What do you think

[Marcia from MI]

Hey all,

I would like to hear your opinions on something.  I was reading an article this morning that suggested a Pet Abuser Registry be set up that would allow groups and organizations the opportunity to see who should be allowed to adopt a pet.  Any thoughts.

[Leslie]

Hands and paws up on this one!!!  YES YES YES.  It should also but include those folks who's animals were reported by their vets to have had preventable conditions, injuries or illnesses. (Like the sheep down the road from me who have not been sheared for years.) I could probably list a hundred circumstances why people would end up on this list--and not just the "Michale Vick" level of cruelty.  But for example...

First on my list is the DeYoung Family Zoo in Michigan from the TV show "My Life is a Zoo."
They clearly love animals, they take in rescues, they "educate" the public and they are totally and utterly *&^%$#ing CLUELESS, not to mention understaffed. In my opinion, they are animal hoarders. (Although the living conditins seem clean.) The animals seem well and healthy, but after watching ONE episode I could not believe the utter stupidity of these folks.  The nutrition seemed lacking, the space assigned to each species was on the small side and the socialization for the baby chimp is way wrong. 

In the episode I watched the guy wanted to remove a dead tree from the bear enclosure.  Did he secure the bears in the a different location??? NO, he just sawed merrily away with his chainsaw while the two kodiak bears were 60' feet away.  :verdict: Absolute endangerment to the animals and traumatizing as well.

sorry. end of rant.  Can we have a link to the article???

[Marcia from MI]

Here is a link to the first article regarding pet cruelty:

http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-national/alleged-puppy-killer-pleads-not-guilty


and the second link is to the response to the article:

http://www.examiner.com/national/discuss/pet-abuser-registry

The Examiner is a public generated content site that I am suppose to start writing for next month(hopefully) and it has articles from local writers, all average citizens. 

[pairodachs]

Hands and paws up on this one!!!  YES YES YES.  It should also but include those folks who's animals were reported by their vets to have had preventable conditions, injuries or illnesses. (Like the sheep down the road from me who have not been sheared for years.) I could probably list a hundred circumstances why people would end up on this list--and not just the "Michale Vick" level of cruelty. 

Agree 10000%!!

[cheryl186]

ABSOLUTELY, PAWSATIVELY AGREE....that would be wonderful! :apls:

[vferraro99]

FYI, the majority of rescues already have their own DNA (do not adopt) lists that they share among each other.  I've had the chance to add a few names to these lists myself.  See one of them here: http://www.dnapets.org/about.aspx

[vferraro99]

Here is another site, this one is an Yahoo group: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/DoNotAdopt/

[Marcia from MI]

I worked for a rescue group for 5  years and unfortunately they were more about quantity than quality when it came to adopting out animals.  One case was a woman who came to one of our adoptions and saw a kitten she liked, then let it slip she was terribly allergic to animals.  I denied the adoption, but one of the board members turned around and OK'd it saying the woman could take allergy pills, the kitten went to her, but was back a few months later.  While some rescue groups may be conscientious others like the one I worked for are not.  There has to be a way to stop this type of abuse and a registry just might work.