Puppy vs rescue?

[Eileen Stein]

My apologies if anything I wrote was interpreted as abuse or stress, or would drive a rescue out of business. I'm certainly not telling anyone how to run her rescue. In a nutshell, what I said was: IF you want excellent homes with small children to contact you, you are unlikely to get your wish if you say on your website "no adoptions to homes with small children." If you DON'T want excellent homes with small children to apply, then you're going about it correctly by saying "no adoptions to homes with small children." I wasn't saying that dogs should be placed in homes that are not the right homes, that rescues should have poor screening processes, that I could do better, or anything of the sort. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Elmo]

Well,

 

Some rescues are like that. I'm a "rescue nightmare" too. I'm 22, in college, renting, and without a yard. Many negatives right? I came across rescues who wouldn't even consider me because I was in college. A few were working with me though, and that's how I came across my rescue. I wasn't even looking for a border collie but the woman knew we'd make a good fit. He's not very high energy, calm in the house, young, but enough energy to keep up with me, quiet, loves other dogs (I expressed that I was planning on getting more dogs when I graduate and get a yard).

 

Elmo has already moved with me twice since I adopted him-to a house this last time . Do I make a horrible home? Well, he sleeps in my bed every night, gets couch privileges, runs with me daily, plays frisbee outside daily, sleeps on me while I study, goes hiking weekly (carries his own water in his backpack) and goes to the dog park monthly. He's fed Canidae...not dog chow crap. He's rarely alone because I have two other roommates. He's always prancing (seriously, he PRANCES) with his "happy tail." Not bad considering he was supposed to be PTS.

 

Very possible those dogs wouldn't have been a good fit with your kids or the rescue wasn't willing to risk it. Just as a few rescues weren't willing to risk me.

[Bo Peep]

My apologies if anything I wrote was interpreted as abuse or stress, or would drive a rescue out of business. I'm certainly not telling anyone how to run her rescue. In a nutshell, what I said was: IF you want excellent homes with small children to contact you, you are unlikely to get your wish if you say on your website "no adoptions to homes with small children." If you DON'T want excellent homes with small children to apply, then you're going about it correctly by saying "no adoptions to homes with small children." I wasn't saying that dogs should be placed in homes that are not the right homes, that rescues should have poor screening processes, that I could do better, or anything of the sort. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I have never met an aggressive dog towards children, people.....yes, other dogs, yes. My latest rescues are exposed to very young kids- under 2. They are supervised- very closely. We wouldn't allow any more. They are my Grandchildren. Nothing means more. The grandkids tend to be a tid bid rough- that's ok, but I have to remind the parents that NOT all dogs are like mine. If I have a dog with a problem-------crate time, no biggie. Slowly we work on "people issues".

 

Thinking back, the perfect time to get a dog was when your kids where 5-8. No younger. Just causes problems. My dog had rescues, loves kids (lucky I guess) or maybe I did something right. Who knows? LOL.

 

Where's Bill Nye, the science guy? LOL

[juliepoudrier]

I The grandkids tend to be a tid bid rough- that's ok, but I have to remind the parents that NOT all dogs are like mine.

 

Hmmmm...I think I'd be reminding the parents that the kids being a "tad bit rough" with a dog simply isn't acceptable. If the kids understood that concept then it wouldn't be necessary to warn that "not all dogs are like mine." If kids were taught to respect and/or just leave dogs (or any small pet) alone, there wouldn't need to be rules about no adoptions to kids, would there? But we all know that kids will do things they shouldn't, especially if their parents haven't given them clear boundaries and most especially if their parents are inattentive, and the dog (other small pet) is the one who will suffer for it in the end.

 

J.

[Ooky]

I guess that very small percentage of truly excellent homes with small children can now go adopt their dogs directly from the shelters that have almost no screening criteria. They win. That is, if they can get there before the dogs are killed. And, all those truly bad homes with kids that this rescue would have screened out if they had applied to adopt from rescue can also get their dogs directly from the shelter that has almost no screening criteria. They win. Then, those dogs can be turned back into the shelter when they bite the kids while "herding" them. And, now that those dogs have a bite history, they'll just be euthanized the next time they are turned back into the shelter.

 

What dismays me about this conversation, every time it comes up, is how hated shelters seem to be by many of the rescue folk here. I am NOT saying there aren't terrible shelters with bad policies of all sorts. But there are terrible "rescues" too. I've seen them. Want to talk about the rescue that tried to tell me I would be "cruel" to crate train a puppy and rejected me for that reason? How about the one that tried to adopt me a 5 week (I think more like 4, BTW) old puppy rather than keeping the littermates together until a reasonable time. Do all rescues act this way? Obviously not! But neither are all shelters total crapshoots and all shelters run by "kill nazis" and staffed by ignorant incompetent cretins, either.

 

there are 10 other places that will get you a dog regardless. Use one of them. Just remember the price of no policies and rules usually means less than quality screening and placement help. You may get a gem, or you may get a complete dud.

 

Many shelters, EVEN the evil kill shelters, do learn about the personalities of, and put significant vet care and training into the animals they try to rehome. Guess what? Reputable shelters don't want animals coming back or put in abusive or neglectful situations either! Their percentages are not as good as a really awesome rescue, but look at the difference in scale a large shelter is dealing with. The sheer number of animals and staff members and staff vets and trainers and potential adoptees is just overwhelming compared to a small rescue operation. Many also have foster programs, and definite criteria for identifying and turning away unsuitable homes. I have been interviewed for hours to adopt from a shelter. Both of my shelter-cats were in foster care for some time. They both received extensive veterinary care far exceeding the adoption fee while in the shelter's hands. And about dogs not being from a rescue with very strict criteria being likely duds? My dad has a method of picking a dog that to this day he believes has never failed him. Go to a breeder, an "accident" litter, whatever, you're likely in trouble because you have no idea what you're getting. Go to a shelter, which is a stressful situation, and look for the dog that is sitting quietly and attentively, and who reacts well and calmly to you, is not panicked but quickly becomes friendly when greeted. I've not tested this method myself, and am sure many here would go off about how that says NOTHING about the animal, but I will admit it got us some excellent dogs growing up. Maybe we were extremely lucky. All I know is that my dad doesn't consider it luck. (I am NOT saying a reactive dog can't be a great pet, BTW, and I know they might act terribly in this situation. But a reactive dog WOULD be a bad pet for my dad. He prefers a different sort of dog and is not likely to change his 60s era alpha-style training methods for what he considers a "head case".)

 

Of course there are more dogs than good homes. But placing dogs in homes that aren't the right homes does nothing to alleviate that problem at all, and it's not rescue's fault there are more dogs than homes. I would rather be picky and have all my placements be excellent, than risk ANY dog by putting it in a home that's not a good fit, especially if that bad fit endangers someone's child

 

Whose FAULT is it there are this many animals? No one is suggesting it's rescue's fault. I think what's missing from a lot of the board members' reaction to this question (that apparently comes up quite often), members who are heavily and admirably involved in rescue, is an admission of the full scale and breadth of the problem. Everyone here who has the typical reaction of getting extremely irritated that the position stated by ArchersMom even gets posted is intelligent, well-spoken, and I really do admire the effort these members put into saving animals' lives. I think the statement above is totally correct, but could mean COMPLETELY different things based on your assumptions and point of view. Yes, it does no good to place an animal in a home it's going to get mistreated in or sent back from, but what ARE your criteria for that home? My own feeling is that many animals are *very* adaptable, behaviorally, and have an innate love of being alive, and it's better to have that animal in a home that may be less than ideal, not up the your own standards of pet ownership, whatever, then dead, frankly. This is not to say that rescues shouldn't have whatever criteria they see fit. But kill shelters do not exist because they LIKE to kill animals and just can't be bothered to find the right home for them. When you really look at the pool of animals every year that need homes, then you understand that there are not enough willing homes, of ANY quality, and therefore animals must be PTS. If you actually deal with that on the large scale a non-profit shelter usually does, OF COURSE your criteria must be lower. This is necessity, not rocket science. But I think of all the people I've known in my life who've gotten animals from ANY method and given them a forever home, including myself, have a fairly similar average percentage of good pets, at least somewhat livable animals, who seem fairly happy to be alive and fine with where they are. Strangely enough, even animals raised in homes NOT operated the way I would operate mine. If you really believe this "perfect fit" is so holy that you can't even understand why (or at least have patience with) people question it now and then, then you should ethically be ok with the idea of massive euthanasia for all the animals that won't be placed with anyone, because there aren't enough great fits.

 

Again, I firmly believe in a rescue organization's right to have whatever criteria they see fit. Rescue has a different function in this whole issue than do shelters, and liability affects them differently. But it seems like it would be more understandable to people here why members who aren't involved in rescue don't immediately understand the necessity for such seemingly stringent policies. If you come at rescue *thinking* its going to be like a shelter, then the policies do seem overly stringent. And I also think you should be very careful about maligning the adoption of animals from other, less stringent rehoming agencies, because many of these ALSO do a lot of good. Lower superduper success percentage, maybe, but I'd be willing to bet shelter adoptions have a higher overall volume of perfectly great forever home placements.

 

PS If anyone considers that I'm reading too much into the statements above, I guess I should also say I've been thinking about this since the last time it was brought up. I tried to defend shelters then too, and wrote about a *great* shelter, specifically, and some people went after that shelter as hard as they could. So I may seem touchy, but really I just have some strong opinions on the matter. No harm intended, just discussion.

[Bo Peep]

Hmmmm...I think I'd be reminding the parents that the kids being a "tad bit rough" with a dog simply isn't acceptable. If the kids understood that concept then it wouldn't be necessary to warn that "not all dogs are like mine." If kids were taught to respect and/or just leave dogs (or any small pet) alone, there wouldn't need to be rules about no adoptions to kids, would there? But we all know that kids will do things they shouldn't, especially if their parents haven't given them clear boundaries and most especially if their parents are inattentive, and the dog (other small pet) is the one who will suffer for it in the end.

 

J.

I'm sorry I wasn't more general Julie. My grandkids are very good with dogs, but tend to "here's an eye" and "here's an ear" type of thing. My dogs AND rescues are very unforgiving of that. I teach the grandkids that, although most dogs will NOT put up with that, and also the parents- (they should train their children about dogs) mine are an exception. Dogs WILL bite. Approach at a distance, avoid the head contact, avoid eye contact, not ALL dogs will love you like mine. Pet under the chin, not on top of the head and always, always ask the owner. That's all I can do to teach the parents. I think I've done a pretty good job, but, alas, my job as a Mom is done and now turned over to G-ma.

[MrSnappy]

Yes, it does no good to place an animal in a home it's going to get mistreated in or sent back from, but what ARE your criteria for that home?

 

The criteria is easily inferred from the dog's bio, and further discussion with the applicant will lead to the exploration of other criteria that may be required for that dog. We place dogs on a case by case basis. I suspect - know actually - that most rescues do this. My CRITERIA is that the home meets that dog's needs.

 

My own feeling is that many animals are *very* adaptable, behaviorally

 

This is largely true. What is also true is that a high drive dog is not suited to a placement with an elderly shut in. Or that a dog surrendered for biting children is not suited to a home with toddlers. Or *insert polarity of compatibility scenario here* Dogs are also largely adaptable to going quasi-feral and surviving on the streets eating garbage, dodging cars and abuse, but I would hope nobody would argue that this is preferable to a humane euthanasia, or even better, being placed responsibly and with due care.

 

and it's better to have that animal in a home that may be less than ideal, not up the your own standards of pet ownership, whatever, then dead, frankly.

 

I don't think that's true, because it is a separate issue, for starters. How many breed rescues do you know of kill dogs because a Utopian placement is not available? I would wager that the answer to this is "none." While I will certainly euthanize a dog that is dangerous, or unpredictable, I will not euthanize a perfectly healthy and sane dog because I can't find a home "up to my standards of ownership" - whatever that means. But what it does mean is that I focus my energies on the limited number of dogs I can take, and find them the best possible homes for THEIR needs. This is good for the dogs, it's good for the adopters, and it's good for rescue dogs everywhere. I would much rather have someone tell their friends and neighbors that they went through a rigorous screening process and ended up with the truly excellent dog you see before them, then tell people that they adopted a dog from a rescue that ended up being a headcase that ruined their lives. Every EXCELLENT placement is good PR, as well as being good for the dog. Therefore, I want excellent placements. Wanting and striving for excellent placements are not the same as being unreasonable about adoption criteria.

 

If you really believe this "perfect fit" is so holy that you can't even understand why (or at least have patience with) people question it now and then, then you should ethically be ok with the idea of massive euthanasia for all the animals that won't be placed with anyone, because there aren't enough great fits.

 

I think you exaggerate the responses in this thread to encompass your own argument. The fact is, no rescue in this thread has suggested that any home they adopt to must be "just like theirs" or be a "holy placement" or anything else so ridiculously extravagant. What rescues have offered is opinions on why they have some basic criteria and why the do not generally deviate from that criteria. The responses were reasonable, and convey quite openly why those rules exist. You have no real basis for suggesting that anyone operates on the principles you just described.

 

As for high kill shelters and similar, those do not (largely) exist in this part of Canada and my experience with them is minimal. However, I can tell you that a not insignificant percentage of the dogs that have come into my rescue over the last decade in which I have been placing border collies were adopted from shelters originally, and usually within a matter of weeks prior to their surrender to rescue. I will go further and tell you that it is not uncommon for a shelter to tell an adopter who has unsatisfactorily adopted a border collie from them to "call border collie rescue" and will not take the dog back. I think shelters have a larger volume of dogs, and therefore place a larger volume of dogs. I think that's just called statistics. Unfortunately, shelters (here) are very notorious for not tracking those placements (probably because they lack the manpower to do so) and thus, no useful data is available on how many of those placements were successful. People frequently do not like to return dogs to shelters, which they view as 'horrible places' and therefore, a low REPORTED return rate is misleading (and also super for donations and other financial support, btw). But that's a different subject, really.

 

There is a fellow locally (Dana knows who this is) who does not actively do rescue, but likes *very* much to criticize rescue. He feels that adoption criteria is ridiculous and that it is rescue's fault that people go to BYBs. He wrote a veritable dissertation on how he thinks rescues SHOULD operate and it can be summed up thusly: 1) give a dog to whomever asks for one and disregard criteria altogether 2) euthanize any dog that is returned, so it does not "burden" the rescue system, and also because it's clearly a dud. That way, everyone will adopt rescues, because no applicant will be rejected and the (apparently) inevitable result of that is that all BYBs will go out of business. Animal overpopulation problem solved!

 

Again, everyone's got a theory. I, however, have over 500 successful placements to my credit, a mere handful of returns over 10 years, adopted dogs who have grown old and passed in loving homes with people who mourned them deeply, many MANY repeat adopters, and a reputation for being a transparent, honest, trustworthy rescue who helps make good matches between people and dogs.

 

I like my theory better.

 

RDM

[Dixie_Girl]

Let me ask this. If your beloved dog had never been around a child younger than 8, but even some of those made him a little nervous, and something happened and you had to re-home him and someone with a 1, 3, & 6 yr. old just was so in love with your dog, and would just be, oh, the bestest home for him, so you are told, would you let them take your beloved dog? Knowing if he bites one of the kids it will 99.9% of the time result in a visit with the vet and a purple cocktail? Jackson could be adopted to any home. Skip and Cheyenne, no little kids, and Skip no dominant male dogs. Holly, well, they would have to be as nuts as her! I don't know how Holly would be with cats as I have no way of testing her. So she would never go to a home with cats, even if it means she stays here forever. Most rescues don't have time or resources to check for every little thing that may come up. I can't save all the animals abandoned. But I saved her. And I didn't do it just to set her up to fail or end up under the needle because I let 'emotion" over rule better judgement. When you have a dog that you have saved, especially when you know that the dog would have been pts had you not, you get a little protective of it's future. Holly is a PITA, but she is also very loving, and sweet to people. And, she deserves to have the best home. And I get to decide that. Because, right now, she's mine.

[Bo Peep]

I remember the day when dogs were just dogs and "issues" just didn't occur. Boy, does that date me. We just worked through them. It was pretty simple, you never had to read a book nor do any kind of practice things. They just were dogs. Maybe I was more "in tune" than I thought I was, but I seem to handle all of these problems quite simply. Hmmm

Maybe I just have never had a really bad problem dog.

[Ooky]

What is also true is that a high drive dog is not suited to a placement with an elderly shut in. Or that a dog surrendered for biting children is not suited to a home with toddlers. Or *insert polarity of compatibility scenario here* Dogs are also largely adaptable to going quasi-feral and surviving on the streets eating garbage, dodging cars and abuse, but I would hope nobody would argue that this is preferable to a humane euthanasia, or even better, being placed responsibly and with due care.

 

I fully agree with each of those statements. Not suggesting any of that.

 

How many breed rescues do you know of kill dogs because a Utopian placement is not available? I would wager that the answer to this is "none." While I will certainly euthanize a dog that is dangerous, or unpredictable, I will not euthanize a perfectly healthy and sane dog because I can't find a home "up to my standards of ownership" - whatever that means.

 

I would also wager the answer is "none". But my point is that you're not dealing with the same problem. Small rescues can also stop accepting animals when their resources are full. Kill shelters, again, do not kill because they love to do so. They are the last resort, in many cases, for these animals, and if shelters don't accept them and try to find acceptable homes for them OR euthanize them humanely, the animals don't just go away. But of course you know that. I'm just saying the decisions that must be made are different - your decision can be, I can't take on this dog right now, it's gotta go somewhere else, and I'll focus on the dogs I'm dealing with now. Mostly, for a large shelter, this is not a decision they can make in the majority of cases they deal with, on the scale they are operating at.

 

I want excellent placements. Wanting and striving for excellent placements are not the same as being unreasonable about adoption criteria.

 

I don't think so either! But there aren't enough homes that meet these excellent criteria. And BTW, I think this is what can be SO great about rescue - having someone like you pick the best fit for a potential adoptee, given the adoptee meets your standards. I would personally trust your opinion on what dog is best for me or even if you didn't think any of your current dogs would fit me. This doesn't mean I would agree that I shouldn't personally own a dog, but I am not upset to think there are rescues out there that might not accept me as an adoptee. Their rules and criteria are theirs to set. And I've NEVER read any of the rules people post here and thought they were unreasonable, including to "no adoptions to homes with young kids" thing.

 

I think you exaggerate the responses in this thread to encompass your own argument. The fact is, no rescue in this thread has suggested that any home they adopt to must be "just like theirs" or be a "holy placement" or anything else so ridiculously extravagant. What rescues have offered is opinions on why they have some basic criteria and why the do not generally deviate from that criteria. The responses were reasonable, and convey quite openly why those rules exist. You have no real basis for suggesting that anyone operates on the principles you just described.

 

I noticed this a bit after I reread my post, which is why I inserted the note at the bottom. I am NOT attacking rescue, let me state my point more clearly. Rescue criteria are totally and completely defendable and admirable on their own merit. In my mind, rescue people do not need to act like any other placement method with different criteria than their own is equivalent to "no screening criteria" or that other types of adoption agencies with less stringent criteria are a terrible alternative to rescue to defend the reasonable policies they (the rescues) have.

 

As for high kill shelters and similar, those do not (largely) exist in this part of Canada and my experience with them is minimal. However, I can tell you that a not insignificant percentage of the dogs that have come into my rescue over the last decade in which I have been placing border collies were adopted from shelters originally, and usually within a matter of weeks prior to their surrender to rescue. I will go further and tell you that it is not uncommon for a shelter to tell an adopter who has unsatisfactorily adopted a border collie from them to "call border collie rescue" and will not take the dog back. I think shelters have a larger volume of dogs, and therefore place a larger volume of dogs. I think that's just called statistics. Unfortunately, shelters (here) are very notorious for not tracking those placements (probably because they lack the manpower to do so) and thus, no useful data is available on how many of those placements were successful. People frequently do not like to return dogs to shelters, which they view as 'horrible places' and therefore, a low REPORTED return rate is misleading (and also super for donations and other financial support, btw). But that's a different subject, really.

 

Again, I'd be willing to admit their success percentages are not as good as yours. They *don't* have the resources to be as good. But does this mean they should stop even trying? Again, I really think the issues rescues and shelters face are inter-related but very different at their core. And I stand firm in my belief that for every dog you had from a shelter, there was some other shelter adoption (or 2, or 3) that did go to a forever home. You are looking out for the individual dogs ONLY. Bravo! Large shelters look after the individual animals as much as possible but don't have the luxury of this being their only consideration, because there is a population-level issue they are dealing with that on some level you can avoid.

 

There is a fellow locally (Dana knows who this is) who does not actively do rescue, but likes *very* much to criticize rescue. He feels that adoption criteria is ridiculous and that it is rescue's fault that people go to BYBs. He wrote a veritable dissertation on how he thinks rescues SHOULD operate and it can be summed up thusly: 1) give a dog to whomever asks for one and disregard criteria altogether 2) euthanize any dog that is returned, so it does not "burden" the rescue system, and also because it's clearly a dud. That way, everyone will adopt rescues, because no applicant will be rejected and the (apparently) inevitable result of that is that all BYBs will go out of business. Animal overpopulation problem solved!

 

Uug, this guy sounds like an annoying nutjob. I don't agree with any of that. Again, I think rescues do a great job at what they do and am not suggesting any thing other than cutting other TYPES of reputable rehoming operations some slack, or at least allowing them the similar right to set THEIR own criteria as they see fit, based on the issues they face.

 

Again, everyone's got a theory. I, however, have over 500 successful placements to my credit, a mere handful of returns over 10 years, adopted dogs who have grown old and passed in loving homes with people who mourned them deeply, many MANY repeat adopters, and a reputation for being a transparent, honest, trustworthy rescue who helps make good matches between people and dogs.

 

I like my theory better.

 

I like your theory too. I personally wish all animals could be adopted this way. But given the scope of the current problem, rescues cannot and will not provide the ONLY answer. Again, my issue is with the tendancy for some rescue-affiliated members on this board to act as if there's their stringent criteria, and then nothing but crap after that. I'm saying there's something in between, and it has just as much of a place, and that doesn't negate the awesomeness of your rescues! And that it's not totally crazy to think you can get a great animal from a reputable shelter NOT by blind luck, but with the help of one of their adoption counselors too.

 

Someone in this thread said that they already get 25 applications per animal and why would you want them to have to sift through 100 applications when they are already stretched thin. Shelters are stretched thin for different reasons, but they don't typically have this problem for most of their animals. If they did, you can bet their criteria would get more stringent too.

 

And b/c I DO have a personal connection to this issue, I will say that DH has placed more than that many animals, with probably a lower success percentage (you're right, he can't truly know what his success % was). But he also had repeat adopters, people who loved their shelter animals, sent emails and pictures and eulogies, and came back for more adoptions asking for DH by name. The two methods are different, but not SO different that you guys aren't essentially playing for the same team.

 

Hope that clarified some of my points. And I am enjoying this discussion, BTW.

[Pippin's person]

Ooky, I really think you are overstating the "perfect fit" criteria considerably. Honestly, I think until someone has worked directly as a volunteer with an organization that does rescue, it is simply very difficult to understand the position of placements that many rescues hold if you don't already understand it--maybe that's just an insurmountable divide that means that some people will never pursue adopting a dog from a rescue organization--that's the beauty and the difficulty of choices and consequences, I suppose.

 

As someone who tends to be a "rule-follower", I understand why people might not pursue a rescue dog if the organization has statements like "we don't adopt to people without fences or with children under 10". At the same time, I also understand that rules and guidelines (ironclad or not) generally arise for a reason and not just to make someone's life difficult or to be mean or to play favorites or to keep good dogs from good homes.

 

People don't question guidelines like these now and then--they seem to be questioned fairly regularly. If you go back through the many, many threads in which this has been discussed, it's pretty much the same conversation over and over and it almost always starts with a version of "why aren't rescues more flexible"

[Root Beer]

Hmmm

Maybe I just have never had a really bad problem dog.

 

I think that may very well be the case.

 

Most people who find themselves with problem dogs don't plan for it or imagine it, and they start out handling things using common sense or conventional wisdom. But with some dogs, that approach fails very obviously and problems escalate. That's when training classes geared toward dogs with "issues" and books become a sort of lifeline! When the techniques that you learn through those classes and books start to make things dramatically better for your dog, the idea that the dog is a much more complex creature than you had previously realized becomes par for the course. I find it pretty cool, actually.

 

If you ever get a dog with whom handling things simply does not work, there won't be any mistake - you'll know it!

[Bo Peep]

My rescue dog Bliss, stayed with my Mom when I was away for several days. She was more than willing to do anything that my Mother required, except helping her when she fell- didn't teach her that yet. My Mom is in "love" with this mellow BC and I only wish I could place her with her. The elderly need dogs, too. Bliss is low maintenance, Loves to nap, perfect for an elderly person. I would have to train her to help my Mom up when she falls- but that's no biggie. My Mother doesn't like the hair or poo, well....that comes with the dog. I'll clean up both and to have my Mom have a constant companion, that would be fantastic. Bliss is a wash out as a SD but would be great for my Mom.

 

Keep your fingers crossed. Maybe we might have a placement here!!

[Eileen Stein]

People don't question guidelines like these now and then--they seem to be questioned fairly regularly. If you go back through the many, many threads in which this has been discussed, it's pretty much the same conversation over and over and it almost always starts with a version of "why aren't rescues more flexible"

 

Yes, threads questioning rescue rules do arise over and over, but it's not the same people raising the question over and over. I can't recall any individual raising it more than once. And I think in most cases the person is raising it out of genuine concern that dogs are losing out because the criteria are too strict (not that the rescue itself euthanizes dogs, but that dogs are euthanized because the rescue has only so many slots and cannot take new dogs until their current dogs are placed). You may think the people raising these questions are all wrong, and that the criteria are not too strict, and if so I think it's great for you to explain why, but I hate to see these people greeted with "It's not all about YOU, and making things easy for YOU," because IMO people who raise these questions generally don't think it's all about them or making things easy for them. Certainly it's pretty clear that this OP didn't. No one (least of all Ooky) has suggested that rescues make rules "just to make someone's life difficult or to be mean or to play favorites or to keep good dogs from good homes," and I can't help thinking it would be better if rescuers didn't suggest that people who raise questions about those rules are motivated by ego or laziness. Why can't we assume that motives are good on both sides?

[Northof49]

There are three things that I do not waiver on for adopting out and when someone inquires I email the three no no's so I don't waste their time and mine.

 

1. No invisible fencing period;

2. We don't provide yard dogs; our dogs live in the house with you;

3. We don't adopt to people who prescribe to outdated training methods of punishment, e-collars etc.

 

everything else is negotiable and depends on each person's circumstances and experience

[beachdogz]

At the same time, I also understand that rules and guidelines (ironclad or not) generally arise for a reason and not just to make someone's life difficult or to be mean

 

Maybe off the subject a little...but...when I first started teaching dog obedience classes, I had a set of rules that I gave out at the beginning of the session. They were just your basic stuff: practice every day, proper equipment, proper clothing, etc. etc.

 

Then, someone got nasty with their dog (hence, the "no harsh correction" rule); then, someone wore flip flops and tripped (hence, the "tennis shoes only" rule); then, someone lit a cigarette up in class and tried to work their dog while smoking (hence, the "no smoking while training" rule); then, someone came to class inebriated (hence, the "no drinking before coming to class" rule); then, someone came to class and let their kids run around and disrupt everything (hence, the "kids may come and watch but must stay QUIETLY on the sidelines" rule) and it went on and on. By the time I retired, I think the rule page had jumped to 25 rules.

 

My point is sometimes we end up with so many rules because it has become such a litigious society and there seems to be such a lack of common sense.

[Bo Peep]

There are three things that I do not waiver on for adopting out and when someone inquires I email the three no no's so I don't waste their time and mine.

 

1. No invisible fencing period;

2. We don't provide yard dogs; our dogs live in the house with you;

3. We don't adopt to people who prescribe to outdated training methods of punishment, e-collars etc.

 

everything else is negotiable and depends on each person's circumstances and experience

Well, that seems fair. I DO use a prong/pinch only for for obedience - depending on the dog- Usher, very much so. Bliss- no. Bailey, only a little. All of my dogs (and rescues) are house dogs and crate trained. They live with me like they are my "normal dogs" that's why it's so hard to say good-bye. Before, in the country, it was easier.

You're a good guy!

[PSmitty]

Like Eileen, I think that the people who come here (and other boards I'm on) with questions about a rescue's policies and concerns that they are too strict, do so because they just don't see the other side of it. I also think that most of the time, motives on both sides are good, and I hope that at least one person leaves the the discussion with a new perspective or at the very least, something to think about.

 

That's what I hope, at least.

[Pippin's person]

Yes, threads questioning rescue rules do arise over and over, but it's not the same people raising the question over and over. I can't recall any individual raising it more than once. And I think in most cases the person is raising it out of genuine concern that dogs are losing out because the criteria are too strict (not that the rescue itself euthanizes dogs, but that dogs are euthanized because the rescue has only so many slots and cannot take new dogs until their current dogs are placed). You may think the people raising these questions are all wrong, and that the criteria are not too strict, and if so I think it's great for you to explain why, but I hate to see these people greeted with "It's not all about YOU, and making things easy for YOU," because IMO people who raise these questions generally don't think it's all about them or making things easy for them. Certainly it's pretty clear that this OP didn't. No one (least of all Ooky) has suggested that rescues make rules "just to make someone's life difficult or to be mean or to play favorites or to keep good dogs from good homes," and I can't help thinking it would be better if rescuers didn't suggest that people who raise questions about those rules are motivated by ego or laziness. Why can't we assume that motives are good on both sides?

 

I think that's a good point and I agree that folks are generally asking because they have real concern over the dogs. But, I also think there are plenty of people who get upset when they are told (or think they will be told) that they aren't the right home for a particular dog (or for a border collie more generally) when they think they are and respond to being turned down by saying that the rescues are too strict (or some variant of that). I've not heard anyone who's had a positive experience with a rescue complain about rescues being too strict (although I am perfectly ready to hear that from someone now... )

 

And, it's true no one implied the reasons I wrote in my post (except the last ont), but I've had those reasons given to me enough times that they have become a generalization for me. I think Ooky was right that many people come to rescues with the assumption that rescues work like shelters. When they discover they don't, the response is often, 'those rescues are too strict and thus dogs lose out' rather than something like 'why did these rules/guidelines arise. Maybe they have a point.' That's what I was trying to get at with my post.

 

I'm sure that there are rescues whose guidelines I would find too strict as I find blanket rules about things like fences and children to be like the proverbial hatchet rather than the proverbial scalpel. Most of the rescues I'm familiar with make their decisions based on the assessment of the specific dog and its needs. To take the OP and her query in her apology thread as a case in point. In the rescue I worked with, her family would have likely been seen as great for some dogs and not good at all for others (for instance, one dog who was a perfect match for us but would have likely been a guaranteed nightmare for the OP).

 

But what if she'd fallen in love with the dog who'd be a bad match and promised that she and her family would do everything possible to make the match work? Would the rescue then be too strict by saying no, not that dog for your family? Obviously, for some people clearly not, but for others, almost certainly.

[Bo Peep]

I had a gal, whom I've now known for over 25 years. She called me about a sheltie. Oh, you don't want one of those for your sheep, I said- you want a border collie. We visited and became close friends. She & I still talk. She got my name from the local feed store. Funny how stuff travels- Dianne rescues and does a little bit of training, you should contact her. LOL.

 

Well, she ended up getting 2 dogs from me. She didn't leave her farm much. Very quiet. But her hubby and my ex got along great she had some great dogs that did the job she wanted them to. A better home? I think not!

 

Sometimes, they do work out to fairy tales.

[MaryP]

What dismays me about this conversation, every time it comes up, is how hated shelters seem to be by many of the rescue folk here. I am NOT saying there aren't terrible shelters with bad policies of all sorts. But there are terrible "rescues" too.

 

I'm not sure what about my post would imply that I believe that all shelters are evil and that all rescues are good. It is a fact, though, that most shelters do not have the same rigorous screening process that most rescues do. That doesn't mean that I hate them or that I believe they are all run by evil "kill nazis," to use your terminology. It just means that there is going to be a larger margin of error in their placement of dogs into appropriate homes when screening of potential adopters is very minimal or non-existent. I don't think that you have been on these boards long enough to see that I have come to the defense of shelters on more than one occasion. There are lots of people out there that DO like to vilify kill shelters and they usually are NOT people in rescue. It's usually what I consider to be really naive folks that don't understand that shelters have their limitations. When they have more dogs coming in than going out, something has got to give. I work with a lot of different shelters in my own state and in neighboring states. I know that there are lots of caring people who are doing a job that I don't envy.

 

The point that I was trying to make was that with one of the long-time FL bc rescues closing up shop, there is going to be more burden placed on the remaining rescues to take up the slack. And, there will be bc's not getting into rescue, but instead being adopted straight out of the shelter or euthanized. Some of those adoptions will work out, I'm sure, but many will not and what will then become of those dogs? Around here, the shelters depend heavily on rescues to take some of their burden. There are lots of shelters that send a significantly higher percentage of their dogs to rescues than to adoptive homes. Losing one of those rescues hurts.

[bcnewe2]

Northof49

Just curious, why no electric fence?

And out of more curiousity, would you consider a bark collar the same as an e collar?

 

I've done private rescue since I started in bc's (1997).

I keep the fosters till I find the perfect home. Some have been over a year. The one rule I stick to is testing the dog around young kids. All my personal dogs are great, but none of them would be suited for young kid homes, and these are well rounded dogs. Some dogs can adjust, some can't. It's a no go if it even seems like there might be an issue.

The rest of my personal rules are adaptable to the dog. Not the family adopting. Sorry, I work to hard for a potential family to screw it up. I do remember when I first started being shut out of a rescue I wanted because I didn't have a fence. I went on a campaign to get this dog, and won the private rescuer over. That dog is still living without a fence, only with my daughter. All things are open for discussion or change but not the kid thing unless the dog is proven to be rock solid. It just scares me to much.

I've bought puppies and rescued adults. I think going with rescue of some type is the way to go unless you need a propose dog, such as a stock dog. Then purchasing is my choice. I've had to many trial rescues that wash out as working dogs. I place them in proper homes but don't have room to keep all the dogs that come though my door. At the time, all I have are paid for dogs. My last rescue was almost a year ago. I'm sure I'm due another one to come along. I believe things happen for a reason. Life is always a suprise for me.

[Northof49]

Northof49

Just curious, why no electric fence?

And out of more curiousity, would you consider a bark collar the same as an e collar?

 

First of all with the electric Fence they don't prevent people and other animals from coming into the yard and the electric fence is just a shock collar method of keeping your dog supposedly on your property. It is aversive training, which we don't subscribe to.

 

A bark collar based on electric shock is a shock collar.

[bcnewe2]

A bark collar based on electric shock is a shock collar

But not what I consider the same type. with a reg. shock collar you are incharge of the shock, a bark collar is set off by the dog.

I understand now as you answered the question with the idea of no aversive training statement.

 

No argument, just curious.

[MrSnappy]

And I think in most cases the person is raising it out of genuine concern that dogs are losing out because the criteria are too strict

 

Why would you think that?

 

This topic has never been raised by someone with the caveat that they are are concerned for the welfare of animals, with a keen eye on the bigger picture. Quite the opposite in fact - they *always* ask the question because the answer, or the question, has affected them in some way - ie, they were turned down for adoption, or they think they'll be turned down for adoption based on something they read on a rescue site and the conclusions they then drew from that reading.

 

I doubt VERY much that new posters raise the issue on the boards because they've looked at the issue on a broader scale, thought about it carefully and have come to the conclusion that rescue rules are so strict that dogs are being killed as a result (a fallacy in and of itself, but not to digress) and they were losing so many nights' sleep over it that they thought they should post on a breed specific board and ask why rescues don't adopt to homes with kids.

 

On the contrary, they ask because they want to adopt a rescue and the rescue websites say "we don't adopt to homes with kids" and they wonder why that is, and they ask because of how it affects them. As is the case with the OP of this thread, as you yourself have pointed out.

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that - people usually explore larger issues from a jumping off point, and that jumping off point usually comes about when something within that issue has somehow affected them. But not because they are budding animal activists with burning questions that must be answered.

 

In this case, the OP asked a question, and her question was answered many times over. And as is the norm for these kinds of dynamic discussion it morphed and took a slightly new path and the OP is no longer being addressed, but many subpoints are. And everyone is being incredibly civil.

 

RDM