Jump to content
BC Boards

Article from Slate


Lewis Moon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paula, all my dogs have been rescues, I occasionally foster for a small Border Collie rescue and I maintain their website, so I do have some insight into rescue. Yet I still have this perception of fussy applications, rules that are bent for those in the know, or just inconsistent application of the rules, friends that feel that is harder to get a dog than a child.

 

My own slightly odd experience was with an all breed rescue, we were looking to adopt either a young dog, or we would have given an old one a home. In fact we were leaning towards giving an old dog a home, just seemed a good thing to do. There was a 10 year Border Collie 20 miles from my house, I asked about her and was told that she did not get on well with the a male aussie so she would not be going to a house with a male dog. My response was to suggest she meet Brody who gets on well with most dogs, see what she thought, and I got a very curt reply. I just could not see why her dislike of an aussie could relate to a completely different dog, if the dog was happy in its foster home do not post a sob story posting on petfinder about how an old lady really needs a home, then not even see if it could be a match.

 

I have no suggestions as to what well run rescues can or even should do to over come this perception but I do see this as a problem. When I got my first dogs I had no idea what a rescue was, if you did not get a puppy you went to the shelter which is what we did. I learned about breed rescues and that is where my current dogs came from as we wanted border collies, and found all three that I communicated with were well run. With petfinder there seems to have been a growth of all breed rescues who charge what seems like an enormous amount of money for dogs you can not meet as they are still down south, I might be wrong but I think it is these rescues that are big source of these issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Regarding those of us who haven't actually tried to adopt via rescue, but are being told our understanding of the actual process is based on a flawed understanding:

 

I've just visited the site of a phenomenally successful rescue group I admire, which does wonderful work. But, when I click on "adoption application," I find this:

 

"1. Do you have a 5 foot or higher fenced-in yard or an electronic fence? No _______ Yes _____

If you have a LARGE unfenced property, pls describe details below.

We do make some exceptions to the fencing requirement but the property must be large and

more rural."

 

I have a 4-foot fence. I live in the city on 1/4 acre. I have never, ever owned a dog who had any desire to jump or climb a fence, nor do I believe any dog I ever owned could have climbed this fence if they had wanted to. I suspect that surely, there are many dogs at this rescue who lack climbing and jumping ability and/or desire? Wouldn't I be an appropriate home for one of those lazier or less nimble dogs?

 

As a person in the general population, when I open that application, I see the very first question, and immediately shut down the application and proceed to seek my dog elsewhere. If I am indeed a potentially "good" dog owner (and I challenge you to find anyone who knows me who doesn't think I'm over the top about caring for my dog), why close the door to me right there on the very first page? As a dedicated dog owner, my reaction is more or less an irritated shrug - and I don't think it's an unjustified irritation.

 

Some folks may have incorrect perceptions about rescue - but it's also true that some of us are basing our perceptions on the hurdles that rescues set up in their own literature. I would strongly argue that this particular misconception (if it is a misconception that I need not apply to this rescue) sits on the shoulders of the rescue group who wrote the application, and not on my shoulders. If a 5' fence isn't necessary, don't tell me on the very first page that it's necessary.

 

I'm not damning rescue or this particular rescue - as I said, I admire their work. However, if there is to be any progress made regarding the public's perception that adopting is too difficult, there's got to be a discussion that doesn't immediately de-evolve into defensiveness and the need to write me and my perception off as "ignorant." Some of the perception is based in reality.

 

Mary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

Very legit point. My personal belief is that ones (as in an entity not just one person) considerate but yet knowledgable and focused conduct will in the end speak for itself.

Word of mouth is never to be underestimated.

I suppose in a sense it is a free economy where customer service, taking the time to educate (not talking down on), honest effort to provide the best match and an overal straightforward way of dealing even with some less than perfect situations, will stand out and draw the kind of folks that value such ethics.

My last adoption was to a gentleman in his seventies. The dog had some special needs and is about 4-5 years old. His main concern after loosing his canine companion of over a decade was his age. After all, despite the fact that he seems healthy as a horse, at his age things can happen in a hurry. I know this, he sure does as does his daughter. I never want to see the dog here again because they are a perfect match. They adore each other. But at some point I might (although the daughter says she would call dibbs). To me, this little dog would have missed out on a good home if I refused to entertain the idea to adopt to him. Sure, this may not be a lifelong home for her, and if something happens she will be uprooted, but she does have two safe places to land and in the meantime she is enjoying undivided attention. Right or wrong choice? I suppose we will find out. All I can say is that I believe that in this particular case being a bit flexible might be the answer.

The adoption before that one I had covered all the bases as well and it failed horribly. Known adopter, knowledge of the breed all should have been good. Had all the bases covered others than a huge character flaw of the person that I never expected. You live and learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mary, that was ONE rescue. The fact that one rescue feels the need for a fence requirement doesn't mean they all do. What if the next rescue you decided to try has no fence requirement?

 

ETA: I think I know the group you're talking about. But just to go a little further, here's a direct quote from another rescue's website (NEBCR):

 

A NOTE REGARDING FENCES:

WE DO *NOT* HAVE A BLANKET POLICY FOR FENCES ON ALL OUR DOGS. Fences are required on a CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, depending on your living situation and most importantly, the individual dog. Those that DO require a fence, will be noted as such in their bios.

 

So, back to the question from earlier: Let's pretend I run my own rescue. Other than making it clear on my application and website that I have no fencing requirement, what can I do to change the public's perception that all rescues have a fencing requirement and someone with a 4 ft fence will never be able to adopt from rescue?

