Jump to content
BC Boards

Article from Slate


Lewis Moon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thoughtful? Please. The 'article' was snide, one sided and designed to get people's backs up... But everyone loves a good bitchfest. Enter: the Slate article.

If there were a "like" button on this board, I would click LIKE! LIKE! LIKE! on your response. You nailed it. I can't think of anything a writer has it in her power to do that is more harmful to rescue than to publish a slanted rant like this article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

There is a problem and it's not going away by ignoring it. As a foster, I am certainly happy that the rescue I work with is careful in matching dogs to families. Our adopters go through a multi-step process that involves an online application, a telephone interview and a home visit, before they even get to start meeting dogs. Despite all this we do make mistakes. Both ways.

 

There are people who drop out of the process, frustrated, and who would probably made good homes for one of our dogs. There are also people who, despite our process, turn out to be ill suited as a home for their dog. I, myself have vetoed potential adopters who, to me, did not appear to be a good match for the dog ( not necessarily a bad home for a different dog, just not that particular dog ). Some people are understanding, some get very upset and even abusive. There may be a disconnect in some cases. We do not operate a "shop". Our first priority is the dogs' welfare. Not every dog will fit into any home; some really do have special needs.

 

The article is unfortunate, because it mixes issues. Rescues are picky? Yes, they are and rightly so. But then, some potential adopters are prickly and downright rude, but the article skims over that. Some rescuers are (or end up as) hoarders? Yes, this happens, but it's not the reason for the overwhelming majority of rejections. Despite the admitted mistakes, I believe that the rescuers I know and work with do a very good job of getting their dogs into good homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2 cents worth...

 

All you have to do is consider the source. Emily Yoffe is stirring the probverbial pot, and quite effectively I might add. All one has to do is look at her content on the Slate. She writes sensationalistic drivel, if she wrote boring, uninteresting articles she wouldn’t have a job. She authors one occasional feature called "Human Guinea Pig", where she selectively tries unusual occupations or hobbies. Her articles include: “Bare-Naked Lady: My vacation at a nudist camp” and “Poo at the Zoo: Bat guano, elephant dung, rhino pee, and other substances I encountered in my brief, smelly stint as a zookeeper.” Her regular column is called “Dear Prudence” where she gives advice much like “Dear Abby”. Recent articles in this feature include: “Maid of Dishonor: Should I skip a wedding because my girlfriend hooked up with three of the groomsmen?” and “Schoolgirl Fantasy: My boyfriend wants me to call him "Daddy" during sex. Gross!”

 

Her biggest problem seems to be with the adoption application process. Let’s face it: it is what it is. The Rescue Group has the dog, if you want it you must fill out an application to get it. Whether you agree with the adoption application or not, Ms Yoffe indirectly suggests that you should tailor your answers to what you think the rescue wants to hear. In some circles that would be called fraud. It’s much like borrowing money from a financial institution to buy a car. If you misrepresent yourself and your finances on the application, it is fraud. And just try doing that with the IRS.

 

By her own admission Emily Yoffe has an axe to grind: her application for adoption was turned down by a rescue group. If you wonder why her article upsets people in rescue, it’s not the issues she brings up, it’s the broad brush she uses to paint Rescuers using inflammatory rhetoric (words like interrogation, inquisition, gatekeepers, fanatical, and vivisectionist).

 

If you think rescuers are thin skinned, take a personal look at something that you are very passionate about. Then consider how you might feel when an outsider uses words like fanatical or ridiculous to describe your actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having read the article...

 

It is clearly an argumentative essay, so I'm not surprised that the author only gave a cursory nod to the benefits provided by rescues. I have come to expect that print media in general has a slant, these days.

 

So, with those lowered expectations, I say thank God for small favors, yet hope that "Fair and balanced" returns from whence it wandered.

 

Does the piece bring up an issue that should be addressed? Absolutely. Do rescuers have every reason to grill potential adopters? Having worked at a nonprofit shelter with a municipal contract and seen what the public is capable of, I'd say: Oh yeah.

 

Many rescues wouldn't adopt out an Aussie or Border Collie to someone without a fenced yard, yet I know I am a good home because I know I'm dedicated to providing the exercise and stimulation the dog needs.* A rescue doesn't always have the time or resources to consider all the contingencies, hence some one-size-fits-all rules are expedient. Knowing this, I would not be offended to be turned down based on the fenced yard criterion.

 

My two cents.

 

ETA: I better qualify in advance that I don't think that single criterion makes me a good home, but it is an essential element. Also, another good reason for requiring a fenced yard is that there are actually people who think it's okay to let their dog run loose, since the dog "more or less" stays in its own suburban yard (usually "less").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Eileen. I'm one of those people who has been discouraged from rescue before any rescue ever saw me.

 

When I think of how I no longer feel able to consider adopting from a rescue, I feel more sad than anything else. Eileen's posts give me hope that maybe this issue can be addressed.

 

I've always known that once I was in a position to have a dog, I wanted an adult, not a puppy.

 

I first encountered the idea of rescue online, and I started out with a strongly positive view.

 

I was not yet in a position to have a dog. (I'm still not. One day.) But I did spend time looking up all the local rescues I could find, reading their websites and questionnaires, and considering how I'd want to answer them -- how I'd want to treat a dog of mine. When I moved, I did this for my new area as well.

 

I also read online discussions. Especially on these boards. (I was a lurker long before I ever signed up. I've seen many rescue discussions here.)

 

These experiences slowly gave me a worse and worse impression of rescue. They gave me the same impression Emily Yoffe describes. They gave me the impression that rescues do not want to work with you, and do not have the kind of attitude I would want to deal with.

