Puppy vs rescue?

[ArchersMomma]

I have noted on here a propensity towards recommending that people obtain a rescue BC over a puppy. While I think that is highly commendable, I have some concerns that I wonder if you could help me address. Before we brought Archer home I did a lot of searching on rescue sites. I really wanted to give a loving home to a dog that badly needed it. However, without exception, none of them would go near us because our son is only 6 years old. It didn't matter that we had already had a boder collie in the past who was already 5 years old when Liam was born. There seemed to be NO exception to that rule.

 

I understand that there are a lot of border collie's that end up in rescue or shelters and it was very frustrating that I couldn't even get past this rule to ask to be considered. Of course I completely understand in most circumstances the desire to avoid families with small children when adopting a rescue out....but should it really be so "strict"? Is there not room for the exceptional family who may just be able to handle both the child AND the dog? I'm not saying that we are that family, but I'm certain there are families out there who could give great homes to these dogs.

 

I hope this doesn't come across as being overly critical because that is def. not my intention...I really am curious.

[Ninso]

I guess I don't know all the details of your situation, but I think you're right that a lot of rescues are cautious to adopt to families with small children. Most of their dogs are likely high-drive, motion-reactive dogs that could potentially hurt a child, even if it was unintentional. You have to look at it from a rescue's perspective . . . some of the dogs they receive have a history of not being good with children or have been surrendered because of concerns about the safety of children in the house. Some have no history with children and the rescue is not willing to take the risk. Perhaps the rescue has adopted to families with children in the past and had dogs returned because some people just don't understand or know how to handle a high energy dog with children in the home.

 

Most rescues have lots of strict requirements, but most rescues will be flexible. Maybe they just didn't have any dogs they felt would be suitable for a home with young children at the time. It's the rescue's responsibility to find these dogs homes that will be a good match for them, and the rescues take that responsibility very seriously. I'm sure most rescues would be more than happy to adopt to a home even with young children if they felt that the family and the dog would be able to handle it.

 

Remember, "rescue organizations" aren't the only place to "rescue" a dog. Humane societies have lots of great dogs (and puppies) waiting for loving homes, so if you're not getting anywhere with rescue, that's a great option. However, the difference between a HS rescue and a "rescue" rescue is that when you adopt from the HS, you don't know anything about the dog you adopt, whereas if you adopt from a rescue, the foster home will be able to provide lots of information on the dog and ensure that it will be a good fit for your family.

[in2adventure]

First off, did you call or apply to ANY of these rescues? Or did you just read the requirements and chock the rescue up to being black and white without further investigation?

 

Many rescue have a list of rules they like to go by. They have worked REALLY hard to save these dogs and having them end up in a perfect home is what they are stiving for. With that being said, there is a lot of felibilty to these rules depending on the situation and the dog. When I got Grady, the rescue woman had told me she just placed an aussie puppy with a family with a tiny child and they were sooooo happy with the outcome. Had a different family, with a different child come along, it may not have been the best fit. ALL situations are different.

 

I am a prime example of a rescue nightmare. I live in a rental house 6 months, move across country twice a year, have no definate "home" the other 6 months, no fence, have a erratic job that could keep me out ALL night if the poop hits the fan at the last minute, I live alone, need I go on.....

 

I am not the best fit for all dogs, but I AM the best fit for the two I have. Not only did I make a perfect home for Lucia, the rescue actually sent me a "look what we got" email about Grady because she knew I was looking for a second dog and thought I would make a great home for him too.......even with all those nightmare negatives!

 

This topic has been beat to death about rescues. Just fill out the app for a dog you like and see what happens. Don't take it personal if they say no, there are a ton more dogs out there looking for homes.

[MrSnappy]

This has been discussed many times on these boards already.

 

Unless a dog in my rescue has a demonstrated, known history of being good with children, I do not place a dog in a home with small children. This is a litigious society, and the dog always loses. The risk of liability is too great. For some reason, people who buy a puppy from a breeder do not blame the breeder if the puppy bites their kids. But they sure blame the rescue if the dog they adopt bites their kids. So I don't even take that chance. Lots of our dogs are shelter rescues or strays - their histories are unknown, and I'm not going to gamble with their lives, or with the safety of your kids either, by putting the dog in a home where it could potentially be dangerous to the kid or itself.

 

When I do have a dog that has a demonstrated history of being excellent with kids in its previous home, I am still extremely cautious when placing that dog in a new home with kids, because frankly the majority of applicants I get that have small kids in the home have exactly zero concept of what a border collie is, and what owning one entails. Cute little emails about how they think it'll be "so funny" when the dog "herds" their kids, and how they know these dogs are so smart they won't have to put much work into training the dog, earns their application a place in my trash bin immediately. Of course there are some good homes with kids and I have adopted some select dogs to homes with children. But for the most part, I risk the dog, maybe the child, my rescue and potentially my livelihood by "taking a chance" and putting an unknown dog into a situation where it has the opportunity to bite children. So why would I?

 

RDM

[juliepoudrier]

If you search on something like rescues, probably a number of those topics will come up. The reason most of us recommend rescue first is because with a rescue you're getting a known personality, temperament, level of activity. A pup is a "pig in a poke" and you could possibly do all the right things and still end up with a dog with issues, especially if one has been careless about where they get that pup. Many of the dogs that are in rescue are there simply because someone got a pup they weren't ready for or couldn't handle for whatever reason. There is nothing really wrong with these dogs except that they probably lack manners, training, socialization.

 

Rescues have rules. but that doesn't mean the rules don't get broken for the right applicant. You don't know if you don't ask.

 

ETA: RDM has a good point, especially about the dog being the one that loses. That doesn't mean that rescue is a bad choice for most people though.

 

Here's only the most recent thread regarding rescue placements: http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.php?showtopic=20933

 

J.

[ArchersMomma]

thanks everyone...you certainly did answer my questions and I will read the other threads posted. It was not my intention to bring up a "soft-spot" for anyone, I was merely curious. As for filling out applications I did not. I went to three or four rescue websites close to me and every one of them had a disclaimer that said they absolutely would NOT adopt to a family with small children under any circumstances. I didn't want to get into it with anyone so did not. The liability issue didn't even cross my mind..I guess because I would never do that....but I certainly can understand the reluctance. Thanks for the feedback.

[PSmitty]

I haven't had time to read this whole thread yet, but I think it is important to note that the rescues *might* have still adopted to you. 6 years old *might* have been old enough. Your family's experience with border collies *might* have been a deciding factor. You would never know until you tried, in other words, and you didn't. I don't mean to sound snippy, but really, you don't know if they would have accepted your application or not.

 

Regardless, I think it's important to not lump ALL border collie rescues together. Yes, some of them might not adopt to homes with young children. Rescues have rules for reasons they deem are important, and they have the right to enforce them as they see fit. But, not all BC rescues have the same rules. The rescue I work with takes each application and evaluates it on a individual basis. The idea is obviously to place the dog where it has the best chance of succeeding. So, the fence jumper is only adopted to the home with a 6 foot privacy fence. The dog who isn't best buddies with every other dog might go to a home with no other dogs. The dog who is nippy, jumpy, etc, will only go to a home with an experienced dog person without young children. It's all done on a case by case basis, with no blanket rules. Every rescue is different, so in the future, if you (or anyone lurking!) wants to adopt, *talk* to the rescues. See what they say. If they hold firm to their policies (and why shouldn't they?), TRUST ME, there will be another rescue who will adopt to you.

 

ETA: I'm glad you posted that link, Julie!

[BustopherJones]

In order to avoid being accused of misrepresenting rescue, as I am not involfved in it myself, I will cite a couple of quotes from those actually involved:

 

Rescue is not about first come, first served. It's about placing the dog in the best home, as the rescue sees fit… the rescue has to make judgments based on the application, references, home checks, interviews, etc. They have to weigh all the information and decide where the dog would best fit. It's not a slap in your face if they don't choose you. It just means that they thought another home was a better fit. (MaryP)

 

Our foster homes simply do their best to find a perfect home for each of our rescued dogs -- and yes, that means that sometimes, you will have to wait for the right match to come around even if you can provide a good home for a BC. (phej)

 

I would offer the following observations myself:

 

Do not make the same mistake I did, and base your information on what you infer from a website. Only direct contact will determine whether the organization will determine that you are a suitable home.

 

Even if you are a suitable home, you may have to wait until an optimal match (as determined by the resuce organization) occurs. If time is an issue (i.e., if you are not willing to wait until a rescue organization comes up with an optimum match), then there are other avenues. Remember that formal rescue organizations for a specific breed are not the only options. There are local shelters and Humane Societies that have dogs who need homes as well (sometimes more so, if a "kill" shelter is involved); your vet may also know of a dog that needs a home. You may not wind up with the purebreed you want, but you can still have a loving dog that needs a home. (In my case, my BC-mix rescue came from a shelter through my vet; but I got my purebred BC from a breeder, as none were locally available through rescue when we decided that we wanted a BC.)

