# Let's Have a Do Not Adopt Crackdown



## GSDElsa

Exceeded word count at 1776 words and posted DNA.


----------



## gsdlove212

GSDElsa, I can definately understand what it is you are saying. I can NOT say that I DON"T agree. You have some very very valid points. There was definately a way to still get the message across to those that need it without leading up to alot of speculatory accusations.


----------



## ILGHAUS

LINK to Board Policy on DNA 

Quote:
It has always been the Policy of this board NOT to post DNA "Do Not Adopt" notices,copies, email or permission to cross post notices.

Do Not post any DNA/DNR information on this board.

Rescue groups have their own resources or are on lists, this board does not need to be part of dispersing that type of information.

Wisc.Tiger - Admin. 


If you were reading the postings on this topic, the Mods were keeping an eye on the original threads about DNA. At least one post was deleted for putting in info on the individual while several PMs to other posters went out that they were getting close to breaking the rule. 

It was only when the individual involved himself began a thread to discuss his DNA that information was allowed to stay. So if you want this board not to have DNA information posted that is already covered under board policy.


----------



## GSDElsa

No, I'm talking about the rescue community and dog community as a whole...that the fact this thing DID become as wide spread as it did and it could happen to any of us. Just the fact that that DNA existed with as little reference information in it is very scary to me.


----------



## Cin386

Exactly, it could happen to any one of us. In fact, the lady I did rescue with, threaten to put one out on me if I didn't "steal" the dog back for her.


----------



## BowWowMeow

While a standardized procedure is a great idea, I don't think this is the best forum to address the rescue community as a whole. 

And I also don't think "it could happen to any of us." Compared to the number of people who adopt dogs every year I have seen a tiny number of DNAs over the years.


----------



## mom

I just had a DNA experince of my own. The rescue i was working with in mn did not keep to their end of the contract what so ever-but I was ok financially so I paid for her ear infection (s) and stiches removal myself I thought I was doing my part, like I was part of the team but when i had a tough month financially, (4 kids), were I couldnt afford to pay for everything and I went to the place- the lady from the rescue started yelling me in front of other foster folks, even called me a liar, I told her to keep her dog then, foster it yourself, I left. She accused me online of treating "Honey" badly and put me on some DNA/DNF list and a friend from a different rescue I voluteer for cd me to tell me I was on some list w/ my address, phone# full name, I had to threaten w/ lawyers- its slander, to get it removed. I got down the street after leaving Honey there and cried all the way home, my whole family misses her so much. We cant foster anymore anyway cuz we always seem to fall in love, even the hubby, but to accuse me of hurting her hurts so much cuz I just wanted to help, I want to be a part of this - Ive been taking in dogs since I was a kid and they would follow me home from school, i love all animals, Im 40 years old now and can help now -the only thing anyone can accuss me of is being thoughtless to Honey when i left her there but she did know the lady, dont worry.PS Honey did get adopted right away, within days so i hear,I found out from a friend who still worked at the rescue.

Dont worry, this DNA/DNF deal is on limited time, a lawsuit will rear its ugly head and the law will get involved its just a matter of time.Some of these people at these rescues are using it to hurt people they are mad at and slander is against the law, if you work for a rescue that posts to these DNA/DNF sites pls make sure you have insurance with good coverages for lawsuits because you cant always control your employees it would be sad to see rescues close down due to the spiteful nature of an employee. Sad that icky people always have to ruin things for the rest of us but such is life.


----------



## SunCzarina

Yeah I can see where it could happen to any of us. All it takes is one person being angry and then there's a poo storm.

From what I can see there's no governing body for a DNA, no verification by local SPCA. Why should they and do they have the time?

It just takes one person saying BAD BAD, a few people to say oh that doesn't seem right. Then the next thing you know, countless hours are being wasted trying to figure out the truth.

Sad but we'll never know the truth about RH. I'm not defending him but I can sure see how the facts that are out there have been distorted into all kinds of insane innuendo.


----------



## Jax08

The "icky" people being the rescue/person that issue a DNA?


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

I joined the DNApets.org website and went through their database for people in my area. The way it works is that you search the database by name or state, it shows you a listing and you request the details via email.

Here are some of the ACTUAL DNA postings in that database (names removed of course):



> Quoteost ID: ###
> 
> First Names: Jane
> 
> Last Name: Doe
> 
> City/State: Anywhere, USA
> 
> Date Posted: 4/5/2007
> 
> Posting: animal abuse/ 23 years & overweight. Gives different names/claims to be a rescuer
> 
> Thank you for using dnapets.org! Please verify all information for accuracy!
> 
> PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL THANK YOU!


