Jump to content
BC Boards

Article from Slate


Lewis Moon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well, I guess the trend here lately is to bring up every tired, old, polarizing topic. I didn't read the whole article. I don't need to. I've heard it all before. And not to sound like a broken record, but if you don't like a particular rescue or shelter's policies, go somewhere else. That's the thing. There's way more homeless dogs and cats out there then there are people willing to adopt them. So, the supply is there and I'm sure just about anyone is going to find someone willing to adopt a dog to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I guess the trend here lately is to bring up every tired, old, polarizing topic. I didn't read the whole article. I don't need to. I've heard it all before. And not to sound like a broken record, but if you don't like a particular rescue or shelter's policies, go somewhere else. That's the thing. There's way more homeless dogs and cats out there then there are people willing to adopt them. So, the supply is there and I'm sure just about anyone is going to find someone willing to adopt a dog to them.

 

Don't shoot the messenger. Simply pointing out an article on a very well traveled website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, for what purpose? This topic has been beaten to death on this board more times than I can count.

 

Obviously, since you seem to be ascribing some ulterior motive, I surely must have done it just to piss people off. :rolleyes:

 

Really, I must have seriously miscalculated the thickness of skin. I'll aggressively self edit to account for everyone's sensabilities in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this quote from the writer seems a fair indication of the article's value: "Fed up, we decided to buy a puppy and found a lovely breeder, and our Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, Lily, has made us all ecstatic."

 

Jon Katz writes for Slate. Quite some standard they have there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My skin is plenty thick. I just don't see the point of posting these pot-stirring (and IMO, extreme-case scenario) topics over and over again. Yet, I'm seeing it a lot [more] lately here. What's next, raw vs. kibble? And the only reason that I singled you out is because it seems that when the "positive only" vs. correction training thread was finally about to wither on the vine, here comes another tired old topic that never gets anywhere. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ridiculous, really, that rescue groups have standards, policies and actually care about where their animals end up! How dare they expect people to fill out lengthy applications, provide references, pay adoption fees, or subject themselves to a home visit. Heaven forbid! That's just crazy talk.

 

Obviously, it is much, much better to go to a pet store or any old breeder, with little to no questions asked, for your next pet. And then, let's put an article up on Slate, stating just that, with all kinds of adoption horror stories to further our cause! :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, for what purpose? This topic has been beaten to death on this board more times than I can count.

 

Yep, that horse is dead already. (I probably shouldn't have posted my last comment, but the snark is strong with this one.)

 

ETA: OK, now I actually read the whole article. Good thing you didn't, Mary. Now I'm all stabby. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Lewis Moon that this public perception of rescue is an important issue, especially when it receives this kind of widespread exposure. (Slate may publish Jon Katz, but it publishes high-quality essayists as well, and is widely read and influential.) Perhaps LM thought that the topic might provoke more dispassionate, constructive discussion when it wasn't raised by one person (easily dismissible as a spoiled ignoramus with a huge sense of entitlement who never really wanted to rescue in the first place) complaining about one rescue, as is usually the way the threads Mary is talking about originate.

 

I'm sorry to see the knee-jerk reaction that the article has to be ill-motivated trash. I read it all the way through, with some care, and found it to be pretty thoughtful [ETA: Wish I'd said "thought-provoking," which is more what I meant]. OTOH, I understand the frustration of rescues at being brought face to face yet again with this perception. "What can I do about it? We're doing our best, and get nothing but criticism from people who are doing nothing to help and have no clue about what we face," is a natural automatic reaction.

 

And they have a point. "Rescue" is not a single entity. Each rescue has its own policies, and even if one rescue thinks another is misguided, there's really no way to change the misguided one's policies. So I think the most each rescue could do in the face of this is to be open-minded enough to reflect on whether IT might have a problem in the way it's operating that contributes to this perception. For example, is it realistic to list blanket disqualifications on our website, and then blame applicants for taking them at face value rather than persisting and trying to prove to us that they are the exception for whom an exception should be made? Are all the things our rescue is requiring really essential for the well-being of a placed dog, or do they just reflect my views of what's best for dogs (when that may actually be only one among many ways a dog could be happy and well-cared-for)? Are there ways that we could change a perception that we are unreasonable, but we just don't have time/people to implement them, and if so, is there a way we could enlist these critics to help us?

 

If these questions make any rescue reading them bristle with resentment, I think that's unfortunate. It's true that there's a plentiful supply of unwanted dogs out there, and it may be true that "just about anyone is going to find someone willing to adopt a dog to them," but if they are really turned off and made to feel despised by a rescue they may be reluctant to risk the same treatment by trying another rescue. It wouldn't be unreasonable for them to assume that it would be the same story at another rescue. You can say "too bad about them" then, they've proved their unworthiness by turning to a breeder or a pet shop, and it's their fault, not rescue's. But I think that's a comfortable position only if you you think homeless dogs -- not necessarily dogs you've taken into your particular rescue, but dogs in need generally -- are not losing out when that happens.

 

I understand that if you don't see this growing public perception as a problem, and at least potentially an obstacle to achieving the ultimate goals of rescue, you would feel no need to do anything but disparage anyone who articulates it. But I do wish, wistfully, that we could discuss it without rancor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this article and really wondered where to put it; rescue or politics. Since it's rather pointed I thought I'd put it here with the thick skinned folks....

 

Slate Article

 

That thick skinned comment rather reminds me of a Borzoi I used to know that would stick his head under the kitchen table so nobody could see him and make him go out with the rest of the dogs. :P

 

I do on occasion read Slate, but haven't in a long while, so I would have missed this. I've only had a chance to skim it at this point, since I SHOULD be doing some work, but since it gets into the specifics of what potential adopters consider unreasonable, I will definitely bookmark it for a closer read later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the only reason that I singled you out is because it seems that when the "positive only" vs. correction training thread was finally about to wither on the vine, here comes another tired old topic that never gets anywhere.

 

I don't understand this explanation for singling Lewis Moon out. In all fairness, he did not post to -- and may not even have seen -- the correction training thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I read it all the way through several times, and really hesitate to call it thoughtful. Well-written, yes. It is driven by a single point of view, exemplified by the title "No Pet For You. Want to adopt a dog or cat? Prepare for an inquisition at the animal rescue." Yoffe is very consistent, offering endless support for that perspective.

 

The author notes that in recent years "new organizations take potentially adoptable pets out of the shelters and foster them, usually in private homes, until the right owner comes along. ... Groups like these have high standards for who gets to adopt. Applicants are sometimes subjected to an interrogation that would befit Michael Vick." She then offers lots of anecdotal evidence of perceived irrational treatment of would-be adopters from those individuals (mostly via online comments).

 

At another stage of her argument she writes of how Petfinder has greatly facilitated adoptions. "This would be unmitigated good news for the four-legged were it not for the problems of the two-legged. Let’s posit that many people who are drawn to humane work don’t have a particularly positive view of humanity." Well, let's not.

 

I've read some good articles about issues rescue work. I've been involved in some thoughtful, intense discussions about how to improve adoption/placement policies with the rescue group I've worked with. Questions are good, self-reflection is good, awareness of public perception is good. And in an era when "fair and balanced" means anything but, I hesitate to criticize a writer for expressing her deeply felt opinion. But Yoffe is in a position of power, and her "article" is an irresponsible, belittling, blanket disparagement of rescue.

 

Susan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this explanation for singling Lewis Moon out. In all fairness, he did not post to -- and may not even have seen -- the correction training thread.

 

 

I simply meant that it was the first new post of a very old topic since the near death of one of the other very old topics that have circular discussions on this board. The topic itself was not of interest to me. It's the "pot stirring" with nothing new to offer that has grown tiresome to me. But, since reading the article, I would hardly call it thoughtful (or accurate, or fair, or representative of the majority of rescues or rescuers).

 

And, I'm done. You all have at it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Yoffe is in a position of power, and her "article" is an irresponsible, belittling, blanket disparagement of rescue.

 

Susan

 

FWIW, I don't read it that way. She credits the growth of rescues with dramatically lowering the euthanasia rates of dogs in shelters, and speaks favorably of the growth and potential of Petfinders in facilitating the good work of rescues. But she sees a problem that could diminish the effectiveness of rescue in overzealous screening, and that is the subject of her article. Yes, she is highlighting that problem, but I don't see that as an irresponsible, belittling, blanket disparagement of rescue. She does not say that all rescues are overzealous, just that many are and that the feedback she's getting shows that this overzealousness frequently backfires. She writes understandingly about the probable reasons behind it, and quotes people of presumable expertise and good will who share her concern:

 

There are people in the rescue community who are aware that zealotry is damaging their cause. (The ASPCA sided with DeGeneres in her dispute). After all, since fewer than 20 percent of new pets come from rescue groups, driving down that proportion is self-defeating. Jane Hoffman is the president of the Mayor’s Alliance for NYC’s Animals, the organization that transports potential pets from animal control to private groups and provides training and other services. “You have two ends of the spectrum,” she says. “Pet stores will sell to anyone with the money. And then there are rescue group who won’t adopt to anyone. We need a happy medium.”

