Animal rescues drving people away sometimes?.

[Eclipse]

I have by now spoken with a few people turned off by companion animal rescues. People try to get a rescued companion animal, the rescue/shelter etc makes it difficult/complicated and then the people go to a breeder instead. Not sure what the solution is, am sure that the current system isn't working as good as it could be.

I'm not anti-breeder, I don't see any point of going to a breeder if some of the same animals have already been bred and are in a rescue needing homes. Going to a breeder is for when you cannot find the animal(s) you want in rescue.
When people go to breeders, not because they couldn't find an animal they wanted, but are faced with unneccesary complications from rescue/shelter polices, it just seems a shame.

[Fyvel]

I've never had any problems adopting an animal from a shelter group or rescue group, and we also foster for a local rescue group. Never given any problems. I've heard of people complaining about having problems, but I often wonder why. I have never been refused an adoption, and have never been given any hassle over it (well except for my second kitty, who came down with a respiratory infection during the waiting period and I had to wait 2 weeks for them to treat it and have it cleared up before I could take him home).

The first question I would ask these people is why the shelter refused the adoption, and whether that is a valid reason. The shelters want these pets to go to 'forever' homes. They want to make sure these animals are going to homes where they will not be neglected or abused, because they have a responsibility to those animals to not just adopt them out to anyone who decides they want a dog. Yes, some responsible owners might be refused in this process, but that is better than just handing out pets to whoever wants them.

I am all for making adopting an animal a little bit difficult (ie with wait times, etc). People shouldn't be allowed to just buy a dog on a whim like they can in a pet store. The application process forces people to really think about what they are getting into. And if they are refused by the shelters, perhaps they should consider why.

But on the other hand, I wouldn't agree with shelters making it overly difficult either. I do believe that most people who have the sense to go to a shelter usually have their heart in the right place, and would make good enough owners.

ETA: Wow, weird habit. "Owners". That sounds awful, doesn't it. Strange how common language is used without a thought to the connotations ...

[geronimango]

Speaking as a foster with a rescue organization, I can say that I might turn down applicants based on red flags I pick up while interviewing the individual (pet history, i.e. reasons for surrendering past pets; lifestyle, i.e. long working hours with no time spent at home with pet; or maybe just going on a gut feeling about a situation (individual maybe moves a lot). This gives concern regarding stability in the home and if the animal's needs can be met in the future.
Just this weekend I denied an applicant on an adoption b/c the family missed 2 scheduled home visits (I didn't even get a courtesy call with the 2nd missed appointment. They just flat ignored it). My reasons for the denial include 1) if you are too busy to even meet the dog how can you guarantee you'll be able to meet the needs of the dog? 2)How inconsiderate are you that I, a volunteer which means I am not being paid for my wasted time, don't even deserve a heads up that you made other plans? We had a scheduled adoption event on Saturday but instead of having my 3 fosters out at the event meeting what could be potentially be new families, we're all at home waiting on a call that never came. 3) If you can't even keep an agreement on a meeting time, how can I even trust that you will honor your adoption contract? What if 5 years down the road you decide that you need to get rid of him? Can I trust you to surrender him back to us (as the agreement states) or will you just give him away to someone else and we lose track of him forever?
I know that this may seem extreme but Fyvel is right. There is no way in Hell I will just turn him over to the first person who shows up with the adoption fee. This dog lives in my home and I love him. He sleeps in my bed and looks to me for protection. He's already had a sucky life (he was dumped by his previous owner and was starving) and because I have a lot of emotion invested in him it's my job to ensure that his next home is for keeps and will be a perfect fit. That's the case with many, many rescues. These poor animals have been through the wringer and we want to be sure that their next move is going to be their last.
I keep an open mind when talking to applicants b/c I know that just b/c people don't do things exactly like I do them doesn't mean they're wrong. I do not want anyone to turn to a breeder based of something negative I might have said or b/c of a denial. If I turn someone down I like to talk about the reasons why with them. Maybe it's a situation that can be fixed or maybe they might realize they really aren't ready for the responsibilty of a pet. Some people, however, just don't want to be told that they are lacking in any way and need to improve. They feel that what they do and how they live is no one's business but their own so kindly shut the f*** up and give me a dog. To which I say, "Ya ain't gettin one of mine".

