got in over your head because you didn’t have money/worked too much/allergic/lost your job/got sick/family illness/had a personality conflict arise/lost your house/etc. It happens. Most Animal People, as Amanda seems to like calling us, will understand, and commend you for being so mature and responsible with your pet. They’ll be sad for the dog, of course. I was sad about Zeke, the Jack Russell terrier with epilepsy whose owner had medical problems of her own and gave him directly to our rescue. Do I fault her? Hell no! She couldn’t take care of the dog herself, couldn’t find anyone else who would, and didn’t want to send him to a kill shelter, so she did the responsible thing and called us. Zeke, by the way, is still up for adoption, and loves to play fetch and swim. Going back to the case that started this whole thing, if Ellen had done what this lady had done, admitted she’d made a mistake and given the dog back to the rescue like she was supposed to, I wouldn’t have lost any respect for her.
Umm, no, Elaine, I am not demanding that you do the work of creating the change in understanding that your beliefs will never become law without. In fact I don’t give a shit about your committed beliefs.
What I want is for you to take seriously the response from the actual humans who are being insulted and slurred by your analogy. That response, in sum, is that you’re a jerk who is indifferent to the real suffering your attitudes about parenting and adoption cause to actual human children.
While I don’t know whether IRL you’re in a position to mistreat or insult a family or child in the way that you persist in doing here, you might be. So I thought you might appreciate the feedback that you’re being an asshole.
The fact that you react to being told, Hey, you’re talking about my family and you sound like an insane bigot, with a mocking reply tells me that you are in fact an insane bigot.
Are you typical, in your experience, of people who share your beliefs? It’s possible that all the animal rights people who feel entitled to compare adopting a child to buying a dog are the insane bigots that this analogy makes them sound, which would impact how seriously I feel a need to take anyone who uses that analogy.
I thought you didn’t know you sounded like a jerk. Thanks for clearing up your position.
seeker, it sounds from your story that your friends had a dog that desperately needed proper obedience training. A terrible shame that such a large dog wasn’t taught properly.
A pal of mine raised a bull mastiff that she later trained for AGILITY- no easy feat with that large a dog! I went to an event with them one day and she needed to leave her dog with me for a few minutes. I was a bit concerned, as he weighed twice what I did- yet I found him to be perfectly behaved and absolutely sweet. Within 3 minutes, I was completely comfortable with the huge guy.
Louise: A bull mastiff? Wow! I would have loved to see that! I adore my friends’ English Mastiff, but the thought of her competing in agility trials just kind of blows my mind. Any pictures?
(Apologies if this posts again, my computer’s being a bitch…)
Oh, lovely, Elaine’s joined the thread.
Look, Elaine, if you’re going to try and claim the moral high ground, you need to explain why you deserve it.
Funny how you get pissed off over having to explain yourself to Phoenix, but get pissed off ‘cause Amanda didn’t keep spelling out exactly which animal-rights people she’s irritated by. Anybody with half a brain would’ve been able to figure out from the context of her post that she wasn’t bashing all animal-rights folk (I would have thought the capitalized Animal People would have been a major clue), but a particular trend among some groups. You and all the others who are reacting as if she’s calling you out really make me wonder. What’s gotten under your collar?
I’m frankly rather surprised that this thread devolved so quickly into a “but not all animal-rights folk are like this!” wank. Amanda made, I thought, a good observation about power-hungry types, using this current thing as an example; there’s been next to no discussion on that.
Tell me, all you getting pissed off over Amanda’s post - do you jump in on threads on hypocrite pastors with “but not all Christians are like that!”? No? Why not? It’s the exact same attitude you’re displaying here…
Gah. I now have an insane urge to go hunting, but it’s nearly 10 pm and I live in the suburbs.
PhoenixRising, you said it much better than I can (obviously).
Just as a note, there are clear differences between animals and property under the law. Again, you can pull an Office Space on your copy machine, but you can’t on your dog. Dogs are given intermediate status because they have some qualities that deserve more rights than property, but (clearly) lack the qualities that make them deserve the rights of humans. The dichotomy that you see - either fully electronic or fully human - simply does not exist.
Sorry Digger; I don’t have any- Hondo was a GREAT dog and well over 200 lbs; head bigger than a basketball. This same friend also adopted an abused Shar-Pei and while Miss Daisy was very shy and timid, she also was trained in agility.
This friend was just especially good with dogs- very calm personality, very patient, gentle and sweet- the dogs trusted her. She never had to yell or hurt them, yet they obeyed her- she eventually quit lab work to start her own obedience school.
2. some rescues specialize in certain types (not necessarily breeds) like “small” or “young” or “last chance”
We are getting older and I’m much less physically able…and we have always given the dumped seniors a place to call home…to live well and pass in comfort and care.
I’m just too freakin’ old and sore and decrepit to handle a pair of blue ticks again.
Elaine…”Last chance” also means “older animals.” Folks who are less able to participate in the undeniably physically demanding nature of serindipidous rescue…should be tapped for caring for the older animals whose elderly owners have passed.
The concept needs to be developed into a nationwide program. Older animal people on fixed incomes who may not wish to deal with the puppy nonsense but can deal with basic vet bills are an ignored constituency and resource…
…and fuck me…I’m on my soapbox…apologies everyone…
Louise…the very few Maine Coon cats which have come our way are hardly strays…but refugees from the serious illness/passing of doting servants, and have immediately found new servants. Maine Coons are the most adoptable of animals. You just got lucky…
Actually, Ern’s 1/2 coon and 1/2 black long-hair domestic, and before I hold him down and trim his summertime mats, he looks like he’s from “Pet Sematary”! I try to give his fur enough time to grow back before cold weather sets in.
And note to anyone who also feeds feral cats dry kibble: BE SURE TO PICK UP THE DISH AT THE END OF THE DAY, as SKUNKS also adore it! (and I’ve heard it’s not good for them) At least a few times every summer, we look out onto the deck and realize “oh crap, I forgot again” as we see them visiting Ernie’s dish.
Amanda, before you started this thread you apparently were not aware that the rescue shelter had told Ellen and the hairdressers family that all they had to do was go fill out some paperwork and the dog would be given to the hairdresser’s children.
Well, it’s not at all clear that any of this is true.
It’s certainly inconsistent with what happened. If the family had been offered the chance to adopt their pet the “approved” way, surely they would have done so. Lawyers, of course, lie when its in their client’s interest to do so.
And even if true it still doesn’t defend the shelter. If they were willing to pop over there to the home, why didn’t they show up with the paperwork, rather than by gaining entrance to the home under false pretenses and committing an act of dognapping?
Because Amanda is absolutely right - this was a power trip.
no Teflon cookware (wtf?).
It’s a safety thing. If you heat Teflon polymer above about 480 degrees - say, on “high” with nothing in the pan - the Teflon decomposes and releases a gas that is toxic to birds even in small amounts. (In larger amounts it can cause flu-like symptoms in humans, but it’s all but impossible to generate sufficient heat in the process of ordinary cooking.)
They are no property, to be handed over to whomever you see fit. They are living beings who deserve the best protection possible.
No. No, they’re not. Look it’s bad enough already that my tax dollars fund “the Animal Rescue Police.” The only legitimate state interest in animals is protecting human beings from potentially dangerous ones and disposing of cast-off pets. Regulating pet ownership is not a legitimate use of government. Pets are property and they are to be used in whatever way a human being sees fit, presuming that use doesn’t harm a human.
“Animal rights” activity is a fundamentally useless distraction from the very real problems we face within our own species.
You like your pets. That’s great. I have a jade plant I’m especially fond of, not least of which because it survives my less-than-regular watering. I like my computer, too, but anybody that would think that it was “deserving of being protected” from me yanking the CPU or whatever is delusional. Become a Jainist and sweep the bugs out from your path as you walk if you must, but please don’t force the rest of us to live the same way. And please don’t lie your way into a home to steal someone else’s property from children, ok?
BE SURE TO PICK UP THE DISH AT THE END OF THE DAY, as SKUNKS also adore it!
Snerk! Also please know that apparently skunks do not fear dogs of any size…
This is why I won’t even walk into a shelter, the chance of feeling angry and heartbroken is too high. I rather purchase from a hobby-breeder; I want German shephreds, and I want one with a long healthy line of parentage.
If I have cash to burn, I’ll look on craigslist, I say cash to burn, because ya never know what kind of life-long diseases pets put up on craigslist would have.
That’s patently false. There is a direct correlation between people’s treatment of animals and their treatment of other humans. People who abuse animals are often victims of abuse and/or abusers.
Denying the very real connection of all violence and all oppression does no one any good.
Again, patently false. People who work to end injustice often work to end many different types of injustice. Working for animal rights is not mutually exclusive of working for human rights.
For the record, I am interested in smashing the patriarchy where ever it is found.
(Oh, and for Phoenix: I plan to adopt children in the future as well as more animals. And I KNOW you do not speak for all adoptive parents. Plenty wouldn’t care less if I love my dog so much that I use human adoption analogies to express that devotion. Even those who think it’s offensive to treat animals with the same respect as we treat humans, they think there are bigger challenges facing the adoption community than what a few animal activists think.)
When my partner came out to his then-wife, understandably, they decided that continuing to live together was not really an option. They had a couple of rescue dogs in their household (and kids, for that matter).
When they called the group and said they needed to return the animals because they would no longer be in a home with a yard, but in two separate apartments, and that additionally, financially, they could not continue to maintain them, they were told that the group had too many animals they couldn’t place and that the dogs could not be returned. When they told the group that they had neighbors who would take the dogs, they were told that they could not, on pain of legal action, pass the animals to someone else.
The rescue person then informed them, in all apparent seriousness, that they had to put their separation and divorce on hold until the group had openings to take the dogs back.
This was in rural Indiana. It isn’t limited to big cities - though I am sure it is far worse there.
When my partner came out to his then-wife, understandably, they decided that continuing to live together was not really an option. They had a couple of rescue dogs in their household (and kids, for that matter).
When they called the group and said they needed to return the animals because they would no longer be in a home with a yard, but in two separate apartments, and that additionally, financially, they could not continue to maintain them, they were told that the group had too many animals they couldn’t place and that the dogs could not be returned. When they told the group that they had neighbors who would take the dogs, they were told that they could not, on pain of legal action, pass the animals to someone else.
The rescue person then informed them, in all apparent seriousness, that they had to put their separation and divorce on hold until the group had openings to take the dogs back.
This was in rural Indiana. It isn’t limited to big cities - though I am sure it is far worse there.
Even those who think it’s offensive to treat animals with the same respect as we treat humans, they think there are bigger challenges facing the adoption community than what a few animal activists think.)
Offensive? Well, some animal care “personnel” are unwilling to consider animals the moral equivalent of people.
We are no less in the fight for animal wellbeing, and best guess is that we are generally more effective, both in small crisis, and large issues.
Silly question:
how did the animal shelter find out Ellen had given the dog away in the first place?
People who abuse animals are often victims of abuse and/or abusers.
Granted, but it’s not at all clear how “animal rescue police” or whatever prevents animal abusers from turning into human abusers.
It does, on the other hand, provide ample opportunity for the sort of righteous indignation you’re delivering here. It’s so addicting, isn’t it?
Working for animal rights is not mutually exclusive of working for human rights.
In a human society of infinite time and funding, that might be true. But in the real world, every dollar and hour spent tracking down a dogfighting ring is an hour when a real crime went uninvestigated, a dollar that wasn’t spent on the humans who could have used it.
Your cause is vanity, Elaine; I’m sorry you can’t see that. I don’t have a problem with your vanity cause but try to restrain you and yours before they break into any more houses under cover of ridiculous “contracts.”
Re: hbsweet
Maybe she wrote it on a postit note, the one that was thus discover when ‘those people’ were going through her trash?
Seriously, I like animals, but the only way to deal with accusations from these brunch, that I don’t care, I don’t care the right way, is to just, disregard them, and maybe announce “Yeah, I don’t care, fuck off”, even if you do care.
…and this crazyness just comes out online eh? I guess I'’ll have to keep my activities offline, like, going to shows to find a good breeder instead of asking on el ghey.
I plan to adopt children in the future as well as more animals.
Not so fast, Elaine. First, the other commenters here will have to review your life and work in order to determine whether you are morally fit to adopt children. Because studies have shown that people who are abusive toward other people on blog comment threads are likely to be abusive parents as well.
Chet: Dogfighting is not only a cruel and inhumane practice, but it does not exist in a vacuum. The dollars spent tracking down dogfighting ring also track down drugs, gang problems and money laundering. I understand your concerns, but bad example.
And there’s also the sanitation issue. Let’s say for argument’s sake that your neighbor decided to breed dogs in his backyard, and allow the ones that don’t make the cut as pet or show quality dogs to starve to death in his front yard. He’s doing what he wants with them, right? Shouldn’t be a problem under your scope of the issue, right? At least, not until the scavengers show up.
Granted, but it’s not at all clear how “animal rescue police” or whatever prevents animal abusers from turning into human abusers.
Three words: felony criminal record. It makes it very hard for said abusers to get a job in a position where they’d abuse their power, work with kids or anyone vulnerable, and if the spouse divorces you, good luck explaining that one to a judge. And no one’s going to take your dog away because you feed it Alpo instead of Purina One- you’re feeding it. No one’s going to take your cat away because you took it to the free clinic for rabies shots- it’s got shots. They will come take your animal away if you, say, light it on fire, starve it, or chain it outside in blistering heat without shelter.
Touché Dr. Bérubé!…
:)
Wow! This thread took a quick turn into useless back and forth arguing about whether ALL animal rescue workers are the type Amanda was talking about. I am an animal lover, I have done rescues (though not with any formal group), I believe that animals are not property but neither are they equivalent to children (though I still consider them part of my family), and I still clearly understood that Amanda was not generalizing about all animal rescue groups.
I think this whole situation with the dog Ellen adopted is disgusting. Ellen’s partner was the one who signed the adoption papers, from the reports I’ve read, and may not have read the contract as thoroughly as she should. That was Ellen and Portia’s bad, but why punish a little girl and her family for it?
Elaine, it is ridiculous to judge them for not keeping the dog who did not get along with their ALREADY RESIDENT cats. Ellen found the dog a good home, which was a breach of contract and yes, that was wrong. But this whole episode of using the police to repossess the dog from its new family is completely unhinged and an inappropriate use of our police. The rescue agency’s entire stance makes the rescue community look less interested in the animals and more interested in themselves. Animal rights activists should be pissed off, but not at Ellen, IMO.
And not all rescue agencies should have your trust. They can horribly abuse that trust, often for reasons of inadequate funding, which is not an excuse. I think animal abuse by supposed rescuers is worse than animal abuse by regular folk (sort of like when fundie Christians get caught doing the bad stuff they condemn in others). This story comes from my backyard. I almost left a rescued stray with this group, but I decided to adopt him instead (OMG, with nobody to affirm my suitability!!!Oh, noes). I must say he has been a great addition to the family and is probably my son’s best pal.
Reasons dogfighting is a crime:
-cruelty to animals
-illegal gambling
-money laundering
-weapons trade/ use
-dangerous dogs
Stopping dogfighting is a very good use of money and time.
history_mom: That’s terrible. We just had an influx of large dogs from a hoarder situation in Arkansas. It had gotten so bad, the guy was apparently randomly shooting dogs in his backyard. And there was another fiasco not to long ago from a West Virginia hoarder that passed herself off as a rescue. Very sad.
Wow, suddenly I’m very glad that our basset didn’t come from a rescue (we did look at several while hunting for him). I’d be terrified that the sudden financial strain of a death in the family would have them deem us unsuitable (our bank account went negative for about 24 hours and still isn’t too damned healthy).
You can bet if we do go to a rescue next time (my husband would like a bagel, and they’re not exactly common), we’ll be checking the return policies carefully.
We have a 155-pound mastiff who was a shelter rescue. We took him to 16 weeks of training and we walk him with a prong collar (it’s not a “choke collar”). This is a HUGE dog-centric town and not once has anyone insulted us about the collar. Our big boy is awesome and he knows his commands, but he’s still a puppy (155-pound puppy!!!) prone to lunging after squirrels and ducks. We use the collar as we enjoy having attached arms and not being dragged into Lake Washington to die of hypothermia.
Even those who think it’s offensive to treat animals with the same respect as we treat humans, they think there are bigger challenges facing the adoption community than what a few animal activists think.)
Well thanks for schooling us. Cuz we are are so ignorant and insensitive to animal rights.
If it was not for you we would treat our dogs and cats (budgies, turtles, hamsters…etc) like they owe us a fucking living.
They have feelings. Who woulda thunk it.
I adopted my beloved cat Jack from a Santa Monica animal rescue outfit a few years back. While they weren’t as draconian as some the ones described here, they were pretty hardass. They interviewed me and inquired as to what I planned to feed the cat. Cat food, sez I. Hmmm, said the interviewer, frowning disapprovingly. I hadn’t specified human-quality cat food. I had a good job, a nice place, and no kids (an enviable situation that I still, thank goodness, hold today), so THAT was all right, but they did ask me what I would do if I lost my job. Find another home for the cat, I sez. Screeching halt. She did NOT like that answer. I was supposed to live in a car before giving up my pets. (I know this because she said that’s what she’d do.) I asked who exactly this show of devotion was supposed to benefit, and suggested that the cat would be better off with people actually able to take care of him. She seemed to grudgingly agree, and–against her better judgment, it seemed–let me take him.
His little sister Tangerine came from a box of free kittens outside the grocery store. I recommend this latter method for anyone loioking to acquire a cat in Los Angeles.
Tapetum:
Why would you or your husband go to an animal rescue shelter for a bagel? Don’t they have more suitable specialty shops for that?
Although I’m pretty sure they don’t take returns, just as a matter of policy.
As someone who has owned recycled dogs for the last twenty years, I agree that rescue groups have some annoying policies. For example, they will retain title to the dog. Some will lie about the age of the dog. But their primary goal is to take homeless dogs and find them “forever” homes. It does no one any good to have dogs bouncing back and forth to the pound. They want to make sure that you intend to keep and are capable of keeping the dog for the rest of its life.
As a side note, many rescues are breed-specific, run by volunteers who know and love their breed, and refuse to let any be put to sleep if at all possible. They also can assess people to determine if they would be good fits for their dogs. The owner that is not dominant enough to own a pit or a rottie might e perfectly acceptable for a cocker spaniel.
Anyone who knows dogs knows that some are incompatible with children, whether the children might be a danger to an animal, or the animal might be a danger to the children. For best results, the dog must have been socialized with children as a puppy. Unfortunately, many homeless dogs were never socialized properly at all. No shelter wants to be known for having supplied a dog that bit a kid. No family will keep a dog that bit the children. The Mutts and Moms people were simply behaving rationally. EDG apparently knew jack shit about matching dogs with homes; her judgment should not have been able to supersede the rescue group’s.
(Amanda, comment 99) “In a sane world, her decision to give the dog to a family she thought would care for it was smart, and the idea that the rules should trump common sense—that this is a good thing—concerns me.”
Point taken, and I retract my comment. Had a long discussion about this with a close friend. I admittedly am very biased towards rescue associations but the group that allowed Ellen to adopt the dog seems to be more interested in power than concern for the animal (not because they let Ellen have the dog, but for what came afterwards), so returning the dog to them would have assured that the family could never have adopted the dog, due to their “no kids under 14″ rule. Under these circumstances, it sounds like Ellen made the best choice and was punished for doing so.
Well, its been educational. I’ve lived in a small city most of my life (pop around 200,000), and I’m a cat person.
I will be moving to a larger city soonish, and I’m glad that before I did that I learned never to even consider a place that calls itself a pet rescue or pet adoption agency.
Lizard Can’t speak for anyone else, but the incident certainly convinced me to have nothing to with “adopting” a pet. I’ll just find an ad in the paper that says “free kittens” and do my best to have nothing at all to do with the “adoption” people.
Mind you, I lothe paperwork in general, and I can’t stand officious busybodies, so likely even without this warning I’d have figured out within a few seconds that they’re the kind of people I arbitrarially and broadly classify as “jackasses” and leave.
I put up with that kind of shit at airports because I have no choice, either you put up with the powertripping idiots or you walk. I can’t understand why anyone would put up with it for the simple act of getting a pet.
Or do big cities simply not have people giving away free kittens and/or puppies?
Can’t speak for anyone else, but the incident certainly convinced me to have nothing to with “adopting” a pet. I’ll just find an ad in the paper that says “free kittens” and do my best to have nothing at all to do with the “adoption” people.
That’s how we got our second cat. Someone had dropped the pregnant mom off at a vet office and they ended up with a litter. There was an advertisement, we were looking for a kitten to keep our other cat company when we went out of town on weekends (we go 3-4 times a year to visit family), and so we got her. She’s 7 now and very friendly. The older cat was the husband’s from before we got together–his friend’s neighbor’s cat had kittens and he got one–a gorgeous Main Coon mix with a bad disposition, although he’s mellowed now that he’s older (10 this year).
It’s also how we’ll probably get any future cats we have. There is no way any rescue agency would give us a cat. We have small children, go out of town regularly, and both our cats are front declawed (I got tired of having shredded legs–the big guy was pure evil when he was younger and was very jealous of S when we were first dating).
For best results, the dog must have been socialized with children as a puppy. Unfortunately, many homeless dogs were never socialized properly at all. No shelter wants to be known for having supplied a dog that bit a kid. No family will keep a dog that bit the children. The Mutts and Moms people were simply behaving rationally. EDG apparently knew jack shit about matching dogs with homes; her judgment should not have been able to supersede the rescue group’s.
IIRC, the dog is still a puppy, so socialization isn’t the issue. It’s the dog’s size.
I’ve done some informal animal rescue, because people tend to dump their dogs in Prospect Park. It’s not easy to find a rescue group that has the space to take a dog, particularly a larger dog. What my friends and I have wound up doing most of the time is contacting a number of agencies, all of which say they just don’t have room. Many will offer to list the dog on Petfinder under their umbrella if we’ll foster. That’s worked out in a few cases. In others, it just means adding another dog to the family.
The only time I was able to get a shelter placement for a dog was when I found a purebred Westie abandoned in the sideyard of my building, behind the fence. Poor guy was a mess, with infected ears and long claws, but he cleaned up well, and was adopted within a week of being placed with the rescue, being a purebred Westie and all. I still had to pay to drop him off, though.
Point being, that even if the shelter has a return policy, there’s no guarantee that they’ll actually have space.
Amanda tries to say this is not about all “Animal People” or all “big, liberal coastal cities” but the fact that she leads the article with the statements
and devotes a very small portion of the article qualifying her terms “Animal People” and “big liberal coastal cities” shows that she does in fact intend to make a generalization.
She and her readers will grant that there are exceptions, but her points are that most “Animal People” are “self-righteous assholes” and that most “big, liberal coastal cities” host these assholes.
If Amanda really only meant to be attacking Mutts and Moms, why didn’t she say that? What’s so hard about typing “Mutts and Moms”? Why use terms like “control freak” and “sadist” and “asshole” and “meanies”?
But no, that’s not what Amanda wanted to do. She wanted to smear animal rescues and animal people. She made it about ALL animal people.
And why in the world am I supposed to just sit back and not be offended at being called an “asshole” while the rest of you get to be offended by analogies between humans and animals and then demand explanations from me because of my analogy choice?
Amanda tries to paint animal people as crazies and wanna-be fundies. But she’s the one using their language: “big, liberal coastal cities”!? She’s the one making sweeping generalizations based on her unfounded prejudices. She’s the one choosing to take one, unusual celebrity incident to demonstrate something she thinks exists de rigeur in animal rescues (even without having had any real personal experiences to back up her statements). She’s the one looking at a minority group (who happens to have many if not most values similar to her own) from the center and claiming they’re crazy for being at the margins.
Mutts and Moms are receiving death threats. Where is your control freak analysis on that part of the story?
“Mutts and Moms are receiving death threats. Where is your control freak analysis on that part of the story?”
Well, first off, it’s hard to believe (for me at least) that the kind of people who “live” at Pandagon are going to be the sort who send anybody death threats - for ANY reason. That’s just NOT how Pandagonians roll.
There’s only two reasons for somebody to be THAT upset with Mutts and Moms: you either think they shouldn’t interfere with pet ownership at all, or you think they weren’t HARSH ENOUGH on EDG for what happened.
