Please read - Ethical and responsible rescue practices

[Anna]

Honestly, it's getting so frustrating with people pulling dogs for other people and then sending these animals to goodness knows where. Out of the shelter does NOT mean the dog is safe. A LOCAL rescue doesn't necessarily mean the dog is safe. Before you pull an animal, donate to an animal it is your responsibility to make sure that the animal is going to a responsible rescue.

On Dec 23, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Cathy Stanley <campcockercathy@gmail.com> wrote:


So did Beady Singer . . . what a short memory everyone seems to have when we are alerted to high volumes of dogs being moved by one person.

Beady sent references that were her personal friends
Beady sent a vet reference that no one ever called on to find out that she wasn't hospitalizing any of her parvo dogs (every single one died at her home, all she did was give TamiFlu which anyone knows cannot save a Parvo dog, only hospitalization and iv fluids can save a parvo pup)

Beady supplied photos of dogs posing with people, in once instance, if you recall the Floppy video, she had a photo that was staged with a total stranger. Floppy was a dog she dumped for free and ended up in the shelter in Canada, still wearing her rabies tag from Blue Cross Animal Hospital where the rescue group that pulled her was attached to her (by the way, that rescue group declined any financial support to help Floppy after they were told she was in a canadian shelter in need of medical care).

Just a reminder of Floppy's story, a must watch for anyone who thinks that they are not responsible for animal endangerment when they don't take a personal interest in each and every dog they help to pull or transport.

Many of you on the rescue network happily participated in supplying Beady Singer with as many animals as she could sell. And no one, no one took any personal responsibilty for Floppy and the other dogs like her who ended up facing long term suffering and extreme neglect and physical pain. Do you know how many dogs Beady dumped that had microchips that only traced back to the Los Angeles shelters, and not only did she not register the chips, the rescuers who pulled the dogs never registered the chips. These are dogs that ended up in the B.C. SPCA that I am referring to, dogs she dumped after she couldn't sell them for profit.

WHO is going to take responsibility for the high volume of animals you are supplying to Beth Gibson?
Who is going to step up and get personally involved with each and every animal you are transporting up there?
Anyone?

Or are these dogs just on their own to face whatever fate is in store for them once you deliver them to Canada? Is that fair? They don't have a voice and they are counting on you as rescuers to do right by them. Who is going to step up to the plate and take responsibility for sending huge volumes of dogs to an unscreened place? Who is going to be the safety net for each and every dog?

I am not against saving animals, I am simply against doing it in such an irresponsible manner and not taking a more active role in what becomes of the animals.

The high number of animals, the VOLUME of animals that you are sending to one person, this is the elephant in the room, the huge red flag that no one wants to talk about.

Oh geez . . . is there no one who sees this as an enormous red flag? Really? No one?

[Anna]

From: Candi Crawford <boobooska@gmail.com>:

Amen Cathy. Well said.

There needs to be more accountability and transparency, as we can no longer assume that every rescuer is good and does the right thing.


There are MANY worse fates for animals than humane euthanasia. Any reputable rescue would agree with this unfortunate conclusion. If we can't give them 100% individually and take every precaution then we are doing them more harm than good. Animals have hearts and feel emotion and pain.. Lets not forget this.


I know nothing about this woman, but I see many red flags with all the "rescuers" that are collecting money and shipping dogs all over the place including WA. Where is the follow up?


We wont adopt a dog out of state or anywhere else for that matter that we aren't able to travel to on a moments notice to get them if we needed to.


If someone steps forward and takes full responsibility for every dog sent wherever, then great, carry on. But if not, then this mission should not be supported. End of story.

[Anna]

And Bravo to Cathy and Candi for having the guts to talk about this.

[Anna]

From: Cathy Stanley <campcockercathy@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Subject: Please help spread this message about ethical and responsible rescue practices
To:

I know that this message has been spread before and those of us who "get it" don't need to hear this.

But somehow, I am hoping that by repeating this message, over and over, that more people on our rescue network, will clean up their act and stop sending animals to unscreened places.

Here is a woman who calls herself a rescuer:

Animal "rescuer" caught on video, arrested for animal abuse
http://fortheloveofthedogblog.com/news- ... the+Dog%29

She could be anyone on our rescue network, she could be anyone on Facebook whom calls themselves a rescuer.
She could, with great ease, have been able to get a steady supply of animals from our Los Angeles shelters, no questions asked, no screening process whatsoever, by many people in our rescue network who call themselves either pullers, transporters or rescuers.

Not a day goes by that I don't receive emails with "shopping lists" of dogs in shelters, from people offering to pull and arrange transport for a dog to anyone.

I received some correspondence last week about a pit bull at Devore. The dog was being pulled, was going to be handed off to a truck driver somewhere (an unscreened person), that truck driver was going to drive the pit bull from California to a woman in Colorado (another unscreened person). She lives in a town that has breed legislation prohibiting pit bulls. I know this because out of curiosity, I googled her name, her phone number, learned what town she was in, then called Animal Control of that town. This unscreened woman has plans for the pit bull to "go live in the mountains" with someone else (yet a third unscreened person).

Funny thing is, the original "puller/transporter" at Devore, seemed to find nothing wrong with sending a dog to some mysterious unscreened place. As long as the dog was out of her sight and out of her mind, she could say she saved that dog.

This is highly dangerous and reckless in so many ways.
A place in the mountains could be anything . . . an animal hoarder, a dog fighting ring, a sick predator who uses the dogs to torture, mutilate or commit acts of beastiality upon, a crazy person living in a shack with animals tied up on stakes or living crammed into small cages for the rest of their lives.

Why? Why would anyone in their right mind, send a dog to an unscreened place?

With the internet, you can reach anyone in any region and there is no excuse for not doing the footwork to thoroughly screen prospective adopters or prospective "rescuers" that you might send an animal to. If this place in the mountains was a legitimate safe place for a dog, then why not contact a local rescue group to drive up into the mountains and visit in person first? Why not get vet references? Why not put in the extra effort to ensure you are sending a dog to safety and not sending a dog to unknown horrors? Whom is the back up plan should that place in the mountains not work out for a pit bull? Why not put in the effort to ensure the animals you are pulling and transporting, are actually going somewhere safe?

If you haven't seen this, it is worth a watch: just one dog . . . Floppy's story
http://blip.tv/file/3391959

A reminder of what can happen when our pullers/transporters/rescuers do not screen where they send dogs.

Please, if you see a puller/transporter/rescuer sending dogs to unscreened places, please please speak up on behalf of the animals that are at their mercy.
These animals have no say in anything.
Ask the good questions and insist that if you are going to offer your donor support to one of these people, that they provide you with transparency.
Insist that sloppy "rescues" start cleaning up their acts and take the safety of animals more seriously.
It is not just about moving volumes of animals and saying "yaay" we are rescuing!
Rescue does not end the moment you pull an animal from a shelter.
Real rescue is what you do with that animal afterward.

Please stop supporting sending animals to unscreened places.
Please.

Thank you so much for considering this positive rescue message and for passing it forward.

Cathy Stanley
CampCocker.com

[Anna]

from Jane:

Please heed Cathy's advice. She has personal experience of what happens when a dog is bailed from a local SoCal shelter by well-intentioned people, then transported, in Floppy's case to a rescue group in Canada that was not researched adequately.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK TO FLOPPY'S STORY AND YOU'LL SEE WHAT I MEAN.
just one dog . . . Floppy's story

Here is one of the comments posted about the video. Before you put an animal on a transport, please remember this:

I am not a rescue, just share animals in need, but i do know from just reading and having friends who are ACTUAL RESCUES it IS a lot of work and follow up is a necessity plus all the paperwork for verification, but i am sure the legitimate rescuers would not have it any other way, because they do it out of real compassion for the animals and they ACTUALLY CARE what happens to the dogs in their care. Yes it is lots of work, but people cannot take short cuts and try to make money at the expense of all the precious lives that are entrusted to them. Yes, real rescues will understand this video and all the hard work that is involved, but it is very gratifying in the end.