Long, Long Time (Reply) -- New York City

(Picture Left: "Melanie" -- Dumped at pound five years following adoption. But, lucky for Melanie, it wasn't the cruel summer.)

Karyn Writes: Regarding the promise in your contract to always take back an animal you have adopted out; are you guaranteed that if an animal is dumped back at the pound that you will be called and given the opportunity to re-rescue that animal? If you are, my instinct would be to remove that promise from your contract. Not only does it hold you legally responsible to take back an animal (which could and probably does happen during times when you're already having trouble finding space for all those you're currently responsible for), but in my opinion, it also gives potential adopters an escape clause. "I don't have to make a real commitment. If it doesn't work out, I can always return him/her." I regard it as similar to getting married knowing that you can always divorce if the marriage doesn't suit you. Yes, there are good reasons for divorce. But if you go into a marriage expecting to divorce someday, you probably will. And if you go into a pet adoption knowing that someone else will take the pet once you no longer have room in your life for it, then you probably won't keep that pet for life either. It just decreases the amount of responsibility and commitment an adopter has to make at the outset. Removing that clause may be one key to getting people to take their pet adoptions more seriously, hopefully resulting in fewer re-dumped pets. Just my 2c! -- Karyn


Reply: Well, for only two cents, your post is the bargain of the century!

First, to answer your question, yes, we are called from the pound if any of our adopted animals gets dropped off. All animals rescued by us are microchipped and thus, identified to us.

In fact, about six months ago, a Chow mix named, "Melanie" who we adopted out five years ago, was abandoned at Animal Control as a so-called "bite case."

When informed from the shelter, I looked up the record of Melanie and called her adopter.

Previously, I had adopted Melanie to a single man. But, the man had since married and the couple had a baby who was then ten-months-old and crawling around.

Apparently, the baby climbed on the dog one day and was patting the dog's ear (which was sensitive due to an infection). Melanie whipped her head around and apparently hit the baby, causing a minor bruise. (The dog did NOT bite!) The baby was fine and required no medical attention, but the wife insisted on "getting rid of the dog."

Not a happy scenario of course, but what was I to do? I can't advise someone to get a divorce!

Anyway, the fact that Melanie was erroneously turned in as a "bite case" actually turned out to be fortunate. Law requires all bite case animals to be "held" for ten days for observation of possible rabies (a joke in New York City, but law nonetheless.) The ten day holding period allowed me enough time to photograph Melanie, advertise her and find an emergency foster home.

Even more fortunate, the young Manhattan couple who fostered Melanie, later adopted her.

She really was and is a lovely dog.

However, were such incident to occur today, I doubt I would be so "fortunate."

Fosters (emergency or otherwise) are extremely tough to find in New York City during the summer as so many people travel for vacations.

As noted many times previously, Euthanasia Stats at city shelters skyrocket during the summer. -- Double for dogs and more than triple for cats and kittens compared to winter months.

In any event, you make an excellent point about removing the "take back anytime" clause in our adoption contract. While I believe it important to guarantee return if an adoption fails, it is neither practical nor even possible to take back animals years after an adoption and the animal is at or near the end point of his/her life.

That is especially true in today's terrible economic crunch.

But, more to your point, yes, I believe you are correct in citing that people who know there is always an "out" may not be apt to truly and wholeheartedly commit to an animal.

"Hell, if the dog/cat gets old, infirm or I just don't want to deal with him/her anymore, I can just call the adoption agency to come get her/him!"

Unfortunately, I think that's exactly what the adopters of Daisy, the (now) 12-year-old Cocker Spaniel expected.

I am still waiting for "John" to email me updated pictures of Daisy.

I have a feeling I will be waiting a long, long time...... -- PCA

Messengers of Bad News

Were I accurately to describe my current work, it would primarily be, "messenger of bad news" to those calling to abandon animals or requesting pick up and safe sanctuary for strays.

Indeed, about 90% or even more of the current calls we are receiving are, what we in rescue refer to as "dump calls."

There is, unfortunately, no guaranteed "safe sanctuary" for the thousands of strays that live on New York City streets, nor the tens of thousands of pets, annually abandoned in our city shelters.

As for those animals who actually do get rescued, far too many of them end up "warehoused" for months (or even years) in too-crowded "no kill shelters," foster homes or boarding kennels.

The general public is, for all intensive purposes, totally "clueless" about the realities as evidence by the number of people who call to "donate" animals.

"Donate?" I asked one woman last week. "Is that supposed to be a joke?"

So far today, it is not even noon and I've had five calls to give up animals and none to adopt.

One of the calls is from a couple who adopted a 9-year-old, Cocker Spaniel, "Daisy" from us three years ago and now want to return the dog due to "moving soon."

The husband actually called more than a month ago and at that time I requested him to email pictures of the dog, as well as write a short bio about her.

He never did that.

This time I asked when Daisy had last seen a vet.

"More than a year ago," was the reply.

When I told "John" that Daisy would need to be checked out and updated on shots, (especially now that she is 12-years-old) he asked, "Well, isn't that your job?"

Quite frankly, it isn't.

When people adopt dogs, they accept responsibility for care -- part of which is medical. It comes with the territory of "ownership."

I haven't owned Daisy for three years.

Nevertheless, I do "get" why people have the idea these days that rescue groups and shelters are responsible for everything including (at least according to, "From Underdog to Wonderdog" on Animal Planet) the carpentry in a potential adopter's home!

The problem is, these aren't "potential adopters." These are the current owners of the dog.

Of course, whenever we request people to own up to their responsibilities in having pets (i.e. neuter, vet care, etc.) we are always told, "We don't have the money!"

But, I bet if we went to the people's homes, we would find HD TV's, I-Phones and all the other technological and other gadgets that come with the consumerism world we live in.

They just "never have money" when it comes to their animals.

I don't know what to do about Daisy.

Yes, she is a dog who was adopted from us three years ago and in an ideal world, we should and would, take her back.

But, it isn't an ideal world anymore -- if indeed, it ever was.

In fact, I believe we are farthest from the "ideal" then ever.

Perhaps it was naivete or inflated sense of "idealism" that prompted us to put in our adoption contracts (written in the early 90's), that we would always "take back animals."

The clause was written with the realization that in cases of adoptions that don't work out, the animal can be dumped back (or euthanized) in the pound without us even knowing. (This would, however, not happen now, since all animals rescued from the shelter are microchipped. -- If one ends up back in the pound, even years later, we are called from the shelter about it.)

But, what about cases where the adoptions do work out and adopters call us years later to "return" animals that are now geriatric and therefore, very difficult, if not impossible to re-home?

Currently, we are not able to place young, healthy and friendly cats and dogs, let alone those whose ages are now in double digits.

Its a terrible dilemma what to do in a situation like Daisy's.

Its a good thing that the sweet little Cocker Spaniel can't realize that the people who brought her into their home three years ago, never really accepted full responsibility for or commitment to her. ("Use, abuse and lose" seems to be more the attitude.)

"Isn't that your job?" they ask of those who rescued the dog three years ago and thought we were placing her into a forever home.

Perhaps there is no such thing anymore as "forever homes?"

Judging by the calls we get everyday, it would be easy to think such.

Perhaps its time to change our adoption contract to keep up with the times?

But, then, would that not be giving up the fight and saying, in essence, "We don't want the responsibility either?"

As said, a difficult dilemma:

"You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't."

As people "create the government we deserve," so too do we create the shelters and rescue groups we deserve.

In the later case though, it's the animals who pay for that with rescuers and shelter personnel too often becoming, instead of saviors, "messengers of bad news." --PCA

"Love" Gone Too Far?

A very sad day in the celebrity world and one that reminds of the great "equalizer" in life -- that, in fact, of life's end.

Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson were icons who transcended generations, sex and in Jackson's case, even race.

Farrah is ultimately to be admired and respected for her bravery and optimism in facing down a dread, painful and eventually, deadly disease. Jackson for his great and far reaching contributions to the music and dance fields -- though I don't personally agree with one reporter who indicated Jackson to be a "better dancer than Fred Astair." He wasn't. Jackson's bodies of work just don't measure up to those of Astair or Gene Kelly on the dance side or Elvis Presley on the vocal side.

That said, Michael Jackson was one of the most creative, talented, masterful and mysterious entertainers of our times. He was extremely sensitive (even as a child) and had a great love for animals and children. Whether those loves went too far, (in ultimately doing damage to animals or children) we will, however, never really know.

I for one, don't know what became of all the animals once cared for at Jackson's "Neverland" ranch and no one seems to know for sure whether child "molestation" charges against Jackson were fully founded.

What is known is that love sometimes goes too far.

I sometimes think that "love gone too far" is something we see every day in both, the animal and human worlds.