There is a pool of Authoritarian Cultists (almost always with Reichwing leanings, but I’m sure there are a few on the Left) who are always on the lookout for an excuse to make asses of themselves. If I were Mutts and Moms, I’d look in that direction first…
Oh, Elaine. You’re always such a treat.
I’d had cats since I was 3 years old; I was kind of taken aback by all this “you can’t have kids if you want a pet!” crap; I can sort of understand it with dogs, especially breeds who might bite, but… really? I find it sad that their are legions of kids in cities who might not be able to grow up with the joy and companionship of having pets. In fact, I think having pets is great for children; teaches them responsibility, and to have compassion and respect for other creatures. It seems counterintuitive to ban children from having pets; isn’t it hindering the next generation of animal lovers/adopters?
I got my Max (aka”Mr Manface”) from our local humane society. Now that I’m no longer living with roommates, I think I’m going to have to get him a little sister to keep him company; he’s getting a little neurotic and needy. But now I’m afraid they’ll say my apartment is too small for two cats, or that I’m not home enough, or something.
“There’s only two reasons for somebody to be THAT upset with Mutts and Moms:”
They don’t even really have to be specifically upset with Mutts and Moms. Get your name mentioned to a big enough audience, and there are going to be enough psychos in it that you’re going to get at least a few death threats. They don’t even seem to need to know what the fuss is about, just that the person or organization did something “bad.”
Amanda Marcotte
October 20, 2007 at 4:46 pm
“I’m also a bit astounded that it’s supposedly so obvious to give the pet back to the shelter if you can’t keep it.”
It should be glaringly obvious to anyone who reads the– now boilerplate–clause in their adoption contract.
So Mutts and Moms didn’t cow-tow to the cult of celebrity; they decided to enforce the contract Ellen signed.
They should be applauded for this and instead they are getting death threats. Nice.
Elaine: You do realize you are illustrating Amanda’s point, don’t you? Your posts on this thread have been the definition of the self-righteous, judgmental, control freak, “Animal Person” she described in her article.
And, as an animal lover, I don’t feel tarred by the “Animal Person” label because I don’t fit that label. It’s no different than when we tell the men that they shouldn’t take it personally when we say “men are (potential) rapists”, unless of course they are rapists.
By the way, some have mentioned that thanks to fussy shelters, they would rather buy a dog from a breeder. (There was also some dirty-control-freaks- deserved-it undercurrent, but whatever floats your bone.)
You might want to take a closer look at the contract you signed with the breeder. The good breeders - ie, those who know what they’re doing, and breed selectively so that they don’t produce too many unwanted puppies - have very similar conditions to the stricter shelters.
It’s common for them to:
1. Ask to inspect your house.
2. Require that you return the dog to them, if you chose to give it up.
3. Refuse to sell a puppy to a household with a kid under 10.
4. Refuse to sell to a household without a “safe” yard.
5. Ask for your pet-owning history.
6. Require that you sterilise your dog when it comes of age.
7. Require that you enroll for training classes.
And yes, breeders have no problems with seizing the dog if they find that you’ve broken the contract in some way. Usually, it has to be pretty severe, though. A certain bullmastif breeder shouted down Mike Tyson’s bodyguards and walked off with the puppy, when she found that he kept it locked in the kitchen.
Personally, I’d suggest that if you find a rescue/shelter too restrictive, just move on. Go down the line. Eventually, you’ll find someone who will be ok with your circumstances. There are tons of dogs, and very few homes, so some shelters will be willing to be more flexible.
Anyway, there’s no rush, right? it’s not like any sensible person HAS to get a dog by a certain deadline so that the kids can get a Christmas puppy.
RKMK–First of all, don’t believe all the anti-shelter bullshit you read around these parts, there is no blanket rule about kids and pets. Shelters typically do try to protect kids against dogs who could bite and, in reverse, protect animals who may be particularly vulnerable. The latter usually applies to previously abused or very small dogs.
Most “Animal people,” crazy and insufferable as we clearly are, would recommend a buddy for your cat, particularly if you’re not home a lot. Cats can get lonely.
Famous apothegm:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Animal-shelter corollary:
Petty power corrupts pettily.
History-mom,
I’m not so much offended by being called “self-righteous” or “judgmental” as I am offended by:
1. being called an “asshole”
2. being called “crazy”
3. being likened to anti-choice fundies
4. the undercurrents that:
a)activists deserve death threats for being such rude people
b)it’s acceptable to support puppy mills (buy from a pet store) if you believe the media hype that rescue organizations want to search your home and take away your freedoms
Can’t speak for anyone else, but the incident certainly convinced me to have nothing to with “adopting” a pet. I’ll just find an ad in the paper that says “free kittens” and do my best to have nothing at all to do with the “adoption” people.
Adoption/rescue organizations vary extremely widely on whether they give potential adoptors the third degree, especially about cats. I got my youngest as a kitten from a Seattle-area organization called Purrfect Pals, which required only that I have a fixed address and pay the $85 fee (for a male kitten already neutered with shots). No invasive questions about square footage, whether I’d be home often enough, none of that. All they cared about was finding homes for the little darlings. In fact, I think I’ve gotten a total of six cats in my lifetime from rescue organizations, none of which practiced these kinds of brownshirt tactics like requiring someone to be home all day every day or insisting on a 1500-square-foot dwelling (which would seem to eliminate 90% of potential adoptors in New York City). And none of them insisted I give the cat back if my situation changed in any way.
I suppose I got off easy compared to some of the people telling their horror stories (and others’) here. “You can’t separate from your husband until we have enough space to take the dog back”? Can they really legally force someone to do that? I would think that’s a case that would be thrown out of court on its floppy ear in two seconds.
So Mutts and Moms didn’t cow-tow to the cult of celebrity; they decided to enforce the contract Ellen signed.
The question then is how often they really enforce those contracts. Because if they usually don’t, but decided to do it in this case, that tells you something.
Luckily, nobody here has actually endorsed this. In fact, I think we all agree that death threats against ANYONE are wrong.
Can you categorically state that ALL pet stores get their animals from puppy mills? I personally do not purchase animals from pet stores and prefer to get my animals from shelters or adopt strays, but I would hesitate to make such a blanket statement. Do you not see that you can be accused of the same tendency to overgeneralize and tar people unfairly as you claim Amanda has done to you?
Besides, I only recall one person saying that this story discourages them from getting animals through rescue organizations, which I think is a bit of an overreaction. I think it is far more common for people to go to their local municipal shelter or adopt “free” pets from friends, neighbors, or some person at the grocery store with a box full of kittens– I don’t think this story will change that.
Digger:
The dollars spent tracking down dogfighting ring also track down drugs, gang problems and money laundering.
Is that because prohibitions against dogfighting drive such rings into the same underground spaces as drugs and gangs?
I’m not seeing any correlation between those things that isn’t the result of enforcement in the first place. When the enforcement is creating the problem that it was designed to prevent, it’s time to step back and think it through.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that your neighbor decided to breed dogs in his backyard, and allow the ones that don’t make the cut as pet or show quality dogs to starve to death in his front yard. He’s doing what he wants with them, right? Shouldn’t be a problem under your scope of the issue, right? At least, not until the scavengers show up.
So it’s a public health problem at that point - a danger to human beings. That was my exception, remember? Ranching livestock has the same issues, yet somehow we’re able to create a regulatory structure that protects human safety without making everybody become vegetarian.
It makes it very hard for said abusers to get a job in a position where they’d abuse their power, work with kids or anyone vulnerable, and if the spouse divorces you, good luck explaining that one to a judge.
You’re running head-long into a prior restraint problem; plus, it’s not at all clear that a felony record for hurting animals protects anybody.
Elaine:
-cruelty to animals
-illegal gambling
-money laundering
-weapons trade/ use
-dangerous dogs
Meh. Two of those, potentially three, aren’t legitimate state interests. Money laundering and weapons trade are a direct result of the enforcement, not the activity.
Regulatory mechanisms and licensing would minimize the risk to humans of dangerous dogs, the same way that other hazardous resources are managed.
Gayle:
So Mutts and Moms didn’t cow-tow to the cult of celebrity; they decided to enforce the contract Ellen signed.
They should be applauded for this and instead they are getting death threats. Nice.
No, they really shouldn’t be. Firstly it’s not even clear if conditional sale is legal in CA. Secondly, no, they shouldn’t be applauded for gaining entrance to a private residence on false pretenses in order to take a puppy from children.
You’re exactly who Amanda is talking about, though - someone who thinks obeying the rules is more important than doing what is right.
I’ve been trying for a while to gte a cat again. My old one had to be put down in the spring- 19 year old and very sick.
I had that cat against RSPCA’s wishes- its previous servant moved away from our building and his new landlord didn’t allow cats, so I agreed to take Shandy.Shandy was old, 16 when I got him, rather grumpy, liked to spend time outside and pretty much his own person.
One of the neighbours who didn’t know I was taking care of Shandy called RSPCA, who came in and gave me the 3rd degree about keeping a cat in my small flat ( I had had Shandy at this pint for some 6 months). They also gave me a couple of earfulls about allowing Shandy to go out in my no car street, and took him away. When I asked them if he was going to be put up for adoption, the woman who took him told me sharply “Oh no, a cat so old will never be adopted, we’ll likely have him put down”.
Luckily Shandy ran away the next day and came back to me, and I had him for 3 years afterwards.
I want another cat, this time a kitten. But each and every place I go to in my area- Leicester England, expects me to have a 100 sq metre flat, which I don’t, and although me and my partner have comfortable incomes and no intention to have kids, not to mention that we work from home, we don’t seem to be “good enough”.
Well, as the one person who said it put me off rescue operations, I’ll also mention that I find puppy farms abhorant.
Of course, I find the idiot mindset that demands a “purebred” abhorant too. Give me a mutt anyday. Gene pools require mixing, not inbreeding.
Having said that, if I ever go somehwere to get a pet and they demand to know my anual income, I’d leave, probably in an obscinity laden tirade at their invasive assholishness. Anyone who demands to know that before giving you a pet is an asshole, plain and simple. And anyone who would willingly submit to that sort of dehumanizing third degree crap is definately not the sort of person I’d get along with.
So I’ll keep getting non-purebred, healthy, intelligent, pets from “free kittens” ads. And extend a raised middle finger to the busybodies while I’m at it.
I think you mean kowtow.
Normally I wouldn’t correct somebody for something like this unless they were being a jerk, which you obviously were not. I just felt I owed you a thank you for the laugh I got: “cow-tow” popped a vivid image into my head of a bewildered bovine being towed along by a tugboat, appealing to my essentially warped sense of humour.
Moo. Moo, I say.
oops. No preview button.
Meant to add:
I can see the appeal of getting an animal from a rescue shelter, its got obvous moral tie ins.
But if, in order to do this good, you have to submit to their preachy, invasive, crap, screw it. The potential good of taking in an abandoned animal is vastly, overwhelmingly, outweighed by the insane conditions, invasiveness, etc that they want to attach.
My thoughts turned back to the cops on this one. My own experience as a Canadian lawyer is that it’s like pulling teeth to get the blues to intervene in whatever they deem to be a civil matter unless there is a risk of violence or there is a court order mandating their presence. What exactly where they told? Why were they there and under colour of what authority?
The other point is the false pretenses noted by Chet, amongst others. My experience (again, Canadian) is that enforcement of any civil order must be straight down the line. I can’t, say, get an Anton Piller order to seize corporate documents but gain access to the premises by telling them I’m just there to inspect those documents. Then again, this may come under the repo laws and they may be different. But, still, what worries me is this: if Mutts and Moms had a legal right to repossess the dog but not to enter the premises then does not a civil right of action against them arise from the improper entry into the home? American lawyers, help me out here.
I can’t shake the sneaking feeling that the shelter was within its legal rights no matter how bad it looks. Any country which permits heavily armed bounty hunters to wander around with more rights and fewer restrictions than cops has some serious boundary issues to begin with. Sorry, but it had to be said.
soopermouse….
Why do I get the sneaking suspicion that you drop your aitches and that doesn’t go down well with the RP types that run the shelter?
“Any country which permits heavily armed bounty hunters to wander around with more rights and fewer restrictions than cops has some serious boundary issues to begin with. Sorry, but it had to be said.”
No apologies needed. That is but one of many hard truths Americans need to face up to and deal with…
One other thought. If there are torts covering the deceit and improper entry into the premises, and if the family only “permitted” (in fact but not law) the entry into the premises because of the presence of the police officers, does that not also give rise to a cause of action against the police? Just askin’.
seeker: LOL!
Chet,
“You’re exactly who Amanda is talking about, though - someone who thinks obeying the rules is more important than doing what is right.”
Taking the dog back was right, IMHO. But, of course, I’m a big city, elitist type. Worse than Hitler.
I’m a shelter worker in the urban midwest. The shelter is located in a pretty crappy
neighborhood. It’s a privately run shelter, but it’s been in the community for a hundred years
and serves as the humane investigation base of the county, and we are involved in
prosecutions of animal cruelty and neglect. We have a pretty diverse clientele all around, but
due to the neighborhood, a high percentage of low income clients. I love my job. I love
helping people find just the right animal for them. I won’t say I’m very jaded, but I get a
pretty good read on people. We really try to have good dialogue with people and teach them about proper pet care and all the responsibilities, rather than just judging. We don’t give people the third degree with a litany of invasive questions; we try to keep it conversational, and believe that people would be good homes unless they indicate otherwise, not the other way around.
My shelter’s contract basically is there to cover our asses: we don’t guarantee age,
health, size, breed, or temperament; we’re not liable for injury or illness of or caused by the
animal, or property destruction caused by the animal. That’s basically the only legally relevant
stuff. If we get a vibe on somebody, we’ll ask, “So, where will the dog be sleeping?” and if
they say, “Outside,” we’ll have a conversation with them about why our dogs need to be
indoor companion animals. Sometimes the light will come on, and then we’re happy.
Sometimes the person gets hostile and insists that s/he’d keep the dog tied to a stake
outside. We would not adopt an animal to that person. Declawing is not a dealbreaker,
although we discourage it. Kids are absolutely not a dealbreaker, and are even encouraged for
certain dogs that love to play and need to be worn out, although certain dogs that are very
sensitive or resource guarders come with recommendations, or less frequently, stipulations
that the kids be over a certain age. We’ve had people come in and ask for fighting dogs, or
guard dogs, and once, a cat to sacrifice. We’ve had people go to the back of the building, drop off their dog they don’t want anymore, and then come to our end and try to adopt a puppy. Those people get shown the door.
When somebody comes in and asks about the cat adoption fees, and I tell them that cats
under 7 are $45 and cats over 7 are $30, and they go, “OOH WHERE ARE THE ONES THAT
ARE OVER 7?!” I get uneasy. Because fifteen dollars is apparently a lot fo money to them,
when fifteen dollars is a really negligible amount of money in the scheme of pet ownership.
Because they obviously aren’t thinking of the increased vet bills older cats will probably incur as
they develop age-related conditions. I had one client screech about how $30 is an exorbitant
amount of money to pay for TWO (we were doing a BOGO sale) spayed, fully vaccinated,
declawed (the previous owner had had them declawed) cats that come with a month of free
pet health insurance; that got my hackles up. When we tell people that there’s a good chance that their animal could come down with a cold from being in the shelter after they get it home and they flip out, saying, “I don’t want any dog that gets sick!” that gets my hackles up. When we say, “She was spayed on the 18th,” and they say, “She can’t have kittens?! Forget it! Where are the ones that can have kittens?” that gets my hackles up. When someone says, “So, can I bring him back here to have his ears and tail done?” I get my hackles up.
You don’t have a fundamental right to own an animal. There is no Medicaid or S-CHIP for
animals. If you don’t want to feed your dog anymore, just throw it out on the street; if they
can even scrape together the resources to find your ass, you’ll get a $150 fine and 10 hours
of community service. So yeah, I want the animals in my care to go to good homes where I
know they’ll be provided for adequately, because there is no safety net for animals. They are
so dependent, and I am the only thing that is standing between an animal and a terrible life. That’s a lot of responsibility, and I take it seriously, ‘cause I’ve seen some terrible shit go down in the shelter. For example, right now in the shelter, we’ve got a 20 pound fully grown male Collie who was starved to the brink of death, two puppies who were stuffed in a suitcase with their eight littermates and thrown in a dumpster (all the other littermates suffocated), and a Chow who was rescued from the home of a woman who had already hung her two dogs and was getting ready to hang this one. Not to mention all the animals returned to us after being adopted. So yeah, I want to make sure I’m not just going to see this animal again in six months: when the adorable puppy grows up and gets too big for your tastes; when you complain that the dog you leave alone for fourteen hours a day is hyperactive when you let him out of the crate; when the senior cat you adopted ‘cause it was fifteen bucks cheaper needs a dental cleaning and you don’t want to bother; when that cute little terrier you adopted ‘cause you wanted something to carry in your purse doesn’t play so well with your child’s gerbils; or god forbid, in the case log of our animal cops. So yeah, I love it when people show me the pictures of their animals that they keep in their wallet. I love it when people say, “My bed’s gonna be covered in fur from now on, huh?” ‘cause their animal is going to sleep with them. I love it when people say, “We had to put Sparky down in May [sniffle]. We spent $1500 trying to keep him alive, but he was just in so much pain. I cried for weeks.” We don’t believe that any home is better than the shelter, but we do try to have good dialogues with people and hope for the best.
Anecdotal, Not Really Evidence:
We adopted 2 dogs from a rescue organization, jumped through many a hoop, & were glad to do it. One of the dogs was a recall. Rescue Lady said that the family had looked great on paper, but she had this “feeling.” Checked in a few months later & well, no the puppy hadn’t been vaccinated because, well, the boyfriend had run off with all their money. And I’m sure the kids cried buckets.
Rescue Lady took a job at a rural W.VA shelter. Guy brought in his dog; its leg was messed up from being shot. “Doctor? For a dog? Are you crazy?” The attitude is so prevalent she tries to get animals out of the state entirely. Is it a class/money issue? Maybe, but there’s a big gap between basic medical care (which is never cheap) & designer sweaters.
Are all rescue workers psychic? Is everyone from WVA a drooling knuckle dragger? No, but I think I’ll side with the Rescue Angels (controlling & possibly crazy though some may be) on this one.
The other point is the false pretenses noted by Chet, amongst others. My experience (again, Canadian) is that enforcement of any civil order must be straight down the line. I can’t, say, get an Anton Piller order to seize corporate documents but gain access to the premises by telling them I’m just there to inspect those documents. Then again, this may come under the repo laws and they may be different. But, still, what worries me is this: if Mutts and Moms had a legal right to repossess the dog but not to enter the premises then does not a civil right of action against them arise from the improper entry into the home? American lawyers, help me out here.
I checked the Smoking Gun, but they don’t have any of the documents online. At minimum, they’d have to have some kind of seizure order authorizing the seizure of the dog (and probably based on the group’s retaining nominal title to the dog, which is why they do the contracts that way; it’s essentially a licensing agreement). I would suspect that they had the seizure order but no right of entry, and the family just saw badges and let them in. A lot of people don’t realize that just because someone shows up with a badge, it doesn’t mean you have to let them in.
If the family let them in, then there’s really nothing they can do about that unless they were in fact told a lie by the cops to get inside.
Sheriffs seize property all the time, but they have to have an order permitting them to do so. I don’t really know what kind of process the rescue would have to follow to get such an order, though.
“Outside,” we’ll have a conversation with them about why our dogs need to be indoor companion animals.
This is another iffy type of situation…but before I get into it, I’ll never forget the fiesty senior citizen, Alice, who adopted “Walter,” (15lbs of middle-aged ugly…possible chi-ter mix)
When asked where the dog would sleep, Alice, clearly getting annoyed with the “interrogation,” promptly snapped …”anywhere Walter damn well pleases.”
End of interview…and Alice and Walter went home together.
Personally, I have no issues with outdoor dogs, and this is probably a rural gig. Dogs that have access to shelter in various barns and outbuildings are not neglected animals. Many herder/flock guard dogs are well-loved members of the family, but they have a job to do. As long the shelter is available and the fencing is sound, I’m cool.
Our neighbors down the way have a small free range chicken ranch operation for area clientele, and their rescue, Lucy, a corgi-something, is an hilarious local legend for “herding” chickens. They are “her” chickens.
Her legend now includes a federal felony violation…from what we can gather from the corpse…she took out a red-tailed hawk.
Yes, there was actually a brief DNR investigation, as neighbors’ young ‘uns took hawk feathers to school.
I’m with fellow animal rescuers with the frustration and understand ultimate hardline stances, but every now and then, ya just gotta laugh.
Brad Jackson,
I don’t think any organization under that banner is allowed to ask for your income, or your social security, or even your place of employment (you didn’t ask, but I figured I’d throw the last two in there). They don’t have a legal right to, so they don’t. So there goes that misconception. All that most rescue groups ask a prospective adopter is:
1. Do you own or rent?
2. If you rent, may we have your landlord’s phone number so we can verify with him/her that you can have a pet on the premises (this is to weed out college students who decide to have a cat even though they can’t contractually have any animals on the premises, and then when they are caught by their landlord they dump the cat at a kill shelter)?
3. Is it okay if we send you a list of things/conditions your new pet will need, and make a home visit prior to your pet’s arribal to make sure the premises are ready for him/her?
4. How much of a problem would you have with us dropping in to visit a few weeks after we drop off your pet to see how s/he is doing?
5. Do you have someone who can take care of your pet in case you no longer have the financial means or if (god forbid) you die?
I didn’t see a problem with any of these things, so I said yes. My income and space was never an issue. Nor were the requests for items the cat might need extravagant: all they asked me to do is get a couple of toys, a donut bed for him to sleep in, the same food he was eating at the foster home (Iams, so no elitism there), a Booda dome (litter box: the same kind he was already used to), a vertical scratch post, and some bowls for his food and water to go in. The lady who came for the home visit just looked at the items, and at where I set him food and sleep quarters up (a secluded corner of my bedroom), and said “ok, I can see we’re ready”.
Then when my cat was dropped off later that day I just had to sign a contract that stated that the rescue group was allowed to take my cat back if my back up caretaker could not take him in.
A few weeks later, the same lady got in touch with me via e-mail asking if she could stop by to see how my cat was doing, and what time was convenient for me. Then she came by, and just made sure my cat was not cowering under the bed, or had obvious signs of abuse. He didn’t, btw: the lady at the rescue actually said that if she had observed anything is that he was pretty spoiled (he totally is).
in between they had plenty of advice for me and went above and beyond to help me out when my cat ended up having fleas (long story), and no pet grooming service would help me bathe him (poor little guy, the meds the vet gave him did not do anything about the itching for the first couple of days). So I called them for advice and they’re like: “We can send someone over to help. When would be good?”.
Hardly what you’d call deeply and grossly invasive of my privacy.
Because of this whole Ellen episode, and scare-mongering threads like this, many potential pet owners will be discouraged from finding their companions at rescues/shelters.
Because of all the misinformation being spread, four or five people in this thread have even said they’d NEVER consider animal rescue in the future!
I don’t doubt that control-freak rescuers are out there. I don’t doubt that some people have had bad experiences when trying to adopt. But to give up on homeless shelter dogs completely because of the attitudes and policies of a few rescues?
I live in the DC area. I adopted an 8 year old dog from a beagle rescue in March. Here is the website. As you can see, there are countless “updates” on the site from ALL SORTS of families who’ve adopted beagles. For most of the adoptable dogs, the only qualification is “…just needs a human to love him/her.”
Yes, I had to fill out a short application, which asked basic questions about my lifestyle and my experience with dogs (I’d had a couple as a child). None about my salary. I work full-time, but they encourage people with jobs to adopt because a lot of the dogs are adults or seniors who are fine just lounging around all day. Yes, someone visited my home for 5 minutes to meet me. Nobody was offensive or intrusive whatsoever. Most of my friends with dogs obtained them through rescues or shelters and none of them have had bad experiences.
The volunteers are all extremely dedicated to finding good forever homes for the dogs. That’s it. They rehabilitate sick dogs and are devoted to giving them second chances at life. I never sensed any judgement whatsoever.
Don’t write off rescues just because some people have come forward with dramatic stories.
