Welcome to Gaia! ::


Omnipresent Warlord

David2074
Miss Dorm Leader
David2074


What the animal shelter wanted was to give this dog a forever home. No they are NOT after a profit. Plus that money could benefit the animal shelter more then you know. cat_sweatdrop


The animal shelter got their money. They charged $100 and they received $100.
I don't know why you seem to assume that if a different person had picked up the dog they would have paid more.

And as I said. A person who would purchase that dog for $200 would likely have the means and desire to take care of it. Thus it likely would be a 'forever home'. The interim time with the first lady was probably a better living existence than living in the shelter. I've been in shelters, it's not a happy scenario. Typically cement floors they can hose down, a bit smelly even though they try to keep it clean and almost always one or more animals barking, whining or mewing because they are not happy to be there and/or are stressed from all the other animals around them.

I'm not defending the first woman as being ethical. Most likely she lied on the forms she filled out. And I've even seen some shelter forms where you have to agree that if you get rid of the animal you have to give it back to the shelter.

I am only talking about in terms of the life of the dog.
Forget the profit thing for a minute. Suppose hypothetically they had a whole team of people who volunteered to take animals from the shelter and care for them while they tried to find permanent homes for them with people who would not ordinarily shop at a shelter. Perhaps they are volunteers who turn over all money they receive to the shelter, perhaps they only give the amount the shelter normally requires. Either way the net result is more animals being placed in homes and fewer animals being euthanized. Effective shelter capacity would be up due to some animals being housed elsewhere and animal placements would be up due to additional people / places of exposure.

Unethical woman is unethical but either way it is one more person trying to find a home for a dog. And because she is trying to make a profit she wold most likely take decent care of her little profit package. Remember that you are not comparing "loving home" to "evil profit lady". You are comparing "pretty miserable life in an animal shelter" to "profit lady" AND extending the countdown clock on the number of days before the dog is put down. No matter what you think of the lady it is a net win for the dog.

We would all like to pretend every animal living in a shelter will sooner or later go to a good home but that is far from reality. The American Humane Society says it is difficult to have complete and up to date statistics but that from a 1997 study -
In 1997, roughly 64 percent of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters.


Not ethical? She gets a dog for $85 and tries to sell it for 200. She made up a false story for why she was selling the dog and lied about the dog's age and claimed it was 5 years old when it was in fact 10. She attempted to commit fraud. "Not ethical." is an understatement. And when she got caught? She kept on lying.

Or at least would have been fraud if she had actually gone through with a sale and had someone with standing for such a lawsuit.

Snuggly Buddy

29,150 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Omnileech
David2074
Miss Dorm Leader
David2074


What the animal shelter wanted was to give this dog a forever home. No they are NOT after a profit. Plus that money could benefit the animal shelter more then you know. cat_sweatdrop


The animal shelter got their money. They charged $100 and they received $100.
I don't know why you seem to assume that if a different person had picked up the dog they would have paid more.

And as I said. A person who would purchase that dog for $200 would likely have the means and desire to take care of it. Thus it likely would be a 'forever home'. The interim time with the first lady was probably a better living existence than living in the shelter. I've been in shelters, it's not a happy scenario. Typically cement floors they can hose down, a bit smelly even though they try to keep it clean and almost always one or more animals barking, whining or mewing because they are not happy to be there and/or are stressed from all the other animals around them.

I'm not defending the first woman as being ethical. Most likely she lied on the forms she filled out. And I've even seen some shelter forms where you have to agree that if you get rid of the animal you have to give it back to the shelter.

I am only talking about in terms of the life of the dog.
Forget the profit thing for a minute. Suppose hypothetically they had a whole team of people who volunteered to take animals from the shelter and care for them while they tried to find permanent homes for them with people who would not ordinarily shop at a shelter. Perhaps they are volunteers who turn over all money they receive to the shelter, perhaps they only give the amount the shelter normally requires. Either way the net result is more animals being placed in homes and fewer animals being euthanized. Effective shelter capacity would be up due to some animals being housed elsewhere and animal placements would be up due to additional people / places of exposure.

