I wasn't planning on writing again so soon, but there has been something on my mind that I have to get off. As some of you know, I had a bit of a shake-up in my life that has resulted in essentially starting over again in a new place. Now, when one has pets, it exacerbates the situation somewhat in that the extra responsibilities of pet ownership can cause some difficulties in finding a place. Many landlords (rightly so) are not keen on potential damages a pet can cause - cats and dogs can pee, scratch and chew up things, etc. If I were a landlord I would have similar concerns of course. Therefore, what I am about to say is not an issue with a landlord or property manager, but rather with some other entities.
Some years ago when I lived in St. Pete, FL, my cat Oreo had a significantly large litter of kittens - she had seven to be exact. At the time, my wife and I lived in a 1-bedroom apartment on the 8th floor of a high-rise complex, and it was a bit of a challenge. It was complicated more by trying to rehome the kittens - no one wanted to take them, and I was feeling stuck with them quite honestly. When we finally did get someone who would take them, the people who came were so stuck-up that they just looked down their noses at our home in a very disrespectful way, and it was frankly irritating. Then, they charged us a "donation" of almost $100 to take them. But, at least they did. However, having dealt with that on many occasions, I have some major issues with pet rescue places that need to be aired today. They relate to other things, such as getting some aid or something for an adverse situation one finds themselves in, and it shows the deficiencies in what are supposed to be nonprofit "charities" in many cases because their "solutions" are largely inadequate. Let's now talk about the specifics of animal rescue groups.
In principle, animal rescue and pet adoption are noble things, and they are part of the Christian understanding of natural law and showing love for God's creation. The issue is not the reality of the need for such services, but the way they are often implemented. When I had to make some significant adjustments recently to my living situation - the most radical adjustments I have made in 32 years honestly - one thing I had to consider was pets. I own a rabbit, two cats, and did have three small birds. The birds I was able to rehome, so that was a bit of progress. In addition, because my ex Barbara was forced into a living situation that didn't allow her to keep her cat, I have him too now as well. So, at this point, I have a rabbit and three cats. I want to rehome the rabbit, because although my current landlord is OK with pets, he does charge extra so it would be impractical to keep her. I began the rehoming process before moving here, and in all honesty it has been frustrating. Many "organizations" who are supposed to be helpful are in reality useless - they cite lack of funds, overpopulation of shelters, etc. for their lack of assistance. I find it a bit dubious that every relief agency - especially in a big city like Baltimore - gives me the same dead-end answer, and upon looking into it, I noticed a couple of things I want to observe, and I am also offering a rebuttal to their claims here.
The whole "lack of funds" thing is the first claim I want to tackle. I find it odd that organizations that rescue homeless pets or supposedly rehome pets for owners who are no longer able to keep them pitch the "lack of funds" schtick - I understand the economy is not the best nationwide right now, and that charitable giving is a bit down because many people have to use money they would normally contribute to such groups to buy a carton of eggs at inflated prices, or a tank of gas to get to work which is also horrendously inflated. But, when you look at what the top brass in many of these organizations make, it makes one have questions. There are some executives of groups such as SPCA that get literally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars in salary a year, which is more than what a private-practice attorney even gets. If they are so short on funds, why those huge salaries?? Perhaps some auditing may be in order for some of these groups to find out where their contributions are going.
A second area I want to address is the whole idea of animal abuse. Animal abuse is evil, and no innocent creature should be subjected to those conditions. But, the problem with so many of these "animal rights" groups is that they often go after individuals who really love their animals yet do not have adequate resources to care for them as they should. I have heard of cases of people being locked up for not having a clean house for their dog or something, despite the fact the animal loves the person who takes care of them and the person loves that animal just as much. One thing that really got my chaps chafed several years ago was one of these "green" groups - Greenpeace or one of those idiotic environmental pantheistic groups - targeting Gypsies in Istanbul for owning dancing bears. Most of the Gypsies in question actually treated those bears with the best care they could afford them, and the bears were fed well and taken care of. Yet, this is where the double standard of progressivism kicks in - this particular group collaborated with the Turkish government to impose ethnic discrimination on a vulnerable population of Gypsies in order to "save the bears." The Turkish government has for centuries been one of the most genocidal entities on the face of the earth, and anyone with a lick of common sense would understand that the Turks couldn't give a damn about the plight of a bear - they just wanted an excuse to persecute a minority. And, the liberal elitists who control these huge nonprofit advocacy groups were more than willing to collaborate with a genocidal government against a vulnerable population. I have a lot more to say about that at another time, but sufficive to say, the elitists don't care about the causes they promote in many cases, but rather they have an agenda to control and manipulate as many people as possible to gain as much control as possible. This also ties into things such as the LGBT agenda, abortion, eugenics, and other things. Beware, therefore, of the so-called "environmental groups."
A third area I want to explore is the excuse that many pet rescue organizations give for refusing to help people who really need to rehome pets they are unable to keep due to circumstances beyond their control. That excuse is overcrowded shelters. I am not in a position to say whether or not a shelter is legitimately overcrowded or not, but I have been in a couple and they seem to have plenty of space. When they are called on that, their excuse is that they only take certain types of animals and not others. I think that is rather weak, and it shows their insincerity also. If they were truly on a mission to get pets rehomed, they would be working with the pet owners to help in any way possible to get that animal a new home. What many of these people do, however, is that they will tell a pet owner they can't take them, and then they give a list of "resources" of which many the owner has already explored and hit the same brick walls. That creates more headaches and thus the poor owner is stuck with an animal they cannot keep and it could even put their home in jeopardy if the landlord persists in either making the pet owner give up the animal or charging more for them to stay. But, the stuck-up elitists who run many of these animal shelters don't give a damn about that - they are after their own bottom line, which is to sell a service to raise more money to pay their top brass. Make no mistake about it, these organizations are not "nonprofit," but are an industry. That is what is sick, hypocritical, and inconsistent about such groups too. They spend millions of dollars making these heart-tugging ads to prey on the feelings of unsuspecting viewers, but where does that all go? It is successful (and deceptive) marketing. The fatass actress Sally Struthers did the same thing for years with UNICEF, and we all know about UNICEF - much of the money it raises goes to prop up malevolent dictators and does not do anything to help at-risk kids. When government and corporate marketing get involved with charitable work, it diminishes the whole thing by promoting agendas over actually helping those in need. That is why many modern charitable agencies are abject failures.
A new way of rendering charitable aid is needed, and fast. I talked about before how shelters and soup kitchens are woefully inadequate to ease the plight of the indigent, and it is simply because of one important aspect. Such programs are bandaids, and while they may provide a meal here and there and maybe a bed to sleep in for one night, what do they really accomplish?? The answer is very little. Many people who are down on their luck need a hand-up, not a hand-out - this is not being crass, because many of these people would give anything to have some sort of stability, and a soup kitchen or flophouse does not grant that to them. They want incentive, they desire dignity, and they want to be able to stand on their own two feet. Now, I am not necessarily talking about addicts or crazy people on the streets either - that is a whole separate issue that requires another solution beyond the scope of this discussion. The people I am talking about are the guy who was laid off his job he had for many years, and due to not being able to keep up with his costs of living, he and his family were evicted from their home. This individual is a hard-working guy who often prides himself on not accepting help from anyone, but is now forced to rely on food banks and other aid just to survive. What this guy really wants is a job and an income restored, and then he would be able to take care of himself and his family. Yet, no one helps him. Now, let's say the same guy has a dog - he has had this dog since it was a pup, and the dog is practically part of the family. Yet, many flophouses don't even allow personal possessions, much less pets, and it leaves the guy in a bad position. If he doesn't lose the dog, he sleeps on the street. Yet, if he does, there is damage caused that way too. Yet, the animal rescues are not helping this guy and they could give a damn less about the dog. This reeks of scandal, and it means that the "agencies" are rotten and stink to the core because of their "criteria." That is why I am starting to understand why people like Robert D. Lupton have made the case that much of what is called "charity" is indeed toxic - he even wrote a book about it, and he makes good points. The ultimate aim of charity is restorative, and not merely survival-enabling. True charity seeks to preserve dignity of personhood and not quash it and strip people of it. Lupton has been doing a lot of speaking and writing on this issue, and it needs to be taken more seriously. His premise, and those of others who share his position, is that charity is to be directed at helping the person who falls on hard times to rebuild and transform, and not merely slap the bandaids of soup kitchens and flophouses on the problem. I honestly need to read more of Lupton's ideas, and perhaps at a later date I can revisit this topic and offer some further insights based on my own reading of his material.
Gravitating back to pets, there are some decent charities who do keep in mind that animals need care too, and there are pet "food banks" that supply things such as cat litter, pet food, and other supplies for people that need them. One of the best examples of this is Jefferson County Community Ministries in Charles Town, WV. This is a true charity that actually cares for the people it helps, and we need more like them. Also, if shelters cannot take the pets of vulnerable people who could lose a home over the situation, why can't they help these people find pet-friendly homes at affordable prices so the people can keep and care for their beloved pets then without having to face the choice of losing a pet or losing a home?? That would be nice. Or, they could provide programs - farms in rural areas, etc. - to take at-risk pets temporarily until the owners are able to find a location that will let them keep them. These are just a few ideas. On that note, let me add a couple of closing observations to wrap up today's discussion.
I have been through some rough situations myself over the years - as a matter of fact, as I write this I am recovering from one such situation. I promised God that if I could really overcome this, I wanted to dedicate either my own abilities or at least some financial support to worthy programs who really do provide a way for people to rebuild lives, and in the future maybe I will be in a position to start one myself - only God knows or will allow that if he sees fit. Good programs based on incentive, hands-up assistance, and aiding in helping to rebuild self-sufficiency are integral to ending the crisis of homelessness as well as providing ways to combat the destructive economic policies certain individuals in power have inflicted on American people. As I continue to research this and think about it, I want to begin to formulate a body of ideas which would facilitate and incentivize recovery and self-sufficiency for people who desperately need it, and if we can do this, I also believe our society as a whole could be transformed. Like Robert Lupton and others, I believe that the way charity is practiced in this nation needs to be reformed drastically, because the "old ways" don't work nor do they provide long-term solutions. This is true in regard to homelessness, hunger, crime, addiction, and even pet issues. May we start to think outside the old moldy box of charitable practices that have failed, and really provide good solutions to people who could truly benefit from them. Thank you for allowing me to share, and will see you next time.
