WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?!?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! http://columbus.craigslist.org/pet/280232045.html PLEASE TELL ME THIS ISN'T THE SAME DOG. |
|
|
| Hi Hoffma-
Can you check your messages... I PMed you on the 22nd. I just sent you another one. |
| I didn't realize that dog (in the other post) was ALly!!!
I missed something! |
I emailed the address provided and offered to pay the adoption fee if Allie could get into rescue but I haven't gotten any reply. I sent two emails... one the 19th and another on the 21st. I wish this sheepie could get into rescue. This is the 3rd time she's been sold on Craigslist in about 2 weeks.  I just want her to have a chance at finding the right home this time around.
If anyone can actually reach the person with her, please drop me a note. I'll be out of the loop for a bit but I'll try to check messages. |
| It really makes me mad and sad for this dog. If she had just gone to rescue when her very first home couldn't keep her anymore, none of this would've happened. The adoption fee kills me. The fact that people want to be reimbursed for a bad decision or situation really bothers me. If you really cared about the dog, you worry about the home it was going to, not a few hundred lousy bucks. |
| If anyone here has any information or knows of what we could do please help! She is around central Ohio somewhere and I will personally go get her and pay the fee to put her in a happy home or a happy rescue.
Try to email the craigslist posting. I just don't know what else to do but wait and it is driving me nuts! |
| What does anyone know about this OES? Temperment? History around children, anything like that? |
| She should not be placed with children or cats from what I've read. |
6Girls wrote: She should not be placed with children or cats from what I've read.
Didn't the second owner that was a forum member here have kids and cats? Was that the problem? I don't think anyone knows what the heck is going on with this poor dog. When she finally finds a home, I think it'll be her fourth in a year. |
| Yes, I think she had been with kids but from what I've heard the best thing for Ally is a home where there are no kids, cats or other dogs. I know the second lady that had her said she was afraid she would hurt her old cat and this is why she put her back on Craigslist and also contacted a kitty rescue.
This is what the current Craigslist posting says... http://columbus.craigslist.org/pet/280232045.html "...Three year old female Olde English Sheepdog seeking loving parents to share long walks and cuddling. Attractive, loyal, friendly, love people, spayed, house trained, very good disposition. Unfortunately, I'm spoiled and used to being the baby of the household and prefer not to share my house with cats, other dogs or little kids. So if you are seeking a good lookin gal to spend some quality time with, contact me so that we can discuss this further. small adoption fee required..." I've got some outpatient surgery tomorrow but I'll try again to reach the new owner over the weekend... or maybe Monday. From what I've been told, he's torn about giving her up. I'll try to make sure he knows there's an option if he finds he can't keep her. |
| As long as people continue to consider the aquisition of animals no more seriously than the buying of a new coat there will be sad sad stories like this. There are, on rare occassions, situations where a dog legitamately must be rehomed. But I get so angry when dogs are tossed aside because the animal wasn't convenient, or they didn't think through the expense of caring for the animal then suddenly when faced with a behavior or health problem dump it into someone elses lap.
If you cannot keep an animal because you can't afford to care for it or it suddenly doesn't fit into your lifestyle It should be illegal to simply dump it on a shelter or a rescue. Don't people realize that once they take in an animal they have a MORAL obligation to make sure that the animal is cared for, even if they can no longer do it  Those same people turn around and get ANOTHER animal thinking that somehow THIS TIME it is going to be different.
Maybe there should be a law that says once you have abandoned one animal you can never again own another animal. Does that sound too harsh? |
| I think sometimes we get a "new" pet with expectations based on what we've experienced in the past. This can be a very minimal knowledge base. If you never had any challenges with a previous dog, you may not be equipped to cope with certain behaviors... dogs chasing cats, dogs not liking kids, dogs wanting to be an only child, dogs not wanting to be cornered or hugged, dogs that are destructive, dogs that can't be housetrained (THAT one is a whole nother story), etc. And people may go 10-14 years before getting another dog... they've become so used to the way Fido acted for over a decade that any new behavioral challenges are unexpected and difficult to accept. Then again, some people change dogs like they do their seasonal wardrobe.
We are all fortunate to have message boards to share experiences and ask for guidance. But you have to know there here in order to take advantage of them. I can't imagine being someone out there without a support or information system if they take in a dog with challenges. (Again, I don't know Ally but it sounds like she may have a couple of issues... I do too  ) I guess that's also another reason that a good OES rescue is a good place to consider. They should be there if placement doesn't work out and they lend support to the family... I've practically chewed off Grannie Annie's ear about Panda  She'll probably tell you so too while she rolls her eyes  But it's this assistance that makes the transition easier for both humans and dogs.
Quote: Maybe there should be a law that says once you have abandoned one animal you can never again own another animal. Does that sound too harsh?
