HomeAnimal RightsOwnership of Shelter Cats

Comments

Ownership of Shelter Cats — 23 Comments

  1. I keep seeing that phrase “irresponsible people who dumped their cats”. I truly believe some these people cared enough to take their cats somewhere where they believed they would be cared for, no, where they were promised these cats would be cared for. To be truly irresponsible would be to dump your cat along side of the highway, at that grocery store parking lot where you’ve seen a feral colony, to abandon them when you lose your house or move away, etc.

    • Lisa, I think you are talking about degrees of irresponsibility. To dump a cat at the road side is plain animal cruelty. It is a crime it would seem to me and the height of irresponsibility regarding cat caretaking. Whereas if a person, to suit themselves (i.e. for no good reason), gives up their cat at a shelter then that is also irresponsible behavior but to a lesser degree. Thanks for commenting.

  2. I just went over and looked at the Hate Crimes article. For someone who claims not to be a professional writer I believe she’s a better writer than I am. My final Caboodle Ranch article was last month before we were investigated. My daugher threatened to leave home if I wrote any more about Caboodle so I won’t even be covering the trial.

    • Contract can be verbal and implied but a written one is far better as it helps prevent bad behavior and avoids uncertainty.

  3. Anyone reading Elisa’s articles can see the difference between the writing style of her and Victoria.
    Sometimes people do appear out of the blue here and disappear when they’ve been subject to unpleasant comments and who can blame them for that!

    • If Elisa was writing an article using an alias, then she may attempt to alter her writing style as well. I do wonder who wrote the original article, as the person claims to be a retired psychiatrist, and yet she does not seem to comprehend the nature of hate crimes.

    • I’m not very familiar with Elisa’s writing, and wasn’t implying that she was behind the “Hate Crimes” article. I was merely responding to Michael’s attribution of the article to someone other than “Victoria”.

      If comments are mentally unstable or abusive, the moderator should remove them. Civil discourse isn’t an unreasonable expectation.

      But if the comments are merely critical of errors in the article, well, the author had better develop a thicker skin.

      The “Hate Crimes” article was simply awful: poorly reasoned, with careless research, obvious bias, and glaring errors. The anonymous author makes an attempt to justify her stance by claiming to be a retired psychiatrist, a claim which I am extremely skeptical of given the dreadfully ignorant handling of the subject.

      Sorry, but I smell a fake. I don’t know who “Victoria” is, but if she’s got an advanced degree, I’ll eat my shoe.

      • Sometimes people use a pseudonym to remain anonymous. Many well known authors use pseudonyms and on the internet it is probably wise because there is a lot of trolling bordering on harassment!

        • And some criminals use pseudonyms to conceal their background, and some shills use pseudonyms to conceal their conflict of interest.

          Others use pseudonyms to evade accountability or to enable them to make false claims about their credentials.

          Anonymity is a double-edged sword. Those who hide behind a false persona have no right to claim authority on the basis of their credentials, especially when there is no way to verify their claims.

          I should know. I’m a world-famous astronaut who won the Nobel Prize for my pioneering work on the sociopolitical ramifications of anonymous interaction. And that trumps Victoria’s medical degree.

          …Ah, but that’s a fiction, isn’t it? And you can tell that because I’m using my real identity instead of hiding behind a sock puppet. I take responsibility for my words and actions.

          That’s accountability. It’s what Victoria abandoned when she made veiled accusations through a fake identity, under color of her supposed psychiatric credentials.

          • I take your point and accept what you say but I think we should keep things in perspective. Nothing has come of it. The article stimulated a interesting dialogue in comments so we have to rate the article a success and it seems it is almost irrelevant who wrote it.

  4. The only good place for cats is at home with the people who took responsibility for their welfare when they took the cat into their family and the only good cat caretakers are the ones who do just that.
    Sadly in the case of the people with a genuine reason for relinquishing their cat, the overcrowding of the CR Shelter because of cats dumped there without good reason, was bound to lead to problems.
    Whatever the rights and wrongs of the CR case it doesn’t alter the fact that the hundreds of people who all surely hadn’t a good reason to dump their cats caused that overcrowding and that is what this article is about.
    It’s what the feral problem is about too, poor cat care and convenience relinquishment or turning out of the cat to fend for himself by irresponsible people and it’s the cats who suffer every time.

    • Hold on there.

      A privately owned and operated “sanctuary” is under no obligation to accept a surrendered animal; to the contrary, they have an obligation to take in ONLY the number of animals that they have the resources to properly care for.

      Any breach of that responsibility is the fault of the sanctuary owner, not the person surrendering the animal — especially when the sanctuary owner represents that they will provide a safe and secure environment for the animal.

      • I agree that a private sanctuary owner is under no obligation to accept a cat but in the case of CR it was a large open site with no apparent limits. I suspect offering a cat to CR would result in a yes.

        • There is much more to running a sanctuary than just turning cats loose in the woods with a bowl of food. As such, there will ALWAYS be limits to the number of cats that can be cared for.

          CR took in cats without limit, even though they were unable to care for the cats already suffering under their negligent care.

          Resources weren’t a problem. Caboodle Ranch was sitting on more than $80,000 in unused donations at the end of 2010, according to their tax return. At that same time, cats were allowed to suffer and die from lack of veterinary treatment.

          Personnel shouldn’t have been a problem. Volunteers were falling all over themselves to help out. But Craig and Nanette refused to allow it because reports of the deaths and abuse of cats were getting out to the public.

          In both cases, the dishonesty of Caboodle Ranch and its operators put extreme limits on the number of cats they could reasonably care for. They repeatedly lied to cover up that fact, so they could continue to take in cats — and donation fees.

  5. Michael, the potential fraud is much deeper than the neglect of the cats.

    Donations were solicited on the basis of false and misleading statements about:
    * safety of the cats
    * health of the cats
    * isolation of infectious cats
    * that cats were vaccinated
    * spaying and neutering of the cats
    * the size of Caboodle Ranch
    * the security of the fencing
    * the “infirmary” which was funded but never built
    * how donations were used (e.g., “100% for the cats”)
    * that Craig knew how many cats were at the Ranch

    The pattern of deception characterized Caboodle Ranch’s actions for years, and in my opinion, and if the prosecutors choose to pursue charity fraud charges against the management of Caboodle Ranch, the penalties are severe.

    That’s the criminal prosecution. As you pointed out, there’s also the civil case: a class action lawsuit is forming against Caboodle Ranch. (Details at http://caboodleranch.net/?page_id=181 )

    Caboodle Ranch’s legal troubles have just begun.

    As far as producing an individual contract with a shelter, I can’t imagine any shelter or sanctuary accepting one. They would need to have an attorney look over any contract before signing. It could open the way to unreasonable lawsuits. And the surrender of the cat would need to be postponed until the contract could be approved and signed.

    Though I approve of the sentiment, this doesn’t seem feasible for either the cash-strapped nonprofit organization or for an owner surrendering an animal under dire circumstances.

    On a side note: you said the Hate Crimes article was penned by Elisa? The author claimed to be a semi-anonymous retired psychiatrist in Washington, DC named Victoria, who appeared out of the blue on this site to pen that article.

    I was skeptical of the identify of the author, given her lack of understanding about the nature of true hate crimes and denial of the psychological ramifications of hoarding… but now your slip makes me doubly suspicious.

    • Thanks for the input. I made a mistake assigning ELisa’s name to the article. I apologise. I get very tired managing the site.

      You mention a string of illegalities. Without defending CR are these allegations or findings of fact after a court hearing? As to contracts, I would have thought a contract between the parties was essential. If CR didn’t have one that is a bad sign and a sign of mismanagement. My suggestion that the client produces a contract would be exceptional I agree but it it about time people stepped out of their ruts and routines and thought about these things. Someone should produce a contract.

      An inquiry could be made (by the person relinquishing) on the phone and the contract emailed ahead. If that had happened a lot of the pain would have been avoided and it would have forced CR to adopt a higher standard. If a series of clients had insisted on a contract CR would have created one. It is about the customer improving the standards of the provider through making reasonable demands.

