I feel mislead - am I in the wrong here?

[CharlieDog]

Any update?

[AdrianneIsabel]

How are things going? Did you end up paying back Bridgid?

[Emily]

Sorry! Here's an update for you:

Ok, so as far as I can tell, tomorrow the dogs become my property as I've had them for 2 weeks. I've not yet emailed anybody back, as I've been dragging my feet on what I want to say and how I'd like to say it. I will, however, be emailing them tomorrow. I feel better doing it when I legally have ownership of the dogs, as before they were floating in a gray area.

I still vacillate between wanting to be nice about it, and wanting to say, "Are you KIDDING?" I know I'll end up sending my polite email, in the end though. lol

ARE YOU F****** KIDDING ME????
would be closer to my approach. But I'm a jerk and have no patience for being dicked around like that. I hope it turns out for the best, that's so freaking wrong.

[HayleyMarie]

Thats just insane, Augh!

[Emily]

Yeah, I mean, I'm mad, I'm outraged, etc, but there's really no reason for my initial approach to be heavy-handed, other than me being pissy.

I will admit there's a part of me that doesn't feel I should have to pay them back, though. After all, I had no idea of the terms and was not consulted regarding the costs/treatments. But I suppose it's best just so I can wash my hands of them.

ETA: That's also part of why I haven't responded... couldn't decide about payment.

[AdrianneIsabel]

Unfortunate for all involved. I do understand your upset. I think it is wonderful you took it upon yourself to help these dogs out, don't get me wrong, but the right thing to do would be to pay them back and walk away. They tried their best even if their version of help doesn't line up with everyone elses.

Bridgid is a good woman from what I hear and see in her track record, she does her best to help day in and day out, yes she used the uselessly ugly term bait dogs but that doesn't negate the fact she called you back when no one else would, I would take that alone as a sign of good faith to be returned.

[Emily]

Originally Posted by AdrianneIsabel

Unfortunate for all involved. I do understand your upset. I think it is wonderful you took it upon yourself to help these dogs out, don't get me wrong, but the right thing to do would be to pay them back and walk away. They tried their best even if their version of help doesn't line up with everyone elses.

Bridgid is a good woman from what I hear and see in her track record, she does her best to help day in and day out, yes she used the uselessly ugly term bait dogs but that doesn't negate the fact she called you back when no one else would, I would take that alone as a sign of good faith to be returned.

for the most part, I agree. I just don't agree with how everything was presented - or rather, not presented.

[Aleron]

Originally Posted by AdrianneIsabel

Unfortunate for all involved. I do understand your upset. I think it is wonderful you took it upon yourself to help these dogs out, don't get me wrong, but the right thing to do would be to pay them back and walk away. They tried their best even if their version of help doesn't line up with everyone elses.

Bridgid is a good woman from what I hear and see in her track record, she does her best to help day in and day out, yes she used the uselessly ugly term bait dogs but that doesn't negate the fact she called you back when no one else would, I would take that alone as a sign of good faith to be returned.

Except that I think what was done could be considered fraud. At best she certainly lied and misled the public to get donations. Doesn't matter how good someone's track record is, that is not appropriate behavior. It may not even be legal behavior. And I suspect this isn't the first she's done this. And it probably won't be the last time either.

Was there any sort of agreement that this was a loan to be paid back? If not, well she's put it out there that her group is responsible for the medical care of these dogs and has collected donations (I think it was said she collected quite a lot) to that end.

I had a similar thing happen to me years ago with a local shelter. I used a program they offered for low cost medical care on a stray dog, they later said the dog was their property. They even harassed the dog's new owner at a pet store, threatening to take the dog off of him while his children stood there hugging the dog and crying.

Bottom line is, if you didn't sign anything surrendering the dogs to the rescue/shelter then the rescue/shelter can't claim ownership of them. And anyone who's been involved with rescue work for any length of time would know that. This group saw a money making opportunity with these dogs but didn't ask they be signed over because they didn't want to have to actually take the dogs. They just wanted to imply they were caring for them because such things often make people send donations. And they likely feel using propaganda like pictures of emaciated stray dogs labeled "bait dogs" helps their cause.

[AdrianneIsabel]

Two wrongs never make a right. Sorry, like I said I do understand the upset and that is why I think the best thing for everyone involved is to pay back the money (personally I don't like to be indebted to anyone for anything) and walk away. All other arguments, IMO, are invalid, rescue can be very ugly but if you choose not to adhere to the terms of a rescue don't ask them for help.

For the record, this group didn't just see a sorrow case, they only took the case because I asked a friend to use her name as an incentive to get attention which Emily used and the rescue said specifically that they were returning a favor to said friend by trying to help. It sucks big time it didn't turn out well and we all learn (next time maybe a chip in and private donations is a better option) but it should be clear that they didn't just see money, if that were do why didn't any of the other groups return her contact eager to make money off these dogs?