Letter left with a stray dog at the Humane Society:

[CanvasShoes]

Where do all you people live that it’s “illegal” to take a dog that is running loose to a shelter, but it’s NOT illegal for the owner to let their animal run free?

In my home town, you’re PERFECTLY within your rights to take a stray dog (tags or no) to the animal shelter. It is illegal for folks to NOT contain their animals.

And to the poster who said (paraphrased) “you don’t know their circumstances, maybe they have clueless kids who let the dog out etc”.

Not to be snide to YOU, but the same thing applies here. Isn’t there a saying something to the effect of “ignorance of the law does not mitigate your obligation to obey it”??? If they know their pet gets out, it’s THEIR responsibility (especially after 3 times) to make sure it can’t get out anymore.

I also agree with the poster who said “if these are responsible owners they’ll look for their dog at the shelters” with or without it’s tags!!

It’s not the neighbors’ responsiblity to keep rounding up and caring for an irresponsible pet owner’s pet!

And yes, I had the same thing happen to me. When my dog was a year old, she came into heat for the second time (she was too scrawny, I had a devil of a time “feeding her up,” the first time and the vets advised me to wait til she was a year old). I had an appointment for her at the vet’s but of course they have to wait until the heat is over.

I very carefully took her out ONLY on her leash each time she had to go. And EVERY blasted time this big ugly hound came around bugging her, she couldn’t even pee!

Oh yeah, he jumped OVER my fenced-in yard to get to her. This went on several times a day for a week. I was so sick of it, finally I got one of my dog’s spare leashes, and let him get close to her, then I grabbed him and took him to the shelter.

These people obviously never took care of this dog if he was free to roam over to my yard at all hours of the day and night.

He had tags too, so they were more than free to go get him (at the cost of a hefty fine).

First time is $75, second time is $150.

If you don’t want this happening, be a responsible pet owner, the folks in the OP’s example obviously aren’t if the dog has been out THREE times (probably more times when he wasn’t seen or caught by the neighbors).

Bravo whoever took the dog in to the shelter! It IS a “no-kill” one, maybe this dog will find a good home. And shame on the lackadaisical pet owners, if you can’t make sure it’s taken care of properly (and that INCLUDES making sure it can’t get out, and that your children are taught not to let it out as well), then don’t GET a pet in the first place!

[Jodi]

:: Sigh :: Those of us who take issue with MILLER’s actions take issue NOT with him taking the dog in – good decision, MILLER! – but with him REMOVING THE TAGS – bad decision, MILLER!

This is the point at which people generally start prefacing their posts with "I haven’t read the entire thread, but . . . . "

[Jodi]

GAWD –

Animals taken to no-kill shelters? They’re fed, housed and hopefully adopted.

A half-truth, as surely you know. Animals are accepted by no-kill shelters only until the shelter is full. If it’s at capacity, animals are turned away, usually then going to – surprise! – a regular shelter that frees up space by euthanizing unadoptable animals.

A dog that is abandoned at a no-kill shelter is either (a) taking a space that could have been given to another dog that did not just probably not have a good home to go to, but that definitely didn’t; or (b) will be taken to another shelter, if the no-kill is full, as they often are. DANIEL already laid all of this out. And no animal shelter is “a very nice place;” that’s precisely why humane societies try to reunite dogs with their owners unless they determine the owner is neglecting or abusing the dog which – again – is for them to determine. Not you.

Why does everyone assume we’re trying to “justify” his actions, or “rationalize up the ying yang” here?

Because you keep adding stuff to the OP that have no basis in fact – like that MILLER’s shelter would not properly investigate whether to dog was neglected and that even if it did, it would give the dog back anyway. A sure sign of rationalizing is that you have to make stuff up to support your position.

But since you’ve decided to refer back to my posts, allow me to repost my question to you, which you never answered:

Where is the “good” in removing the tags? It prevents the humane society from investigating the owner. It prevents the owner from offering a reasonable explanation for why his dog was out loose at night three times – unlikely he’ll be able to, but not totally impossible. It prevents the humane society from knowing who the source of the neglect is, and possibly preventing this individual from adopting another dog in the future. What “good deed” did MILLER do by preventing the humane society from doing its job?

I would hope your answer would not devolve to a bunch of assumptions about the shitty job the shelter would do, since – for the 900th time – you don’t know that.

See, it’s not that I think my position is morally better than yours (as would justify your assumption that I’m on my “high horse”). It’s that I think my position is more logically defensible than yours. Here’s my thinking: You justify MILLER’s actions in making a decision that is by law for the humane society to make – namely, whether the dog ought to go back to its owners – because you assume the humane society would not do the job correctly. But you have no logical basis for thinking so. If you have some information that indicates that MILLER’s humane society is as crappy as yours apparently is, by all means trot it out. Otherwise, your position is simply based on conjecture on your part, and therefore doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by tlw *
**Letting the dog run free is inexcusable neglect. It’s not “obnoxious”. It’s illegal, unsafe, unethical and the paramount of irresponsible. **

See, no it’s not. The paramount of irresponsible is locking five dogs in a car and leaving them there until one of the dogs dies, and the others end up eating its corpse because they have no other source for food.

Just so you know where I’m coming from: I’ve got a different standard for “the paramount of irresponsible” than you do. I have never heard of a person’s being charged for neglect based on their letting a dog run loose: the laws that cover such situations are anti-roaming ordinances, not anti-neglect ordinances. If anyone has a cite to the contrary, I’d be interested.

Sure, letting your dog run loose, if you do it deliberately, is unsafe, illegal, and unethical. But let’s not get carried away here: it doesn’t meet any relevant legal definition of neglect I’ve encountered.

It’s the pit, but I’m afraid that needs a hell of a corroborating cite. Unless NC legislators or judges have taken leave of their senses, the most that the owners could’ve recovered for this “damage” to their property is the loss of revenue they might’ve gained from hiring the dog out to stud/selling his semen, and only if the could show some evidence that the humane society had not exercised due care in attempting to find them and that their stray/wait period was improperly short and/or restrictive.

Wrong – but on reviewing what I wrote, it was a bit of an exaggeration. Here’s what actually happened, to the best of my recollection (it was two or so years ago, and I couldn’t find any online articles about it):

• A golden retriever came to the Madison County shelter, run by Friends of Madison County Animals at the time.
• The stray period passed; at this point, the dog was, according to NC law, legally the shelter’s property.
• Two different people came to the shelter after the stray period was up, claiming the dog was theirs. The shelter didn’t believe either of them.
• The shelter went ahead with its normal policy and neutered the dog.
• The owners came up with vet records proving the dog was theirs, and received their neutered dog back.
• The county came down like a ton of bricks on the shelter for going ahead with the neutering, and intimated (IIRC) that they’d support the dog’s original owners in any lawsuit.
• The shelter responded by refusing to take in any more animals until the county clarified their policy.
• The county responded by revoking Friends of Madison County Animals’ contract; at this point, they’re not out of business, but they are without a physical facility.

Now, imagine if they’d received a letter along with the Golden Retriever telling them that the dog was owned, and they’d gone ahead with the surgery. In North Carolina, abandoned animals (as opposed to stray animals) must be held for ten days. Do they hold the dog for ten days, denying adoption space to other animals? What if they neuter the animal at the end of those ten days, and then the owner shows up?

People get insane about their animals when you’d least expect it. Part of the art of running a shelter is dotting every i, crossing every t, to make sure you stay firmly on the right side of the law, even in very complex and ethically charged situations. Miller made that very difficult for his local limited-access shelter.

Czarcasm, while it’s true that Miller probably displaced another animal at his local limited-access shelter, I’d be speculating if I said what happened to that particular animal. I don’t know Marin County’s euthaanasia rates; I don’t know how full their shelter was. I don’t know whether that shelter is well-run or whether it’s a festering cesspool of disease and misery in which animals are left in cages, unsocialized, for years at a time.

