Posted on 02/20/2012 1:42:25 PM PST by CedarDave
Tasha is a beautiful blonde, friendly, maybe too friendly and too hard to resist with that wet nose, those paws big as pot pies.
Rachel Herring couldnt. Shes loved Tasha since she was a 7-week-old butterball, a purebred yellow Labrador retriever who has been Herrings constant companion for the past seven years.
Shes my best friend, Herring said. We do everything together. She has always been there for me.
Had always been there.
On Dec. 7, Tasha disappeared from her kennel at Herrings home in the East Mountains.
Tasha had never before escaped. Herring had never before dealt with a missing dog. It broke her heart.
Later that month and some 30 miles west in Albuquerque, Cindy Hill was looking to heal her own broken heart. Her beloved dog had died the month before, and she was ready to find a new companion at the city Animal Welfare kennels.
A yellow Lab caught her eye. The dog had been held for the requisite seven days and was freed for adoption.
Hill and husband, Mark, chose her, took her home and fell in love. They named her Tess.
Tess, you may have guessed, is Tasha.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
Here is a link to the petition. It explains the original owners case. There is also info at krqe in a bit titled Tasha tug of war. Feel horrible for Rachel and her dog.
http://www.change.org/petitions/city-of-albuquerque-give-back-a-dog-that-was-wrongfully-adopted-out
Totally agree. The dog would totally go to the original owner...
City Of Albuquerque: Give back a dog that was wrongfully adopted out.Why This Is Important
We, pet-owners, pet lovers and generally good people, request that The City of Albuquerque and/or the Hills, to return a dog that was wrongfully adopted out.
This is important because my sister-in-law, Rachel, lost her dog Tasha and she was adopted out even though she is chipped. The ABQ Animal Control didn't call Rachel's work number nor check with AKC for the vet info on the chip. They simply adopted out the dog. Tasha was held in a shelter 30 miles away from the area the City says she was picked up at. They never contacted the shelters in that area knowing the dog was far from home and with whom Rachel was in close contact. Tasha did have a collar on but we don't know what happened with that info either. It was easier for the City to just let her out for adoption than to spend the extra time and effort to call one more number.
When my sister-in-law contacted the new "owners" and explained the situation they became irrate with her saying what was done was done. Rachel offered to reimburse them adoption fees and/or give them whatever money they wanted besides and they slammed the door in her face dragging Tasha, away as she tried to run out to Rachel.
The woman trains dogs in town and one would think she would have the compassion to give back a nearly 7 year old dog who was raised since they were 7 weeks old to the rightful owner. It is morally wrong of this woman to keep the dog knowing the real owner is doing everything they can to get their beloved pet back. This is also a situation where the City should step in and admit they did not do all that they could to reunite Tasha with her owner. They chose to take the quick simple route that most likely ended in them receiving extra money they might not otherwise have had and causing a woman and her dog to be separated in a way that they have never had to deal with before.
Again we plead with the City and The Hills to do what is right and GIVE TASHA BACK TO HER ORIGINAL AND RIGHTFUL OWNER!!!!!
And I just found the KRQE video. The lady who lost the dog is a vet tech with the veterinarian who implanted the microchip! A phone call to the vet would have prevented this!
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/local/central/tug-of-war-over-tasha
A newbie! Welcome to FR! I will say you are very much more welcome than the most newbies who sign up just to troll.
Having viewed the video, it seems the city is just trying to cover their collective butt. Herring did err in not updating the chip info and the city erred in not going back to the original vet. Herring has offered to reimburse Hill for all fees and expenses that Hill has paid related to the case. If it goes to court, a judge will have to decide if the Herring error was sufficient to cause her to lose her dog. The fact that a simple backup procedure by the city (a call to the original vet) would have prevented this should give the city some pause too and maybe have them change procedures.
The dog could have been a way for her to develop a friendship with the real owners, and also get to see the dog once in awhile.
Given the particular circumstances it would be helpful if the shelter would let the woman adopt another dog at a discount.
Since she already paid the shelter money for one dog, the shelter should just allow her to select a dog and adopt it. My heart just breaks for the original owner.
I said a discount because it’s not the shelter’s fault the owners didn’t update their address information. They did try to find the owners. If they did decide to waive the fee I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but I wouldn’t hang them with the entire thing. I do think if they did waive it, however, it would give them great PR they couldn’t buy at any price.