No... it just sounds like you really care. Responsible breeding and spay/neutering would also help to cut down on the problem of too many homeless pets. |
| I sincerely hope that this baby finally finds a good and loving home. |
Tasker's Mom wrote: If you cannot keep an animal because you can't afford to care for it or it suddenly doesn't fit into your lifestyle It should be illegal to simply dump it on a shelter or a rescue. Don't people realize that once they take in an animal they have a MORAL obligation to make sure that the animal is cared for, even if they can no longer do it
Those same people turn around and get ANOTHER animal thinking that somehow THIS TIME it is going to be different. Maybe there should be a law that says once you have abandoned one animal you can never again own another animal. Does that sound too harsh? To me, that is going too far. I guess I have a personal reaction to your statements because a long time ago, I gave up a dog.
I got the dog to help me get through a very difficult time. He did. He really cheered me up. But after about 6-8 months, I realized that I really could not provide a good home for that dog and he didn't fit what was going on in my rapidly changing life. So I contacted the breeder and she found another home for that dog. This dog went on to live a really great long life in a wonderful home. (His new owner sent me photos regularly.) I was lucky because I had gottten him from a responsible breeder who helped find a better placement for him. But I have sympathy for people who do not have that option and who are not equipped to find an appropriate home on their own. There can be good reasons why one dog doesn't work out but another dog at another time would be fine. And not everyone is skilled enough to be able to pick an appropriate home for a dog that is not working out. And instead of wanting to punish the people who leave dogs at shelters, it can be worse when people refuse help and insist on placing the dog themselves. We've seen a couple posts along those lines lately. Another personal experience -- we had a big pissy male cat when I was a kid and my mom would repeatedly drive him somewhere and drop him off. He kept finding his way home and she would take him farther the next time. I wish she had taken him to a shelter where he might have been adopted, but she wouldn't. Eventually, she dropped him far enough away that we didn't see him again. That makes my mom a pretty awful pet owner but years later, a dog she rescued from my sister became her luxuriously pampered best friend and devoted companion. Different pet, different time, different outcome. I guess I think it is important for people to have an outlet when it turns out a dog just does not thrive in a particular situation for whatever reason. Otherwise, the dog and the family have a life sentence in that miserable or undesirable situation. Or perhaps that person will place the dog in another undesirable situation. Or worse, perhaps the pet will simply be made to disappear the way our stinky cat did. So instead of being so angry at people dumping dogs, I wish people who need to make that choice had better options available. I wish shelters weren't so miserable. I also wish there were restrictions on and penalties for unplanned breedings and for maintaining intact pets that are not part of a responsible breeding program. |
| I do agree that there are valid situations where people need to rehome an animal, and there is a right way and a wrong way. No one knows what the future holds and stiuations change, outcomes are unknown and sometimes it just doesn't work.
I guess what I mean is that anyone who finds it necessary to to rehome an animal has an obligation to make sure that animal finds a good home. Finding the home themselves (and making sure it sticks), returning the dog to a breeder are all appropriate ways. Too often though the dog gets dumped in an already over burdened rescue or worse taken to a shelter where it is eventurally killed. It just seems that lately, here, there have been an unsettling number of animals who ended up in shelters or rescues. THANK GOD FOR THE RESCUEs. Stories like this just make me so sad. |
Tasker's Mom wrote: I guess what I mean is that anyone who finds it necessary to to rehome an animal has an obligation to make sure that animal finds a good home. Finding the home themselves (and making sure it sticks), returning the dog to a breeder are all appropriate ways.
So many people can't even figure out how to make their own lives happy and don't comprehend what makes a good home for a dog. And not all dogs come from responsible breeders or are eligible for rescue programs. As long as we are wishful thinking, I would like people to be able to rely on shelters as a safe haven to make that decision for them. Of course, I realize that shelters are overburdened and that they often cannot provide basic shelter to all the animals that arrive there, but I guess I would focus on fixing that part rather than seeking to punish people who make that choice. It is a better choice than keeping an animal in miserable conditions or dropping it on a highway somewhere far from home. I think we share the same goals but I would just pick a slightly different battle. |
| In Tompkins County NY we have one of the few absolutely NO KILL shelters in the country. Here is an interesting article (maybe I thought it was interesting because it is in my hometown ) about the man that "made it happen".
