Bassetluv
Well-Known Member
I'm really musing over this one after seeing an upsetting video on Yahoo today. It was a clip from Ellen Degeneres' show, and Ellen had broken down and began crying on camera. Apparentlya while ago she adopted apuppy from a local shelter and had every plan to keep him...took him to the vet, had him neutered, etc., but the dog didn't work out for her. He was lively and active, and since she decided she couldn't keep him, and knew that her hairdresser was looking for a dog for her children, Ellen gave him away. The woman who took him was sending her updates on him, telling Ellen how well he'd bonded with the children, how happy he was...but then Ellen received a phone call from the shelter asking how the puppy was doing. When she told them that he hadn't worked out for her, but she had found him a loving home, the people at the shelter got very upset, went to the woman's house and seized the dog. And that is what led to Ellen breaking down in tears on her show...she was sobbing, admitting that she had inadvertently not followed their protocal, and she was begging the shelter to return the puppy to the family, as the woman and her children were devastated.
I know that shelters have clauses when you adopt a pet, stating that if you cannot take care of it, you are to return it to the shelter, and I understand that the clause is there to protect the animal...but I do have to wonder sometimes. Why could they not have simply monitored the family and let the puppy stay? Or signed the adoption papers over to them? Unless there is more to the story than has been revealed, I find this rather upsetting.
I know that when I adopted my dog 10 years ago, the shelter herealmost didn't let me take her, despite the fact I was one of their volunteers, and despite the fact that Kaya was being considered for euthanasia because she was going to be deemed 'unadoptable' due to separation anxiety issues (she had been adopted out twice and returned both times)...that and the fact that they were overflowing with dogs coming in and were being forced to put some of them down. The reason they initially denied me the adoption? My son, who was 16 at the time, was out of the province for the summer, and they didn't want me to adopt Kaya without her first meeting all the family members. It took a great deal of pleading on my part for them to allow her to come home with me. Had they not given in to my pleading, Kaya - who is an absolute blessing - probably wouldn't be alive now.
Sometimes I think either rules are just too strict, or they need to make exceptions...
I know that shelters have clauses when you adopt a pet, stating that if you cannot take care of it, you are to return it to the shelter, and I understand that the clause is there to protect the animal...but I do have to wonder sometimes. Why could they not have simply monitored the family and let the puppy stay? Or signed the adoption papers over to them? Unless there is more to the story than has been revealed, I find this rather upsetting.
I know that when I adopted my dog 10 years ago, the shelter herealmost didn't let me take her, despite the fact I was one of their volunteers, and despite the fact that Kaya was being considered for euthanasia because she was going to be deemed 'unadoptable' due to separation anxiety issues (she had been adopted out twice and returned both times)...that and the fact that they were overflowing with dogs coming in and were being forced to put some of them down. The reason they initially denied me the adoption? My son, who was 16 at the time, was out of the province for the summer, and they didn't want me to adopt Kaya without her first meeting all the family members. It took a great deal of pleading on my part for them to allow her to come home with me. Had they not given in to my pleading, Kaya - who is an absolute blessing - probably wouldn't be alive now.
Sometimes I think either rules are just too strict, or they need to make exceptions...