 

Hoffman, whose organization works to smooth out the adoption process, acknowledges that the attitude of a lot of rescue groups is to “try to screen out people.” She understands the psychology of these wary rescuers. These are people, she points out, who save animals from dreadful situations: wandering lost on the street, facing euthanasia in a kill shelter, being removed from a “skank” owner. “They put in a lot of time and effort and love this dog or cat back to health,” she says. “Some get a little overcautious and are so afraid to make the wrong choice. So they err on the side of rejecting what would be a perfectly good home.”

 

Finally, the author gives some pretty good examples to explain what she's talking about. To take just a few:

 

a link to an over-the-top (IMO) application form

a link to an oppressive adoption contract that I would never sign or advise a client to sign

a policy that you can't adopt a rescue greyhound unless you already had an adopted greyhound

a policy against adopting a cat to a person older than 60

a policy against adopting a border collie to someone who would let it off-leash in a fenced field

a policy that refused a dog to someone who would let the dog sleep wherever in the house it pleased

 

Do you think none of this is true? Or do you think it is true, but it's irresponsible to write an article saying so? Or might it be a useful call for moderation -- an alert that the good light that the public has come to see rescue in is being undermined more and more in public opinion by policies that turn potentially good homes away, in ways the rescue may not be aware of, because they never get to the point of even having contact with these discouraged potential applicants. Those people share their experience with others, who are turned off as well. I get the feeling that most rescues don't even see this as a problem, and that baffles me.

 

The author sums up her concern in her last sentences: "Shafer’s analysis of the guinea pig saviors [whose refusal of a family applying to adopt, based on suspicion that the parents wanted them as pets for their daughters, resulted in the family's buying at a pet shop instead] is unfortunately true of many animal rescuers. 'They are trying to do something good,' he says, 'and they end up doing something bad.'"

 

To me this article highlights a problem that it would be well to heed. But I know how easy it is to resent or condemn or reject warnings that someone doesn't want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in an era when "fair and balanced" means anything but, I hesitate to criticize a writer for expressing her deeply felt opinion. But Yoffe is in a position of power, and her "article" is an irresponsible, belittling, blanket disparagement of rescue.

 

Susan

 

Thank you, Susan. I also felt the article was anything but thoughtful. It was full of generalizations, assumptions, and derogatory comments that paint rescue in a very negative light. And I'm not just talking about a rescue's policies being questioned, but rather the implication she's trying to make about the motivation and possible mental health of rescuers. Very one-sided, based on a handful of people giving their version of what happened.

 

I know there are people out there who were turned down by rescue and it left a bad taste in their mouth. (Why they would feel "despised" is a little hard for me to swallow, but whatever.) However, I truly believe that those people are the minority, and that there are many, many more happy "customers" of rescue. Controversy is where it's at for a lot of sites, publications, etc. And message boards, too! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The topic itself was not of interest to me. It's the "pot stirring" with nothing new to offer that has grown tiresome to me.

 

But maybe something new might develop from it, if rescuers didn't refuse to engage with it.

 

For example, does anyone think it would be constructive to write a piece about rescue policies and practices to post here as a sticky? Something that might inoculate folks against recoiling from rescue as a result of overzealous rescue policies and procedures they may encounter? Or at least explain that not all rescues have the same policies and procedures, and so it's not an exercise in futility to try to find one more amenable to you? Or would that be objectionable and counterproductive?

 

I don't know. I guess you're probably right. Ignore it or shoot the messenger or both. If y'all don't think there's a problem, who am I to say there is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or might it be a useful call for moderation -- an alert that the good light that the public has come to see rescue in is being undermined more and more in public opinion by policies that turn potentially good homes away, in ways the rescue may not be aware of, because they never get to the point of even having contact with these discouraged potential applicants.

 

I believe we're talking about a small minority of the public that views rescue in a bad light, after ending up disgruntled over one thing or another. As the saying goes, you can't please everybody, all of the time. However, this article could most certainly persuade others to not even bother trying with rescue and go right to the breeder or pet store, and I think that is a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sticky would probably be useful. Even more useful would be actual data on the extent of this issue.

