I intend for this to be my final submission to the FML, and I am
posting it only in the interest of complete transparency and
clarification. My mailbox has been quite busy this past week, as has
the FML on this topic. Apologies for the length of this missive. It's
late, I have work to do, and I hate going back and forth on things
which I think are and have been plainly obvious from the get-go.

1. Scales & Tales
The intent and purpose of my original post on FML (April 4) was to seek
a shelter. I pointed out that I had attempted to contact three shelters
but (as of that date) hadn't heard back from any of them, so I was
looking for one that was more responsive. That was it. No malice,
intended or inconsequential, was ever a part of that post. Larry
Anderson of Scales & Tales took great offense to that, considering it
an attack on the S&T shelter despite the fact that he himself admitted
that S&T is often not responsive to people's inquiries. S&T also took
offense that I "called out" S&T in my post, as if stating "I tried to
contact S&T but they were unresponsive" was somehow wrong or abusive.
To their credit, two people at S&T were highly professional, courteous
and responsive after my FML post came out and I was working with them
to set things up with them, but once Larry when on the offensive (and
highly so) I decided that dealing with that kind of attitude was not
something I wanted to deal with, so I graciously backed out of their
services.

As of this writing I have received a total of 41 emails directly or
indirectly in response to my FML post. Most of them have pointed me
towards other shelters or private breeders, a large percentage of them
have related their experiences (positive and negative) with S&T, and
pretty much all but one of them have been supportive of my efforts to
adopt so I thank them for that.

2. "cutting some slack" (and a specific call-out to Debi Sadowski)
Debi, I thank you for contacting me, but I'm afraid we've got some
mixed signals here.

You say, "[I] stated pretty much that [I was] not interested which is
fine." But, I didn't. I never stated or implied any such thing.

Your first email to me (April 4) introduced yourself, told me you had
privately bred ferrets, and had a small list of questions. My response
(about 5 hours later) thanked you and answered those questions. Your
response to that (April 5) thanked me for answering, gave me three
"VERY strong suggestions", and wished me luck in my quest. Now,
normally when someone says "good luck" that usually means "I'm not
going to help you, but I hope you figure things out". But I was
hopeful, so I responded to those three suggestions (April 7),
learning some new things in the process and thanking you for that.

Then, I never heard from you again. So I don't know where you think I
said or implied that I wasn't interested. On the contrary, I was very
interested and very hopeful that you would consider me as a candidate.
But, you never wrote back. I didn't want to press the issue with you;
like I said, normally when someone says "good luck" that usually means
"I'm not going to help you, but I hope you figure things out" and that
seems to be what happened here, and I chose not to pursue it out of
respect for your apparent decision plus the fact that I had several
other leads to follow up with. But to say that I "stated pretty much
that [I was] not interested" is disingenuous at best.

Now, please allow me to clear a few things up.

First, the whole "cut some slack" issue. I honestly have no idea
where this sentiment is coming from so let me explain things from my
perspective. I submitted two applications and made one phone call to
S&T over a period of about two weeks, and I received no response. So
I did the next logical thing: I went online to look for an alternate
venue in a VERY benign way. Within hours of my post appearing on FML
I received an email from one of the helpful people at S&T and we
immediately started the process again, answering their questions as
best as I could. I was less interested in knowing why they didn't
respond and just happy that they had started to respond, so that was
pretty awesome. From my perspective, I gave S&T more than two weeks
to respond and, when they didn't, I reached out -- and they started
responding. Cool. At least, until Larry got involved.

Now, from your perspective, what else should I have done? How exactly
did I *NOT* cut S&T any slack? I waited for more than two weeks for a
response without complaint, and when they finally did respond I was
entirely communicative and quite happy with the experience. It was only
when Larry swooped in with his erroneous accusation that I had attacked
S&T and his simultaneous admission that he may have deleted my
applications did my patience wear thin -- and again, it wasn't with S&T,
but with Larry in specific. Truthfully, I *DID* cut Larry quite a bit
of slack. I asked him several questions in response to his accusations
in order to come to a better understanding with him, partially because
he had admitted to the problems while simultaneously attacking me for
pointing them out and partially because he was quite wrong in thinking
that I had attacked S&T by saying S&T was unresponsive. In response to
those questions I got little more than angry diatribe in response, so I
allowed Larry the final word and moved on. Life's too short for that.

