Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Why fostering may be hazardous to your fosters' health

Over the past couple of years, rescue volunteers who foster animals in their own homes are becoming increasingly nervous. This is because the 2008 changes in the City Code required them to register with the city, especially if their total number of animals in their homes ever exceeded the new limits. And if you ever foster one dog or cat with a litter of babies, chances are you're over the limit.

The Dallas Animal Advocates' blog sure makes the foster registration requirement sound like a nice deal, doesn't it? I've copied and pasted part of a 2008 blog entry here:

Second, foster families who work with local animal welfare organizations can also register with Dallas Animal Services so you can continue your life-saving work. Foster exemption applications will be considered individually so that we make sure we’re not exempting actual hoarders. And by allowing the director of DAS to consider each foster request individually, we’ve given them the ability to set the limit high for those good, experienced fosters that can handle a lot of animals. Details on this process soon also!

Here's the catch - or catches.

Anyone who registers as a foster will be eyeballed by the director* first, and also agrees to unannounced inspections. Think about it ... what if you've been at work all day, you have six foster cats, and DAS decides to drop by five minutes after you arrive home - before you can clean the litter boxes and check on food and water. If you don't have friends in low places, you run the risk of your fosters being seized and killed because of a stinky litter box or two, or for any other reason - no matter what their state of health. You won't have a chance to appeal the seizure for months, long after your fosters have all been killed by DAS. So much for your "life-saving work".

If you think I'm exaggerating, please take a look at the Commission minutes for 2008 and 2009, and the comments published within this blog.

* Who's the director? According to the City Code, it's: (14) DIRECTOR means the director of the department designated by the city manager to perform the duties assigned in this chapter or the director's authorized representative. So, the director in charge of upholding the city code can be just about anyone. And if you're familiar with City Hall to even a slight degree, you may have already realized the inherent danger of this.


Cindy said...

So why did they insist they all wanted the ordinance? instead of listening to those who really knew more about animals and insanity than the people pushing the ordinance? It could have been stopped in its tracks but for rescuers.

Feline Provocateur said...

I think a lot of rescuers were duped into thinking that the new ordinance would help reduce hoarding. This was - and is - naive. And once a few rescuers decided to support it, most others joined in.

If you opposed it, you were promptly branded a "backyard breeder", or someone who didn't care about animals. This was unjustified and untrue, but lots of people bow to peer pressure.

Few supporters of the ordinance stopped to consider HOW these ordinances would be enforced, and WHO would be in charge of enforcing them. And hardly anyone saw the possible implications of the foster "grandfathering" agreement.

The Shelter Commission should be bending over backwards to encourage fostering. Instead, they've chosen to make it difficult and risky.

And some members even think it's fine to waste time and money sending AC staff to hassle rescuers who MIGHT be temporarily fostering "over the limit" - rescuers who don't belong to their self-righteous little clique.

Cindy said...

Sheeple!! and they called those who have bred and achieved success with wonderful animals "Greeders" but they are the greedy sheep in the end, aren't they? and following those who want fame and awards for killing off the animals. "They" should have listened and used their heads. As they kill each other off they take even more animals to the grave.

Cindy said...

Someone posted this link and it looks as if one person gave the whole answer to them, but do you think they will open their eyes? I do not.

Feline Provocateur said...

If I have time this weekend, I'm going to stop by a Petland and ask them where their puppies come from. Or call their corporate offices - perhaps we'll find out what's going on.

Considering all of the existing evidence of the HSUS' spinning facts to suit their funding raising activities - Michael Vick is an excellent example - I would never believe any of their claims until I'd researched them myself.

It disturbs me greatly to see how many people will blindly believe anything in print without taking a few minutes to do some research and make up their own mind. The current Ferris, Texas shelter situation is a good example of this.

Cindy said...

Print that must be accurate is not a bad thing. Consumer Freedom, Activist Cash and have to prove what they say on their blogs.

As for where Petland gets their product for sale, knowing whether or not they come from commercial breeders isn't going to matter a lot I think. Breeders of high quality dogs are in the sights of the same people and few, if any, of them would sell thru chain pet stores. Most have signed codes of ethics thru their breed clubs to never do that and they are very picky with the hard work that brought animals into the world, they generally have contracts to prevent breeding. People who breed quality can not ever supply enough even if they disapprove of some aspects of HVBs.

The fact that anyone who has ever bred a dog or cat is in jeopardy due to sheep who can't seem to grasp that when all animals are N/S there will be none.

Yes, they try to argue that is not so, but how could it be otherwise?