As a lifelong, responsible pet owner I respect and appreciate anyone who gets involved with the health and happiness of animals. However, the owner of this rescue organization, perhaps well meaning, is very misguided. One of the rescue owner's pit bulls staying with a foster family was running loose and viciously attacked my leashed golden retriever as my wife was walking her. Fortunately, a neighbor heard our dog's distressed cries and he rushed outside and intervened in the attack or our dog would have suffered even more serious injury or not survived this completely preventable attack. The foster family for this pit bull was extremely irresponsible in securing this animal, which had jumped the fence and run wild on previous occasions. Thankfully, the attack by this dangerous animal did not involve any children.
Our retriever required treatment and antibiotics for her injuries. The attack was reported and a sheriff's deputy arrived and conducted interviews and prepared a detailed report of the attack. Four days after the attack I finally received a response from the owner of the rescue organization who acknowledged an "altercation" and my earlier voicemail and email, with a text. The owner admitted responsibility and advised they "have a check to cover the vet bill" and that the pit bull "really is a great dog" and has a family applying to be his permanent owners in the next couple of weeks.
The rescue owner emailed a waiver and required that I sign it to receive reimbursement for my vet bill. When I did not agree to the unfavorable terms of her waiver she ceased all communication with me and refused to provide the rabies vaccination documentation despite my requests. I also expressed my concerns that she had an obligation to disclose the attack to any prospective adoptive family referenced in her text and there was no response. Subsequently, after hearing from several concerned neighbors with pets and small children, I offered for her to keep the vet fee funds if she would simply remove the animal from this negligent foster home and again, there was no response.
Her failure to respond left no recourse and a small claim action was filed to recover the vet fee. She likely thought the matter would not be pursued since the case had to be tried in the county where the rescue organization is located which is three hours away from where the attack took place. Her rather arrogant defense in court was that she was "President of a 501(c) 3 organization" and had the ability to determine the "temperament" of this animal. The magistrate was not impressed and reviewed her text, the vet bill, my emails attempting to resolve the matter, and the sheriff's report. She appeared genuinely stunned to lose this simple and straightforward case and to date, has not provided payment to satisfy the judgment that now includes the vet bill, court costs and sheriff's service fees.
Based on her conduct it is quite possible that she allowed this pit bull to be adopted without disclosing this violent attack to the adoptive family since it conflicted with her temperament assessment of the animal. If she did not disclose her knowledge of the attack, she is doing a disservice to the animal and other rescue organizations and, more importantly, potentially endangering the adoptive family, and other people and their pets.
One would expect more empathy from the leader of a pet rescue organization whose animal, without provocation, viciously attacked and injured a sweet and gentle dog and could have seriously injured a person. By every measure in this matter, she has willfully demonstrated that our beloved pet is far less important than her being in control, her status, her organization, her temperament assessment expertise, and her rescues. Donations to this organization enable this behavior. Her failure to resolve this has actually created some awareness of this organization's practices and if it motivates positive change and prevents one attack on a person, child or pet it will serve its purpose. read more
