A nation and its moral progress can be judged by the manner in which its animals are treated

March 16, 2009 8:52 AM

Bay Area resident Michelle Hamilton has been adopting and caring for dozens of abandoned and neglected animals in the past decade, racking up tens of thousands of dollars in debt. To call this a "predicament" for Hamilton is a little misleading. She sees only one option when faced with the choice of paying for the care or treatment for an animal in need: she pays, regardless of cost.
posted by porn in the woods (45 comments total)

I respect her compassion, but I suspect she really needs professional help in dealing with how she is making these decisions..

I wish her the best....
posted by HuronBob at 8:56 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]

What HuronBob says.
posted by jquinby at 9:02 AM on March 16

Crazy cat lady with credit cards.

Re-home?
posted by pianomover at 9:03 AM on March 16

A lot of animal rescue networks are pretty much 100% volunteer. That said, it sounds like she should incorporate as a non-profit.
posted by dhartung at 9:04 AM on March 16

If nothing else, she needs to negotiate a heavy user discount deal at her local veterinarian.
posted by MuffinMan at 9:18 AM on March 16

"She's also worried about her mortgage payments..."

This is where she completely lost me. Sure, if she wants to spend her money that way, that's fine. But she's going in debt to do so, and now worried about paying her mortgage? To me, that indicates a real problem with priorities.
posted by Houstonian at 9:19 AM on March 16

I used to be anti-euthanasia until I started spending free time at my local animal shelter. People like Hamilton drive me insane with their inability to understand that while taking an animal's life is always, always heartbreaking, oftentimes there really is no other option.

The recession hit our shelter hard, and so many people are releasing their pets because they lost jobs and apartments or simply can't cope with the stress of an animal anymore. It's gotten so bad that even the supremely adoptable baby animals are sticking around for months at a time. In addition to putting down the murderous fighting dogs and and lunatic abused cats who will never trust humans again, we have to put down bunnies who were bought for Easter and then given up by June after their novelty wore out, and cats who "shed too much," and puppies who nipped a kid's hand while roughhousing. We just don't have the cages for everyone, or the staff to walk the dogs and socialize the cats, and we have to eventually pick the most adoptable animals to save while euthanizing the infirm and unwanted who take up scant space and resources.

Instead of racking up debts with sick animals she clearly can't afford, Hamilton needs to redirect all that energy into her non-profit goals as a public educator, lobby for more affordable pet care, or make a charity for owners who can't afford expensive surgeries and medicine. I understand that abject refusal to kill animals who can't fit into a human world that doesn't want them, but clearly her current solution isn't working out either.
posted by zoomorphic at 9:19 AM on March 16 [20 favorites]

This sort of thing is so hard for me to read, because as someone who has many, many pets, I understand the powerful urge to keep them all safe and comfortable, regardless of the cost.

But, years ago I watched a relative keep a dog on what was in essence life-support for months and it was one of the most awful memories in my head. Their inability to let go forced the dog to suffer for months longer than it needed to, and I promised myself that I would never do that to one of my pets.

Of course, it's much easier when it's someone else's animal and I have no feelings vested in it.

That said, I certainly can't fault her compassion, and I would be thrilled if more people took her example of selflessness to heart, but I also hope that she isn't prolonging suffering by postponing the inevitable for some reason beyond her love of animals (mental illness, uncontrollable fear of loss, etc.)
posted by quin at 9:21 AM on March 16 [3 favorites]

She was also given the option (and even encouraged) to euthanize the dog.

Yup. That says it all right there.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 9:23 AM on March 16

I grew up on a farm, and I just can't understand this woman's mindset. She's trying to do a good thing, but she has to recognize that there are practical limits to what she can do.
posted by orange swan at 9:28 AM on March 16

She is bonkers, and her SAVE THE DOG AT ALL COSTS mentality seems more anthropomorphic than compassionate to me. Euthanasia isn't for when there is literally nothing else to do to extend the dog's life. It's for when the dog's quality of life becomes low enough, and there's nothing to do that can extend the dog's reasonable-quality-of-life lifespan.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 9:28 AM on March 16

I don't think she's any more bonkers than any other American who's in debt, and there are Americans in debt for many reasons that are far less savory, but it seems that digging herself into a hole so deep that she will eventually be completely unable to care for the animals she has adopted, let alone herself and her kids, is a sign of something out of whack.
posted by blucevalo at 9:41 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]

Next year, cops will find her sleeping in her car, along with two hundred stray dogs, cats, rats, and bunnies, plus five parrots, an anaconda, and a baby elephant. Or something like that.

