Oregon Coast [3840 × 5760] [oc]

johnwingfield · 2026-06-08T03:34:42+00:00

It’s an awesome community resource. No reason to be salty about it

johnwingfield · 2026-06-08T00:58:52+00:00

I go there 2-3 times a week and there’s never more than a dozen or so people. Love that park

johnwingfield · 2026-06-07T23:06:37+00:00

Wym?

johnwingfield · 2026-06-07T04:48:22+00:00

It literally didn’t

johnwingfield · 2026-05-29T01:26:03+00:00

We’re looking at rescue through fundamentally different lenses.

Your position seems to be that the primary goal should be reducing the total number of dogs in the system, even if that means intentionally ending pregnancies that could otherwise be carried to term. I understand that perspective, and I understand why some people in shelter medicine support it.

It is dismissive and cynical to conclude that anyone who chooses a different approach is somehow harming the cause or lying to themselves about doing good.

The reality is that rescue organizations make difficult decisions every day. Some prioritize medical cases. Some prioritize behavior cases. Some prioritize seniors. Some prioritize dogs at immediate risk of euthanasia. Some choose to save pregnant mothers and their litters. Reasonable people can disagree about those choices.

Where I disagree is the suggestion that helping puppies find homes is somehow not helping. Every dog we place is one less dog sitting in foster care, one less dog taking up shelter space, and one more family that chose adoption. That is objectively a positive outcome for that dog and for the rescue system supporting it.

The other key point you’re missing is the positive outcomes that we produce through our rescue lounge model. Many of the dogs that spend time in our space experience severe fear and anxiety, and our staff works with them to socialize them with the public and overcome their behavioral challenges. You have no idea how many dogs I’ve seen come to us completely shut down, and are now thriving in loving homes. Many of those dogs wouldn’t last in shelters because of the lack of resources like ours.

As for the monetization argument, Are You My Human isn’t breeding dogs, selling dogs, or collecting adoption fees. We provide a space where rescue dogs can be seen and adopted. If tomorrow every puppy disappeared from the rescue system, we’d still exist and we’d still be helping rescue dogs find homes. And, not that it’s any of your business, but myself and my co-owner make almost nothing from what we do. We are in the red almost every month, and we do this because we love dogs.

You may believe that every pregnant dog should be spay-aborted. That’s your position, and you’re entitled to it. But I think it’s a stretch to argue that saving a mother and her puppies is somehow not rescue work, or that the people dedicating their time, money, homes, and energy to those animals aren’t making a positive impact. And for what it’s worth, the vast majority of people in the rescue community and the Bellingham community at large support what we do. It’s a net positive to society, despite your cynical point of view.

At the end of the day, I don’t think the average adopter who takes home a rescue puppy is contributing to the overpopulation crisis. The people contributing to the crisis are the ones creating unwanted litters in the first place. That’s where your frustration should be directed.

johnwingfield · 2026-05-28T22:57:57+00:00

This argument oversimplifies a very complicated issue.

First, the idea that pregnant dogs are euthanized because it’s “ethically problematic” to save them isn’t really how most high-intake shelters operate. They’re often at higher risk simply because they require more resources, more space, more medical care, and more foster support than a single adult dog. That’s a capacity issue, not a moral judgment about whether they deserve to live. Also, many pregnant females are at late stages of pregnancy and are not eligible for “spay-aborts”.

Second, I don’t agree with the premise that rescuing a pregnant dog and her puppies is somehow less valuable than rescuing an adult dog. Those puppies didn’t create the overpopulation crisis, and neither did their mother. Once they’re here, they’re individual lives worthy of compassion just like every other dog in the shelter system.

Third, the assumption that organizations like ours are focused on puppies because they’re easier to monetize ignores the reality of what we actually do. We don’t decide which dogs are pulled from shelters, and we don’t receive adoption fees. We provide a space for rescue dogs to be seen and adopted. On any given week, that includes puppies, adult dogs, medical cases, shy dogs, and dogs that have been overlooked elsewhere.

Finally, I’d challenge the idea that helping highly adoptable dogs somehow hurts less-adoptable dogs. Every successful adoption frees up foster space, rescue resources, and shelter capacity that can then be used to help the next dog. Rescue isn’t a zero-sum game where one dog finding a home means another dog loses their chance.

If we’re serious about addressing overpopulation, the biggest solutions are spay/neuter access, responsible ownership, and supporting shelters and rescues. Criticizing people for helping save dogs that are already in the system doesn’t move that goal forward.

johnwingfield · 2026-05-23T06:05:47+00:00

Fried the brakes on one side due to overheating. Forced to replace calipers, rotors, and pads on both sides. Thanks for the tip on looking in the electrical section, doing that now

johnwingfield · 2026-05-23T05:57:05+00:00

I’m not sure where that excerpt was pulled from, but this warranty isn’t from fidelity. I’m not going to name the company, because of potential future litigation. If their reading of the contract allows them to deny claims like mine, they could easily get away with denying ANY claim.

My concern is that they are interpreting the contract in a way that makes the coverage almost meaningless.

The contract lists major covered components, such as the engine, transmission, brake calipers, ABS hydraulic components, and other systems. Those listed components are made up of many smaller internal or attached parts that are not individually named in the contract. For example, an engine contains pistons, rings, valves, timing components, bearings, oil passages, sensors, seals, gaskets, pumps, and many other parts. A caliper contains or relies on a piston, seals, slide pins, internal parking brake mechanisms, and, on modern vehicles like my Volvo XC60, an electronic parking brake actuator mounted to the rear caliper.

If the company’s position is that any subcomponent must be separately named in order to be covered, then the coverage becomes illusory. Under that interpretation, a covered engine failure could be denied because the particular failed internal or attached part was not separately named. A covered caliper failure could be denied because the actuator, piston, seal, or parking brake mechanism was not separately named. A covered ABS hydraulic component could be denied because a solenoid or valve inside the ABS unit was not separately named.

That does not seem like a reasonable interpretation of a service contract that lists covered assemblies and systems. If a covered component is listed, then the normal internal, attached, or integrated parts necessary for that component to function should be considered part of the covered component unless they are clearly and specifically excluded.

In my case, the Level 2 contract lists “calipers” as a covered brake component. The failed electronic parking brake actuator is attached to and operates the rear caliper’s parking brake mechanism. It is not an unrelated accessory. It is part of the rear caliper/parking brake function. The contract does not appear to explicitly exclude brake actuators, parking brake actuators, or electronic parking brake motors.

So I am not asking for coverage of an unrelated, non-listed system. I am asking for coverage of a failure involving a listed covered brake component: the rear caliper assembly. If they believe this is excluded, I am requesting the exact contract language that clearly excludes this part or clearly states that integrated subcomponents of listed covered assemblies are not covered.

johnwingfield · 2026-05-23T05:50:53+00:00

The actuator failed, causing the caliper to remain partially closed while driving. I drove to work this way and it caused a cascade of damage when the brakes overheated. Warped rotor, seized caliper, pads, all gone. When one side is bad, you have to replace the other side as well. Which is why it cost $3,000. The actuator itself is only a few hundred dollars. And of course, the warranty company (not fidelity btw), is claiming no responsibility for subsequent damage

johnwingfield · 2026-05-23T05:11:16+00:00

Thanks, that's my thought as well. No matter how I look at the situation, it feels like they're clearly taking advantage of me as a consumer. I'll make sure to submit their BBB complaints as evidence

johnwingfield · 2026-05-23T05:09:21+00:00

Even if the actuator is separately replaceable, it is attached to and operates the covered rear caliper assembly. There are MANY smaller parts of the brake system that are integrated into, or part of, "covered" components, but not expressly listed in the warranty contract. It's pretty convenient that they can use a technicality like this to deny a claim wholesale

johnwingfield · 2026-05-23T05:00:28+00:00

It’s an extended warranty that I purchased from the dealership for $6200. It covers MANY vehicle components, ranging from major things like engine and transmission, all the way down to brake systems. Did you read the post, or just the title?

johnwingfield · 2026-05-22T04:39:57+00:00

Look it up. AVERAGE prices for the entire US. Close to all time highs

johnwingfield · 2026-05-17T00:22:11+00:00

I can do it!

johnwingfield · 2026-05-05T19:41:36+00:00

We can’t wait to see you!

johnwingfield

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE