I feel mislead - am I in the wrong here?

Emily

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
#21
Alrighty, yesterday I wrote a crabby response, slept it, and did a re-write this morning that's much friendlier. Meanwhile, they've been calling me and posting on my facebook. *SIGH*

Here's what I've got so far, names taken out for everyone's sake:
Hi xxxx,

Sorry I took my time, but I needed to think about some concerns of mine. The first is that I wasn’t made aware of any of these terms initially, and did not agree to them either in signature or verbally regarding signing the dogs over to XXX. There are several reasons why that may not be a practical solution for me.

Please don’t think that I don’t trust the rescue to place them. It’s not that at all. However, understand that they are here on borrowed time, and that, sadly, there may come a time when I simply absolutely cannot keep them, at which point they would have to go to Animal Control. Obviously this is an absolute last resort, but as I’ve promised my landlords that I’ll get them out ASAP, and as I’m solely responsible for feeding, housing, and caring for them, I can’t allow another organization control or approval of how or when they leave. If XXX were able to take them into foster care, you’d be free to do whatever you to needed regarding paperwork. Had I been informed that this what a part of the terms of their receiving veterinary care through XYZ, I would have probably sought a different route, for these reasons.

I have gathered support from several friends and family members who have donated money to pay for their vet care. I think it would be best if I reimbursed XYZ for their vet care from 2/14 and went on to re-home them independently, unless XXX can provide foster homes in the very near future. I’ll just need an invoice on [VET NAME]’s letterhead and I’ll send a check to XYZ. I’m XYZ gets a discount as a non-profit and I’m happy to pay whatever the average person does. Consider the extra a donation.
 

Emily

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
#22
Meanwhile, they've posted on Facebook that the dogs are in a foster home... *facepalm*
 

Emily

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
#26
Interestingly, on the vet care foundation's website it says they provide vet care not just for rescues or shelters, but "individuals". Their words, not mine. Significant, considering the wording was that "because XXX is taking responsibility, they will have to be a part of XYZ's program." hhhmmm, that's not what I read...
 

Grab

Active Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
3,374
Likes
2
Points
36
#28
I'd do as you've done. It seems this isn't uncommon. We have a sanctuary on the edge of town..the owner takes in animals that are special needs, etc and cares for them. They aren't adopted out. A few years ago, the clinic I work at had a dog come in from animal control, most likely hit by a car. (road rash, badly broken leg) We had to amputate the leg, but he was a very happy and sound dog. The clinic, apparently feeling that no one would want a Rottie with three legs, sent him to the sanctuary. While I feel there is no reason he couldn't be in an individual home, he is well cared for. However, the sanctuary owner tells all people that he was a poor, abused bait dog. (because he's wary of strange dogs, you know):rolleyes: This dog was likely not abused at all and certainly was not a bait dog. :rolleyes:
 

Jynx

New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
1,071
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
CT
#29
I don't know all the background, but from what I've read and what you wrote. I would add something else.

I would ask them to retract what they've been saying about the dogs on FB including the vet care cost which in my opinion is being dishonest saying it costs almost 2000 bucks??

IF they don't retract it, I would get the 'truth' out there.

I don't mind donating to a cause, but the fact they are 'glorifying' things for their own benefit NOT these two dogs, would really tick me off. The "xtra" is going into their rescue I presume, and I would want to KNOW that if making a donation.

Sorry they sound pretty shady to me:(
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
#30
I don't know all the background, but from what I've read and what you wrote. I would add something else.

I would ask them to retract what they've been saying about the dogs on FB including the vet care cost which in my opinion is being dishonest saying it costs almost 2000 bucks??

IF they don't retract it, I would get the 'truth' out there.

I don't mind donating to a cause, but the fact they are 'glorifying' things for their own benefit NOT these two dogs, would really tick me off. The "xtra" is going into their rescue I presume, and I would want to KNOW that if making a donation.

Sorry they sound pretty shady to me:(

This^^^ I agree 100%
 

Emily

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
#33
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
 
B

Backward_Cinderella

Guest
#34
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.
 

Emily

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
#36
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

Glutton for Crazy
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
8,893
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Portland, Oregon
#37
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

Rollin' with my bitches
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
2,115
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Illinois
#38
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

New Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
2,269
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
NE Ohio
#39
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

Glutton for Crazy
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
8,893
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Portland, Oregon
#40
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?
 
Top