 

The problem isn't that they're "too picky." The problem is that they appear too *rigid*. And they also appear hostile. That's why they appear not to want to work with a person, or not like the sort of person you want to try to work with.

 

What do I mean by "too rigid"? I mean that they will say, "Don't do X, because Y" -- and then when they encounter a situation where Y does not apply, they *still* insist it's just *evil* to do X. Emily Yoffe's example of the border collie rescue who would not adopt to someone who wanted to work the border collie is illustrative. Likewise, I've heard of several gun dog rescues that refuse to adopt to anyone who will let the dog off-leash to work it. (IIRC it was retrieverman who mentioned them.)

 

"Don't let your dog off-leash, because it's dangerous," is a perfectly fine general rule: For the typical pet owner, it *is* dangerous. But when the rule becomes, "Don't let your dog off-leash, because it's just evil, even when you're working the dog," -- that's just crazy. If you act like that, people will get a bad impression.

 

This article gives another good example:

 

We decided to add another dog to our family. Having worked at two of the most successful shelters in the country, having performed rescue my whole adult life, having consulted with some of the largest and best known animal protection groups in the country, owning my own home, working from home, and allowing our dogs the run of the house, I thought adoption would be easy.

 

Adopting from our local shelter was not possible because we wanted a bigger dog which was against their rules because we had young children. Instead, we searched the online websites, and found a seven-year-old black Labrador Retriever with a rescue group about an hour south of us. I called about the dog and asked if we could meet him. They wanted to know if we had a “doggy door” leading to the backyard. We did not, but I told them happily—and naively—that I work from home and that we homeschool the kids, so the dog will be with us *all the time*. One of us will just let him out when he wants to go like we do for the resident dogs and then he can come back in. We have a fenced backyard. I housetrained every dog we ever had. No problem, I told them.

 

But that was not good enough. Apparently, the dog should be able to go in and out whenever he wants without having to ask. No doggy door, no adoption. “But,” I started to stammer: seven years old, larger black dog, sleep on the bed, with us all the time, fenced yard…. DENIED.

 

Again, the problem is not that this rescue was too picky. The problem is that they stuck to their rigid rule rather than applying any judgement to the situation. They acted like computers, not humans.

 

I like computers, but I don't want to adopt a dog from one. ;) So that's one reason I've formed a negative impression over the years. The other is the impression rescuers often give of having a hostile attitude.

 

I'm sure Ancient_Dog didn't mean to give that impression, but the following remark is a good example: "Whether you agree with the adoption application or not, Ms Yoffe indirectly suggests that you should tailor your answers to what you think the rescue wants to hear. In some circles that would be called fraud."

 

It's hard to articulate what bothers me about this remark. Misrepresenting yourself *is* fraud. But, well...

 

In the past, shelters used to try to *educate* potential adopters. They didn't just "tell them exactly what they needed to say so that the shelter would let them adopt"...they *tried to convince them the shelter was right*. They tried to change their minds, and mostly, they succeeded. Someone who has had the shelter's or rescue's reasoning explained to them will often actually change their mind and their plans for how they will treat their pet. When a shelter or rescue does that, that is working with the potential adopter.

 

When a rescue or shelter instead seems to be going out of its way to *hide* what it thinks a pet owner should do, asking cryptic questions like, "How many stairs do you have?" ...well, as Ancient_Dog's post makes clear, this is generally intended to catch people who are trying to misrepresent themselves. And, yes, when you are open about how you think a pet should be treated, you do leave yourself open to being deceived by those who would misrepresent themselves.

 

But when you become unwilling to take that risk in exchange for the vast benefit of changing most people's minds...you become someone who does not want to work with potential adopters. And someone potential adopters are justified in not wanting to work with. Being scrutinized isn't a problem; being treated like a criminal is.

 

Now me, I'm a little extreme in how really, really strongly I value openness and honesty. So for me, what *I* object to the most is the cryptic, deceptive tone of these questionnaires. Hey, I value openness -- I have no problem at all being scrutinized. But when you won't tell me what you believe and why...then I don't know who you are. If I don't know who you are, I don't want to work with you.

 

I'm going to expand on this, because I feel strongly about it:

 

I feel that *even in the case of questions like, "Would you ever declaw a cat?"*, the common rescue approach is the wrong one.

 

My partner's mom inherited her daughter and son-in-law's cat when the son-in-law lost his job. This cat already had a biting problem. So when I visited and was informed that she had had the cat declawed, I was horrified. I had had no idea she even considered declawing acceptable. But it was already done; there was nothing I could do. (I told her, "Declawing can create biting problems, and he's already a biter..." That's as far as I felt able to go since it was already done.)

 

But I believe that with people like my partner's mom, who just don't know any better...just tell them! Just tell them. Just put on your website, "We strongly believe that declawing cats causes unnecessary suffering. It can also lead to biting and toileting problems. Anatomically, it's akin to cutting off the tips of a human's fingers. We do not support declawing your cat." I strongly believe that doing this would help more cats than the current common practice of *not* doing this but *only* mentioning declawing by asking about it on the questionnaire!

 

Honestly, I think you are *far* more likely to get someone lying about whether they'd ever declaw...if all they know about it is that they've gleaned from your cryptic, off-putting questionnaire that you dislike it! Behaving that way is what *gets* you written off as "a crazy person who needs to be deceived."

 

One more thing. MrSnappy said, "Nobody expects the general adopting populace to be worried about how they are perceived by those of us who rescue." But it's not the same thing. The general populace is the general populace; just ordinary individuals going about their individual lives. Rescue is a movement, and an individual rescue is an organization. Individual rescues represent the movement, and individual rescuers represent their particular rescue as well. One random member of the general population doesn't represent anyone but themselves.

