@pinkrevenge

gladyscf

Look what showed up on the news tonight! http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/26775507/why-you-may-never-see-your-pet-again-even-if-hes-found I know it isn't Happy Tails but what the hell is going on with rescues in the area?!

ETF: Tried to fix format but I have no formatting options...sorry

lurkergirl

This is SO FUCKED UP!!!  And ultimately hurts the animals because people aren't going to want to adopt from shady organizations.  Seriously, this pisses me off so much.

Wegl13

Someone in the comments on that page posted something that I think is worth bringing up: microchipping. They are permanent and they are CHEAP.

lurkergirl

Wegl13 said:

Someone in the comments on that page posted something that I think is worth bringing up: microchipping. They are permanent and they are CHEAP.

Microchips are not fool proof.  They can fail just like any other tech device.  The other problem is there are shady organizations that think the fact that your pet escaped means you are not worthy of having them returned. 

(I spent a bunch of time in the car Friday lurking pink's thread and fb page comments.)

gladyscf

When I saw the headline I thought for sure it was going to be a story about Happy Tails. I was surprised to see a different name.

Wegl13

There's not a lot to fail on them tho because they are inert. As long as they are in the pet! (I had one fall right back out of a cat once).
You are right though this is an issue that needs a better solution in the form of better legislation/regulation. Basically what I am saying is that they are essentially stealing your personal property and having something permanent (chip or tattoo) is a good way of making sure you can ID your property (like a VIN number).
Although I will say, I'm much more worried about my dog getting misidentified as a coyote and shot than I am her getting stolen because I know her new family would bring her right back after she destroyed their couch.

falsara

It's not even the owners faults, they're not stateside due to his job in the military. Therefore the rescue can't even use the idea that they aren't suitable owners because it wasn't the owners who lost him.

ETA clarity

theartistformerlyknownas

Wegl13 said:

Someone in the comments on that page posted something that I think is worth bringing up: microchipping. They are permanent and they are CHEAP.

They're not permanent or foolproof. My crestie had a chip that couldn't be read when the rescue got him, so they chipped him again. But that chip can't be changed to my contact info; stuck with the rescue's. So what happens if he gets out, someone scans the chip and notifies the rescue but they decide I'm not worthy to get him back? My sister's pug had the same deal but the rescue went out of business. Are we just supposed to keep cramming dogs full of more and more microchips? If so, what's to stop a dog napper from just putting a new chip in a stolen dog?

Wegl13

And adding this for the heck of it. Have a nice night! Daw puppy.

gladyscf

Does anyone see a difference in how people who run rescues operate over how people who run humane societies? 

Wegl13

You should be able to change your info. I recommend the home again chips because it costs nothing to change your info at will, and the chips work for international travel (they can be read by the required reader). You should also be able to get your pet scanned and record that information (write it down and also haven't on file with your vet- time stamped) . My dog (the cute one pictured above) is chipped with a proprietary chip whose company would charge me $20 to get her activated and changed to my new address after I moved. Instead I recorded her same chip (scanned her and wrote down all the info) with the home again website and registered my info there. Now if she is scanned I have a better chance of her ID being tagged to me instead of an old address in Auburn. I paid $20 once but I was able to get her into their system and can now change my phone and address whenever I want. I also have her chip number stored at my vet office and time stamped there. I have seriously thought about double chipping her which is really nbd just to make sure she had a home again/internationally recognized chip.
There is nothing to stop them putting a new chip in, you are right. But the thing is that there is now a recording on file that chip 123456789 was put in on January 1, 2012 (verified with the chip website and also your vet records which are great documents for you in this instance), and the chip THEY put in, 987654321, was put in on October 1, 2014. Now if they had a document signed by you stating that you had relinquished the dog to them, that would be one thing, but they don't. So now you have a record that says THIS IS MY DOG AND HAS BEEN MY DOG FOR TWO YEARS. Take that to court and smoke it.
Here's the thing. RFID tags and chips are trusted at this point as reliable ways of IDing livestock. The only other way to permanently ID your dog is with a tattoo, which is done in greyhounds and is a totally valid way to ID an animal. I hate them because I have a hard time reading them. Most people aren't going to tattoo their dogs. Everything fails sometimes but to me, it's just like any other preventive care item. Just because a vaccine isn't 100% effective doesn't mean it's not a good tool to prevent disease. Just because chips fail occasionally doesn't mean they aren't effective tools to help get your pet returned in cases of it getting lost or stolen.

