Dog Adoption Agency's Pit Bull Bit Me

courtneybleier

Look, this was going to be a dead issue. We gave the man money in apology for the dogs actions. We did apologize, and in fact thought it was a dead issue. It had been discussed that it was over and would not be taken any further. These attitudes never would have came out if this man hadn't posted this blog accusing us of doing something wrong, and then resulting in other people bashing the organization. There is no need for all of this bickering, and i apologize for the attitude, but please, like you wouldn't get angry if someone stretched the truth on a situation in which talks badly about you and your organization.

Thanks

courtneybleier

Subject: Re: First it's your thigh then your ass? Which was it. Liar

raw wrote: [quote=lbleier]SIR,WHERE DID THE DOG BITE YOU? First paragraph you say thigh, last paragraph you say ass. Get your lies straight before you defame BAFN a group you know nothing about but lie so outrightly with so little shame!

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. If that dog is anything like lbleier, it is probably a raging psycho path pooch eager to bite more innocent people.

And by the way, lbleier, Sir, sometimes buttocks and the upper back areas of thighs overlap.

It is really unnecessary for the name calling, it is not very mature in any way. This is going way too far, and to those who dont like the organization...fine with us. Then leave us alone. We are just trying to do good, and you are only trying to make us seem bad.

and i do apologize for the attitude, but i was very angry and frustrated reading these posts. I also apologize for the whole situation, it is wrong and very unfortunate. But these posts are taking it to the next level.

shands

Courtney - they WAY in which you and your aunt "apologized" is beyond appalling and your responses are the main reason I will never support BAFN in the future. Not because a dog bit somebody (which is unfortunate, and I believe that the dog wasn't ready to be in a crowd to begin with), but in the way you came here and responded.

You talk about calling people you names in almost the same breath that you say WE should all be put to sleep.

It's time to look in the mirror and recognize why many of these posters, plus Hope Vet (see Laurie's post in the pet section) don't want to deal with you, your aunt or your organization.

modsquad

Nepenthean, I have to say I think you are the dishonest one here. If you indeed accepted money for your damaged pants, then that should have been the end of it. If indeed you wanted something else like some sort of public apology included you have no business taking the money. I think BAFN has shot themselves in the foot but if they thought they had made amends to you only to see this thread you started then I can understand their outrage. For the most part people like BAFN do more good than harm.

longtimesloper

Flexichick wrote: BAFN has lost any credibility with me as well, just by their response.

There are plenty of other rescue groups which will get my money and time (and a spare room in my apartment for fosters).

Here, here!

modsquad

LongTimeSloper wrote: [quote=Flexichick]BAFN has lost any credibility with me as well, just by their response.

There are plenty of other rescue groups which will get my money and time (and a spare room in my apartment for fosters).

Here, here!

Explain to me what good that would do? Wouldn't that be similar to the embargo against Iraq where all of you liberals were bleating about the poor little Iraqi children suffering? What do you think will happen to all the animals they are caring for? If anything one of you do gooders should belly up and write some PR stuff for them so they don't commit blogger suicide.

brooklynpotter

this is nothing like embargos against iraq. if they were gone the other rescues would likely feel obligated to handle the animals. it sucks, but that's the reality.

i have never dealt with BAFN but have heard/read many things about them, even before this incident. i have not heard or read good things. that said, if i walked by their little stand and fell in love with one of their animals i wouldn't let my feelings about them change. HOWEVER, the way they've behaved i doubt i'll be walking close enough to their stand to see the dogs and kittehs. (and if i had a child, after hearing this, there is no way i'd walk that close.)

i'm a "do-gooder". i write reviews for thing s and do PR for people. i'm one of those people. if i think your business is good i will rave about it. but if i think there's something wrong or it just plain sucks i'd like others to know.

rollo tomasi

modsquad wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper][quote=Flexichick]BAFN has lost any credibility with me as well, just by their response.

There are plenty of other rescue groups which will get my money and time (and a spare room in my apartment for fosters).

Here, here!

Explain to me what good that would do? Wouldn't that be similar to the embargo against Iraq where all of you liberals were bleating about the poor little Iraqi children suffering? What do you think will happen to all the animals they are caring for? If anything one of you do gooders should belly up and write some PR stuff for them so they don't commit blogger suicide.

I give plenty of money to animal causes - including North Shore Animal League, SPCA and Kensignton Kitties.

Your argument does not hold water. If we give money to those agencies which we believe are doing the right thing by animals (and people), they will have more resources to support more animals and in better conditions. Why continue to support an agency which many people don't believe is doing the right thing by animals (in SOME cases) and has a nasty attitude towards people (in MANY cases)?

Like hell would I ever do some PR stuff for this group. I don't want my name or efforts attached to them. If they don't know how to talk to people, they should seek volunteers who can deal with the humans so they can stop making their own organization look worse and worse with every word out of their mouths.

longtimesloper

modsquad wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper][quote=Flexichick]BAFN has lost any credibility with me as well, just by their response.

There are plenty of other rescue groups which will get my money and time (and a spare room in my apartment for fosters).

Here, here!

Explain to me what good that would do? Wouldn't that be similar to the embargo against Iraq where all of you liberals were bleating about the poor little Iraqi children suffering? What do you think will happen to all the animals they are caring for? If anything one of you do gooders should belly up and write some PR stuff for them so they don't commit blogger suicide.

Sorry, I have a hard time supporting an organization that behaves this way. there are plenty of other animal organizations out there that I will happily give time and money to, but, after seeing this, not them.

brooklyngigcenter

modsquad wrote: [quote=LongTimeSloper][quote=Flexichick]BAFN has lost any credibility with me as well, just by their response.

There are plenty of other rescue groups which will get my money and time (and a spare room in my apartment for fosters).

Here, here!

Explain to me what good that would do? Wouldn't that be similar to the embargo against Iraq where all of you liberals were bleating about the poor little Iraqi children suffering? What do you think will happen to all the animals they are caring for? If anything one of you do gooders should belly up and write some PR stuff for them so they don't commit blogger suicide.

At least we liberals show some compassion.

bebevonbernstein

If they are adopting out aggressive dogs, whether or not they are "saving" dogs is immaterial. Rescues that adopt out dogs with behavorial issues -- guilting people into taking the dogs that are on death row! -- and then blame the new owners who can't control the dogs really are doing a disservice to responsible shelters out there. It's also the reason that so many people end up getting dogs from breeders -- because they've gotten a problematic dog from a rescue.

Again, if you read BAFN's website, they are all about blaming the people (walking on a public sidewalk with groceries indeed!) -- ANYthing to deflect from the fact that a dog with problems needs a very specific home with an experienced owner. That type of owner certainly doesn't come from sitting outside a high school with a bunch of dogs on the weekend.

whynot_31

bebevonbernstein wrote: If they are adopting out aggressive dogs, whether or not they are "saving" dogs is immaterial. Rescues that adopt out dogs with behavorial issues -- guilting people into taking the dogs that are on death row! -- and then blame the new owners who can't control the dogs really are doing a disservice to responsible shelters out there. It's also the reason that so many people end up getting dogs from breeders -- because they've gotten a problematic dog from a rescue.

Again, if you read BAFN's website, they are all about blaming the people (walking on a public sidewalk with groceries indeed!) -- ANYthing to deflect from the fact that a dog with problems needs a very specific home with an experienced owner. That type of owner certainly doesn't come from sitting outside a high school with a bunch of dogs on the weekend.

Exactly. The net effect of this is that the "adoptive sucker" who took the unbehaved/violent dog becomes overwhelmed with how much work it is. Then, because the rescue group will give he/she a hardtime about returning it, he/she secretly takes that dog to the pound.

Which, if the story ended there would be a breakeven ("dog who was unmangable gets put down despite rescue group's effort"). ...but the story frequently continues: The "adoptive sucker" then tells everyone they know to never adopt a dog from a rescue group. ...and all rescue groups are painted as being lying "save the dogs at all costs (insert expletive here)"

...causing folks to go to puppy mills instead. ...causing reputable rescue groups to have way too many dogs ...causing ok dogs that could have been adopted to be put down.

Puppy mills just create more dogs. I like dogs, and have a great one. But if you look around, and visit places like petfinder.com, you'll conclude that there is no shortage of dogs....

anastasia beaverhausen

I used to belong to a boxer rescue group several years ago. A new member had asked about buying a puppy from a breeder. So, being new to the ways of rescue, I gave instructions on how to go about finding a reputable breeder (health testing, spay/nueter contracts/etc.). Well, you'd think I'd just commited murder. The other members of the group basically ripped me apart for even suggesting the right way to find a good breeder, instead I should have pushed a rescue adoption. While I am all for rescues, if someone wants a puppy, they're going to get a puppy. Wouldn't a rescue want someone to use a proper breeder - one who will take the puppy back (no matter the age or circumstance) should the owner not be able to care for it anymore? Wouldn't they want someone to find a healthy puppy that won't wind up at the pound because its new owner couldn't afford the vet care? Needless to say, I quit the group. I sometimes think it's the condescending attitude that some rescue worker's tend to have that send people into the arms of puppy mills, back yard breeders and and mall pet stores.

laddie din

Just to add my two cents: laurie and courtney's operation should be closed or at least moved away from John Jay. You have seen their attitude here firsthand: Laurie is belligerent bordering on unhinged; courtney is prone to anger though somewhat more rational on reflection. But both blame the victim--just as I saw them blame someone last year who had the bad manners to swerve around a crowd of people and cages and come within four feet of a dog that leapt at his head. Let me tell you, when that happens you're not rational, but Laurie mocked him when he became upset. So who is the agency that can move these people away or shut them down? I'm not talking about the ASPCA; my concern is for people, especially children. These people simply cannot be trusted--and their attitude on this board confirms this.

willregistersoon

modsquad wrote: Nepenthean, I have to say I think you are the dishonest one here. If you indeed accepted money for your damaged pants, then that should have been the end of it.

I disagree. I am happy the OP posted this because I will now make a concerted effort to steer clear of the dogs sitting in front of the school when I walk by. Even more so when I'm with my 2 year old son. I always assumed they were well trained and obedient animals sitting out there, but apparently not.

modsquad

I am curious about what behavioral criterea is used by all these other rescue organizations that are being lauded in this thread. Other than the obvious, licking your hand, looking into your eyes, that kind of stuff, what else is there. Maybe they know if the dog eats cats, but beyond that what else is there. If you are stupid enough to think you are adopting an animal, on the street, without baggage then you are the one to blame not the rescuers. Their criterea is to rescue animals, nothing else, They're not selling you a pedigree puppy, they are enlisting you in their cause.

bebevonbernstein and whynot_31. Do you guys worry about being suckered into adopting manic pitbulls walking down 7th Av. by people who have the social graces of the criminally bipoler? I understand there is a bridge or two for sale in NYC. This is NY. Anything on the street is suspect.

Like hell would I ever do some PR stuff for this group. I don't want my name or efforts attached to them. If they don't know how to talk to people, they should seek volunteers who can deal with the humans so they can stop making their own organization look worse and worse with every word out of their mouths.

Flexichick, aren't you making my argument? They definitely need help. Also other than second hand information and one response that alludes to abuse there doesn't seem to be any systemic abuse going on.

modsquad

willregistersoon wrote: [quote=modsquad]Nepenthean, I have to say I think you are the dishonest one here. If you indeed accepted money for your damaged pants, then that should have been the end of it.

I disagree. I am happy the OP posted this because I will now make a concerted effort to steer clear of the dogs sitting in front of the school when I walk by. Even more so when I'm with my 2 year old son. I always assumed they were well trained and obedient animals sitting out there, but apparently not.

Then he shouldn't of taken the money. That is dishonest. There was a pact made. If the money was not enough then he should of had the balls to say so and the integrity to give the money back. If the OP wanted to warn the neighborhood about a menace then he should do so, that is noble but the fact he took the money makes his honesty suspect. What if they had given him $100 or $200? Do you think he would of warned us then?

opossumqueen

modsquad wrote: I am curious about what behavioral criterea is used by all these other rescue organizations that are being lauded in this thread. Other than the obvious, licking your hand, looking into your eyes, that kind of stuff, what else is there.

If you mean the "big" shelters and rescues, I'll take a shot.

Organizations like the ASPCA and North Shore (I mention these two b/c I worked at a shelter in another state that had dog behaviorists formally from these shelters, who used their methods) have very stringent behavioral assessments. Obviously it can't tell everything, but these assessments are done by trained handlers and have been proven to be a reliable gauge.

These people know how to read almost every physical cure a dog gives so pretty much any response to a portion of the test tells them specific, valuable information. It's not "sensing" the dog is good or bad-there are scoring systems and fairly objective ways of understanding a dog's potential responses to life as a pet.

modsquad

Still you're talking about the two biggest organizations in NY. One with a government mandate to do so and the other with the financial where with all to do so. I certainly have no idea as to the numbers but I would guess the majority of adoptions in this country have no other criteria than what I mentioned. "big" shelters might have the deep pockets for that kind of staff.

whatchuwant

No, I think Modsquad (who I'm with on this one) is talking about the smaller groups. The ones who have to do a lot of work to set up a small rescue and do what they can within the confines of their financial limits. We're all aware that the bigger the rescue, the greater the investment in the animals they choose to take on (North Shore Animal League comes to mind).

She's rescuing and finding homes. That's it. She's not a trainer or a "rehabilitater." There's no way to truly know how a dog will act in certain situations. They found out that this animal gets frisky in public situations.

A real animal lover (I'm sure if you all were put in the same situation) would probably be a little upset by your favorite jeans getting ripped. But to take their money ($35? Keep it, they need it more than I do) that they use SOLELY for the purpose of rescuing is just mean-spirited and greedy.

tajmb

modsquad wrote: [quote=willregistersoon][quote=modsquad]Nepenthean, I have to say I think you are the dishonest one here. If you indeed accepted money for your damaged pants, then that should have been the end of it.

I disagree. I am happy the OP posted this because I will now make a concerted effort to steer clear of the dogs sitting in front of the school when I walk by. Even more so when I'm with my 2 year old son. I always assumed they were well trained and obedient animals sitting out there, but apparently not.

Then he shouldn't of taken the money. That is dishonest. There was a pact made. If the money was not enough then he should of had the balls to say so and the integrity to give the money back. If the OP wanted to warn the neighborhood about a menace then he should do so, that is noble but the fact he took the money makes his honesty suspect. What if they had given him $100 or $200? Do you think he would of warned us then?

There's nothing dishonest about taking compensation for the ruined pants and also warning others of the potential hazard. We only have the BAFN people's claim that the matter was fully resolved at the scene and a "pact made". The OP does not agree that was the case and considering the irrational (is that name calling or just descriptive?) tone of their multiple comments, I'm going to take the OP's description as more accurate. Either way there was no judge on the sidewalk issuing a gag order. There is no reason to keep quiet about it and several reasons to let people know.

southsloper

As an animal rescuer, who works for a variety of rescue organizations and has shown healthy, homeless kittens with BAFN out on 7th Avenue, I have to beg you not to let the animals be the ultimate victims here. All of those cats and kittens on display, and yes, the dogs, desperately need homes. The kitties -- my area of expertise -- are loved and extremely well cared for by their fosterers. And, each and every one has the potential to bring so much joy into the lives of those who adopt. I have 2 adorable boys right now in need of a home and I will likely be out on 7th Avenue on Saturday hoping to find them one. All I can say is that it would would be horrible if potential owners were discouraged from coming to visit. Please don't let that happen.

whynot_31

modsquad wrote: I am curious about what behavioral criterea is used by all these other rescue organizations that are being lauded in this thread. Other than the obvious, licking your hand, looking into your eyes, that kind of stuff, what else is there. Maybe they know if the dog eats cats, but beyond that what else is there. If you are stupid enough to think you are adopting an animal, on the street, without baggage then you are the one to blame not the rescuers. Their criterea is to rescue animals, nothing else, They're not selling you a pedigree puppy, they are enlisting you in their cause.

bebevonbernstein and whynot_31. Do you guys worry about being suckered into adopting manic pitbulls walking down 7th Av. by people who have the social graces of the criminally bipoler? I understand there is a bridge or two for sale in NYC. This is NY. Anything on the street is suspect.

I doubt I'd be suckered into adopting an abused or violent pitbull. ...but seemingly, some people are. These "needy" people are likely the type susceptable to hearing that the dogs will be put down if they aren't adopted soon. This is why I refer those seeking a dog to the North Shore Animal League or other such places that: Have trained staff. Treat their animals well. Are established organizations. Aren't afraid to describe the needs of the dog being considered. Visit the home and/or contact the landlord to make sure the dog is permitted. Call the potential adopters references to make sure they understand the responsiblity.

So, I write out of concern for the potential dog owner, however "needy" they may be.

I also write out of concern for dogs at large (doggie nation?): If a potential dog owner is burnt by a rescue group, they are likely go to a puppy mill. ...causing further harm to doggie nation.

I also have a soft spot for innocent people who feel they should be able to walk by without getting threatened or bitten by an out of control dog. I myself don't push a stoller in the slope, or even carry groceries there but can't say I have anything against those who do.

...let me know if I am evil.

modsquad

Subject: Re: First it's your thigh then your ass? Which was it. Liar

To tajmb

Nepenthean wrote:

First of all there was no screaming. Secondly, I never made any such threat to sue anyone. Your very first words to me were an offer to compensate me for my jeans, so there was no extortion. And by even using that word, you suggest that you would feel no obligation to reimburse me. My anger about this incident has much less to do with the dog biting me, but more about how you and your organization handled it. You never once apologized. And that is my reason for posting the incident here.

