And Not-So-Neat Stuff

We donate fur items to the UI Wildlife Clinic.

Furs can be comforting for orphaned wildlife to snuggle in.

Inside the Hall on the Final Day of Drop Offs

You're looking down the main aisle - from East to West. That's the sporting goods department on the right and you can see some of the small appliances department on the left . . . it will all be much more organized by Friday. We've got 4 days to clean everything, price, and organize.

Outside Kesler Hall on the Last Day of Drop Offs

The building is filling up!

GIANT Garage Sale - The Drop Off Phase

This year, we have a huge collection of dolls. This is one of three Princess Diana dolls.

A teapot collection arrived yesterday. Look at this doggie pot:

Volunteers are working hard, but there is always time to enjoy a little love.

Update on Case 1

Keep in mind that I have no firsthand knowledge of the incident at Legends, and am only reporting what I've been told by a variety of individuals.

I believe that the following explanation of the incident is what was provided to the Police when they investigated: The goose charged the man. The man hit the goose with the golf club, and the goose backed off (positive reinforcement for the man's response). When the goose charged a second time, the man applied the same technique. Unfortunately and accidently, this second blow was fatal, breaking the goose's neck. Thus, the conclusion that no crime was committed.

I've been told that the US Fish & Wildlife Service briefly looked into the matter and upon learning the facts above, concluded its investigation.

I spoke with a representative of the Enforcement Division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, who said that he would follow up and obtain the status of any US F&W investigation. He essentially acknowledged that no penalty would be forthcoming if it was determined that the man acted in "self defense."

One Day, Two Cruelty Cases

Case 1 - Man v. Goose

At the Legends golf course in Champaign, witnesses observed a golfer club a Goose to death after the goose charged the golfer. When one of the witnesses reported the incident to Champaign Police, he was told that no crime had been committed and that the golfer "had every right" to kill the goose.

Contrary to the assertion of Champaign Police, Geese are a protected species in Illinois and it is illegal to kill or remove geese (or destroy nests or eggs) without a permit from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. The incident has been reported to the DNR and I believe that an investigation is underway.

A concerned citizen who is also a regular patron of Legends spoke with a Legends manager today who had little to say other than that Legends bears no responsibiltiy for the incident. The manager also stated that a goose could "take a chunk out of your leg."

I don't doubt that the goose charged the golfer. At this time of year, Canadian Geese are tending to their young, and may become aggressive toward humans that come too close to their nest site or goslings. I don't doubt that it is extremely unsettling to have an angry goose try to run you off.

I have serious doubts, however, that the only recourse available to the golfer was to club the goose to death. In my opinion, this was a barbaric over-reaction.

Now that the deed is done, what's the remedy? Obviously, I have limited influence, but here's what I'd like to see happen in this case: (1) I'd like to see Legends post signs near nesting areas (a) warning golfers that geese will be protective of their young, (b) clearly stating that geese are a protected species, and (c) instructing golfers to report problems with geese to management; (2) I'd like to see the Champaign Police Department called on the carpet for its incredibly inept response to the report; and (3) I'd like to see the DNR vigorously investigate this incident and impose appropriate penalties upon the perpetrator, whose identity is known.

Resource: http://web.extension.uiuc.edu/wildlife/directory_show.cfm?species=canadagoose

Case 2 - Man v. Cat

This morning in or around Mansfield, somebody shot a cat in the face with a pellet gun. The cat was treated at CCHS and the prognosis is good, although the pellet remains lodged in the cat's head. The pellet missed the cat's eye by about 1/8 of an inch.

At this time, I'm not fully aware of the status of the investigation of this incident by law enforcement authorities. I certainly hope that it is taken seriously and pursued with rigor. I will keep you posted.

What We Could Do With $4,300 . . . and what consumers can do when they're lied to

In a comment to my last post, someone mentioned a coworker who had purchased a dog from the Lucky Puppy for $4,300. I have previously not heard of their prices going that high, and I obviously cannot prove that they are getting over four thousand dollars for certain puppies. But just in case they are, let's consider what we could've accomplished with the $4,300 that was (allegedly) spent on that 8-pound "Tea Cup" Yorkie.

-$4,300 could subsidize 50 adult dog adoptions from our shelter.
-With $4,300, we could alter about 170 cats.
-We could treat 29 Heartworm-positive dogs.
-We could run a television ad to raise awareness about pet overpopulation.

You get the picture. $4,300 can do a lot of good. I realize that that $4,300 wouldn't have been ours anyway. How many people who decide not to drop that kind of dough on a puppy will turn around and give it to their local animal shelter instead? Less than one-in-a-million, I'm guessing. So I'll quit daydreaming about windfalls that aren't to be and move on to something more constructive.

I'n the past 18 months, I've talked to several individuals who bought puppies from puppy boutiques and were very upset to learn after-the-fact that the breeder identified on their paperwork was in fact a large-scale commercial dog breeder. Some of these people had gone into the store knowing about puppy mills, but believed the store employees when they assured them that the store did not acquire dogs from such places. Seems to me that lying to a customer who is about to drop a grand for a puppy might constitute "consumer fraud" or "deceptive practices."

Deceptive or unfair business practices and consumer fraud are of great interest to the Attorney General's Office (see http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/consumers/index.html). Anyone who feels that a business in Illinois has been unfair, dishonest, or misrepresented the facts of a transaction, should report their experience to the Attorney General's Office. Here is a simple consumer complaint form: http://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/consumers/conscomp.pdf.

Complaints about a business can also be filed with the Better Business Bureau. Here is a link to the Central Illinois BBB: http://heartofillinois.bbb.org/Find-Business-Reviews/#middle-result. I've checked the BBB website and found that no complaints have been filed about the Lucky Puppy Boutique. This despite a number of complaints that have been relayed to me and other people that I know. View the store's listing here: http://www.bbb.org/central-illinois/business-reviews/retail-pet-suppliers/lucky-puppy-boutique-barkery-in-champaign-il-90006518.

If you talk to anyone who was unhappy with a pet-store experience (whether related to the purchase, the contract terms, or negotiating a return), please suggest they do something about it! Filing a report with a local BBB and/or the Attorney General's office isn't difficult.

See also: http://unluckypuppies.blogspot.com to report experiences with the Lucky Puppy Boutique.