It breaks my heart that rescues have been characterized in such a way, and that people are willing to believe that the extreme stories are the norm.
You rescued a beagle? There is a special place in heaven for you.
Someday, but not today, I will tell you why beagles are the most abused and violated of breeds.
Oh, what the fuck…stroll through our state land rec area on a bad day, and discover over the course of your stroll the carcasses of four clearly young beagles, then mention the incident to your township supervisor. He, frankly disgusted, informs you that these young beagles were shot for failing in their function. Basically, if young beagles don’t perform out of the gate, they are shot.
Good Lord, it is true. I saw the shot dogs. There is a mindset out here in redneck that if beagles get on deer trail…and don’t quit…shoot ‘em.
Beagles are our toughest placements, because they are bred rampantly, not for love of the breed, but for function. They are the most abused and misunderstood and sweetest of dogs. (I briefly mentioned this over at Zuzu’s…)
Adopt a beagle…do it today.
Because of all the misinformation being spread
People are giving accounts of actual experiences that they had with animal rescue shelters.
How is that “misinformation”? You people really are insufferable.
Ba ha ha ha ha!!!!
Chet just called someone else insufferable.
Now that’s funny!
My fiance, Mr. Prision, and his family live in a small house in a rural area, with a HUGE yard. Literally, 5+acres; their house just happens to be small. (StepDadCreant was a bachelor for many years, and Mr. Prision and SisterPrision live in college dorms full-time.)
When their “neighbors” (in the area where they live, “neighbor” usually means “the nearest sign of life”) moved away, they left their beautiful German Shepherd chained to a tree to starve. Mr. Prision, MamaPrision, StepDadCreant, and SisterPrision heard his plaintive howls and, after a phone call to verify that the neighbors were gone for good, took him in. For over three years, they’ve taken excellent care of him, given him his shots, and made sure he wants for nothing. He sleeps indoors when it’s cold, plays outside when it’s warm, and is a true member of the family.
I would hate to think that Moe (the dog) could be taken away from them just because of the size of their home, or because they saved him from starving to death without involving Animal Rescue.
Chet, the misinformation is that rescues are not worth going to because they’re too much trouble. Just because a few bad apples can make adoption a hassle as SOME rescues doesn’t mean it’s difficult to adopt a fucking dog or that rescues are full of jerks.
Ahunt, you don’t have to tell me about the abuse beagles suffer. The sweetest, cutest, most loving dogs… They’re used for testing purposes because they’re so trusting of humans and easy to poke and prod. Not to mention the hunting issue. The people at the beagle rescue think Hoagie may have been a hunter’s dog who didn’t hunt. The hunters just toss them on the side of the road if they don’t perform. It’s true that the stories you hear will make you hate humanity.
Hmmm… You know, that explains a few things about my MIL’s dog. She just showed up on a trail where my MIL usually walked her (now departed) senior dog one day, with no tags or collars, and got all friendly right away. My MIL decided to take her in.
This dog did nothing but howl all hours of the day, chew on doors, and eat many things that required a trip to the vet. She’s 7 now, and is just getting around the concept of heeling. But she has devotion to my MIL bordering on absolute (my cat loves me, but he does not sit by the door for however long it takes for me to come back home without looking away even once). Probably because it is true, it takes a very special person to love beagle rescues, and even my MIL dumb as dirt beagle (but cute! we all love her, even if it takes an hour to walk her up and down a block
totally knows that.
“it takes a very special person to love beagle rescues”
What do you mean by that?
It’s true about taking an hour to walk around the block, hahaha. Hoagie is my beagle but I had two beagles as a kid, so I’m familiar with their antics. Though Hoag hardly ever howls.
Chet…please give us a break. Please.
We’ve worked so hard, for so long…and in some seriously vile circumstances, all the while raising families and establishing careers.
Please understand that some of us are defensive, because we have been at this for so long…our three sons grew up caring and socializing the animals no one else cared for, because 25 years ago, there was no humane society within 90 minutes of driving. There was just us, and Psycho Vet Tech Buddy, and Melanie, our senior citizen German Immigrant Cat Nazi… and most of all, the remarkable foster families. No holding facilities…just us.
Please understand that those of us in the trenches vary wildly in what we consider to be proper care of the critters…
Please know that we are not all insufferable.
OH Shit, Sarah…tearing up now, and it is menopausal hormones because I am way tough…just less so when it come to beagles. I will not lose another beagle to the system…as of 1990. That vile experience made me a rabid partisan on behalf of the breed, though we are generally mutt folks.
The good news is that once a beagle is well socialized and trained, they CAN be well placed…beagles are the sweetest of dogs. The bad news is that this often takes MUCH longer to accomplish than with other breeds, and can be truly frustrating. With beagles, ya gotta love and respect the breed, and work within breed nature.
Adopt a beagle. Do it today.
I specifically went to a well-regarded cat rescue when it was time for us to invite some new felines to live with us. Our dear departed Marilyn Murrowww had left us about a year before, after 18 years of life (ten with us), and we had since bought a home that was larger.
At the time, my boys were 3 1/2 and 1 1/2. I didn’t want another baby to potty train, and I wanted to know that whatever cat came to us wouldn’t be the sort to be terrified of the children or compelled to lash out and scratch them. I knew that I needed a yenta who knew the cat she was dealing with and could match us up.
The shelter director and I talked for nearly an hour while I cleaned the kitchen. I told her how we had adopted an older cat and how we missed her. We talked about our home, where the litter box and food would go, what kind of space we had. She asked what would happen if the cats scratched the kids, and I explained that some of that would be chalked up to “training” the kids to have proper respect, so long as the animal was not freaked out and constantly attacking (which would mean that a kid free home would be better - a situation I was trying to avoid with her help).
She called me back a couple hours later and asked if I could take two cats. I said it wouldn’t be a problem as we had more room than we used to and three floors. She set up an appointment for the whole family to come meet some prospective adoptees.
We met two single cats first - relatively young and friendly. One was clearly uncomfortable with the small ones, so we knew that wouldn’t work. The second would have worked, but then there was this “inseparable pair” she wanted us to meet. They had a tandem enclosure so they could comfort each other in this transition.
They were great - kissing up to me and the husband, the sister was schmoozing her tail off, even with the kids. They had been in a house with children, so they were hitting the kids up for attention right away. Littermates, they were purchased from a pet store as small kittens by a man who died suddenly two months later. They were kept by the man’s girlfriend in a house with kids until they were old enough to spay and adopt out.
The shelter director even bent the rules: they let us have a pair of 9 month olds, even though the party line was not to adopt cats under 1 year old to families with children under 6 years old.
Mario LeMiaux was overjoyed that he had a house, and played hockey in the dining room all afternoon. Amelia Aercatt discovered all the high perches in the house.
They are 9 years old now, and have helped us raise a pair of cat lovers who they attend lovingly and adore and sleep with when the mood strikes.
I agree that some shelters have certain ideas that are just clearly wrong - like no kids in the house ever? For some animals, that might be the case, but not for all - some animals need all the extra attention additional living people can provide! I think the problems come along when rescue groups forget that they should be every bit as much about serving the families with a well selected pet as they are about serving the animals in finding them homes. In our case, using a rescue program had spectacularly successful results because of the appropriate matchmaking - two cats found a home for life, and we found a pair of cats that blended with us to form an even larger family.
As a wayward data point, I would like to point out that beagles are the only breed that has ever attacked my dogs, and I live among loose rotties, dobies, and pits. The two that have rushed us were each weirdly territorial.
[I’ll preface this by saying that I don’t agree with the actions of the Animal Shelter in the Ellen D scenario, but I also disagree with the ‘bad animal people’ sentiment that’s going around.]
I’ve been on both sides of the fence on this one.
My ex and I decided we wanted a dog. We felt that puppy-mills were cruel, and even licensed breeding was basically an excuse to mate dogs within the confines of a small gene-pool to produce desirable traits at the risk of introducing genetic defects - Pugs who can’t breath, Labs with chronic hip issues, tiny handbag dogs in Japan whose bones dissolve - and so we thought we’d ‘do the right thing’ and adopt a dog from an animal shelter.
We were knocked back because we couldn’t provide vaccination and registration papers for my ex’s parent’s cats. Hurt, frustrated, and incredulous, for all our good intentions we wound up at a breeder anyway.
Fast-forward 5 years to the present day.
My current partner’s mother died 2 years ago, and left us with four animals - 2 cats and 2 dogs. All are registered, all are vacinated, desexed, etc, etc. Feline AIDs is a serious problem in our neighborhood and so I can understand the need to confirm an owner’s commitment to their animal’s health. Ultimately it’s better to put an animal down than have them die slowly. Realising this I have come to understand the Animal Shelter’s decision back in 2002 (made over the course of a week)*.
Had our current pets passed to an animal shelter however, I can say with absolute certainty that they would not have come back to us. Firstly there are four of them, secondly I can’t provide proof of MY parents dog papers, thirdly we both work full time, and lastly we don’t have a large yard. We’d be lucky to get to care for any of them. And yet all the animals are registered, vaccinated, desexed, sleep on the bed or at least inside the house, are fed twice a day like clockwork, and the dogs are walked every day for 30 mins and longer on weekends (they’re small dogs). Almost perfect pet care, and yet the animal shelter system would sooner have all of these animals put down.
Do the animal shelters work the way they should? No. Is it a power play? No. I think that’s the emotional reaction people have to being knocked back, but it’s a bit of a facile argument. “The animal people wouldn’t let me have the dog I wanted because they think they are morally superior!” Replace ‘animal’ with ‘environment’ and ‘dog’ with ‘Hummer H1’ and you’ll see why this argument seems familiar. They’re not out to get you, they just don’t always find the best way to communicate what they know and it comes across as ‘because I said so’.
Take the pronged collar issue. Totally the wrong approach. Easiest way to get someone’s back up is to say ‘you know, I can show you how to be less of a git’. Better to ask why someone does a particular thing, suggest to them that it’s not the only way, back it up with some facts, and offer them a different lead to let them judge the difference. My father believed choker chains were the only way because no-one had ever told him any different. Some people still believe certain breeds of dogs HAVE to have their tails docked, but really it’s little more than mutilation for fashion. The truth is that a proper harness works just as well as a choker. The dog might seem happy regardless, but it’s because they’re happy to be with you, not happy to be jabbed in the gullet.
I think animal shelters need to take on a more active role in the education to potential pet owners. Some might be well intentioned but uninformed. Just a little bit of education on modern pet care standards might resolve that - putting more shelter animals in homes, and sending less naive young couples to breeders or pet stores.
* I live in Australia, but at the time of the animal shelter incident I was in Indiana. The animal shelter in question was in Calumet City, Illinois.
Ahunt, my first dog was a beagle/mutt mix- my parents got her as a pup and had me within a year. She lived to be 13 and was an absolute love. As I grew up, I was given the responsibilities of caring for her, lessons I have passed down to our children.
I can’t say enough good about beagles and bassets.
That doesn’t surprise me, Hector B, as pits, dobies and rotties are not inherently violent dogs. Any breed can bite; it’s the owners who are bad, not the dogs. My boyfriend’s dog is a pit bull and he’s quite literally the gentlest pup I know.
Never judge a breed by the behavior of a few. Certain breeds can attract certain types of people who turn them into attack dogs by abusing them.
Well Hector…thank you for the clue.
Having been in the business for a lot of years, I’m sure you will understand that I will trust my own judgment…and I’m absolutely impressed by the death wish of the beagles who rushed your macho dogs on your property…?
Hell Yes Louise…
Beagles live longer! I won’t get a dog that will die in a few years, except I recently did, but I never did before…and the short lived Great Pyr is a rescue, and it is not my fault and I would have said no…
Sigh…
Ahunt:
My first beagle was a female whom I received as a birthday present at age 9. She was a wonderful girl; she got cancer at age 7 and my parents had her put to sleep after she started to suffer. A few months later we got a boy beagle. A little prince. I lived away at college for most of his life, but I still loved him. He died in January at age 7. Also cancer, although this time my parents didn’t wait as long before putting him down. Both times my parents were devastated and vowed to never love another animal.
In June they adopted a 1 year old beagle girl from the Humane Society. They are absolutely head-over-heels in love.
Anyway, as you can see, I am not accustomed to beagles living longer than 7 years. Mine is 9 and in good health, which is great. Energetic enough to enjoy walks but old enough not to run me ragged. Adopting an old(er) dog is definitely something I’d recommend to people who have jobs and don’t want to housetrain, teethe and constantly play with a puppy.
Chet, the misinformation is that rescues are not worth going to because they’re too much trouble.
I haven’t heard anybody say that their one bad experience makes the whole system bad, but as insufferably arrogant animal people show up to defend draconian measures at literally any cost, people are jumping to the very logical and reasonable conclusion that it’s simply a lot more pleasant to deal with the animal shelters that don’t take it quite so seriously.
That’s not misinformation. That sounds like a true fact, from what I’ve been reading here.
We’ve worked so hard, for so long…and in some seriously vile circumstances, all the while raising families and establishing careers.
Grats on that, ahunt, but my enthusiasm for your vanity cause is not improved by hearing about how much time you wasted on it at the expense of more meaningful things, like your family and work. They’re just dumb animals. Suffering is meaningless and temporary to them. Compared to the conditions of the natural world, an animal benefits from even the briefest human personal contact, because that’s one instant in their lives that an interested, thinking individual might act in their favor.
It’s all nonsense. I mean, dog papers? Come on!
Go to hell, Chet. Why would suffering be meaningless or temporary for non-human animals with the capacity to feel pain and isolation? Just because they’re not humans?
YOU’RE just a dumb human; so why should anyone give two shits about your treatment?
…animal people show up to defend draconian measures at literally any cost…
Care to point me towards specific instances? All I see is AR folks admitting that certain tactics are unnecessary while defending rescues AS A WHOLE. Considering your shitty attitude, “draconian” could mean anything. Requiring adopters to provide a roof over their animals’ heads? Draconian!!
people are jumping to the very logical and reasonable conclusion that it’s simply a lot more pleasant to deal with the animal shelters that don’t take it quite so seriously.
No, they’re jumping to the conclusion that it’s not pleasant to deal with animal shelters, period. Shopping around at a few shelters/rescues would be reasonable. What people are doing is boycotting the entire concept.
Okay, I’m not keen on the entire “adoption” thing. Calling it an “adoption” to soothe someone else’s ego is nothing short of stupid- just call it what it is- SELLING AN ANIMAL. If I buy an animal- whether from a shelter, a rescue, a breeder, whatever- then it’s my property once money changes hands. Right?
Another concept I have major issues with is the idea someone can come along and snatch up someone else’s private property after it has been sold. I mean, if I buy a car from a dealership, and the dealership doesn’t like how I drive, do they have the right to come along and seize the vehicle? Same difference, really (because animals aren’t “people,” nor are they little babies in fursuits…legally, they’re property). Admittedly, the animals = property concept might piss off the radical AR nuts, but they’re insane anyway,,,so who cares. lol
Oh, Chet, fuck off. People like you are the reason animal rescuers grow paranoid about the entire human species.
And now I’ve got to get back to neglecting my work and family in favor of the dumb animals.
Another concept I have major issues with is the idea someone can come along and snatch up someone else’s private property after it has been sold.
I know the “seizure” aspect of this story has gotten a lot of press, but even if it happened exactly as reported, it’s a rare and anomalous occurrence.
For what it’s worth, I’ve worked in shelters and animal control for 20 years, and I can count on one hand the number of times animals were actually seized from people’s homes without their owners’ consent. In every case, there had been severe abuse or neglect that had not improved after repeated warnings, and only the police/animal control officers had the authority to remove an animal from a home.
Grats on that, ahunt, but my enthusiasm for your vanity cause is not improved by hearing about how much time you wasted on it at the expense of more meaningful things, like your family and work
You are stupid beyond definition, Chet. Caring for those who cannot care for themselves, be they neighbors or critters, is fine effort and worthwhile contribution, and profoundly meaningful. Only a jackass like you would be blind to the benefits of Walter living with Alice.
You are truly an idiot, and I regret my effort to engage a meanspirited bit of shit like you.
Sarah…what’s going on? The beagle rescues we’ve handled are invariably adolescents who went for another good decade…our own beagle mixes have passed at roughly twelve years.
What do you think?
Which raises a number of questions, and brings us right back to where Amanda started this thread: the issue of petty power-tripping. Why on earth did Mutts and Moms do it this way? Was it about rubbing a celebrity’s nose in it? It is even more baffling because some of the info out there seems to indicate that the actual contract did not have the `no under-14 children’ limitation referenced above, and other info indicates that the shelter did not transfer the microchip information over to Ellen Degeneres as they said they would. If (IF!) true, that last-mentioned is especially worrisome; how would you like it if somebody was able to take your dog because they never bothered to change the registration information after you had taken it home?Again, if true, Mutts and Moms should be worried about the police. They hate getting involved in this sort of thing to begin with so I am sure they will be downright pissed if it turns out that they repossessed on behalf of somebody with no proprietary interest.
One other thing, when evaluating the motives of Mutts and Moms. Iggy was adopted out the day after the seizure. Doesn’t that sound like a petulant “fuck you, you had your chance!” at Degeneres and the transfer family? (I also wonder if the adopting family was told of this. If I was them I’d be pissed at being put in the middle of this circus.)
I’ll say this though - Ellen’s pretty media saavy. Originally, I saw it as “Ellen didn’t give a damn about the contract, and just passed the dog on.” Now thanks to a carefully staged breakdown on television, the discussion is focussed on whether Mutts and Mittens is run by power hungry people who broke lil kiddie hearts.
I think that Ellen flipped out when she realised that she’d effectively lied to the kids, by giving the dog to them without thinking it through, or looking at the contract she’d signed. There was a chance it could be “Look, she made the kids cry cos she gave them a puppy but it wasn’t hers to give, and now it had to be taken away! bad Ellen!”
So instead, she turned it around into a story about how mean the animal organisation is - effectively blaming them for making kids cry.
Caveat: I don’t think the organisation should have taken the dog away like that.
But I think that Ellen has managed to come out smelling of roses.
(why is she crying, anyway? she gave the dog away, so it’s not as if she has any ties to it. Oh, and cats will always hate new animals. It takes a week or two for them to settle down to the idea - you need to give it time and effort - which Ellen wasn’t prepared to do.)
Mez9: Um, maybe she was crying because she felt like shit for giving a dog to a child and it is HER FAULT that it got taken away?
Why is it that when a celebrity displays the slightest bit of normal human emotion, everyone is quick to call it a publicity stunt? Ellen is pretty media savvy, but she is not exactly known for using the media in the way many of y’all are implying. I think she hoped that by showing contriteness and pleading that MAM give the dog back that it might change their stance. It clearly backfired. And is responses here are any indication, Ellen is hardly coming out “smelling like roses.”
Zuzu–according to the daughter, the parents called the cops first (first video below):
http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/18/ellen-portia-rush-to-home-where-iggy-was-taken/
If the daughter’s info in that vid is accurate re: the facts, then it went down as follows:
1) After the initial “We want the dog back” request to Ellen, Mutts & Moms wanted to meet the family (and the dog they already own) but the family didn’t want to go to the Pasadena facility (too far a drive).
2) M & M asked for a home visit and also asked the family to fill out an online application; family didn’t fill it out because it was too detailed/too long.
3) Rescue workers arrived and the visit was initially friendly; at some point, the conversation turned ‘hostile’ (the daughter’s word, not mine). The rescue worker picked up the dog and refused to let go; stand-off in the backyard begins.
4) Family called the cops first, then the rescue workers also called the cops, then the cops arrived, and then animal control; after wasting many taxpayer dollars, the dog is eventually returned to Mutts & Moms.
The third video at that link is also interesting–I’m sympathetic to the family (well, the kids) but the man (father?) who gets right up close to the rescue worker–even as he’s calling the cops–is a sympathy buzzkill (it looks like he’s itching for a full on confrontation for the cameras).
And I’d really like to know if this is true:
“Iggy did not live with DeGeneres and De Rossi for the full two weeks before he was given to hairdresser Cheryl Marks. Iggy was left in the care of Los Angeles dog trainer, Zach Grey, who reunited Iggy with DeGeneres and De Rossi after 9 days of individual and group training - at which time Degeneres and De Rossi concluded that they didn’t want a young puppy…”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-milazzo/ellen-degeneres-misuse-o_b_69288.html
They had the dog for a total of four days before deciding the dog would never fit into their life? Hunh?
Whatever happened here (obviously nobody really knows, at this point) I’m fairly sure of one thing: unless the woman was outright abusing animals, Ellen using her television show to demonize this woman and her rescue org. was not only selfish and careless, but the ultimate power play.
Similarly so with Ellen’s publicist leaving a message threatening to destroy this woman’s business and reputation; however self righteous this woman may (or may not) be, she didn’t deserve to have her name ruined via Ellen painting her as a heartless bitch coldly tearing a puppy from the arms of sobbing children, all done merely because she had a set of Rescue Rulz shoved up her ass–that’s ugly, ugly behaviour on DeGeneres’s part–shame on her.
For those who have a problem with the adoption “fees”, let me ask- how often have YOU SPECIFICALLY made a donation to your local shelter of needed supplies? (bleach, food, blankets, towels, plastic bags, or cash, to name a few items) And just “because it’s a nice thing to do”, not in exchange for getting a pet? Have you given your time as a volunteer, even if just washing or folding towels? Have you go in and asked what they specifically NEED at that shelter?
I have and will continue to do so, and not just whenever I want to get a cat or a dog. Sometimes just KNOWING that someone cares and wants to help makes a big difference; it doesn’t take a huge effort or alot of money.
turandot I’m touchy about my privacy, and as a result I’d consider a requirement that the “adoption” people visit my house even once to be invasive and excessive. It’d be a dealbreaker. I can see why they might want to, but my reaction to that is going to be “no, and fuck you for asking”.
I don’t like being assumed to be criminal. When a store demands to check my reciept when I leave I refuse and I don’t go back to that store in the future. The implicit assumption that I’m a shoplifter is simply too obnoxious for me to deal with.
The assumption on the part of the “adoption” agencies that I’m an evil animal abuser, or so dumb I don’t know what’s necessary for the care of an animal is, likewise, too obnixous for me to deal with.
I’m in the process of attempting to adopt a human infant [1]. The CPS people wanted to check my home, know all sorts of invasive stuff, etc. I can’t say I liked it, but I’ll tolerate it there because there is an actual human at stake.
I’ll put up with it, though I won’t say I’m happy about it, when human lives are involved. For the fleeting moral pleasure of dealing with a rescue agency rather than a person with a “free kittens” ad in the paper, there is not the slightest chance I’ll put up with any invasion of my privacy, or any assumption that I’m a criminal or stupid. My response is not only “no”, but “no and fuck you for demanding that”.
Obviously I’m in a minority, which I think is unfortunate; privacy is important. But I am in the minority so the “adoption” people keep demanding home visits and getting them. And people like me learn to avoid them at all costs. I’m thankful that I learned it online and didn’t have to deal with the invasive jerks in person.
[1] And, I should add that I find the use of the term “adopt” in reference to purchasing an animal, to be improper. I like animals, I cried when my last cat died, but they aren’t people and as such they aren’t adopted.
Rescues and shelters do not “sell” animals. Adoption fees are necessary to keep the places running. How else are they going to feed, shelter and keep the animals healthy? Not to mention the money it takes to keep the building(s) open.
An adoption fee is almost like a reimbursement to the rescue/shelters folks for having cared for your new companion until you came along.
I can’t help but notice that the arguments being used against AR are the same exact arguments used to attack feminism.
It reminds me of pro-lifers criticizing PP because they charge for services.
“I thought it was a non-profit!!! Why are they so profitable!?”
“Why are you focusing on X when issues Y and Z are clearly so much more urgent and important?”
“Feminists are holier-than-thou types with no sense of humor. They’re impractical and impossible to deal with. Therefore feminism is not a valid ideology.”
Ahunt, my family’s first two beagles were purebreds. That may have contributed to their ill health relatively early in life. I think their current pup is a purebred as well but she was obtained from the Humane Society so they can’t be sure. Apparently, beagles are prone to lymphoma, which is what both other dogs had (I think).