http://www.bestfriends.org/nomorehomele ... rad.cfmThe shelter is a stones trhow from my clinic and absolutely BEAUTIFUL, we call it the Taj Mah Hall of animal shelters and it was built with mostly private funds. Ooops, I checked the link and for some reason it doesn't work so I copied the article here. Some may remember an article in the REaders Digest about our shelter a few months ago. Nathan Winograd By Jim Davis PART ONE Nathan Winograd has been fighting to save animals all his life. His story is one of evolution, from a teenager rescuing a stranded kitten, to a law student battling to save feral cats, to a position at the forefront of the humane movement. Richard Avanzino, director of Maddie's Fund, puts it simply. Winograd is "the outstanding animal welfare leader of the country," he says. "He's not conventional," says Avanzino, whose organization has contributed millions of dollars to communities attempting to become no-kill. "He's a revolutionary. He basically challenges the status quo in a very entertaining and articulate way." That unconventional style has brought with it great accomplishments. For Winograd, a Stanford Law School graduate, has proven that the no-kill philosophy works, in both urban and rural environments. And now, he is attempting to get the word out to as many people as possible through his new company, No-Kill Solutions. The path which led Winograd to this place, at the head of a grassroots movement trying to save the lives of millions of dogs and cats, can be traced to his childhood in Los Angeles. "Mom was the cat lady in our neighborhood," he says. "I grew up with a lot of cats." But it was one cat-- Guido -- whose story foreshadowed the life that Winograd would choose. Walking home from junior high school one day, accompanied by his sisters, Winograd heard a kitten meowing in a subterranean garage. They traced the forlorn sounds to a locked storage space. "We took a rock, smashed the lock and there was a six-week-old kitten," he recalls. They named the kitten Guido -- even though "he" turned out to be a "she" -- and the cat was to spend more than 20 years at Winograd's side. Guido was with Winograd when he studied political science at the University of California at San Diego, when he studied law at Stanford, and during his tenure with the San Francisco SPCA. At the time of her death in Tompkins County, New York, Guido was 23 years old. The passion that led Winograd to rescue Guido came into focus during a one-year "break" between college and law school when Winograd backpacked through Central America, Europe and the United States. "All I did was visit, drink a lot of beer and read a lot of books," he says. Two authors had profound effects -- John Robbins, an expert on dietary links to the environment and health, and Hans Ruesch, who authored the classic "Slaughter of the Innocents." "That really transformed me," Winograd says. "I knew then, although I was going to law school, I knew I wanted to dedicate myself to helping animals." Stanford served as a launch pad for Winograd's full-scale entry into the humane movement. It was there that he joined forces with a group of women fighting to keep the administration from killing feral cats on campus. The university had agreed to try Trap/Neuter/Release (TNR) when Winograd joined the fray, and eventually the Stanford Cat Network was permitted to set up feeding stations on campus. As additional threats to the cats' welfare arose, Winograd used his growing legal knowledge to write position papers opposing any changes that would adversely affect them. It was during this time that Winograd met Avanzino, then head of the San Francisco SPCA. Avanzino soon hired the third-year law student to be his "director of ethical studies," and it was from Avanzino, Winograd says, that he learned about animal shelters. He fondly recalls "long hours in (Avanzino's) office learning the philosophy of no-kill." Avanzino remembers those days, too. "While he was with us, he did a wonderful job," Avanzino recalls. "He's a very articulate thinker. We did spend a lot of time together. I think we're kindred spirits." One of their major accomplishments involved protecting feral cats in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area from a federal government plan that would have eliminated them. "(Nathan) wrote volumes of material that we used in our advocacy to change the law, change the practices ... so these critters who were deserving of protection were not eliminated," Avanzino says. Winograd's legal and academic background, combined with his persuasive skills, made him "an advocate you don't want to ignore, because if you do, it will be at your own peril," Avanzino says. In the end, the pair forced the government to redirect its policy. "We stopped them in their tracks," Avanzino recalls. But despite periodic victories, all was not always well. "We were vilified by groups that opposed no-kill, that were misleading their members about our achievements. They were inflating our numbers to make it appear that we weren't doing as well as we were doing," Winograd remembers. And Winograd didn't back away from any fights. He joined forces with a small group of feral cat caretakers on North Carolina's Outer Banks to take on the Outer Banks SPCA, and ultimately the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), over a proposed TNR program. The SPCA and HSUS opined that TNR was inhumane, with HSUS going so far as to urge the local prosecutor to take action against the cat caretakers, claiming they were breaking anti-cruelty laws. "These were ... men and women who are doing the kind of work other people aren't willing to do," Winograd says, and suddenly they faced fines and jail time for helping cats. Winograd wrote a brief, and ultimately the prosecutor agreed that TNR was not only legal, but humane. No charges were filed. "That really, really kind of crystallized for me what we were dealing with," Winograd says. "At the time, I felt that the biggest threat to dogs and cats was not bad people, irresponsible pet owners, but in large part, especially when it came to feral cats, was a lot of these organizations that were founded for their protection." "I dedicated myself to fighting not only the mentality, but the attack. It's what I've been doing since then, trying to change the landscape. When it comes to no-kill, I'm like the preacher. I believe it to my core." Following graduation from Stanford, Winograd worked as a prosecutor in San Francisco, often