What we do know is this:

1. Miller declared himself judge and jury on this guy, applying harsher penalties (i.e., seizure of animal) than the law would likely allow for.
2. He did it in such a way that turned the local shelter into either his enemy or his accomplice (i.e., they either have to call him and indicate they’re giving the dog back to the guy he stole it from, or they have to go along with the theft).
3. He did it in such a way as to remove the shelter’s original choice of whether to accept the animal (i.e., rather than bring it in during business hours, he abandoned the dog there overnight).
4. He has the opportunity to right most of his wrongs.

Daniel

[Sauron]

hopefool, to answer your question about my two dogs:

I had to send them to a shelter. The last time they got out, they harassed a boy. They didn’t bite him, but they did scare the bejeebers out of him (jumped on him, scratched him, etc.). I met with the boy’s parents, apologized, offered to pay any medical bills (there weren’t any), and wound up taking the dogs to the shelter after discussing the situation with a friend who was a police officer. I had hoped to give the dogs to one of the local farmers (it was a semi-rural area), but no one wanted them.

[GaWd]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**GAWD –

A half-truth, as surely you know. Animals are accepted by no-kill shelters only until the shelter is full. If it’s at capacity, animals are turned away, usually then going to – surprise! – a regular shelter that frees up space by euthanizing unadoptable animals.

Not a “half-truth” at all. He took an animal, that was loose or stray, to a no-kill shelter that had space or he would have been turned away. I see no lie or half truth here…and I’d posit a guess that you’re yet again overblowing the situation and anything I say for drama’s or argument’s sake.

[/quote]

A dog that is abandoned at a no-kill shelter is either (a) taking a space that could have been given to another dog that did not just probably not have a good home to go to, but that definitely didn’t;
[/quote]

So you’re saying that running loose on the streets constantly has no bearing in whether or not he was being cared for? Give me a break. Oh, right, that’s for the mythical “animal court” to decide, I forgot.

that’s precisely why humane societies try to reunite dogs with their owners unless they determine the owner is neglecting or abusing the dog which – again – is for them to determine. Not you.

They don’t determine that. They adopt pets. THat’s what our humane societies do. THe ACC rounds up dogs and possibly(but rarely) tickets or suggests that a dog be destroed.

Because you keep adding stuff to the OP that have no basis in fact – like that MILLER’s shelter would not properly investigate whether to dog was neglected and that even if it did, it would give the dog back anyway. A sure sign of rationalizing is that you have to make stuff up to support your position.

I’ve made nothing up thus far. I did suggest that since Miller is in my general area there may be some parallels between our animal programs. Never stated as fact, simply suggested. So stop drawing ridiculous conclusions as to my statements.

Where is the “good” in removing the tags? It prevents the humane society from investigating the owner. It prevents the owner from offering a reasonable explanation for why his dog was out loose at night three times – unlikely he’ll be able to, but not totally impossible. It prevents the humane society from knowing who the source of the neglect is, and possibly preventing this individual from adopting another dog in the future. What “good deed” did MILLER do by preventing the humane society from doing its job?

I’ve answered your question once before-Removing the tags prevents someone who fails to care for his dog from getting him back, hopefully. A dog owner who can’t keep his dog in regularly can’t care for his dog. Once it can be shrugged off, twice it becomes troubling, thrice-there’s a problem. And not just 3 times, but 3 times in less than 60 days.

I know of no story regionally where someone, save a cat lady or two with 400 felines, who has EVER been banned from owning an animal. Further, there is no database that a petstore or owner can access that has these offenders in it. Half-truth at best, lie at the worst, Jodi.

I’ve told you what our local ACC is like. I’m sorry you refuse to grasp the fact that regionally, they’re all the same. Tough. Our “humane society” doesn’t do abatement of strays, and only serves as an adoption platform. They also don’t do investigations, they serve as an adoption platform(you getting it yet)?