Ok, OVERWEIGHT is a reason for a DNA??? And where is the PROOF or at least the information so that *I* can verify for myself.


Here is what a DNA should look like:

Identification: Mary Jones, White, Female, 27 yrs old
Location: Georgetown, IL

Reasons for denial: Spoke with Dr. Smith at PetsRUs Animal Clinic (000-000-0000) on 4/1/08 regarding Mary Jones. Dr. Smith's records show that Jones currently has 5 dogs coming to the clinic. On her application she only listed 2.

Spoke with Mr. Bob Lamon at Georgetown Animal Control on 4/2/08. Jones has been cited 4 times for dogs running loose and 2 times for dogs being kept outside, on chains, with no access to shelter or water.


VERIFIABLE INFORMATION. THAT is what should be in a DNA listing - and ONLY that. Not speculation, and definitely not anything that was 'posted on the internet' - even if it supposedly was posted by the person in question.


----------



## mom

I own a business -Insurance. I have to know enough about the law to keep myself out of the courtroom and occaisionally I have to tell a client that I am not lawyer but that i suggest, "after what you just told me that you consider contacting one." If I owned a rescue I would not use the DNA/DNF sites. I would contact the local police dept instead because in this country we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. and thats where itll come back to to bite em (rescues)in the butt.


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: BowWowMeowWhile a standardized procedure is a great idea, I don't think this is the best forum to address the rescue community as a whole.


Well, I don't think this just applies to the rescue community. How many times did I come accross the DNA in question on someone's facebook page? Non-rescue people can easily forward this to other people in email. It applies to everyone thinking twice before accepting something like this. I kind of equate this to the chain letters and weird stories that circulate as forwards.

And you're right, this is absolutely not the best forum to get everyone's attention. But, as it happens, I'm only involved with GSD's and am only a member of this forum with dogs, so this is where it got posted.


----------



## pupresq

I hear where you're coming from, I really do. And anyone who's been on this board and seen my posts has seen me going "facts!" "primary literature!" "sources!" on more than one occasion. I'm a scientist and that's just how I roll







, so I do get it. 

But there are a couple things that I think need to be entered into the equation here. 

One, this is the Internet. Anyone can say anything and that's not limited to DNAs. I can say that Rocco is a figment of Jean's imagination caused by eating too much fluffernut. Anything that cute couldn't possibly be real. 

And sometimes false accusations can travel the Internet at high rates of speed and do cause damage (any number of political things come to mind) or maybe just entertain but are untrue (the giant dog, the shark that loved the fisherman etc). It's this facet of the Internet that has spawned sites like snopes.com.

It's up to all of us to be critical consumers of information. But does being a critical consumer rise to the level of "innocent until proven guilty by a jury of ones peers"? I would argue no. This is not a courtroom and no one is going to jail based on unsubstantiated accusations on the Internet. 

DNAs exist as a way for shelters and rescues to communicate so that no more animals suffer. Some have better backing than others. I have seen some that were later rescinded when the person came forward and mounted a credible defense. But most of them stand because most of them ARE based on fact. And a lot depends on where you see them. This one is everywhere, but the fact that it's on dubious sites like Craigslist, doesn't mean that many of us haven't seen it on moderated DNA and rescues lists that DO check things out before they're posted. And as each day go by it seems like more and more things on the DNA get substantiated. The subject has admitted to some of it, many of us have now seen the ads asking for dogs, multiple rescue groups have stepped forward to say that he applied to them and things didn't check out (PDB), now we've got the IP address thing. There are actually several things on the DNA that CAN be verified and I think have been (ACO home visit, adoptions etc). There have been multiple opportunities for him to poke holes in the DNA by offering up proof from his vet and he's declined to do so. 

I don't think there's much chance at this point that things are on the up and up and people should adopt to him. That's all a DNA does. 

Should we, as rescues, adopt out to him because the original DNA wasn't as sourced as we'd like? I'm going to say no. The stakes are simply too high. It's not an ideal world and it's not always fair, but we do the best we can with what we have.

Here's an analogy - let's say we're looking for a babysitter for our child. A man applies who looks good on paper, lots of experience, seems like a really nice guy. But then we hear a rumor that he has molested several kids in his care. There's no proof. The rumor might have been started by someone with a grudge. No one can figure out exactly where it started. We are a critical consumer, so we do some checking. We find some red flags, people have had some bad experiences, his references didn't check out, but nothing conclusive. Do we leave him alone all day with our child? 

And if more and more people are coming forward with pieces of the puzzle that shed doubt on who this person claims to be, then what? I'm gonna say no. He's not babysitting my child. The stakes are simply too high. There are enough red flags that I can't just say "oh, it's nothing" even if don't have enough to stand up in a court of law. I'm not willing to take that risk. 

The problem in cases of abuse, whether of children or of animals, is that things usually have to go way way way beyond acceptable and the helpless are harmed before the authorities to get involved. Yes, you occasionally have witch hunts where innocent people have their reputations tarnished and you have to look out for that, but I would guess that far more often you have abuse situations totally ignored because people don't have conclusive proof and they don't want to get involved.

Each of us has to decide what risks we want to take, what the level of information should be for us to share information, who we chose to trust and who we don't. That goes for DNAs, for babysitters, for homes for our foster pets, and for friends on the Internet.


----------



## dd

Thank you, pupresq, for a GREAT post.


----------



## GSDElsa

pupresq,

Yes...I understand what you are saying. And like I said in my original post...take out whether or not that THIS DNA contains accurate information or not, and just the fact that there is NO WAY for the information to be fact checked because is does not contain the information needed. 

I also said...WE can verify this info, because he was a regular on the board. That's not the point. The point is...all those people on craigslist now have all his info. The people on dobermantalk all have his info. The people of facebook all have his info. The people on the relator site all have his info. In this case is it all justified? It does look like it is. But the next time?

THEY aren't regulars on this board...how are they going to know where to look?

This DNA could absoultely have contained a lot of the information that was needed for people to fact check themselves. But it did not. And the entire thing has taken a life of it's own. 

It's easy to say that we need to be critical consumers. But...let's talk about all those sickos that are on craiglist (just as sick if not sicker than Mr. X). And if it's not true? Does it matter, because now they know where to find the person the DNA was about. I would go so far as to say that a majority or close to a majority of the population are not critical consumers. They are drama consumers, out to lap up every piece of trash they can about people.

The point being...as RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE...we should not be the ones condoning or endorsing or spreading poorly written, uncheckable things like the above DNA. Whether Mr. X deserves it or not in this instance has nothing to do with it.

And as I've said in numerous PMs and posts...I never would have adopted to this person in the first place and am surprised at the rescues that did allow him to adopt from them. But that doesn't mean that I should say "brava" at the way this entire thing has been handled, starting with the DNA going out without information in it that could have easily been inserted.


----------



## Mary Jane

I agree, pupresq's post was educational, as usual.

I would like to add one more thing applying to adoptions from (some) rescue groups, like the group that saved my dear Wolf.

They make a lifetime commitment to the dog, meaning that if no adopters are found, the dog will be fostered. With that in mind, turning down a questionable adopter still means that the dog is safe. Why would a rescue move a dog from a safe foster home into possible jeopardy?


----------



## pupresq

> Quote: there is NO WAY for the information to be fact checked because is does not contain the information needed.


I disagree. Some of it can't easily be checked, or at least can't be checked by anyone, but other parts of it can. DNA mods can call the shelters and ask them, they can call the Fairbanks ACO and ask if he did a home visit. They can google his info and see a million ads. And now we've got rescue groups, NOT on this list, saying "yeah, this is legit." And that's all totally aside from what we on this board can see or not.

Ideal DNA? No. But I'm not sure I see the real difference when it gets down to it. So a DNA posts someone's application. That isn't proof. It could totally be falsified. I can post a document that says anything I want it to. That sort of thing gives the sheen of credibility but ultimately it's still down to people to be critical consumers.


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: MaryJane
> 
> I would like to add one more thing applying to adoptions from (some) rescue groups, like the group that saved my dear Wolf.
> 
> They make a lifetime commitment to the dog, meaning that if no adopters are found, the dog will be fostered. With that in mind, turning down a questionable adopter still means that the dog is safe. Why would a rescue move a dog from a safe foster home into possible jeopardy?


And where did this comment come from that has absoultely nothing to do with the comment at hand? Did I ever say anything, or allude to, a rescue giving a dog to a home that they find questionable? In fact, I have made it very clear in many posts that I am of the stringent, OCD rescue crowd. Mr. X never would have gotten the go ahead from me to adopt a dog.


----------



## pupresq

> Quote: Did I ever say anything, or allude to, a rescue giving a dog to a home that they find questionable? In fact, I have made it very clear in many posts that I am of the stringent, OCD rescue crowd. Mr. X never would have gotten the go ahead from me to adopt a dog.


Going back to my analogy - you didn't start the rumors, but you have heard these rumors and decided it's not worth the risk to your child. You are a careful parent who checks things out. Someone new moves to the neighborhood. They don't know all the people you do and they've never heard the rumors. They are, by nature, more trusting than you. They decide to hire this man as a babysitter.

