Are people who bring their cats to shelters ' abandoning ' them?

Is someone who takes a cat to a no-kill shelter because they have lost their job and their home "abandoning" their cat?



That's what a no-kill shelter in a southern state just posted on their Facebook page. This is something that's been driving me nuts for a long time now, but maybe it's just me.



So, what do you think? Has that cat been "abandoned"?

Comments

[Liz Palika]

Hmmm....good question.



My thoughts are if the owner turned the cat loose on a nearby farm - for example - that would be abandoning the cat. If the pet owner moved out of the house and left the cat in the house, that would be abandonment.



Taking the cat to a known no-kill shelter is not. The owner is giving the cat up to a safe haven.



I think publicly using terms such as 'abandon' in this situation does nothing more than create guilt in the pet owner. And if the pet owner has lost a job and a home and has to give up a pet; the pet owner already feels a great deal of guilt!

[Vicky]

I agree with Liz. Taking a cat to a no-kill shelter if you are no longer able to properly care for it seems to me to be the kindest thing a pet owner can do. I'd much rather see pet owners make that decision than to leave them on the streets or lock them inside empty buildings, hoping to make it the real estate agent's or landlord's problem.

[Another Kate]

I think it's a bit of a marketing ploy. Just by playing up a sob story, a rescue or shelter can raise a few extra bucks or bring a few people in to the meet the "poor" abandoned animal. It irritates me too because you know there are two sides to the story.



To answer the question: an owner who can't care for their pet can do a lot worse to it than take it to a no-kill shelter. Abandoned is hardly the word I'd use considering the alternatives. Isn't that why they call them shelters anyway?

[Teri]

No...all the previous comments reflect my sentiments and are well written, so I will only add this link, which I think I might have found on PetConnection some time ago...



http://youtu.be/dYL_lP2JWvQ

[Eucritta]

I agree: it's not abandonment.



What's more, for decades, animal welfare advocates begged and pleaded for people to bring pets to the shelters rather than leave them to the elements or the uncertain care of the neighbors. Now people do, we blame even those in the most difficult of circumstances for not somehow magically pulling a better solution out of their hats.

[Kathie Kerr]

not abandonment. hard breaking for the owner, I'm sure. For those who say owners didn't try hard enough to get cat a new home, let me just say from one who's been there with no job--it's all you can do sometime to get out of bed, much less spend a lot of time seeking a home for an animal. we all know how hard that can be.

[Dorene]

I'm irked, too. What's the point of a shelter, if not to help in this type of situation?

[YesBiscuit!]

My pet peeve is "dumped". Like they're garbage. People who truly suck will literally dump their pets like trash at the side of the road in a rural area or, in the case of Patrick and many other unfortunate pets, in a trash receptacle. People who care about their pets, even if it's at a level different from yours, will take their pets to safe haven. That's responsible.



The reason people donate to shelters is because they want places willing to care for homeless pets.



Can you imagine if Amnesty Int'l was all like "When will these political dissidents learn to shut their frikkin mouths? gah!"

[Rebecca]

Dumped and abandoned applies to the animals I see every few weeks when I ride my bike in the desert, outside of town, miles from the nearest house. So I stop and call someone from my phone book to come get them. We'll have our vets scan for chips, or call a number on the collar (if there is a collar) and then we'll turn them in to the shelter so if they are truly lost they can be found. We'll also cross post the dog's photo to all the rescues in the area. I'm at my limit pet wise and can't take in any more.



There are all sorts of reasons for taking a pet to a shelter, good ones and bad ones. Regardless, I don't consider those animals abandoned or dumped.

[Rori]

Considering that bringing a cat to a no-kill shellter is one of the most responsible things an owner can do when faced with the inability to continue providing for it, abandonment is not an appropriate discription. It's judgmental.

and worse even than judgmental, it's NOT HELPFUL.

[Ajay]

Agree that having to use a no-kill shelter to find a better home than you are able to provide is heartbreak, not abandonment.



Inconvenient pets owned by clueless people are more likely to be casually left behind, I imagine.



I wonder if more adoptions happen when people feel they are "rescuing" an "abandoned" pet? As opposed to "adopting" a shelter pet?

[mary francis]

I hope my story applies and helps:



I volunteered at a wonderful well-known low cost spay/neuter clinic. Apparently there was friction amongst the volunteers (think it even was harmful to the clients/pets that really needed help)



Anyway the oh-so-wise head veterinarian, a woman, issued a letter and in it she said the way the British Empire was able to rule the world (for a time) was through the approach of divide and conquer. In essence the oh-so-wise Doc said in an instructive kindly way...knock it off your divisiveness is hurting the animals.

(and all of us)



And then at that same time I was volunteering at that same clinic - in their bookcase was a new book called Redemption.....I bought the book then heard Nathan Winograd speak on his tour.

Those events (and all the good people) have given me hope and changed my attitude completely...The hard-workers at the clinic, rescue people and Nathan's No Kill equation...



When we truly unite - all this misery will be over.

[Ericka]

Even though we discourage it, people leave their injured or older dogs tied to the gate in front of our shelter when we are closed. Or they leave a box with kittens or a cat with an injured eye.



Sometimes they bring these pets to our animal control office down the street. Animal control takes in all pets, where are we only take owner surrendered. But, we all know there are circumstances when shelters take in pets if they can.



Are these pets left tied to the front gate abandoned? In my eyes they are not. Were they treated poorly? Sometimes. Were they tied to a tree 24/7 for years? Sometimes I bet they were.



But, in the 11th hour the owner did the right thing and they brought the animal to a place of refuge potential. Abandoning would mean, to me, that the animal was let go in the woods or on the street- just let go to go and die somewhere.



We often see kittens (it is kitten season) left at our doors or near our shelter property.



The cats who are left in boxes are often only a few days old, many do not survive the night or don't take to the tube feeding and end up dead, but the ones that survive were at least given a chance.



The person who found a box, put the cats in that box, drove to our shelter, then drove away... well, I thank them for trying and doing something good.

[The OTHER Pat]

My "newest" cat was turned in to the shelter by a guy who had let her start living in his house a few months previously after she snuck in one day through an opened door. Soon after he took her in, she started having spats with his dog, so he kept her shut-up alone in the basement in order to keep them separated.



He finally realized this was no way for her to live, so he brought her in to the shelter which is where I found her.



I give him credit for bringing her to the shelter instead of just turning her back outside.



But when I think about it, she was far more "abandoned" during the time she was isolated in his basement than when she was finally turned in to the shelter.

[CatPrrson]

I think it was terribly irresponsible of the shelter to accuse the owner of "abandoning" the cat for bringing it in - because incidents like this contribute to people GENUINELY abandoning pets they can't or won't care for by the side of the road, a rural property ("We took Fluffy to a nice farm"), and so on.



While it is infuriating if an owner seems casual about giving up their pet, that is what a shelter is for - to shelter pets who are between homes. If you can't care for your pet anymore, for whatever reason, taking it to a no-kill shelter (or rehoming the pet yourself) is the responsible and right thing to do. Shame on this shelter for being so self-righteous that it might turn people OFF of doing right by their pets.

[Tina Clark]

Is a young single mother giving her baby up for adoption when she knows she can't care for him/her properly "abandonment"?



No, this word should go away when used in this context, along with several others, such as "dump," and "euthanasia" when used to describe anything but killing hopelessly sick or injured animals.



But these words have become so entrenched in the psyche of rescuers and shelters that I despair of their ever being able to unlearn them.

[Matt]

One more note: NO, my parents did not have a warped sense of humor and they did not name me "MattMaMatttt" like my name reads in that last post. Dont know how that happened. LOL

[Matt]

Ok now my previous post isnt showing up...I think there are little gremlins in my computer trying to drive me nuts. Little do they know...I'm already there.......one more time:





"Is someone who takes a cat to a no-kill shelter because they have lost their job and their home “abandoning” their cat?"





Yes.



Granted, a no kill shelter is a much better option than a death camp (kill "shelter") or leaving a pet who hasnt learned how to survive outside like ferals, where they are without someone to care for them.



But this B.S. about "Oh, I lost my job, or home, blah blah yadda yadda, so I cant keep my cat or dog" is just a cowardly, irresponsible, excuse.



You'll notice that these frauds arent abandoning their human kids, dropping them off somewhere, forever leaving them heartbroken and missing their family, yet they do it to their four legged babies because alot of society has a severe case of ignorance (technical term: Headupthebuttitis), in which the four legged souls of this world are considered "disposable", whether they are murdered and thrown away in death camps, or dumped off somewhere, it is simply WRONG to violate the promise that one essentially makes when adopting a pet:



To always love them, care for them, protect them, be there for them, and to NEVER abandon them.



If you have money to afford food for your chubby kids, you have money for your cat(s), period.



I once emailed a woman who wanted to give away her cat because "she didnt have money" and reminded her that she was online, paying a monthly fee for having an online service,and that she would save enough money to take care of her cat, if she sold the computer, and thus saving on the monthly fees, and kept her cat.



She had nothing to say.

Because she knew I was right.





If you arent leaving your kids behind, dont leave your cats behind. Period.



If a hotel doesnt accept cats, dont accept the hotel, and find one that DOES accept cats. Many many do.



Adopting a cat is like giving birth: You are FOREVER responsible for your new baby.



There is a double standard that deadbeat pet parents cling to, and it is rooted in the same prejudice that shelter killing is rooted in: Speciesism.



When searching for the right answer to any question, we must put OURSELVES in the position of OTHERS (Treat others the way YOU want to be treated), and in this case, we must ask ourselves this question: "If I was in Morris's or Fluffy's situation, would I want my family to abandon ME?"



If the answer is "No" (if you're honest, it IS "No"), then dont abandon your cat, because they are equally as important and precious as You, I and the rest of us.



Now, if an old 89 year old woman who is confined to a wheelchair and has degenerative

arthritis, is unable to care for and feed her cat properly, then that is a different situation, and a NO kill shelter might actually be better for the cat's well being, even though He or She would badly miss their loved one.



But using money as an excuse for abandoning your cat or dog, while you still spend money on your human kids, is cowardly and wrong.



Bottom line: If you can take care of, and have room for 190-225 pound human family members, you can take care of, and you have room for a 10-15 pound cat.





To say otherwise is to condone abandonment.

Abandonment is wrong.



Just put YOURSELF in the pawprints of the abandoned, and tell me, how would you feel if YOUR family abandoned you?



Your cat would feel the same way.





Treat others like you would want to be treated.



Society must stop finding excuses to kill and start finding ways to save lives, and society must stop finding excuses to abandon pets, and instead find a way to keep them.



They love you, and need you.



Ask not what our pets can do for us, ask what we can do for our pets.





P.S. If I were the head of a No Kill Shelter, I would tell anyone who wanted to dump their pets off at my shelter, what I just told everyone else, but I would MAKE CLEAR that if they STILL wanted to abandon their cat, I'd glady take Him or Her and show them what having a TRUE loving family feels like....a family who will love them, like cats love us....unconditionally, forever.



"We humans could learn alot from the higher animals"

[db]

Sometimes it's simply not possible to keep a pet and I think that surrendering them to a no-kill shelter/rescue is a good "last resort" choice.



I have done a lot of fostering from a local humane society and a few I've had to adopt myself because if they had gone back, they would have been killed. Because my angel boy attacked a couple of them, I found homes for them myself. BUT had I not been able to do that, a no-kill might have been a choice.



Sometimes it's simply not possible to keep them, as much as we love them. Sometimes, because we love them, they have to find them a better place to live.



