Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Former Military Chick
In the eye's of the law, he did sign away his beloved pet. But here is the question, it wasn't as if he had a choice at that moment in time. He was unable to find a roof for his family.

That's the part where I disagree. He did have a choice. If he wanted the animal held so he could reclaim it later, he could have taken the animal to a kennel without giving it up. But instead, he chose to give up the animal and is now somehow surprised that the shelter to which he signed over the animal is not acting like a kennel.

Personally, I do not like dishonesty...but if I were forced into a situation in which arbitrary or unreasonable rules were in place that would jeopardize the safety and security of any member of my family (human or critter), I would lie like a Clinton under oath. And I mean lie, deceive, leave the toilet seat up, the works.

No man gets between me and my loved ones without my permission. None.

174 posted on 09/25/2005 1:17:54 AM PDT by Prime Choice (E=mc^3. Don't drink and derive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies ]


To: Prime Choice

FWIW, the LA shelters are implementing a "30 day hold" on all Katrina rescues before they're available for adoption specifically for the sake of occurrences like this.

*They* want to make absolutely sure that the owners have ample opportunity to find and reclaim their pets.

This shelter is a stiff-necked, "letter of the law" nest of petty tyrants, IMO.

There's always the possiblity that he did not fully comprehend the finality of the "signing over".
A lot of the rescue groups have animals "signed over" to them in LA under the conditions that the signing over is temporary until the owner can provide a home again.

He may have felt that his situation was utterly hopeless and did the selfless thing by finding refuge for his dog...not knowing that a home would be available so soon.

Whatever the case may be, he should get his dog back.
Anything less than that result is morally reprehensible.



177 posted on 09/25/2005 1:27:04 AM PDT by Salamander (There's nothing that "MORE COWBELL!" can't fix.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies ]

To: Prime Choice

"If he wanted the animal held so he could reclaim it later, he could have taken the animal to a kennel without giving it up."

I know that is true now, but when the whole disaster began many people weren't being given that option. Many animal shelters will tell you right out that if they take the animal you can't get it back without paying and, worse yet, if you haven't reclaimed it within a specific time period and it hasn't been adopted it will be killed. Sometimes in as little as three days. So if you know there was a possibility of your pet being killed and you met someone who you thought was a kind person who said they would love and care for your pet what would you do?


192 posted on 09/25/2005 6:22:20 AM PDT by pepperdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson