Well, exactly. We don’t know all the facts – and clearly, neither did Miller (inasmuch as he didn’t even know what kind of shelter he was taking the dog to). You don’t steal someone’s dog when you don’t know all the facts: you risk screwing things up. Instead, you call in a professional who’s accountable to elected officials, and allow them to collect the facts.
It is, after all, what the Marin Humane Society suggests doing on their Web site.
Daniel
ALL no-kill shelters have a similar policy… at least all I’ve heard of (and I’ve worked in shelters). They would be stupid not to. They euthanize animals that are un-adoptable. This means animals that have serious health problems, and serious behavioral problems. If a dog is agressive, fearful and tends to bite people, who in the world would want him, except those who want an animal just as ‘guards.’
The dog Miller describes doesn’t fit the bill. He “he certainly wasn’t afraid of people, and liked being handled.”
This wasn’t a misunderstanding of what kind of a shelter this is. This doesn’t mean this isn’t a no-kill shelter.
Does anyone think this dog was not being neglected?
Autz, all no-kill shelters have a similar policy: they turn animals away when they’re full. As I quoted, they are an “open-door” shelter, meaning they don’t turn animals away.
Not good enough for you? Click on the link above for the full FAquestion:
Clear enough for you? (Here is it again, in case you missed it the first time)
Furthermore, if you’ve worked in shelters, surely you’re aware that many animals change their behavior radically when confronted with a shelter environment.
Before you arguet he point further, I encourage you to go and read their FAQ. I’m quoting what I consider the most relevant portions, but the faq itself is very clear.
Daniel
Autz- yes, I do feel that we do not have enough information to say that the dog was being neglected. Just because a dog is an “escape artist” and occ gets out despite the very best efforts of the owner- does not indicate that it is being “neglected”. Other than the fact it occ gets out- we have no other information to show it is being neglected, and as I said- just “getting out” is not suff reason to make that assumption.
This shelter seems to be in between. Even “no kill” shelters will put down a sick animal. However, the old fashioned “dog pound” will put healthy & adoptable animlas down just because they have been there X number of days (and I think this is wrong). Now that I know that it is the Marin shelter, and have re-checked their website- I can say that it is as close as you can get to being “no kill”- in fact, some “no kill” shelters have very similar policies.
It is wrong, sorta :).
By “old-fashioned dog pound”, I’m going to presume for a moment that you’re talking about government animal facilities. Almost all open-access shelters are government-run: they’re pretty damned expensive to run, and it’s hard to raise private donations to operate them. Especially since open-access shelters almost always receive more animals than they’re able to adopt out, and therefore need to euthanize animals because of lack of space.
Given that reality, policies for when to euthanize are all over the map. Some examples:
These are all the different kinds of policies for open-access shelters that I’ve ever heard of. In some places, few enough animals come in that space is rarely a consideration. Many more places project a “no-kill” image to the public because, frankly, you get more donors when you pretend to be no-kill.
One of the sleazier ways to do this is to say, “We never euthanize an adoptable animal.” When you look into it, though, you find out that they define “adoptable” very rigidly: if an animal is too old, or if it has the sniffles, or if it is’nt very friendly at the shelter, then they define the animal as unadoptable, euthanize it, and claim that they’re still no-kill.
The no-kill vs. open-access controversy is probably the single biggest division in the national shelter community. You’ll note that Marin County unambiguously calls themselves open-door, unambiguously denies being open-access.
Finally, one brief point: not all no-kill shelters will euthanize a sick animal. This is actually one of the problems: while some no-kill facilities are wonderful places, others are run by real nutjobs who, out of a desire never to euthanize an animal, turn their facility into a warren of disease and misery for their animals. Every year or two a scandal breaks out in North Carolina where another “no-kill” shelter turns outt o be a front for an animal hoarder. It’s pretty awful.
I actually have more respect for Marin Humane Society now that I know they’re open-access. Every community needs at least one open-door shelter, and that’s always going to be the shelter that takes in the bulk of the community’s animals.
It just sucks that this dog unnecessarily ended up there. Hopefully Miller has corrected his error by now.
