Yet another "rescue takes family's dog" story

Yesterday, the Akron Beacon Journal reported that a family spent $568 to cover vet bills for the time their missing dog spent in a rescue group. Apparently, the dog escaped (or was wandering loose) and picked up by animal control, which released the dog to the rescue group. When the family finally located the dog and contacted the rescue group, a representative of the group expressed concern about the care of the dog and initially refused to return the dog. The group only released the dog after the family paid $568 to cover vet bills incurred while the dog was in the group's care.

Now, I'm certainly not defending the owners (who apparently failed to neuter the dog...terribly irresponsible, in my opnion) and if I was a member of the group, I would have my concerns about the dog's care as well. I do think that if this group was trying to educate the owners about proper pet care, it will not go over well in the end. More likely, the owners are thinking "those crazy animal people forced us to pay over $500 to get our dog back" not "we really need to rethink how we care for A.J."

Interestingly, if you read the reader comments following the story, you'll find a few comments supporting the group as well as many comments along the lines of "this group is crazy." Also, one of the posts is from an individual whose adoption application for this group was denied. With more newspapers offering online forums and reader comments, anyone with a grudge against a particular group can come out of the woodwork...not a good situation for maintaining positive community relations.

Also, check out this post on the Best Friends forum. Kat Albrecht, a detective who specializes in lost pets, points out that for every lost pet held by a rescue, an owner surrender or other animal slated to die at the local shelter, is losing out. Returning a pet, even to a "substandard" home, allows groups to have room to save another in its place.

Being from Virginia, rescue groups and missing pets are a sore spot for me. Back in 2002, a similar situation led to state regulations that among other things, required rescue groups to post hours of operation, meaning that any member of the public could show up at a foster home and demand to see the facilities. Under the law, such individuals could not be turned away.

I believe the law was eventually repealed but the fact remains that if enough such situations occur, other lawmakers might propose similar laws that restrict rescue groups. And, sadly, I fear that the volunteer spirit of rescue could be curtailed due to restrictive regulations. Rescue operations in Virginia are still recovering from the after affects of this bad law.

So I can't help but worry that some of the best intentions of my fellow rescuers could lead to other bad laws and regulations, which could potentially wipe out the rescue movement as we know it.

Just something to consider...