DDB Rep in Trouble Again

[DanaRVT]

She used to be a member here. That's all I can say.

Her intentions are good, but the execution at times leaves a little to be desired.

[ouesi]

Originally Posted by Xie

I agree that I would want to help the dog no matter what but I wonder in situations like this the help that could be long-term becomes short-term.

What I mean is did she call AC or the police over the conditions of the dogs? No where in the article does it sound like she did until after she was arrested. So now that the AC and police know what is going on instead of it being a situation where the dog's owner is perceived in the wrong, it's the woman who was trying to help who is in the wrong. I fear that the dogs won't get the help that is otherwise needed and will be stuck in this situation longer than they might have been.

I know looking at the pictures I want to run right over and help those dogs, they are heartbreaking. I wonder though if this woman spent less time getting arrested and more time cultivating a good relationship with local AC and police the dogs would be helped more in the long run, instead of the temporary assistance this kind of help provides.

This is exactly my argument against ever buying from a BYB/petstore/puppymill, I don't care how horrible the conditions. I get so irritated with the argument of buying a dog for an irresponsible person because you're "saving" it. Uh, the money used to "save" that one dog just condemed countless others! Short-term gain for one dog, prolonged suffering for others. I can't reconcile that.

However, in this case, there person mistreating the dogs stands to gain nothing, therefore I can see both sides. I have AC on speed dial on my phone (yeah... they looooove me.) But often, they are so understaffed that they either can't or won't do something about an issue they consider minor. And when you have sickos fighting pit bulls, unfortunately a chained, skinny dog is a minor issue.

[Feathers]

Originally Posted by Dobes in JAX

Vigilanteeism is correct ; "Taking the Law into one's own hands". The point is however, these folks who are neglecting their dogs, and are having these vigilantees "violate their rights" have lost sight of the basic tenet of every right.......it is forever coupled with a responsibility. An example is one has the right of free speech....as long as you don't stand up in a crowded theater and yell "Fire" when there is no Fire. One has the right to own dogs, as long as one executes ones reponsibility to provide well for them. Don't do one, you lose the other. I for one have had an A$$ full of people complaining that their "rights" have been violated yet have been ignoring their responsibilities for years. JMHO

My sentiments exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!

When it comes to these situations...I've been on the wrong side of the written law more than once...I have never spent one minute in jail though. In all honesty we have very few rights that don't have a clause in there somewhere that takes them away LOL!!

[borzoimom]

Well... While giving emergency aid comes into play, the several things are glaring at me.

One is by breaking the law, it off sets the attention where it needs to be. To help the dogs.

Some states have immediate seizure ability. But its a seizure- ie take the animals and not provide for them where the dogs are left.

And finally- by giving straw, food and water, should the home be inspected by HS, the dogs have what they need, so no seizure would take place. The dogs now have food, water, and shelter- hardly about to change the situation, thus allowing it continue.

Maybe I am wrong here, but to me all her actions did were-
* enable this situation to continue by removing any possibily of abuse charges can be shown as dogs have food, water, and shelter.
* removed any crediability of the organization in the eyes of the law officals.
*remove any possiblity of a seizure to take the dogs out of this situation.

[Dobes in JAX]

All good points Michelle, it seems it goes back to getting whatever enforcment agencies to do their job....actively and vigorously. JMHO

[borzoimom]

Originally Posted by Dobes in JAX

All good points Michelle, it seems it goes back to getting whatever enforcment agencies to do their job....actively and vigorously. JMHO

Yes by doing the interum, it stops the the other process from moving on..

[DMZone]

Originally Posted by borzoimom

Well... While giving emergency aid comes into play, the several things are glaring at me.

One is by breaking the law, it off sets the attention where it needs to be. To help the dogs.

Some states have immediate seizure ability. But its a seizure- ie take the animals and not provide for them where the dogs are left.

And finally- by giving straw, food and water, should the home be inspected by HS, the dogs have what they need, so no seizure would take place. The dogs now have food, water, and shelter- hardly about to change the situation, thus allowing it continue.

Maybe I am wrong here, but to me all her actions did were-
* enable this situation to continue by removing any possibily of abuse charges can be shown as dogs have food, water, and shelter.
* removed any crediability of the organization in the eyes of the law officals.
*remove any possiblity of a seizure to take the dogs out of this situation.

[borzoimom]

Originally Posted by DMZone

Thank you.

[ariesram77]

I don't know that it was right for her to go onto their property and leave stuff, First, some dogs are allergic to straw which could have caused more problems with the dogs, Second, what about the food, did she know the dogs weren't allergic to anything she fed them? I think she should've contacted the humane society first. I mean no one wants to see a dog suffer but she could've impacted the health of the dogs a lot worse had they been allergic to something she gave them. Tough situation