By Lori Lovely

Animal rescue is a noble calling: selfless work that demands sacrifice, countless hours and a significant budget, often filled with heartache and fewer happy endings than hoped for. Too often, however, those who work in animal rescue come to consider themselves nobility, dictating inflexible rules for adopters and neglecting the best interests of the animals because the rescuers have developed controlissues, ego and a sense of power.

“In my experience,” writes Natalie, on http://my.arfie.com/profiles/blogs/bad-animal-rescues-groups, “rescue groups attract people with control issues.” She concedes that many rescue groups are good, the rescuers committed to helping homeless or abused animals. However, she adds, “some rescue groups are run by people who are in it for the power trip. Some rescues have such idiotic adoption requirements that they end up rescuing very few dogs, while hanging on to their dogs for months and in some cases years.” Not only are the animals kept in overcrowded foster homes, she states, in some cases, dogs (and cats) are caged for a year or more – while applications are denied for reasons such as lack of a fenced yard or plans for a possible future move. “I wish these rescues were accountable for how much money they take in and how many dogs they end up placing in permanent homes.”

So-called adoption fees rival purchase prices charged by breeders; adoption contracts compete with mortgage applications in length and provisos. Rules and regulations imposed can preclude approval of prospective adoptions and personal opinions about re-homing can ncloud a rescuer’s vision about what constitutes a good home. This, in turn, can lead to a hoarding, not a rescuing situation. The purpose of rescue is to find good homes for the animals, but too often that purpose is obscured.

In the end, the animals suffer because a potential adoptive family is turned away due to complicatedprocesses, exorbitant costs or overbearing, controlling rescues. Stories of rescue gone wrong are many, and exemplify the problem of an unregulated industry.

Rescue requirements

Shawn, of Oakland, CA, wrote on http://www.yelp.com/biz/fremont-animal-shelter-fremont that his adoption application was denied “because we planned to allow our dogs inside and outside access to the house at their leisure (once they were successfull housebroken).” The rescue group insisted that the dog was not to be allowed outside without a leash and supervision, even in a securely fenced yard. “I suppose we could have lied, but who does that to an animal shelter? Instead, since he didn’t meet the group’s standards of a “responsible pet owner,” he went to a local breeder. “Too bad,” he says. “We were looking to take home a pair of dogs. The blood is on their hands.”

Even if a rescue insists on an indoor life for a dog, it usually requires the adoptive home to have a fenced-in yard. One dog lover who applied to a retired greyhound rescue was rejected because his yard wasn’t big enough. “Paid thirty bucks for the application fee, only to get rejected because my backyard was not big enough,” he says. “My back yard is 1,000 square feet, but apparently that was not big enough.” Although he found the dog of his dreams in the rescue, he now says he’ll search the shelters instead of turning to another rescue.

Because most rescuers believe the only suitable life for a dog is as an indoor pet, even very large dogs bred for centuries to live with their flock or herd as livestock guardians are placed as indoor-only pets. One adoptive dog owner ignored a rescue’s rules, placing her herding dog on a farm. “She lives the life of a working dog, not a pampered pet in an urban environment,” she said. “She’s happy.”

Sadly, not all dogs get the opportunity to live the life they were born to because many rescuers are unfamiliar with breed characteristics … even if their rescue specializes in that breed. One longtime volunteer foster “mom” for a white German Shepherd rescue denounced an adopter for using a dog to herd farm animals because she believed the only job they were intended to do was as police dogs, ignoring the word “shepherd” in the name of the breed. Complaints abound. “‘Rescue groups’” for specific breeds can have very high standards and make you sign a contract saying they can take the dog back if they feel you aren’t being a good owner,” says one person who had a bad experience with a rescue. Contracts between rescue groups and adopters typically include provisions prohibiting the adopter from selling or giving away the pet and a few rescue groups include a clause to maintain co-ownership. Some contracts provide access to the adopter’s property by rescue representatives to conduct inspections at any time, with or without notice.

Almost all of them allow the rescue to take the animal if they deem conditions warrant it.