I feel the urge to save them all myself. I'm actually breaking the law now, by having five cats -- my city only allows four (and the county next door only three). A guy with a pitbull walking thru our neighborhood sic'd his dog on one of our cats about four years ago, tore her up, killed her brutally. I wasn't around to see it (but I have a baseball bat waiting for that guy), but our neighbors told us. We had four cats when that happened, so we got a kitten to assuage our grief.

A year later, our home burned down, and we moved to a rental house while our real home was restored. While we were there in the rental house, which was in a rather poor minority neighborhood, there were dozens of stray cats around. We put food and water out for them while we were there. I also started thinking, hmmm, we have three cats that are all 10+ years old, and one young cat. What happens when the three older ones are gone? Our young cat would have been terribly lonely; she's a very social kitty. So, I snagged another young (male) cat off the streets near that rental house, to give our young cat a companion for life, a friend to lean on when her other three friends are gone. And they are best friends now, lay on each other and give each other baths, climb trees together when I let them outside.

But...you can't save them all. Even if you had the money of Bill Gates, you still couldn't save them all. Part of the problem, a LARGE part of the problem, is that so many pet owners do not take their responsibility seriously, and abandon pets left and right, often unfixed so they create more starving, feral cats and dogs in the wild. Unless people get more responsible, this problem will never end, and that's very sad.
posted by jamstigator at 9:44 AM on March 16 [2 favorites]

I read this article this morning and was appalled. I've worked with and cared for animals a good chunk of my life (including volunteering at my local Humane Society every weekend for several years as a teen). But this woman is nuts.

The comments on SFGate are crazy--people are lauding this woman for spending "her" money on these poor sick animals. But it's not her money. If you read the article you'll see that she owes many of those thousands to vets, on credit cards, etc.

She has two kids and a husband (who apparently isn't happy about the spending). She's put her family in a terrible financial situation by seeking out these animals to help.

If she were spending this money on gambling or shopping or some other addiction, folks would say she's sick and be done with it. But because her addiction is spending on caring for animals she's somehow saintly. Feh!
posted by agatha_magatha at 9:49 AM on March 16 [3 favorites]

Wouldn't have so many animals to pay bills for if people would neuter and spay.
posted by melissam at 9:54 AM on March 16

I can see unscrupulous veterinarians drooling at the prospect of finding a woman like this to support their practice. Given the choice between a $100 euthanasia or a $10K surgery, which will look better on the books? Find a pet owner who will do that once, and then funnel all kinds of ailing animals in that person's direction, and you've created a money press.

Bravo for the vet in the article for encouraging her regularly to put down these animals who are suffering with fatal health problems.
posted by hippybear at 9:56 AM on March 16

I don't know if I'll ever truly understand people who often like to proudly proclaim that they'd save a dog on the side of the road before giving even considering giving aid to a homeless person or otherwise helping other less fortunate people. I think what she's doing is nice, but ridiculously stupid.
posted by cashman at 9:59 AM on March 16

"Unless people get more responsible, this problem will never end, and that's very sad."

This is the core issue. I worked in animal control for several years, and have known people with severe animal hoarding issues as well. There's a sort of sentimentality with some of these people that easily overrides rationality, but often doesn't translate into simply doing what's right for the animal's own sake. So you have people who will allow sick or elderly dogs and cats to suffer for months, while genuinely considering themselves to be 'animal lovers.' It's very often nearly impossible to speak to them about the problem.

It's a discouraging thing to be exposed to.
posted by metagnathous at 10:32 AM on March 16

Sometimes it's easy to mistake foolishness for nobility. The difference, of course, is that nobility doesn't take the appearance of an addictive habit.
posted by koeselitz at 10:52 AM on March 16

Having worked at a "no-kill" animal shelter for a few years, during the last recession, I can empathize with Hamilton's sense of responsibility, but I am also keenly aware of the kind of mentality operating behind such care. I saw a whole lot of people projecting deep emotional issues onto animals, in a very futile attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable in the arena of "innocents" instead of on their own dammed selves.

The best lessons I received was from the animals themselves. No matter the injury, there is no spite, no self-pity. They just manage under new circumstances. And moreover, they are not attached to their lives. The emotional baggage that drives many humans to ridiculous lengths, especially in this regard, is utterly absent. Putting down animals was never easy. We only did it for animals in the worst cases. The quiet silence after the blue liquid goes in unsettled every time. But it wasn't a sadness for the animals. Most of the time, they gave a clear look in their eyes, a simple "I am ready to go." The sadness was for the people standing around, who had attachments to the animal being put down, who had to face again the prospect that life is cruel and bountiful, and brief, very fucking brief, and that is the way it works.

The notion that saving animal lives at all costs is noble is a construct. It is a hard road, and I am no better than this Hamilton (except perhaps in financial management). I have rescued several cats and dogs off the streets. Both my dogs were attained this way, straight from the alleys. Hamilton is doing what she can, I'll give her that. But there is a line to draw as well. Maybe it's due to an utterly fantastic cosmology I have in the Grand Recycling of nature. But I don't think animals injured or neglected to the point of pure misery should be saved at all costs.

*anecdote: the blue liquid was called "Fatal Plus", what the "plus" implied, I have no idea, but it always gave me a little snicker during an otherwise morose procedure.
posted by sarcasman at 10:52 AM on March 16 [11 favorites]

I anticipate an FPP in the next few days about someone who's adopting too many crazy cat ladies.
posted by mannequito at 10:57 AM on March 16 [1 favorite]

Most of the time, they gave a clear look in their eyes, a simple "I am ready to go."

While I agree with what you and most of the others in this thread are saying, I'm not sure about this. I am not sure we can honestly say that animals aren't attached to their own lives. We don't know. But if we were to extrapolate back from our attitudes towards our own lives, it doesn't seem out of the question to assume they'd rather live, if that is at all possible.

The lady's quixotic project is not rational and she should be convinced to give it up or find some more-sustainable means of caring for the animals. But I can sort of see how someone could get into a state like that.
posted by JHarris at 11:13 AM on March 16

I am not sure we can honestly say that animals aren't attached to their own lives.

Tangentially, I always found it amusing that those likeliest to condemn declawing would also insist on the importance of spaying/neutering. If I had to choose between sacrificing my fingernails or my testicles, I wouldn't have to think about it for long.
posted by Joe Beese at 11:27 AM on March 16

If you habitually sprayed urine around, picked fights, and produced multiple litters of offspring most of which would have to be euthanized, those who had to live with you wouldn't have to think very long about getting rid of your testicles.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 11:48 AM on March 16

I think what is most upsetting is that her "love" for animals is, in the long run, abusive; she will debt herself out of a home; what happens to them then? Hoarders seem to always end up keeping animals in appalling conditions of starvation, disease, and filth; that's not love, that's emotional addiction to the role of "animal savior." I have no admiration for that whatsoever.

Responsible pet caretaking involves using logic and thinking long-term, not living in a dreamworld where you are St. Francis of Assisi and can miraculously save them all.
posted by emjaybee at 12:26 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]

I watched the truck in front of me run over a puppy & not stop, about a year ago. Who's the sucker who pulled over & looked the poor yelping puppy in the eye and said "It's okay, buddy -- I'll take care of you?" I would be that sucker. Thank G*d that doesn't happen every day, or I have a yard full of wounded animals. I can kind of relate to the ethos, if not the eventual outcome.

(he healed up fine and is now my best buddy)
posted by Devils Rancher at 12:46 PM on March 16 [3 favorites]

Tangentially, I always found it amusing that those likeliest to condemn declawing would also insist on the importance of spaying/neutering.

This is because you are listening to people who respect the quality of an animal's life. I suggest you pay closer attention when they speak to you.
posted by zoomorphic at 12:56 PM on March 16 [2 favorites]

Responsible pet caretaking involves using logic and thinking long-term, not living in a dreamworld where you are St. Francis of Assisi and can miraculously save them all.

