I don't want to specifically point out the person who recently sent me a mouse question, because I don't want anyone to be afraid to ask for my help with any animal situation, big or small. I'm upset about it, though. Not just it, of course, but it's one of the things getting under my skin tonight (it seems like everything I write about lately is dark - but it's a bad economy, and that means neglect and surrendering is at a huge high).
The person who wrote me told me she had one mouse returned to her after traveling with them, who began to show signs of extreme illness. She dropped weight drastically, hunched, and refused food and water. Eventually the questioner took her to the vet to be euthanized.
The questioner wrote that the mouse had Sendai virus, one of many things that can cause an upper respiratory tract infection (URI) in rodents. One of MANY, MANY THINGS. The Merck Vet Manual has this to say about Sendai:
"Sendai virus is an RNA paramyxovirus of the Parainfluenza family. It is highly contagious in mice and rats and causes an acute respiratory infection with no carrier state in immunocompetent animals. Sendai virus is transmitted by aerosols and direct contact with infected animals. Infection is usually subclinical, although sick animals may show signs of stunted growth and respiratory involvement with secondary bacterial pathogens. Gross lesions may include patchy lung consolidation and mild interstitial pneumonia. Perivascular lymphocytic cuffing is often observed on microscopic lung sections. Diagnosis is by ELISA, IFA, or PCR. Infection is generally self-limiting."
From that information, one might be more than a little curious how the questioner knew the exact cause of the URI. It came on quickly, and I don't believe they saw a vet before putting her down, so I'd be surprised if any of the diagnostic tests had been performed. If one were very, very curious what KIND of URI caused a mouse's decline in health, one could theoretically run a post-mortem histopathology, but I doubt she found a vet willing to do that and paid the upwards of $100 after euthanasia to discover which virus or bacteria made the mouse sick.
And on top of that - URIs are not that simple. There doesn't HAVE to be just one thing causing the symptoms. When an immune system is preoccupied, whether with traveling, stress, or a primary, subclinical infection, it's very easy to pick up a secondary infection that may or may not be the actual cause of the symptoms and damage.
There were other mice sharing the cage and travel with the mouse that got sick, so I strongly recommended treating the surviving mice with an antibiotic, just to be on the safe side. I then discovered that not only were they already showing symptoms of infection, but she had "already tried that" to no effect. Mmkay. First of all, there isn't just one antibiotic. There's one, MAYBE two you can get OTC, and then there are a few others to try via prescription pad. Second, what did she try? Did she try it for long enough, or did she cause resistance? How long have those symptoms have been showing if she's already given them meds AND given up on them? At this point, I'm getting more concerned.
The questioner has resigned to let the surviving mice "live out their lives" without more meds.
Look, that's not how it works in mice with URIs. They might fight it off, or they might die horribly and slowly. URIs can wipe out ENTIRE COLONIES. With a long incubation period in most of them, right on up to three weeks, you can cross contaminate once and lose every mouse in your home. That's why everyone pushes isolation so strongly - it's very serious. Why take a chance with a loved pet?
I want to tell the questioner they cannot possibly know which URI(s) could be affecting the remaining mice, but I don't want to offend her or imply she may have unnecessarily put down her pet. It's kind of delicate. But it pisses me off.
If you aren't going to listen to my advice, and you're going to tell me you already know what's wrong with them and what you will do...why did you come to me in the first place?
Then there's this. BEWARE - these photographs pull no punches. Her camera goes behind the scenes of animal overpopulation and overcrowded kill shelters. I love and hate these.
I was going to put up a pet of the day, but I'm so nauseated right now, so...horrified? Grateful? Miserable? That I just can't. I go to the Pawsitively page and all I see is album after album. There are so many pets emotionlessly posted as a last ditch effort at adoption. Instead of a photo and a story, now it's an album of 80 nameless dogs and cats with strict rules on tagging and pulling. Be prompt, or the animal is destroyed. I just....it's so sickening, I can't handle it right now. I go home and I see my fosters, my rescues, my babies, and I don't know why they got to be lucky. I don't know if they ARE lucky.
When the person who helped you rescue six tiny lives tells you if they have to go back to that drooling, miserable, horrible woman who would have let them die in her front yard and scooped them into a trash bag like dead leaves then "so be it"...you know shit is bad. You know it's the end of the rope. You know there is no more help left to offer, and you know you won't say no if asked.
I hope finding my soul was worth it to them, their people, and the ones I can't save.
-Mouse
Showing posts with label Adoption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Adoption. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Adopting Because It's Sad.
Don’t fucking do it.
52 horses need saved! They’re going to slaughter! Oh NOOOO! They’re free, get them out now! MOST of them are gelded. MOST of them are broken. Some of them are with foal.
Yeah, it’s fucking tragic, but you know what this tells me? It tells me they were neglected before their previous owner passed away. It tells me each horse is going to need extensive veterinary care and rehabilitation. It tells me the previous owner wasn’t gelding them, wasn’t getting 52 horses fed and trimmed. It tells me they’re basically a feral herd.
But what it tells YOU is that YOU have to swoop in and stop this tragedy of killing them now now now now now, even if you don’t have the money to get your fucking dogs rabies vaccinations.
And what it tells YOU is that even though you have two kids to feed and a dog with zero vet visits, and no money to come to my damned wedding, that this sad, sad story with its zero details or history or vet papers tugs on your heartstrings enough to jump into something that will cost thousands of dollars and months of hard work. You CAN’T. It will suffer more.
And what it tells YOU is that “horse slaughter bad, mmkay,” so no horses can die, ever, even though there are NO SLAUGHTER HOUSES HERE. Trigger word, and you’re preaching about morals.
What every fucking one of you is forgetting is that you don’t have the whole fucking story. You don’t know where they came from, why they’re in this condition, WHAT condition they are in, who needs massive amounts of vet care and rehabilitation. Shit, you don’t even know if this is a legal issue that should be prosecuted. YOU DON’T KNOW. You just see a sad story and want to make it better. BUT YOU CAN’T.
You can not save them all. If you want to, GO VISIT THEM. Take a tally of the horses and their conditions. Bring a vet. Talk to the survivor who wants to slaughter them and the “friend” who wants to adopt them out for free. Find out who is with foal, who needs gelded, look at the hooves, the teeth, the ribs. Go do the goddamned work and participate. Make profiles on the 52 horses with photographs, and look for real adopters. Adopters who have the money for vet care and the facilities already set up. Adopters who know what they are doing, who aren’t going to turn around and sell them for profit on fucking Craigslist. Adopters who aren’t going to realize they can’t afford to feed it and either let it die, “set it free,” or sell it to auction. Adopters who actually give a fuck and aren’t acting on just emotion.
THEN. Coordinate with state-wide rescues, organizations, and fosters who can give them longer to bounce back and be better for adopting.
You mean well. But you’re thinking with your heart, and not about the animals.
-Mouse
52 horses need saved! They’re going to slaughter! Oh NOOOO! They’re free, get them out now! MOST of them are gelded. MOST of them are broken. Some of them are with foal.
Yeah, it’s fucking tragic, but you know what this tells me? It tells me they were neglected before their previous owner passed away. It tells me each horse is going to need extensive veterinary care and rehabilitation. It tells me the previous owner wasn’t gelding them, wasn’t getting 52 horses fed and trimmed. It tells me they’re basically a feral herd.
But what it tells YOU is that YOU have to swoop in and stop this tragedy of killing them now now now now now, even if you don’t have the money to get your fucking dogs rabies vaccinations.
And what it tells YOU is that even though you have two kids to feed and a dog with zero vet visits, and no money to come to my damned wedding, that this sad, sad story with its zero details or history or vet papers tugs on your heartstrings enough to jump into something that will cost thousands of dollars and months of hard work. You CAN’T. It will suffer more.
And what it tells YOU is that “horse slaughter bad, mmkay,” so no horses can die, ever, even though there are NO SLAUGHTER HOUSES HERE. Trigger word, and you’re preaching about morals.
What every fucking one of you is forgetting is that you don’t have the whole fucking story. You don’t know where they came from, why they’re in this condition, WHAT condition they are in, who needs massive amounts of vet care and rehabilitation. Shit, you don’t even know if this is a legal issue that should be prosecuted. YOU DON’T KNOW. You just see a sad story and want to make it better. BUT YOU CAN’T.
You can not save them all. If you want to, GO VISIT THEM. Take a tally of the horses and their conditions. Bring a vet. Talk to the survivor who wants to slaughter them and the “friend” who wants to adopt them out for free. Find out who is with foal, who needs gelded, look at the hooves, the teeth, the ribs. Go do the goddamned work and participate. Make profiles on the 52 horses with photographs, and look for real adopters. Adopters who have the money for vet care and the facilities already set up. Adopters who know what they are doing, who aren’t going to turn around and sell them for profit on fucking Craigslist. Adopters who aren’t going to realize they can’t afford to feed it and either let it die, “set it free,” or sell it to auction. Adopters who actually give a fuck and aren’t acting on just emotion.
THEN. Coordinate with state-wide rescues, organizations, and fosters who can give them longer to bounce back and be better for adopting.
You mean well. But you’re thinking with your heart, and not about the animals.
-Mouse
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Long-Distance Adoption
My heart wants to be really proud of humanity for the concept of long-distance adoption. Multiple people working together to expand the net of adoptability - moving pets across states to the perfect homes. It's a real sign of advancement, right?
But everything is wrong with it. I'm sorry, I want to, but I just don't think long-distance adoptions are a good idea. And I've DONE it. Hell, I still have Lanie. She's a perfect example of what goes wrong with them.
#1: Let's start with the concept of fluid adopters. That's not a real term. I just made it up.
What I mean by "fluid adopters" is the basic idea that a person can find a "perfect companion" in many different pets. There are certainly picky adopters (I don't mean that in a negative way at all) who will go to five or six different shelters before finding the perfect dog/cat/bunny/other. Those seem to be the exception, though. Most people will go to shelter A, B, C, OR D and will find a Fluffy or Fido to complete their home. With that in mind - an adoption at any one shelter takes an adoption away from the others.
There is obviously no animosity there - we are all in this to find animals homes, wherever they wind up. Well, most of us are, anyways. But what it means is that a person who adopts locally opens up a kennel for another needy animal in their community. A person who adopts from a kill shelter takes an adoption from a no kill, and vice versa. This is a prime reason for spontaneous adoptions from kill shelters - it's an immediate gratification of "saving" a life, despite hundreds of other animals being put down after close of business. On the other hand, adopting from a no-kill keeps (theoretically) one more pet out of the euthanasia line to begin with. There is no better option and this is a huge issue, but apply it to long distance adoptions:
Adopting from another city or state takes one adoption away from a local animal.
I personally feel that community is the best shot that shelters have at adopting out animals into responsible homes. A good shelter is an active part of the fabric of the animal community - giving back education, services, and care. If community is forsaken by adopters - reaching out to OTHER communities, we mesh together and it's more likely, imho, for animals to fall through the cracks right under our noses. Like I mentioned before, though, we are all in this for the same reason, and a needy animal five states away is as valuable as one next door. I don't think it's a bad thing - I just don't think it's a good one.
#2: When you take responsibility for adopting out an animal, you take responsibility for its wellbeing after going to its new home. On the other end, when you adopt an animal, you are taking direct responsibility for promising it a loving, safe, forever-home. If you adopt long distance...
A shelter cannot:
I realize that's harsh, and an across-the-board generalization, but it really is the responsibility of both parties that an adoption go smoothly. It doesn't end with signing a paper - it's the before, during, and the long after. You just can't do that long distance, not easily, anyways. There are always exceptions, of course.
#3. When any of those points above fall through, accidents can happen. When we brought Lanie home she had kennel cough. I made the stupid mistake of assuming that "vaccinated for Bordatella and Distemper/Parvo" meant that all the dogs there were kennel cough- and parvo-free. I didn't think. Those vaccines take weeks to work. I later learned that EVERY DOG there had kennel cough. She had been on medication that wasn't sent with her - an antibiotic. I brought home a sick dog to my dog who had just had surgery. That put everyone involved in danger and was extremely unwise. I was very, very angry. No one had told me - but I hadn't asked.
So who gets stuck with a vet bill for new medicine? Whose animals were at risk because I didn't even meet the dog before tagging it and pulling it from the shelter?
I learned the hard way. My other dog is fine, but I'm still not happy. It's taken me two months now and I STILL haven't gotten her adoption papers/records. I'm obligated to get her spayed, but they haven't once called, emailed, or written to follow up that I have. They don't care. They gave a dog away for free to a person they'd never met or verified, not even asking if I had other pets at home. They didn't ask anything. Lanie could have been VERY screwed if the situation were even a little bit different, and if we hadn't maintained painfully strict quarantine, Penny could have been screwed, too. There wasn't anything to do once we'd adopted her.
#4. Huge transport plans. Not everyone, in fact, almost no one, drives the several hours to pick up their pet from a long-distance adoption. In my experience, big, elaborate transport paths are planned. Person A picks up from the shelter and drops off with person B a couple of hours away, who hands the animal off to person C, and so on until they arrive at their final home. That means that ONLY THE LAST PERSON sees the destination the dog is going to. That last person is stuck with the moral responsibility (and the animal) should something be glaringly, or even subtly, wrong. In addition, that animal is the adopter's responsibility from the second it leaves the doors of the shelter - that means if person A, B, C, or other loses the pet between transport, runs off with it, hands it to a fraudulent person, gets in an anccident, or otherwise endangers the animal - that's on the adopter.
You're taking in a pet for the rest of its life. Isn't it worth it to ensure it gets home with you safely? Do you know who those transporters ARE? Are they using kennels and leashes or is the pet riding loose in the car? Will they have the windows down? Do they have AC/heat? Are they passing off papers, too? Are they someone you can trust to meet with safely?
However you look at it, adopting long distance is taking a chance, and it can be very sketchy. Heck, if you need another example, the tripawd I recently helped get out of a kill shelter went from a young, healthy, perfectly friendly and great-shape dog from a caring owner to an underweight, dog-aggressive, over-bred dog with scars and poor breeding from a terrifying owner who later harassed the adopting shelter with nonstop requests for personal and contact details of her future home. You can never go wrong being too careful.
So yes. Long distance adoption just sits wrong with me. I worry those dogs have a lesser chance of staying where they go, or remaining healthy and happy. I think it's a poor recipe. Might just be me, though. I really, really want to love that people are working so hard at casting that wider net, but it just worries me. A lot.
-Mouse
But everything is wrong with it. I'm sorry, I want to, but I just don't think long-distance adoptions are a good idea. And I've DONE it. Hell, I still have Lanie. She's a perfect example of what goes wrong with them.
#1: Let's start with the concept of fluid adopters. That's not a real term. I just made it up.
What I mean by "fluid adopters" is the basic idea that a person can find a "perfect companion" in many different pets. There are certainly picky adopters (I don't mean that in a negative way at all) who will go to five or six different shelters before finding the perfect dog/cat/bunny/other. Those seem to be the exception, though. Most people will go to shelter A, B, C, OR D and will find a Fluffy or Fido to complete their home. With that in mind - an adoption at any one shelter takes an adoption away from the others.
There is obviously no animosity there - we are all in this to find animals homes, wherever they wind up. Well, most of us are, anyways. But what it means is that a person who adopts locally opens up a kennel for another needy animal in their community. A person who adopts from a kill shelter takes an adoption from a no kill, and vice versa. This is a prime reason for spontaneous adoptions from kill shelters - it's an immediate gratification of "saving" a life, despite hundreds of other animals being put down after close of business. On the other hand, adopting from a no-kill keeps (theoretically) one more pet out of the euthanasia line to begin with. There is no better option and this is a huge issue, but apply it to long distance adoptions:
Adopting from another city or state takes one adoption away from a local animal.
I personally feel that community is the best shot that shelters have at adopting out animals into responsible homes. A good shelter is an active part of the fabric of the animal community - giving back education, services, and care. If community is forsaken by adopters - reaching out to OTHER communities, we mesh together and it's more likely, imho, for animals to fall through the cracks right under our noses. Like I mentioned before, though, we are all in this for the same reason, and a needy animal five states away is as valuable as one next door. I don't think it's a bad thing - I just don't think it's a good one.
#2: When you take responsibility for adopting out an animal, you take responsibility for its wellbeing after going to its new home. On the other end, when you adopt an animal, you are taking direct responsibility for promising it a loving, safe, forever-home. If you adopt long distance...
A shelter cannot:
- Homecheck the adopter
- Meet the adopter and verify they are credible, responsible, and who/what they claim to be
- Perform followup visits and checks
- Verify any future requirements for adoption have been met (like promised fixing/vet care)
- Check the vet care, number, and temperaments of current pets
- Check the household members and their knowledge of the adoption
- Verify safety of the environment, including fencing and hazards
- Verify the adopter has means of transport, for taking the animal to a vet
- Check the credibility of the shelter
- Check the condition, health, temperament, and traits of the animal
- Check that the shelter has not "played up" the friendliness or condition
- Determine first if the animal's a good fit for that person, pets, or household
- Ensure the shelter does not have practices the adopter doesn't condone or support, such as gassing
- Meet other pets that may be a better fit, personality-wise
- Note poor behaviors that could be deal breakers - barking, food aggression, dog aggression, skittishness, etc.
- Easily return animal or seek help if become overwhelmed
I realize that's harsh, and an across-the-board generalization, but it really is the responsibility of both parties that an adoption go smoothly. It doesn't end with signing a paper - it's the before, during, and the long after. You just can't do that long distance, not easily, anyways. There are always exceptions, of course.
#3. When any of those points above fall through, accidents can happen. When we brought Lanie home she had kennel cough. I made the stupid mistake of assuming that "vaccinated for Bordatella and Distemper/Parvo" meant that all the dogs there were kennel cough- and parvo-free. I didn't think. Those vaccines take weeks to work. I later learned that EVERY DOG there had kennel cough. She had been on medication that wasn't sent with her - an antibiotic. I brought home a sick dog to my dog who had just had surgery. That put everyone involved in danger and was extremely unwise. I was very, very angry. No one had told me - but I hadn't asked.
So who gets stuck with a vet bill for new medicine? Whose animals were at risk because I didn't even meet the dog before tagging it and pulling it from the shelter?
I learned the hard way. My other dog is fine, but I'm still not happy. It's taken me two months now and I STILL haven't gotten her adoption papers/records. I'm obligated to get her spayed, but they haven't once called, emailed, or written to follow up that I have. They don't care. They gave a dog away for free to a person they'd never met or verified, not even asking if I had other pets at home. They didn't ask anything. Lanie could have been VERY screwed if the situation were even a little bit different, and if we hadn't maintained painfully strict quarantine, Penny could have been screwed, too. There wasn't anything to do once we'd adopted her.
#4. Huge transport plans. Not everyone, in fact, almost no one, drives the several hours to pick up their pet from a long-distance adoption. In my experience, big, elaborate transport paths are planned. Person A picks up from the shelter and drops off with person B a couple of hours away, who hands the animal off to person C, and so on until they arrive at their final home. That means that ONLY THE LAST PERSON sees the destination the dog is going to. That last person is stuck with the moral responsibility (and the animal) should something be glaringly, or even subtly, wrong. In addition, that animal is the adopter's responsibility from the second it leaves the doors of the shelter - that means if person A, B, C, or other loses the pet between transport, runs off with it, hands it to a fraudulent person, gets in an anccident, or otherwise endangers the animal - that's on the adopter.
You're taking in a pet for the rest of its life. Isn't it worth it to ensure it gets home with you safely? Do you know who those transporters ARE? Are they using kennels and leashes or is the pet riding loose in the car? Will they have the windows down? Do they have AC/heat? Are they passing off papers, too? Are they someone you can trust to meet with safely?
However you look at it, adopting long distance is taking a chance, and it can be very sketchy. Heck, if you need another example, the tripawd I recently helped get out of a kill shelter went from a young, healthy, perfectly friendly and great-shape dog from a caring owner to an underweight, dog-aggressive, over-bred dog with scars and poor breeding from a terrifying owner who later harassed the adopting shelter with nonstop requests for personal and contact details of her future home. You can never go wrong being too careful.