 

The article I linked above is by Nathan Winograd, who as mentioned in the quote is a rescuer and shelter reformer. I was glad to see his article; it shows that at least some rescuers are aware of and trying to address this problem. And it absolutely is a real problem.

 

Winograd concludes:

 

Since the animals already face enormous problems, including the constant threat of execution, shelters and rescue groups shouldn’t add arbitrary roadblocks. When kind hearted people come to help, shelter bureaucrats shouldn’t start out with a presumption that they can’t be trusted.

 

In fact, most of the evidence suggests that the public *can* be trusted. While roughly eight million dogs and cats enter shelters every year, that is a small fraction compared to the 165 million thriving in people’s homes. Of those entering shelters, only four percent are seized because of cruelty and neglect. Some people surrender their animals because they are irresponsible, but others do so because they have nowhere else to turn—a person dies, they lose their job, their home is foreclosed. In theory, that is why shelters exist—to be a safety net for animals whose caretakers no longer can or want to care for them.

 

When people decide to adopt from a shelter—despite having more convenient options such as buying from a pet store or responding to a newspaper ad—they should be rewarded. We are a nation of animal lovers, and we should be treated with gratitude, not suspicion. More importantly, the animals facing death deserve the second chance that many well intentioned Americans are eager to give them, but in too many cases, are senselessly prevented from doing so.

 

I apologize for making my first post on such an apparently contentious issue. It's just that I usually don't have anything to say here since I don't even have a border collie yet. On this issue, I do have something to say...and I feel strongly enough about it to work hard to put my thoughts into words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there were a "like" button on this board, I would click LIKE! LIKE! LIKE! on your response. You nailed it. I can't think of anything a writer has it in her power to do that is more harmful to rescue than to publish a slanted rant like this article.

 

Expresses my opinion exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno...

 

I've had bad experiences with rescues, and good ones too. On balance I think that the good ones outweighed the bad ones. My experience is that "dedicated" rescues, that is, rescues that dealt with one breed of animal - Collie rescue, Abyssinian rescue, Hooded Rat rescue - seem to be better managed with regard to expectations for potential adopters. Funny, when you consider that many of these are people directly connected with breeding/showing AKC dogs (or pedigree cats.) You would think that since they have got the wrong end of the stick with dogs in general, that they might be off-base in re rescue. But many of them are sensible, level-headed and flexible when it come to evaluating homes. But not always...

 

When I was active in Collie rescue, living in a house with a large secure, fenced yard and working in a veterinarian's office I decided I wanted to buy or adopt a Standard Poodle puppy. I went to several breeders and was turned down as a home or priced out of my budget. (I was 37, single and had no children, and $1,500.00 was a common asking price for a Standard Poodle pup in 1989.) So I tried the three Poodle rescues that I could find in my area. At each one the first question was, "Have you ever owned a Poodle before?" My truthful answer was "No." I was was rejected out of hand at all three for this reason. No discussion.

 

As for the hoarding issue: It may be that I live in the "Granola Bowl" - the SF Bay area (where everything that's not fruits or nuts is flakes) :P but I have run across more than my share of rescue groups and individuals that consistently took on more than they could manage with lamentable results for their rescuees. They weren't all certifiable, but they definitely had issues.

 

Consider the word rescue. When I first started doing Collie rescue (in 1978) I ran into a surprising number of folk who were puzzled by the term. They wanted to know if I trained Collies to pull Timmy out of the well. The word rescue conjures up scenes of dire peril - whip-weilding bullies, starving dogs chained to junk cars, etc. And certainly those scenarios exist, but most of the rescues that I handled were either dogs pulled from animal shelters and/or dogs whose owners could not keep a beloved family pet for some reason. There were abused and foolishly mishandled dogs certainly, but I didn't have to deal with a lot of them. I'd guess about 15% to 20% of the rescues I handled involved serious abuse - and most of those were caused by ignorance of what a dog needs to be well-adjusted and happy. For instance, I never had to deal with dogs from a puppy-mill raid.

 

I am less than enthralled with the whole "Petfinders" scenario, too. I have personal experience of a person who was little more than a dog-dealer, giving her charges no veterinary care, not spaying or neutering and doing nothing in the way of socializing/ rehabilitation. Repeated efforts to get Petfinders to bar this person from listing bore no fruit. And I am sure she is not the only one charging 3-figure adoption fees and doing nothing to earn them.

 

Yes there are a lot of people applying to rescue for dogs that should be denied them. Careful screening is an absolute necessity. But I do think that sometimes it goes overboard. I think that most of the regular posters here on the Boards are good dog owners, yet there is strident disagreement among them as to how to handle various issues of canine management. Many of them would be refused a dog at many rescues. I might be refused on the grounds of low income or my handkerchief-sized yard or the fact that I rent. Does that make me a bad dog owner? No. But it doesn't necessarily make the individual rescue over-cautious either. People have to do what they think is right, and what experience teaches them is prudent caution. The good news for the dog-seeker is that there are a lot of dogs in the hands of a lot of rescues. Knock on a few doors and eventually one will open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm one of those people who has been discouraged from rescue before any rescue ever saw me.<snip>

 

I was not yet in a position to have a dog. (I'm still not. One day.)

 

So what you are really saying here is that you have not yet applied for a dog, have not yet worked with a rescue, but have decided that you are discouraged before you begin and that you won't be rescuing a dog. You have no first hand experience with the process but you have *decided* that you don't like rescue and how it works, even though you don't actually know how it works because you haven't tried to adopt a dog yet. So really you're treating rescue with suspicion based on no tangible experience. Interesting.

 

It's great that you have no bias at all, and can thoughtfully evaluate the process of any rescue based on your personal experience.

 

In the past, shelters used to try to *educate* potential adopters. They didn't just "tell them exactly what they needed to say so that the shelter would let them adopt"...they *tried to convince them the shelter was right*. They tried to change their minds, and mostly, they succeeded. Someone who has had the shelter's or rescue's reasoning explained to them will often actually change their mind and their plans for how they will treat their pet. When a shelter or rescue does that, that is working with the potential adopter.

 

Actually, what shelters used to do "in the past" was gas multiple animals in metal boxes as quickly as possible and hand over dogs to anyone who walked through the door with cash in their pocket. I'm really not sure what your direct experience with shelter work is, but you seem to be going backward in time rather than forward, which is the direction the rest of us are going. What shelters do NOW, overwhelmingly, is try to educate people. That's why they have handouts about a whole variety of topics on animal care and an application process instead of a "thanks for your $35 now get that dog outta here before we nuke it". That's why many municipalities have "Animal Welfare Officers" and "Education Officers" instead of Animal Control Officers. It's why the SPCAs have "Adoption Centers" rather than "The City Pound Contract." I'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but you're just plain wrong.

 

And I'm sorry to tell you this, but much of the general populace doesn't actually want to be educated about a whole bunch of things. Most people seem to interpret this as "being told what to do" and they don't much care for being told what to do. If someone is going to declaw their cat (because their last cat was declawed and the one before that too, and their veterinarian happily declaws their cats so what the eff is your problem with it, "whacky" shelter lady?) they don't actually want to hear why declawing is such a negative, painful, emotionally and physically scarring thing and talking to them about it almost never changes their minds. Instead, they nod and smile and say "gee thanks, I never thought of it that way, thanks for all the information" and they adopt the cat, take it home, and immediately have it declawed.

 

At our shelter (for example) we don't adopt out kittens to homes that intend to let them outside. We have lots of adult cats that were picked up as strays and many of them would make fine indoor/outdoor cats because that's a lifestyle they are accustomed to. But kittens don't know about The Great Outdoors and are generally totally content to grow up as indoor cats, so we tell adopters why we have this policy and why we feel it's important. And guess what one of my Welfare Officers scooped up off the road a couple of weeks ago? Why golly, could it have been one of our kittens? Well maybe it snuck outside - have to call the adopter and tell them we scraped up most of their cat off the road ... and well wouldn't you know it, they were very disappointed to hear she was toast because they thought she was "street smart" since she'd been going outside for months. Did they check the "indoor/outdoor" option on the application form? Nope - "indoor only" was the box they checked. Why? Because they wanted the kitten, dammit, so they told us what we wanted to hear.

 

So maybe - just maybe - rescues get tired of being told what people think they want to hear, when a lot of adopters are going to do as they darn well please anyway. I could cite, off the top of my head, several examples of people who said "yep yep yep" to me when applying for a dog and then returned the dog because the dog had some issue that we discussed at great length - but the applicant wasn't listening because they wanted the dog and that was more important than ... well, than the dog.

 

So rescues started making their policies and expectations clear on their websites; here are our expectations of you, here are the kind of homes we are looking for and what you need to be in order to have one of our dogs. And then potential adopters read that and then go to a discussion board on the internetz and complain that rescues are too rigid and they won't ever get a dog from one.

 

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Such a rewarding hobby, rescue.

 

RDM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of anything a writer has it in her power to do that is more harmful to rescue than to publish a slanted rant like this article.

 

I'm not quite sure how the author has really harmed reputable rescue groups. It seems to me that this would just polarize the sides. It's an opinion. On the internet. I mean if slanted, opinionated articles did great harm to the entities they had issue with then organized politics and religion would have surely gone by the wayside by now.

 

The rescue/shelter pet idea is very popular and politically correct these days. Shelters and rescue are probably the #1 socially accepted/promoted way to aquire a new pet. There are thousands of pro-rescue stories out there. So while I agree that this article is disparaging, I just don't understand how it's done great harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... Many of them would be refused a dog at many rescues.

 

How on Earth do you know that? :blink:

 

I might be refused on the grounds of low income or my handkerchief-sized yard or the fact that I rent.

 

At least you said "might" here. Still, a pretty big assumption to make. Granted, I only have a small sample, but none of the 4 rescues I work(ed) with would reject your application based on either of those facts alone.

 

As for Hiker, I have to echo RDM's thoughts: if you've already decided that you "no longer feel able to consider adopting from a rescue", that's fine. But if you're basing that on something you THINK will happen, that's crazy. If you're basing it on some stuff you read on the web, that's your decision. Of course you're aware that until you actually apply to a rescue, that you'll have no idea if your experience will be the same. It's just as probable (I'm going out on a limb to say it's more probable), that YOUR rescue experience could be a good one, and you'd end up with a gem of a dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hiker, it bothers me that you have formed an opinion on Rescues based solely on editorials you have read and with no contact whatsoever with actual Rescues. There will always be a few bad apples, don’t judge the majority of Rescue groups by the ravings of a few on the internet. The people I work alongside in Border Collie Rescue are a great group of folks. They work long and hard at great personal expense to save these magnificent dogs with no reward other than knowing they are doing something worthwhile.

 

Rescues basically obtain dogs either from a shelter where they will be euthanized or from owners who can no longer keep the dog due to a divorce, foreclosure, etc. (and probably as a last resort will turn the dog in to a shelter). The dog is then the responsibility of the Rescue. A rescuer once told me “We speak for the dogs because they can’t speak for themselves.” This is why we have adoption applications, do home visits, and check references. We try to find good homes for our dogs… maybe not perfect, or the best, but good homes. The application for adoption is not just used to screen adopters; it is also used to help find the right dog-person match. We would irresponsible if we matched up an excessively barky dog with some-one who lives in a high density apartment building (the dog would probably get returned in no time flat). It would also not be in anybody’s best interest to adopt a herdy/grippy Border Collie to a family with small children. We honestly try to work with potential adopters in every possible way. With the applications, as with other parts of our process, there is no black and white. We try to weigh all the information and then do what we think is right for the dog (and it is never easy to reject some-one, nobody likes doing it). Our rescue doesn’t automatically reject an applicant if they don’t have a fence or because they live in an apartment, and I suspect many others don’t either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem isn't that they're "too picky." The problem is that they appear too *rigid*. And they also appear hostile. That's why they appear not to want to work with a person, or not like the sort of person you want to try to work with.

 

Bold, my emphasis. I don't think this should be discounted. I have personally seen adoption counselors take the "guilty until proven innocent" approach. These were people who were sanctimonious to the point of being hostile before the adoption application was even started. Caution is one thing, open hostility is another, stupidity yet another again.

 

Bottom line is, no matter how weary we get of the public, perceptions do matter and need to be managed, albeit without compromising adoption standards. If we know potential adopters are a) likely to be offended (regardless of the lack of justification for it) or b ) likely to contribute to negative perceptions of rescue, why not bite our respective tongues and soften the blow; maybe engage in a bit of "brand management" AND take the opportunity to educate/plant a seed that may be watered by another, cultivated by another still until a dim light comes on that just might be the beginning of a change in values. If it isn't, no harm done. The holier-than-thou approach may be understandable and in response to a sometimes ignorant public, but we're not doing the animals any favors by using it.

 

This is of course not in response to anyone here, but rather a commentary on past involvement with animal welfare. I also want to add that, when I was in a position of responsibility, I courted and vetted breed rescue when prior administrations didn't bother, and I found them to be a life saver (literally). There are a LOT of very good ones. In fact, most I've encountered were good ones.

 

 

 

ETA: Eye twitching at my mixed metaphor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what you are really saying here is that you have not yet applied for a dog, have not yet worked with a rescue, but have decided that you are discouraged before you begin and that you won't be rescuing a dog. You have no first hand experience with the process but you have *decided* that you don't like rescue and how it works, even though you don't actually know how it works because you haven't tried to adopt a dog yet. So really you're treating rescue with suspicion based on no tangible experience. Interesting.

 

It's great that you have no bias at all, and can thoughtfully evaluate the process of any rescue based on your personal experience.

 

When a person comes on the Boards and voices a wish to buy a puppy, they are encouraged to do research. Red flags are discussed, websites are linked to illustrate the concepts. It sounds to me as if the OP has done this - he has researched rescue by lurking on the Boards to glean what he can about the process of rescue, the experiences of those who have acquired rescue dogs and supplemented that with further reading on the internet. Then, confused and possibly alarmed by what he has read, he posts an article to gain responses that will help him understand the whole rescue paradigm a bit better, and gauge the liklihood of him obtaining a suitable dog from a rescue.

 

While his post may indeed have stirred the pot, it does not necessarily follow that that was his intention. (Nor do the attacks on him for posting his link/question bode well for him bringing further questions to the Boards, which is sad.)

 

He has stated that he is not ready to get a dog just yet, and that he is simply trying to learn what he can about the process before the time is right for him to get a dog. He is troubled by what he has learned so he has reservations. So how does that add up to condemning rescue out-of-hand?

 

Actually, what shelters used to do "in the past" was gas multiple animals in metal boxes as quickly as possible and hand over dogs to anyone who walked through the door with cash in their pocket. I'm really not sure what your direct experience with shelter work is, but you seem to be going backward in time rather than forward, which is the direction the rest of us are going. What shelters do NOW, overwhelmingly, is try to educate people. That's why they have handouts about a whole variety of topics on animal care and an application process instead of a "thanks for your $35 now get that dog outta here before we nuke it". That's why many municipalities have "Animal Welfare Officers" and "Education Officers" instead of Animal Control Officers. It's why the SPCAs have "Adoption Centers" rather than "The City Pound Contract." I'm very sorry to burst your bubble, but you're just plain wrong.

 

Actually, I can go back 20 years and come up with shelters in my area that tried to educate dog owners - about responsible dog-ownership, including spay-neuter, and not allowing a dog to roam unsupervised.

 

My own local city pound (which still calls it's "dogcatchers" Animal Control Officers) has been doing this for over 20 years. And yes, they euthanize (by lethal injection) lots of dogs. They and their volunteer staff also make successful placements a good deal of the time. Their kill numbers have steadily fallen for the last 20 years, and it is as much due to their education about spay-neuter as it is to the numerous rescue groups with which they work.

 

And I'm sorry to tell you this, but much of the general populace doesn't actually want to be educated about a whole bunch of things. Most people seem to interpret this as "being told what to do" and they don't much care for being told what to do. If someone is going to declaw their cat (because their last cat was declawed and the one before that too, and their veterinarian happily declaws their cats so what the eff is your problem with it, "whacky" shelter lady?) they don't actually want to hear why declawing is such a negative, painful, emotionally and physically scarring thing and talking to them about it almost never changes their minds. Instead, they nod and smile and say "gee thanks, I never thought of it that way, thanks for all the information" and they adopt the cat, take it home, and immediately have it declawed.

