Caveat: I am not siding with any party. This is written from a neutral standpoint; an attempt to find the truth behind the anger and distress. I always support the cat and look for ways to improve the lives of cats. This is our responsibility. We need to be hard on ourselves and examine our actions and motives. That includes me.
As an aside, I have just visited the Caboodle Ranch website and I am shocked at the legal and emotional mess this has become while the cats suffer. It is a typical case of human messing up the lives of cats through mismanagement.
Ruth AKA Kattaddorra gave me the idea for this post. There are a lot of comments on the Hate Crimes and Caboodle Ranch (CR) article by Victoria. Understandably, there is a lot of passion and anger and polarised viewpoints. I noticed that a number of people commenting had personally placed their cats at Caboodle Ranch. They were distressed that their cats had not been treated as well as they had expected. Some (Natasha is the classic example) were extremely angry and upset. They felt they had been conned by Craig the former owner of Caboodle Ranch (it is now closed but the website is still running).
Once a person hands over their cat to a cat rescue organisation or shelter, they hand over “ownership” (title) in a legal sense to the owners of the shelter.
At the moment of handover it would seem to me that they relinquish all rights and responsibilities in the cat . Accordingly, from a legal standpoint they have limited rights to complain about the new owner. They are entitled to comment and criticize but they can only do that as an outsider not as someone with a personal stake in the shelter unless there has been misrepresentation (see below). From a legal standpoint when a person sells a car they don’t check on the car to make sure it is maintained properly or driven properly. The law treats cars and cats the same way.
The person who hands over a cat has made a decision to give up his/her cats. The person who hands over a feral cat to a cat shelter is in a different position, I believe. The cat is probably never in the ownership of the person who hands the feral cat over. However, the cat shelter does own and possess the feral cat and can do as they please with the cat in the eyes of the law (subject to animal welfare law obligations, which is criminal law). People who hand over cats to shelters need to be aware of that.
The people who handed over their cats to Caboodle Ranch and who are angry or disappointed at the treatment of their cats should also be a little bit self-critical for making an unfortunate mistake. They might feel conned but ultimately the burden of the ensuing problem should be shared by both parties to the arrangement.
A lot of the anger understandably comes from people who had a close connection with their cats and handed them over only to find that their cats were allegedly neglected. Under the circumstances where a cat is a true family member, there must be a great burden on the cat’s owner to make sure the new owner is an excellent caretaker. It is more difficult therefore for these people to claim they were conned by CR. If they had made a proper inspection of their own they might have decided that the place wasn’t suitable. Did they make a proper inspection?
Important: I am not siding with CR I am just looking at this coldly as an outsider seeking the truth.
There is an argument that CR misrepresented how they operated. In other words they reassured people that all was well when it wasn’t and people acted on that. I think you have to look at this from a legal perspective too. The legal concept of misrepresentation may apply in this case. It is what is called a tort – a civil wrong. It may be difficult to prove misrepresentation took place. The problem, as I see it, with making a claim under misrepresentation is the damages, the amount of compensation and type of compensation. In the eyes of the law, a moggie cat is worth about $30. The anguish and distress suffered by people who handed over their cats to CR goes well beyond that level of compensation and I don’t think you can claim compensation for distress. You can’t compensate adequately it seems to me. I don’t think that personal civil actions in contract or tort would be successful even if the person won the case.
When cat breeders sell their purebred cats they nearly always have a contract that places obligations on the new owner (the purchaser of the cat) which could result in the contract being avoided (the cat goes back to the breeder). That sort of contract could or should have been in place with respect to CR.
As a final thought (if anyone got this far!), there is no reason why a person handing over their cat to a privately run cat shelter cannot produce their own contract and insist that the cat shelter owner signs it before handing over their cat(s). If the shelter owner refuses to be bound by the terms of the contract it would be a good indication that the shelter was unsuitable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CR promised certain care for cats left with them. Contracts can be written, verbal, or implied.
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!