You also wonder why I've "NEVER given or signed [my] name". I will
answer that, but first: Since it DOES bother you (by your own
admission), why not just ask for it? Why hold in that negative energy
when a simple question could alleviate it? Do you think that I'm,
I don't know, some kind of stealth secret agent intent on training
ferrets in covert black ops missions or something and can't give my
identity away for national security reasons? :-)

More seriously, the answer is simple. I have probably about a hundred
email addresses under this domain name, each assigned to a specific
task. I rarely send outgoing mail from them and when I do it's usually
for things like warranty requests and other things that are usually
handled through a web form -- like, say, filling out a web form to adopt
a ferret or subscribe to a mailing list -- which usually has fields for
things like first and last name. So I never bothered putting my name
in my email client for this address and, simply, I almost never sign
emails. I don't know why, I just never got into the habit. So in the
~11 years that I've been doing things this way and the ~30 years that
I've been using email, you are exactly the first person to ever
express disappointment over those practices. For that, I apologize
for offending you.

3. Shelter Involvement
In addition to my full-time job + commute, my daughter, and my
responsibilities at home, I run web sites for three non-profit
organizations, including a chapter of Habitat for Humanity. I volunteer
at two local food kitchens twice a month. I am part of an informal team
that helps people (mainly senior citizens) repair their damaged homes
when they are in need. Twice a year I volunteer at regional food banks.
I help out whenever possible at my local animal shelter, mainly when
they're doing fund drives and things of that nature, but I also help
build cages and maintain their facilities.

So it's safe to say that I'm pretty familiar with the trials and
tribulations of charity life. Have I run a shelter? No. Do I know the
hardships of shelter operations and charities in general? Yes, I do.
And while the people (or animals) are often claimed to be the top
priority, in reality that's impossible. Money is always the top
priority. Without it, you don't have animals. No money, no pet food, no
medicine, no roof over their head, no resources for a fund drive, no
way to do anything. Yes, it's all done out of pocket...which is exactly
my point. To run a shelter, or any charity for that matter, you MUST
bring in money. There are three ways to maintain an income outside of
government grants (which are neigh impossible for animal shelters
anyway): constant begging from local businesses, constant fund drives,
and constant placement of your charges. The first two approaches take
a lot of time and energy which would arguably be better spent on the
animals. The latter is the best approach as it simultaneously brings in
income while reducing your overhead. Win-win. Will it bring you out of
the red? Not by itself, no, but "red plus $200 cash minus an animal" is
a lot better than just "red" alone, don't you think?

That being said, any shelter's #1 priority on a day-to-day basis should
be reaching out to those who want to adopt. THAT is entirely my point.
In my case, I would have happily ponied up whatever adoption fees came
up, and based on my history with shelters I likely would have ponied up
more.

4. To "kim" ("Shelters or NOT")
Your various definitions are noted, but I think everyone involved
in this discussion, even peripherally, is aware of what is meant by
the common term "shelter". I also don't recall ever using the term
"hospice" here so I'm not sure how my perception of a term I'd not
used here could be skewed. I may be wrong; can you quote me please?

As I've previously stated, I already do volunteer work at several
charities. As there are no ferret shelters (in the "common term"
definition) in my area, getting involved with one would occupy more
time than I can afford to spend so that is impractical. Frankly,
without disrespect to the honorable people who run animal shelters,
I am more inclined to spend my time helping PEOPLE in need.

In closing, thanks all for this experience. I would love to be able to
say that it has changed my perception of my FML experiences over the
years. Fuzzy dreams to all.

[Posted in FML 7760]