Pet Rental Company Needlessly Kills 3 Dogs
A little over a month ago I saw this Facebook post from Tender Care Animal Rescue in Vancouver, WA:
“Two weeks ago Hannah the Pet Society euthanized 3 shelter dogs – Pip, Charlie Bear and Kelso. Rather than offer them back to the shelters they came from or provide the support that they needed to rehabilitate them, Hannah chose to kill them. We’re sending this information to as many shelters as possible to get the word out.
These may have been dogs that they received from you. I know that you work hard to save as many animals as possible. Unfortunately Hannah does not have the same passionate commitment as you do. When you provide an animal to Hannah, there is no guarantee that they won’t put to sleep an animal that could be rehomed with a little bit of effort. There is no guarantee that they will return an animal to you.
You may want to reconsider working with Hannah. At the very least, please think twice before putting an innocent life into their hands.
The order came from Scott Campbell. Management was aware and did nothing to stop it.
I hope you will hold them accountable and that these 3 dogs did not die in vain.”
Someone sent this post to several groups and individuals involved with animal rescue in the Northwest.
Hannah Pet Leasing Model
In case you haven’t heard of Hannah, here’s a primer:
Image from Hannah the Pet Society.
- Hannah the Pet Society is a pet leasing company based in Portland.
- Hannah uses its pet matching service to find a pet for you based on the information you give.
- Once you select your pet, you sign a contract saying you will pay Hannah a monthly fee for the duration of the animal’s life and Hannah retains ownership of it.
- In exchange for the fee, Hannah provides all veterinary care, delivers food and supplies to your door, and training/ongoing support.
I’ve said before I don’t like the idea of renting pets. It reinforces the concept that pets are expendable, which is how so many dogs end up in shelters.
The rent-a-pet model focuses on making money. Since Hannah is the legal owner of the pets it leases, it could make decisions about a pet’s health based on its bottom line instead of what’s in the best interest of the pet.
Hannah also claims it gets many of its puppies from local shelters and rescues, but until last month, the only shelter that sent dogs to Hannah was the Columbia Humane Society in Saint Helens, OR, and for reasons I’ll explain later, that rescue cancelled its contract with Hannah last month.
Former Hannah Customer “Horrified” About Euthanized Dogs
Mindy Johnson lives outside Portland and adopted a pug named Rudy from Hannah about 3 years ago.
Mindy Johnson took cancelled her contract for Rudy with Hannah after she learned that it had euthanized 3 adoptable dogs. Photo from Mindy Johnson.
A volunteer with a local dog rescue, she saw the Facebook post about Pip, Charlie Bear, and Kelso.
“As a member of Hannah,” she told me, “I was horrified.”
Mindy contacted Hannah December 11 to find out if it euthanized the dogs.
Later that day someone from Hannah said her message was forwarded to Hannah’s CEO. She said he would respond within 3 hours, but Mindy didn’t hear from anyone.
On December 12 Mindy messaged Hannah again saying no one contacted her yet. Someone told her, “Please be patient and he will respond by Monday.”
When she hadn’t heard anything by Monday evening, she sent another message saying that if she didn’t get a response she would forward the email about Hannah euthanizing the dogs “to news organizations who have already been questioning (Hannah’s) practices” and hand out flyers “to potential customers at (their) commercial locations.”
At about 4:30 on Tuesday the 15th, she got a message saying, “I have received a response from our CEO, Fred Wich and our Founder, Scott Campbell. Due to the sensitive nature of your post, our CEO and/or Founder would like to meet with you in person to discuss your concern(s) and answer any question you have.”
Due to scheduling problems Mindy spoke on the phone with Hannah CEO Fred Wich for about 40 minutes on January 18.
Hannah CEO Claimed Euthanized Dogs were “Aggressive”
In his phone call with Mindy, Mr. Wich confirmed that Hannah euthanized Charlie Bear, Pip, and Kelso Thanksgiving week last year because they were “aggressive.”
Here are the rest of the highlights of their conversation that Mindy provided for me:
“I indicated I had a video proving (the dogs weren’t aggressive), and that I could not imagine they would allow an aggressive dog interact with the public at their retail locations, as some of these dogs had. Also, as a Hannah member we are told that all incoming animals pass a rigorous personality test – I doubt dogs that are aggressive enough to be considered for euthanasia would pass these tests.”
“Wich indicated that the dogs were euthanized during Thanksgiving week while he was out of the office. He said they had made a mistake by allowing them to interact with the public. He said they have a world class animal behavior team and that if they couldn’t rehabilitate these dogs then he thinks nobody could have. However, he also admitted that he did not interact with them directly.”
After pondering her conversation with Mr. Wich, Mindy said she cancelled her membership with Hannah because she “could not morally continue to be a Hannah member and support this company.”
Per her contract she had to pay Hannah $700 for cancelling her membership and keeping Rudy.
After she refused to pay it a company representative told her that they would waive the fee as a “goodwill gesture.”
How Did 3 “Aggressive” Dogs Meet Hannah’s Behavior Standards?
In Hannah’s Promise to Members the company pledges “To do our best to keep you and your Pet family safe by initially testing the Hannah Pet for potentially dangerous behavior problems…“
If you read through the FAQs section on its website you’ll see that Hannah uses its behavior testing program as a key marketing point to assure potential customers that its pets won’t have any behavior problem with statements like:
- “Hannah the Pet Society’s behavior standards are intended to ensure that a Pet has a high likelihood of longevity in a family setting.”
- “All Pets that will be placed first need to pass a medical and behavior examination...”
- “Hannah the Pet Society’s Pet Aptitude Test (PAT) is focused on helping to determine if a Pet will work in a family environment.”
And Section B of its Membership Agreement, states unequivocally that “Hannah does not accept vicious Pets”.
So how did these dogs, which Hannah deemed dangerous and aggressive, pass Hannah’s Pet Aptitude Test?
And why would the organizations and breeders that are paid by Hannah for their puppies send dogs with behavior problems?
Vet Reports Said Dogs Weren’t Aggressive
I have Hannah’s most recent examination records for Pip, Charlie Bear and Kelso. Nothing in any the reports indicate any of the dogs were aggressive.
Pip
Pip was an almost 2-year-old Australian Terrier mix that arrived at Hannah in August of 2014 and placed the following December. His adopter returned him in June 2015. Hannah placed him again in September. That adopter returned him 2 weeks later.
Hannah’s assessment of Pip said he was “very loving.”
Pip’s medical notes say the family returned him because their autistic daughter didn’t adapt well to him. They also said he didn’t know basic commands, went to the bathroom in the house, was hyperactive.
Hannah’s assessment for PIP after he was returned the first time said: Is independence trained/needs elimination training/friendly to new people and dogs/needs continued Hannah pet training classes/high energy/very loving/ok in apt with daily aerobic walks/knows very few basic instructions.
The report also said “Pip accepts stroking…hugs, massage.”
Pip’s adopter brought him back the second time and cancelled her plan because she couldn’t afford the monthly payments. She also “kept saying that she does not like the “scam” or the “con” that we (Hannah) were doing to her.”
Hannah’s assessment of PIP after he was returned the second time said: Needs elimination training/Independence trained/Friendly to people and dogs/High energy/Needs daily aerobic walks/Playful/Knows some basic instructions/Needs continued Hannah training classes.
His report also noted that Pip was “friendly to new people and dogs. Pet plays well during free play and social play.”
This doesn’t sound like Pip’s adopters returned him due to aggression does it?
Kelso
Hannah placed Kelso, an 11-month-old lab mix, a couple weeks after he arrived last September. His adopter returned him 3 weeks later. Hannah place Kelso with another family but they returned two weeks within a couple of weeks.
Hannah’s assessment of Kelso said he was “highly friendly to new people and children.”
Kelso’s family returned him the first time because he chewed on “everything” and constantly peed in the house.
The family did note on the return form that Kelso had “Zero bites” and was “highly friendly to new people, and children.” The report also notes “Member recommends rehoming” and “member states “very lovable.”