 

Without relevant data, how should the volunteers of rescue organizations that do not engage in these kinds of practices or that have an excellent placement record with delighted adopters, etc. respond or anticipate what kinds of potential policies might be out there?

 

All we get in the article is the hearsay and anecdote from the disgruntled. Not a single comment or quote from someone who had a positive experience. Indeed, this is frequently the way this story goes.

 

Eileen, what is your evidence that "rescuers refuse to engage with the topic." My experience is exactly the opposite, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe we're talking about a small minority of the public that views rescue in a bad light, after ending up disgruntled over one thing or another. As the saying goes, you can't please everybody, all of the time.

 

No way of telling whether you're right or I'm right about the relative percentages. Any rescue is naturally going to focus on its success stories -- they are so much "realer" than the ones turned off and the possibly rippling consequences.

 

However, this article could most certainly persuade others to not even bother with rescue and go right to the breeder or pet store, and I think that is a shame.

 

Yup. I would have thought that was a problem very much akin to the problem of people who have bad experiences with rescue and pass those experiences along to their circle of friends/acquaintances. But I guess we can just decide that all of them are bad, disgruntled people with suspect motives, and therefore there's no need to pay attention to any of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without relevant data, how should the volunteers of rescue organizations that do not engage in these kinds of practices or that have an excellent placement record with delighted adopters, etc. respond or anticipate what kinds of potential policies might be out there?

 

I agree we can't get numbers/extent data, but we have certainly heard of quite a few policies that objectively -- to my mind at least -- would be likely to sour people, and that individuals have said soured them. I suspect that those in rescue know of even more than I have heard about.

 

All we get in the article is the hearsay and anecdote from the disgruntled. Not a single comment or quote from someone who had a positive experience. Indeed, this is frequently the way this story goes.

 

I don't think anyone doubts that there are lots of satisfied customers. Lots. However, I took a quick look at the hundreds of comments on the article, and my impression was that there were at least as many reporting experiences and reactions in line with the author's examples as those relating positive experiences. I'd have to read it more systematically to make sure I'm right about that, though. (And as usual, there was an excess of heat on both sides.)

 

Eileen, what is your evidence that "rescuers refuse to engage with the topic." My experience is exactly the opposite, for instance.

 

I wasn't referring to anything more than what I see in this thread, and in other threads where the topic has come up. Just a stubborn (as it seems to me) refusal to recognize that there could be any legitimate cause for concern. "The topic is not of interest to me."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't referring to anything more than what I see in this thread, and in other threads where the topic has come up. Just a stubborn (as it seems to me) refusal to recognize that there could be any legitimate cause for concern. "The topic is not of interest to me."

 

I won't try and speak for Mary directly, but I interpreted her comment to mean that this topic thread wasn't of interest since she perceived it to be pot stirring.

 

It's hasty to make generalizations about what "rescues" do or do not do based on comments on this forum. That said, usually, it seems to me that in these discussions on this forum people involved with rescue do indeed acknowledge that there are wacky practices sometimes and then go on to try and explain why they might be there or to suggest alternatives. How is that a "stubborn refusal to recognize...legitimate cause for concern"?

 

I've had direct experience with a couple of different rescue organizations and the topic of how to balance the needs and wants of adopters with the needs of the dogs was an almost constant topic of conversation. The (perceived) needs of the dogs always came first and good homes were sometimes turned down for reasons I didn't agree with. But, it wasn't that people didn't want to discuss it; it was that people disagreed. Just like in all human endeavors. In both rescues, the policy was that the foster home made the final decision.

 

Those kinds of conversations would not be carried on here, so they might not be familiar to you. I also did an extensive ethnographic project that interviewed people involved in 15 different rescue organization (breed-specific and all-breed) and this issue always came up and every single person talked about how their rescue organization tried to balance these concerns. So, I think you are mistaken in your sense that there is a "stubborn refusal" to acknowledge the problem.

 

I'll be honest and say, I don't really understand what you think would be an optimal practice for rescues not engaged in the kinds of things described in the Slate article when these topics are raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't try and speak for Mary directly, but I interpreted her comment to mean that this topic thread wasn't of interest since she perceived it to be pot stirring.

 

Okay, but why should a rescue's immediate perception be that it's pot stirring? When I post an article, it's usually because I want to hear and consider what opinions and reactions people have to it -- not because I want to see them squabble and flail around at each other. I don't know why you wouldn't assume that someone else's motives in posting were equally genuine (unless they had a posting history that made them suspect, and I don't see that here).

 

It's hasty to make generalizations about what "rescues" do or do not do based on comments on this forum. That said, usually, it seems to me that in these discussions on this forum people involved with rescue do indeed acknowledge that there are wacky practices sometimes and then go on to try and explain why they might be there or to suggest alternatives. How is that a "stubborn refusal to recognize...legitimate cause for concern"?

 

It wouldn't be. But that's not my impression of what happens. I can recall only a very few threads where rescue people reacted that way. In the overwhelming majority of threads they seem to just assume the worst about anyone raising the question, lash out at the presumptuousness of voicing a criticism, say that rescue has every right to set whatever conditions it wants and if you don't like it, tough, and in general not concede or even consider that there could be any merit to the criticism.

 

I've had direct experience with a couple of different rescue organizations and the topic of how to balance the needs and wants of adopters with the needs of the dogs was an almost constant topic of conversation. The (perceived) needs of the dogs always came first and good homes were sometimes turned down for reasons I didn't agree with. But, it wasn't that people didn't want to discuss it; it was that people disagreed. Just like in all human endeavors. In both rescues, the policy was that the foster home made the final decision.

 

Those kinds of conversations would not be carried on here, so they might not be familiar to you.

 

It is a very valid point that I'm talking only about the posts made here by rescue operators and volunteers, and I don't presume to know what is said in intra-rescue discussions. But I'm not surprised -- I would expect -- that they struggle with balancing the needs and wants of adopters with the needs of the dogs. I presume their goodwill and their desire to do what's best for the dogs. But my impression is that the perception of their policies and practices by would-be adopters is given no weight whatsoever in any deliberations like this. The impression I get is that those people are automatically written off as disgruntled, ignorant and unreasonable -- "Oh well, you can't please everyone." And I think that's a mistake, because I think there's a cost to it.

 

I'll be honest and say, I don't really understand what you think would be an optimal practice for rescues not engaged in the kinds of things described in the Slate article when these topics are raised.

 

Well, I don't know whether rescues posting here engage in the kinds of things described in the Slate article or not. That's why I suggested some reflection and self-questioning. But maybe that's not realistic. There are other possibilities that occur to me, but they are probably also naive and unrealistic. Maybe the reaction of writing the article off without reading it (Because we think about this stuff enough? Because we know more than some pot-stirring defamer of rescue does?) is the appropriate one. Maybe there's no way to mitigate the damage, whether the author's points are valid or whether they're not valid. Or maybe -- as I said above, and I wasn't being sarcastic -- it's just not a problem, and I'm wrong to be seeing it as one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I at times think I am way to stupid to follow some of the intricate details of these type of discussions!

I have in the past many years fostered or tried to for different groups.

My experiences have ranged from great to absolute horrid! With individuals in said groups. With politics, with do gooders that don't have the sense of a gnat. Wonderful hearts and intentions but downright out there! And to be fair, those are the extremes and few and far between.

On both sides, irresponsible behavior, stupid actions and plain nastiness screw things up for everyone.

The thing that bothers me with the internet is that we accuse todays kids to not be able to distinguish fact from fiction. After all, if it is written in a well known place on the net it has to be true right?!! What happened to our ability to read through the info, sort out the facts, analyze, use what we can and ignore the rest?

I myself know of more than one person that could not adopt from rescue and some of the reasons are frankly downright ignorant.

I have made mistakes adopting out. I have cried and learned from them. As much as those kind of articles bother me tremendously, these types of discussions after do as well.

And by the way, I know plenty a good breeder that will take great care in placing animals and they can be just as out there as some rescues in their requirements!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughtful? Please. The 'article' was snide, one sided and designed to get people's backs up. Obviously it's a piece of sensationalism, this being much sexier than a balanced exploration of the good and bad and rescue.

 

She gives a passing nod to the good works of rescue, doesn't at all touch on the fact that rescue isn't the problem (shitty owners are the PROBLEM and yes, breeders are the problem), and cites the wackiest things she can find (none of the reasonable ones, naturally), and makes disingenuous leaps of cause-and-effect. She insinuates that hoarders are born from weird rescuers - when in fact, hoarding is an emotional disease, and only a small portion of hoarders hoard animals ... those hoarders just happen to hoard animals instead of other things like newspapers or train sets or whatever. Rescue is a 'cover' for these people, NOT rescue-gone-wrong.