See, it’s not that I think my position is morally better than yours (as would justify your assumption that I’m on my “high horse”). It’s that I think my position is more logically defensible than yours. Here’s my thinking: You justify MILLER’s actions in making a decision that is by law for the humane society to make – namely, whether the dog ought to go back to its owners – because you assume the humane society would not do the job correctly. But you have no logical basis for thinking so. If you have some information that indicates that MILLER’s humane society is as crappy as yours apparently is, by all means trot it out. Otherwise, your position is simply based on conjecture on your part, and therefore doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. **

Jodi, since you know exactly dick about how things work around here(though, yet again you assume you do), I won’t bother to respond. Read over the last 2 posts directed at you. Our ACC serves to pick up dead animals, investigate bite complaints, and occasionally round up strays. THey don’t “investigate” people, they don’t prevent them from owning pets, they write tickets if they catch your pet-otherwise if someone take it to the shelter, there’s no ticket.

I’m sorry you don’t see the sense. I do. People I’ve consulted with do. The man doesn’t deserve an animal that can’t be cared for.

[Sauron]

*Originally posted by GaWd *
Not a “half-truth” at all. He took an animal, that was loose or stray, to a no-kill shelter that had space or he would have been turned away. I see no lie or half truth here…and I’d posit a guess that you’re yet again overblowing the situation and anything I say for drama’s or argument’s sake.

No. Read the OP again. He took the animal at night, after the shelter was closed. The shelter had no chance to turn him away; they didn’t know the animal was there until they opened up the next morning.

So you’re saying that running loose on the streets constantly has no bearing in whether or not he was being cared for? Give me a break. Oh, right, that’s for the mythical “animal court” to decide, I forgot.

Three times in 60 days doesn’t qualify as “constantly.” Feel free to look up the word’s definition if you doubt me.

I’ve made nothing up thus far. I did suggest that since Miller is in my general area there may be some parallels between our animal programs. Never stated as fact, simply suggested. So stop drawing ridiculous conclusions as to my statements.

As I just indicated, you either made up two “facts” or made two ridiculous statements. You pick.

[GaWd]

No. Read the OP again. He took the animal at night, after the shelter was closed. The shelter had no chance to turn him away; they didn’t know the animal was there until they opened up the next morning.

Last time I deposited a stray at a shelter(a no-kill, with no tags, BTW), I did it at night. After 9PM actually. So you may be right, but I know lots of the shelters around here are open late. Maybe an assumption, but not a lie. I also didn’t think Miller would leave a dog tied up all night. Unfortunately, since this has turned into a moralistic pile-on, I don’t think he’ll be back to clarify.

3 times in 60 days is a sufficient amount of times to say that it happens regularly. Especially when you consider that the dog was losing more weight every time. Oh, I know, it could have been a parasite, maybe the owner couldn’t get him to eat, blah. Blah(another half-truth?).

Sauron, don’t ride this high-horse. You really don’t want to.

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree on this. I still think you’re wrong, and you’re convinced I want you to change your mind(which I don’t, I don’t care).

Sam

[Sauron]

GaWd, stop and think a minute – would Miller have left a letter with the animal if there was someone there to talk with?

I have no doubt the dog was loose more than three times during the 60-day period in discussion. The question is, does that mean the dog’s owners are mistreating or neglecting the dog? That might very well be the case. Or, as I hope my example showed, the dog could be an accomplished escape artist. We don’t know.

From where I’m standing (on the ground), the only one on a high horse is you. You seem hell-bent on making assumptions or rationalizations and refuse to back down when your (possible) errors are pointed out to you.

For what it’s worth, I think Miller did the moral thing by taking the dog to the shelter. Legally, though, he’s helplessly in the wrong. And since he seems to have decamped from the thread, we might never know if his actions were appreciated or excoriated by the shelter and/or the dog’s owner(s).

[GaWd]

would Miller have left a letter with the animal if there was someone there to talk with?

Another assumption or half-truth. I’ve never heard of a shelter with a doggy “night-drop” box. And if Miller was so concerned about the dog’s well-being, he wouldn’t have tied him up outside to wait the night out. So yet again, we’re all just making assumptions.

I have no doubt the dog was loose more than three times during the 60-day period in discussion. The question is, does that mean the dog’s owners are mistreating or neglecting the dog? That might very well be the case. Or, as I hope my example showed, the dog could be an accomplished escape artist. We don’t know.

