Recently in Hate Mail
To Paul, from Ted -- an Actual Neighbor of Ours
We haven't published any hate mail lately, not because we haven't received any, and not because we've been getting overwhelmed by it, either, but because what we've received has been so boring, uninspired, unoriginal, and just plain stupid, it's not worth our time or yours. It would just be a repetition of the same arguments, and that's not much fun for any of us. That said, here's an email from Ted, who lives across the street, about thirty feet from Olympic Animal Sanctuary, in response to Paul's email about how he'd hate to live next door to us. (For the record, we'd hate to have Paul as a neighbor, too.) I thought it was important to share Ted's email because he's not our biggest fan, and yet there's a marked difference between what he has to say about us, good and bad, and what people like Paul have to say.
"No, I guess most people wouldn't want to live next to the sanctuary. In truth my opinion was never asked. In the beginning it was a little unnerving. However as time passed it became obvious that there was a need for this sanctuary. My issue with the sanctuary is definitely and primarily its location, and that's all. I don't feel comfortable reading your personal attack on Steve's character. His mission is honorable. I am not by any stretch of the imagination an expert in these matters, but I would not oppose finding a more secluded area for the sanctuary. Until then as [the Sanctuary's] neighbor I will try to express any concerns in a civil way."
So there you have it. That'ss how a rational, sane, intelligent person makes a criticism, and here's how a rational, sane, intelligent person responds:
I've already emailed Ted back, but I would like to address his concerns here, because I think they're valid. My preference would have been to create Olympic Animal Sanctuary on a larger property in a more remote location, but it wasn't possible at the time. Our current property had some things that other properties in the same price range didn't, namely a building with water, a septic tank, and electricity. This provided me with a place to live and the dogs with a roof over their heads while we made improvements and changes to enable us to save more animals. We simply couldn't have gotten the foothold we needed otherwise.
I didn't talk to the neighbors before I got started because this is a commercial property and what we're doing here is completely legal, and in fact doesn't even require any permits under our local ordinances. I don't believe any other business owner would have asked the neighbors how they felt before getting up and running, so we didn't either. That said, I've been keenly aware that our property borders a residential area, so we've taken extra safety precautions and continued to make the property more secure. Our other concern is noise; most of the time it is remarkably quiet here, but when it's feeding time, when one group of dogs is coming inside and another is going out, and when there are visitors, this place can be quite loud. For this and other reasons, we limit our visitors to two individuals or groups per month, and we don't feed the dogs between the hours of 5 PM and 8 AM. I do believe, however, that a number of commercial activities that could feasibly take place on this property are considerably louder and more dangerous, particularly those associated with the timber industry, which is the industry for which all of the other commercial properties on our street are used. (I think everyone's probably glad this isn't a working cedar mill.)
None of that changes the fact that Ted is right, however -- we'd be better off in a more remote location, and now that we're internationally known and respected and attracting an ever growing support base, we're working hard to make a new facility a reality. While I can't project a date that we might relocate, I'd like to make it happen as soon as possible, and I'm taking a number of steps to get there, including the development of new fundraisers and a capital campaign. It's my hope that before long we'll be on a larger property more suited to our needs, and perhaps, with some significant improvements (including the addition of sound-dampening insulation), our current facility can become a traditional animal shelter, which is something this community badly needs.
Ted, thank you, and thanks to your family for putting up with us -- it means a lot more than you might realize. And thanks to all of our other neighbors for their support, as well. Without it, I don't see how we could have experienced such rapid growth in such a short time. And to that one neighbor down the street who still things this is a dog fighting ring, you're still crazy, and the whole town knows it.
Posted on June 6, 2010 | Link
Submission Policy
Please review our new hate mail policy before submitting your message. In the past we have published any and all hate mail that we have received, but due to intense boredom we now require hate mail to meet certain standards to be published on our website:
- The message must contain some semblance of proper grammar and spelling; if we feel that English might not be your first language, that you are mentally incompetent, or that you were under the influence of a controlled substance when the message was written, we will not respond, in fairness to you, wishing not to have an overwhelming advantage in an exchange that is already going to make you look like an idiot.
- The message must contain some form of original thought on your part; if we've seen it before, there's not much reason to publish it again. We'd prefer you read through our other submissions to discover the error of your thinking, rather than wasting your time and ours, which is more valuable than yours.
- The message must contain assertions that seem to make logical sense; note that these assertions do not need to actually make sense, they just need to appear to. We'll take care of debunking them and explaining the flaws in your point of view.
- If you wish to make threats against our animals, we request that you issue them directly to the Forks Police Department, thereby saving us the trouble of forwarding your information to them.
- Any personal attacks or name-calling should be well formulated and amusing, and should be relevant to the person to whom they are directed, as opposed to revealing your own obsessions, fetishes, and perversions.
We also ask that before you send your message, you pause and ask yourself what doing so will accomplish. You will not change our minds about what we do, and hearing from you will only make us more committed to the animals we rescue and the people we make safer as a result. You will not sway our supporters; when we publish hate mail, it typically results in a surge of support and increased donations, which we hesitate to tell you because we're happy to have the money. Consider that if you truly understood what we do, you wouldn't have such a problem with it, and ask yourself if there is not something more valuable you could do with your time, because seriously, no one here cares what you think, and if we didn't get a good laugh at your expense and weren't able to use your message in the furtherance of our own, we'd never give you a second thought.
Posted on April 5, 2010 | Link
From Paul
re. last week's article about a misguided sap who rescues dangerous dogs.
Boy, I'd hate to live next door to THAT place. Talk about bringing down the neighborhood. A bunch of dangerous ugly dogs on a one acre lot? I bet this guy doesn't have many friends. He can't possibly have a girlfriend, unless she's a dog kook like he is. Freaks.
BTW, those dogs should all be killed. Especially the dogs that have bitten people.
Paul
Tacoma WA
_______________________________
Paul -- would you like to talk to my neighbors? I couldn't do what I do without the support of my community.
My dogs are not ugly; I suppose beauty's in the eye of the beholder, but unless you think dogs are ugly in general, you can hardly say that mine are uglier than average. Most people are surprised at how good they look. But you are right about a few things: while I have a lot of acquaintances and casual friendships, I only have a small handful of close friends. I'm more interested in quality than quantity, so I'm pretty happy with the friends I have. I'm also single, for a lot of reasons, the main one being a lack of time for or interest in a relationship at the moment, but your theorizing about that says a lot more about you than it does me -- why so concerned with my personal life? Voyeurism much? Were you hoping for another article about a celebrity sex scandal? Sorry to disappoint; this must be very frustrating for you.
As far as the dogs being killed, the law says they don't have to be. In most cases the person who was bitten by the dog is the one who places the animal here, and the law allows for it. If you have a problem with that, contact your state representative. And rest assured, we'll hold onto your information in the unlikely event that something was to happen to any of the dogs here.
Steve
Posted on April 4, 2010 | Link
From Cathy
Subject: Boiling mad over dog rescuer
Dear People Magazine,
I'm outraged over the man who prevents dangerous dogs from being destroyed. Does he get some kind of an ego-trip from this? Does it make him feel like God to spare the life of these dogs? How else to explain such irrational behavior? I'm infuriated that these horrible dogs are allowed to live. It's like pardoning murderers.
Cathy B----
OKC Oklahoma
__________________________________________
Cathy -- my dogs haven't killed anyone, and they're dogs, not people. That means they don't know right from wrong. They act on instinct. Usually they get into trouble because they've been abused or grossly mishandled. Sometimes dogs also misunderstand a particular situation and react inappropriately, and since they have few tools apart from their teeth, it often means a bite; if they were people, they might do something less destructive, like sending an abusive email to a complete stranger who doesn't care what they think of him because he recognizes their intellectual limitations.
Steve
Posted on April 4, 2010 | Link
From Toby
Steve, I'm sickend by your insane bleeding hearted agenda of saving vicious dogs. Any dog that mauls a human being should be destroyed. PERIOD. NO EXCEPTIONS. You save dogs that have bitten children?? You are f----d up in the head big time. Big time.
Several years ago, two dogs mauled a San Francisco woman to death. They tore out her windpipe. You love dogs like this, don't you. You want to rescue them. Well tough, because those dangerous s----y dogs were destroyed. HA HA. But their owners wanted to save them. They wanted theses beasts to live. The community despised these owners. Why? Because they showed NO remorse over what their vicious dogs had done. They blamed the victim for her own death! You must not give a rat's --s about the victims of dog attacks either, otherwise you'd want such dogs put down, out of respect for the victims. So you're just as f----d up as the owners of those killer dogs, since you want such beasts to remain alive.
You are a loser.
Toby
_______________________________________
Toby;
No one cares what you think. Enjoy being ignorant and angry for the rest of your life, and I'll take a little extra pride in knowing how much what I do bothers you.
Steve
_______________________________________
Now, for anyone who might think Toby has a point, I'll reiterate some of the things I've said before. Number one: animals aren't morally culpable for their actions and cannot be held responsible or be justly punished for what they do, and number two, animals aren't property to be disposed of when they become inconvenient, expensive, or even dangerous. I believe people have a responsibility to provide for companion animals. I'm against the killing of animals for reasons pertaining to their behavior or incident histories. I've never taken in a dog that's killed a person, because such dogs are almost always killed, the only exceptions being rare cases where the person was a criminal intruder. That said, if I was asked to take in a dog that had killed a person and I had the space, I would. That probably bothers some of you. But if I believe the statements I made above, I have to be willing to do that, not that it's likely to ever come up.
Yes, I rescue dogs that bite children. Most recently I took in Jack, a dog who mauled a boy in Port Angeles. I think it's awful that the boy was hurt, and often I take dogs specifically so that children will be safer. Often people with dangerous dogs continue to put their children at risk day after day, and they are unwilling to do what Toby thinks is the right thing to do. I provide them with another option, and hopefully my organization has saved a lot of children from being badly injured or even killed.
I had nothing to do with the woman's death in San Francisco, the people whose dogs killed her, or the dogs themselves. I'm not sure why that case is being brought up -- around fifteen to thirty people are killed by dogs in the US every year. That's really not very many in the big scheme of things, which I realize isn't much consolation to those people's families, but more people are killed by bees than dogs. I wonder if Toby has ever sent an email like this to a beekeeper.
Believe it or not, I care about the victims, I just don't think it's appropriate to kill a dog "out of respect" for someone. I don't know how killing something is ever a sign of respect, at least not in my culture. I do think it's appropriate to hold the dog's negligent caregiver responsible, even if that means that person goes to prison for manslaughter. I'm for higher accountability when it comes to the people who keep dogs as pets, and there's no excuse for allowing a dog to injure someone when you know your animal is likely to do so. But killing the dog doesn't bring victims back to life, or make wounds heal. It doesn't decrease the number of bite incidents or deaths from dog bites. It might make a few people feel better -- the kind of people that would take revenge on an animal, I suppose.
Now, I know Toby's probably been drinking, and I think if he were honest he'd admit that he loathes himself, and who would blame him? I'm not the first animal rescuer he's feebly attacked; he's left comments on websites and I'm sure he's sent emails to other people who understand that animal rescuers, social workers, relief workers, human rights activists, and others are all attempting to address the same, broad, problem -- a lack of compassion and responsibility in the world. I do my part, the piece that I do best, and others do their parts. Some give their money, some give their time. Others do neither, and complain a lot and point fingers. Maybe I have Toby all wrong; maybe he's a great humanitarian. Or maybe he just spends a lot of time online talking about it.
Posted on March 31, 2010 | Link
A Facebook Rant from Eric
Someone named Eric left these comments on our Facebook page, and if they weren't strange enough by themselves, he left them on a listing aimed at trying to find a home for an abused dog.
Eric, I'm going to extend a courtesy to you that you didn't see fit to extend to me; I'm not going to call you names or call your intellect into question, because for one I don't think I really need to, but also because I believe your comments, however off base and inappropriate for the venue, come from a place of concern for animals. I'm going to address your statements, and maybe you'll understand what we do a little better.
First, I don't appreciate being called a "retard", not because I think even for a moment that there's a grain of truth to your name-calling, but because it's offensive to mentally challenged people. I actually care about people with disabilities, and I'd love it if you'd show them a little more respect.
You say that biting is never natural -- have you ever seen a dog's teeth? What do you think those are there to do? I promise you they're not decorative. But if common sense isn't enough for you, there are 4.7 million reported dog bite incidents in the United States every year, and those are just the reported incidents. Based on stats from the dogs we care for, fewer than one in twenty bites are ever reported, and that means that, statistically speaking, every dog bites someone a few times during its life. Guess what that means -- dog bites are a natural thing. If there were a few hundred or even a few thousand dog bites in the US every year, I'd say we had a problem, but there are millions, and as I said in the LA Times interview, that's not a problem, it's a fact of life.
You say the dogs run my life; I don't know how you would know that, but rest assured, I'm as much in control of my destiny and my daily routine as anyone can be, which is to say I decide what to do from day to day and I make plans for the future, and tomorrow I could be hit by a truck. You say my dogs are aggressive -- I say they're misunderstood, by you and by others like you. Some of them have been the victims of horrific abuse; others have been bred to be dangerous, but I don't consider any of them aggressive. Sometimes they're defensive; sometimes they're afraid; sometimes they engage in behaviors that are natural for a pack hunter. Also, your definition of aggression isn't accurate by anyone's account of which I'm aware.
You tell me to stay away from dogs -- if I do that, all the animals currently under my care and protection will die. Is that what you want? I suppose my best response to your suggestion is DUDE STAY AWAY FROM COMPUTERS!! Seriously, what goes through people's heads when they write this stuff? Most people wouldn't even respond to you, and rest assured I'll get flack for giving this my attention, but I do it for two reasons -- one, you can't possibly be the only one who holds these misguided opinions and by responding to you I can address the various issues you raise, and two, this is fun for me, and I'm allowed to have some fun once in awhile. Moving on...
As far as what I tell "all of humanity", and by the way, most of humanity doesn't speak English and has no idea who I am, here's my message: animals are not morally culpable for their actions and they are not property to be disposed of at will. It is our responsibility to care for companion animals regardless of how inconvenient that care may be. It can be boiled down to compassion and responsibility; along with pettiness and sarcasm, those are the main principles by which I try to live my life, both personally and professionally.
Next, you say "total freak show" and again, you're being very insensitive to disabled people, whether you realize it or not. Grow up.
"Canine rehabilitation exists to make dogs better" Eric -- what do you think we do here? We rehabilitate dogs; we make tremendous strides. For example, I have a dog that had literally hundreds of bite incidents before he came here, and since he's been here he hasn't bitten me a single time. He loves me, licks my face, plays with other dogs. That's not magic, it's rehab. I have feral dogs who were never touched by human hands, and after months of traditional conditioning they didn't improve -- now they sleep in my bed with me at night. That took years of hard work and rehab. You're completely off base -- if we didn't "make dogs better" what would be the point? You say that dogs are unhappy living with what you call aggression and with instability -- while we wouldn't use those exact words, that notion is one of our most basic tenets, and I'm unsure of why you would think it otherwise. Our goal for every dog here is that the animal be healthy, happy, and safe -- they can't be any of those things if they are constantly afraid and defensive. But what you seem to be missing is that, unlike what you've no doubt seen on TV and appear to be basing your criticism on, rehab is an ongoing process, not a short-term fix-all that can be completed and forgotten. The dogs still have their bad days, and we don't give up on them when they do.
When I first started out I believed that with sound conditioning I could take any dog with a problem behavior and turn the animal into a model citizen; it's the basis of a number of television shows, which, by the way, have the benefit of editing. After doing this work every day for several years, I have a better understanding of dogs and of rehab in general, and I know that it's often preferable to use management as my primary tool and save behavior modification for the issues that absolutely require it in order for the dog to be healthy, happy, and safe. That means if I have a dog who kills cats, rather than expend countless hours trying to reprogram that dog's behavior, I just keep the dog away from cats. Behavior modification can be stressful for the dog, and there are a lot of mistakes that can be made, so it's not the first place I go. And a funny thing happens; when you manage a dog's behavior, the habits and patterns begin to break down, and you end up modifying that behavior anyway, only you get to do it without being confrontational and risking undue stress to the animal.
Even when you have made tremendous progress with a dog, though, there's still a problem; I believe, like many rescue groups, that every dog is adoptable to the right person, but unfortunately the right person usually has five or six dogs already. I had nine before I finally purchased a commercial property and began doing this full-time. I can do a lot of work with a dog and all but erase the dangerous behavior patterns that made that animal a threat to people or other animals, but that doesn't change the fact that almost no one wants to adopt a dog with a bite record, or a dog that's killed another dog. And unlike what you've seen on TV, sometimes rehab takes years to make a profound change -- few people want a dog that's only going to live a few more years. Besides, if I was to rehabilitate my animals for the purpose of adoption, they would be competing with shelter dogs for homes -- dogs that would have a much better chance of fitting into a traditional home environment without serious incident. I know that my animals would have a much lower success rate and I'd be getting most of them back anyway -- they may all be adoptable to the right person, but realistically, it's me or they die. But just because making them adoptable isn't one of my goals, that doesn't mean I don't rehabilitate them and set other goals for each of them.
I think you're confusing rehabilitation with punishment. You appear to be advocating techniques that involve correcting a dog's behavior, and that's something that I, and most of the legitimate animal behavior community, are not in favor of; the mantra, 'reward the good, ignore the bad,' is the most progressive and effective approach to dog training. It's too easy to give a dog mixed signals otherwise, and techniques that use positive punishment (look it up) are dangerous both to the dog and the handler. I suggest you do more research -- reward-based conditioning is far and away the most effective method out there. It might interest you to know that most of the dogs here came to be here because of positive punishment-based 'rehabilitation' that only caused their behavior to further deteriorate. So-called "canine aggression experts" have kept me quite busy with the dogs they've traumatized and mishandled.
Regarding our "bad publicity for canines" I think you're completely out of touch. When Lassie and Benji are held up as the models for what every dog should be, and any deviation from that Hollywood image is seen as a problem, the result for dogs is horrifying. You may not see it, but I deal with it every day -- a dog in an animal shelter growls at someone, is labeled vicious and is killed. A frightened dog nips at someone who mishandles her and she's killed for it. I get emails every day from people making huge issues of minor incidents: 'My dog guards his food and if you don't take him right away I'll have no choice but to put him down.' What are people demanding of their dogs? Some of the worst cases are those that result from 'positive publicity campaigns' like breed ambassador programs; pit bull breeds, for example, are now held to a higher standard than other types of dogs because breed clubs have gone to such great lengths to promote them as gentle and loving, while dog fighters have continued to breed them to fight and kill. This 'good publicity' has led to an unrealistic idea of what a pit bull should be, and the majority, who can't make the grade, are killed. It's atrocious.
What it really comes down to, though, is that people, you included, don't really know what a dog is. You may know what a dog looks like, what it eats, how to walk it on a leash, but you don't really understand what dogs are -- they're wolves that came in from the cold. They're carnivores, predators -- it wasn't that long ago that fighting, biting, and killing were the very things human beings wanted these animals to do, and now that we've chosen a more civil and passive lifestyle (in theory anyway) we need to give our dogs some time to catch up, and cut them some slack when they fail to live up to our standards.
The last thing I'd like to address is the idea that I'm proud of being bitten by dogs, that I somehow enjoy pain, or that I'd rather take credit for being some kind of tough guy than for being a loving and qualified caregiver to my animals. When I first read the LA Times article about my work, I was a little taken aback because I felt like it focused a lot on my 'bravery' and 'toughness' and those aren't the things that come to mind when I think about who I am or what I do for a living. The fact that I'm not afraid of being bitten doesn't mean I enjoy it -- I don't. Maybe I am a little proud of my scars, but why shouldn't I be? I've earned them.
So Eric, I don't know who you are, what you do in your life, or what makes you qualified to pass judgment on me and how I do my job, but I suggest that if you have such a problem with what I do and how I do it, and you know so much more about it than I do, you start your own organization and you do this job better than I do it. I'd love to have another rescue to refer people to.
There are roughly three kinds of people who oppose what my organization does: the first type are those who think our animals should be killed on some kind of warped moral grounds; the second are those who believe we will fail because they have failed, and that their own incompetence somehow bears on our capacity for success; the third are those who think we have failed because we haven't achieved perfection and magical Hollywood results. It's time for that last group to come live in the real world with the rest of us. I work hard, I'm good at what I do, I have a lot of successes and a few failures. How about you?
Posted on January 11, 2010 | Link
More from Patricia
I've taken a little bit of heat for my response to Patricia's first email (a very little bit); some people think I should be taking the moral high ground, or that I should try to have a constructive dialog with her, but I didn't found this organization to entertain the venomous sputtering of hateful people. For those who disapprove of my communication style, I'd like to suggest that perhaps this organization is not what you thought it was. Maybe we're just not your 'cup of tea', and that's OK. We're certainly not Patricia's either; here's what she wrote back:
"you are one sicko. your charming tattoos match your charming personality, which in turn match the godawful dogs you devote your life to."
It appears she put a lot less time, thought, and editing into this one (all lower case, a subject/verb agreement error, ending a sentence with a preposition -- tsk-tsk). I made my reply brief as well:
"Please stop flirting with me -- it's getting embarrassing.
"Steve"
Posted on January 5, 2010 | Link
From Patricia
"I was stunned when I read your article. That so much time and money are invested in saving the lives of dogs that continue to represent a threat to each other and the human population is incomprehensible. There are countless nice dogs who are euthanized each year because they're returned after the owners decide that they are too much work, or that are never adopted in the first place. Perhaps they're too old, not good looking, with health problems, simply too depressed from having been caged w/out respite from the endless barking.
"To forgive a dog for having bitten off "half her (the walker's) face" because it wakes up cranky? The dogs for whom he provides refuge behave as carnivores in the wild. Perhaps they should be located somewhere where they can stalk prey and be preyed upon, just as would happen in the natural scheme of things?
"One of the most wonderful pets I've ever owned came from a shelter where, having not been adopted w/in a few months, she would have been killed before long. She was neglected, poorly nourished, infected w/intenstinal parasites and ear mites, unspayed. Money is better spent on a dog such as that. That dog was so gentle that others a fraction of her size could eat her food, drink her water, steal her treats with no repercussions.
"Markwell contradicts himself when he blames the behavior of vicious dogs on humans, though that's sometimes true, and then describes new litters of puppies that are equally dangerous. Where's the logic?
"I regret that you provided free publicity for such an awful cause.
"Patricia xxxx"
Thanks Patricia - I'm often surprised we don't get more hate mail from people who don't know what they're talking about, but most people choose to keep their opinions to themselves or to express them anonymously on in Internet. I'm not sure what you thought you would accomplish by sending me this, but here's the fruit of your labor - a point-by-point dissection and refutation of your ill-formed arguments for the benefit of our website visitors:
"I was stunned when I read your article." - You must be easily stunned. What happens when you read something that's truly shocking?
"That so much time and money are invested in saving the lives of dogs that continue to represent a threat to each other and the human population is incomprehensible." - I find it quite comprehensible. It takes a lot of money to care for these animals, and people who support what we do donate that money. It's not your money, so it's not your concern; I'm certain you spend money in ways that I would disapprove of, but it's not my money, so I don't email you about it. Also, the dogs are kept in small, compatible social groups and do not have contact with the public. The only members of the "human population" that they have contact with are those who know the risks associated with their care and are still willing to work with them. We take safety seriously; that doesn't mean accidents will never happen, but we do everything possible to be safe, short of what would negatively impact the animals' quality of life. No member of the public has ever been injured by one of our dogs once we have taken custody of them, and as for the threats they pose to each other, you want them all dead anyway, so what the hell do you care?
"There are countless nice dogs who are euthanized each year because they're returned after the owners decide that they are too much work, or that are never adopted in the first place." - 'Nice' isn't typically a word used by behaviorists to describe animal temperament. You seem to believe that some dogs are 'nice' and some dogs are 'mean'; that implies that animals have morality - is that what you think? We believe that animals are not morally culpable for their actions because they lack the intelligence and the social constructs that are necessary for a moral system to exist. We think it's ignorant and selfish to impose our own sense of morality on an animal, and it's also pretty damned immature. And as far as all the animals being killed in shelters across this country, we're well aware of them, and that's why we support the no-kill movement. We work with shelters and rescue groups to find homes for those dogs, but a sanctuary is not an appropriate home for an adoptable animal. We fill a different niche in the no-kill community by providing lifelong care to animals that can't go through the more traditional channels.
"Perhaps they're too old, not good looking, with health problems, simply too depressed from having been caged w/out respite from the endless barking." - You've just described a lot of our dogs. Some dogs get labeled vicious while others with identical behaviors are excused for their actions. Others act out because of kennel stress. Not all dogs become depressed as a result of intensive confinement - some become dangerous in that environment. We work with them because we understand the problem and know how to deal with it. The fact that you don't has no bearing on what we do.
"To forgive a dog for having bitten off "half her (the walker's) face" because it wakes up cranky?" - Maybe we're more forgiving than you. The dog-walker forgave him, why can't you? The person who placed that dog with use loves him so much that she was willing to spend thousands of dollars to transport him across the country to get him here, and she continues to provide financial support for his care. She loves the dog unconditionally - apparently that concept is a foreign one to you.
"The dogs for whom he provides refuge behave as carnivores in the wild." - No they don't - they behave as domestic carnivores in captivity. I have a great deal of experience with wild carnivores as well, and there are significant differences. And even if they did behave like wild carnivores, we'd still provide them with the best care possible because we don't see 'wild behavior' as a negative thing.
"Perhaps they should be located somewhere where they can stalk prey and be preyed upon, just as would happen in the natural scheme of things?" - That would be irresponsible and inhumane. Most of these dogs aren't experienced hunters and lack the survival skills that would be necessary for them to thrive in that kind of environment. I realize you're being sarcastic, but that's seriously stupid.
"One of the most wonderful pets I've ever owned came from a shelter where, having not been adopted w/in a few months, she would have been killed before long." - Do you want a award?
"She was neglected, poorly nourished, infected w/intenstinal parasites and ear mites, unspayed." - We rescue animals like that all the time. You're not special.
"Money is better spent on a dog such as that." - We believe that every dog deserves an equal chance at health and happiness, regardless of its temperament and past behavior. I assume from the rest of your email that if your dog had turned out to have behavior issues you'd have gladly killed her, and we think that makes you a terrible, terrible person. I mean a really awful, just despicable human being. If I had your outlook I'd throw myself in front of a train.
"Markwell contradicts himself when he blames the behavior of vicious dogs on humans, though that's sometimes true, and then describes new litters of puppies that are equally dangerous." - There's no contradiction there - people breed dogs, and if they breed them for dog fighting, any genetic predisposition for fearful behavior is a result of human action. There are a lot of situations that can cause a dog to become dangerous, but because dogs are domestic animals and are by definition intended to be in the care of human beings, their actions are our responsibility.
"Where's the logic?" - Where's your logic? Your arguments are based on arbitrary value judgments and a lack of expertise in the subject matter. If you've missed the logic in my above responses to your statements, please let me know and I'll ask a nine-year-old to map it out for you.
"I regret that you provided free publicity for such an awful cause." - You'll be happy to know that thanks to that free publicity we've received over $20,000 in donations, and after people read your idiotic email, they'll happily give us even more money for our "awful cause". So thank you for your unwitting support.
Did you think I'd read your email and suddenly be ashamed of myself, see things your way, and kill all these dogs? I believe in what we do and I know it's the right thing to do. That you see animals as disposable is not a reflection on me, it's a reflection on you. What an ugly reflection it is, and what an unhappy person you must be.
I'm going to hand this off to our Facebook fans now and let them write their messages to you; since you like to send hate mail, maybe you'll like to receive it as well. I will keep your last name and email address private; feel free to check in and read people's comments to you, though. I've made my opinions public and my contact information is freely available to anyone who wants it; perhaps you have the strength of conviction to give people the same unfettered access to you. Say the word and I'll post your information so that people can contact you directly.
Steve
Posted on January 4, 2010 | Link