@Matt - I understand your passion for the animals, but I think that that attitude prevents people from doing the responsible thing sometimes and results in people just turning animals lose to fend for themselves, or worse. I think that there will always be a need for "shelters" so let's make them true shelters.

[The OTHER Pat]

Matt, your arguments are simplistic and unrealistic.



First of all, it would be ILLEGAL for a parent to just "drop their kid off somewhere" and leave them behind. You CAN legally do that with an animal. You CANNOT legally do that with a child. You may believe that is wrong, but that's YOUR value system speaking out. Whether or not YOU agree with it, the LAW grants a higher standard of protection to children than to animals, and legally, leaving a child behind is just not something a parent can generally do.



Second, a good share of the programs put in place to help those in need (homeless shelters, food kitchens, etc.) prohibit animals. If you feel THAT is wrong, you'd be in good company with many others here. But presently, that's the way it is. And if a family in dire financial need wants to get the available help, their pets become a hindrance in this situation, so many make the decision to leave their pets at a shelter in order to obtain shelter for their children.



(And no - someone without a steady source of income cannot simply go blithely "hotel-shopping" to find one that accepts pets the same way a person with a dependable income can. The unemployed person is looking for whatever they can afford, and that's not likely to include allowing animals. Again, if you think this policy is wrong, you'd be in good company, but so far, that's the way it is.)



You say "Society must stop finding excuses to kill and start finding ways to save lives, and society must stop finding excuses to abandon pets, and instead find a way to keep them." and I certainly agree with you there. Take the example of FEMA and Hurricane Katrina.



We all remember the tragic images of pet owners having their beloved animals pulled from their arms before being pushed onto the evacuation buses, and other images of owners sitting on their rooftops with the animals they refused to leave behind - hoping either for rescue or the receding of the flood before they ran out of their food and water.



Congress took note of the human cost resulting from FEMA's inflexible "no pets" policy and passed the "Pets Evacuation and Transportation

Standards Act of 2006" and so now the FEMA policy says "The Post-Katrina Act amends the IHP provisions of the Stafford Act by authorizing search, rescue, care, and shelter of pets and service animals as a type of essential assistance to be provided after a major disaster declaration."



In other words, in a disaster, pet owner may no longer be forced by FEMA to leave their pets behind.



It's a start, and we need to keep up the pressure to get homeless shelters, hotels, motels and landlords to end their "no pets" policies and find ways for food providers (so-called "soup kitchens") to accomodate pet owners without running afoul of Health regulations.



But we're not there yet, and so in today's world with today's realities of life after catastrophic financial loss, families with pets are put at a MAJOR disadvantage (in addition to those they already face). Rather than having THE ENTIRE FAMILY continue to starve and be homeless, the RESPONSIBLE thing to do is to provide shelter for the pets by leaving them somewhere safe which permits the rest of the family to seek the available help and resources that are out there. That way ALL of you can survive.



And if THAT isn't an example of "FOREVER responsibility", then I don't know what is.

[original Leslie K]

Its ridiculous to say that rehoming or a no killer shelter are abandonment ! Sometimes they are a much better choice than the way the pet is now living. When my DH's Aunt passed away a few years ago, she had a wonderful dog Daisy who was not ok with kids or other animals. All of the family & friends & neighbors tried integrating her into our homes with no success. I finally found her a great home with 2 young people just starting out together [even the adjustment to a non senior was tough]. Would I have been better keeping her ,with all of them constantly crated or locked in a bedroom to keep them separate ? Of course not. It wasn't a full happy life, she has that now because I was willing to give her up.Sometimes a no kill shelter or even a regular shelter is the only option. Its still better than an unhappy life or dropping them off somewhere to fend for themselves.I agree all unnecessary amenities should go before pets do , but throwing a guilt trip on people already heart broken doesn't help. Just because you have never been in a position of having no other choice doesn't mean it doesn't happen.It's happening very frequently around here and TG there are shelters & rescues to step in.