Brad, the assumption is not that you’re an abuser or too dumb to have an animal. The rescue workers know that, with the best will in the world, people still do things that are harmful - after all, your average pet store sells stuff that’s actively harmful to the animal it’s meant to be used with.
The rescue groups with which I am most familiar work with guinea pigs, and they need to make sure that the prospective adopter has a properly-sized cage (seven and a half square feet is the minimum), knows to feed vegetables and hay as well as pellets, knows that wheels and exercise balls are inappropriate for guinea pigs, knows not to use cedar bedding - all stuff they may very well not know. We know more about pet care now than we did fifty years ago, and the knowledge that one has from one’s childhood may be inaccurate and even harmful.
“They had the dog for a total of four days before deciding the dog would never fit into their life? Hunh?
Whatever happened here (obviously nobody really knows, at this point) I’m fairly sure of one thing: unless the woman was outright abusing animals, Ellen using her television show to demonize this woman and her rescue org. was not only selfish and careless, but the ultimate power play.”
Absolutely! She didn’t even bother to pick up the phone and call the org when her cats acted, well, like cats. I’ve never, ever seen a cat acclimate to another animal in a household that fast and if she had bothered to call M&M, I’m sure they would have educated her and helped her make the transition easier for all. She obviously wasn’t very vested in that animal.
Rescues and shelters do not “sell” animals. Adoption fees are necessary to keep the places running. How else are they going to feed, shelter and keep the animals healthy? Not to mention the money it takes to keep the building(s) open.
An adoption fee is almost like a reimbursement to the rescue/shelters folks for having cared for your new companion until you came along.
In our case it was money well spent. We received two healthy, vaccinated, spayed/neutered kitties specifically selected to match our family for a grand total of $130, including matchmaking services. They came home with us right away, immediately insisted on exploring the place, played with us, and purred at our feet that same night.
Ledasmom, you said
but you erred. The assumption is exactly that. You can call it what you want, but it’s still condescending. It’s the animal version of the marriage classes for Catholic couples: the baseline assumption that nobody knows anything about their own life and plan of action and has to be carefully scrutinized and lectured to lest they Do Something Foolish Or Evil.Brad may be cheerfully porcupine-ish about this but that does not invalidate a wider point that he is impliedly making about the death of privacy and the assumptions made about us by the society and its component parts. Our ability to be free — to be citizens, to be who we are — is being whittled away not only by the actions of the intrusive state and churches, but also by a more malignant and diffuse force: the assumption that each and every free adult should not be treated as an adult. We used to operate under the baseline assumption that an adult may or may not know what they were doing but, either way, we (as individuals, as organizations, as a culture, as a government) did not in any way have the right to treat them as children. That baseline assumption has disappeared as we are treated more and more as exceptionally thick-o de facto minors. The libertarians like to talk about a nanny state, and in that they are frequently right, but very incomplete. We are moving towards a nanny everything.
Brad’s prickly position is a valid one and we should respect it and emulate it. That position is very simple: If I am a free adult, treat me as both an adult and as free. If you won’t respect those rules then get lost. Freedom, privacy and dignity set the parameters here, not you.
Yes, I know, that means that certain things that — in a perfect world — we would want done don’t actually get done. Your guinea pigs may not get the right mix of pellets and veg. No offence, but too damned bad. It’s part of the price we pay for living as free as we can as people. That freedom is being nibbled away like mad from the right and left, from the state and church, and by the simply well-meaning such as yourself. Frankly, we need more Brads to push back, and hard. We need to do it more ourselves. There is rather more at stake here than whether or not some cat gets exactly the home its rescuer wants. Brad feels that it his right to be free of intrusion and the assumption that he’s a gormless child who needs to be told how to do things by oh-so-well-meaning people. You know what? He’s absolutely correct. Even if “with the best will in the world, people still do things that are harmful”, the essential dignity of being a free person in a free society demands that we don’t stick our bloody noses in unless there is a vital compelling societal interest at stake such as the lives and safety of other humans; there the intrusion is a valid trade-off, but even then that trade-off should be warily examined before implementation.
The shelter is perfectly free to refuse to hand over a cat to somebody who won’t hand over the dignity of their privacy in exchange. That’s their right. But please don’t make the assumption that a person who wants to retain their dignity and privacy has to give them up just to have an animal in the house.
The rescue groups with which I am most familiar work with guinea pigs, and they need to make sure that the prospective adopter has a properly-sized cage (seven and a half square feet is the minimum), knows to feed vegetables and hay as well as pellets, knows that wheels and exercise balls are inappropriate for guinea pigs, knows not to use cedar bedding - all stuff they may very well not know.
For those who live in northern New England, the animal rescues in MA are overrun with Cavies right now - so if you think you might want a Guinea pig or two, the SPCAs are full up with them and will adopt them soon - a family in Worcester had two, that made more, that made more … and turned over 150 of them (well cared for) last week!
brad and seeker sound weird. Don’t they have people over, even for coffee? Why are they so resistant to having people visit their homes? For all the shelters knows, they want puppies and kitties to feed to their boa constrictors. People who have custody of a dog don’t want it going to a bad situation, so naturally they would want to visit the home. Big city shelters don’t have the manpower, and they need to move a lot of animals, so they rely on the owner’s questionnaire, only.
Check your contract with the rescue agency. I’d bet that technically you don’t own your pet, you merely have possession, thus you cannot sell it or give it away, any more than your mechanic can sell or give away your car.
And ahunt, the “killer beagles” came charging out of their owners’ yards, as I was peaceably walking my dog on a leash, on the sidewalk. In one case we were across the street. I mentioned it because I never would have expected it. Beagles were bred to live peaceably with large numbers of other dogs, a characteristic that unfortunately made them popular for animal experimentation. Luckily the former beagle breeding colonies have shut down.
Lola, Thank you.
Facts demonstrate better what’s going on here than pop therapy based on misunderstanding and prejudice.
Seeker,
Guinea pigs need vitamin C. They cannot produce it themselves, like humans. So, it’s not pellets and veg that they need, it’s a bit of fruit along with their veggies and grain.
Just pointing out that:
a) facts matter
b) your callous attitude about animals is telling. You’d rather let a guinea pig die of the guinea pig version of scurvy than listen to what someone who has more knowledge in a particular area than you has to say. That’s not freedom; that’s cruelty. You don’t have a *right* to abuse or neglect pets.
Animal people are not interested in invading your privacy and controlling your life. They’re interested in the well-being of animals, pure and simple.
I am a bit odd, but I’d rather be weird than thick as a bloody plank. Are you really so gormless that you can’t see the difference between having neighbours, friends, family, acquaintances or guests around on the one hand and having some judgmental busybody with a clipboard on the other? My guests don’t walk in the door with the sole purpose of finding out Whether I’m Good Enough.
Yeesh, again with the worst case scenarios. Let me help you out with some more:
* For all the dealer knows, you want that car to rob a bank with!
* For all the elections officer knows, you want that vote to elect a communist!
* For all the cable company knows, you want that internet connection to look at sheep-on-Santorum porn!
* For all the kitchen supply store knows, you want that knife to run out and carve up the kids waiting for the bus!
It’s kind of pathetic that somebody who takes the position that they don’t want to be condescended to, judged by intrusive strangers or treated as a potential criminal is “weird”. It also completely reinforces my point, so I should thank you for that.
Elaine, I stand corrected. The others on this thread are right: you are a hectoring, self-righteous little prig, aren’t you?
I don’t own a guinea pig and don’t plan to, so what they eat is a matter of complete indifference to me. I’m not going to rush to a website and brief myself so that, in making an offhand comment, I can assure your smug ass that “facts matter”.
You can, if you wish, stick with your asinine assumption that if I bought an animal I would be indifferent to its care. You can also assume that the sun is a nice shade of blue, too. Rest assured I give exactly zero of a damn in either instance. You’re making a cheap argument that I’m a callous monster rather than address the wider point that I was making: that adult humans (you know, the partially hairy bipeds that you see when you look down your nose) in a free society are entitled to be treated like adults and not have other people poke their noses into their lives on the assumption that they’re ignorant children who have to be Shown The Way. You might want to address that problem, but that would get in the way of your sanctimony and strawman accusations of cruelty, wouldn’t it, and I know that, heavens, you would want that now!
SarahMC I haven’t seen any objections in this thread to any entity, shelter, AR, or otherwise, charging for pets.
You can call it whatever you want, but to most people the “adoption fee” is a purchase price, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I mentioned “free kittens” not out of an objection to paying for a cat, but because most people who have an unplanned litter typically give them away rather than charging.
Hector B. wrote: “Don’t they have people over, even for coffee? Why are they so resistant to having people visit their homes?”
I have people over frequently. Last night, for example, I had a friend, his son and daughter, and the two daughters of another friend over because the kids wanted to learn how to play GURPS (a roleplaying game). I typically host a dinner at my house once every two weeks or so, and friends tend to drop by on a semi-regular basis.
People, of my choosing, are fine. People, demanding admittance because they assume I’m a criminal, aren’t. If you can’t see the difference between having friends over and letting the Pet Police invade your home I think you have problems.
“or all the shelters knows, they want puppies and kitties to feed to their boa constrictors. People who have custody of a dog don’t want it going to a bad situation, so naturally they would want to visit the home.”
Which brings me back to the “assuming I’m an evil animal abuser” bit. Why would I want do deal with people who, as a starting point, think I’m an evil thug?
As for contracts and ownership, its yet another reason, as if more were needed at this point, to have *NOTHING* to do with any “Animal Rescue” people, ever. I tolerate, sometimes, that kind of “you don’t own it, you license it from us, so fuck you sucker” crap with software because I have no choice [1]. I do have a choice when it comes to getting a pet, and I chose to say not only no, but hell no, to that kind of petty, invasive, crap.
seeker6079 thanks.
Elaine Vigneault I never argued that one has a right to abuse animals, nor that people should get pets without educating themselves. I do argue that people have a right not to be treated as animal abusers unless proven innocent, and that implying that I am either stupid or criminal is not a way to win my friendship.
I sympathize with the people who want to make sure animals get good homes and aren’t abused. I’d like that too. I concede that they have the right to place whatever restrictions on sale of their animals they chose, or even to engage in some insane, vile, “licensing” system. I don’t agree that its right that they do so, only that they have the right to do so.
However, just as they have the right to place invasive, insulting, restrictions on their sale of pets, so too I have the right to say that its invasive and insulting, and to refuse to even consider buying a pet from them. I also have the right to loudly proclaim that the conditions they insist on are invasive and insulting and to make a fuss about it.
I’m not demanding that they be prohibited, by law, from doing what they’re doing. I’m just saying that, from my POV, what they are doing is wrong, and insulting, and I’ll urge everyone I know to avoid them like the plague. If that overburdens their system, well the solution would be for them to stop insisting on insulting, invasive, and condesending, rules regarding the sale of pets.
[1] Actually I have a choice and exercise it. I use GPL’ed software as much as possible, run Kubuntu as my primary OS, etc. But I’m weak, ideologically, I succumed to the siren call of World Of Warcraft and played the role of a good little sheep and “licensed” their software. Which is the biggest load of bullshit I’ve ever heard of, grrrr….
You have to weigh the value of personal privacy against the importance of ensuring that animals are placed in safe, secure homes.
Yes, privacy is important, but to some people it’s worth it to sacrifice a tiny bit of personal privacy in order to adopt a pet from the folks who want Fido to remain safe and well cared for. You’d swear home visits involved dumping out dresser drawers and rooting through the fridge.
If you care about animals, you’ll understand that it’s important for rescuers to place dogs & cats in decent homes with loving caregivers. If a particular dog can jump fences under 4 feet high, the group wants to confirm that your fence is tall and sturdy, etc. If you already have a dog they might want to meet it and get a feel for its temperment. If you think that’s a big deal and an invasion of privacy, I don’t know what to tell you.
A lot of people ARE irresponsible, careless or reckless. That’s how half these dogs/cats ended up at shelters/rescues in the first place. To be personally offended that rescue agencies must try their best to make sure placements are appropriate? I don’t get it.
“So, it’s not pellets and veg that they need, it’s a bit of fruit along with their veggies and grain.”
Guinea pig pellets are formulated to include vitamin C. You don’t have to worry about scurvy unless you’re feeding them pellets made for another animal or have ditched pellets in favor of vegetables and grass. Even then, generic “fruit” isn’t always such a hot source of vitamin C, so guinea pig supplements are usually the way to go. The pig gets a measurably sufficient dose of the vitamins without way more sugar than they really need.
” ‘it takes a very special person to love beagle rescues’
What do you mean by that?”
Someone with a lot more patience than I have (and I’m in a teacher’s ed program, which means I’ve got tons of patience to begin with). I love my MIL’s dog, but I don’t really volunteer to walk her when I visit anymore (did I mention this was one hour, one block, with rain pouring down the entire time?). =P
One further thought occurred to me on the “assumption” notion. Not only is there an implied assumption that I might be an animal abuser, but also an implied assumption — perhaps even more insulting — that my neighbours, guests, etc., are indifferent to suffering. I live in a flat in an old house surrounded by people on all sides except down. While I am nettled at the assumption that I’m a rotter I can’t help but be even more nettled at the assumption that the others around me would look the other way if FidoKitty was abused, or starving or whatever.
SarahMC’s own point — decently, politely, respectfully and humanely expressed, as one person to another, are you taking notes on how to do it, Elaine? — is, in a way, supportive of that very point: “Ahat’s how half these dogs/cats ended up at shelters/rescues in the first place.” How did they get there? Did the abusers walk in the door and confess to being scoundrels?
Sarah MC, your point about privacy and balance is well taken and I don’t think that either myself or Brad are arguing against it. If I may presume to speak for us both, the offence lies in the primary assumption and the difference lies in where we draw our privacy lines. Me, I’d love to have a cat some day, if I can find one that I’m not allergic to. But I don’t have one now because the flat I’m currently in is too small and I do not have the financial wherewithal to own and care for a pet. That’s the exercise of responsibility. I dislike the assumption that an inspection is needed to ensure that I am responsible, and decline to obtain a pet from somebody who wishes to intrude on my space. If we are dealing with the principle of the thing then how intrusive the inspection will be is wholly irrelevant, an argument akin to permitting the police to search your car without probable cause as long as they don’t make a mess while they do it.
I like animals. I like my dignity and my rights and my privacy more. I don’t want to deal with somebody who expects me to trade off the latter for the former.
Okay, on the risk factor, I will admit to some degree of concern why a preying mantis that’s over five feet tall wants healthy guinea pigs around.
Woah! Look at the time! It’s lunch already!
SarahMC Well, no, I don’t actually. See, the so-called “adoption” places aren’t the only way to get pets. An evil person will be able to get a pet regardless. The people who submit to the invasive crap from the “adoption” types, pretty much by definition, aren’t going to be pet abusers. So what’s the point?
Further, you still aren’t addressing the basic problem that all the invasiveness is rooted in the assumption, right off the bat, that I’m a pet abuser. Why would I want to deal with people who start from the position that I’m an evil asshole and say, in essence “we know you’re evil, but if you can prove to us that you aren’t we’ll condesend to “license” a pet to you, but only if we can come by and invade your house every now and then to ensure that you, you evil bastard, didn’t trick us”.
Why would anyone want to make a deal with people like that?
And, it doesn’t actually solve the problem of pet abuse, because the abusers will simply get pets from people who aren’t invasive.
I don’t let the Republicans monitor my sex life, I don’t invite the pantysniffing brigade into my home to verify that I’m not doing stuff they disapprove of, why in the universe would I let the Pet Police into my home to try to beg and plead with them to grant me the boon of “licensing” a pet to me. why would I put up with that shit when I can get a pet by responding to a “free kittens” ad in the paper?
Getting cats from feral programs (which pick up cats, take the kittens, fix the cats and release the adults, who are better off feral than trying to be adopted) means you get animals to adopt out from really nice people, the feral cat people.
Agreed. Our second cat Giles was fostered for almost a year after having been born feral and immediately rescued. He’s skittish and hates being picked up but LOVES to be petted, loves his older (rescued, bottle-fed, people-adoring) brother and even tolerates his dachshund sister. I’ve even caught them kissing a few times recently.
The foster mom I got Giles from had an entire room in her home dedicated to her fosters, spent tons of time with them, and despite a previous application for him from another family, she turned them down in favor of us at the last minute because I work from home and we had another cat. Giles would have been MISERABLE in a home with children. Heck, he’s so skittish he barely tolerates adults. Make a wrong move and he runs for the hills.
So I can’t say all rescue people are making bad calls when they pre-screen homes — it certainly made a difference in our boy’s life, I’m convinced — but taking a dog out of a loving family when there’s nothing wrong with the home is a bit much.
“Okay, on the risk factor, I will admit to some degree of concern why a preying mantis that’s over five feet tall wants healthy guinea pigs around.”
Crunchie-munchies, of course.
(I feel kind of bad joking–I got my current guinea pig after my mother’s dogs saved him from being eaten by a hawk. He was attacked after somebody had “set him free” in a dry Florida winter. Poor boy’s still got a phobia of open spaces.)
And there Brad puts his finger on a key point. People should be cautious about carving exceptions out of core principles, in this case privacy. “Except for” does not cut it as a rational against a basic right unless there is a compelling human interest involved. There is a certain lack of moral consistency in you asserting, say, that I have no right to come into your house and make sure that you have no dildos lying around but in the same breath saying you have the right to come into mine to make sure that all is perfect for FidoKitty.You either adhere to the principle or you don’t. Saying, “yeah, except for things that I find important just doesn’t — and shouldn’t — cut it.
brad and seeker will simply have to get their pets from their friends, who are familiar with their living situations, or from people who don’t care what happens to the animals. This attitude of “I want to take one of your animals into my home but I believe it’s completely unreasonable of you to want to know what will happen to the animal once I get it” seems highly suspicious to me.
Too many people treat their dogs like patio furniture, or relegate their cats to the garage because of allergies. A neighbor designated his kitten to be an outside cat when he hit adolescence — he had to peel the carcass off the pavement within a week.
Oh. Dear. Lord.Dogs and cats living together? It’s the end of the world. Who’re we gonna call?
You got that, Brad? “Vy are you insisting on your rights if you have nussink to hide? Suspicious, ja?”“Vy are you insisting on your rights if you have nussink to hide? Suspicious, ja?”
You don’t have a right to a pet, and you have to earn people’s trust before you can get one. You have to earn people’s trust in a hundred situations. No one just handed you a credit card, or let you obtain a mortgage based on your self-serving statements. Members of the appropriate sex took the time to size you up before agreeing to go out with you. You didn’t piss and moan when your landlord wanted a cleaning deposit (”How dare he assume I wouldn’t leave the place cleaner than when I found it, if possible.”) You just paid it because that was part of the deal of renting the place you wanted. So stop your whingeing about your privacy.
Not to completely derail this comment thread into guinea-pig care, but the current wisdom on feeding them calls for grass hay available free-choice, limited pellets (one-eighth to one-quarter of a cup daily) and a cup or more of vegetables per day. Leafy greens have a good amount of C in them; fruits are appropriate mainly as treats, as too much sugar can derail a guinea pig’s digestion. There’s also stuff about balancing the calcium/phosphorus ratio to help lessen the chance of bladder stones. Vitamin C degrades rather quickly in pellets once opened.
Ms. Kate, I may be helping to transport a few of those guinea pigs, if the schedule works out right. There’s some in Methuen and some in Boston and some in Springfield right now.
Brad said:
Eh? In my country, the visits are usually to check if the adopter’s got any questions, or if a potential problem has happened. The person I adopted my sheltie from wasn’t from a group, but he came back to my house to check that there weren’t any potentially hazardous problems with our house. I was a first time owner, and he guessed that there might be dangers I wasn’t even aware of. And thank goodness he did - I wasn’t aware that durian seeds posed a hazard. My friend’s dog nearly died from them.
In addition, for the cat group I help with, we do a follow-up for people who are adding a cat to the household, because sometimes the resident cats don’t get along, and the new owners don’t know what to do.
Strange. I’m actually quite happy with a group that asks for follow-ups, because they usually turn out to be people who give the best advice. The one group that had no follow-ups, sent back our kitten with a broken leg after we used their sterilisation facilities.
Maybe it’s a culture thing, but I still don’t understand.
If you buy a gun, you have to prove that you don’t have a criminal record. If you want to drive a car, you need a license. All of this is based on the idea that people aren’t perfect and may not be able to handle themselves. Since obtaining of these goods has the potential to harm, placing some sort of security measure sounds reasonable.
By the way - I don’t get it. I’m pretty dense at the best of times, but I don’t understand what exactly Elaine has said that’s annoying people. As far as I can tell, she was polite. Would someone be as kind as to quote me where she was calling someone an idiot? Cos that’s the impression I’m getting.
And therein lies your true priority, and lack of principle.
As for the other examples, you will note that Brad and I set a simple parameter: choosing a route that balanced our privacy rights with the options available. We don’t have a right to demand that the shelter attorn to our principles; we do have a right to vote with our feet and go somewhere that doesn’t set a false choice between dignity on the one hand and caring for the animal on the other. The shelter has a right to say no to us. And we to them.
The difference between you and I, Hector, is that I do assume that I have a right to something if it’s not illegal. What you do or do not prefer doesn’t come into it. That’s why it’s called a right and not a privilege. I assume that I have a right to download the Anarchist’s Cookbook without first explaining to the police that I’m not a bombmaker. I do have the right to have my daughters’ friends visit her here without a previsit by Children’s Services. I do assume that I have a right to have Mein Kampf on my military bookshelf without the local rabbi first clearing me of antisemitism. I have the right to get onto a bike without demonstrating that I’m going to run over a squirrel.
The principle comes first. The dignity of my home comes first. That is the only way that it should be. People like you shove away your rights and privacy to the first busybody (that you approve of) to come along, and get snippy when somebody like me takes the position that you can whore your principles all you like but I won’t. If I am unwilling to take as a starting point that I decide who gets into my home and under what terms and conditions, then what isn’t negotiable or snatchable? Nothing. But that doesn’t bother you, it seems. Fine. But when the busybodies that you don’t approve of come strolling in and you can’t hold up a right or a principle to stop them because you gave it away to somebody you did like then you will have given your right away to complain about it too.
I also assume that I have a right to choose between alternatives. If I can obtain a pet without giving up my privacy I will choose that route over one which needlessly compels me to give up something so precious. Your examples, though, are spurious. If a woman demanded to inspect my home before she would date me I would refuse to date her. If a bank wanted to look at my bookshelves and bathroom before it gave me a loan instead of properly confining itself to a check of my credit, I would take my business elsewhere. (By the way, my landlord didn’t demand a cleaning deposit… and got a tenant who voluntarily went in and cleaned common areas in order to maximize the space for myself and the other tenants.)
Core principles like the dignity of privacy and the integrity of one’s own home are a bit like virginity, Hector. You give it away once, and you don’t get it back. Unlike virginity, however, these are worth keeping.
Good points, Hector B.
Seeker, animals arrive at shelters/rescues in a number of different ways.
A lot of animals are found wandering the streets or in the woods because their irresponsible, cruel owners either let them run off or actively took them somewhere to discard them. How anyone could just dump a domesticated, defenseless animal in the woods is so beyond my scope of understanding… but I’m getting off track.
Plenty of people grow sick of or bored with their pets, and drop them off at shelters/rescues. Another thing I don’t understand. The saddest thing is, they’re often senior dogs who’d lived with one family their whole lives, only to be abandoned in their old age.
My friend adopted an 11 year old pit bull mix last week, who was skin-and-bones when she picked him up. He’s a doll. His previous owners dropped him off at the shelter because they didn’t want him anymore. WTF? I’m sure they didn’t treat him well in the first place, so it’s probably a blessing that he’s with Allie now… but god. If you don’t want the responsibility of a dog, don’t get a friggin’ dog!! Sorry, just ranting.
Then, of course, pregnant dogs living at shelters/rescues give birth and then their puppies need to find homes.
And yeah, there are plenty of dogs-tied-to-trees-left-for-dead situations. Sigh.
Brad, why do you insist on exaggerating the situation? Already a number of people have told you that the EXTREME is not the NORM, and yet you keep saying you’ll never put up with animal rescuers “invading your home every so often.”
What makes you think they’d bother you or come to your house after you’ve been approved for adoption? The M&M folks called Ellen to see how the puppy was doing. I think that’s a nice gesture.
