Defining the meaning of humane

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 02/12/2014 (4046 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

I know what kind of feedback I got over Saturday’s column.

A lot of emails dripping tears.

But I was wondering about what sort of incoming messages the Winnipeg Humane Society received. So Monday I called and asked.

The story concerned a homeless man who surrendered his dog to the shelter in order to save the three-year-old border collie-blue healer cross from the winter weather. In the process, Richard Pesti pretended Doogie wasn’t his pet because he said he feared the humane society wouldn’t take him if they knew the dog was his.

And then, three weeks later, when I asked whether Pesti could see his dog again, the humane society refused because it would be too stressful for Doogie.

So what was the reaction on the phone lines and in the email inboxes at the WHS?

“We haven’t had too much reaction from it,” said Laina Hughes, the organization’s media handler. “There’s been people interested in adopting the dog. That sort of thing. But, all in all, we didn’t get too much feedback from it.”

Any criticism or kudos?

“Um,” Hughes started. Then paused.

“Not really,” she continued, “… I haven’t really touched base with all the departments yet. I know over the weekend our adoptions desk, they got a handful of questions. But it was generally people who were just wanting to know how the dog was doing and that sort of thing.”

Really?

Here’s what one Free Press reader said in an email sent to me over the weekend: “I do donate to the humane society,” the man wrote.

And, he continued, he always will, but… “I did let them know that your article bothered me… I did tell them that I was not pleased on how they dealt with the situation…”

There’s a bigger question, though, one fundamental to the story of how some shelters, and some people, look at the disadvantaged having pets, and being able to look after them.

In this particular case, that bigger question is whether the humane society would be open to helping reunite Pesti and Doogie through a foster placement, in the hopes that Pesti can find a job and a home for both of them.

So I asked Hughes that.

“I’d have to look into that,” she said. “I’m not sure how that would work.”

Has there been any talk of working to reunite them?

“Not that I know of,” Hughes answered. “No.”

But she promised to get back to me with an answer.

While we wait, I should share the reaction I received personally.

Almost all of it was sympathetic to Pesti and Doogie as a pair, and much of it, as I suggested, was openly emotional. There were readers who offered money because they couldn’t provide shelter, and others who said they contacted the WHS wanting to foster Doogie for Pesti. Another dog rescuer, who lives out of town, even offered to shelter both of them, as did two other readers, one as far away as Brandon.

The only email of more than a dozen that didn’t fully support Pesti came from a vet student who said she was “passionate about the human-animal bond, especially the bond between Canada’s underprivileged and their pets.”

“Unfortunately,” she added, “while sympathizing greatly for Richard… I couldn’t help but be disappointed in your portrayal of the Winnipeg Humane Society. They work with the best interest of the animal at heart, and I have to agree that introducing Doogie again to Richard, only to separate them again, would be heartbreaking for a dog who simply cannot understand what is happening to him.”

But then there was this email from Neil D. Charnock, an Oakbank Animal Hospital veterinarian, who wrote:

“Dear Mr. Sinclair,

“I rarely get upset enough to respond to issues that arise in the media these days, but this one galls me. I find the attitude and behaviour of Laina Hughes as a representative of the Winnipeg Humane Society appalling and insensitive to say the very least. Mr. Pesti made a very difficult decision for the best welfare of his pet. A kind, loving and extremely unselfish decision, one that I have gratefully never had to make, but can understand none the less. Yes, the Humane Society is there to shelter and help protect animals from abuse and suffering, but I do not see how this decision protects Doogie one bit. We believe dogs ‘live in the moment’ and I know from personal experience that dogs as well as many other species can move on from previous situations to enjoy new beginnings with new owners… sometimes several times. To allow Doogie one last moment of extreme joy and fun I think it would have been an extremely kind gesture if the Humane Society would have given Mr. Pesti and Doogie some time together in a warm safe environment for what was to be their last time together. Animals can be sad I know, I truly believe this, but they can also be extremely joyous and why not let them both revel in that final time together. If this is some sort of blanket policy, it should be reviewed.”

*  *  *

As for that bigger question — whether the WHS will use the foster-placement program to help Pesti be reunited with Doogie, Laina Hughes got back to me Monday afternoon.

She said that “will need to remain unanswered” until later this week when Bill McDonald, the organization’s CEO, is expected back in his office.

That should give the Winnipeg Humane Society enough time to figure out the true meaning of humane.

I would hope.

gordon.sinclair@freepress.mb.ca