# foster regulations in MA



## mpappie (Jun 28, 2005)

does this make sense?

Proposed regs could bite animal rescuers - Worcester Telegram & Gazette - telegram.com


----------



## lmillette (Apr 23, 2012)

What a joke!!!! Yeah, let’s make it harder for people to be foster homes for animals, often desperate animals!!! Why are people so stupid?! Sorry, not trying to be rude, but this is just stupidity!!! :angry:


----------



## lmillette (Apr 23, 2012)

No that is matters, but I did leave a comment. Here it is, if anyone is interested. I do have a few typos, but think it gets the point across.
Telegram.com - An edition of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette and Sunday Telegram

"lmillette wrote:
This is really upsetting because it will stop people from fostering. Animal Rescues are about the care of the animal not the all might dollar!! Animal Recuses are always in demand for more fosters as it is and this happens it is going to go into overload of desperately needing fosters. Not only that, this will run non-profit Animal Rescues out of Massachusetts, which will create an even bigger issue. If Animal Rescues leave this state because of this ridiculous legislation the over population of animals is going to sky rocket. If over population is heightened then the euthanize rate will go up which will ultimately cost the tax payers of the state!! Not to mention so many animals will be put to sleep when they could have found loving forever homes. If the state really wants to help, they should be shutting Pet Stores down that don’t sell rescue pets from a shelter!! Not making it harder for rescues to have fosters homes. The state is barking up the wrong tree!!! 







"


----------



## maggieh (Dec 16, 2007)

No, this makes no sense whatsoever. I don't know of any of NMRs foster homes that are set up in this manner - they are all residences who have taken in foster fluffs as an unpaid volunteer activity.


----------



## MalteseJane (Nov 21, 2004)

Makes no sense to me either. There aren't enough foster homes as it is. With this there will be even less. I wonder how they will control this. If you have not more animals in your home than the city permits, they could well pass for your own.


----------



## Snowbody (Jan 3, 2009)

What a stupid regulation. How can they expect fosters to have this? So discouraging. Truly few enough fosters as it is.:angry:


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

I'm not taking a position for or against, merely adding substance where it is lacking in Worcester Telegram article.

Link to House Bill 1445 - Bill H.1445

Link to House Bill 561 - Bill H.561

Link to MA Dept. of Agricultural Resources Emergency Order - http://www.mass.gov/agr/animalhealth/docs/Shelter_Rescue_Guidelines_final.pdf

Both bills do nothing more than define what is a "shelter" and what is a "rescue". The MDAR Emergency Order was written in 2005 and is and has been enforceable since it was written. While there are pros and cons to what is contained in the Emergency Order, it is in fact within the authority of the MDAR to write and enforce this order. So, again, all the bills do is define what is a shelter and what is a rescue organization.

I think what most rescuers, myself included, find onerous are the sections of the Emergency Order regarding design and maintenance of isolation facilities. However, what the Worcester Telegram article fails to do is provide background as to why this Emergency Order was written. Massachusetts and most states in the northeast have been very successful in encouraging and assisting with spay/neuter of pets. Consequently, we have far fewer puppies and young dogs in our shelters. The majority of people who adopt pets from shelters want puppies or young dogs. Gone are the days when our pets roamed free, came home pregnant, delivered a litter of puppies that were subsequently brought to a shelter to be adopted. That's good news!! The bad news is that many shelters found themselves with older, less easily adoptable dogs. These dogs take longer to adopt, thus need to be kept, fed, and cared for by the shelters, all of which costs money. And there was little money coming in because there were far fewer puppies to adopt out. So some shelters and rescue groups started importing dogs from other parts of the country and even out of the country where spay/neuter programs were not as successful (or even existed). Like breeders, not every shelter or rescue group is as ethical and responsible as they should be. And it was the importation of sick puppies and dogs, in some cases coming in by truckloads, that was the root cause of MDAR writing this emergency order. The order only applies to animals being brought in across state lines. Should dogs and cats be imported? Personally, I'm okay with that on some levels. Should they be packed 40 dogs in a rental van with a hired driver and driven non-stop from Tennessee to Massachusetts with no prior vet check, no temperament check, no potty stops along the way? Not in my book. There were two major disasters that I know of, one was a van packed with dogs, the other was a truck packed with dogs. The van broke down on the highway in CT on a blistering hot day during the summer enroute to MA. Several dogs died. The driver of the truck full of dogs stopped for the night enroute, left the dogs in the truck unattended for the night, another very hot night, and several of the dogs died.

And my personal disaster ... I got a call from a rescue group (term used lightly) in Maine that had taken in 9 Maltese from a shelter in NJ. They took the dogs to "save" them and figured that, being purebred Maltese, they could easily place them. After they got the dogs they "thought" that maybe they should turn them over to a Maltese rescue group for care and placement. The dogs were described to me as being shy and skittish, having been turned into the NJ shelter from an overwhelmed BYB, then driven in a van all the way to ME. I STUPIDLY (back in my naive days) agreed to take the dogs, met these folks in NH, they spent just enough time with me to transfer the crated dogs to my car, and off they went. It was a horribly hot summer day, I had already set up a vet appointment for the dogs, and so I left immediately for the 2 hour drive home to my vet appointment. What came out of those crates absolutely horrified both me and my vet ... nine terrorized, unsocialized, DEATHLY SICK dogs. We immediately set up an isolation area in the basement of my vet's building. Each dog was examined and each immediately put on antibiotics to treat the green mucus oozing from eyes, nose and mouth of each dog. One was pregnant. After five days, two of the dogs seemed to respond and were placed in foster homes. A few days later another was placed in a foster home and one came to my home. The remaining dogs got progressively worse and one by one were euthanized. Necropsies were done. The dogs had pseudomonas. The first two dogs placed in foster homes relapsed and had to be euthanized. And in one case the pseudomonas spread to a healthy dog owned by one of the foster moms. The third dog to be placed lived for six months. The dog that came to my home was adopted and lived for another three years. The healthy dog that contracted pseudomonas was able to be cured and the costs associated with his treatment were covered by our rescue group. When all was said and done, we spent over $6,000 in vet care and I personally held each of the seven dogs while they were euthanized.

I fully support any bill that requires a health certificate and a 48-hour isolation of any dog or cat imported from any out-of-state unknown source and I would encourage all of you to just try to imagine the anguish of holding 7 dogs over a 14-day period of time while being euthanized before deciding that any regulation imposing safety standards for imported dogs and cats is not in the best interest of those animals and the truly innocent people, whether rescuers or owners, and their own animals who may be put at risk.


----------



## lmillette (Apr 23, 2012)

Mary, thank you for posting this additional information. It was very help to try to get the whole picture. I don't think the Emergency Order is a bad thing to keep other pets safe and healthy. The experience you had with the Maltese is just awful!! It is too bad that happened, but bless your heart for trying. Hearing that story definitely makes an Emergency Order needed. My only issue is the foster care. I would hate for them to put a lot of restrictions on foster homes because then people will be less likely to want to foster an animal. 

Yes, you are right that our shelters here in MA mostly contain older pooches. But I am hopeful that through education people will see how much love and devotion they will receive from an older dog people will start to adopt the older pooches. 

And there should be guidelines for transporting animals over state lines. I mean we are transporting them to save them and give them another chance not bring harm on them. Your two instances are proof that guidelines are needed.

Thanks again Mary for sharing. Definitely gives another piece to think about.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

Lindsay, what I should have highlighted and what the article failed to highlight is that it's the Emergency Order, not the proposed legislation, that warrants discussion and the Emergency Order is targeting only animals being imported across state lines into Massachusetts. None of this applies to stray or owner surrendered animals already residing in Massachusetts.

I promise to get off and stay off my soapbox now. :amen:


----------