Unless a new owner specifically asks the shelter/rescue workers for help, or they hear something unsavory’s going on, they’re not going to show up on a person’s doorstep a year after the adoption takes place.
And nobody has to beg & plead to get a rescue dog/cat. It’s not standard operating procedure. You are spreading misinformation based on nothing more than your own imagination and bias.
Mez9, you’ve also provided some examples of “invasion of privacy” that people are willing to put up with because they understand that certain responsibilities are just that: responsibilities.
Some people dislike Elaine because she’s very into AR and they’re not. She doesn’t even have to say anything inflammatory to piss certain people off, it seems. Personally I think she has a lot of great points. Others hold grudges from past arguments with her.
I will try to remember that the next time I shoot somebody with a border collie or run them down with a Persian. When was the last time somebody walked into a Macdonald’s and killed a dozen people with a terrier? When was the last time somebody drove their alsatian up onto a sidewalk and ploughed into a score of people waiting to get into a club?
Excessively dark humour aside, you make a valid point, but miss some vital frames. First, the underlying one: the home. Nobody at the license bureau or gun shop sniffs around my home to make sure that it satisfies them. Second, unlike pet ownership, it’s not as if there are two streams, one with restrictions and one without: I obtain a license for the gun and buy it legitimately or I am a criminal. I pass my driving test and license my or I can be arrested and my car impounded; it’s not as if I can plead that I am a responsible gunowner or a good driver. Why is this so? Because of the third point: the examples you give are all about protecting other people. Those restrictions are not in place to ensure that the gun or the car are treated properly, but the people who might be hurt by it.
MEz9 and SarahMC:
I can’t speak for the others, but if you scroll up you will note that I didn’t lash out at Elaine until she:
* equated my desire for privacy in my home with a “callous attitude about animals”;
* accused me of wanting to “let a guinea pig die of the guinea pig version of scurvy” (regarding which she was wrong in fact, by the way, and corrected by somebody who knew what the hell they were talking about);
* equated my dislike of a home visit with a wish to remain ignorant on care of the animal in question, which is chalk and cheese;
* called me a cruel person who was demanding “a *right* to abuse or neglect pets”.
In short, it wasn’t about AR. It was about Elaine not only talking through her ass, but being insulting and lying about what I said to do so, and doing so in an condescending, hostile manner. I’m sure that you will agree that such conduct begs an appropriate blistering response.
(Embarrassed laugh.) Ummm… that would be “demonstrating that I’m not going to run over a squirrel”.
In my defence for the type, I will point out that the squirrels in my neighbourhood are worse than Hitler.
Many poor people simply can’t afford to properly take care of pets. While there are some charitable organizations that help pay for vet care for low-income people, demand greatly exceeds supply. I can’t blame shelter workers for being concerned about an animal’s longterm health, which isn’t guaranteed with an owner who can just barely afford pet food, let alone vet care.
The hatred of me stems from the fact that I criticized Jessica Valenti of Feministing for purchasing her purebred puppy from a breeder in another state. I have since been banned from commenting at Feministing in all threads.
Zuzu and Amanda have taken up Jessica’s cause. Amanda takes whatever oppportunity she can find to liken the animal rights movement to the anti-choice movement. Her post above could have talked about the class issues and homophobia but instead it vilianizes animal people.
And Zuzu hates me because I made an analogy between pet ownership and slavery. Of so she says. Her reasons for hating me keep changing.
But none of that is really true. Both Amanda and Zuzu first attacked me and my animal rights stance when I said I was offended by a video on Pandagon that made fun of vegans. That was way before the Jessica and Monty puppy event.
And even months before that, Amanda posted an article about how she thinks animal rights activists are just like anti-choicers. Amanda and Zuzu (and many others) have strong anti-animal rights prejudices that come out whenever animal issues are discussed.
Well, there was that time when someone asked the shelter “Can I train this dog to attack people?”…
That aside, no, you can’t. What you can do is get the dog killed, or perhaps get your own child injured.
I don’t believe I do, actually.
Firstly - that’s because your car doesn’t live in your home, nor is your gun particularly affected by your home. Your gun doesn’t care if you have a yard. However, what will happen is that the gunshop will happily invade your privacy in other ways - by checking if you have a criminal record.
(I’m guessing, by the way. In my country, guns aren’t sold.)
The dog, however, will be affected. Very little about your home environment will affect your ability to drive a car or shoot accurately or keep the gun safe. However, a Great Dane will be rather upset if you had no yard and lived in a studio apartment.
(Strangely enough, a greyhound will be just fine!)
And so are the rules that the shelters chose to put in place. Just because the law doesn’t back them up on it doesn’t mean that they are bad rules to have. The rules that the shelters try to put in place are designed to keep you and your family safe, and as importantly, the dog.
Or are you suggesting that only laws that protect people are the ones that should be enshrined in the penal code? Because that’s what you’ve said –> there is a law, because it affects people, that’s why there should be a law. The flipside would be –> no people, who cares?
(Not being sarcastic here, mind you. I’m finding the discussion quite an eye-opener. I come from a country where it’s quite different - we can’t even grasp why any country would reject having a form of national identification. It’s kind of mind-boggling - the Brits gave us National Identification, but they won’t introduce it in their own)
Brad,
the way I look at it is that your willingness to open your home to a stranger to take a look-see tells volumes about your willingness to open your home to a new pet. A new pet is a stranger too. It might not be a human stranger, but it is still an unknown. So yes, any rescue owner rebuffed by you in that manner will probably be less than willing to let you have a pet.
Yes, there are plenty of “free kittens” ads on Craigslist, but more often than not you’d have to pay for vet visits, vaccinations, and spaying out of pocket. Not to mention that you might get a really sick kitten, which means you could spend thousands of dollars in vet care. if you are a responsible owner, rather than one who’ll just dump said kitten somewhere else and forget all about it. With a pet who has been cared for by a rescue group, the group has already minimized or eliminated all those problems through and through before they put the pet up for adoption (I’m sorry if the word offends you, but to me it’s shorthand for “allowing people to look at the pet and claim it as their own companion”).
So is it too much of them to ask you to see your home just once before they relinquish the pet, just to make sure that this pet they have invested lots of money and energy in will find itself well cared for? Considering that most rescue groups ask next to nothing compared to their prior costs for all that care, no, one visit to my home beforehand is not too much to ask. It’s a bargain. Your mileage may vary.
I do have the right to have my daughters’ friends visit her here without a previsit by Children’s Services. …If a woman demanded to inspect my home before she would date me I would refuse to date her. ..
Core principles like the dignity of privacy and the integrity of one’s own home are a bit like virginity, Hector. You give it away once, and you don’t get it back. Unlike virginity, however, these are worth keeping.
Very interesting. I assume before your daughter’s friends came over, you defended your dignity of privacy and the integrity of your home by telling the friends’ parents that, while their daughters were welcome, allowing the parents themselves to visit would violate your core principles. How did that exercise of your rights turn out?
Of course, human beings and animals are completely different situations here. The daughter’s friends can tell their parents about your home and the treatment they received there. And the daughter’s friends will return to their home after a few hours, not stay at your house for the rest of their lives.
“Yes, there are plenty of “free kittens” ads on Craigslist, but more often than not you’d have to pay for vet visits, vaccinations, and spaying out of pocket.”
I don’t think anyone who’s brought up free-kitten ads here has done so in order to make an argument against the exorbitant costs of adopting. I’m not even sure anybody’s tried to say that shelters charge people an arm and a leg for adoptions; most shelters are reasonable if not downright cheap. It’s the “or we might take back your pet”/”we need to inspect your home”/”you can’t divorce until we have room” aspect of adopting that seems to be squicking people out to the point that they’d be willing to shell out more in care for an animal that didn’t have those strings attached.
Elaine, the word “prejudice” means “to judge before”, when what you’re picking up on is people who’ve gathered the evidence and judged AFTER perusing the facts. FYI, accuracy issues.
Oddly enough, Hector, it never came up. They didn’t treat me like a criminal and demand a home inspection. I, in turn, welcomed them into my home when they arrived to pick her up. You also seem to be confusing gladly providing something essential to somebody who is entitled to it and being forced to provide something to someone who isn’t entitled to it.Your second point is valid, so far as it goes. It does, rather vividly demonstrate, however, the conflation between people and animals we have seen in the rest of the thread.
As far as this situation goes, I think both sides acted poorly. Just my two cents as one of those control-freaks who does animal rescue. The primary reason given for handing over a dog is kids–the kids didn’t get along with the dog or vice versa. And most shelters have pretty extensive clauses that the new owner understands that the shelter cannot predict all future behavior. I’ve known of foster homes that have been threatened with lawsuits because a dog bit a child. So some rescues make blanket rules. And the return clause is important. While some pets quickly adapt to new situations not all do and you can wind up with a pet with shelter shock or who has a harder time each time s/he is rehomed. And once a pet is given away, the old contract is no longer binding so if the new home is unsuitable you have no recourse. We had that happen to a dog we adopted out and a few months later found out was at the local SPCA–the adopter had given it away and those people dumped it at the shelter. So we paid the fee to bail out a now pretty behaviorally challenged dog who now lives with me and has wicked separation anxiety.
I guess it’s a problem of generalizing. Some think it is coastal elitist liberal animal people who are all crazy because of the actions of a few rescues. And some people in animal rescue automatically suspect all people are untrustworthy assholes.
And, because I feel the need to say this, I think Cesar Milan is a misogynist jerk.
I, in turn, welcomed them into my home
Sad how quickly one abandons one’s core principles. I guess your desire for your daughter to entertain guests outweighed your need to keep your privacy inviolate
Re-read the post, Skeezix. It will explain it to you. But if you are determined not to understand obvious differences I can’t force you to.
(I feel kind of bad joking–I got my current guinea pig after my mother’s dogs saved him from being eaten by a hawk. He was attacked after somebody had “set him free” in a dry Florida winter. Poor boy’s still got a phobia of open spaces.)
Wow! What a story! That poor boy’s had quite the life of adventure, and Cavies aren’t exactly built for that!
Maybe that would make a good kid’s story - all sorts of good themes in there, about not knowing who your friends may be, betryal, adventure, and a happy ending.
BTW, Elanine, get a life. Misanthropy is not a necessary qualification for pet keeping - in fact, it’s a disqualification in my mind because the family is a social unit by nature!
Cesar Milan is universally hated, and his techniques discouraged, among animal behaviorists & trainers. Seriously, do not try his methods at home on your own dogs.
seeker: Those parents were not your friends, so by your principles they did not deserve to come into your house. You are a hypocrite. Admitting them to your house was an implicit condition they attached to your entertaining their daughter, because refusing them admittance would have made them very suspicious — exactly the same as your refusal to allow a rescue society home visit would appear to the rescue society. The rescue society home visit is no more intrusive than a children’s parent’s home visit. And, the rescue society is more entitled to visit your home than the children’s parents, as I pointed out, because the animals cannot speak for themselves.
The notion that people don’t have a right to a pet without getting inspected by self-appointed animal people isn’t passing the sniff test. I got Dusty without running it by any shelter workers—turns out her prior owner had every right in the world to give her to me without self-appointed busybodies putting their stamp of approval on it.
Seeker—and my—point is that if the shelters get overwhelmed by people with control issues who get off on telling other people what to do based on arbitrary and always-changing rules, they’ll lose business to other places to get animals, plain and simple. It really is like the anti-choice thing—if anti-choicers were sincere about reducing abortion, they’d support pro-choice policies. We are forced to conclude that this lack of interest in reality is due to a fundamental desire to control and invade privacy. Shelter workers who are in it to get dogs in homes don’t invade homes and take away happy dogs—that behavior tailors more to a desire to control and feel powerful than a real urge to help dogs.
Again, that’s not all the shelter workers. But this urge to dictate the lives of others—even when those people aren’t hurting anyone—is indeed an issue. The rampage against Jessica for the high crime of making a puppy happy is a good example of the way that “happy dogs” is immediately sacrificed for the chance to bully and attempt (and fail, in this case) to control others.
Actually, no, it wouldn’t. I have on occasion not invited parents in because the place was a total mess. Oddly enough, nobody got suspicious and their kids continue to be guests in the flat … and them, too, when the house is fit for company. And, even more oddly from your perspective (which appears to be WarrantlessSearchLand), they did not instantly demand entrance when they arrived.Your inability to grasp fundamental differences between clearly different situations, to grasp that there are different requests and requirements for different situations (and, hell, even to grasp the difference between humans and animals) doesn’t make me a hypocrite. It makes you clueless.
Amanda, thank you and that encapsulates it nicely. Comes down to people who think that they can make any demand of you because they Know Better!
Hector, get off this. There really isn’t any need in the real world for “home visits” for all adoptions. All a shelter needs to do is spell out some general guidelines that are based on the needs of the animal, and communicate to people what those specific and general guidelines are.
For instance: for THIS dog you need to have at least 600sq ft and a large yard OR a nearby park for running and exercise. Vet bills are expected to run $$$ per year. This dog loves kids and would do best in a home with at least three people …
My objections to your “what are you hiding” attitude is that these visits are vastly lacking in specificity and transparency, and heavy on the “lets see if you pass OUR test - but we won’t tell you what that is”. They are often geared toward discriminating against people who would be fine, but aren’t rich enough by exaggerated measures that are both unpublished, and inflating rapidly.
If you are old enough, you would realize that “home visits” were a way to discriminate against people of color and working-class people when it came to adoption. My aunt and uncle were told that their home didn’t “have enough windows” for them to adopt a child, even though my uncle made more money than most doctors! When he asked, as a carpenter, how many new windows he would need to put in the “home visit” person laughed in his face and said “it doesn’t matter because I’ve already written it down”.
In their case, a child (or four or five) went without parents. In the case of EVanimalpeople, pets go without suitable homes because the “requirements” are not consistent with reality or good sense or the needs of a specific animal. If they were, they might be written down.
There’s something about this whole “How dare you assume bad things about me” argument that reminds me of times when I’ve blown off guys at a bar, and they immediately get hostile and in my face about who the hell do I think I am, and why do women treat all men like rapists, anyhow?
I’m not saying that you’re those guys, but the feeling I’m getting is really similar. I’ve volunteered for shelters. I’ve seen bait dogs, and cats that have been dunked in acid, and cats AND dogs that have been set on fire, and you want me just to assume that because you have $75 to plunk down and a nice smile, that you are implicitly trustworthy beyond even a question? Or is it just that the underpaid, almost always female, shelter employee isn’t going to be the person you allow to question your fitness?
Amanda, how will rescues/shelters know if a dog is “happy” without making a visit?
Exactly, Erin. I don’t know what some of these folks would have rescues do. Just blindly give dogs and cats (many of which have histories of abuse) to anyone & everyone who can pay the adoption fee?
Cognitive dissonance much?As for a substantive response, kindly refer to Ms. Kate at 295.
After all this Ellen drama on the news and reading through the comments here, I know one thing for certain: I will never get a pet from a shelter that requires any kind of draconian contract or some kind of background check. There are plenty of other avenues for owning a pet.
Amanda,
“The notion that people don’t have a right to a pet without getting inspected by self-appointed animal people isn’t passing the sniff test.”
That’s not what anyone’s been saying. We’ve been saying you don’t have a right to a pet. There’s a difference.
Home inspections are controversial among rescue workers. No one is saying animal people have a right to enter your home without permission or a warrant.
We’re saying this isn’t a control issue. It’s a protection issue. For example, the CPS isn’t about controlling what parents do, it’s about protecting children. Yes, sometimes they go overboard and invade people’s privacy, but that’s NOT what it’s about. It’s not about controlling your life. It’s about protecting the animals’ lives.
I got Dusty without running it by any shelter workers—turns out her prior owner had every right in the world to give her to me without self-appointed busybodies putting their stamp of approval on it.
Amanda, it’s a question of trust. If the prior owner trusted you to take care of the pet, that’s sufficient. However, if a random person comes up wanting to take home an animal, but balks at the possibility of a home visit, muttering about the dignity of privacy and the integrity of his home, he will seem weird, creepy, and ultimately untrustworthy. His seeming lack of good faith will outweigh any benefit of a doubt he would have been given.
“Amanda, it’s a question of trust. If the prior owner trusted you to take care of the pet, that’s sufficient.”
I think we’ve just gone full circle back to where this thread started…
Amanda,
See Lola’s comment and then think about how closely you examined the facts before coming to your conclusion that “animal people” are “assholes.”
So in other words, if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t mind us taking an eensie weensie look?
You know what, I know exactly the sort of person that we’re talking about here. In fact, I love her dearly. But she should not be in any way empowered to make decisions about other’s “fitness” to do anything because she absolutely thrives on making snap decisions about people, particularly if she feels that they’re “lower-class.” Once you have failed to meet her narrow definition of “acceptable” there is nothing that can be done or said to prove your fitness. She would absolutely be the type to declare that there weren’t enough windows and that was that.
There are a lot of people like this in the world. And they are probably drawn to work where they can exercise this control over people.
Do you know the difference between a bully and a gnat? A bully actually has the power to pressure or force you to do something. A gnat just annoys you.
Jessica has the power to control the statements on her blog. She proved that by banning me. No one has bullied her into anything. She’s the powerful one here. Everyone knows her name; few people know mine. She has the power of the majority opinion, the power of a large audience, the power to get her opinions published in major publications, the power to shape and direct the conversation. Don’t even pretend that I, as a commenter, have the power to bully her to do anything.
Call me a pest or a troll or whatever. But don’t say I bullied anyone because that’s a flat-out lie.
My aunt and uncle were told that their home didn’t “have enough windows” for them to adopt a child, even though my uncle made more money than most doctors!
Did your aunt’s house meet the building codes? The number and size of windows are specified to meet requirements for natural light, ventilation, and fire safety. If you’d really like to see some demanding window requirements, try to operate a family day care.
So in other words, if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t mind us taking an eensie weensie look
If I know what you are looking for and why, I might be able to save you the trouble by saying “oh! I didn’t realize that I needed a fenced run for a pomagranite spanbradoodle …” and you could match me with a more appropriate pooch. If it has to do with “deciding what kind of dog would work”, then come out with it and let me know what the policies are up front. Remove secrecy, and the stench of judgement goes with it.
Transparancy and clear guidelines and good communication are critical if home visits are a must! Why are you coming? What are you looking for? That needs to be answered. It sounds like it isn’t always the case when we are talking about Animal People because the human aspect of this isn’t of very much consequence to them - never mind that, despite their moral rantings, the reality is that the humans have the rights and the animals don’t.
I’m glad the misanthropic people at the rescue I got my cats from stay behind the scenes. Maybe that has something to do with the mission of organization, which states something like “fostering human-animal relationships”.
I’m really curious about the economics of the whole home visit thing too - isn’t it a lot cheaper to look at Zillow or something and see if there is a lawn, a small or large house, parks nearby, etc.? It seems like it would be a waste of time. The local shelter does require you to demonstrate home ownership or a lease/landlord note saying that a pet is okay. That makes sense. Visiting seems like a real special circumstance operation.
The rampage against Jessica for the high crime of making a puppy happy is a good example of the way that “happy dogs” is immediately sacrificed for the chance to bully and attempt (and fail, in this case) to control others.
Haha. If anyone on this thread thinks the requirements rescue societies place on prospective owners are onerous, just wait till they try to get a dog from a conscientious breeder.
Did your aunt’s house meet the building codes? The number and size of windows are specified to meet requirements for natural light, ventilation, and fire safety.
Wow! Hector CAN get more patronizing!
First of all, this was the 1960s. Secondly, it didn’t have shitall to do with windows, as he could have put more in if it did or even built on extra space. I’m not sure if there WAS a building code, but my uncle built a cliffside house on the Oregon Coast in the 1970s that was considered the top end of seismically safe when he sold it around Y2K. It was very clearly about money and status, not about safety. This was the time when kids were routinely stolen from poor families and birth certificates altered, so it wasn’t about happy kids and good families.
I know a woman who was routinely mentally and physically abused by her adoptive parents. Her adoptive father was a lawyer, so there weren’t many questions asked. Windows don’t matter when you are shoved in a closet all the time, now do they?
So, to the anti-animal-rescuer commenters:
What would you have rescues do? What sort of protocol would you have them follow when trying to place homeless animals?
Do you believe CPS workers are also in it for the sweet, sweet control? Or do they genuinely care about children?
Ms Kate — you’re absolutely right: People should know what sort of things are bad for pets. They should know that upfront. Things like not keeping bowls of antifreeze on the porch. Things like “pets around young children can be an unpredictable and volitile combination.” And to the extent that the shelter can tell people up front “hey, you’re about to adopt a malamute. Are you aware of the space needs of this dog? Are you aware of the possibility that training this dog might not be the easiest thing in the world?” If someone shrugs it off, it may be that they aren’t taking you seriously, it might also be that they have prior experience with malamutes and don’t need to be told shit they already know.
Most people, if approached in such a way, would probably not begrudge a quick home visit so that any potential hazards can be identified.
However, if I showed up to find a bunch of people hammering these points about yard size and proper dog food brand and generally not behaving with any warmth towards me I might take it as an indication of a bunch of rich snobs trying to subtly tell me that I’m not privileged enough to adopt their dog and give it a loving home.
First of all, this was the 1960s. Secondly, it didn’t have shitall to do with windows, as he could have put more in if it did or even built on extra space.
1. They had building codes in the 1960s, more onerous than today’s.
2. So, even after your uncle added the windows, the adoption agency still turned them down? Those rat bastards.
I think the more transparent these organizations can be about their requirements for various animals, the better off everybody is in the long run.
Like CPS, there needs to be a balance struck between a good home or staying in shelter until a perfect home is found.
There also needs to be much more of a Yenta Attitude - there are two clients, not one! People matter as much as animals if that “human-animal bond” is to form. Like with adoption, too much focus on the wrong things will lead to problems. Like adoption, too stringent a view of “right” - such as the former policy in Massachusetts to not adopt children of color to white parents - can lead to a lot of empty homes and full shelters.
Hector, the problem wasn’t the number of windows.
The problem was that they were TOLD it was the number of windows, and then they were REFUSED the formula by which they arrived at that statement. My uncle built houses on the side (he was a foreman at the sawmill) and could have built whatever they required to spec - he would have, too!
This is why I smell a rat with these “home inspections” - it isn’t that they aren’t necessarily warranted, it is that the criteria may be arbitrary and specious or not formally written down. That unwritten stuff makes them either a total waste of time or opens the door to any sort of discrimination and judgement human beings can come up with on the spot (see black person = dogfighting comments above).
Why would suffering be meaningless or temporary for non-human animals with the capacity to feel pain and isolation? Just because they’re not humans?
Because they’re nonhumans with no symbolic language, therefore no consciousness, lacking a memory organized into a temporal narrative.
In other words, the only learning they can do is behavioral, Skinnerian. That’s not memory. That’s not consciousness. It’s impossible for a dog or cat to anticipate suffering; they suffer and then it passes and its forgotten. At best they get a bad feeling when a given stimulus is associated with pain, but they’re not tortured by what happened in the past, like humans are. They’re not condemned to remember, as we are. A dog isn’t going to wake up in the middle of the night, screaming, because for just a minute he was back there, getting beaten again. Like a person who’s been tortured does.
They’re not tiny silent people, Sarah, Lizard, and Ahunt. They’re dumb animals. Cruelty against them is wanton and wasteful of a resource, but that’s all they are - resources - and mistreating them is unseemly in our society but it’s a moral act equivalent to me throwing my TV out the window.
YOU’RE just a dumb human; so why should anyone give two shits about your treatment?
Because I’m not “just” a human, I am a human, and as a member of the human community it all works best when humans treat each other with certain rules.
You are stupid beyond definition, Chet.
No, I’m just someone who disagrees with you, Ahunt, and has good arguments to marshal in defense of that disagreement.
On the other hand you’re an insufferably self-centered and arrogant jackass, completely ignorant of the biological reality of the living things you claim to be the advocate of, who takes great personal umbrage at the idea that the rest of us reasonable people aren’t immediately on board with your own personal little waste of time.
Caring for those who cannot care for themselves, be they neighbors or critters, is fine effort and worthwhile contribution, and profoundly meaningful.
