Staying on the Up & Up with Animal Control

[cirque]

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Finders keepers, loosers weepers.

If someone finds an obviously neglected animal outside and they wish to nurse it back to health, meet the "responsible pet owner obligations" and get the animal fixed, meet any health requirements, pay the bills.. more power to them. I could care less what some animal control officer seems to think about any of that, "right or wrong" "legally" in any state or country.

I watch animal planet, I see officers having to wait a day or two or more while they "try to contact the owner" who has obviously fled the area leaving their pets in near death conditions. That is bull plain and simple. Take the animal when you see it suffering, thats enough. There is no "moral" reason to have to leave a piece of paper on someones door for a day or more "hoping" they will come back to an abandoned roach infested apartment that is not fit for a human OR a pet to live in. Especially if the pet is showing visible signs of being starving and malnurished and living in their own filth or neglected.

It sickens me to see dogs so thin they would be rated worse then a 5 on the scale of how bad they were.. If the scale went any higher. How can people do this to animals and not care or think its acceptiable behavior? I do not understand. Maybe they should be chained to a radiator for a good portion of thier lives, beaten, starved and wait till the chain grows into their neck before someone lets them out just like they seem to do to thier pets in some cases. Its horrible.

'Change the laws or get them changed..? They listen to the people more then the officers..' Oh really? Well then that is one majorly flawed system. Next your going to tell me a felon has a better chance of being heard about flaws with the system then a judge who has ruled on 200 felony cases in the last 3 months. If the system can not look at itself and see its flaws, who on this earth has convienced you that any "out of the loop" caring bystander is going to have that much more of an effect? Please, tell me another bed time story.

If you are so concerned there is a problem and you need more funding, better laws, more officers.. stand up, put your own job on the line and speak your mind where you work, where it actually MIGHT make a diffrence. If you don't think there is a problem then I do not see any reason to suggest to others that if they think there is a problem to do something about it, because quite frankly if you don't see it and won't stand up for it, what good will it do for a citizen who is not even an "expert" in the field to challange the people who run the shelters and originzations that were created to help these animals.

Bottom line, it pisses me off, your attitude and happy go luckyness pisses me off and instead of going to watch Letterman, why not go save a cat or dog or actually get some more laws on the books and more officers on the streets.

You asked for the other side.. well there ya go, theres one of them.

 

[bear]

Originally Posted by Cirque

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. Finders keepers, loosers weepers.

Bottom line, it pisses me off, your attitude and happy go luckyness pisses me off and instead of going to watch Letterman, why not go save a cat or dog or actually get some more laws on the books and more officers on the streets.

You asked for the other side.. well there ya go, theres one of them.

Hummm. I see that I (Bear) posted under a reply rather than the original post.

Possibly you did the same and this is not inteneded for me.

However..... The legal reality is that possesion is not 9/10ths of the law.

A Rescue operating under that assumption is setting itself up for problems. Lawsuits or even threats of potential lawsuits can drain the finacial, emotional and support from a non profit. The Rescue should seek ways as the local one here did to find ways to legally transfer ownership. Non profit rescues rely on good press to recruit volunteers, solicit business support, bring political forces into play to help make changes. It is easier to ask those groups for help if you can find ways to solve this problem. It is much harder if good deeds are interpreted by the press as pet stealing.

Since I don't watch late night TV much, I will decide this was not intended for me.

 

[cirque]

Originally Posted by Bear

Hummm. I see that I (Bear) posted under a reply rather than the original post.

Possibly you did the same and this is not inteneded for me.

However..... The legal reality is that possesion is not 9/10ths of the law.

Since I don't watch late night TV much, I will decide this was not intended for me.

No it wasn't really ment for you. And I do understand I am going off on a 'rant' and such. My problem is that there are no two sides here from my point of view. There is only one bottom line, the animals well being. If the animal I happen to "rescue" as a private citizen or part of a volunteer org. is in need of rescuing, I will be damned if anyone tells me I can not do it because its "against the law" or worry about someone sueing me later for helping their animal. Anyone who would sue someone for truely providing help to an animal in need does not deserve the animal in the first place.

Maybe not everyone is familar with the story of King Solomon and the two women who claimed ownership of a baby, so for those who arn't heres the short version: After some thought King Solomon decided that since the two women could not decide who should have the child and it was left upto him that the child must be cut in half. Half of the child was to be given to each woman. One woman was ok with this solution and the other was horrified and gave up her right to the child so that it may live unharmed. Instantly the king knew that the woman who gave up her rights to the child was the true mother and deserved the child, then he awarded it to her.

What does this mean? If someone is going to be a jerk about their pet and neglect it intentionally or through lack of education or even an accident to the point it needs rescuing, then put up an arguement later after finding someone had loved it, provided for it and taken it in for the pets benifit even to the point of perhaps saving its life, that should be enough for them. If they seek to punish the helpful person for thier kindness, then that speaks volumns about them. Wether its their job as an officer or even the former pet owner. "It is my job" often times sounds a bit to much like "I was following orders".

Edit: Woops, said King David but ment Solomon.

 

[bear]

"If they seek to punish the helpful person for thier kindness, then that speaks volumns about them."

Yes, it may speak volumes. Just as in the story you share, people will not always react as you would like them to react to saving their pet, especially if they do not view it that way.

Having been involved once with our court systems, I learned that they are courts of process and not courts of justice. King David does not sit on our local bench and is not likely living near your shelter.

Organizations that proactively put processes in place to keep a good trail of pet ownership can avoid the negative press, negative word of mouth and have a better chance at making wider changes and help more animals.

 

[cirque]

Originally Posted by Bear

"If they seek to punish the helpful person for thier kindness, then that speaks volumns about them."

Yes, it may speak volumes. Just as in the story you share, people will not always react as you would like them to react to saving their pet, especially if they do not view it that way.

Having been involved once with our court systems, I learned that they are courts of process and not courts of justice. King David does not sit on our local bench and is not likely living near your shelter.

Organizations that proactively put processes in place to keep a good trail of pet ownership can avoid the negative press, negative word of mouth and have a better chance at making wider changes and help more animals.

I am not saying that animal shelters/orgs. should not try to do whats "legal" and find owners if they are able to be found. However, I am saying that if someone comes to me and says "Hey I left my cat outside 3 months ago and I see you have him, I want him back and you have no right to keep him. Give him to me or I will call the cops on you."

I would tell them one of two things. Either "This cat has cost me X amount of dollars in vet and or adoption fees. Are you going to give me that back now as well as boarding costs and feeding costs?" When they say no, then I would tell them to go jump in a lake and take anyone else they want to with them because now its my cat.

Or I would not even ask for the money and tell them something like "You were neglectful and did not take care of your pet, if you had he would not have been starving and needing medical attention and in a freezing cold blizzard for so long the hair fell off his ears and his paw pads were cracked. Go jump in a lake."

Sorry, I don't care if there is a law on the books or not that says that person should be given that cat back. They would have to take me to court and then some, and you can be very sure they and the judge would hear every single detail and opinion I had before I let them haul me off to jail for not turning over that poor neglected animal.

 

[bear]

"Woops, said King David but ment Solomon.:

I replied as though you and the King were on a first name basis.
Or were we still talking about the King of late night TV?

 

[bear]

I am not sure about your State or Province. Here it is 6 months not just 90 days. A good faith effort has to also be made to reunite the pet with the legal owner. Parts of a goof faith effort would include "continuous advertising" in the found animal section of local paper(s), checking ASAP for microchip (via vet or shelter), posting signs, etc.

There are two primary ways for pets to find their way homes. Their tags. An opportunity for the owner to find them at the shelter. A judge might have difficulty awarding you the expenses if the owner was not given all opportunities, including the later.

This particular Rescue felt that they needed to avoid all potential from having a pet they adopted out be "legally reclaimed" by the legal owner during that six month period. This could negatively effect the overal mission fo the group and negatively effect the abilty to obtain gants and as importantly small private donations to run the programs Holding the pet as unavailable for 6 months was not a viable option. The foster homes are needed for more animals.

Cirque, I love your passion. I have found that people who are compassionate about animals are passionate about their beleifs. Probably the hardest lesson in life for me ws in our court systems. My personal experience taught me that rather than listen to my beleifs and passions, Judges send me away with one of two people for the remainder of the day. One: my attourney who costs were more for the day than my month's take home pay. Fortunately I never made it to the Baliff taking me away for the rest of the day.

 

[cirque]

Originally Posted by Bear

"Woops, said King David but ment Solomon.:

I replied as though you and the King were on a first name basis.
Or were we still talking about the King of late night TV?

Actually I was talking about a Bible story. The David must have slipped in because of the original poster telling people they should go watch Letterman? I dunno.. First name basis with Tv stars.. thats just funny.

I guess I better go tell Johnny and Ed about that one, they will get a laugh out of it.

 

[maverick_kitten]

i think that if an owner can be found no matter the state of the animal they should be notified. if they truly love and care for thier pet they would be more than happy to meet costs and if not at least you took the moral (and legal) path before adopting the poor creature.

i remember the case of a dog stolen by gypsies from a familys garden. the animal was found years later by a farmer in the most appalling state who then nursed her back to health. she was microchipped but as he felt she had been neglected he kept her as his own.

a few years after that, seven years since the puppy had been stolen the dog escaped and became involved in a road accident. the vet found the chip and notified the orginal owners who were overjoyed their precious baby was alive and well.

after hearing her story the family returned the dog to the farmer who had loved and looked after her for nearly five years.

not matter what your personally feelings are i think it's still a moral obligation to try your hardest to find the owner. if nothing else the authorities may want to sue or blacklist the owner if the animal was truly mistreated. whilst it may seem black and white you can only jump to conclusions and may get the story wrong.

 

[maverick_kitten]

Originally Posted by Cirque

I would tell them one of two things. Either "This cat has cost me X amount of dollars in vet and or adoption fees. Are you going to give me that back now as well as boarding costs and feeding costs?" When they say no, then I would tell them to go jump in a lake and take anyone else they want to with them because now its my cat.

if they agreed to pay costs would you return the animal?