South of Sunnyside

After a brief stay at our house, Kim brought Hope, the 40 pound-ish, lab-esque dog found wandering our street, to the SPCA.

Hope’s family was contacted, and said they’d be in on Monday of this week to pick her up. By Thursday, she was still at the shelter, and was up for adoption; without adoption, and in the absence of responsible owners, Hope would be scheduled for euthanization. Alas, Kim paid the $65 adoption fee and made arrangements for Hope to live (temporarily) with her mom and dad.

Hope played nice with Riley, the dog that Kim’s parents have owned for six or seven years, but when Kim came over to give them both a bath, she noticed what she thought were ringworms. After $159 in vet bills, Hope now has medication for scabies (known in dogs as mange).

This experience has emphasized for us the serious need here in the Valley for pet owner education and accountability. Had the family that originally adopted Hope brought her back to the SPCA and informed the organization that they could no longer care for her, I would be a bit more sympathetic. But since they acknowledged that she was theirs, and then neglected to reclaim her, I feel very strongly that they should be held responsible for her future care.

Perhaps, in the not-too-distant future, such negligence could be rewarded with a bill for re-adoption, rather than charging another family for taking a dog in; all immediate vet requirements could be added to ensure the dog’s health.

I realize immediately there are drawbacks to this idea—potentially lower adoption rates, bills that don’t get paid, and others. But there has to be a better way. Right?

Similar Posts:

• Could you say "no" to this face?
• Negligence by any other name…
• Yes, I remember.