Fur Ball September 25, 2009 - Daisy's story

The Fur Ball was a great success!

For one of the live auction items, we played this video and then asked the crowd to raise their paddles to give $500, $250, $100, or $50 to take home nothing but the feeling of knowing you're supporting a good cause. This "item" earned us about $12,000 and two individuals donated $1,000 each!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHYv3VN2Zuw&feature=youtube_gdata

If you missed the Fur Ball, it's not too late to make a donation in honor of Daisy.

Fern - 9/19 /09 - 2 Days After Rescue

I stopped by the shelter to visit Fern this morning. She is doing well. The catheter and wrapping have been removed from her left leg and she is finding it much easier to move around. She is very happy to have visitors! We put a soft e-collar on her, as she shows a little too much interest in licking her sutures. She has plenty to eat and drink and very soft blankets to lie on.

CCHS is accepting donations to cover the costs of Fern's surgery and care. If you send a donation, please write "For Fern" in the memo line. To make a Pay Pal donation, use the link for Fern donations on the CCHS homepage: http://www.cuhumane.org

Michael Vick - As it Stands Right Now 8/14/09

I had made a vow that my next post would consist of only "Good News," but I just have to opine on the Michael Vick/Philadelphia Eagles thing. I'll be brief.

No, I'm not surprised that he has been signed. I don't know much about professional sports, but I imagine there are many NFL players with criminal records. If they let wife-beaters play, they're going to let guys play who committed cruelty to animals. If we have a beef with the consequences for Vick's crimes, we should be looking at cruelty and dog fighting statutes and the applicable penalties for those crimes. We should be lobbying for tougher laws and more vigorous prosecution. Expecting a money-making enterprise like the NFL to penalize Vick for life is not realistic. And, although it might feel good to voice outrage at the Eagles' decision, it is ultimately not productive.

What will outrage me is if what I heard from Vick today is accepted as a suitable expression of remorse. So far I have heard him refer to a "horrible mistake," "a pointless activity" and regret that he "risked so much at this point in his career." These pronouncements fall so short of what I want to hear that I am finding it hard to suppress a major rant . . .

We've all made "horrible mistakes" and engaged in "pointless activities" that got us into trouble. But do those words explain away electrocuting a dog in a swimming pool? He regrets that he risked his career? Are you kidding me?

What I want to hear, what I hope to hear on Sunday night's 60 Minutes, is something more like this: "I am mortified when I look back on the dispicable acts I committed. I cannot imagine what possessed me to inflict such pain and suffering on innocent animals. I am working with a therapist to find out why I lack empathy for living beings. I hope someday, when I have figured out how I could have behaved like such a monster, I will be able to help others avoid taking that path. I have nightmares in which I hear dogs screaming. I wish I could take back the agony I caused those dogs." That's the kind of thing I want to hear. That's the kind of thing I sure hope Wayne Pacelle (HSUS President) heard before he agreed to work with this guy.

Being sorry for "risking his career" and engaging in a "pointless activity"? That's an adequate expression of remorse? Come on.

Parking Lot Heroes - Warning: Graphic Content

This weekend, temps here in central Illinois were in the low 90's and the humidity was high. Anybody with 1/2 a brain would know that you can't leave an animal in a car with no a/c running in the afternoon on day like Saturday. Three diners at Fazoli's in Champaign apparently don't have 1/2 brain between them.

Here's the story. My friend, C.L., spends a few hours at PetSmart every Saturday, as a rep for a high-end pet food producer. This Saturday, at 2 in the afternoon, she was getting out of her car near Fazoli's and saw three people get out of a Suburban and go into the restaurant. At the same time, she heard the bark of the puppy that was left behind. The Suburban was parked in the sun. They had left at least one window cracked. C.L., having more than 1/2 brain, immediately called Animal Control and waited by the vehicle. At 2:10, Animal Control had not arrived. C.L. had enlisted back-up from a Banfield veterinarian (Banfield clinic is located within PetSmart) and another colleague. One of them called the police. At 2:13 the puppy was in obvious distress; vocalizing and panting heavily. C.L. went into Fazoli's and confronted the puppy's people. She was incredibly angry and upset, but somehow managed not to curse as she informed them that they were killing their puppy over a plate of pasta. They replied that "everybody" leaves their dogs in the car.

When C.L. returned to the Suburban, the puppy was in the arms of the veterinarian, and they rushed him/her into the Banfield clinic for emergency treatment. The pup's temperature was approaching 104. (for adult dogs, 104 degrees is the threshold temp. for heat stroke; at 106 degrees the situation is dire). Initial procedures did not bring the pup's temperature down fast enough. After a cool water enema was administered, the pup's body finally cooled down.

Back outside, Animal Control had arrived and I believe the puppy owner was issued a citation and fine of $225. C.L. reported that the Animal Control officer was appropriately stern. When the puppy was fully stabilized, she/he was returned to the owner. I sure hope they learned a lesson.

Morals of the story?

(1) What's obvious to me is not necessarily obvious to everybody else. Sometimes I get so tired of repeating the "don't leave your dog in the car" message! I think, "surely, everybody already knows that!" Well, apparently not. Remedial as it is, the lesson still needs to be taught.

(2) Under certain conditions, it literally does not take more than 10-15 minutes for an animal to go into crisis due to heatstroke. Please - do not risk your own animal's life for the sake of convenience. And, if you see an animal in a situation that does not look good to you, contact authorities immediately. Don't wait until the animal is in distress -- it will be too late. And,

(3) There are heroes among us! Three cheers for C.L. and her colleagues who intervened to save this puppy's life. They were courageous and they made a difference.

Buddy

Protecting the Children? Seriously?

I got to the shelter early today - it was about 10 minutes to 7:00. No, I'm not a workaholic. Although I am indeed a morning person, I am usually home-based until 9:00. But today I had a morning appearance on WCFN, so I had to get to the shelter, select an animal to bring, and then get across town to the station in time for the live segment at 7:37.

I went into my office to fire up my computer and let the weekend emails pour in while I was gone. I hadn't been there a minute, when I noticed through the window that a woman had pulled into the parking lot. She was already out of her car and walking around with a little dog (looked like a Lhasa Apso to me, but I'm not too good at identifying the little breeds) on leash. She obviously had realized that I was in the building, came to the staff entrance near my office window, and knocked on the door. I checked my watch and wished I could pretend I wasn't there. But I didn't.

At the door, she said they (I assume she was referring to herself and her husband) got the dog from an elderly woman who could no longer keep him. They had thought he would be a companion for their dog, but the two dogs weren't getting along. I explained that we weren't open yet (as if she didn't know that, at 7 in the morning), and asked her to please return later. I explained that I had to leave shortly and that by 8:00 some staff members would be available to do a proper intake, take down pertinent information, examine the dog, etc. She resisted. And resisted. She assured me that she would come back after 8:00 to do the paperwork and provide the dog's vet records, but she really wanted me to take the dog. She said she could not bring him back later. She indicated that this had something to do with her children. She was not entirely coherent, but I realized later that she wanted to off-load the dog while the children were still asleep and planned to tell them that he had gone to live with a family where he would be the only dog. I wasn't really listening when she explained this; I just wanted her to agree to come back later. Why did I care what she told her children? I had someplace to be. And I had to be on time! I wanted the conversation to end. But when she told me that she had planned to leave him tied out in front of the building, I took hold of the leash. I didn't say anything after that; I was done.

Lucky for me, Dr. Stone arrived at about that time, and took care of the dog so that I could round up a kitten and head over to WCFN.

As you probably guessed, the woman never returned to do the paperwork. Our staff brought the dog over to Animal Control because he was not surrendered to us, he was abandoned. I didn't even have the owner's name, let alone her signature on a relinquishment form.

