We're animal lovers too
Among the most affable members of our family is an easy-going 11-year-old named Rocky. He’s our so-ugly-he’s-cute mutt dog, rescued from a local animal shelter one spring when he was still an adorable puppy.
Our life would not be the same without him.
We are far from perfect pet owners, but we love him and we do our best to give him the attention he needs and take care of him. We have a fenced back yard, but Rocky has always been a digger and one day several years ago he dug enough to escape that yard and, on his adventure was struck by a car. Much personal trauma, multiple surgeries, a long recovery, a big vet bill and a concrete-filled trench along our fence-line later – Rocky is still with us, and my husband fondly refers to him as the multi-thousand dollar mutt.
So, given our history, I don’t know if the Humane Society of Southeast Texas, whom reporter Beth Gallaspy wrote about in Friday’s Enterprise, would let us adopt another animal or not, but I hope they would. Rocky has greatly enriched our lives and everyone deserves a second chance – even a mutt dog who likes to dig under the fence.
The point is that is their option.
Several readers wrote to comment on the Humane Society story, both positively and negatively. One reader wrote to say that when a cat adoption went bad because the cat’s temperament was not suited to the owner's environment, that owner was not allowed to adopt another pet.
Another, a shelter volunteer, wrote about all the positives of having the animals as part of her life and all the concerns that improper pet care could raise – from heartworms to fleas. She rightfully (and righteously) pointed out that parents who adopt children have to go through a very tedious screening process, so it seems only appropriate that adoptive parents for animals should have to go through at least a minimal screening process.
One reader seemed to object more to the headline, “Animal shelter rules might be pushing people away,” more than the story. That makes this a good place to remind people – or tell those who don’t know – that reporters don’t write the headlines on their stories, frequently much to their chagrin. But, though the headline might have been slanted toward one portion of the story, it was not incorrect.
It’s also a good place to remind readers that we don’t make the news; we report it, representing both sides of the story, as we did in this case. Sometimes that makes people unhappy – on both sides. We’ll continue to do it anyway. Please continue to let us know when you object. It reminds us somebody’s out there watching, makes is think about what we are doing and the impact it might have -- and keeps us on our toes. Thanks for sharing.
Our life would not be the same without him.
We are far from perfect pet owners, but we love him and we do our best to give him the attention he needs and take care of him. We have a fenced back yard, but Rocky has always been a digger and one day several years ago he dug enough to escape that yard and, on his adventure was struck by a car. Much personal trauma, multiple surgeries, a long recovery, a big vet bill and a concrete-filled trench along our fence-line later – Rocky is still with us, and my husband fondly refers to him as the multi-thousand dollar mutt.
So, given our history, I don’t know if the Humane Society of Southeast Texas, whom reporter Beth Gallaspy wrote about in Friday’s Enterprise, would let us adopt another animal or not, but I hope they would. Rocky has greatly enriched our lives and everyone deserves a second chance – even a mutt dog who likes to dig under the fence.
The point is that is their option.
Several readers wrote to comment on the Humane Society story, both positively and negatively. One reader wrote to say that when a cat adoption went bad because the cat’s temperament was not suited to the owner's environment, that owner was not allowed to adopt another pet.
Another, a shelter volunteer, wrote about all the positives of having the animals as part of her life and all the concerns that improper pet care could raise – from heartworms to fleas. She rightfully (and righteously) pointed out that parents who adopt children have to go through a very tedious screening process, so it seems only appropriate that adoptive parents for animals should have to go through at least a minimal screening process.
One reader seemed to object more to the headline, “Animal shelter rules might be pushing people away,” more than the story. That makes this a good place to remind people – or tell those who don’t know – that reporters don’t write the headlines on their stories, frequently much to their chagrin. But, though the headline might have been slanted toward one portion of the story, it was not incorrect.
It’s also a good place to remind readers that we don’t make the news; we report it, representing both sides of the story, as we did in this case. Sometimes that makes people unhappy – on both sides. We’ll continue to do it anyway. Please continue to let us know when you object. It reminds us somebody’s out there watching, makes is think about what we are doing and the impact it might have -- and keeps us on our toes. Thanks for sharing.
posted by Sheila Friedeck at 5:03 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home