Denied and lied to

Insisting the dog remain indoors is only one of the typical rules of rescue. They can also be fussy about who lives in the home: children and other pets can become issues that preclude adoption. Sometimes, as Larissa found out, having lost a pet can disqualify an applicant.

Casually considering adding a puppy to her family, she and her husband took their three children to the Apple Fair in Hendricks County, where they fell in love with a pit bull. Because the dog had heartworms, there was no adoption fee. “The lady there was begging us to take her,” Larissa recalls. “I have a great vet, [so] my husband and I decided we would take her.” After taking a photo of the dog with her children, they instructed her where to pick up “Sweetheart” the following week once the dog had been vaccinated.

However, days later she was informed that the dog was no longer eligible for adoption because of her condition. When she inquired about adopting a different dog, the director of adoptions informed her that by honestly answering a question on the application about an animal that had passed away in her care, she was not considered a responsible pet owner. The rescue did not conduct a home inspection or check her veterinary references.

Larissa explains that the 7-week-old pit/boxer mix puppy had been vaccinated and given a clean bill of health by her vet, but passed away unexpectedly of natural causes. She later found out that one of his littermates died of complications from a weak heart. The director ignored the fact that Larissa had another dog and cat, both healthy, and vet records. Instead, the director informed her that her photo would be circulated to prevent her from nadopting from other groups. It was Larissa’s first – and last – experience with rescue. Describing the director as “god-like” and rude, she was stunned by the attack on her character. “It broke my heart that my little puppy died and now to be accused of this is heart-wrenching.”

Perhaps the most difficult aspect is explaining to her children, who had been promised by the rescue workers that Sweetheart was theirs, why they weren’t getting the dog. “My two-year-old just doesn’t get it at all,” Larissa says, “but my nine-year-old took it the hardest.” Knowing that being honest on the application canceled the adoption, she feels guilty. “Had I lied, Sweetheart would be here in my home, getting health treatment and I wouldn’t have had to go through the emotional stress of being lied to and emotionally battered and having to tell my kids we aren’t getting the doggy.

“I’m sad that I can’t have Sweetheart,” she continues. “Not many people are going to be willing to pay the money it takes to take care of a sick dog, and I’m offering her a forever home. But to talk to me like I’m a criminal and accuse me of being an irresponsible pet owner isn’t fair. The lady had me in pure tears, I mean the ugly cry. I didn’t think my heart was ready for another dog, then we were begged to save this dog and now my heart is broken again.”

All she wanted, she says, was a “sweet large-breed dog.” Through with rescues, she is now planning to purchase a dog from a reputable breeder.

Other rigid requirements for adoption include a veterinary reference, but that can be difficult for a first-time pet owner. David wrote on http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100525124841AARm3Xj that he was hoping to adopt a puppy from a rescue: breed didn’t matter. After filling out applications and paying a fee at two rescues, he was denied because he couldn’t provide the mandatory vet reference. “I’m completely put off from contacting any rescue group,” he says, “leaving me to neither wait for a pup to arrive at the local shelter or, groan, buy a pup from a pet store.

No reason at all

When Lisa tried to adopt a Teacup Chihuahua from a rescue in Kokomo, IN, as a companion for her spayed Chihuahua, she was turned down without any explanation. No home visit was conducted. She’s not sure if they checked with her veterinarian of 20 years, who has treated numerous animals she took in because they were hurt or abandoned. In addition to caring for her two dogs and cat, Lisa has a record of paying to treat abused animals, which she then rehomes. She has reunited lost pets and their owners. She has taken stray cats to be spayed or neutered and vaccinated – all out of her own pocket. “I do all this out of the kindness of my heart. I have also brought in pets that friends can’t afford to help them. I am a huge animal lover and would help any animal in need.”

Nevertheless, after answering a detailed questionnaire that asked for “everything but the kitchen sink,” her application was rejected – and she still doesn’t know why. “Why didn’t they call me to ask me questions or discuss? They don’t even know me.” An invitation to visit her home was refused, leaving her to believe that “they don’t want to adopt out.”

Like so many others, she says she has been forced to turn to breeders. “Rescues promote peopleto buy from breeders and puppy mills. They interrogate you to death and tell you no. I will never try to adopt from a rescue again! I can buy a puppy somewhere for the same amount of money and not get any interrogation … and not told ‘no’!”

Lisa’s observation is shared by others and raises the question: do rescues really want to find homes for the animals in their care? One person who witnessed rescue from the inside points out that “rescue work is very emotional so I think there is a strong protective element when it comes to rehoming dogs. Some volunteers have a hard time giving up the pet they have fostered.”

Are contract clauses deliberately stringent in order to scare off the majority of applicants? If Larissa had been able to adopt Sweetheart, she would have been required to take the dog to the rescue for her first vet visit. “We live far away from where they’re located,” she indicates. “I think a fax from our vet should have been sufficient.”

One rescue volunteer defends his industry, although his attitude toward potential adopters supports the grievance many have voiced. “Why on earth would I even consider giving a living thing to someone who won’t sign a contract? We exist for the benefit and safety of the dogs, not the convenience of every nut who wants a dog. Contracts are written and signed to protect the animals. It is one of the few ways we have to somewhat guarantee that an animal will be safe and well cared for, and not end up euthanized next week after we walk away.”

“Meanwhile,” notes another rejected adoption applicant, “while they hold onto their dogs, hundreds die every day in shelters.”

Misrepresented

The other side of the coin that gives rescue a bad name comes from rescuers so desperate to move animals out of their overcrowded living conditions that they deliberately misrepresent the facts in order to make them more appealing to potential adopters. One Indianapolis “rescue” posted an ad for a Great Pyrenees on Petfinder that indicated the dog got along well with others, despite being told by the previous owner and personally witnessing at their facility his aggression towards other dogs.

Similarly, when Chelsea wanted to adopt a small male dog listed by a rescue on Petfinder, she was told he was “98 percent housebroken.” He would urinate on plastic bags: his foster “mom” called it a “quirk.” The dog was reportedly good with cats, children and other dogs, neutered and vaccinated. “According to the rescue, nothing was wrong with him.”

Once she got him home, she realized very quickly that he was not housebroken. She took him to her veterinarian for a general exam and found out that he had several retained deciduous teeth that were causing intraoral problems. He had also developed skin problems from allergies to the “less-than-decent kibble the rescue feeds their dogs. He needed a complete dental work-up, which was estimated at being right around $700. I know they had him for at least two months before he was adopted out – why hadn’t they taken this step themselves? Leaving those teeth in his jaw would have eventually caused very serious problems.”

Chelsea put the dog on a prey model raw diet, and within a few weeks the weak baby teeth had come out on their own and the plaque build-up was gone. The diet also helped with his skin.

“His coat is now thick and shiny, and he is the epitome of a healthy dog,” she reports.

The “good with cats” claim also proved to be misleading. Chelsea says she had to train the dog to play nicely with her cat. In addition, she says he doesn’t play well with dogs his size and that because he was “never taught bite inhibition and wants very much so to be as close to your face as possible,” she doesn’t consider him safe with children. “I’ve been working with him for almost a year with this, and it’s not easy to break with easily excited small dogs. As a result, I try to avoid situations with children. The rescue was clearly not honest about any of this. In all honesty, I felt like they were in a hurry to get rid of him.

“I love my dog very, very much,” she continues, “but if I had been given more information about him from the get-go, I could have avoided the majority of what negative sides of him I’ve run into and could have become more efficient of an owner far more quickly. Unfortunately, the problems I had with them have been ongoing.”

When her dog started behaving strangely in response to fireworks last July, Chelsea emailed the rescue, looking for insight. “I was essentially told that I was a bad owner and she insinuated that she regretted adopting him out to me. I was given no hints that he would become an entirely different dog around loud noises, and they didn’t give me any useful advice. What advice I was given would have been completely counterproductive, and their main opinion was to have him put on canine Prozac.”

Unregulated rescue

Rescue groups are not regulated so there’s no one ensuring they follow Animal Welfare laws or pay taxes. Since there is no licensing organization to oversee rescues, it’s important to verify the group’s claimsn and investigate their operation.

One Indianapolis “rescue” claims to be a non-profit group, although the owners admit, when pressed on the issue, that they have yet to file any paperwork to acquire a 501c3 designation. Registered non-profit groups are listed on Guidestar.org.

An adopter has to be careful that they are getting a dog from a reputable group. Ask questions. Do the rescue workers know the care requirements for the breed? Are the animals given play time outside the cage? Are they kept with other animals of their species?

Do they have proper food and shelter? How long, on average, are the animals in foster care before they are rehomed? If you find that they spend years in foster care on a regular basis, walk away. Ask to see the contract before you provide your personal information on an application. Beware the “mandatory donation” in place of an adoption fee.

Many backyard “rescues” are little more than hoarders, keeping too many animals confined in small spaces, dirty conditions, or caged all day. One Indianapolis “rescue” keeps cages of birds and rabbits stacked one on top of another in their garage.

Always make sure that you nvisit the place where the animals are being housed and if anything seems out of place, walk away. Better yet, report them to an animal welfare agency. Any group who puts their needs or greed before the animals should not be dealt with. There’s nothing noble about neglecting an animal’s physical and emotional needs.

Avon banned tests on animals in 1989 following PETA’s very public “Avon Killing” campaign—a play on the company’s “Avon Calling” brand. Mary Kay eliminated animal tests the same year after the company was lampooned by cartoonist Berkeley Breathed in his Bloom County strip in a series called “Night of the Mary Kay Commandos.” Estée Lauder eliminated animal tests the following year. These companies’ bans on the use of animals for product testing began a new marketing era for consumer products, and dozens of other companies soon prohibited all tests on animals and began marketing their products as cruelty-free.

“Avon, Estée Lauder, and Mary Kay have regressed a generation: Their products are once again being dripped into rabbits’ eyes and smeared onto animals’ abraded skin,” says PETA Vice President of Laboratory Investigations Kathy Guillermo. “Fortunately, consumers don’t have to backslide with them—we can still choose to purchase products from the more than 1,000 companies on PETA’s list of companies that do not test on animals.”

PETA is financially supporting the efforts of the Institute for In Vitro Sciences (IIVS.org) to promote the Chinese government’s acceptance of non-animal testing methods that are in wide use in the U.S. and the E.U. IIVS is spearheading an international consortium to represent companies that wish to market in countries where tests on animals are required.

By Lori Lovely

On January 19, two national non-profits, Animal Legal Defense Fund and Best Friends Animal Society, jointly filed a petition for rulemaking with the Indiana Natural Resources Commission, arguing that the Department of Natural Resources misinterpreted state law regarding animal cruelty at Ohio County’s annual Snapperfest.

Indiana Code 35-46-3-12 states that “a person who knowingly or intentionally beats a vertebrate animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor.” Because the snapping turtle is one of three designated a game species in Indiana (along with the smooth softshell and spiny softshell), the DNR believe that the state’s animal cruelty law isn’t applicable in this instance because it provides an exemption for wild animals that are legally taken and possessed.

“We are asking the INRC to clarify that after animals are taken, they are protected under Indiana law,” says Carter Dillard, director of litigation for ALDF. “DNR took the position that no law applies; however, once you trap an animal, you can’t just do anything you want to it. Their misinterpretation would literally allow someone to torture a turtle, a deer, a coyote or any animal to death, so long as that animal had been trapped first. It is time for this legal misinterpretation to be corrected and for the state to put an end to this pathetic event once and for all.”

Dillard says the DNR has condoned the event by stating that Snapperfest participants are exempt from anti-cruelty law under the exception for hunting and trapping, because they claim the turtles were trapped prior to their mistreatment at Snapperfest. Furthermore, ALDF claims that DNR is not doing its job.

In response, Cameron Clark, chief legal counsel for the Indiana DNR, calls ALDF’s description an “unfair characterization,” stating that DNR doesn’t “permit or promote [Snapperfest].”

However, due to extensive protests from animal rights groups, DNR had a presence at last August’s Snapperfest. As part of an undercover operation, conservation officers were empowered to intervene if they witnessed cruelty. According to Shelley Reeves, Governor’s liaison for the DNR, “To our knowledge and from onsite observation, abuse of the snapping turtles is not allowed.”

Citing undercover footage provided by the World Animal Awareness Society that reveals numerous incidents during the event that ALDF considers examples of cruelty in violation of state law, such as turtles held by their tails, repeatedly dropped and/or thrown to the ground and held up by their heads, Dillard says, “If they didn’t see it, they are ignoring it – or maybe they don’t understand.”

“They have a responsibility to protect wildlife,” Dillard emphasizes. “Between Snapperfest, coyote penning and canned hunting, the leadership looks like it’s putting up Indiana’s wildlife in a fire sale.”

Fun festival or turtle torture?

The competition consists of timing men on how quickly they can pull a snapping turtle from a tub of murky water, run across a lawn and force – or, as Reeves describes it, “coax” – its head out of its shell far enough to grab it by its neck. Women are timed in a relay race to carry a soft-shell turtle across a lawn.

Undercover video shows a man slamming a turtle onto a mat, grabbing its head, stretching its neck and kissing it on the nose. Other videos show men using their knees to hold the turtles down or carrying them by their tails, and women dropping turtles while they run.

According to Marty La Prees, a DNR-licensed wildlife rehabilitator and owner of Indiana Turtle Care, Inc., any of these actions could cause injury. “The possible injuries I observed in the videos were a broken neck, broken legs, injured shells and head injuries.”

Picking up a turtle by its tail can cause dislocation of the spine or tail, which could affect its swimming ability or its balance while climbing out of the water. “It’s like being picked up by your toe,” explains Julie Zickefoosee, licensed wildlife rehabilitator. “It separates the vertebrae; it’s very painful. You can see they’re in pain, writhing and twisting. It can cripple them.”

• Carrying a turtle by the neck could break its windpipe, esophagus and vertebrae.

• Moving a turtle too quickly or roughly can cause intestinal injuries.

• Dropping a turtle can injure its skeletal system, particularly its legs and neck. It could also cause jaw or facial injuries. “If there is a recent, unhealed injury to the shell, it can make the injury worse by increasing the fracture or splitting a soft area that is healing,” La Prees adds. A turtle’s shell is living tissue and can feel pain. Cuts and tears can occur to the outer edges of the softshell turtles’ shells; fractures to bones located near the center of the shell are possible. Skin infections can result from soft tissue exposure.

• Digging their fingers into the soft tissue to extract the turtle’s head could cause neck, eye and/or nose injuries.

In addition to potentially causing any of the injuries listed, slamming a turtle to the ground is traumatic. “These animals can certainly feel stress and trauma,” La Prees says. A turtle seen in one video urinating while being held upside down by its foot indicates stress and/or fear. “Turtles do this when in a traumatic situation or feeling threatened. This is truly an example to cruelty to animals.”

Stress makes animals sicker and can cause illness by itself, notes Dr. Angela Lennox, DVM with Avian & Exotic Animal Clinic. When treating animals, she seeks to minimize psychological pain as well as physical pain. “Reptiles do have pain receptors. We use sedation when pulling the head [of a turtle] out to get a vein, plus anti-anxiety medication and pain medication so as not to traumatize it – and that’s with animals that are used to being handled, not wild animals.”

Because they are cold-blooded with slow metabolism, turtles are slow healers. “Returning injured or sick turtles to the wild is tragic,” says La Prees, who recommends that fractures be treated by a qualified exotic veterinarian prior to rehabilitation. Broken bones will disable a turtle, making it easy prey or leading to drowning if it cannot move properly through water. Eye injuries will render it unable to find food. Further stress is caused due to the fact the turtle is unable to function normally.

Choosing sides

Lines have been clearly drawn. For the past 15 years, the event has been held at Campshore Campground, a private facility on the Ohio River near Rising Star Casino, but widespread protest against Snapperfest in 2011 generated a great deal of negative attention.

Recognizing that they were in the spotlight, says WKRC TV reporter Rich Jaffe, who toured the campground but did not witness the competition, Snapperfest promoters took “the utmost possible care to ensure there [were] no injuries” because “the turtles represent their livelihood and are the focus of the event.”

Undercover video seems to contradict that statement. Those videos, showing event signage with Budweiser’s name, so alarmed Michael Lourie, director of corporate communications for Anheuser-Busch, that he issued a statement: “Neither Anheuser-Busch nor our local independent wholesaler is a sponsor of Snapperfest. We had no knowledge of the banner until it was brought to our attention after the event. For more than a century, we have prided ourselves on our reputation for treating animals with respect – from animal protection to animal rescue and rehabilitation to wildlife habitat preservation.”

Others go even further. “There’s strictly no need to torture animals for entertainment,” Lennox says. “We need to be done with that.”

“Snapperfest is an event where cruelty to turtles is obvious,” La Prees believes. “I can’t think of any event with other wildlife that would be allowed to conduct such a shocking contest. This event must stop.”

Calling Snapperfest “indefensibly stupid, dangerous and life-threatening,” Zickefoose clarifies, “We don’t want to stop their festival. We just want to stop them from handling turtles. Put them on display in tanks, but don’t use wildlife as toys.”

However, considering it “good, clean fun,” Tim Sizemore, campground owner, rebukes animal rights activists who, he says, “have nothing better to do but send 60,000 emails against us.”

Dillard underscores ALDF’s position that “this is not about animal rights; it’s common decency not to mistreat animals.”

Sizemore’s assertion that the police told him they’re “not doing anything wrong” is substantiated by Ohio County Auditor Connie Smith, who says, “The cops say they’re not breaking any laws.” Aurora Police Chief Bryan Field said in a statement that the event falls outside of the jurisdiction of the Aurora Police Department.

Complaining about the flood of emails and voicemails the county commissioners received last year, Smith adds, “We have no say over it. We have more important things to worry about.”

DNR has to worry about it. The petition has been assigned to committee for review by the NRC, although Clark continues to believe the petitioners want more than DNR can do. “It’s complicated because criminal code is involved. It’s not as simple a task as the petition makes it.” Nevertheless, he says the petition “raises an interesting question of post-take treatment of animals. Maybe it’s timely; we may need this.”

Is former vice president Al Gore telling the truth? Is he leading by example?

What is the real Inconvenient Truth here?
Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.

Al Gore Global Warming Inconvenient Truth

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle or simply “Santa”, is the legendary and mythical figure who brings gifts to the homes of the good children during the late evening and overnight hours of Christmas Eve, December 24.

In the United States and Canada, children traditionally leave Santa a glass of milk and a plate of cookie, but few people know Santa is vegan, and  he drinks soy milk.

About NFACC

NFACC is the only national project specifically dedicated to expanding the
economic opportunities and advancements of Animals’ Friendly business
community. Seeking new opportunities for community advocacy, specifically in the economic arena, the NFACC was created as the exclusive project for  certification as a Animals’ Friendly business enterprise.

What we willing to do:

· Provide the ability to collect and disseminate news and information central to the success of Animals’ Friendly businesses and professionals on a
national level.

· Work with corporate partners, other organizations and the community at
large to ensure increased opportunity and equality for Animals’ Friendly
professionals.

· Provide supplier diversity certification to help Animals’ Friendly businesses gain more procurement opportunities.

Have to  Love Pets is  a service for meeting and/or dating  animal lovers who are single and seeking a sincere relationship with other animal  lovers.

Paws Ecards  offers free ecards and print greeting cards for birthdays and other holidays and occasions. Choose from animated cards, musical ecards, printables and more.