theartistformerlyknownas

If I get my dog a tattoo it's gonna be a butterfly tramp stamp.

levioosa

Looks like the same idiots who were commenting on pinks FB page are commenting on the news page too.  I hope they never have an animal get out of their house on accident.  Someone might think they're terrible people who don't deserve to own a pet! 

beethery

levioosa said:

Looks like the same idiots who were commenting on pinks FB page are commenting on the news page too.  I hope they never have an animal get out of their house on accident.  Someone might think they're terrible people who don't deserve to own a pet! 

They are the lowest of the low.

LittlePeachBlossom

This is so sad! It shocks me that people can be so vile.

raissyrais

That's disgusting. Yuck yuck yuck.

[Deleted User]

southernbelle0915

beethery said:

levioosa said:

Looks like the same idiots who were commenting on pinks FB page are commenting on the news page too.  I hope they never have an animal get out of their house on accident.  Someone might think they're terrible people who don't deserve to own a pet! 

They are the lowest of the low.

Yup! And of all the "causes" to troll about. Really? They're going to oppose a pet owner trying to get her cat back and support shady rescue agencies? 

They're probably the same people working for these agencies. Way to turn the image around, assholes!

KatieinBkln

gladyscf said:

Does anyone see a difference in how people who run rescues operate over how people who run humane societies? 

I think there are some important differences, but I wouldn't wholesale suggest that humane societies are "better" than rescues--ideally, they need to work in tandem, since humane societies can't fit all the animals who need help, and often end up with animals who are "un-adoptable" without serious rehab, which they aren't equipped to give. Many humane societies really appreciate (good) rescues because the rescues are typically no-kill, and will save a humane society dog who would otherwise be euthanized (most humane society workers I know of hate that they euthanize animals, but I guess they're between a rock and a hard place if no one else can give the animal a home). A lot of rescues also have policies where they won't turn any animal away.

The downside is that a lot of times the same people who are deeply passionate about animal rights are ALSO a bit off the deep end when it comes to the realities of pet ownership. They'll tell you that OF COURSE an owner who "let" their dog/cat run away is negligent, they'll tell you that there is never a good reason to give up a pet. I think most reasonable people recognize that animals sometimes bolt, and families sometimes change needs. It doesn't mean the owner stops loving the pet, but you can bet that I might decide I'm not the best owner anymore for a dog who showed signs of treating my (future) baby like prey, for example. Doesn't mean it's a bad dog, it just means that people sometimes have to prioritize their children over their pets. (And sometimes they are able to get the dog rehabbed and it's happily ever after and ideal, but I don't blame new parents who don't have the time/energy/funds to pour into their dog when they're coping with having a newborn). 

Tl;dr There are lots of gray areas, and sometimes the people who are drawn to rescue work aren't always the people who know how to deal with nuance.

[Deleted User]

levioosa

KatieinBkln said:

gladyscf said:

Does anyone see a difference in how people who run rescues operate over how people who run humane societies? 

I think there are some important differences, but I wouldn't wholesale suggest that humane societies are "better" than rescues--ideally, they need to work in tandem, since humane societies can't fit all the animals who need help, and often end up with animals who are "un-adoptable" without serious rehab, which they aren't equipped to give. Many humane societies really appreciate (good) rescues because the rescues are typically no-kill, and will save a humane society dog who would otherwise be euthanized (most humane society workers I know of hate that they euthanize animals, but I guess they're between a rock and a hard place if no one else can give the animal a home). A lot of rescues also have policies where they won't turn any animal away.