honing in on animal cruelty cases. When Avanzino left the SPCA to head up Maddie's Fund, Winograd was asked to return to run the law and advocacy department. Eventually he became director of operations. Since 1994, San Francisco had been saving every healthy animal who came its way. By the time he left, Winograd says, the city was "a whisper away" from saving every treatable animal. That, he says, is the next great challenge for the humane movement -- "cradle to the grave guarantees for dogs and cats," regardless of whether they are healthy. "If they are treatable," he says, "shelters should be able to patch them together and find them homes." Eventually Winograd left San Francisco for rural Tompkins County, New York (See part two of this three-part series). And, after a successful, three-year run there, he returned to California to found No-Kill Solutions, a business designed to help communities adapt the no-kill model to fit their needs. No-Kill Solutions launched an industry trade publication that addresses shelter issues from a no-kill perspective in January, and does regular workshops, but the big service it provides is what Winograd calls his "no-kill blueprint." To develop a no-kill blueprint, Winograd provides an on-site assessment, and makes recommendations for improving operations, covering everything from landscaping to creating a foster adoption program. At the moment, he is developing just such a plan for Philadelphia (See part three of this series). And in his "spare" time, Winograd is writing a book detailing the history of the no-kill revolution in America, starting with the founding of the first SPCA and following animal shelters for 150 years until the rise of the no-kill movement. "I hope it inspires and rallies the larger community who love dogs and cats, who have no idea that the 60,000 or so animal shelters in the U.S. are no more than warehouses at best," he says. Thus far he has written 200 pages of what he jokingly calls the "never-ending project." In truth, he hopes to have it published by the end of the year. "Hopefully it will mobilize all to hasten the day when we inevitably live in a no-kill nation," he says. PART TWO When Nathan Winograd was considering a move from San Francisco to rural Tompkins County, New York, there were plenty of naysayers. "What I kept hearing," he says now, "was that while no-kill might be possible in an urban community, it could never be achieved in rural America." But Winograd felt strongly that the same components that had turned San Francisco into a no-kill city could be implemented anywhere, and he relished the chance to prove it. So, in June of 2001, he headed east. "I packed my bags, my wife, my kids, our two dogs and 20 cats," he laughs. He remembers his first day well. He hadn't even entered the building when a trucker approached him with a box of kittens. "My first reaction was, "What did I get myself into?'" It didn't take him long to find out. As he began the job, Winograd admits, he thought that going no-kill would take a while, that it would be necessary to "sacrifice a certain number of dogs and cats for the greater good." But when he came face to face with that reality, he couldn't do it. "We started lining them up on the counters," he says. "I simply would not hear of the option that we were just going to kill our way out of this. We were going to make it work, and I never wavered from that." And during his three-year stay, Tompkins County never killed a healthy or treatable animal. Overall, the rate of shelter killing dropped by 75 percent, to 1.8 animals for every 1,000 human residents -- eight times less than the national average, and the lowest in the country. Winograd wrote about those early days in "Diary of a No-Kill Shelter." In that article, he tells of placing puppies in horse troughs near the front counter to attract attention; of employees who left rather than buy into the no-kill philosophy; and of the never-ending search for new ways to save lives. Jim Tantillo, interim executive director of the Tompkins County humane society, was a member of the board of directors when Winograd arrived. "He built a program that is nationally recognized," Tantillo says. "The board set this organization on a course in 1999 and for a year or two struggled to figure out how to implement it... He's a remarkable individual, very talented. He single-handedly accomplished what we told him to accomplish. That's a terrific thing." But there were difficult decisions along the way. When Winograd arrived, the shelter operated at a $150,000 annual deficit. He set out on a line-by-line inspection of the budget to eliminate anything that didn't show a direct connection to saving animals. The humane education program was a controversial cut. "I couldn't find a single study that showed measurably that if you invest X dollars in humane education, that is what you get back," Winograd says. "Humane education once or twice a year doesn't get the message ingrained." The result was that the $30,000 allotted to humane education was transferred to medical care. Not everyone was happy with the changes, but the organization finished with a $23,000 operational surplus one year, and broke even the next. Another change was to make the shelter more accessible to the public. That meant expanding hours beyond the 9-to-5, Monday-to-Friday format. The tendency, Winograd says, is to blame the public for not adopting enough animals. "As a movement, we shield ourselves from accountability -- ?It's the public's fault' -- then we punish the public. "If we reform the shelter, we create an opportunity for people to do the right thing," he says. As an example, he cites the pet owner who takes a cat to the shelter because of litter box issues. Instead of lambasting the owner, shelter workers should try to solve the problem, Winograd says, finding a solution that will keep the animal in the home. He says the movement also must recognize there are many wonderful pet owners who can't bring themselves to enter a shelter. Off-site adoption events are critical if those people are to come into contact with shelter animals. "We created this fiction that there are too many animals and not enough homes. That is the fiction, the lie, which animal shelters have been using to insulate themselves," Winograd says. "It wasn't orchestrated, it stemmed from a genuine belief." In fact, people who simply looked at shelter numbers could easily reach that conclusion. But, he adds, numbers don't tell the full story. "The reason is that (the people who are) our best hopes refuse to walk into a facility that kills," he says. "Nobody who loves animals wants to look into the eyes of the animals they don't adopt, knowing those animals will be slaughtered." So, adoption outreach is a critical component of the no-kill solution. And in Tompkins County, mobile adoptions became routine. Accommodations were also made for people visiting the shelter. By tackling budget issues and aggressively pursuing a capital campaign, Winograd was able to erect a new shelter that made life easier for animals and visitors alike. The facility, Winograd says, was the country's first green-certified shelter, combining environmental and humane concerns. "It was good for the animals, good for people and good for the planet," he says. Particularly for the animals. Animals who had been at the shelter for two or three months were adopted within minutes of the opening of the new adoption center. "What was the most exciting part was to watch these cats who would normally cower in cages," Winograd says. "You put them in this home-like environment and they blossom." The dogs also benefited from new surroundings. Winograd says visitors were astounded that dogs who had barked almost non-stop while in three-by-six-foot cages hardly barked at all in their new, homey surroundings. One of the prime beneficiaries was Jewel, an eight-year-old cocker spaniel who had spent her life chained outside. By the time her owner surrendered her -- after "growing tired of her whining" -- Jewel's nails had curled and burrowed into the pads of her feet, making it extremely painful to walk. She was very fearful, and had to be sedated so the nails and a plethora of mats could be removed. Jewel then received intense socialization from staff members before finally finding a home. A year later, Winograd encountered Jewel's new owner. When he asked about Jewel, the woman said, "Oh, no, no, no. She's Princess Juliette, and she's probably sleeping on my bed right now!" After adopting "Princess Juliette," the couple purchased a king-size bed to share with her. At night she would lie like a person, blanket up to her head, fully enjoying her new life. "That type of thing exists in San Francisco, it exists in Newfield, New York, and I think and believe it exists in cities and towns and hamlets across the country," Winograd says. Winograd left Tompkins County after three years (fulfilling a commitment he had made to his family) to launch No-Kill Solutions, but his achievements there proved lasting. "Good things are still happening here," Tantillo says. "We're ?no-kill' for the fourth straight year. We don't kill for space." In fact, Tompkins County saved nearly 2,500 animals last year. "We're proud of that, and Nathan is the reason," Tantillo says. As for Winograd, he was changed by his three years there. "I used to say that no-kill wasn't hard," he says. "What I believe now is that no-kill is hard, but it's not complicated. It saves lives in San Francisco, in Tompkins County, New York, and it can be duplicated in any community." "I really believe we could have a no-kill nation sooner rather than later." PART THREE Nathan Winograd was a close observer when San Francisco became the first major city in the United States to go "no-kill." The experience inspired him to go to Tompkins County, New York, where he proved that the same can happen in a rural community. Now he has set his sights on Philadelphia, a city with a less-than-stellar record when it comes to humane treatment of animals. It appears that he faces a daunting task. Of the 44,000-plus animals under the umbrella of Philadelphia Animal Care and Control Association (PACCA) in 2003, two-thirds were euthanized. Several months ago, the Philadelphia Daily News ran a searing report on the state of PACCA's shelters, questioning the care animals receive there. That report turned the tide of public opinion and prompted officials to hire Winograd to prepare a "no-kill blueprint" for the city. Despite the seemingly overwhelming task in front of him, Winograd is undaunted. "We won't allow anybody to stand in the way of lifesaving," he says. "It's a clear mandate -- from the city down to the caretakers -- they are tired of the killing." As head of No-Kill Solutions, a company designed to help cities become "no-kill," Winograd offers more than the needs assessment done by many cities. And that excited many people in Philadelphia, according to Tara Derby-Perrin, new director of PACCA, and former president of the Alliance for Philadelphia's Animals. She met Winograd at a Best Friends Animal Society conference in Philadelphia, and was impressed. Referring to his stirring speeches, she says, "It's very important to understand the need for inspiring people and giving them stories and anecdotal information to get them excited." Frank O'Donnell, former interim director of PACCA, agrees. O'Donnell had the misfortune to start at PACCA the same day the Daily News launched its series about the shelters. But he says that as the city and the Alliance started to work together in response to the articles, there was agreement that outside help was needed. O'Donnell quickly realized that Winograd was the man for the job. "We had a one-hour conversation that seemed like five minutes," he recalls. "It was very exciting." Several people submitted proposals, but O'Donnell says Winograd was the obvious choice. He promised to do everything the others proposed, but went one step further. He would develop a no-kill plan. "It wasn't a difficult decision," O'Donnell remembers. That decision may have been easy, but the process of making Philadelphia no-kill won't be. Winograd sent out a 19-page list of documents he wanted to review before he visited Philadelphia. According to O'Donnell, it covered budgetary items, shelter procedures, a breakdown of PACCA's relationships with rescue groups, and a summary of vendors used by the city. Information culled from those thousands of pages will be used to eliminate ineffectiveness and waste. Winograd says he will attempt to set up Philadelphia animal control to run like a corporation. "My bottom line is saving lives. Every program has to impact the bottom line" he says. For Philadelphia to become no-kill, a wide range of people must be involved, Winograd says. Cooperative partnerships already in place, developed by such groups as the People Pet Partnership, will be built upon, and hopefully even skeptics will be drawn to the table. Shortly after he arrived in Philadelphia for a three-week stay, a town meeting was held to discuss animal care in the city. The event was scheduled at 5 p.m. on a wintry Friday, and much of the city's focus was on that weekend's Super Bowl -- featuring the hometown Eagles. Winograd didn't know what to expect. He needn't have worried. The hall where the meeting was held seats 150 people -- and more than 180 attended. Some had to be turned away because there was no more space. Others watched via closed-circuit television nearby. It was, Winograd says, a testament to the strength of the no-kill cause. City council members attended, as did representatives of the health department, animal control, assorted shelters, the SPCA, and rescue groups. "It was a signal that people are hungry for change," Winograd says. "It really just set the tone for my assessment here." Overall, Winograd says he has been well received, and that he has "really high hopes for the city." In fact, he admits he is so optimistic about Philadelphia that he is already worrying about other cities with high death rates. "In a year or two, Philadelphia will have made tremendous headway. My fear is that other cities will not," he says. "The city is hungry and I believe that can be a tremendous thing." While Winograd's blueprint is being prepared, change is already in the works. More animals are going to rescues, policies are changing, and previous critics are joining discussions of how to turn the city around. Comparing Philadelphia to his previous experiences, Winograd says "I'm seeing the same thing over and over again. There is a tremendous amount of support within each community. The only limit for saving lives is how much the shelter taps into that support." To reach full potential, he says, shelters must learn to utilize rescue groups and foster homes, develop creative sources of revenue, and use their political influence -- he notes that people who love dogs and cats come from all political and socio-economic levels. "In Philadelphia -- summertime might be a different story -- but I have yet to see a reason why this community has to kill for space, at least during the winter time," he says. Citing the public support in the city, he says "It's all there for the shelter director's taking." And he has every reason to believe that by following his "blueprint," Philadelphia will be a no-kill city in the next decade. "The only true limitation to how many or how few lives are saved is the shelter leadership ... The biggest stumbling blocks to no-kill are the dinosaurs who have been in this movement for a long time," he says. Site Map Contact Us Privacy Policy © 2005 Best Friends. All Rights Reserved |
| Valerie: I completely agree with everything that you have said here.
Ginny: Rehoming the dog in an appropriate manner is the key but the problem is that most people are not knowledgable about the best ways to place a dog. Many people also confuse the terms rescue and shelter. Unfortunately, the word shelter has a very negative connotation; it immediately evokes images of dogs living in squalor and eventually being put to sleep. A no kill animal shelter is a wonderful but, rare thing. Although, I admire your passion, I do not think penalizing people because they are lacking information is the correct resolution to the problem. This website is fabulous because it provides a wealth of knowledge about sheepies, much more information than in an AKC description or most books available. People on this board seek animals out that are in trouble and this thread hopefully will lead to this particular dog having a better quality of life. I think the solution to the problem is a combination of getting the word out and continuing to seek animals out. Craigslist clearly shouldn't be a place to post an available dog, like you would a piece of used furniture. Clearly the person that has the dog is not knowledable about placing a dog. It is important when a misguided individual comes to this site seeking help with a dog they brought into their home that we, as a forum handle the situation delicately. Pointing out that the person is misguided is not necessarily beneficial in providing the dog with a better life. The ultimate goal should always be getting the dog to the right place. |
| And I just want to say, briefly, going back to the different dog at a different time idea, as well as placing a dog that must find a new home:
Soon after I got Barney I was overwhelmed and was contemplating rehoming him. I have had sheepies my whole life, but never as an adult on my own before and never one as stubborn as Barney...so in my mind when I was getting Barney, I was going to get a pretty close replica to my parents' current sheepdog Maggie, the love of my life. She's very mellow, yet had the fun crazy legs around the house and would just lie in your lap and follow you everywhere...So, I was ecstatic when an opportunity to get a sheepdog came. But once he got to me and it was nothing like what I had imagined, it was so difficult. I didn't even want to go home after work anymore. My point with that is just that I had knowledge of the breed, I had owned many, so you would think I would be able to manage him...but I couldn't, so I could see how many people can come in to a dog situation seemingly anticipating what it would be like, but when it isn't, it's hard...that said, people should not just give up when it gets hard, but it's not just a cut and dry situation. Also, it would have been impossible to return Barney anywhere besides a shelter or a rescue. He was from a puppymill in MO and was sold to a petstore in California where he was purchased, and I rescued him from that lady...so there would be no breeder to return him to or couldn't return to her, either (I wouldn't want to--she was gross)...so it can get confusing as to where to take your dog to be rehomed if its origins aren't exactly known or accessible. |
Fred,CanYouSeeMe? wrote: Ginny: Rehoming the dog in an appropriate manner is the key but the problem is that most people are not knowledgable about the best ways to place a dog. Many people also confuse the terms rescue and shelter. Unfortunately, the word shelter has a very negative connotation; it immediately evokes images of dogs living in squalor and eventually being put to sleep. A no kill animal shelter is a wonderful but, rare thing. Although, I admire your passion, I do not think penalizing people because they are lacking information is the correct resolution to the problem.