The original owner is willing to pay all adoption and shelter fees, subsequent vet costs (if any) and pay a reward also if the new owner will give up the dog. She is willing to make her case in court if the new owner won’t give her back.
Unfortunately I see a civil defamation case coming from the new owner who is no doubt doing all she can to make the original owner the villain.
The original owner is willing to pay all adoption and shelter fees, subsequent vet costs (if any) and pay a reward also if the new owner will give up the dog. She is willing to make her case in court if the new owner won’t give her back.
Unfortunately I see a civil defamation case coming from the new owner who is no doubt doing all she can to make the original owner the villain. I hope the original owner has a good lawyer.
The original owner did err by not updating as you said but yeah, the shelter could have called the vet and didn’t. Her work number was listed and she like you mentioned, works for that same vet. I honestly don’t understand how someone could keep a dog knowing the owner is actively looking for it. Would hurt like heck to give her up but the happiness of the reunion should help heal some of that. Plus Herring could reimburse fees and you could adopt a new guy who really has no one to love them. I just got a new pet after mine died and would easily do the right thing if presented with the same problem...
Thanks for letting me join the conversation. =)
Always welcome. Please let us know of any progress in her attempt to get her pet back.
Rachel and the Hills are going to mediation. Perhaps things will work out. =)
What the F? Why would she agree to something like that? She already agreed to pay the Hills adoption and pet fees plus a reward for their trouble. The Hills IMO are just players who really don't care for the dog - it's just a piece of property, a purebred, to be trained and used for their own purposes.
Strictly from the legal standpoint, Rachel doesn't have a chance -- she was wrong not to have updated her contact info (yeah, the city's bureaucracy screwed up too, big time). But a simple paperwork error should not cancel a seven year relationship, a loving bond between a pet owner and her loyal companion. She needs to sue for custody; and she needs a lawyer, a passionate one who can argue the case before a judge or sympathetic jury. When I think of mediation I think of a divorce child custody case where the decision would be that you get to see your child every other weekend and selected holidays.
The whole thing just sets me to fuming all over again. She's between a rock and hard place with the Hills not having an ounce of compassion and no intention to do the right thing. And the longer it drags on, the more likely it is not to be resolved in her favor. Maybe you are right, perhaps things will work out but I'm not so sure.
Out of curiosity what is the ping thing?
I would like to make some statements regarding my dog Tasha and Cindy Hill. When fights like this occur, it usually is because there are two sides of the story. Everyone knows my side. I wanted my dog back. I want to make the record clear that Cindy Hill has her side as well. She did nothing wrong. She legally adopted a dog in the City Shelter that, had she not been adopted by someone, would have ...been killed. Cindy saved Tashas life. I did a number of things wrong, and it is only fair that these be put on the record.
First, of course, I failed to update the chip information. The chip company had my old cell phone number. Second, I now understand that Cindy and her husband consider the contact information I obtained I used to be confidential. I should not have obtained that information as I did. When I used it, they felt threatened. More importantly, I made the mistake of bringing a friend with me when I went to their home. My friend acted totally inappropriately at their door. If they had not felt threatened before that visit, they most certainly would have as a result of the visit. I am not at all surprised they called 911 as a result of what was said. It was clear to me, also, that Tasha was very comfortable with Cindy. I am very grateful for the good care she received at their home. They are good people who saved her life.
I realize that my actions in creating this entire confrontation, including the petition, internet postings and other publicity which targeted Cindy professionally made a bad situation worse. I was in attack mode, as were my friends and family. I fully understand why Cindy and her husband felt besieged by my actions.
With hindsight, I can see I should have done things very, very differently, and I apologize to Cindy and Mark Hill for that.
Rachel Herring
All seems very strange unless it leads directly to her getting her dog back. Or the preventing or dropping of charges against her by the Hill's for harassment.
BTW, which vet does she work for? Canyon Crossroads?
PINGS are two things --
1. Your comments (Pings on the forum page link to your comments).
2. If you have been Pinged it is to bring your attention to comments from someone else or to a particular article.
If you wish to be notified of NM articles that may be of interest, let me know and I will put you on the NM Ping list. There are lots of ping lists; the NM one is public (shows your screen name) on my home page, but others are private (you don't know who else is on it). It's really at the discretion of the keeper of the list.
We are not allowed to say anything other than what is written in the statement. Rachel works at Northview in town. Tasha is home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.