The downside is that a lot of times the same people who are deeply passionate about animal rights are ALSO a bit off the deep end when it comes to the realities of pet ownership. They'll tell you that OF COURSE an owner who "let" their dog/cat run away is negligent, they'll tell you that there is never a good reason to give up a pet. I think most reasonable people recognize that animals sometimes bolt, and families sometimes change needs. It doesn't mean the owner stops loving the pet, but you can bet that I might decide I'm not the best owner anymore for a dog who showed signs of treating my (future) baby like prey, for example. Doesn't mean it's a bad dog, it just means that people sometimes have to prioritize their children over their pets. (And sometimes they are able to get the dog rehabbed and it's happily ever after and ideal, but I don't blame new parents who don't have the time/energy/funds to pour into their dog when they're coping with having a newborn). 

Tl;dr There are lots of gray areas, and sometimes the people who are drawn to rescue work aren't always the people who know how to deal with nuance.

I also have to add that I have worked with several animal rescues, and the people who run them tend to be crazy pants.  It's actually (sadly) one of the reasons I stopped working with them.  It was exhausting working around all of the crazy.  I'm not saying that all animal rescues are like this, but I don't think it's completely isolated to a few either.  

beethery

levioosa said:

KatieinBkln said:

gladyscf said:

Does anyone see a difference in how people who run rescues operate over how people who run humane societies? 

I think there are some important differences, but I wouldn't wholesale suggest that humane societies are "better" than rescues--ideally, they need to work in tandem, since humane societies can't fit all the animals who need help, and often end up with animals who are "un-adoptable" without serious rehab, which they aren't equipped to give. Many humane societies really appreciate (good) rescues because the rescues are typically no-kill, and will save a humane society dog who would otherwise be euthanized (most humane society workers I know of hate that they euthanize animals, but I guess they're between a rock and a hard place if no one else can give the animal a home). A lot of rescues also have policies where they won't turn any animal away.

The downside is that a lot of times the same people who are deeply passionate about animal rights are ALSO a bit off the deep end when it comes to the realities of pet ownership. They'll tell you that OF COURSE an owner who "let" their dog/cat run away is negligent, they'll tell you that there is never a good reason to give up a pet. I think most reasonable people recognize that animals sometimes bolt, and families sometimes change needs. It doesn't mean the owner stops loving the pet, but you can bet that I might decide I'm not the best owner anymore for a dog who showed signs of treating my (future) baby like prey, for example. Doesn't mean it's a bad dog, it just means that people sometimes have to prioritize their children over their pets. (And sometimes they are able to get the dog rehabbed and it's happily ever after and ideal, but I don't blame new parents who don't have the time/energy/funds to pour into their dog when they're coping with having a newborn). 

Tl;dr There are lots of gray areas, and sometimes the people who are drawn to rescue work aren't always the people who know how to deal with nuance.

I also have to add that I have worked with several animal rescues, and the people who run them tend to be crazy pants.  It's actually (sadly) one of the reasons I stopped working with them.  It was exhausting working around all of the crazy.  I'm not saying that all animal rescues are like this, but I don't think it's completely isolated to a few either.  

It doesn't end with domestic pet rescues either. I'm a big fan of Big Cat Rescue and I I've gotten messages from crazy detractors of theirs with links to articles deriding them for making money off of the tours they offer.

No shit, that's how they pay to take care of all the animals. The best part was that the lady I was getting them from HATES BCR because they have a couple of her big cats, who were removed from her care because she was operating illegally and not providing for the animals in her poorly-run 'shelter'

The craycray is out there and unfortunately they try to 'help' animals who can't speak up for themselves and often times would do much better under the care of non-crazy people.