[kajarrel]

Do not make the same mistake I did, and base your information on what you infer from a website. Only direct contact will determine whether the organization will determine that you are a suitable home.

 

This cracks me up -- you're supposed to "know" when an organization says something on their website that it is not really true for "everyone" (i.e., you) but for those selective few who are deemed inappropriate. Why not just post the real "rules?" If the objective is finding "ideal" homes for dogs, why risk screening out potential owners who "follow the rules?"

 

Kim

[Root Beer]

This cracks me up -- you're supposed to "know" when an organization says something on their website that it is not really true for "everyone" (i.e., you) but for those selective few who are deemed inappropriate. Why not just post the real "rules?" If the objective is finding "ideal" homes for dogs, why risk screening out potential owners who "follow the rules?"

 

Kim

 

I think it's kind of like when you want to apply for a job that you don't technically qualify for. You know probably won't even get an interview, but your resume might catch the potential employer's eye and you just might end up getting the job. It happens, but never for those who don't even apply because they don't technically qualify.

 

It doesn't hurt to ask. Exceptions are made to a lot of rules in a lot of circumstances, espeicially if a person knows how to present himself in a convincing and genuine fashion.

[MaryP]

This cracks me up -- you're supposed to "know" when an organization says something on their website that it is not really true for "everyone" (i.e., you) but for those selective few who are deemed inappropriate. Why not just post the real "rules?" If the objective is finding "ideal" homes for dogs, why risk screening out potential owners who "follow the rules?"

 

Kim

 

I think it is because sometimes people interpret what a rescue posts on it's website as "rules" when really they are nothing more than caveats, as in "don't get all pissed off at me when you apply to adopt this high drive border collie that has a tendency to be very reactive to motion when you have a three-year-old in the house, a baby on the way, have never owned a border collie before, and I tell you that I do not consider you a good match for the dog because you have a toddler, a baby on the way, and no previous border collie experience." How's that for a run-on sentence?

 

I have a caveat on my website that states that "we generally do not adopt border collies to families with small children." Someone could read that and say, "Oh, well why bother? They won't adopt to me because they have a rule against adopting to people like me who have children." We, like most rescues, I think, look at each application on a case-by-case basis. If you want to know the "rules" about a particular dog, you should check the dog's bio. If there are rules for that dog, they will be posted there (i.e., requires fence-in yard, no small children, no cats, etc.).

[BustopherJones]

Why not just post the real "rules?"

 

It is in the uncompromisingness with which dogma is held, and not in the dogma or want of dogma, that the danger lies. ~ Samuel Butler

 

Rules are not necessarily sacred; principles are. ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

[Lenajo]

This cracks me up -- you're supposed to "know" when an organization says something on their website that it is not really true for "everyone" (i.e., you) but for those selective few who are deemed inappropriate. Why not just post the real "rules?" If the objective is finding "ideal" homes for dogs, why risk screening out potential owners who "follow the rules?"

 

Kim

 

If you posted every single detail and possible gray area of placement you'd have a book instead of a website.

[kajarrel]

I have a caveat on my website that states that "we generally do not adopt border collies to families with small children."

 

I like your approach, Mary.

 

Kim

[theshine]

I agree with applying anyway...I had a hard time when I wanted to adopt a sheltie, same issue, kids under 8, but after being rejected by two rescues (I'm a sensitive person, and it did actually hurt my feelings, but I got over it...)I was finally accepted by one. Instead of just sending an application, I wrote a short email along with the application telling about myself and my situation and included a couple of pictures of my dogs in my home. My BC came from the county shelter though, that's one route to go, there always seem to be a couple in the shelter system around here.

 

I love your sig pic btw, my BC lays with his head out the cat door just like that....posted a pic of it in your other topic.

[MrSnappy]

If you posted every single detail and possible gray area of placement you'd have a book instead of a website.

 

Amen.

 

RDM

[coolvicki]

I agree that the rules are ultimately for both the protection of the dog and the potential owner. Yet, the "especially conscientious" (and a hypothetically *good* match) potential owner might be discouraged by rules that appear too rigid- and unfortunately, the rescue border collies are ultimately the ones who miss out when such people are discouraged.

 

It would be ridiculous for a rescue site to post a note about every possible exception to the rules, HOWEVER it'd be easy enough to post a statement at the end of the rules stating something like the following: "If your household fails to meet one or more of our requested standards- however, you believe that you would, nevertheless, be able to provide a wonderful home for one of our border collies, please fill out an application and explain how you'd plan to overcome your household's particular limitations. We make a great effort to place our dogs in the best homes possible, and understand that some homes that may not adhere to all of our suggested standards may still make a wonderful home for one of our dogs."