Unethical woman is unethical but either way it is one more person trying to find a home for a dog. And because she is trying to make a profit she wold most likely take decent care of her little profit package. Remember that you are not comparing "loving home" to "evil profit lady". You are comparing "pretty miserable life in an animal shelter" to "profit lady" AND extending the countdown clock on the number of days before the dog is put down. No matter what you think of the lady it is a net win for the dog.

We would all like to pretend every animal living in a shelter will sooner or later go to a good home but that is far from reality. The American Humane Society says it is difficult to have complete and up to date statistics but that from a 1997 study -
In 1997, roughly 64 percent of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters.


Not ethical? She gets a dog for $85 and tries to sell it for 200. She made up a false story for why she was selling the dog and lied about the dog's age and claimed it was 5 years old when it was in fact 10. She attempted to commit fraud. "Not ethical." is an understatement. And when she got caught? She kept on lying.

Or at least would have been fraud if she had actually gone through with a sale and had someone with standing for such a lawsuit.


I saw no mention of the 10 year / 5 year thing. Perhaps that is in the video portion I didn't watch due to bandwidth? I agree that if she sold a 10 year old animal as a 5 year old that would be fraud.

Still doesn't change the other stuff I said about a dog being bought for $200 likely going to a good home or about getting more animals overall placed so fewer of them end up euthanised.

Omnipresent Warlord

David2074
Omnileech
David2074
Miss Dorm Leader
David2074


What the animal shelter wanted was to give this dog a forever home. No they are NOT after a profit. Plus that money could benefit the animal shelter more then you know. cat_sweatdrop


The animal shelter got their money. They charged $100 and they received $100.
I don't know why you seem to assume that if a different person had picked up the dog they would have paid more.

And as I said. A person who would purchase that dog for $200 would likely have the means and desire to take care of it. Thus it likely would be a 'forever home'. The interim time with the first lady was probably a better living existence than living in the shelter. I've been in shelters, it's not a happy scenario. Typically cement floors they can hose down, a bit smelly even though they try to keep it clean and almost always one or more animals barking, whining or mewing because they are not happy to be there and/or are stressed from all the other animals around them.

I'm not defending the first woman as being ethical. Most likely she lied on the forms she filled out. And I've even seen some shelter forms where you have to agree that if you get rid of the animal you have to give it back to the shelter.

I am only talking about in terms of the life of the dog.
Forget the profit thing for a minute. Suppose hypothetically they had a whole team of people who volunteered to take animals from the shelter and care for them while they tried to find permanent homes for them with people who would not ordinarily shop at a shelter. Perhaps they are volunteers who turn over all money they receive to the shelter, perhaps they only give the amount the shelter normally requires. Either way the net result is more animals being placed in homes and fewer animals being euthanized. Effective shelter capacity would be up due to some animals being housed elsewhere and animal placements would be up due to additional people / places of exposure.

Unethical woman is unethical but either way it is one more person trying to find a home for a dog. And because she is trying to make a profit she wold most likely take decent care of her little profit package. Remember that you are not comparing "loving home" to "evil profit lady". You are comparing "pretty miserable life in an animal shelter" to "profit lady" AND extending the countdown clock on the number of days before the dog is put down. No matter what you think of the lady it is a net win for the dog.

We would all like to pretend every animal living in a shelter will sooner or later go to a good home but that is far from reality. The American Humane Society says it is difficult to have complete and up to date statistics but that from a 1997 study -
In 1997, roughly 64 percent of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters.


Not ethical? She gets a dog for $85 and tries to sell it for 200. She made up a false story for why she was selling the dog and lied about the dog's age and claimed it was 5 years old when it was in fact 10. She attempted to commit fraud. "Not ethical." is an understatement. And when she got caught? She kept on lying.

Or at least would have been fraud if she had actually gone through with a sale and had someone with standing for such a lawsuit.


I saw no mention of the 10 year / 5 year thing. Perhaps that is in the video portion I didn't watch due to bandwidth? I agree that if she sold a 10 year old animal as a 5 year old that would be fraud.

