The Social Implications and Importance of Urgency

(Picture Left: "Tiki" --Delightful and loving "lap dog" with shelter volunteer. Could anyone think a dog like this could be on shelter "euth list?" Well, he was. But, Tiki is safe now. Currently in boarding at a local vet. Question is, can we find a committed and responsible adoptive home for this popular breed dog, as easily as pulling the animal from a kill list? Unlikely, as so many of the people seeking these types of dogs buy them instead.)

Yesterday I wrote about an encounter with a woman who, over a decade, seemed to undergo some kind of "metamorphous" from one time helping to save animals to now contributing to animal abuse (however unintentionally).

But, was it a matter so much of personal change or more a situation of someone being unduly influenced by pop culture, media hype and community trends?

This is an interesting question in terms of assigning responsibility and trying to understand how these setbacks to animal welfare truly occur.

"Wendy" (the woman in question) is a typical Upper East Side, Manhattan resident: Well to do, educated, cultured, successful, seemingly happily married with two teenage sons. One might suppose the family contributing to popular liberal causes (without becoming emotionally involved) and regularly reading The New York Times.

The community in which Wendy resides (Park Avenue, Upper East Side) is one which rarely sees a stray cat or dog or any outward signs of animal abuse or neglect. It is well sheltered from the miseries of city animal pounds, (located in poorer areas of the city) inner city overbreeding of Pitbulls or midwest puppy mills. As the Pitbull is the breed of dog most closely associated with the poorer and tougher parts of the city, the Shih-Tzus and Maltese seem to be the breeds of choice among Manhattan's elite. And yet, because these small breeds have become massed produced through puppy mills and are easily available in pet shops (or through backyard breeders) many of them arrive in city pounds on a daily basis. -- Usually, in filthy, matted and neglected conditions.

The only way residents of Manhattan's loftier neighborhoods get any inkling as to what is really occurring in city animal shelters, or puppy mills in the Midwest or Pennsylvania is if they read about these issues in the New York Times or see a report on CNN.

But, major media rarely covers these issues.

And those times the local media grants any time to our animal shelters, it is usually a quick and positive, one minute time-filler highlighting a few particularly cute animals for adoption.

Local media virtually never mentions the term, "euthanasia" or the fact that our animal control shelters are underfunded, overcrowded (especially with half the Manhattan shelter being closed for more than a year) and having to kill hundreds of cats and dogs a week primarily for lack of space and lack of available homes for the animals to go to.

If local media covers the "issue" at all, it is usually to parrot all the "positive spin" from shelter leaders and PR flaks: "Adoptions up! Euthanasia down! New York City on the road to no kill!"

Thus, why should people like Wendy get any sense of urgency or even social responsibility in terms of trying to save adoptable animals dying at our city pounds, rather than buying them? Why should they even be aware that mass produced (pet shop sold) Shih Tzus, Maltese and other small beed "lap dogs" routinely come into city pounds?

That is, in fact, the difference between now and ten years ago when Wendy and her family fostered pound-rescued cats for our organization.

Ten years ago, there had been a plethora of truthful and informative media exposure to the plights of animals entering our city pound system and the fact that most of them died there. There had also been much more activity among animal "activists" and even rescuers (like us) to bring these issues (as well as those dealing with pet shops and puppy mills) to the general public.

But, in the last few years there has been either dead silence or worse, "positive and distortive spin."

Residents of the city's more affluent areas are thus "sheltered" from most of the realities occurring to animals entering and dying in our city pound system.

"Out of sight; out of mind" one might say. (Unfortunately, complacency and naivete can and often is, deadly.)

Many, if not in fact, most of New York City's otherwise well educated and upwardly mobile residents wind up buying their pets either from breeders or (like Wendy's family) from a pet store.

The real tragedy is that the wealthy and affluent are often in the best position to be able to provide life-long committed homes. They can well afford costly veterinary care, grooming and when necessary, training and boarding.

That the affluent in New York City so often make the destructive choice to buy a dog or cat (from back yard breeder or pet store) rather than adopt is something we in the animal community need to be seriously looking at.

Something in our message isn't getting to the people in best position to actually help and make a difference to New York City's lost, stray or abandoned pets.

We have seemingly lost or abandoned the sense of urgency that is so often necessary in motivating people to do the right thing. -- PCA

******

Metamorphosis (Or, Where Have All The Good Homes Gone?)

(Picture Left: "Tiki" --Abandoned from a home for "cost," Tiki ended up on Euth list at city pound. We pulled Tiki from date with death, but only to send him into boarding at our vet. Where have all the good homes for animals gone? -- Perhaps an answer today.)

Earlier today, I was walking my two dogs when I ran into an old acquaintance.

"Wendy" is a Upper East Side woman in her mid 40's with two (now) teenage boys, a husband who is a doctor and a spacious and luxurious apartment on Park Avenue.

About ten years ago, Wendy and her family fostered a couple of cats for me over a period of several months.

The cats were eventually adopted.

And although the experience of fostering was, according to Wendy a very positive one, different things got in the way of her fostering again. The family traveled frequently, especially in the summer. Wendy had knee problems at one point. And eventually, the family adopted an adult, Cocker Spaniel from the ASPCA.

I would occasionally run into Wendy over the years as we live in the same neighborhood. We always exchanged pleasantries and I would sometimes ask if she could foster again. But, as noted, different things seemed to get in the way. -- The time just never seemed right.

It was OK by me. I realize many people "having done their thing" for animals at one time or another usually move on.

Today, when meeting Wendy again, she was walking a small and obviously very young, Shih-Tzu dog. The puppy was about six-months-old.

My dogs, Tina and Chance are very friendly with other dogs and warmly greeted Wendy's seemingly new charge.

"Hi, Patty," Wendy said pleasantly. "How are you? Are you still doing rescue?"

"Well, as much as I can," I answered. "You know its rough these days with the economy and all. A lot of animals dying at the city shelter and its much harder to find the homes for them."

Wendy looked a bit uncomfortable with my matter-of-fact statement.

"That's too bad," she replied. "Unfortunately, I can't help because we have this little one now....." Her voice tailed off.

"I understand," I answered, a little surprised with Wendy's seemingly defensive posture. I wasn't asking her to foster or adopt. I was simply answering a question.

Wanting to change the subject to something more pleasant, I said, "Your puppy is very cute. Where did you get her?"

Wendy hesitated in answering.

"Well,,,,,you know, after our other dog died, my husband wanted a puppy.....We,,,,,well, we got her from Pets on Lex."

"Pets on Lex" is a pet shop in the East 70's that most assuredly gets its dogs from puppy mills, though it claims to get the animals from "private breeders." (Technically, a puppy mill is a "private breeder.")

The shock must have registered on my face.

I'm not sure what I expected to hear when asking the conversation-making question of Wendy. I guess I expected to hear, "ASPCA," (where the family adopted their last dog from) or one of the small-breed rescue groups.

The last thing in the world I expected to hear was that a family who had previously fostered and adopted animals and was fully educated on the horrors of puppy mills and pet shops would ever purchase a dog or cat from a pet shop.

For one of the few times in my life, I was totally at a loss for words

Wendy, in seemingly full damage control mode attempted to further explain.

"My husband really wanted a Shih-Tzu......You know, we have done our part to help animals.....fostered, adopted......."

"I can't hear it." I answered adamantly and with finality, while leading my dogs away.

I wasn't going to stand there and listen to bullshit. It was merely to add insult to injury.

I could still hear Wendy trying to make excuses as I walked away......"She needed a home, too!"

I realized there was nothing I could say that would make this (formerly respected) woman realize the full impact of her actions.

Not only does the purchase of animals from pet shops condemn adoptable animals in shelters to die (as well as already "rescued" animals to languish in boarding facilities rather than finding homes), but even worse: IT CONDEMNS THOUSANDS OF DOGS TO SUFFER AND DIE IN "CONCENTRATION CAMP"-LIKE PUPPY MILLS.