We see it in all the once "loved" pets discarded at animal shelters every day. We see it in our human penchant to "love" the taste of animal flesh. Such "love" is based primarily upon what the loved object can do for us, rather than our moral (and other) obligations or responsibilities towards them.

Love is a two-way street. A situation (ideally) of give and take.

We "take" from others (whether animals or humans) certain emotional and other fulfillment needs, but we also have obligation to realize the needs of those we "use" or depend upon and act to best fulfill them.

We "love" our celebrity idols, but are quick to judgement and even condemnation or replacement when at first, they disappoint.

Celebrities are, after all, only human and like other humans (or pets) occasionally err, make poor choices in life and/or disappoint.

Perhaps the key is to "love" less and strive to understand and respect more -- especially our personal obligations to others when deciding to love. Love is, after all, a verb; an action we make choice and option upon, as opposed to something that just comes along and "sweeps us" helplessly off our feet.

With action and choice, comes obligation.

Forever packed animal shelters, destructive tabloid headlines, tendencies to "idolize," beautify, epitomize, or seek "perfection" rather than accept as human (or animal) or realize our moral obligations in kind has resulted in a kind of narcissistic, shallow and even (really) loveless culture that forever seeks gratification, escape, replacement, addiction, obsession, and entertainment, rather than substance or the lasting joy that comes from shared responsibilities and mutual sacrifice.

Perhaps the real problem is we use the term, "love" too loosely?

We use "love" to apply to everything from food, to clothes, to places, to entertainment and entertainers and yes, even to animals.

And while it is possible to derive pleasure from all of the above and it is indeed, possible to love an animal (when also accepting full responsibility and commitment for him/her), it is not possible to really "love" a blouse, piece of furniture, location, food or even a celebrity.

There is no obligation, purpose or sense of shared sacrifice to those so-called "loves."

The passings of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson, though they represent losses to the worlds of entertainment and celebrity are in fact, no greater in tragedy and scope than the losses to any species on our planet on any given day.

As said at the top of this, they serve to remind of the fragility of all life and of its great equalizer -- that, in fact of life's end. -- PCA

*******

A Park Not Big Enough for Children AND Horses? ? -New York City (Reply)

(Picture left: Canadian Geese in Central Park. Although our city is currently waging a massacre against these animals, normally, they bring delight and wonder to small children in the parks.)

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post ""They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" (Reply) -- New Yo...": You do not know what you are talking about. Horse stables in Central Park with turnout would take at least 1/4 of the park. Do your homework. Besides, it is a landmark.

Reply: It's easy to understand why you don't want to attach a name to
"hit and run" comments like the above.

Central Park (for those who don't know) runs from 59th Street to 110 th Street, from East Side to West Side in Manhattan. There is already a horse stable kept in Central Park that houses horses used by the police.

For children growing up in New York City, their exposure to farm animals and wildlife is almost nil.

And yet, noticing the sheer joy and smiles on small kids faces when seeing the occasional duck, goose, turtle or even raccoon is truly lovely image to behold.

Why can't horses be viewed this way? Why can't there be a special area in the park that could serve both the needs of horses and the needs of humans (especially the young) to feel connection to those outside of themselves and their own species?

I am of course not only thinking of horses (like you, apparently) as mere "vehicles for profit" but also as living beings, like us, caught in the web of life.

Because horses are both beautiful and mostly gentle, I believe they are the perfect animals to help educate and sensitize children to the fact that we are not alone on this planet, but in fact, share it with many thousands of other species.

I realize that for those who look at animals as mere "tools" to make money, such considerations are apparently outside of their grasp or mental capabilities.

But, you know it is a short step from "use of" animals to ABUSE of animals.

For those currently profiting from the use of animals and unable (or unwilling) to comprehend that kinder, responsible and better treatment of our fellow breathren ultimately results in a better world for people, it's easy to see which part of the line (between "use of" and "abuse of") s/he has stepped over.

"Where's there's a will, there's a way" as the saying goes.

It is not a matter of Central Park "not being big enough" to contain both, animals and people. It's a matter (once again) of the politicians and abusive industries putting profit ahead of what is ultimately enriching and fulfilling for both, animals AND the human public. -- PCA

*******

Bloomberg Competing With Biden for "Hoof in Mouth" Disease (New York City) News -- Geese

Mayor Bloomberg swats away geese protests
by Erin Einhorn

Daily News Staff WriterFriday, June 19th 2009, 2:12 AM[Photo] Sumlin/APCanada geese soar through the sky along with a jet.

As President Obama takesheat from insect-rights activists for swatting a fly during an interview, MayorBloomberg says he can sympathize."I had pickets outside my house for geese last night," Bloomberg said of protesters angry that the city is gathering up to 2,000 geese near airportsand gassing them."We are sending some of these geese for a well-deserved rest up in the sky,wherever geese go," (emphasis supplied) Bloomberg said. "They're a danger to human beings flying, and we're doing what's appropriate."The city announced the "removal" of the geese after migrating birds stoppedboth engines on US Airways Flight1549,forcing the plane to make an emergency landing on the HudsonRiver.Wildlife experts told the city that killing was the only effective way tocontrol the problem.As for Obama, Bloomberg says the President is a hero."I'm sure what the President thought about was that particular fly might be spreading something like the H1N1 flu, and he was going to risk his own life with his hands - bare hands - withoutPurell and he protected the public by hitting that fly and we owe him a great debtof gratitude," Bloomberg said. (Emphasis supplied)

Read more:http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/06/19/2009-06-19_mike_swats_away_goose_protests.html#ixzz0J6jf4KG9&C

Personal Comment: ???? It seems every time our (make his own laws) Mayor opens his mouth these days, he sets his foot in it. -- Particularly, when Bloomberg is talking about animals.

"Well deserved rest in the sky" is how Bloomberg refers to rounding up and gassing 2,000 mostly family-rearing geese? Would he refer to human massacres in the same fashion?

As for the contention that a lone fly in the White House was potentially "spreading H1N1 virus" (i.e. "Swine Flu"), well, now we go from the sublime (gassed geese "resting" in the skies) to the ridiculous.

Which is it, Mr. Mayor? "Swine flue or Fly flu?" Is Bloomberg going to start a war on every creature in New York City based upon his (apparently) "germaphobic" fears?

Many people used to complain about Giuliani when he was Mayor.

But, Bloomberg seems far worse.

At least Giuliani had the guts to stay with one political party and respected the WILL of the voting public by serving only two terms.

Oh, and I don't think Giuliane was a germaphobic, animalphobic, birdaphobic, smokeaphobic, fataphobic and soda pop-a-phobic, nor suffered from a very real case of "foot in mouth" disease. -- PCA

"They Shoot Horses, Don't They?" (Reply) -- New York City

Anonymous Writes: The horses receive rotation turnout several times a year on farms in both Upstate NY and PA.

Reply: Look, don't lump me in with those calling for a total "ban" on the carriage horses in New York. (I don't want to see the horses go the route of so many race and "pet" horses -- to the slaughterhouse.)

But, you have to admit there have been problems over the years, with several horses dying in collisions with midtown traffic (sometimes causing injury or trauma to humans). Additionally, I personally saw one of the stables where the horses are kept and it was archaic and disgusting (perhaps built in the 1800's) and potentially dangerous to those horses having to walk up or down a slippery ramp.

One would think New York City could do better by one of its star "tourist attractions?"

I don't understand why a section in Central Park cannot be designated for these magnicant animals, so they would not have to navigate the noise and crowding of midtown traffic or deal with all the stresses on 59Th Street and CPW -- from venders, to street performers to blaring sirens and buses.

Horses, are after all, farm animals, not city rats.

New, modern stables should be built for the horses (IN THE PARK) and perhaps an area could be set aside for children to pet or learn about horses. Carriage rides would start and end in the park.

This is an issue where I believe compromise could be accomplished that would benefit both people and the animals.

But, as long as both sides want to name-call and disparage the other, then ultimately everbody loses, most of all, the horses. -- PCA

**********

Who Wants to Deal with REAL "Real Life?" (New York City) - Reply

(Picture Left -- Geese and ducks in winter, finding one of the few unfrozen water areas in Central Park)

Actor Tam Writes: Let us look into this dark event more closely.

The Canadian Geese population living around the areas of the NYC airports has dramatically increased in the last twenty years, and is now estimated at around 15,000. During this period (from June through early July), when the round up is in effect, adult geese moult and cannot fly while at the same time their babies hatch. They walk or swim around with a lot of goslings in town eating a lot of grass. And making a lot of goose poo. Goose poo being vegetarian is harmless (and great fertilizer!).

The USDA's policy is to without review, when asked, grant the permit to have them killed. They don't need to be a danger. And they are not.

Resident Canadian Geese fly at much lower altitudes in different air currents than the migrating geese. Based on the genetic samples found in the airplane engines, the Smithsonian team was able to definitely say the "culprits" in the Sullenberger downing were migrating geese.For years Mayor Bloomberg was offered federal monies along with free expert advice and volunteers to help bring down our resident geese population.

The resident Canadian Geese population can be completely nonlethally controlled. They are easily kept from the close proximity to airports. Through habitat management, egg addling (pouring oil over the eggs to keep them from hatching), border collies to disperse them, and so forth their population can be stabilized at a much lower number (unlike killing them, which is not a long-term fix).

Until this decision to kill the geese Mayor Bloomberg did nothing to address this problem. The money spent by this ineffective "air safety" massacre of geese, could have spent to add an inexpensive but highly effective radar program.

First used in Israel but now in use in many large cities with airports, this program saves both birds and airplanes. It was found that at any one time there are only a few air currents, which run like rivers over a particular area, that birds use as corridors when passing through. The program monitors these air currents in real time, and when there are migrating birds coming through, planes are diverted.

Captain Sullenberger's plane take-off flight path went through just such a current and hit a formation of large migrating Canadian Geese. Migrant geese are much larger than their resident counterparts and so more dangerous to hit. And they do fly at higher altitudes. Resident geese do not.

In the name of a Big Lie, our mayor ordered not merely a decimation of baby geese and their parents (who mate for life), but a massacre. One out of ten killed is decimation. 2,000 out of 15,000 is a massacre.

The irony of a Jewish mayor employing round-ups and gassings so reminiscent of Nazi holocaust methods has not been lost. And the fact that Israel pioneered this win-win effective solution to the dangers of migrating birds that we are not employing is not being forgotten. But the heart stopping pictures of USDA T-shirted "swat-teams" herding families of geese and goslings into pens and then stuffing them into boxes is etched forever.

The silent background sound of death in the video rings in the ears. And the good Mayor's response wishing the geese killed (parents and babies) "pleasant dreams" -- absolute-zero cold!

Reply: Thank you so much for shedding serious light on this debacle and disgrace to the city of New York.

Unfortunately, your words would be better served if voiced over the local news channels or quoted in the New York Times and Daily News.

And therein is another great problem:

Media's treatment of this story.

Bloomberg can feel very comfortable cracking jokes about the mass killings of innocent birds as that is exactly how the press has reported the story --As a joke, basically running press releases from the Mayor's office instead of doing any actual "investigating and reporting." (So much for a "free press" these days.)

Popular television treats it the same. The other day on "The View" for example, (a dead-brain show if ever there was one, but nevertheless "popular"), Behard (sic?) joked that the gassed geese should be saved and served for Thanksgiving, while cohort, Cheri (something) complained that once settled in an area, the geese "never leave!!"

WELL, IF THE GEESE "NEVER LEAVE AN AREA" HOW ARE THEY FLYING INTO PLANES?

Duh......

(As said, this show defies common sense and is designed for morons. I only saw the video clip from it.)

A few people protesting or signing petitions isn't going to do a damn thing.

As long as we have a press that it is the Mayor's pocket and as brain dead as the hosts on "The View" then there is the problem of "public perception."

Forget the facts here. Let's just deal with some people's (irrational) fears, apathy or even hatred towards animals. Let's deal with most people being misled and/or "inspired" by the Mayor, the press and pop culture to treat serious issues like these as a joke.

People may think (and not care) that it is only "nuisance" animals that are being hurt, but, as your post correctly points out, it is people who will eventually 'hurt" as the so-called solution is no "solution" at all in its monumental failures to address the real issue. (migratory birds and flight paths.)

The same "pull the wool over their eyes" attitude that we have witnessed with the geese issue is the same that prevails with treatment of carriage horses, address of animal cruelty situations and mass killings of shelter animals.

The public says, "Tell us only what we want to hear -- not the truth!" and the politicians and media listen and oblige.

That is why the press was only too thrilled to "report" PETA's protest of Obama killing a fly (and why, pray tell did PETA even step into this wad of crap?) while happily ignoring virtually ALL issues of real animal abuse -- from slaughter of race horses, to dog fighting to bird massacres.

Its a sad world we live in -- which perhaps explain why so many people seek "escape" by watching 5 cackling lamebrains try to outshout each other on a TV show or wrap their lives around what is happening to "Jon and Kate Plus Eight" or "The Bachelor."

Who, after all, wants to deal with real "real life?"

A sad time for the Geese -- and a time when we as New Yorkers should bow our heads in shame. -- PCA

*****