Hannah’s assessment of Kelso after he was returned the first time said: “Needs elimination training/Needs a backyard/Daily aerobic walks/Knows some basic instructions/Is ok with other dogs/Is friendly to new people/High energy/Very loving and playful/Hx of destruction (chews things).”
Kelso’s adopter returned him the second time because the other dog in the house didn’t accept him. They also said he nipped “at pets and other people.
The family did say Kelso was a “Wonderful dog” and his issues could be fixed “with proper training.”
Hannah’s assessment Kelso after the adopter returned him the second time said: “Needs independence training/needs continued elimination training, and basic training.”
In November Hannah evaluated Kelso to determine if he could be a service dog. While he had too much “puppy energy” to be a service dog, the Hannah staff person who evaluated him said he was a “fantastic pet” with “great potential.” She also said Kelso “will be an amazing pet for the right family committed to exercise and training.”
Charlie Bear
Hannah said Charlie Bear was “peaceful and naturally well-behaved.”
Charlie Bear was a 3-1/2-year-old Chihuahua mix that arrived at Hannah in late October. His Hannah record describes him as good in apartments, not particularly active, average friendliness to new people, toddlers, new dogs, and new cats, very friendly with babies, and highly food motivated and cooperative. He also passed a food aggression test.
He was classified at a “Noble Confident Pet” with a “gentle and affectionate nature” that gives him a “peaceful and naturally well-behaved” disposition.
Hannah euthanized him one month later for aggression even though nothing in his evaluation indicated he exhibited aggressive behavior.
Hannah Founder Orders Staff to Euthanize Dogs
Veterinarian Scott Campbell founded Hannah the Pet Society. Sources say he gave the order to euthanize Pip, Kelso, and Charlie Bear. Photo from images.washingtonpost.com.
One sources told me that at a mid-November staff meeting, Hannah staff decided to return Pip, Kelso, and Charlie Bear to their original shelters. No one suggested Hannah should euthanize them.
But a few days later Hannah founder Dr. Scott Campbell ordered staff to euthanize the dogs because he didn’t want them to go back to their shelters. In an email seen by several staffers regarding one of the dogs, Dr. Campbell wrote “Kill him.”
He also told his staff to say that Hannah euthanized the dogs due to their aggression problems.
Dr. Campbell’s euthanization order appears to break one of Hannah’s “Promise to Members” listed in the Frequently Asked Questions on its website which unequivocally states:
“In no case will we ever euthanize a Pet because it does not have a home. However, there are a few dogs and cats that are not suitable to be Pets under any circumstances. We support humane euthanasia as a viable option for severe medical or mental diseases.”
I’ve seen nothing indicating that the dogs had aggression problems or suffered from “severe medical or mental diseases.”
Dogs Listed for Adoption Day After Euthanization
Hannah euthanized all three dogs on November 24, 2015. The next day Hannah sent out an email that listed Pip and Charlie Bear for adoption. Here’s what it said about these 2 “unadaptable” dogs.
Delightful Charmer: Pip & Luvy Marie
“Pets in this group live in the moment and live life to the fullest. Ever heard the term ‘party animal’? A “Delightful Charmer” tends to be just that! The operative word here is “charm.” Pets in this group have endless curiosity. Children find it fun and easy to teach these pets to do tricks for food. These Pets have been called smart and playful. Some of these Pets love to race around in “madcap” play. Their love of play makes them popular family Pets. Pets in this group welcome new people into your home. They are typically easy to examine and groom as they seem to expect the best from people. However, some of these pets are prone to loneliness and do best with other Pets at home.”
Noble Confidant Pet: Trigger & Charlie Bear
“Pets in this group are easy-going and make great companions. Looking for a somewhat laid back Pet personality? Although somewhat outgoing, these Pets are great home buddies. Most of these Pets love relaxing at home especially when that means a gentle massage and a warm lap. Count on these Pets to be good natured. Rarely do they meet a person they don’t like. Pets in this group are known for being very cooperative during gentle examinations and grooming. You might say these Pets know how to go with the flow. Don’t be fooled by a Pet in this group who starts out reserved. Once these Pets bond to their people, they are devoted for life. If you want a Pet who thrives on lots of gentle affection, then a Pet from this group is a great match for you.”
Clearly the Hannah staff that wrote believed Pip and Charlie Bear were adoptable pets. My guess is someone wrote this email and scheduled it to go out before Dr. Campbell made his unilateral decision to euthanize the dogs
A source sent me this adoption video Hannah made for Pip before the company euthanized him. Does he look dangerous to you?
Prioritizing Profits Over Puppies
As I’ve said, the rent-a-pet model focuses on making money, and since Hannah is the legal owner of the pets it leases, it may make decisions about a pet’s health based on its bottom line instead of what’s in the best interest of the pet.
In my opinion, that’s what Dr. Campbell did when he overturned the decision of his staff and ordered euthanization for Pip, Kelso, and Charlie Bear .
Hannah staff just don’t have the experience/training to properly place dogs into homes. Records indicate that Pip and Kelso had some correctable behavior issues that their placement families could not or would not address.
Reputable rescues do extensive research on potential adopters to give both them and the dog they want the best chance for a successful match. They do home visits, they won’t place a dog with a family that already has a dog unless the dogs meet beforehand, and they determine if households have the time and energy to give dogs proper training.
Most importantly, they won’t euthanize dogs that are difficult to home. They’ll work for months, sometimes years, to find a home for one of their dogs if necessary. If they can’t find a home for a dog, they keep it.
“This is a for Profit Company”
“We are concerned about the source of animals when not coming from shelters. Hannah Society has not shared with us any criteria that would preclude the lease of puppy mill source dogs. In addition, their name is confusing – this is a for profit company, not a non-profit nor an animal shelter.” OHS executive director Sharon Harmon to KATU News in 2014 from Expose Hannah the Pet Society Facebook page.
People adopt dogs from shelters and rescues because they want to give abandoned dogs a home. Or they don’t want to buy from breeders/puppy mills.
Hannah claims it gets dogs from shelters, humane societies, rescue/nonprofit groups. To my knowledge no shelters/rescues currently send their dogs to Hannah. Some of them prohibit adopters from putting their dogs in Hannah’s program.
“…animal lovers believe Hannah may exaggerate its commitment to rescue pets. For instance, when PAWS animal shelter in West Linn presented the company with a rescue kitten, Hannah did not accept the animal. A PAWS representative believes Hannah refused the kitten in favor of only accepting attractive animals, claiming Hannah puts money before the pets’ interests.” from Rent-a-Pet Raises Questions in Oregon, www.globalanimal.org.
Columbia Humane Society was the only shelter that sent dogs to Hannah, but after learning that Hannah euthanized Kelso and Charlie Bear, which were 2 of the dogs they sent to Hannah, they not only cancelled their contract, they also took back all their dogs that Hannah still had.
I believe Hannah will continue to have problems getting dogs from local shelters or rescues. Why send their dogs to Hannah when the company might euthanized them due to minor behavior problems?
This could be why Hannah started its Blue Star Program which buys purebred dogs from breeders.
Hannah’s website says its founders “care very much about Pets – and care that many are being put to sleep unnecessarily.”
And one of the foundations of the company, their “Promise to Members,” says “In no case will we ever euthanize a Pet because it does not have a home.”
If Hannah consistently follow these principles I believe Pip, Kelso, and Charlie Bear would still be alive.
But the edict from Hannah founder Dr. Campbell to overrule his staff and euthanize Pip, Kelso, and Charlie Bear calls into question whether or not he cares that Hannah euthanized many pets “unnecessarily.” It also indicates the company’s promise to never euthanize a pet without home is more of a suggestion.
Wow – what a horrible company!1
There is an article about Hannah in this weeks magazine from about 3 years ago. Please stay away from this company it is bad news.. GREEDY GREEDY people run it with no regards to the animals.
That was my thought as soon as I saw “pet rental company”. How can you ‘rent’ a best friend?!
Exactly.
