Upon reading The Advocate column "A family begs for its Freedom," Oct. 21, I thought the following:
First, did the neighbor who trapped the cat work with any official rescue operation where certain required protocols are followed? Did that person canvass any neighbors or post any pictures or descriptions of the cat so the owners would have a reasonable chance to respond in a timely manner? If not, their actions do not seem appropriate.
Second, after only two weeks, for the new owners to say they will not relinquish the cat to the rightful owners because they are attached seems a cold-hearted and unreasonable response. It stretches credibility and reason for these new owners to claim their possession of the cat for two weeks overshadows 11-year-old Zach Stoddard's lifelong relationship with this animal that he and his now deceased dad picked out together. They should just do the right thing and return this cat to the Stoddards, her rightful owners.
The people who now have Freedom might consider it a truly kind and benevolent gesture in line with the spirit of the upcoming holiday season.
Although doing what it did unknowingly, I believe it is incumbent upon the Mohawk Hudson Humane Society to advocate for the cat's return. Essentially, it ended up compounding a bad mistake. And it does claim the word "humane" in its title.
As for the employee who reportedly said to the Stoddards, "If you loved the cat so much, why did you let it out?" that person's mean-spirited and cloddish remark to a distressed family should warrant remedial action on the part of the Humane Society. I would say that it reflects badly on that agency.
RALPH J. RAHM
Slingerlands