OP's intention was not to warn the neighborhood. That is an afterthought on his part to make his screed more legit. His feathers were ruffled by their slow response and uncaring attitude.

peanuts

I'm sorry that this post has become a rant against rescuers....if not for them, so many cats and dogs would be put down (the shelters have no room). There are responsible rescuers and irresponsible rescuers and wouldn't want to see the good ones lumped with the bad.

whynot_31

Peanuts wrote: I'm sorry that this post has become a rant against rescuers....if not for them, so many cats and dogs would be put down (the shelters have no room). There are responsible rescuers and irresponsible rescuers and wouldn't want to see the good ones lumped with the bad.

....a good way to solve this would be for folks to donate to North Shore Animal League. If they were to be better funded, they could accomodate more dogs.

Could they ever be large enough to take in all of the dogs care for by the rescue groups? Probably not.

...this is the too many dogs problem. Some dogs have to be put down. It sucks. Rescue Groups don't solve the problem of too many dogs... Spaying and neutering does.

peanuts

I totally agree with you the reasons for too many cats and dogs...people are totally irresponsible. But shelters only have so much room - doesn't matter how much money you give....if you go on the ASPCA site, they even direct you to rescuers

juliacsj

modsquad wrote: I am curious about what behavioral criterea is used by all these other rescue organizations that are being lauded in this thread. Other than the obvious, licking your hand, looking into your eyes, that kind of stuff, what else is there. Maybe they know if the dog eats cats, but beyond that what else is there. If you are stupid enough to think you are adopting an animal, on the street, without baggage then you are the one to blame not the rescuers. Their criterea is to rescue animals, nothing else, They're not selling you a pedigree puppy, they are enlisting you in their cause.

bebevonbernstein and whynot_31. Do you guys worry about being suckered into adopting manic pitbulls walking down 7th Av. by people who have the social graces of the criminally bipoler? I understand there is a bridge or two for sale in NYC. This is NY. Anything on the street is suspect.

Like hell would I ever do some PR stuff for this group. I don't want my name or efforts attached to them. If they don't know how to talk to people, they should seek volunteers who can deal with the humans so they can stop making their own organization look worse and worse with every word out of their mouths.

Flexichick, aren't you making my argument? They definitely need help. Also other than second hand information and one response that alludes to abuse there doesn't seem to be any systemic abuse going on.

a) there have be numerous reports of issues with the animals - untrained, out in the cold, etc.
b) No, I am not making your argument. I would spend my time doing PR work (if I had time, and if I did PR work in general) on organizations which I respected. Not as a mouthpiece for an organization which I think is fundamentally flawed by the attitude of the owner and her staff.

bebevonbernstein

RESPONSIBLE shelters and rescuers realize that they have a responsibility to the adopting public just as much as they do to the dogs they rescue. Unfortunately, too many rescue groups leave that out of the equation. Taking a dog with issues -- and unfortunately, that is a descripter for many of the dogs that end up with rescue groups in the city -- requires a whole lot of time, patience, and financial resources, and that's just not what most people want who are adopting a dog. They want a dog that they can plop down with the kids in the living room, who they don't have to manage (whether it's from a breeder or a shelter). And that's absolutely fine.

Unfortunately, groups that rescue the animals with issue and adopt them out to an unknowing public -- again, guilting them into saving a dog from death row! -- are a large part of the problem. They won't take the dog back -- again, read the BFAN website and you'll see that they basically say it's YOUR problem, YOU took on this commitment, YOU should deal with it and find the finances, time, and energy to deal with this commitment that YOU undertook -- and then the dog ends up back in a shelter. It's a vicious cycle.

And no, I don't worry about being suckered, because my dog came from a shelter that does behavorial testing -- and puts down dogs that don't pass the test. And I have a very, very popular dog in the slope, who I can take in any store, who loves children, and who I never have to worry about biting someone who's carrying groceries. Which, in the city, is as it should be.

There ARE honest rescue groups out there -- unfortunately, as we've seen frequently over the years in the Slope, many of the less effectual groups do sucker people into taking on these sob-story dogs, many of them pit bulls. If I had a dime for every time someone has asked me if my dog is a "rescue," -- I can't stand the word any more. She's a great dog, she needed a home, why wouldn't someone take her? I was not looking to "save" a dog just to make myself feel good. Unfortunately, that's how many of these "rescuers" end up with problem dogs.

bebevonbernstein

And in answer to Modsquad, many reputable agencies do temperament testing these days. It's still relatively new, and some of the tests are controversial, but the good shelters are trying to make good, lasting matches for the dogs they take on.