118 replies to this topic

[Eileen Stein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pippin's person]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Eileen Stein]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[G. Festerling]

I at times think I am way to stupid to follow some of the intricate details of these type of discussions!
I have in the past many years fostered or tried to for different groups.
My experiences have ranged from great to absolute horrid! With individuals in said groups. With politics, with do gooders that don't have the sense of a gnat. Wonderful hearts and intentions but downright out there! And to be fair, those are the extremes and few and far between.
On both sides, irresponsible behavior, stupid actions and plain nastiness screw things up for everyone.
The thing that bothers me with the internet is that we accuse todays kids to not be able to distinguish fact from fiction. After all, if it is written in a well known place on the net it has to be true right?!! What happened to our ability to read through the info, sort out the facts, analyze, use what we can and ignore the rest?
I myself know of more than one person that could not adopt from rescue and some of the reasons are frankly downright ignorant.
I have made mistakes adopting out. I have cried and learned from them. As much as those kind of articles bother me tremendously, these types of discussions after do as well.
And by the way, I know plenty a good breeder that will take great care in placing animals and they can be just as out there as some rescues in their requirements!

[MrSnappy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RDM

[ShoresDog]

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.

[PSmitty]

If there were a "like" button on this board, I would click LIKE! LIKE! LIKE! on your response. You nailed it.

Ditto!

[JohnLloydJones]

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.

[Ancient_Dog]

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.

[terrecar]

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").

[Hiker]

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.

[bc friend]

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!

[geonni banner]

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) 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.

[Eileen Stein]

Hiker, thanks very much for posting the Nathan Winograd article, "Good Homes Need Not Apply". I found it a thoughtful piece from an author with considerable credibility.

Welcome to the Boards.

[MrSnappy]

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

[Maralynn]

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.

[PSmitty]

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

How on Earth do you know that?

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.

[Ancient_Dog]

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.

[terrecar]

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

[geonni banner]

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 [i]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.