118 replies to this topic

[Eileen Stein]

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 [I] come back to saying that [I] 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:

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

and this:

<< Nobody expects the general adopting populace to be worried about how they are perceived by those of us who rescue. >>

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.

[mbc1963]

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

[OurBoys]

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.

[Jedismom]

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.

[terrecar]

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

[terrecar]

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.

[alligande]

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!

[Eileen Stein]

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

[terrecar]

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.

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.

[alligande]

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.

[terrecar]

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.

[MrSnappy]

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

[Eileen Stein]

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.

[OurBoys]

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.

[geonni banner]

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.

[terrecar]

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.

He definitely has more credibility. And I think this article--particularly with the cat adoption example--illustrates the fundamental question that is at the center of this dispute. Are we erring, in our adoptions, on the side of caution? Boy is that a tough one.I guess that's a question each rescuer has to ask themselves.

[geonni banner]

He definitely has more credibility. And I think this article--particularly with the cat adoption example--illustrates the fundamental question that is at the center of this dispute. Are we erring, in our adoptions, on the side of caution? Boy is that a tough one.I guess that's a question each rescuer has to ask themselves.

I agree. Interesting article.

[terrecar]

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.

Yep, that. (bold, my emphasis).

[Eileen Stein]

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.

I've never said rescue is the problem -- nobody did. Who would? Rescue is not the problem. But rescue could have a problem, one that it might be good to address.

Rather than go through your post saying "I didn't say that" over and over again, let me just say this. I'm not a hater of rescue. I donate to rescue, I've transported for rescue, I set up and maintain the rescue section of these Boards, I encourage people to go to rescues when looking for dogs.

I probably see more complaints about rescue than most. People approach me about getting a border collie, and when I suggest rescue I get told if they've had problems with rescue. People write me saying that ABCA or USBCC should get the word out that such-and-such rescue is terrible, followed by their tale of woe. I'm not a fool, and I've had a lot of experience in evaluating witnesses and their stories. I don't believe everything I hear. More often than not -- way more often than not -- it becomes obvious that the person's POV is without merit. But often enough, there's good reason to think that they do have a point. It's the instances where they do have a legitimate point that I care about, because those are the ones that I think are a problem and that I think it would be worth trying to remedy. But it comes through to me loud and clear that you think such instances are negligible or non-existent, so there's no point in my getting into an argument with you about it.

I don't know what the policies of your rescue are. I don't think you hate applicants. I don't even know if you come across as unduly suspicious of applicants to those you deal with in your rescue. On the Boards, you often come across to me as very reasonable and measured. But not always, and not now. So I don't think any good can come of prolonging this. I'm sorry you think I was just taking a jab at rescue, or that I jump at the chance to think the worst about rescue.

[Ancient_Dog]

I also read the Winograd article. I agree with some of his philosophies and disagree with others. The one major point that I disagree with is “open adoptions” with little or no evaluation of the applicant. This coupled with the small fee most shelters charge for adoption (if any) encourages instant gratification on the part of the shopper applicant.

I wish I had a nickel for every person who came to an adoption event and sat with a specific dog for hours and hours. They want to take the dog home with them and upon hearing our adoption procedure would take an application promising to fill it our as soon as they got home…never to be heard from again. Yet, if we would let them, they would have written a check to the rescue on the spot and take the dog with them, probably to be returned within a week with a myriad of excuses as to why. In Texas they have a buyer’s remorse law that allows people to renege on a contract during a three day period after they are executed. No personal responsibility necessary.