Puppy vs rescue?

[Ooky]

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.

 

I may have been reading the wrong thing into your post. I observed these sentiments in another thread and was upset to perceive the same thing going on again. And I think "kill nazis" was actually RDM's friend's term?

 

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.

emphasis added

 

This is what I was referring to, in a way. I don't dispute this but disagree with the idea that all shelters have non-existent standards. Otherwise I completely agree. But I'm saying the larger margin of error is that so more dogs can be placed rather than killed. In that way, it doesn't look like as bad of a thing, at least to me.

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.

 

You're right, I haven't been here long enough to know what you really think about the issue. Again, I picked your quote to illustrate a point but really do apologize if I read too much into the wording of it. I get you saying it's not what you meant, but I read it with those implications. My experience on this board has been with rescue-affiliated members (NOT all or most of them, by a long shot!) slamming shelters apparently to support the position of backing up their own rules. Up to this point, you're right, I don't remember reading anything you saying getting me all "firey" And I was admittedly overly ready to be fired up!

 

I *really* think its great when the shelters and rescues work together as you describe. DDFL also relied on breed-specific rescue help to get animals out whenever possible, not only because it opened space up, but because they totally recognized a lot of breeds (LIKE border collies) have very specific needs and do have a much better chance for success under experienced and careful placement. And there is demand for them! After the last conversation on the boards about this, DH was telling me about this enormous binder full of breed specific rescues' numbers, and when there would be a purebred almost anything, someone would get to haul that binder out and start calling.

 

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.

 

I've not run into the situation you or RDM describe, with more rescues than shelter animals. It sounds wonderful if more animals were able to be placed with such care. And I do agree it is terrible the other rescue felt they had to close over abuse, it is a terrible loss for the community.

 

Maybe it will start happening (going over to mainly rescues) here soon. It already has with puppies, apparently - spay and neuter have worked so well here the shelters almost *never* get puppies, only rescue groups. I think its a really encouraging step in the right direction.

[Kyrasmom]

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

 

 

I think every rescue has the right to establish rules and adhere to them...and to have specific expectations for their wards. I know I do. But it does mean that some otherwise good homes will be lost in the process. For example:

 

I have invisible fencing - attached to real fencing but my dogs to wear collars and will get shocked if they get too close to the fence or an open gate. It keeps MY dogs safe and my digger in. So I don't qualify because I have an e-fence and a my pooch get an electornic correction. I also keep a bark collar on one of my dogs because he enjoys his voice. No, he's not bored, yes, he does lots of things, he is a house dog and perfect in every way, but he talks....a lot! And I don't think the neighbors want to hear him.

 

I also have a dog who does NOT want to be in the house and is happy outside. If I placed him as a house dog he would be miserable. When I tried to bring him in, he was clearly uncomfortable. Some dogs are yard dogs despite our best efforts.

 

What I'm saying is that in essence I agree with your rules and I agree that we get to pick and choose who gets our pups...but as rescues, we do occasionally miss out on an otherwise good home if we stick to them 100%. I am a good home. People want to die and come back as one of my dogs but I don't have a qualm putting a bark collar on a dog if it means that my neighbors are ok with me having 9 of them or if it means my Pit mix staying in the yard because she is sensitive to the shock she gets if she gets close to the fence line. Getting out would otherwise mean that she would most likely be shot because she is scary looking and people are afraid of what in realityis the sweetest dog of my household, but they don't know that. And for anyone saying she shouldn't be out alone..she is very adept at being sneaky and would take advantage of a privacy poop to get out....and then become deaf to the world.

 

Maria

[sweet_ceana]

I think threads like these are started by a case of

A:

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.

 

leading to B:

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

 

People don't go in search of dogs because they think they will be a bad home. Everyone who approaches a rescue or a shelter feels they are a great home! So, logically, if they think they are a great home and are denied by any group for whatever the reason they feel that the dog is loosing out on a great home and wonder how many other dogs have lost out as well.

 

It may be pessamistic, but most people, (obviously not all or in all cases), only see or address a problem when it directly effects them. Good or bad, that is mostly how things go.

 

I try not to comment on threads like these because 1. I am fairly new to rescue and have limetted experience, and 2. nothing ever becomes of these threads. People make an opinion, move on their way and very few solutions and even fewer actions towards resolution ever happen. No one on here wants to see a dog miss out on a good home. If you have a better way to do it, do it. We would all be proud.

[Root Beer]

. . .nothing ever becomes of these threads.

 

I don't see it this way at all!

 

We may not actually see what comes out of these discussions, but that doesn't mean that something doesn't. If just one person who got rejected by a rescue and felt bitter comes to understand that there are two sides to the situation and is able to let go of that resentment, then something really good has come of it.

 

Or, if just one person who feels they don't qualify to rescue decides to submit an application anyway and ends up being approved to adopt, then something has come of it.

 

Personally, I find this topic extremely interesting on both sides and I enjoy reading these discussions. Maybe not something to some, but it's not nothing!

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Why would you think that?

 

Well, I guess because it would be natural to feel such concern, and the OP's posts (for example) seem to reflect such a concern.

 

And also because I think such a concern could well arise out of looking for a dog and finding rescues that rule you out because you have a small child (or an invisible fence, etc.) without knowing anything else about you. I suppose very few people would ever come to find out what rescue's rules are unless they've sought to adopt a rescue dog, so their concern is likely to be evoked by that experience. Why is that incompatible with its being a genuine concern? This OP never contacted the rescues, so she didn't suffer personal rejection, and she moved on and got a border collie through other means, so she was not injured or deprived by not being able to get a dog from rescue. She shows no hostility toward rescue, and specifically disclaims any disrespect. She just -- as I read it, anyway -- would have liked to help out a dog in need, and was concerned that other dogs in need are missing out on good homes because of the small-child rule. (I am not willing to call it a "guideline" if the rescue states categorically on its website that "they absolutely would NOT adopt to a family with small children under any circumstances." That is a rule, not a guideline.)

 

And also because I don't see why "a keen eye on the bigger picture" or "look[ing] at the issue on a broader scale" or "losing so many nights' sleep" or "being budding animal activists with burning questions that must be answered" are necessary prerequisites to having "genuine concern that dogs are losing out because the criteria are too strict."

 

I do agree that the discussion has been largely civil, and that's good.

[MrSnappy]

I may have been reading the wrong thing into your post. I observed these sentiments in another thread and was upset to perceive the same thing going on again. And I think "kill nazis" was actually RDM's friend's term?

 

Not it was not. It was a nickname given to a particular individual within a specific shelter, not an across the board descriptive of shelter workers. Please don't attribute anything to me unless it's accurate.

 

I've not run into the situation you or RDM describe, with more rescues than shelter animals.

 

I have described nothing of the sort. I can only take in ONE out of every 3-4 dogs that are looking for assistance. There are a hell of a lot more dogs than rescues to help them.

 

Please Ooky, stop quoting or citing me for things I did not do or say. It makes conversation really frustrating.

 

RDM

[MaryP]

This is what I was referring to, in a way. I don't dispute this but disagree with the idea that all shelters have non-existent standards.

 

But, I never said that all shelters have non-existent standards. I said that when compared to most rescues, the majority of shelters do not have as rigorous of a screening process. This is not a criticism; it's just a fact.

 

My experience on this board has been with rescue-affiliated members (NOT all or most of them, by a long shot!) slamming shelters apparently to support the position of backing up their own rules.

 

I'd love for you to point me to a post like this. I think you may be reading something into these posts that likely is not there. If a rescue uses a typical shelter as an example of what can happen when border collies are adopted out to people who really are not a good fit for the breed, it doesn't mean they are slamming them or using them as justification to have their own set of guidelines for screening potential adopters. They are probably just making comparisons between two very different approaches to placing dogs. The first approach is going to lead to more failed placements. Again, not a criticism; just a fact.

 

I've not run into the situation you or RDM describe, with more rescues than shelter animals.

 

No, no, no. I didn't say that we have more rescues than shelter animals. Not by a long shot. I simply said that there are many shelters out there that rely heavily on rescues (all types of rescues) to help move animals out of their shelters. And, that there are many shelters have a much lower percentage of their animals being adopted directly from the shelter as going to rescue.

 

There are many, many different approaches to placing dogs and the approach depends on the mission of the entity that is placing the dogs. If the goal is to move them out as quickly as possible because there are more coming in every day and you don't have the luxury of refusing to take the new ones coming in, then you are likely going to do very little screening of the people who come and offer to adopt the ones you have. If the goal is to try and find the best fit for each individual dog and you have the luxury of saying "no" to any more dogs when you are full, then you are likely going to take the time to screen potential adopters in an effort to make sure the adoptions are successful. Every approach comes with it's own set of pros and cons.

[Eileen Stein]

This is what I was referring to, in a way. I don't dispute this but disagree with the idea that all shelters have non-existent standards.

 

I'd love for you to point me to a post like this.

 

I'll be honest with you, Mary, that's the way I interpreted this:

 

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.

 

I gather that's not the way you intended it.