Saturday, July 2, 2011

The world chatters about the Connecticut slam on rescues

The news about the new Connecticut law which is so destructive to rescue has spread far and wide. The campaign to call the Governor's office has been very active and we actually feel sorry for the nice woman who answers the phone at Gov. Malloy's office which has apparently been ringing off the wall. It is absolutely clear that Gov. Malloy has gotten an earful from a great many people.

We owe a huge thank you to Slash of Guns n Roses/Velvet Revolver fame who somehow picked up this blog and posted it on his Facebook site which has more than six million fans. We have no idea how he got wind of the law and the danger it poses to rescue, but it certainly shows the power of the web to right a wrong through the chatter of thousands and we thank him for sending it on.* We are nowhere near resolution of this mess at this time, but we are planning an event to show the government of Connecticut just how much the citizens love their thousands of imported, adopted dogs. Details will follow.

Thank you all for your continued support. Keep up the good work as it is having an effect.

- Federation of Responsible Rescues

* PS to Slash in case you ever see this - we are hunting for a publicist to send an appropriate thank you letter to, but know that this little guy has just been named Slash in your honor by Big Fluffy Dog Rescue.

Rock on, Slash


  1. I just want to know where I he is and if he will adopt me:)

  2. Dear Governor Malloy,

    I have been a volunteer in dog rescue on some level for most of my adult life. I have a passion for animals and there is a calling in my heart to help those that I can. Everyone I have ever met who rescues pets has a similar outlook. We invest a lot of our time and money to help pets heal from abusive situations and try to find forever homes for them where they can be loved.

    Breeders have slandered our efforts because they see us as a source of competition. If they can make it too hard for us there, then the citizens of your state have no choice but to buy from them. They get to increase their prices and make more money. Compassionate people who want to help animals will not have the option to rescue a pet and save a life. That is a freedom they should not be without.

    Please don't let them push us out of the state. I'm asking you to veto Substitute House Bill 5368, File 850.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    Melissa Geno

  3. Oops - I meant to say that the letter, above, is what I posted on Governor Malloy's home page...

  4. Why is regulation of rescue needed?

    Because this occurred:

    "Yazmer is listed on as the contact person for RT Rescue, which bills itself as a Collinsville-based organization that rescues dogs from high-kill shelters in the South."

  5. Dr G,

    With all due respect, do you honestly think that new regulations would have helped in this situation? Seems to me like this person had some other issues and if she was not properly feeding the dogs in her care or cleaning their crates, do you really think she would be taking them to the vet within 48 hours of arrival? No, but there are already existing laws in place to handle a situation like this and they were enforced.

    As many of us have stated over and over, this new law would do nothing to stop disreputable/irresponsible people who don’t adhere to the existing laws that are already out there. All it will do is shut down the majority of legit rescues who will not be able to afford the overzealous vetting requirements. I personally am not opposed to some regulations to tighten up the ship so to speak, but to not consult the groups that are the most impacted when drafting a new law is absurd.

    You are a veterinarian – please tell me why a completely vaccinated, adult dog under the new law would need to be taken to the vet 4 times in 4 months even if it was in a private foster home? Seems like a huge pendulum swing from adopting out sick, unvetted dogs, which was what the law was intended to prevent, to requiring unnecessary vetting that is so over the top the cost would cripple most rescues.

    Also, you keep saying that the dogs in other states should not be a CT problem and for every dog we take out, that leaves a space for another to come in. Do you really think their lawmakers care how that kennel got opened? I am sure it makes no difference if it was taken out by a rescue or just another dumped in a landfill. Why should an innocent dog have to pay with its life because it was born in a region where pet overpopulation is a problem? If we can’t clean up the homeless pit bull issue in our own state, how are we going to make other states enforce spay/neuter laws? I would love to hear any suggestions you might have. Would you prefer that these dogs are euthanized in the state they are born in to force them to clean up their mess (which won’t happen) and CT brings in more puppy mill dogs to supply the demand? I have seen a big change in the culture during my lifetime to adopt and save a life – do we really want to make CT a “shop, don’t adopt” state??? Sadly taking southern dogs out of the equation is not going to cause people to go running down to their local shelter to get a bully breed if they have no other option. Yes, I personally have volunteered and taken in local dogs and that is the majority of what CT has, it’s no secret to anyone.

    The bottom line is CT citizens want to adopt the imported rescue dogs and unreasonable vetting requirements should not be put on legitimate rescues who are just trying to save lives. Whatever happened to common sense?

  6. Dr Goldman,

    As you have posted repeatedly on this blog, it is abundantly clear you have no idea how rescue operates and your opinions are based on anecdotes and not fact. The irony is, members of this federation were your clients. We won't be in the future since you apparently hold us and the concept of rescue in remarkably low regard.

    We have seen that you are speaking at a symposium for breeders in which you attack rescue. We've seen the marketing materials. You have now clearly established yourself as a vehemently anti-rescue veterinarian. If that was your intent, you've succeeded admirably.

    With all due respect, your example of that crazy woman as the poster child for this law is bullshit. I can find no more delicate word that is as apropos. RT Rescue wasn't following the rules before and your new law won't change any of the acts of people like her. Crazy is crazy and that woman was nuts. To equate her to our group is outrageous. I am amazed that you cannot see this and continue to cling to this ludicrous notion that this law will make a difference. I predict that the law will be an abysmal failure and the numbers of sick dogs will go up, not down.

    By the time the dust settles over this, I predict a serious backlash and a lot of litigation. What a waste of resources that could have been used to rescue dogs.

  7. FRR: I am sorry that the holding of a different viewpoint is so offensive to you and perhaps others, that it is necessary for you to threaten me economically. I hold no one in low esteem who interacts with me in a mutually respectful way. You and those others you refer to, should only visit a veterinarian you feel comfortable with. I will have your records copied and waiting for you once you identify yourself.

    Unfortunately I do know exactly how some rescues operate as I have been present both at the wee hour parking lot trailer deliveries and the weekend storefront events. Those rescues which use those methods to do their work will likely need to modify their procedures. As you've read there are at least a few others who agree that, that should happen.

    I speak at many conferences at which I am invited. At such conferences I do not attack anyone, but do describe and show images of exactly what I have been speaking of. I am not a breeder and indeed I have very few breeders as clients. Continually trying to paint me as anti-rescue or anti-humane and pro-breeder will not work. I've earned the right to speak out when I see improper conduct with respect to animals. Indeed, my oath requires it.

    The use of profanity does not further dialog nor bolster your arguments, which I have read and understand. You understand mine and disagree with them. I am clear on that.

    As far as your prediction of backlash and litigation, I hope that most of that occurs where it belongs, solidly within the states that allow the uncontrolled mating of dogs leading to full shelters there, and the need to evacuate to save lives.