22 thoughts on “Open Thread

  1. There are numerous articles about bad shelters with workers who show no compassion and simply do not care. This is not one of those stories. Even though it is in Australia, I feel it is worth sharing.


    When I looked at the Rescued with Love facebook page, I was surprised to see a link to a blog by our own YesBiscuit. It’s amazing the impact this blog has, even on the other side of the world.


  2. Cleveland APL seizes cats from small rescue group. Small rescue group says that APL is a bully who wants no competition, kills all ferals on intake, and demands surrender fees that results in cats getting dumped on their street – which small rescue group then saves.

    Photographic evidence is of cats small rescue group says they only had a day or two and were very ill when they came in. Small rescue group also says that feces-strewn area is part of warehouse that no one uses. Supports of small rescue group say that cats were well-cared for and the facility was primitive, but clean. APL says inhumane conditions.

    Not sure where the whole truth lies in this one.



  3. WARNING: Graphic images of badly injured cat are contained on this link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2935279/Zombie-cat-died-rose-grave-five-days-later-not-returned-owner-following-new-information-burial.html

    This story has been causing much debate on my FB news feed. In short, this cat was hit by a car. His owner thought he was dead, and buried him. To be perfectly honest, seeing his pictures of *after* he was taken to the vet, I do not blame him. He was still alive, and came back home five days later. He was taken to the Tampa Bay Humane Center for treatment. They told the owner that the surgery would be covered, but the owner would have to pay for his care after that. At no time did the owner sign over ownership.

    Now the TBHC is saying they have “new evidence” about his home life (although they won’t say what) and are saying they will *not* return the cat. At no point in time has the owner been charged with animal neglect/cruelty, nor has there been a legal investigation into him or the way he cares for his pets. This just the TBHC saying they somehow came up with new “evidence” on their own, and they are taking it upon themselves to make this choice.

    Is this the world’s best cat owner? No, I personally wouldn’t say so. But if he didn’t care for his cat, he wouldn’t have even tried to get him medical care. He didn’t have the money to take care of him at first, but his neighbor set up a gofundme and that raised enough money. Now the TBHC is using that against the owner. To the owner’s credit, he has set up a link for those who donated to get a refund if they feel they were duped.

    I personally have a major problem with *any* “Humane” group making ownership calls they have no legal right to make. I haven’t dealt personally with this one, but I have heard before this case they have a “holier than thou” approach to the community at large. My belief is, they thought the owner wouldn’t be able to come up with the funds for his care and would have to sign him over in the end. But then he came up with the funds, so now they are attempting to smear the owner’s name in order to keep the cat. He’s famous now, so major source of fundraising. As the gofundme page proved.


    1. My feeling is, what TBHC has done by hinting about at some terrible secret is irresponsible, and suggests to me that whatever it is, it may well no bearing on whether or not Mr Hutson can give Bart the care he needs through his convalescence.

      There’ve been no indications in any of the stories to date that Mr Hutson did anything other than make the wrong call when Bart was initially injured. Given the condition Bart was likely to have been in at the time, I’m not going to second-guess that without actual proof it was something other than a terrible mistake.

      So, as it stands, it looks a lot like TBHC’s objections may well be rooted in prejudice and greed. If not, then let them speak up plainly.


      1. Exactly. If there is *really* anything to make a claim over, file a legal complaint. Let those who are legally qualified investigate and make a lawful call. They are not the body to do so, nor are they independent/unbiased in their thinking.

        They (and others in the “general public” following this story) have implied that the gofundme proves Mr. Hutson only cares about about the money. If TBHC (or any other rescue) had set up a donation site, no one would bat an eye. Rescues all over the world do it every single day when they take on animals they don’t immediately have the finds to care for. I’m not saying they shouldn’t, but why is it perfectly on the up and up for rescues and not owners? Why are owners “only out for the money” when they try to get help from others who want to help?


      2. I’ve seen numerous fundraising efforts by individuals for their pets – as well as other household members – that haven’t raised much of any question or comment by anyone. So I don’t think it’s that general, unless TBHC has a history of objections to private fundraising.


      3. They still have no legal right to decide where Bart will or will not live. They keep talking about what they “want” for him. They can “want” things all they want, but keeping that cat is theft, plain and simple.

        Children can and do live around delicate animals each and every day without incident. Mr. Hutson is making changes to his home to accommodate Bart’s new needs. They have no justification legally or morally to refuse to return Bart to his rightful owner.

        And at one point they were saying Mr. Hutson would have to pay for his care. They only started claiming they would pick up the tab when Bart’s popularity grew online and A) Mr Hutson gained the finds to pay for those costs and B) It has become clear Bart may well be the next “Grumpy Cat” as far as value (and fund raising ability).


      4. My impression at this point is that they’re throwing out accusations and claims in the hope that something will stick, and they’ll gain public support for their seizure of Bart.


      5. The WFLA article says that a friend of the owner’s buried Bart after the accident so it’s not even clear to me that Bart’s owner made any bad judgment calls. Nonetheless, I would offer a reminder that a number of pets who have been euthanized by veterinarians in private practice as well as those killed in shelters by certified technicians have “come back from the dead” after being verified as deceased by a trained professional. How many times have we seen stories about dogs waking up in trash bags, in the freezer, etc? Mistakes happen, it doesn’t necessarily indicate a person is irresponsible. More information is needed, which apparently the group trying to keep the cat is unwilling to provide.


      6. Now TBHC is claiming someone called in a “threat” to storm the building and steal Bart:


        They were so concerned, they failed to notify the police. They also say they are willing to go to court to keep Bart. Will someone please explain to me what possible grounds they could have? Other than the public donating to their legal fund even with a pro bono lawyer (these places *always* get one of those).

        They also expand upon what they “know” about the situation:


        Again I point out, if they had *any* proof at all to their claims there would be a legal investigation against Mr. Hutson and anyone else involved. Yet they haven’t even tried to file a complaint legally. Just smear his name with wha they “think” and “want”.

        They are going to get animals killed. Period. Who is going to seek out medical attention for their pets if they think their pet will be stolen without due process and their name dragged through the mud when they don’t roll over over on demand?


  4. Bart was outside and unaltered, and Mr. Hutson lives in the wrong part of Tampa. I’d bet you that is the “information” they are basing this on.

    How different is this from you or I taking one of our pets to the vet for medical care, and the vet just deciding we no longer deserve him/her? That’s what I can’t get past. Who is going to want to seek medical care for their animals of those providing it can make a choice to steal your animal with no due process?


  5. Ok, first off, anyone who wants to see what new laws are being proposed in their state this website is an AWESOME TOOL: https://legiscan.com/ I entered the search term “dog” under the full text search, and some of what I found was more than a little scary…..

    On the same subject NY is showing off their stupidity again. http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=A03374&term=2015&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Text=Y&Votes=Y is a bill to ban the tail docking of dogs. Now I have no wish to debate whether docking is cruel or not, take that elsewhere. Lets just look at the stupidity of the section that states:


    Um, hullo. Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show anyone?? Never mind the rest of the dog show community in the state. Anyone want to bet on how much money that brings to the state every year??


    1. There isn’t even exceptions for dogs from out of state, so if you move here with a docked dog you’re screwed. And what about rescue dogs who’re already docked??


      1. I have to wonder if thats one of the communities that this is aimed at. Though there’s also several pieces of legislation in the works to attempt to stop various bits of breed bias such as insurance costs going up (or refusing insurance) due to breed, or to stop landlords from refusing to rent to people due to the breed of their dog. Which was nice to see (though it’ll be nicer if they go through).



Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s