How in God's name could anyone who portends to care anything about animals SUPPORT such a cruel and predatory industry? -- Especially, someone who once fostered animals as a way of saving lives? Someone who, in all other ways is highly educated, aware and intelligent?

I felt very hopeless and defeated when finally returning home with my two formerly rescued from death, dogs.

I thought of the thousands of dogs dying everyday in shelters around the country. I thought of the thousands more languishing in "no kill" shelters or boarding. I thought of the countless "breeding machine" dogs of puppy mills, suffering and dying unheard and unseen. -- By the millions over the decades.

Where does it all end?

And how does one say to all that, "We did our part to help animals."

When and where did the part to save and soothe turn into the part to, instead, contribute to abuse and death? -- PCA

**********

Dark Days in New York City

Very dark day for animals in New York City.

First, there is the story all over the local news about a woman in Long Island who allegedly stole neighbor's pets, tortured and killed the animals and buried the bodies in her back yard. The woman was reported and turned in by one of her own sons who referred to the home as a "concentration camp for animals." Several live dogs in poor condition were confiscated from the home, in addition to numerous dead animals dug up from the property.

So far, the woman is only charged with misdemeanor animal abuse and is already out of jail. Depending upon what autopsies on the dead animal reveal, the woman could potentially be charged with a felony.

The reason for highlighting this story is to illustrate the actual responsibility in owning pets, one of which is to insure to the best of one's abilities, the animal's SAFETY at all times.

Opening one's doors and allowing the family cat to wander all over the neighborhood is NOT looking after the pet's safety. Nor, is leaving the family dog unattended in an insecure yard.

One of the neighbors of the accused woman complains that over the past year, "Three of our family pets have disappeared!" (one Chihuahua mix and two cats).

One has to wonder why this family did not get a clue after the FIRST pet "disappeared" and learned to keep the other animals inside and safely protected?

Whether the animals were killed by cars, ended up dying as "strays" in the local pound or were actually stolen and killed by the mentally deranged and criminal neighbor really doesn't make a difference to the pets who presumably are now dead -- the main cause being owner failure to properly protect.

There is, of course no law mandating that pet owners are required to properly protect pets for the animals' safety. But, if we truly love and care about our animals, then safety should be a top priority as it is with our children. We need to consider the world we live in. While most normal people would not deliberately harm a cat or dog, there are always those who may, out of maliciousness, neighbor dispute or mental defect, hurt or kill a wandering pet cat or steal an unprotected dog from in front of a store or in a back yard.

Safety and protection are not things to be assumed or taken for granted. We actually have to take responsibility for them.

The other reason its a "dark day for NYC animals" are the Euth lists from our city shelter system today.

45 cats and more than 20 dogs, including several small dogs and numerous non-pits. A number of animals on the death list for admitted (lack of) "space."

As noted in this blog numerous times, it is rare that the shelters actually have to admit to killing adoptable animals for "space" because almost every cat and dog entering the overcrowded, poorly ventilated and inadequate NYC Animal Control shelter system is destined to become sick within days of arrival.

Thus, the most common reason for putting down otherwise healthy cats and dogs is (shelter acquired) "illness." (Usually treatable Upper Respiratory Infections.)

The other reason commonly cited for destroying animals is "Behavior."

However, it is so difficult to properly assess animals for "behavior" in an overcrowded, stressful and overly taxed city shelter system that the "Behavior" label has become almost meaningless in terms of "evaluating" or guessing how the cats and dogs might behave in a home situation.

Fact is, most animals abandoned to or first arriving at city shelters are frightened, nervous, insecure, confused and disoriented. Many dogs and cats, if allowed time and a fairly peaceful environment will calm down after a few days in which a "Behavior Test" might hold some value. Unfortunately, due to the crowding and lack of space, most dogs arriving at the AC&C are "SAFER tested" only a day or two after arriving. Test results under those stress circumstances need to be seriously suspect and quite frankly, have little if any value at all.

It is this writer's view that the "Behavior Evaluations" as currently conducted in our city shelters serve more as palatable excuse for putting animals down than actual predictors of behavior and temperament in a home.

After all, it is far more acceptable to the public and the press to say we are putting animals down for poor "behavior" than to admit we are destroying thousands of cats and dogs a year simply because the city doesn't want to build more shelters to properly care for, accommodate and correctly evaluate the animals.

I called the New Hope number this morning in attempt to pull two of the smaller dogs off the kill list. But, I called after the specified and required time of 6 AM.

I have to hope that the dogs were either pulled by another rescue or that my call came in time to save them.

But, even if the latter case, the fact is, I don't have immediate foster or potential adoptive homes to send the dogs to. My only option would be boarding and we already have a number of dogs in boarding for many months.

Another criticism of the way our city animal shelter system is currently operating:

They put far too much pressure on and rely almost exclusively on animal rescue groups to "solve" a problem that the public creates and city officials have dismally failed to humanely and properly address.

We (ideally) need fully functioning and humane animal control shelters in every borough -- or even just ONE in any borough of NYC.

Sadly, we don't even have that. -- PCA

*********

In Search of Humpty Dumpty (Reply)

Anonymous Writes: Boks promises no kill but has never delivered. Perhaps it's time to look elsewhere.

Reply: It is always annoying and irksome when some people leave anonymous and negative comments on a blog without bothering to identify themselves.

One thus needs to be skeptical of the motivations and personal agendas of those leaving nameless attacks on someone else's character and competence.

It is virtually impossible to go through life and especially when in any high profile position (such as running an Animal Control shelter in a large city) to not make any enemies. The exception to that statement might be those who simply smile their ways through life, blow smoke up others' behinds, never challenge the status quo and never make waves.

During the history of the AC&C, most of its Directors have fit the latter category:

Smiling bureaucrats with low profiles who go along to get along, learn quickly how to "spin" and never make waves.

The exception to that in New York City was Ed Boks.

That Ed Boks might have made some enemies here in New York or LA does not surprise (particularly among the Board of Directors of the NYCACC or some in the NYC Mayor's Alliance).

Boks did not "walk the walk and talk the talk" while Director of the NYCACC some years back. Nor, did he quietly shrink back in the shadows.

Rather, Boks was "out there" to the press constantly promoting the adoption of shelter animals, trying to fight the negative public perception of Pitbulls, fighting for greater shelter funding and heavily decrying the need for people to spay and neuter their pets.

While Boks spoke of the one day IDEAL of a "no kill" city, it was never a Disneyworld promise (unlike the ASPCA and the Mayor's Alliance).

Rather, Boks spoke numerous times of the many obstacles in the way of a "no kill" New York and of the need for many people to be involved with the no kill cause.

Is it possible that Boks made "mistakes" when Director of the NYCACC or the shelter in Los Angeles?

Sure. Animal Control shelters in any large metropolis are going to have to "euthanize" many thousands of animals a year -- especially when the cities choose to under-fund those shelters and in the particular case of New York City, refuse to build enough of them.

It is always then convenient to "blame the Director" of the shelter, whether it be Boks or any other figurehead at the top.

But, the fact remains when Boks was Director of the NYCACC, he was respected and well liked by most of the staffers, volunteers and most in the rescue community.

He was passionate about the mission and always responsive and welcoming of input from staffers and those in rescue.

He initiated many positive changes. Changes that DID eventually result in lower kill numbers at our city shelters.

Can ANY Director turn NYC into "no kill?"

No.

Not as long as the Mayor and the city refuse to create adequate and fully functioning shelters in every borough and the ASPCA and Mayors Alliance insist on spinning the truth to the people.

To quote Dr. Phil: "You can't change what you don't acknowledge."

New York City has yet to acknowledge its colossal failures to build adequate and healthy environment shelters in New York, as well as failures in Humane Education in the schools and lack of address to the problems of dog fighting in New York resulting in a huge and seemingly unsolvable overpopulation of Pitbulls flooding our shelters everyday.

We are a long long way from "no kill" in New York City and as long as we keep deceiving and denying the "ideal" becomes ever father away.