 

Perhaps you have particularly intransigent and independent folk where you live, or perhaps you are going about it the wrong way, but I have known many people who once owned declawed cats that would never hear of it again, after being acquainted with the horrible facts about declawing.

 

At our shelter (for example) we don't adopt out kittens to homes that intend to let them outside. We have lots of adult cats that were picked up as strays and many of them would make fine indoor/outdoor cats because that's a lifestyle they are accustomed to. But kittens don't know about The Great Outdoors and are generally totally content to grow up as indoor cats, so we tell adopters why we have this policy and why we feel it's important. And guess what one of my Welfare Officers scooped up off the road a couple of weeks ago? Why golly, could it have been one of our kittens? Well maybe it snuck outside - have to call the adopter and tell them we scraped up most of their cat off the road ... and well wouldn't you know it, they were very disappointed to hear she was toast because they thought she was "street smart" since she'd been going outside for months. Did they check the "indoor/outdoor" option on the application form? Nope - "indoor only" was the box they checked. Why? Because they wanted the kitten, dammit, so they told us what we wanted to hear.

 

So maybe - just maybe - rescues get tired of being told what people think they want to hear, when a lot of adopters are going to do as they darn well please anyway. I could cite, off the top of my head, several examples of people who said "yep yep yep" to me when applying for a dog and then returned the dog because the dog had some issue that we discussed at great length - but the applicant wasn't listening because they wanted the dog and that was more important than ... well, than the dog.

 

So rescues started making their policies and expectations clear on their websites; here are our expectations of you, here are the kind of homes we are looking for and what you need to be in order to have one of our dogs. And then potential adopters read that and then go to a discussion board on the internetz and complain that rescues are too rigid and they won't ever get a dog from one.

 

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Such a rewarding hobby, rescue.

 

RDM

 

Yes, rescue really can be rewarding. But there is a high rate of burn-out too. People get defensive, negative, sarcastic, self-righteous and/or depressed. It's generally better if they get out of it or at least take a break when they get to that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Ancient_Dog didn't mean to give that impression, but the following remark is a good example: "Whether you agree with the adoption application or not, Ms Yoffe indirectly suggests that you should tailor your answers to what you think the rescue wants to hear. In some circles that would be called fraud."

 

It's hard to articulate what bothers me about this remark. Misrepresenting yourself *is* fraud. But, well...

[/Quote]

 

Having said allllll I said about managing perceptions.... I do not find Ancient_Dog's comments hostile at all. Here's why. There is a real possibility that people will fill out an adoption application with what they know the rescue wants to hear, even if it's not true. So, throwing out these questions isn't really fraud IMO, and I don't think it's misrepresenting yourself. Withholding information isn't necessarily misrepresenting yourself. Why would I tip my hand? If I'm asking a question to get an honest answer, why would I "coach" the applicant with the correct answer? Unfortunately some people ruin it for others, making these types of questions necessary. There are adopters out there who will misrepresent themselves (spelled lie), so I don't think it is at all fraud to throw out a "fishing" type question. Consider it a pop quiz :)

 

With all of that in mind, I think AD's criticism of Ms. Yoffe is valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Replying to P Smitty

 

I said "...I think that most of the regular posters here on the Boards are good dog owners, yet there is strident disagreement among them as to how to handle various issues of canine management. Many of them would be refused a dog at many rescues."

How on Earth do you know that? :blink:

 

Because I know of at least three rescues that will not place dogs with people with children, of several which won't place with someone who rents and some that won't place a dog with you unless you agree to keep it on a leash at all times unless it is in a fenced area. One I know of will not place dogs in a home with a "bully" breed. There are people on these Boards who have one or more of these disqualifications.

 

 

I said "I might be refused on the grounds of low income or my handkerchief-sized yard or the fact that I rent."

 

At least you said "might" here. Still, a pretty big assumption to make. Granted, I only have a small sample, but none of the 4 rescues I work(ed) with would reject your application based on either of those facts alone. (emphasis mine.)

 

Not at all. I myself have been refused adoptions from rescues on two of the three grounds. (Interestingly, I have never been refused a rescue on grounds of low income, when to me it seems a more worrisome thing - will a low income person be able to provide for proper veterinary care should the dog develop a serious but treatable problem? What about when the dog starts having higher vet bills that often come with aged dogs?)

I have had people who could not pay their own utility bills come to apply for a rescue dog from me. (I knew the people in question) I refused to let them adopt the dog, because I felt that if they couldn't pay their utility bills how could they meet the expenses that a dog brings?

 

Edited to add:

I don't have any problem with any rescue group setting the bar for adopters at whatever height they wish. But it is undeniably frustrating to think that so many dogs miss out on good homes and so many homes miss out on good dogs because some rescues will not carefully consider bending rules on a case by case basis. Not all dogs, situations and homes fit "in the box."

I get why rescues have criteria. But if there is no flexibility in these then both the rescues and the applicants lose - not to mention the dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited to add:

I don't have any problem with any rescue group setting the bar for adopters at whatever height they wish. But it is undeniably frustrating to think that so many dogs miss out on good homes and so many homes miss out on good dogs because some rescues will not carefully consider bending rules on a case by case basis. Not all dogs, situations and homes fit "in the box."

I get why rescues have criteria. But if there is no flexibility in these then both the rescues and the applicants lose - not to mention the dogs.

 

I'd be willing to wager that every rescue that strictly enforces the rules has bent those rules a number of times only to have it bite them in the rear in a big way.

