Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- From: ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani)
- Date: 19 Oct 2007 02:25:05 GMT
In article <1192751939.107740.112800@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, seerialmom@xxxxxxxxx (Seerialmom) writes:
| On Oct 18, 4:21 pm, Richard Evans <info...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >
| > >Richard Evans <info...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| > >>Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
| >
| > >>>No. The bitch in charge of the agency made a point of giving the dog to
| > >>>another family, just to punish the dog, the children, and Ellen.
| >
| > >>The woman in charge gave the dog to another family because her
| > >>organization prohibits adopting dogs to families with children under
| > >>14, as were both the kids in the intermediate family.
| >
| > >>Why you have to cast it in such harsh terms is beyond me.
| >
| > >That's an odd policy. Some children are more than capable of training a
| > >dog, while some teenagers are uninterested in the family dog.
| >
| > Yes, it is. I was in animal rescue for a number of years, and having
| > restrictions on the ages of children is common. Our cat adoption
| > group, for instance, would not adopt kittens to a household with
| > children under five. A limit of fourteen for dogs seems unnecessarily
| > conservative, but then the adopter accepts the terms when he signs the
| > contract.
|
| So what happens if the adopter gets pregnant or adopts a baby a few
| months later? The "organization" has future rights to remove the pet?
Probably yes. These shelters take themselves _very_ seriously.
I adopted a cat about nine years ago, picking an adult that was to be
destroyed in the next few days. (My theory is that kittens usually
have a better chance of being adopted.) The contract had the same
clause about having to return the animal to the shelter and not
transferring it to anyone else. It also said that if the shelter
ever (in their sole opinion) found the original owner I had to
return the animal. I think (but I can't remember for sure) that
it said that if my circumstances changed from what they had determined
during their background investigation they could take the animal away
as well.
On the day I was to pick up the cat the shelter got a chip insertion
gun. (Seriously, they were unpacking it while I was there.) Turns
out they had a strict policy that all animals had to be chipped,
starting with my cat. I didn't particularly want the chip and I
didn't like the way they were looking at the gun as if it were a
great new toy. I talked to a lot of people. They said that my
choices were to have the cat chipped or have the cat destroyed on
schedule. I asked exactly why they needed to do this. They
eventually explained that they needed a positive way to trace the
cat back to me so they could prosecute me if I abandoned or transferred
it. I asked if a tattoo in the ear might do as well but they countered
that I could have a tattoo removed. Interestingly the cat developed
a progressive neurological condition which nobody can really explain
and which is starting to cause her serious problems. I always wondered
if there was some sort of immunological reaction to the chip...
In any case, I no longer feel quite as sympathetic or charitable when
these shelters complain about all the unplaced animals and their need
of more money to feed/house them. How much of their budget do you
suppose goes to lawyers?
Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- From: Thanatos
- Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- From: ~consul
- Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- From: Anim8rFSK
- Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- From: Tony Calguire
- Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- References:
- Ellen's puppy sob story
- From: stonej
- Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- From: Seerialmom
- Ellen's puppy sob story
- Prev by Date: Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- Next by Date: Re: CSI-Jorja has to go
- Previous by thread: Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- Next by thread: Re: Ellen's puppy sob story
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|