The one refreshing thing about Ed Boks was that he was not a "spinner" but rather, someone willing to roll his sleeves up and try to tackle a problem with honesty and earnestness.

That he was not Superman or Jesus Christ is regrettable, but does not justify the scurrilous attack that "Anonymous" chose to post to this blog.

One imagines s/he will be happy when we get another "go along to get along" Humpty Dumpty as new shelter director.

And yes, inside of two years or so, s/he can be expected to once again, "have a great fall" as all others have gone before.......PCA

*******

Of Elections and Animal Shelter Directors

It is apparent I wasn't the only New Yorker turned off by the endless barrage of negative campaigning leading up to yesterday's election.

Bloomberg won narrow reelection for Mayor yesterday in one of the lowest turnout votes in NYC history.

I was no fan of Bloomberg -- especially following his decision earlier in the year to kill more than a thousand local Canadian Geese as a kind of "knee jerk" reaction to the sad collision between a few migratory birds and a plane, which wound up on the Hudson river.

I vowed at that time not to support Bloomberg in the November election.

But, fact is, I don't know how Thompson would have responded to that situation had he been Mayor. There is nothing to suggest his actions would have been different.

Democratic candidate Bill Thompson is a good man, but his campaign failed to present him as any kind of "mover and shaker."

Continually harping on Bloomberg's successful reversal of term limits quickly became old and tired. Yes, we got the point that Bloomberg masterfully finagled his way to a third term despite the spoken will of the voters on term limits. But, what ultimately determines whether someone hauls themselves to the polls to pull down a lever for a candidate is the hope or perception of what that candidate will actually DO if elected.

And Thompson failed to come clear on that.

In the end, voters will often go with "devil we know, as opposed to the devil we don't" unless the challenging candidate is able to distinguish himself clearly and decisively as a leader in "change" and "making waves" -- presuming the wave-making or shaking things up is something people seek and need. Thompson failed in that effort.

Speaking of the "devil we know as opposed to the devil we don't," there is some possibility that we might get Ed Boks back as Director of the AC&C.

I fully support that possibility not because I think of Ed Boks as any kind of "devil" at all, but because he really was the best and most competent of all the Directors who have run the Animal Care and Control shelter system since its creation in the early 90's from former control by the ASPCA.

Boks is a dedicated animal advocate who is skilled, experienced, competent and caring. While very positive, idealistic and optimistic in attitude and goal, Boks is, at the same time a realist in the true challenges and obstacles that we face in New York City in terms of ever becoming a "no kill" city at all.

Boks was never one to deceive, "spin" and exaggerate. He always spoke honestly and directly to the overwhelming task of trying to find loving homes for the tens of thousands of animals flooding into an underfunded and inadequate shelter system each year.

Boks cared deeply about trying to maintain high morale among shelter staffers, volunteers and rescuers and was always welcoming of and responsive to suggestions and input.

Most of us in the rescue community, as well as shelter staffers and volunteers liked Boks.

Among some of the positive changes Boks instilled when running AC&C were assigning attractive names to the animals, proper breed identification, heavy promotions of shelter animals for adoption, advocacy and education for Pitbulls and a myriad of other positive actions.

It is hard to imagine that were Boks Director again, he would tacitly accept the current "showing" of adoptable animals at the Manhattan shelter in a poorly lit, cramped and understaffed, refurbished garage. He understood well, the importance of promoting and showing animals in a good and welcoming (to the public) light.

There is little doubt Boks would take quick action to change this abysmal situation in whatever positive ways were available to him.

Of course not everyone is on board with the support of Ed Boks returning to the AC&C.

One suspects there are those on the AC&C Board or at the Department of Health who do not want any kind animal "advocate" running the shelter. Moreover, there are those in powerful positions at other closely related animal organizations who might view Boks as either too honest and direct or representing potential competition to them for media attention and high profile.

Among activists in the animal community, there is also lack of cohesiveness and organization.

Many activists seem to imagine and demand a masterful "someone" who will come charging in on a white horse to save the day and magically turn NYC into "no kill."

Well, that simply ain't going to happen.

With the exception of Ed Boks, the history of the AC&C is to pick political hacks, dog breeders and brown nosers. -- Directors, who, in other words, "don't make waves."

Unfortunately, "waves" is what we need right now.

That and at minimum, a fully functioning animal control shelter in Manhattan with attractive and ample Animal Adoption areas.

Ed Boks can't personally build a brick and mortar shelter from the ground up or even shift adoptions from the garage to the main building in the Manhattan shelter (which is still under "renovations" for more than a year.)

But, he can and presumably will make waves. Boks has a history of doing so.

Yesterday, Bloomberg was reelected as Mayor in New York City despite controversial manipulations of law regarding term limits. He was reelected because, despite the criticisms, he has been a mostly strong, competent Mayor who shakes things up and keeps the trains running on time.

Ed Boks is a "mover and shaker" and like Bloomberg, we already know what he can and presumably will do.

Sometimes, reality calls for getting back to basics, but with flair, competence and wave-making. -- PCA

Demons on Parade -- Election Day

Legends of the Fall: Falling leaves or a fallen political process?

Ah, Election Day at last! -- A day one always looks forward to!

Why am I so eager to see Election Day?

It is not because I am particularly enthused about any of the candidates.

I just want to see an end to the political junk filling up the mailbox, the robo calls and most of all, those ghastly "negative" political ads on TV!

One wonders where campaign ad people dig up the unflattering pictures of political foes? Pictures that would make a super model look like the devil incarnate.

I wonder if it requires a particular kind of talent to take ugly pictures of others? Is there special "Paparazzi" for that? "Hey, hire me! World renown Photographer. I can make Hally Berry look like Medusa or Brad Pitt look like Frankenstein!"

If I had any ambitions for political office, I would never pose for ANY pictures. Its frightening what a little photo shop or poor lighting or angle can do.

If one were to believe all the statements and claims of political commercials it would seem that all political candidates (well, except for the one being touted) are crooks, incompetents, law breakers, spendthrifts and perverts.

Then, magically, on Election night, these same fallen-from-grace demons suddenly transform into decent and upstanding political figures to be either congratulated in victory or wished well in defeat.

Is it any wonder that so many voters become cynical of the political process?

So much so that some people have resorted to write ins for Mickey Mouse or Weird Al.

I plan no write ins for today -- or show ups at the polling place.

I am ashamed to say that because I believe as an American citizen, we should treasure and exercise our right to vote.

But, the impacts of seemingly endless months of "negative ads" have rendered this particular voter with weariness and the perception (rightly or wrongly) that there is no one worth walking across the street and pulling down a lever for.

I plan to use the time instead to take my dogs to the park later and watch the November leaves fall.

Election Day has too sadly and seemingly become an image of demons on parade. -- PCA

******

Never Say "Never!"

(Picture Left: "Lucas" when first rescued. Tense, nervous, defensive, leading to a very rough beginning.......Could that be turned around?)

Although we have rescued several new dogs over the past month or so, most are currently in boarding and thus their stories have yet to be written.

However, one dog rescued in early October has been adopted and its an adoption that one would not have bet a plug nickel would ever occur.

The dog is a beautiful Samoyed/Chow mix named, "Lucas" whom I was called upon to rescue by one of the "New Hope" rescue coordinators from the AC&C.

"We have this nice Chow mix who came in as a stray a few days ago," Jesse told me in a phone call one day. "He's a bit shy, but did well on the behavioral test. Can you take him?"

I told Jess I did not have an immediate foster or adoptive home for the dog, but would work on advertising Lucas with the hope of finding someone.

After receiving pictures from one of the volunteers as well as more detailed information, I proceeded to prepare a write-up and post the dog to several adoption sites.

Because Lucas was such a handsome dog, his write-up and pictures generated several calls, one of which sounded perfect as a possible foster.

"Nicole" is a married woman with two young children and two Huskies. Her family has a house in Long Island with a fenced in yard. Both of the family dogs are rescues and Nicole and her husband were eager to help save Lucas by offering a foster home.

I arranged with Nicole to go to the shelter with her the following day. Presuming she liked Lucas and that the dog seemed OK with her kids, she would take the 2-year-old Sammy mix as a foster until a permanent, adoptive home could be found.

But, when we met Lucas the next day, the first thing I noticed about the dog (who had just been neutered) was that he was very tense and nervous. Lucas seemed frazzled and scattered when walking him on the leash and his tail was tightly tucked between his legs during the brief time I attempted to take pictures and video of him.

I cautioned Nicole to "go slowly" with Lucas and for the moment, not to have too much interaction between the skittish, insecure dog and the two young girls, aged 5 and 7.

As we approached Nicole's SUV, I expressed some concern over whether Lucas would be able to jump in the very high back.

"We might have to ask a kennel staffer to help us get him in the car," I mumbled while putting my cameras back in my bag.

But, in the few seconds that I looked away, Nicole attempted to lift the nervous dog into the back of the SUV. She grabbed the front part of Lucas' leash with one hand while placing the other hand under the dog's butt.

And in what seemed like a split second, the dog suddenly whipped around his head, his front fangs catching Nicole directly on the face!

Shock swept over me when noting several deep puncture wounds on Nicole's face. She was bleeding profusely!

"Oh my God!" I shrieked. "You're bleeding a lot! We'd better go back to the shelter and get some treatment for that!"

"No, no, I am OK." Nicole replied nonchalantly, grabbing some antibacterial wipes out of her car. "I'm sure he didn't mean to bite."

Part of me felt relief as returning to the shelter with a dog who had just bitten might spell certain death for the dog. On the other hand, could this dog be trustworthy to take home -- especially in a home with young children?

I hated to make excuses for an incident like this, but reality was that it was somewhat naive to attempt to lift a frightened dog into the back of the SUV, especially handling the dog in the area he had just had surgery on the testicles.

"He's got to be very sensitive in the rear end right now." I said, while inwardly shocked that Nicole was still willing to take Lucas home.

(I am not so sure I would have been willing to bring a dog home who had just done a number on my face -- or any other body part for that matter.)

But, not only was Nicole "willing" she would not hear of us taking Lucas back to the pound!

I then offered to try and get Lucas in the SUV myself.

"Many times if you go in the car first, the dog will try to follow. Let's see if this will work," I said.

I then climbed into the back of the SUV myself, and sure enough, Lucas followed easily, as if he had jumped into high SUVs hundreds of times before.

Lucas then settled down quietly in the back of the vehicle like a perfectly trained dog. We secured the end of his leash so that he could not jump around too much.

But, if I was temporarily relieved that Nicole's wounds had stopped bleeding and that both dog and humans were for the moment, settled down and peaceful, I was terrified to think of what Nicole's husband would say when coming home to find his wife had been mauled by a dog she nevertheless brought home!

It was impossible to imagine any spouse not insisting that the "vicious animal" be immediately removed -- especially with two small kids in the home.

I fully expected the worst.

But, the call announcing, "You gotta take this dog back!" did not come that night -- or any other night for that matter.

On the contrary, all the news from Nicole over the ensuing days and weeks was good!

Lucas (quickly renamed, "Butterscotch") apparently became a different dog soon after arriving to the Long Island family home.

His tail was up and wagging. He was totally housebroken and well behaved in the house. He got along well with the other two dogs in the home. He followed Nicole everywhere and was very friendly towards her husband. And while a little shy around the children, "Butterscotch" posed no threat to them.

While Nicole did have to get a few stitches and antibiotics from her doctor, the wounds healed quickly and uneventfully.

But, the best news of all came last week!

Although several people had called interested in adopting Lucas, it seems he had found his forever home, the moment he gleefully jumped into Nicole's SUV and settled down next to the family, despite the initial trauma to both dog and human.

"We want to officially adopt Butterscotch!" Nicole told me in a phone call last week. "He is really happy here. We all love him and quite frankly, my husband won't let him go."

Never in a million years, would I have imagined that scenario and outcome considering the horrifying circumstances when this dog was first rescued -- but am damned grateful for them.

Never say, 'never" I guess. -- PCA

************