 |
Business Directory |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coupons |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Classifieds |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
| | Author | Messages | |
DesertNewbie
Posts:531
 | | 10/20/2007 9:11 AM |
 Alert | This pisses me off so much I can't even explain it!
Rescues are SUPPOSED to be in the business of finding good homes for unwanted pets. I can't believe the audacity of this "rescue" to have a rule about not placing a small dog into a family with kids under the age of 14!!!! What an asinine rule!!!
The dog was cared for properly.
The dog was loved.
The dog was in a home and not a burden on the rescue or in a kill shelter like so many others.
Who cares about Ellen signing a piece of paper about returning it if she couldn't keep it? She did the right thing by placing it in a good home without troubling the rescue or tapping into their "limited" resources to foster it until another family could be found.
They should give that dog back to the family and then close their "rescue" doors immediately. They obviously have no real clue as to their actual cause. These places, in my opinion, are no better than the puppy mills producing the unwanted pets to begin with. They are only in it for the "adoption fees".
Sad...very sad. | | | |
| | TheShermanator
Posts:277
| | 10/20/2007 9:39 AM |
Alert | You're killing me.
Are you serious?
Rescues do this for a reason. There are many people out there who adopt a dog, do not pay attention to it, dog bites child, dog is returned. This is a small rescue agency who most likely did not have the resources to handle returned dogs. You do not know the whole story.
Your comment about in it for the adopting fees is ridiculous. Do you know how much it costs to properly vet and care for a foster dog? A lot of money. Adoption fees rarely cover all the costs.
As for returning the dog to the agency, this is common to most groups. Adopting agencies understand they may received returns, and will take these dogs back into their homes. It is usually a comforting idea to adopter that if the animal does not work out in their hone, the rescue agency will take it back, and find it a new one. Rescue agencies are prepared for this.
One of me greyhounds was a bounce. Sherman was originally adopted to another family. He's the perfect example of the child rule, and why agencies demand the dogs be returned to them. The family he was first adopted to had a young child, and the parents promised they were prepared to teach their toddler how to behave around the dog. No problem. The dog was adopted to the family. 2 weeks later Sherman was returned because he snapped at the child. Why? Because the child was most likely climbing all over him, poking him, etc. When the family returned Sherman, the kid couldn't stop poking him. Poor Sherman. Fortunately, we got him, and our gain is their loss. I hear of this all the time - parents promising they are going to teach their children how to behave around the dog, they don't - dog bites child- dog is returned. There are many other shelters out there who DO adopt to families with children under 14. Go adopt from one of those instead.
Yes, it was a buredn to take the dog back, but agencies are prepared for that.
Ellen managed to use her show to create hysterics. I am disgusted with her. She managed to shut down this rescue organization in one fell swoop. Boy, she showed them, didn't she? Rather than her display of hysterics, why couldn't she calmly explained the situation, and then perhaps devoted a segment to rescue agencies and why they have their policies? I'll bet you that would have promoted even more adoptions.
The agency had to take the dog back, or they would have set a precedence, changing their own policies. Just because she's 'Ellen'- big star- does not mean she can push them around. Ellen broke the rules, she did not read all her paperwork - she signed a contract. Yeah, its not fair, but life goes on.
Her hysterics were disgusting, she should be ashamed of herself. | |
Formerly known as 'greytxracers'
"My greyhound is smarter than your honor student"
| |
|
| | TheShermanator
Posts:277
| | 10/20/2007 9:39 AM |
Alert | | ... double post | |
Formerly known as 'greytxracers'
"My greyhound is smarter than your honor student"
| |
|
| | Pet Social Worker
Posts:0
| | 10/20/2007 9:48 AM |
Alert | Whew....Shermanator....never saw you so heated. I like it! Good Points. Glad you could clear up the "child" rule. It's hard to explain to some potential adopters sometimes but when explained fully, it makes perfect sense. I've had people get SO angry w/ me before when I have told them that I don't think a dog is a good match for their family....for whatever reason / not just the child rule....and it's always hard to deal w/ but for the safety of the family members & the pet, it's important to clearly define why a pet can or can not be adopted into a specific household. Awhile back I helped adopt out a dog that was cat aggressive. Potential adopters said the 2 pets would ALWAYS stay separated - doors/gates...etc. Well, that didn't happen, the cat was harmed (almost killed) & then the family blamed the rescue. Despite the rescue clearly explaining why they were hesitant to adopt to them. The Rescue should have stuck to their guns. Live & Learn....and hope no one / nothing gets hurt in the process.
I personally haven't read or heard about the EG situation & would have to do so before commenting specifically and intelligently about it, so I'll just keep my mouth shut about that. | | | |
|
| | DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 10:28 AM |
Alert | | . | | | |
|
| | DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 10:30 AM |
Alert | Don't get me wrong. Rescues who do the right thing have my full support.
However, you contradict yourself in your own post. How is it that this place, "is a small rescue agency who most likely did not have the resources to handle returned dogs" and at the same time, they demanded this dog to be returned instead of re-homed by the original adopter? Why couldn't they just allow the dog to stay where it was loved and cared for?
I'll tell you why! Because when Ellen found it a good home, the rescue place didn't get their money. That's why!
As for the child rule, this was a PUPPY! Not a large breed known for visciousness...a PUPPY that was very loved by two little girls! This act (by the rescue) was cruel, ridiculous and unnecessary! | | | |
|
|  | DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 10:55 AM |
Alert | One more thing, just so we're clear and this trend of conversation doesn't continue...
Posted By TheShermanator on 10/20/2007 9:39 AM
Your comment about in it for the adopting fees is ridiculous. Do you know how much it costs to properly vet and care for a foster dog? A lot of money. Adoption fees rarely cover all the costs.
Spare me the lecture. I am specifically talking about this rescue and others like it...not all rescues. I have done a tremendous amount of rescue work myself over the years and I am all too familiar with the costs involved. However, Ellen placing this puppy with her hairdresser and the two little girls who adored it, didn't cost the rescue a thing and they should have stayed the hell of it. This puppy was in NO DANGER and should have been left alone! | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2559
| | 10/20/2007 11:46 AM |
Alert | Okay, I am gonna put on my asbestos underwear and jump in on this thread. I am surprised that it took this long for the subject to come up here. When I saw the news clip, I was darn near crying myself.
Our home is one where animals are treated as people. The only boundaries are for health and safety. Other than that, they pretty much have the run of the house (or barnyard). However, animals are property under the law. What if you bought a new car and the contract said that you couldn't sell it for more than 25 percent of what you paid for it over the next three years? Sure, you wouldn't sign the contract, but the point is the car should be yours to do with as you wish.
Beyond the property issue is a common sense issue. If an animal is being properly cared for and loved, why would a rescue want to take it back other than to exert undue power and control over the issue. They're being bullies. Puppies and kids go together. I have had animals since I can remember. I learned responsibility and I think I may have even acquired some compassion from caring for my dogs and cats.
I believe the contract said not in a home with a child under 14. What's the difference if the dog bites a 14 year old? Plus, it's unlikely the rescue would be a party to the suit when they were a disinterested third party in the transaction.
The whole idea is to find safe, loving homes for animals. I can see why someone would buy an animal from a pet store - less hassles and less personal intrusion. I have got some of my best pets from boxes of puppies or kittens outside the entrance to a supermarket. Yeah, I know that animals are picked up for research and for nefarious purposes. I can understand, and fully support, taking measures to see that an animal doesn't meet this fate. However, taking a puppy away from little kids who loved it in a loving home that wanted it is cruel and mean. If there was ever a time to make an exception to a rule, this was it.
| |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 12:49 PM |
Alert | BRAVO!
The kids, in this situation, are 11 and 12. They are old enough to know not to not poke, prod, pull the tail of or otherwise mistreat this puppy. And like DD said, what is the difference if a dog bites an 11 year old or a 16 year old? A dog bite is a dog bite. This is a Brussels Griffon mix...not exactly known as an attack breed.
Kids were safe.
Puppy was safe.
Rescue was out of line, contract or no contract. | | | |
|
| | Pet Social Worker
Posts:0
| | 10/20/2007 4:12 PM |
Alert | | What kind of dog was it? Can someone post the link to the article please. thanks! | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2559
| | 10/20/2007 4:43 PM |
Alert | Here is a pretty thorough story with lots of stuff that I hadn't heard before.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21336607/
His name is Iggy and he's as Brussels Griffon terrier mix. Here's his mug shot:
 | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2559
| | 10/20/2007 4:45 PM |
Alert | Guess the picture won't work.
Here is a link to the story with the picture.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21367733/ | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | Sapo
Posts:186
| | 10/20/2007 5:31 PM |
Alert | I am 100% behind everything stated by TheShermanator.
When Ellen took this dog she SIGNED A CONTRACT stating that if she could no longer keep the dog, she would return it to the rescue. There are many, many reasons for contracts of this sort -- for the safety of the dog and the safety of adopting families. But Ellen completely ignored this contract. Because she is a big star, the contract meant nothing to her -- SHE ALONE decided that she knew better.
And because of this, the rescue -- which had previously placed hundreds of dogs -- has been shut down. What a terrible shame.
