The only thing we know for a fact is that Miller stole a dog(a crime), removed the dog tags from a dog he doesn’t own(another crime, and dangerous to the dog if the shelter gives the dog shots it doesn’t need), gave it to somebody else(another crime), and then lied to the shelter when they asked if he knew who’s dog it was.
Can I see another show of hands of all those that believe that laws do not matter, and that the ends justify the means? 
Well, I can easily understand the viewpoint that Miller’s actions were morally defensible.
However, I can also see how people thing that downloading mp3s is morally defensible. But both are crimes. As such, I would think it a bad idea to bring this up on the board. Or did I miss something?
There’s another reason why the shelter may not have called you back, Miller. You said you’re friends with the shelter’s director, right?
Our humane society has “friends” who occasionally do amazingly boneheaded things, thinking they’re helping the animals when really they’re just creating a monumental headache for us and getting us in all kinds of trouble. But because we try to be friendly and diplomatic, we don’t call them back and say, “You dumbass! What were you thinking?” No, we stomp around the office and bitch about them until we’ve calmed down and figured out a way to handle the situation that protects both the animal’s and our interests.
As you point out, the animal may have a microchip, in which case maybe they’ve just cut you out of the loop and already contacted the owner. Or maybe they’re still trying to figure out how they can get the owner’s information from you without having you go around telling everyone that the shelter doesn’t care about the plight of a neglected animal.
Or maybe they’re either ignorant or foolish, and they actually don’t mind participating in a crime that could get them shut down if the owners find out about it.
I don’t think you can assume anything. Please do call them, let them know that you were the one who stole the dog, and that you’re more than happy to give them the owner’s information. Better yet, call the owner and tell him that his dog is at the shelter: this is the only course of action you can take which makes you no longer a criminal.
I see animal cruelty and neglect on a daily basis. I do not have any sympathy for the crime you’ve committed.
Daniel
Miller
I was inclined to think the letter writer(you as it turned out) did the correct thing even before you clairified your OP the first time
simply because the letter says the dog was returned twice before he was turned in to the Humane Society. The easiest thing in the world to do and what MOST people would do is nothing…notice the dog in danger say oh how sad and move on with your life…I have had to take abandoned pets to the HS before and this isn’t something that is done lightly by anyone who cares about animals even a little bit
The first clairification simply added to my conviction you did what I would hope I would do in a similair situation if the first time they came to pick the dog up(no way to know THEN the condition the dog lived under) but the second time you found the dog and returned him personally and saw first hand what the owner was like concerning his pet(to ME anyway this makes a BIG difference on what I would do the NEXT time I found the same dog)
The only point I would quibble with is removing the tags…I would of left them on but still turned the dog in to the HS so if your initial read on the owners was wrong and they REALLY cared about their “beloved” pet they would pay the fee to get him back and if not at least they had the chance to and you would not leave the HS in a potential legal bind(that was something I had not even thought of to be honest)…SDMB dispelled some ignorance today(some of MINE anyway)
There are times that I certainly believe that, and saving a dog who keeps getting loose near dangerous traffic conditions is one. I don’t know if I would have done what Miller did or not, but it’s not like the people can’t get the dog back- I’m glad they’ll have to go through the inconvenience of calling the shelter, explaining why the dog is always wandering, etc. We have a few dogs that roam this neighborhood and it’s dangerous to the dog and to us- sometimes you do have to take matters into your own hands, IMHO. I probably would have called animal control a few times first, myself, but this wasn’t my situation. If those people want their dog back, they’ll go to the shelter and hopefully have to pay a fee to release him. If not, he’ll hopefully get adopted out. Either way, it beats the hell out of getting smeared in traffic, IMHO.
Tommy, I agree with you to a degree: if Miller had left the tags on, I’d completely applaud what he did. Taking a stray animal to a shelter is a praiseworthy act.
Removing the tags makes all the difference in the world, though. It changes the act from a legal one to a probably illegal one, and it turns the shelter into an accomplice. It further puts a friend of Miller’s in a difficult legal situation. And it doesn’t solve any problem: if the owners care enough about the animal to pay a reclaim fee, then they don’t deserve to lose their animal; and if they don’t care enough, then they won’t get their animal back.
I really think Miller needs to alert the dog’s owner as to where the dog is, and needs to drop the dog’s tags off by the shelter. Failure to do so is unethical and probably illegal.
Daniel
I am with Tommyturtle, I would have taken the dog to the HS, but I never, ever would have removed the tags.
The HS is now in the position of having a stolen dog, I bet they are thrilled. I know from working in a shelter and being involved with rescue I sure would be.
You don’t know what kind of dog owners these people are, and even if you did, it is not your right to decide to remove the dog from their care. And you can’t tell me you know they are neglecting the dog because it is gettinig skinnier, I have a dog who is the same way, she looses weight in the summer (a lot of weight), she is free fed an excellent dog food, and from selling dog food for years I know many people who have dog’s that are the same.
