Update on the Keeshond rescue. There is a post where the rescue attempts to explain their decision to reclaim this dog. Frankly it falls very short in my opinion, of providing appropriately for either the owner or the dog involved. They claim they had an ownership interest in the dog and decided it was best for the dog to receive a new owner because the current one has a disability and has to provide for the dogs care with others when there are episodes of difficulty based on that disability. How does that change the fact they decided that because of a mental illness or disability, he was no longer entitled to the dog he purchased from a merchant? Would this rescue act the same if the disability were caused by chemotherapy or any other type of illness that would require periodic treatments or hospitalizations? Would they take a dog from a cancer patient because they were in the hospital? If this decision is only based on the fact the person suffered from a mental illness it shows a very troubling form of discrimination. Under the laws of Wisconsin and the state where this rescue is incorporated, they are merchants and dogs are personal property and subject to the consumer laws of the state. Was this a sale or a lease? In either case it must be clear to all what the nature of the transaction is. I dont think adoption is a clear statement of the transaction since there are no legal provisions for that activity with anything but human children. You dont adopt your car or your refrigerator and you cant legally adopt a companion animal. The term is an attempt to anthropomorphize the dog and is a very troubling trend today. If this were an adopted child, the parents would also have rights. An adoption agency wouldn’t be able to swoop in and take that child from it parents because they got sick or better parents were found at a later date. That would clearly violate parent’s rights and constitutional rights. By mixing the metaphors, the end result is that people are left without rights at all. I don’t think that can stand at law and we will soon be making those arguments. If it is property, people have the rights to their property, it is determined that the adoption process is appropriate for animals, than there should be afforded to the “parents” parental rights. It can’t be a combination of both that only serves to remove the human from the calculations. I would argue it is a sale since there was a fee exchanged from a consumer to a merchant. If anything, the rescue may have retained a security interest, but there are specific requirements for foreclosing on a security interest. We will have to see if those were complied with. Since they advertise on the web, they must comply with the laws where the transactions occur (purchase is made) and be registered to do business in any state they operate as a business. Fostering dogs for the rescue would constitute doing business in the state of Wisconsin subjecting them to jurisdiction. I checked, they are not registered with the Secretary of State in Wisconsin to conduct these types of transactions. Bottom line, the dog was well cared for and in good condition or the police would have seized it on the spot as an abused or neglected animal. It wasnt, so the notion the animal was suffering is just not supported by those facts. I dont doubt the rescue tried to do the right thing by the dog, but it totally missed the right thing by the human involved. When we lose sight of our humanity, we are a lost species. I hope they are able to fix this situation. It would be good for the rescue, the dog and the owner. Im sure the decision was made in haste and out of frusteration, but none the less is damaging to reputations of everyone involved and needs to be rectified.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 15:21:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015