Dolittler Guest Post No wonder veterinarians hate lawyers

By Marcy LaHart, J.D.

I belong to the Florida Bar’s Animal Law Committee, a group I naively joined because I thought it actually had something to do with advancing the legal interests of animals. Come to find out they are so afraid of being perceived as an animal right’s group (gasp!) that the efforts to appear neutral in my mind defeats the purpose of having an animal law committee. Example, a non-attorney citizen working hard to enact a state law to prevent condos from forbidding pets asked if she could come address the committee. She was told no, not unless someone from the “opposition” also spoke. Funny, I have been a member of the Environmental Law Section’s Public Interest Committee for more than a decade, and I have never seen any effort by these environmentally minded lawyers to balance their seminars by ensuring equal time for polluters and developers.

Last week an email was sent to a member of the committee that was forwarded to all the members. The email was from a legal aid attorney, and the subject was “client threatened by vet dog will be euthanized if bill not paid”. According to the email, the attorney had been contacted by a couple, one of whom is disabled, that had a poodle that had puppies five months earlier. They noticed their dog had fleas and did something to treat her but she got sick and their regular vet referred her to a specialty clinic because the dog needed a transfusion. According to the email the vet came out and yelled at the owners saying their neglect had caused the dog’s condition and threatened to report them. The couple of course had no money to pay for the dog’s treatment, and applied for credit but were denied. Then, according to the email, the evil vet took the dog and treated it and was now threatening to kill the dog if they did not cough up the money.

The story sounded pretty suspicious to me, why would a vet treat a sick animal when there is no apparent prospect of payment, and then threaten to kill her? One of my outraged colleagues immediately suggest we all chip in to pay the bill to save this poor dog from certain death in the hands of the evil veterinarian. He offered a whopping $25.00 towards a $1500 bill. A couple other lawyers offered to chip in.

I did not, I can barely pay my own vet bills, and am certainly not going to pay the bill of someone whose dog needed a transfusion because she was anemic from flea bites. In fact I stayed out of the frenzy initially, and it was soon reported that a sheriff acted as intermediary between the couple and the hospital and that the dog had been returned to the couple after working out a payment plan.

Unfortunately I was not smart enough to simply delete the emails. I chimed in suggesting that the people that had jumped to pay the bill might want to contribute to have the dog spayed and provided flea control so she does not end up sucked dry again.

The same colleague that offered the $25 informed me that I missed the point-that this evil vet was engaging in unconscionable practices and must be stopped. I pointed out that we only knew one side of the story, and that vets are not obligated to treat anyone’s pet for free and are likely less willing to do so when the owner’s negligence caused the pet’s critical condition. Surely this dog did not go from perfectly healthy to needing a transfusion overnight. I even included a link to Dr. K’s blog post on flea anemia so that he just might be able to see things from the veterinarian’s perspective.

His response-if I treated the child of parents that let him eat at McDonalds every day, would I be justified in kidnapping the kid until my bill was paid? When I pointed out that the law provides veterinarians a lien for unpaid services I was accused of being an “unimaginative attorney” and when I attempted to give him examples of how I creatively use the law in my animal cases I discovered he had demonstrated his great maturity by blocking my email address.

Clearly my suggestion that there might be another side of the story fell on deaf ears.

Thankfully another committee member contacted the hospital for the proverbial “rest of the story”. The dog was presented with a severe case of flea bite anemia and needed a transfusion. She clearly had been suffering for days before treatment was sought. The owners had no money to pay and were denied credit. They were give two options, we will euthanize the dog to end her suffering, or you can sign her over to us and we will treat her and find her a new home. The owners chose the later, and signed the dog over to the clinic, but later decided they wanted the dog back.

And they got what they wanted. The dog is now back in the hands of people who have failed to prevent her from contributing to South Florida’s obscene pet overpopulation problem, and allowed her to become so infested with fleas that she was anemic. The hospital will likely never see one penny of the money they are owed, and it appears my colleagues, most of whom have never handled an animal case in their entire careers, think the vet was the bad guy here. No wonder vets hate lawyers.

March 20th, 2008

Add Comment31 Comments

Atty. La Hart, You raise a very important concept in your first few paragraphs. I have found that "NH animal law lawyers" and the corresponding committees they serve on, have basically been silent regarding true humane issues. This has baffled me completely. I, too, have been barred from speaking or addressing the NH Board of Veterinary Medicine, NH Governors animal humane task force, and fluffed off by the very bodies that are supposed to represent the "citizens", such as the elected representatives and Attorney Generals Office. Please share with us, exactly what does happen and moves forward on FL. agenda??

It is difficult to address the flea anemic dog case, but you are right to be suspicious. Since it is within AVMA guidelines to refuse a client/patient relationship , how on earth did the clinic rack up $1500 in treatment? (I just can't imagine what the flea population is down there!!!) And further, what are the state statutes regarding with-holding an animal for an unpaid bill?? As dispicable as the story sounds regarding the owners negligent and lack of care---I believe you missed the point also. I believe the vet acted unprofessionally to intimidate the owners, into euthanasia or relinquishment versus what was the workable solution of a "payment plan".

Can you imagine a state so small and regressive, that an "animal law attorney' is unwilling to represent a client who has been harmed and who's animal suffered tremendous cruelty including ILLEGAL 'euthanasia' ?? If this seems inconceivable to you, just know that it happens and has for YEARS!

Barb Albright March 20th, 2008 04:57:00 PM

I am sorry you have had such a frustrating experience with your local animal law committee overall -- as for them not being about animal welfare, I think that is a problem with your local organization. I have gone to national animal law conferences and there are many (most?) animal lawyers interested in using the law to further animal welfare interests. If they do their best to avoid being associated with the animal rights movement, it is probably for the good reason that it would marginalize them and thus hurt their efforts.

I also sense that you are frustrated that although this group seemed to a fault determined to be "balanced" and not take sides on issues, when it came to an issue with the vet, they were quick to take sides, abandoning their previous (and annoying) obsession with balance. This appeared to have triggered in you a bit of identity politics as it were -- your inclination to side with the vet and to buy that side of the story without reservation. So, we all have our biases.

So, coming from the standpoint of my own biases:

I am quite disturbed by the vets behavior as you describe it. To me, it doesn't matter whether the euthanasia thing was a "threat" or an "offer" (makes no difference either way to me, equally bad) -- to even think of euthanizing an animal with such a treatable problem because of an unpaid bill seems completely morally bankrupt to me.

The vet has every right to be paid, and if the owners don't pay, he should sue them in small claims court. However, vets who hold pets hostage OR euthanize them because of unpaid bills are -- in my view -- amoral, unethical, and deserve for the whole community to know about them. The bad publicity they earn as a result is certainly not worth the value of the unpaid bill. Take a look at the story of Georgia Vet Gary Innocent, who held a dog hostage wracking up boarding fees because some portion (a few hundred dollars on a bill over $1,000) remained unpaid.
http://www.itchmo.com/man-says-vet-refuses-to-rele...

This turned out to be a public relations debacle for him and rightly so.

But business interests aside -- it is the morality that bothers me. You, and many other vets, echo our sentiments that "pets are family." You profit from it.

So -- then when a bill is unpaid, you turn around and refer to the pet as a "lien" -- a mere piece of property against an unpaid bill?

Vets cannot have it both ways. They cannot "treat our beloved family members" and then turn around and heartlessly "destroy our [mere] property" as a part of a "lien."

Also, if the vet really cared about the animals welfare, he would have problems turning this animal back over to them whether the bill was paid or not. Does he believe these owners are negligent and cruel? Then why doesn't he report them? But it's not about the best interests of the animal is it -- Its about the bill -- he has no problem with these negligent people having the dog as long as the bill is paid.

I realize deadbeat clients and people who quite unreasonably expect vets to do things for free are a real problem. And I truly believe that some solutions to this problem must be found. But holding animals hostage OR killing them IS NOT a solution, and it is not a winning strategy -- even for the vet.

Since most of us consider our pets family, I think the analogy of a child is a good one: If a family failed to pay the hospital bill for treating their child, would it be OK for the hospital to refuse to release the child? Would it be OK for the hospital to do harm to the child, kill the child, OR give the child away to an orphanage or another family? Of course not.

