They probably started with a small number of animals and when they didn't fix them all the numbers just continued to grow. I'm sure locals were dumping their unwanted animals there too.
Are these hoarders or rescue people who got totally overwhelmed and couldn't find help? I'm not taking blame away from these people but times are very hard for people in rescue. If you don't have the volunteers and people helping you fundraise you are going to get yourself in deep trouble and end up with a lot of animals who won't get the food, attention and vet care they need. I hear rescue people say all the time they are in desparate need of donations and volunteers. It's not like they are sitting on their behinds either waiting for it to come to them. They do food drives and are constantly seeking volunteers but people are not donating enough or wanting to volunteer. Some groups have better luck or maybe they are in areas that aren't hit as hard by the recession. But it's tough out there, just look at all the people on the forums here begging for help. It looks like most of them go unanswered.
Posted
June 05, 2009, 5:25PM
by
babs1171
My heart is broken to see these images. I will donate what I can to try and help the rescue efforts. My prayers are with all of these poor babies (dogs and cats) and I hope they find a good home where they will get the love and care they deserve. Sad, sad, sad.
If people don't read the link with the article the remaining animals have until June 17th then they will most likely be killed by animal control.
For all they've been through, they deserve a happy ending so please forward this story to your local rescue groups and ask if they can make room for one more.
I am trying to understand hoarders. I think they started out with big hearts wanting to help the animals they took in, but a rational person knows when they are in over their head and I assume would try to find help anyway they can. When it goes to this extreme, something is terribly wrong. I need more education on hoarding, it is something I cannot understand.
I have a comment relating to Kelly4cats talking about rescues getting into financial trouble. I have come across some rescue groups, that I feel screen potential animal owners too strictly. If one question on the application sends up a "red flag" so to speak, that candidate's application is trashed. Can rescues afford to be this picky? Are people really sending in application after application on a particular animal? I understand that rescues are looking for the "right" match and I commend them for what they do to help homeless animals, but if you have someone willing to provide a home, shouldn't you make the effort to interview someone who may not be the "perfect" candidate but one who will give care and love to the animal. That animal will have a home and the rescue will have a space for another needy animal.
I've had friends and co-workers comment that trying to adopt a dog is like adopting a child, there are endless hoops to jump through. Maybe if rescues would ease up a little on their requirements, more animals would get adopted and rescues wouldn't be so challenged.
Posted
June 07, 2009, 4:50PM
by
dionie
These women face a bleak future but the innocent animals face an even bleaker one. The women may be in jail for awhile but they will have food and shelter whereas the animals will not. Many of the seniors will die. What were they thinking. How sad for all involved in the rescue. Best Friends keep us up-dated on how this is going. I am sure that BF will do as much as they can for these unfortunate animals.