Do you: 1. Say nothing. It was unsubstantiated and you're not going to be a party to circulating that sort of thing or 2. pass along the warning that was given to you. 

Do you err on the side of guarding a potentially innocent man's reputation or do you err on the side of guarding an innocent child? There's no right answer, it's a personal decision about what you feel is the right thing to do.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: MaryJane
> 
> I would like to add one more thing applying to adoptions from (some) rescue groups, like the group that saved my dear Wolf.
> 
> They make a lifetime commitment to the dog, meaning that if no adopters are found, the dog will be fostered. With that in mind, turning down a questionable adopter still means that the dog is safe. Why would a rescue move a dog from a safe foster home into possible jeopardy?
> 
> 
> 
> And where did this comment come from that has absoultely nothing to do with the comment at hand? Did I ever say anything, or allude to, a rescue giving a dog to a home that they find questionable? In fact, I have made it very clear in many posts that I am of the stringent, OCD rescue crowd. Mr. X never would have gotten the go ahead from me to adopt a dog.
Click to expand...

Wow, tone it down a notch. This isn't Law and Order. I have never seen anyone address Mary Jane in that manner and I hope that I never do again. 

I apologize Mary Jane, I am sure you would not want this pointed out, and I realize I am not being polite in doing so but that is unacceptable.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

> Originally Posted By: pupresqI can say that Rocco is a figment of Jean's imagination caused by eating too much fluffernut. Anything that cute couldn't possibly be real.










It's true. Who told you? Well, he's dirt and imagination.


----------



## Alto

> Quote:He has adopted countless dogs that have since disappeared. At least 3 dogs from *rescues* have died within weeks of arrival in Small Town, USA . He told the rescues that two of them died of cancer (after being in *perfect health and vet checked* prior to sending) but he has been unwilling to produce any veterinary references to support his claims


Without names/identification of those rescues, this is NOT verifiable information - this is a worldwide posted DNA that is very specific with regard to identifying the victim - oops the accused - but the accusers are NOT identified.

Further unless the unknown rescues involved actually have comprehensive Xrays & Ultrasounds, the dogs cannot be claimed to be cancer free or in _perfect health_ only that they were <u>apparantly</u> healthy - where are the identified (named) vet records from the (named) rescues supporting their claims.

_Countless dogs_ invites yet further hysteria.

Like the OP I see alot of negative drama in this DNA but very little fact, it's foundation is slander & libel.


----------



## pupresq

Like I say, people need to choose what their standards are and the risk/benefit analysis for taking this kind of thing seriously.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

Whoops, this was a general topic post, sorry!


----------



## Alto

> Quote:Exceeded word count at 1776 words and posted DNA











Isn't the word count designed to prevent over-limit posts during the *Submit* process?

I hope that GSDElsa reposts (with appropriate editting) so that this topic regains its logic.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

No, it doesn't! It would be nice if it would. We have to eyeball and put it into word when we see it. 

If she can post without putting the DNA in and keep it to under 1000, that's fine. It's saved.


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Did I ever say anything, or allude to, a rescue giving a dog to a home that they find questionable? In fact, I have made it very clear in many posts that I am of the stringent, OCD rescue crowd. Mr. X never would have gotten the go ahead from me to adopt a dog.
> 
> 
> 
> Going back to my analogy - you didn't start the rumors, but you have heard these rumors and decided it's not worth the risk to your child. You are a careful parent who checks things out. Someone new moves to the neighborhood. They don't know all the people you do and they've never heard the rumors. They are, by nature, more trusting than you. They decide to hire this man as a babysitter.
> 
> Do you: 1. Say nothing. It was unsubstantiated and you're not going to be a party to circulating that sort of thing or 2. pass along the warning that was given to you.
> 
> Do you err on the side of guarding a potentially innocent man's reputation or do you err on the side of guarding an innocent child? There's no right answer, it's a personal decision about what you feel is the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess this is where schematics come into play and an apple to orange comparison. OK...I will conquer...yes, I would probably pull the parent quietly aside one day and say "I heard you hired so and so...just as an FYI...". HOWEVER. What is NOT ok...and what seems to have happened in the case of this largely unverifiable DNA is...is going and taking an add out in the newspaper and telling the whole city or going on the facebook page of every person you know and posting the guy is a child molester, beware! without actual proof, not suspicions. (well, even then, if you have proof, tell the police, not your FB friends).

For me, this issue really boils down to ethics and personal responsibility. I just do not feel it is appropriate to write or distribute something that deflamatory on a world-wide basis without backing it up with facts and information that can be readily verified.

If certain people do not feel this way, there is really nothing I can do to change their minds. However, I would be disappointed in anyone I know not feeling the ethical responsibility runs to them as well.


----------



## Alto

> Quote: Lke I say, people need to choose what their standards are and the risk/benefit analysis for taking this kind of thing seriously


No this is about logic & you introduced being a scientist - agreement with the awfulness of the allegations contained in the original DNA does not negate our obligation to a fair & just process.


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: GSDElsaExceeded word count at 1776 words and posted DNA.


It did not contain anyone's name...so it was, in essence, not a real DNA.

So if I wrote up my own fake DNA that said essentially the same thing would that count?


----------



## LisaT

No, she is right, risk/benefit analysis is scientific.

There is a preponderance of evidence here, and because there isn't a smoking gun found yet, that doesn't mean that all that information and knowledge gets thrown out.


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: LisaTNo, she is right, risk/benefit analysis is scientific.
> 
> There is a preponderance of evidence here, and because there isn't a smoking gun found yet, that doesn't mean that all that information and knowledge gets thrown out.


Actually, this thread is losing the entire point of the thread in the first place. I put it in place to show an example of how a poorly written DNA without facts backing it up can screw over even the most innocent person. But, despite that, it has turned into a discussion as the the "evidence" in this particular case. Which is, once again, completely besides the point of the entire thread.


----------



## Alto

> Quote:There is a preponderance of evidence here


but that's just it, there is NO EVIDENCE, it is all hearsay - naming both sides of the equation would allow some investigation to be applied but as the original DNA (repeatedly) appeared on this forum it bore the markings of a 'black list' & nothing more.

Why fight so hard against the logical (to me) format suggested by GSDElsa?


----------



## pupresq

> Quote: I put it in place to show an example of how a poorly written DNA without facts backing it up can screw over even the most innocent person.


Except that what this particular DNA illustrates is that even a poorly written DNA without (and I'm going to insert the word "enough" because I do think there's verifiable stuff in there) can expose a guilty person and potentially protect animals. 

Are there better DNAs out there? Absolutely. But the evidence that has come to light since this DNA went out does nothing but support the idea that this person should NOT be adopting more dogs.

So where does that leave us? I agree with the idea of being a critical consumer and checking sources where you can. I agree with the idea of being skeptical of something that isn't sourced. But anyone who reads that other thread has got to admit that a lot of stuff has come to light here that wouldn't have if no one had forwarded that DNA.

You might argue there's an ethical responsibility not to pass things on. I might argue there's an ethical responsibility to let people know to look out.


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: JeanKBBMMMAANNo, it doesn't! It would be nice if it would. We have to eyeball and put it into word when we see it.
> 
> If she can post without putting the DNA in and keep it to under 1000, that's fine. It's saved.


Jean, out of curiosity...what is the difference between me posting a DNA that has no names in it and you posting actual links to real DNA's last night in the other thread?

It just seems a bit picky and choosy to me.


----------



## pupresq

> Quote:Why fight so hard against the logical (to me) format suggested by GSDElsa?


Because not every DNA we receive is going to be well sourced and we don't have any control over that. We can refuse to send on the ones that aren't, we can play it by ear depending on what few facts we have, we can send it on and not think twice about it. I would recommend something in the middle between justifiable-in-a-court-of-law and something-that-sounds-incredibly-farfetched, but that's where the personal decision comes in.


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: I put it in place to show an example of how a poorly written DNA without facts backing it up can screw over even the most innocent person.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that what this particular DNA illustrates is that even a poorly written DNA without (and I'm going to insert the word "enough" because I do think there's verifiable stuff in there) can expose a guilty person and potentially protect animals.
> 
> Are there better DNAs out there? Absolutely. But the evidence that has come to light since this DNA went out does nothing but support the idea that this person should NOT be adopting more dogs.
> 
> So where does that leave us? I agree with the idea of being a critical consumer and checking sources where you can. I agree with the idea of being skeptical of something that isn't sourced. But anyone who reads that other thread has got to admit that a lot of stuff has come to light here that wouldn't have if no one had forwarded that DNA.
> 
> You might argue there's an ethical responsibility not to pass things on. I might argue there's an ethical responsibility to let people know to look out.
Click to expand...

But again, take out the other thread. Take out that we all KNOW that this whole DNA mess started because of "that person" and insert YOUR OWN name. Does it matter that you can defend yourself and produce records a million people to support you and that NO ONE will ever find bad evidence against you? NO. Once it's out in the open to that extent...you will NEVER get your reputation back if someone DID cut and paste your name into that DNA and distributed on such a wide scale.


----------



## Alto

> Quote: an example of how a poorly written DNA without facts backing it up can screw over even the most innocent person.


Complete agreement.

I have personally witnessed a similar unfounded _train wreck_ that was personally & financially devastating to the individual (mistakenly) accused - the aftermath apologies were very small compared to the shouted accusations.


----------



## LisaT

Either that, or a poorly written DNA can cause it to be dismissed when it shouldn't be, and allows the person to still obtain dogs.


----------



## pupresq

> Quote:But again, take out the other thread. Take out that we all KNOW that this whole DNA mess started because of "that person" and insert YOUR OWN name.


But what happened on the other thread is not immaterial. It demonstrates that it can go either way and that it's not a black and white issue with an obvious right and wrong way to proceed. 



> Quote: Does it matter that you can defend yourself and produce records a million people to support you and that NO ONE will ever find bad evidence against you? NO.


Actually, YES. I have seen people successfully defend their reputation when a baseless DNA came out (more often the result of a misunderstanding). Not everyone is a sheep, people are capable of hearing new evidence and asking good questions. Again, what happened on this board is a good example. And it's not limited to this board. Had the person in question come back with records or a million people to support him and if there was never any bad evidence against him, I think this whole thing would have died down pretty quick. It's the fact that the exact opposite happened that has kept it going the way it has.


----------



## pupresq

And to explain more clearly why I feel so strongly about this - it's like Lisa says. Are we going to risk making a type one or a type two error? (people in science will know what I'm talking about). 

I rescue dogs. I foster dogs. I care a lot about what happens to those dogs. If someone suspects something, I WANT them to give me the heads up, even if it's poorly written or poorly sourced. I want that warning.


----------



## LisaT

> Originally Posted By: pupresq Are we going to risk making a type one or a type two error? (people in science will know what I'm talking about).


I had written something similar, but erased it


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: pupresqAnd to explain more clearly why I feel so strongly about this - it's like Lisa says. Are we going to risk making a type one or a type two error? (people in science will know what I'm talking about).
> 
> I rescue dogs. I foster dogs. I care a lot about what happens to those dogs. If someone suspects something, I WANT them to give me the heads up, even if it's poorly written or poorly sourced. I want that warning.


If an untrue DNA with that many allegations goes out on a worldwide basis, you consider that a type one or two error? One scientist to another...I see it completely differently. This would be a catastrophic failure of an entire SOP method. A type one error, in my opion would be someone processing an application and saying in that rescue's own database "this person is great!" or "concerned at X" and then finding out that one or the other is not the case during a homecheck. 

And again...I see a difference between rescues PRIVATELY discussing a certain applicant or person and every craigslist in every city and every dog breed forum having the DNA up on it.


----------



## pupresq

I'm talking specifically about the decision to send along information, even imperfect information, or not. And I do want to say again - I think people were viewing this critically, not just accepting everything at face value, both here and elsewhere. But at some point you've got to say "is the risk that this isn't true and I'm helping smear someone's reputation more or less than the risk that it IS true and I'm failing to help alert people to the danger?

I'm not saying every rumor should go global but that's where critical consuming and personal choice comes in.

Sure, people can discuss stuff privately until the cows come home but that does nothing to protect animals elsewhere. I see this with abused kids too. Everyone had their suspicions, everyone had "heard" but no one wanted to say anything and so the person went right along doing what they were doing. 

Could it have been done better? I'm sure. Are people unethical for passing it along, especially if what can be checked has been? Not in my opinion.


----------



## GSDElsa

Well, considering the original post has been deleted, I suppose this thread has run it's course. 

The ORGINIAL point was to make a call to people in rescue to be more aware in both writing and distributing DNA's. I certainly do not see anything wrong with genuinely trying to make an improvement to what I see as a very broken system now that I've been digging into DNA's more. 

Since being a scientist has been discussed several times in this thread--I see it one way. As both a scientist (and a person involved in dog rescue), I am constantly looking for ways to IMPROVE. If my lab or the science is using a very archaic and not entirely accurate method, I make every effort to find ways to improve the policies and procedures in place for that specific instrument or anlaysis. 

The purpose of this thread to begin with was to brainstorm with people how to IMPROVE something that is thoroughly lacking--something that will help both people and dogs alike. Making it easier, quicker, and provide better facts when there is a DNA...not some vauge email that spends hours wading through the internet or making phone calls to check if needed?

If the original person who had posted Mr. X's DNA had provided actual facts, links, document excerpts, and rescues names...this thing would have gone much smoother and info would be better distributed. There is now a question that Mr. X is looking for other dogs under different names. Not all those other breed sites know he was a regular here and to come here for information and that, in fact, he may be on THEIR board posing as "Brianna0". 

So, this is not only a thread being appauled at the fact a non-factual DNA can go out...it is also a thread calling for things that will ultiemately make the job of the RESCUER easier.


----------



## pupresq

I think your intentions are great! And I'm always looking for ways to streamline things and improve them myself.

I think where we disagree is in how that applies to this particular situation. You're saying the DNA is an example of a broken system that is "thoroughly lacking", and I'm saying it's an example that even an imperfect system can accomplish exactly what it was designed to do. 

I'm trying to think of a way to say this that doesn't sound like I'm playing the "I've been in rescue forever" card, because that's not how I mean it, and I do certainly believe that there is always room for new ideas and a fresh set of eyes. But I also believe that sometimes we enter a situation full of ideas on how to improve things when the reality is that they're not really new ideas, many of those ideas have been tried and haven't worked for one reason or another. 

This DNA worked. It exposed someone who shouldn't be adopting dogs. We can argue all day long about whether the system is fair or it could or should have been better, but at the end of the day, it had a positive outcome. 

You can't simultaneously argue that it went too many places and that it could have been "better distributed." Distribution wasn't the problem here. If he's posting on other boards under a different identity, a better sourced DNA wouldn't have stopped him. The idea behind a DNA is to put people on the alert. Yes, absolutely, the potential for something unfair and unfounded to go out is there - as I mentioned previously, that's the case way beyond DNAs, it's true of anything on the Internet, and there's simply no way around it. No amount of system improvements are going to change that. That's where being a critical consumer comes in. 

Would it have been better, helped more dogs, if people had refused to circulate the DNA because it didn't have better sources? Does that make the job of rescue easier? I can't say that it does to me.

It ain't a great system, but people throughout rescue HAVE brainstormed on how to improve it, there are many lists and databases that DO require good sourcing whether or not that sourcing is published, even if at some point there is always going to be uncertainty. Internet rescue is not an exact science and by its nature never can be. We do the best we can.


----------



## GSDElsa

> Originally Posted By: pupresqI think your intentions are great! And I'm always looking for ways to streamline things and improve them myself.
> 
> I think where we disagree is in how that applies to this particular situation. You're saying the DNA is an example of a broken system that is "thoroughly lacking", and I'm saying it's an example that even an imperfect system can accomplish exactly what it was designed to do.
> 
> I'm trying to think of a way to say this that doesn't sound like I'm playing the "I've been in rescue forever" card, because that's not how I mean it, and I do certainly believe that there is always room for new ideas and a fresh set of eyes. But I also believe that sometimes we enter a situation full of ideas on how to improve things when the reality is that they're not really new ideas, many of those ideas have been tried and haven't worked for one reason or another.
> 
> This DNA worked. It exposed someone who shouldn't be adopting dogs. We can argue all day long about whether the system is fair or it could or should have been better, but at the end of the day, it had a positive outcome.
> 
> You can't simultaneously argue that it went too many places and that it could have been "better distributed." Distribution wasn't the problem here. If he's posting on other boards under a different identity, a better sourced DNA wouldn't have stopped him. The idea behind a DNA is to put people on the alert. Yes, absolutely, the potential for something unfair and unfounded to go out is there - as I mentioned previously, that's the case way beyond DNAs, it's true of anything on the Internet, and there's simply no way around it. No amount of system improvements are going to change that. That's where being a critical consumer comes in.
> 
> Would it have been better, helped more dogs, if people had refused to circulate the DNA because it didn't have better sources? Does that make the job of rescue easier? I can't say that it does to me.
> 
> It ain't a great system, but people throughout rescue HAVE brainstormed on how to improve it, there are many lists and databases that DO require good sourcing whether or not that sourcing is published, even if at some point there is always going to be uncertainty. Internet rescue is not an exact science and by its nature never can be. We do the best we can.


Well, I guess I didn't think it was a NEW idea. I'm sure a lot of people have made attempts to make DNA's (or whatever issue) better. It's just so worrisome (to me--but I'm a paranoid and deal with scumbags on a daily basis) that really ANYONE can write and distribute one of these and have it taken by many at face value.

I didn't really mean "better distributed"...I'm trying to do 5000 things at once (too much time on here). I guess I meant IF the information was going to go out (which it did), at least it could have gone out in a manner that is actually helpful for people to have facts. Like if the DNA would have referenced Mr. X's many threads on this board, people would have easily been able to come here, see the discussions going on--both past and present--and formed their own opinions...and if they followed the discussion...been able to see the developments on the situation. 

Right now (or I should say last time I checked), there weren't a lot of websites that had made the connection of Mr. X to germanshepherds.com (PBD is the only one I had seen...and I think that was largely because of everyone's buddy Marjorie talking trash in post #1). So I don't really see the DNA all that helpful because right now over on dobermantalk.com all they are talking about "think he really ate dogs?!?!"

Like I said...I don't necessarily think I'm saying anything groundbreaking...but I also come from such a different perspective as most people and come up with some wild scenarios in my mind that seem very real and very close to something that could easily happen tomorrow. Which I can PM you, but am sensitive to elaborating "in the open".


----------



## Alto

Having identified the adopter involved, what was so difficult about identifying the rescues involved? obviously that information was available to the originator of the DNA.

Were they afraid they would be blackened by some of the fallout - after all they failed these dogs (or did they?) 
That when the furor died down all that would be remembered would be _Scandal - John Doe - Rescue X - Rescue Y_


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

> Originally Posted By: GSDElsa
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: JeanKBBMMMAANNo, it doesn't! It would be nice if it would. We have to eyeball and put it into word when we see it.
> 
> If she can post without putting the DNA in and keep it to under 1000, that's fine. It's saved.
> 
> 
> 
> Jean, out of curiosity...what is the difference between me posting a DNA that has no names in it and you posting actual links to real DNA's last night in the other thread?
> 
> It just seems a bit picky and choosy to me.
Click to expand...

If I remember that DNA that you posted was the one from chat with the name taken out and then compared to the one you would write. Too many words to read it all in the time I had between meetings! So I took that one out, just like I did, if you go through the thread in chat, any thread that linked to that particular one. If you see one I missed, hit notify. The others you will see with my edited by Admin. 

The ones that are examples that I posted I did because people probably haven't seen any others before, and I have posted petabuse.com here before for sure. I also have a whole thread that I and some others update when we get new stories of dogs being taken from people called "Do you know where that dog is going w/Rhaya's post" so I am pretty consistent, I think.


----------



## Ilovealldogs

I read only a few pages of the other thread in the chat room section and was getting too annoyed to read anymore. 

I am totally on board with checking out a potential adopter and I am always more than welcome to have a rescue come to my home, talk personally to my vet who I have seen for more than ten years, etc. I do wonder though what about bad rescues? If you want a DNA list per se, what about a "bad" rescue? I have seen some that represent themselves as being honest, but they are not as honest as they claim- that or it is poor communication.


----------



## Myamom

It's called a DNR (do not rescue) and I see them all the time.


----------



## Ilovealldogs

Thanks Mary Ann! I didn't know that. I know of a local rescue that people are always griping about, but I don't have a personal opinion about them.


----------



## AndreaG

I think we need to see what the consequences of our actions can be.
Let's say the DNA was unsubstantiated: then a good adopter might not be able to adopt a dog from people whoe have read that DNA. Most likely he can still go and find dogs from a million sources that never read these things, like rural shelters, that are all too eager to hand dogs to anyone who is willing to take them. So mr. or mrs. Innocent is maybe inconvenienced, but that's about it. He can still save dogs if he wants to.
Now let's take a look what happens if the DNA was in fact, a good one, meaning the person shouldn't ever own animals; but is poorly written. Worst case scenario is that rescues -being all scientific, etc-, say they want more proof before denying the applicant, so they approve him, and a dog (or two, or 30) will suffer for this. If the DNA is not circulated, he will be able to continue whatever he is doing until he gets tired of it. For decades. How many dogs is that? 

So absolutely, one type of error can do a million times more harm than the other. 
Therefore, I'm not sure why one would ever argue that only DNAs of perfect stance should be spread??

(BTW I am a scientist, too, if anyone is interested, just so we can form a club now. )


----------



## moei

> Originally Posted By: myamomIt's called a DNR (do not rescue) and I see them all the time.


How can these be accessed? 

Other than very obvious reasons of hoarding etc. in the name of "rescue", what other reasons would make it a DNR?


----------



## dd

The ones I have seen often pinpoint "rescues" that aren't rescues at all, but puppy brokers. They pull dogs from shelters, invest nothng in them - no vetting, no training, no love - bring them to a different area and resell them at a profit. This kind of operation is why MA cracked down on out-of-state dogs being brought in, not only because it's unfair to the dogs, but because diseases were being spread.


----------



## dd

Just wanted to add that the rescue community is well networked, and the rescue organizations who have unethical practices - like abandoning dogs in boarding or refusing to take back dogs they have adopted out - are well known.


----------