[Rebecca]

I can only imagine that the reason I find so many stray dogs out in the desert, is because some of the intake officers at our local shelter believe, as Matt does, that the relinquishment process should be as awful as possible for all involved. Unfortunately for the animals, when given the choice between being treated like some sort of monster because you can no longer keep your pet(s), and the wide open desert - the desert wins.



At least I have the contacts to leave the animals at the shelter, tell the Matts of the world to go pound sand, and pull the dog when its holding period is up and get it into the rescue pipeline. Not all dog owners have those connections or relationships.



But even rescuers have problems, as I did when I found a box with four 3-week old kittens in it on the side of the road on a day with a high temp of 108. Only one tiny kitten was still alive and then just barely. Our vet pulled it through and then I spent the better part of 3 weeks with TinyKat living in my bathroom (and I'm horribly allergic to cats) begging every cat rescue in the area to take him. The shelter would simply have killed it. It was not until I agreed to pay for its neuter, shots and a carrier and drive it over 100 miles, that a rescue begrudgingly agree to take my little waif, and they tried to give me the how dare you abandon such a young kitty lecture.



I dread ever finding another kitty in need, I couldn't walk away - but there are a lot of people who could. So Matt, I say "Way to go!" your attitude is really helping the animals.

[Joy]

Comment by Matt - P.S. If I were the head of a No Kill Shelter, I would tell anyone who wanted to dump their pets off at my shelter, what I just told everyone else, but I would MAKE CLEAR that if they STILL wanted to abandon their cat, I’d glady take Him or Her and show them what having a TRUE loving family feels like….a family who will love them, like cats love us….unconditionally, forever.



Then is it really cruel abandonment to hand over a pet to someone who will "gladly show them what having a TRUE loving family feels like...unconditionally, forever"?



No kill shelters advertise a promise to responsibly re-home pets into loving families...people bringing their pets to these places of hope are responding to that advertised promise.

[FrogDogz]

I recently spoke to a woman on the phone who was looking for help paying medical expenses for her French Bulldog, which had some serious health issues. The woman was afraid that she was going to have to give up her dog, because she couldn't afford the care the dog requires.



She was also a single mother with a child who has leukemia, and had just been laid off from her job (whoops, no more prescription drug coverage).



I guess it's a good thing Matt didn't answer her phone call, so she didn't have to listen to him telling her she was an irresponsible loser for not being able to care for her dog forever.

[Jennifer Isbell]

Yes, they are unless it's a no-kill shelter and they know it's a no kill shelter. Even then, it's still abandonment as the cat has had a life it is used to and is happy and the owners don't care about disrupting that cat's life forever. For the rest of the people who don't even check the euthanasia stats before they enter the shelter, those are the truly heartless ones.

[vida]

"You’ll notice that these frauds arent abandoning their human kids, dropping them off somewhere, forever leaving them heartbroken and missing their family,"

Actually a massive number of children were left at orphanages (by one or both parents) during the great depression, and at churches, and then there were those who were simply left to shift for themselves. Now there are laws against these options but there are still children being left at safe havens etc. Just had to chime in. And yes, it's always better to do the best you can for your companion animals, and sometimes that may be a no kill shelter.

[H. Houlahan]

KateH, I well remember when a colleague was verbally abused by a very nasty piece of work who had been denied an adoption for excellent reasons.



My colleague had been advocating for her in discussions over the application, and had been overruled. But NPOW didn't know this.



After NPOW left, my colleague became very upset, and wondered aloud -- if that is how this woman treats human beings when others are watching, how does she treat an animal when no one sees?



I'm not sure I entirely agree as an overall rule (Hitler was famously kind to animals and little children), though I do think it may apply in cases of explosive temper. (I also know some people with quite flamboyant tempers who only vent them at objects or at worthy human recipients, never at the defenseless, so even that is qualified.)



But the viciousness of NPOW's words and actions (she deliberately tried to undermine another adoption process at that moment) undercut her narrative about herself, which was that she was kinder and more caring and loving than any of the mean people making the decisions.



People who consider themselves "kinder" than everyone else are suffering from the same self-delusions as those who consider themselves "smarter" or "braver" or "more Christian" than others.

[H. Houlahan]

Adopting a cat is like giving birth: You are FOREVER responsible for your new baby.



No. No it isn't.



I'm guessing that Matt has never given birth, just for starters.



But that impossible standard is a great way to dissuade anyone from ever bringing a pet into his or her life.



And it's been a real treat when dealing with humans who are just the wrong owner for a given animal, but convince themselves that the critter would pine away and die without them. While the critter is actually going insane under their care and would thrive elsewhere.



Also a great way to discourage adoptions, since obviously a rehomed animal will never bond or adjust, will be forever traumatized.



There is a double standard that deadbeat pet parents cling to, and it is rooted in the same prejudice that shelter killing is rooted in: Speciesism.



Tell me Matt, are you feeding your furbaby kittehs a vegan diet?

[The OTHER Pat]

Comment by Jennifer Isbell — June 26, 2011 @ 1:15 pm



"the owners don’t care about disrupting that cat’s life forever"



Jennifer, just as with Matt's post, statements like this oversimplify the infinitely varied situations human beings might find themselves in that can result in the need to make heartbreaking decisions such as having to bring the family pet in to a shelter. For just one example of how unforeseen tragedy can leave a pet owner with very few choices, read FrogDogz' post just two posts below yours

[KateH]

Matt and Jennifer have attitudes that make me wonder how they can consider themselves so much better than others, without also acknowledging the ...gotta say the word - hate - in their hearts for those who can't live up to their lofty ideas of themselves. Neither of them would be people I'd ever adopt an animal to. Just as with people who have such disdain for animals make them not as trustworthy to me, so do those who have that same attitude towards people.

[Christie Keith]

That kind of sanctimonious attitude KILLS PETS. Is that what you want?

I've really had it up to HERE with all these people who say that what we need is to fix how every single person out there thinks about and treats their pets so we can save those pets' lives. Guess what, control freaks? YOU WILL NEVER MANAGE TO DO THAT.

People fail. That's the world in which we live. If we are going to call ourselves animal advocates, then we stop wasting our time yelling at people for their failings and realize that someone will fall into one of three camps: People who have genuinely run out of options and are doing the best they can, deadbeats who will never stick with ANYTHING and whose pets will be better off without them, and people who are trying to get help but would like to find a way to keep their pets.

It will ALWAYS be this way. We will NEVER fix everyone. The world isn't perfect and it never will be. Deal with it. Plan for it. Develop your animal management policies with that knowledge. Stop wasting your breath, your energy, your time and your hate for situations that you cannot change.

For the first group, you take those people's animals with grace and compassion, and you stop judging the people. When in doubt, assume the best.

For the second, take their animals and find them a better home than the one they had, and don't waste your breath trying to change people who will never change.

For the third, give them the help you can, and compassion, and if you can't fix things, take THEIR pets with grace and compassion, too.

That is how you save animal lives. The rest is just a complete dead end. It's gotten us right where we are today. LET IT GO.

[david]

Prior to accepting the responsibility of taking the life of an animal in is being financially stable.Anyone can lose a job or have to move that should never be an excuse to have to ask the state or someone to take over caring for your pet. I have 3 dogs and 2 cats. lost my job and had to move. Giving them up was never an option. Anyone that does should never be allowed to care for a pet ever again, period... Because we allow people to give up animals for what ever reason animals suffer!

[Lis]

And then there are the people who are good, solid, responsible people--and they discover that, through lack of knowledge, they have made the wrong choice of pet, or they have inherited the wrong pet. No positive purpose is served for human or animal in insisting that they have a lifetime commitment and cannot have help rehoming that pet, OR that having done so, they are now magically unfit to ever own a pet who IS the right pet for them.

[Susan Fox]

When I volunteered at our county shelter, believe me, we would far rather have had someone bring the dog or cat back (which was taken care of with no drama or guilt-tripping), then have them dumped out back of beyond because the people didn't want to deal with drama and guilt-tripping. Like the people who returned the puppy after about five days because he "barked, dug and chewed".



Heck, I returned MY first dog to the local Humane Society after two weeks. I didn't really know how to evaluate our situation in order to choose the right dog, was advised not to adopt him by staff, did it anyway because he seemed so cool and then found myself way in over my head with a 3 year old McNab-border collie mix without much training on board. Perfect for the first-time dog owner, right? *rolls eyes*



When the trainer I called in told me to go buy a prong collar and that they could "fix" the dog in two weeks (from pestering and chasing the cats, mostly), I knew, somehow, that I was in danger of "ruining" a good dog and that we were not the right home for him.



So back to the shelter he went and I cried all the way. But within a month he found a much better and more appropriate home and the shelter staffer was gracious enough not to say "I told you so", which I really appreciated.



I took a step back, did more research and ended up getting a nine week old purebred rough collie puppy who is now 8 years old and who has proven to be PERFECT for us.



So, yo, david, stuff it and get down off your high horse.

[Frogdogz]

Is it just me, or are the Davids and Matts of the world sort of... scary? There's a certain kind of sanctimoniousness that I just find creepy.



I also wonder sometimes how many of them actually *do* rescue, or are they the people who sometimes say to me "Oh, I could never do what YOU do - I'm just too tender hearted. I just feel things too deeply, I suppose". The undercurrent of this has always sort of sounded to me as if they are saying "Unlike you, who can obviously watch animals suffer without feeling bad about it".



I might be reading too much into this, but I doubt it.

[original Leslie K]

Its bad enough that so many people are willing to give up a pet before other luxuries. And that many get through adoption or other ways a pet they just can't integrate into the family, but the "better than you" attitude from rescuers & shelter staff are making the problem worse ! Its always better to turn the pet into a shelter even if its not no kill than to dump them somewhere to starve or die of cold or heat stroke. Stop trying to be judge & jury for others & remember why you are there. TO HELP THE ANIMALS !

[H. Houlahan]

Frogdogz -- EYE NOES!



We're just awful people, taking the critters into our homes, training them, dealing with their "issues," getting them healthy, finding out who they really are, and then just turning around and finding them new, permanent, loving, appropriate homes where they are perfectly happy, make their people happy, and do not visit the shrink 2x a week to talk through their abandonment issues.



How cruel is that!?



I am happier when "I could never do that, I'm too soft-hearted" (read: virtuous, not cold and cruel) does not get involved in their version of "rescue," which is also termed "taking donations to support my animal hoarding habit." Because only a nasty awful person could turn around and abandon the critter to the vicious whims of fate, with naught to protect her but an exhaustive screening process, grizzly-bear of a contract, and lifetime support and follow-up.



Yes, I too have, from time to time, appreciated the crystalline truth that everybody sucks but me. Have gotten over it and soldier on, while somehow avoiding owning 48 dogs. Which is what I'd have, minimum, if I was the kind of zealot personified by Matt and David and lived in a world that enabled them a little more than it does.



Foster homes: the ultimate animal cruelty. Who knew?

[mary francis]

RE: via Christie's comment - I'd like to offer a 4th catagory of human who surrender or do not want or cannot keep a dog or cat...



A guy last night who knows I care about homeless dogs and cats....approached me about 2 cats that have appeared on his property...he needs help in spaying/neutering and placing them in a home...he does not want them but wants to help them. He does not want them killed - there is no shelter available for him to take the cats. Kill or nor No Kill -



When it comes to homeless dogs and cats if you don't have connections...it's a bad situation for both human and animal.