CLOSNG COMMENTS ... I'm tired of the visciousness of the tone of what should be a debate or a rational rebuttal. And I am also hiding all comments to date. This is a forum for rational discussion, not childish tantrums.
There is an innate passion which infuse those who advocate on the part of animals in a society which seldom provides them with a voice. The poignancy of creatures which are left victims of circumstance and the capriciousness of fate, brings with it an inevitable fervour which can often escalate into fanaticism and even obsession. People who advocate for animals, who despite the vagaries of a legal system which labels them property and a "justice" system which consistently undervalues their lives, are inevitably vocal and ardent about protecting those who cannot speak for themselves.
In most cases (one can hope), the fervour,the passion and the honest devotion in the end, benefits those at whom it is directed. Animals are rescued. Animals find homes. Animals in horrific situations of neglect find succor and hope in new situations. Animals who have never known a kind word, a soft voice or care discover that not all human beings are uncaring bastards.
But by the very nature of that passion, there are also those who like parasites, exploit and deceive genuine individuals who simply want to do what they can to assuage animals in need. It is an unfortunate reality of life that immoral people can be found in every venue - from the animal advocacy world to cancer victims in the human world.
Having myself been involved (in a very non-professional capacity) in rescue and/or fostering to a greater or lesser extent my entire life - and in a more involved way for the past 10 years - I have seen the entire gamut of the human spirit's capacity to care, to soar and to crash.
Like many in the animal advocacy field, I have been deceived and betrayed by those I trusted; the sad thing being that in many of these situations, it was not an overt decision to deceive but a case of someone getting in over their heads. A group I myself was involved with - and during my tenure there - personally witnessed many fine rescues and happy endings - ended in tragedy when an individual who had in the past been an amazing advocate, through a series of unfortunate circumstances, found themselves in a situation where for all intents and purposes they ended up a hoarder - and animals suffered. It left me reeling and suffering from a confusing glut of emotions from anger to remorse to self recrimination and was exacerbated by the reality of the concurrent crash and burn at the Toronto Humane Society where I volunteered at the EXACT same time (yet another case of good intentions gone awry - to this day, I see that Tim Trow had the best of intentions but allowed ego and obsession to over-rule common sense and the reality of what he could handle).
There are, however, fairly straightforward ways to thwart those who would take a genuine offer and in nefarious ways, twist into something which personally enriches them and leaves the animal for whom it was intended, out in the cold. The latest storm of controversy over the treatment (or from all reports, lack thereof) of the dogs that were ostensibly rescued from a house in foreclosure in Peterborough is a case in point.
The reality is I don't give a good goddam about the egos, the assertions, the claims of ANYONE involved with this - I just want to bloody know,
ARE THE DOGS ALL RIGHT??
From personal experience, I don't trust "chip in" funds - there is simply no way to ensure the money donated is directed towards its ostensible goal. Even well-intentioned funds can go astray if a more urgent case (in the eyes of the holder) suddenly arises - yet the funds were supposed to be ear-marked for a SPECIFIC case. This is particularly true if the self-designated charity is a NON-registered charity and simply calls itself that.
Paying the vet directly with specific instructions for a certain animal is almost foolproof. And from the perspective of an animal rescuer, is a win-win situation. The rescuer gets the funds needed to vet the animal, the animal receives the medical care it requires and the vet gets their money.
To give people the benefit of the doubt, there are self-styled "rescuers' who go in with the right intentions and somewhere along the way, lose sight of reality.
There is NO rescue if the animals you 'rescue' remain in a situation where their physical, mental and/or emotional stability is compromised. It's that simple. Good intentions don't treat animals in pain or distress. Soft hearts don't give you the expertise to rehabilitate an animal that needs remedial behaviour modification.
People being people, egos get in the way. People get an inflated sense of what they can handle and a heightened sense of their own expertise.
I admit to being a cynical bitch and that the storm of justifications, counter-arguments, contradictions and outright lies (revealed through their own words) has given me a less than sanguine opinion of either Storm or Melitta et al. - but I'm really comfortable with parking my own ego and asking, again,
ARE THE DOGS ALL RIGHT?
When people act as a society to save an animal, it is customary and 'normal' to seek answers and assurances about the status and health of the animal saved. When people CARE it is not gossip or simple curiousity that lead them to ask for reassurance, it is a genuine sense of compassion.
The Peterborough dogs remain shrouded in mystery and misinformation. No updated pictures. No proof of vetting. Two rather awful pictures of 2 of them with no explanation of where the other two are - including the little chi. Myself and several others continue to pursue various avenues to actually confirm the existence of these dogs - and verify the story as given in the Peterborough Examiner.
But when all is said and done, IF these dogs do exist, IF they did indeed suffer through the horror as described, then simply put, ARE THEY ALL RIGHT?
It's not rocket science but a simple question.