[Music Girl]

Geronimango,

I'm glad you posted your point of view, because it helps me to see the other side. I've been annoyed by the attitudes of certain rescue workers sometimes, especially considering the enormous surplus of stray and unwanted animals in our country.

The fact that it is easier for people to go to a breeder or pet store, rather than jump through weeks of hoops and reference checks by a rescue, is very unfortunate. I do not think that the standards of rescues should be as exacting as they sometimes are, but that doesn't mean that I think "just anyone" should be able to buy a dog from a rescue, either. Moderate standards, instead of overly strict ones, might be nice....

[Music Girl]

I have rescued two dogs, by the way.

One rescue was a pleasure to deal with, thorough in their standards yet friendly and helpful. The other was ridiculously nitpicking with their millions of questions and visits and hoops to jump through and my family being treated with suspicion by the snobbish workers. I became so annoyed during the process (even though I was finally approved to adopt) that I would never, ever consider dealing with them again, nor would I recommend them to anyone else. I am and have always been a model dog owner, and that place treated me like a suspect from the very beginning. When I told them that in a pinch I've purchased dog food from the grocery store, you'd have thought I just admitting to beating my pets. Her gasp was audible and ridiculous.

[geronimango]

Music Girl, thanks for your post! I thinks it's very important that we can see the same situation from all sides. I do try to put myself in the applicant's position and try to help them make the best match possible. I try to be very open with them about behaviors the animals have (such as getting on furniture or potty issues) and can only hope that the applicant is being just as honest. You are right in that there needs to be some common middle ground that rescuers and adopters can reach. I try to move things along as quickly as possible for the new family so that they don't get discouraged. I just wish that people understood the reasons behind multi-page applications, home visits and interviews and don't get discouraged by it. Many people who work in rescue are doing it b/c they love animals (Lord knows we don't do it for the cash) and I do believe that some can walk a fine line between rescuer and hoarder, doing more harm than good. That's scary to me. It can be hard, though, to say good bye to that special soul who was rescued from deplorable conditions. As he physically heals you get to see him mentally/emotionally heal. The personality emerges and the playfulness comes out. You are witness to a miracle. A once-cowering sack of bones who was too afraid to even look at you directly and flinched when you spoke to him is now cuddling with you on the couch and happily chases grasshoppers in the yard. You love him and he loves you. Now, think about turning him over to some stranger. Is he going to backslide? How long will he miss me? Will the new family learn his quirky behaviors and fall in love with them, too? It's a very emotional time and it's very hard for me to think about losing a foster. But, I know that if I can't rehome this one, then I can't help the next one. I try, try, try to remember that.

[geronimango]

I have rescued two dogs, by the way.

When I told them that in a pinch I've purchased dog food from the grocery store, you'd have thought I just admitting to beating my pets. Her gasp was audible and ridiculous.

Oh now that's just crazy talk and made me laugh out loud!

[Music Girl]

some can walk a fine line between rescuer and hoarder

You said a mouthful when you said that.

One rescue we visited when searching for a second dog was filthy and overcrowded, stinking, with dogs crammed into tiny cages for lack of space. They were a no-kill shelter, but many of the dogs there were too vicious to be homed (admittedly by the shelter owner) and they would sometimes kill each other and many were covered in feces, infections, and bite wounds from fighting. It was a nightmare - just like something off of animal cops. The sad thing is that the lady seemed so very nice, with a true heart for animals, but had evidently just gotten overwhelmed and didn't know how to proceed to get things back in order.

I reported the shelter to the ASPCA and Animal Control, but I don't know if it was ever looked into.

[Bonoluvr]

I posted about this in the past when we were looking into Beagle rescues. I felt like a suspect before I even had a chance to open my mouth.
We just adopted a kitty from a no kill shelter, it was clean, well run, the people were very nice.......they asked a lot of questions, but i never felt like i did with the beagle rescue. i had to sign a contract agreeing to a multitude of things, i had to proove i own my home.......etc etc.........
but it was a pleasant experience dealing with them.

[geronimango]

Bonoluvr, I hate to hear that you had such a negative experience with a rescue. That makes me sad that they made you feel that way. I am happy, though, that you have now had a positive experience! Hooray for your new baby!

MusicGirl, I just could not even imagine walking into a situation like that. Bless you for reporting it and not ignoring it. Just, omg...

[dahlia]

I know a lot of people who have been denied for some seemingly ridiculous reasons but geronimango gave an excellent view from the other side. I am sure it is hard for the volunteers to judge but need to always keep the animals' best interests as the priority.

[geronimango]

Thanks Dahlia, I hope that my post can shed some light on the reasonings behind some of the decisions rescues make and the emotions driving what most of us do. It's all about finding that great home for that great pet.
We actually do 2 week trial adoptions which is something not too many organizations do. We will let the animal live with the potential adopter for up to 2 weeks before we finalize the adoption. This way we can make sure EVERYONE is happy (the humans, the new pet and the established pet if the family already has a companion (or 2, lol). We can work on behavior issues that come up and it's a good time to see if the match was indeed perfect. Many people are very pleasantly surprised to hear we will do this for them.

[Music Girl]

Two week trial adoptions are a GREAT idea.
It takes awhile for a family to adjust to the addition of a new family member. All animals and people are so different. Accepting the animal back is an excellent way for people to feel safe in deciding whether the animal is an appropriate fit for their family, and for rescues to know that their dogs are going to loving, happy homes.

[kpickell]

Eclipse, I agree with you that most rescues, especially no-kill shelters, are WAY TOO STRICT and turn off many people to the idea of adopting. Period.

Hence my older thread on the topic: Is Your Animal Shelter Too Strict? (http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?t=64258)

[karenlovessnow]

I used get annoyed at the how difficult it is to adopt from a shelter, but I totally get it now, why they are so strict.

[SuperChicken]

I don't think most shelters are too strict at all. I am continuously appalled at how many adopters bring their pets back after adoption for stupid reasons. I had wrongly assumed that anyone who would adopt an animal instead of buying would be more devoted. Wrong! Shelters are taking animals in from bad situations, it does nothing to help the cause if they just stick the pet back into another bad situation.

That being said, I have been to some shelters that were ridiculous in their policies: One makes you fill out all the forms and be approved before you can even enter the building. One will not let you in the facility to see the animals but brings them outside to show you each individually. The place I adopted my first dog from called me weekly for 3 months to check up; that was excessive.

Waiting periods, reference checks, even home checks seem perfectly reasonable to me.

[kpickell]

I used get annoyed at the how difficult it is to adopt from a shelter, but I totally get it now, why they are so strict.I don't get it yet.

[geronimango]

I don't get it yet.

Well then I guess you won't.

[geronimango]

I read your link to your post AFTER I posted my response. Sorry. I should have read your stuff first. Guess I was being defensive.

I can see where your level of frustration is coming from. I am lucky in that I myself get to give the final yeah or nay on who takes my fosters. Since we don't have a fixed facility shelter, we have a bit more leneincy in regards to procedures. What I mean is, we all have certain guidelines we MUST adhere to, such as our fosters will not be become outdoor pets, etc... However, I can use my better judgement to determine if my dog will do well in the new home. We don't have flat, rigid rules which say ALL dogs like this go only to homes like this. It's always case by case. We eliminate homes with small children based on the individual dog, we only require homes with fenced yards if the dog will not potty on a leash (I actually have a foster who has this hang-up), etc... I guess that's what makes my situation different.

[kpickell]

Speaking as a foster with a rescue organization, I can say that I might turn down applicants based on red flags I pick up while interviewing the individual (pet history, i.e. reasons for surrendering past pets; lifestyle, i.e. long working hours with no time spent at home with pet; or maybe just going on a gut feeling about a situation (individual maybe moves a lot). This gives concern regarding stability in the home and if the animal's needs can be met in the future. We need to be building relationships with the "not perfect" homes so that they become good homes, not turning them away and giving up on them. When you turn someone down you are basically telling them to go buy a dog from a pet store or breeder. If you ask me, the shelters need to own up to their own hand they play in causing the overpopulation problem.

So to use your own examples:
- Someone works long hours. That should never be a reason to turn someone down. Instead provide suggestions of doggie daycares or pet sitters in the area. I travel a lot for work and sometimes I'm gone 10 to 14 hours a day for work so I pay someone to come over midday and let the dogs out.
- Someone moves a lot. I'm not even sure what this reason means. You can not assume everyone will dump their dog when they move. Talk to them about your concerns and educate them on the issues and build a relationship with them.

Negative assumptions are the root of many shelter's problems. They create self-fulfilling prophecies and then they see a lot of returns. I'm in disagreement with my shelter director right now over the application on my puppy. They feel that because they got rid of a dog in the past, that they should be an automatic turn down, and I strongly disagree. I don't think they should have gotten rid of their last dog, but I understand why the did and I let them know better options.

[kpickell]

We don't have flat, rigid rules which say ALL dogs like this go only to homes like this. It's always case by case. We eliminate homes with small children based on the individual dog, we only require homes with fenced yards if the dog will not potty on a leash (I actually have a foster who has this hang-up), etc... I guess that's what makes my situation different.
That's true. Let me clarify that not every dog is a good match for every person, so when I say "we shouldn't turn people away" what I really mean is "we should work hard to find them a dog that's right for them". This could be impossible if you're working independently and only have a couple dogs you're rehoming. There are times though when an adopter and myself disagree on whether a dog is a good match for them, and in those situations I'd be honest about my concerns and then leave it up to the adopter to proceed or not. I too have the final say on all my fosters, and I wouldn't adopt out Perry to a home with young kids since he has a bite history and I wouldn't adopt him as an outside dog...other than that, I can't think of many reasons I'd turn someone down.

[queenarmadillo]

I have been involved with a few rescues ove rthe years, and believe that almost universally they all do at least one thing that puts people off. Until recently, all were no-kill shelters which never turned an animal away, and I agreed that it was better to lose one good adopter than home to the 10 "questionable" homes and have nine come back.

Now I am involved with a charity which takes retired dogs from racing. We get 12 kennels, and all other dogs are on a waiting list. I now find it infuriating the way we turn down people because:
(a) we dont kill our dogs; dogs waiting to come in may be disposed of elsewhere however, because we had no space at the time;
(b) even if the dog comes back, be it in 3 years or 6 months, we would have had that time to make that kennel available to another dog;
(c) we turn down around 40% of enquiries out of hand because no one would be home all day to see to the dog; at no point do we suggest options like hiring a dog walker at lunch time (or even allow these people to take one if they have a long-standing arangement for such with an existing dog); I find this particularly ironic because most of these dogs have spent their entire lives in kennels (with few (or no) walks or social interaction) and can easily spend upto a year kenneled with us before being homed--if I were a dog I know which I would choose;

and most importantly, and why I now firmly believe nearly all charities need to relax their homing policies

(d) if a charity tells you you arent a suitable home, you dont go home and accept it, you go out and buy a dog anyway. Instead of giving one of our dogs a home until it barks too much and you give it back, you pay a breeder to produce you a puppy, and then bring it to us when it barks too much. By turning down potential adopters, you encourage them to support breeders and thereby perpetuate the problem your charity is attempting to solve.

