Not a friend of 'Friends of Homeless Animals'
Printer-Friendly
Email this Letter
Post a Comment (0)
We are writing this letter to expose an injustice on the part of a local animal rescue organization, Friends of Homeless Animals (FoHA).
They have reclaimed the two dogs we adopted from them two years ago because we placed a static bark collar on the dogs when no one was home.
FoHA never informed us, either through their adoption contract, accompanying literature, visit, phone call, e-mail, or website that they objected to this veterinary approved method of controlling nuisance barking. Their adoption contract includes the clause "if Friends is not satisfied with the care of this animal, at their request, I will willingly give up this animal to them."
FoHA has used this undefined clause to confiscate our dogs even after we agreed to switch to one of their recommended bark control remedies. They advised us that their decision is final and that there is no avenue for appeal.
We were never given the opportunity to address the board prior to their decision.
We regularly donate to the Humane Society of the United States and to the ASPCA. My son is a volunteer through Centreville High School at local dog adoption events. Our family is the antithesis of animal abusers. We have adopted several dogs and cats (and other animals) across the years and have had the privilege to experience the wonderful, unconditional love these animals unselfishly give. We are extremely upset knowing that a member of our family is separated from us, trapped in a stark kennel, alone and afraid.
Anyone considering adopting an animal from Friends of Homeless Animals needs to be aware that their adoption contract includes this open ended clause and that this faceless organization can, and will, without warning, justification, or recourse, use it to take a loved member of your family away, even after more than two years. While the mission of FoHA is noble and appreciated, that of saving animals from kill-shelters, their tyrannical enforcement of arbitrary rules undermines their credibility and serves neither the best interests of the animals nor of their adoptive families.
John and Dawn Tillie
Clifton
You must be logged in to post a comment.