What the ($)#*(#$)@ is the MATTER with you people?
I swear.. Rescues are the cesspools where stupid people go to die. It never ceases to amaze me.
Get a load of this article from the MyFoxSTL Website tonight:
Pet Rescue Group Sues Dog Adoptive Family
Last Edited: Wednesday, 11 Jun 2008, 10:51 PM CDT
Created: Wednesday, 11 Jun 2008, 10:51 PM CDT
Gateway Pet Guardians
By Teresa Woodard
(KTVI - myFOXstl.com) --
There's a legal battle brewing A St. Louis County couple is being sued by one of the region's largest pet rescue organizations, for taking a dog to a shelter, instead of giving him back.
"It's the first lawsuit we have filed," admits Jonathan Beck, a St. Louis attorney who also sits on Gateway Pet Guardian's board. "We're sending a message we take this very seriously."
The dog at the center of the controversy now goes by "Wendell" again. It's the name he started with, when he was found by Gateway Pet Guardians. Wednesday, Wendell played at a dog park with obviously no knowledge he was at the center of a first of its kind lawsuit filed one day earlier.
Wendell's story might sound familiar, because something similar happened to TV star Ellen DeGeneres.
In late 2007, a Creve Coeur couple adopted Wendell. He was just a puppy. They signed an adoption agreement with Gateway Pet Guardians, saying if they didn't keep the dog, they'd give him back to Gateway.
Wendell's name was changed to Blackjack and the couple who adopted him said he was a wonderful dog, except for his nonstop chewing problem. They also say he just didn't get along with a 12 year old dog they already owned.
In May, they called Gateway to return the dog, but Gateway told them they had no extra room in any foster homes.
"We asked this individual to continue caring for the dog until we could find someone. A week or two later we got an email stating that the adopter had found someone else to take the dog, a neighbor, so we said that's great, we need the neighbor to sign the adoption agreement you signed," explains Beck.
A series of emails between Gateway and the adoptive family began, and the adoptive family admitted some lies were told, and they say they regret that.
They took the dog to the Maryland Heights Humane Society, where the dog's microchip was scanned. That microchip showed Gateway as the owners, so they were contacted. Taking the dog to a shelter is a breach of the contract the family signed with Gateway, so Gateway decided to file a lawsuit.
"Our agreement provides for one thousand dollars in liquidated damages in the event an adopter surrenders the dog to someone, an entity, or an organization other than this. This is the first time this has happened since that clause has been present in our agreements," says Beck.
The former owners claim they are being unfairly targeted. They claim they've even been the target of harassment over this. They say they will file a countersuit.
Wendell is with a foster family for now, and Gateway hopes the lawsuit is a warning that adopters can give a dog back, but can't give one away.
"Unfortunately I think the lies show a level of motive, and a lack of caring for the dog as well as not caring for our interest in the dog," says Beck.
"The attitude that this living breathing creature who you've taken responsibility for, spent the last few months looking up to you, being the provider for it , and you can just , give it away, without any trouble."
"You just wish people would be a little more responsible about the decisions they make."
Gateway is asking for a thousand dollars, which is the amount the adoption agreement says they are entitled to if someone breaks the contract.
Okay.. so if I understand this correctly:
1. The people opened their home to a homeless animal.
2. They found the dog had behavior issues and did not get along with their current dog.
3. They honored the contract by calling Gateway and letting them know they needed to bring the dog back.
4. Gateway told them they couldn't take the dog, and that they'd need to hold onto the dog for an indefinite amount of time, even though they knew the dog and the family were not happy together.
5. The family took alternative action and takes the dog to another shelter.
6. Gateway is SUING the family for $1,000.
Holy moly. I would like to walk into Gateway and smack someone. Anyone, really.
If Gateway is really so all-fired dedicated to the idea that a dog adoption should be regarded with the same intensity as a human adoption, THEY failed here on two fronts. One, they didn't take their own role seriously in evaluating the success of this dog's placement with this particular family. If we're taking the attitude that a dog adoption is tantamount to a human adoption, then there needed to be a case worker, a trial period, the whole nine yards. That obviously didn't happen here, so we end up with a bad situation. Nice going, Gateway. Then, just to cement their lack of followthrough, when the family obeyed the mandate of their contract, Gateway DID NOT take the dog back. They did not, according to the story, give the couple any sort of timeframe on this 'please continue to care for him until we find a place' business. (Never mind the fact that amazingly, they found a place without any trouble once HSMO got their hands on him. It's impressive how quickly Rescue people can accommodate a dog when he might represent a cause for political salvo.)
But this, again, boils down to exactly what I have always said is wrong with Rescues. They have LOST TOUCH with what they're supposed to be doing. Consider the message this sends to me, as a dog lover and potential adoptive family at some point down the line. Should I choose to open my home to another dog, if I go to a Rescue and the dog proves to be unsatisfactory in some way, the Rescue can tell me to go jump in a lake until they're good and ready to take the dog back, and then SUE me.
Why would I put myself through that much potential stress when I can go to a pet shop and buy a puppy, no questions asked? And why, when I'm feeling a philanthropic bent, would I choose to give money to a place that would do something like this?
This is what I mean... These rescue people will tell you that pet stores and the breeders who supply them are The Enemy. They produce litters upon litters of unwanted dogs to be peddled off to the lowest bidder with no real concern for where they end up. Okay, fine.. but if that's true, then treat the people who DO come to you with the appeciation they deserve. It may be cheaper to adopt from a shelter in some cases, but not really so much anymore. And what you don't pay in funds you do pay in the form of this kind of crap. It's really stupid.
