Animals Archives - Fostoria Free Press

FOSTORIA | Owner saves life of his cat with $14,300 in Vet ER charges, 90% paid by insurance.

June 20, 2026/0 Comments/in 1-Homepage Featured, 1-Press Room, Animals, Fostoria/by Editor-in-Chief

By Josh Tolento, The Mindful Beekeeper LLC

On May 12th 2025 I woke up to find one of my best friends on the floor covered in urine and barely moving. After rushing him to Tri-County Vet in Fostoria I was told that he needs a lifesaving PU (Perineal Urethrostomy) surgery permanently widens a male cat’s urethral opening. It is performed to prevent life-threatening, recurring urinary blockages. The procedure lowers the risk of future obstructions and allows cats to live normal, comfortable lives, though they typically require lifelong prescription diets.

The choice was to make the 1 1/2 hour drive to Columbus Med Vet or say goodbye. Since I pay for pet insurance for Albert with a $20,000 annual max payout the decision was easy. After Tri-County Vet got him somewhat stable they loaded hot water bottles around him inside his crate because his temperature was dangerously low.

I grabbed a friend and made the drive to Columbus at 6PM.

30 minutes from arriving to MedVet Albert began crashing with rapid shallow breathing and unresponsiveness.

Once I arrived I was swarmed by 4 people who quickly took him from me and rushed him back to the ICU.

Since I use Ai for note taking with my pets I was able to provide a 7-day history to the doctors in a matter of a few minutes. This was critical for the team to provide the best lifesaving care.

Once Albert was stable I met with the ER doctor who explained to me that he was extremely sick and that a PU surgery would cost upwards of $10,000. She was relieved when I told her that I have insurance with a $20K limit and only a 10% copay on my end.

She explained to me that many insurance companies do not like to payout but I had ZERO concern as Lemonade Insurance has ALWAYS paid out without problems.

THE ROAD BLOCK FOR MOST PET OWNERS WITH INSURANCE:

MedVet Columbus requires a deposit for the low end range of the estimate which amounted to $12,500. This is where maintaining a good credit score and decent line of credit comes into play. I whipped out my AMEX card, paid the $12,500 and the ER team began their work on Albert. Without credit, a cash deposit was the only alternative. This is why some people call insurance a scam, but Lemonade is the farthest thing from it.

After daily trips down to Columbus over a week to visit and keep Albert’s hopes up the fear and stress slowly diminished as the 24 hour communication from MedVet was on par. I can not talk enough about how great Dr. Emily Hill handled overseeing the situation.

With multiple blood transfusions, fluids, and bladder flushes; Albert went through A LOT. My daily trips to Columbus meant the world to him as every day he was happier to see me.

The PU surgery went perfect and his kidney levels all returned to normal after hitting critical levels points away from death.

After discharge he was provided 2 pain medications that had to be given every 8 hours for 7-10 days. Once we arrived back home Albert was loving on me non-stop for hours, a cat so happy to be alive. Sleeping and working around his medication schedule was not easy but I made it work.

SO IS PET INSURANCE A SCAM?

Within 2 weeks the insurance company deposited 90% of the bill ($12,500) into my account hassle free.

100% NOT a scam thru Lemonade.

One thing I will leave you with as I conclude this story is: Making decisions for your furry friends is EASY when money is not a problem. The guilt of me not making the effort and spending the time to use the insurance I pay for would have ate at me for life. I will always do every thing I possibly can to support my family members.

Avoid the alternative and consider signing up for a cheap monthly pet insurance plan for your animals with my referral link: https://lemonade.com/r/joshuatolento

Scammers targeting lost pets online warning with a man holding a dog and a phone showing a suspiciou.

Scammers Targeting Lost Pet Pages: What You Need to Know

February 18, 2026/0 Comments/in 1-Press Room, Animal Rights/Rescue, Animals, Scam, Scammer/by Editor-in-Chief

On Facebook lost-and-found pet pages, most people are genuinely trying to reunite animals with their families. But a growing problem is scammers who monitor these groups, see posts about found dogs or cats, and falsely claim to be the owner so they can take the animal for themselves. They may be looking for a “free” pet, to resell the animal, or in the worst cases, for breeding or other exploitative purposes. This creates a serious risk both for the animal’s safety and for the real family desperately searching for their pet.

How the scam typically works

Scammers watch local lost-and-found pet pages and move quickly when they see a post about a found animal. They may:

Message the finder immediately with a vague “That’s my dog!” or “We’ve been looking for her!” without offering any proof.
Avoid answering detailed questions (like the pet’s name, medical conditions, or unique markings), instead pushing to meet up fast.
Use emotional language (“My kids are heartbroken, please just bring him home”) to discourage the finder from asking for verification.
Claim they “lost all their photos” or “don’t have access to old messages” if asked for proof of ownership, hoping the finder feels guilty for insisting.