THE SAME applies to our pets. They aren't property you issue "liens" against, no matter what the vets legal rights are.

It is our very love for our animals that allows vets to earn a living. For vets to rely on that love for their bread and butter - and then turn around and cry: PROPERTY LIEN and seize our pets or kill them when there is an unpaid bill is schizophrenic and immoral.

Stefani March 20th, 2008 09:07:00 PM

PS -- I just noticed the guest byline. Assumed you were a vet, but my basic sentiments stand.

Stefani March 20th, 2008 09:09:00 PM

Barb and Stefani

I think you both missed the "rest of the story" at the end of the article. When the dog presented to the hospital the clients were offered treatment, euthanasia, or surrender.

Because they didn't have any money and were denied credit, treatment was not an option. Veterinarians are certainly not required to provide every client that can not pay with a payment plan. Trust me. Most people that are given payment plans never make good on their promises. Even if taken to court- you can't get money from someone who doesn't have any!

The owners did not want to euthanise their dog for a problem that was treatable so they declined that option also.

The veterinarian, likely not looking forward to euthanizing a treatable patient, gave the owners a third option. Surrender the dog to the clinic. This way the clinic can treat the dog and find it a new home with a staff member or good client. It may not seem fair to the original owners- after all, if the clinic is going to pay for this pups treatment anyway, why not give the dog back to the owners? Except remember, the original owners did not value the dog enough to provide appropriate preventive care (flea meds) and let the dog suffer for days before getting her help. So, if it were you spending your money and time nursing the dog back to health, would you want to give her back, or find her new owners that will provide for her the way you would?

So the owners signed the dog OVER TO THE CLINIC. Then the dog became property of the clinic. And they treated her to the tune of $1500 in services. When the owners changed their minds and wanted the dog back they became responsible for the bill. The vet wasn't holding the dog for payment at that point, the vet owned the dog! He didn't even have to give it back if the owners were waiving $1500 in cash!

I highly doubt that at any time the vet threatened to euthanise the (now healthy) dog just because the owners coulndn't pay. After all they went to all the expense of saving the dog. The vet was probably trying to make the point that if he hadn't taken on the dogs treatment out of his own pocket, the dog would already be dead.

Meghan RAHT March 20th, 2008 10:03:00 PM

Thank you Meghan for commenting on "the other side" of the story.

From what I can gather, the $1500 worth of treatment was done *after* the dog was relinquished to the veterinarian. When the owners came back to reclaim the dog, the bill stood at $1500. There was no "unpaid bill" that the vet was "holding the dog" hostage to claim.

I realize some of the people who post here have gone through terrible experiences with their pets. I have read about what happened and I am very saddened by what I hear. Your stories help me to see the other side of the story, the perspective of the owner.

However, as a CVT who struggles to provide top notch care to our patients and clients with *very meager compensation*, I am also very saddened with some of the negativity towards the veterinary profession. All I ask is that everyone else tries to see *the other side of the story*.

People in the veterinary profession are not all money grubbing jerks. Really.

Michelle Schwab March 21st, 2008 06:45:00 AM

This is a great discussion so far. I'd like to address the issue of the $1500 in fees. For severe flea anemia treated at a specialty hospital that sounds totally appropriate. The last one I treated finally went home for about $800--and it was a small dog with no complications.

Blood transfusions are expensive! If you need more than one unit (big dog) and costs multiply fast! Add in the dwindling supplies of pet blood and the increased complication rate with each additional unit and it can be hard to treat these cases.

Plus, it seems there are money problems with all flea anemia cases: either 1-the owners are simply negligent lunks who didn't look at their backyard dog for six weeks and don't care for the animal enough to spend the money or 2-they kept putting off a vet visit because they had no funds and were ignorant as to the cumulative effects of fleas.

Either way it sucks for us. We know we can fix them. How sad that thier ignorance, negligence and/or lack of funds has led to this! And every unit of blood? That's at least another $200 the practice owner has to spend on *their* responsibility.

Sure, we have jobs in this profession because people LOVE their animals. But that doesn't mean we should be required to shoulder the burden of the irresponsible owners who walk through our doors. Yes, I sometimes do--as do we all. But surrendering a pet to a hospital is an excellent option *for the pet*--I'd hate to see it eliminated because vets are scared of being dragged through the legal mud in the wake of their humane willingness to take on these cases.

Dr. Patty Khuly March 21st, 2008 07:34:00 AM

I find it interesting that lawyers I have net fall three ways: strong animals rights, will do anything to avoid being seen as an animal rightist, and 'who cares about animals?'. A few years ago, well okay quite a few years ago, the same could be said for philosophy and the majority of thics. A little more interdisciplinary mingling such as this post might help get a welfarist perspective into the mix?

emily March 21st, 2008 10:09:00 AM

Michelle and Meghan -- I appreciate your comments. I wasn't entirely clear on the order of things. All the same, euthanasia for anemia from flea bites . . . I so don't want to go there.

I do realize that not all vets are just focused on the $$. I've met some of them. I would say, I'm running about 50-50 with the veterinary profession. I have had three extremely bad vet experiences (each one progressively worse); but also several very positive ones. I foster a cat and there is a very good vet who provides her services to the charity -- she might get paid but if she does, it's nowhere near market. She clearly does it for the right reasons. The bad experiences were SO VERY shockingly bad, though. At least the last one. Anyway . . .

Back to this dilemma -- what about starting a veterinary charity? You wouldn't want to publicize this to clients (then the number of deadbeats would definitely go up) but what about starting a veterinary foundation or charitable organization -- kind of like IMOM but funnelled through the vets -- where vets could very quietly apply to get some coverage for these cases that they want to take?

I can see where that would be open for abuse too, so you'd have to figure out how to run it to make sure the claims were legit. Something would have to be signed by the owner, I don't know.

But it seems to be needed. And since vets KNOW it is a problem, I can imagine this organization would become a very attractive charitable contribution for vets.

Stefani March 21st, 2008 02:34:00 PM

"euthanasia for anemia from flea bites . . . I so don't want to go there."

Neither did this vet. Unfortunately it was his compassion that got him into this mess. Using situations like this to shed a bad light on veterinarians will only discourage vets from taking on these "charity cases" and ultimately more pets will be euthanised for treatable conditions.

Meghan RAHT March 21st, 2008 10:42:00 PM

Time for another veterinarian to contribute her two cents' worth on this subject....
If I was presented with a dog suffering from severe flea bite anemia - so severe that it warranted a transfusion/extensive hospitalization - the conversation with the client would proceed as follows: your dog is in need of a transfusion ASAP, without the transfusion your pet will suffer and die, we need to make a decision here. There are three options here: treat the dog and pay the bill, sign the dog over to the hospital and hope the hospital will treat the dog ($1500 for said treatment is not unreasonable here in New Jersey) and find him/her a suitable new home, or humanely euthanize the dog to end its suffering. I sincerely doubt that the veterinarian in this case asserted "pay the bill or the dog will be euthanized".
As cliche as this sounds, you can't have it both ways. The veterinary hospital performed the noble task of treating the dog, saving the dog's life in spite of the owners' inability to pay or secure credit, and now the owners *expect* to keep the dog?? What happens when the same dog develops heartworm, pyometra, gets hit by a car, etc.. and they cannot afford to pay in the future?

meowdoc March 21st, 2008 11:03:00 PM

Barb Albright- Your post says "I believe you missed the point also. I believe the vet acted unprofessionally to intimidate the owners, into euthanasia or relinquishment versus what was the workable solution of a "payment plan"."

Did you read my entire post? The veterinarian says that at no point was there ever a threat to euthanize the dog for non payment. The veterinarian could have refused to do anything for the animal, but instead saved its life. My point , which I think you missed, is that even a first year law student should know that there are two sides to every story.

Florida law does provide a lien for unpaid professional services rendered by veterinarians. However, that law was not applicable to this situation in which the owners voluntarily relinquished the dog to the animal hospital.

I do not understand your question regarding "exactly what does happen and moves forward on FL. agenda??" Whose agenda?

Marcy LaHart March 22nd, 2008 11:17:00 AM

Meghan et al -- re:

"Unfortunately it was his compassion that got him into this mess. Using situations like this to shed a bad light on veterinarians will only discourage vets from taking on these "charity cases" and ultimately more pets will be euthanised for treatable conditions."

If you really want to get mad, consider this:

Do you want to know one circumstance that will cause a veterinary board to mete out pretty stiff discipline to a vet? It is when the vet is asked to euthanize an animal with a treatable condition, accepts the euthanasia request, and then instead of euthanizing the animal, saves it. Vet boards hate that, and punish it.

I have seen a few cases where this happened -- it seems apparent the vet didn't want to euthanize the animal, but didn't tell the owner. Took the $ for the euthanasia, and then treated the animal and made it well. In one case the vet called the owner after the animal was well and told the owner the good news. The owner not only wanted their pet back, but reported the vet, who was fined by the board. In other cases, the owner found out about it after other vet staff blabbed and word got around the animal was treated instead of euthanized.

Now you may say, the vet did the wrong thing. But wrong compared to what? There are other cases of vets who strangle animals, hit them, and commit acts of malpractice that cause their deaths. But when you compare the punishment for THOSE acts, vs. the punishment given a vet that SAVES an animal -- the board seems to punish the vet that SAVES the animal more than the ones that commit abuse or malpractice. Your wonderful veterinary boards at work. (I am thinking of some Texas cases in particular.)

In many states vets MUST euthanize an animal on demand. I was in a vet office here in Maryland, and a couple came in crying with their cat in a carrier. My heart when out to them UNTIL I found out from the receptionist that they were dropping her off to be euthanized becase she was peeing outside the litter box. And the vet was going to do the euthanasia. Apparently, she had previously been treated for urinary tract infections, but the owners were finding this just too troublesome. So that cat was killed. Totally unnecessary.

I don't know if the vet, by all accounts a good vet, had the right to refuse to euth this cat. But I was told by their staff that giving her to a rescue and not euthing her would have been illegal.

This kind of nonsense in terms of how laws on your profession are enforce pisses me off. And if I were a vet or vet tech, it would also piss me off.

Stefani March 22nd, 2008 01:43:00 PM

Atty LaHart: Thank you for replying. I was attempting to find out exactly what does the Florida Bar animal law association take part in for the benefit of Florida's citizens/companion animals/ and animal welfare? Are their proposals, changes in existing statutes, stiffer penalties for breaking the law, better law enforcement? I'm curious as to what a state that actually has an association with member attorneys are doing or interested in.

As far as the flea bite story, (I still have this horrible vision of fleas the size of grasshoppers down there---and can't imagine living with such an infestation, surely the owners must have had bites too), but it was described as a poodle that whelped pups and is 3 months post nursing (probably somewhat anemic to begin with)---just noticed that no mention whether mini or standard, no mention as to condition otherwise (such as filthy, matted, starved, etc.) Sheriff is intervening, other attorneys in group not feeling too spiffy about vet's total innocence.

People attempt treatment, dog gets sick---seek treatment at first vet---vet yells at them and threatens to report them (that is a nice professional "start") . Intimidated people are sent to specialty clinic, given option of euthanasia or reliquishment after good faith attempt to apply for credi is denied. People obviously care about Fifi and see no choice. Dog gets treated, people go home to mull over life without Fifi and wonder what their rights are.

You're right I see that Florida does allow "liens" which now I take to mean "keep the animal" until payment is received in full. (that could render almost any animal unclaimable, if board, interest, etc. gets tacked on)

Still, something is unprofessional all the way around. There are sadly ignorant people that have pets. Is there state funded spay/neuter programs , that we enjoy in New Hampshire??

Any of the attorneys in your animal law group "snow birds"? I feel like I live on the other side of the world, when one advertised "animal law attorney" from Concord told me I should feel "even" by not paying the $600 balance of over $3000 already paid for the CRUEL INHUMANE (euthanasia) murder done to my pet in my face!! And I would imagine you find that as offensive and unbelievable in 2006.

*** Dr. Khuly is there any way to get my subscription activated again??

Barb Albright March 22nd, 2008 03:51:00 PM

Well, the lawyers don't have to worry about being labeled 'animal rights' folk because an AR group would have called for immediate death for the dog in question.

Don't forget, the animal rights movement wants to end the domestication of animals through extinction. It has nothing to do with promoting better treatment of them.

Do you have a pet overpopulation problem in Florida? In most other places, local shelters are importing dogs from other states/provinces or even countries because there just aren't enough around to fill demand. Must be the high sterilization compliance among owners. Or something.

If there is an overabundance of adoptable animals, out-of-state agencies could probably assist. Up here in Ontario, almost all the dogs in shelters are imports and they are never puppies.

I presume if this is a problem in Florida, then the puppies in pet shops and markets are going unpurchased as well.

Very interesting, must look into some statistics down there.

Caveat March 22nd, 2008 06:12:00 PM

Stefani

I may be wrong, and Dr. Khuly could probably comment on US veterinary regulations, but as far as I know veterinarians have every right to refuse euthanasia. The owners can then either choose a treatment option, surrender (in some cases), or see if another vet will euthanise.

The problem you speak of arises when a vet and a client sign a contract (a euthanasia consent form) to put a specific animal to sleep. The clients then leave the premises under the impression that the act will be performed within a reasonable amount of time. If the vet then fails to uphold his end of the contract he is violation of the law. Any vet can get around this by simply refusing the euth and not entering the contract.

An animal is property in the eyes of the law. The owners can do whatever they wish with their property except anything that could be deemed inhumane by animal cruelty laws. If they choose to euthanise their pet that is their right.

Meghan RAHT March 22nd, 2008 07:43:00 PM

To second Meghan's comment - Veterinarians are under no obligation (by law or otherwise) to euthanize an animal at an owner's request. The decision is based upon a veterinary-client-patient relationship where both parties come to a conclusion of what is the best option for the animal given the circumstances.

Michelle Schwab March 22nd, 2008 08:46:00 PM

Although I hope you are right about the euth thing, that is not what I have been told by vet office staff in both MD and VA. So, either they don't know the law/are misinformed, or they had another reason for telling me that. I think this may differ state-to-state: Most laws pertaining to vet medicine do.

And while it may be the "law" that pets are property and an owner who wants to have then killed even if they are perfectly healthy is within their rights, I hope you can agree that a vet who for some reason can't bring themselves to do it -- even after agreeing to do so - and who instead treats and/or rescues an animal, certainly doesn't deserve to be punished MORE harshly that vets who commit serious acts of negligence or malpractice harming animals. It doesn't seem fair to me.

Stefani March 22nd, 2008 10:58:00 PM

In the case you presented, Stefani, if the vet had already agreed to perform the euth and the consent had been signed and the procedure paid for, then it WOULD have been illegal for the staff to rehome the cat.

As an aside, as someone who has worked in a shelter and as an owner of a cat with an inappropriate urination issue, I don't believe re-homing these cats is a good idea in most cases. If medical issues have been ruled out and the issue IS behavioural, placing them in a shelter or foster situation is unfair to the cat IMO. These cats can sit in a shelter for the rest of their lives- no one wants a house that smells like cat pee. Don't judge those owners until you have walked in their shoes (or sat on their urine soaked sofa ;)).

Meghan RAHT March 22nd, 2008 11:33:00 PM

Meghan, as I think I said in the original post, the cat had recurrent urinary tract infections that the vet thought was causing the problem. This couple was just tired of dealing with it. They did not think it was a behavioral issue, that's what the vets office told me.

As for the other point about vets getting punished for not euthing treatable cats when they have agreed to do so -- I don't disagree that it is a violation. My point is, that when veterinary boards give so little discipline vets who commit acts of COMISSION that hurt (such as losing their tempers and body slamming an animal on a table), it seems quite wrong to me that they would choose to punish a vet who SAVED an animal MUCH more severely -- but that is what they do, at least in the Texas cases am thinking of .

Stefani March 23rd, 2008 09:07:00 AM

Michelle, I guess the veterinary/client/patient relationship has become so distorted that it was ok to deny my requests for euthanasia for my much beloved dying Pocket, since Dr. MacGregor felt it wasn't in "her" best interest, at least not until it was apparent that she could not eat for an entire seven days. Are veterinarians going to use this distortion to prolong animal suffering and bilk owners ?? Hopefully not.
Oh, and what was the referral doctors responsibility in all this, Dr. Sara Curry?? That pushed me there to begin with? And never a single phone call??

I am not suggesting that "this is the norm", but concerned it may become acceptable practice. And certainly in New Hampshire, one has to be extremely concerned of their pet's treatment, particularly if potassium chloride 'euthanasia' by licensed professionals for dollars is condoned. To me, that means "anything goes"

Barb Albright March 23rd, 2008 12:14:00 PM

I will attempt to answer the questions and comments that have been posed to me-

The Animal Law Committee plans one or two CLE's (continuing legal education seminars) each year. The committee does not take positions on legislation nor propose legislation. No, the attorney member are not snow birds.

Yes-we have a huge pet overpopulation problem. South Florida animal shelters have one of the highest kill rates of anywhere in the country. Literally tens of thousands of healthy, behaviorally sound unwanted companion animals are killed every year in Palm Beach, Broward and Miami Dade County. I checked the Miami-Dade Animal Services website today-they had 35 puppies less than three months old. Likely more than half of them be killed. As for the almost 200 adult dog, including purebreds, 80% will be killed, and 90% of the cats. Please don't blame the shelter or its staff, they do the best they can in a crowded, underfunded facility coping with the results of other people's irresponsibility every single day.The Miami shelter has a good working relationship with local rescues and have vastly increased adoptions in the last couple years, but there are many more animals than there are homes for them.

As to the question regarding whether puppies in pet stores remain unpurchased-I wish to hell they did. If people stopped buying puppies from pet stores they would go out of business, as would the puppy mills that crank out supposedly purebred puppies without any regard for their genetic soundness or temperament-and finally there would be some hope for the parents of those puppies, the adult dogs that spend their entire lives in cages being bred every cycle to keep puppy stores in stock. USDA regs do not require that the dogs that make up the adult "breeding stock" be allowed out of their cages to exercise. Ever.

Barb- I am not offended by an attorney's suggestion that you should feel even by failing to pay the balance owed to a vet without knowing a lot more about the situation. I do offer my condolences for your loss.

This is Dr. K's blog-not mine-I hand this thread back to her with an even increased admiration. If someone has a burning desire to discuss these issues further, I can be emailed at marcyl@justice.com

Marcy LaHart March 23rd, 2008 03:27:00 PM

Thank you Attorney LaHart, for taking the time to guest blog, filter through our comments and address my (our) questions. Barbara--NH

Barb Albright March 23rd, 2008 08:55:00 PM

By the way, I welcome guest bloggers here and on the Virtual Vet Hospital. If you have a specific health issue, the VVH is the best forum. If it's an issue with a wider scope, I'd love it if you'd email me any submissions.

Dr. Patty Khuly March 24th, 2008 02:17:00 PM

Dr. K ~ I just want to thank you having this site, listening to all of our input, putting up with all the put-downs, and keeping a generally positive outlook. I think your site is great, and it provides an excellent forum for people that are passionate about animal issues, both their own and others.

I think the guest blogger is a great idea, even if it apparently gets you in hot water! ;0)

Creature of Habit March 25th, 2008 09:40:00 AM

fbfb March 2nd, 2009 10:59:43 AM

oxycodone Online
Oxycodone No Rx
Buy Oxycodone 40mg
Buy Oxycodone

Oxycodoni March 21st, 2009 08:22:24 PM

tahks for all شات صوتي
منتديات الوله
دردشة صوتية
الولة
شات

wwtde April 4th, 2009 07:15:12 PM

There are different types of anti bark collar . One type is remote dog collar . As the name suggests, it is used to stop a dog from constant, inappropriate barking. This collar is triggered by the dogs bark. remote bark collar works by either a vibration or a sound that is felt or heard by the dog the instant the barking starts. It can be set to different levels and responds only to your dogs bark. There are also dog bark collar that work by spraying an unpleasant spray towards the dogs face as soon as he starts barking.