Was a terrible article. Irresponsible, slanted, based on old data from "former employees," "former volunteers," "former veterinarians." Unnamed. What's the point? What does the Indy hope to accomplish? Was there ever an organization that didn't have disgruntled "formers" and "unnamed" willing to dish to a reporter? And if the reporter picks out the bits and pieces that make a one-sided negative story, is that responsible journalism?
For all you cat lovers reading it - know that it is simply wrong. Many comments above are correct about all the factual errors in this article. Perhaps there were problems in the past but I've been volunteering at the Goathouse Refuge for months and all I've seen is an very well-managed facility that provides a clean environment, nourishing food, plenty of comfortable places to snooze, special care for any sick cat, and love. These cats get better care than they do in most homes. The food is high quality, not cans from the grocery store. At the first sign of a health issue, the cat is segregated and treated until well again. The litter boxes are scooped twice a day and completed changed every week. Cages are sanitized daily. Dishes washed after every feeding. Kittens languishing in cages unsocialized? Nonsense. They're separated from the main population in kitten rooms. Go visit, sit in the kitten room for an hour. They'll climb all over you and play with your shoelaces. Better than an hour with a therapist.
Siglinda needs, and deserves, support for her refuge. So why write and publish an article based on selective interviews and old data that attempts to tear down the hard work of a good, caring woman?
I'm very very disappointed in the Indy.
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation