On An Unnamed Non-Profit Foundation, False Humility and Ego

Picasso's on my mind today as I look at his cute, framed face and reflect on how things went "down" his final year and my rushed trip to California to release him into the arms of a loving friend.

A friend who has a full home, but always manages to make more room for visitors or those in need. A friend who would let me visit my poochie-pie whenever I wanted (or could). A friend who, upon hearing of Picasso's age-related struggles with incontinence and walking offered to take him without hesitation. And a friend who, when asked if she should talk to her hubby first simply said, "Naww....he's even nicer than I am, so don't worry!"

I still struggle to believe what transpired.

Last August I was scheduled to drive out to Westminster and relinquish my dog to a rescue . The night before the scheduled "delivery" a friend checked in to see how I was doing; I said I was slowly coming to terms with things, but still very, very depressed. I had been with Picasso since his puppyhood--13.5 years. When asked where he was going, I named the .

A few minutes later, the friend IM'd me with a comments essentially stating that might want to look at a specified link containing Picasso's "biography."

I would list it here, but I'm not sure if I should (although it's public property, etc., so I could [You may find it somewhere within this posting, however.]). Suffice it to say my reaction was, "......!"

Within the contents of this supposed biography were comments regarding an abusive, neglectful environment and a dog that was starved and never exercised.

I was absolutely shocked and hurt, and wrote the organization a letter stating such and clarifying some things for them. I received a fairly quick (forwarded) response back requesting a particular person (who turns out to be the Director) address my comments on the biography. I then waited until morning, when I received, basically, a brush-off dismissal and excuse regarding a policy which encourages staff to create drama in order to evoke compassion on behalf of the pet. They consider it poetic license.

Now, except for the fact that I had already provided them with a reasonable history a couple days prior, AND the fact that, on its OWN, our story was tragic/dramatic ENOUGH (sans embellishment), the response would have been sufficient. That is had it been applicable and not in direct opposition to what they had actually done (lie), and in total agreement with what I had requested to begin with (provide the unmitigated, sad truth of our life in its current state). These were not embellishments--they were outright lies.

I wrote the again, providing an accurate account of my pup's history and our circumstances. Within the letter's content were comments addressing the fact that I honestly did not sense this was intentional on their part, but more a matter of information being passed around verbally and getting distorted upon reaching its final destination (similar to the "telephone" game many of us played as children).

I had no issue with them citing a specific incidence of my disabled child mistreating Picasso (Mancub kept smacking him in the snout and pulling on his tail [poor puppy--he was so patient and gentle regardless]) if they felt it absolutely necessary, but this is NOT an abusive, neglectful home environment, and, when I told them I could no longer buy the expensive brand of food for Picasso, I merely meant he was still on a rice-based diet, but that it wasn't organic, with special oils and supplements, etc. I simply could not afford to spoil him as much as I had for 13 years; we were in survival mode. And I had been VERY clear about ALL of that information.

Several times.

Anyway, I requested at the letter's end that they please write an accurate biography. Then I waited.

And waited.

I received nothing from them, but I did receive a multitude (about 7+) of phone calls from a "friend" (the one that set this all up to help) interceding on the 's behalf. Said person was convinced that I was wrong to be concerned about character defamation and libelous comments in light of the fact that my dog needed a home, and, so, said "friend" reminded me that this was not about me, but about the welfare of Picasso, so, "who cares what they think of you?!" Blah, blah, friggin' BLAH!

Wrong answer! As the parent of a disabled child I have enough awareness to realize that the environment of special needs children is carefully watched (and sometimes even monitored). These falsehoods could (however unlikely) actually be extremely detrimental to my family and our future. And, had I merely "accepted" them and handed over my dog, I would have effectively been in agreement with the comments if I did not at least attempt to address them.

In the end, I wound up with a threat that:

• based on the 's "evidence" they were adamant that Picasso was mistreated and they would report me to animal services if I did not relinquish him to them in the morning.

~and~

• the could not guarantee they could "save" Picasso in such an event, as they would not necessarily be informed regarding the pound in which he would be dwelling.

Is it just me, or is this WAY out of line? These people are such egomaniacs that they were willing to have my dog sent to the pound and be euthanized just to teach me a lesson?! I find that nothing less than appalling!

They present themselves as humanitarians.

Scary world.