Yes it is. The give an owner monthly food allotments but will not say the brand from food they are giving. There are a lot of unexceptable foods with fillers that are not healthy for pets. They are not reputable at all. I recommend never deal with them after these stories and others I have heard. I had a friend, who adores dogs, go to work for them and had to quit due to their ethics.
The place needs to be shut down.How about starting with a petition.This will not stop until action is taken.
No reputable rescue (and I stress REPUTABLE) would ever consider placing a rescued dog into the hands of a “Dog Rental” company regardless of their policies. We, (legitimate and ethical rescues) work tirelessly to change the views of dog as property and this practice just perpetuates it.
It is a loathsome, disgusting idea that needs to stop. We as a society need to continue to fight for the dog (and cat) to be seen as sentient creatures capable of great love and great sorrow and disappointment.
THAT HE “SUCK”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lets shut them down.
Money is greed, greed is the man with an ax.
Lower than scum in the sewage.
TAMMY IAM WITH YOU!!!!! SHUT THEM DOWN! ENOUGH OF THIS CRAP!
Hannah the Pet Society has saved me hundreds of dollars on my dog’s vet care. There are two sides to every store and shame on this article for not showing the good Hannah does. How many pets are put down in California or by PTA every day? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/05/pets-shelter-euthanization-rate_n_6612490.html
I’m glad Hannah works for you. Unfortunately if you check yelp you’ll see complaints about the company are overwhelming. And how many pets are put down in CA is irrelevant. The company says it will not euthanize adoptable dogs but that’s exactly what it did .
Again all I see is someone bragging about them saving money, that’s the bottom line right, it’s why you support them! It’s the almighty dollar again and again!
Yup.
And they will not respond to questions on the article on their FB page. They block them. SHAME on this company!
Shame on you for supporting a crooked company, oh wait, your whole point was that they saved YOU MONEY. Your argument in support of them shows where your values are: money. If a known murderer offered you money would you take it? You already did.
YEA WELL SAID!!!!!! IT’S ALL $$$$$$$$
A reputable company would not ‘sell’ you a dog that needed loads of expensive vet care. Their animals are not healthy. I know someone who has a Hannah pet. The dog as serious gastrointestinal issues and is at the vet A LOT.
Another question for you… do you consider your Hannah pet as a member of the family or disposable?
I did not know Hannah “rented” or “leased” animals out. That is ridiculous! I went to Hannah to inquire about their pet insurance advertisement I saw on tv. I checked it out a couple of years ago. They wanted a premium of $119 per month for my 4 year old dog. That is more that I pay for my 15 year-old child. Expensive! I decided it was not worth it. Now I am glad I did. I could never support this company in any way.
There are plans out there for half that amount.
Shop around there are alot of cheaper insurance for pets and very reliable!
Exactly. You don’t have to sign away ownership of your dog to get crappy insurance from Hannah the Pet Society.
I didn’t know either. I am just now finding out. When I talked to them however, about their insurance because my little guy was very ill they let me know that if I did buy insurance through them I would have to sign my pet over to them and they would be his owner, that also gave them the power to euthanize him if they felt he needed to be euthanized. As soon as I heard that if I bought insurance through them I was basically sighning my fur baby over to them I new it wasn’t right to buy insurance from them. My dog became very ill at the time I was looking for insurance and 3 vets I took him to said he was not going to make it. We hospitalized him elsewhere, prayed , and tried any way and thanks to God our little fur baby made it. I feel that he was so sick and if I would have taken him to Hannah he would have been euthanized, where I was taking him basically recommended that because his body was shutting down. I would not recommend buying insurance from this company ever
and if they decided that your pet was not worth the vet care, that would be their decision, not yours
I don’t believe you are a real person. I believe you are a Hannah staff person.
You rent your dog. Weird as hell
I’m sure pet insurance would be the cheaper route. Seriously. Pet rental? WTF is wrong with people?!
Please note. This person is only talking about Hannah’s vet care plan and NOT about getting a pet from them. Hannah has two “Services” one is the pet finder service with rental of the pet, and the other is pet insurance with add-ons like food and training and stuff. I am NOT defending Hannah in any way shape of form, just pointing out that people are attacking this post without understanding that they are not talking about getting a pet from Hannah.
When you sign your pet up for their plan you are signing ownership of the animal over to Hannah Pet Society. I was looking into their plan and it is not a separate contact. They are obtaining ownership of the animal from you and you are agreeing to lease your pet back.
Exactly!! I would never do that.
We looked into Hanna to have vet coverage for our sweet little doggie, but it is only with their vets. In addition they own your animal. We would have been required to sign ownersip over to them, and we refused. This is my dog. I make the final decision regarding his care. No matter what they tell you, they are the legal owners. If at some point they decide to euthanize your pet, you will have to agree. They dont tell you that until they get your money. We canceled the required exam, refused the contract and got our exam fee returned. They are out to make money only.
Glad you didn’t sign up.
HOW HORRIBLE IS THAT????!!!!
Yea, all about the dollar eh? You don’t care about the innocent dogs they’ve killed!!? Renting pets is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard of.
Instead of paying these evil people to give the money back to u in vet payment’s, maybe u should learn how to handle your money and stop RENTING dogs,they are not washing machines .They are living beings with no other purpose than to bring us Joy…,. If you had any guts you would tell these people to go straight to hell and keep the dog.
Wow, these people operating this “rent a pet” company are absolutely despicable! I’m amazed that such a company exists, and even more so that there are people out there falling for what Hannah offers. I’m literally at a loss for words . . .
Thank you for this investigative article. I’ll be passing it around to increase awareness, and hope that authorities will put this company out of business.
Hannah is not a “rent a pet” program. They retain ownership to provide services with out having the overhead costs associated with it. Why do you think they can provide 100% coverage with no co pays? Have any of you actually read the contract? Hannah cannot make any medical decisions without your knowledge or agreement nor can they take your pet from you unless asked. It is easy to point fingers when you aren’t getting all the information. Pets don’t always show aggressive behaviors right away. Hannah has a responsibility to the people potentially getting these pets. If one of those dogs would have bitten someone then you would all be on here talking smack about how they placed an aggressive animal. Yes, they could have sent them back to the shelter but what if they had hurt someone after that? Hannah has saved hundreds of pets lives and you all seem to so quickly forget about that. Maybe before you all jump on this “anti-Hannah” bandwagon you should look at the real facts.
I don’t know if you read the article or not but Hannah’s own behavior analysis of the dogs had nothing about the dogs being aggressive. One person returned a dog because she felt Hannah scammed her. Another one was returned because their dog didn’t get along with the Hannah dog. None of the dogs were returned due to aggression.
I also question whether or not Hannah has saved hundreds of pets lives since only 1 shelter was sending them dogs. They get most of their dogs from breeders. That’s not saving dogs. It’s using them to generate cash.
Please explain to me how retaining ownership allows the company to “provide services without having the overhead costs associated with it” ? I do not follow your logic.
What do you think the “Owners” will do when your leased pet develops an expensive chronic condition?
If you put those monthly payments into a special account, you would have plenty of money to not only pay for decent dog food and supplies but also have the funds for necessary veterinary expenses.
Wrong Wrong Wrong… I had my 2 cats with Hannah for almost 3 years now. I pay $73 dollars a month for both and 6 months after I got then signed up (they were my own cats, I didn’t “get” them through Hannah) one of my kitties came up with a serious chronic condition. Hannah has paid for 3 surgeries, ongoing medications that I have to give my cat 2x a day plus all preventative shots and checkups. Total cost if I were to have taken them to a Vet clinic ? Over $15k maybe more.. with Hannah ? $2628 in monthly fees for TWO cats for the last 3 years. You either don’t have pets or need do redo your math because anyone that has pets and takes care of them with all preventative shots and visits knows just those alone would be more then the $2628 total cost I have invested thus far and that doesn’t even include the surgeries. Not to mention they have been nothing but kind and compassionate toward my animals. If your comment was valid then why do we need health insurance in this country? We could just save a certain amount of money per month per each individual and when you come up with cancer or kidney disease I am sure your few thousand dollars you saved up with get you FAR. OH, and in regards to the reason that they retain “ownership” of the animal ? I researched this company for a year before I signed my pets up, its because if they don’t “act” as owner of the animals then they are considered a bonafide “pet insurance” company and are subject to regulations by the Oregon Dept of Insurance which more then likely would cause a huge cost shift in their monthly fees. Do a little more research next time.