Daniel
DanielWithrow
Why do you keep saying Miller STOLE the dog?
If you are missing your pet you make the calls to the local pound as a matter of course…dogs lose their tags all the time
Except for a few extremists here we mostly all agree Miller should not of taken the tags off and hope that he has since given the shelter the tags by now
No-kill shelter or not taking the dog was STILL better than leaving it in traffic where it was just a matter of time before that dog was killed and in most probably a far more painful way
If the dogs owners really care for him they will be looking for him…if they don’t then maybe Miller despite being a low-down do-gooder was right in his accessment of the owner
I can understand that YOU as a professional in this area have to think about ALL the animals in your care but Miller was worried about that one particular dog…a dog that despite his having rescued from the dangerous streets twice before probably wasn’t thinking all that kindly about the owner when he sees the same dog on the loose the third time…add to that Miller is the ONLY one here who has had ANY contact with the owner of the dog thus the ONLY one who can say whether he STILL feels justified in removing those tags
Since Miller isn’t giving us any more information I’d have to say with the facts as we know them…he was correct in turning the dog into the shelter rather the dog’s owner and wrong to remove the tags
Sorry for not getting back to the thread earlier. Real-life concerns prevented me from posting yesterday.
So, first of all: Sabbath was indeed chipped, the owners were contacted the next day, and agreed to pay the fine and neuter the dog. Not sure if I’m pleased to hear that. I’m going to have to remember to bring an extra leash whenever I walk my dog, now. Hopefully, if the owner doesn’t become more responsible, fixing the dog will cut down on the wanderlust. As well as other, more obvious lusts, of course.
Were my actions illegal? Probably. Do I care? Not particularly. I’ve committed worse crimes than dog-napping with a clear conscience. My chief concern, thanks to DanielWithrow’s astute observations, was that I’d created unnecessary headaches for the staff at the shelter, who have already got enough problems without my adding to them. However, when I talked to the shelter, I was told “Officially, we can’t condone taking the tags off the animal.” I thought that “officially” was a pretty telling qualification. At any rate, while I don’t regret my actions, should the situation arise again (and I feel certain that it will) I do not think I shall repeat them.
Thanks to all for your insight, support, and especially criticism. If nothing else, it’s been a learning experience.
DanielWithrow
Why do you keep saying Miller STOLE the dog?
If you are missing your pet you make the calls to the local pound as a matter of course…dogs lose their tags all the time
Except for a few extremists here we mostly all agree Miller should not of taken the tags off and hope that he has since given the shelter the tags by now
No-kill shelter or not taking the dog was STILL better than leaving it in traffic where it was just a matter of time before that dog was killed and in most probably a far more painful way
If the dogs owners really care for him they will be looking for him…if they don’t then maybe Miller despite being a low-down do-gooder was right in his accessment of the owner
I can understand that YOU as a professional in this area have to think about ALL the animals in your care but Miller was worried about that one particular dog…a dog that despite his having rescued from the dangerous streets twice before probably wasn’t thinking all that kindly about the owner when he sees the same dog on the loose the third time…add to that Miller is the ONLY one here who has had ANY contact with the owner of the dog thus the ONLY one who can say whether he STILL feels justified in removing those tags
Since Miller isn’t giving us any more information I’d have to say with the facts as we know them…he was correct in turning the dog into the shelter rather the dog’s owner and wrong to remove the tags
Dog-Napping? Nah. This is dog-napping.
Failing to turn in someone who commits a crime does not make you an accomplice.
And [b/Gawd**, negligence in the legal sense has nothing to do with this situation. (It would be relevant if the dog had done any damage while it was out.) The law the owners were in violation of would be some local ordinance that requires dogs to be locked up.
I never said is had anything to do with it. Someone took exception with the lay definition, and requested the legal definition…I simply provided it. The lay definition covers all bases in this case.
Reading comprehension, use some. 
Sam
The point, GAWD, which you are apparently simply too dense to grasp, is that while I indeed know “dick” about how things work in your neighborhood, YOU IN TURN KNOW DICK ABOUT HOW THINGS WORK IN MILLER’S. So you can justify his actions to your heart’s content based on “parallels” you might “suggest,” but at the end of the day, you still have jack-shit in the way of evidence that his shelter would not have handled the situation correctly. In fact, MILLER’s interactions with them, in which they were totally professional, and his concern that he might have caused them a headache, would tend to indicate that his is not the piece of crap worthless shelter your neighborhood enjoys. Which, of course, totally disproves your half-assed assertion that “regionally, they’re all the same.”
I’m sorry you cannot grasp the fact that all the assumptions you’ve based your opinion about the shelter on are just that – assumptions, and probably wrong ones at that. But at this point it is at least clear to me that you do not, in fact, grasp that at all.
Reading comprehension. Use some.
Yes, I would say that finding a roaming dog three times in two months is a sign of neglect. Dogs who escape their yards shouldn’t be let out unsupervised.
Julie
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by DanielWithrow
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./QUOTE]
And did I say that it was legally defined as neglect? I did not. It is, however, neglectful in as much as it is a failure to care for or attend to properly. Surely you’re aware that words have meanings separate from their legal applications, no?
Your story is a bit different in application than you had originally indicated. The ownership of the dog was in question, it wasn’t a matter of a regular stray who had no claims made upon it during the waiting period.
They follow their normal procedures, and if the letter provided a phone number for contacting the person who left the animal (as Miller’s did) they should use that as a means of investigating the dog’s provenance. That’s all they can do. Not that difficult.
Agreed, unless the enclosure is something that they absolutely cannot escape, climb over, dig under, bite through or get their collars caught upon, they need and deserve a watchful eye.
Call me dense, but if your dogs can escape your fence and you still feel it necessary to leave them outside without supervision, why not put them on tie-outs, or put in a dog run with a ceiling?
Wait, now I’m dense because I pointed out that you were grasping and making assumptions of your own?
I live about 30 miles from him, so I think our counties are much closer in laws, statutes and regulation and how they deal with such situations than wherever the fuck you are. You also have just about jack-shit in the way of evidence, and you tire me with the way you’re hell-bent on winning an argument.
You also assume that my shelters are “… piece(s) of crap”, and “worthless”. I’ve had nothing but wonderful and professional experiences with my local shelters when taking a wonded or stray animal to them. Our “shelters” don’t get animals, our Animal Control Centers do. Shelters once again are here for adoption platforms, not for gathering strays, investigating claims of abuse(as I found out when attempting to get a dangerous situation rectified), and not for taking animals to. We have a numerous amount if independent vet hospitals and shelters to take wounded and stray animals to.
That’s a whole lot of assumptions coming from one who apparently has a problem with people assuming things.
Sam
You are the person who brought up the issue of negligence. It’s not outrageous to assume that someone brought up a topic because they thought it was relevant. Or do you think that neglect = negligence? They are not related concepts. Maybe you are thinking that the duty of care that is an element of negligence has something to do with an affirmative duty to care for someone. It doesn’t. In any case, it’s clear that your comprehension skills are lacking, which is understandable since you’re out of your element.
(By the way, I don’t think that adding a smilie neutralizes a rude comment.)
I’m sorry chula, but from a purely lay definition, the dog owner is negligent, period. I won’t revisit the definitions already posted. THen a poster said that the lay definition wasn’t good enough for the situation and that the legal definition needed to be used, I provided that as well, which was fitting and yes, by the lay and legal definitions, the dog owner is negligent.
I’m sorry you’ve come to some other interpretation of all of the various meanings of the term. I’m not out of my element here, I love arguing about definitions :rolleyes:
Since you think I’m out of my element, I bow down to your worldly intellect. Please explain how “failing to do something that should be done” or any of the other definitions of ‘neglect’, or ‘negligence’, fail to apply in this case.
Sam
P.S.- I didn’t seek to neutralize my rude comment. You apparently follow the discussion, and I thought maybe you should revisit.
You did a great thing.
Neglect and negligence aren’t related?
Or are you speaking in some sort of specific legal context? Even so, the idea that the two terms aren’t even related is a rather bizarre claim on the face of it.
So, if you say stole enough, do you think that will sway us and guilt Miller?