Still doesn't change the other stuff I said about a dog being bought for $200 likely going to a good home or about getting more animals overall placed so fewer of them end up euthanised.


http://khon2.com/2014/06/24/craigslist-dog-ad-sparks-public-outrage-disappointment/

Well there you go. The person has lied several times with more lies to cover the previous ones. I believe the dog was ultimately returned to the adoption center and was adopted out to someone else.

Snuggly Buddy

29,150 Points
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Mark Twain 100
  • Conventioneer 300
Omnileech
David2074
Omnileech
David2074
Miss Dorm Leader
David2074


What the animal shelter wanted was to give this dog a forever home. No they are NOT after a profit. Plus that money could benefit the animal shelter more then you know. cat_sweatdrop


The animal shelter got their money. They charged $100 and they received $100.
I don't know why you seem to assume that if a different person had picked up the dog they would have paid more.

And as I said. A person who would purchase that dog for $200 would likely have the means and desire to take care of it. Thus it likely would be a 'forever home'. The interim time with the first lady was probably a better living existence than living in the shelter. I've been in shelters, it's not a happy scenario. Typically cement floors they can hose down, a bit smelly even though they try to keep it clean and almost always one or more animals barking, whining or mewing because they are not happy to be there and/or are stressed from all the other animals around them.

I'm not defending the first woman as being ethical. Most likely she lied on the forms she filled out. And I've even seen some shelter forms where you have to agree that if you get rid of the animal you have to give it back to the shelter.

I am only talking about in terms of the life of the dog.
Forget the profit thing for a minute. Suppose hypothetically they had a whole team of people who volunteered to take animals from the shelter and care for them while they tried to find permanent homes for them with people who would not ordinarily shop at a shelter. Perhaps they are volunteers who turn over all money they receive to the shelter, perhaps they only give the amount the shelter normally requires. Either way the net result is more animals being placed in homes and fewer animals being euthanized. Effective shelter capacity would be up due to some animals being housed elsewhere and animal placements would be up due to additional people / places of exposure.

Unethical woman is unethical but either way it is one more person trying to find a home for a dog. And because she is trying to make a profit she wold most likely take decent care of her little profit package. Remember that you are not comparing "loving home" to "evil profit lady". You are comparing "pretty miserable life in an animal shelter" to "profit lady" AND extending the countdown clock on the number of days before the dog is put down. No matter what you think of the lady it is a net win for the dog.

We would all like to pretend every animal living in a shelter will sooner or later go to a good home but that is far from reality. The American Humane Society says it is difficult to have complete and up to date statistics but that from a 1997 study -
In 1997, roughly 64 percent of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters.


Not ethical? She gets a dog for $85 and tries to sell it for 200. She made up a false story for why she was selling the dog and lied about the dog's age and claimed it was 5 years old when it was in fact 10. She attempted to commit fraud. "Not ethical." is an understatement. And when she got caught? She kept on lying.

Or at least would have been fraud if she had actually gone through with a sale and had someone with standing for such a lawsuit.


I saw no mention of the 10 year / 5 year thing. Perhaps that is in the video portion I didn't watch due to bandwidth? I agree that if she sold a 10 year old animal as a 5 year old that would be fraud.

Still doesn't change the other stuff I said about a dog being bought for $200 likely going to a good home or about getting more animals overall placed so fewer of them end up euthanised.


http://khon2.com/2014/06/24/craigslist-dog-ad-sparks-public-outrage-disappointment/

Well there you go. The person has lied several times with more lies to cover the previous ones. I believe the dog was ultimately returned to the adoption center and was adopted out to someone else.


Still doesn't change the other stuff I said about a dog being bought for $200 likely going to a good home or about getting more animals overall placed so fewer of them end up euthanised

Omnipresent Warlord

David2074
Omnileech
David2074
Omnileech
David2074


The animal shelter got their money. They charged $100 and they received $100.
I don't know why you seem to assume that if a different person had picked up the dog they would have paid more.

And as I said. A person who would purchase that dog for $200 would likely have the means and desire to take care of it. Thus it likely would be a 'forever home'. The interim time with the first lady was probably a better living existence than living in the shelter. I've been in shelters, it's not a happy scenario. Typically cement floors they can hose down, a bit smelly even though they try to keep it clean and almost always one or more animals barking, whining or mewing because they are not happy to be there and/or are stressed from all the other animals around them.

I'm not defending the first woman as being ethical. Most likely she lied on the forms she filled out. And I've even seen some shelter forms where you have to agree that if you get rid of the animal you have to give it back to the shelter.

I am only talking about in terms of the life of the dog.
Forget the profit thing for a minute. Suppose hypothetically they had a whole team of people who volunteered to take animals from the shelter and care for them while they tried to find permanent homes for them with people who would not ordinarily shop at a shelter. Perhaps they are volunteers who turn over all money they receive to the shelter, perhaps they only give the amount the shelter normally requires. Either way the net result is more animals being placed in homes and fewer animals being euthanized. Effective shelter capacity would be up due to some animals being housed elsewhere and animal placements would be up due to additional people / places of exposure.

Unethical woman is unethical but either way it is one more person trying to find a home for a dog. And because she is trying to make a profit she wold most likely take decent care of her little profit package. Remember that you are not comparing "loving home" to "evil profit lady". You are comparing "pretty miserable life in an animal shelter" to "profit lady" AND extending the countdown clock on the number of days before the dog is put down. No matter what you think of the lady it is a net win for the dog.

We would all like to pretend every animal living in a shelter will sooner or later go to a good home but that is far from reality. The American Humane Society says it is difficult to have complete and up to date statistics but that from a 1997 study -
In 1997, roughly 64 percent of the total number of animals that entered shelters were euthanized -- approximately 2.7 million animals in just these 1,000 shelters.


Not ethical? She gets a dog for $85 and tries to sell it for 200. She made up a false story for why she was selling the dog and lied about the dog's age and claimed it was 5 years old when it was in fact 10. She attempted to commit fraud. "Not ethical." is an understatement. And when she got caught? She kept on lying.

Or at least would have been fraud if she had actually gone through with a sale and had someone with standing for such a lawsuit.


I saw no mention of the 10 year / 5 year thing. Perhaps that is in the video portion I didn't watch due to bandwidth? I agree that if she sold a 10 year old animal as a 5 year old that would be fraud.

Still doesn't change the other stuff I said about a dog being bought for $200 likely going to a good home or about getting more animals overall placed so fewer of them end up euthanised.


http://khon2.com/2014/06/24/craigslist-dog-ad-sparks-public-outrage-disappointment/

Well there you go. The person has lied several times with more lies to cover the previous ones. I believe the dog was ultimately returned to the adoption center and was adopted out to someone else.


Still doesn't change the other stuff I said about a dog being bought for $200 likely going to a good home or about getting more animals overall placed so fewer of them end up euthanised


You're trying to turn pet-flipping into something noble when it's anything but. The reason why these animals were in a shelter to begin with is because there are far more out there than are wanted. Selling them (for a profit no less!) doesn't alleviate the underlying problem and rewards fraud (because people can make up whatever they want) and emotional manipulation (fabricated sob stories) while the people genuinely trying to adopt the dogs out for a low price are exploited. People are incentivized to try to pass an $85 10 year-old shelter dog off as a $200 great 5 year old family dog and the underlying problem of "dogs getting euthanized" isn't resolved or even alleviated because what happens when the pet-flippers can't sell the dogs and have no intention of keeping them as pets? They're sent back to the pound or released onto the streets and become potentially dangerous strays.

Shelters don't euthanize because they want to, they do it because they have no other choice due to lack of space. So I don't see how pet-flippers do anything but create more problems.

Romantic Werewolf

15,950 Points
  • Mega Tipsy 100
  • Cats vs Dogs 100
  • Threadmaster 200
This is why I support a federal database for animal abusers. The high-end offenders are animal abusers of course, but I'm sure a place could be made for people like these. She is clearly lying, and should be barred from owning any animals. I'm glad the rescue organization is modifying their contract - most places I've ever heard of have clauses where you have to return the critter to them if you can't care for them anymore.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum