?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
31 August 2010 @ 03:05 pm
Claim: Dogs belonging to deployed soldier surrendered to shelter  
Signal boosting. ETA: updated to include the satirical italics around the word "friend" that appear in the original.


http://www.examiner.com/dogs-in-national/soldier-s-dogs-surrendered-to-az-shelter-public-help-needed-to-facilitate-a-reunion

Arizona - Two Yellow Labradors recently found themselves in a precarious position. The dogs, owned by a soldier currently serving in Iraq, had been in the care of a friend of the deployed soldier. The couple caring for the dogs was entrusted with the dogs care until the soldier returned from duty.

Dogs cared for by a friend, and therefore safe - right? Not so fast. Apparently, legal guardianship was transferred to the friend for vet purposes, and the friend had a wife with allergies.

Despite being entrusted with the dogs' lives by a man off serving his country, the friend chose to turn the 2 dogs over to the Pinal County Animal Care and Control, rather than finding the dogs a guaranteed safe haven.

Thankfully, the shelter took pity on the 2 dogs, and contacted Helping Orphaned Hounds for help. Had they not, the dogs would have had only 24 hours to either be adopted or euthanized because they were considered to be an owner surrender to the shelter facility.

Boulder Falls Pet Resort wants to see the dogs reunited with their true owner and is currently housing them for free until every effort has been made to make that reunion possible. The rescue volunteers desperately want to contact the deployed soldier to let him know that his dogs are safe, and that they will be held until his return, but they have no way to contact him.

The friend that surrendered the dogs to the shelter refuses to release the soldier's name - merely stating that the person is deployed to Iraq. The public's help is needed to help locate the owner of these dogs. Someone is bound to recognize the dog's beautiful faces and can help to get word to the soldier to let him know what has transpired.

The dogs are approximately 2-4 years of age, one male, and one female. One dog is named Wyatt and the other is named Storm. If anyone has information about the person that owns Wyatt and Storm, they are asked to contact Rhonda Wagner Kuehn at Helping Orphaned Hounds at 406-697-5975.

Please circulate this article and ask others to do the same. The more people that read about Wyatt and Storm, the better the chances of a happy reunion.
 
 
 
seawasp: Everything's On Fireseawasp on August 31st, 2010 07:10 pm (UTC)
Sounds like the word "friend" in that story should be kept in quotes. Or changed to "soon-to-be-ex-friend". If I left my dogs in the care of someone I thought was a friend and they dumped the dogs off to Animal Control with a 24-hour wait before the Big Sleep, they wouldn't be my friend when I got back. They'd be sued when I got back.
Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on August 31st, 2010 07:24 pm (UTC)
In the original story, "friend" is in italics throughout -- had the same mental effect on me as putting it in scare quotes, but took up less space. I was too lazy to go through and do the HTML markup when I copied the article.
seawaspseawasp on August 31st, 2010 07:47 pm (UTC)
It NEEDED the italics, though.
The Renaissance Man: Pissed offunixronin on August 31st, 2010 07:51 pm (UTC)
[...] the friend had a wife with allergies.
[...] the friend chose to turn the 2 dogs over to the Pinal County Animal Care and Control, rather than finding the dogs a guaranteed safe haven.
[...] The friend that surrendered the dogs to the shelter refuses to release the soldier's name - merely stating that the person is deployed to Iraq
Some "friend".
drewkittydrewkitty on August 31st, 2010 07:57 pm (UTC)
I am a cynical bastard. Do we have any proof other than the word of a "friend" that he acquired these dogs from a soldier now serving in Iraq?

Why did he not make extreme efforts to contact his 'friend' rather than have the dogs destroyed? Perhaps he's already burned his bridges with said 'friend' and thought this was an effective way to get back at him. Another possibility is that the 'friend' is diligently sending him checks for the care of his dogs, and that what the wife is really 'allergic' to is losing that money.

Military pet owners are pointing out that the dogs are almost certainly microchipped and that a scan might prove interesting.

Worse yet, what if there is no "soldier" and this "friend" is just spreading grief and keeping two dogs with no connection to the Army from being euthanized?

I'd be alarmed at the effect on morale for our soldiers in Iraq. This is a nasty variant on the classic "Dear John" letter.

Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on August 31st, 2010 11:02 pm (UTC)
Your concerns are well founded; I can't argue with any of them. However, on the chance that this might be legit, and there might be an owner somewhere who's expecting to come back to his/her dogs, I'm posting the link to the pictures.
(Deleted comment)
Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on August 31st, 2010 11:03 pm (UTC)
I suspect that if someone recognizes the dogs and knows their human, they'll also know what unit the human is with and may have an APO/FPO address to reach him/her.
TSJAFO: JAFO Sauditsjafo on September 1st, 2010 01:43 am (UTC)
Dogs belonging to soldiers are supposed to be microchip. Even if they are not, a call to the public affairs officer at the soldier's home base may bear fruit.