Once the scammer convinces the finder, they meet, take the animal, and disappear. The real owner, who may be searching shelters and posting online, may never know someone else claimed their pet.

Why this is so dangerous

This behavior isn’t just dishonest; it has real-world consequences:

Pets can end up in unsafe or unstable homes where their medical, emotional, or safety needs aren’t met.
Some scammers may flip the animal for profit, using online marketplaces or “rehoming” fees.
If the animal is unaltered, they may be used for breeding, contributing to overpopulation and potential neglect.
The real owners lose their chance at reunion because someone else claimed their pet first.

Red flags to watch for as a finder

If you’ve found a dog or cat and posted about it, be cautious of would-be “owners” who:

Cannot provide any clear, prior proof of ownership (photos, vet records, adoption papers, microchip info, etc.).
Get angry, defensive, or pushy when asked for verification.
Give generic answers to questions like “What’s their name?” or “How long have you had them?”
Focus mainly on speed (“I can come right now, just tell me where you are”) instead of details about the pet.
Refuse reasonable steps like a brief video call or meeting at a neutral public place.

How to verify true ownership

You can protect both the animal and the real family by making verification your default. Reasonable, trustworthy owners will understand. Consider:

Asking for photos of the pet taken before it was lost, ideally from different dates/angles.
Requesting identifying details you haven’t shared publicly (scar, spot, collar color, chipped ear, behavior quirks).
Checking for a microchip at a vet’s office or shelter before releasing the animal.
Asking for vet records or adoption paperwork if available.
Meeting in a public place, and watching how the pet and person interact (does the animal seem familiar and comfortable?).

You can also limit the information in your initial post:

Avoid sharing every unique identifying detail (keep one or two details private for verification).
Consider posting slightly obscured photos (for example, not clearly showing a unique collar) and ask claimants to describe what’s not visible.

Tips for group admins and moderators

If you run or help manage a lost-and-found pet page, you can set expectations up front:

Pin a post explaining verification steps and warning about impersonators.
Encourage finders to confirm ownership before handing over any animal.
Disallow posts or comments that pressure finders to “just hand over the dog” without proof.
Remove or block users reported repeatedly for suspicious behavior.
Remind members that protecting the animal and the true owner sometimes means saying “no” to someone who cannot provide proof.

What real owners can do to protect their pets

Owners can also make it easier to prove a pet is truly theirs if they ever go missing:

Keep multiple photos of your pet over time, including close-ups of unique markings.
Microchip your pet and keep the contact info current with the chip company.
Save vet records and adoption paperwork in an easily accessible place.
If your pet is lost, post in local groups quickly with enough detail to help, but keep a few identifiers private for verification.

Being cautious doesn’t mean being unkind—it means taking reasonable steps to ensure the right animal goes to the right home. By slowing down, asking for proof, and educating others in lost-and-found pet communities, you help prevent scammers from turning vulnerable, lost animals into targets.

Developing Story: Whistleblower Alleges Ongoing Neglect at Bell’s Stables in Findlay

January 30, 2026/0 Comments/in 1-Press Room, Animal Rights/Rescue, Animals, Findlay, Findlay Ohio 45840/by FOSTER Ai

Neighbors’ concerns about Bell’s Stables have intensified after a detailed whistleblower post on the “Nosy Neighbors of Findlay” Facebook group alleged ongoing neglect, repeated complaints to authorities, and retaliation against those who speak up.

Whistleblower steps forward

In the days after reports of a dead horse found behind Bell’s Stables on Sixth Street sparked public outrage, a longtime boarder and frequent visitor came forward online to say the incident is part of a larger pattern at the self‑care boarding facility.
Posting under her own name in the Nosy Neighbors of Findlay group, the whistleblower said she has firsthand knowledge of conditions at the barn and personally knows many boarders who she says “take excellent care of their horses,” but insists “at least 6 horses” owned by one individual are not being fed or cared for properly. Allegations of neglect and inadequate response

The post describes multiple attempts over “the past couple months” to get help for the horses, including repeated calls and in‑person reports to the Humane Society that the whistleblower says went unanswered.
According to her account, law enforcement ultimately showed more concern than local animal‑welfare officials, but when the Humane Society did become involved, she claims the owner was given a five‑hour heads‑up before an inspection, allowing time to clean stalls and “bring in feed and hay.”[Screenshot-2026-01-29-at-11.29.56-PM.jpg]
She further alleges that excuses about the cost of hay, lack of adequate feed, and delays in securing veterinary care were offered instead of concrete steps to improve the horses’ condition, even after others offered advice on where to buy hay and how to get better prices.

Claims of retaliation against those speaking out

The whistleblower says that after repeatedly raising alarms about the horses’ welfare, she was threatened with a “No Trespass Order” if she continued trying to check on the animals.
She notes that, as a horse owner herself, she has previously asked people to leave her own property when they failed to provide feed and hay under self‑care agreements, arguing that property owners have a responsibility to intervene when animals are clearly not being cared for.[Screenshot-2026-01-29-at-11.29.56-PM.jpg]
In her view, not only the horse owner but also the property owner of Bell’s Stables should be held accountable for allowing alleged neglect to continue on the premises. Community reaction and calls for accountability

The new claims quickly drew dozens of reactions and comments, with many posters expressing anger, disbelief, and sadness over the idea that multiple horses may have been struggling long before the dead animal behind the stable forced the situation into public view
Some commenters stressed that most boarders at Bell’s Stables are doing everything they can for their animals, while others argued that any facility allowing even a handful of horses to go without adequate feed, hay, or vet care should face serious scrutiny.

What’s next

The whistleblower says she will “continue to fight for these animals in the most respectful way possible” and urges the public to “pray for these animals” while pushing authorities to take stronger action.
Given that at least two horse deaths connected to Bell’s Stables have now been publicly discussed within roughly six weeks, concerned residents are asking whether current complaint procedures, inspection practices, and enforcement tools are sufficient to protect horses at self‑care boarding barns in Findlay and Hancock County.

FINDLAY | Dead Horse Behind Bell’s Stables Sparks Firestorm Over Animal Care, Excuses, and Accountability

January 28, 2026/0 Comments/in Animal Rights/Rescue, Animals, Findlay, Findlay Ohio 45840/by Editor-in-Chief

FINDLAY | A recent Facebook post about a dead horse left in plain view behind Bell’s Stables has ignited a heated debate in the community, with some residents demanding answers about animal welfare and others insisting the winter weather, frozen ground, and high disposal costs made prompt removal unrealistic.

The post and comments show a community split between concern about animal welfare and efforts to normalize or minimize what happened, often using weather and logistics as justification.

Main themes in reactions

Concerned commenters focus on patterns and public impact, noting that two horses have reportedly died in about six weeks and calling for inspections or investigations of the stables.
Defenders emphasize that “livestock dies,” that death is part of farm life, and that outsiders should “mind your own business,” framing the original concern as overreaction or “outrage for attention.”
Several people inject past context, referencing earlier incidents at the same stables (including prior deaths and alleged misconduct) to argue that the facility’s reputation is already questionable.
Others counter with personal observations that the horses are cared for, highlighting regular work, cleaning, and riding, and warning against accusing the stable without direct knowledge.

How people downplay or deflect the incident

Weather and frozen ground: Multiple commenters argue that it is “-10,” the ground is “frozen solid,” and therefore it is unreasonable to expect immediate burial, telling critics to “take a shovel right this second and attempt to dig a hole” and imagine digging one big enough for a horse.
Cost of disposal: Commenters point to very high cremation costs (around $2,000) and the difficulty of arranging removal in a snowstorm, implying that leaving the body visible for a time is financially and logistically understandable rather than negligent.
Normalizing carcass removal: Some say horses “die everyday” and that bodies simply get picked up and taken to the landfill, framing this as routine farm practice and suggesting that those who are upset are “crying about it” rather than understanding rural realities.
Shifting focus to critics: A few responses mock or attack the anonymous poster (“Idiot,” “STFU until you’ve tried [to lift a horse]”), accuse them of lacking “logic,” or claim they just want attention, which shifts the conversation from the dead horse and management of the stables to the character and motives of the person raising concerns.
Minimizing community impact: One commenter argues that after a major snowstorm, few people were using the park anyway, so the visibility of the carcass to children and the public is overstated, again reducing the perceived seriousness of leaving the horse exposed.

Ongoing concerns despite downplaying

Even among those who acknowledge the difficulty of burial in frozen ground, some insist that the horse could at least have been covered with a tarp or otherwise shielded from view, especially given its proximity to homes and a public park, suggesting a basic respect issue rather than just disposal logistics.
Current and former boarders dispute each other: one says the horses are clearly cared for, while another claims they are “skin and bones” and that fencing and general care are poor, reinforcing that there is a real disagreement about conditions rather than simple misunderstanding.
References to earlier deaths and a prior scandal involving “dirty things with a horse” show that for some residents this incident fits a longer pattern of worry about the facility, so for them the weather explanation does not fully address the underlying trust problem.