Just makes me mad. It really does. And the Ellen Degeneres thing pissed me off too, just for the record.
Get a load of this article from the MyFoxSTL Website tonight:
Pet Rescue Group Sues Dog Adoptive Family
Last Edited: Wednesday, 11 Jun 2008, 10:51 PM CDT
Created: Wednesday, 11 Jun 2008, 10:51 PM CDT
Gateway Pet Guardians
By Teresa Woodard
(KTVI - myFOXstl.com) --
There's a legal battle brewing A St. Louis County couple is being sued by one of the region's largest pet rescue organizations, for taking a dog to a shelter, instead of giving him back.
"It's the first lawsuit we have filed," admits Jonathan Beck, a St. Louis attorney who also sits on Gateway Pet Guardian's board. "We're sending a message we take this very seriously."
The dog at the center of the controversy now goes by "Wendell" again. It's the name he started with, when he was found by Gateway Pet Guardians. Wednesday, Wendell played at a dog park with obviously no knowledge he was at the center of a first of its kind lawsuit filed one day earlier.
Wendell's story might sound familiar, because something similar happened to TV star Ellen DeGeneres.
In late 2007, a Creve Coeur couple adopted Wendell. He was just a puppy. They signed an adoption agreement with Gateway Pet Guardians, saying if they didn't keep the dog, they'd give him back to Gateway.
Wendell's name was changed to Blackjack and the couple who adopted him said he was a wonderful dog, except for his nonstop chewing problem. They also say he just didn't get along with a 12 year old dog they already owned.
In May, they called Gateway to return the dog, but Gateway told them they had no extra room in any foster homes.
"We asked this individual to continue caring for the dog until we could find someone. A week or two later we got an email stating that the adopter had found someone else to take the dog, a neighbor, so we said that's great, we need the neighbor to sign the adoption agreement you signed," explains Beck.
A series of emails between Gateway and the adoptive family began, and the adoptive family admitted some lies were told, and they say they regret that.
They took the dog to the Maryland Heights Humane Society, where the dog's microchip was scanned. That microchip showed Gateway as the owners, so they were contacted. Taking the dog to a shelter is a breach of the contract the family signed with Gateway, so Gateway decided to file a lawsuit.
"Our agreement provides for one thousand dollars in liquidated damages in the event an adopter surrenders the dog to someone, an entity, or an organization other than this. This is the first time this has happened since that clause has been present in our agreements," says Beck.
The former owners claim they are being unfairly targeted. They claim they've even been the target of harassment over this. They say they will file a countersuit.
Wendell is with a foster family for now, and Gateway hopes the lawsuit is a warning that adopters can give a dog back, but can't give one away.
"Unfortunately I think the lies show a level of motive, and a lack of caring for the dog as well as not caring for our interest in the dog," says Beck.
"The attitude that this living breathing creature who you've taken responsibility for, spent the last few months looking up to you, being the provider for it , and you can just , give it away, without any trouble."
"You just wish people would be a little more responsible about the decisions they make."
Gateway is asking for a thousand dollars, which is the amount the adoption agreement says they are entitled to if someone breaks the contract.
Okay.. so if I understand this correctly:
1. The people opened their home to a homeless animal.
2. They found the dog had behavior issues and did not get along with their current dog.
3. They honored the contract by calling Gateway and letting them know they needed to bring the dog back.
4. Gateway told them they couldn't take the dog, and that they'd need to hold onto the dog for an indefinite amount of time, even though they knew the dog and the family were not happy together.
5. The family took alternative action and takes the dog to another shelter.
6. Gateway is SUING the family for $1,000.
Holy moly. I would like to walk into Gateway and smack someone. Anyone, really.
If Gateway is really so all-fired dedicated to the idea that a dog adoption should be regarded with the same intensity as a human adoption, THEY failed here on two fronts. One, they didn't take their own role seriously in evaluating the success of this dog's placement with this particular family. If we're taking the attitude that a dog adoption is tantamount to a human adoption, then there needed to be a case worker, a trial period, the whole nine yards. That obviously didn't happen here, so we end up with a bad situation. Nice going, Gateway. Then, just to cement their lack of followthrough, when the family obeyed the mandate of their contract, Gateway DID NOT take the dog back. They did not, according to the story, give the couple any sort of timeframe on this 'please continue to care for him until we find a place' business. (Never mind the fact that amazingly, they found a place without any trouble once HSMO got their hands on him. It's impressive how quickly Rescue people can accommodate a dog when he might represent a cause for political salvo.)
But this, again, boils down to exactly what I have always said is wrong with Rescues. They have LOST TOUCH with what they're supposed to be doing. Consider the message this sends to me, as a dog lover and potential adoptive family at some point down the line. Should I choose to open my home to another dog, if I go to a Rescue and the dog proves to be unsatisfactory in some way, the Rescue can tell me to go jump in a lake until they're good and ready to take the dog back, and then SUE me.
Why would I put myself through that much potential stress when I can go to a pet shop and buy a puppy, no questions asked? And why, when I'm feeling a philanthropic bent, would I choose to give money to a place that would do something like this?
This is what I mean... These rescue people will tell you that pet stores and the breeders who supply them are The Enemy. They produce litters upon litters of unwanted dogs to be peddled off to the lowest bidder with no real concern for where they end up. Okay, fine.. but if that's true, then treat the people who DO come to you with the appeciation they deserve. It may be cheaper to adopt from a shelter in some cases, but not really so much anymore. And what you don't pay in funds you do pay in the form of this kind of crap. It's really stupid.
Just makes me mad. It really does. And the Ellen Degeneres thing pissed me off too, just for the record.