 

Alligande, I'm sorry, but I understand why rescues make those kind of decisions for their foster dogs. They're just trying to make the best match possible, that they feel will result in long term adoption success. Sure, maybe she would have done fine with your male when they got together, but what happens at an initial meet and greet is one thing, living with another male long term is another.

 

Let's pretend again: say the meet and greet went fine and against the initial feelings, they went ahead and adopted her out to you. It would have been hard on *everyone* if after a month of living together, Brody and she started fighting. By that time, the foster has another foster dog, they've got to find a place for her when you bring her back. It'd been hard on the dog being bounced around, it's been hard on Brody for the past month, it's been hard on you and your family. If they could have found her a home with either no other dogs, or only females, why not place her where they truly feel the odds of success are in her favor and save everyone the trouble?

 

I understand your and Mary's frustration, but I can see it from the rescue's side as well.

 

And now I'm just avoiding chores I should be doing! I think it's time to bow out. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am asking: what should Rescues do to change the negative “perceptions”? Should we have no screening, no qualifications for adoption? Should it be first come, first serve…the first person who shows up with cash gets the dog? Our rescue has the motto: It‘s always all about the dogs. As far as I know, our rescue has no hard and fast adoption requirements. We have an application and home visit as part of our decision making process. The dogs we rescue are our responsibility and first priority. What we strive to be is inclusive not exclusive. We are trying to find a good home for the dog, matching the right dog with the right person. Being flexible is just part of it.

 

I submit that when a person decides to apply for whatever (a dog?), they already have a preconceived notion that they are a qualified applicant. It doesn’t matter whether the application is for a car loan, college entrance, the DAR , or a friend on Facebook. Any reason for rejection at this point causes that person to be upset. A few will think something is wrong with the process and feel like they were slighted. They will think change is in order and, if they are so inclined, they will tell anybody and everybody how unfair the system is. Generally speaking, this pervades every aspect of life. No matter what you do there will always be those who would have/could have done it differently or better.

 

To modify an old adage:

 

You can make some of the people happy all of the time

and you can make all of the people happy some of the time

but you can’t make all of the people happy all of the time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to post to this thread anymore. After one of the most likeable and respected rescue operators on these Boards put up posts that said (paraphrased, and this of course is only my perception) "The PROBLEM is shitty owners, and in all likelihood this applicant would be one, and is only looking for clues to what I want them to say so that they can lie and trick me into giving them an animal that will later die because of it" -- to a chorus of "Hear, hear" and "Like, like, LIKE" -- I felt the thread was not likely to do a lot to help with the growing public perception problem that I (mistakenly, maybe?) thought I saw. So I regretted that I had prolonged it, after the OP was sent packing, and kinda hoped it would die quickly. But after reading mbc1963's and alligande's posts, I thought I might give it another try.

 

Is there a problem? The purpose of border collie rescue is to re-home abandoned or unwanted border collies. If there are not a lot of border collies in need of re-homing, then it doesn't matter how rescues operate. It doesn't matter if they're unrealistic, rigid and hostile, because they'll still get enough applicants to deal with the small number of dogs needing help. But if there are a lot of border collies in need of re-homing -- if the denial of a dog to a person who would give it a good home means that dog's slot in rescue does not open up to take in another needy dog, and as a result that other needy dog dies -- then it seems to me there IS a problem. Likewise, if the public perception that rescues are unrealistic, rigid and hostile grows to the point where a lot of people decide not to apply to rescue (which I agree is currently much approved of as a way to get a dog), then that would be a problem too, it seems to me.

 

I get the impression rescues think this negative perception is either held just by a few disgruntled individuals and so it's not big enough to matter, or that it's inevitably going to be held by everyone who's turned away so nothing can be done about it. But while I really don't know whether it will ever reach critical mass, I have to say that I'm seeing it more and more and more, and I can't think that's a good thing. And it seems to me that telling someone they have no right to feel that way because they're just going by what they've heard from friends and acquaintances, or they're just going by what they've read, or they're just going by the rescue's application materials, or they're just going by their experience with one rescue, or they're just going by their experience with two rescues, or if they ended up going to a breeder they must have really wanted to do that all along and are just blaming rescue for their own moral failings, etc., is an exercise in futility. It seems to me that somebody like Hiker is simply giving you info s/he feels might be helpful for you to know. S/he's not going to change his/her reaction/conclusion because you say s/he doesn't have a good basis for it; s/he's just going to think "Well, I tried to tell them what's happening" and go away.

 

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.

 

But Ruth, you only looked at three rescue websites! How can you draw conclusions from that? :)

 

Seriously, I'm not surprised that my suggesting self-reflection did not go over well. I was afraid that would be so. But I still believe it would be a good idea for a lot of rescues. It's hard to look critically at your own policies, procedures, and projected attitudes, and really see them from the point of view of an ordinary person who may know much less about dogs than you do but who would nevertheless give a dog a good home. But it could prove valuable if done with an open mind.

 

But okay, what if your rescue is as good as it could possibly be in all these respects? What could you do about all this? I think that's a tough question. I can't claim I know the answer, because I don't. I understand that many people may think there's no point even to try to think about answers, because there couldn't be any. I realize, as I said back in my first post, that "'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."

 

But in reading the Winograd article, I reflected on the influence he says HSUS has had on shelter policies. HSUS publishes standards for shelter adoption policies (one of them being that cats may not be adopted to those who will let them go outdoors), and it's easy for shelters to simply adopt those policies and say that their shelter is run in accordance with HSUS policies (which makes them look good in the eyes of the general public, if not in the eyes of most on these Boards). According to Winograd, their overly rigid policies have had the effect of diminishing shelter adoptions to good homes. But what if the idea of model policies could be used in a beneficial way? Is there any way that a few well-regarded rescues in a state or region could collaborate on model policies and practices that might come to be seen as a consensus or "standard of care" for rescues generally? They might influence other rescues toward self-reflection and change, and they might give the public the idea that these issues are taken seriously by at least some rescues, and that rescues are addressing them.

