Rescue has woman apply to adopt her own dog

[tifosi77]

Lost dog's 'rescue' leaves a 4-year-old brokenhearted

Raffiki gets a new home even as the original owner is trying to adopt the puppy — and deemed unqualified.

It feels like there is a lot between the lines of this story. Purebred Rhodesian ridgebacks are extremely rare finds in shelters/rescues, and for one to end up placed in a home less than a full day after coming into the rescue - sans home visit - is extremely fishy to me.

[Idoit40fans]

Rhodesians are awesome. That story is weird.

[dodint]

My opinion on rescues has been documented, therefore, I'll just let this odd situation stand as supporting evidence.

[shafnutz05]

Yeah my wife's family has had two Rhodesians, their most recent died a year and a half ago. Great dogs.

I agree, the story is weird. I empathize with the family, but I also wonder...if this dog is so important to you, how in the WORLD do you let it outside without ID tags? Why isn't she spayed? Why isn't she microchipped?

I can say that as soon as we got our goldendoodle, those were the first three things we did. I mean, the fact she isn't spayed makes her more likely to wander off as it is, and she has no tags?

If I was the family that adopted her, I would feel pretty awful about it and probably give the dog up immediately. But there are legitimate questions to be asked of the original owners as well.

[dodint]

I lied, I have to comment, because internet.

If dogs are legally deemed property with no rights, charge the rescue with receiving and selling stolen property. If this were a painting the original owner would already have it back.

[KennyTheKangaroo]

this reminds me of something that would have happened in the book catch 22

[Hockeynut!]

She supposedly looked everywhere, put up fliers, posted online, etc. but didn't check with a shelter 10 miles away? Yeah, I'm not buying that.

[Hockeynut!]

I lied, I have to comment, because internet.

If dogs are legally deemed property with no rights, charge the rescue with receiving and selling stolen property. If this were a painting the original owner would already have it back.

But was it stolen property? The dog was allowed to run off. If I'm in town and lose my watch, it someone else finds it and keeps it, are they legally required to give it back to me?

[dodint]

"Dear Mrs., Mr., Miss, or Mr. and Mrs. Daneeka: Words cannot express the deep personal grief I experienced when your husband, son, father, or brother was killed, wounded, or reported missing in action."

[dodint]

The donation fee was collected after the 'rescue' knew who the original owner was. Good enough for me.

[Hockeynut!]

I think the dog should have been returned to her, but irresponsible dog owners really drive me nuts. I know a dog can run off, but they should always have a collar with ID tags to prevent something like this from happening. The owner dropped the ball on several counts. Does that make them bad dog owners? I guess that's up for debate.

[Hockeynut!]

I also found more info from the rescue group:

- On February 21 at 6:03 p.m., Karma received, and approved, an adoption application for Kami, and requested the applicant family have an in-person meet-and-greet with her. That family met Kami at NKLA and took her home that day.

- At 6:54 p.m. that evening, Karma Rescue received an e-mail containing a second application for Kami from "Rosa Torres." However, this application was not reviewed until after the adoption was complete. Karma received a voicemail at 4:57 p.m. from "Rosa Torres" in which she claimed to be the dog's owner. Karma had not been aware of this voicemail until after the adoption had taken place.

- At 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, February 22, Karma contacted "Rosa Torres" to let her know Kami had lready been adopted. She was also informed that had she contacted the organization sooner, Karma would have been in a better position to reunite her with her dog. During the aforementioned telephone conversation with Ms. Torres, she was also informed that Karma had spoken with Kami's adopters, the dog's now-legal owners, to apprise them of the situation.

- At all times, Karma has acted legally, in good faith, and with the best interests of the dog as a priority. LAAS and the LAPD have confirmed that there has been no illegal conduct on the part of the rescue

[shafnutz05]

I think the dog should have been returned to her, but irresponsible dog owners really drive me nuts. I know a dog can run off, but they should always have a collar with ID tags to prevent something like this from happening. The owner dropped the ball on several counts. Does that make them bad dog owners? I guess that's up for debate.

This. I am not denying they took good care of that dog, but it is sheer and utter stupidity to not have tags on your dogs. Again, ESPECIALLY if you are going to make the (unwise) decision to not spay her.

[mac5155]

The dog was 8 months old. I'm giving them a pass as ive always read getting a dog spayed before full grown has the potential to stunt it's growth. Also, that's usually the time when they are chipped

[Hockeynut!]

I can understand the dog not being spayed, but why didn't it have a collar with ID tags? Unless they're getting baths, my dogs are never without their collars.

I also don't understand how you "look everywhere" for your missing dog, but never check with a shelter 10 mi from your home. If one of my dogs ever got away, I'd be calling every shelter within about a 100 mi radius to have them be on the lookout.

[tifosi77]

Here is a cached version of Raffiki's adoption listing.

The dog arrived at the West Valley Shelter sans tags or other ID. That does not mean the dog was not properly collared at home when it went missing.

The rescue's own timeline asserts that they received and approved of the adoption to a new family less than one day after getting the dog out of the shelter. There was no home visit, and in fact the adoption was approved by Karma before the adopting family had even met the dog.

Altering ridgebacks is something that is not recommended until the animal has grown into its frame a bit; neutering at too young an age often promotes overly-rapid long bone growth that has been linked to cancer. Spaying/netuering young also tends to lead to aggression in females and intense shyness in males. And honestly microchipping is something the breeder should have handled before the pup was ever given over in the first place. The fact that she was unaltered at 8 months old is not only unremarkable, it is actually medically appropriate.

(I have ridgeback envy; my wife and I love the breed, but know ourselves well enough to recognize that we couldn't handle the activity requirements.)

She supposedly looked everywhere, put up fliers, posted online, etc. but didn't check with a shelter 10 miles away? Yeah, I'm not buying that.

This is my neck of the woods. I can't imagine if one of my dogs went missing that I'd be calling shelters that far away. This isn't the same as PA; Panorama City to Chatsworth may only be ten miles apart, but I bet that ten miles has a quarter million people in it (including me and Mrs Tif), and depending on the time of day might represent a 45 minute drive. There are something like 8 or 9 other shelters between her home and the place where her dog ended up. And it's not as if the woman was completely passive.

[Hockeynut!]

I'll certainly defer to your knowledge on the geography. The situation sucks all the way around. I think she should have got the dog back and feel bad for her and for the new owners.

[tifosi77]

That's the central question that I'm trying to have answered: How did this dog end up in a Chatsworth shelter?

My spider-sense is tingling on this one. Between the dog ending up in a shelter far from the animal's home and the speed and manner by which the pup was adopted out.... something seems fishy. I detect the faint aroma of shenanigans.

[Idoit40fans]

If it were a mutt it wouldn't be strange, but yeah...

[tifosi77]

Where's Raffiki page the owner put up on Facebook. Pics of the dog at home with a collar on, and an account of the 6-foot high fence surrounding the backyard.

Lexi Quinn appears to be the actual name of the owner; not sure how 'Rosa Torres' came into the picture, but it's another goofy twist to the story.

[Shyster]

From what I can see, everything that happened in this case was compliant with California law. The dog was picked up as a stray and sent to a government-run pound. Under Cal. Ag. Code § 31108, a dog must be impounded for no less than 6 business days so that the owner can try to claim it. After 6 days, the dog can be euthanized or released to a nonprofit shelter. A shelter must, prior to adoption, "scan the dog for a microchip that identifies the owner of that dog and shall make reasonable efforts to contact the owner and notify him or her that his or her dog is impounded and is available for redemption."

Karma obtained the dog from the public pound after the requisite waiting period. The government-run pound could have euthanized the dog at that time, but they chose to transfer it to Karma. Karma at that time had full control and ownership. And Karma was not able to scan the dog or otherwise contact the owner because dog wasn't chipped or tagged and they had no idea who the owner was. They went through with an adoption and weren't aware of the claim put in by Ms. Torres until after that went through. Alas for her, that was too late.

[Shyster]

Where's Raffiki page the owner put up on Facebook. Pics of the dog at home with a collar on, and an account of the 6-foot high fence surrounding the backyard.

Lexi Quinn appears to be the actual name of the owner; not sure how 'Rosa Torres' came into the picture, but it's another goofy twist to the story.

According to a letter posted on Karma's Facebook page, they have no idea who Lexi Quinn is and were always dealing with someone named Rosa Torres.

[mac5155]

In this scenario I think we can sum it up with a big lebowski quote. "you're not wrong, you're just an *******"

[shafnutz05]

In this scenario I think we can sum it up with a big lebowski quote. "you're not wrong, you're just an *******"

Wat

[tifosi77]

I agree with Shyster that the facts of the case are not indicative of any illegal activity on the part of the rescue. But I also think mac‘s right; this isn't so much a question of legal improriety as it is a moral and ethical play. To me, tbe moment the rightful owner came forward, all adoption proceedings should have ceased immediately. And Karma‘s claim tbat they were legally powerless to rescind the adoption reeks of utter bullsh|t. I've never encountered a rescue that doesn't have express language in their contracts affording a period of time (usually around 30 days) to cancel the adoption of a stray if the rightful owner comes forward.

Between the identity of the owner, and the hinky way the adoption was carried out, this is just a really goofy story.

And I didn't realize this until after I shared the story on Facebook, but one of Mrs Tif‘s best friends is a foster volunteer for Karma. So that's awkward.