While I agree with what you are saying, I also think it's the case that love, empathy, affection, whatever you want to term it, is frequently, as often as not, illogical -- and relationships, whether they are of the human-human variety or the human-animal variety, are frequently much more messy and ambiguous than logic and long-term thinking admit.

I'm not saying that this particular situation is beneficial for the animals or humans involved, or that one should just cast logic aside. I am saying that in matters of the heart (I don't think what's involved here is merely "addictive" or "hoarding" behavior, because casting it in that language makes it easy to dismiss as abnormal or aberrant, which, given the multiplicity of similar behaviors in the American populace, it is clearly not), logic is not always the prominent determining factor. I suspect that a lot of pet owners would agree, whether they admit it or not.
posted by blucevalo at 1:00 PM on March 16

"Unless people get more responsible, this problem will never end, and that's very sad."

That's not going to happen, so it's not a good idea to direct policy with it in mind. Any public policy which depends on a change in human behavior en masse is doomed to failure, unless the policy involves changing public perception, and that's only marginally effective over many years - in the long run perceptions can change, but it's only part of a comprehensive policy. What does work is restrictive breeding programs (i.e., no pets can be bred or sold without a permit), as well as clamping down on puppy mills.
posted by krinklyfig at 1:01 PM on March 16

In this woman's dream future, no animal would be allowed to die, ever. Regardless of the amount of pain and hardship they would go through, they would not be allowed to pass on.

I shiver at this thought.
posted by splice at 1:18 PM on March 16

Tangentially, I always found it amusing that those likeliest to condemn declawing would also insist on the importance of spaying/neutering. If I had to choose between sacrificing my fingernails or my testicles, I wouldn't have to think about it for long.

If the choice were between losing the top knuckle of every digit on both your hands or your testicles, would your choice be different?

Or for that matter, if your parents had decided at the age of 4 that you were going to lose every knuckle of every digit on both your hands and let you keep your testicles, would you today maybe want to trade options?

Declawing is not just about "fingernails"
posted by hippybear at 2:43 PM on March 16

um.. er... "decided at the age of 4 that you were going to lose the TOP knuckle..."
posted by hippybear at 2:44 PM on March 16

I empathize with the desire to rescue animals and have taken in several myself. And cashman, it's not an either/or proposition, but I understand why people may "loudly proclaim" such things because I find the company of animals superior to most people I've met. For a possibly enlightening experiment, try taking in a few of each, and report back to share with us what you've found.
posted by belvidere at 3:40 PM on March 16

It looks to me like the issue is two-fold (at the very least). She wants to help animals and feels compelled to do so, yet she has limited resources.

I understand her emotional response to assist neglected and abandoned animals, but I do worry that some of the animals are having their suffering prolonged instead of ended humanely. Maybe some therapy, or some time spent at a good shelter, would help her understand that saving an animal doesn't always mean keeping it alive.

It seems like she could really do some good if she joined an organization, or even founded one, that helps animals in these situations instead of taking it all on by herself. If she doesn't feel that the local shelters are doing what needs to be done, fine. Start an organization that does better -- but for heavens sake, look into that therapy and spend some volunteer time with an org that has similar goals first. I've seen some no-kill shelters that would make you want to rip your eyes out and pray for brain bleach.
posted by custardfairy at 3:57 PM on March 16

This is going to end so badly and it just makes me sad, angry and tired.

Neuter and spay your companion animals. Do not buy companion animals from a "pet shop" (which is one of the most revolting shorthand terms in the entire English language), but instead adopt them from shelters and pounds.

These non-human animals are not accessories for the back yard, or something for the kiddies to play with. They are living, breathing, thinking, feeling creatures, "subjects-of-a-life" capable of emotion and suffering just like us (it's arguable to what extent but arguments of "degree" are somewhat facile in my opinion).

For the most part, anybody at all can walk into a "pet store" (ick) and buy an animal, let's say a kitten. The staff member will put it in a little box with some shredded paper down the bottom. And that's the end of it. A living creature, just as evolved (in the sense of timeframe, not ability or intelligence or whatever it is this week that makes us oh so much better than everything else) as humans, in a box with some scrap paper. A commodity, and nobody responsible for it, no method in place for determining the suitability of the "purchaser". That is so profoundly vile that it beggars belief, it really does, but we are so conditioned to it that we walk past the store in the mall, tap on the glass (how about I rap my knuckles between your stupid eyes motherfucker?), sigh "aww, how adorable!" like it's some kind of rubber automaton, and move on to the food court to tuck into a double beef burger. Not a second thought if there was even a first beyond "this is a thing that appeals to me aesthetically". After your food you can just pop back and buy it if you're in the mood. It'll take you five minutes.

Wanna get an iPhone though, or get a membership card for the video store? Credit checks, background checks, show me three pieces of ID, contracts to sign, interminable phonecalls from the salesperson to head office. You can actually go to prison for not returning DVDs to the Blockbuster. But buy that kitten, take it home, starve it for a week and then torture it to death for six hours? Nobody's ever going to know. Keep Revolutionary Road (no, please, keep it...far away from me) for a day longer than you're supposed to and you can bet your ass there's going to be a phone call. But the kitten, that just now the staff member is remembering you didn't buy any food, or toys, or bedding, or medicine for? Tough luck, Pringle (because they nicknamed it Pringle).
posted by turgid dahlia at 4:05 PM on March 16 [5 favorites]

Dang, td, I was about to agree with you till you got all hyperbolic in the third paragraph there. Do people really go buy kittens just to torture them to death often enough that it's a social issue?

From the article: Let's say, for the sake of a thought experiment, you take the cat to the nearest veterinary hospital where you're told that it has life-threatening injuries that will require surgery.

Do you ask the vet to euthanize the animal? Do you pay for the cat's medical treatment? If you decide to treat the cat, how much are you willing to pay? $100? $500? $5,000? Whatever it takes?

In my case (just one single injured animal), here's how it worked. I took the puppy to a vet, where they xrayed and determined that it was going to cost about $1500.00 to fix his broken leg (clean snap to the femur). I said "Can I have a few hours to work this out?" they said fine, and I returned that afternoon with my digital camera, took a couple snaps of the poor little guy in his cage with his IV and his leg all wrapped up, looking forlorn and helpless. I emailed this photo along with a plea for donations, to about 25 people I knew well enough that they'd know I wasn't scamming them. It went viral that evening, and by mid-afternoon the next day, I was having to tell people to STOP sending me money, as I had too much. I actually spent three hours straight that evening replying to emails turning money down, finishing around midnight. I still ended up with 200 bucks more than I needed for the surgery, and that went towards vaccinations a couple weeks later.

People will step up to the plate, I think moreso for a helpless injured animal than they will for a person in similar circumstances. I'm not sure what this says about humanity or the lack thereof, but the outpuring of support I got from people who had been forwarded a forward of a forward was really astonishing. Had I been a lying, thieving bastard, I might have brought in 5 or 6 thousand bucks. Again, this was one animal, and I suppose if I kept it up dog after dog, year after year, it'd grate on people's nerves, and I'd lose friends, but in isolated cases, it's not always the binary "YOU PAY OR THE PUPPY GETS IT!"

And good lord, people -- don't you know by now that invoking the declaw around here is like yelling "HITLER!" in a theatre?
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:36 PM on March 16

Devils Rancher, people don't necessarily buy kittens to torture on purpose. But way too often, people act like my son's best friend's parents, when the best friend wanted a cat because we had just adopted two. They picked out a kitten from a neighbor's litter and told him he had to take care of it. Since he was 8, he didn't clean the catbox the way he had promised and after a month, the kitten got thrown outside with some food and water and otherwise ignored. It was winter, and poor Jewel hung out by the front door desperate for warmth and attention. After a month outside, she was crushed to death by their garage door. I thought that was an awesome lesson for the boy to learn. And it was torture for the cat, torture by indifference.

On the other hand, animals don't have a sense of their own mortality. They can't understand that the vet visits will make them feel better (at least our cats), and if they come down with a fatal disease, and you take heroic measures to extend their lives, it's not so that they can live to do the things they always meant to do someday. It would be healthier for all if people could acknowledge how much they are doing this for the animal and how much they are doing it for themselves.
posted by zinfandel at 8:22 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]

Do people really go buy kittens just to torture them to death often enough that it's a social issue?

No, I didn't mean it that way exactly, I just got a bit worked up. It's just that it seems profoundly odd to me that we find it perfectly acceptable to jump through hoops to get a mobile phone contract - have to protect AT&T's "interests", after all - but anybody can walk into a "pet shop" at any time and pick up a cat or dog or fish or bird or whatever, without even having to show identification. Just like you'd go to the store to get some milk. And I simply don't get that - these are living creatures, not product. There is no accountability whatsoever, no machinery of protection for these sentient beings. So regardless of whether they are torturing them to death, or merely neglecting them, or not caring for them properly ("Cats like milk, right?" "Give Rex some chocolate!" "Leave the ceiling fan on, the budgie's smart enough not to fly into it." "Don't tip your soup in Flappy's tank honey, that's very naughty...ah, it's just settling down the bottom anyway, he'll be fine."), there's simply no way of knowing.
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:00 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]

And even if they are going to care for the animal properly, in the case of dogs and cats at least, if you're too brick-ignorant to know that there are hundreds and thousands of perfectly beautiful, personable, sociable, healthy animals (even babies!) in shelters and pounds all around the country, then that strikes me as a purchase on a whim, or a choice of fashion, rather than a sincere desire to care for a new friend.
posted by turgid dahlia at 9:02 PM on March 16 [1 favorite]

I agree. Every time I find out someone bought their pet it makes me dislike them a little bit and from that point forward they will forever strike me as being kind of stupid.
posted by Jess the Mess at 11:39 PM on March 16

And even if they are going to care for the animal properly, in the case of dogs and cats at least, if you're too brick-ignorant to know that there are hundreds and thousands of perfectly beautiful, personable, sociable, healthy animals (even babies!) in shelters and pounds all around the country, then that strikes me as a purchase on a whim, or a choice of fashion, rather than a sincere desire to care for a new friend.

I totally agree with this -- there was one instance where I wanted to get my girlfreind a kitten for her birthday, which was in January and there simply weren't any kittens to be had, in shelters, or elsewhere because it really just wasn't kitten season. I looked for about 3 weeks, and finally found someone selling "purebred" burmese kittens for $50.00 each. First and last time I ever paid for a pet, and it wasn't from any pet store. He ended up being one of the smartest cats I ever had though, and well worth the money in the long run. (freaked my shit right out when he figured out how to open the front door & go outside whenever he felt like it) I certainly did start my search at all the local pounds, though.

When we took in Jojo off the street last summer, (He'd obviously been dumped in an industrial park) I took it as an opportunity for my 8 yo to learn about the responsibility of owning a pet -- he helps a lot, and when we go to the vet, he goes with, so he can learn about a pet's medical needs. He's going to grow up to be a fine pet owner, but yeah, a parent who just hands a small child an animal and says "take care of it" is pretty well consigning it to an early death, after a short neurotic life.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:05 AM on March 17

For the record: Jojo has a fine set of dog talons, but his nuts have gone missing.
posted by Devils Rancher at 5:07 AM on March 17

I agree. Every time I find out someone bought their pet it makes me dislike them a little bit and from that point forward they will forever strike me as being kind of stupid.

For sure. (And for the record I adopted my cats - now deceased after long lives- from a shelter.) But I wonder in the UK - where I now live - things may be different. There was a burst of reports some years back that shelters were doing home visits before adoption, and turning down applicants because "they worked during the day" or "the couple aren't married and may break up". In such cases, I can understand a frustrated prospective owner turning to a shop.

Although these cases were reported widely in newspapers, there is the whiff of urban legend about them. Does any UKer have personal knowledge or experience?
posted by outlier at 6:33 AM on March 17

I'd be interested to hear further about that, because it sounds really Daily Mirror.
posted by turgid dahlia at 8:17 PM on March 17

As would I. A brief google seems to show there's some truth to it:

* Forums in which peole share stories of being turned down for having a child, having powerleads on the floor, lack of a cat flap. Also here.

* Opinion column in the Independent, wherein a garden is judged "too dangerous" for a cat. Similar column here.

* The Battersea site talks vaguely of assessment and inspection, as do other sites.

But I was hoping to hear personal experiences.
posted by outlier at 5:28 AM on March 18