IMO, and others I’ve discussed this with, anyone who has a dog that gets out repeatedly and cannot be contained is neglecting his dogs. Once a year, twice a year-ok. Many times a month? Hell no. Escape artist or not, if you cannot contain him or take steps to prevent him from being hurt or hurting others, you are neglectful. Calling a dog an “escape artist” is a terrible excuse.

For what it’s worth, I think Miller did the moral thing by taking the dog to the shelter. Legally, though, he’s helplessly in the wrong.

He’s probably legally in the wrong, however, he made himself wholly available to the shelter.

And since he seems to have decamped from the thread, we might never know if his actions were appreciated or excoriated by the shelter and/or the dog’s owner(s).

Can’t say I blame him.

Sam

[KidCharlemagne]

I don’t think that Miller has provided enough information about the situation that anyone could reasonably come to the conclusion that what he/she did was right without irrationally projecting their own experiences on to this situation. People were doing this before he even clarified the events.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

I just realized we’ve all been talking out our asses, including Miller: Marin Humane Society is not a no-kill shelter.

We are an “open-door” shelter and we accept all animals that come in our doors. Since we do accept all animals we are faced with the difficult task of evaluating them for medical and behavior problems. Animals that we can not medically rehabilitate are euthanized to prevent suffering. Animals that pose a great risk to other animals or people are euthanized to prevent harm to the community. Please call (415) 883-4621, for more information.

If they evaluated the dog as behaviorally unfit for adoption – and based on its escape artist history, they may make such an evaluation – it may be euthanized. Similarly, many perfectly friendly dogs do not adjust well to a shelter environment and become aggressive and must therefore be euthanized.

Still think this was a great idea, GaWd? Do you see yet why I’m not willing to go for the Any Schmuck standard for who gets to take my animals from me?

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by GaWd *
**Another assumption or half-truth. I’ve never heard of a shelter with a doggy “night-drop” box. **

Well, now you have heard of a night-drop box:

The Marin Humane Society responds to animal emergencies 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Our Night Receiving Kennel is near the right rear of the shelter and is available for self-service after hours.

And if Miller was so concerned about the dog’s well-being, he wouldn’t have tied him up outside to wait the night out.

No, he was concerned about the dog’s well-being, I’ll gladly stipulate that. He just didn’t think everything through, and took it on himself to remove everyone else’s power to share in the decisionmaking. He needs to call the shelter and rectify that.

Daniel
hoping this doesn’t double-post

[Sauron]

*Originally posted by GaWd *
IMO, and others I’ve discussed this with, anyone who has a dog that gets out repeatedly and cannot be contained is neglecting his dogs. Once a year, twice a year-ok. Many times a month? Hell no. Escape artist or not, if you cannot contain him or take steps to prevent him from being hurt or hurting others, you are neglectful. Calling a dog an “escape artist” is a terrible excuse.

Your opinion is wrong. I can state this safely, since you are now talking about an experience I personally had. Perhaps in some instances people allow dogs to roam or escape out of neglect. In MY case, though, that’s incorrect.

“Escape artist” is an excuse? What other label would you apply to a dog (or, actually, two dogs) who learned to climb a six-foot-high chain link fence in order to roam?

If you refuse to see this, you’re blatantly disregarding facts to suit your own agenda.

And, since it’s possible the dog Miller dropped off will now be killed, I fail to see how you or anyone else advocating his actions can now claim the moral high ground.

Based on DanielWithrow’s post, I’m changing my opinion. Not only was Miller legally in the wrong by stealing someone’s dog; he’s now morally in the wrong, as well, since he could be the reason the dog may be killed.

Miller, if you’re still reading the thread, please go today and pay the fine to get the dog out of the shelter. It’s your call if you want to hassle the dog’s owners about the fine; personally, I don’t think you should, but that’s a judgment call.

If you don’t do that, this wonderful dog that you thought you were saving might wind up dead because of your actions.

[GaWd]

Daniel- That would change things quite a bit.

“Escape artist” is an excuse? What other label would you apply to a dog (or, actually, two dogs) who learned to climb a six-foot-high chain link fence in order to roam?

Justification from someone who lost his dogs because they couldn’t be controlled.

Your opinion is wrong…

Fuck you Sauron. My opinion is not wrong…that’s what makes it an opinion. That’s also what makes this discussion over. If you can’t understand that people hold opinions other than the one you do, then you’re not worthy of a response. There would be no sense in continuing to have a conversation.
Sam

[joyfool]

Originally posted by Sauron

I had to send them to a shelter. The last time they got out, they harassed a boy. They didn’t bite him, but they did scare the bejeebers out of him (jumped on him, scratched him, etc.). I met with the boy’s parents, apologized, offered to pay any medical bills (there weren’t any), and wound up taking the dogs to the shelter after discussing the situation with a friend who was a police officer. I had hoped to give the dogs to one of the local farmers (it was a semi-rural area), but no one wanted them.

Sauron, thanks so much for answering my questions. I’d always wondered what happened to pets with obviously loving, trying-to-do-the-right/best-thing owners when encountered with an unfixable problem. We have a princess of our own who lives inside that can’t even be left in the backyard unattended with her two buddies for fear of her climbing the fence. At first we thought getting her playmates would help, then securing the gates, etc., but all to no avail. So now, no unsupervised outdoor play. sigh It is such a pain in the ass.

However, I’m probably about to encounter problems on the other end soon. Our two other pups (both female) will need to be fixed soon, before we have visitors climbing the fence to get IN. Just gotta save up enough money ASAP to take care of things before we have tons of litters on our hands.

I hope your doggies found a good home. You did the right thing, but it must have been so hard.

[Sauron]

*Originally posted by GaWd *
Justification from someone who lost his dogs because they couldn’t be controlled.

Read my post regarding my two dogs again, GaWd. Then tell me what else I could have done to “control” my dogs. I spent more than two years and $4,000 trying to “control” my dogs. In the end, their urge to wander was greater than my ability to keep them in my yard.

Fuck you Sauron. My opinion is not wrong…that’s what makes it an opinion. That’s also what makes this discussion over. If you can’t understand that people hold opinions other than the one you do, then you’re not worthy of a response.

That’s quite amusing. You choose to hold an opinion based on something other than fact, which is obviously your right. But when at least one exception to your opinion is voiced, an exception actually based on fact, you refuse to change your opinion, or even acknowledge that it might be wrong.

I understand that my opinion is not the only one around. My wife reminds me of this fact on a regular basis. However, I try to base my opinions of people, places, ideas, etc. on either fact or personal experience, and I recognize that my opinions can change based on a change in those criteria. Those who do otherwise … well, let’s just say it’s not the most intelligent way to form an opinion, shall we?

hopefool: Taking the dogs to the shelter was very hard, and it was a step I didn’t want to take. I know one of the dogs was adopted, but I don’t know if the other was or not. The dogs had been part of our family for four years, and we didn’t want to give them up.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

*Originally posted by GaWd *
Daniel- That would change things quite a bit.

I guess if you don’t work in the animal welfare field, it might change things quite a bit. For me, it’s confirmation of my central point: people who don’t have all the facts shouldn’t go stealing other people’s dogs in an effort to rescue them. They’re likely to screw things up.

Daniel

[GaWd]

:sigh:

Sauron, #$%^&*. My opinion is based on fact and personal experience. I’m sorry if I come to a conclusion other than you, but that’s what makes it an opinion and not a fact.
Give 2 people the same data, the same experience and odds are, you’ll come out with a different opinion of it all.

Please let’s not get into some pedantic, inane, stupid discussion of what an opinion “is” or is not, ok?

I’m sorry for the pot-shot in my previous post. It was a little low, even by my standards.

Daniel- We still don’t know all the facts. To assume we do would be stupid.

Sam

[casdave]

Removing the tags would not stop the original owner getting the dog back, but to do so the onus would be on the owner who would have to phone around.

I’ve always been of the opinion that dogs should always be under supervision when outside, even in a yard.

If you cannot provide the time to do this, either yourself or along with your family, then you cannot be surprised when dog escapes occur, and when they do, you can expect to be liable for anything they may get up to.