“We’re to blame” – Again

In Arkansas, the Pulaski Co Humane Society is caring for dozens of emaciated, flea-ridden pets seized from a local home:

The Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office responded to a call of two starving horses loose on East Mail Route Road. Officers located their owner, but saw there was an even bigger situation.  More than 30 dogs and cats were in various stages of malnutrition.

The owner, Shelia Ford, was arrested.  Four of the dogs are “clinging to life”.  The local TV news reported on the case and Kay Simpson of the Pulaski Co HS used the opportunity to blame the public for not having a mandatory spay-neuter law:

The staff says these are the faces of what happens without a sterilization law. Simpson explains, “There needs to be something done to stop these animals from suffering because we’re to blame.”

Oh.  What?

Ms. Ford was responsible for caring for these pets.  Ms. Ford surrendered them to the shelter.  Ms. Ford was charged with four counts of felony animal cruelty and 30 counts of misdemeanor animal cruelty.  Explain to me how we make the leap from Ms. Ford to all of us who don’t neuter our pets against our will.

I have no idea what the back story is on this case.  Maybe Ms. Ford is mentally ill, maybe she’s a well intentioned person who got in over her head and didn’t know where to turn for help, or maybe she likes starving pets.  That information is unknowable for me.  What I do know is that the “we’re to blame” way of thinking is antiquated.  It’s been replaced by a new thing called logic.

Ms. Ford is clearly the person responsible for the condition of her pets.  And if there was a mandatory spay-neuter law, who is to say Ms. Ford would have complied with it or that the situation would have been any different?  Again, unknowable.  But we do know that MSN doesn’t save pets’ lives.  “We” – the so-called irresponsible public – do.

And by the way, the article closes with a mention of the shelter needing food and donations to pay for veterinary care.  Anyone feel motivated to send in a donation to this shelter after hearing “we’re to blame” for the suffering of Ms. Ford’s pets?

Update, August 5: The puppy who looked to be in such rough shape in the video has died.

11 thoughts on ““We’re to blame” – Again

  1. I don’t trust anyone who talks like that and mistreats people. This includes not trusting them to tell the truth about whether an animal is in good shape, not trusting them to know, not trusting them to tell the truth, not trusting them to refrain from altering photographs, not trusting them to give truthful evidence or testimony, and not trusting them to care for the animals.

    1. Tom, If you click the link to the story, there are photos and video of a puppy who appears to be on death’s door. You can judge for yourself.

      1. As long as they beat the mandatory sterilization drum, I am going to see more and more deception the more I look. Turning it back on them is fair play. Hey, they’re treating people with distrust for the “crime” of being a dog breeder, and they’re employing bigotry. I see bigots as liars, cheats, swindlers, perverts, and worse.

        They had the option of winning the people’s trust by openness and honesty. They chose threatening behavior, lying, cheating, stealing, and lying. I don’t have to listen to their sanctimonious bull.

      2. There isn’t as much “evidence” as a person really needs and that’s the first time in years I’ve seen one animal that looked like it actually had a problem, and it was just the one. I don’t think that they know how to be credible because they think, I swear this is how they think, that when they find one abused animal to hold up as a flag, then anything that comes out of any of their orifices is holy writ.

        This kind of thing used to be thought of as totally ridiculous. Did we change so much in a few short years? Now all of this handwringing, instead of meaning that we are looking at a sanctimonious whining immature rude psychoneurotic, it means “we pwn you.” It means “we get to tell everyone how to live.”

        Are they kidding me? Believe it or not this is the short rant. The people who are sanctimonious like that are always liars and thieves. They are people who burn their mother’s wills to do their sisters out of their inheritance. They send rude men to kick down your door, they neglect animals to death or decide to kill ones that could have been saved, and I think you’ve written some stories about neglect being done at humane societies and the owners being accused.

        Even in that pictorial essay I see a horse that looks like it is in pretty good shape. They may have some things that are true but if they’re saying that that horse is in bad shape they don’t know or don’t care what they are talking about. It looks very athletic.

        They don’t know how to be truly convincing, they’re just beating the same dull drums. But I suppose that if they were smart enough they wouldn’t be on the mandatory sterilization kick.

    2. @Tom
      If you’re talking about the standing horse photo- the horse is too thin (not athletic)- see how the ribs are easily visible? Look at the hip bone- it’s sharp and protrudes obviously. The spine was also pretty visible.

      1. Individual pictures from the slideshow can be saved by right-clicking and entering a title. Don’t worry about the fact that the slide has changed. The one that you were viewing when you right-clicked will save.

        You can’t see the spine on the horse that is standing up. The one lying down, the spine is nicely covered by muscle. Under magnification I see a very bad alteration of the photograph, one with a very obvious tell.

        Just forward of the left hip is a circular depression where the horse’s fur is a slightly different color. This has to have been made by a human. It has been shaved or vaselined or both. Once again someone has drawn on the shadows that makes a normal horse look thin. The ribs are supposed to show where they show.

        The white dog sprawled on the table does not look as if it could be in that position unless some of its joints have been unhinged and its ribcage flattened. The left front leg is bent at a very bad angle.

        Once again, if they had real evidence, they could show a lot of it. Their “film” is free. Most cameras hold thousands of pictures. It’s telling if you only have two examples that show anything and of course deliberately embellishing gives the whole game away. I’m calling them “busted.”

    1. Same line of thinking that assumes owning an intact bitch means you’re going to breed her on every heat to make a passel of money.

      1. Well clearly I’m doing it wrong as I can’t *afford* to breed more often…

        Interesting that three out of the five worst neglect cases I’ve fostered were only dogs who were already altered. So are those dogs not my fault, just the intact ones? I’ma confuzzled, halp!

  2. One of the leading reasons why hoarders dont give their Pets to shelters when they realize they have a problem:

    They know that the Ba$tards in the ‘shelters’ will murder them. If every shelter was no kill, we’d see a big dip in hoarding cases.

    Another pro-kill excuse flushes down the commode, where it belongs.

Leave a Reply