JMHO...
I obviously I have a completely different take on this story than most ... I thought it was a pretty good story that highlighted both the extraordinary effort some folks will go through to place a homeless dog, as well as the pitfalls rescues face. I also thought it showed both sides (addressing the rationale as well as the criticism) in spite of the ending not being "happily ever after." Many stories don't end on a happy note and public criticism would be equally justified if the media only wrote about happy thoughts. Certainly, I'm well aware of the "if it bleeds, it leads" media mentality and I'm just as sick and tired of it as others.
If I were to question anyone, I would have to wonder why the animal was placed in a home that no one bothered to do an in-home check. Of course I understand the distance barrier, but evidently someone was able to coordinate the pick-up and drop-off people. Couldn't an inspection also been coordinated? I don't think there is any question everyone has good intentions, but it seems to me that is the weakness of placing animals where you can't have someone do a site inspection. Maybe it's an unfair criticism given the geography barrier, but like anything else, the process is only as effective as the weakest link.
Again ... JMHO.
