We’re approaching the time where having a dog (or cat for that matter) is the privilege of the wealthy. It’s a great loss, because the dogs don’t care how much money you have. It doesn’t matter to them if they’re living in the White House, a Hollywood mansion, a modest apartment, a homeless shelter–or under an overpass. It is just galling to think that Paris Hilton can have as many little dogs as she wants and not even bother to get them spayed or neutered, while this little girl has had the one dog she loves snatched away.

I hope we hear good news about Snowy. And I agree with Linda 100%. We need to find ways to keep dogs in good, loving homes. And “home” does NOT equal “mansion.”

I understand that humane societies can’t just start offering free medical treatment to everyone who can’t afford it, but this isn’t right either. I don’t know how common it is, but what does it accomplish to take a pet out of a loving home, then give it medical treatment and adopt it out to someone else? The only purpose I can see is that taking the pet might dissuade owners from abusing the services. But they still spend the money to treat the animal, and taking in that animal decreases the homes to homeless animal ratio at their shelter.

Is this the best way to ensure the services aren’t abused, though? What about having some kind of system where they could offer medical treatments to genuinely deserving families, maybe in exchange for help cleaning kennels, doing laundry and data entry, manning adoption booths? That way, they’d be helping animals stay in their homes, which is almost always best for the animals and their families, and they’d have one more potential adoptive home for another homeless pet.

I don’t feel entirely comfortable criticizing animal welfare agencies that are really doing the best they can, but it seems that all too often, we don’t focus enough on helping animals stay in good, loving homes like Amelia’s.