My bad, for some reason I thought this all took place in New York. Obviously whatever state this takes place in would have its law apply.

As for whether the corporation can pursue legal action? Maybe they cannot, at least until they file Articles of Revival and so forth to put the corporation back in good standing. But I don't see how that really matters. To my knowledge, they're not filing suit. And if someone wanted to sue them, they should still be able to do so, and maybe even hold individuals personally liable under certain circumstances.

Well, I think it all gets back to the repossession. I'd think that's where you attack first. The key would be to try to regain possession or at least get a court to determine that possession should not have been awarded to the agency in the manner it was. This is all way outside the realm of anything certain, of course. We're using 6th hand information and considering competing principles of law that may or may not even apply in the state we're talking about. It's fun conversation if you ask me, but that's pretty much as far as we can take it.

Would you say, even, ignorant individuals with doodoo in their hearts?


-Doc

Is that not true of some animals, or is it always the fault of the humans that came into contact with it? Some dogs just suck.

I had dinner with my sister Saturday evening and brought this up, based on this thread. My sister is a veterinary surgeon and was in town for the week-long American College of Veterinary Surgeons Symposium, a place where you think this issue might be under discussion.

According to her, there is NO such movement in animal care away from declawing by the doctors themselves, only by local governments banning it based on feel-good legislature catering to special interest groups. In general, veterinarians themselves do not have a problem with the procedure, and she debunked all of the claims made by the rabid anti-declawers.

Just my two cents from someone deep "in the know".

Really? So declawed cats have no trouble defending themselves from neighborhood, clawed cats? I have a hard time believing anyone could actually collect good data one way or the other and figured it was best to err on the side of caution.

What about the idea that it's better to try non-declawing tactics first since declawing involves surgery, which is always risky?

I guess some dogs just can't help themselves, but people rarely have a good excuse.

I was thinking more of the whole Iggy issue last night. I adopted two dogs from a shelter back in 2005. I got one dog for my mom as a Christmas present and one dog for me. My mom lives in another state, and of course the shelter wants to know all these things about where the dog is going to be living, so I pretty much described my mom's house without letting them know the dog was going to be with my mom. If I had done that, I could not have gotten the dog unless my mom came in and also came in with her cats to see if the dog I was adopting would get along with them. It would have been impossible.

So, in essence, I have done what Ellen did. I suppose the shelter could come back on me and say my mom has to surrender the dog back to them, or I'd have to get the dog to surrender it back to them and my mom would have to go through the red tape of being interviewed by them and all that.

So I guess my question is why didn't Iggy's shelter just do that? Why didn't they make Ellen pay a fee to take the dog back or something just so they had a paper trail on file to satisfy whomever would give a crap and then charge the other family an adoption fee and make sure they were suitable owners? And they could have done the majority of that work on paper, and left the dog in the hairdresser's home.

I think the owner of the shelter just wanted to make a point because it was a celebrity. As much as I don't think she deserves the death threats, she did take this on herself and could have handled it in a much better way.

Now you're just being silly.