118 replies to this topic

[simba]

There was one I ran across that required (in it's contract too) that the dog be fed a raw diet. This same one asked if the dog would be allowed on the furniture and in a conversation stated they would not adopt to anyone who did not allow that. Whether or not someone allows it is a personal choice but has no bearing on how good a home it is for a dog.

I've heard of a few rescues/rescue stories like that. One involved an otherwise lovely small animal killer dog being left in a home with small animals because he was happy there, so the finders (who'd been looking for help finding the previous owners, or rehoming him) had to work on their own. Then you get the strange adopters, as have been mentioned already.

But criticism of one is not criticism of all: the presence of inadequate or overzealous rescues does not preclude or negate the existence of good ones, and same goes for adopters. We can all discuss appropriate conditions for rescues and adoptors while recognising that a lot, or probably most, people out there are decent people working off often limited information.

So how do you reconcile that limited information, the ability of bad or careless people to provide the 'right' answers (and good people to provide the wrong ones), the varying standards of good homes in the first place, and finding places for dogs?

[Aussiedawgs]

I've heard of a few rescues/rescue stories like that. One involved an otherwise lovely small animal killer dog being left in a home with small animals because he was happy there, so the finders (who'd been looking for help finding the previous owners, or rehoming him) had to work on their own. Then you get the strange adopters, as have been mentioned already.

But criticism of one is not criticism of all: the presence of inadequate or overzealous rescues does not preclude or negate the existence of good ones, and same goes for adopters. We can all discuss appropriate conditions for rescues and adoptors while recognising that a lot, or probably most, people out there are decent people working off often limited information.

So how do you reconcile that limited information, the ability of bad or careless people to provide the 'right' answers (and good people to provide the wrong ones), the varying standards of good homes in the first place, and finding places for dogs?

I think that is one reason why home visits are so valuable - you get a lot more info from that then from answers on a sheet of paper and a better idea of what sort of dog (if any) would fit. Rather than make a blanket rule that you won't adopt to families with children under 6 - visit the family, see how the children behave around a dog and what the parents do. Then decide. There will always be bad adoptions and not every home will be "perfect" but many are good enough for most dogs. They will be loved, fed, vetted and kept safe and for many of these dogs that is good. You just try to match the right dog to the situation.

[Aussiedawgs]

I've heard of a few rescues/rescue stories like that. One involved an otherwise lovely small animal killer dog being left in a home with small animals because he was happy there, so the finders (who'd been looking for help finding the previous owners, or rehoming him) had to work on their own. Then you get the strange adopters, as have been mentioned already.

But criticism of one is not criticism of all: the presence of inadequate or overzealous rescues does not preclude or negate the existence of good ones, and same goes for adopters. We can all discuss appropriate conditions for rescues and adoptors while recognising that a lot, or probably most, people out there are decent people working off often limited information.

So how do you reconcile that limited information, the ability of bad or careless people to provide the 'right' answers (and good people to provide the wrong ones), the varying standards of good homes in the first place, and finding places for dogs?

I think that is one reason why home visits are so valuable - you get a lot more info from that then from answers on a sheet of paper and a better idea of what sort of dog (if any) would fit. Rather than make a blanket rule that you won't adopt to families with children under 6 - visit the family, see how the children behave around a dog and what the parents do. Then decide. There will always be bad adoptions and not every home will be "perfect" but many are good enough for most dogs. They will be loved, fed, vetted and kept safe and for many of these dogs that is good. You just try to match the right dog to the situation.

[Ooky]

I ran across the the following blog postand thought it was applicable to this discussion WRT working dogs. This was particularly interesting to me:

We wanted a livestock guardian breed of dog, and ideally, we wanted to adopt a dog that needed a home. So we went looking on all the usual rescue sites - and found a deep and abiding prejudice against letting working dogs work - or even do the things that they are bred for.

Our first attempt was with a young Maremma who had been used as a livestock guardian - that is, he was trained and brought up to live among sheep, and had a hard time adjusting to the 4x6 kennel he was now kept in - his previous territory had been measured in tens of acres. We approached the shelter about adopting him.

Yes, we had a warm barn for him to sleep in at night. Yes, there would be plenty of human contact. Yes, he would be out with sheep and goats.

No, we couldn't have him. He has to be a house dog, and they didn't want him to be with livestock. Why? Because then he wouldn't be being socialized to humans - he was very anxious in a house with humans and they felt he needed to be there constantly. When I pointed out his entire genetics were designed to live in open spaces, and his youth had been spent among livestock in those spaces, that this was trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, they argued that he'd eventually be a perfect house pet - a 110lb, territorial guard dog would make a great living room ornament.

Ok, moving on, we then inquired of a group of crossbred LGD puppies born in an affluent suburban neighborhood near my mother - this is an area of small lots and a high degree of social connection. The pups, half Great Pyrenees and half Anatoiian Shepherd would be huge, strong, and have a strong instinctual urge to range over a large territory - perfect for affluent small yards, really! When we inquired and noted we had a farm, that the animals would be kept near our family and have a lot of human contact but also space to roam and work to do, we were told "there is a lot of interest in these pups in this town, we simply don't think they need to be farm dogs." They probably don't - while they are tiny and cute. My concern is what happens later on as suburban householders attempt to keep big dogs with big territorial needs in tiny suburban yards. LGDs bark a lot - that's part of how they let predators know they are there. They also are inclined to roam - and tough to keep in without 6 foot chain link fence. They are wonderful, gentle, sweet dogs - but all of the breeding is for life as a working farm dog. We were told it was the breed rescue's policy that none of their (all LGD) dogs be placed as working dogs.

I really have empathy for rescuers and some of the stories shared my RDM in this thread have me rolling my eyes back into my head about how totally stupid and clueless members the general public can be. But this seems just crazy to me! How could a dedicated LGD rescue have such a rigid and frankly dumb position? Do you think there are any BC rescues with a similar rule? Could any of the rescue folks see a reason for such a hard and fast rule that discriminates against farm or working placements for these dogs? I mean, I get that some BCs are likely suited for neither farm life or working. But some are also not suited for small apartments or typical suburban pet owners, right?

And to be fair, I am NOT asking rescue folk here to defend all other group's policies. Just wondering if people have run into this before and also noting the number of comments to this blog in relation to some of the resources shared elsewhere in this thread, apparently the public perception of onerous rescue requirements is rather widespread.

[Ooky]

And again, just to be balanced, one gem of a comment illustrates the other side - what a given family sees as predjudice against their farm/working the dogs may in fact be sensible adoption rules against something else they do with their dogs (emphasis mine):

Excellent cautionary anecdotes for those getting into it all. We have two rescue farm dogs; 1st is 1/2 Anatolian, 1/2 presumed Australian shepherd; 2nd is 1/2 collie, 1/2 German shepherd. Both acquired as small pups and trained up with an older dog- who just vanished one day (they can). They run free 24/365, on our 160 acres, never leaving our land so far as we know. We did/do intensive training when necessary, on leash, off leash, and sometimes with electronic collars; you have to put in the time. Used properly, the electronic collars do NOT cause pain, but startle; and they can wind up being a kindness to the dog by adding clarity and consistency to the training, so the dog winds up doing what you want much sooner/easier- which, in fact, is the #1 thing the dog wants; to please you.

[geonni banner]

Yeah, well. One of the larger Greyhound rescue groups in my area will not place a Greyhound in a home unless they sign a promise never to do lure-coursing with the dog. Go figure..

I did ask them why. They said the dog "might get hurt."

[simba]

Yeah, well. One of the larger Greyhound rescue groups in my area will not place a Greyhound in a home unless they sign a promise never to do lure-coursing with the dog. Go figure..

I did ask them why. They said the dog "might get hurt."

Really? Honestly?

Do they not allow the dog up on the couch, either? After all, it could catch a nail or sprain something jumping up.

[Tea]

I got my first two border collies from rescue. Never had a problem with the rescues questions or coming by. These dogs are retired here now. Although Cap helps my pups and Gunny still does some work on the cattle.


I did horse rescue through our project for about 12 years. We would get horses in that were screwed up, very young, very old or lame and I'd reschool/or whatever they needed and then we would find them homes. We had a contract with these people. I would let them sell the horses IF they told me and gave me the info where they had gone. I never had a problem. Only lost track of one mare which does make me sad.


But we sat down and talked to people kindly about where we were coming from and how many horses came into rescue. And Man! How screwed up they could be.

[Fargo]

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

While all those pot stirring, tired old topics may get old, sometime taking another look at well covered topics will bring in new insights.

[rushdoggie]

Heard a new one today: a friend considered applying for a Frenchie in a Rescue that charges $10 to submit an application for a dog. Non-refundable.

[bc friend]

Gee, what an idea for a fundraiser - NOT!!!! Enough money for medical needs and behavioral modication training is always an issue for non-profit rescues. But the last thing the rescue I work with would do to raise funds is discourage applications by charging a fee!

[juliepoudrier]

On the other side, however, someone has to go through the applications, which takes time. I'm not suggesting that the fee is the equivalent of paying someone to go through the applications, but I know of instances where such fees are used to insure that the person submitting the application (or complaint, or whatever) is serious about it (that is, not submitting because they can, but rather because they seriously want a dog). So I can see a situation where a rescue uses the *small* application fee as a means of pre-screening, so to speak. Although you may disagree with it, I imagine it does help weed out the so-called tire kickers or impulse "buyers." Just my two cents.

J.

[OurBoys]

I imagine it does help weed out the so-called tire kickers or impulse "buyers." Just my two cents.

And kids. Sometimes when a family sits down and discusses getting a dog, one of the kids will jump the gun and start filling out online applications. At least that been my experience. I would think that would also weed out the people who think adoption fees are negotiable.

[juliepoudrier]

Exactly Brenda. I don't see such fees as being fundraisers, but rather a way to keep down frivolous applications. I'm sure plenty of folks will feel differently, but I don't see it as a terrible practice.

An example of another place where such fees are used is in groups where rules are applied to situations and other members of the group can "call out" people who have violated rules. Generally, if one person wants to accuse another of rulebreaking, they have to pay a fee to take the complaint before the board of directors. The whole reason for this is so that the complainer isn't just trying to stir up trouble or has a personal vendetta against the other person; it requires the person to put their money where their mouth is. In other words, it is a barrier to misuse/abuse of rules.

I see an application fee as the same sort of thing. YMMV.

J.

[urge to herd]

I'm on the side of weeding out people who aren't serious about getting a dog. I'm self employed, and I usually work in a client's home or office. I used to give free consultations, and I spent a lot of time/money on gas to talk with people, only to have them not hire me.

Now, I charge for my time. I weed out people who aren't serious. It works great.

Ruth and Agent Gibbs

[MrSnappy]

OSo I can see a situation where a rescue uses the *small* application fee as a means of pre-screening, so to speak. Although you may disagree with it, I imagine it does help weed out the so-called tire kickers or impulse "buyers." Just my two cents.

Especially for breeds like Frenchies, which are very expensive to purchase - people like to view rescue as a source of a cheap Frenchie. An application fee would most certainly weed out a large percentage of these people with this perception since they are likely overwhelmed with applications from non-suitable applicants.

I know of many rescues who charge an application fee, as it helps to cut down on the impulse application-filler-outers. Tire kickers are the bane of any rescue ... you try to treat every applicant as a serious party, and it's very time consuming and frustrating to waste valuable spare time on people who filled out the application but have no real intention of getting a dog. If you don't treat every applicant as a serious party, you run the risk of being vilified in opinion pieces on the interwebz ;-)

We don't charge an application fee, but in the past when we have had litters of puppies for adoption, we have taken non-refundable deposits as the number of people who back out after getting cuddle time with puppies (when the reality of adopting a puppy sinks in) is surprisingly high. Then you're scrambling to assess applicants for those remaining puppies late in the process, which is just more work for rescue.

RDM

[mbc1963]

I totally get the application fee.

I teach at a public middle school, where the budget has been cut and cut and cut for the last 8 years. We have lost so many teachers and programs it's not funny. So, lots of parents are sending their kids to local private high schools.

That means that the English and math teachers at my school get dumped on to fill out many, many application forms. A couple years ago, they had to complete more than 75 forms - from a small pool of kids who applied to 4 or 5 schools each. Now, the private high schools charge application fees of $50 or $100, which I assume covers the cost of paying someone to read and evaluate the kids. But we, the sending public school, are not allowed to do any sort of "get serious" fee for the work of completing the paperwork required of us. So, kids get an idea to apply to this school or that school, and our English and math teachers have to spend hours and hours of free time helping the kids get into these schools... and it benefits our school not at all. In fact, I'd say it harms us, because these are hours the teachers should be spending planning the lessons for ALL the kids. ::Sigh::

If we could just charge a nominal fee of $20 per application, it would make the parents and students be a bit more serious about where they're applying. And maybe we could buy... say... some staples or printer paper or something.

I'm all for it.

Mary

[rushdoggie]

And kids. Sometimes when a family sits down and discusses getting a dog, one of the kids will jump the gun and start filling out online applications. At least that been my experience. I would think that would also weed out the people who think adoption fees are negotiable.

I suppose a question that asks "are you 18" isn't sufficient?

As a person who was a regional coordinator for Papillon Rescue and reviewed applications submitted online for a lot of dogs, including the highly desirable young pretty dogs and puppies I didn't find it hard to weed out the "no's" pretty quick and send them the "polite no" form letter. On the bio it would say for example "absolutley no children under 7" if the dog in question had issues with young kids and the app asked for a the number and ages of all people under 18 who lived in the house. I couldn't imagine charging $10 to fill out an application to learn more.

In fact, one of the BEST parts of my volunteer experience was looking at applications for people who wanted a dog from my Rescue.

The rescue in question said it capped applications at 20, so they will get an additional $200 for the dog if they get 20 applications.

That said, I don't agree with breeders who charge a non refundable puppy deposit on litters that aren't born yet, and no buyer has committed to yet either.

[OurBoys]

I suppose a question that asks "are you 18" isn't sufficient?

No, apparently it isn't. On our online application page it clearly states "You must be 18 years of age to apply" but we're talking about overly excited kids. It doesn't happen often but when it does, it's quickly nipped in the bud because I send everybody who fills out an application an email thanking them for considering a rescue and explain our process. If it's not caught then, it is when a volunteer calls or emails them to schedule a home visit.

Do we charge an application fee? No, and to my knowledge, we aren't going to. Personally, I would feel more obligated to adopted to them whether they were a good fit or not but not all rescues operate under the same rules and regulations. Until I walked a mile in their shoes, I'm not going to be quick to judge.