 

She quotes a woman who bought guinea pigs from a pet store because a rescue wouldn't adopt guinea pigs to her as amusement for her children. She seems to think the denied applicant's response of "as if an adult would adopt a guinea pig for herself" is an opinion with some merit. Well, I work in an animal shelter and adopt guinea pigs to adults all the time, and just adopted one to a childless couple in their 30s last week. That guinea pig had been left in a box on the side of the road with the word "free" written on it in crayon by a child. (And I'm nearly 40, and just adopted a hamster - who was abandoned in her cage in the snow by a child. Animals are not child's playthings). She should try talking to the small animal rescues and the never ending parade of abandoned children's amusement animals that they struggle to house and help every day, that came from pet stores originally. But that would be thoughtful, and balanced, and wouldn't make for a very sexy article.

 

She should try writing a piece on the freakin' lunatics we deal with every day, many of these being the ones who feel they were "unfairly denied" and like to bemoan it on every social outlet they can find (ie the internet). I could tell you about stalkers; the man who sent me EPIC POETRY (we are talking 5 pages here) about his 'negative experience' applying for a dog from us (and then claimed to have "found it on the internet") and encouraged his 12 year old son to send graphic emails about hoping the foster home's dogs would f*ck her and then dismember and eat her. Lunatic? Your call - his wife is a well known local politician, he writes for a local newspaper. I adopted a dog to a friend before the dog ever made it to the website, but a woman had heard about this dog on Facebook, and sent me MULTIPLE emails about how I was irresponsible because I didn't explore all potential homes for this dog (every person in the world? What? I dunno) and that I short changed the dog because I didn't necessarily choose the best home for him. She never met the dog, incidentally, (or the person who adopted him) but had decided I did the dog a disservice. The novice dog owner who worked outside the home all day and lived in an apartment and applied for the alert barking house soiling terrier with separation anxiety was angry because "it wasn't about the environment the dog lived in, it was about the kind of love she could give the dog" probably thinks rescuers and their policies are whacky too. I could tell you loads of stories like this, but it would be unfair of me to ASSUME that every applicant is a nutcase.

 

Nobody expects the general adopting populace to be worried about how they are perceived by those of us who rescue. I have sent identical denial emails to two different applicants and one will thank me for my thoughtful response, and the other will send me hate mail and swear at me. I can't control how other people respond to things. All I know is that after 15 years of doing this, I know that the only way to make everyone happy is to adopt every dog to every person who applies for it. Period. And since I'm not willing to do that, odds are that someone, somewhere, is buying a puppy and "blaming" it on me and my "whacky" rescue policies.

 

I work for Animal Control. The worst offenders are the *average* pet owner - they are the ones who get tickets for leaving their dogs in their yards to bark and annoy the neighbours, whose dogs are constantly being impounded, whose dogs we are constantly chasing through the local parks. These are not 'bad' dog owners by the average definition. They 'love' their dogs. Their dogs have average lives with most of their very basic needs met and these dogs are considered 'well loved' - and these average people consider that rescuers who have different, perhaps higher standards to be 'whacky.' You can't really reconcile those two standards. Naturally the people with the chronic roaming backyard barkers are angry when they are denied an adoption. Almost nobody who is denied an adoption thinks "Wow, that was a great experience and I'm really happy with this outcome and I am going to sing the praises of the discerning rescue who wouldn't let me have that animal." Come on. The author of this piece is no different, but she has a professional outlet for her pissed-offedness and is using it to her advantage. It's literary leg lifting.

 

Ellen Degeneres agreed to adopt a dog and return it to the rescue if it didn't work out for her. She signed a legally binding clause to that effect. She then did not abide by the terms of that agreement and gave the dog to her hairdresser. One would think a lawyer would see how this wasn't cool and doesn't make the rescue the whacky one here. *shrug* Another great example of that thoughtful article? I don't think so.

 

As for thinking that the inception of this thread as "pot stirring" - well, I've not seen the OP offer any commentary on the topic at all in this whole discussion. If the OP has no opinions on the topic, one wonders what his motivation for starting it was. I can see why MaryP thought it was pot stirring. And I can see why rescuers get tired of this kind of article - not because they are defensive and don't want to "self reflect." But rather because it's mostly one-sided garbage-reporting spewed by disgruntled applicants who didn't get their own way. And maybe rescuers just get tired of hearing it, with no opportunity to refute that one-sided garbage. The only people who read articles about how difficult it is to responsibly rescue animals on any scale are the the people "in the industry. " But everyone loves a good bitchfest. Enter: the Slate article.

 

RDM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...