« UW Workshop | Main | The Clearwater Hounds »

From Pamela

This isn't hate mail per se, but it made me pretty mad, and since the rest of the hate mail has been both sparse and boring lately, I thought I'd post this here. This email came as a 'Reply All' regarding a dog with one eye who has had a couple of very understandable bite incidents, and is being taken into a pit bull rescue after a long fight to get him released from an organization that planned to kill him.

"It very frustrating and sad to see any dog put to sleep. I to train Pits and have used the C.A.T dog training and went to the course last summer. That being said this dog has bitten 2 people whether provoke or not. Now while you will take full responsibility for this dogs actions why put your organization at risk. With so many other friendly workable pits out there that need rescuing too. Work with the ones that can truly be saved. Then what if this dog never truly can be trusted then what stick him in a pen for the rest of his life in Forks, yes I know of this guy who does that with dogs that have been on death row.

"I have no doubt you are trying to the "right" thing but maybe that doesn't always work. Think about the bigger picture.

"I know you also took one of Anne's dogs when she died, your organization does pretty good work. I also have issues with any organization that picks and chooses what they want to "save".

"Pamela"

There were a lot of allies of Olympic Animal Sanctuary on that mailing list, so I decided I'd better save them the trouble of defending us and I sent out a response with the subject line, "From the 'guy in Forks who keeps death row dogs in cages for the rest of their lives'":

This is the first I've heard of this situation; I assume this is from one of the listserves that I was put on without my permission and that now goes straight into my junk mail folder. I don't mean to sound irritable, but as a dog rescuer, getting 50 unsolicited emails a day about cats, even though I love cats, is pretty annoying. Also, I am kind of irritable, but most of my friends think it's endearing because it's tempered with rage and sarcasm. That was a joke. Kind of.

Anyway, since this message has found its way to my inbox, I'll go ahead and respond. Why don't I just go through this sentence by sentence? I won't even comment on the grammar, which is abysmal.

Sentence 1: "It very frustrating and sad to see any dog put to sleep." You know what else is frustrating? When people use phrases like "put to sleep" to describe killing an animal. Last night I went to sleep, and this morning I woke up. A dog or cat that gets "put to sleep" doesn't usually wake up. Can we please call killing what it is, and stop trying to soften the ugliness of it with fluffy idioms?

Sentence 2: "I to train Pits and have used the C.A.T dog training and went to the course last summer." Congratulations. Is this meant to establish your credibility?

Sentence 3: "That being said this dog has bitten 2 people whether provoke or not." So provocation is immaterial? Dogs are expected to just take whatever we throw at them without so much as a disapproving groan. Forget the circumstances, forget the fact that the dog has special needs -- all that matters is the outcome. It's kind of like saying if I break a window to escape a burning building, I'm guilty of vandalism.

Sentence 4: "Now while you will take full responsibility for this dogs actions why put your organization at risk." Are you an attorney? Because this looks like legal advice to me. I'm pretty sure you need more than a dog training course to be qualified to dish out legal advice.

'Sentence' 5: "With so many other friendly workable pits out there that need rescuing too." OK, I know I said I wouldn't comment on the grammar, but this isn't even a sentence. It does, however, sum up your attitude pretty well. You seem to think that a) some dogs are "friendly" and some dogs aren't; b) some dogs are more deserving of rescue than others; and c) rescue should be prioritized according to what is easiest. It's a hell of an attitude. Have you run across it much in human services, say in homeless shelters or domestic violence shelters? Chances are you haven't, and if you did, you'd be horrified, but we tolerate this kind of thinking in rescue because despite all of our professed love and compassion for dogs, they're still disposable. They're still 'just dogs' and life and safety aren't rights we, and by we I mean you, think they deserve.

Sentence 6: "Work with the ones that can truly be saved." What does that mean? What do you mean by "truly be saved"? Are you suggesting that rescuing a dog that has a history of severe abuse or a dog that has some mental health issues is an exercise in futility? Again, would you say this if we were talking about human beings? Stop and consider what you're trying to convince someone to do -- you, an 'animal rescuer', are trying to convince a person not to rescue an animal.

Sentence 7: "Then what if this dog never truly can be trusted then what stick him in a pen for the rest of his life in Forks, yes I know of this guy who does that with dogs that have been on death row." No, you don't know of "a guy" who does "that", but thanks for jumping to unfounded conclusions, total stranger who knows nothing about my facility or my program. I don't stick dogs in pens for the rest of their lives. I do kennel dogs when they're not outside playing, going for a ride with me in the truck, going to the beach or the mountains for a walk, or sleeping on my bed. Add to that the high quality diet and first rate veterinary care and it's a regular Auschwitz for dogs. But what bothers me more about this sentence is this notion of trust. How many people do you trust? Should the rest be killed? Should a dog be killed because you don't understand his behavior well enough to predict and manage it? In fact, the question that should be asked here is this: after reading this email, why should any dog trust you?

Sentence 8: "I have no doubt you are trying to the "right" thing but maybe that doesn't always work." And as we all know, anything that doesn't work 100% of the time should never be attempted.

Sentence 9: "Think about the bigger picture." Here's the bigger picture: the culture of animal rescue doesn't value the lives of animals enough to offer help to the ones that need it most, and that's an ugly picture you're helping to paint. As someone once said, I don't know much about art, but I know that sucks.

Sentence 10: "I know you also took one of Anne's dogs when she died, your organization does pretty good work." Pretty good, but not good enough that you should be trusted to make solid decisions about which animals you rescue, right? Look, it's no secret that I'm not a fan of BullsEye, and I don't think it will come as a shock to anyone from BullsEye who receives this email. But if they'll give this dog rehab and a chance at adoption, what the hell is the problem? There's a chance they'll just decide to kill this dog anyway, in which case you'll be closer to getting what you want and the people on the mailing list will have some more work to do to save him. The more I think about it, what was your motivation to send this email in the first place? What do you have to offer or stand to gain by it, apart from the delightful response you're getting from me?

Sentence 11: "I also have issues with any organization that picks and chooses what they want to "save"." Clearly, which is why you're suggesting they do just that.

Thanks for bringing me into the conversation.

Steve Markwell
Founder/Executive Director, Olympic Animal Sanctuary
"We save dogs you'd rather see dead." And you know who you are.

Posted on October 24, 2010