# "Franklin family’s dogs taken by animal officer, placed with new owners"



## KevinM822 (Nov 27, 2011)

Sad story... Thought I'd post it here for you guys to read.
I'm not this person, nor do I know who anyone involved is. Saw it posted on my local craigslist.


Franklin family’s dogs taken by animal officer, placed with new owners — Hancock — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine


Guess it's a good example of why you should get chipped


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

People keep tagging this story to my facebook, and I have such mixed feelings about the journey of these goldens. I am not sure what I think.


----------



## bowdense (Feb 22, 2011)

Of course, we probably don't know all of the details. But, it seems to me that the rescue should contact the new owners and explain the situation and return the dogs to their rightful home. I am sure that the peoples who just adopted them want a dog(s) that truly need a home not someone's pet. It's a terrible mistake.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

There is another thread on this, i feel it is just wrong,the animal control person did wrong, yankee rescue,should make this right, and yes these dogs should had been spayed,and neutered by the real owners, but this is just so sad.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

I read that article yesterday... Two nine year old unspayed and unneutered dogs....


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

It's a lesson in the value of chipping your dogs, if nothing else.


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

I wonder how many litters they have had already.......
It is sad, and yes, I know dogs can get out, escape. That is why you got to watch them, have a fence if you cannot watch them.
I also don't think much about animal control and animal control officers.......
There are a bunch of people at fault here.


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

this article makes me mad. The rescue should contact the new owners and return them. 

Fixed or not...your assuming they are bad for that? and dogs get out sometimes.

I have a problem with families looking, sheleters moving dogs quickly, rescues over state lines sometimes....when good familes are torn apart like this, it bothers me. 

we know dogs can be gon weeks sometimes and found, i think rescues should really look at these on a case by case basis...in this case dogs get returned. rescues can be very judgemental, it does not give them the right in this case to not bring this family back together.

they need clauses in adoption contracts, if owners are found within a certain time animal is returned. i would sue for stolen property...that is how the law sees our family members, they can prove actively looking...and loved the dogs. 
people might dislike me for saying it...but i side with the family...and would fight hard to get them back. they never stopped searching...perhaps they should not be final adoption for 6 months....

and this coming from a person who loves rescues and appreciates the work they do...but they do miss the boat on some things.

and side not...the family that adopted is at no fault. just in a bad situation, truly if they love them, give them back.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

I have very mixed feeling about this. 
My emotional response is that the dogs need to be returned to their original owners.

My other response is that the Rescue did nothing wrong. They took in two strays after they assumed all the legal ordinances and protocols were followed through correctly. They vetted the dogs, spent time ascessing them and finding them a forever home.

The rescues have to have the new families interest first. If they don't how will anyone ever be able to go and adopt from a rescue if their new family member can be ripped from their arms 3 months, 6 months, a year, two years after they have taken them in loved and cared for them and made them part of their own family.

The whole situation is very sad and from reading the information the ACO is the problem. I don't have any solution for this individual case but I do think that each of our communities needs to relook at the protocols in place, fix them if needed and to have more checks and balances on those in the front lines. (the shelters, and aco's)


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

This is a challenging one, but unless we know more than what the media reports we have to assume that the dogs are where they are supposed to be. Sad for the family, but sure hope a lesson has been learned.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

This story scares the heck out of me. 


My dog is intact. So if he panics because of a storm or a loud noise and takes off running and gets lost... and when he's picked up, the microchip isn't read for some reason... and the staff at the shelter decides that he is a mixed breed or they don't think he looks like his pictures (and dogs who have been running loose through the woods, and are tired, scared, dirty, hungry, sick can look unrecognizable after a short period of time). And they don't have time to take pictures of dogs and upload them to facebook to really help people find their dogs.


Does that suddenly make me a bad owner who's been breeding her dog left and right while letting him go running, etc, and I didn't look _hard enough_ for him? Even if I've been posting signs everywhere and actively enlisting help on facebook and other places? 

And fwiw - the real owners of these dogs need to thankful at least their dogs were rescued. I know of a family who had something similar happen. In their case they checked repeatedly at a shelter to see if their dog had been taken there. Each time they were told "no". Somebody contacted them and told them that a dog who looked like their dog had been taken to this shelter. And there was a picture. 

They went back to this shelter and were told that "yes" that dog had been brought in, but had been euthanized after the 4 day hold because he was deemed unadoptable because of "aggression". The dog was in a shelter and was terrified. The staff didn't feel that the dog matched the description given by the owners, mainly because of the behavior. Despite the coloring being very close.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Of my six microchipped dogs, one has a chip that no longer works...and two have chips that have migrated to the point of their shoulders... The chips are palpable, but really who would go looking for them?

My unspayed/unneutered remark was made because a bitch at nine years should've already been spayed...due to the pyometra risk. And it makes me wonder whether correctly or incorrectly if the bitch was part of a BYB operation?


----------



## bowdense (Feb 22, 2011)

cgriffin said:


> I wonder how many litters they have had already.......


I never even thought of that. That is a huge mistake of the owners on several levels. Regardless, the situation was handled poorly. I am very glad Remington is micro-chipped. We have a camp in eastern Maine and if my pups ran off, I guess this could potentially happen.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

We actually have a vet hospital in the same town where I work that picks up strays and keeps them... Doesn't turn them over to animal control.... A clients dog went missing. She called animal control, the local shelters, etc. She has a rare breed of dog... It had a microchip from the breeder that was never registered. However, the animal hospital had called the microchip company only to find out that the chip had no info. Our client came in crying, so we started calling the various microchip registries. This hospital was on their records and long story short, dog and owner were reunited. The animal hospital who kept him was in the wrong for sure. They told our client that they were one week away from adopting the dog out. If a stray gets brought to us, we call animal control, and then it is brought to the local shelter. The shelters around here do check for microchips...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sally's Mom said:


> And it makes me wonder whether correctly or incorrectly if the bitch was part of a BYB operation?


I'm sure they were. 

There is a family who lives near me whose two little dogs were likely either eaten by coyotes, snagged by hawks, or stolen by a passing stranger. These dogs were mother and son, so yes - yuck, bybs. These dogs were left outside long enough for them to go stray, so yes... stupid bybs.

But these people have been searching everywhere for their dogs and are obviously distraught because those two little dogs were family.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I didn't think.of the owners being byb, not sure if that was the case, if that makes a difference,in how i view what happened,i do think dogs should be neutered ,and spayed,and cats also.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

This story and honestly the reactions here scare the heck out of me as well. 

My dogs are chipped but I have an intact male and an intact female (also a neutered at 7yo male). My 2 intact dogs will never be bred to each other but because they are intact, does that make me a bad owner? a BYB or worse? Undeserving of getting my dogs back if, heaven forbid, they get loose?

This is a horrible thing to happen to the original owners, it is a horrible situation for the new owners but the ACO and Rescue both should have been more thorough in their due diligence.




Megora said:


> This story scares the heck out of me.
> 
> 
> My dog is intact. So if he panics because of a storm or a loud noise and takes off running and gets lost... and when he's picked up, the microchip isn't read for some reason... and the staff at the shelter decides that he is a mixed breed or they don't think he looks like his pictures (and dogs who have been running loose through the woods, and are tired, scared, dirty, hungry, sick can look unrecognizable after a short period of time). And they don't have time to take pictures of dogs and upload them to facebook to really help people find their dogs.
> ...


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

solinvictus said:


> I have very mixed feeling about this.
> My emotional response is that the dogs need to be returned to their original owners.
> 
> My other response is that the Rescue did nothing wrong. They took in two strays after they assumed all the legal ordinances and protocols were followed through correctly. They vetted the dogs, spent time ascessing them and finding them a forever home.
> ...



I agree with you. 

I had nightmares for several months after I adopted Danny that the rescue told me I had to give him back because the rescue hadn't held him for the required amount of time and another that the previous owners wanted him back. Even though all protocol had been followed. That just showed me how deeply I had bonded with him and how devastated I would have been to lose him.

In reference to the shelters giving misinformation to owners with lost pets, that's why you absolutely HAVE to go to the shelter to check for your pet. You can't rely on someone else to identify them.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

"In reference to the shelters giving misinformation to owners with lost pets, that's why you absolutely HAVE to go to the shelter to check for your pet. You can't rely on someone else to identify them. "

I want to add to this. Many shelters when they get new dogs in they are not displayed on the normal floor of holding pens. They are kept back so that the dog can do some adjustment and/or they can make sure the dog doesn't have something very contagiouos or major aggression problems. If you lose a dog please insist on being shown all the dogs. For some reason (which I cannot figure out) some shelters do not tell you this and do not give those looking for found dogs the opportunity to make sure one of those isn't it. Sometimes there is just a misconnect in their protocol.


----------



## Lucky Penny (Nov 13, 2011)

Saw this story, and it upsets me, for a variety of reasons. My biggest thing is I want YGRR to at least contact the new owners and explain the situation. Do for others what you would want done for you. If these were you dogs, wouldn't you want this?

Here is the link for their page on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/BringBellaAndJakeHome

Those who want to, they are asking to contact YGRR and ask them to let the new owners know of the situation.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

"My biggest thing is I want YGRR to at least contact the new owners and explain the situation. Do for others what you would want done for you. If these were you dogs, wouldn't you want this? "

How do you know that they haven't contacted the new owners?


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I agree, i want them, to talk to the orginal owners,and the new ones also.


----------



## Lucky Penny (Nov 13, 2011)

I saw this in the article, and also on the facebook page:
Franklin family’s dogs taken by animal officer, placed with new owners — Hancock — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine



solinvictus said:


> "My biggest thing is I want YGRR to at least contact the new owners and explain the situation. Do for others what you would want done for you. If these were you dogs, wouldn't you want this? "
> 
> How do you know that they haven't contacted the new owners?


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

"I saw this in the article, and also on the facebook page:"

Nothing in the article states either way. From the article we do not know if the rescue contacted the new owners or not.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

solinvictus said:


> "I saw this in the article, and also on the facebook page:"
> 
> Nothing in the article states either way. From the article we do not know if the rescue contacted the new owners or not.


I very much doubt that YGRR is going to publicize whether they have or haven't notified the new owners. It's a lose/lose either way for the rescue.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I asked on the fb page, if they have ,or not, also if the owners were breeders, also liked the page,of course.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Dallas enacted an ordinance requiring anyone finding a lost animal to turn it over to Animal Control so owners can find their pets. It's a good concept in theory, but totally worthless in practice. I know for a fact that even city employees do not follow this practice. The veterinary clinic we go to called me one morning the week between Christmas and New Years--a police officer found a blind male golden retriever on a busy Dallas street, wandering, scared and dodging traffic. He coaxed the dog into his cruiser and fashioned a slip collar out of a dirty piece of rope he found somewhere. Knowing this dog would be put down if he went to the city shelter, due to his blindness, he opted, against city ordinances, to take him to the veterinary clinic to see if there was a chip. There was, but it was never registered and the chip company told him that someone had called an inquired about the chip the day before (from another veterinary clinic). He assumed someone found him, discovered there was no active chip, and just dumped the poor helpless dog back on the streets. The DPD officer pleaded with the vet clinic to find a rescue situation for this poor dog. They called me and I was able to contact a rescue that would take him--I went to the police station and the poor dog was surrounded by officers, who all thanked me for taking him because they knew if they took him to the city shelter his days were numbered. He got into rescue that day, but.... they held on to him in foster care for a few months and my husband and I checked the entire area for Missing/Lost Pet signs for weeks after, just in case. We also checked online Lost Pet listings and I read the classifieds Lost/Found Pets for months after. I gave the police officer my name, contact information and the contact information of the rescue, just in case someone came to the police station looking. The vet clinic put a notice up on their bulletin board and they had my contact information as well as the card from the rescue, just in case. 

Was this dog's rescue in violation of city ordinances? YES, but this dog needed a rescue immediately to save his life. Was the owner at fault for not putting collar or tags on the dog or registering the microchip? YES! Should the owner have been more proactive in finding this dog by immediately putting up signs or posting in lost pet listings in our area (and we have several), and visiting local clinics and pet stores (feed stores) and posting notices? YES! Is the dog in a better place now? YES! He received a thorough ophthalmology exam from Toby's ophthalmologist, was diagnosed with a specific eye condition (no cure) and is receiving medication to help with eye pain. He is safe, loved and in a good place now.

This is such a gray area. Legally the rescue followed the law, but morally/ethically, a good argument can be made they should at least contact the adopters to inform them and give them the option to decide what to do. There is always the potential for litigation, so the adopters should be aware in any event. I know if I were in the adopter's shoes, I'd want more information about the couple that lost the dog and I'd probably elect to return the dog unless it's a BYB, abuse or neglect situation. I couldn't live with myself in peace if I knew a loving family's dog was missing and I had him/her.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Sunrise said:


> This story and honestly *the reactions here scare the heck out of me as well. *
> 
> My dogs are chipped but I have an intact male and an intact female (also a neutered at 7yo male). My 2 intact dogs will never be bred to each other but because they are intact, does that make me a bad owner? a BYB or worse? Undeserving of getting my dogs back if, heaven forbid, they get loose?
> 
> This is a horrible thing to happen to the original owners, it is a horrible situation for the new owners but the ACO and Rescue both should have been more thorough in their due diligence.


 
I agree! The assumptions are running rapid as usual: I also believe ACO and Rescue should have been more thorough.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

"I very much doubt that YGRR is going to publicize whether they have or haven't notified the new owners. It's a lose/lose either way for the rescue. "

I agree with you. And as far as I see the rescue followed correct proceedures.

My point was that Lucky Penny doesn't know but is making an assumption.
The quote below was from Lucky Penny not me.
"My biggest thing is I want YGRR to at least contact the new owners and explain the situation. Do for others what you would want done for you. If these were you dogs, wouldn't you want this? "


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

fostermom said:


> I very much doubt that YGRR is going to publicize whether they have or haven't notified the new owners. It's a lose/lose either way for the rescue.


It might not be a lose/lose though, if they approach it correctly. I think from an adopter's standpoint, I'd want to know if my dog might have a responsible, loving original family (not BYB, abusers or neglectful/irresponsible owners) that lost him and were wanting him back. I'd have a lot to think about, but might consider returning the dog if the facts show it was truly an accident the dog was lost and in the dog's best interests to be back with the original family. If the rescue knew of a situation where the original owners were trying to reclaim my adopted dog and did not tell me, I'd be extremely upset, especially the longer time passes.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Maybe the family,would say, it is their fb page.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

If I was a gambling woman I would bet that the rescue has contacted the new owners. If for nothing else but in todays world the vigilantism of some animal lovers put them and the dogs in danger.

If the rescue would make public that they have contacted the new owners they are putting the new owners at more risk.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

In Maine, the town I work in has to contract with the local shelter for the strays... It used to be if your town didn't contract with them, your stray pets weren't going there.... I don't know how it stands now, but I believe that not all towns have an ACO. If we get a stray rescued from the Route One traffic, we will house it until the ACO picks it up and takes it to the shelter.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

There is a lot about this story that bothers me. And I feel for people on all sides.
The people who adopted the dogs have had them for close to 6 months now. That is plenty of time to bond, so you will have broken hearts on either side.
If nothing else, this is a good reminder to not only get your pets microchipped, and don't forget to actually register the chip!
What bothers me is why the original family didn't go out and actively look for their dogs??? It says they posted to facebook and called a few places and talked to neighbors. It almost seems like they expected people to bend over for them and go the extra distance, but weren't willing to do the same.
My neighbors lost their little dog a few weeks ago and they were obviously heartbroken. What I didn't understand is that they put out 1 measly sign to find the dog.....
I know if my pets ever get out, there will be signs on every post in this town and I will drag my butt up to all of the shelters in my general area and lay eyes on the animals there. I've heard too many stories of peoples pets being in the shelter, but the shelter staff didn't think they matched the description given by the caller.....

I do wonder if the adopter sees this story if they will return the dogs? If it were me, I might like to set up a secret meeting to see how the dogs react to the family. If they see the family and start acting all crazy like a long lost best friend (think of some of the military welcome homes from dogs that have been on youtube), then I might have to leave the dog with the family.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Oh, and am I the only one bothered by the comment that they thought they had been shot by hunters and it was almost better not knowing what happened??? I'd much rather think my dogs are with a loving family than to think that they were shot by hunters....


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

No, you are not the only one that was wondering about that comment. That is the comment that really got me and made me actually really doubt them as owners.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

solinvictus said:


> If I was a gambling woman I would bet that the rescue has contacted the new owners. If for nothing else but in todays world the vigilantism of some animal lovers put them and the dogs in danger.
> 
> If the rescue would make public that they have contacted the new owners they are putting the new owners at more risk.


That's what I meant by a lose/lose situation for the rescue. If they did contact the new owners and the new owners opted to keep the dogs, then that sets the adopters up for possible retaliation. It would also cause bad press for the rescue.

If the rescue doesn't contact the new owners, that sets them up for possible retaliation and bad press.

Either way, they are screwed.


----------



## Lucky Penny (Nov 13, 2011)

Yes, I am assumuing that, but since YGRR will not say, IMO YGRR has not contacted the new owners, because we would of heard more if they did. 

YGRR did not do anything wrong, and they are only trying to protect the new owners. However, I do feel that the old family has a right to get their story to the new owners. Those dogs were members of their family for many years. It is the right thing to do. 

I agree that if these were my dogs, I would be out as much as possible looking for them, but we have to keep in mind this family has 4 kids to take care of, and they put their trust in the town.




solinvictus said:


> "I very much doubt that YGRR is going to publicize whether they have or haven't notified the new owners. It's a lose/lose either way for the rescue. "
> 
> I agree with you. And as far as I see the rescue followed correct proceedures.
> 
> ...


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Facebook, removed the pictures,the family had up, it was one that ygrr,had used ,on their site,they said,guess some people complained.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I think people just are not educated in how to find their dogs. They live in a little logging town. There are only 38 people per square mile. They did contact the vet but it was too late. I am sure they don't have a local Petco to go post signs at. I have known people that live up there and they need to do all their clothes shopping on the web, because their are no stores at all.

I never knew the mentality of people living in the middle of no where is different than people who live in the suburbs, until I moved to Missouri. I do live in a city that is part farmland and part city - but surrounded by some pretty rural areas. There is a lot of back to the basics thinking and living. It is not that they are neglectful to their dogs, it is just that is the only way they know and seen dogs to be raised. It appears these dogs were well loved maybe not to our standards, but to the standards of that community. It does not mean that they do not deserve to have their dogs back.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Lucky Penny said:


> Saw this story, and it upsets me, for a variety of reasons. My biggest thing is I want YGRR to at least contact the new owners and explain the situation. Do for others what you would want done for you. If these were you dogs, wouldn't you want this?
> 
> Here is the link for their page on facebook:
> Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More
> ...


Go to the link,and like the page.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Back when I volunteered for a rescue we had a situation where a shelter worker didn't like an owner whose dog was placed in a shelter when she was evicted from her apartment. The dog was 12, very upset in the shelter, and the owner had difficulty getting the money to spring him. She was very young and this was her childhood dog. The dog had an ear infection and that was it--very healthy old dog. The shelter worker contacted a rescue transport volunteer to come get the dog on a Saturday morning at 7:30 a.m. before it opened and before 8 when the owner said she would be there to pick the dog up and pay the fees. The rescue volunteer picked the dog up, got it to the vet. Three days later the head of the municipal shelter contacted the transport volunteer after he heard what happened, decided the shelter worker erred (she did and she was subsequently fired for another issue), and asked if the rescue would return the dog. The rescue replied that they took the dog legally from the shelter worker, but the young lady could apply to adopt the dog. The young lady did just that and the rescue was still reluctant to return the dog. Finally, after a lot of discussion, the leadership was convinced by an attorney that they should at least do a home visit (the lady was living with her parents). They contacted the foster parents, and the rescue president and foster coordinator picked the dog up and went to the home visit--they knew the second the dog saw the family it was right to return the dog. They waived the adoption fee, educated the family on the importance of HW prevention, gave her several months supply, and arranged for a follow up visit and verification from the dog's veterinarian the dog was healthy and HW free, before the adoption was final. 

IMO, that was a win-win situation, for the rescue, the dog and for good relations with the shelter manager. The family never learned where the dog was located during the foster time, and the dog presumably lived out his life happy with his family. The rescue was contacted almost immediately, did the right thing and did not adopt the dog out immediately, worked with the family for the best interests of the dog. The owner was persistent and began her quest immediately, not several months later. 

It's possible for YGRR to arrange for a meeting where one of the key rescue volunteers does a home visit, interviews and makes sure there isn't something hokey going on. If it all works out, and if the adopters are willing to consider a return, as hard as it probably is for them, the same rescue volunteers could probably arrange to deliver the dog without the owners being involved or identified (after making sure the owner's microchip contact information is removed of course). 

In the Maine scenerio there are a bunch of ifs....and a lot of iffy questions about the original owners here.


----------



## Lucky Penny (Nov 13, 2011)

http://www.facebook.com/BringBellaAndJakeHome# 
Bring Bella and Jake Home They talked with one of the owners. Said they would not give out any info,they abandoned their dogs,they are in a loving home now and will be taken care of the way they needed to be. They continue o call and leave messages with no call back

This was just posted on the FB page.


----------



## Lucky Penny (Nov 13, 2011)

Dallas Gold, I agree with your thoughts.


----------



## Lucky Penny (Nov 13, 2011)

This was also just said on FB, to anwser a lot of questions.


Bring Bella and Jake Home Bella and Jake had one litter of pups


----------



## goldenlvr98 (Apr 12, 2012)

This really is an awful situation. I have no doubts that the original owners loved their dogs. But the information provided through the article leave many questions unanswered. It seems like the law was followed by all parties. Sure the ACO definitely could have done more, but given the choice of euthanizing the dogs in an overcrowded shelter and transferring them to a reputable rescue I believe she was doing the best she could. It does seem fishy however that when they contacted the place that originally had the dogs, the other employee was unaware that they had been there. Why didnt the owners go to all the local animal hospitals and shelters to look in that first week?

If I were the new owners I don't know how I would possibly decide what to do. Our family dog died last year and it was the worst experience in the world so I hate to think of the family losing a pet. But my conscious would prevent me from simply handing these dogs over after loving and caring for them. As a dog lover I would be unable to return these dogs to people who didn't contact the shelter they had been held at until 3+ weeks after they had been missing. Not to mention that they created all these fb pages and such 5 months after the dogs went missing. There's something not right here. And the dogs had no identification, and were un spayed un neutered. I think the owners should be able to make the decision whether to neuter their dogs, but the fact that they were male and female suggests that they were probably being bred. I think people need to focus on whats best for the dogs here. If this were all within the time span of a month the dogs would probably still be with the rescue. Why did it take so long?


----------



## Molly's Mum (Apr 1, 2011)

I'm having difficulty understanding why the family left it for so long before contacting the animal clinic and leaving their details. It just doesn't all add up quite right for me, maybe details are missing from the news report but it appears to me that they didn't make a very big effort to find the dogs during the first few weeks.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

Lucky Penny said:


> http://www.facebook.com/BringBellaAndJakeHome#
> Bring Bella and Jake Home They talked with one of the owners. Said they would not give out any info,they abandoned their dogs,they are in a loving home now and will be taken care of the way they needed to be. They continue o call and leave messages with no call back
> 
> This was just posted on the FB page.


Uuhhhgggg! This makes me sooooooo angry!! They didn't abandoned their dogs! They were taken after the got out of the house! They looked for them how they knew how! God, I know how sick the REAL owners must feel! I can feel it all over again with what happened with Lucy and _&_ golden retriever rescue. Except I contacted the rescue BEFORE the rescue adopted het out and they wouldn't even let me see her because they thought I was unfit. 

Obviously the rescue in this case did nothing wrong, but I know how it feels to loose a pet and then find her and be told you were a bad owner and you can't have your dog back! 

I'm so angry right now! The new owners aren't rescuers! They may have thought they were but now they know better, and that makes them awful! This is just too close to home for me. Me thoughts are with the original owners.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

I agree this is a very sad situation, I feel there is a lot more to this story than what has been written in the article. 

I use to help with Intake for a couple of years for a GR Rescue here in NC-the group I helped had very strict guidelines we followed when taking in strays. I posted in the other thread about this story the steps we took. 

No Rescue group wants to take in a dog that belongs to someone, that's why there are certain procedures that have to be followed during the Intake Process. The most important step is trying to find the owner of the dog prior to a Group making a commitment to take a dog in if it's a stray.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Molly's Mum said:


> I'm having difficulty understanding why the family left it for so long before contacting the animal clinic and leaving their details.


This is the part of the whole sad situation that I just can't understand. Let me tell you, if Chance went missing I would immediately be beating down every shelter's door around me, _and beyond_, until I found him or _made sure_ they didn't have him. Same for all the vet clinics and rescues in my area and surrounding areas. I would be relentless, like I'm sure everyone else on this forum would also be. And if someone took/stole him, let's just say I'd definitely have an alibi set up ahead of time.  

Did the people ever give an explanation for why they waited so long to contact the vet clinic?


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

kwhit said:


> This is the part of the whole sad situation that I just can't understand. Let me tell you, if Chance went missing I would immediately be beating down every shelter's door around me, _and beyond_, until I found him or _made sure_ they didn't have him. Same for all the vet clinics and rescues in my area and surrounding areas. I would be relentless, like I'm sure everyone else on this forum would also be. And if someone took/stole him, let's just say I'd definitely have an alibi set up ahead of time.
> 
> Did the people ever give an explanation for why they waited so long to contact the vet clinic?[/QUOTE
> 
> ...


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

Maybe we should stop pointing accusatory fingers at each other for having different opinions on this subject.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

cgriffin said:


> Maybe we should stop pointing accusatory fingers at each other for having different opinions on this subject.


Thanks for that. Not knowing exactly everything the family, the officer, or the rescue tried, and filling in based on what we would have done or what it sounded like somebody didn't do, we arrive at different views.

We all agree that it's terrible to love a dog and have it end up placed with somebody else. We all agree that it would be terrible to adopt a dog and have it taken away six months later. Getting mad at each other based on speculation is unfortunate and perhaps preventable when we agree on so much.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

cgriffin said:


> Maybe we should stop pointing accusatory fingers at each other for having different opinions on this subject.


I couldn't agree with you more because I really do feel there's a lot more to this story than what was printed in the article. Ac hasn't really said that much and YGRR hasn't commented-I don't think it's fair to make a judgement until all the facts or information has been provided. 

I think everyone agrees this is a very sad and unfortunate situation with many lessons to be learned.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> I couldn't agree with you more because I really do feel there's a lot more to this story than what was printed in the article. Ac hasn't really said that much and YGRR hasn't commented-I don't think it's fair to make a judgement until all the facts or information has been provided.
> 
> I think everyone agrees this is a very sad and unfortunate situation with many lessons to be learned.


I agree. But what we do know is that a family is missing their beloved family members.

Imagine if your child went missing and someone found them but couldn't identify them or find the family, so the child was placed in foster care and them adopted by a new family. The real parents never stopped looking. Who should keep the child?


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

MicheleKC87 said:


> I agree. But what we do know is that a family is missing their beloved family members.
> 
> Imagine if your child went missing and someone found them but couldn't identify them or find the family, so the child was placed in foster care and them adopted by a new family. The real parents never stopped looking. Who should keep the child?


This is about 2 dogs, not a child.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

fostermom said:


> This is about 2 dogs, not a child.


It doesn't matter. I'm not talking about the legal aspect, I'm talking about peoples feelings, and what is morally right. 

I thought you guys viewed dogs as family? It seems that most on here hold a higher standard for dogs than people when it comes to breeding practices, but in a situation like this, it's just a dog. I don't get it.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

MicheleKC87 said:


> I agree. But what we do know is that a family is missing their beloved family members.
> 
> Imagine if your child went missing and someone found them but couldn't identify them or find the family, so the child was placed in foster care and them adopted by a new family. The real parents never stopped looking. Who should keep the child?


 
Michele, I know this is a very sensitive subject for you because of what happened with your dog and I get where you're coming from and I am truly sorry for what happened to you. I too consider my dogs as family members, esepcially since my husband and I are empty nesters. My dogs are like our kids. 

If my dogs were ever to go missing, I would do everything possible to find them-whatever it took and wouldn't stop looking for them until they were found. My dogs are also Micro chipped which also means that I can prove ownership of them. 

I don't think it's fair to make judgement on this situaiton when all the facts are not available. I think there's a lot more to this story than we know and things aren't always what they seem or appear to be without those facts all out on the table.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

As a former foster mom to a dog that has been missing since Oct 16, 2011, I can tell you without a doubt that 'not knowing' is definitely not 'easier'. Gracie went missing on a walk with her mom in the country,-- vanished - has yet to be seen. Her mom and her family, her friends and we ground searched endlessly for months, put up hundreds of posters, contacted vet clinics, shelters, anywhere and everywhere we could think of, with no luck at all. She was spayed, tattooed and was wearing a collar with tags, so if someone found her they had to know she belonged to someone.This preys on my mind often, and all I can do is pray that IF she is alive, she is loved and taken care of, and IF she has crossed the Rainbow Bridge - that she did not suffer. It hurts now, as much as it did the day she was lost, NOT knowing is not 'easier'.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

"It doesn't matter. I'm not talking about the legal aspect, I'm talking about peoples feelings,"

Unfortunately we need to follow the laws or none of us will ever be protected in any way. 
Michelle I don't see Lucy being stolen the same as these dogs running lose. I think what happened to you is much worse. Even though for any family losing a loved one is horrible.

I love and care for my dog with the same intensity as I did for my human children, He is my heart and soul but in most cases having them listed as property protects me and helps me protect him over all. (even though not in this type of situation)

Since I haven't walked in your shoes I must look at the bigger picture here and if we do not protect the laws that the rescue followed here rescues may as well roll up their welcome mats and close their doors as no one will feel safe adopting from them if the dogs can be ripped out of the adopters arms.
Then where will all those dogs be? The shelters are full and when they are full dogs end up dying.

I don't see your view in this as wrong, it is right but it is looking at it from a different angle than I am looking at it and I think my view is right also.


----------



## BajaOklahoma (Sep 27, 2009)

MicheleKC87 said:


> I agree. But what we do know is that a family is missing their beloved family members.
> 
> Imagine if your child went missing and someone found them but couldn't identify them or find the family, so the child was placed in foster care and them adopted by a new family. The real parents never stopped looking. Who should keep the child?


A different situation. DNA matching would identify the family, if located.
But do you keep the child in foster care forever in hopes the family will be found or do you provide a good permanent home for the child? sorta similar, sorta different.

But all in all, this is a sad situation for everyone.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I was on the facebook page last night and it sounds like they went to the animal clinic twice - the first time the dogs weren't there yet, the second time they were too late. For some reason the employees did not recognize the dogs until it was too late.

Just a nightmare all the way around.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

MicheleKC87 said:


> It doesn't matter. I'm not talking about the legal aspect, I'm talking about peoples feelings, and what is morally right.
> 
> I thought you guys viewed dogs as family? It seems that most on here hold a higher standard for dogs than people when it comes to breeding practices, but in a situation like this, it's just a dog. I don't get it.


My pets are beloved family member that I love with all my heart. But comparing dogs and humans in this sort of situation is comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

fostermom said:


> My pets are beloved family member that I love with all my heart. But comparing dogs and humans in this sort of situation is comparing apples to oranges.


I know I never quite understood that until I had children of my own. ( Although my children often think I like the dogs better. )


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

I'm so glad I chose my pets over having children, so I can't chime in on who thinks what is important to them, life is a personal choice and I totally respect everyone for theirs.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

This situation is deplorable. It unfortunately exemplifies what is wrong with America.