 

While it is unfortunate that such a lesson learned rots for those who would provide an excellent home but are not trusted because other people proved that not everyone can be, the lines do have to be drawn somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: These last couple of posts, ISTM that in past discussions regarding rescue, many of the rescuers here say that they will and do bend the rules. I seem to remember people repeatedly being encouraged to go ahead and fill out an application even if they don't meet all the criteria, because at least some of the time the rescues will consider individuals and not just apply blanket rules. How this actually works in practice, I don't know, but if the rescuers on this list are an indication of the larger world of rescue, then it sounds like most rules are not always hard and fast. That said, I can understand why someone might be reluctant to take the time to fill out a long/detailed application not knowing if a rescue might be willing to bend the rules. I don't know what the answer to that is, but maybe one of our rescuers can comment.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Burnout

 

Compassion fatigue is very real.

 

 

Maybe that helps to explain the cynicism of some rescuers.

 

 

ETA: I had to edit the maudlin parts. Good grief I must need more sun or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bottom line is, no matter how weary we get of the public, perceptions do matter and need to be managed, albeit without compromising adoption standards. If we know potential adopters are a) likely to be offended (regardless of the lack of justification for it) or b ) likely to contribute to negative perceptions of rescue, why not bite our respective tongues and soften the blow; ...The holier-than-thou approach may be understandable and in response to a sometimes ignorant public, but we're not doing the animals any favors by using it.

 

This.

 

If there were one rare complaint about this topic from the occasional crackpot, I'd say, "Keep doing what you're doing! Hooray!" But when this subject comes up and many, many non-crackpot people can quote situations where good homes were denied to dogs because rescues have standards more rigid than those of child services... then perception is a problem, and I start to believe that there might be a problem beyond mere perception.

 

I live alone, didn't have a fenced yard 7 years ago (when I got my dog) and occasionally have to work 12-hour days. A poor candidate to adopt from many rescues. And yet, I wake at 5:00 to give my dog an hour-long walk in the morning, and I drive him to local parks where he can get an hour-long, off-leash run in the afternoons. I haven't taken a vacation in 7 years, because my dog is reactive and I don't want to leave him in a kennel, and can't leave him in homes of my siblings, who have dogs of their own.

 

At any rate, the public's perception of the work of rescue is the business of rescue. When the public states its perception, it does rescue no good to get angry and start insulting the public. If rescue can't make its points in a positive way - having learned to deal with and perhaps correct sometimes-inaccurate perceptions - then it shoots itself in the foot.

 

When I hear rescue workers complain about the no-goods who apply for their dogs, I think about my own life "on paper" and honestly, sometimes I feel like rescue workers are complaining about me. And I breathe a sigh of relief that I got my dog from a shelter, because he might have missed the chance to have this pretty damned good life he's had with me, and I would have missed the time I've had with him.

 

Mary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People, including my own mother, perceive that I work 6 hours a week since that's how many hours I spend in a classroom. I've told my mom for over a decade what my job entails; that doesn't seem to have changed her (or others') perceptions.

 

The fact that people involved in rescue continually present an alternative picture to the one presented in the Slate article doesn't seem to have much bearing on changing perceptions, either.

 

I'm not involved in rescue anymore because, honestly, the craziness of the humans involved got overwhelming to me. I'm also not discounting that people have negative experiences, are treated unfairly or in ways that don't make sense to them.

 

But, people who have no experience of what they are talking about other than indirect hearsay, supposition and anecdote (positive and negative) should do some self-reflecting of their own.

 

In terms of bending the rules--I just looked at three websites of BC rescues. Not one stated any rigid, blanket, unbreakable requirement. In fact, each was pretty inviting, full of information concerning border collies, etc. Individual dogs had specific requirements.

 

So, the question I have for those of you who have never tried to adopt a dog with a rescue organization but who are certain that you wouldn't have a positive experience because of things you've heard and read, what should the members of the rescue organizations who do not have the problems so frequently mentioned do about the organizations that do (how's that for a convoluted sentence)?

 

Eileen's answer was "self-reflection" and considering if there are turn-offs on the organization's website. Check, these organizations seem to have done that. What now?

 

There is no "rescue"--there are hundreds of mom and pop type shops--some of them do a great job; some of them are disasters. Seems to me that all the ones that do a good job can do is keep doing a good job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen Lewis Moon start a topic to inflame, he has fostered and supported rescue so to immediately accuse him of pot stirring seems defensive. I read both articles linked, and although the first is not a thoughtful article, it does express the frustration that I have heard people address.

 

I have felt the same way about many of the questions on an application for adoption, to an intelligent dog owning person, the right answer is obvious and the questions have made me laugh. When I got my first dog our local shelter had one of these long applications, when we went back 2.5 years later to get our next dog, the form was shorter and to the point, so I asked why the change. They felt that chatting to the person and checking the references was really the most important thing, learning about the family and what they needed in a dog etc so they could place the right dog with the right people, it was also the time to educate new pet owners and set them on the path to successful pet ownership (same applies to cats). This was 15 years ago.

 

I agree with Eileen, that perception is important and that is why the article in Slate is worth reading, there is a belief out there in the general pet owning world that it can be harder to adopt a dog than a child. Among our friends I am the only person who is involved deeply with dogs, yet they nearly all have a dog or 2, these are the people who end up buying a dog as the bureaucracy seems to be overwhelming.

 

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 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.

 

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.

 

Julie's example below has also puzzled me about private groups, I am one of those who read the rules, and if my particular situation does not fit the rules then I will not bother to apply. The only exception to this was Glen Highland farm who said you needed 6ft fences, 3/4 of my yard is, the front is 4ft so I thought this might be close enough, especially as a border collie had already lived there. It was. There is a GHF dog living next door to a wood that we walk in, she has an invisible fence. So why even list the policy if it not a rule?