But there are some people that, although they have all the right information, they continue to make poor decisions and bring more dogs into their homes repeatedly, despite knowing their situations are not ideal or that they'd had problems having animals in the past. "Maybe this one will work.. maybe this will be different." If you have the education, and still continue to make poor choices, then NO WAY should you be allowed to have any more animals. All you're doing at that point is being selfish because it's the animal that winds up suffering in the end when it has to be given up-- not to mention the kind hearted organizations that take over to find that animal a good home just because someone got in over their head... again. These poor rescues work so hard and to have people continually doing stupid things costs them time, money, blood, sweat and tears. People need to learn from their mistakes instead of waiting for others to clean up their messes. There is also a huge difference between education and commitment. No amount of education can change that mindset. Everyone knows someone who never finishes a project or everything falls apart when things don't go their way. Or people that can't make a decision to save their life. Those are the kind of people that really can't be trusted to make a choice that they'll stick by. What's even scarier is many people like that are parents of humans... |
| I guess I think that education can make a difference in mindset. The truth is that a lot of good hearted people become animal hoarders because of their commitment to taking care of animals that they see as being in need. They continue to take in more and more animals and to provide a 'good home' and saving a life as they see it, without seeing the situation realistically.
I know that I have to stay off of petfinder for the most part because I'd love to take home all of these guys. The truth is that we're full up at our house, something that I have to remind myself of again and again and again. I have to remind myself of what I believe makes a good home for a dog and how much I can realistically provide. It isn't easy facing those limitations, sometimes. This is one place where I think education can help--helping to educate people about what pets of all kinds (because this problem isn't limited to dogs, or even dogs and cats!) need to lead happy, healthy lives. And also helping to connect people with healthy ways to really help make a positive difference in the lives of these animals. |
tgir wrote: I guess I think that education can make a difference in mindset. The truth is that a lot of good hearted people become animal hoarders because of their commitment to taking care of animals that they see as being in need. They continue to take in more and more animals and to provide a 'good home' and saving a life as they see it, without seeing the situation realistically.
That's a mental problem that they really need psychiatric help for. Education would only be a supplement to that. Good heartedness and good intentions can only go so far. It does not change the fact that the best intentions in the world can have horrible consequences. If education is the key, cool. Just no animals until you've been "educated." |
ButtersStotch wrote: But there are some people that, although they have all the right information, they continue to make poor decisions and bring more dogs into their homes repeatedly, despite knowing their situations are not ideal or that they'd had problems having animals in the past. "Maybe this one will work.. maybe this will be different." If you have the education, and still continue to make poor choices, then NO WAY should you be allowed to have any more animals. All you're doing at that point is being selfish because it's the animal that winds up suffering in the end when it has to be given up-- not to mention the kind hearted organizations that take over to find that animal a good home just because someone got in over their head... again. These poor rescues work so hard and to have people continually doing stupid things costs them time, money, blood, sweat and tears. People need to learn from their mistakes instead of waiting for others to clean up their messes.
Those are the kind of people that really can't be trusted to make a choice that they'll stick by. What's even scarier is many people like that are parents of humans... I agree with that. I would hope that a good shelter or rescue ought to be able to screen for folks like this. Perhaps some fault should remain with the people who supply these folks with dogs. I certainly would not trust them to provide a good next home for any dog they are rejecting. Multiple owner surrenders is a sign of questionable judgment. So is hoarding and so can be trying to place the animal oneself. There are so many different angles to this problem. |
| seriously, everyone
i do not go out and get dog after dog after dog Allie had housebreaking issues when i got her, we dealt with that she had issues with other dogs and they were everywhere around our old neighborhood, we dealt with that She had food issues - dealt with it Fixed it or managed it i love the dog to death when she startd showing signs of possibly causing pain to a 2 year old innocent baby she wasn't gonna stay around. no, he didn't pull her hair no he didnt hit her or step on her or anything. He just got our attention when she thought it all belonged to her, so I adopted her to someone who had no little kids or any aspirations to have little kids. who didn't have other dogs. who seemingly took care of her cats as I got the vet reference. someone who was more than welcome to bring her back to me.... sigh I am tired of explaining everything all the time. feel bad enough already. i don't even know if i am signed in so MELLOW |
| Mellow, I don't think anyone was directing this discussion at you personally. It has been a very good "global" discussion on the problem of remhoming dogs.
I am very sorry that things worked out so badly for you, even sorrier that Allie has gone through so much. |
| You know.. I have tried to stay out of this discussion, to "mind my own business", but I can't help but think that if Ally had gone to a "Breed Specific", i.e, Old English Sheepdog Rescue, this topic would of been over and done with a long time ago.
If you feel bad.. imagine how confused and scared Ally is. |
| Mellow, I don't think anyone is questioning you're decision to give up Ally. I'm sure it was heartbreaking for you, and you did the right think rehoming her instead of dropping her off at the pound like so many others do. I think the problem is that you had no way of ensuring that Ally would come back to you if the next person had a problem- which is what made this chain of custody possible. If Ally had gone to an OES rescue she would be back with the rescue right now. But, you obviously had good intentions and didn't foresee this problem. I actually think that the number of people that rehome for aggression, medical, other phsycial impairment reasons are a very very small fraction of the problem. But I do think that you should try to get her into a rescue right now. Perhaps if you contacted this person and made sure they know Ally's whole history it could help persuade them to turn her into a rescue. |
I have also been keeping out of this thread........but just can't do it any longer! 
Ally was not raised with kids. She lived her first year with seniors, and was re-homed as an adult. Then after a time young children entered into the picture...and it was not working out. This is quite common. The first few months of a dog's life, and for the rest of their life, they need to be exposed to and have positive experiences with children to get a head start. That being said, it took months to find her a new home, but there is never a guarentee that it will work out....Neither is it with rescue groups. Ally was re-homed with the "understanding" that if it did not work out she would be returned. This is very difficult to enforce, and the new family chose to re-home her themselves, instead. Now she is not in the right home, and again, she is not being returned. There were discussions about getting her into a rescue, but the new home needs to make that decision. There are 2 ways of looking at this, and differing opinions. Should she have gone to rescue from the start or not? For what it is worth, I think that good pet-owners should take the responsibility of re-homing thier loved pet, themselves. They know the dog, the dog's history, its likes and dislikes etc. IF they are capable of determining what a good home looks like, of cource. If they cannot do it right then they can get help from a rescue group to do it. However, a rescue group is a wealth of information, and can certainly assist with helping people re-home their pet. I don't think that a rescue should be the place to turn over a dog to unless all other avenues have been met. Rescues are for "rescuing" dogs in need of a home...They are for homeless dogs that have nowhere to go..They are not dog placement agencies. But, if the alternative is to go to a bad situation, or being dropped off at a pound, then a rescue group should be contacted, by all means. A rescue group is often called to "save" dogs from kill-shelters....or to take a dog that is badly in need of fostering and health care that a shelter is unable to provide. Or when the dog has to leave "now", and is on its way to the pound. Generally rescues groups are always full, or have limited funds to spend on a dog that is not really in danger. It is not unusual to get a call saying the dog is being dropped in the next half-hour. Giving a dog to a rescue group to foster is very stressful to the dog. They often takes weeks or months to relax and show their true self....In the meantime they could be placed already, and the stress if increased. THe best thing for the dog, is if it can stay where it is until the new home come up. People re-homing thier own dog can do it in phases....met the people, drop the dog off for short visits....etc...and are their to provide any information that a new family may need. Much less stressful on the dog. Or the existing family can even "foster" the dog until the group finds a home, if the existing family can turn it over, but keep it in its exisiting home. Think about our own dogs. If something happened that caused you to have to re-home them where would they go? I have friends and family who I would turn to....or I would take it upon myself to find a new home....And contact a rescue group that might have some families on a waiting list. But then, both mine are both rescues, so I guess the groups that I go them from would have to have a say in where they would go... |
Tasker's Mom wrote: Mellow, I don't think anyone was directing this discussion at you personally. It has been a very good "global" discussion on the problem of remhoming dogs.
I am very sorry that things worked out so badly for you, even sorrier that Allie has gone through so much. Exactly. You were definitely not the person I was describing. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|