I for one am slightly tired of people deciding they know what is best for an animal, without knowing or caring to find out the whole story.
When dropping off a rent cheque once, I came a cross a tragically emaciated terrier mix (looked like “Benji” but gortesquely thin.) “Oo! Poor lost doggy!” I thought.
I tried to coax the dog over to check out its collar. It looked at me disdainfully, made a prissy snort (yes, prissy – I didn’t think dogs could be prissy!) and haughtily trotted across a yard – like a regal snob – nudged open the front door of the house and went inside.
I saw the dog a few more times when dropping off rent cheques. Sometimes with its owner. It must have been some strange terrier/greyhound combo. It always looked horrendously emaciated, but playing with its owner I saw that it was well-loved, well-cared for, had heaps of energy, and was generously given dog cookies (it was certainly not under nourished despite its’ weird appearance.)
Taking the dog the the Humane Society was the right thing to do. Removing the tags? Not so much. From Miller’s later posts, it seems that the owners are boobs. If they truly don’t give a rat’s ass then they won’t be going to get their dog back. But that decision isn’t unilaterally up to the “finder of the dog.”
Jodi, I’m sorry if my trying to get people to calm down and stop speculating wildly offends you. I get driven mad by it and as was obvious from my first post, I am human and prone to speculation too.
Czarcasm, in this case I believe the ends justify the means. When my wife and I see a dog in bad shape on the street, we try to contact the owners or return the dog to it’s owners. If I were to come across the same dog multiple occasions, I can see where I might think twice about returning him.
Sam
Magayuk, what do you think of my kitten story from last year?
Let’s try a diferent tack.
GaWd, are you comfortable with professionally-trained animal control officers investigating any complaints of cruelty made against you and, if and only if in your professional opinion you’re violating anti-cruelty laws, taking your animals away from you?
I’m comfortable with that for me.
Are you comfortable with any schmuck on the street concluding that you’re not providing enough care to your animals and, in their untrained opinion, taking your animals away from you?
I’m not comfortable with that for me.
Sure, Miller may be right. BUT IT’S NOT HIS DECISION TO MAKE. Unless and until he’s exhausted all legal avenues (including calling animal control), it’s unethical and probably illegal for him to do what he did.
Why is that so hard to see? Why is it difficult to see that there were less drastic things he could do, things that would be both legal and ethical? Stealing an animal is, in rare and dire circumstances, ethical. This circumstance was far from dire.
Miller should have called animal control and confined the animal until AC could retrieve it (or even have dropped the animal off at AC). Too late for that now; now he should call both the owners and the shelter and make sure both parties are fully informed. To do otherwise is to continue behaving unethically and probably illegally.
Daniel
Man, what a train wreck!
The way I see it, Miller didn’t steal the dog. He only stole the tags. He found the dog a’wandering and took it to the shelter. He took the tags and kept them. Too bad it wasn’t a St. Bernard. At least they carry a little cask of booze. That would be worth stealing! 
Consider this: Miller’s actions may well have insured this animal’s survival. Good chance that critter would be dead in traffic by now had he not turned it in.
There was this horrible little brown mutt with no tail that I had to chase out of our yard constantly. It would chase the wife’s wallibies and stress them horribly. It always managed to take off when I came out with the gun, and I never got a clear shot at it. One day, I saw him up on HWY 50, deader than shit, and I gave a little “Hoorah!” as I drove past. Just sorry it wasn’t me that got him.
Maybe that dog is damn lucky Miller got to him before someone who didn’t “appreciate” him as much. Ends justify the means? Eh, whaterver. This isn’t worth getting too worked up about.
“Lets get them meek bastards NOW!”
DanielWithrow
I would say Miller did NOT “steal” that dog…he rescued it from possibly being killed by traffic
I agree he should not of taken the tags off…that was rash but that could be corrected even now by contacting the Humane Society and letting them know the owners’ name if the dog does not in fact have a chip with owner info on it
If the owner really cares about his pet then it will not be a problem for them to go and pay whatever fee the HS charges(maybe even take steps so the dog is not running the streets all the time) and if the owner does NOT then the dog is right where it ought to be(at least until it can be adopted by someone who WILL properly care for it)
If he HAD called animal control there is no certainty that the dog would of ended up at some facility that had a no-kill policy
We pretty much all agree that removing the tags was a mistake but none of US know how bad conditions for the dog was at his owners home and I am willing to give Miller the benefit of the doubt considering he is the only one here who has had any contact with the owners and has already gone far beyond what most people would do for an animal that was not theirs to begin with…removing the tags could very well be an impulse Miller regrets and as I say he could still even now send the tags in so even THAT is not an irreversable error
Spoken like someone who hasn’t had to deal with shit like this at an animal shelter.
Daniel
Another thing to consider: Miller said it was a “no-kill” facility, right? The other name for such shelters is “limited-access” shelters: the way you avoid euthanizing animals is to only take animals in when you have an empty cage free. Wanna guess how many empty cages most limited-access shelters have in the middle of summer?
Damn few.
So if Miller had taken the dog by there during the daytime, in the ethical, legal fashion, there’s a good chance they would have turned him away. They might have said, “Sorry, but we’ve got a long waiting list of animals that need help a lot worse than this dog.”
Instead, Miller took the decision away from the shelter. Either they had to call animal control themselves to pick up the dog he abandoned with them, or they had to take it in, using up a cage that could otherwise have gone to an animal that really needed it.
And when animals are turned away from the limited-access shelters, where do they go?
Best alternative for them is usually that they end up at a full-access shelter – i.e., a shelter that never turns an animal away. And you know how they manage to do that?
They euthanize.
No-kill shelters are a zero-sum game. If they took that dog in, another one was turned away.
Irresponsible.
Daniel
Blow off Withrow.
Let’s see here…
If my dog is repeatedly found by the SAME person miles away from home in different parts of the city MANY times, I’d think the LOGICAL conclusion was that I was neglectful.
So if a dog was found multiple times by the same party, with many miles separating the locations the dog was found at, can one reasonably assume that the owner is neglectful, or IYW, “concluding that you’re not providing enough care to your animals”?
IMO, the answer is yes. You may feel differently, tough shit. I’m not here or posting to make your fucking day.
When I find a dog without tags and I’ve made what can be seen as a reasonable attempt at locating his owners, I take the dog to the shelter. If I was in Miller’s position, I’d definitely have some thoughts about doing this. If someone can’t handle their dog, they shouldn’t have it. If someone’s dog gets out and is allowed to wander MILES from home, they don’t care enough(obviously this is situational).
Sam
I’m with Miller on this one. Maybe he “stole” a dollar’s worth of dog tags. So what? Finding the dog three times that far away means they didn’t care whether they kept it or not and should be considered abuse of the animal in and of itself. If they want the dog back, they can get on the phone and figure out where it is. If they do and it gets out again, I hope Miller takes it to a shelter in the next county where they won’t look.
What Miller did was 100% morally right. Screw the legalities. What’s legal isn’t always the same thing as what is moral.
I do agree that no-kill shelters are of questionable overall benefit, however.
How strange – I do post here to make your fucking day. :rolleyes:
Thoughtless do-gooders are a major pain in the ass for animal shelters, and cause us all kinds of headaches. Miller could have handled this situation in a way that violated no laws, didn’t endanger the animal shelter, and still protected the dog’s interests – or have you missed out on that? He didn’t do that. I’m encouraging him to rectify his mistakes.
I don’t trust generic do-gooders in the community to evaluate how I take care of my animals. I’ve seen far too many of them make incorrect evaluations of other people’s animals to trust that most people are willing and competent to make those judgements. Shit – Miller hasn’t inspected the dog’s property, hasn’t interviewed the dog’s owners, hasn’t explained to the ownerst he laws about proper animal care, hasn’t engaged in incremental behavioral correction. He hasn’t done any of the things that a professional animal control officer would have tried in order to rectify the problem; instead, he’s taken it on himself to remove the person’s companion animal from them.
That’s theft. And don’t give me nonsense about how he’s only stolen a few dollars of dog tags. He’s deliberately engaged in behavior to make it more difficult for the person to recover their dog, which is legally their property.
It’s unethical and probably illegal, and he should rectify the situation. So so sorry if that doesn’t make your fucking day.
Daniel
And GaWd, your 133t dictionary skillz impress the poop outta me, but just so you know: sometimes the law defines a word differently from how the dictionary defines it.
Daniel
Well, smartass, Lemme check my handy-dandy law dictionary, which happens to sit by my left hand on my desk…
Neglect- 1- Failure to do something that should be done. 2. Absence of care in doing something 3. Failure to properly care for a [dog]
And for effect;
Negligence- 1. The failure to excercise a reasonable amount of care in a situation that causes harm to someone or something. It can involve doing something carelessly or failing to do something that should have been done.Negligence can vary in seriousness from gross(recklessness or willfullness), through ordinary(failing to act as a reasonably careful person would), to slight(not much).
Did the dog owner fail to do something that should have been done? Like, you know, KEEP HIS FUCKING DOG INDOORS OR PAY ATTENTION TO HIS ANIMAL…
Was there an absence of care in doing something? LIKE, YOU KNOW, TAKING CARE OF HIS FUCKING DOG…
Was there a failure to take care of his dog? I won’t even answer that one.
So there’s some 733t fucking skills for you. You seemed to be confused about what the term “negligent” meant. Now you have the lay def and the law def.
Sam
P.S.-If you care to check my referernces, it was:
Oran’s Dictionary of the Law Second Edition, Pg. 283.