Complaint Review: Lenawee Humane Society - Adrian Michigan

 shame on dee for making a big stink over her pet getting a home. who dose that! not take your dog to a vet on a yearly basis or any pet you own.  it seems to me dee, should not own any pets! it's to bad they don't have classes on how to take care of a pet.  a pet is a family member and should be treated as so.  i hope dee don't have any children or maybe they are in a adopted home to with faster parents.

Why did the employee post to this report? This report is about a CAT that was adopted out and was sick. This report clearly states that the cat was given medication for the illness while in the care of the shelter and that the shelter DID NOT inform the person adopting the cat of the illness or medication administered to the cat. This medication appeared to mask the symptoms of the illness so that the illness was not detected by the new owner until after the 14 day "refund/rial" period. IMO, this was deceitful at worse, or a careless oversight at best. Either way, this shelter should have refunded the adoption fee.

I am an employee of the Lenawee Humane Society. I remember the incident with Dee's lost pet "Havoc" and the resulting situation with the new adoptive parents. The dog was brought in on July 26, 2008, kept for 4 days, as is law, and then on July 30, 2008 put up for adoption as is the practice at the Lenawee Humane Society. When Dee brought in the picture of her lost dog on August 2, 200 no one here connected the adopted dog with her picture. As could very well happen when you are taking care of over 100 animals on a daily basis. When the connection was made several days later, it was truly unfortunate that her dog had already gone to a wonderful adoptive family who did not want to give him back. They had already taken him to the vet and it was determined that he had advanced stages of Heartworm. The new parents had already begun treatment and invested quite a bit of money into their new pet. After further investigation, we found that Dee had not taken any of her current pets, including Havoc, to a vet in years, hence the heartworm disease in advanced stages. Her answer was that her dog was healthy and didn't need to see a vet. What a responsible pet owner! We do the best we can here at the humane society to place lost pets back with their owners. We make every effort to find the pet's family. Unfortunately sometimes this does not happen or the owner looks for their pet too late and he has been placed in a new adoptive home. After talking with Dee it was explained to her that the adoptive parents did not want to give up the dog and frankly, after Dee's careless medical treatment of her pets it was deemed that Havoc was probably better off with his new family who would take better care of him than his previous owner did. So even though we make every effort to reunite lost pets sometimes it just doesn't happen. We have a lost & found area on our website to help people find there pets. I am sorry for Dee because I am sure she loved Havoc, but it was not our fault that her dog was running loose. We were looking out for the welfare of the animal in our care and placing Havoc in a new adoptive home has been the best thing for him. He is on the road to a healthier future with wonderful people who will take good care of him. Marie Adrian, Michigan

To the three who posted rebuttals: Yes, I had the cats vetted. Unfortunately, the cost for determining WHICH upper respiratory infection was present far outweighed the adoption costs. Yes, I returned the cats, and was offered NO refund, but I WAS offered a negative, uncompassionate attitude from the shelter. I'm not the bad guy here... I adopted cats which were sick; when someone hides an important fact like that, it's the same as lying. AND to the last person who posted his/her rebuttal: Yes, upper respiratory infections are common in shelters. But did I mention that I watched one of my cats DIE HORRIBLY of Rhinotracheitis at the young age of 8??? Perhaps you should do some research... while the infections themselves are treatable and usually not lethal, the owner must resign him/herself to a regimen of daily meds and treatments for the LIFE of the animal, since many of these infections do NOT clear up... they simply go dormant. As for the last thing you said about me "slamming such a good cause"- you should be ashamed. Perhaps YOU should volunteer at THIS particular shelter to see what a mess it is. I am a wildlife rehabilitator, my friends and I have taken in DOZENS of strays (vaccinating them ourselves), and I raised cats for 15 years. Believe me, I have some experience here. But I'll tell you this: I'd much rather support a shelter which puts their animals to sleep rather than adopt out sick animals, thereby spreading disease, especially without the knowledge of the new owners. For shame. You folks can think and feel however you like on this issue... that's part of what makes our country great, freedom of speech. However, if this had been you, I GUARANTEE you'd be singing a different tune. Peace. Gracie

If so, than I'm sure that the vet told you that upper respiratory infections are common in shelter animals. Most are NOT life threatening unless left untreated. As an adopter, you should have vetted the animal within 72hrs, with or without suspecting illness. Instead of filing a "report" against a group that is trying to be part of the solution of animal over-population, why don't you take an hour a week and volunteer for your local shelter-maybe then you would realize what's involved and you may not be so quick to slam such a good cause. Think about the the whole "Walk a mile in my shoes" quote....

I too, know that the animals who are rescued and brought into the shelter, tend to already have an illness or contract an illness while staying inside the shelter. But, it was wrong of them to not inform you of Suki's sickness from the start. Most shelters will inform the potential pet adopter, about the pet's current health conditions and the pet's history (if it is available). Pet illnesses are not always easy to treat, but I am hoping for (both) your cats fast recovery. It's awful that you had to find out Suki was sick, after bringing her into your home. And again, they really should have told you about her condition, before the adoption took place.

I too, know that the animals who are rescued and brought into the shelter, tend to already have an illness or contract an illness while staying inside the shelter. But, it was wrong of them to not inform you of Suki's sickness from the start. Most shelters will inform the potential pet adopter, about the pet's current health conditions and the pet's history (if it is available). Pet illnesses are not always easy to treat, but I am hoping for (both) your cats fast recovery. It's awful that you had to find out Suki was sick, after bringing her into your home. And again, they really should have told you about her condition, before the adoption took place.

In any shelter situation, it is easy for a pet to become ill. Many shelters are overpopulated, understaffed, etc. They take in pets from unknown circumstances, stress them by keeping them somewhere they are not used to living and that's inviting disease. Some shelters vaccinate animals as they come in, but vaccines do not work the exact second you give them - it takes time for the pet to build antibodies against the disease. Upper respiratory dieases in shelters in a problem everywhere. It seems to spread like wildfire. Kittens (like any young animal) are more suceptible to disease... especially the 9 week old. He wasn't even old enough to have completed his kitten vacccines (specifically the Distemper combo which covers Rhinotracheitis as well as other diseases). The shelter workers should not have been defensive about the situation, but should have simply explained the above and that the kittens either a.) should have gone home with medications (if they were truly on them) & b.)told you to have them examined by a Vet once they left the shelter (which should be done with any new pet coming into the home - private breeder or shelter). I have to agree with them that this would not constitute a refund of money as this is a treatable illness.