“Budget cuts force animal shelters to stop taking lost reports, will no longer search for lost pets - New York Daily News” plus 2 more |
- Budget cuts force animal shelters to stop taking lost reports, will no longer search for lost pets - New York Daily News
- Legal trusts provide for pets after owner dies - Seattle Times
- In the Case of a Terrier, ‘No Pets Allowed’ Is Overruled - New York Times Blogs
| Posted: 11 Nov 2010 01:37 AM PST  Buckowski/Times Union As of December first, local animal shelters will no longer search their facilities for missing pets, forcing owners to visit shelters to check.It just got a lot tougher for lost pets to find their way home. City animal shelters, crippled by deep budget cuts, have stopped taking lost reports. After Dec. 1, staffers will no longer search their three facilities for missing dogs and cats. That has angered rescuers, who fear pets separated from their owners could end up being adopted or euthanized before they're identified. "I can't even believe this is happening," said Bonnie Folz, a dog trainer and animal rescuer who helps reunite lost pets with their owners. "It's just horrible." New York City Animal Care and Control, which operates under a contract with the city Health Department, said it doesn't have enough manpower for searches. The nonprofit's budget has been slashed more than $1.5 million over the past two years. Heartbroken owners are being told to visit the shelters in upper Manhattan, East New York and Staten Island to look for their missing pets. They can also check the AC&C website, which links to a lost-and-found web service called petharbor.com. "They are not posting pictures of all the animals in the facilities," said Folz, who helped lead the search for missing showdog Vivi several years ago. "Sometimes the description is wrong. People get breeds mixed up all the time." Health Department officials said staff will attempt to contact owners of animals who enter shelters with ID tags and microchips. Exceptions will be made for disabled pet owners. Stray dogs and cats are held for 72 hours in city shelters before being put up for adoption, but animals deemed unadoptable or sick can be euthanized. Rescuers said it will be difficult for owners to repeatedly visit all three shelters to see if their lost dog or cat shows up - a process can take weeks. "This is going to really affect pet owners and end up with animals dying who did have homes," said Jane Hoffman of the Mayor's Alliance for NYC's Animals, a coalition of rescue groups. "This is a basic service that any shelter should be providing to the community." This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| Legal trusts provide for pets after owner dies - Seattle Times Posted: 10 Nov 2010 06:56 PM PST Buzz and Hilda love to ramble around their Elk Grove, Calif., home, taking naps or chasing after their chew toys by day, curling up in the family-room recliner at night. Nancy King, their devoted owner, doesn't want that routine to change much once she's gone. So King, a librarian for the California Energy Commission, set up a pet trust, which spells out exactly how and where her dachshund duo will be cared for, if they outlive her. King, 67, wanted to ensure that her pets have "as little disruption as possible"once she can no longer care for them. With an estimated 71.4 million U.S. households home to at least one bird, fish, reptile, cat, dog or bunny, pets are definitely our beloved companions in life. But what happens to them after we're gone? Some wind up in animal shelters, some are put to sleep. Others are farmed out to willing family or friends. But to ensure there's no uncertainty, it appears more Americans are specifying exactly what happens to Fido and Fluffy when they're gone. That arrangement can be as casual as a friendly agreement with a grown child, a sibling or friend, or as concrete as a legally drafted trust. "It's definitely a trend and it's caught on because people understandably value their animals and want to make sure their pets are looked after," said Mary Randolph, publisher of Berkeley, Nolo publishing and author of "Every Dog's Legal Guide: A Must-Have Book for Your Owner." In California, pet trusts — which are part of estate-planning documents and typically drafted by an attorney — were made legally enforceable by legislation signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2008. Some 43 states and the District of Columbia now have statutory pet-trust laws on the books, according to attorney Dan Meeks, who runs a Florida website, www.pettrustlawblog.com. He said there's been increasing interest in pet trusts, partly due to several "outlandish" pet-care cases, such as the $12 million trust fund left by real-estate mogul Leona Helmsley to care for her Maltese poodle (later reduced to $2 million in court). Or Florida heiress Gail Posner, who died in March, leaving her $8.3 million Miami mansion and more than $3 million for the care of Conchita, her pampered Chihuahua, and two other dogs. Librarian King doesn't have anything quite so posh in mind for her beloved pooches. At her death, Buzz, a 15-year-old "senior citizen," and Hilda, an 8-year-old "doxie-wawa" (a dachshund-Chihuahua mix), will be adopted by a volunteer chosen by the Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). Her pet trust specifies organic food and regular teeth cleaning every eight weeks for both dogs. King, who is setting aside about $150 a month to cover the dogs' food and vet bills, also gave the SPCA her recipe for home-cooked organic pet food. How to prepare for your pets' lives after you're gone? Here are some choices: The simplest and least costly way is an informal arrangement, asking a trusted friend, neighbor or family member to assume care of your pet should something happen to you. "Make sure the person is willing and able to take your animal, both financially and (life) circumstances," said Randolph. And since the average dog or cat costs an estimated $1,000 a year in food and vet bills, it's a good idea to provide some financial help, ideally in either a will or a trust. For those who don't have a specific person in mind as their pet caretaker, many animal shelters and organizations like SPCA have "guardian care"programs. "Some people simply ask that we find a good, permanent adoptive home for their animal after they're gone," said Steve Potter, development director for the Sacramento, Calif., SPCA. "Some are more specific, like Fluffy doesn't go to a home with children or to a home with other pets." If you want more assurance and supervision over Fluffy's long-term care, consider a pet trust, which names a trustee to ensure your wishes are carried out. A pet trust can cost from $750 to $2,500, depending on whether it's part of a new living trust or added to an existing estate plan. More elaborate choices are available. The TLC for Pets Program at the University of California, Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, for instance, allows dog and cat owners to provide for their pet's lifetime care, including an adoptive home and veterinary care, including surgeries. That TLC is not cheap. For dogs, the tax-deductible UCD gift is $50,000; for cats, it's $30,000. There's also a $1,500 enrollment fee that covers an initial in-home visit to meet the pet, assess its health and home environment. (The program, launched in 2006, originally included horses, but equines were dropped due to cost issues.) Celeste Borelli, TLC coordinator, said the price sounds steep but noted that surgical bills and cancer treatments can be costly for aging pets. At the end of the pet's life, any unused funds remain in the TLC program, part of UCD's Center for Companion Animal Health. Borelli said 12 families with 28 animals are currently enrolled. Regardless of what route you take, having a pet-care plan eliminates any lingering worries about what will happen once you're gone. "After I signed the paperwork, I just had so much peace of mind, knowing my guys will be well cared for," said King, while her short-legged companions jostled for room on her lap. Or as she joked, "If Leona Helmsley could do it, why not me, too?" Contact Claudia Buck at cbuck@sacbee.com. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| In the Case of a Terrier, ‘No Pets Allowed’ Is Overruled - New York Times Blogs Posted: 10 Nov 2010 04:25 PM PST Charlie the teacup Yorkshire terrier can stay. So says an appellate court in the case of a woman who kept a three-and-a-half-pound dog in her condominium in Middle Village, Queens, in open defiance of the condo board's "House Rule No. 1," which states, seemingly unambiguously, "Positively no pets are allowed in the building for any reason." In 2007, Donata Forman, a letter carrier, brought Charlie home to Apartment 3D of the Village View Condominium at 66-15 69th Street, where she had lived since 2000. The situation was already fraught. Ms. Forman had kept a dog named Rugby, also in violation of building rules, who had recently died. She asked the board for permission to get a replacement dog. Permission was denied. Ms. Forman brought Charlie home anyway. The board demanded his ouster. Papers were filed. Other than the board, Charlie did not bother anyone. "It is undisputed that the defendant transports the dog through the common areas of the condominium in a shoulder bag, and the Board has conceded that no one outside of the defendant's apartment has heard the dog bark when he is inside the apartment," the four-judge panel of the Appellate Division of State Supreme Court noted in its decision. "He's not one of those yapping little dogs," Ms. Forman told The New York Law Journal, which reported the case Wednesday morning. "I would get rid of him if he was." Still, the board pressed for removal. But Ms. Forman's lawyer, Michael A. Mauro, argued that Rule No. 1 was unenforceable. The appellate panel agreed. Condominiums, the judges noted, are governed by their bylaws, and at Village View, changes to the bylaws must be approved by 80 percent of the unit owners. The no-pets rule was imposed by the board without the owners' approval, the judges wrote; therefore, it is invalid. A lawyer for Village View did not immediately return a call seeking comment. The Charlie decision comes nipping at the heels, more or less, of another dog-related decision in favor of a resident, in the Bronx, in which the sight of a tenant entering an apartment with a dog was not considered sufficient proof that the tenants kept a dog. In that decision, the landlords at 1514 Townsend Avenue in Mount Eden had tried to evict Aida Correa after, according to court papers, the super saw her son "walking into the subject premises with a dog, which upon information and belief, is believed to be white and brown in color and is believed to be a beagle." The landlords noted that tenants were not allowed to have "kept or harbored a dog." A Civil Court judge, however, ruled last month that one sighting does not a harborage make, noting that harbor means "to give shelter or refuge to" or "to be the home or habitat of." "The sole allegation of a dog being seen entering the apartment on one occasion is not sufficient to support a claim of a substantial breach of the terms of the lease herein," Judge Verna L. Saunders ruled. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Pets - Bing News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment