Just a quick note in rebuttal to Leane's post.
 
I didn't miss the point.  The point was, her reasons for running a
"sanctuary" shouldn't be questioned, but her non-profit status should,
and as far as that goes, in my opinion, she is entitled.  Yes, I have
rescued abused and ill ferrets, and consider them my personal ferrets.
But I don't make a business out of it, as it were.  (Really, no pun
intended.) They have been isolated incidents, I do not make it common
practice, and I have a strict limit on the number of ferrets I have.
 
A person who DOES make it their business, for whom this type of rescue
is a regular occurance, and who, when faced with higher numbers, simply
spends less time on herself, this is more akin to a shelter than to my
situation, regardless of the adoption policy or lack thereof.
 
Also, you DO have to qualify for non-profit status, and she did, and
frankly, thats good enough for me.  There are rules about getting
non-profit status, and obviously, she has followed them, provided enough
proof to the government that she deserves it, and I'm sure many shelters
out there will tell you, it isn't an easy thing to do.
 
I didn't miss the point.  I am well aware of the point.  And I say, as a
taxpayer, that in my opinion, she should go on claiming her non-profit
status, because she IS doing it, and I can't, and I am willing to let
some of my tax dollars help her out.  Better that than building bombs
and paying people to kill others, but now I'm just getting political.
 
In any case, I'm sure we can agree to disagree.  There is a fine line,
and some of us rest on one side, some on the other.  But it is all a
matter of opinion in the end.
 
Melissa Rotert
[Posted in FML issue 4044]