Naturally, as I drove across town (with Peanut, the adorable gray kitten), I thought of all the choicey things I should have said to the woman. I'm very good at caustic retorts when the moment has passed and I've had a few minutes to pull myself together. But it was too late, and probably for the best anyway. No use engaging in hostilities with someone whose mind is made up. Besides, I haven't walked a mile in her shoes. How do I know what was really going on?

As I put the pieces together though, and realized that this whole thing was about protecting the children from the experience of surrendering the dog, I got pretty annoyed. I'll admit right off the bat that I'm not a parent, so perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about. But why is it better to steal the dog away while the children sleep and tell them a lie, than to allow them the opportunity to say a proper good-bye to the dog and explain why surrendering him to a humane facility was the right decision for both the dog and the family? I don't get it.

She robbed her children of closure, as well as the opportunity to learn lessons about consequences and taking responsibility. Instead, her children will learn nothing. Except maybe that sometimes things you love disappear in the middle of the night. Good job, mom.

Our Best Efforts Aren't Always Good Enough

This is Whoopi. She is a German Wirehaired Pointer (mix), somewhere between 18 months and 2 years old. At this moment, I have my fingers crossed for Whoopi because she is scheduled to have a dog-dog introduction today with her potential new family's Boxer. I'm on pins and needles.

Whoopi has been with us a long time and we would really like to see her go home! She has been at the shelter since March 23rd. That's 15 weeks -- about 12 weeks longer than an average stay for a dog at our shelter. It's not that we mind having Whoopi around, but when a dog is with us this long we start to get a little anxious.

We have some pretty good ideas as to why Whoopi is taking a little longer than other dogs to place. For one thing, it's not uncommon for dark-hued dogs to stay longer at animal shelters than others. In addition, Whoopi is a medium-large, adolescent dog with a lot of energy. How many people you know want to take that on? German Wirehaired Pointers aren't as popular as say, Golden Retrievers, either. The good news is that Whoopi came to us with some training under her belt and we know she has it in her to be a very good girl, in the right home.

But let's get back to the "dog-dog introduction" for a moment. We require all dog adopters to bring any already existing dog family members to the shelter to meet their potential new "sibling" prior to finalizing the adoption. This is a pretty important step in the adoption process. The following story illustrates the point . . . sort of.

Week before last, a very nice dog was returned to the shelter, after about a week in his new home, with multiple -- and I mean MULTIPLE bite wounds on his face, head, and front legs. The incident had occurred on about the third day after the adoption. One of the resident dogs had attacked the new dog. The new dog did not fight back. The adopter's veterinarian put drains in a couple places on the injured dog's face/head and sutured a wound at the base of one ear. The adopters kept him for a few more days before realizing that the adoption would not work, and returning him to us.

By the day after his return, our veterinarian was able to remove the drains and we sent the dog into foster care with a very caring and responsible volunteer. On that day, we let the dog hang-out in the administrative office until his foster mom could pick him up. He still looked a mess, and was a little sensitive about having his head touched, but otherwise he was happy and affectionate. He is a really sweet dog.

So, you're probably wondering, as I was, what the heck happened?

No one on staff had any reservations about these adopters. They brought their dog in for a dog-dog introduction and it went fine. The staff told me that the adopters were devastated when they returned the injured dog to us; they were in tears. But, here's the twist. The dog that came in for the introduction was not the dog that inflicted the damage on the new dog. They had lied on their application about a second dog at home--they indicated that this second dog was deceased.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that they had obtained this dog, the aggressor dog, from us some years ago. That's why they didn't leave him off the application altogether; they knew we would have records of that adoption. Whether the dog had "issues" from the time of adoption or they developed later, I don't know.

It's more than frustrating when this kind of thing happens. All of our adoption requirements are designed to (1) minimize the likelihood of harm coming to our animals and (2) maximize the likelihood of a succesful permanent adoption. Yet we failed to protect this dog from harm and his adoption failed miserably. Not much we can do when people are dishonest.

We're frequently criticized for making people "jump through hoops" to adopt a dog. How do you think the polygraph requirement is going to go over?*

*This is a facetious statement. Please do not alert the media.