Today, I saw this posted at Huffington Post: "An Open Letter to the Person Who Left This Sweet Dog at the Kill Shelter." While I understand the Ms. White's feelings, I think perhaps she is judging too quickly and to harshly.
Before I get into it, let me tell you who I am with regard to animals. I have had many hamsters (14-ish), one rabbit, three turtles, one dog (two if you count partial responsibility for one at Dad's house), and several fish in my lifetime. I am from a middle class background and have never had a huge amount of money. I have college loan debt. I love animals to the extent that I have had two hamsters for whom I paid to have surgery. One of those hamsters was also treated for rodent lice he picked up in the pet store and was on phenobarbital for his entire lifespan in my care for seizures--a hamster that frequently bit, and when he bit during a seizure could not let go on his own, and I loved him. I've spent the money to have hamsters who were very ill put to sleep. My dog had a heart condition, and I spent a lot of money on him because of it, though I had to draw the line at certain chest x-rays that would have cost more than we could afford and did not necessarily have a high probability of helping prolong his already good, long life. When he was going downhill, I took him to the vet. I watched them give him his last meal. I held him while my husband and young daughter came to say goodbye. I held him and told him how much I loved him and said my goodbyes and continued petting him as they administered the medicine to stop his heart. I know animals, and I love them, and they are part of the family.
Back to the Huff Post article. First off, I applaud Ms. White for taking in this dog and taking such good care of it. Thanks to her, Cocoa got the end of life she deserved. That being said, I think Ms. White needs to take the time to think about what might have led to a family to give their dog up to animal control. She says that the intake sheet said the family was moving to a no pets apartment and had limited means:
"Because the people at Animal Control gave me Cocoa's intake sheet. You know, the one you filled out. The one that said Cocoa was 12 years old and you'd had her all those years. The one that said you were moving to a pet-free apartment and couldn't take your faithful companion of 12 years. You know, the one that you said was a "sweet old girl -- a wonderful companion." The one that said you had limited funds."
Ms. White takes this information and decides that these people are simply cold-hearted. How does she know? Does she wonder if they are moving to that apartment because they have lost employment and are under or unemployed? Does it occur to her that their hearts may have been breaking when they did this? That they may have felt they had no other choice? When you take on a pet, of course you expect to be able to care for it no matter what. However, unforeseen circumstances can change all of that, especially in an economy like ours today.
The author adopted this dog and found she was very ill--she was incontinent; she had pancreatitis, and she had cancer. (I believe this was not found out where she got the dog because it was Animal Control rather than an actual shelter.) The Humane Society definitely does (more on that later). She belittles the family for not paying for the medications and the special dog food and for not having the dog euthanized. She ASSUMES they knew how bad the dog was. I agree that if they knew how sick Cocoa was, it would have been best for them to euthanize her and have her die in their arms. But does it ever occur to Ms. White that maybe they didn't know what medical conditions she had because they couldn't take her to the vet because they were having to penny pinch because of unemployment or other dire financial circumstances? No, she doesn't. She just judges without any compassion or thought about what the other family may have been going through. She doesn't give them the benefit of the doubt.
At one point, she says, "What upset me so much is that you couldn't be bothered to drive the extra 20 minutes to take her to the Humane Society, a no-kill shelter." This surprised me greatly since all of the chapters of the Humane Society I'm familiar with would have euthanized this dog. I checked into Humane Society websites from several states, including Minnesota and Arizona, and found that they do medical exams of incoming dogs and they do euthanize those who are extremely sick. So, unless her local Humane Society runs very differently, she's very much mistaken about it being a "no-kill" shelter.
So, in short, my message to Ms. White is this: don't assume you understand other people's circumstances because of a short intake questionnaire. Learn to give people the benefit of the doubt.