 

I'd bet that a number of the people who would be thoughtful enough to read through all of the suggested rules/standards (and thus, make it to this last statement) would be more conscientious than the average dog owner and might be more likely to provide a good home for a particular rescue border collie.

[beachdogz]

It would be ridiculous for a rescue site to post a note about every possible exception to the rules, HOWEVER it'd be easy enough to post a statement at the end of the rules stating something like the following: "If your household fails to meet one or more of our requested standards- however, you believe that you would, nevertheless, be able to provide a wonderful home for one of our border collies, please fill out an application and explain how you'd plan to overcome your household's particular limitations. We make a great effort to place our dogs in the best homes possible, and understand that some homes that may not adhere to all of our suggested standards may still make a wonderful home for one of our dogs."

 

 

wow. the voice of reason.

[MaryP]

It would be ridiculous for a rescue site to post a note about every possible exception to the rules, HOWEVER it'd be easy enough to post a statement at the end of the rules stating something like the following: "If your household fails to meet one or more of our requested standards- however, you believe that you would, nevertheless, be able to provide a wonderful home for one of our border collies, please fill out an application and explain how you'd plan to overcome your household's particular limitations. We make a great effort to place our dogs in the best homes possible, and understand that some homes that may not adhere to all of our suggested standards may still make a wonderful home for one of our dogs."

 

Honestly, if you did that, you'd just be asking for a headache.

[MrSnappy]

Honestly, if you did that, you'd just be asking for a headache.

 

I've really got to agree. It's kind of impossible to explain to non rescue coordinators how much of a headache this aspect of rescue really can be. You've no idea how trying and time consuming it can be to weed through applications on a regular basis, and how dismally few of them are quality in the first place. As it is, a lot of people do not read the website or even the dog's bio in the first place and apply based solely on the cute photos, with little or no regard for whether that dog would be a good match for their situation. It's frustrating enough.

 

With respect to the "rules" that keep getting referenced - the rules are guidelines, and they vary widely from dog to dog - at least for us. The dogs each have very explicit biographies from which it is not difficult to infer what kind of situation the dog would benefit from the most. While we do have some fairly hard and fast rules - we rarely to adopt to homes with young kids, we do not adopt to people sight unseen etc. - even those rules can be modified for the right applicant. But even the loose rules exist for a reason and while a very select number of dogs and a select number of applicants may be candidates for bending or waiving those rules, a disclaimer like that would just negate the rules in the first place. They are not arbitrary and it would be kind of silly to make them and then tell the world that we don't actually have them.

 

The onus is on the applicant to take a chance and ask if they really think that they could be the right home for that dog, even if their situation is contrary to some guidelines indicated by the rescue. The worst the rescue can say is "no" and the applicant can move on. If my website says (and it does) that we do not generally adopt dogs to homes with young children, but the dog's bio clearly says that the dog is delightful with kids, has lived with kids and would be fine in a home with young ones, is that not enough to suggest that probably we would place this dog in the right home with children? Is a disclaimer about the "no kids rule" REALLY necessary? The problem is that many (if not most) of the applicants who want the rules bent for them are not exceptional homes that would really benefit the dog, so I don't want to leave a door open for them so I can take the abuse (and yes, a surprising percentage of applicants who get turned down are verbally abusive to the rescue coordinator) when I have to turn them down anyway. I would much rather they just did not apply. Some thoughtful and good homes will make the effort to ask anyway and in some of those cases, they have successfully adopted from us.

 

Generally, the adopting public wants rescue to cater to them and hold their hand through the process, and make it as easy for them as possible to get what THEY want. Rescue, OTOH, really wants to make itself as efficient as possible. There are only so many hours in the day to do rescue, once you get your job, your family, your life and your own dogs and fosters dealt with. Having no guidelines at all, or having guidelines but telling the public they are entitled to ignore the guidelines, is counter-intuitive to successfully managing the precious few hours left in a day to do rescue, and to not burning out.

 

And has been said MANY times, in many threads, it's not like there is one rescue and if they deny you, you are screwed. If a rescue tells you "no" - there is always another rescue, or a shelter, or a private rehome, or even purchasing a puppy or dog. These discussions always come around to the notion that rescues make it too difficult to get a dog, and there are always suggestions/criticisms (made by non rescuers) about how we can make life easier for you. But we aren't trying to make it easy for anyone to get a dog. We are trying to find the best homes for the dogs we have, and the dogs we have are a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of the dogs in need, because someone else made it way too easy for "anyone" to get a dog in the first place. It's really not about "you" and this is what people seem to forget in these discussion.