Let us by all means care for those who can benefit from the caring. Let us not care for the sole sake of being able to strike a holier-than-thou pose of righteous indignation, as appears to be the sole motivation of “animal rights activists” like yourself.
Like I said, it’s your time to waste. But I don’t have to help you pay for it, and I sure as hell don’t have to put up with your little righteous-indignation tizzy fit.
Animals are great. Plants, too. I love living things. But it’s idiotic to ignore the fact that our place in the world - the place of every living thing - is to take advantage the resources that other living things represent, and then be taken advantage of in turn. And the idea that species that we have evolved to benefit from our presence that we might benefit from theirs are the ones that need advocacy and assistance, compared to the thousands of species threatened by human encroachment.
For god’s sake, Ahunt. What you people are doing is a stupid as corn advocacy. Won’t someone think of those poor cobs! Adopt some wheat today! It’s nonsense, it’s a vanity cause. You’re simply addicted to the opportunities to be indignant that your cause affords.
Amanda takes whatever oppportunity she can find to liken the animal rights movement to the anti-choice movement.
Hint, Elaine - it’s because you act exactly like them, right down to the strident tones of righteous indignation launched at anybody that might dare to disagree with your perspective.
The rescue society home visit is no more intrusive than a children’s parent’s home visit.
Except, apparently, when they take it upon themselves to enter your house on false pretenses in order to “liberate” some piece of your property.
I’d consider that fairly invasive. At any rate your justification here appears to be “oh, just bend over for the warrantless cavity search; they use lube so it’s really not so bad!”
Chet,
You said:
So the actual issue doesn’t matter at all. Who cares about the facts?
They’re not tiny silent people, Sarah, Lizard, and Ahunt. They’re dumb animals. Cruelty against them is wanton and wasteful of a resource, but that’s all they are - resources - and mistreating them is unseemly in our society but it’s a moral act equivalent to me throwing my TV out the window.
That’s how people thought of children in the 1800s — the property of their parents, who could do with them what they would, without any ability by outsiders to interfere. But then some nattering do-gooders with too much time on their hands started the anti-cruelty to children movement. Funnily enough, the anti-cruelty to children movement was an outgrowth of the anti-cruelty to animals movement, led by the same people.
And isn’t a one year old child much like an animal, with no symbolic language, therefore no consciousness, lacking a memory organized into a temporal narrative?
In other words, the only learning they can do is behavioral, Skinnerian. That’s not memory. That’s not consciousness. It’s impossible for an infant to anticipate suffering; they suffer and then it passes and its forgotten. At best they get a bad feeling when a given stimulus is associated with pain, but they’re not tortured by what happened in the past, like real humans are. They’re not condemned to remember, as we are.
It’s impossible for a dog or cat to anticipate suffering; they suffer and then it passes and its forgotten.
Animal behaviorists will tell you this is simply not true.
I didn’t realize televisions could feel terror, like animals can.
chet, I was reacting to Brad’s post below, and a similar one by seeker. I understand why someone placing an animal would want to check out where he’s going to live, and want to see how he’s adjusting. But I would balk at having someone randomly showing up on your doorstep for no reason.
Brad Jackson
October 22, 2007 at 7:52 am
turandot I’m touchy about my privacy, and as a result I’d consider a requirement that the “adoption” people visit my house even once to be invasive and excessive.
Here’s a story that might give some insight as to what fosters can go through and why some might be a tad protective.
http://www.chathamanimalrescue.org/eme_princessboinka.shtml
The people I’ve known to be obnoxious are those Board Member types who have never fostered or worked the shelter, but who have plenty to say about “the rules.” Most fosters are just good people trying to find homes for these dogs and cats.
I didn’t realize televisions could feel terror, like animals can.
Oh yeah, Sarah. My TV is always jumping on the couch every 4th of July.
Wonderful breed, that, Ms. Kate; see them every time I mix drinks and painkillers. Fur so soft your hands seem to go right through them.A close friend of mine adopted a dog from Mutts and Moms, the rescue organization in question here. She is outraged by DeGeneres’ claims that these are heartless, unreasonable people and that they keep the dogs in cages - they are not and they don’t. She and her boyfriend adopted a beautiful and VERY RAMBUNCTIOUS black lab puppy into their crowded one bedroom apartment. They walk the dog often and play with it constantly and it chews up everything they own and they’ve never even considered giving it back or giving it away. And they’ve never had a problem with Mutts and Moms, because they’ve stuck to their contract. They’ve also been able to take the dog in to Marina Baktis (the owner) whenever they’ve had a health or behavior concern, and she has been consistently warm and helpful.
uccellina:
Thanks for the input on that; I doubt many people would be surprised at finding out that a celebrity went too far when they didn’t get their way.
Do you have any knowledge about why they went the repo route instead of, say, a visit with the paperwork? Why’d they go right to Plan Z, seizure of the dog? What I find difficult to comprehend is why they didn’t just rub their foreheads, take a deep breath and say, “okay, Ellen D is being a dick, but there’s nothing stopping me from dropping by and seeing the family”. As I believe I noted above, immediate seizure followed by immediate transfer of the dog to a new home does smack of petulance and the anger of a thwarted you-will-obey-my-rules! type.
Chet has apparently never owned a dog, and witnessed the behavior of one who *knows* it did a Bad Thing and comes drooping and apologizing to you before you even know what it did because it *anticipates* the Stern Talking To it’s about to get.
Chet, your insistence that animals are simply furry automatons just does not hold water, and frankly shows ignorance on your part.
In terms of the Ellen thing, I agree with commenters that both sides erred and could have done much to avoid the current situation.
Moreover, I understand where Amanda is coming from since I have encountered such self-righteous AR folks in high school and when accompanying friends to animal rescues to try to adopt a pet. Yes, it is understandable that some questions will be asked. What is not acceptable is to do so in an arbitrary assholish manner that in two cases, was demonstrated by AR workers who suddenly started yelling at my friends for not giving the right answers, yet refusing to explain why my friends were wrong. In many ways, they were acting in ways similar to authoritarian fascist/communist security forces who would interrogate/arrest people without feeling any need to explain the basis for the arrest. In the cases I’ve witnessed, transparency and the willingness to patiently explain the rhyme and reasons for policies would go a long way to reducing the needless acrimony.
Because they’re nonhumans with no symbolic language, therefore no consciousness, lacking a memory organized into a temporal narrative.
In other words, the only learning they can do is behavioral, Skinnerian. That’s not memory. That’s not consciousness. It’s impossible for a dog or cat to anticipate suffering; they suffer and then it passes and its forgotten. At best they get a bad feeling when a given stimulus is associated with pain, but they’re not tortured by what happened in the past, like humans are. They’re not condemned to remember, as we are. A dog isn’t going to wake up in the middle of the night, screaming, because for just a minute he was back there, getting beaten again. Like a person who’s been tortured does.
Where are you getting this information from? What studies? That’s not the impression I get from friends who are aspiring zoologists or veterinarians. From their observations and studies and my own experience, we’ve observed how various animals are capable of what we term as memories that go beyond mere behavioral instinct.
Moreover, even if we’re assuming that animals are limited to responding to stimuli, are we human beings any better given the Pavlovian manipulation of marketing and PR for corporate, political, and other causes??
uccellina: One other thought. Your friends’ experience with the shelter seems to have been a positive one. However, for some control types, their measure is not taken from cases where everything goes smoothly, it is measured in just how mean they get - and how fast! - when you don’t do what they want. This, I believe, is one of the points that Amanda was making.
To all pandagonians:
Perhaps we should all chip in together for some metal polish for the nails that Elaine Vigneault used to put herself up on that martyr’s cross. She won’t stop thinking that she’s better or more noble than the rest of us, but it might shut her pie hole for a time.
There are a couple of things going on here that I think are causing the majority of the issues.
1. A shelter isn’t the same thing as a rescue. Rescue workers are generally unpaid; shelter employees in my metro area can expect to make around $15,000 a year. They’re generally working-class, often Latin@ and African-American, and they’re overwhelmingly women. So your classist crap can go both ways; no cognitive dissonance required. Though people here seem to be thinking of some mythical hobbyist rescue group run by the Junior League, the reality of it is that most people running rescues are working or middle class. That’s because it’s dirty, tiring, and sometimes very depressing work. The Junior League types may be writing the checks, and they may be creating the purebred puppies and kittens, but they’re not likely to be the ones fostering the animals or handling the day-to-day of any rescue organization.
2. Complaining about the shelter that does home visits is like complaining about the strawfeminist who thinks all sex is rape. Most shelters can’t afford to have people out doing home visits; most dogs in shelters wouldn’t get walked every 24 hours if it weren’t for volunteers. Many dogs don’t get walked once a day. Your local shelter isn’t sending out crack squads of animal police looking at homes. In my area, the only cases where home visits ever happen are when people want to adopt pit bulls, and that’s because they’re often taken from the shelter and used for fighting. The shelters want, in those cases, to make sure there IS a home, and not a chain in a warehouse somewhere. Is there some classist, racist element to that? Undoubtedly. Is it keeping animals from being chained to a fence and eaten alive by other dogs, or hung by their neck from trees? The shelters certainly hope so. My experience with people who want to adopt pits is that they’re already sensitive to the fighting issue, and I’ve never seen anyone refuse a home visit. Rescues may have more resources for home visits; I don’t know enough about purebred rescue to comment on it. It wouldn’t surprise me if they did home visits more regularly than shelters, but I’d be surprised to hear that home visits happen in more than half of rescue transactions. On the other hand, every responsible professional breeder I’ve worked with has had both a home visit requirement and a return clause in the purchase agreement. Every shelter I’ve volunteered for has at least had a request for notification in the event that the animal changes hands, and there often is a request that the dog be returned to the shelter if the owner can no longer care for it. This is especially true of no-kill shelters, where the fear that an animal who boomerangs will boomerang into a euthanizing shelter is high. Other shelters ask for that notification because they’re keeping metrics that affect their funding from the municipality or the state; in those cases, they want to keep track because keeping the animals in homes proves the value of the shelter and helps to keep them open.
3. If you can’t see that the gendered contempt for the people who do animal rescue work is on a continuum with the gendered contempt for women working for social service agencies, in child care, or as domestics, then I can’t help you. It’s not your life and not your cause, and if you don’t understand it, I can’t make you see. But I can tell you, as a woman, it feels awfully close to the same thing.
4. I don’t deny that there are zealots and control freaks in the animal rescue world. I’ve been burned by them - my house ended up quarantined when one of them knowingly gave me a terminally, contagious ill animal so that she could “save” it from being put down. In the process, she caused the deaths of at least half a dozen previously-healthy foster animals, and my own animals were only safe because I know enough to keep fosters quarantined. That woman was totally out of control, and she was fired. But you know what? In real life, I work with medical researchers, and there are zealots and control freaks there, too. And those zealots are deciding what bloodthinners you get after your stroke, and making decisions about how much you can weigh and still be healthy, and dozens of similar decisions every day, so you can tell me who’s on the bigger power trip.
Whoops.
Seeker, from what I understand, that’s exactly what they did. As Lola’s stated above (and I watched the same videos she did):
It’s a damn shame that this organization’s reputation and this woman’s scanty livelihood are being trashed.
turandot wrote “I’m sorry if the word offends you, but to me it’s shorthand for “allowing people to look at the pet and claim it as their own companion””
The word doesn’t offend me, its simply incorrect. You adopt humans. The shorthand you are looking for is “purchase” or “buy”, because as non-sapient beings animals are property, and thus are bought and sold.
They’re obviously a different category of property than, say, cars because if I kick the shit out of my car I’m an idiot, while if I kick the shit out of a cat I’m a criminal. And that’s as it should be. I fully support laws prohibiting animal cruelty. For that matter I’d support legislation prohibiting people convicted of animal cruelty (or spouse abouse, come to it) from ever owning animals, or firearms, again.
But don’t get cutsie and misuse language. Humans are adopted. When non-human sapients are found (or invented) we could properly say that someone adopts them. Animals are bought, or in the case of the sheep willing to tolerate the bullshit from the rescue agencies, licensed.
Again, it isn’t that I’m offended, I simply object to your using the wrong term. The proper term for what you do when you get a pet from such an agency is “license”, not “adopt”.
Having said that, I’ll also add that Chet is being a complete moron, and exposing not only uncivilized attitudes but also his complete ignorance of animal psychology. Even flatworms exhibit memory and anticipiation, and they don’t even have brains.
As for what the shelters should do? Damn if I know. I know that when I just now gave away kittens [1] I relied on gut feelings. I turned down one person based purely on intuition, she “felt” wrong. I watched the people when they came to pick out a kitten and noticed whether or not they knew how to approach and handle cats.
I’ll admit that I may very well have made a mistake, I’m a human and therefore faliable by definition. If so I deeply regret it, and I devoutly hope if someone to whom I gave a kitten abused it that they are caught and prosicuted to the full extent of the law. I took a chance, and I think it was the right decision.
Obvously the people running the “adoption” places think differently, and that’s their right. Its also their right, and yours, to look down your nose at me and accuse me of being a monster because I gave someone a kitten without subjecting them to the third degree and demanding to inspect their home. And its my right to say the “adoption” people are twits, and never deal with them myself, and to urge others to never deal with them.
[1] And I should note, the cat was pregnant when she came to live at my expense, and will be getting sterilized ASAP. Kittens are cute, but there’s too many of them out there.
From Chet: “In other words, the only learning they can do is behavioral, Skinnerian. That’s not memory. That’s not consciousness. It’s impossible for a dog or cat to anticipate suffering; they suffer and then it passes and its forgotten. At best they get a bad feeling when a given stimulus is associated with pain, but they’re not tortured by what happened in the past, like humans are. They’re not condemned to remember, as we are. A dog isn’t going to wake up in the middle of the night, screaming, because for just a minute he was back there, getting beaten again. Like a person who’s been tortured does.”
The first real example of a need for GWB’s “No Child Left Behind”- Chet has never heard of Pavlov, dogs and bells.
Oh, THAT’S right- conditioned responses to repetitive actions aren’t the same as “memory”. HUH?
So, Erin, your view is this: people who disagree with you on this are sexist, classist and impliedly racist, seething with gendered contempt. And out comes that hoary old saw about not being able to make us see as a measure of our ignorance in your eyes. That old chestnut as an excuse for poor advocacy and argument has probably been around since before either of us were born. And, to top it off, since you can’t back it up with actual examples of racism, classism or misogyny or you fall back on “I can tell you, as a woman, it feels awfully close to the same thing”.
So, myself and others who seem to disagree with you in our worries over how such things can be handled (the host of this blog included) are all of these horrible things because you feel it is so.
My sympathies for your experience with the zealot. But you might want to examine whether you are a giver as well as a receiver of that particular flaw.
I’m certain there’s nothing I can say that will dissuade you of your opinion, but I do not view myself as morally superior to you or anyone else.
I do, however, think your comment was out of line. And I’m offended.
In which case, kudos for the most convincing imitation ever. Run out, buy the most powerful electron microscope you can and measure how much I give a damn. And when you’re done that, saddle up your sanctipony and go for a ride.The word doesn’t offend me, its simply incorrect. You adopt humans. The shorthand you are looking for is “purchase” or “buy”, because as non-sapient beings animals are property, and thus are bought and sold.
own … cats. Own cats.
Oxy for Morons!
Sorry, but I don’t see it as owning animals. Our society may legally structure it that way, but I choose not to use the terms “buy” or “own” because they don’t properly describe my relationship to my pets.
I bought a computer, and own it. I adopted two cats and I keep them - I am their steward and guardian and I have a relationship with them.
My computer, on the other hand, has yet to learn how to open windows to escape into the woods, nor does it sleep on my son’s head.
that may have been the point
So, Erin, your view is this: people who disagree with you on this are sexist, classist and impliedly racist, seething with gendered contempt.
Huh? Erin was saying that shelters and rescue groups were not racist or classist. She did say that placement workers tended to be female, which means that sexist men tend to dismiss/ignore/pooh-pooh what they have to say on all topics. Sounds plausible to me.
Ms. Kate I suppose, if I wanted to be technical, I could argue that I’m employed by my cat. Its a nice joke, one I make all the time, but it ain’t reality.
Legally, and I think realistically, my cat is my property. Obviously the big Animal Rights types will object strenuously to that and make highly offensive comparisons to slavery and child labor. The fact that attitudes regarding sapient beings (or potentially sapient beings in the case of human infants) have changed, for the better, does not indicate, imply, or suggest that their attitudes (ie: animals are people) is correct or will ever be viewed as correct.
I have a relationship with my cat. I pet her, feed her, and clean her litter box, in return she tolerates my existence and occasionally condesends to sit on my lap and purr. People have relationships with property all the time. Look at an audiophile and their stereo system and tell me there isn’t a relationship there.
I see use of the term “adopt”, when talking about animals, as a form of linguistic sabatoge intended to blur the, quite valid, distinction between sapient beings and non-sapient beings. Pets aren’t children, those who confuse the two disturb me.
I like my cat, I’d even go so far as to say that I love my cat. I’ll feel bad when she dies. However, I’m in the process of adopting a human being, and he won’t be my cat’s brother. Similarly I’ll put that human’s needs above my cat’s needs. I hope that I won’t have to chose between the two of them, but if I ever do I’ll take the human without hesitation.
Mind you, “sapient beings are more important than non-sapient beings” does not mean “non-sapient beings are disposable, meaningless, and should be abused”. So please don’t write a reply based on that assumption.
So the actual issue doesn’t matter at all.
Not when it comes to behavior that’s inappropriate, no matter the issue. Being disingenuous simply to engage in righteous grandstanding is wrong regardless of what cause its in support of, especially a vanity cause like animal “rights.” (And yeah you better believe those are scare quotes.)
Pets aren’t children, those who confuse the two disturb me.
There’s a lot of simplistic, binary thinking on this thread, which concerns me, as if some of the posters aren’t fully human. Even their internet access proves nothing, because “On the internet, no one knows you’re a dog.” There is a big range between human being and houseplant, and animals fill a variety of slots in that range. I have never had much interaction with a cat, but dogs are the only non-human animals who have ever invited me to play, in some cases bringing me a ball to throw.
And isn’t a one year old child much like an animal, with no symbolic language, therefore no consciousness, lacking a memory organized into a temporal narrative?
Yeah, probably. Which is why it’s ok to abort a fetus. Oddly enough, I don’t think especially highly of infants before they develop consciousness, either, and I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that every human society has practiced infanticide; they’re just not all that human.
Chet has apparently never owned a dog, and witnessed the behavior of one who *knows* it did a Bad Thing and comes drooping and apologizing to you before you even know what it did because it *anticipates* the Stern Talking To it’s about to get.
No, but I’ve witnessed plenty of human beings ascribing human behavior and motivations to things that can’t possibly have them, like you’re doing now. Sorry but your ability to read the canine mind doesn’t convince me any more than the people who talk about their “happy plants.”
Even flatworms exhibit memory and anticipiation, and they don’t even have brains.
Behavioralism. What I was talking about. But thanks for bringing up the example of planarians. Since you’re convinced they’re thinking beings, should it be illegal to bifurcate them? I can’t think of anything more cruel than being cut in half, but that’s commonly done to show 7th graders some science.
Or is it just the cute animals that deserve rights?
Chet has never heard of Pavlov, dogs and bells.
Pavlov’s dogs were behaviorally conditioned, genius, which is what I was talking about.
But, you know, thanks for proving what I was talking about, the both of you. Why are animal defenders so relentlessly ignorant of biology?
My computer, on the other hand, has yet to learn how to open windows to escape into the woods, nor does it sleep on my son’s head.
And your cats can’t be used as a web browser or play Bioshock. What’s your point? Both are machines following different programs, one biological and one electronic. And neither of them are humans that deserve the protections of society. They’re both your property. The fact that we as humans are also machines following biological programming is irrelevant; we form society and protect human individuals because of the benefits we as humans get from it. Rights are for humans. If we extend rights to cats, why not to plants? Why not go into the forest and find “adoptive” homes for all the trees?
Chet, I sincerely hope you are never in the position of caregiver for another living being.
It’s the ultimate irony for you to accuse others of being disingenous simply to engage in righteous grandstanding.
You actually claimed that abusing a dog was no different from destroying a television.
You are ignorant of animal psychology but feel entitled to make stupid proclamations regarding animals’ mental/emotional capacities that have nothing to do with biological/physiological facts. You are spreading misinformation, plain and simple.
Thanks, Hector, for clarifying what I was trying to say. It’s been a long day, and I was trying to wrap my brain around where the hostility was that seeker was perceiving in my post that resulted in such hostility on his/her part, and I wasn’t finding it.
I’m not calling anyone racist, I’m suggesting there’s a gender bias at work, and I’m further suggesting that, in the majority of non-boutique, non-professional-breeder animal adoptions (transactions, purchases, whatever. If I can adopt a new technology, I can adopt a cat), that the class bias works in a direction opposite to that suggested by the initial post. So yes on the sexist, probably on the classist, and WTF no on the racism, at least in the way you’re suggesting. And I’m not suggesting you ARE anything horrible at all. I don’t know you, and you could hand-feed blind nuns and disarm landmines in your spare time, for all I know. What I am saying is that some of the ideas being batted around here are wrong, based on my experiences, and that they may be biased, based on my interpretations and my previous experiences of biased thought and action. I’m saying that animal care personnel are in the same double bind as single women in the dating scene: we have an obligation to safety, until that obligation conflicts with someone else’s idea of the ways in which we should be accommodating and nice. Then we’re supposed to trust complete strangers, lest their delicate sensibilities be offended, but if we guess wrong and they set cats on fire for fun? Whoops! Our bad for poor judgment. It’s not winnable, and people do the best they can. Sometimes they’re crazy overcautious, and sometimes they’re recklessly trusting. Can’t win.
Oh, and I did say that there was a classist and racist element to the fact that shelters allot whatever home visit resources they have on people looking to adopt pit bulls and rottweilers, but I think I also explained why shelter personnel feel they need to make that choice. Was that where I called people racist?
There. Was that bloodless and free of feeling enough to make sense? Should I apologize that my feelings based on experience got in the way of your totally emotionless indignation at an imaginary scenario in which someone wants to see if you really have a fenced-in yard? Because while you may be a landmine sweeper and educator of street urchins or something equally admirable in your real life, telling a woman that she’s letting emotion get in the way of her argument, not least when she’s talking about actual experiences in her real life? Well, interpretation can be tough on the interwebs, but that generally comes across as a sexist approach. It’s not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it’s something you should know.
Chet, citations please!
And no, my pets are not people and are not children either. Pets learn and grow, but they will never hold their own job or go to college or anything like that. However, they are self-propelled, self-willed individuals with distinct (albeit simplistic) personalities and preferences.
They are my responsibility and will continue to be as they do not have the abilities that humans have. Nevertheless, the “robot” idea of animals went out the window long ago - unless you are one of these anti-science nutjobs that still insists things like dominion and all of that biblebabble.
Oh goody; now chet has insulted me, too. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. My turn:
If a dog is purely a creature of conditioned behavior, explain the incredible work that a police, rescue or therapy dog is capable of. That animal has to make decisions and judgements on what to do and how to proceed, based on the information available at that moment of time. Not every scenario can be “programmed” or rehersed.
What a fucking idiot. Bring on the bunnies, or barring that, some guinea pigs.
Chet, I sincerely hope you are never in the position of caregiver for another living being.
I have had that honor, fuck you very much, and it was a responsibility that I discharged to the fullest extent of my abilities, because I recognized that I was taking care of a human fucking being, not a dumb animal, who deserved what dignity I could provide out of the honor and memory of the contributions he had made to the lives of those around me - and because of the difference taking on that responsibility made to the living people I cared about.
Understand, then, that my recognition of the limited lives of animals is no impediment to my ability to care for human beings, even for you if somehow we found ourselves with that arrangement. And shame on you for suggesting otherwise.
You are ignorant of animal psychology but feel entitled to make stupid proclamations regarding animals’ mental/emotional capacities that have nothing to do with biological/physiological facts.
Here’s a fact - animals kill children. Animals attack babies. If you should be unlucky enough to die amongst your pets, and they get hungry, here’s a fact - they’ll start to eat you because you’re made of meat.
They’re not going to hold a wake. They’re not going to dream about you. They’re not going to make keepsakes out of your photographs. They’re not going to lay around and reminisce about the good times you all had, they’re going to get hungry and take advantage of a local food source. You’re the meat that feeds them.
They’re dumb animals. There’s almost no past and future to them. Obviously evolution wouldn’t result in a creature that couldn’t adapt future behavior to past outcomes, but that’s feedback, plants can do it, it’s not memory or consciousness. Complaining falsely that I don’t “know anything about neurology”, when I’ve developed neurology techniques for the USDA (chemical bioassay setups for use on various pest arthropods), doesn’t change that.
If a dog is purely a creature of conditioned behavior, explain the incredible work that a police, rescue or therapy dog is capable of.
Conditioning.
That animal has to make decisions and judgements on what to do and how to proceed, based on the information available at that moment of time
They’re precisely conditioned on how to respond to situations by putting them in those situations and rewarding the correct responses. Jesus open an animal training book sometime.
Now, you explain to me how, if canines and felines are so intellectually gifted as a result of their large mammalian brains, nearly every single insect is able to meet or exceed the same complexity of behavior with a microscopic fraction of the neural tissue.
Or are we all to be Jainists now, sweeping the ants from beneath our footsteps as we go? Or, again, is it only the cute mammals who deserve protection from cruelty?
I’m sorry that these are uncomfortable things for so many of you to hear. I’m not saying you should feel like an idiot for being affectionate to your pets. It’s only human to extend human feelings and motivations to those things that can’t possibly have them. From thence is where spirits and gods arise.
But it’s as foolish to reify one’s pets as it is to deify the wind. Love your pets. Just don’t expect me to give a damn about them.
I’m done in this thread lest I say more things that people find hateful.
The fact that we as humans are also machines following biological programming is irrelevant; we form society and protect human individuals because of the benefits we as humans get from it. Rights are for humans.
You’re going back and forth on this point. First you say that humans are somehow fundamentally different from animals because we have some special magic in us called consciousness, while the best animals can manage is behavioral conditioning. Then you acknowledge correctly that a human is no less a machine than a dog or a computer. We think of ourselves as conscious and feel ourselves to be ethereal ghosts inhabiting fleshy shells, but that doesn’t mean our perception of ourselves is accurate. We’re not even close to understanding what consciousness is, much less whether or not animals possess it. We humans decided that we have rights because life is easier and more pleasant for all of us if we’re nice to each other, not because humans are somehow special and deserving of rights where other animals aren’t. There’s no bright line differentiating between a nine-month-old fetus and a newborn but we’ve decided that fetuses aren’t human and newborns are. We have to draw these lines ourselves, because they don’t exist until we decide they do.
Here’s a fact - animals kill children. Animals attack babies. If you should be unlucky enough to die amongst your pets, and they get hungry, here’s a fact - they’ll start to eat you because you’re made of meat.
They’re not going to hold a wake. They’re not going to dream about you. They’re not going to make keepsakes out of your photographs. They’re not going to lay around and reminisce about the good times you all had, they’re going to get hungry and take advantage of a local food source. You’re the meat that feeds them.
So what? I eat the bodies of dead cows and chickens, and I still have it in me to care about people and cute furry domesticated animals. I’m a vicious, uncaring, meat-eating brute, but somehow I manage to not be an unfeeling sociopath. The argument that a dog doesn’t care about a person because it isn’t going to hold a wake for that person is ridiculous. It sounds like you’re trying to hurt people’s feelings now, and you’re making less and less sense as you do.
I’m sorry that these are uncomfortable things for so many of you to hear.
If only because all dated, willfully stupid, and horrendous scientifically ignorance stated as fact is always painful for a PhD scientist to hear.
Your assumptions are vastly out of date with modern understanding of animal intelligence. Get thee to a science library and start reading journals, if you can even understand them, or STFU.
At least somebody is trying to engage reasonably. Let me do my best to return the favor.
We have to draw these lines ourselves, because they don’t exist until we decide they do.
So explain to me the utility - to us - in drawing the line in a place where pets are people, or people-ish anyway, they’re entitled to protections that supersede property rights, but insects and plants of precisely equally complex behavior aren’t and are destroyed even by the animal rights activists when they’re inconveniently in the way. I mean I’m sure even Elaine wouldn’t balk at de-worming a dog, even though that results in the destruction of a fairly complex life-form.
Because it seems to me that once you admit that the lines are arbitrary, you’ve given away the game - we’re not longer talking about moral justifications that mandate the protection of kitties and the destruction of spiders, but simply practical ones, which has been my point all along.
Your assumptions are vastly out of date with modern understanding of animal intelligence.
Ms. Kate, I don’t pretend to be an expert on the subject, but I know enough about animal behavior and neurology - I assure you that I can understand research on the subject, no need for imprecations about my intelligence - to know that it’s laughably wrong to suggest that there’s a scientific consensus that cute little puppies and kitties carry on neurotic inner lives like in Look Who’s Talking 3 and therefore deserve full emancipation from their human oppressors.
I mean we scientists do animal studies, we dissect cats and dogs and other organisms as a part of what we do. If these organisms are conscious, memory-endowed beings, surely we’re participating in a abomination not seen since the Holocaust? Surely Robert Hooke is every bit as bad as Joseph Mengele if what you say is true.
I don’t believe that pain and suffering is the same to an animal, there’s no research that says that it is, and I don’t believe you do either or else you’d be setting your lab animals free. If animals and humans were the same in that way, why wouldn’t the laws prohibit the kind of experimentation that we don’t permit on humans?
I’m a vicious, uncaring, meat-eating brute, but somehow I manage to not be an unfeeling sociopath.
Same. I don’t understand your point.
we’re not longer talking about moral justifications that mandate the protection of kitties and the destruction of spiders, but simply practical ones, which has been my point all along.
You’re saying that animals don’t have rights because they’re unfeeling, unthinking zombies. I’m saying they don’t have rights (at least not the same rights as people) because we arbitrarily decided not to give them rights, because it would be inconvenient for us. Which has absolutely nothing to do with whether animals are conscious or not.
I don’t understand your point.
That just because your cat eats your dead face or your dog doesn’t hold a wake for you doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of caring about you. Seemingly contradictory emotions exist in people, and there’s no reason to just assume they don’t exist in animals.
Hi seeker:
According to Lola’s early post, that’s exactly what the shelter did. The shelter offered the family first crack at adoption - however, the family refused to fill out the forms, citing “too complicated”. The shelter then sent someone down to get the information instead. At some point, it turned sour.
Did Amanda mention that in her initial analysis? I couldn’t read the entry closely.
This is interesting:
From Huffington Post
If these organisms are conscious, memory-endowed beings, surely we’re participating in a abomination not seen since the Holocaust?
Hey, maybe we are. Things aren’t true or not because you want them to be or it would horrify you if it were so. Is it necessary that there’s a god because some people think we would be living in a meaningless, empty, depressing universe if there weren’t?
Dogs miss people when they’re gone, and greet them enthusiastically when they return — I don’t think a roundworm can do that. And I have known dogs who had the same range of behaviors as, say, Tom Cruise.
If Chet didn’t seem such a total animal virgin it would be easier to take him seriously. But, reading Chet I have the feeling I’m reading Truman Capote on How to Satisfy a Woman, Every Time, or Ray Charles on Appreciating Abstract Art.
I also find it really difficult to believe anyone has the same visceral reaction to a dog as to a clock or a car. Even people who abuse animals because they’re no different from machines, really, have to realize they wouldn’t get the same thrill out of beating up a toaster.
Hi back, mez9.
What weirds me out is that, from what I can pull together, is this sequence:
1. M-A-M sends somebody out for a home visit and the paperwork. (Tangent: just how complicated was that paperwork, anyway? Was the family being lazy or was it the form from hell?)
2. The visit, as you aptly put it, went south. The family with the dog has apparently laid the blame on the M-A-M worker, making allegations that she was hostile or confrontational.
3. The worker grabbed the dog and wouldn’t let go.
4. Family calls police. Worker calls police.
If (again, IF!) that sequence is roughly true it does rather fit with two things. First, Amanda’s original stream about how some idealistic people can dig in and refuse to see any point but their own. Second, that there may have been a great deal of deceit involved. If the shelter never places dogs that small in any house with children under 14, why would they send out somebody to evaluate the home? It does rather smack of bait-and-switch: using the promise of an evaluation to get into the house and grab the dog. Such a theory is supported by the fact that they hustled the dog out the door to a new family right away.
If they lied, then LAPD is going to be seriously pissed with them. If they didn’t have a right to the dog then LAPD is going to be pissed with them.
Man, now you are just being plain mean. What did those dogs ever do to you for you to be so cruel?
It could be that it was M-n-M’s idea of being flexible - that they were thinking that, ok, let’s just try to work this out. I do know organisations that relax the children rule if the kids seem the less rambunctious sort.
(Strangely enough, dog trainers have observed that well-behaved kids are a good indicator that the dog’s going to turn out great as well. A pity that shelters can’t say: “Suitable for homes with nice children only.” That would be a completely different can of worms!)
Isn’t there a video somewhere? Lola mentioned.
That just because your cat eats your dead face or your dog doesn’t hold a wake for you doesn’t mean they aren’t capable of caring about you.
That’s exactly what it proves. I’d never eat my own pet, so it’s certainly the case that pets can’t truly return my feelings towards them. The relationship we have is not one of equals. It’s one of property and steward.
Hey, maybe we are.
And, yet, somehow this vast consensus of scientists that supposedly uphold Ms. Kate’s view that animals are tiny little mini-people never stopped to make the connection?
Do you see why I find that hard to believe? It’s abundantly obvious that the scientific consensus mirrors my own position, that animal, plant, and fungal life are subjects for study, and our concern about our own species mandates that animal, plant, and fungal lives be used to further the knowledge that protects actual human beings.
If Chet didn’t seem such a total animal virgin it would be easier to take him seriously
Oh, for God’s sake. I grew up with two cats. One of them died last month, a cat we’d had almost all my life, and it was sad.
I’m a biology major who’s done physiology research for the USDA. I’ve performed many dissections. I have at least three books on veterinary physiology around the house, here, and I’ve been busting my ass off to pick up enough biochem to add that as a major, too.
Please don’t assume that I’m as ignorant about the natural world as you are, simply because I don’t romanticize the cute animals and ignore the ugly ones.
I don’t think a roundworm can do that.
Beetles can. They knew when I was there to feed them and clean the beetle dorms.
But it’s irrelevant. Any organism can have human-like feelings when you improperly project such feelings onto them, as you regularly do.
Brad Jackson says:
I’m an entomologist, but I know a few things about invertebrates in general. Very simple animals have neural nets - but a neural net is not a brain. Think of it this way. Once you learn how to ride a bike, you never really forget. But you don’t learn it with your brain, it’s sometimes called muscle memory. A neural net probably works in a similar way. It’s been my experience that animal rights activists don’t actually know anything about biology - they’re more interested in the fuzzy wuzzy wittle bunnies than actually learning anything. Exhibit A being the nutjobs who want to free the bees from slavery and won’t eat honey.
I’m sorry, there are so many comments about this that I’m not sure who I am answering back to, but someone mentioned something about some shelters being staffed by people who didnt necessarily feel it was their business who the pets there went to, and if only more shelter/rescue people were like that… Well, there is a dark side to being so easygoing about pet placements.
A year before I had such a nice experience with the rescue people who raised my cat, I had a horrible shelter experience. We had gone down to the town shelter thinking we’d look for a dog, and were met by really warm shelter workers… Most of the dogs there were larger breeds. I have nothing against larger breeds. I have always wanted a retriever, and someday, when I have a yard and children, I will happily take care of one. But I had and still have a tiny apartment. So we told the workers we would have to pass at this time. They kept steering us at dogs that had been there for a long time, saying how wonderful it would be for them to find a home. Eventually I started feeling bad about it, and so I let them steer me towards an auburn retriever mix who was a bit shy, but friendly. She was 90 lbs, and still a puppy, so she was jumpy. My husband took to her right away though, which is what got me and the dog in trouble, ultimately.
We went to talk to an “adoption counselor”, and I voiced my deep concerns about her size vs. the size of the apartment, and the fact that she seemed to be starved for attention. She seemed to need more space and care that we might be able to provide. The counselor totally brushed both issues off as “she’ll adapt”, and gave me the impression that my concerns just were not getting through. In hindsight, I suspect that they were desperate to place as many animals as quickly as possible at the time. Long story short, the next day Daisy the dog got spayed and we went home with a dog and a video for new pet owners.
Daisy was as smart as most retrievers are, so she mastered sit, stay and was doing okay on heel by day 2. What she could not comprehend is that I had things to do that might require not paying attention to her. I could not take my eyes off her, ever. If I wasn’t paying attention to her, she’d chew the furniture to get me to do so. AFter a few days it became clear that this was not just a puppy’s initial curiosity, but really a need to be interacted with constantly. She also clearly hated being couped up in the apartment. So despite my need to do things like study, or cook, or clean, Daisy required 3-4 daily outings to the nearby dog park. This wasn’t a “walk to poo” scenario. It’s more like she’d refuse to come home, and when she got in it she would constantly whine to be let back out again. So I found myself spending 4-5 hours a day walking her by day 4 (that is, aside for the times when my husband would take her walking).
She also was very physical with me when she didn’t get her way, so the breaking point for me came when she pawed at me to get me to move where she wanted to go one day, and managed to both draw blood from me with her paws and almost make me lose my balance. I unreflexively shoved at her to get off me, and felt horrible about it right after. It was then and there that I realized that it was just not gonna work. So I found her a new home, and spent nearly a year feeling like shit about “giving up” on her.
She was a great dog other than the two of us having time and power issued, and I loved her, even though she lived with me for a brief amount of time. I just couldn’t cope with the loss of time and privacy, and that must have said horrible things about me, right? When we went to get Boris (cat), I thought “for sure they’re gonna balk at my having had to rehome a dog after a week of having her home”. I had tried to put Daisy out of my mind, but just thinking about it while filling out the paperwork was bringing tears to my eyes.
When the rescue worker reviewed the paperwork, she did ask more info about Daisy and the circumstances surrounding her placement with us, and I told her that we realized right away that for a dog her size, our apartment and our schedule at the time was just not the right fit, and we could not in good conscience keep her in a situation that would have made her feel neglected. She understood right away what I had been trying to tell the shelter counselor way back then in any way I could, and said that she appreciated that we tried to find a fix that would benefit everyone once the match went south. She understood that we had made a mistake while trying to be kind.
That said she did stress what a commitment we were about to make too, and not to underestimate the kind of attention that a kitten needs. She tried to talk me out of it a bit, yes, rather than talking me into it. But I think that having to respond to her arguments told both me and her that this time would be different, and it has been. I appreciated that, actually: I’d rather have someone talk me out of kindness that I can not afford (and by that I don’t mean just money, but also insofar as time, care and freedom) than to find myself honor bound to a committment undertaken too quickly. The shelter counselor who was too quick to think of the big picture (”saved an animal”) without looking at the details (”where and how will she live?”) taught me that.
I’d never eat my own pet, so it’s certainly the case that pets can’t truly return my feelings towards them.
Female lions eat their own dead children, having given them a great deal of care and attention when they were alive. We don’t know what eating one’s dead child means to a lion, and we don’t know what eating a person’s face means to a cat. It could mean the cat never cared about the person, or it could mean just about anything else. As you say, animals aren’t people, and they don’t have human motivations. That doesn’t mean they don’t have their own motivations, or that their actions are devoid of feeling.
It’s abundantly obvious that the scientific consensus mirrors my own position, that animal, plant, and fungal life are subjects for study, and our concern about our own species mandates that animal, plant, and fungal lives be used to further the knowledge that protects actual human beings.
Nothing scientists currently do or believe has anything to do with the truth of animal consciousness. Maybe research scientists don’t think animals are conscious. Maybe they know animals are conscious and don’t care. Maybe they’ve made their peace with hurting conscious beings for the sake of advancing human knowledge. I would guess they don’t all share the same opinion, anyway. It doesn’t matter what anyone thinks or decides to do based on their beliefs; all that matters is what’s true.
Where, I ask you, where is the outrage against the violence done to the language in the case of “Adopt-A-Highway” and “Adopt-A-Shelter” (bus shelter) programs?
Seriously, to my mind, “adopt” means “take responsibility for the long term regular care and well-being of.” It’s not a human-centric term, understood that way. Works just fine for human children, pet animals, and highways alike. I suppose one might then say that by this definition one might also be said to “adopt” a TV or a computer, but I’d have to question how much long-term, regular care those appliances actually need.
As for whether your cat will eat your dead face after you’ve stopped being a person and started being meat: I think Chet’s being a little anthrocentric here. Even his-own-culture-centric. Sentimental attachments to dead flesh for the sake of the spirit that wore it when it was alive are not universal virtues–if they are in fact virtues. Those attachments aren’t inherently right, proper, good, benevolent, etc. They don’t help the deceased at all. Funerals are for the living; living people who don’t need that comfort aren’t necessarily assholes who didn’t care about their now-dead friend. They may simply take no comfort from futile gestures. The face of caring, beyond the urge to make life better for the cared-about person, aren’t identical from person to person, culture to culture, species to species.
(I also get annoyed at anthropologists who decide a long-ago people had no beliefs in an afterlife, on the basis of their lack of funereal rites. This does not strike me as a logical assumption.)
Which brings us to the Innu joke found in Mordechai Richler’s Solomon Gursky Was Here:“Why is a dog team better than a snowmobile?”
“Because if something goes wrong you can’t eat the snowmobile.”
OK, this is from awhile back but I’m hung up on the idea that rescue organizations are trying to control people’s lives. Here’s the thing–when I foster a dog I generally spend a month or more with it. I will housebreak it, deal with medical and behavioral problems, take it through obedience classes, and generally bond with him or her. So, yes, I do worry about where she or he is going. If someone were to have to give away their dogs or cats, most of us would prefer they go to friends or family and a standard of care replicating your own.
The Havrilesky piece kind of annoys me because she seems to adopt (oh no!) the attitude that she is a consumer and should be able to walk into a rescue or shelter, place her order, and get what she wants as if she is ordering a diet coke. If that’s what she wants there are plenty of places she could go who have that same attitude towards animals.
There is a lot of legal and ethical territory between human and property. There’s room for animals there. In fact, I think there’s room for nature.
You would if you had no other food source and were trapped in a room from which you could not escape, with only the body of your dead pet. In fact, I believe you would probably eat the body of another human, even one you knew, in that situation. How is the fact that a trapped animal will expolit a food source (something a human would also do) any evidence that animals are mindless machines?
Chet, human-like feelings and no feelings or emotions whatsoever are not the only two options. There is a lot of room between the two - where many animals reside.
You privilege humans above all other animals because you are a human. From an ape’s perspective, his characteristics are superior.
Can you sniff out drugs like a German Shepherd? Who says sense of smell isn’t the most important quality in an animal?
Exactly, Mustella. Ask people who have actually gone through famines whether they would eat their pets or not. I’m betting quite a few older Russians who lived through the Leningrad blockade would tell you they ate their dogs and cats because they had to.
I never said that dogs are humans, Chet. I never said that a dog’s behavior when it was anticipating a scolding is the same as that of a human. It is, however, as I thought I made clear, *not* the behavior of an automaton. We might not know exactly what it is that dogs are thinking and feeling, but that doesn’t mean they don’t think or feel.
We’re finding out more and more about the ways that animals communicate with one another–for instance, the recent discovery of the extremely deep-tone vibrations that elephants use to communicate with each other over miles and miles. We didn’t know about that before, because we couldn’t hear it. Studies have that elephants show an inexplicable interest in the bones and remains of other elephants. Why is that? We simply don’t know. Does it conclusively show that elephants have a consciousness that is similar to humans’? Not necessarily, but it does show that there is something going on that we don’t understand.
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to postulate that we simply don’t have the ability yet to understand what animals are thinking and feeling, simply because we don’t yet have the technology or the ability yet to comprehend it. The fact that we can’t measure it yet doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. The fact that animals don’t think and feel the exact same way we do does not mean that they don’t think and feel at all.
To assume that because we can’t conclusively measure something (yet!) means that we never will be able to is pretty closed-minded, imo.
Now, you explain to me how, if canines and felines are so intellectually gifted as a result of their large mammalian brains, nearly every single insect is able to meet or exceed the same complexity of behavior with a microscopic fraction of the neural tissue.
I can’t, since they aren’t able to do that.
Let’s keep talking biology - if the “same complexity of behaviour” as mammals is easily accomplished by an insect brain, why the heck has that huge amount of useless brain tissue been selected for in mammals? It would be just a waste of nutrients and energy. And where do apes fit in your scheme? Are they on the Skinnerian machine side too?
We’re finding out more and more about the ways that animals communicate with one another–for instance, the recent discovery of the extremely deep-tone vibrations that elephants use to communicate with each other over miles and miles. We didn’t know about that before, because we couldn’t hear it.
And mice sing to attract mates, and we couldn’t hear that either
The fact that animals don’t think and feel the exact same way we do does not mean that they don’t think and feel at all.
Exactly.
Exhibiting human-like feelings/behaviors & Exhibiting zero mental/emotional activity are the extremes, not the only possibilities.
Okay, I see what the problem is here- someone still in college thinks he knows more than say, folks with 25 years more life experience (some even WORKING with animals!!) and/or a few degrees already under their belts, and because of that, no one is going to be able to tell him SQUAT.
As for “how apes fit in”- oh, they haven’t covered that yet. Ask next year.
What [Daisy] could not comprehend is that I had things to do that might require not paying attention to her. I could not take my eyes off her, ever. If I wasn’t paying attention to her, she’d chew the furniture to get me to do so. AFter a few days it became clear that this was not just a puppy’s initial curiosity, but really a need to be interacted with constantly. She also clearly hated being couped up in the apartment. So despite my need to do things like study, or cook, or clean, Daisy required 3-4 daily outings to the nearby dog park. This wasn’t a “walk to poo” scenario. It’s more like she’d refuse to come home, and when she got in it she would constantly whine to be let back out again. So I found myself spending 4-5 hours a day walking her by day 4 (that is, aside for the times when my husband would take her walking).
In my experience, if they’re past the teething stage, dogs chew things to reduce stress. Being rehomed is stressful. Being frustrated is stressful. But you don’t have to accede to your dog’s every wish, any more than Don’t read this Chet you would accede to a child’s every wish. (”Mommy buy me buy me!” “I don’t wanna go home!” “I’m NOT tired, I don’t wanna go to bed!”) Just give the dog a Kong to chew on with some peanut butter stuck in it. Books such as Second Hand Dog help explain how to speed the adjustment to your new home.
Dogs are hierarchical. They’re happy once they learn their place in the hierarchy. Being in charge is stressful. Ideally you would have been pack leader, followed by your husband, with the dog on the bottom.
Beetles can. They knew when I was there to feed them and clean the beetle dorms.
Really Chet? The beetles jumped till their eyes were at a level with your face? Or did you crouch so the beetles could see you eye to eye? And then did they lick your hands or your face? Because that’s how dogs greet someone they like, when the person returns home.
Awesome comment! Thank you, Nicole @ 371:
— unrelated —
I don’t eat honey for a variety of reasons, including these reasons:
a) I don’t need to eat honey. If I don’t need to eat something, I think twice before eating it (same goes for meat, dairy, sweets, sports drinks, etc.) So if I do choose to eat it, I weigh the pros and cons. Honey doesn’t enough pros. (I don’t think twice about eating healthy foods my body needs, like fruits and veggies, beans and rice…)
b) Most honey bees are a human created breed that cannot live in the wild. The bee colonies are treated with anti-biotics and other chemicals. Bees are a necessary part of the ecosystem, but farmed bees are not the same as wild bees. Most bee farming actually poses a danger to our environment. Our current methods of farming - factory farming - are drastically changing our planet. This effects all of us, humans and animals alike. I try to refrain from participating in most factory farmed foods.
c) The bees in bee farms are usually killed. Bees in the wild are only killed when there is a conflict of interest between the bee and the human.
d) However, there are virtually no more wild bees in the US. We’ve killed them all. Nowadays, beekeepers go around selling the services of their bees to pollinate crops, doing what wild bees and other insects used to do before we went haywire with pesticides. The thing is, my choice to eat honey or not eat honey doesn’t really affect beekeepers lives since most of their income nowadays comes from selling the bees’ services, not their products.
There is, however, controversy among vegans on this aspect. And if anyone is seriously interested in reading about it (instead of refusing to do any real research and simply spreading untrue rumors about vegans and animal rights activists) I suggest you go read about it. Here’s one link, but I’m sure you’re capable of using Google:
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/is-honey-vegan.htm
Here are a couple of YouTube video’s that may help someoone decide for themselves if animals have human like emotions. It’s obvious to me it depends on both the specific individual animal within a species and the specific species. Opossum’s I suspect don’t have the same range of emotions as chimpanzee’s and one chimp may have a greater range of emotions than another chimp.
Who knew lions had such feelings?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=036_1186245897
It ain’t over till it’s over!
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/battle-at-kruger/2316465061
And mice sing to attract mates, and we couldn’t hear that either
We need to introduce them to Barry White - that way they’ll sing in a register we can understand.
Rumblelizard Actually, recent research indicates that elephants are self aware. Puts them into a rather exclusive club, only humans, dolphins, apes, and now elephants, recognize themselves in a mirror.
As for “adopt a highway”, I don’t see any linguistic subversion there because no one is trying to ban driving on highways, or lobby for human rights for highways, etc.
As for honey, well, I think it demonstrates my basic point, which is that the Animal Rights people have a view of reality so radically different from mine that regular commercial transactions (ie: purchasing a pet) acquire meanings, subtexts, etc that I would never imagine exist and therefore it is in my best interests to avoid dealing with the Animal Rights people in that area, and to encourage others to avoid dealing with the Animal Rights people in that area.
Actually, I’ll admit that I’m now wondering what hidden traps await if I deal with Animal Rights people in *any* area.
Has anyone else here run across this sort of problem in reverse? The same sort of people who would go nuts before “approving” a pet sale turning around and telling you that you are horrible and inhumane because you won’t keep an animal?
I’m allergic, and prefer not to live my life drugged just to breathe at home, but I’ve had to deal with some horribly aggressive folks trying to convince me I must keep their favorite type of animal in my home. Because I shouldn’t place my own health or comfort above those of the animals in shelter.
I’d also be horribly offended if a close family member (parents, siblings) got a furred animal. They might as well slap me in the face and tell me I’m not welcome in their home, since they all know I’m allergic.
Has anyone else here run across this sort of problem in reverse? The same sort of people who would go nuts before “approving” a pet sale turning around and telling you that you are horrible and inhumane because you won’t keep an animal?
I’m allergic, and prefer not to live my life drugged just to breathe at home, but I’ve had to deal with some horribly aggressive folks trying to convince me I must keep their favorite type of animal in my home. Because I shouldn’t place my own health or comfort above those of the animals in shelter.
I’d also be horribly offended if a close family member (parents, siblings) got a furred animal. They might as well slap me in the face and tell me I’m not welcome in their home, since they all know I’m allergic.
In my experience, if they’re past the teething stage, dogs chew things to reduce stress. Being rehomed is stressful. Being frustrated is stressful. But you don’t have to accede to your dog’s every wish, any more than Don’t read this Chet you would accede to a child’s every wish. (”Mommy buy me buy me!” “I don’t wanna go home!” “I’m NOT tired, I don’t wanna go to bed!”) Just give the dog a Kong to chew on with some peanut butter stuck in it. Books such as Second Hand Dog help explain how to speed the adjustment to your new home.
Oh, Hector, the books (including that one) was the first thing we went out to buy right after toys, including a kong or two. And yes, I am well aware that the dog was stressed. I was stressed too at the time, and she just added to my stress along with hers, and it left my husband in the middle, torn between both of us as stressors. It was a lose-lose, so we had to turn it around by finding the dog a home she would do better in. My outrage at the shelter counselor came later, when I realized it would have been his job to do in the first place, rather than mine. His attitude was more like that of a salesman (”oh, if you want it just buy it, it’ll work out for you”) than that of a caretaker. Every dog owner I’ve talked to since has reached a similar take, but has provided stories to try and balance for my experience. After the quality experience I had with dealing with a small rescue group that resembles these so called “coastal elitists” insofar as their basic operation, however, I suspect I’ll just stick to private rescue groups when it comes to pets.
So my point is, call it elitist, call it draconian, call it what you will, but I learned the hard way that dog ownership is not and should not be for everyone at every stage in their life. Ditto with cat ownership. If there are people out there willing to point that out to you, you can think the worst of them, by seeing their assertions as judging you as a person, and take umbrage at it, or you can chill out and realize that they might just be doing their best trying to avoid a mistake, both for the pet and for yourself.
That is what this whole Ellen mess was: a dog who needed a permanent home was being shuffled around like a football, if we are to believe it went to a trainer for nine days, then to Ellen’s house for four days, and then onward to the hairdresser’s home. What a dog who has been rescued needs above all is stability and patience in order to get a second chance at life, so shuffling such a dog around in such a quick succession is just about the worst thing you can do. So the dog bore the brunt of it, the kids were also scarred, and Ellen got egg on her face. If you ask me, Moms and Mutts was not “draconian” enough in Ellen’s case.
Amanda is so spot on in her assessment of these authoritarian & hysterical people who police these ‘rescues’ that i could kiss her: i thought i was the only one going through this bullshittery with these idiots.
After doing months of research & weighing what kind of dog would do best with me & vice versa, Ive been looking into adopting a specific kind of dog. Im as close to a perfect candidate for adoption as their overwrought rules could conceive, Ive even adopted rescues,previously. The worst thing i ever could have done was get involved with these people on a board where the biggest rescue for this breed was prominent. They comprise about 85% of this breeds’ rescues (they see them & immediately pull them from shelters accross the US before anyone has a chance to adopt), so chances are if you see a dog you fall in love with on petfinder, they are the ones who have to approve you.
And of course they turned me down for the slightest thing you can possibly imagine (im a committed animal activist &have been for all of my life),& then did exactly what Amanda noted: gave me hysterical horror stories about animal cruelty, as if one had anything to do with the other! They are irrational, petty, & power hungry bitches –there is NO excuse for their behavior in how they treat normal everyday people who are no threat to animals.
I am an example of an animal person in the good sense,&all i was looking for is to give another dog a safe, loving home. The fact that they have someone like me scrambling for proof to them of this fact, is pathetic & demeaning. ANd they seem to get off on it; i think it truly does give them a sense of power over others. Whether they were looking for this when they join in the rescue or not, i think they become addicted to the byproduct of becoming a marina baklis petty tyrant –& this is by-and-large mostly women over other women who want to adopt this particular type of dog. They use these rescues as no an activist or humanitarian would; they use it with a weird combo of a hoarder-type mentality crosses with a power-mad martyr-type of hyper self-righteousness.
I also firmly believe that in my case, there was class prejudice at play: i should have never mentioned online that i was in a bad financial landscape, where the economy is in the shitter; or that i didnt have a digital camera; or that i cant afford to travel; or that i didnt live in a house; or that i complained that breeders are charging exhorbiant prices at $1000-3000 & i cant afford that; or that i had no yard, etc… Im not only condemned intheir eyes for my present “loser” condition; but for my future, as well. It doesnt matter to them a whit that i went without to give my very old last dog a comfortable life his last two years (& that i actually have the vet records to prove it). Why? Because theyve already passed judgment on me & so i dont ‘get’ one of their ‘toys’, basically –that’s the kind of childish behavior it comes down to . Go play that TMZ video of Marina Baktis, clutching the dog & not letting any of the hairdressers family near it. THAT is the mentality of these type of people (NOT all animal people or shelter/rescue workers; just this very sizable amount).
I now see the same prejudice extending to other people that happen to make the same comments—a turning up of the nose, cliquish & snobby behavior exhibited… They rail about backyard breeders & millers–both of whom are excreble–but they accept ZERO responsibility for turning people away from adopting ‘their’ rescued dogs en masse (if they even did it to me, there is something SERIOUSLY wrong.), straight into the arms of backyard breeders who breed recklessly for money & millers/stores, who do the same in even more vile conditions.
Anyone who doesnt think this asinine behavior isnt a real & sizable amount of the ‘rescue’ community, take the challenge: Go onto Petfinders.com & inquire about adoption from a dozen or two rescues & see what the response is from your applications. Unless you have exceptional luck, you are bound to get some crazies on the line, who will GLADY make you dance for them & overstep all the boundaries of human dignity to get their fix of power over another person come begging for their approval. The sick fucks.
“3. If you can’t see that the gendered contempt for the people who do animal rescue work is on a continuum with the gendered contempt for women working for social service agencies, in child care, or as domestics, then I can’t help you. It’s not your life and not your cause, and if you don’t understand it, I can’t make you see. But I can tell you, as a woman, it feels awfully close to the same thing.”
No, sorry; im a woman & youre examples dont measure up to these power trippers in rescue work that we’re focusing on. Domestics & child care workers have no power & answer to their employer./agency. Social workers have regulated guidelines to work from; they arent, like one rescuer told me, allowed to just “have an inkling” about a prospective person & reject & or demand arbitary things of them, or pass judgements on them about things that have no merit whatsoever, & are just based on their paranoia or whim.
And just because a great many of these wacked out rescuers are women, dosent absolve them of ill behaving in a way that includes demeaning, hectoring, bullying, etc, prospective adopters. Even in ways that smack of steretypical women-on-women competition or snobbishness. It happens; it’s just as inexcusable as man-on-women stereotypical ill behavior, with it’s own connotations.
‘ In real life, I work with medical researchers, and there are zealots and control freaks there, too. And those zealots are deciding what bloodthinners you get after your stroke, and making decisions about how much you can weigh and still be healthy, and dozens of similar decisions every day, so you can tell me who’s on the bigger power trip.”
Again; you dont seem to realize that the PROFESSIONALS such as those in the medical field, do not just wing their jobs; their decisions in their research arent based on personal bias, unlike what we see with the marina baklises, in their insular little rescue worlds.
Has anyone else here run across this sort of problem in reverse? The same sort of people who would go nuts before “approving” a pet sale turning around and telling you that you are horrible and inhumane because you won’t keep an animal?
I’ve only taken a few posts down entirely from Feministe, and most of them involved my pets. And one was due to the hideous comments people left when I decided to reach out to commenters to see if I could re-home my cats in anticipation of a cross-continent move that would probably stress them out way more than rehoming them locally would.
So I don’t talk about my cats anymore, and I neither confirm nor deny their existence, though I can give you a really great recipe for tortie casserole.
Ursula, I have a friend who is terrified of dogs and cats (he was attacked by dogs as a child, and the phobia has over time generalized to cats as well), and people are CONSTANTLY trying to confront him with their pets, who are OF COURSE totally different from any other dogs or cats. And he gets tense, and the animals invariably get aggressive with him. When he comes to visit, my animals get put in bedrooms. I think that kind of behavior is really cruel and irresponsible. If someone doesn’t like animals, they shouldn’t be around them, in the same way that someone who doesn’t like kids shouldn’t be forced to be a parent. Yeah, I went there with the pet/kid comparison.
Zuzu, I remember that thread, because we’d talked about my taking your kitties if it came to that. I hope that whatever the outcome was, they landed (or stayed) someplace happy and warm (though tortie casserole is delicious, it always winds up stuck in my teeth - do you do something different with yours than I do?). I’m glad Junebug hasn’t been forced into hiding; her pictures are always great.
violetmuffin, I can’t speak to your experiences with rescue, but just ‘cause you’re XX doesn’t mean you can’t be sexist, and I’d say “hysterical” and “bitches”, “cliquish” and “snobby” all count as fairly sexist descriptions of people who you probably have every reason in the world to be angry with. As for medical researchers, google “evidence-based” medicine, especially in regards to obesity or pregnancy and childbirth, if you want an eye-opener in terms of how medical decisions are often made (hint: a lot of times, it’s “I did this one time before, and it seemed to work and no one died,” not “we’ve rigorously tested this and our results are promising”.) Which is not to say that one group isn’t more extensively or expensively educated than the other; but we give one group’s ability to extrapolate based on past experiences a lot more credibility than we do the other’s, and I think that gender plays into that assessment (and let me emphasize that I don’t think it’s the only thing that affects such assessments), especially when you’re talking about people who have been in the animal rescue game for decades. And please remember that I said I work in medical research, so it’s a critique I’m pretty qualified to make from the inside.
How many of you believe in love at first sight?
Can you really fall in love with a dog from a picture? Is that really the one and only dog for you?
I think not.
If you want to adopt a rescue cat or dog and don’t want to worry about getting approved, just go to whatever shelter is your city’s default. Find the nearest kill shelter and choose an animal. They are really not going to be all that strict at those places because the choice is clear: euthanasia or imperfect pet parent.
But if you are adamant about getting a particular breed at a particular age - that is, if you’re just as picky about the pet you want as the rescue workers are about the pet parent they’ll approve - well, then, you get what you deserve.
Yeah if I had read all of that I would have thought, “Wow this poster really seems like she can’t afford to have a dog. If this is not the message you wanted to send, you need to work on your salesmanship skills.
For me, the red flag would be balking at paying $1000 for a dog. The cost of a dog is not the initial expense, it’s the upkeep. Assuming a ten year life span, $1000 comes out to $100 a year, or about 30 cents a day. So essentially you were saying, “I can’t afford a dog that costs me 30 cents a day.”
For me, the red flag would be balking at paying $1000 for a dog. The cost of a dog is not the initial expense, it’s the upkeep. Assuming a ten year life span, $1000 comes out to $100 a year, or about 30 cents a day. So essentially you were saying, “I can’t afford a dog that costs me 30 cents a day.”
There is a considerable financial difference, however, between an up-front cost, and a cost distributed over time. $1000 up front is a lot to come up with at once. $0.30 a day for ten years isn’t, as long as the paychecks keep coming every two weeks.
Someone who can afford upkeep over time (moderately-priced pet food, basic medical care, perhaps the willingness to put the dog down humanely if medical care becomes excessive) might not be able to put up that much in one go.
There seem to be other economic expectations involved, as well - buying a pet bed, for example, rather than folding up an old blanket as a pet bed. If the expectation is that needs are met by buying things, versus by figuring out how to meet the need in an affordable way, a lot of people who could meet needs will be excluded for the inability to meet the need in the expected “pay for it” way.
“For me, the red flag would be balking at paying $1000 for a dog.”
That’s a little ridiculous, though. Pretty much everyone I know who’s all about the animals would tell you to go to hell if you wanted $1,000 for a dog or cat*, not because they’re bad owners who are too cheap to spend $1,000 on a dog or a cat, but because $1,000 doesn’t grow on trees and that’s money that should be going towards food, supplies, and the eventual vet bills.
If there’s a generous-but-finite amount of money in your budget for a pet, an unusually steep purchase price/adoption fee will eat into that in a way that a lot of people aren’t going to be okay with when there’s another, comparable animal whose need for a home may be much greater and whose lower initial cost will enable them to give it more and better.
You’re right about that being an impolitic thing to say to a rescue worker, though. If they have a large number of good candidates for their dogs, they’re less likely to ask you why you feel that way and more likely to just stamp ‘cheapskate’ on your file and move onto the next application.
*None of these people are into purebreds. Purebred folks’ mileage may vary.
Pets have their own beds? Who knew? My aunt’s dachshund did sleep in a cardboard box lined with an old towel.
Collar, leash, water bowl, food bowl, chew toys for puppies, maybe an old stuffed animal. Grooming supplies, depending on the breed. A mini Dremel tool with sanding drum for nail care. Toothbrush and paste (Vet teeth cleaning is $250 here — I hope the alternative to tartar removal is not euthanasia.) Assuming no health issues, shots, heartworm medication and flea prevention.
$1000 is pretty low for some breeds, like bulldogs, that have to be delivered by c-section most of the time, or for rare breeds. But again, that’s not even a drop in the bucket compared to the lifetime costs of animal care.
“just ‘cause you’re XX doesn’t mean you can’t be sexist, and I’d say “hysterical” and “bitches”, “cliquish” and “snobby” all count as fairly sexist descriptions of people who you probably have every reason in the world to be angry with.”
Im new & frankly not erudite in the political correctness of my language as most posters are on this blog. I knew some would read into & pick apart the wording, but i have no better way to explain it–it’s stereotypical woman/woman conflict in a lot of ways, what these (all in my case) women are displaying (from what i see). Im sure that do the same re men, but i havent personally witnessed it, &am giving my broader account of the experience, as having been on a board.
As for the actual words ‘hysterical’, ‘bitches’, ‘cliquish’ & ’snobbish’, it may be due to my limited expression, but i’d use all of those to describe the same behavior of men who acted the same way (yes, even bitches; & i have before –& am at a loss as to how else those behaviors would be descibed re men).
” Is that really the one and only dog for you?
I think not.”
“But if you are adamant about getting a particular breed at a particular age - …- well, then, you get what you deserve. ”
Wow, you are an unmittagated runny asshole. I pity anyone who even collides into your sphere.
I previously stated that i had done research on what kind of dog would be best for myself (you dont know what has been factored in or why, & so should STFU)—AND the dog. You dont want people misjudging & taking dogs back because ‘it doesnt work out’ with them; yet you’d shit on someone who actually thought out the process in order to have the most successful adoption & give the dog a life home,– just to shit on them. Youre a first rate case of rampant runs.
“There is a considerable financial difference, however, between an up-front cost, and a cost distributed over time. $1000 up front is a lot to come up with at once. $0.30 a day for ten years isn’t, as long as the paychecks keep coming every two weeks.”
I live on a budget, & i am doing it moreso than ever, because of the economy. I can still give a loving, secure home to a dog, & in fact, at a higher standard than most people actually even bother to do, with better food, nutrition & medical care than the norm. If i have to deny myself, i do so gladly in favor of my dog, who is like family to me.
As for my living in a depressed region –so, the answer is to not let anyone in the region have a dog, if they apply ? That is bullshit; class racism,plain & simple. I own my home (not a house w/ a yard, but a home), I have a longtime job, i can prove my finances, i have been approved to adopt a rescue before, i have years of vet records & references that are solid –but none of that is good enough for some people. A rescue’s purpose is to find a loving, safe home for the dog. The fact that they would turn away one based on petty issues –& the only issue given to me was unbelievably petty– can only be called irrational & asinine.
Violet,
My advice: never talk about your lack of financial resources; talk about the care you gave to your last dog. Don’t dwell on your lack of a house or a yard, talk about how you ran with the old dog, took him to dog parks, camping, etc. You can always borrow a digital camera if you want to upload a picture. Don’t complain about what breeders charge for a dog; that money doesn’t cover their expenses of going to shows, etc. Just say you’d rather give an adult dog a good home than wait for a puppy.
Bottom line: Emphasize the positive, never dwell on the negative.
Your best reference for a new dog is your vet, who can attest to the care you gave to your old dog.
hector,
If you read carefully above, I did use my vet as a ref, since there are extensive records backing up thequality of care ive given over the years; you can actually see how thorough ive been, & even see a lack of incident or accident with my pets/s.
I did try to show how much i consider my pets as family & my responsible ownership; and point in fact, i was looking for an older, fixed dog –not a puppy. I really cannot stress how much this was out of my hands from the start, as they were pretty determined to pass judgment & refuse adoption regardless of these issues, & focus in on the one reason that they gave me. But it very well could hacve been an even more plausible (but still asinine) one, like not having a yard. And they 1) asked for that info on the application, & 2) would have found that out when they did a home check, so in this case, there’s just no pleasing the marina baktises of the world.
“Baktis/to baktis” ought to be a subject & verb for describing the special rescue assholes & their assholic behavior.
That’s a little ridiculous, though. Pretty much everyone I know who’s all about the animals would tell you to go to hell if you wanted $1,000 for a dog or cat*, not because they’re bad owners who are too cheap to spend $1,000 on a dog or a cat, but because $1,000 doesn’t grow on trees and that’s money that should be going towards food, supplies, and the eventual vet bills.
Agreed. Anytime I hear someone say something to the effect “$1000/some exorbitant amount of money to most working/middle class people is a drop in the bucket”, red flags signifying “clueless upper/upper-middle-class jerk” or “spoiled trust-fund baby” goes up in my head. It often makes me wonder if they ever lived a period in their lives when scraping together $5, $10, or $30 dollars for basic necessities is a struggle as it is for many Americans, much less one friggin grand all at once.
Though I’ve heard this talk from people all over the political spectrum, it is especially disappointing when it comes from supposed progressives who are ostensibly supposed to be working to improve the quality of life for all.
No one’s going to ask you for a thousand bucks for a shelter dog or a mixed-breed. For some purebreeds, as puppies, straight from a reputable breeder, that’s the going rate. It’s dog capitalism at work: an English bulldog or a Great Dane is like the D&G or Chanel of dogland. Plus, with a lot of breeds, you’re signing up for pretty much guaranteed extra vet bills throughout the dog’s life. That’s why so many of us go for the economy shelter models, with their much lower up-front and lifetime maintenance costs.
It often makes me wonder if they ever lived a period in their lives when scraping together $5, $10, or $30 dollars for basic necessities is a struggle as it is for many Americans, much less one friggin grand all at once.
Dude, I have had to drop $500 at a time at the emergency vet. If you have a hard time scraping $30 together, what this tells me is your budget is limited to disposable pets. What are you going to do if your dog eats some castor beans, or blocks his intestines after eating a wastebasket redolent of menstrual products? Euthanasia is not the preferred doggy health care plan. And when I was rolling pennies to buy food from the day-old bakery, I did not get any extra mouths to feed.
i pay those high vet bills, too ($800 for routine dental!((on a 15yr old dog)); $200-400 for a routine visit, sometimes) –i save up for them; & they can also be paid over time, not all in full. And i pay nearly double sometimes for the vet i use, who is just the best you can find– extremely caring, competant & thorough, with years of experience & honors behind him. Even on my salary, i can afford pet care & emergencies.
And the point stays: $1000-3000 upfront– for a dog that the good breeder, we are told, will tell you she does it (breeds) “for the love” of it (the breed) –is a ridiculous handicap on anyone who isnt well-off, & starts you out with a deficit, in the care of your dog.
Purebred dogs cost money. If you can’t afford it, then don’t get one. Find a senior dog, or a nice mixed breed.
What’s the problem?
seriously - the pet forum boards are loaded with people who want cheap free purebred puppies. Their first comment is usually, “those breeders charge thousands, I can’t afford that” - followed by a request for a cheap purebred puppy. Sometimes they’ll accept the idea of a senior dog, sometimes they’ll insist on the puppy.
Stud fees for a dog range from $300-$1500, depending on the breed. A c-section for a dog is going to cost at least 600 bucks, depending on how complicated the delivery is, the size of the bitch, the amount and kind of anaesthesia needed, etc. Plus care of the pregnant bitch, plus care and socialization of the pups (who have to be attended 24 hours a day for the first 3 days of life), plus usually preliminary vet exams and vaccinations for the pups, and it adds up fast. And a lot of bitches, especially younger ones, have only one or two pups to a litter, which means that the price of the pups go up in an attempt to recoup at least some of the cost (and a two-pup litter is always a loss for the breeder). Breeders rarely make big profits, and when they do, it’s almost always at the expense of the health of their dogs. At the risk of sounding like a broken record: shelter, shelter, shelter. Lovely dogs, less than $150 in most places for a dog who will love you just as much as its purebred cousin.
You’re not entitled to a specific breed of puppy any more than you’re entitled to a Mercedes, or a 7 bedroom home on the beach, or to the job of your dreams, or to fuck George Clooney, you know? Welcome to early 21st-century US-style capitalism; it’s not really all that enjoyable of a ride.
The problem is that dogs cost money, even if you get them for free. Violet knows how much doggy upkeep costs, and she budgets accordingly.
You can get a shelter dog and feed him Old Roy dog food, but here the vet charges the same no matter where the dog came from.
Stop the presses and hold the phone! I don’t want to get a rep as the Hollywood Tattletale, but apparently the real issue with the dog was that Portia adopted it but Ellen gave it away. Could Ellen and Portia be headed for Splitsville? http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/621261,CST-FTR-zp26.article
How many of you believe in love at first sight?
Well, I didn’t…before some jackass dumped a bunch of Great Pyrs in our broader community…and three of them ended up in our front forty….
It happens…all of our dumped cases were adoptable…but down the line, I got myself an unadoptable Pyr…
It happens.