      Are you saying no shelters in the USA produce a contract of some form? For example, a relinquishment note.

      • CR has not had formal charges filed yet, although complaints have been filed with state and federal authorities. Indications are that investigations are in progress, but investigations of financial crimes may take months or even years.

        The initial charge of Scheming to Defraud was abandoned by the prosecutor, but that could be a reflection of a more intensive investigation into the finances of Caboodle Ranch. Additional charges may also be filed during the felony animal cruelty trial against Craig Grant and his co-defendant.

        Regarding shelter contracts, yes, many reputable shelters use contracts, but these are uniform, standardized contracts that are the same for every surrender. You’re talking about having potential surrenders phone in a new contract, which would need to be analyzed by an attorney at great cost to the shelter.

        And every surrender contract I’ve seen is strictly for the protection of the shelter — not the surrendering owner.

        The challenge is not just drawing up a standardized contract, but convincing the shelter to accept additional legal liability and the potential for lawsuits. If a dog contracts kennel cough, the owner could have standing to sue the shelter, even if the dog was exposed before it ever entered the shelter, even if it was “Patient Zero” that infected other animals in the shelter — animals whose owners might then have grounds to sue.

        A contract would have to be very, very carefully drafted to avoid abuse, and I simply cannot picture any shelter exposing themselves to that kind of legal liability with no additional benefit to their organization. “Sure, we’ll take in the animal you’re giving up. Please sign this document that gives you the right to sue us if you don’t like how the animal you surrendered is being treated.”

        That’s going to be a tough sell.

      • Micheal,
        There was a contract between the owner who surrendered the cat and the sanctuary that took in the cat or cats, i.e. Caboodle Ranch.
        Not all contracts have to be in writing and verbal contracts are enforcable in a court of law. Caboodle Ranch made promises that if you surrendered your cat to CR, they would provide regular vet and flea treatment, food, water, and shelter and a safe environment for the cat or cats to live out their lives in happiness. Caboodle Ranch did not keep their end of the verbal contract, so there is a breach of contract. Also due to the nature of the breach of contract, there is a claim against those who ran Caboodle Ranch personally that they can be sued for INTENTIONAL infliction of emtional distress. The Class action attorney already looked into it and it is a legit law suit.

        • Hi Elise, I agree there is a verbal contract but a written one is far better. It is much harder to sue successfully on verbal and implied terms of a contract. More importantly a well drafted written contract reminds the contracting parties to perform their obligations under it. It helps to prevent breaches of contract. Also shelters should have a proper contract as it is a more professional way of going about business. It need not be complicated. A good contract helps raise standards and reduces complaints etc. That is my point. But thanks for the comment.

  6. One thing to keep in mind was that Craig Grant intentionally hid sick cats and cleaned things up when he knew people were coming to the ranch. That is why visits were by appointment only. This was a fraudulent action intended to dupe unsuspecting people into believing this was a good place to bring their cats.

  7. A very well thought out and logical article Michael.
    I would think any Shelter which has someone relinquish an animal to them would get the ‘previous owner’ to sign a relinquishment form. It’s a change of ‘ownership’ in fact, although I personally find it sad that cats are owned like possessions and not looked upon as part of the family for life once they are taken in by that family.
    Doing USA Shelter studies for statistics on the number of declawed cats in them shocked me, as the pathetic excuses used to dump cats in them made it blatantly obvious that most were just unwanted or inconvenient to have around.
    Very few genuine reasons such as the death, severe disablement or homelessness of the cat’s caretaker cropped up.
    Most USA Shelters are overcrowded and cats, once people’s supposedly ‘beloved pets’ are being killed in some to make room for more dumped there by more uncaring people who must surely realise there’s not much chance of the cat being adopted out, surely that can’t be right!

    • Thanks Ruth and, yes, as I said in this article the general profile of the person who relinquishes is someone who needs educating about cats and realistic expectations. Only the right people should keep cats.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>