 

Re: These last couple of posts, ISTM that in past discussions regarding rescue, many of the rescuers here say that they will and do bend the rules. I seem to remember people repeatedly being encouraged to go ahead and fill out an application even if they don't meet all the criteria, because at least some of the time the rescues will consider individuals and not just apply blannket rules. How this actually works in practice, I don't know, but if the rescuers on this list are an indication of the larger world of rescue, then it sounds like most rules are not always hard and fast. That said, I can understand why someone might be reluctant to take the time to fill out a long/detailed application not knowing if a rescue might be willing to bend the rules. I don't know what the answer to that is, but maybe one of our rescuers can comment.

 

J.

 

I fully understand the rescue organizations opinions on this but it does not change the fact there is a perception among the general public that getting a dog through rescue is a challenge. To me this is a huge problem for rescue in general, we all want the dogs to end up in good homes but how many good homes are turned off by the stories like the one is Slate and the stories that friends tell friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People, including my own mother, perceive that I work 6 hours a week since that's how many hours I spend in a classroom. I've told my mom for over a decade what my job entails; that doesn't seem to have changed her (or others') perceptions.

 

The fact that people involved in rescue continually present an alternative picture to the one presented in the Slate article doesn't seem to have much bearing on changing perceptions, either.

 

I'm not involved in rescue anymore because, honestly, the craziness of the humans involved got overwhelming to me. I'm also not discounting that people have negative experiences, are treated unfairly or in ways that don't make sense to them.

 

But, people who have no experience of what they are talking about other than indirect hearsay, supposition and anecdote (positive and negative) should do some self-reflecting of their own.

 

In terms of bending the rules--I just looked at three websites of BC rescues. Not one stated any rigid, blanket, unbreakable requirement. In fact, each was pretty inviting, full of information concerning border collies, etc. Individual dogs had specific requirements.

 

So, the question I have for those of you who have never tried to adopt a dog with a rescue organization but who are certain that you wouldn't have a positive experience because of things you've heard and read, what should the members of the rescue organizations who do not have the problems so frequently mentioned do about the organizations that do (how's that for a convoluted sentence)?

 

Eileen's answer was "self-reflection" and considering if there are turn-offs on the organization's website. Check, these organizations seem to have done that. What now?

 

There is no "rescue"--there are hundreds of mom and pop type shops--some of them do a great job; some of them are disasters. Seems to me that all the ones that do a good job can do is keep doing a good job.

 

YES! Exactly. Thank you, Robin. Very well said. I added some emphasis on two sections I specifically wanted to "ditto". What do you all expect rescues that are good, reputable, not rigid or run by whack jobs to DO in order the change the so called public's bad perception? (I still think it's a small part of the public, most certainly not all of it). They can't go out there and grab all the problem rescues and MAKE them change their policies or practices. All they can do is just keep on keepin' on with the good work that they're doing. Their happy adopters will spread the word, more dogs will get saved and really, what else can they do? What do you guys think they should do differently?

 

As Robin said, good rescues are continually presenting an alternative perception to the questionable ones. If you're not involved in rescue, how are you going to see it? Does that mean it's not happening?

 

I guess because I actually am involved in rescue, and I see the many, many happy endings and satisfied adopters, I don't see this big perception you all talk about on any kind of large scale. It seems to come up semi frequently, so I'm not discounting it happens. There are bound to be bad apples in any bunch, meaning that I believe there are some questionable rescue practices. I also firmly believe that some of the public wants what they want, when they want it, and how they want it. And since rescues don't always bend to the potential adopters, some leave disgruntled and frustrated. So, a vocal minority is born of people from those two groups.

 

Let's just switch rescues for breeders. There are plenty of horror stories on the 'net about bad experiences with breeders, and let's say someone writes articles online about it and encourages people to stay away from ALL breeders because they are some bad ones out there. As a breeder (and I know there are some here), what do YOU do? You know that your breeding program is a good one, you're making all the right decisions, selling to the right kind of homes, etc. If the public expects YOU to do something to fix the perception that all breeders=bad, what could a good breeder do, other than keep on with their good breeding program?

 

And this is getting too long, but I can't stress enough that those people who are making judgements about rescue in general, deciding that all rescues will turn them down, or that on paper, they're a bad home, etc. It just makes no sense to base a decision on things you read online, or hear from Joe Schmo. Get out there and see for yourself, then make an informed decision based on your own experiences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's just switch rescues for breeders. There are plenty of horror stories on the 'net about bad experiences with breeders, and let's say someone writes articles online about it and encourages people to stay away from ALL breeders because they are some bad ones out there. As a breeder (and I know there are some here), what do YOU do? You know that your breeding program is a good one, you're making all the right decisions, selling to the right kind of homes, etc. If the public expects YOU to do something to fix the perception that all breeders=bad, what could a good breeder do, other than keep on with their good breeding program?

 

 

It's still just an article on the internet. But other than that you either ignore it or find a platform to refute it with facts (honestly that article/author left lots of room to refute). But a good breeding program speaks for itself.

 

But honestly these days it seems to be much more socially acceptable/promoted to rescue a dog than buy one. Even on the boards here the first thing people hear when they come here looking for a pup from a breeder is to try out rescue. Sometimes it almost seems like finding a good breeder is kind of hush-hush because we stress rescue and very rarely point people towards breeders.

 

FWIW, I had a very good experience with rescue. I'll probably go that route again someday and recommend it to anyone. They worked with me and bent rules because they thought I'd give a dog a great home. But I had also been around long enough to know that I could sell myself to them.

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...