After leaving home, Jake and Bella took a journey through a system that didn't work as it should. That system didn't work because the employees involved didn't care. They did the absolute minimum their job required and no more. There is no sense of pride in their work or striving to be the best that they can be at doing their jobs. Their “don't give a **** attitudes” are the real sad story. 


The animal control officer obviously doesn't give a rats ass about doing the job well. Just the bare minimum required and no more. A little effort here would have made a tremendous difference in resolving the situation. An excuse that the next town was two miles away? Are you serious? A dog can go two miles in a few minutes with very little effort, Get off your lazy ass and pick up the phone. If you had, this whole situation wouldn't have happened. 


The clinic employees? The dogs' owners were there looking for their lost dogs. Is it too much to ask to make a note of it on a post-it and stick it in the area where strays are confined so you have the information if the dogs show up later? If you cared about getting those strays back home it seems like a no brainer. If you had been diligent with the information you had been presented with, this situation would not have happened. Instead you likely contacted rescue the second you saw Golden Retriever, and the minute the minimum hold time elapsed the dogs were on their way and out of your hair. 


The dogs should be returned to the original owners but due to the politics involved with rescue, it won't happen.


----------



## golden_eclipse (Apr 1, 2011)

This could have been prevented if the owners took basic steps to protect their dogs. 1. Microchip 2. register the micro chip. 3. spay at least the female (pyro is absolutely awful, so is mammary cancer, let alone unwanted litters). 4. Not leave their dogs unattended in a fenced area, fences are not impenetrable. 

I do think there could have been more done on the side of the animal control officer and shelter, but they did absolutely nothing wrong. 

I DO NOT think that the YGRR should release the new owner's names. It absolutely is not their place. This is just a very hard lesson for this family to learn, to not trust fences to protect un-neuter/spayed animals and ALWAYS permanently identify your animals. 

The comment about the collars. Honestly if they did have collars on that would have upset me more, because leaving a dog out alone in a fenced in area with a collar is just asking for that dog to hurt or kill themselves. I am a strong opponent of collars other then going for a walk. They are a huge hazard for your dog's health.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

kdowningxc said:


> The comment about the collars. Honestly if they did have collars on that would have upset me more, because leaving a dog out alone in a fenced in area with a collar is just asking for that dog to hurt or kill themselves. I am a strong opponent of collars other then going for a walk. They are a huge hazard for your dog's health.


Its funny because I am just the opposite, whenever my dogs do not have their collars on I lock all my doors, scream at the kids to not let the dogs out or themselves out until their collars are back on and during this time I am a nervous wreck, I don't let them out of my sight - even though my dogs are microchipped. I also don't have a fence to worry about them hanging themselves on.

I do know of many people who find dogs and end up keeping them without bringing them to a vet to look for a microchip. They just assume that if there is no collar, then the dog was dumped.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I do know of many people who find dogs and end up keeping them without bringing them to a vet to look for a microchip. They just assume that if there is no collar, then the dog was dumped.


They also don't realize that area vets can and will check for chips for free. There are people who hate animal control and refuse to take dogs there, knowing that some will gas the dogs if they aren't picked up within a very short period of time...


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Swampcollie said:


> After leaving home, Jake and Bella took a journey through a system that didn't work as it should. That system didn't work because the employees involved didn't care. They did the absolute minimum their job required and no more. There is no sense of pride in their work or striving to be the best that they can be...


I do agree with this and because I know this to be true I would do everything on my own _without depending on others_ to find a lost pet. We have to take on the responsibility to find our dogs ourselves because no one will be as vigilant in their recovery effort as we, their owners would be. 

When I lost my two Pit Bulls, (they were let loose during a home robbery), I didn't depend on the shelter workers to tell me if they had them or not, I physically went every day to look in the kennels and made them take me in the back to see the lost dogs. Every day. Believe me, if my dogs ever came in they would contact me immediately because I was such a pest, I'm sure they didn't want to deal with me anymore. 

I put posters _everywhere_, so if someone had them, they would hopefully, get nervous with all the exposure. In doing this, my mailman told me where he saw my female and I got her back two days later. My male, I got back 3 weeks later. The guys that had him wanted the reward money. 

Again, I would never depend on others to do what I know I can do better. I'm not saying that what they did was bad or wrong...I'm sure they did what they felt was adequate. Just for me, until I see with my own eyes, I would never take someone else's word for anything having to do with my dogs.


----------



## hvgoldens4 (Nov 25, 2009)

This story bothers me for a few reasons. We have a fenced yard, with an electric hot wire at the top, but you can never say never. There is a gate and the dogs are never left outside when I am not at home.

The ACO information really bothers me. So, she followed the law. She found a dog with a collar. This would make me assume that the dog belonged to SOMEONE. Making phone calls to 10 people who owned goldens was too labor intensive?? Really?? These animals were deemed strays even though one had a collar(don't know what happened to the other collar or the tags on them) but most people who are going to just let their dog go, wouldn't do so with a collar on it. I do live in a rural area and dogs do get dumped out here. I can honestly tell you that every dog with a collar, we have been able to find its owners.

I agree that more could have been done.

I am also bothered because I have been contacted by different rescues wanting to know if I have any goldens available for rescue because goldens/golden mixes are highly adoptable. I have been told point blank " these are the dogs that people want. I have tons of lab mixes, shepherd mixes and plenty of other purebred dogs but everyone wants goldens."

If goldens who are picked up have been well cared for, are well socialized and in good health, they are an easy placement for a rescue/shelter and they won't have to expend very much time or money to have a great home for them.

Microchips migrate, not all scanners read all chips and chips fail. Do you want your town's ACO to give your dog up because the chip stopped working/migrated inbetween the last time you had the dog to the vet and the dog got out?? A chip isn't full proof either. An ACO who really cares about the dogs they have found with a collar and not seeing them as a stray-I would rather put my faith in that person.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

I ask my vet periodically to check the chip in all 3 of my boys.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

As far as telling people they need to go in person and LOOK at all of the dogs at the kennel, and it's just that simple.... 

From Facebook -



> (name removed) Update on this dog. My neighbors called this morming and verified the dog was a female everything and told the Aminal control they were coming a long way to see if it was their dog.. They got there and the shelter told them the dog is a MALE and would not even let them see it, even thought they still wanted to to see for themselves if it was a male or female....I notieced the (county removed) Animal Control has changed this dog to a male now..so anyone missing a male that may have overlooked this yesterday... look again!
> 
> (name removed) This does not sound right to me.RED FLAGS Why wouldnt (removed) let them see it anyway to make sure, especially an elderly couplethat has gone all that way and were told on the phone it was a female. Red flags on this one for me. I will surf around a see what I can find out. I dont trust anything they put on THEIR website . They manipulate dates all the time on there. know it because I pasted and copied the whole post onto here and I will go on there another day and they release dates will change. shady characters those (removed)-ites.
> 
> (name removed) I don't know why. She even called in the morning to verify it was a female before they left. When they got there, the animal control people said they had to "Shave the dog" to see if it was a male or female" and had discovered it was a male instead. Since they were missing a female they told them they did not need to see the dog and refused to let them see it anyway.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Megora said:


> As far as telling people they need to go in person and LOOK at all of the dogs at the kennel, and it's just that simple....
> 
> From Facebook -


Ok their credibility just went out the door when they said they had to shave the dog to find out if it was male or female.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Ok their credibility just went out the door when they said they had to shave the dog to find out if it was male or female.


Yep. And it's a golden retriever that they are talking about. Not a rough collie or heavy coated breed...


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

KevinM822 said:


> Sad story... Thought I'd post it here for you guys to read.
> I'm not this person, nor do I know who anyone involved is. Saw it posted on my local craigslist.
> 
> 
> ...


I am praying that the other family returns the dogs to the Warren family. Too bad the tags came off their collars. It is not too labor intensive to call only 10 dogs. What kind of Hogwash is that? And that privacy policy, they should bend it in this case. If the new owners only knew what really happened, I believe they would gladly give the dogs back.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> It's a lesson in the value of chipping your dogs, if nothing else.


Too bad my breeder is against chipping dogs. She has tatoo clinics. I am considering getting Mercy a TAGG membership and collar when she gets older.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Another point is...I think that we're under the false notion that most of the ACOs and shelter staff know their breeds of dogs. Most can identify Rotts and Pits without a second glance. Probably Chihuahuas, too, because those breeds are the majority you'll find in shelters today. Granted, there are a lot that do know different breeds, but how many times have those of us that have Goldens that are not the "normal" color that most people identify with our breed have been asked what breed(s) our dogs are?

I have...a lot. I don't think that too many people would think Chance was a Golden at first glance. You think I'd trust anyone to know that for sure. No, I wouldn't. When I worked at my local SPCA, I would have to correct them a lot in their breed descriptions. Some were very obvious, some not so much. Every shorthaired breed was automatically labeled a PitX or a LabX. And what about Lucy...how the heck would I describe her? Chihuahua/Terrier? How many variations are there of that mix? So yes, you need to look for yourself and to not take no for an answer when requesting to see their dogs in the back. 

As far as the chip migrating, this is so true. I had Chance's checked and it took a few minutes to find it. It had migrated down toward his shoulder. I don't think anyone else would have looked that long for it or in that location. I'm debating getting another one inserted. IDK, though...


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Ok their credibility just went out the door when they said they had to shave the dog to find out if it was male or female.


Thank gawd I wasn't drinking anything when I read this post or my monitor would be a big mess.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

IF you are on fb, go to bella and jake,and like their page,and give them support.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Megora said:


> Yep. And it's a golden retriever that they are talking about. Not a rough collie or heavy coated breed...


My golden Brady, if he is laying on his back, belly up, one can not tell if he is a boy or girl. Her is so heavy coated. I have always had it in the back of my mind, that if he were ever lost, unless somebody used their hands to check, he would be listed as a girl.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

It is amazing how many other stories I am hearing just like this one. I think it is more common than we realize.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

cubbysan said:


> My golden Brady, if he is laying on his back, belly up, one can not tell if he is a boy or girl. Her is so heavy coated. I have always had it in the back of my mind, that if he were ever lost, unless somebody used their hands to check, he would be listed as a girl.


I don't know if that has to do with neutering early or not... but my Danny was very heavy coated, but you could still tell he was a boy if you took a sideways peep. And that's really the first thing you do when you take in a dog... right? And it would be overly obvious if he were on his back. 

Our collie on the other hand has a full collie coat and... I guess I should say my sister thought that something was a mat when she was grooming him. It's pretty small and unnoticable. :bowl:


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

We are talking about people that work and handle dogs every day for a living. I don't buy it. My Cody had the hair of a lion king and you still could find his male part without having to shave it.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

When they are neutered do they have zero testicles? Our cats were neutered but look like they have testicles.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

*Very long sorry*

We had a similar situation happen here not too long ago. It has ripped the community apart. Some idiot reporter got a hold of the new family's name and published in the paper. The new owners had vowed to keep the dog, the had adopted her legally and loved her very much. Spent hunderds having medical work done including spaying, microchip and heart worm. But when their 8 year old daughter was confronted walking home from school, she gave in and gave her back. I believe they also moved out of the area. Our adoption rates out of the pound have dropped, people are afraid this could happen to them. Good people who use to work together very hard to save animals don't speak any more.

It is our responsibility as pet owners to keep them safe and do whatever it takes to find them if they get lost. Not anyone elses. Maybe in this case the pet sitter, as that is what they were hired to do. I could go on and on but I will spare you.

Just remember, my Princess Erin was a stray, standing in the middle of a busy 5 way intersection when I first saw her. Luckily she jumped in my car when I opened the door, because just then a car came flying around the corner and would have hit her for sure. She had a Dollar Store collar on but no tags or no numbers written in the collar. I kept her for a month, with out ever naming her, while I was looking for an owner. I put ads in the papers and registered her with Animal Reg. She was already 9 years old and not in the best shape. I had flyers with her picture in all the Vet's offices and feed stores. She had an untreated thyroid problem and "leaking" issues. Both were esily fixed with medication. Her toenails looked like snailshells, I don't think they had ever been cut. She cried when you touched her, not out of fear or pain but most likely because she had never been touched that much. It was on Mother's Day that I found her. One month later, we had fallen madly in love with her. I had lost my 15 year old Golden overnight back in Feb to Hemangiosarcoma and Erin was helping us heal. We named her Erin and I was taking her in to be microchipped and made offiicialy mine. On the way to the vet, I found a piece of notebook paper with a child's writing on it .It was tacked on a telephone pole a long ways away from where I had found her, but I knew in my heart that poster was for her. It said she had been stolen and was a child's pet. It only had an address, no phone number. With a heavy heart I drove her back to that address. It was a house not far from where I found her and I had walked her several times in that area. I had talked to LOTS of neighbors and no one knew her. When I got to the house, it was empty and new people were moving in. I asked about the old tenants, if they knew how to contact them, but they didn't.
I took it as a sign that she was supposed to be with me and I vowed to give her a life better than what she had before. I have always felt kind of bad, but I knew I had done the best thing for Erin. She had several medical issues come up that I always took care of. She lived 22 days shy of her 18th B-Day and as most of you remember, her nails were ALWAYS done. If somehow, God forbid, Jordan ever ended up in a situation like this, I would offer the new owners LOTS of money to give her back.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Deb_Bayne said:


> When they are neutered do they have zero testicles? Our cats were neutered but look like they have testicles.


I wasn't actually talking about those.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

cubbysan said:


> I have always had it in the back of my mind, that if he were ever lost, unless somebody used their hands to check, he would be listed as a girl.


Same with Chance. But he's not heavy coated, he's just _very_ underendowed. Anyone would have to check with their hands, it doesn't hang down at all. :curtain: I swear, most the Chihuahuas I've seen are bigger...

As far as testicles, no coin purse at all. None. It's as if nothing was ever there.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Megora said:


> I wasn't actually talking about those.


Kinda figured that, but if they can't tell from touching why would shaving show more? Don't get it... Bayne is well endowed and certainly one feel would be enough evidence.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

When my client's dog was picked up by the local animal hospital that kept it and did not call the ACO, the local animal hospital called it a Pekingese. In fact, it was a Japanese chin... Much longer legged and black and white!


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

Our AC lists Siamese cats as Black and White. You have to go down and check for yourself, everyday. Be sure to ask about animals in quarantine as well.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

MercyMom said:


> Too bad my breeder is against chipping dogs. She has tatoo clinics. I am considering getting Mercy a TAGG membership and collar when she gets older.


Why is your breeder against chipping dogs? What will he/she do if you do it anyway? Take the dog back? If that is in the contract I guarantee you that could be overturned if you sued. Honestly, she's YOUR dog now, right? Do what is in your dog's best interests.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Deb_Bayne said:


> Kinda figured that, but if they can't tell from touching why would shaving show more? Don't get it... Bayne is well endowed and certainly one feel would be enough evidence.


It doesn't make sense at all. It's not like it's located in different places lol! It doesn't matter how big it is. And these people work with dogs? I'm surprised they didn't shave it off......ridiculous.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Megora said:


> I don't know if that has to do with neutering early or not... but my Danny was very heavy coated, but you could still tell he was a boy if you took a sideways peep. And that's really the first thing you do when you take in a dog... right? And it would be overly obvious if he were on his back.
> 
> Our collie on the other hand has a full collie coat and... I guess I should say my sister thought that something was a mat when she was grooming him. It's pretty small and unnoticable. :bowl:


No, he was almost two when he was neutered. He was fully shaved from butt to neck last summer for abdominal surgery, and it grew back longer and thick than ever. His fur is at least 7 - 8 inches long on his private area.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

If these dogs were abused in some way, from the orginal owners,that would be a different story, if that was the case,ygrr,needs to speak up,but if this is two dogs getting out of their yard,and everything not being done to find their owners, i feel for these people.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

I guess I don't understand the politics and financial issues surrounding the animal shelter business. In the summer, I live in the Blue Hill/Brooklin area of Maine - Blue Hill is only 14 miles from the Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth. It never occurred to me that missing/stray dogs WOULDN'T be going to the SPCA in Ellsworth, the nearest shelter. Strangely enough, the SPCA is currently awaiting the arrival of a load of dogs from GUAM who need placement! Weird. I'll certainly find out when I get back to Maine WHERE dogs are taken when found in our area.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Lucky Penny said:


> http://www.facebook.com/BringBellaAndJakeHome#
> Bring Bella and Jake Home They talked with one of the owners. Said they would not give out any info,they abandoned their dogs,they are in a loving home now and will be taken care of the way they needed to be. They continue o call and leave messages with no call back
> 
> This was just posted on the FB page.


I liked their site. I support them in getting their dogs back. I hope that the same thing did not happen to Harley and Snickers, the lost Golden Retriever and Chocolate Lab. I have been following them on Facebook. The human animal bond is very important to me.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

MicheleKC87 said:


> kwhit said:
> 
> 
> > This is the part of the whole sad situation that I just can't understand. Let me tell you, if Chance went missing I would immediately be beating down every shelter's door around me, _and beyond_, until I found him or _made sure_ they didn't have him. Same for all the vet clinics and rescues in my area and surrounding areas. I would be relentless, like I'm sure everyone else on this forum would also be. And if someone took/stole him, let's just say I'd definitely have an alibi set up ahead of time.
> ...


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

MicheleKC87 said:


> kwhit said:
> 
> 
> > This is the part of the whole sad situation that I just can't understand. Let me tell you, if Chance went missing I would immediately be beating down every shelter's door around me, _and beyond_, until I found him or _made sure_ they didn't have him. Same for all the vet clinics and rescues in my area and surrounding areas. I would be relentless, like I'm sure everyone else on this forum would also be. And if someone took/stole him, let's just say I'd definitely have an alibi set up ahead of time.
> ...


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Thanks for that. Not knowing exactly everything the family, the officer, or the rescue tried, and filling in based on what we would have done or what it sounded like somebody didn't do, we arrive at different views.
> 
> We all agree that it's terrible to love a dog and have it end up placed with somebody else. We all agree that it would be terrible to adopt a dog and have it taken away six months later. Getting mad at each other based on speculation is unfortunate and perhaps preventable when we agree on so much.


Sorry, I did not realize it had been six months. Maybe both the old and new owners 
could become friends. Maybe the previous owners could over and visit with the new owners and of course the dogs.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

tippykayak said:


> Thanks for that. Not knowing exactly everything the family, the officer, or the rescue tried, and filling in based on what we would have done or what it sounded like somebody didn't do, we arrive at different views.
> 
> We all agree that it's terrible to love a dog and have it end up placed with somebody else. We all agree that it would be terrible to adopt a dog and have it taken away six months later. Getting mad at each other based on speculation is unfortunate and perhaps preventable when we agree on so much.





fostermom said:


> This is about 2 dogs, not a child.





MicheleKC87 said:


> It doesn't matter. I'm not talking about the legal aspect, I'm talking about peoples feelings, and what is morally right.
> 
> I thought you guys viewed dogs as family? It seems that most on here hold a higher standard for dogs than people when it comes to breeding practices, but in a situation like this, it's just a dog. I don't get it.


 Bravo Bravo!:appl: Academy Award winner!


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Dallas Gold said:


> Why is your breeder against chipping dogs? What will he/she do if you do it anyway? Take the dog back? If that is in the contract I guarantee you that could be overturned if you sued. Honestly, she's YOUR dog now, right? Do what is in your dog's best interests.


My breeder says it could cause cancer. I microchipped my previous dog without any hesitation. My dog did get a fatty tumor on his back later in life. It may or may not have been connected with the chip.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

I think you will find the same number of reports saying chips are dangerous as you will find reports saying chips are safe.


----------



## Claire's Friend (Feb 26, 2007)

I think many of you might have the wrong idea of what Animal Control is really for. In most areas they are they to protect people and their property,
not animals..

"The purpose of Animal Control is to enforce the state and local laws in relation to dogs and other animals. The intention is to promote health, safety, and general welfare of the people, including protection of the property of the city and its inhabitants, and preservation of peace and good order within the city.



Duties of Animal Control Officers include seizure control, impoundment, investigations of barking dog complaints, removing sick or injured animals, investigation of animal bites, removing dead dogs and cats from highways, occasional trapping of wildlife found in homes, transporting possible rabid animals for testing, and investigating cruelty complaints." 


The only animals that are entitled to any efforts to reunite them with their owners are those that are wearing a current valid license in the area they are found. Now that does not mean that many places do work very hard to get a pet back to it's rightful owner, especially if it is wearing a tag and/or is microchipped. In most places, the law requires that you have your dogs licensed. If you don't you are breaking the law.
The fact that AC warehouses animals so the owners have time to come find them is only a courtesy, many have the right to PTS within 24 hours or less if crowded. It's a far from perfect system and is bound to get worse with the economy . California is looking at reducing it's hold time from 7 days down to 3. Owner turn-ins could be PTSed immediately.
I keep thinking how much sadder this story would be if it had read "Owners arrive at pound just minutes after dogs are killed".
I feel bad for the original owners, I really do. Just like I felt bad for our member here who had this happen. But she has moved on, learned from her mistakes and now has a new puppy who should never be in this situation because she knows how to do things right.
I did not want to post in this thread, I hate thread like this. But the new family , who did NOTHING wrong, is being put at risk by all this exposure.
For all of you who have gotten dogs in the last 6 months, how would you feel if you got a phone call saying "Whoops, someone made a mistake, you need to give your dog back" ?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

MercyMom said:


> My breeder says it could cause cancer. I microchipped my previous dog without any hesitation. My dog did get a fatty tumor on his back later in life. It may or may not have been connected with the chip.


Well, bad water might cause cancer, additives in food might cause cancer, the air we breathe might cause cancer, our household cleaners contain chemicals that can cause cancer, lawn fertilizers and weeders might cause cancer, chemicals in flooring products in our homes might cause cancer. I assume your breeder doesn't dictate those things as well? 

If you look at it, a lost, untagged and un-microchipped dog with no current contact information is probably at greater risk of a premature death than a microchipped dog. 

I'm taking my chances and doing the responsible thing for my dogs--microchipping. My first microchipped dog lived to 13 1/2 years, my second to one month shy of 13.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Dallas Gold said:


> Well, bad water might cause cancer, additives in food might cause cancer, the air we breathe might cause cancer, our household cleaners contain chemicals that can cause cancer, lawn fertilizers and weeders might cause cancer, chemicals in flooring products in our homes might cause cancer. I assume your breeder doesn't dictate those things as well?
> 
> If you look at it, a lost, untagged and un-microchipped dog with no current contact information is probably at greater risk of a premature death than a microchipped dog.
> 
> I'm taking my chances and doing the responsible thing for my dogs--microchipping. My first microchipped dog lived to 13 1/2 years, my second to one month shy of 13.


Also, I would be concerned more with the chemicals used in tattoos on animals and the pain inflicted on the process, this is like a branding tactic which can be extremely painful. When Bayne got his chip he didn't even flinch, same with my cats, it's like they didn't even know anything happened.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Deb_Bayne said:


> Also, I would be concerned more with the chemicals used in tattoos on animals and the pain inflicted on the process, this is like a branding tactic which can be extremely painful. When Bayne got his chip he didn't even flinch, same with my cats, it's like they didn't even know anything happened.


I've seen some tattoos on dogs that were so distorted they were useless for ID purposes. I cannot imagine the pain it causes, even if it is done under sedation.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Claire's Friend said:


> I think many of you might have the wrong idea of what Animal Control is really for. In most areas they are they to protect people and their property,
> not animals..
> 
> "The purpose of Animal Control is to enforce the state and local laws in relation to dogs and other animals. The intention is to promote health, safety, and general welfare of the people, including protection of the property of the city and its inhabitants, and preservation of peace and good order within the city.
> ...


I am a little different because I would want to know if there was a mistake made that deprived my dog's original owners from being with their dog, if the situation was one that does not involve irresponsibility, abuse, negligence, etc. Granted that may a limited set of circumstance, such as a dog getting loose during a natural disaster situation (Katrina, earthquake, tornado, etc) or, in once case I'm aware of, being let out by burglars during the course of a crime. In those cases I would want to do what is best for the dog and facilitate a reunion, but I would expect the rescue to deal with this privately and not give out my personal information to the press or to the original owners. That is just my own personal reaction though. I've only adopted owner release dogs from a rescue.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

MercyMom said:


> My breeder says it could cause cancer. I microchipped my previous dog without any hesitation. My dog did get a fatty tumor on his back later in life. It may or may not have been connected with the chip.


 
You're Mercy's owner now, how do you feel about Micro Chips? If you have any doubts or questions about them, I would suggest you discuss it with your Vet. 

The benefits of chipping your dog IMO, far out ways the risks, the risks are very minimal. If the risks weren't so minimal, there wouldn't be so many Rescue Groups, individuals, and Breeders chipping dogs. 

Micro Chipping your dog is a way of proving Ownership along with protecting your dog if it were ever lost or stolen, it's a proactive meausre IMO. 


ETA: QUOTE FROM CLAIRE'S FRIEND-

*For all of you who have gotten dogs in the last 6 months, how would you feel if you got a phone call saying "Whoops, someone made a mistake, you need to give your dog back" ?*


This thought entered my mind when I adopted Remy last year from my County Humane Society. I was told he was a stray, but I had a feeling he was an owner surrender due to the fact that he knew basic commands and because he was so calm and well adjusted. The owners may have said he was a Stray so they wouldn't have to pay a fee to surrender him to the Shelter-not sure. 

I was told the Shelter had scanned him to see if he was chipped, one was not found. I wasn't able to get him into the Vet clinic until early the next morning for an exam. The first thing I asked was to have him checked for a chip again for my own peace of mind. Fortunately one wasn't, I had him chipped that day.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Most Rescue Groups do not give out any information about individuals who have surrendered dogs to the Rescue or of the new adoptive families according to the Privacy Policy, it's a protection for all individuals. 

Occasionally the GR Group I volunteered for, would have previous owners of dogs that had been surrendered contact them, wanting to know information about their dog. The Adoption Coordinator would contact the new owner(s) and ask if they wanted to provide an update and include any pictures. The AC was the go between for both parties. No personal information of the adopters was ever released, nor of anyone who surrendered a dog.


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> You're Mercy's owner now, how do you feel about Micro Chips? If you have any doubts or questions about them, I would suggest you discuss it with your Vet.
> 
> The benefits of chipping your dog IMO, far out ways the risks, the risks are very minimal. If the risks weren't so minimal, there wouldn't be so many Rescue Groups, individuals, and Breeders chipping dogs.
> 
> ...


See, I see a rescue coming back and saying a wrong thing happened and we should correct....gives me more respect for the rescue. As golden owners we love our guys like family....we put ourselves in the shoes of the owner and many of us would look forever. They are family. Sure it's hard, but knowing a family is looking and fighting...if it were me, i gave them a temp. home and I was blessed to house them until they are located. 9 years...deserves to go home. Im going to write my local gov....try and get laws changed....owners should have rights when proof of looking, proof of good home and vet care...can be given. I know rescues do good, but in these cases they harm families. And standing behind the "we did nothing wrong" clause in these sorts of cases is an easy way out or them to not have any responsibility to owners of lost pets. 

some locations 5 days or less before pets are pulled, rescues of various breeds looking for certain breeds because the are in demand, you racing a ticking lock...I've known dogs gone or months and found...why should a family not have the pups back because the unrealistic clock ran out? Sorry your pps got out and you were not fast enough? O you found them, to bad....know we decided they have a better life one instant all your fault no correcting? Because some of us know how to use the web and get the word out....and people judge...you were not good enough? What about rescues that pull over state lines making searching even more difficult.

This case is not the norm and should be judged as such, I would have to pause and think about the new owner....if they decided not to reunite the family, and know. I'm already passing judgement on the rescue for saying it was not an error on the rescues part....as a golden owner of two, this would be a nightmare for me....but I would fight....and if needed change laws and make it so in these cases where proof is available rescues should be held accountable as well. 

It's not whoops we made a mistake, it's sadly these guys were lost and being looked or...and just now found, circumstances beyond the norm and now are asking we or correct his wrong. Most of us I think prefer owners reunite with lost pets over forced separation based on laws that view our guys as property over valuable members of family. 
If mine ever ended up in this situation, ii would only hope they ended up safe until I found them, and they were returned....because its the right just thing to do.


And I say this full of heart....rescues do great and wonderful work. This case needs correcting.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Most Golden Rescues have legal representation or at least a Lawyer on Retainer, I'm sure YGRR has consulted with one in this situation. 

I don't think there is enough information or facts available to make a fair judgement in this situation. I'm not taking sides with anyone, there's too many unaswered questions in my mind and I don't think you can make a fair assessment based solely on this article. There's a lot more to this story than has been printed.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

For all everyone knows is that the rescue did contact the new owners and they made the decision not to let them go, this information does not have to be disclosed for confidentiality issues. 

So many assumptions here and so many getting hot under the collar...or a little warm in some cases when this has absolutely nothing to do with any of us here 'personally'. It's between the previous owners, animal control, rescue and the new owners. 

Sadly, I'm more in the place of the new owners and their protection rather than the prior owners and their error in judgement. No collars, no chips, not spayed or neutered, left alone to escape from their property. Sorry to say, that six months have passed and they know their dogs are safe and cared for, time to move on and accept that their dogs left their prior home to give this new family some much needed Golden love. Who are we to know WHY things happen in the way that they do.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Deb_Bayne said:


> For all everyone knows is that the rescue did contact the new owners and they made the decision not to let them go, this information does not have to be disclosed for confidentiality issues.
> 
> So many assumptions here and so many getting hot under the collar...or a little warm in some cases when this has absolutely nothing to do with any of us here 'personally'. It's between the previous owners, animal control, rescue and the new owners.
> 
> Sadly, I'm more in the place of the new owners and their protection rather than the prior owners and their error in judgement. No collars, no chips, not spayed or neutered, left alone to escape from their property. Sorry to say, that six months have passed and they know their dogs are safe and cared for, time to move on and accept that their dogs left their prior home to give this new family some much needed Golden love. Who are we to know WHY things happen in the way that they do.


*Very well said.*

I feel everyone has a right to their opinion, view point, which I respect. We're all different, view life and things differently, that's what makes everyone unique and life itself. 

I think we all share a strong passion for Goldens, but as you said, this matter is between the previous owners, AC, YGRR and the new owners.


----------



## BajaOklahoma (Sep 27, 2009)

I've been in a situation where what was presented to the public by the media was not remotely what happened. But suddenly, that was the accepted "truth" and nothing we could do or say would change it.

I tend to see things on the news and wonder what really happened.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

BajaOklahoma said:


> I've been in a situation where what was presented to the public by the media was not remotely what happened. But suddenly, that was the accepted "truth" and nothing we could do or say would change it.
> 
> I tend to see things on the news and wonder what really happened.


I couldn't agree more with what you have said-I posted numerous times throughout this thread that I felt there was so much more to this story than what is printed in the article and more than likely, unless you are directly involved with this situation, majority of the population will never know all the facts or the true story.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I just want to throw something out there for some thought. In the human world, a mother can take back a child that has been given up for adoption six months later. This happened to a distant family member of mine. I believe they had the baby for almost a year, and then had to give it back.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

There are lessons to be learned by all. First of all, make sure your animal can be identified even if he/she slips a collar. Microchipping, tattooing, or even photographing an identifying mark will work. Wakefield, for instance, has a large treat spot on his tongue. Secondly, find out ahead of time where animals who are found running loose are taken. In a lot of small rural communities, the ACOs are not full-time employees of the town, they are contract employees working "as needed". A lot of towns don't even list their ACO on their web sites. So it may be difficult to contact the ACO on a weekend. Most importantly, realize that no one is going to do a better job of finding your missing dog than YOU!


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

I have to say that the previous owners should be glad that their dogs weren't picked up by AC in one of our rural areas. If they had been and a rescue didn't jump in as soon as they were available, they would be gassed on their last day. Some shelters down here don't even adopt out to the public, the animals either go to rescue or are euthanized. Down here we don't pick and choose and never have a shortage of goldens to save from the shelters.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

If the original owners are truly intent on getting their dogs returned, they need to hire a lawyer and pursue it through the civil court system.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Dallas Gold said:


> If the original owners are truly intent on getting their dogs returned, they need to hire a lawyer and pursue it through the civil court system.


Wow, if by some stupidity on somebody's part that they win you'll see the rescue adoptions drop drastically.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Dallas Gold said:


> If the original owners are truly intent on getting their dogs returned, they need to hire a lawyer and pursue it through the civil court system.


Wow, if by some stupidity on somebody's part that they win you'll see the rescue adoptions drop drastically since that would set a precedence.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Dallas Gold said:


> If the original owners are truly intent on getting their dogs returned, they need to hire a lawyer and pursue it through the civil court system.


Since dogs are property in most states, would the courts be able to force them to return the dogs or just pay an amount equal to the value of the dogs?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

fostermom said:


> Since dogs are property in most states, would the courts be able to force them to return the dogs or just pay an amount equal to the value of the dogs?


Not sure, because the state laws and court cases are all over the board on this and are changing with the times. What might happen in California may be entirely different from what happens in Maine, just depending on how the case law precedent has been going in that state. Animal law is rapidly evolving in many states right now, and here you have the issue of negligence on Animal Control's part as well as presumed negligence on the part of the owners and the vet clinic where the dogs were taken. 

I'm not positive, but didn't some of the Katrina rescue lawsuits result in dogs being returned to the original owners? Obviously the facts are different in the Maine case.

There is a case under appeal in Texas where a court is allowing a couple to sue for emotional distress when the shelter put their dog down without waiting the required time specified in the ordinances for that county. If that is allowed to stand it means that there is now precedent to give animals more than mere personal property status in some situations.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Deb_Bayne said:


> Wow, if by some stupidity on somebody's part that they win you'll see the rescue adoptions drop drastically since that would set a precedence.


Between you and me, their negligence just might be great enough to preclude them from getting their dogs back, but talking to a lawyer will get them further than pleading a case on Facebook.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

For all of you Mainers on the forum, the Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth seems to have a lock on all of the ACO business in coastal Hancock and Washington counties. Here's a comprehensive list of statewide ACO contracts: Maine Department of Agriculture: Animal Welfare Animal Control Officers. Glad to know this!


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Dallas Gold said:


> Well, bad water might cause cancer, additives in food might cause cancer, the air we breathe might cause cancer, our household cleaners contain chemicals that can cause cancer, lawn fertilizers and weeders might cause cancer, chemicals in flooring products in our homes might cause cancer. I assume your breeder doesn't dictate those things as well?
> 
> If you look at it, a lost, untagged and un-microchipped dog with no current contact information is probably at greater risk of a premature death than a microchipped dog.
> 
> I'm taking my chances and doing the responsible thing for my dogs--microchipping. My first microchipped dog lived to 13 1/2 years, my second to one month shy of 13.


My previous dog also lived to be 13 1/2. I am adamant about making sure my dogs do not get lost. My current veterinarian carries Home Again, while my previous vet carried Avid. I have already broken a few of my breeders rules, so why not here? It would be cool to give Home Again a try. I know being easily pursuaded by others is not cool. I will think for myself, when it comes to my dog.


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

Deb_Bayne said:


> Wow, if by some stupidity on somebody's part that they win you'll see the rescue adoptions drop drastically.


I don't think so. If language is applied to contracts and adopters know....people will still adopt. I don't think this case is the norm, I don't automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the rescue. 

In protecting families who pets are lost with evidence of trying to locate...which this case implies on the surface....and they can show good vet care etc, you can benefit all pet owners. I should not default my rights when I never gave them up, I should not now have to fight to get my lost property....family back if I can prove this. Maybe the first year should be considered foster 6-12 months with adoption after that time. Rescues have all sorts of restrictions and requirements now that people bend to, people will still adopt. You have to protect owners rights in these cases as well...difficult, but can be done with proper language.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

I agree that this is a horrible situation. No matter what happens someone will come out a looser. Maybe multiple someones. 

I have seen it posted that the dogs are viewed as property. Right or wrong in the eyes of the law that is how they are seen. 
I had a radar detector stolen out of my car. I made a police report. An officer caught a teenager breaking into cars and found my radar detector in his possession. I did not have a receipt, box, or serial number and couldn't prove that it was mine, so he got to keep it. 
I have visited the Bella and Jake facebook page and followed some of what is going on. I have read every post in this thread. Everyone makes great and valid points. 
On the facebook page, it is being monitored by someone other than the owners. They posted pictures of Jake and Bella that were taken directly off the YGGR site and were forced to remove those picture because of some copyright laws. They were asked to provide their own photos and finally did. 
Can these people prove that these 2 dogs are indeed theirs. I don't doubt that they are, but can they prove it. If they can't, and the dogs are returned to them anyway, that would open a huge can of worms that YGGR would find it difficult to recover from. If anyone can take a picture off of their site and claim that the dogs are theirs that could have disastrous consequences to their rescue organization. I am seeing YGGR come under fire and they are an organization that rescues and finds homes for the breed that we all love. I hate to see all of the negative press that they are receiving for this. I don't see any way for this to have a good ending. 

One last thing, if it were my dog, I would be monitoring a facebook page from day one not have someone else monitor it for me 6 months later. I don't think that I would sleep until my dog was back with me. I would be pounding the pavement, visiting shelters in every county, and posting signs everywhere. All of mine are microchipped and registered. Some are even registered with 2 different registries. One of the girls has a home again chip. I don't have that chip registered with home again and wanted to know what home again would tell someone if they were called about that chip. I called home again and asked them to check on the number for me and they did and told me where it was registered. One of my girls has a microchip that is slowly moving down her leg and she will be re-chipped at her next vet appointment. If any of my dogs ended up in a shelter or rescue, I would have to be dying or dead not to claim them and even if I was, My SIL and my vet are backup contacts. Just sayin.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Noey said:


> Maybe the first year should be considered foster 6-12 months with adoption after that time. Rescues have all sorts of restrictions and requirements now that people bend to, people will still adopt. You have to protect owners rights in these cases as well...difficult, but can be done with proper language.


I would never adopt in these circumstances, give up my beloved pet after a year? How heartbreaking for both. I'd rather stick with byb's and pet stores if that was the case.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

goldhaven said:


> I had a radar detector stolen out of my car. I made a police report. An officer caught a teenager breaking into cars and found my radar detector in his possession. I did not have a receipt, box, or serial number and couldn't prove that it was mine, so he got to keep it.


The teenager got to keep it or the cop? Around here radar detectors are illegal.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

Deb_Bayne said:


> The teenager got to keep it or the cop? Around here radar detectors are illegal.


I was told the teenager got to keep it. Don't know if that was true or not. This happened many years ago in Maine and they weren't illegal at the time. I gave up on them though. I just learned how to drive within the speed limits.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

It is worth pointing out that the only side of this that has been heard is the owners side, and as we all know almost every story has a his, hers, and the truth somewhere in between.
No one will win in this case. The original owners have lost their dogs. The new owners have bonded to these dogs. And, lets not forget, the dogs have bonded to the new owners by now also.
It is also an interesting point about how the original owners would be able to prove ownership without a chip or tattoo? Obviously the dogs reaction could be used to see if they are indeed the owners, but the owners have absolutely no proof of ownership. 

I also disagree with the idea of rescues adopting out on a foster basis for 6-12 months, I would certainly not go that route. I adopted my kittens from a rescue 6 months ago, and if someone came forward now to try to claim them I would fight tooth and nail to keep them. I understand what people are saying about the new owners doing the right thing and returning the dogs, but a few days/weeks of bonding to an animal is much different than 6 months. I'm also pretty sure I loved my Bear dog at 6 months as much as I do now after 12 years.

I still am bothered by the fact that the original owners seem to assume that everyone else was responsible for the welfare of their dogs. Our dogs are OUR responsibility, not animal control, or a vet clinic, or a rescue. The owners did very little to find their dogs until after it was too late.
Most shelters have a waiting period of 3-10 days until animals are available for public adoption. Busier shelters just euthanize at the end of the hold period.

That said, I do feel horrible for the original owners, I just don't see them as "victims" in this case.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Dallas Gold said:


> I am a little different because I would want to know if there was a mistake made that deprived my dog's original owners from being with their dog, if the situation was one that does not involve irresponsibility, abuse, negligence, etc. Granted that may a limited set of circumstance, such as a dog getting loose during a natural disaster situation (Katrina, earthquake, tornado, etc) or, in once case I'm aware of, being let out by burglars during the course of a crime. In those cases I would want to do what is best for the dog and facilitate a reunion, but I would expect the rescue to deal with this privately and not give out my personal information to the press or to the original owners. That is just my own personal reaction though. I've only adopted owner release dogs from a rescue.


I for one strongly believe reuniting lost dogs with their owners is of upmost importance. The human animal bond is a strong bond indeed. Owning a dog is very beneficial to one's health mental and physical. To deprive a loving owner of this therapuetic companionship, is detrimental to his/her well being. It is no better for the dog either. The lost dog's heart is broken longing for it's owner. I'd say as long as the lost dog was not in any danger prior to it's being lost, loved, and well cared for, every effort should be made to reunite dog and owner.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

Noey said:


> See, I see a rescue coming back and saying a wrong thing happened and we should correct....gives me more respect for the rescue. As golden owners we love our guys like family....we put ourselves in the shoes of the owner and many of us would look forever. They are family. Sure it's hard, but knowing a family is looking and fighting...if it were me, i gave them a temp. home and I was blessed to house them until they are located. 9 years...deserves to go home. Im going to write my local gov....try and get laws changed....owners should have rights when proof of looking, proof of good home and vet care...can be given. I know rescues do good, but in these cases they harm families. And standing behind the "we did nothing wrong" clause in these sorts of cases is an easy way out or them to not have any responsibility to owners of lost pets.
> 
> some locations 5 days or less before pets are pulled, rescues of various breeds looking for certain breeds because the are in demand, you racing a ticking lock...I've known dogs gone or months and found...why should a family not have the pups back because the unrealistic clock ran out? Sorry your pps got out and you were not fast enough? O you found them, to bad....know we decided they have a better life one instant all your fault no correcting? Because some of us know how to use the web and get the word out....and people judge...you were not good enough? What about rescues that pull over state lines making searching even more difficult.
> 
> ...


Very well said!:appl:


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

Deb_Bayne said:


> I would never adopt in these circumstances, give up my beloved pet after a year? How heartbreaking for both. I'd rather stick with byb's and pet stores if that was the case.


But that would be your choice. Although the willingness o go to a known Byb over a rescue I would question. What about the family that looks and looks....I guess they should be happy the are with a new home and not try? I'm looking at this fom a pet bing lost and found....not I've rescued. I've rescued means I've opened my door and heart, I'm giving. These pets were not needing rescue, they were needing to be found, and have been. 

I guess another way to protect owners rights is to immediately file a police report and list as stolen...so they can be returned if found. As said, I would look forever until found and home if I was in this circumstance. They are family, they are loved new love does not over ule old...and it's not questioning who loves or deserves more....it's basic doing what is right. And having them chipped helps, but it's not 100%...the people finding have to be willing to look/help.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I adopted a siamese kitten from a rescue here. I know the dog officer trapped her after three days of trying to catch her. She was about 8 weeks old. I did check the lost ads for a few months because I am sure she escaped from somebody. The first few months, I may have given her back, depending on the circumstances and proof. I did feel very guilty having somebody else's cat, while the two dogs I rescued I know were given up.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Deb_Bayne said:


> I would never adopt in these circumstances, give up my beloved pet after a year? How heartbreaking for both. I'd rather stick with byb's and pet stores if that was the case.



I would never purchase from a BYB or petstore, but I totally agree with your sentiment. There is absolutely NO WAY I would sign a contract that said that if for some reason the "real" owner showed up within 12 months that I would hand over my beloved pet, no ifs ands or buts. Sorry, it would NEVER happen. Like I said, I had nightmares right after I adopted Danny that the owners wanted him back and I had to hand him over. I woke up crying. I was that distraught over the idea of giving up my boy. 

If it came down to that, I would find my next pet in the shelter and not through a rescue. And I've fostered for a rescue for 9 years now.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

MercyMom said:


> I for one strongly believe reuniting lost dogs with their owners is of upmost importance. The human animal bond is a strong bond indeed. Owning a dog is very beneficial to one's health mental and physical. To deprive a loving owner of this therapuetic companionship, is detrimental to his/her well being. It is no better for the dog either. The lost dog's heart is broken longing for it's owner. I'd say as long as the lost dog was not in any danger prior to it's being lost, loved, and well cared for, every effort should be made to reunite dog and owner.


I've been fostering for years and yes, there is the occasional dog who takes time to adapt to their new home, but their hearts are not broken longing for their owners. I had one with me for 2 1/2 years and she was 10 when she came to me. She waited for a week by the front door for the only owners she knew. After that, she bonded deeply with me and became my heart dog. She had a better life with me in those 2 1/2 years than she had the previous 10 years (based on the multiple untreated health issues she had and the fact that they got rid of her because of her thunderphobia after having her for 10 years). She adored me and I adored her.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> If it came down to that, I would find my next pet in the shelter and not through a rescue. And I've fostered for a rescue for 9 years now.


^ But how would that be different? Without the rescue in this case, the owners would have been furious about the shelter either adopting those two senior goldens out or putting them down. This after the people apparently called and were told those goldens weren't there, when they were. 

I think reading this thread it was the shelter that apparently did not do enough to give those original owners or friends of the original owners a chance to locate their dogs. 

The shelters keep the dogs for such a short period of time 4-10 days. And they are apparently stuck in the dark ages and refuse to use facebook to show pictures of every single dog that is inside their kennels. No Transparency. 

I'm somebody who takes 70 pictures (on average) of my dog on a single ten minute walkaround outside. And these are downloaded to my computer and then I either upload to facebook or to photobucket - again, does not take much time or expertise. 

I don't undertstand why those people who volunteer at these shelters are so incapable of snapping pictures of dogs as they are brought in. And they can wait to download all those pics until the end of the day. How hard is that? >.<


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

fostermom said:


> I've been fostering for years and yes, there is the occasional dog who takes time to adapt to their new home, but their hearts are not broken longing for their owners. I had one with me for 2 1/2 years and she was 10 when she came to me. She waited for a week by the front door for the only owners she knew. After that, she bonded deeply with me and became my heart dog. She had a better life with me in those 2 1/2 years than she had the previous 10 years (based on the multiple untreated health issues she had and the fact that they got rid of her because of her thunderphobia after having her for 10 years). She adored me and I adored her.


Have you seen the movie "Hatchi?" It's based on a true story. That dog waited at that train station for his owner to return for 9 years! You have no idea what a dog thinks. He may not always seem heartbroken, but that doesn't mean he does't miss his previous owner.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

I agree. The sad truth is that this particular shelter seems to have a contract with almost all of the towns in my area of the Maine coast. They have no web site, no Facebook page. No way to communicate with folks who might be missing their pets. Meanwhile, there's a brand-new (2010) multi-million dollar state-of-the-art SPCA just down the road (which, BTW, featured a microchipped lab last month that was brought in by the "stray holding facility".) I wonder how the Small Animal Clinic decides which dogs to ship out of state and which dogs to take to the SPCA.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Noey said:


> I don't think so. If language is applied to contracts and adopters know....people will still adopt. I don't think this case is the norm, I don't automatically give the benefit of the doubt to the rescue.
> 
> In protecting families who pets are lost with evidence of trying to locate...which this case implies on the surface....and they can show good vet care etc, you can benefit all pet owners. I should not default my rights when I never gave them up, I should not now have to fight to get my lost property....family back if I can prove this. Maybe the first year should be considered foster 6-12 months with adoption after that time. Rescues have all sorts of restrictions and requirements now that people bend to, people will still adopt. You have to protect owners rights in these cases as well...difficult, but can be done with proper language.


If you were going to adopt from a rescue, would you still do it if the contract stated the dog could be removed from you and returned to a previous owner, for up to 12 months after you take possession?


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

goldhaven said:


> ...
> Can these people prove that these 2 dogs are indeed theirs. ....


This is the most valid question that has been raised. Anyone can go look at a picture of a dog a rescue website and say, "hey you have my dog, and I want it back!". Can they prove said dog is in fact theirs? 

What if rescues said, "oh, ok, here is your dog back." When in fact the dog never was that person's to begin with. 

Without any identification no-one can definitely prove that these two dogs are in fact these people's lost dogs. Should the rescue just over turn the adoption and hand them back with nothing to prove they are in fact their dogs? 

(Yes I realize there is probably too much coincidence for them not to be the same dogs.)


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

MicheleKC87 said:


> Have you seen the movie "Hatchi?" It's based on a true story. That dog waited at that train station for his owner to return for 9 years! You have no idea what a dog thinks. He may not always seem heartbroken, but that doesn't mean he does't miss his previous owner.


That was a movie. Dogs don't have human emotions. I saw the movie and it was very touching, but in reality, the dog was most likely following what his routine was every day. Some dogs are very routine oriented and some aren't.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Megora said:


> ^ But how would that be different? Without the rescue in this case, the owners would have been furious about the shelter either adopting those two senior goldens out or putting them down. This after the people apparently called and were told those goldens weren't there, when they were.
> 
> I think reading this thread it was the shelter that apparently did not do enough to give those original owners or friends of the original owners a chance to locate their dogs.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what your first question is. A shelter (which these dogs apparently were not held at) has a certain number of days that they are required to hold a dog. After that time, the dog is available for adoption or euthanasia. If I get a dog from a shelter, there isn't the 6-12 month foster hold that Noey was talking about and that I was saying I would never be willing to do.

As for the volunteers taking and posting pictures, they have to have permission to do so. Many of the shelters in the south do not allow it for whatever reason, so the pictures are not taken. It's not the volunteers fault and it's not their burden to carry. They are volunteering their time to try to help as best they can and what they do is totally heartbreaking and a thankless job.


----------



## Hunter'sMom (Sep 5, 2011)

Regarding photography... I do shelter photography at a local high-kill animal shelter. There are more dogs/puppies/cats/kittens each week than I can possibly photograph during my available hours, and I am not the only volunteer taking photos. We try to upload them as quick as possible, but it is quite an uphill battle. That being said, we do way better at reuniting strays with their owners than an adjoining county's shelter who does not (for whatever reason) allow any photographs to be taken by volunteers.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> I'm not sure what your first question is. A shelter (which these dogs apparently were not held at) has a certain number of days that they are required to hold a dog. After that time, the dog is available for adoption or euthanasia. If I get a dog from a shelter, there isn't the 6-12 month foster hold that Noey was talking about and that I was saying I would never be willing to do.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were referring to the 6-12 month foster thing. I thought you were referring to the possibility at all that the owners would come out of the woodwork and claim that you have their dog who had gone stray months before. 

This whole thread would not even be needed if the animal control facilities in every county or whatever were more transparent and rather than assume that every stray that comes in is unwanted, that they could simply be unfound. 

The fact that they are not transparent or do not do their all to get dogs back to their rightful homes, that's partly why you have clingers who refuse to take dogs to animal control. 

It's not just the shelters to the south. There are some shelters who really are awesome. Same thing with humane societies. They take the dogs in and plaster both craigslist and facebook with pictures of those dogs, in addition to petfinder. They don't have to, but they do. 

A lot of the time, these dogs still go unclaimed - and are rescued. Which case, I think that done and done again, the owners surrendered any rights they had since they obviously did not look anywhere for their dogs. 

When you have shelters who don't put pictures up, don't even have a facebook page (forget about having a website or petfinder page), and don't let people walk in to see the dogs who are on stray hold, and intentionally or not give false information to inquiring owners... <- That's where threads like this come from.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

fostermom said:


> I would never purchase from a BYB or petstore, but I totally agree with your sentiment. There is absolutely NO WAY I would sign a contract that said that if for some reason the "real" owner showed up within 12 months that I would hand over my beloved pet, no ifs ands or buts. Sorry, it would NEVER happen. Like I said, I had nightmares right after I adopted Danny that the owners wanted him back and I had to hand him over. I woke up crying. I was that distraught over the idea of giving up my boy.
> 
> If it came down to that, I would find my next pet in the shelter and not through a rescue. And I've fostered for a rescue for 9 years now.


I am sorry you had such a nightmare.  I had no idea.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

fostermom said:


> I've been fostering for years and yes, there is the occasional dog who takes time to adapt to their new home, but their hearts are not broken longing for their owners. I had one with me for 2 1/2 years and she was 10 when she came to me. She waited for a week by the front door for the only owners she knew. After that, she bonded deeply with me and became my heart dog. She had a better life with me in those 2 1/2 years than she had the previous 10 years (based on the multiple untreated health issues she had and the fact that they got rid of her because of her thunderphobia after having her for 10 years). She adored me and I adored her.


I completely understand dear, really I do. I am glad that this dog was able to adjust and open up her heart to you.  Do you know about the story of Hachi? It was based on a true story. This dog was longing for his owner so much he refused to go home with anybody else for years and years. So I know that there is truth behind dogs longing for their owners. Hachi was an Akita. I think Akitas are more loyal one people dogs. Goldens I understand are more willing to belong to anybody.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

goldhaven said:


> I was told the teenager got to keep it. Don't know if that was true or not. This happened many years ago in Maine and they weren't illegal at the time. I gave up on them though. I just learned how to drive within the speed limits.


LOL.. you couldn't prove ownership and of course the teenager can't prove ownership but he/they get to keep it anyway? That's so wrong.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Megora said:


> I don't undertstand why those people who volunteer at these shelters are so incapable of snapping pictures of dogs as they are brought in. And they can wait to download all those pics until the end of the day. How hard is that? >.<


and in this age of technology, you can snap and icloud it up instantly.


----------



## Bellanjake (Apr 16, 2012)

whos to know if they had any pups.


----------



## Bellanjake (Apr 16, 2012)

Thank you for the support. We miss our dogs so much. Its nice seeing all the nice people on here supporting us. We pray every night that Bella and Jake will be returned home to us,where they belong.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

Were Bella and Jake outdoor dogs?


----------



## Bellanjake (Apr 16, 2012)

Thank you !! We are wating for that day to come! These dogs were loved. We miss them so much!


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

Bellanjake said:


> Thank you !! We are wating for that day to come! These dogs were loved. We miss them so much!


How are you guys doing? I've been thinking about your situation and it makes me sick! Obviously these dogs were well loved and I hope the new "owners" have a heart and give your family members back to the family they belong with.

My thoughts and prayers are with your family, Bella and Jake.


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

mylissyk said:


> If you were going to adopt from a rescue, would you still do it if the contract stated the dog could be removed from you and returned to a previous owner, for up to 12 months after you take possession?


yes, I would be willing, as stated rare cases where facts can show the dog is lost and people were looking, of course I would. It would be hard...but I put myself in the shoes of the family looking. Knowing they had someone that loved them so much...they kept looking. Sure it might not be easy...but it would be the right thing. 

That is why I suggested perhaps you have to be a foster...your willing to home with the possibility of family being found. I can't be the only person who thinks this way. And of course a foster is just like having your own, but I also know when to do what is right, not what I necessarily want to make me feel good.


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

Megora said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were referring to the 6-12 month foster thing. I thought you were referring to the possibility at all that the owners would come out of the woodwork and claim that you have their dog who had gone stray months before.
> 
> This whole thread would not even be needed if the animal control facilities in every county or whatever were more transparent and rather than assume that every stray that comes in is unwanted, that they could simply be unfound.
> 
> ...


(I love your close-up picture...wonderful)


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Noey said:


> (I love your close-up picture...wonderful)


Thanks<:

I resisted getting a "real" camera for so long. And then I was thinking that I would still use my P/S camera when I'm out on the go to limit my chances of dropping the big expensive camera (I'm a camera dropper). But I can't go back. I'm so spoiled now.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Noey said:


> yes, I would be willing, as stated rare cases where facts can show the dog is lost and people were looking, of course I would. It would be hard...but I put myself in the shoes of the family looking. Knowing they had someone that loved them so much...they kept looking. Sure it might not be easy...but it would be the right thing.
> 
> That is why I suggested perhaps you have to be a foster...your willing to home with the possibility of family being found. I can't be the only person who thinks this way. And of course a foster is just like having your own, but I also know when to do what is right, not what I necessarily want to make me feel good.


At the time the dog is taken into a rescue how do you determine it is lost and people are looking for the dog?

IMO you are a special (in a good way) person if you would agree to adopt a dog with the stipulation that it could be taken from you and returned to a previous owner for up to 12 months after you take it home. I don't think the general adopting public would agree to that. I wouldn't myself. I would just opt not to adopt that dog.

How would you determine which dogs are "lost and being looked for by owners"? Even in this particular case being discussed in this thread, the rescue didn't know the owners were looking for the dogs until 6 months later. 

No rescue could survive and continue to exist if they had to do this, keep all their dogs as a "foster" for a year, even if they were being 'fostered to adopt'. 90% of the dogs coming into rescues are from animal shelters. Nearly all the dogs would be have to be adopted out on a temporary basis under that scenario, because the rescue would have no way to know if owners were looking for the dog. 

If a dog has been picked up by animal control, held for the legally required stray hold or longer, signed over to a rescue organization, who then puts money and time into getting the dog healthy and ready to be adopted, why should the rescue then be required to place the dog as a temporary adoption for a year, in the off chance that the owner might show up?

Can you see how that wouldn't work?


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

Bellanjake said:


> whos to know if they had any pups.


If you are the owners, hopefully, you would know.



Bellanjake said:


> Thank you for the support. We miss our dogs so much. Its nice seeing all the nice people on here supporting us. We pray every night that Bella and Jake will be returned home to us,where they belong.


Previous post suggests that you are speaking on behalf of the owners. Are you in fact the owners of Bella and Jake. If not, do you personally know them or are you just a spokesperson on their behalf?



Bellanjake said:


> Thank you !! We are wating for that day to come! These dogs were loved. We miss them so much!


Can you please give more information concerning how this happened? There are a lot of speculations that you can put to rest by telling your story. Also, can you tell what other avenues have been persued to get them back besides their own facebook page. Other than the one article that I read in the newspaper, has the local media picked up this story. My family lives in Maine and have not even heard about this. What other efforts are being made besides the facebook page?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

mylissyk said:


> At the time the dog is taken into a rescue how do you determine it is lost and people are looking for the dog?
> 
> IMO you are a special (in a good way) person if you would agree to adopt a dog with the stipulation that it could be taken from you and returned to a previous owner for up to 12 months after you take it home. I don't think the general adopting public would agree to that. I wouldn't myself. I would just opt not to adopt that dog.
> 
> ...


In reading Noey's response she clearly states: _yes, I would be willing, as *stated rare cases* where facts can show the dog is lost and people were looking, of course I would._. I think Noey and I are of the same opinion--it would be a rare situation where the facts establish some sort of unforeseen circumstance not involving negligence or abuse, un-explained delay in searching, shelter negligence or malfeasance and natural disaster. I agree that a required "foster period of xx months" would not be feasible for most adopters and would basically shut down the rescue of shelter dogs or strays. In that case only owner release dogs could safely be adopted out.

In this case it appears the rescue acted in good faith in taking the dogs from the shelter and was not aware of the alleged negligence of the AC officer and the veterinary hospital. They are in a tough spot because they may be drawn into possible litigation involving reclamation of the dog, even though they originally acted in good faith and relied on AC to do their job properly. I'm sure they have legal counsel advising them on the best way to respond to this, should it proceed to litigation. I feel for the rescue and the adopters. 

Speaking only for myself, if I was one of the adopters, I'd want to know as soon as possible about the claim and want to do the best thing for the dog and the rescue, depending on the underlying facts. If I found out the rescue knew of the claim and subsequently adopted the dog to me without informing me in advance, I'd be extremely upset because that indicates bad faith IMO--BUT it doesn't sound like that is the case here. If I understand everything correctly the dogs were adopted out before the rescue got notice of the claims.

I hope Bellanjake will enlighten us all on exactly why it's taken so long...


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I would like to understand why the dogs,were not neutered,or spayed.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

mylissyk said:


> At the time the dog is taken into a rescue how do you determine it is lost and people are looking for the dog?
> 
> IMO you are a special (in a good way) person if you would agree to adopt a dog with the stipulation that it could be taken from you and returned to a previous owner for up to 12 months after you take it home. I don't think the general adopting public would agree to that. I wouldn't myself. I would just opt not to adopt that dog.
> 
> ...


I think rescues should hold the dog and post found dog adds for at least a month. And yes, if there was evidence that the dogs belonged to someone (as in this case, they had collars) they should be open with potential adopters. If you want to adopt from a rescue, you want a dog that truly is a rescue that needs loving home, not someone's missing pet. I'd be heart broken if I had to give up a pet, but if you know it had on owner, I think anyone should be happy to reunite a dog and it's owner. I would. The only thing I would ask is if I could keep in touch. 

It's the right thing to do, no matter what. If rescues don't work out because of it then people must not really care about the dog, but rather what they want. Why rescue a dog that already had a home? 

I think in cases of an owner turn in or where dogs were taken by law because of abuse, then rescues should be able to adopt out immediately. I think breed specific rescues sometime rely on people missing pets, and actually hope the owners don't come forward. Most pure bred dogs have owner. I'm not saying they don't need to be rescued, but I think when a dog is found running, I think that rescues should pull out the stops to try to find an owner. Because how would you ever know if the owner was looking for their dog, and something was missed. Or the dog was found in the town over, so the owners were lookup.g I'm the wrong places. Or the dog was stolen.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

goldensrbest said:


> I would like to understand why the dogs,were not neutered,or spayed.


And why does that matter? That's the owners free choice, and last I checked it's not against the law or considered abuse. 

I would never choose to not spay again because I know accidents can happen, but it's really no ones business if someone else chooses not to spay or neuter.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

MicheleKC87 said:


> I think breed specific rescues sometime rely on people missing pets, and actually hope the owners don't come forward. Most pure bred dogs have owner. I'm not saying they don't need to be rescued, but I think when a dog is found running, I think that rescues should pull out the stops to try to find an owner. Because how would you ever know if the owner was looking for their dog, and something was missed. Or the dog was found in the town over, so the owners were lookup.g I'm the wrong places. Or the dog was stolen.


Do you seriously think that breed specific rescues rely on lost pets? Really? Wow.


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

Dallas Gold said:


> In reading Noey's response she clearly states: _yes, I would be willing, as *stated rare cases* where facts can show the dog is lost and people were looking, of course I would._. I think Noey and I are of the same opinion--it would be a rare situation where the facts establish some sort of unforeseen circumstance not involving negligence or abuse, un-explained delay in searching, shelter negligence or malfeasance and natural disaster. I agree that a required "foster period of xx months" would not be feasible for most adopters and would basically shut down the rescue of shelter dogs or strays. In that case only owner release dogs could safely be adopted out.
> 
> In this case it appears the rescue acted in good faith in taking the dogs from the shelter and was not aware of the alleged negligence of the AC officer and the veterinary hospital. They are in a tough spot because they may be drawn into possible litigation involving reclamation of the dog, even though they originally acted in good faith and relied on AC to do their job properly. I'm sure they have legal counsel advising them on the best way to respond to this, should it proceed to litigation. I feel for the rescue and the adopters.
> 
> ...


That is why i suggest language in contracts, and not all cases would fit this. I think most families would be able to provide proof of searching etc...which is why a healthy dog coming in might be considered a foster for a period of time with option to adopt. Maybe Im a little altruistic in thinking from one golden owner to another I would be understanding. I know 100% I'd be looking forever--and fighting to get them back. 

Not all situations would be like this...perhaps the shelters need to show proof of posting a description and picture in a public place. As mentioned I get the rescue did not do anything wrong in this circumstance, but as mentioned I think every case is individual.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

MicheleKC87 said:


> And why does that matter? That's the owners free choice, and last I checked it's not against the law or considered abuse.
> 
> I would never choose to not spay again because I know accidents can happen, but it's really no ones business if someone else chooses not to spay or neuter.


 Young lady, i have suported them, but that does not mean , that i don't have questions about them, i think i am free to ask those questions.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

I have been doing some googling and this really scares me. There were two incidences that I found that people found their dogs,on the first day when they were up for adoption, one was after only being held for three day, and because their new families had already signed paperwork but not taken possession of dogs, they could not take their dog back.

One woman had me in tears, while she had lost her dog a few days earlier, was able to hold him, but he was no longer hers by law. The rescue had called up the new family, and they said that they would give the dog back, then called up a few minutes later to say, no they wanted the dog. I believe this was also one of those incidences that the dog was actually there the first time she checked too.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Does anybody both tatoo and microchip? Are you able to see the tatoo under all the fur? Is there a common place to put it? I know I have heard to not do the ear, because thieves will cut the ear off.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

My earlier Goldens had tattoos. You would not see the tattoos unless you shaved them. They were located in the groin, so I suppose if you were looking for signs of neutering, you might have seen them. Anyway, it would prove ownership.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Our rescue used to tattoo the inner thigh. Problem is, it could be hard to see through the hair and tattoos fade.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

cubbysan said:


> I have been doing some googling and this really scares me. There were two incidences that I found that people found their dogs,on the first day when they were up for adoption, one was after only being held for three day, and because their new families had already signed paperwork but not taken possession of dogs, they could not take their dog back.
> 
> One woman had me in tears, while she had lost her dog a few days earlier, was able to hold him, but he was no longer hers by law. The rescue had called up the new family, and they said that they would give the dog back, then called up a few minutes later to say, no they wanted the dog. I believe this was also one of those incidences that the dog was actually there the first time she checked too.


That's where an attorney and a sympathetic media journalist could help the original owner, if the true facts are as the owner states and the shelter was negligent in any manner.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

Here is the deal. Everyone here has different opinions and no amount of arguing will change anyone from one side to the other. Agreed? 
This is what I want to know. Do the owners of Bella and Jake really want them back? I have seen an article in the BDN, a facebook page being monitored by someone other than the owners, and this thread, which someone named bellanjake has just joined, and posted 3 posts. I have no idea who is behind the bellanjake posts. I have not seen the Warren family come forward at all to plead their case. It seems that it is being done for them. I would really like to hear directly from them, what happened, and that they do in fact want their dogs back. Even on the facebook page, no questions are answered and the photo provided is the one taken off the BDN page, which makes me wonder if the monitor of the page even knows the Warrens. 

Too many questions. Too many accusations. To many assumptions? Too much speculation. Not enough answers.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Dallas Gold said:


> That's where an attorney and a sympathetic media journalist could help the original owner, if the true facts are as the owner states and the shelter was negligent in any manner.


 
She posted to the article two years later that she occasionally drives by the new owner's house, and sees another dog of the same breed leashed in the driveway, but never sees hers, and how she misses her dog still.


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

cubbysan said:


> I have been doing some googling and this really scares me. There were two incidences that I found that people found their dogs,on the first day when they were up for adoption, one was after only being held for three day, and because their new families had already signed paperwork but not taken possession of dogs, they could not take their dog back.
> 
> One woman had me in tears, while she had lost her dog a few days earlier, was able to hold him, but he was no longer hers by law. The rescue had called up the new family, and they said that they would give the dog back, then called up a few minutes later to say, no they wanted the dog. I believe this was also one of those incidences that the dog was actually there the first time she checked too.



I'm imagining that happening to me and my eyes are starting to get very moist.. I honestly don't know how I'd get through a situation like that.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

This whole thread causes me to question the relationship between the Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth, which has contracts with most coastal towns in the area to receive animals picked up by the ACOs, and the two EXCELLENT nearby shelters. Why is it that the SAC is sending strays to out-of-state rescues and the nearby SPCA is expecting strays from *GUAM* later in the month? There appears to be something rather strange with the way missing animals are handled in Downeast Maine.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

fostermom said:


> Do you seriously think that breed specific rescues rely on lost pets? Really? Wow.


Not solely, and not ALL breed specific rescues. But i'm sure that a good percentage of goldens in rescues were lost pets thought to be stray's or owner dumped.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

goldensrbest said:


> Young lady, i have suported them, but that does not mean , that i don't have questions about them, i think i am free to ask those questions.


Of course you are free to ask questions. I just don't think that the dogs not being neutered should hinder them from getting their dogs back.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

They can't prove that they are their dogs can they?

If dogs are in foster for xx months before being eligible for adoption, that is less foster homes available, less dogs being rescued, more PTS-that's definitely not a win for anyone.

Of all rescues I've ever known, most would be happy if there was no need for rescues, sadly that is not the case. Ironically my local GR rescue almost never has dogs available, goldens are not as common here as other states.

I still don't understand why it seems to be everyone's responsibility EXCEPT the owners to bend over backwards to get these dogs returned.....the owners seemed to think everyone else should have gone the extra mile but were only willing to do the bare minimum themselves. Honestly, if they put as much effort into finding the dogs when they went missing as they are now, this wouldn't even be happening.

And I'm still bothered by the statement they made in the article saying that they thought the dogs had most likely been shot and it was easier not knowing what had happened to them.

I do wonder, from a legal standpoint, if these dogs were microchipped or tattooed or something, would that have made a difference at this point. Say if the microchip migrated or they didn't notice a tattoo. Would the owner have legal grounds to stand on if they could in fact prove ownership. 

We also only know one side of the story. If I were the new owners "even I" would most likely try to set up a meeting with the dogs and their owners to see the dogs reaction. If the dogs acted like it was a long lost best friend, I'd probably leave the dogs with the original owners. It makes me think there is more going on here that is being said by the original owners. Plus it has been 6 months and we all know how hard and fast goldens bond. Tearing them away from the new owners would be very hard on the dogs as well.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

penparson said:


> This whole thread causes me to question the relationship between the Small Animal Clinic in Ellsworth, which has contracts with most coastal towns in the area to receive animals picked up by the ACOs, and the two EXCELLENT nearby shelters. Why is it that the SAC is sending strays to out-of-state rescues and the nearby SPCA is expecting strays from *GUAM* later in the month? There appears to be something rather strange with the way missing animals are handled in Downeast Maine.


 
When I lived in Massachusetts, it was very hard to rescue a dog, especially a breed specific. The demand is just so much greater than the supply - which is a very good thing. I had to go to a reputable breeder to get my first golden. 

Most people I know in Mass adopt their dogs, sight unseen, right from the trucks that bring them up from the southern states. I have heard them coming from Puerto Rico and Mexico too.

Most shelters will send the pure breds to the all breed rescues, because they know the personalities of the breed, have new owners waiting and these dogs have a better chance at getting a forever home.

These dogs that are coming from Guam, are most likely mixed bred strays and I would not be surprised if any pure breds show up, the pure bred rescues will be called for those dogs.

I have a feeling though you are questioning or know something else that may be going on.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

MicheleKC87 said:


> Not solely, and not ALL breed specific rescues. But i'm sure that a good percentage of goldens in rescues were lost pets thought to be stray's or owner dumped.


Yes, probably upward of 50% were stray or lost pets. That ended up in shelters and would die if they were not pulled by the rescue. In the south that is the reality. The shelters in NC have to hold the strays for 72 hours to allow the owners to locate them. If a citizen finds a stray, then the rescue requires a found ad be run in the local paper for 7 days before they are brought in as a foster. 

But we don't rely on lost or missing dogs to provide us with dogs. There are more than enough in the shelters to keep us busy.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Do you know if they send all of their strays to out of state shelters of only purebreds?
It's common here to get the purebreds out of our local shelters (which are kill shelters) to make room for more animals, some breeds end up only having rescues in neighboring states, so that is where they go. Most of the non-breed rescues here are at maximum capacity and can't take any more animals. Only breed specific have room & fosters for more animals. Shipping out purebreds mean the animals in the shelter have more time before they are euthanized. 

My local shelter almost never euthanizes and doesn't often have many animals available. Animals in the larger cities around only have a few days after the hold period because of lack of space. I think if there is a really great dog, the staff will try to keep it along longer, but that means another dog doesn't get that chance.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I know from visiting, new mexico, there are so many strays roaming the streets, in the small towns,in the country side.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Jennifer1 said:


> Do you know if they send all of their strays to out of state shelters of only purebreds?
> It's common here to get the purebreds out of our local shelters (which are kill shelters) to make room for more animals, some breeds end up only having rescues in neighboring states, so that is where they go. Most of the non-breed rescues here are at maximum capacity and can't take any more animals. Only breed specific have room & fosters for more animals. Shipping out purebreds mean the animals in the shelter have more time before they are euthanized.
> 
> My local shelter almost never euthanizes and doesn't often have many animals available. Animals in the larger cities around only have a few days after the hold period because of lack of space. I think if there is a really great dog, the staff will try to keep it along longer, but that means another dog doesn't get that chance.


In New England, Yankee Golden and Sunshine Golden are the only two golden rescues that I know of. Sunshine is in southern Conn, so it would make sense to me that Yankee would be the one that they called. I am also sure that a great effort was made to keep the two dogs together.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

goldensrbest said:


> I know from visiting, new mexico, there are so many strays roaming the streets, in the small towns,in the country side.


Its so sad! Where I live, you almost never see lose dogs and if you do, it usually has collar & tags. People here are actually pretty responsible, which is why our local shelter doesn't see much traffic. Plus they have a great volunteer program to help the animals.
People do dump dogs out in the desert with collar no tags all the time. There is one town just south of me that it's not unusual to see a couple loose dogs every time I go there. This is along a pretty busy highway:no:


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

MicheleKC87 said:


> I think rescues should hold the dog and post found dog adds for at least a month. ...
> 
> ... but I think when a dog is found running, I think that rescues should pull out the stops to try to find an owner...


 
That is the job of the animal control for the city. county, or town that picks up the dog running stray NOT the rescue organizations. Cities or towns have ordinances or laws they follow for how long they hold a dog after it is picked up. It is the city, town, or county animal control's responsibility to hold the dog the required amount of time to give owners the opportunity to reclaim their dog. 

Rescues can't take a dog from the animal shelter until the stray hold has expired, i.e. after they have been held by animal control for the amount of time required by law.

Nearly every dog taken into animal control is found running as a stray (some are owner turned in or cruelty seizures), are you suggesting that rescues should hold the dogs an additional amount of time after they take the dog from animal control?


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Dallas Gold said:


> In reading Noey's response she clearly states: _yes, I would be willing, as *stated rare cases* where facts can show the dog is lost and people were looking, of course I would._. I think Noey and I are of the same opinion--it would be a rare situation where the facts establish some sort of unforeseen circumstance not involving negligence or abuse, un-explained delay in searching, shelter negligence or malfeasance and natural disaster.


How would it be possible to know the dog was lost and people are looking for it, at the time a rescue takes a dog in?


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

fostermom said:


> Yes, probably upward of 50% were stray or lost pets. That ended up in shelters and would die if they were not pulled by the rescue. In the south that is the reality. The shelters in NC have to hold the strays for 72 hours to allow the owners to locate them. If a citizen finds a stray, then the rescue requires a found ad be run in the local paper for 7 days before they are brought in as a foster.
> 
> But we don't rely on lost or missing dogs to provide us with dogs. There are more than enough in the shelters to keep us busy.


I helped a GR Rescue with Intakes, a different group than fostermom is with. 

We worked with several different county shelters, some of them had hold times that ranged from 72 hours up to 10 days, depending on where the dog found or where the shelter was located that the dog was being held in.

When we were contatced about a Golden that had been found as a Stray by an individual, we asked them if they were able to care for the dog, to call AC to let them know they had the dog, include their contact info, also list the dog as being found on the AC's website, and hold the dog for the required time for an owner to be located. 

Then we asked them to take it to scanned for a chip, place a found ad in the local paper, post found dog ads on different sites such as Clist, Petfinder. com, contact all Vet clinics in the area, put up posters.

If the dog was not claimed during the required Hold time, we would then send a Volunteer to evaluate it prior to making any type of commitment of taking the dog into Rescue.

Our ultimate goal was to locate the owner of any stray-we did not want to take a dog in that belonged to someone and we made all efforts to locate the owners before doing so.

I think all of the GR Rescues that are a member of the GRCA-NRC follow the same guidlelines and adhere to all local and state ordinances regarding the handling of strays accordingly. 


In order to claim something that belongs to you, you have to have Proof of ownership regardless if it's your dog, your car, anthing you own. If you can't prove ownership, then you don't have a substaniated case.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

mylissyk said:


> How would it be possible to know the dog was lost and people are looking for it, at the time a rescue takes a dog in?


 
In most instances you wouldn't unless they were contacted. 


A couple of years ago I helped several people try to locate a golden mix that had been lost in my state, about 6 hours west of me. There were people on the ground in the area where the dog went missing that were out searching for her and also checking area shelters. Several people put up flyers and posters all over town. 

Since I was not in the immediate area, another girl and myself contacted Vet Clinics, Rescue Groups, shelters within a 75 mile radius of where she went missing. 

We sent her info along with pictures of her, contact info if found, the dog was also Micro chipped-included her chip number in the information we sent out. 

People searched for this girl for over a year, but she was never found.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

I'd love to know the placement policies of the clinic in Ellsworth. Do they ship pure-breds to out-of-state rescues and retain/euthanize mixed breeds? This isn't just curiosity on my part - I live in Brooklin, ME in the summer and would like to know what happens to missing dogs in the event that Wakefield gets loose. I've also done some fundraising for the SPCA and was of the understanding that building the new facility was necessary to take care of some unmet needs in the surrounding communities. The SPCA always has quite a number of cats up for adoption, but relatively few dogs.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> I helped a GR Rescue with Intakes, a different group than fostermom is with.
> 
> We worked with several different county shelters, some of them had hold times that ranged from 72 hours up to 10 days, depending on where the dog found or where the shelter was located that the dog was being held in.
> 
> ...


We do these same things in the group I volunteer for.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

mylissyk said:


> That is the job of the animal control for the city. county, or town that picks up the dog running stray NOT the rescue organizations. Cities or towns have ordinances or laws they follow for how long they hold a dog after it is picked up. It is the city, town, or county animal control's responsibility to hold the dog the required amount of time to give owners the opportunity to reclaim their dog.
> 
> Rescues can't take a dog from the animal shelter until the stray hold has expired, i.e. after they have been held by animal control for the amount of time required by law.
> 
> Nearly every dog taken into animal control is found running as a stray (some are owner turned in or cruelty seizures), are you suggesting that rescues should hold the dogs an additional amount of time after they take the dog from animal control?


I'm suggesting that the dogs be placed with a foster for at least a month before they are eligible for adoption. And if an owner comes forward at ANY point before the dog is adopted, the owner should be able to reclaim the dog.

And in a case where an owner finds the dog after it's been adopted, I think a rescue should be up front with a new owner from the very beginning that the dog may have an owner that might come forward. I think that's a risk you take when adopting a rescue.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

MicheleKC87 said:


> I'm suggesting that the dogs be placed with a foster for at least a month before they are eligible for adoption. And if an owner comes forward at ANY point before the dog is adopted, the owner should be able to reclaim the dog.
> 
> And in a case where an owner finds the dog after it's been adopted, I think a rescue should be up front with a new owner from the very beginning that the dog may have an owner that might come forward. I think that's a risk you take when adopting a rescue.


First of all, I understand this is very personal for you and I really truly feel for you. I would have been crushed.
A 1 month waiting period wouldn't have made a difference in this case. The dogs went missing 6 months ago. At what point is it too long? At what point can an adoptive family feel safe that the dog is truly in it's forever home?


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

Jennifer1 said:


> First of all, I understand this is very personal for you and I really truly feel for you. I would have been crushed.
> A 1 month waiting period wouldn't have made a difference in this case. The dogs went missing 6 months ago. At what point is it too long? At what point can an adoptive family feel safe that the dog is truly in it's forever home?


I don't know. But I do believe that this situation is now between the new owners and the original owners. But my opinion is that the new owners should be understanding of the misunderstanding and be willing to make it right.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

MicheleKC87 said:


> I'm suggesting that the dogs be placed with a foster for at least a month before they are eligible for adoption. And if an owner comes forward at ANY point before the dog is adopted, the owner should be able to reclaim the dog.
> 
> And in a case where an owner finds the dog after it's been adopted, I think a rescue should be up front with a new owner from the very beginning that the dog may have an owner that might come forward. I think that's a risk you take when adopting a rescue.


 
A lot of times when a dog is taken into Rescue, it can be weeks or months before it's available for adoption due to it receiving medical treatments. Dogs are not available until they are cleared medically. Very rarely does a dog come into Rescue that is ready or available for adoption from day one, especially here in my state. Most of the dogs that come in need to be updated on all their shots, spay/neutered, and almost half that come in need to be treated for HW. 

A previous owner would need to be able to Prove Ownership before that could even be considered if it were to ever come up.

Without proof of ownership, any person at any time could claim a dog in a Rescue Group belongs to them.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

mylissyk said:


> How would it be possible to know the dog was lost and people are looking for it, at the time a rescue takes a dog in?


I am referring to an after the fact scenerio when facts come in *after* the dog is placed with the rescue, and information comes in that there may have been a shelter mistake or that the owners were in good faith looking for them, in reasonable time. I'm talking about a sense of moral responsibility-do the right thing for the best interests of the dog because as you know everyone in rescue always cites it's "all about the dogs." Again, it's a case by case situation because a legitimate issue of whether to return to original owners infrequently happens. Many of those purebred Goldens running down the streets were sadly abandoned by their owners.


----------



## A1Malinois (Oct 28, 2011)

Noey said:


> Fixed or not...your assuming they are bad for that? and dogs get out sometimes.


You took the words out of my mouth. They claim because the animals arent spayed or neutered that they dont deserve them back. Accidents happen, dogs get out. If they were spayed/neuter I am willing to bet every one would be like "ohh yeah they should have their dogs back". 

I dont judge people based on their dogs spay/neuter status. I tip my hat off to them for keep their animals intact for 9 years. 

I would sue and I would also be speaking to a lawyer about getting something back for them mutilating my poor dogs.


----------



## A1Malinois (Oct 28, 2011)

cgriffin said:


> I wonder how many litters they have had already.......
> It is sad, and yes, I know dogs can get out, escape. That is why you got to watch them, have a fence if you cannot watch them.
> I also don't think much about animal control and animal control officers.......
> There are a bunch of people at fault here.


Just because they are intact doesnt mean they have been bred. I know SEVERAL people who have intact males and intact females and have not once had a litter...


----------



## A1Malinois (Oct 28, 2011)

Sally's Mom said:


> Of my six microchipped dogs, one has a chip that no longer works...and two have chips that have migrated to the point of their shoulders... The chips are palpable, but really who would go looking for them?
> 
> My unspayed/unneutered remark was made because a bitch at nine years should've already been spayed...due to the pyometra risk. And it makes me wonder whether correctly or incorrectly if the bitch was part of a BYB operation?


No you mean im your opinion a bitch at 9 should be spayed. I have a friend whos females are 14 and unspayed and are fine. My uncles lab lives to 17 and she was unspayed.

This is why my dog is tattooed in both ears and microchipped


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Why not spay,or neuter,if you are not going to breed?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

goldensrbest said:


> Why not spay,or neuter,if you are not going to breed?


I totally agree with your sentiment and wish every non-breeder would spay/neuter; unfortunately there are still people in this world who think it will hurt the dog's "manhood" (????) or cause cancer. Others are just plain lazy. Still others want to breed the dog once so their children can experience the miracle of birth. If everyone who wasn't a breeder spayed and neutered, there would be a lot fewer dogs needing rescue.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

It makes sence,to neuter,and spay,for that reason, too many pups being born, only to die,because someone doesn't want to spend the money, or thinks it hurts their manhood.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Lincoln_16 said:


> Just because they are intact doesnt mean they have been bred. I know SEVERAL people who have intact males and intact females and have not once had a litter...


I'm sorry, I find that extremely hard to believe.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Dallas Gold said:


> I totally agree with your sentiment and wish every non-breeder would spay/neuter; unfortunately there are still people in this world who think it will hurt the dog's "manhood" (????) or cause cancer. Others are just plain lazy. Still others want to breed the dog once so their children can experience the miracle of birth. If everyone who wasn't a breeder spayed and neutered, there would be a lot fewer dogs needing rescue.


It would also prevent a very large number of animals being euthanized weekly in shelters which is all at the expense of all taxpayers, not to mention at the expense of an innocent animal. 

There will never be enough Adopters or Resuces for all the animals in shelters throughout the country if owners don't start spaying and neutering their pets. 

The breeding should be left to the Professionals not to individuals who have no idea what they are doing.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

fostermom said:


> I'm sorry, I find that extremely hard to believe.


Actually we have a friend, with two graduate degrees, who refused to spay his American Eskimo dog and had no intent to breed. Unfortunately the dog almost died of pyometra. He changed his tune after that. My husband and I couldn't believe that this man believed that spaying would change her nature and we had many conversations with him about it. It did change her nature--she became a much nicer and gentler dog after her spay and recovery.

We have another man in our surrounding neighborhood with an intact male Golden. He won't neuter and unfortunately is now, after 8 years, thinking of breeding the Golden because he is so "handsome". Unbelievable.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Dallas Gold said:


> Actually we have a friend, with two graduate degrees, who refused to spay his American Eskimo dog and had no intent to breed. Unfortunately the dog almost died of pyometra. He changed his tune after that. My husband and I couldn't believe that this man believed that spaying would change her nature and we had many conversations with him about it. It did change her nature--she became a much nicer and gentler dog after her spay and recovery.
> 
> We have another man in our surrounding neighborhood with an intact male Golden. He won't neuter and unfortunately is now, after 8 years, thinking of breeding the Golden because he is so "handsome". Unbelievable.


It's impossible to tell people something they don't want to hear. I have neighbors who recently bought a golden pup from a breeder. In the breeder's contract it stipulated the pup had to be neutered at a certain age. The guy who bought the pup told her he was against neutering for whatever reason-he read something on the Internet that said it was bad to neuter dogs, therefore he believes it. Supposedly the breeder changed the contract to NO Breeding, which I was really surprised to hear-not sure if this is what the owner is just telling me though. 


I told them that most Vets recommend spay/neuter of dogs and if they had any questions, they should consult their Vet which BTW is the same clinic I go to, and that you can't believe everything you read on line especially if it's not a Vet school website or an accredited Vet website.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Fixing dogs is a personal decision between the owner and maybe the vet. I haven't done Bayne yet and will wait until he's fully grown and mature and yes, it's his manhood I want to see not his puppyhood taken away.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Dallas Gold said:


> Actually we have a friend, with two graduate degrees, who refused to spay his American Eskimo dog and had no intent to breed. Unfortunately the dog almost died of pyometra. He changed his tune after that. My husband and I couldn't believe that this man believed that spaying would change her nature and we had many conversations with him about it. It did change her nature--she became a much nicer and gentler dog after her spay and recovery.
> 
> We have another man in our surrounding neighborhood with an intact male Golden. He won't neuter and unfortunately is now, after 8 years, thinking of breeding the Golden because he is so "handsome". Unbelievable.


Oh, I know lots of people in this area who aren't willing to neuter for whatever reason. What I didn't believe is that Lincoln_16 knows SEVERAL people with both males and females that are intact that have never bred. I'm not buying that for one second.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

What's your definition of "several?" I know of two without even trying to think hard about it. One is laziness - but the dog has never been and never will be bred. The other, I'm not sure of the reason. I'm sure I could think of more if I tried.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

laprincessa said:


> What's your definition of "several?" I know of two without even trying to think hard about it. One is laziness - but the dog has never been and never will be bred. The other, I'm not sure of the reason. I'm sure I could think of more if I tried.


Are you talking about someone with one unaltered dog? That's not what Lincoln was claiming, she claimed that she knew SEVERAL people who had both an unspayed female and an unneutered male and NEVER had a litter. That is what I am responding to when I say I find it hard to believe.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted by cgriffin
> I wonder how many litters they have had already.......
> It is sad, and yes, I know dogs can get out, escape. That is why you got to watch them, have a fence if you cannot watch them.
> I also don't think much about animal control and animal control officers.......
> ...


This is the response she had to another poster where she said that she knew several people who owned both a male and female, unaltered, but never had a litter. The bolded part is Lincoln's response to crgriffin.


----------



## cham (Feb 21, 2008)

solinvictus said:


> If I was a gambling woman I would bet that the rescue has contacted the new owners. If for nothing else but in todays world the vigilantism of some animal lovers put them and the dogs in danger.
> 
> If the rescue would make public that they have contacted the new owners they are putting the new owners at more risk.


 
Knowing YGRR I sincerely doubt they contacted the adopters. I'm reasonably sure they have buried their heads in the sand, and dug in for the long haul.


----------



## cham (Feb 21, 2008)

Actually the ACO has told her side of the story, and it really looks bad for her. check the link on the top of the FB page.


----------



## cham (Feb 21, 2008)

MicheleKC87 said:


> I'm suggesting that the dogs be placed with a foster for at least a month before they are eligible for adoption. And if an owner comes forward at ANY point before the dog is adopted, the owner should be able to reclaim the dog.
> 
> And in a case where an owner finds the dog after it's been adopted, I think a rescue should be up front with a new owner from the very beginning that the dog may have an owner that might come forward. I think that's a risk you take when adopting a rescue.


Fosters are hard enough to find, let alone make them take a dog for a month or more. And kenneling the dogs would just jack up the adoption fee so fewer dogs might be adopted.

And if an alleged owner comes forward then they must be able to IDENTIFY and PROVE the dog in question belongs to them. With no ifs ands buts abouts it.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dallas Gold said:


> If everyone who wasn't a breeder spayed and neutered, there would be a lot fewer dogs needing rescue.


I know a lot of people though obedience and agility and conformation who have not bred their dogs. Male and female. Do not breed. And neuter/spay later on. 

And I've said before that my dog is intact and has never been nor will ever be bred. I am not a breeder. Even if I titled dogs in conformation and obedience, I still would not breed any of my dogs. That's not why I'm into dog sports. 

The people who will breed their dogs will breed their dogs. And for this reason, they will not neuter/spay their pets. This is your people in the show circles. It's also the local idiots who will produce all your randomly bred "purebred" dogs and even the people who produce all of the mixed breeds that land in shelters and rescue when they don't sell. 

The people who do not want to breed their dogs will NOT breed their dogs. Whether the dogs are neutered or not. And I know a lot of people who fall in this category.

Responsible dog owners who have never bred a dog in their life nor ever would should not be held responsible because of some idiot breeding their dogs left and right. Put the blame where it belongs. I can pretty much guarantee that even if I ever snapped a twig and decided to breed a dog, I would bend over backwards to make sure that his puppies never saw the inside of an animal shelter. Most of your byb don't care. And they place puppies with people who shouldn't even own a fish. 

^^^^ All of this is aside the point, because again... I don't want anyone deciding who or what they deem is a "good dog owner" when it comes to returning their lost dogs, unless there is a very good reason (like abuse, serious neglect, repeat offenses, etc). It's bad enough that some people can't adopt from rescues because of lack of fenced in yard or whatever. :


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

I am currently reading a Chicken Soup for the Soul;Loving Our Dogs book. I just read a touching story today as a matter of fact in the chapter *Support Dogs*, Story Number *56* Finders Keepers. It is a story about a family that finds a lost beagle puppy and name her Molly. The mother can see that her two daughters have closely bonded with the puppy and can't imagine giving her back to her rightful owner. She had reasoned that the original owner was careless to have lost her puppy. She then sees an ad in the paper of someone pleading for the return of of their beagle puppy. The ad frightened her. She hid the article. Her conscience was then bothering her. She finally mustered up the courage to call the owner with her hands trembling. When the family arrived, the mother of the other family called the puppy "Here Lucy!" "Come to Mamma Girl!" The mother who found the puppy was heartbroken. The original owner carried Lucy to her minivan. Inside was a handicapped little girl who was overjoyed at the return of her puppy. The puppy was given to the little girl for emotional healing after a car accident left her crippled for life. She had formed a special bond with the puppy. When the puppy disappeared, the little girl was devastated. The mother who found the puppy all of a sudden felt very guilty and selfish. She was no longer heartbroken. She was suddenly joyful about the puppy being right where she belonged. The name of the author of the story was *Leona Campbell. *


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

cubbysan said:


> I have been doing some googling and this really scares me. There were two incidences that I found that people found their dogs,on the first day when they were up for adoption, one was after only being held for three day, and because their new families had already signed paperwork but not taken possession of dogs, they could not take their dog back.
> 
> One woman had me in tears, while she had lost her dog a few days earlier, was able to hold him, but he was no longer hers by law. The rescue had called up the new family, and they said that they would give the dog back, then called up a few minutes later to say, no they wanted the dog. I believe this was also one of those incidences that the dog was actually there the first time she checked too.


This is terrible!:no:


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

In my contract with the breeder, I cannot spay my pup until she is 12 months old. I don't like this and it makes me nervous, but I will have to keep Mercy safe and isolated when she goes into her first heat cycle. The breeder explains that it is for health reasons. Otherwise, I would have planned on having her spayed by 6 months.


----------



## booklady (Mar 3, 2009)

Most of the dogs in the rescue I'm familiar with and help with when I can come from owner surrenders these days....even the shelter dogs that eventually end up in the rescue are most frequently owner surrenders or dogs seized from a hoarding situation or a puppy mill. Of course some are strays, but none are taken into rescue until the hold period is up and even then a concerted effort is made to find a previous owner. I have yet to hear of one who didn't tell the rescue to keep it.

No dog is considered eligible for adoption until it's been in a foster home for at least two weeks....that's a minimum and most take much longer. Doesn't matter if they come straight to rescue after a stellar vet visit and a complete grooming....two weeks. Many require extended vet care (spay/neuter, shots, often othopedic care, dealing with parasites, malnutrition, etc.), socialization and evaluation, basic training and can spend months in foster care before they go up for adoption.

It's lovely to think that the adoptive family could wipe away a tear and turn their dog over to the original family; but there are other considerations. They paid a fee to adopt this dog....is it refunded by the rescue? Even in the best of circumstances, the rescue put a lot of money into the dog between vets, grooming, feeding, h/w and flea meds - an average of $600 per dog....does the original owner reimburse the rescue? To claim their dog from the shelter or clinic while it was on stray hold, they would have had to pay something depending on local laws, what would be required in this situation? And how far would the rescue have to go to deem the adoption final....who's to say those owner's turning the dog in weren't the original owners? It would be opening a legal hornet's nest.

There isn't a legitimate rescue in this country that does this for the money. Financially, it's a loser all the way around. Why, in heaven's name would any rescue intentionally be out snatching pets in order to lose more? Honest mistakes will be made....but in a large portion of the country this argument wouldn't be happening. The dogs in question would have been euthenized six months ago. I would be heartbroken if these were my dogs, but I would be shattered if they had been euthenized. I'd much rather know that they are loved and living.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

If I were the legitimate owners of the dogs... I would pay anything to get my dogs back. Especially if these were dogs I raised and lived with for 9 years...


----------



## booklady (Mar 3, 2009)

I think most of us here would pay and do whatever we could, Megora, to get our dogs home. I also think that GRF is a rather rarified portion of the population from what I've seen. 

None of my previous post was specifically aimed at the original owners, just some of the realities and potential repercussions for rescues in general. There seems to be a drift towards thinking of rescues as snatching up dogs left and right in order to make money and place them with the highest bidder when in fact they are most often operating on a wing and a prayer. If some of the policies touted here were to become law, there would be very few rescues left.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> None of my previous post was specifically aimed at the original owners, just some of the realities and potential repercussions for rescues in general. There seems to be a drift towards thinking of rescues as snatching up dogs left and right in order to make money and place them with the highest bidder when in fact they are most often operating on a wing and a prayer. If some of the policies touted here were to become law, there would be very few rescues left.


First - don't lump all rescues in the same "shiny" category. There are some groups that are poorly managed. I think that maybe there are reasons why people may have grudges or distrust of some rescues after bad experiences with some of those groups. 

I have the highest admiration for some people I know who foster and rescue for specific rescues here in Michigan. Not necessarily the breed rescues, but the all breed ones. There are awesome people out there who truly are in it for the dogs.

And I think everyone is grateful to those groups swooping in and either sponsoring dogs or rescuing them to keep them from being put to sleep, especially at those shelters that still gas the dogs. 

I mean I do know of humane societies and rescue groups who price dogs according to their breed or "want" factor. If I were looking for an ugly old mutt at one of these places, it would be a very cheap adoption. If I wanted to adopt a golden retriever who "looks" purebred, I would be paying almost as much as I would for a puppy from a middle of the road breeder ($600-700 instead of $900). <- That is going on. I don't think it means that these rescue groups are cutting corners and cutting deals with animal shelters to "hide" the purebred goldens during the waiting period and sneak them out the backdoor so they can sell them at top price. :uhoh: In the case here, these were two senior goldens. Maybe I'm wrong here, but seniors and sick dogs are usually priced cheaper to get them into homes faster. Right?


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

fostermom said:


> This is the response she had to another poster where she said that she knew several people who owned both a male and female, unaltered, but never had a litter. The bolded part is Lincoln's response to crgriffin.


My reading of it was different from yours - which often happens when you can't hear the words and get the intonations or see the body language. I read it as knowing several people who had unaltered males OR unaltered females. I didn't get the "together" part.


----------



## missmarstar (Jul 22, 2007)

laprincessa said:


> My reading of it was different from yours - which often happens when you can't hear the words and get the intonations or see the body language. I read it as knowing several people who had unaltered males OR unaltered females. I didn't get the "together" part.



That's how I read it too.


----------



## booklady (Mar 3, 2009)

Megora said:


> Maybe I'm wrong here, but seniors and sick dogs are usually priced cheaper to get them into homes faster. Right?


 
I can't speak for all rescues, only the one I am familiar with. Sick dogs are not placed up for adoption. Period. If it is something that is cureable, they remain in foster care until the the problem is solved at the expense of the rescue . If it is chronic, the dog becomes a permanent foster at the rescue's expense. Yes, there are conditions that are chronic that still allow the dog to be adoptable such as low thyroid, allergies, etc., but serious seizures, cancer, etc. mean the dog will remain in permanent foster care.

Seniors are cheaper(and God, I hate that word when applied to them because I know how special they can be) because they are harder to place and because the odds of future medical expenses are much greater. The reality is that they will be in foster longer than a younger dog and they and they will be costing the rescue more in vet bills. Whether they get adopted or not, the rescue will be taking care of them for life. 

The most that will be charged is for a less than a year pup ($400)...the least that will be charged is for a senior ($100). A very narrow window and a financial loser across the board. My two foster failures, a bonded pair, were adopted for $100. The rescue spent over $1000 getting them to this point and over the last three years since adopting them I've spent similar for medical alone. All I can feel is gratitude, Whether it's the adopter, the foster or the rescue...bless them all. No one in the program I know is trying to move them on without regard to the best-placement possible or for financial reasons. The dogs are and will always be the rescue's primary consideration and responsibility.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Megora said:


> I know a lot of people though obedience and agility and conformation who have not bred their dogs. Male and female. Do not breed. And neuter/spay later on.
> 
> And I've said before that my dog is intact and has never been nor will ever be bred. I am not a breeder. Even if I titled dogs in conformation and obedience, I still would not breed any of my dogs. That's not why I'm into dog sports.
> 
> ...


Sorry my post hit a nerve with you--I was of course speaking of the average every day Joe and Jane who don't participate in this forum and who don't do shows or agility or one on one organized activities with their dogs. Unfortunately, even with the best precautions among those who do not intend to breed, oops breedings happen, just like with humans.  Namaste.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

booklady said:


> Most of the dogs in the rescue I'm familiar with and help with when I can come from owner surrenders these days....even the shelter dogs that eventually end up in the rescue are most frequently owner surrenders or dogs seized from a hoarding situation or a puppy mill. Of course some are strays, but none are taken into rescue until the hold period is up and even then a concerted effort is made to find a previous owner. I have yet to hear of one who didn't tell the rescue to keep it.


I don't think in the south most of the Golden Retriever dogs coming into Golden Retriever rescue are owner surrenders--at least half, or more, are shelter dogs. 

I agree that sorting through the legal ramifications of returning a dog to an owner and reimbursing everyone can be very complicated. It's not easy. So much of this could be prevented by a microchip, collar with ID tags, keeping the dogs safely inside or in an enclosed area, better awareness on the part of the public on how to search for a lost dog and the risks of being left too long in a shelter, etc. 

I also totally agree that rescues aren't out trying to grab dogs from shelters to adopt out--they are definitely NOT profitable businesses! It may appear to the uneducated citizen that rescue volunteers are breaking down the doors of shelters to get the purebred dogs out before the owners can retrieve them, but that's not the case. It's simply the fact that if they don't get the dog out of the shelter asap, there is the risk the dog will be put down by the shelter and a risk the dog could contract a life-threatening illness from the shelter, such as distemper.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Dallas Gold said:


> Sorry my post hit a nerve with you--I was of course speaking of the average every day Joe and Jane who don't participate in this forum and who don't do shows or agility or one on one organized activities with their dogs. Unfortunately, even with the best precautions among those who do not intend to breed, oops breedings happen, just like with humans.  Namaste.


I as well. Too many pet owners in my area feel just because their dog is AKC registered, means that qualifies to breed the dog, they have no clue about Clearances, majority have never even heard of them. 



Dallas Gold said:


> I don't think in the south most of the Golden Retriever dogs coming into Golden Retriever rescue are owner surrenders--at least half, or more, are shelter dogs.
> 
> I agree that sorting through the legal ramifications of returning a dog to an owner and reimbursing everyone can be very complicated. It's not easy. So much of this could be prevented by a microchip, collar with ID tags, keeping the dogs safely inside or in an enclosed area, better awareness on the part of the public on how to search for a lost dog and the risks of being left too long in a shelter, etc.
> 
> I also totally agree that rescues aren't out trying to grab dogs from shelters to adopt out--they are definitely NOT profitable businesses! It may appear to the uneducated citizen that rescue volunteers are breaking down the doors of shelters to get the purebred dogs out before the owners can retrieve them, but that's not the case. It's simply the fact that if they don't get the dog out of the shelter asap, there is the risk the dog will be put down by the shelter and a risk the dog could contract a life-threatening illness from the shelter, such as distemper.


In my area of the South, the Group I was with, took in dogs from several ways-Shelter pulls, strays, and owner surrenders. 

A percentage ( and I dont' have the exact figure simly because the shelter can't provide it) of the dogs that were turned into shelters were actually Owner Surrenders, people get around having to pay the Surrender Fee by telling the shelter they found the dog as a Stray. The dog is then held the required number of days for an owner to claim it, then it is made available for Adoption to the public for 3-5 days before a Rescue Group is allowed to take the dog into Rescue.

Some shelters charge the Rescues a fee to pull the dog, some Shelters have a Reduced fee others do not charge at all. Then you have some dogs that are Only available to Rescue Groups because the dog has medical problems that need to be taken care of or the dog is HW+ and will have to have treatments.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

booklady said:


> Yes, there are conditions that are chronic that still allow the dog to be adoptable such as low thyroid, allergies, etc.,.


This is what I meant by sick.... though I probably used the wrong word as far as conveying what I intended (not surprising). I think the "special care" is the actual word I was looking for? These would be dogs who have chronic conditions or disabilities. 




Dallas Gold said:


> Sorry my post hit a nerve with you--I was of course speaking of the average every day Joe and Jane who don't participate in this forum and who don't do shows or agility or one on one organized activities with their dogs.


No nerve hit. : I just grabbed your comment instead of the others because it was closest to my pointer. There were others I could have quoted and I'd have said the same thing.

And please definitely understand - if you've seen my comments before, I do not believe keeping a dog intact necessarily is ideal for the average "household pet" dog owner. I've complained time and again about my neighbors who let their dogs wander. Or those who keep their dogs out in fenced yards where they routinely run through the wire or jump the fence. 

And I was talking with somebody at class last night... I think those of us who go to class kinda complain about how our dogs are idiots. : And it really means our dogs need training before we can go into the obedience ring and qualify or get top scores. We get so used to seeing our dog's failings, that we forget what good citizens they are when we are in public. 

*I guess I have to laugh here, because I just remembered how when I was at the vet this past weekend to pick up trifexis and get a weight on Jacks - we had all of these people raving about how well behaved and perfect he was. And all I was thinking was he was edging over and trying to visit with another dog in the waiting room. <- Something I do discourage anyway. He does not visit anyone, sniff any dog, look at any dog unless I allow it. So Jacks was IMO _bugging_ the other dog and the people there didn't even notice. 

My friend at class was aghast when she went to the vet and there was somebody there who had no control over her dog and didn't even realize how bad her dog was. 

What I was really saying is - yes, there are definitely responsible people out there who really can handle owning intact dogs without accidental breedings happening. From what I understand, the way the people I train with handle it - the females go on vacation at their breeder or a family member for the weeks that they are in heat. Unless they are experienced owners, and then they just handle the dogs themselves with whatever arrangements work for keeping the boys away from the girls. 

I do believe that the females are spayed after a certain point for health reasons. But a lot of the people I know leave the boys intact because they do not see any benefit to or reason for neutering them. 

Yes, definitely - those people are not everyone.

But please do not lump EVERYONE in the same category as those people who are reckless and carelesswith their dogs. We are not them. 

And because I do take every precaution and care with my intact golden to ensure he is not spawning, I do feel a combination of annoyance and amusement when people bounce around claiming that simply owning an intact dog contributes to the excess dogs in shelters and rescues. The only way that would be true is if my intact dog discovered a new evolutionary-survival technique for spawning by just existing in an intact way without even having to be near intact females.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

*Megora *my comment regarding spay/neuter of dogs was not directed at responsible pet owners, but to the overall general population. I hope you did not take offense because it was not intended nor was it directed towards you or anyone else that owns an unaltered pet and takes responsibility for them.


----------



## cgriffin (Nov 30, 2011)

I have been staying out of this conversation, because I think it is getting kind of ridiculous. Sorry!
This is geared towards Lincoln's owner:
Not that I have to justify my position on any subject to you or anybody else, but I think I have to respond to your accusations. I do not care whether YOU have your dogs spayed or neutered, first off. Secondly, my comment about "how many litters" these dogs had, is because I find it extremely difficult to have an intact pair in a household and not have breedings, whether by accident or intended. Hats off to you reputable breeders out there, who can handle this so well. 
But about this family here, sorry, but already having left these dogs out to run away,and then both being intact, did make me think BYB or irresponsible if you are not breeders. I am sure I am not the only one that wondered how many litters these dogs may or may not have had. 
I don't mind if somebody has an intact male at home or a couple males, or has an intact female dog or two at home - no males with it. That is your choice and between you and your vet. But I think if you are not a breeder and do not intend to breed, you should not have an intact pair at home, because there is always the potential that they breed by accident. Just my personal opinion.
Anyway, that is my last post on this subject. Have a nice day!


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Megora said:


> But please do not lump EVERYONE in the same category as those people who are reckless and carelesswith their dogs. We are not them.
> )


 Is this directed at me? If so, sheesh, I tried to apologize. :banghead::banghead::banghead:


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> *Megora *my comment regarding spay/neuter of dogs was not directed at responsible pet owners, but to the overall general population.


But when you have broad statements chanted repeatedly like "Neuter your pet, think about all of the shelter dogs who won't be there if your dog is neutered".... 

I just have to say that I have never contributed to the amount of dogs in shelters. And whether intended or not, those broad statements imply such.

You have legislation punishing ALL dog owners for having intact dogs. And making life difficult for those of us who want to keep our dogs legally but can't afford the licenses, etc, or who risk having our dogs confiscated if we do not pay those ridiculous penalties.

These things affect everyone - not just your bad owners who are either breeding their dogs or letting them spawn. 

The same thing is true with rescues who treat everyone with an intact dog as an irresponsible and bad owner. 

Simply owning an intact dog does not make you a bad owner.

Bad owners are bad owners. You know them when you see their dogs in shelters or running loose or spawning with all the neighborhood dogs or whatever. Bad owners have no vet references or training references, because they do not provide that much care for their dogs. 

@Dallas Gold, my responses here are not directed at anyone personally. It's just the whole mentality that I do have to respond to when it comes up repeatedly.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

I did not call anyone a bad owner, did not say what I consider a bad owner is, nor did I say that anyone who owns an unaltered pet is a bad owner.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> I did not call anyone a bad owner, did not say what I consider a bad owner is, nor did I say that anyone who owns an unaltered pet is a bad owner.


Again, I was not responding to you or anyone directly.

If you read through this thread, there are comments made that essentially imply that the owners should not get their dogs back because they were intact when found.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I do have to chime in. I have an intact 'pair'. I normally have intact males, but have the good fortune of a beautiful girl living with me (who has an amazing pedigree). I do obedience, rally, agility and now field. There are many reasons I choose to keep my animals intact and they are based on research and my feelings that hormones are indeed a good thing. 

I have just made arrangements as to where my girl will be going the very first day she goes into season - please do not assume a house can never have an intact pair without them breeding. 

I know many, many folks with pairs who are never bred; these owners manage their dogs and are aware of what is going on around them - it is more difficult if the girl has silent seasons but even then an observant owner who is paying attention to their dogs reactions, breedings are not inevitable. 

And honestly, castrated or intact, spayed or intact - you need to pay attention to your dogs anyhow. Castration / hysterectomies do not relieve the owner of their responsibilities as a pet owner, just one aspect of pet ownership.




cgriffin said:


> I have been staying out of this conversation, because I think it is getting kind of ridiculous. Sorry!
> This is geared towards Lincoln's owner:
> Not that I have to justify my position on any subject to you or anybody else, but I think I have to respond to your accusations. I do not care whether YOU have your dogs spayed or neutered, first off. Secondly, my comment about "how many litters" these dogs had, is because I find it extremely difficult to have an intact pair in a household and not have breedings, whether by accident or intended. Hats off to you reputable breeders out there, who can handle this so well.
> But about this family here, sorry, but already having left these dogs out to run away,and then both being intact, did make me think BYB or irresponsible if you are not breeders. I am sure I am not the only one that wondered how many litters these dogs may or may not have had.
> ...


----------



## A1Malinois (Oct 28, 2011)

My two previous dogs' breeder has never had an accidental unplanned litter. My Aunt owns two Poodles male/female that have never bred, my tech friend owns male/female who have never bred. These people also have owned intact females until they died from medical issues totally unrelated to being intact, same with their males.

Just because animals are being killed in shelters weekly doesnt mean I should spay or neuter. My dogs do not contribute to the over population problem therefore I am not the reason why these dogs are being killed. I dont fall for the guilt trip people pull "Oh but countless amounts of animals are being murdered in shelters because people refuse to spay/neuter" No, I dont really care. Its only their fault when their dogs breed. 

I totally agree that there are some people who should have their dogs taken, spayed/neutered and returned I am not denying that. But simply saying an owner shouldnt have their dog back because it wasnt fixed is ludacris. Sure, they could be a BYB and if thats the case then they shouldnt get them back. 

But for all you people know they are loving people who prefer to not play God with their animals, keep them intact and never breed them. You dont know what they are like you are only assuming based on the fact they are intact. 

I dont keep my pets intact because they will lose their manliness. I have nothing against doing a vasectomy either on a dog to prevent it from having a litter but you dont find a vet willing to do that. So I dont neuter at all until I find a vet willing to meet me half way. 

We dont know the whole situation surrounding how they got out. If they were off leash and took off well yes. Regardless if the dog is fixed or not ANY dog who is able to get out of their yard and wander is not being watched enough. Its irresponsible for ANY dog spayed/neuter or intact to get loose. There were comments made and how they were worded implied the only reason why they shouldnt get them back was because they arent fixed. 

I choose to keep my pets intact for certain reasons, you choose to neuter for reasons I think are...let me find a nice way to put it...unreasonable. While you think I keep my pets intact for unreasonable reasons. Its my opinion as its yours. I choose to not vaccinate for my own reasons, I choose to not vaccinate myself for certain reasons, I have chosen to not get that stupid vaccine to prevent cervical cancer (I cannot remember the name...Gardasil?) because I think its pathetic to do so. If I dont get cervical cancer ill get some other type of cancer, same reason I dont believe in sun screen unless im going to fry on a beach all day. 

Opinions are what make the world go round. If we all shared the same ones it would be one heck of a boring world. What bothers me is when you are HATED on a forum because your opinions do not match every one elses. Theres a couple people on here that drive me bonkers sometimes when I read their posts but I dont hate them nor do I ignore them, it wouldnt be mature IMO for me to do that. We are all adults...we put our opinions out there, disagree and get over it. Now I need some serious sushi...


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

Megora said:


> Again, I was not responding to you or anyone directly.
> 
> If you read through this thread, there are comments made that essentially imply that the owners should not get their dogs back because they were intact when found.


There was also an immediate condemnation of them as byb's as soon as it was learned that the dogs were intact.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sunrise said:


> And honestly, castrated or intact, spayed or intact - you need to pay attention to your dogs anyhow. Castration / hysterectomies do not relieve the owner of their responsibilities as a pet owner, just one aspect of pet ownership.


And this is what it comes down to. 

We would have a lot fewer dogs in shelters if people would:

1. Do not take in dogs if they are not going to be able to provide shelter, care, and hold themselves responsible for these animals for the entirety of that dog's life. If you have a small dog that could reasonably live 15-18 years, that's how long that owner needs to be prepared to keep that dog and provide adequate (and hopefully they are going over and above) care and shelter. 

2. Learn from their little mistakes before big mistakes happen.

^ I know Sharon/Sunrise keeps her dogs outside during some portions of the day, but I would bet they have never gotten out and Sharon has gone over and above to make sure that never happens. And her dogs are well trained in addition to that.

But there are so many people who take so many chances and risks with their dogs. 

Probably one example I can think of is that while I was chasing down a neighbor's pitbull mix, there were other dogs joining the chase from who knows where. :uhoh: Like they were just outside and the owners reasoned that since they live on a winding dirt road that the dogs would stay close to the house and not get hit by any cars. 

And of course, I keep bringing my neighbors dogs back to them and dropping hints about how I couldn't just leave their dogs standing in the middle of the road since people drive like maniacs through that hilly and curvy area. These people thank me profusely, and then the next week their dogs are out in the road again. 

Definitely, I side with anyone who wants those people to neuter and spay their dogs - and thankfully they all are. And definitely, I support vets pushing people into neutering/spaying their pets - especially the cats or those runaway type breeds (hounds, huskies, shepherds, boxers, labs, etc). 

Neutering/spaying is not mutiliation. In some cases and with most people it is a necessity. But I would hope it still be their choice.

I would probably push for higher penalties and fines against people whose dogs wind up in animal shelters, except I would suspect that would unfortunately mean those people never picking up their dogs. <- I have a feeling that's why people don't pick up their dogs sometimes as it is.


----------



## Side-O-Sea Goldens (Apr 17, 2012)

I just read that article. Extremely sad situation. Government agencies have gotten so inflexible these days. I take no chances... I always chip my Goldens. I hope they are evenually returned to their true family.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Wow, this thread has totally gone way out in left field. Also the title implies the dogs were stolen from the original owners by animal control and not picked up as stray or lost dogs. 

People will never agree, so just agree to disagree and stop with the wild judgements.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Sunrise said:


> I have an intact 'pair'. I normally have intact males, but have the good fortune of a beautiful girl living with me...I have just made arrangements as to where my girl will be going the very first day she goes into season - please do not assume a house can never have an intact pair without them breeding.


But see, you actually won't have an intact pair living together during the time when the female can be bred. You're taking her elsewhere, correct? Why are you taking her somewhere else during her heat? Is it because you don't want the possibility of an accidental breeding? Why not leave her at your place and manage the situation. Too much of a risk? You just validated how difficult it is to manage two intact dogs during a time when a breeding could take place and you're _extremely_ familiar with dogs and training. How difficult would the situation be for people that don't have your knowledge. Next to impossible most likely... 



Megora said:


> And definitely, I support vets pushing people into neutering/spaying their pets - especially the cats or those runaway type breeds (hounds, huskies, shepherds, boxers, labs, etc).


I think that any breed of dog will be a runaway breed if the male is intact and he smells a female in heat. Leaving an intact male unattended in your yard is, _IMO_, (*again* _IMO_), irresponsible. Not only will he try everything to get out if there should be a female in heat, but he could very well hurt himself in the process.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

Nope. Managing the 2 males is why my girlie is sent off, plus her co-owner has more secure facilities. I could make my home easier to manage but I do not need to.

ETA: I should mention that it is not managing the 2 boys to stay away from my girl, but rather from them getting testy with each other. I just don't need the low growling, and evil eyes they give each other when my girl is 'attractive'.


----------



## Bellanjake (Apr 16, 2012)

How do i make my own post on this thread?


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Sunrise said:


> Nope. Managing the 2 males is why my girlie is sent off, plus her co-owner has more secure facilities. I could make my home easier to manage but I do not need to.
> 
> ETA: I should mention that it is not managing the 2 boys to stay away from my girl, but rather from them getting testy with each other. I just don't need the low growling, and evil eyes they give each other when my girl is 'attractive'.



You just made my point...in that it's a difficult situation to manage intact animals for anyone, even those with a lot of experience. I doubt that the _average_ pet owner has "secure facilities" inplace to prevent a breeding. Even you, with your knowledge and experience, seeks help during this time.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I never said keeping females in season with males did not require planning. I did say that having intact 'pairs' does not mean they will be bred. 

Yes, the males need to be kept seperate from females in season. But this can (and often is) a crated girl behind a closed door. The boys would be crated or behind closed doors when the girl is brought out for training and/or exercise and/or family time. The males and females are not left alone together. This is the responsibility I was speaking of. For me it is easier, yes, since my girl's co-owner is willing to take her in.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Bellanjake said:


> How do i make my own post on this thread?


Just like you posted this note. 

If you want to start a new thread, go the main page of the forum section you want to put it in and click on "New Thread" at the top.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Sunrise said:


> I never said keeping females in season with males did not require planning. I did say that having intact 'pairs' does not mean they will be bred.


I agree, but the likelihood of it happening is tremendous if the owners are not fully prepared and aware of just how far dogs will go to breed. 



Sunrise said:


> Yes, the males need to be kept seperate from females in season. But this can (and often is) a crated girl behind a closed door. The boys would be crated or behind closed doors when the girl is brought out for training and/or exercise and/or family time.


I've known a lot of dogs go through doors to get to a female. I've also know dogs to breed through crates, chain link fencing and other ways that were not believed possible. 

My friend used to show her Am. Staffs. Her dogs were intact, obviously. The first time her female went into heat, (she had a very secure place for her), her male went crazy. After her heat was over, he looked like an abuse case. He didn't eat almost the whole time she was in season. He was sooo skinny. All he thought about was the female. From then on, she took the female to her breeder when she was in heat. I just can't imagine putting a _pet_ male through that. I think it's wrong. That's why I can't understand keeping a male and female together, that are strictly pets, intact.


----------



## elly (Nov 21, 2010)

Hi, this thread has now gone off topic, in keeping with forum rules, can you please bring it back on topic and start a new thread for any other unrelated issues to the original post you may want to discuss. Thank you


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

ETA - I'm sorry Elly. I took so long to post my comment, I didn't see yours before I hit send. I wasn't ignoring... 



> My friend used to show her Am. Staffs. Her dogs were intact, obviously. The first time her female went into heat, (she had a very secure place for her), her male went crazy. After her heat was over, he looked like an abuse case. He didn't eat almost the whole time she was in season. He was sooo skinny. All he thought about was the female. From then on, she took the female to her breeder when she was in heat. I just can't imagine putting a _pet_ male through that. I think it's wrong. That's why I can't understand keeping a male and female together, that are strictly pets, intact.


I think again this is why every breeder I know of that requires the 12-24 month wait before spay will go the extra mile to take the female back during those weeks that she's in heat rather than risk witchy behavior between that female and other female dogs in the household, and also to prevent the male dogs (even the neutered guys) from going nuts. 

As far as intact male dogs being driven into a state because of females in heat - I've never seen any of my dogs go through things like that. We have always trained at clubs where there are females in heat, and I'm sure that people who live in our area do not always spay the girls before their first heat. 

Prior to joining GRF, I didn't actually know that intact boys flaked out like that just from being in the vicinity of a female in heat. I've never seen it. <- I'm sure it happens, but I guess I'm saying if I were going through anything like that with my guys, they would be neutered as soon as possible.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

As much as animal control/vet clinic/YGRR has been bashed, just take a look at the thread for the missing Sand Dancer GR pup and the search that has entailed to bring this boy home...night and day different than the one launched by B&J's family.

I also think back to the months I searched for Andy (missing GR in IL), we were traipsing through snow covered fields in Dec/Jan, working with the Sheriffs to get access/permission to enter "private" land, plastering communities with Lost Dog signs, pestering/visiting shelters & vet clinics daily, going door to door with handouts, blasting out emails to every rescue org in the area, chasing down every lead...list goes on. His owners despite from being out of town had his medical records & microchip info available for handouts to vet clinics. 

I don't doubt that J&B were loved by their family, unfortunately love doesn't keep a golden safely contained & supervised. I'm confident the stringent adoption standards that YGRR maintains has set these goldens up with an outstanding home.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

elly said:


> Hi, this thread has now gone off topic, in keeping with forum rules, can you please bring it back on topic...


But, you know what?...Sometimes when threads go off topic, (in a civil way of course ), that's when the education starts. I like when threads take different turns, it's shows that we're paying attention and that we're really thinking in a good way. Just thought I'd throw that out there...


----------



## mybuddy (Mar 2, 2007)

letz tawk ubout da toona!!! :greenboun




oopz...soweee...rong fred.

eye appalgize.


da buddy


----------



## rockymom (Apr 18, 2012)

* "I'm confident the stringent adoption standards that YGRR maintains has set these goldens up with an outstanding home."

Try to understand: it does not matter a fairy fart if the new home is outstanding, it's not the dogs' home because their real family of 9 years is looking for them. The family might not meet your high standards for an "outstanding home", but the family looked for these dogs to the best of their ability. 
*


----------



## elly (Nov 21, 2010)

kwhit said:


> But, you know what?...Sometimes when threads go off topic, (in a civil way of course ), that's when the education starts. I like when threads take different turns, it's shows that we're paying attention and that we're really thinking in a good way. Just thought I'd throw that out there...
> 
> Paying attention and thinking and educatings great..but thats the point when you need to say something like 'rather than taking this thread off topic here, I'm starting a new thread titled *********, please join me there'  That way the threads stay tidy and on topic and people know that your new thread is a lead on from that thread.
> I hope thats helpful.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

It doesn't sit right with me the number of folks that are pressing for the return of the goldens despite having no info regarding the quality of life Bella & Jake experienced in their first home. From the pics on Facebook, a collar is present on one dog (no visible tags) and not the other. Their lack of a search for these pups despite their professed love for them and just assuming they were shot. Even now, the FB page isn't maintained by the family and we're still not sure that the GRF acct is the family either. So outside of getting their name in the paper, they still haven't come forward to fight for the return. Plenty of questions have been asked of the family and ZERO have been answered. I have 2 rescues, one of which came in as a stray. You can bet I will fight for the life of my boy should a previous owner come forward--they had better prove that they provided the medical care and life style worthy of a golden and based on his medical issues he had upon intake, I find that doubtful. If you want to take the stance that goldens are "property" and therefore quality of life and care aren't factors, then keep in mind that no laws were broken by animal control--hold periods required by law were followed. Morally, the ACO was lazy, but lawfully, nothing was violated. 

As for the family searching for the goldens to the best of their ability, well if their ability prevents them from providing for their goldens and keeping them out of harm's way does it still make it right to put B&J back into that situation?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

I think the reason why people are nervous and upset is these were senior dogs. And judging by the pictures of them, they had been well-cared for by their actual owners. They are happy dogs, clean, healthy.

If there had been evidence of neglect or abuse, I'm sure that would have been mentioned already.

About now, the only thing people can bring up is the fact that these dogs had no identification on them, were intact, and their actual owners apparently were not smart enough to thoroughly check every shelter or form a community effort to find their dogs. 

The fact that these people had no way of proving these dogs were theirs, other than the fact that it was the same area that their dogs were lost and they had pictures of their dogs and it tracked back to the animal control - that is tragic. But it's not a reason to be brushing this off as not a huge deal. 

If you are a dog owner, this should be a huge deal. 

I would place the blame on animal control for not doing better by these dogs. 

Where the rescue is concerned, they have a public relations issue here, because they aren't even addressing how this could be avoided going forward. Obviously they can't force the people who adopted those two dogs to return the dogs, and I would not expect or wish them to do so. But I guess I know that some rescues do very little when it comes to checking around after they rescue dogs.

Sometimes there is a huge hurry to get these dogs out of shelters, and I appreciate all of those rescues who step up and get the dogs out of there the instant the holding period passes. 

But after that... I guess if you have cases where these dogs were well cared for and loved, would it hurt so much to just check around before adopting these dogs out? It's not like these dogs are immediately adopted out. It's not like they are going to turn around and have these dogs adopted out within the week. 

I don't think people should be trying to deflect any blame from the rescue by criticizing the actual owners of those two dogs. 

Not having a collar on - <- My dog does not wear a collar unless we are walking or I'm taking him somewhere (and even then, the collar isn't on until I've stopped the car and am letting him out). 

Not having a license or any proof other than a rabies tag (? Unless I'm confusing stories here) <- The majority of dog owners out there do not have dog licenses for their dogs. And microchips are hit or miss if the breeder or rescue didn't do this. I know a lot of people simply do not go out of their way to have their dogs chipped, even when it's cheaper. <- Our first three goldens did not have chips. 

Being intact <- nuff said already. :

Somebody brought up Andy already, right? As I remember, my first reaction when I read that story was upset that this dog was left outside at night in winter, while visiting people in a different state, etc. And then there just were not any or enough pictures of him to match up to Andy. There were other things about that story that bothered me, including the fact that the owner was able to go back home and only go back to search on weekends. <- Some of my gut reactions kinda came back when the owner said a few things, basically that people talked big but didn't put the effort into helping him find his dog. But even there, I believe that everyone else felt the same way I did and wanted to see that dog reunited with his family. Because that could have been our dog, and that could have been us in that position.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

I think the reason people are so upset about this is because they are imagining it happening to them.

I still don't understand why people excuse the owners for doing barely anything (who have every reason in the world to go above and beyond) but are quick to blame AC & the rescue for not doing more than what they are required. Lets not forget these dogs would have most likely been put to sleep if not for the rescue stepping up. It seems we are putting the burden on the wrong people here (IMO). Even by their own statement, when the dogs first went missing they made a few phone calls and talked to some neighbors. But for some reason they expect everyone else to go above and beyond what they were actually willing to do for THEIR OWN dogs. 
Remember, these dogs went missing in November. All of this attention is just in the last few weeks.
Plus, I actually question the owners truthfulness as well. The owners stated the dogs had collar and tags. The ACO said only one had a collar with no tag. The picture shows 1 collar, no tags and 1 with no collar. Who seems more credible.

I do feel for the people, because again, we can all imagine this happening to ourselves. But I can't help but feel that they are mainly responsible for their own suffering because of their own lack of doing anything.
If they had put in this much effort when the dogs went missing, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And, as for license and chipping. My city (and I assume most) have the license fee as part of the rabies certificate. When you get a rabies shot, you get a city license at the same time.
And yes, I did get my first dog chipped on my own. The rest of the pets came that way from the shelter. And all of the chips are registered.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Jennifer1 said:


> And, as for license and chipping. My city (and I assume most) have the license fee as part of the rabies certificate. When you get a rabies shot, you get a city license at the same time.


I have never heard of this. Glad my city doesn't do this, because we have a mandatory spay/neuter for any pet over 6 months, otherwise you are paying $250 to $300 to license you cat or dog. 

I have lived in two different states, 3 different cities. None of their rabies certificates have anything to do with the city license. The vet gives one, and the city gives the other with proof of the vet's. I have chosen not to license my dogs and cats at this time, partly because I have moved from a 3 year rabies vaccine state to a 1 year, and I wanted the 3 years to expire before going to the one year. My dogs do not wear their rabies tags, only their id tags. Years ago I had two dogs get stuck together while wrestling because of all the tags on their collar, so I do not allow my dogs to wear more than one tag.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

I live in a very small unincoperated area, we are not required to have City Licenses for our animals here. If you live in the next town, which is less than a mile, the residents are required to have City Licenses for their pets. The fee varies, the amount is based on whether or not your pet(s) is altered. 


Our Rabies Certificates are through the County, totally separate from each town in the County. 


I think having the Rabies and City License fees rolled into one is a good idea myself, another form of identification especially since we only have one Vet Clinic in the area within a 25 mile radius.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

cubbysan said:


> I have never heard of this. Glad my city doesn't do this, because we have a mandatory spay/neuter for any pet over 6 months, otherwise you are paying $250 to $300 to license you cat or dog.


If our local government did something like this, I would be jumping on the titer bandwagon. 

Rabies is seperate from licenses where I live. Other than a form of identification if my dog wound up at an animal shelter and miraculously enough was wearing his collar, I only see licenses as a tax for owning a dog. You could buy a seperate tag with your name and address and phone number on it and it would come out cheaper. 

I've dragged my feet about paying $25 every year to license my dog... I can't imagine living somewhere where we would be talking about hundreds of dollars! I wouldn't do it.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

You're right, it's just another form of Revenue for a town. 

In some towns here in my state, the money is used to fund Clinics, such as HW, spay/neuter clincs, etc.


----------



## goldenlvr98 (Apr 12, 2012)

*What are the previous owners trying to accomplish through facebook?*

What confuses me about this case, other than the lack of effort in searching 6 months ago when the dogs were lost, is what the previous owners are hoping to accomplish through Facebook and media exposure?

According the YGRR website part of the adoption terms state that "3. Return policy If, for any reason, the adoption is not satisfactory for the YGRR dog or the adoptive owner, YGRR requires that the dog be
returned to YGRR. The Rescue dog cannot legally be sold or given away. YGRR reserves the right to take back any Rescue dog that is neglected,
improperly cared for, or allowed to run free unsupervised."

http://www.ygrr.org/adopt/Adoption_Application.pdf

Therefore all these people pleading with the new owners to "have a heart" will ultimately not lead to anything if YGRR does not believe they were fit owners who should be returned their dogs. I think we should keep in mind (as others have posted) that we have only been given the previous owners position. Which makes me suspect that there are valid reasons why the rescue when speaking with the previous owners made it clear that they would not be returned the dogs. 

The fb page said (in answering for the prev. owners) "Bring Bella and Jake Home They [YGRR] talked with one of the owners [the warrens]. Said they would not give out any info,they abandoned their dogs,they are in a loving home now and will be taken care of the way they needed to be."

I'm assuming that they are not pursuing legal action (as far as I know) because they recognize that the law was followed. Even if morally we believe the ACO could have done more in her efforts of reuniting the original owners with the dogs.

It seems that the only outcome of all this exposure would be that the new owners information would be identified and then they could face harassment and pressure to return the dogs. If that became too much for them their only course of action (that would not result in a lawsuit against them) would be to return the dogs to YGRR. In which case these dogs would then go through another adoption process. These dogs are settled with their new owners after being with them for 3-5 months. Why uproot them if they wouldn't even be returned? 

I think its very said that the original owners didn't take all this media action 6 months ago, and that they only called the Ellsworth clinic 3+ weeks after the dogs had been missing. In addition to all of the other factors that have previously been discussed in this forum. It is especially sad for the children that their parents didn't do more originally and just assumed the dogs were shot. Who knows how this story would have turned out if they had taken all this action sooner? But I think at this point in the timeline everyone needs to accept that the new owners are not in a position to return the dogs. All they can do is love and care for them.

sorry that was so long... figured I'd just put all my thoughts in one post


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> You're right, it's just another form of Revenue for a town.
> 
> In some towns here in my state, the money is used to fund Clinics, such as HW, spay/neuter clincs, etc.


And they are always asking for donations because there is not enough money for everything they need. 

I've donated to shelters and rescues. More money a year than just that $25. And I'll be the first person to say that if you do not personally have time or the emotional control to actually go out to shelters and devote time there working with the animals (I can't, I get too emotional and upset) or fostering for rescues and humane societies, you can go shopping once in a while and drop stuff off for the dogs. Bones, treats, dog food, toys, blankets, beds, shampoos, cleaning supplies, money for frontline, etc. These are things you can do as your part if you love dogs. 

If I were suddenly given the hardship of having to pay $200-300 a year for a license/rabies tag, I would have to get that money from elsewhere in my budget. Which means less money to donate. And I would be pretty angry too, and I would probably cut support of shelters completely - which is probably vindictive, but I assume that since they only keep the dogs for a few days and are getting more money from the county, then they won't be hurting if I instead give that "whatever's left in the budget" money to people who are paying veterinary care, training, feeding, and keeping these dogs for months prior to placing these dogs.


----------



## BajaOklahoma (Sep 27, 2009)

This is my third state, sixth city. All of them require a license, which is tied with the rabies. And this is not new - I remember the same for childhood pets.
Our unspayed and unneutered licenses run around 15 - 25, depending on the city, so it does vary by location.
And you'd better have the license on your pet when it is out in public, subject to fines if you don't. But our city also requires visible poopbags or they will fine you. The good news is there isn't any restriction on the number of pets - you just have to be able to take care of them.

Still, if my pets were lost, I would be taking several days off work to look for them, as would my husband. We have pictures stored with various family members, so they would be available in the event our house was destroyed (tornado anyone?).


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

BajaOklahoma said:


> Still, if my pets were lost, I would be taking several days off work to look for them, as would my husband. We have pictures stored with various family members, so they would be available in the event our house was destroyed (tornado anyone?).


This thread has also gotten me thinking that maybe I should have a hard copy file set up, and in it have pictures of identifying marks of my pets, and very identifiable pictures of my dogs from all angles, even though they are chipped. It would take me days to contact and drive to all the shelters around here, I wouldn't have time to put together and print things up, although I believe HomeAgain does that as part of the annual fee.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Megora said:


> If our local government did something like this, I would be jumping on the titer bandwagon.
> 
> Rabies is seperate from licenses where I live. Other than a form of identification if my dog wound up at an animal shelter and miraculously enough was wearing his collar, I only see licenses as a tax for owning a dog. You could buy a seperate tag with your name and address and phone number on it and it would come out cheaper.
> 
> I've dragged my feet about paying $25 every year to license my dog... I can't imagine living somewhere where we would be talking about hundreds of dollars! I wouldn't do it.


I believe a big part of why the city does this is to try to discourage puppy mills in the area ( and also for revenue). In Missouri this is a big industry, and my city has tons of farmland. I think once the pet is neutered, then it is one lifetime license. 

I hope I am not getting too off topic again...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

cubbysan said:


> I believe a big part of why the city does this is to try to discourage puppy mills in the area ( and also for revenue). In Missouri this is a big industry, and my city has tons of farmland. I think once the pet is neutered, then it is one lifetime license....


But does it actually discourage the puppy mills?

That's the problem when you have legislation passed to get at these puppy mills or to stop puppy mill breeders and to protect the dogs. It's a great object, but the legislation just punishes those people who are legit and actually GOOD breeders and or responsible owners. Meanwhile, the baddies just cut corners and/or happily pay whatever fines (if they do) and keep doing what they are doing.


----------



## Noey (Feb 26, 2009)

goldenlvr98 said:


> What confuses me about this case, other than the lack of effort in searching 6 months ago when the dogs were lost, is what the previous owners are hoping to accomplish through Facebook and media exposure?
> 
> According the YGRR website part of the adoption terms state that "3. Return policy If, for any reason, the adoption is not satisfactory for the YGRR dog or the adoptive owner, YGRR requires that the dog be
> returned to YGRR. The Rescue dog cannot legally be sold or given away. YGRR reserves the right to take back any Rescue dog that is neglected,
> ...


I think the owners had been looking and randomly came across the dogs recently via a picture on the rescue website. . . and contacted the rescue to get info. on the dogs. The rescue, according to them, pulled all images of the dogs that are in question. They are now trying via a public route to get to the dogs they just located on the rescue site. In finding them on the site they were able to track the story back to figure out what happened...or something of this nature. I'm sure she can clarify.


----------



## unaffected (Apr 13, 2011)

Bellanjake said:


> How do i make my own post on this thread?


Was kind of hoping to read something by this person, but I guess they never figured it out...? I realize it may not be the true former owner, but curiosity has gotten the best of me!


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

unaffected said:


> Was kind of hoping to read something by this person, but I guess they never figured it out...? I realize it may not be the true former owner, but curiosity has gotten the best of me!


 
I was a little confused by what the poster was trying to do. Maybe start a new thread??


----------



## unaffected (Apr 13, 2011)

cubbysan said:


> I was a little confused by what the poster was trying to do. Maybe start a new thread??


I think so, based on the fact that they had posted 3 times in this thread prior to their question.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

I don't think people should be pointing the finger at YGRR. They have a mission to fulfill, to rescue seemingly abandoned and surrendered golden retrievers, which they do successfully. It's too bad that they can't have a heart in this case, though.

I can understand the Warren's belief that the dogs may have been shot - that's often a safe assumption with dogs who run off during deer hunting season (most of November) in rural areas of Maine. At a distance, the color of a golden's fur is not all that different from a deer. Heck, we've had hunters shoot cows here in Vermont!

The real issues seem to be the laziness of the ACO officer, Ms. Zwicker, and the haste with which the Small Animal Clinic released the dogs. When I get back to Maine, I'm planning to find out WHY so many towns have contracts with this facility. I'm betting the price is right. The SAC also runs a boarding kennel next door. Needless to say, I don't use this vet or kennel for Wakefield.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

cubbysan said:


> This thread has also gotten me thinking that maybe I should have a hard copy file set up, and in it have pictures of identifying marks of my pets, and very identifiable pictures of my dogs from all angles, even though they are chipped. It would take me days to contact and drive to all the shelters around here, I wouldn't have time to put together and print things up, although I believe HomeAgain does that as part of the annual fee.


My guys are chipped through Home Again, they provide Free ID Cards for each registered dog. I have a photo ID of each, also one that fits on my key ring. 

You can request up to two per year per dog free of charge.

I think some of the other Chip Manufacturers have a similiar program.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> My guys are chipped through Home Again, they provide Free ID Cards for each registered dog. I have a photo ID of each, also one that fits on my key ring.
> 
> You can request up to two per year per dog free of charge.
> 
> I think some of the other Chip Manufacturers have a similiar program.


Brady is chipped with Home Again, I didn't know they did that - but then again I never sent his picture in to them.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Also for ID purposes, make a mental note or whatever you have to do of unique physical characteristics of your dogs. Chance has a few very "weird" physical features that are all his own. I know that in knowing those specific features, there would be no disputing he was mine. Chance has a mole in a certain spot that he's had for years. I have pictures of it. Both close up and a body shot. I won't depend on just the chip. 

Take pictures of treat spots on their tongues, or a birthmark type spot on their skin, anything that would differentiate them from another Golden. Of course _we_ can tell the difference in just looking at our dogs and from pictures, but the average ACO or citizen will just see "a Golden". To have specifics of physical traits would be extra insurance in proving that they're your dog(s).

That's one thing about mixes, Lucy would be very easy to identify just from pictures...:


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

I think we are getting off topic once again. As elly suggested here is a thread where we can list ideas and suggestions on proving ownership of our dogs should they go missing like in the Franklin case:

http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retrievers-main-discussion/113278-ways-prove-ownership-your-dog.html#post1690724


----------



## rockymom (Apr 18, 2012)

"I still don't understand why people excuse the owners for doing barely anything (who have every reason in the world to go above and beyond) but are quick to blame AC & the rescue for not doing more than what they are required."

Facts = wrong
:doh:

Good thing 362 people don't share your inability to understand!
:wave:


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

rockymom said:


> "I still don't understand why people excuse the owners for doing barely anything (who have every reason in the world to go above and beyond) but are quick to blame AC & the rescue for not doing more than what they are required."
> 
> Facts = wrong
> :doh:
> ...


And because 362 people believe the story as presented that means that the story is true? Interesting. Good thing I am willing to think for myself and look at all of the "facts" as they have been presented and understand that a huge chunk of information is missing.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

Megora said:


> Somebody brought up Andy already, right? As I remember, my first reaction when I read that story was upset that this dog was left outside at night in winter, while visiting people in a different state, etc. And then there just were not any or enough pictures of him to match up to Andy. There were other things about that story that bothered me, including the fact that the owner was able to go back home and only go back to search on weekends. <- Some of my gut reactions kinda came back when the owner said a few things, basically that people talked big but didn't put the effort into helping him find his dog.


Just have to address this, the exhaustive search for Andy was real--I was there from Dec until March (when I relocated to Georgia). Andy's Dad was active duty in the Army passing through on leave--stationed in North Carolina. His command approved an extension to his leave, but Uncle Sam can't extend leave indefinitely hence the need to commute on weekends--quite the haul between Illinois and North Carolina. Several other forum members participated in the search in addition to volunteers from Dirks Funds and other rescues. There was no exaggeration. As for Andy being outside, he was outside for the length of dinner. Andy's dad & mom were actually staying with another family in a nearby town where both of their dogs could reside inside for their time spent in Illinois--I also witnessed that.

This what bugs me the most about the B&J case, their family's lack of effort and the need to cast blame elsewhere. I seriously think if YGRR had evidence that these goldens were cared for (vet records, search effort, current pics of the dogs vice a handful from when they were young) they'd have no issue returning the goldens. Had the family acted responsibly and the ACO had done more than the minimum, we wouldn't be sitting here now 6 mos after the fact debating this.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

SheetsSM said:


> Just have to address this, the exhaustive search for Andy was real--I was there from Dec until March (when I relocated to Georgia). Andy's Dad was active duty in the Army passing through on leave--stationed in North Carolina. His command approved an extension to his leave, but Uncle Sam can't extend leave indefinitely hence the need to commute on weekends--quite the haul between Illinois and North Carolina. Several other forum members participated in the search in addition to volunteers from Dirks Funds and other rescues. There was no exaggeration. As for Andy being outside, he was outside for the length of dinner. Andy's dad & mom were actually staying with another family in a nearby town where both of their dogs could reside inside for their time spent in Illinois--I also witnessed that.


I know. I watched that thread and I was one of those worrying about Andy and searching the best I could from 8 hours driving distance away. And my family down in St. Louis did a little help looking around on their own. It's why I felt... sad... when Andy's dad accused people of just talking instead of helping. 

I can't imagine my dog being outside in a yard where there was any chance of him getting loose and running far enough before I noticed he was missing. In winter. At night. <- These and other things (lack of pictures, family members not staying behind to actively search day and night, etc) were immediately in my mind even when I was trying to help, what little I could to reunite that dog with his rightful family.

The reason why I brought up that story is not intended to be hurtful to Andy's dad if he still checks in here, or his friends, or those wonderful people who were so deeply involved with helping him. 

I'm just trying to show at least one case that everyone is aware of where there may have been perceived mistakes that led to that dog vanishing. Those mistakes do not make the rightful owners unworthy of getting their dogs back, if there is any chance of that.

ETA - Here is another example that I just saw this evening:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...30655&set=o.264553563570926&type=1&permPage=1

Young female golden. No word on whether she was spayed or not.
No collar, no microchip.
Got out of her yard or was stolen (I have no idea if this was a fenced yard or not). 

Would you pass judgement on this family for making the same mistakes that allowed their dog to vanish?


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

There have been some updates on their Facebook page. The Boston Herald will be doing a story tomorrow, and they have been talking with two television stations.

They also recapped the story that the dogs were registered, and if the animal officer had contacted the few golden owners in the town, the would have their dogs, plus the ACO did not admit to having the dogs until after Yankee had them. Also, there was some discussion that nobody in that part of Maine has fenced in backyards.

Just hoping to put some pieces together.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

cubbysan said:


> There have been some updates on their Facebook page. The Boston Herald will be doing a story tomorrow, and they have been talking with two television stations.


I'm so afraid that all of this publicity will be negative toward the rescue and in turn send the wrong message to the public about rescues in general. BYBs are probably rubbing their hands together in anticipation of more money lining their pockets in the very near future. After people hear this story, many will unfairly be turned off to rescuing. Such a lose lose situation for everyone involved. Rescue people dedicate their lives to helping animals find homes, and now they're probably going to be portrayed as the "bad guys". Ridiculous...


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

kwhit said:


> I'm so afraid that all of this publicity will be negative toward the rescue...


I believe they put themselves in that position when they appeared unsympathetic and uncaring in their handling of this situation.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Maine family begs for beloved dogs’ return from adoptive owners - BostonHerald.com

The Boston Herald's article. It does not hurt the rescue at all.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

cubbysan said:


> Maine family begs for beloved dogs’ return from adoptive owners - BostonHerald.com
> 
> The Boston Herald's article. It does not hurt the rescue at all.


If I were the adopter(s) of Dottie and Dutch and read this in the a.m. paper, I'd be heartsick. I'm not sure exactly what I'd do, but I'd probably be hiring my own counsel to run past and get some legal guidance as the adopters. I'd definitely be in a moral dilemma. That's just me though and everyone will feel differently.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

cubbysan said:


> Maine family begs for beloved dogs’ return from adoptive owners - BostonHerald.com
> 
> The Boston Herald's article. It does not hurt the rescue at all.


I didn't think so either.... 



> The dogs were prone to wandering....


*sighs*


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

It is a good point,if the dogs were prone to wondering, why not have them microchiped, it is very rural up there,i have been up that way,not to say bangor is a fairly big town,for up this way.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

goldensrbest said:


> It is a good point,if the dogs were prone to wondering, why not have them microchiped, it is very rural up there,i have been up that way,not to say bangor is a fairly big town,for up this way.


Chipped and kept under control. 

They let two intact dogs wander.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

"prone to.....

This bothers me so much. A dog that finds a way out once is an accident. A dog that is prone to run off is a different story for me. 

If I can not keep a dog from escaping..... what does that say about my ownership skills.
If I can not keep a dog from escaping..... why wouldn't I make sure that my dog can be always identified.

If I can not keep a dog from escaping..... how much value am I putting on the life of my dog as that escape could mean the dog is horribly hurt or killed.

If I can not keep a dog from escaping.... and I leave my dogs intact.... truly how much do I really value my dog.

If I truly loved my dogs and really valued them wouldn't I find a way to keep them safe instead of letting them escape and run.

And the comments that they thought the dogs had been shot due to it being hunting season now really bothers me. They knew that their dogs were prone to escape and didn't feel the need to be even more cautious during this time of year. 

And some of us want these dogs returned to people that will let them risk their lives over and over. just wow


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

The article from the Boston paper certainly doesn't paint the former owners as responsible.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I started out,after seeing this story,shocked that these dogs were adopted out, but as time has went on,more questions asked,not answered, now this , i think,they should stay with the people they have been adopted to, by ygrr.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Sally's Mom said:


> The article from the Boston paper certainly doesn't paint the former owners as responsible.


As an adopter what I'd worry about though is if the original owners got an attorney (and they could just from the publicity) and decided to sue. I have no idea about animal laws or personal property laws in Maine or whether a case could ultimately succeed, but can you imagine living every day until the statue of limitations ran out for a suit, wondering if the original owners will draw you into litigation over the dog you are bonding with more every day?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> And some of us want these dogs returned to people that will let them risk their lives over and over. just wow


Reading that one line in the article Cubbysan posted certainly does change this completely in my mind. I'm thinking about Copper's Mom's neighbor about now.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

The Herald article puts this whole matter in a different light. "Prone to wandering" - what do you expect?


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

> The dogs were *prone to wandering* *and the family often had to track them down*, so when the dogs did not turn up, Warren said she believed they had been shot by hunters or kidnapped. The family told neighbors in their small town but *did not reach out to the animal control officer*. The dogs *did not have microchips*.


Hate to say it but, 3 strikes you're out.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Deb_Bayne said:


> Hate to say it but, 3 strikes you're out.


"The dogs were *prone to wandering* *and the family often had to track them down*, so when the dogs did not turn up, Warren said she believed they had been shot by hunters or kidnapped. The family told neighbors in their small town but *did not reach out to the animal control officer*. The dogs *did not have microchips*. "


That's just sad. They didn't even look for them, just assumed they were shot or stolen.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

The media coverage that they were looking for may have done them more harm than good. The "bring bella and jake home" page is noticeably more quiet today. The link to the media report that they were promising yesterday was not posted by them today but was posted by someone else. They seem to be loosing support. The comments on the new article are mostly against them. 
If nothing else, maybe the family of Bella and Jake have learned a valuable lesson. They will probably get another dog (or two). Hopefully they will be more responsible pet owners in the future.
I know that it made everyone here much more aware of how important it is to keep our dogs secure and easily identifiable. 
I really hope that the new owners of Dutch and Dottie don't suffer any negative consequences because of all the media attention.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

I keep thinking of that sweet lab,in calf.,that stood by the sweet golden,that was hit by a car,who was looking for the golden, then the family that the lab. Belonged to,gets her back, i hope they take good care of her,and we do not learn,something bad happened to her.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

goldensrbest said:


> I keep thinking of that sweet lab,in calf.,that stood by the sweet golden,that was hit by a car,who was looking for the golden, then the family that the lab. Belonged to,gets her back, i hope they take good care of her,and we do not learn,something bad happened to her.


I read that she was adopted out and then the family that claimed to own her wanted her back. Eerily similar.


----------



## KevinM822 (Nov 27, 2011)

Funny how the public views news papers/stations as only stating facts.
I've been following this thread and also the original owners facebook page and I've yet to see it posted that they were "prone to wandering" (other than the boston herald)so it really makes me question if the paper made this up or they were told this by the rescue group to help their side.
We've already heard everyone's opinions on this so there isn't really a need to continue to attack either side, so just question the facts before judging.

Like someone has stated before, there's 3 sides to every story: both sides of 'facts' then the real truth.

I would tend to believe the owners in this case before any newspaper or news station as they are consistently getting their facts distorted and very seldom offer the actual (and full) truth (IMHO), but like everyone else I'm still waiting for the full story from the original owners and would also love to see what the dog officer has to say after questioning him/her about 10 phone calls being too labor intensive.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Whatever is in store for Bella/Jake/Dottie/Dutch in the future, at least two things are clear:

1. They are altered now.

2. They are both microchipped now.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

goldhaven said:


> I read that she was adopted out and then the family that claimed to own her wanted her back. Eerily similar.


The family that owned the lab got her back. They had been actively looking for her, checked the shelter on several occassions and the shelter's website too.

The day she had been brought to the shelter, her owners were there looking for her and according to the article, she was in the AC Truck and had not been brought into the shelter yet or into it's system.

The day her owner's arrived to take her home, as they were leaving, a guy was there to adopt her. 

The owner's received their dog back spayed and chipped. They received numerous city animal viloations such as the Leash law and had numerous fines. 

Here's a link to the story and there's a video if you want to watch it.


Dog who stood by dead pal reunited with owners - TODAY Pets & Animals - TODAY.com


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> The family that owned the lab got her back. They had been actively looking for her, checked the shelter on several occassions and the shelter's website too.
> 
> The day she had been brought to the shelter, her owners were there looking for her and according to the article, she was in the AC Truck and had not been brought into the shelter yet or into it's system.
> 
> ...


Thanks, I found that after I posted. Yet another sad situation of owners not being able to identify their dogs. I guess that it is a good thing that the dog recognized them and that animal control took that as proof. At least the dog got spayed and micro chipped before being returned.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

KevinM822 said:


> Funny how the public views news papers/stations as only stating facts.
> I've been following this thread and also the original owners facebook page and I've yet to see it posted that they were "prone to wandering" (other than the boston herald)so it really makes me question if the paper made this up or they were told this by the rescue group to help their side.
> We've already heard everyone's opinions on this so there isn't really a need to continue to attack either side, so just question the facts before judging.
> 
> ...



So the article that you posted in the OP by the Bangor Daily News that paints the owners as great owners whose dogs darted out the door and who looked endlessly for their dogs is from an acceptable news source. But the article that doesn't post such a rosy picture of the owners is suspect?

Okey dokey then.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

KevinM822 said:


> would also love to see what the dog officer has to say after questioning him/her about 10 phone calls being too labor intensive.


Me too. That part of this story is still... aggravating. 

I had a slight thought this morning when I read the article that words had been selectively chosen to tilt the story against the owners. 

I guess where I'm bothered is the implication from the "prone to wander" and "they usually came home" words is that these people knew their dogs were out of sight, but they had a "leave them alone, they'll come home, wagging their tails behind them" mentality. 

I know a lot of people like that. Yes, they should keep their dogs and I will return their dogs to them time and again, but it's frustrating that they are lalalala about things like this. 

Considering they are silent and have not offered any specific or open explanation of how the dogs got loose, what the first thing they did when they discovered the dogs were missing... And of course, nobody has talked to the neighbors. 

They should not have been allowed to wander at will. Even if they had been neutered and chipped, they still would have been neglectful.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

KevinM822 said:


> Funny how the public views news papers/stations as only stating facts.
> I've been following this thread and also the original owners facebook page and I've yet to see it posted that they were "prone to wandering" (other than the boston herald)so it really makes me question if the paper made this up or they were told this by the rescue group to help their side. I'm still waiting for the full story from the original owners.


It has not been posted because the original owners have not come forward except to the media. Their facebook page is being monitored by someone else and we have no idea who came on this thread claiming to be them. 




KevinM822 said:


> and would also love to see what the dog officer has to say after questioning him/her about 10 phone calls being too labor intensive.


I don't think that the dog officer did anything wrong. She did her job. So she didn't go above and beyond the call of duty. How can you expect her to since the owners didn't? You seem to expect more of the AC than you do of the original owners. Even if she did make those phone calls, it wouldn't have done any good since those 10 families were from a different town. (Zwicker said she checked who in Sullivan has licensed golden retrievers and found 10 names on the list.) The Warrens live in Franklin.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> The family that owned the lab got her back. They had been actively looking for her, checked the shelter on several occassions and the shelter's website too.
> 
> The day she had been brought to the shelter, her owners were there looking for her and according to the article, she was in the AC Truck and had not been brought into the shelter yet or into it's system.
> 
> ...


The sad thing is the owner of the dead golden hasn't been found yet...


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Actually, the FB page is commenting about the Herald article:

Bring Bella and Jake Home 
The reporter asked if the dogs had ever wandered off be fore . the owners said that when they did,they looked for them and found them. then the reporter states they were prone to wandering. thats just the reporters way of wording that. 4 hours ago · LikeUnlike

 Bring Bella and Jake Home 
they were never left to rome. 4 hours ago · LikeUnlike


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

KevinM822 said:


> ...it really makes me question if the paper made this up or they were told this by the rescue group to help their side...


Why would you assume the rescue told the paper anything? They name of the group is not even mentioned, and they have not mentioned any interview or conversation with the rescue.

The FB page says how the paper got that statement, see my post above with a copy of the FB comments.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Geez, give the dogs back to the rightful owners and have the rescue fit the new owners with other rescued dogs. Since all we keep hearing is rescues are always in such need for owners....


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

mylissyk said:


> Why would you assume the rescue told the paper anything? They name of the group is not even mentioned, and they have not mentioned any interview or conversation with the rescue.
> 
> The FB page says how the paper got that statement, see my post above with a copy of the FB comments.


The group is mentioned by name:


> They were legally relinquished to Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue, and Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue really did a diligent search to find a family to give these dogs another chance. I think it’s certainly clear the organization sympathizes with their position, however, certainly Yankee Golden Retriever Rescue really didn’t do anything wrong in this.”


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Sorry, I noted in the first part of the article they didn't name the group, then just didn't make note of it in the second part.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

mylissyk said:


> Actually, the FB page is commenting about the Herald article:
> 
> Bring Bella and Jake Home
> The reporter asked if the dogs had ever wandered off be fore . the owners said that when they did,they looked for them and found them. then the reporter states they were prone to wandering. thats just the reporters way of wording that. 4 hours ago · LikeUnlike
> ...


I have been looking at that page and can't see anything posted in the last 6 hours. Nothing recent and no mention of the article. Where is it posted? Do you have to like the page to view updates?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

goldhaven said:


> I have been looking at that page and can't see anything posted in the last 6 hours. Nothing recent and no mention of the article. Where is it posted? Do you have to like the page to view updates?


click on the 4 hours ago and it will take you to the page and on one post (Terry), scroll down and you can see the responses.
I just cut and pasted it:
_i started out supporting this family, but so many questions un answered, now i read the dogs,were prone to wandering, why not control that,with a fence, why not microchip them? A nd there is the fact these dogs were left to rome,no spaying,no neuterting?
Like · 
Bring Bella and Jake Home The reporter asked if the dogs had ever wandered off be fore . the owners said that when they did,they looked for them and found them. then the reporter states they were prone to wandering. thats just the reporters way of wording that.
6 hours ago · Like
Bring Bella and Jake Home they were never left to rome.
6 hours ago · Like
Samantha Brown Reporters always get stuff wrong - as far as I can tell they got most of the story before the dogs were picked up by the ACO wrong. Everytime a reporter has interviewed me and then written a story - it has come out wrong somehow. Always. They just don't care about getting details right, and they don't let you check what they are writing before it goes out to the public.
3 hours ago · Like
Jill Van Vlack Please don't judge, A friend who also is my dogs breeder said it best on another page: I don't believe failure to microchip is an argument for not returning a beloved family member! Nor is keeping an adult dog intact. (There are reasons for...
See More_


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

That was me,terry that posted on there.


----------



## unaffected (Apr 13, 2011)

goldensrbest said:


> That was me,terry that posted on there.


I was admiring the profile pic of Terry!!


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

DOESN'T seem to be much posting on there,today,and can't figure out why.


----------



## KevinM822 (Nov 27, 2011)

edited.....


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

KevinM822 said:


> The article states the ACO found them 1/2 from the owners home, which was in another town.
> The ACO 'may' have done everything correctly by some peoples standards, but wouldn't it be common sense that if you found them obviously on the border of the town that it just MIGHT be possible they are from that bordering town?
> Also, it states 10 people have goldens... How many of those 10 owners have 2 goldens registered? In a small town like this one I would say those numbers come down (assuming 10 isn't the number of owners that have at least 2 goldens registered)


Not 1/2, 2 miles Her words as quoted in the BDN. Also, as I stated in a previous post, even if she called all of the 10 names on the list. The list was from Sullivan and the dogs were from Franklin. 




> She said it did not occur to her to check with the town of Franklin because the dogs were nearly two miles from the Franklin-Sullivan line. If she had called another town, it would have been Hancock because the Route 1 bridge that connects Sullivan and Hancock is not far from where she picked up the dogs, she said.


We all know that dogs are capable of traveling quite a distance which is why it is so important to look everywhere when your dog goes missing. That in addition to having collars, tags, micro chips, tatoos. This is all part of responsible ownership of dogs. It is not up to the police, ACO, shelters, vets offices, rescue groups, etc. to go above and beyond their jobs just because a person was not responsible enough to take the necessary steps to protect their dogs. 

I have seen dogs dumped out of cars in rural areas because the owners just don't want them anymore or can't afford them. I am sure that ACO's have seen this also. If a micro chip can't be found and there are no collars with tags, she may have thought that this was a dump. 
I once tracked a dogs owner down only to find that they let him go because they didn't want him anymore. 
If this has happened to me on one occasion, I can't imagine how many times ACO have seen this happen. That is why I can "forgive" her. She probably thought that she was doing what was in the best interest of these two dogs. 
They were not killed by hunters, but could have been if they continued to run loose. 
They were not hit by a car, but could have been if they continued to run loose. 
They were not shot by ACO for chasing deer, but could have been if they continued to run loose. I could go on and on but I think you get the point. 

Instead they were well taken care of, fed, vaccinated, spayed, and now in a new home and loved.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

The animal control person is the animal control person for both towns.


----------



## KevinM822 (Nov 27, 2011)

goldhaven said:


> Not 1/2, 2 miles Her words as quoted in the BDN. Also, as I stated in a previous post, even if she called all of the 10 names on the list. The list was from Sullivan and the dogs were from Franklin.



You must have viewed my post just after I submitted it because I edited it out once I posted and read it over. I started to judge the ACO when my last post I said we shouldn't judge without all the facts :doh:
Sorry


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

When I was a little child visiting my cousins, we would go off to swim in a creek in their neighbourhood. The creek was a good walk away. We would go, just my cousins and siblings. My mom and aunt were good parents, not irresponsible. We were 10 and under.

To judge this family for letting their dogs wonder as if that's a reason they should't get their dogs back is wrong. Just because their standards of pet care is different. I'm tired of people on here not just holding as high of a standard for pets as people, that's fine. But holding a higher standard for pets than people. What about those innocent children missing their friends?

With that being said, I never let Lily out of my sight, she wears tags, is microchipped and spayed, UTD on shots. I made mistakes it the past with my pets, but I learned from them on my on. Not because others said it was wrong.

This family is missing their dogs. They have regrets, I'm sure. Let them learn from their mistakes on their on (i'm sure they have). We shouldn't be judging these people, I'm sure they've already beaten themselves up over their mistakes.

You can't change the past, but you can make this right.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

The family has yet to own up to their mistakes cause in their eyes they did nothing wrong, it's the ACO/vet/YGRR...sorry, but I don't see any lessons having been learned. Even the newspaper articles that the family has sought out don't portray them in a favorable light, but then again it's the reporters' fault for not getting the "facts" right. See a pattern of behavior here?


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

SheetsSM said:


> The family has yet to own up to their mistakes cause in their eyes they did nothing wrong, it's the ACO/vet/YGRR...sorry, but I don't see any lessons having been learned. Even the newspaper articles that the family has sought out don't portray them in a favorable light, but then again it's the reporters' fault for not getting the "facts" right. See a pattern of behavior here?


They're angry because the people that could help them refuse. Treating them and their children like their feelings are ****! We don't know how they feel. There's no doubt in my mind that this family has thought, "why didn't we microchip, why didn't we put tags on them, why did we let them wonder?" 

We shouldn't judge people until we walk in their shoes. And unfortunately, I have walked in their shoes.


----------



## SheetsSM (Jan 17, 2008)

With as much attention that this family is seeking, some simple statements such as stepping up and owning their mistakes and stating the changes they would make to ensure the well-being of these 2 goldens would have gone a long way. Unfortunately, they're still hanging on to "I'm a victim, it's not my fault".


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> To judge this family for letting their dogs wonder as if that's a reason they should't get their dogs back is wrong. Just because their standards of pet care is different. I'm tired of people on here not just holding as high of a standard for pets as people, that's fine. But holding a higher standard for pets than people. What about those innocent children missing their friends?


Michele, I hold dogs to the same standard as kids. 

Dogs have the same mentality as a small child. That would be a child younger than 10. 

My worst ever memory was back when I was nine years old and out in the fields behind our property with my two youngest siblings, who were 3 and 5 at the time. 

As a 9 year old, I knew enough to avoid strangers and stay to the side of the dirt road back there. 

My two sibs went out in the road just as a car was going by. I'm sure the person in the car would have stopped, but I went running out there to grab both siblings. And the entire time I was hysterical thinking about what could have happened to them. They were too young to know any better. 

I see dogs the same way. And letting them wander would be cruelty and neglect. Choosing to remain ignorant of what might happen until something happens is... wrong.


----------



## mybuddy (Mar 2, 2007)

MicheleKC87 said:


> When I was a little child visiting my cousins, we would go off to swim in a creek in their neighbourhood. The creek was a good walk away. We would go, just my cousins and siblings. My mom and aunt were good parents, not irresponsible. We were 10 and under.
> 
> To judge this family for letting their dogs wonder as if that's a reason they should't get their dogs back is wrong. Just because their standards of pet care is different. I'm tired of people on here not just holding as high of a standard for pets as people, that's fine. But holding a higher standard for pets than people. What about those innocent children missing their friends?
> 
> ...


 
Hi Michele!

Nice to see you although sorry that this thread has brought up some horrible memories for you. I think of you often and my heart skips a beat everytime I think of you losing your precious Lucy.

Gosh, when I think back 10 years when I first brought Buddy home, I was CLUELESS..OMG...I didnt even know what anal glands were  I honestly didnt know anything. Luckily, people just sort of showed up in my life that were very knowledgeable about dogs and taught me a lot. I was lucky. Like you say, we learn as we go. 

I have to say...God help anyone who ever told me that I didnt deserve Buddy in my life!

Furthermore, I do not believe in microchipping. I do not like the thoughts of putting anything inside my dog. I wouldnt microchip my child...dont like microchipping my dog. That said, Buddy is microchipped but was not my choice...in order to bring him into this country, he had to be. I dont like it.

Buddy is altered, that was my choice but I do not believe that not altering makes a bad owner..even if there are males and females living together. That is an individual choice and nooone's business as far as I am concerned.

It makes me sick that these dogs are being kept from their families, names changed etc...I think it is wrong.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

SheetsSM said:


> With as much attention that this family is seeking, some simple statements such as stepping up and owning their mistakes and stating the changes they would make to ensure the well-being of these 2 goldens would have gone a long way. Unfortunately, they're still hanging on to "I'm a victim, it's not my fault".


"I'm a victim, it's not my fault"? We haven't heard from them, remember. 

Their focus is obviously on getting their dogs back, not on letting us know what they've learned. That's personal.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

MicheleKC87 said:


> They're angry because the people that could help them refuse. Treating them and their children like their feelings are ****! We don't know how they feel. There's no doubt in my mind that this family has thought, "why didn't we microchip, why didn't we put tags on them, why did we let them wonder?"
> 
> We shouldn't judge people until we walk in their shoes. And unfortunately, I have walked in their shoes.


I am not judging them and I too have walked in their shoes. I wasn't always a responsible pet owner and it could have had dire consequences for my dog. 

I always wanted a GSD so I decided to get one. I didn't do any research and purchased from a BYB. I loved my dog but I didn't know anything about training my dog. He was a great dog and I trusted him with my children, ages 3 and 10. I didn't let him run loose but one day he got out and started chasing the neighbor. I was right behind running after him but he got to her and bit her. I grabbed him and brought him back in the house. The police were called and when the officer came in to investigate, he tried to attack the cop. I was ordered to have him put down. Even back then I knew that I had done something wrong and I couldn't see making my dog pay for it. I contacted the state police k-9 division and was able to donate him. He ended up as a drug sniffing dog and lived out the rest of his life as a service dog to the police. 
My children and I lost our beloved pet but we all learned a valuable lesson.

Just because their dogs didn't die doesn't mean that they should get them back. I am not judging them but I do believe that they need to accept some responsibility for what has happened and move on. If they do get their dogs back, what lesson will they have learned. That if they let their dogs run loose they will get them back with all of their vaccinations, spayed and neutered.

Unfortunately, the most valuable lessons learned come from the school of hard knocks.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

I have a co-worker that had his dog taken away by AC after the 3rd time the dog was picked up running loose in a short period of time. He was unwilling to fix his 2ft high fence to keep the lab in the yard. I believe they used the neglect argument as their legal basis for removing his dog. He was outraged/upset. I was kind of glad they rehomed the dog. Odds are the dog would have met an unfortunate end if left with him.


----------



## golden_eclipse (Apr 1, 2011)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Geez, give the dogs back to the rightful owners and have the rescue fit the new owners with other rescued dogs. Since all we keep hearing is rescues are always in such need for owners....


They've been with the new owners for 4+ months now, you bet I wouldn't give up my dogs after I have loved them for that amount of time. Why make these perfectly good people who took in TWO 9 year old dogs, suffer, because this family let their dogs roam, and didn't bother calling anyone or looking until months after the fact. This family just needs to learn how to be responsible owners, and move on. I have zero sympathy for them at all.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

kdowningxc said:


> They've been with the new owners for 4+ months now, you bet I wouldn't give up my dogs after I have loved them for that amount of time. Why make these perfectly good people who took in TWO 9 year old dogs, suffer, because this family let their dogs roam, and didn't bother calling or looking until months after the fact. This family just needs to learn how to be responsible owners, and move on. I have zero sympathy for them at all.


They were with their original owners for 4 and 9 years. 

Where do you get that they didn't bother looking for the dogs? In the article, it said they called the vets and shelters, were told they didn't have the dogs. They posted on facebook, and obviously they NEVER STOPPED looking or they wouldn't have found them months later.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

goldhaven said:


> I am not judging them and I too have walked in their shoes. I wasn't always a responsible pet owner and it could have had dire consequences for my dog.
> 
> I always wanted a GSD so I decided to get one. I didn't do any research and purchased from a BYB. I loved my dog but I didn't know anything about training my dog. He was a great dog and I trusted him with my children, ages 3 and 10. I didn't let him run loose but one day he got out and started chasing the neighbor. I was right behind running after him but he got to her and bit her. I grabbed him and brought him back in the house. The police were called and when the officer came in to investigate, he tried to attack the cop. I was ordered to have him put down. Even back then I knew that I had done something wrong and I couldn't see making my dog pay for it. I contacted the state police k-9 division and was able to donate him. He ended up as a drug sniffing dog and lived out the rest of his life as a service dog to the police.
> My children and I lost our beloved pet but we all learned a valuable lesson.
> ...


I'm sorry, but if I got Lucy back, I still would have learned my lesson. I'm sure this family has too. Everyone deserves a second chance.


----------



## MicheleKC87 (Feb 3, 2011)

mybuddy said:


> Hi Michele!
> 
> Nice to see you although sorry that this thread has brought up some horrible memories for you. I think of you often and my heart skips a beat everytime I think of you losing your precious Lucy.
> 
> ...


Hey! How are you? 

I love the way you think! You're one of my favorite people on this forum!

I just can't stand the thought of judging people, or saying they don't deserve the dogs they love, and that love them.


----------



## mybuddy (Mar 2, 2007)

Thanks Michele :smooch:

You know, the longer I live, the more I learn that we cannot judge no matter what the situation. I have to tell you this.

This morning I was at work. I work at a kindergarten 2 mornings a week. There is this one little boy, (learning English) and he is really VERY good!!! Anyway, his father comes into the school everyday....without fail...everyday!!! He stands outside the window and looks in at his boy. He smiles the whole time...does not say anything to the teachers, no complaints or anything..he just watches.

So...today, all the teachers were flipping out because his son is entering a speech contest tomorrow and there was a change in his script. The father wanted to ask me a question about it. Well...I naturally invited him into the class while I had his son recite his speech etc...he was so humble and so sweet.

After, he went into the office to wait for his boy so he could hang out with him for a bit.

The other teachers got my ear and WOW...the judgement!!! Why is he here all the time??? Why??? What is he doing??? So strange!!! Blah blah...

I learned today that he comes from a rather rich family so he does not have to work. That is why he spends to much time at the school. I thought..hmmm..perhaps his father worked all the time when he was growing up and missed out on that relationship..making up for it now? Maybe. Not having a father growing up, I think it is such a beautiful thing to see a dad so involved in his kid's life. Makes my heart sing..what a lucky boy!!!

I kind of started to judge the other teachers for judging him. What a nasty cycle!!!! Who are they to judge him? They dont know his story and why he does the things he does. Who am I to judge the teachers? I dont know their story and why they believe he is strange for loving his kid so much. 

Anyway, that has nothing to do with this thread but it just got me thinking.....I often wonder about stuff like this. I understand everyone has an opinion....now I am thinking about that. Are opinions judgements? 

I will be thinking about this ALL DAY :uhoh:

Anyway, it is so nice to see you


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

goldhaven said:


> It has not been posted because the original owners have not come forward except to the media. Their facebook page is being monitored by someone else and *we have no idea who came on this thread claiming to be them. *


That was a HUGE red flag there, when someone is posing as them led me to think they were part of a bigger scheme.


----------



## Bellanjake (Apr 16, 2012)

*Bella and Jake*

Good Morning All, 
Any one that has questions regarding jake and Bella may email me. I dont now how this forum works nor do i have time to figure it out. All questions welcome. We have learned many valuable lessons from this. Yes we agree there are faults at both ends. Both sides could have done more. My family misses our dogs so much and want nothing more then for Bella and Jake to come home. I want to thank everyone here for their support. I have read most of the comments. Yes the negative comments hurt but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My email is posted on the poster on Bella and jakes fb page.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

Bellanjake said:


> Good Morning All,
> Any one that has questions regarding jake and Bella may email me. I dont now how this forum works nor do i have time to figure it out. All questions welcome. We have learned many valuable lessons from this. Yes we agree there are faults at both ends. Both sides could have done more. My family misses our dogs so much and want nothing more then for Bella and Jake to come home. I want to thank everyone here for their support. I have read most of the comments. Yes the negative comments hurt but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My email is posted on the poster on Bella and jakes fb page.


Are you Roy or Billie Jo Warren or a representative for the family? 

I understand that you probably have regrets and learned many valuable lessons. What I don't understand, and maybe you can clear it up, is why was it so much easier for you to accept that your dogs were dead than to know that they are being cared for. You gave up on your dogs when you believed them to be dead.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

goldhaven said:


> What I don't understand, and maybe you can clear it up, is why was it so much easier for you to accept that your dogs were dead than to know that they are being cared for. You gave up on your dogs when you believed them to be dead.


I can totally understand this statement.

Years ago I came home from work after a snow storm. It was night time, and there was over two feet of snow on the ground. We had put two self shutting gates on our deck to prevent our dogs from escaping if the back door was left open. At the time I had my heart dog Great Pyrenees, he was about 12 at the time and now deaf. He used to love to sit on the back deck and just watch the world around him - especially in the cold.

I came home, and the gate was open, and couldn't shut because of the ice build up. I went in the house and asked my husband where Goliath was - he had let him outside on the deck an hour earlier. Now how do you find a white, deaf dog at night after a snow storm? I called the police, I called the dog officer and left messages. Called my in-laws and we took two separate cars driving through the streets, for about 2 hours, asking everybody we saw. At this point, I could hear the nearby train and worried about him getting hit. I worried that maybe he walked into one of the rivers in the woods and couldn't get out. I had actually hoped if we couldn't find him, that he had died, just so that he wouldn't be suffering - that was because of my love for him.

Fortunate to us, over a mile away, somebody saw him on the busy street, and saw that he was elderly, stopped and got him. They called the police who called us, and called us from the number on his tag. We were not home because we were looking for him, but my husband had just driven by them when they were leaving the message.

So yes, when a beloved pet is missing, the thought may come into your mind that I hope they are dead, rather than suffering somewhere.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kdowningxc said:


> They've been with the new owners for 4+ months now, you bet I wouldn't give up my dogs after I have loved them for that amount of time. Why make these perfectly good people who took in TWO 9 year old dogs, suffer, because this family let their dogs roam, and didn't bother calling anyone or looking until months after the fact. This family just needs to learn how to be responsible owners, and move on. I have zero sympathy for them at all.


Because it would be the right thing to do. Ummm 9years vs. 4 months. I know how much I love my dog so I know if I was the new owners I would not hesitate to return them. Obviously if they neglected or abused these dogs it would have been known in the 9 years they have had them. Mistakes happen, time to move on.

And remember nobody knows all the facts here.


----------



## Kaila (Feb 1, 2012)

I guess it just goes to show you that if you truly love your dogs, you'll tattoo/microchip and put ID tags on them. AND spay and neuter them! Or else make 100% sure that they're never ever in a position where they can get loose (if for some reason you can't do any of the above).

That, or this was a valuable lesson learned and any future dogs the family gets will benefit. Hopefully.


----------



## unaffected (Apr 13, 2011)

There has been some discussion on the reporter's choice of words when saying "prone to wandering".

If the dogs had been out wandering three times (or one, two, five times) previously, does that make them prone to it? In my opinion, yes. And that's because Kelsey has never been out wandering, so to me, three times (or any times) sounds like a lot.

One time of "out wandering" would motivate me to reevaluate some things, whether it be better securing my yard, microchipping, not leaving them outside unattended, etc.



MicheleKC87 said:


> Everyone deserves a second chance.


And I do agree with that. But this isn't a second chance, is it? If the dogs have gotten out to "wander" several times prior? 

It sounds like there was a major issue being ignored. Does this mean they shouldn't have their dogs returned? I don't know. 

And I obviously don't know for sure if the dogs had been out wandering before, but in everything I've read thus far on this case, it seems like that has been mentioned enough times to validate it.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

cubbysan said:


> I can totally understand this statement.
> 
> Years ago I came home from work after a snow storm. It was night time, and there was over two feet of snow on the ground. We had put two self shutting gates on our deck to prevent our dogs from escaping if the back door was left open. At the time I had my heart dog Great Pyrenees, he was about 12 at the time and now deaf. He used to love to sit on the back deck and just watch the world around him - especially in the cold.
> 
> ...


I understand that. I too would rather my dog be dead than to be suffering. You also continued to look for your dog until it was found. 

That was not their statement. 



> “It was almost better not knowing what happened.” Before they found out their dogs had been taken to Massachusetts, Warren said, they had come to believe the golden retrievers must have been shot and killed by a hunter.


I don't understand how not knowing is better than finding out they had been cared for.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

unaffected said:


> And I obviously don't know for sure if the dogs had been out wandering before, but in everything I've read thus far on this case, it seems like that has been mentioned enough times to validate it.


Bingo! Nobody knows the facts. And what the heck is meant by wandering? Some people see a dog out front and consider that wandering. Accidents happen. I myself thought I lost my Cody one day. He was out in the fenced backyard where he always likes to be going back and forth with hubby doing yardwork out front and back. Well we were all in the kitchen having lunch and I thought it was pretty quiet. I asked "has anyone seen Cody in awhile?" OMG! My heart dropped just about the same time the door bell rang. My neighbor was standing on the porch and said Cody came down to visit by himself and thought something must be wrong lol. Obviously my hubby left the garage door open and he snuck on out. But what if we were not home? What if we weren't close with all our neighbors? Cody was so friendly that if a car stopped and opened the door he would just hop right in. Cody was always seen out front off leash......and sometimes he would sneak out of our yard.....do people consider that wandering?
People on this forum think it is wrong to have a dog off leash period........I'm sure if they saw my Cody they would think I was an awful dog owner...... because he enjoyed laying out front off leash......give me a break. The dogs need to go home where they belong.


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

If i thought my dogs were dead,i would want to find their bodies.


----------



## Kaila (Feb 1, 2012)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Bingo! Nobody knows the facts. And what the heck is meant by wandering? Some people see a dog out front and consider that wandering. Accidents happen. I myself thought I lost my Cody one day. He was out in the fenced backyard where he always likes to be going back and forth with hubby doing yardwork out front and back. Well we were all in the kitchen having lunch and I thought it was pretty quiet. I asked "has anyone seen Cody in awhile?" OMG! My heart dropped just about the same time the door bell rang. My neighbor was standing on the porch and said Cody came down to visit by himself and thought something must be wrong lol. Obviously my hubby left the garage door open and he snuck on out. But what if we were not home? What if we weren't close with all our neighbors? Cody was so friendly that if a car stopped and opened the door he would just hop right in. Cody was always seen out front off leash......and sometimes he would sneak out of our yard.....do people consider that wandering?
> People on this forum think it is wrong to have a dog off leash period........I'm sure if they saw my Cody they would think I was an awful dog owner...... because he enjoyed laying out front off leash......give me a break. The dogs need to go home where they belong.


All this is fine as long as you're taking precautions to make sure that IF your dog did run off that they would be returned to you. This means microchipping, tattooing, having ID tags on the collars, whatever. And leaving a unspayed/unneutered dog off-leash in your yard is just irresponsible no matter how you spin it.

EDIT: This doesn't make them bad owners. It probably means that they were uninformed and now will never make the same mistake a second time. But some people do stuff like this and have plenty of money to care for the dogs, have been told by vets/animal control/friends/family/etc. that they need to have the dogs marked and altered, but refuse to do it. Those are the irresponsible owners.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Kaila said:


> All this is fine as long as you're taking precautions to make sure that IF your dog did run off that they would be returned to you. This means microchipping, tattooing, having ID tags on the collars, whatever. And leaving a unspayed/unneutered dog off-leash in your yard is just irresponsible no matter how you spin it.
> 
> EDIT: This doesn't make them bad owners. It probably means that they were uninformed and now will never make the same mistake a second time. But some people do stuff like this and have plenty of money to care for the dogs, have been told by vets/animal control/friends/family/etc. that they need to have the dogs marked and altered, but refuse to do it. Those are the irresponsible owners.


I don't microchip, no tattoos but they do wear collars with tags, like Bella and Jake. My Cody was not neutered until he turned 2.......way after he was allowed off leash out front. Here's my spin......I am not an irresponsible owner, however just hearing what I typed you and many others would ASSUME I was. Which is my whole point about not knowing the people or the facts.


----------



## Kaila (Feb 1, 2012)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I don't microchip, no tattoos but they do wear collars with tags, like Bella and Jake. My Cody was not neutered until he turned 2.......way after he was allowed off leash out front. Here's my spin......I am not an irresponsible owner, however just hearing what I typed you and many others would ASSUME I was. Which is my whole point about not knowing the people or the facts.


This is purely my opinion, but I think it's irresponsible to let an unneutered dog off-leash outside of a securely fenced area, period. That's how I feel. I wouldn't do it, and I can understand why others may view owners who do that sort of thing as irresponsible. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are. Just that that would be the opinion of some, and you have to be willing to accept that sort of criticism when you subject your dog to the very realistic "what ifs" of the world (roaming, fighting, accidental pregnancies, endangering livestock, harming wildlife, harassing or harming other pets, disease, starvation, getting hit by a car, etc.). This is why leash laws are in place. It's against the law (at least here in Florida) to do that sort of thing.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Kaila said:


> This is purely my opinion, but I think it's irresponsible to let an unneutered dog off-leash outside of a securely fenced area, period. That's how I feel. I wouldn't do it, and I can understand why others may view owners who do that sort of thing as irresponsible. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are. Just that that would be the opinion of some, and you have to be willing to accept that sort of criticism when you subject your dog to the very realistic "what ifs" of the world (roaming, fighting, accidental pregnancies, endangering livestock, harming wildlife, harassing or harming other pets, disease, starvation, getting hit by a car, etc.). This is why leash laws are in place. It's against the law (at least here in Florida) to do that sort of thing.


 
LOL! Criticise away! My whole point was *what* *you don't* *know* is what actually matters not the opinions of others. And apparently there is alot of things we *DON'T know* about these owners.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> I don't microchip, no tattoos but they do wear collars with tags, like Bella and Jake.


And that is definitely your choice. I microchip because: collars fall off, (wasn't Bella or Jake found without a collar on? I might be wrong, that's what I thought anyway), and they'll just get taken off if the dog is stolen. A microchip will always be there as will a tattoo. Plus, my dogs never wear collars unless they go somewhere.

Yeah, chips can migrate, but it doesn't happen often. If the dog is stolen to sell to Labs, (yes it still happens and they will usually get a higher price for larger dogs), they're supposed to always check for a microchip/tattoo before taking the dog. Does it always happen, maybe not, but I want that extra insurance in case it does. Also, by that time, collars and ID tags would be long gone.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Kaila said:


> EDIT: This doesn't make them bad owners. It probably means that they were uninformed and now will never make the same mistake a second time. But some people do stuff like this and have plenty of money to care for the dogs, have been told by vets/animal control/friends/family/etc. that they need to have the dogs marked and altered, but refuse to do it. Those are the irresponsible owners.


Yes, exactly! They live in a very, very rural area. My experience from people that live in rural areas is that they are uninformed, and they live a very simple lifestyle. Thirty-eight people per square mile!

I have been trying to understand this family. In this town, the average salary is between 19K and 32K. If you look at mapquest, and the area they live, they are very remote and surrounded by lakes. A golden retriever paradise!

If I lived in that area and my dogs were lost, I would be going through all the woods on a all terrain vehicle and then it was also hunting season, so that brings a danger to them to go out looking. I am sure that is how they searched. Their search would be so much different than somebody that lived in a populated area.

I am a nervous wreck about my dogs escaping, but MOST people living in an area that they do would have their dogs loose. Looks like there are dirt roads and no reason for cars to be going down them. I live on acreage, we and another family down the street who also have goldens, are the only ones that keep our dogs in our yards with IF. All the other dogs are loose. Yes, I get nervous about all these dogs I have become friends with, they are all very well taken care of ( professional groomings, high quality pet food, regular vet visits ), I don't think any of them are microchipped, but just families that have always done things this way. It is so different from when we lived in the suburbs.

My parents have two rescued dogs and two rescued cats, I bet if I asked my father about a microchip, he wouldn't even know what one was, I bet my mother wouldn't even put one in her dogs for fear of radiation, but yet they have spent thousands of dollars on their dogs for vet bills, specialists, acupuncture, etc. These dogs are very well taken care of, and yes, one of them is an escape artist.

I think this family gave these dogs a loving home. They may not have given them the standard that rescues have or that we here on the forum have, or even somebody living in the suburbs, but I do think this is we are the exception. 

Now they are informed, and I am sure they would do things much differently.

One of the comments on facebook, there was another golden family from the same town, same thing happened a year earlier. They know their dog was sent to a rescue, but have no idea where. 

Oh by the way, Yankee would think that most of us were awful owners, I know I did not qualify when I tried to adopt from them. They have VERY STRICT guidelines.


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

This may be adding more fuel to the fire, and is possibly irrelevant, but Sullivan's ACO is a well-known animal rights activist Animal Activists — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine. Perhaps, in her opinion, these two unneutered/unspayed companion animals weren't being appropriately treated by being allowed to run free, by chance or by choice.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

penparson said:


> This may be adding more fuel to the fire, and is possibly irrelevant, but Sullivan's ACO is a well-known animal rights activist Animal Activists — Bangor Daily News — BDN Maine. Perhaps, in her opinion, these two unneutered/unspayed companion animals weren't being appropriately treated by being allowed to run free, by chance or by choice.


Very interesting.....


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

My parents moved a few years back to a rural area in TN. I'm pretty sure they had the only fenced in yard in the entire town. People used to even comment about the fence when they first put it in.
I've never seen a 3 legged dog in my life until I went to visit them. They had 4 on their block....cars, UPS truck, I do think 1 was cancer.
I don't know that I consider these people "bad owners", although having dogs that even sometimes escape (sometimes implies more than once) and having them unfixed. Who knows how many litters the male sired. Obviously they would know if the female had any.
And, I do feel for them. But, I can't help but think that this is their own fault.
As far as the dogs go. I do believe that if the dogs saw them, they would be overjoyed. But dogs live in the moment, they are most likely very happy in their new life. It's us people that dwell on things-and I include myself in that.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

cubbysan said:


> Yes, exactly! They live in a very, very rural area. My experience from people that live in rural areas is that they are uninformed, and they live a very simple lifestyle. Thirty-eight people per square mile!
> 
> .


ummmmm please don't lump, I've lived in a rural area all my life and I'm certainly not un-informed and don't life a simple lifestyle,,,whatever that means. In these days of technology people can stay informed. The only thing growing up that I wasn't up on was television shows like cartoons and stuff since I was always outside playing. With, that said we NEVER let our animals run loose, they were always on leash or chained up outside when out. Now I built a kennel so Bayne can run and not be chained up outside.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Jennifer1 said:


> My parents moved a few years back to a rural area in TN. I'm pretty sure they had the only fenced in yard in the entire town. People used to even comment about the fence when they first put it in.
> I've never seen a 3 legged dog in my life until I went to visit them. They had 4 on their block....cars, UPS truck, I do think 1 was cancer.
> I don't know that I consider these people "bad owners", although having dogs that even sometimes escape (sometimes implies more than once) and having them unfixed. Who knows how many litters the male sired. Obviously they would know if the female had any.
> And, I do feel for them. *But, I can't help but think that this is their own fault.*
> As far as the dogs go. I do believe that if the dogs saw them, they would be overjoyed. But dogs live in the moment, they are most likely very happy in their new life. It's us people that dwell on things-and I include myself in that.


Of course it was their fault that their dogs got out. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have their dogs back. Unless they can prove abuse and neglect, they need to return them to their owners.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Kaila said:


> This is purely my opinion, but I think it's irresponsible to let an unneutered dog off-leash outside of a securely fenced area, period. That's how I feel. I wouldn't do it, and I can understand why others may view owners who do that sort of thing as irresponsible. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are. Just that that would be the opinion of some, and you have to be willing to accept that sort of criticism when you subject your dog to the very realistic "what ifs" of the world (roaming, fighting, accidental pregnancies, endangering livestock, harming wildlife, harassing or harming other pets, disease, starvation, getting hit by a car, etc.). This is why leash laws are in place. It's against the law (at least here in Florida) to do that sort of thing.


Side note here, but leash laws.... do not differentiate whether a dog is out of control and unmonitored or under control, in training, and has a owner right there with him. That is why so many people view them as abhorrant and ridiculous. 

My instructor (mondo obedience titles on her dogs, all of her dogs are completely under control) was out training her dogs in a park. They were off leash, because for hunt tests (believe it or not) these dogs need to be off leash and an enormous unfenced distance away from their owners. Whether they are intact or not. She was called on the carpet for having her dogs off leash. Not sure if she got a ticket, but even there I know people training their dogs have been ticketed. 

Whether a dog is intact or not - the rules should be the same. It irresponsible to let your dog off leash somewhere if he is going to be out of control. Off leash or on leash, you the owner need to be on the ball and keeping your dog out of trouble. 

I let my intact dog off leash - a lot. He has not caused the same amount of chaos that some ON LEASH dogs have.  

There is a neutered dog on our street who is kept in a fenced in yard. This dog will and has jumped that fence to come running out to attack dogs being walked past with their owners. 

Neutering does not replace training, and unfortunately many people are led to believe it does.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

No matter whether they live in a rural area or an urban area as dog owners they don't get a free pass on being ignorant of their laws.

*edited in as this was not clear) Maine's State Dog Laws (that apply to this occasion)

§3911. Dogs at large 
It is unlawful for any dog, licensed or unlicensed, to be at large, except when used for hunting. The owner or keeper of any dog found at large is subject to the penalties provided in this chapter. [1999, c. 254, §3 (amd).]
§3912. Disposition of dogs at large
1. Ownership of dog unknown. Except as provided in subsection 2, an animal control officer or person acting in that capacity shall seize, impound or restrain a dog found in violation of section 3911 and deliver it to an animal shelter as provided for in section 3913, subsection 2-A. If ownership can not be established, such a dog may be handled as a stray dog for the purpose of acceptance by an animal shelter. [1997, c. 690, §10 (new).]
B. Deliver it to an animal shelter as provided in section 3913. An animal shelter receiving a dog in accordance with this paragraph shall follow the procedure for stray dogs provided in section 3913. [1999, c. 254, §4 (new).]
§3913. Procedure for stray dogs
1. Persons finding stray dogs. A person finding a stray dog and taking control of that dog shall take that dog to its owner if known or, if the owner is not known, to the animal shelter designated by the municipality in which the dog was found.
2. Repealed. Laws 1991, c
2-A. Animal shelter. An animal shelter, as defined in section 3907, to which a stray dog is taken shall accept the dog for a period of 6 days unless the shelter is in quarantine or has a bona fide lack of adequate space. Except as provided in subsection 2-B, the acceptance entitles the animal shelter to receive from the department the sum of $4 a day for the period for which food and shelter are furnished to the dog. An animal shelter may refuse to accept dogs from municipalities not contracting with that animal shelter.

4. Ownership of dog. Upon expiration of the 6-day period, ownership of the dog is vested in the animal shelter. The animal shelter may then:

B. Otherwise dispose of the dog humanely in accordance with Title 17, chapter 42, subchapter IV. [FN2] Except as provided in this section, an animal shelter must hold a dog at least 8 days before euthanasia.

Reading the above after 6 days dogs running at large become the property of the shelter that is contracted for the local area. They can then adopt it out as they own it. At 8 days they can choose to euthanize it.

Other areas of the USA have only a 72 hour holding period before they own the dog and can adopt it out or put it down.

Most of us are for the law when it takes a dog away for cruelty and abuse and complain if those people don't get convicted and penalized. Most want laws to pick up stray dogs as they could endanger our own pets/children/us but don't like the rest of the law about adopting out after 6 days but our government doesn't have the money to hold dogs for long periods so many would complain on that cost.

Since there are laws and consequences responsible ownership is knowing the laws and protecting your pets.

If you feel that the law in your community isn't acceptable actively work to change it.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Megora said:


> Side note here, but leash laws.... do not differentiate whether a dog is out of control and unmonitored or under control, in training, and has a owner right there with him. That is why so many people view them as abhorrant and ridiculous.
> 
> My instructor (mondo obedience titles on her dogs, all of her dogs are completely under control) was out training her dogs in a park. They were off leash, because for hunt tests (believe it or not) these dogs need to be off leash and an enormous unfenced distance away from their owners. Whether they are intact or not. She was called on the carpet for having her dogs off leash. Not sure if she got a ticket, but even there I know people training their dogs have been ticketed.
> 
> ...


 
I agree! I can't tell you how many dogs I see on a daily walk that are out of control.....yet they are on a leash. LOL!


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Of course it was their fault that their dogs got out. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have their dogs back. Unless they can prove abuse and neglect, *they need to return them to their owners*.



Who? Who needs to return them. The current owners? They signed a contract stating that they cannot sell of give away those dogs except back to YGGR. So, say that happens and they do return them, do they get a refund? Then it would be up to YGGR to return them to the original owners or re place them. Will they be reimbursed for the vetting and placement fees if they do decide to give them back? Can the owners afford to pay? Do they expect to pay? Should they be expected to pay? 
It is my understanding that Maine also has a leash law. Will the owners be fined for dogs roaming?
I don't think this is as simple as "just return them"
When that dog in Ca. was reunited with it's original owners, they were cited and had to pay fines and fees associated with their dogs care.

This is not a black and white issue. Since the majority of this thread is speculation, I would like to speculate. Suppose that the new owner is a 10 year old child dying of leukemia who only has about 2 years to live and this dog is now a therapy/companion dog for this child. Do you still think that they should return the dog? We have no idea where those dogs are now, or how important they are to the new owners. It isn't up to us to say that they need to return the dog. That is a decision that only they can make depending on their circumstances. We don't even know if the dogs were placed together. There may be 2 homes that would have to give up their dogs. 
Just return the dogs. It would be really nice if life were that simple.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

goldhaven said:


> Who? Who needs to return them. The current owners? They signed a contract stating that they cannot sell of give away those dogs except back to YGGR. So, say that happens and they do return them, do they get a refund? Then it would be up to YGGR to return them to the original owners or re place them. Will they be reimbursed for the vetting and placement fees if they do decide to give them back? Can the owners afford to pay? Do they expect to pay? Should they be expected to pay?
> It is my understanding that Maine also has a leash law. Will the owners be fined for dogs roaming?
> I don't think this is as simple as "just return them"
> When that dog in Ca. was reunited with it's original owners, they were cited and had to pay fines and fees associated with their dogs care.
> ...


"They" As in whoever has them right now. Of course there will be fee's to be paid. Your hypothetical question is just that.......hypothetical. Life can be simple if people just stick with the facts. If they can't prove abuse or neglect....return them.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> Of course it was their fault that their dogs got out. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have their dogs back. Unless they can prove abuse and neglect, they need to return them to their owners.


Actually, I was referring to this whole situation being their fault. The dogs are gone because of a series of mistakes, most (IMO) being done by them. Also, assuming that ordinance listed above is from their area, they ceased having legal ownership after the 6 day period was up. Whether or not you feel what has happened is morally right or not, it appears to be legally done. Again, in my opinion, this whole mess could have been prevented or ended before it got this far if the owners had put in a bit of effort


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

Jennifer1 said:


> Actually, I was referring to this whole situation being their fault. The dogs are gone because of a series of mistakes, most (IMO) being done by them. Also, assuming that ordinance listed above is from their area, they ceased having legal ownership after the 6 day period was up. Whether or not you feel what has happened is morally right or not, it appears to be legally done. Again, in my opinion, this whole mess could have been prevented or ended before it got this far if the owners had put in a bit of effort


The only thing the owners are liable for is their escape. Not sure what the other mistakes were. That is the only thing they can fault them for. As far as the legalities....these are yet to be determined. It doesn't end here if the owners are willing to fight.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

I respectfully disagree with you.
From the articles that they posted on FB, every effort they put into finding the dogs was too little too late. The way I read those articles, they did little more than ask a few neighbors and post on Facebook after the dogs were already given to rescue-not sure about the adoption timeframe.
They were really not at all proactive about getting their dogs back.
If the dogs were still sitting in rescue, I'd say maybe they should get them back. But, they're not. A new family has bonded with them. You very well could be breaking the hearts of more children to take them away now. If I had kids bonded to a dog, I don't know that I'd be willing to put my kids through that if I didn't have to. And everyone will consider their own kids before someone else's.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

Here's the timeframe as I read it

Early Nov-dogs take off. At this time they checked ARK animal shelter & SPCA in Trenton
2 days after missing-dogs picked uP and taken to Ellsworth small animal clinic
About 1 week later, dogs taken by rescue
They didnt call to check Ellsworth until 2 weeks after dogs taken by rescue

At that point they were told that no one had brought the dogs-very possible a human mistake (forgot? Or talked to someone who hadn't seen the dogs?


----------



## penparson (Sep 19, 2010)

It's too bad the Warrens didn't know to check the Small Animal Clinic. Prior to this thread, had Wakefield been missing I would have checked with the SPCA in Trenton and posted notices around our small town. I never would have thought of the SAC (a vet).

Lesson learned - but it still doesn't excuse the feeble attempt by the ACO in Sullivan/Franklin to locate the owners of the two goldens. Generally in the smaller towns in rural Maine SOMEONE knows who owns a dog. Word of mouth found the owner of the wandering Kelore golden who made himself at home in our front yard a couple of years ago. I made a couple of "found dog" notices and posted them at the General Store and with another local animal lover. Once I'd talked to a few folks in town about who owned young goldens, someone told me that the dog probably belonged to a fellow who frequently does landscaping/caretaking etc. in our area. I couldn't find the owner immediately, but was able to leave him with a mutual friend who knows the dog.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

I guess I still feel that the burden is put on the owners. No one has the motivation to get my pets to me as I do. I wouldn't want to rely on someone else needing to put more effort in than required.
I guess if nothing else, maybe this should serve as a lesson that we should all check with our local town and surrounding areas to find out where animals will be brought if they are ever found roaming


----------



## debra1704 (Feb 22, 2012)

Someone should post a sticky thread with instructions as to what to do if our dog(s) ever go missing. I honestly would not know who to call other than the animal shelter & local Golden rescue organization.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

I always get upset when I read people saying "This is the value of microchipping" in instances such as this. My own humane society doesn't even have a chip reader. I think the lesson here is that society still considers animals property.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Re: microchipping. Of my six, one has a chip that no longer works(Mantha, almost 10, but the chip hasn't worked for years) and Mick and Emily both have chips at the point of their shoulders because it migrated, so who would ever find it? However I guess, I could still prove ownership.. If we checked the point of shoulder. I guess where this story gets me is that it is written that the dogs have gone off before. I grew up with dogs that never came back, so I could never accept that...


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Braccarius said:


> I always get upset when I read people saying "This is the value of microchipping" in instances such as this. My own humane society doesn't even have a chip reader. I think the lesson here is that society still considers animals property.


That's *your* humane society. And unless every lost dog in this country goes to *your* humane society when lost, microchips play a huge part in the recovery of lost pets. I worked at *my* local humane society for 2 years and I can't tell you how many dogs were reunited with their owners because of their chips. So yes, "in instances _such as this_", chips are very valuable. IMO, of course.


----------



## BajaOklahoma (Sep 27, 2009)

One of my daughter's friends is an Animal Control Officer (she chose this career at age 14 to save animals). They are thorough about checking the dogs for chips. If it isn't where expected, they check further.

If your human society doesn't have a chip reader, what about starting a fund raiser to buy a couple. The local pet stores may permit you setting up bowls to collect money.... or the loal vets.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

I am not going to comment about this case itself but to read people say this ASO person didn't do enough or go far enough to find the owners does upset me. How many people have been in the back of shelter or has to see everything a shelter worker has to do every day? I have volunteered at several and seen what they do every day. There is alot of work they have to do on a shoestring budget. They have to feed and keep kennels clean. Go pick up animals. Plus paperwork, answer phones and people coming in to see animals. Give medical care like cleaning wounds worming etc. And one shelter there were only two people on a Saturday to do this. So volunteers are a great help. 

In picking up a dog one time the county shelter was crates set up in a barn with fans and side walls open to help with air flow. Two elderly women worked there. The golden I picked up was gorgeous and the women said the asked everyone they knew if anyone had lost him but noone claimed him. These people only knew about the rescue because someone had lived in the area and had adopted another dog from them and told them about us. 
Shelters in county and city budgets are usually one of the first thing cut when they are doing the. Budget and are looking to save money. And like with our local shelter they don't charge us when we pick up a dog from them so that is money they didn't make on that dog. 

A lot of our dogs are coming from owner surrenders lately but the ones that come from the shelter a lot of those are heartworm positive. So they are spending months in foster care. One just came the streets that had been roaming for at least a month. When finally coaxed to be petted she was found to have a broken jaw and other injuries. Whether from the owner or on the streets but she stayed in the same area the whole time so if her family was looking for her they probably could have found her.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

kwhit said:


> That's *your* humane society. And unless every lost dog in this country goes to *your* humane society when lost, microchips play a huge part in the recovery of lost pets. I worked at *my* local humane society for 2 years and I can't tell you how many dogs were reunited with their owners because of their chips. So yes, "in instances _such as this_", chips are very valuable. IMO, of course.


So you think that its the original owners fault for not placing a microchip in their animal which, as stated before: can stop working or migrate from its original location? Hardly. There are always numerous excuses made as to why an animal falls through the cracks and can get placed by a shelter or rescue. My favourite by far is "the animal wasn't microchipped" so we don't know the actual owner. 

If I lost my bicycle and I noticed somebody else riding it that person could be charged with posession of stolen property. If I lose my dog and I see somebody else walking it its my fault for not microchipping.


----------



## goldhaven (Sep 3, 2009)

Braccarius said:


> So you think that its the original owners fault for not placing a microchip in their animal which, as stated before: can stop working or migrate from its original location? Hardly. There are always numerous excuses made as to why an animal falls through the cracks and can get placed by a shelter or rescue. My favourite by far is "the animal wasn't microchipped" so we don't know the actual owner.
> 
> If I lost my bicycle and I noticed somebody else riding it that person could be charged with posession of stolen property. If I lose my dog and I see somebody else walking it its my fault for not microchipping.


If you couldn't prove that it was your bicycle, they would not be charged and you would not get it back. As stated earlier, this happened to me with a radar detector and the person that had it actually broke into my car to steal it. Now I record the serial numbers to all of my possessions, in the paperwork, as soon as I get them, and file them away, just in case.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

goldhaven said:


> If you couldn't prove that it was your bicycle, they would not be charged and you would not get it back. As stated earlier, this happened to me with a radar detector and the person that had it actually broke into my car to steal it. Now I record the serial numbers to all of my possessions, in the paperwork, as soon as I get them, and file them away, just in case.


They have PICTURES of both of the dogs! If that is not irrefutable evidence that they are the owners of the animal then there's no hope for this planet.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Braccarius said:


> So you think that its the original owners fault for not placing a microchip in their animal...


I was simply stating why I thought that microchips do a world of good in these types of situations. No mention of the "original owners" was made by me nor was any fault placed. Nice try, though...:uhoh:


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

kwhit said:


> So yes, "in instances _such as this_", chips are very valuable. IMO, of course.


...nice try though...


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Braccarius said:


> They have PICTURES of both of the dogs! If that is not irrefutable evidence that they are the owners of the animal then there's no hope for this planet.


My sister's friend has a Golden that looks identical to Chance...in pictures, you can _not_ tell them apart. Can I? Sure, he's my dog. Would anyone that didn't know both dogs be able to tell? Nope. 

The breeder that Chance came from has a dog on their site that even my daughter thought it was Chance. Hate to say it but there are a lot of Goldens that look identical to each other in pictures, even here between members. The average person, (not speaking of said dog's owners), would not be able to ID a dog strictly by pictures. Unless there is a very unique physical trait that is included in the pictures. So the added insurance of a chip would be indisputable.


----------



## Braccarius (Sep 8, 2008)

kwhit said:


> My sister's friend has a Golden that looks identical to Chance...in pictures, you can _not_ tell them apart. Can I? Sure, he's my dog. Would anyone that didn't know both dogs be able to tell? Nope.
> 
> The breeder that Chance came from has a dog on their site that even my daughter thought it was Chance. Hate to say it but there are a lot of Goldens that look identical to each other in pictures, even here between members. The average person, (not speaking of said dog's owners), would not be able to ID a dog strictly by pictures. Unless there is a very unique physical trait that is included in the pictures. So the added insurance of a chip would be indisputable.


 
This is silliness, they can trace the animals through both pictures, reports and inquiries. The rescue dropped the ball and no amount of microchipping is changing that. I'm done with this topic.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Braccarius said:


> The rescue dropped the ball and *no amount of microchipping is changing that*.


Well of course not...in this case it was never done.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> My sister's friend has a Golden that looks identical to Chance...in pictures, you can _not_ tell them apart. Can I? Sure, he's my dog. Would anyone that didn't know both dogs be able to tell? Nope.
> 
> The breeder that Chance came from has a dog on their site that even my daughter thought it was Chance. Hate to say it but there are a lot of Goldens that look identical to each other in pictures, even here between members. The average person, (not speaking of said dog's owners), would not be able to ID a dog strictly by pictures. Unless there is a very unique physical trait that is included in the pictures. So the added insurance of a chip would be indisputable.


This really is getting silly. Let's not forget they have 9 years of pictures of BOTH dogs......gee what are the odds.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Wyatt's mommy said:


> This really is getting silly. Let's not forget they have 9 years of pictures of BOTH dogs......gee what are the odds.


I'm not saying that they were not the original owners. My point is that pictures will not always work for ID on lost pets. I would never want to rely on pictures alone.


----------



## Wyatt's mommy (Feb 25, 2011)

kwhit said:


> I'm not saying that they were not the original owners. My point is that pictures will not always work for ID on lost pets. I would never want to rely on pictures alone.


Oh ok I thought since you quoted Baraccarius post regarding they had pictures of BOTH dogs that's what you were talking about. Thanks for clearing that up.

But I agree, especially with all the politics that seem to go on with these rescue organizations you better have a **** good lawyer along with DNA samplings also.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Braccarius said:


> This is silliness, they can trace the animals through both pictures, reports and inquiries. The rescue dropped the ball and no amount of microchipping is changing that. I'm done with this topic.



I'm obviously missing something. Where exactly did the rescue drop the ball?


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

fostermom said:


> I'm obviously missing something. Where exactly did the rescue drop the ball?


I've really tried to remain neutral in this discussion because I feel there are too little facts and too little information provided about this story to make a judgement one way or the other.

I'm glad you asked this question, because I see no evidence that the Rescue has dropped the ball as mentioned above either. I hope someone will enlighten me. 

I'd also like to know what is meant by the Politics of Rescue Groups-I guess I'm missing something here too. 

I don't think using the Media in this situation is the best way to go about it. I think this is a Legal Matter at this point and the use of Legal Counsel would be more productive.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

My vet checks the boys' chips at every visit to make sure they still work. I mentioned that they could migrate too and she said that the HomeAgain chips don't migrate. Apparently they have a coating that binds to the tissue. I have no other source to corroborate that claim, but I thought it was interesting.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

tippykayak said:


> My vet checks the boys' chips at every visit to make sure they still work. I mentioned that they could migrate too and she said that the HomeAgain chips don't migrate. Apparently they have a coating that binds to the tissue. I have no other source to corroborate that claim, but I thought it was interesting.


Chance's is a HomeAgain chip. It migrated down his shoulder. His is almost 7 years old...maybe newer chips don't migrate?


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

CAROLINA MOM said:


> I've really tried to remain neutral in this discussion because I feel there are too little facts and too little information provided about this story to make a judgement one way or the other.
> 
> I'm glad you asked this question, because I see no evidence that the Rescue has dropped the ball as mentioned above either. I hope someone will enlighten me.
> 
> ...


As far as I can tell, the rescue did absolutely nothing wrong with the intake of the dogs. Had they known of another person's claims to the dogs and adopted them out anyway, then, and only then, would there be an issue with what they did with the dogs--that is definitely not the case here. As far as we know (and we don't have all the facts), they were contacted by the original owners (or became aware of a claim) months after the adoptions. It looks like the rescue got drawn into this after the fact, simply by doing their job --no ill intent, nothing. They are at least represented by counsel now to help them through this. 

Neither the media nor Facebook (nor this forum) can bring these dogs home--you are correct, they need legal help at this point. We don't know if they've consulted lawyers and been turned down or if there is even someone willing to represent them.


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

kwhit said:


> Chance's is a HomeAgain chip. It migrated down his shoulder. His is almost 7 years old...maybe newer chips don't migrate?


Or my vet is wrong.


----------



## IowaGold (Nov 3, 2009)

tippykayak said:


> Or my vet is wrong.


They did "re-do" the chips a few years ago with the new non-migration coating-not exactly sure when...


----------



## tippykayak (Oct 27, 2008)

IowaGold said:


> They did "re-do" the chips a few years ago with the new non-migration coating-not exactly sure when...


That must be it. Comet's and Jax's are only a year or so old.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

IowaGold said:


> They did "re-do" the chips a few years ago with the new non-migration coating-not exactly sure when...


Well, that made my decision. I'm going to re-do his chip for sure. Oh, man...that needle is sooooo big. :yuck: I guess if they do kittens and Chi pups, Chance can handle it, (both his and Lucy's chip were put in while being spayed/neutered). I just don't know if I can...


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

All my boys didn't mind the chip needle at all, I did though, I was doing all the wincing, they didn't even flinch. When Bayne got his done the (stand in) vet pinched my finger with the needle and boy that hurt me and bleed for a long time, Bayne didn't even bleed so they aren't touching any vessels.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Deb_Bayne said:


> When Bayne got his done the (stand in) vet pinched my finger with the needle and boy that hurt me and bleed for a long time...



Ouch!!!


----------



## goldensrbest (Dec 20, 2007)

Spirit,and cambridge are chipped,by homeagain, they did not mind getting it done.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

I have been following Bella and Jake on Facebook and one of the latest video slideshows shows aweome pictures of the family spending time with their dog. There was even a picture of the little girl sitting on top of one of the dogs like a pony. I support these people. The dogs belong to them.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

It appears that the owners of Bella and Jake might be low income. They posted a link to volunteer lawyers from Maine. I am extemely passionate about low income people not being denied the joys of dog ownership and companionship, especially because of the mental health benefits that dogs bring.


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

6 months is a long time to ask the new family to give it up and IF this goes further and ends up in court it could drag out for a year or more, then to give up their pets of 2 or more years? Many seem to be for the family who through their negligence lost their dogs, but nobody seems to be for the new family and their possible circumstances. as far as anyone knows these dogs could be in another state or across the border in another country and the new family has no idea of all this stuff going on. There's nothing on the fb pages to show admittance of wrong doing and blaming everyone else but themselves for their errors. Oh, and deleting negative posts that they don't agree with? Highly suspect.


----------



## MercyMom (Dec 19, 2011)

The 6 month waiting period does puzzle me. I am sure the new family is not denying the previous family on purpose. They could very well be somewhere else totally unaware the that previous family is looking for them. I am sure the children of the previous family is heartbroken.


----------



## KevinM822 (Nov 27, 2011)

Deb_Bayne said:


> 6 months is a long time to ask the new family to give it up and IF this goes further and ends up in court it could drag out for a year or more, then to give up their pets of 2 or more years? Many seem to be for the family who through their negligence lost their dogs, but nobody seems to be for the new family and their possible circumstances. as far as anyone knows these dogs could be in another state or across the border in another country and the new family has no idea of all this stuff going on. There's nothing on the fb pages to show admittance of wrong doing and blaming everyone else but themselves for their errors. Oh, and deleting negative posts that they don't agree with? Highly suspect.


It seems to me that there are just as many people calling out the errors in the original owners that there are blaming others. 

They've admitted a few times on their Facebook page that they 'could have done this... And could have done that..."
That is unless they removed their comments at a request of the lawyer?
I'm on my phone right now and I haven't checked their FB page in a few days so idk...

I honestly am stuck in the middle on this one because I can't stand thinking of being either party of this mess! My heart goes out to the new AND original families.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Some posters on this thread seem be familiar with the clinic and towns involved. Can someone check with the Sullivan and Franklin town governments and find out if the ACO did not comply with her duties by not contacting registered owners? I saw this posted on the FB page and I am appalled, how can ACO get away with blatantly disregarding tags and not contacting owners if she picks up a dog that is wearing tags?

(Maria) Zwicker (animal control office) says "even if I find a dog with tags on, I can still bring the dog to the shelter and not look for the owners".


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

mylissyk said:


> Some posters on this thread seem be familiar with the clinic and towns involved. Can someone check with the Sullivan and Franklin MA town governments and find out if the ACO did not comply with her duties by not contacting registered owners? I saw this posted on the FB page and I am appalled, how can ACO get away with blatantly disregarding tags and not contacting owners if she picks up a dog that is wearing tags?
> 
> (Maria) Zwicker (animal control office) says "even if I find a dog with tags on, I can still bring the dog to the shelter and not look for the owners".


The town is Franklin, ME ( Maine ) not Franklin, MA ( Massachusetts, that is where I am from  ).

Only one dog had a collar on, but no tags. They were registered to the town, so if she pulled the records from the town, then she would have seen that two goldens belonged to this family. She did pull the records from the town the dog's were found, there were ten families, but she was quoted as saying she did not have time. She is the ACO for both the town she found the dogs in and the town that the dogs came from.

I have done searches on Marie Zwicker ( she also shows up under another last name, can't remember it though.) She is a BIG ACTIVIST for many things. 

I do know the shelter in my new city in Missouri, actually posts all found dogs on their website, and during business hours, they have a webcam on each holding cage, and rotates pictures of each cage so one can easily see if their pet is being held. I also see the the animal control posting found pets on craigslist quite often.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Pardon my mistake. My question still stands, and not just for this particular situation. What are the responsibilities of the ACO per the job description and town laws for the towns she is employed by? 

How can she possibly be doing her job if she would blatantly ignore id tags and not bother to call the contact on those tags? Is she required to or is she not required to attempt to contact owners when id is present?

Citizens of these townships should be in an uproar if she either is NOT doing her job, or their towns have no requirement for animal control to attempt to contact owners off ID, which would include tags and microchips.

Hypothetical situation, a person lives in one of those towns, their dog is registered with the town, is wearing id tags, and is also microchipped. They unfortunately get picked up by animal control, yet animal control makes not effort to contact the owners even though contact information is on the dog in two forms, and the dog is registered with town. 

How is that acceptable?


----------



## Maggies mom (Jan 6, 2006)

Dirks fund had something close to this happen: Willie got out of the back yard , when a gate was left open by the meter man, Willie ended up in a shelter 150 miles away from his home, an elderly lady adopted him then she became ill and Willie went back to the shelter. The shelter called us to go get him, we did, had all vet work done and put him in a foster home, which he was there for over 6 months and the foster family was to adopt Willie on the weekend..Willie's picture and bio were on petfinder-through our adoptable list. We got a call one day from the original owner telling us the story about how he got out. These people had pictures of Willie since he was a pup. He did have a marking on him that was clearing visible in there photos. KEEP in mind Willie had been *gone for 6 YEARS. *The families daughter put up Willies stocking every Christmas for 6 years never given up hope he would return home.We set up a meeting with the original owners and foster home. It was a bitter sweet reunion, Willie got out of the car and ran to his old family given kisses, the foster family who LOVED this dog, with Dirksfund gave Willie back to the family. This story made the paper and the local news.


----------



## Jennifer1 (Mar 31, 2012)

mylissyk said:


> How can she possibly be doing her job if she would blatantly ignore id tags and not bother to call the contact on those tags? Is she required to or is she not required to attempt to contact owners when id is present?


There was no ID present. One dog had no collar, the other had collar no tags


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

Maine's Dog laws (not complete)

§3912. Disposition of dogs at large
1. Ownership of dog unknown. Except as provided in subsection 2, an animal control officer or person acting in that capacity shall seize, impound or restrain a dog found in violation of section 3911 and deliver it to an animal shelter as provided for in section 3913, subsection 2-A. If ownership can not be established, such a dog may be handled as a stray dog for the purpose of acceptance by an animal shelter. [1997, c. 690, §10 (new).]
2. *Ownership of known dog*. An animal control officer or person acting in that capacity shall seize, impound or restrain a dog found in violation of section 3911 and, if the owner is known, shall:
A. Take the dog to its owner; *OR* [1999, c. 254, §4 (new).]
B. Deliver it to an animal shelter as provided in section 3913. An animal shelter receiving a dog in accordance with this paragraph shall follow the procedure for stray dogs provided in section 3913. [1999, c. 254, §4 (new).]
[1999, c. 254, §4 (rpr).]
CREDIT(S)
1987, c. 383, § 3; 1987, c. 643, § 1, eff. March 25, 1988; 1991, c. 779, § 17, eff. March 31, 1992; 1993, c. 657, § 12; 1997, c. 690, § 10; 1999, c. 254, § 4.


§3913. Procedure for stray dogs
1. Persons finding stray dogs. A person finding a stray dog and taking control of that dog shall take that dog to its owner if known or, if the owner is not known, to the animal shelter designated by the municipality in which the dog was found.
2. Repealed. Laws 1991, c. 779, § 20, eff. March 31, 1992.
2-A. Animal shelter. An animal shelter, as defined in section 3907, to which a stray dog is taken shall accept the dog for a period of 6 days unless the shelter is in quarantine or has a bona fide lack of adequate space. Except as provided in subsection 2-B, the acceptance entitles the animal shelter to receive from the department the sum of $4 a day for the period for which food and shelter are furnished to the dog. An animal shelter may refuse to accept dogs from municipalities not contracting with that animal shelter.
2-B. Adoption policy. Beginning January 1, 2010, to be eligible for reimbursement under subsection 2-A, an animal shelter must have an adoption policy. An adoption policy must provide for a dog to be available for adoption for a minimum of 24 hours except as provided in subsection 6.
3. Claims; fees. The procedure for filing claims and calculating fees is as follows.
A. On the business day next following the date of acceptance of a dog that is not delivered by an animal control officer or person acting in that capacity, the animal shelter shall notify the animal control officer or person acting in that capacity of the respective municipality of the acceptance of the dog, its description and the circumstances of its finding.
B. An animal shelter that accepts a dog under this section, within 45 days of acceptance of the dog, shall submit a claim on a department-approved form to the department for fees incurred in providing food and shelter and the animal shelter shall forward a copy of the claim to the clerk of the respective municipality.
C. If the owner claims the dog within the 6-day period, the owner may have and receive the dog upon payment of all department-approved fees as provided in subsection 2-A, the municipal impoundment fee and actual fees incurred for food, shelter, veterinary care and any other fees required by this chapter for each day that the dog has been sheltered, provided that the dog is licensed in accordance with chapter 721. [FN1]
4. Ownership of dog. Upon expiration of the 6-day period, ownership of the dog is vested in the animal shelter. The animal shelter may then:
A. Except as provided in section 3938-A, sell or give away the dog, but not to a research facility, if a license is first obtained in accordance with chapter 721; or
B. Otherwise dispose of the dog humanely in accordance with Title 17, chapter 42, subchapter IV. [FN2] Except as provided in this section, an animal shelter must hold a dog at least 8 days before euthanasia.
Notwithstanding this subsection, ownership of a dog for the purposes of adoption is immediately vested in an animal shelter if the animal shelter makes a determination that the dog is obviously abandoned. An obviously abandoned dog does not include a dog roaming at large.
An animal shelter shall establish and collect fees for reclaimed or adopted animals to offset costs of keeping a dog beyond 6 days.
None of the proceeds obtained from the sale, donation, adoption or other disposition of the dog may be deducted from the fee claimed.
Notwithstanding subsection 3, paragraph C, the previous owner may reacquire the dog at any time prior to its sale, donation or disposal upon payment of the municipal impoundment fee and actual fees incurred for food, shelter, veterinary care and any other fees required by this chapter for each day that the dog has been sheltered. In this case, no fee may be allowed by the department.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Maggies mom said:


> Dirks fund had something close to this happen: Willie got out of the back yard , when a gate was left open by the meter man, Willie ended up in a shelter 150 miles away from his home, an elderly lady adopted him then she became ill and Willie went back to the shelter. The shelter called us to go get him, we did, had all vet work done and put him in a foster home, which he was there for over 6 months and the foster family was to adopt Willie on the weekend..Willie's picture and bio were on petfinder-through our adoptable list. We got a call one day from the original owner telling us the story about how he got out. These people had pictures of Willie since he was a pup. He did have a marking on him that was clearing visible in there photos. KEEP in mind Willie had been *gone for 6 YEARS. *The families daughter put up Willies stocking every Christmas for 6 years never given up hope he would return home.We set up a meeting with the original owners and foster home. It was a bitter sweet reunion, Willie got out of the car and ran to his old family given kisses, the foster family who LOVED this dog, with Dirksfund gave Willie back to the family. This story made the paper and the local news.


I have read this story a couple times, and it has always given me chills.


----------



## AlanK (Jun 28, 2008)

I truly feel this thread has run its course.

If you have a good reason that can not be addressed elsewhere feel free to send me a PM and I will consider re-opening.
Al


----------