I’m glad Hannah works for you. I’ve said that some people are perfectly happy with what they get from Hannah and I believe them. Regardless of the reason they retain ownership, they still are the ultimate deciders on how your pet will be treated (unless you take it somewhere else and pay for it yourself).
Furthermore, retaining ownership to avoid state regulations for pet insurance is disturbing. Insurance regulators exist to protect consumers. I wonder what regulations they get to avoid?
Oh get real, every article you have posted about Hannah has been a hit job. You cant say in these comments that you are ‘glad’ it works for some people, when your articles make it clear that you wont be satisfied until this company is out of business.
Which, its your right to hold that opinion, but just be for real here.
There’s nothing wrong with saying I’m glad it works for some people. I’m glad because they aren’t among the dozens of other customers that had terrible experiences with Hannah.
I can’t believe that you are actually proud of supporting a business that intentionally commits fraud in order to make bigger profits! If they are willing to avoid regulations just to save money, it should make you wonder how good really is the care they provide?
If someone cannot afford appropriate vet care, they should not own a dog, a cat, a horse or any other animal.
If they are taking dogs from breeders, then the breeders are BREEDING too many and this just encourages those breeders to continue to act unethically by breeding too many. Two wrongs DO NOT make it right!
There is not one single reputable breeder I know of that would let their puppies go to a place like Hannah. Reputable breeders want to remain part of their puppies lives, make sure they’re always properly taken care of, and returned to them for any reason if the owner can no longer take care of them. So you know that Hannah’s purebred puppies are from puppy mills. I bet even most backyard breeders wouldn’t place their pups with Hannah.
Totally agree Zig Pope. If you can’t afford to provide your animal with basic needs including important medical needs, you should not be caring for an animal.
Also, I couldn’t believe some of these families that return a puppy for chewing on stuff and peeing. Hello, thats normal puppy behavior! People do not educate themselves and then expect the dog to fit into their lifestyle, instead of helping the dog adapt to the new environment.
I just don’t understand it. So selfish.
Doesn’t matter…once the dogs are in their care, they become their responsibility..those dogs were killed because they didn’t want to put in the time and money to train them for simple behavior problems. After being returned twice (for easy training issues) they had them killed because they could no longer make any money off of them…that is disgusting…and not acceptable…
Nobody is mentioning here how many animals Hannah has probably SAVED because the owners had their services and were able to get their pets the care they needed if something unexpected happened.
3 years ago I lost my beloved cat that wants even 5 years old due to a Urinary Track infection that cats can get and there is not rhyme or reason for it. I paid $650 on a Monday at a Banfield Pet Hospital to have her unblocked but she ended up blocked up the next morning, that was another $650 for her to have it happen again on day 3. The vet told me at that point that she needed a $7500 surgery to save her.. or put her down ?? I didn’t have that kind of money ? I had already dropped a mortgage payment on her care in 2 days, I was DEVASTATED. If I would have had Hannah I would probably still have her.. I ended up having to put her down. At that point I said NEVER AGAIN and joined Hannah. So far, so good.
Thanks for telling your story. You could also get pet insurance that would cover medical bills. Hannah would save tons of animals if they got their pets from shelters/rescues, but only one shelter worked with them for years, and after this incident they dropped Hannah too. That means Hannah is getting lots of its animals from breeders, and that’s not saving them. And it encourages more breeding which actually means dogs in shelters are more likely to be euthanized. If you read through Hannah’s website and you’ll see that saving animals is rarely mentioned and is not one of their priorities.
Guess what!?!! Guy who founded Hannah Pet Society also founded Banfield Pet Hospital. Do the math, honey.
oops…can you say “conflict of interest”?
May not be that, but it is certainly not ethical…
Pet insurance is available at a reasonable cost and allows you to make your own decisions regarding your pets.
Exactly.
You are obviously in marketing and sales for Hanna, or associated with them in some way.
You work for Hannah don’t you? Be honest!
I used to work there in their placement call center for a few months. They were more interested in “making” and branding their own pet food and sourcing pets from not only shelters and rescues, but also from private breeders. Anyone they came in contact with, they asked for contact info. Then that person would go on an automatic call list and be contacted every two months to coerce people into leasing pets. I had arguments with management about that, about identifying what was in the food, how and where it was processed (I wanted to know about the ingredients and the standards of the manufacturing process), and why the fees were lie gouging customers. I finally told them to eff off and I walked.
Thanks for sharing your story. I’m glad you stood up for your principles.
I simply don’t understand why someone just doesn’t become a foster home through a legit, credible, and responsible animal rescue rather than “rent” a pet. Fostering provides all of the same things one would get if “renting” a pet (rescue pays for all veterinary care, training/ongoing support, and sometimes even food and treats) but it’s FREE and provides more stability for the pet. It’s rarely a long-term commitment because the animal is only there long enough for a permanent home to be found. It’s a win-win for everyone in my opinion.
Furthermore, with “renting” a pet you pay a fee for the convenience of being able to ‘dispose’ of the animal when it’s no longer convenient to have it around but animals are not “disposal property”! This is a HORRIBLE ‘service’
Terrible. I worked for Scamps Pet Center in the 80’s. I got fired for turning in my boss for dumping kittens on the side of s road. He now owns a pet store in River Road, Eugene, Oregon called Bobcat Pets. At Scamps They killed animals too. I received Workers Comp for the Mental Duress I suffered! I pray there is a Hell for these people where they exist forever hearing the sound of
these helpless animals cries (recorded from their Earthly crimes) and sit in dog poop…
This is so wrong we do not live in a barbaric Country.This Dog Rental Besnuss needs to be shut down Animals are not furniture or cars or apartmen’s Animals are Family Member This Hannah Animal Rental is NOT a healthy environment For ANIMALS IT’S Not Stable Living This Is a TRAVESTY FOR The Animals Shut This Place Down.We Don’t Rent Out Are Children Stop Killing These Baby’s For Profit.
A vet that started a pet rental company? Really? What I see is a vet that lives off the backs of animals just like a shady rescue or a backyard breeder! This man needs to be reported and this place needs to be shut down! This is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen in animal rescue!!
This man is a vet?!?! OMG….I hope he does not still have a license….
This is outrageous. Pets are not to be leased like a television or a computer, they’re living beings. This company needs to be put out if commission. Please people visit a reputable shelter and adopt instead of places like this. There are so many unwanted but loving animals out there looking for they’re forever home with you.
This story is a true nightmare! This man is a very sick man. How in God’s name did he ever become a Veterinarian or a founder of such an insane rescue organization. Shut this company down and highly publicize this horror story. This man and anyone who is in favor of what he does must be punished. I will definitely post this story and encourage everyone else to do also. This story will spread like wildfire throug all of our reputable rescue groups who deligently strive to make sure all the animals have a chance of getting a forever loving home.
He practiced – by founding Banfield, the Pet Hospital (formerly known as Vetsmart). He retired from Banfield several years ago. Hannah was started by his wife, Sandy.
According to the Banfield website, he worked there 30 years after it first opened, then later he purchased Banfield from its original founder. A few years after that he opened a clinic inside a PetSmart store.
This is nothing short of animal “trafficking”. This company should be put out of business. People who want a pet this way should go buy a stuffed animal. Or maybe they should rent kids instead.
This Scott Campbell is lying thru his teeth , With this new law by the FBI , CONTACT THEM WITH THIS INFORMATION , And Let Them Get This guy For Animal Abuse , FBI knows a liar and cover up when they see one , Send this to every rescue and plaster this All Over Facebook And Twitter, Lets get justice for these 3 beautiful innocent babies that were murdered , By this guy and his rent a dog , Lets Shut It Down Period , Before He kills More Dogs And He Will , And He Will BC He Thinks He can Get Away With It
Wtf that is unbelievable what a horrible company. Fn a-holes
That’s horrible! Pets are not for rent! Let good people own them!
actually, don’t want to sound like a nit-picker…but animals are not ours to “own”…we are their caretakers or guardians…
Actually, by law we do “own” them. That is a good thing. If someone steals your pup, you can have them prosecuted and your pup returned to you. He is your property. Conversely, if your pup bites someone, you are legally responsible, because you “own” him. Using that term does not make your relationship with your animal less special.
Not all statements are true im this article. Columbia county shelter wasnt the only dog rescue, they do work with and have always worked with another group in columbia county. So be aware of what is fact and what is false to make an article. I am sadden they have elected to put down these dogs. It is not the norm for them to do so. They were just recognized last year for saving a puppy that didnt have use of one of his legs. Just research..i myself dont like the idea of renting a dog, but for some people it is easier for them.
Could you please post the name of the other rescue. I’d like to confirm that with them, and if it’s true I want to correct the article.
The company in Columbia County Oregon that also supplies a majority of pets to Hannah is “All Terrier Rescue Hunters Crossing”. The woman who runs it is well known to Columbia County officials. She has been investigated many times, for many years. She is unlicensed and her “non Profit” is a scam. Hannah gets A-LOT of dogs from her, that she brings in from out of state in trucks.
Thanks for the info. I’m not surprised.
Just because the company doesn’t tell you the names of the rescue groups doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I wouldn’t be surprised if rescue groups don’t want to be named because they could be subjected to personal attacks like some of the comments posted on this article. Your conclusion that only one exists is an assumption based on groundless accusations and that is contrary to what the company has said. It makes no sense to present it as fact just because they won’t expose shelters to animosity from people who don’t like the business plan. It’s scary enough to post counterpoints here.
My information came from sources who are extremely knowledgable about Hannah. It is not an assumption. And yes, Hannah has lots of critics, many of which are former customers and not people who don’t like their business plan. Check them out on Yelp and you’ll see.
If people are looking for an “easy” option when comes to owning a pet then I suggest a goldfish.
As a member of the Oregon rescue community, I would also like to know the name(s) of the other groups and shelters Hannah works with: I know of no others than Columbia…
Moppy, you are simply wrong. They DO NOT, and HAVE NOT obtained animals from another “shelter” or “rescue” in Columbia County…..which is why you will not be able to provide DogSpot with a name. They may have gotten animals from puppy mills and back yard breeders, but not from a rescue or shelter. Wise up and stop being a shill for a corrupt corporation.
Easier?!!? WTF??? Explain that one please..
.Foster…foster….foster…
teh rescue covers all costs, they are there to help if you have training or behavioral problems….you are helping the dog “graduate” to his new “forever” home..
.it is a positive thing.
Not a thing whose purpose is to make some so-called compassionate vet rich….
The veterinarian that ordered the 3 dogs killed should have his licence revoked and be charged with cruelty to animals. I won’t forget his name. The whole premise of Hannah is insane. If you have to lease a pet because you won’t commit to full responsibility and adoption, you don’t deserve a pet. Get a stuffed animal. Just shameful!
Did you also know that foster parents are paid to take in children. And many of them are abused as well.what a f.up world when live in when you have to get paid to help a child. Oh the poor little dogs.!!! My heart sinks thinking about them. 🙁
This company needs to be investigated and shut down. I can’t believe they even have a company like this. Renting out animals should be illegal. This is absolutely ridiculous! I would not trust this company.
“Renting out animals should be illegal” Do you think that the companies who rent horses for ridding also need to be shut down? Not trying to attack your opinion, just trying to understand.
Riding a horse for a day is completely different then having an animal in your home, caring for it daily and having it vet attached to you. You are in no way responsible for the horse for that day. While having a pet in your home is and should be a big responsibility.
A petition has been created, please sign and please share: https://www.change.org/p/sarah-reategui-expose-the-truth-behind-hannah-the-pet-society?recruiter=476860766&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink
OMG!!!
Has anyone turned this wholly unethical vet into the State health department that governs vets?
He has no business being around animals, and to “Rent them” out s appalling.
I don’t think there are any laws against their business model.
I once walked by this place & the lady inside had a 10 week old cocker spaniel she was showing. The puppy looked skinny enough that you see the ribs & backbone. I was just walking by til I saw that & decided I had to go inside & ask why, she said that was the way the dog was suppose to look. I felt truly sad after that & if I could have gotten away with it I would have taken that pup away. Lets sign the petition or better let’s make some signs & put more pressure on them at clackamas town center in clackamas or.
and that is what is unfortunate and actually the most revolting thing of all, in the end…
What they do may be revolting but the law doesn’t consider it illegal.
I went there a few years ago for a job interview. The manager did not care that I was a trained clicker trainer, had my own dog training business, was a writer on dog training and behavior. She did not know what was in the food that they sell and insist you use. All she cared about was if I had sales experience, that was her only question.
I was appalled at this. Hope they are shut down.
Im curious why the HR person hiring you would need to know what’s in the pet food? Would you ask the person at the reception desk of your dentist office whats wrong with your teeth? And they don’t “insist” you use their food. That’s ludicrous, you can use it if you want it part of your monthly fee, if you don’t want to then don’t. I buy my own food for my cats. I use Hannah for piece of mind on vet bills..
If you buy your own food you could just get pet insurance and not pay for food you aren’t using.
Please see the following statement from Hannah the Pet Society in regard to this issue:
You may have heard that Hannah the Pet Society euthanized three pets in its care in 2015 due to each having multiple documented instances of aggressive behavior, including biting. While we stand by the decision to put them to sleep rather than return them to a shelter – where they could face years of re-adoption and return and could hurt people – the experience taught us that we needed a more formalized process for handling these situations because the issue is so highly sensitive and emotional by nature.
Since the euthanizations occurred, we have established a six-person committee, including two veterinarians, three behavior experts and a pet sourcing specialist, to handle any future decisions of this sort so, on the rare occasions when euthanasia is the only option, we can better communicate the process.
In addition, we have changed our initial assessment of pets we receive. Behavior issues are now always assessed by a behavior expert. Following their analysis, a veterinarian conducts an assessment of any medical issues.
Our goal regarding euthanasia is 0%, and because we have world-class veterinary and behavioral expertise we have the ability, and the conviction, to come closer to that goal than virtually any other animal welfare or other organization. Having said that, the unfortunate reality is that there are pets that can present a danger either to other pets or to people and that we, despite our best efforts, cannot change or fix. In those rare circumstances it is irresponsible to place the pet in the general population.
Hannah the Pet Society was founded with the goal of reducing the number of pets in shelters by eliminating the barriers to pet ownership so more people who want pets can have them. As an entirely new model for bringing people and pets together, we are constantly learning and refining the way we do things. We appreciate your understanding as we continue to evolve as an organization and hope our new clear and formalized process will provide more comfort about these rare decisions, should we encounter them again in the future.
This company is NOT an animal welfare organization. This company is for making profits off animals that deserve a real family and love.
Thank you for your response. I do take issue with your statement that Hannah the Pet Society euthanized Pip, Kelso, and Charlie Bear “due to each having multiple documented instances of aggressive behavior, including biting.” I have seen your own records about all three dogs, and not only did none of the reports have anything indicating the dogs had bitten anyone, they didn’t even say the dogs were aggressive.
If Pip and Kelso were so dangerous, why did you place them twice? And why didn’t the people who took them say they were aggressive. Even as late as October 30, about 3 weeks before the dogs were killed, you posted a promotion video of Pip in which he showed no aggression.
Neither Pip nor Kelso were returned because of aggression/biting. Kelso was returned because the family could not afford him and for excessive chewing. They even said Kelso had “Zero bites” and was “highly friendly to new people, and children.” The report also notes “Member recommends rehoming” and “member states “very lovable.”
The other family returned him because the dog they had didn’t get along with him, but they also said “Kelso was a “Wonderful dog” and his issues could be fixed “with proper training.”
Pip was returned once because the person who took him couldn’t afford your payments, and once because the family’s autistic daughter didn’t accept him. Your staff noted that Pip was “friendly to new people and dogs. Pet plays well during free play and social play.”
I certainly understand that some dogs have behavior problems so severe they have to be euthanized, but your nothing in your own documentation showed any of them had behavior issues. If you have any records that show the dogs were aggressive I’d certainly like to see them.
Funny you use the words “rare occasions” and “rare decision”…there is NOTHING “RARE” about three dogs being murdered in one day!
Sounds like two strikes and you’re out to me 🙁
Rest assured, there is a special place in Hell for people who abuse animals and children. Shame on you! Karma is a Bitch!!!
This makes me extremely uncomfortable. I have been a supportive customer of Hannah for almost 4 years even through the other controversies that have been recently posted, but this one changes things for me. Who’s to say that if my dog was sick and i took him in that they won’t take my pet and do the same all while claiming that “there was nothing else they could do.” It is unnerving that although there seemed to be the option to return the dogs they still deemed killing them the better choice. Morally if they have the mindset to get rid of them in that way, why not just go on craigslist and pose as someone unrelated to Hannah and try to rehome the dogs, or find another option. Someone somewhere would take those dogs, Hannah just might not get any money for it. This is ground for me to call and also cancel my contract, and i won’t pay a $700 fee that will probably go straight into the CEO’s pocket or straight into a syringe to kill another pet. SICKENING. Sorry this one got me a bit passionate, but i can’t see there being an argument from the other side that verifies killing three loving dogs when you state blatantly that you won’t do that. Something isn’t right here.
The shelter that sent them 2 of the dogs would have taken them back.
There’s a post above that says it would be irresponsible to place the dogs elsewhere if they could hurt someone or if they’d face a life of constant turmoil from getting re-homed, getting returned and getting rehomed again and returned again. That means the Craigslist idea wouldn’t work, plus the only way they’d make money off the dogs is by re-homing them even if they thought it was a bad idea. They don’t make money off putting the dog to sleep.
The rescue that sent Pip and Kelso to Hannah would have taken them back. When they found out the dogs had been euthanized they cancelled their contract with Hannah and took back their dogs that Hannah still had.
“So to say that they severed their connection to working with Hannah because of this incident is just simply not true.”
Sorry, I don’t follow your point. Regardless of whether or not what you’re accusing Lisa Beggio of doing is true, how would supplying dogs to Hannah or sourcing dogs for them be the reason for terminating their contract, and what proof do you have of that?
Columbia already told me that they won’t speak about their relationship with Hannah other than to confirm they terminated their agreement in December. My sources are intimately familiar with the workings of Hannah and they’ve done nothing to indicate that their claim that Columbia didn’t get their dog back.However, as you said, even if I got this wrong it doesn’t change the facts about Hannah. And I’ll be happy to correct it if someone can provide evidence that Columbia didn’t get the dogs back.
It does appear to me you have an ax to grind with Columbia since you derogatorily refer to them at “righteous saviors.”
Finally, I am not an investigative journalist. This blog represents my opinions about various topics based on the evidence I see. The fact that I have an “obvious negative bias” against Hannah is no secret, and I said it in my post. I’ve also written other critical pieces about them. Millions of blogger write their opinions every day. This is no different.
Correct. It may not make them money to put the animals to sleep. The point i was making was that it costs money for the drugs to do it, and that money comes from the pockets of their customers.
I think it costs them more money to care for dogs they haven’t placed than it does to euthanize them.
But this Hannah place kept re-homing and re-homing them…and the difference is???
This is pathetic. Oregon is allowing this kind of thing? This is effectively Rent-A-Center for live beings. How has Portland not torn this garbage apart?
We need to start a petition to shut them down and get all humane societies, rescues to join in bringing these asshole down NOW,
We brought our dog to hannah pet society for an evaluation because we figured it was a smart investment to have guaranteed health insurance and monthly food delivered. Our pit/rott mix is extremely loving and had never had any problems with vets up until his appointment. When the vet technician first came in, everything went really well (she took his temperature, no problems) and they gave us a price estimate for the monthly fee. We agreed and our dog was taken back to get some shots he was due for. They did not allow us to go back with him or for him to have the shots in the room we were in, instead they made us wait outside in the lobby where we could watch from glass windows. It was less than a minute until we saw 4 technicians cornering our dog at once. He let out a really large yelp/bark, which frightened all of them. They called us back in the room and told us he was really aggressive and it would required extensive classes for him to be trained so our price went up by 100$ a month. At that point we said forget this place and left. Little did we know, this caused extreme vet anxiety for our dog and he is now completely traumatized every time he goes to the vet. He is so incredibly scared when he sees a vet technician come near him that he shakes uncontrollably and tries to warn them with a snap and a bark to get away from him. They LITERALLY ruined our dogs life. They are completely unprofessional and clearly have no idea what they are doing. Now every time our dog goes in for even a routine procedure, he has to be put under anesthesia, which is always a risk. I can’t say enough HORRIBLE things about Hannah Pet Society.
I’m so sorry, that sounds awful. Thank you for sharing your story.
Strangest thing ever. Renting dogs?
I was leary of this company after reading the Willamette Weekly article (http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-19896-rent_a_pup.html) back in 2012. Pets aren’t ‘rentals’. They’re a lifetime commitment. Also, not everyone should have a pet. Years ago, a stray cat with a newborn kitten adopted me and promptly had six more in my guest room. When it came time to find homes for them, I turned a few people away including one woman who called me every name in the book. Her young daughter ran in, grabbed a kitten by the neck, and squeezed, choking it while her mother did nothing. I pried her fingers from the kittens neck, put it back in the box and told her mother they were living creatures and not ‘training models’. I suggested that she teach her child the proper way to handle living things before adopting an animal. Bottom line is that owning an animal is a huge commitment and shouldn’t be entered into lightly by either side. Anytime money and profit comes into the equation, helpless animals are bound to lose. I have dear friends who rescue border collies. They carefully screen all potential adopters. Everyone responsible for the welfare of animals should be just as careful.
I thing the screening process is just a formality. They didn’t appear to put those dogs in places where they were set up for success.
I hope someone from some animal welfare service is looking into this and that this place gets shut down. I am horrified by this story. The entire concept of renting a dog is just wrong, and then to kill three dogs that could have been adopted out is sick. Best Friends Animal Society would have taken them and given them happy lives. This place needs to close!
Poor little dogs
Did anyone else wonder why these 3 ALL needed to be euthanized in November… just before the holidays? Sad situation. I’d never “rent a pet” and I don’t advocate it as it seems to perpetuate the image of a pet as “property” with which I strongly disagree. Pet insurance is a good choice. If you are not ready to commit to full guardianship of a living being then get a stuffed animal. NO insurance, exercise, training, or food required.
This is horrible! Whoever did this should meet the same justice! Fired….then charges be brought against for animal cruelty and killing them!
Our Hannah puppy was sent home with parvovirus and almost died they did no screening at all!!!
I appreciate that many of you think making money is morally wrong and that somehow “owning” a family member is ethically superior to “leasing” a family member. I just happen to disagree with you.
I don’t doubt that my dog might have come from a less than reputable puppy mill. But that doesn’t change the fact that he was indeed born and needed a family to call his own. It’s easy to say that the solution to puppy mills is to not buy their puppies, but that’s not much of a solution to the puppies that already exist. I’m not comfortable handing a huge wad of cash to a stranger in the Walmart parking lot for a dog I’ve never met. Call me crazy, but I like doing business with real tax paying companies.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to do the math. Yes, if my dog is healthy and lives a long life, I will over pay for him using Hannah. Personally, I hope I do over pay for him! But the same would be true for pet insurance.
God forbid, if the day comes that I want more vet care for my dog than Hannah wants to provide, I still have the option to buy him. When you are looking at thousands of dollars of vet bills, what’s another $700?
Closing Hannah won’t stop puppy mills, animal euthanasia, or global warming. Their business plan is unique, but not illegal. It’s also not illegal to make mistakes, even if that leads to the loss of a precious life. We should judge their character as a company based on how they respond, not on their perfection.
Finally, I’m insulted by the insinuation that I would somehow love Toro more if I owned him rather than leasing him. It sounds like you believe I would love children more if I was their biological father rather than adoptive father. Please don’t judge my character based on your shallow and unenlightened view of the world.
There are plenty of local rescues that don’t hand over dogs over parking lots and do extensive background and home checks regarding potential adopters, so don’t lump all of them together in the same group. And just because a company pays taxes doesn’t make them trustworthy (remember Enron?).
And using your logic, no one should ever stop buying puppies from mills because you’re concerned about the puppies that “already exist.” If you truly want to stop backyard breeders you stop buying their puppies. It’s simple supply and demand. You imply that something bad would happen to the puppies that already exists, but I don’t think that’s the case. Breeders will still sell them.
Supporting breeders also perpetuates the suffering of the dogs forced to breed over and over again.
I’d be happy to judge the company on how they respond – Their CEO repeated the company’s claim the dogs were killed because they were dangerous which makes no sense since their own behaviorists said the dogs were friendly and liked people. Otherwise, why did they keep placing them? This was not a “mistake.” It was a deliberate act by company founder Scott Campbell overruling the judgement of his staff.
Finally, people can get pet insurance that offers the same thing as Hannah and doesn’t mandate you relinquish ownership of your dog.
Wow! You are the enlightened one, I suppose. Very dharmic response
Uno problemo—we don’t “lease” and we do not “own” dogs or animals either…we are their caretakers or guardians.
Just sayin’.
Thank you Tam for making the point most eloquently.
If you believe animals are property, sales vs. lease is a superficial argument. If you believe animals are beautiful and free spirits, you treat your neighbors dog as you treat your own.
I hope our friends at Seattle Dog Spot are more compassionate about human children than puppies. I believe every child and every puppy should be born to into a loving family financially and emotionally prepared to to care for them. Until that day arrives, I choose to adopt and love the ones that are already here, regardless of how they arrived.
Is it my dogs fault he came from a puppy mill? Is he less deserving of love and safety because you don’t approve of the way he arrived here?
Hannah clearly is not getting their designer and pure breed puppies from shelters or other rescues, they are buying them from breeders.
As someone who has had personal experience with Hannah (both from the inside of the organization and as a member), I highly recommend you do your own research and choose a program that best meets the needs of you and your pet.
However, from my personal experience – I will recommend you do not “adopt” or sign your pet up with Hannah the Pet Society.
1- If it’s the “long-term cost” of owning a pet that you’re concerned with; going with a “Pet Insurance” may be a better option. There are several different plans available; some that cover everything needed in routine care, to some that just cover emergencies, and everything in between.
2- I really recommend going to a shelter and walking around, doing a few little meet and greets with dogs that interest you. This is my personal story on why:
A few weeks after starting to work at Hannah, a dog came in to be assessed for adoption. She passed the PAT (Pet Aptitude Test), and was put into the Placement Center rotation. Being an older (around 3 years of age) dog, she took several weeks to get placed, because of course – everyone wants the cute little fluffy puppies. During these weeks, I became very attached to her. She eventually got placed in a “forever home”. I cried the day she left, both from sadness because she was such a sweet soul and from happiness that she finally would be in a home. She was returned 9 days later (she had terrible separation anxiety and her then “owner/renter” worked 12+ hours in an office away from home). I walked in to work that afternoon, saw the Member crying and that dog pulling on the leash to get to me. I gave our receptionist a quizzical look, and learned the dog was being returned. That was all it took; a sign that she was meant to be in my life. I took her home that night; and she’s been mine ever since.
When I went in an signed up to be a member (about a week later), the Pet Ambassador and their computer program tried to match me to a Labrador Retriever. I also knew this dog personally, but I knew he was not a good match for me.
This little 11 pound 3 year old dog was the perfect match for me because of my job (I could bring her with me – and still do even though I’ve since moved as well as changed jobs), my lifestyle (small house, no fenced yard, worked 8+ hours a day, love to hike, jog, and road trip), as well as what I was looking for in a companion animal (small enough to travel with me; both in a vehicle and on a plane, older – already “elimination” trained, and a fierce love to snuggle.
I’m not saying you need to spend weeks getting to know a dog before adopting, but I am saying there’s a certain bond present when you meet face to face – something you just can’t get from someone analyzing your life and using a computer program to find “the best Pet Match for you!”
3- I also highly recommend doing research on each veterinarian you’re thinking of taking your pet to. Whether it be a Hannah veterinarian, a veterinarian who practices at a clinic, or a vet who makes house calls. Look for things like reviews of their bedside manner, knowledge of the pets’ condition, where they graduated from, how long (and/or how long it’s been since) they’ve been practicing.
4- I, personally, am thankful for Hannah; but not for the reasons most people are. If I had never stumbled upon Hannah, I never would have met my two dogs. One of them had severe separaton anxiety; I couldn’t leave the room without her screaming bloody murder. Thanks to several “behavioral therapy” sessions I became aware of what works (and what doesn’t work) to ease her anxiety level- and yes, some of these came from Hannah, but most things I’ve figured out by just letting my pup be herself.
If not for Hannah, my first dog wouldn’t have met her canine soulmate. They love each other, play together everyday, sleep together every night, and can’t stand to be apart. He has made her happier, and that’s made me happier too.
I’m thankful for Hannah because through Hannah the Pet Society I have met some amazing people; whether they’re former co-workers, members, or just people who happened to come in one day; I’m glad for the opportunity to get to know them and thankful that those friendships were forged.
Last (but certainly not least), I’m thankful for Hannah because they helped me to have a greater appreciation of the veterinarian that my dogs are patients of. Hannah helped me learn what’d a good match for my 2 dogs and what isn’t. Hannah helped me realize that for me, it’s truly about having a companion animal. And no, they don’t always come when called and no, they don’t have the best manners but they’re always happy to see me, always get the best care available, and never, ever want for anything (except maybe another serving of food at dinner time).
Just to reiterate; I think the overall idea of Hannah the Pet Society is potentially great. I, personally, have a few issues with the practice of it. I feel that they need to be more open and ethical with the source and placement of pets in their care.
I wish they would treat each dog, cat, guinea pig, and rabbit as an individual and not as an overall group. I wish Hannah had offered me more in terms of care and prevention (flea and heartworm, specifically) for my dogs.
Ultimately, Hannah was not a good match for me, or my pets. I encourage anyone to do your own research, and decide if Hannah is personally right for you.
This is unacceptable. Three healthy, happy dogs were murdered, and for no reason except he felt like it. This organization should be shut down. Also, no renting dogs. This is a horrible idea. How many homes do these dogs go too? Poor babies.
We adopted a dog from Hannah a few years back…altho we have never had a problem yet with them and our dog is health, I would never get a dog from them again because all that I have seen since then is very bad procedures on there part and to euthanize adoptable pets is unacceptable. I
honestly do see how the will be in operation much longer at this rate!
According to one of the replies to the many, MANY new negative reviews posted on their Yelp page, the six person committee was not formed until after the euthanisations and the huge blowout caused by it being made public. They’re claiming they stand by their decision, but I thought it was worth noting if you’d like to update your article. Money says the douchebag who runs this racket is one of those six people.
Good point, thanks.
I have also had a bad experience with Hannah. I was promised a puppy and it was sold out from underneath me and then was returned and tried to sell to me again. I do not agree with their practices or their procedures I hope that this opens people’s eyes and they do not give them business.
This is disgusting and I will be sharing this! What a bunch of heartless pigs!
I have read about half of this. I am very confused about how some people choose just the insurance from Hannah. They say they save thousands by doing this, although they already had a pet and are not using the rent-a-pet. Hannah states on their page, TLC Plans for dogs start at $59 and cats at $39.
But if you just spend 30 seconds on the internet you can find comparable insurance at much lower rates. Hannah claims on that same paragraph:
One-time “Lifetime Membership Fee” ($199 for life) with voluntary annual donations if you want to
Monthly Total Lifetime Care Plan & Companionship (TLC) Fee upon enrollment of a Pet (fee based on species, breed, age and other factors). TLC Plans for dogs start at $59 and cats at $39.
Additional fees (when applicable):
“Healthy Start Fee” – for the first year of a puppy or kitten’s life (fee depends on species, breed and age)
“Testing, Training, & Transportation (TTT) Fee” – for costs associated with sourcing a new Pet (costs vary)
“Sick or Injured Care Fee” – for a sick or injured Pet that is enrolled on the Total Lifetime Care Plan (costs vary)
“Adjusted Pet Adoption/Purchase Fee” – the pre-agreed price paid by a Pet Parent who wishes to terminate their relationship with Hannah and purchase the Pet (costs vary, but are generally $800 for a dog Hannah’s finds and generally $200 for a Pet Hannah’s trades for services for)
This is the Better Business Bureau and a list of 37 complaints for this company:
http://www.bbb.org/alaskaoregonwesternwashington/business-reviews/pet-shops/hannah-the-pet-society-in-portland-or-22692861/Complaints#breakdown
Very similar to the complaints on this page.
My concern is this….ok so it is 2 different services. One is to rent a pet and the other is for just insurance but without the rental.
The price for the latter is generally $59.00 or $709.00 a year, starting for an average dog. You get insurance with no co-pays.
It is more if you are also renting your dog. But let us just focus on the insurance. I checked about 6 different companies that offer the same services. For instance Nationwide Pet Insurance https://www.petinsurance.com/comparison
$76.00 a month with a $100.00 deductible.
10% copay.
I know this is more than the one in question, but I am trying to show the most expensive compared to Hannah.
But here is the problem. With Hannah you can only go to their doctors. On the BBB site and yelp and everywhere else it clearly shows poor service by the doctors not being available and or poor service. Whereas with Nationwide you can go to any vet of your choosing. Also be reimbursed. I saw 3 examples where a customer was told to go to another vet BY Hannah and they refused to reimburse.
I am seeing on this site that we are speaking on that the people who are “pro” Hannah, seem to think it is the only thing out there. From what I see, especially on http://www.petinsurancereview.com/dog.asp
It clearly shows that most of the programs that offer much better service are cheaper than Hannah, plus you can go to any Vet and not be restricted to Hannah’s doctors. And here is the comparison grid. http://www.petinsurancereview.com/features.asp
I just want to make sure that the people on here that are complaining about Hannah, are well informed and that contacting the BBB does get immediate results with this company. The main complaint with the customers was that they joined, and rented a pet along with the insurance. Generally $328.00 and plus around $150.00 to $200.00 for bowls and leashes etc…that you have to buy just to get a dog that they have the rights to. It shows on the contract in tiny print that if you do not pay the monthly fee that they can come and repossess the dog or cat anytime in that year.
Please do your research people that are already in this program. You can go to your local TV stations…I saw KOIN has a program where they investigate scams and help a person get it resolved. But mainly go to BBB and they can help almost immediately. I do see many complaints on Yelp for this company, and some responses from Hannah, but it truly looks like you would have to pay additional fees for satisfaction.
I hope this helped. Please let me know if I am just running off at the mouth though. I would love Hannah to respond, but bet I would have to sign a contract in blood and sell my soul first.
Thanks
Donna
Thanks for your detailed comment. It does appear people don’t understand they’re signing over their dogs to Hannah to get insurance. And since only about 10% of dog owners get pet insurance I’m not surprised they don’t know about all the companies that do offer it. I think Hannah gets a lot of subscribers for its insurance after they already signed their lease agreement (“for another $xxxx per month you can get pet insurance). But as you point out, Hannah’s insurance is not only expensive, it requires you to see their vets to get reimbursement. Other pet insurance companies let you take your dog to any vet you want.
Thanks again for the info. I hope people considering whether or not to get insurance from Hannah will read it first.
These people need to be shut down. With Oregon’s open minded laws I am surprised they even will approve of a place like this to operate. Animals should not be rented for profit. Would you rent out a child? Of coarse not! An animal just like a child needs a loving, compassionate environment to thrive! And I agree with the article on what it said about the euthanasia of these dogs. What a horrific environment for these loving animals to be a part of!
This is one of the worst BS excuses for a “Rescue” I’ve heard yet. Who in the hell thinks it’s acceptable to “rent” dogs out? Dogs are supposed to be a Lifetime commitment. A reputable rescue screens for just that. People who are COMMITED to their dogs. Wow! The return rate seems outrageous just from these poor dogs who were killed. This non-commital model of “rescue” is not Good for the dogs and it sounds like they have no idea how to place dogs in the right homes. Poor Kelso an 11month old lab placed twice in clearly homes where he wasn’t getting enough exercise and wasn’t taken outside to go potty frequently enough. Not his fault! An 11 month old lab mux needa a ton of exercise and I’m sure being pent up without enough mental or physical stimulus added to being nippy. These are basics any responsible and EXPERIENCED resccuer knows. How did the genius “behavioral” staff not know this? Wow how gross that people can get a dog like they do a flatscreen TV they can’t afford and when they can’t afford the payments instead of the TV being returned this innocent life gets returned? I’m in shock that anyone who has any idea about rescue would endorse such a model. The answer is they wouldn’t. These poor dogs are going to go back and forth from home to home when they’re not perfect because that’s what the concept elicits. Home then back to this shelter them to a home then back them killed. I’m sick at the thought of these losers who are doing this all for a buck. Let’s get a copy of their tax records. This is clearly for Profit. How shameful to not put the dogs and their Long term well-being first with a business model that encourages a lack of Commitment and a lack of money to care for a dog that should be a forever family member. Hey Hannah’s … When you’re really about saving lives and commiting to them and ensuring you’ve done everything possible I’m sure there are countless real responsible rescuers who can teach you How to do a thorough application, phone screen, home check, vet reference check, etc. I shudder to think of what type of “due diligence” you do before schlepping an innocent dog into any home that will pay your rental fee. Shame on you!!!
These posts have certainly opened my eyes to Hanna,I had no idea,but have not seen the commercials they were running.This is absolutely crazy,if you can`t afford caring/feeding a pet why would you want one?Have been involved with breed rescue for my breed for years and this beats all.I really hope this company can be closed down for good.
Thank you for working in rescue!
Hey. So I just thought I could leave my experience so far with Hannah here. I’m not trying to start a pissing match, just let people know how it works, at least for me. I’m a 23 year old Barista in Beaverton. I had been considering getting a dog about a year and a half ago. I wanted a puppy, because I wanted my dog to be with me for a really long time. I found Hannah, and after doing some research, it made sense for me. The guy that worked for Hannah that helped me through the process told me upfront that, 1) technically this is ours, but no, we will never repo your dog, and 2) all choices and decisions are yours and yours alone. So, I have my frenchie named Izzy, and she is family. I spoil her, and I bust my ass to do so. When she went in to get fixed last year, the vet had recommended some surgery on her nose. She was having very restricting breathing, even for a frenchie. The said that while she was “under” they would take a look and call me and let me know what they thought. Next day I get a call from the doctor, letting me know she thinks its best, and if she can go through with the surgery. I gave them the OK, and she breathes SO much better. They sat down with me after the surgery, showed me pictures of what happened, everything. I’m not trying to say that putting down those dogs is OK at all, but please don’t assume that every Hannah member is despicable or terrible.
Thank you for sharing your story. I understand some people are happy with their experience with Hannah, but the sheer number of complaints I’ve seen indicates a significant number of their customers had bad experiences with them.
Problems were reported at Hannah not long after its founding:
http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-21131-one_sick_puppy.html