By this I dont mean there should be no standards--I would never home a dog into a situation where I believed its welfare would not be improved from its state in the kennels. But, I think when we look to the welfare of "our" dogs, we need not just consider doing the best for the dogs currently in kennels, but also that of those spending years kenneled waiting for a place, and those being put down because we have no room.

[geronimango]

So to use your own examples:
- Someone works long hours. That should never be a reason to turn someone down. Instead provide suggestions of doggie daycares or pet sitters in the area. I travel a lot for work and sometimes I'm gone 10 to 14 hours a day for work so I pay someone to come over midday and let the dogs out.
- Someone moves a lot. I'm not even sure what this reason means. You can not assume everyone will dump their dog when they move. Talk to them about your concerns and educate them on the issues and build a relationship with them.

Negative assumptions are the root of many shelter's problems. They create self-fulfilling prophecies and then they see a lot of returns. I'm in disagreement with my shelter director right now over the application on my puppy. They feel that because they got rid of a dog in the past, that they should be an automatic turn down, and I strongly disagree. I don't think they should have gotten rid of their last dog, but I understand why the did and I let them know better options.

As I said in the bottom of that post (I think it was that one) I do discuss the reasons for an initial denial with the potential adoptor in order to see if the situation can be resolved. I don't just put a big red stamp on the app and say "too bad, so sad. Next!!" If the applicant is willing (as I hope he/she will be) then we discuss options for resolution. I do NOT want to keep a pet out of a potential new home. I look at each situation separately and go from there. In fact, the family that was up for one of my fosters told me of their past history with dogs. They had chosen the wrong type of dog for their lifestyle and the match did not work. In questioning the female as to what happened to the 2 dogs, she satisfied me in that they took great care in rehoming them. They went to families who knew the animals already and had great relationships with the dogs. I am alright with that.
You make a great point in that b/c we don't have a centralized shelter, then it makes it hard to recommend another animal that might be a better fit. That does suck and I have been at a loss at times when someone does ask me about a particular animal. I couldn't even tell ya who all we have in the program at any given time. That sucks hard. But I try to do the best I can: maybe refer them to our web site or to another warm body who might know.
All in all, I just want my fur babies in loving homes and it's a risk no matter how much care you take.

[geronimango]

(c) we turn down around 40% of enquiries out of hand because no one would be home all day to see to the dog; at no point do we suggest options like hiring a dog walker at lunch time (or even allow these people to take one if they have a long-standing arangement for such with an existing dog); I find this particularly ironic because most of these dogs have spent their entire lives in kennels (with few (or no) walks or social interaction) and can easily spend upto a year kenneled with us before being homed--if I were a dog I know which I would choose;


Wow. I would not be approved then to adopt a rescued racing dog. I am single and work a full time job. This means I am gone from my house 9 hours a day.
My dogs are perfectly content to chill in large wire kennels during the day while I'm gone. They all know the routine and run to their own "rooms" when I give the signal. I have them all in the same room (my bedroom) so that they can all see and hear one another and everyone seems happy. I could not afford to pay someone to come and relieve my dogs daily. I live in a rural area so there's nothing like that locally and my funds are too tight to pay someone to drive in to do it.
I could not imagine denying someone a dog b/c they were unfortunate enough to have to work for a living.

[Fona]

People are often put off getting animals from shelters because there is so much wrong with them and the people who work there just lie to you to get you to take the dogs away.
When my Grandparents adopted their dog they got him home and he was ill for three days, they said he was house trained but he wasn't he was being sick and doing his business all over the carpets. My grandparents were in their 70s at the time and weren't able to care for a sick dog and pay for the vets bills and they were too old to house train an 2yr old dog. They had to take him back, if the shelter knew more about the dogs they could have given them a dog that would fit their environment and there would have been one less dog in shelters.