So yes. Long distance adoption just sits wrong with me. I worry those dogs have a lesser chance of staying where they go, or remaining healthy and happy. I think it's a poor recipe. Might just be me, though. I really, really want to love that people are working so hard at casting that wider net, but it just worries me. A lot.
-Mouse
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Kitteh Balls
Good news! I got all A's this semester. Sweet!
In other news, the kittens I've been fostering are finally about to reach that magic number - 12 weeks old. I have about a million people lined up to adopt them (such is the way with kittens), but they can't go nowhere until they've had their down-theres fixed up.
So when can you neuter a kitten?
Or spay, if you have a lady kitten. Which I do not.
That depends on who you ask. Given my major, I should probably have some strong opinion that I can forcefully defend, but I don't. My opinion is - when they're big enough. Your vet can give you an idea, but I would recommend not waiting until 6 months or later like some clinics do. I do have one opinion I'll defend to the grave, though - never, ever, ever, EVER adopt out an animal that isn't fixed.
But they paid a deposit for fixing? Nope.
But I know them really well? Nope.
But they promised to do it in 30 days or I could take it back? NOPE.
Fix them as soon as they're 3 pounds, or the fastest your vet feels comfortable putting them under anesthesia. Then and only then can they go to their new homes.
Even if you're giving the cat to your mother, get it fixed first. It's not a matter of trust (okay sometimes it is), it's just the plain fact that shit happens.
What if Senor Fluffypants gets out? What if Madam Fuzzbutt gets her first heat, and new owners can't afford the more expensive spay? Things happen, and if you're going to spend that much time rescuing, raising, and vetting the kittens, might as well take one more thing off your mind and their "still needs ____" list. Otherwise you might wind up with a whole new litter of unloved kittens waking you up every two hours and needing even more vet visits in a few months. Cats multiply, shit happens.
Plus, for boy kitties, the surgery is really easy. Look what I found! (Caution: Includes real photographs of the surgery) Slideshow came from this page.
And, because I have no intention of being kitteh-sexist here, a very thorough and in-depth pictoral walkthrough of a spay. (Caution: Yes it's still real surgery pictures)
Both pages have links to similar information for dog procedures, so if you aren't too squeamish, take a look around. Cool stuff!
-Mouse
In other news, the kittens I've been fostering are finally about to reach that magic number - 12 weeks old. I have about a million people lined up to adopt them (such is the way with kittens), but they can't go nowhere until they've had their down-theres fixed up.
So when can you neuter a kitten?
Or spay, if you have a lady kitten. Which I do not.
That depends on who you ask. Given my major, I should probably have some strong opinion that I can forcefully defend, but I don't. My opinion is - when they're big enough. Your vet can give you an idea, but I would recommend not waiting until 6 months or later like some clinics do. I do have one opinion I'll defend to the grave, though - never, ever, ever, EVER adopt out an animal that isn't fixed.
But they paid a deposit for fixing? Nope.
But I know them really well? Nope.
But they promised to do it in 30 days or I could take it back? NOPE.
Fix them as soon as they're 3 pounds, or the fastest your vet feels comfortable putting them under anesthesia. Then and only then can they go to their new homes.
Even if you're giving the cat to your mother, get it fixed first. It's not a matter of trust (okay sometimes it is), it's just the plain fact that shit happens.
What if Senor Fluffypants gets out? What if Madam Fuzzbutt gets her first heat, and new owners can't afford the more expensive spay? Things happen, and if you're going to spend that much time rescuing, raising, and vetting the kittens, might as well take one more thing off your mind and their "still needs ____" list. Otherwise you might wind up with a whole new litter of unloved kittens waking you up every two hours and needing even more vet visits in a few months. Cats multiply, shit happens.
Plus, for boy kitties, the surgery is really easy. Look what I found! (Caution: Includes real photographs of the surgery) Slideshow came from this page.
And, because I have no intention of being kitteh-sexist here, a very thorough and in-depth pictoral walkthrough of a spay. (Caution: Yes it's still real surgery pictures)
Both pages have links to similar information for dog procedures, so if you aren't too squeamish, take a look around. Cool stuff!
 |
| Batman hogging the food, and Chewy being particularly nonplussed about it. |
-Mouse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)