 

I recognize that this is probably not a great idea, and I can see many objections to it: we are too busy helping dogs to do something like this, it would deteriorate into inter-group politics, it is not worth it for the miserable worthless people who are finding fault with us, etc. I agree that my earlier suggestion of a sticky was probably lame too. But I can't help thinking that those who know more about rescue than I do might well be able to come up with better ones, if they came to believe this was a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eileen says:

Is there a problem? The purpose of border collie rescue is to re-home abandoned or unwanted border collies. If there are not a lot of border collies in need of re-homing, then it doesn't matter how rescues operate. It doesn't matter if they're unrealistic, rigid and hostile, because they'll still get enough applicants to deal with the small number of dogs needing help. But if there are a lot of border collies in need of re-homing -- if the denial of a dog to a person who would give it a good home means that dog's slot in rescue does not open up to take in another needy dog, and as a result that other needy dog dies -- then it seems to me there IS a problem. Likewise, if the public perception that rescues are unrealistic, rigid and hostile grows to the point where a lot of people decide not to apply to rescue (which I agree is currently much approved of as a way to get a dog), then that would be a problem too, it seems to me.

[/Quote]

 

Bold, my emphasis.

That pretty much sums it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, I'm not surprised that my suggesting self-reflection did not go over well. I was afraid that would be so. But I still believe it would be a good idea for a lot of rescues. It's hard to look critically at your own policies, procedures, and projected attitudes, and really see them from the point of view of an ordinary person who may know much less about dogs than you do but who would nevertheless give a dog a good home. But it could prove valuable if done with an open mind.

 

Eileen, my point was not that self-reflection is unnecessary or undesired. My point was that many of these organizations self-reflect frequently. Very frequently. I've made the same point in three separate posts and in response to each one you come back to saying that you knew some rescuer would object. I did not object to self-reflection. Many rescue organizations agonize over exactly the issues that have been raised here--do you not believe that to be true because you haven't seen evidence of it on these boards?

 

I have seen several people, you included, suggest that there was no reason for self-reflection on the part of those saying rescue organizations are the source of their own problems. I suppose I could also say that i was afraid that wouldn't go over well.

 

People believe what they believe and have every right to. I still don't get what the optimal response to these comments should be, though, in the opinions of those professing these beliefs about rescue. Several people, me included, have agreed that there are problems, often egregious ones. Agreement doesn't seem sufficient, however, as anything else that comes along from someone involved in rescue (or in my case, simply supportive) seems to be labeled as defensive, unrealistic, unwilling to acknowledge the perception problem, mean, etc. etc.

 

Your idea of a sticky wasn't lame. Getting a group of people together to come up with best practice guides isn't lame either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seem to be a couple of sets of posts here. There are those who say, “Yeah, Boy! I’ve been to a couple of rescues, and it really IS tougher to adopt a dog than it is to adopt a kid!” And there are those who say, “Yeah, well, there’s a reason for that. It’s because the world is full of stupid, selfish people who only want to satisfy their whim-of-the-month, and we rescue people are the only thing between dogs and certain destruction!”

 

It seems to me that both of these sets of people have really good reasons for feeling the way they do. There is a growing perception of rescues as rigid, paranoid bunches of humaniacs who stand with their arms around their canine wards, bristling with suspicion and soured on humanity. And there is a stated opinion from many people who work in rescue that finding a good, permanent home for a dog is like walking through a minefield – one false step and the dog’s life is ruined, kerflooey!

 

Many of us grew up with the notion that if you wanted a pet dog and couldn’t afford to go to a fancy breeder, you went to the pound, put down a few bucks and got a mutt. You weren’t rescuing the dog; you were just going to the cheapest pet shop in town.

 

Now, if you go to the animal shelter, as often as not it looks like a hybrid between a bank and a Petsmart. You have to fill out more papers and be subject to greater scrutiny than if you were applying for a credit card. (And when was the last time you had to let the bank come see your house and back yard before issuing you a VISA card?

 

So what happened?

 

Well, a lot happened. The general climate of feeling toward animals underwent some huge changes. Pets became Companion Animals. “Just a dog” became a cherished family member. An annual rabies shot and an occasional dusting with flea-powder became veterinary pet insurance, regular checkups including blood-work and a raft of stuff like Frontline, Heartguard, Lymes vaccine, microchips and medicated shampoo. And all this stuff costs money.

 

Big business jumped on the band wagon. Pet foods, pet toys, grooming products, fancy dog-crates, and of course, puppy mills. Having a dog in the back yard suddenly got complicated.

 

But the fact is there are an awful lot of people out there who don’t spent large blocks of time thinking about the minutia of what a dog needs to live happily, safely and in perfect health. But they do like dogs. They want to have one. They are still somewhere nearer to the “go to the pound and throw down your 25 bucks” mindset. It doesn’t make them evil, it makes them uninformed.

 

So if I’m a person who works in animal rescue, what do I do? I have read everything I can lay my hands on about canine behavior, dog/human interaction, canine nutrition, socialization, training, and all things dog. I’ve seen things happen to dogs over and over that make my blood boil – things that the Geneva Convention would never allow. I’ve spent hours putting dogs with shattered health, both mental and physical back together into a semblance of wellness and sanity. It’s hard work, and it doesn’t always work out. Sometimes the best thing I can give a dog is a needleful of Euthanol. I work and worry and I feel hope and fear, and then I turn the creature I have poured all this into over to a stranger. Sometimes I never know how it works out.

 

And now here’s this guy giving me the fish-eye over an exhaustive questionnaire. How can we cooperate to get the dog what it needs, and we want? How can a rescue person avoid being seen as a nutball with fascist notions about who deserves a dog and who doesn’t, or a gooey little sentimentalist with no idea of what the real world is like? How do I find out whether the person who comes to me is a good bet to entrust with the dog he wants? How can I get the dogs I have charge of into good hands? Is the person filling out the rescue’s application a good choice as a permanent guardian for a dog, or someone who should never even own a dog?

 

In my experience, the best thing to do is to ask that person why they want a dog. I ask them what they imagine their life with the dog will be like. Their answers will tell me what other questions to ask. Many people who answer questions on a questionnaire have no idea to what the questions tend.

 

If a person comes into a rescue with an attitude that the rescue is something like the IRS that has to be outsmarted to get what he wants from it, little real communication can occur. For many of them the most basic question you could ask, such as ‘is your current/last dog microchipped’ is as incomprehensible as ‘what is the half-life of uranium 235?” It may seem obvious and absurdly simple to you, but it may put them into a lather of confusion. Why do you need to know all this? They don’t understand why you need to know, because they don’t realize that they need to know. Most people are not born knowing what a dog requires or what impact having a dog will have on their lives. People learn things about dogs that are wrong, outdated or hopelessly anthropomorphic. If this wrong information can be exchanged for more enlightened or correct notions without making the person feel like an idiot or a criminal, they will usually embrace the change happily and with gratitude. In some cases the person will realize that taking on a dog is biting off more than they can chew.

 

When I get to that stage, and the person is still game to try on a dog, then I tell that person what my idea of a good home is. I find that the dialog goes more smoothly if I have established myself as a possible mentor rather than a critical authority-figure or inquisitor.

 

This way of doing things does not lend itself to the internet adoption scenario. This is one reason I distrust Petfinders. I don’t feel that the placement of a dog should be settled on the strength of a form filled out online. (Or anywhere else) I want to have a face-to-face with the person. I want them to talk to me, probably more than once. Then I might see what it is they want and whether it fits with what I want for the dog. (Yes, I’m aware that many who post on Petfinders go way beyond this, but some don’t)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me respond to what I thought of the article itself. The article written by Emily Yoffe reads like something you'd see in an opinion column because that's what it is, her opinion. Well written, thoughtful news article presenting both sides? Nope. She wrote a book in 2005 (which I have read) called "What the Dog Did". In it, she talks about her experiences being a foster for beagle rescue. In this book, she had a heart for rescue, but even then, she disdained the process required of getting a rescue dog. There are several comments in the book that refer to that. However, she still had to go on home visits and approve or deny applications, which she did. Surprised? Didn't mention that in the article did she? So in my opinion, Emily Yoffe could have written a more balanced article, but she chose not to. She lost credibility with me because of that choice, so now it sounds like some disgruntled rant to me.

 

Is this opinion a growing trend that will negatively affect most rescues? No, I don't think so. Based on my conversations with people in general, other rescuers, and potential adopters, the vast majority think rescue is a great and somewhat noble endeavor. Even the ones that might question the home visit, thinking it a bit intrusive, once I explain the reasoning behind it, they're ok. I find that the folks that are committed to adopting from a rescue, will jump through a few hoops to get their new buddy. I believe that what affects rescues and shelters more, is the belief that all dogs in rescues/shelters are there because they have major problems, so it's not the place to get a dog. Must go to a breeder and get a puppy so I can raise him right!

 

Do I think that some rescues have rules that can be perceived as unreasonable? Yes. I've heard of one recently that I think is pretty darn stupid. But most of the time, those rules have some explanation behind them if you only care to ask. There will always be people though, that think they are the exception to the rule and will be offended if you don't think so. I have more respect for someone who, once they find out the requirement, strive to work it out so they can be approved. Yes, that takes more work, time, and commitment.

 

You can't please everyone, but somehow it seems we (rescues) are being asked to do so. Impossible task. Should we really post a description/rules/application that sounds like this?

 

1. Require a fenced yard. Unless of course, you don't have one and we happen to have a dog that would be ok without one, and if you do have one that is only 4 ft. high, we happen to have a dog that wouldn't/couldn't jump that.

 

2. Require that the dog be on leash. This particular breed will generally run off in search of new smells when off leash, but perhaps there may be a time we get one in that doesn't do that.

 

3. Require that it be an indoor dog. Well most of our dogs like it and do better when they can be indoors and a part of the family, but perhaps there may be a time we get one that prefers to be outdoors.

 

I think that if you're interested in a dog from a rescue and you think you can provide it a good home. Apply. Give reasons why you think it would work even if you don't meet every requirement. Listen to what the rescue says about the dog. They know him beyond the adorable picture you saw on the website. I know rejection feels like crap. It's hard not to take personally, and sometimes its preferable to avoid it if you can. You just won't know until you take a chance. If it works great. If it doesn't, then perhaps that just means the right dog is waiting for you elsewhere. That's all I'm sayin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eileen, my point was not that self-reflection is unnecessary or undesired. My point was that many of these organizations self-reflect frequently. Very frequently. I've made the same point in three separate posts and in each one you come back to saying that you knew some rescuer would object. I did not object to self-reflection. Many rescue organizations agonize over exactly the issues that have been raised here--do you not believe that to be true because you haven't seen evidence of it on these boards?

 

I think you're mistaken that "in each one come back to saying that knew some rescuer would object." I don't recall saying anything like that until my last post, where I said I did not expect it to go over well. And it didn't go over well, with you and with some others. In your case, you repeatedly said many rescues do do that (and, as I recall, you were the only one who said that). I don't dispute you, and I've said so. What I'm saying is that I think more could benefit from doing it than apparently are doing it. I draw that conclusion partly from the attitudes I see expressed on the Boards, true, but also from the policies and experiences described by people I know and by other apparently credible people, some of whom I believe are telling the truth. (I don't give credence to every complaint that comes my way, believe me.) I've already conceded that you've had more access -- much more -- to the internal deliberations of rescues, but you've certainly not had access to them all. If none of the rescues reading my suggestion here could benefit from self-reflection or further self-reflection, then obviously it was a futile suggestion on my part. But I don't know that to be so.

 

I have seen several people, you included, suggest that there was no reason for self-reflection on the part of those saying rescue organizations are the source of their own problems. I suppose I could also say that i was afraid that wouldn't go over well.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. If you mean that I've previously said there's no reason for self-reflection on the part of those criticizing rescue, then I think you're mistaken. I have not said that. But no harm, no foul, because I have certainly thought that earlier statements like this:

 

>

 

and this:

 

>

 

are totally beside the point. They are like a dog trainer saying the dog is at fault if it isn't getting what the trainer is trying to get across. The rescue bears (and professes) a much greater responsibility to the dogs than the reactor does. That's just a fact. And therefore I would expect them to show a degree of concern that I wouldn't expect from someone not equally committed. (Unless you're directing "do some self-reflecting of their own" toward someone like me, who is concerned about public perception of rescue but with no first-hand bad rescue experiences, and using it to mean "Just shut up." If you are, I don't mind at all saying "Okay" and shutting up.)

 

People believe what they believe and have every right to. I still don't get what the optimal response to these comments should be, though, in the opinions of those professing these beliefs about rescue. Several people, me included, have agreed that there are problems, often egregious ones. Agreement doesn't seem sufficient, however, as anything else that comes along from someone involved in rescue (or in my case, simply supportive) seems to be labeled as defensive, unrealistic, unwilling to acknowledge the perception problem, mean, etc. etc.

 

Your idea of a sticky wasn't lame. Getting a group of people together to come up with best practice guides isn't lame either.

 

Well, if my ideas weren't lame, then why aren't they examples of what "the optimal response" (or at least a possibly useful response) on the part of rescues might be?

 

 

ETA: I guess I should address what you said about being "labeled as defensive, unrealistic, unwilling to acknowledge the perception problem, mean, etc. etc." If you interpreted anything I said as attributing those qualities to you, I apologize for whatever I said that could give that impression. It is the furthest thing from my thoughts about you or about the positions you've taken on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should we really post a description/rules/application that sounds like this?

 

1. Require a fenced yard. Unless of course, you don't have one and we happen to have a dog that would be ok without one, and if you do have one that is only 4 ft. high, we happen to have a dog that wouldn't/couldn't jump that.

 

Well, if you're going to be flexible about the fence rule, depending on the dog and the family - why would you need to publish any hard and fast rule about a fenced yard? If you believe that apartment dwellers and condominium owners and folks who can't afford a fence but will leash walk frequently can make good dog owners... then acknowledge that by not eliminating them from your process. That would go a long way toward dispelling the notion that rescues are inflexible or rigid. Ditto with rules about owners' working full-time, or doggie-doors, or what-have-you.

 

I was just browsing child-adoption sites, trying to find the notorious rule that families would be ruled out unless they have a bedroom per child. (That always seemed like a dreadful rule, given how most genetically-related children I grew up with in the 70s shared a bedroom with 2 or 3 siblings, and how many kids are waiting for homes.) I was unable to find such a rule - though admittedly I didn't look hard - and I was glad. I suspect that adoption agencies realized that such hard-and-fast rules turned away excellent prospective parents, and kept children out of loving homes. (I believe they've also loosened rules about transracial adoptions and adoptions by low-income families for the same reasons.)

 

Seems to me that a similar shift away from rigid rules to more dog-specific decisions makes as much sense in the dog-adoption world as it does in the human-adoption one.

 

Mary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know everybody realizes not all rescues are alike but if someone has a bad experience with one rescue, I’m sure they are going to feel that way about all rescues. It’s human nature. I’m the same way. I had a Dodge Charger back in the late 80’s and it was a lemon. To this day, I will not have a Chrysler. Are they making better products now than they were back then? Maybe but I still won’t buy one. If rescues start changing their policies and start handing out dogs/puppies free of charge with no home visits or reference checks, how does anyone know it will change the perception of people who already have a bad taste in their mouth when it comes to rescues?

 

I feel the people who get upset with rescues should volunteer for one and stick it out for at least a year (which I know is hypocritical because I won’t test drive a Chrysler). When you receive 15 applications for 1 dog, 14 people are going to get turned down for that dog. Are all of them going to be understanding? Nope. Do wonderful homes get turned down? Unfortunately, yes. If 3 of the 15 applications are perfect homes you still have the same problem; there’s only one dog. You can’t divide a dog 3 ways anymore than you can divide it up 15 ways. I know there are people who aren’t going to believe me but it truly breaks the heart of foster homes when they tell these wonderful homes the dog is being adopted by someone else because they know whatever dog they get will have a great life. The only thing we can do is hope and pray they understand and stick it out with us or another rescue.

 

We had a foster dog that killed the foster home’s personal cat. You would be surprised at the number of people with cats that applied for that dog even though it was stated on it’s bio it wouldn’t go to a home with cats. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those people got upset because they weren’t allowed to adopt it.

 

And I would be surprised if the guy that applied for one of our dogs DIDN’T complain to others because he couldn’t adopt the dog he applied for. He even went so far as to cc me on the email he sent to the foster home asking her why the dog was up for adoption if he couldn’t adopt her. He was definitely well off having a place on the East coast and a place in CO. The dog very well could have had a great life but I have a feeling he’ll leave out the part that the dog he applied for gets car sick. How happy would he or the dog have been if she started throwing up in his vehicle 30 minutes down the road?

 

There are always two sides to every story. For everyone who complains about rescue, what are the details? Do they really have a bona fide reason? (I’m sorry but IMO having a home visit done is not a bona fide reason to get upset. When you see someone in person and carry on a conversation with said person, you learn more about their personality and the kind of dog that will better suit them.) If they do have a good reason(s) to be upset, then I agree that particular rescue might want to think about bending the rules or like Georgia said, ask the rescue why they have that in their policy. Is the person complaining because they are the product of instant gratification? I ask this question because I usually don’t hear anyone (general anyone-not anybody from these boards) saying they went to a shelter to adopt. They always seem to say they went to a breeder. Why is that? 95%-99% of the dogs rescues have came from a shelter. If they did go to a shelter, that smelly, filthy, scared dog hiding in the corner of its kennel is the same smiling, clean teeth, healthy coat dog you see in the dog’s bio. I understand when someone turns to rescue because they want to know about the dog’s personality, I’m the same way, but why turn around and get upset if the foster home tells you something about the dog you don’t want to hear? Should rescues take the advice of the writer of the Slate article and tell potential adopters only what they want to hear? Would that be fair to the potential adopter?

 

With that said, it is easier to buy a dog/puppy from a BYB, puppy miller or pet store because, as everyone knows, rescues aren’t in business to make money and BYB’s, puppy millers and pet stores are. Personally, I would run, run very fast, from someone claiming to be a rescue if they aren’t picky about whom they sell a dog to because to me they would come across as being in it to make money but that’s me. Anytime a human is involved with something, there’s a possibility of something going wrong so every once in a while, a person and dog don’t match up. But 99.9% of the time, it is a good match. And it’s very rewarding getting an email from an adopter saying how much their dog fits their family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that if you're flexible on something, you shouldn't print a hard and fast rule about it. It wouldn't make sense. It would contradict that you are flexible. My point was more that if you do decide on a rule that you think is best for the dogs that you are adopting out, then don't apologize for it.

 

"But if there are a lot of border collies in need of re-homing -- if the denial of a dog to a person who would give it a good home means that dog's slot in rescue does not open up to take in another needy dog, and as a result that other needy dog dies -- then it seems to me there IS a problem."

 

There are a lot of border collies that need rehoming. I see their faces every single day on the rescue boards, and I know while I'm looking at them that some will be rescued and some will die. Their faces sometimes haunt me and my fellow rescuers. Why in the world would we purposely deny a "good" home knowing it might result in a dog we can't save that week? I have heard over and over in this thread that these policies keep dogs from going to "good homes". Really? By whose definition? The applicants? How exactly do I know it's a good home? How do I (the foster parent) know you from Adam? The only way I can determine that, is by an application process that gives me some talking points. A home visit that at least gives me some idea that what you put in your application is true. "Good" means there's a match between the dogs needs and your needs. That might mean that you don't get approved for that particular dog. Should I short change this dog because there are others waiting in the wings? Nuts to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like to cast my lot with Petfinder. The web site provides educational information in addition to acting as a clearinghouse of sorts for shelters and rescues (presumably benefitting local adopters, evidenced by the ability to search via zip code). It helps to publicize available dogs, which is a good part of the battle in terms of getting them into homes.

 

I don't think an online application is an adequate screening instrument either, particularly if it is not followed up by a more personal interview and home visit. But an application does provide some preliminary information. It is up to the rescue organization to follow through with more careful screening, and those that I've encountered do.

 

This isn't to say that some don't as well. Hence, I can understand the distrust. I personally know a professional dog handler (who also breeds) in Smooth Fox Terriers who had one of her dogs listed on Petfinder. I knew the dog. She was a young(ish) retired champion. I wouldn't consider that rescue, even if the AFTC does. If the dog is being rehomed as a take back, I can understand it a little better. Anyway, we all have our own ethics.

 

Petfinder is clearly geared toward shelters and rescues as evidenced by this: http://animals.howst...s/petfinder.htm

 

The most important thing that Petfinder does is provide potential pet owners an alternative to commercial internet sales of puppies.

 

I think its benefits far outweigh the risks.

 

 

 

ETA: Rethinking the SFT retired Ch., I am not saying they shouldn't advertise on Petfinder, but I don't consider a first time rehome of a breeder's dog to be "rescue", and it irks me when it is represented as such

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that if you're flexible on something, you shouldn't print a hard and fast rule about it. It wouldn't make sense. It would contradict that you are flexible. My point was more that if you do decide on a rule that you think is best for the dogs that you are adopting out, then don't apologize for it.

 

"But if there are a lot of border collies in need of re-homing -- if the denial of a dog to a person who would give it a good home means that dog's slot in rescue does not open up to take in another needy dog, and as a result that other needy dog dies -- then it seems to me there IS a problem."

 

There are a lot of border collies that need rehoming. I see their faces every single day on the rescue boards, and I know while I'm looking at them that some will be rescued and some will die. Their faces sometimes haunt me and my fellow rescuers. Why in the world would we purposely deny a "good" home knowing it might result in a dog we can't save that week? I have heard over and over in this thread that these policies keep dogs from going to "good homes". Really? By whose definition? The applicants? How exactly do I know it's a good home? How do I (the foster parent) know you from Adam? The only way I can determine that, is by an application process that gives me some talking points. A home visit that at least gives me some idea that what you put in your application is true. "Good" means there's a match between the dogs needs and your needs. That might mean that you don't get approved for that particular dog. Should I short change this dog because there are others waiting in the wings? Nuts to that.

 

You absolutely should not short change a dog because there are others waiting in the wings. The application process and home visit are reasonable. I think this discussion is more about rigid, inflexible and unreasonable rules.

 

But you're right, how do you know? How do you know, for example, that someone without a fenced yard who says they will excercise the dog actually will. And isn't it safer to simply require a fence? I don't have an answer for that.

 

Still, the paragraph/quotation from Eileen is simply what rescue is faced with. It illustrates one side of the tightrope you're walking, the other side being the danger of putting the dog in a bad situation. And it is hard to balance the equation.*

 

* Good grief there goes that mixed metaphor thing again. Sorry about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two points:

 

I respect the rescues right to make the decision, what I was critical about was not including the info in the listing, (it was a long and detailed listing) if the bitch did not like dogs then include it and I would not have wasted their time.

 

My comments regarding Petfinder were not intended as a criticism of the site, I think petfinder is a great resource like many I have spent too much time looking at dogs, I have seriously looked at available dogs in my area shelters looking for a suitable friend. For us it has prevented us going to a shelter and falling in love with the wrong dog, I almost came home with 120lb Rottie, he weighed more than me but it was love at first sight! My husband talked me into my GSDx.

 

My criticism was directed at the rescues that have been set up to import dogs from the south to New England. Most of these dogs have not left the south yet, you do not get to meet the dog beforehand, and they charge a 450 - 500 a dog (I have seen higher), which is a lot more than the $250 NEBCR or the $275 GHF charges for an adult dog. I know there are some reputable groups doing this, but there are those out there who are unethical, the dogs are not vetted, there is no way to return the dog if it is not a match, you show up at a parking lot and get your dog from a transport, these rescues all add to the general publics perception of rescues.

 

An example of the problems this causes would be a women that the rescue I volunteer for thought would be a great home, but they had no dogs that would be suitable living with a cat. She imported her new border collie from elsewhere, the dog has behavioral problems and rather than being able to turn to the rescue for help, she is calling the one that did not provide the dog!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My criticism was directed at the rescues that have been set up to import dogs from the south to New England. Most of these dogs have not left the south yet, you do not get to meet the dog beforehand, and they charge a 450 - 500 a dog (I have seen higher), which is a lot more than the $250 NEBCR or the $275 GHF charges for an adult dog. I know there are some reputable groups doing this, but there are those out there who are unethical, the dogs are not vetted, there is no way to return the dog if it is not a match, you show up at a parking lot and get your dog from a transport, these rescues all add to the general publics perception of rescues. [/Quote]

 

Oh I see. I guess I didn't understand where you were coming from. Now that I do, I fully understand your comments and agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity -- did anybody read the Winograd article?

 

Yes I did and found the connection with HSUS uncomfortable and very interesting. The only shelter that I have ever had any dealings with is my local one, even before the rebuild and improving policies it has always been an impressive place, so it is always an education to learn how it works else where.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity -- did anybody read the Winograd article?

 

Yes. I've had Nathan Winograd on my reading list for a while now, but even before him I'd heard similar arguments. The "No Kill" movement predates him. There is a whole other dynamic going on between the "no kill" and traditional sheltering philosophies, and it's gone on for a long time; even before the death of Roger Caras (ex ASPCA President) who wrote of his own reservations about using the term(s). It is a pandora's box that I just don't have the energy to open here.

 

Suffice it to say that I think Winograd is a mixed blessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't going to post to this thread anymore. After one of the most likeable and respected rescue operators on these Boards put up posts that said (paraphrased, and this of course is only my perception) "The PROBLEM is shitty owners, and in all likelihood this applicant would be one, and is only looking for clues to what I want them to say so that they can lie and trick me into giving them a dog that will later die because of it" -- to a chorus of "Hear, hear" and "Like, like, LIKE" -- I felt the thread was not likely to do a lot to help with the growing public perception problem that I (mistakenly, maybe?) thought I saw.

 

Yes, actually, your perception of my comment is incorrect. What I implied was that rescues are NOT the problem ... they are NOT the reason there are thousands of homeless border collies across the continent. Shitty owners and shitty breeders (and even the so called "good breeders" who are generally known as "Big Hats" in these parts are sometimes, and sometimes frequently, part of the problem) are the reason there are thousands of homeless border collies across the continent. Rescues having rules - flexible or not - are not the problem. Potentially good homes getting turned down because of hard and fast rules is not the problem. Rescues don't create homeless dogs. Rescue is NOT THE PROBLEM.

 

And herein lies one of my favourite hyperboles that live on, especially here on these boards; the proclamation that rescue is a wonderful choice and a noble thing to do, but by god look out for those crazy rescuers because they hate applicants. I find it absolutely AMAZING that anyone thinks that people spend years of their lives saving dogs to find them new homes and *hate* the people that would potentially give them new homes. This has got to be one of the most ridiculous fallacies that lives on in perpetuity and was given new life by the very article that spawned this monstrosity, actually.

 

I love applicants. I try to work with them but can't make them all happy. They only love me when they get the dog they want. If they don't get the dog they want, they range from either indifferent to actively hating me. Some applicants are whackos, certifiably insane and downright mean, but that doesn't mean I hate them all unilaterally. When I cite examples of crazy applicants, I do so to demonstrate why rescue is selective and HAS to be selective.

 

People who get turned down for a dog don't think it's because they suck - they think it's because the rescue sucks. Really crappy applicants feel exactly the same way about being turned down as good applicants do. I think this concept is really lost on a lot of people. What I see in these threads (here and elsewhere) most frequently is that people who get turned down and complain about it (or even people who have never applied, but convince themselves they'd be turned down, so they complain about it) are taken seriously and at face value. Rescue is automatically at fault and must be "crazy" and "rigid" and "bitter" and "burnt out."

 

I had a woman apply for a "miniature border collie" because her condo had a height restriction. I explained politely that there was no such thing as a "miniature border collie" and that in all my years of rescue I had yet to come across a border collie in the size she required, and that my suggestion was to look at alternative breeds that met her requirements for size, or wait until she lived somewhere else and had the freedom to acquire a border collie and reapply. Her response was that I was "an idiot" and that her trainer in (her native country) told her there were two sizes of border collies, regular and miniature, and she would go and buy herself a "miniature border collie" and prove me wrong. Two weeks later she emailed again, and politely asked me about a 22" dog we had available. I reminded her that we had just spoken (in case she thought she was applying at a different organization) and asked her if she had moved in the last two weeks, or spoken to her condo strata, or what had changed in her life that she could now have a "regular" sized border collie when she couldn't two weeks earlier. Her response was that it was none of my business and why couldn't I just answer the question about whether or not the dog was available (the fact that the dog was listed as AVAILABLE not withstanding, of course). And then she told me to never email her again. Le sigh.

 

She then went and posted on a discussion forum on another board and asked everyone there if it was normal for a border collie rescue to not answer a person's questions about adopting and just lecture them on breed standards with no other accompanying information in her post. She came across as innocent, polite and friendly, and genuinely confused. A majority of replies were that rescues were "crazy" and had "crazy rules" and were all "hoarders in the making" and she should just go buy a dog, and poor her for having to go through that when all she wanted to do was save a life. (boohoo) I ask, though rhetorically, what the heck else I could have done to change that outcome and the *perception* she has of me and/or rescue. Short of cutting off the legs of a regular sized border collie, or slyly slipping her a mini Aussie and calling it a "mini BC" I don't think I could have done anything differently.

 

And lest anyone think this is another 'nutcase' example, I should also point out that this person is friends with several of my friends, lived with one of my friends and worked for her company for a time, and travels in some of the same social circles as myself, and by all accounts is a liked well enough by most people.

 

My point is that more often than not, perception is in the eye of the perceiver, and nothing anyone else does or can do is going to change that. Which is why telling "rescue" to self reflect is a moot point, given that all the self reflection in the world can't stop other people from deciding to think whatever the heck they want to think anyway.

 

Giving drivel like this Slate article any legitimacy just feels like another jab at rescue, you know that entity that people love to hate. Maybe that's why the rescuers here are "perceived" as bitter about topics like this.

 

RDM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I've had Nathan Winograd on my reading list for a while now, but even before him I'd heard similar arguments. The "No Kill" movement predates him. There is a whole other dynamic going on between the "no kill" and traditional sheltering philosophies, and it's gone on for a long time; even before the death of Roger Caras (ex ASPCA President) who wrote of his own reservations about using the term(s). It is a pandora's box that I just don't have the energy to open here.

 

Suffice it to say that I think Winograd is a mixed blessing.

 

Yes, I know Winograd is controversial and the "No Kill" movement is controversial. I first ran across him around four or five years ago with regard to some legislative proposals. I disagree with what he says on some issues, agree with him on many, and wasn't so much looking for views about the man himself. But I think he's in a position to see a lot about how shelters and rescues (not suggesting they're the same, and neither does he) operate, and that he says some perceptive things. And it's hard to dismiss him as someone who doesn't give a damn about the dogs or is a hater of rescue. And then partly, I just wondered if anyone was willing to read and consider a more serious article that wasn't written by some sensationalist who writes an advice to the lovelorn column. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity -- did anybody read the Winograd article?

Yes, I read it. I’m sure there are shelters out there like that but the 7 I have visited over the years aren’t like that to my knowledge. In fact, they will adopt out to the public a lot faster than they will to a rescue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or does anyone else fail to remember anybody in this thread saying they hate rescues or rescuers? People, including myself have cited experiences where we thought that individual rescuers were wrong or misguided, and said that they disagreed with some policies of some individuals and organizations, but I don't recall anyone talking about hating anyone.

 

Most of the posts citing problems with various aspects of rescues or staff working with rescue also said they had great respect for the work done to rehome dogs by rescues.

 

Mr Snappy says,

"I love applicants. I try to work with them but can't make them all happy. They only love me when they get the dog they want. If they don't get the dog they want, they range from either indifferent to actively hating me. Some applicants are whackos, certifiably insane and downright mean, but that doesn't mean I hate them all unilaterally. When I cite examples of crazy applicants, I do so to demonstrate why rescue is selective and HAS to be selective."

 

To go from "loving applicants" to "not hating them all unilaterally seems a big jump."

 

I have seen some problems with various rescue groups, but I don't hate any of them. One does not have to hate someone just because they disagree with some of their ideas or methods. I've also seen and dealt with some pretty unpleasant applicants for rescue dogs. I didn't hate them either, I just refused them a dog and let it go at that. Sometimes they tried to make me look bad. That's part of the deal. Sometimes people don't handle disappointment or perceived slights well. Life is lumpy...

 

I'm not some person who just fell off the turnip truck. I have 12 years in the trenches with Collie rescue and another 8 years of all-breed dog and cat rescue before that. I have worked with a number of rescue groups and shelters, and I've seen things that ranged from the ridiculous to the sublime. But I still recommend rescue as a desirable option to people looking for a pet.

 

Whether we like it or not, human beings are flawed and rescues are run by humans. The same is true of potential adopters.

 

I have known plenty of rescue people that had their heads on straight and were dedicated, hard-working and as good with people as they were with animals. I have also know more than a few that were "crazy" and "rigid" and "bitter" and "burnt out." And those people are as capable of altering the public perception of rescue as disgruntled applicants that were turned down.

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...