 

RDM

[Eileen Stein]

Honestly, if you did that, you'd just be asking for a headache.

 

The OP wrote that the four rescue websites she looked at "had a disclaimer that said they absolutely would NOT adopt to a family with small children under any circumstances." There are certainly many rescue websites that say this (see, e.g., Glen Highland Farm). If I had a small child, and read that on a rescue website, I would not contact that rescue for a dog. It seems to me that the rescue, by saying that, is making it crystal clear that they do not WANT to be contacted by any family with small children, no matter how ideal that family might turn out to be. If that is NOT what the rescue wants, then the rescue needs to reframe their wording in some way, either by describing it as a general policy rather than a rule, or saying that exceptions are sometimes made, or the like. If that IS what the rescue wants, then their wording is fine as is, but they are foregoing any chance of placing a dog with an exceptional family with a little kid. That's no problem if they already have enough excellent childless homes applying with whom to place all their dogs who need homes.

 

These discussions always come around to the notion that rescues make it too difficult to get a dog, and there are always suggestions/criticisms (made by non rescuers) about how we can make life easier for you. But we aren't trying to make it easy for anyone to get a dog. We are trying to find the best homes for the dogs we have, and the dogs we have are a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of the dogs in need, because someone else made it way too easy for "anyone" to get a dog in the first place. It's really not about "you" and this is what people seem to forget in these discussion.

 

Maybe some posters are actually concerned that there are more dogs than good homes, and that the posting of ironclad rules (especially if the rules are not really ironclad after all) might be standing in the way of a few of the dogs finding one.

[MrSnappy]

Maybe some posters are actually concerned that there are more dogs than good homes, and that the posting of ironclad rules (especially if the rules are not really ironclad after all) might be standing in the way of a few of the dogs finding one.

 

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. And bad fits are bad PR for rescue dogs.

 

Certainly rescues who have poor screening processes are judged equally harshly as the ones with strict placements. You simply cannot please everyone. But anyone who thinks they can do better should definitely try rescuing before they decide what rules rescue should and should not have.

 

RDM

[MaryP]

But anyone who thinks they can do better should definitely try rescuing before they decide what rules rescue should and should not have.

 

Amen, sista!

 

I, unfortunately, just got an email last night from one of the FL bc rescues saying that she was closing up shop. She's been doing it for many, many years, but has just had enough of the abuse and the stress. Who wins there? 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.

[Bo Peep]

Like I've mentioned before, there are other ways to rescue dogs. They are non the less honorable. Your local kill shelter is a very good way. Most have an area where you can take your own dogs and your considered adoptee and let them intermingle and play and see how they work out- they also have a 2 week period where you can take them back. I never would, and I do NOT think 2 weeks is long enough, but....it helps.

 

On Craigslist, people have gotten BC's and don't know how to deal with them and don't want to take them to the pound. They are trying their hardest to place a border collie- most want farm homes, like that happens everyday. Your local paper or even private rescue can help.

 

Just the best of luck with finding a dog.

[Lenajo]

Certainly rescues who have poor screening processes are judged equally harshly as the ones with strict placements. You simply cannot please everyone. But anyone who thinks they can do better should definitely try rescuing before they decide what rules rescue should and should not have

 

Now that was the voice of both Reason and Reality.

 

Even with openly stated and clear limits on a specific dog (i.e. No cats, no kids, experienced owner of active dogs who has time for at least 2 hours of dog exercise daily only) you will still get 25+ applications that make you wonder if people, truly, are able to read. Perhaps the working single mother with 6 cats, 4 kids, and never owned a dog was just confused?

 

But to be fair, you will go through each of those applications, and respond with at least a note that says "I'm sorry, this is not the dog/breed/species for you. We will let you know if we get a dog/breed/species that suits what you ask for".

 

Now _why_ I ask would I want to put out a vague disclaimer that basically states "we have rules, but they may not apply to you". Perhaps I need 100 unsuitable applications to review? In the age of internet rescue that is not unexpected. Unfortunately, that rarely means 100 homes of suitablity. It often doesn't even mean even one.

 

If you don't like a Rescue's rules - politely write them and ask if there are gray areas. If there aren't, or you don't want to ask - 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. What do to then may be a lonely place....