Sapo | | | |
|
| | ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 6:59 PM |
Alert | I agree with Shermantor. I am involved with animal rescue and I make no qualms about who I am in it for if people give me a hard time about the "No Kids Under a Certain Age" rule.. I'm not in it for the people, I'm in it for the dog's safety 100%.
If they have a small child that badgers the dog into feeling like it must defend itself.. the dog will almost alway be returned. Then, the group has a legal responsibility to inform any adopters that the dog has bitten a child, even if it was in self-defense. I would NEVER place a dog in a home with children under 5 years old... And even then only with a supervised home visit where the children could demonstrate they were mature and well behaved. Even if older children exhibited any aggressive behavior towards the dog I would not hesitate to tell people that they had no business getting a dog.
On that note.. while Ellen signed a contract (which is not legally binding because "adoption" only applies to humans. Dogs are property in the eyes of the law) the group could have handled it better. Like I said above, I am in it 100% for the dogs and it is NOT in the best interest of the dog to be shuffled around like that. They could have come to the family and asked them to complete an adoption application and have a home visit like everyone else with the placement of the dog pending on the outcome. Ripping the dog away from it's family is ridiculous.
As far as adoption groups making "money".. you're out of your mind. Adoption groups are federally registered as 501(C)(3) non-profit and every single cent must be accounted for. Even if they get a good deal on vetting and the adoption fee is $25.00 over the actual cost, the money doesn't go anywhere but to the bank for the next dogs.. Because there will always be sick and injured dogs that deplete a group's bank account in the blink of an eye.. So before you begrudge any group adoption fees, know that they RARELY have any paid employees and that everything is volunteered. All the time and travel transporting to and from the vet and shelters as well as phone time talking to people, group meetings (federally requires monthly) and doing home visits is all at the personal expense of the volunteers. | | | |
|
| | DesertDweller
Posts:2559
| | 10/20/2007 7:19 PM |
Alert | Subway, you hit it right on the head: they should have worked to see what they could do to leave the dog where it was. I can't imagine taking an animal away from a couple of little girls who loved it. It's about what's best for the dog and whatever humans are involved.
Ellen did admit on her show that she screwed up royally. She didn't bother reading the contract and because of it the little girls were having to pay the price. I just had to replace a hard drive in my computer. Each time I put in a new program, there was a license agreement - like I am going to read the stupid thing. I have no idea what I agreed to.
This is the first time in a long time I have seen a situation where everyone involved lost something. I really think the rescue should have been more flexible.
Hey Sapo, welcome back. Shadow sends his love. He's finally gained a few pounds! | |
Stupid should hurt!
Desert Dweller - Senior Member - Posts: 2982 - Joined: Feb 2006 | |
|
| | DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 7:57 PM |
Alert | | . | | | |
|
| | DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 8:00 PM |
Alert | Posted By ilovesubway on 10/20/2007 6:59 PM
As far as adoption groups making "money".. you're out of your mind.
I'm going to say this one more time....
I AM REFERRING TO THIS RESCUE GROUP AND OTHERS [B]LIKE IT[/B], NOT ALL RESCUE GROUPS.
I think animal activists are great, until they cross that line and go from helping animals to playing God in the lives of everyone with whom they come into contract. Some of them need to come down off their damned high (rescued) horses and realize that not everyone who makes a mistake is a horrible pet owner that should lose all pet ownership privileges for the rest of their natural lives.
Your job as a rescuer is to EDUCATE and ASSIST...not DEMAND, CONDEMN, INTERFERE and HUMILIATE. | | | |
|
| | ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 8:24 PM |
Alert | | And I am stating that you're WRONG about THIS particular group.. while their motives may have been questionable.. the likelihood that they did what they did to make sure they got "their money" is slim to none. | | | |
|
| | DesertNewbie
Posts:531
| | 10/20/2007 8:44 PM |
Alert | Your post said "adoption groups" (plural), as if I have lumped them all together.
They adopt dogs to celebs and are broke? Yeah, right.
Whatever the reason the God complex demonstrated is sickening. | | | |
|
| | ilovesubway
Posts:53
| | 10/20/2007 8:53 PM |
Alert | You think they charge more for adoption fees because someone is rich? That's not legal.. the adoption fees are published and are public record. They are not subject to "negotiation"
"Regular" adoption groups adopt out to celebrities ALL the time.. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails owns two greyhounds and JK Rowling recently adopted one as well.. Groups don't "specialize" in celebrity adoptions so I'm really not seeing your connection between the income level of an adopter and the amount of money a group charges or has in the bank.
And so what if THIS adoption group has money in the bank.. It's not like the volunteers get any of it.. You seem like you begrudge them having money to help more animals.. | | | |
|
| |
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.6 |
|
|
|