"luckily for the animals, they went to good homes"
Yes, but how do we know this? She lied about so many other things, how do we know she is telling the truth about this? It just sickened me every time she would say, "this pet went to a great home and he is just so much happier than he was with me". If that's the case, maybe she just shouldn't have pets at all. After all, she said herself, they are so much happier when they leave.
And I can tell you from working at rescue, going from home to home is not always a good thing. We have some dogs and cats at the rescue that are depressed, won't eat, etc. And even after being sent to a foster home, some of these pets never adjust. They always mourn for their former owner. Just think how MANY pets were formerly owned by Katz. As someone else mentioned, she has rehomed more pets than I have owned in my entire life, and I am much older than her! The difference is, I don't take on more than I can handle. Yes, it is tempting. But first and foremost, I have to be fair to the pets and do what is best for THEM- NOT what gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.
It must depend on whether you're a "glass half empty" kind of person or a "glass half full". I see a whole bunch of half empty people here.
I can't comment much on her previous situations. No, I don't agree with rehoming for convenience. But there ARE facts here that judgemental people seem to want to sweep under the rug.
This dog was in a shelter for two weeks (from what's been said) and it had NOT been bathed and NOT been vet checked. Chows are a tough sell to people. They don't have the best reputation and if they don't look good on top of it, likelihoods are that they won't be adopted. Maybe this shelter would have held him for six months .. maybe a chow rescue would have come along that had the resources and the foster home available that could have taken him. And maybe he would have died there at the shelter. No one can know for sure.
The fact remains that katz adopted this dog - probably at an expense to her - and took it out of a shelter situation where he was likely living in a concrete kennel with little one-on-one interaction. She took this dog into her home. The dog was matted and had some obvious health problems.
The fact remains that she had this dog groomed - at her expense.
The fact remains that she took the dog to a vet to be properly checked out and diagnosed - something the shelter had not done in those two weeks - also at her own expense.
The fact remains that at this point, he is in a better situation to be adopted than he was when he was ungroomed at the shelter.
HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU PEOPLE THINK THIS IS A BAD THING?
She may very well have misrepresented the situation, and her motives in that are unknown. But whether she adopted to keep him, or adopted to foster and rehome, this dog is NO LONGER in a kennel at a shelter (which then opens up room for another needy dog) and now has been physically taken care of with grooming and a veterinary visit.
This didn't cost any of YOU money. So why all the vitriolic outpourings? It honestly sounds like someone with a vindictive nature who had something against her has decided to cause trouble. To go to the point of actually calling the shelter .. well, all I can say is some people have to live with their own despicable natures.
You may not agree with her motives. You may not agree with what she's done in the past. But for me, I see that a dog - a chow, no less, which is a breed that is not conducive to healthy living in a shelter - has been taken into a home and provided with care that it had not gotten in those two weeks at the shelter. If she rehomes the dogs .. well, so be it. He's STILL better off right now than he was before she came into his life.
Hundreds of chows are sitting with rescue people and in foster homes right now. If she had gone through a rescue group and agreed to foster the dog, had completed the paperwork and then taken him home and done the grooming and vet check, then would you all be happy? The dog would have been handled the same exact way, but maybe you would feel she'd kissed the right butts along the way.
Let's look at what's been done for the animal and get away from your own personal feelings. This dog is in a better situation now, regardless of the "maybe's" that people want to throw out there. It's pathetic that people are so blinded by their desire to throw mud that they can't see what's been done right.
It's also pathetic that people - people who I'm sure have no qualifications to assess the situation - are actually suggesting that this person has mental issues.
Maybe you all need to take a step back and look at your own "perfect" lives. You're so caught up in the "oh she lied about her intentions" that you're failing to see that she has done something good for this dog.
Laevsk, I can understand that you might feel that Katz is being slighted if you have not corresponded with her for very long. On the surface, it just looks like people are upset because she is trying to help a dog. But I have been reading her posts for a couple of years, and it is a pattern with her (and one that is hard to ignore) to get a new pet and get rid of her previous ones.
To understand, think of an older dog that you may have had, maybe for years.. Then you get a new dog, and suddenly, there are reasons why the old one simply cannot stay with you "for his own good and happiness." It is really frustrating. When she posts about getting a new pet, I always wonder which old one will go, and unfortunately, I normally find out exactly which one within a month. This has happened more than once or twice or even three times-- numerous times.
Katz herself realized that she had a problem with this and wrote that she now sees the problem and made an agreement with her husband not to get anymore pets. If you work in rescue or are close with anyone who does, you are probably familiar with people who bring pets into the family, appear to love them as family, and then get a new and exciting pet and dump the old ones. This is something she does constantly, and always claiming (and probably convincing herself) that the animal will be SO much happier with some other perfect family. In the case of Koda, the older chow mix that she "re-homed" very recently, the circumstances that required that he must go (and incidently, had to live OUTSIDE at Katz's house and watch Ching, the new puppy, through the glass door) were really out there and almost impossible to make sense of involving medical conditions in both owner and dog that nobody had heard of and which produced no results when googled. There's been so much lying (which in several incidents, Katz eventually admitted to) that it's impossible to even know what part of what she says is true and what is made up anymore.
I know that if you only just came upon the situation, it looks like people are trying to be ugly, but understand that there is so much more than meets the eye.
I wish Katz and Harley, and Chi-Ching as well, the best of luck. I think Katz would also make a good volunteer to foster through an organization, where she could take in new ones, fix 'em up, and with the help of the rescue, send them to a forever home. I think it would be satisfying for her and a good thing for the fosters, plus the rescue organization would somewhat monitor so that things didn't get out of hand and more than she can handle.
***Edited By: shinyblackpit on 6/9/2006 1:13:51 PM*** Reason: asdfasdf
I am shocked. It suprises me that there are legitimate threads begging for responses to health issues, and other things that have less than 10 replies. Yet, this thread now has 105 posts. I think that everything has been said. The mods have done a great job regulating this forum, and there have been alot of good points made. I just wonder, why is so much time spent on this, while the other threads ar going to the wayside????
I 'found' this forum, because one of you buttinski's thought it would be a good idea to let the entire world know they think Katz, or as I know her Chowlover, has problems, and is a fraud. In an effort to do this, they put a direct link to this topic at a Chow forum, Whosnameshallnotbespoken. (My first post, and I know the rules better than the members) The fact that you justify contacting the shelter to expose 'fraud' is pure chow poopie. The fact you could generate so much debate in a 24 hour period is proof you have too much time on your hands. I heard the same stories about the same rescues. First, any cat that ends up rescued in any manner should be considered extremely lucky. They are considered to be a throw away animal to a large part of the population, and those poor strays that aren't tortured by cathater's end up feral. Any rescue is an improvement. Yes, she has gone through a fair amount of dogs. I also think she has a good heart, and is not placing dogs in any worse a situation than they would get as a pound rescue. Do I wish she did her rescues as part of an organization? Of course. Do I think she embellishes her stories? Yes. Did she embellish when she posted at the other forum all you do is fight here? I THINK NOT. Please keep the fighting and finger pointing in this little circle of snipers (you know who you are) And have the rocks to sign up at the other site with the same name you use here! Or were you trying to emulate the unabomber? Auddymay
embellish = lie. doesnt matter how it is suger coated. lying is lying. period. its bad enough to be lied to, but then after a person admits to that lie/s and continues to lie by ommission, its hard to take them seriously because the trust is now gone.
Bella, I saw one about luxating patellas, but I have no experience or knowledge about that. Some days I just like to read and look at pics anyway. But don't you worry, I do try to be helpful when someone has a health question that I have experienced! Easy Killer! :-)
I tried to explain this situation because I have seen it and new members were thinking that a lot of people were trying to be vindictive, and they couldn't be blamed for thinking so without understanding the history.
Oh, please forgive me if I came across as rude. I did not mean to do that at all. I'm just stressed because Bella's eyes are still not opened. I called to check on the littermates and their's are not open either. She is 16 days old, and I am starting to worry.
It is truely sad, Dusty, that all you gleaned (got out of) my post was that the word embellish is another word for lie. Herein lies the problem with 'you people'. You will forever be peeling bark from your forehead, because you can't see the forest for the trees. BTW, I have a large vocabulary, and use the words I know often. I find when it comes to heated debates, my opponents are woefully underarmed, so to speak. Knowing this, I try to keep such debates to a minimum. Also, it is obvious debating (arguing) around here is like wrestling a pig in mud, all you get is dirty, and the pig enjoys it. Therefore, I shall not.
i DO see that you , come here not knowing "we people" at all. totally unaware of the situation and judge some of us with no idea as to the facts. i can take being lied to, or even an "embellished" story or two. when it is continually repeated, i tend to not put my faith in the words of the person that continually CHOOSES to lie. i certainly can not defend a liar , at least not a repeating one. if you chosse to do that , thats up to you, but do not come here pointing fingers at the ones that have had these lies repeatedly put in their face time and time again and have finally said "enough is enough".
Prehaps if you, or whichever 'well intentioned soul', hadn't BARGED onto 'my site' and posted a link directly to this topic, you wouldn't be getting the Wrath of Aud right now. But one of you did. I guess they wanted to 'enlighten' us. And, had you bothered reading (and absorbing) everthing I posted, you would know that I infact DO know Katz's full history. All I had to do is read a bit to see what you are all about. It doesn't feel good, does it- to have someone come barging in here, does it? I would never have showed up here if you had just kept your nose out of other people's business. Finally, I would like to ask, who amongst you was it? I'd say Dusty, but who knows? WHICH ONE OF YOU posted the link? Actions speak louder than words, and the link was an act of a coward...meant to incite, not help. Enough, I'm already getting that mud on me. Have fun bashing.
sorry , but cant take credit for that one. i dont know who posted it and dont really care. dont care about any of the others actions. i cant speak for them. i base my opinions on what i feel . i have been lied to. not once, but several times. i dont care what her "intentions" were. she could have been truthful, no one forced her invent stories and twist the truth. i asked her in PRIVATE about the fostering. she could have been truthful then. she still chose to lie. you can believe what you want about any of us here. i do not care. but i find it strange that she chose to run instead of dealing with the lies she herself created. now she needs others to come to her defense. thats fine if thats what you feel you need to do. you may have known her for a long time, BUT you do not know me. so until you do, assumptions is all that you will come up with.
While I did not share the link elsewhere, Nor did Dusty, I was aware it was cross posted. It was done without any editorializing in rebuttal of the stalking of her family accusations. To allow you to draw your own conclusions? Aside from any issues over shelters, pets, rescue, etc... her implications that someone was stalking her was a rather serious issue. One which you all seem to have taken to heart (rightfully so), but were blatently untrue.
I would also like to ask, which Chow was of more value to you, the one she left outdoors 24/7 and then re-homed (Koda) or the one she took from the shelter which works closely with the area Chow rescue that would have seen him groomed, vetted, medical care provided then placed in an appropriate home?
***Edited By: pyrmom on 6/9/2006 4:25:38 PM*** Reason: **
Laevsk, you're awesome. I like that you're not too shallow to look beneath the surface. Unfortunately, too many people here are, You can argue wisdom til you're blue in the face (or fingers), but most are too preoccuppied by "the bark on their forehead".
Oh grow up already. The woman lied. She got caught. People are pissed. What do you expect, do you want us to say "oh we're so sorry we upset you Katz, even though you lied to us". NOT! Nobody here has any reason to be sorry. She lies, she rehomes more animals than most of us will ever even own in a lifetime, and she acts like a little child. "Oh feel bad for me, I'm leaving the forum..." give me a break.
What's disturbing is members saying she's mentally unstable . There's no excuse for that statement ,it's not fair to Kat to insinuate such a thing.That's flat out mean and uncalled for.
Just wanted to say, the only reference I saw regarding anyone calling her 'mentally unstable' was actually a member referring to the disease Munchausen by Proxy, in which cases a person will (in simplest forms) hurt their children in order to gather attention for themselves.
She/he was not stating Katz had THAT illness, but stating the possibility does exist that she may have SOME illness (perhaps the same one that 'hoarders' have?), which cause her to do some of the things she's been 'accused' of.
I didn't see the post as disrepspectful, mean, or uncalled for. It was merely speculation into the 'whys' of all of this.
pyrmom wrote: While I did not share the link elsewhere, Nor did Dusty, I was aware it was cross posted. It was done without any editorializing in rebuttal of the stalking of her family accusations. To allow you to draw your own conclusions? Aside from any issues over shelters, pets, rescue, etc... her implications that someone was stalking her was a rather serious issue. One which you all seem to have taken to heart (rightfully so), but were blatently untrue.
I had planned on not commenting further, but since you are moderator, I thought a reply was necessary. What I am reading is, that neither you, nor Dusty posted at the Chow Forum, but you know who did, and condone it in the guise of a stalking implication, cleared up. Maybe if you had actually read what was posted at the Chow site, and the responses we gave Katz there, you would have known it was unnecessary to set up a link. Unlike here, at the Chow site, we actually like each other, and can draw our own conclusions without input from, dare I say, Do-gooders. Our most heated debates look like sunday tea compared to here. In the post I quoted, you went on to make an off-hand comment about Koda and Harley that put it in perspective for me about how you really feel about Katz. Admit that you don't like Katz, and that is the reason you condoned the link, not to clear up any stalking misunderstanding. I guess some lying is acceptable around here after all. So tawdry.