How was your rescue experience?

[iLLt3cK]

Originally posted by Jack & Co.:

I wonder why the OP doesn't adopt through the humane society where he volunteers twice a week? Surely BC's or BC mixes come through from time to time.

The Humane society that I volunteer at so far has had one BC mix come through in the last couple of months that I have worked there but unfortunately for me I won't be able to adopt until later this year. I figured I might as well help out with the dogs that are currently up for adoption in lieu of my future adoption. Typically we get a lot of larger breeds such as boxers, lab mixes, and great danes, or toy breeds such as chihuahuas, jack russel terriers, and poodle mixes.

 

If they do in fact get a BC in that I think will work out then I would most definitely adopt from them. For now I'm keeping my options open.

[SoloRiver]

I guess I was just dissapointed to know that at least one member of this rescue think the way that they do.

 

It's possible that the foster person is a bit overzealous. It is also possible that the particular dog that person is fostering is one that actually has greater needs than you can meet, and that the foster person is perhaps not terribly diplomatic.

[iLLt3cK]

Originally posted by RaisingRiver:

Originally posted by MrSnappy:

"What are you hoping this thread will gain for you?"

 

The OP just wanted to know other people's experience with rescue and supplied NO indication with their displeasure of any rescue. The OP was ASKED why they were asking, and the OP relied honestly, not condemingly.

 

Had the OP's experience happened to me I probably would have asked the same question to see if it was a common experience.

 

More importantly, BECAUSE the OP asked this question, I would image the OP is MORE LIKELY to revist the idea of rescue groups (maybe a diff one) based on all the positive feedback that was given. Perhaps that is what the OP initially sought to gain

My sentiments exactly.

 

I'm a "he" btw

 

If you take a look at the timestamps on each of the first posts they were posted 3 hrs apart.

 

First and foremost I wanted to get pertinent information from BC owners themselves which I know could be accomplished via this board. I knew in my past dog ownership experiences that they always ended up taking naps on the patio even if they had a huge yard at their disposal or they were in the kitchen on the tile and at the time was confused as to why the foster in the e-mail exchange above would use the question about their daily occupation in my absense as a litmus test for the ownership of a rescue BC.

 

Once my experiences had been confirmed in the BC world I then posted again (this current thread) to gauge the experiences of other board members during the adoption from rescue process. This was to see if I was dealing with an anomaly in the rescue world or was standard practice and I should be prepared for further experiences on down the line.

 

I was asked what specifically prompted my post and in turn I posted my 100% honest response to the question I was asked.

 

So far in the thread I believe that only RDM has been on the aggressive / defensive / sensitive side and that may be due to your extensive dealings with unsavory individuals. I'm not looking to accuse anyone of anything - I'd just like to see some rationale behind their decisions and it seems like this would be the best place to get that.

[iLLt3cK]

Originally posted by SoloRiver:

I guess I was just dissapointed to know that at least one member of this rescue think the way that they do.

 

It's possible that the foster person is a bit overzealous. It is also possible that the particular dog that person is fostering is one that actually has greater needs than you can meet, and that the foster person is perhaps not terribly diplomatic.

I think it could quite possibly be a mix of both.

 

I'm willing to accept the fact that I cannot meet the needs of every BC that's available - but I am not willing to accept being written off due to an arbitrary question that has no real root in the well being of the dog in question.

 

Being written off as above I feel is counterproductive to the recue's mission / goal.

[Cheri McDonald]

M: Please realize they are only trying to find the right home for the dog. Are you still planning on attending the fun day?

[painted_ponies]

OK, now I'm confused. Not an unusual occurrence.

 

I'm not involved in the fostering part of our rescue, but I do know that dogs taken in by our rescue are the property of the rescue, not the foster. Likewise, the potential home is evaluated by the rescue, not the foster. I would assume that, while the foster has input into the decision, the foster doesn't have approval or veto power over potential adopters.

 

So, based on my limited experience with my local rescue, I'm not sure what happened to the OP. :confused:

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by painted_ponies:

OK, now I'm confused.

 

I'm not involved in the fostering part of our rescue, but I do know that dogs taken in by our rescue are the property of the rescue, not the foster. Likewise, the potential home is evaluated by the rescue, not the foster.

I'm also confused. I am not sure why the OP was speaking to any foster homes about any particular dogs if the OP cannot even adopt a dog until later in the year. I'm not sure how an application would even progress that far.

 

To the OP - you may find me aggressive / defensive / sensitive / downright bitchy or a saint if you feel like it, I really don't mind ... but the fact remains that the only person who knows why they declined your application (even though you've just admitted (as I suspected) that you were NOT, in fact, declined ... ) is the person you were speaking to. I'm still confused.

 

I apologize if you think I'm out of turn but I can't help but feel this is ... kinda weird.

 

RDM

[iLLt3cK]

Originally posted by Cheri McDonald:

M: Please realize they are only trying to find the right home for the dog. Are you still planning on attending the fun day?

I will most definitely be attending the fun day - I wouldn't miss it for the world.

 

I don't want anyone to think that the organization I interfaced with did anything wrong because they did not and as I mentioned above I am still in direct contact with them in search of my future BC.

 

I was merely looking for feedback from other people's experiences to see if my situation was unique or it was something to be expected with the territory.

[iLLt3cK]

Originally posted by MrSnappy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by painted_ponies:

OK, now I'm confused.

 

I'm not involved in the fostering part of our rescue, but I do know that dogs taken in by our rescue are the property of the rescue, not the foster. Likewise, the potential home is evaluated by the rescue, not the foster.

I'm also confused. I am not sure why the OP was speaking to any foster homes about any particular dogs if the OP cannot even adopt a dog until later in the year. I'm not sure how an application would even progress that far.

 

To the OP - you may find me aggressive / defensive / sensitive / downright bitchy or a saint if you feel like it, I really don't mind ... but the fact remains that the only person who knows why they declined your application (even though you've just admitted (as I suspected) that you were NOT, in fact, declined ... ) is the person you were speaking to. I'm still confused.

 

I apologize if you think I'm out of turn but I can't help but feel this is ... kinda weird.

 

RDM

That's a good point - the only person to give me the answers I'm looking for is the foster who I've been in contact with but unfortunately I have not recieved a response thus far to my inquiry.

 

Currently I am about 1.5 months away from adopting my new BC and after my application was submitted (where I named to dogs I wanted more information on) I received information on the person that was currently fostering the dogs. I then wrote an e-mail asking for additional pictures of the dogs she was keeping and for any thoughts she had on both dogs with regard to companionship, dog sports, etc. That is where the line of questioning and my confusion started.

 

As advised by the organization I won't begin my true search until the end of October but I'm just trying to be as prepared as possible for my new BC!

[Bordercentrics]

We?ve been in rescue from both sides, but we?ve not adopted from an organized rescue, so the questions don?t apply precisely to our experience. However, rescues get many of their dogs from shelters, so we wanted to mention that aspect of rescue.

 

We adopted both of ours from the shelter where we volunteer. We photograph all the adoptable dogs and put them on Petfinder, and Kathy does volunteer training at the other shelter, so we see most Borders that are in the shelter. Meg and Ruby were going to be fosters, but we fell in love and kept them. We have also pulled nine Borders (plus some Aussies) for Inland Northwest Rescue.

 

Shelters are desperate to get their dogs adopted, and they can?t screen adopters as well as they should. This can result in returns, escapes, and euthanasia. The dogs get far, far more appropriate homes from Inland than they would if they were adopted directly from the shelter. The last Border we pulled for rescue was a tough, vigorous, super energetic girl. When we got to the shelter to pick her up, an elderly couple was trying to adopt her. The lady walked with a cane and I don?t think she would have made it to the parking lot with this dog, because she pulled on the leash so hard.

 

Has anyone turned away from rescuing due to their local organization's practices?

 

We have seen some heartbreaking things happen at shelters, but every time we think about not volunteering, we realize that we really are helping dogs get adopted.

 

I think the bottom line is that Borders are high maintenance dogs and need to be adopted by people who will make a commitment to meet their needs. They can be excitable, very active, easily bored, eccentric and quirky. I shudder to think about people who just want an easygoing family pet going to a shelter and ending up with a Border Collie. Breed specific rescues can screen their adopters and ask the right questions. They know their dogs far better than a shelter ever could, and I would hope that they are quite protective of their dogs. The other side of this coin is that the adopter will know much more about their new dog from the start than would be possible if the dog came directly from a shelter that doesn't screen people or dogs.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

When I worked with an organization, the foster home had the final say on any dog. They also often handled direct correspondence with an applicant. There was a good reason for this - they knew the dog that lived with them best. It's especially crucial for a breed like a Border collie where there's a huge variation in what the individual dog may need. I've placed many a dog where I'd hesitate putting the dog into a situation where I had good reason to believe the applicant might no be able to commit to a lot of exercise and a rigorous training program. Many, many, many dogs. I've also placed plenty that were fine in homes where they had to hang out for an entire work day.

 

I don't know why you are taking all this so personally (and working it out so publically). It's not very nice to post private communication publically - especially one piece out of context (that's one practical reason it's so very uncool). Is it possible you are just having a clash of personalities with this one person? We've not even communicated directly and there's lots about your posting that sets my teeth a bit on edge - and I'm an easygoing person.

 

Please consider very carefully whether you are thinking of the dog's needs and how they match your living environment, rather than TELLING this foster home how THEIR dog belongs in your home. I'm NOT saying this is what is happening, since again we're only seeing snippets of the situation, but that is one thing that would be a real turnoff regardless of whether an applicant had all the right answers or not.

 

One time I turned down a really nice home at the last minute just because he kept rescheduling the time he was going to meet me for the "exit interview" and meeting the dog. He couldn't get away from work.

 

He totally didn't understand and he got VERY ugly, even threatened legal action. But can you see where we have to go on our gut for the sake of the dog? And no, the dog didn't miss out on a thing - the dog got another very nice home within a few days.

[iLLt3cK]

Originally posted by Rebecca, Irena Farm:

When I worked with an organization, the foster home had the final say on any dog. They also often handled direct correspondence with an applicant. There was a good reason for this - they knew the dog that lived with them best. It's especially crucial for a breed like a Border collie where there's a huge variation in what the individual dog may need. I've placed many a dog where I'd hesitate putting the dog into a situation where I had good reason to believe the applicant might no be able to commit to a lot of exercise and a rigorous training program. Many, many, many dogs. I've also placed plenty that were fine in homes where they had to hang out for an entire work day.

 

I don't know why you are taking all this so personally (and working it out so publically). It's not very nice to post private communication publically - especially one piece out of context (that's one practical reason it's so very uncool). Is it possible you are just having a clash of personalities with this one person? We've not even communicated directly and there's lots about your posting that sets my teeth a bit on edge - and I'm an easygoing person.

 

Please consider very carefully whether you are thinking of the dog's needs and how they match your living environment, rather than TELLING this foster home how THEIR dog belongs in your home. I'm NOT saying this is what is happening, since again we're only seeing snippets of the situation, but that is one thing that would be a real turnoff regardless of whether an applicant had all the right answers or not.

 

One time I turned down a really nice home at the last minute just because he kept rescheduling the time he was going to meet me for the "exit interview" and meeting the dog. He couldn't get away from work.

 

He totally didn't understand and he got VERY ugly, even threatened legal action. But can you see where we have to go on our gut for the sake of the dog? And no, the dog didn't miss out on a thing - the dog got another very nice home within a few days.

The only reason I brought the e-mails into this thread was to quote the foster in question directly and not misquote in an effort to be as open with my situation as possible after being prompted.

 

Everyone is automatically assuming that I was denied placement of a dog however such is not the case and as I have previously mentioned I am still talking to the organization about adopting a dog from them. I realize that the rescue organization is looking out for what is best for the dog in their possession however there is quite a fine line between being cautious in the placement and being overzealous.

 

I'm not trying to tell anyone which dog would be right for me especially anyone involved with the rescue I have been speaking to. In fact I have mentioned numerous times that I am more than open to any suggestions that they may have because I know that the fosters and members of the organization are going to have the best idea which dogs will work best for my particular situation.

 

I merely asked for additional pictures of the dogs they were fostering as well as some questions regarding prey drive / dog sports potential of each rescue and it went on from there ...

 

It seems to me the only people taking this situation personally are the people involved with rescues that feel threatened for some reason on this topic and the questions I ask.

 

I'm just looking for answers and have been as straight forward as possible on this.

[BayouBC]

I imagine that some are taking this personally because they've seen and dealt with too many potential adopters that started the complaints of the rescue being "overzealous". If you haven't been denied adoption, even of this individual dog, I reall don't understand why this post was started in the first place. The foster wasn't saying you couldn't adopt...they were just saying you were wrong to assume "such & such". And...while I believe that most border collies can handle being crated or left alone for a work day, yes, there are some that wouldn't do well with that. Maybe this is one of those dogs.

 

From a rescuer's perspective, I would rather be overzealous than not cautious enough. It's a life in your hands, and the idea that you could place that life with the wrong family and it come to harm...it's not a happy thought. I don't even do rescue on the scale that some of the others do, but it's very tiring to be complained at by applicants that are denied or that expect it to be a two day cake-walk process.

 

And...if I thought one of my potential adopters or denied adopters then went and talked badly about the process on a BC board, even without mentioning what rescue they were discussing, I'd probably be quite bothered.

[RaisingRiver]

I think many of you are overreacting esp. regarding the 'publically' annoucement puzzlement over the 'kong isn't going to cut it' issue.

 

iLLt3cK did not name names, nor organizations. iLLt3cK did not even imply why he asked the original question. If you don't really want to know why he's asking, then don't ask. And if you do ask, you can't chide him from PUBLICALLY talking about it. It was asked.

 

It was a totally innocent question - one he wanted an answer to, and instead you are accusing him of publically bashing rescue (which he's not in the slightest).

 

 

Of note, I have spoken directly to a foster after I sent in my application to PNW Rescue last year and put down a specific dog I was interested in. The foster contacted me directly. We talked about my home and the dog. The foster said that this dog would not be a good fit, but that another had just come into rescue that sounded like a better fit. So, yes I talked to the foster directly and yes the foster made the decision that the dog was not for me (which was due to having the other 2 dogs).

 

One other thing. Our local Humane Society often has BC mixes and they almost always say NO KIDS due to hyperactivity. Well, I have 3 kids and 2 dogs, one of which is a BC - so technically I do not qualify to adopt one from the Humane Society. But frankly, I'm exactly the kind of owner they are looking for - but they very likely will not consider me due to 1 specific item, Kids. In that respect, it's conditions such as this that I think the rescues do work against themselves. The PNW Rescue website says you have to have a fence etc. Well, it took me a few months to finally submit an application because I don't have a physical fence, I have invisible fence. But I decided, you know what? I'm going to submit anyway - but like me someone who is TOTALLY qualified and appropriate would be disuaded.

 

I think rescue is a very thankless and consuming job and I'm sure glad they are there.

 

I don't think anyone has any right to bash iLLt3cK for his question or his interpretation of the kong issue. I think he's totally inline and many of you are reading into it.

[Lunar]

I used to grump a bit about some rescue's adoption rules. I fell into the "it's not fair!" camp. I've changed my mind. Here's why.

 

We adopted Zeeke from a local shelter - a shelter, like many, that had pretty slack requirements and did not do any personality testing of the dogs. We thought this was great - hubby could get the dog he wanted. (Most rescues wouldn't consider him because his yard was un-fenced.)

 

I have come to totally, wholly regret that decision and to very much regret that the shelter did not do dog evaulations and wasn't more picky. Hubby loves Zeeke, but we have both become very aware that we are not the best home for him. He should have gone to a sport home, a working home - a home where the owner ran 20 miles a day. We should have been turned down. We were totally unprepared for a dog with his level of energy and were unaware he had any aggression issues. And I think even had we been told he was a high-energy dog we would have convinced ourself we could handle it.

 

And yes, we would have been angry. We would have thought that it was unfair that someone judged us and found us lacking - I mean who likes to be told you're not good enough? And we probably never would have really understood. I guess that's one positive that's come out of this - I understand a lot better now, and feel much, much more humble.

 

I think potential adoptees frequently over-estimate themselves. Like the people who adopted for a dog labeled no children, even though they had children - they think they know better than the rescue, that they can handle it, whatever. And it really is up to the rescue to remain objective about it. It's not JUST for the dog's benefit - it's for everyone's.

 

I went through rescue to get Zoe. I was terrified at missing out on her, because my heart called to her so badly. I tried to be the most accomodating I could. When I was told there was a medical issue and that all the pups in that foster home were being quarantined for 2 weeks I let them know I was willing to wait. I was INCREDIBLY grateful when my application was approved and very very relieved the day I got her in my arms. If I had been turned down, if someone had gotten approved for her ahead of me I would have been very upset, I probably would have cried... but would have been happy for her that she hopefully got the best home she could.

 

I don't work in dog rescue but I do work at a cat sanctuary and am sometimes privvy to applications for cats. Some people can really make you wonder. It's hard to disappoint people - but of course the first concern is always for the animal.

[iLLt3cK]

Originally posted by RaisingRiver:

I think many of you are overreacting esp. regarding the 'publically' annoucement puzzlement over the 'kong isn't going to cut it' issue.

 

iLLt3cK did not name names, nor organizations. iLLt3cK did not even imply why he asked the original question. If you don't really want to know why he's asking, then don't ask. And if you do ask, you can't chide him from PUBLICALLY talking about it. It was asked.

 

It was a totally innocent question - one he wanted an answer to, and instead you are accusing him of publically bashing rescue (which he's not in the slightest).

 

 

Of note, I have spoken directly to a foster after I sent in my application to PNW Rescue last year and put down a specific dog I was interested in. The foster contacted me directly. We talked about my home and the dog. The foster said that this dog would not be a good fit, but that another had just come into rescue that sounded like a better fit. So, yes I talked to the foster directly and yes the foster made the decision that the dog was not for me (which was due to having the other 2 dogs).

 

One other thing. Our local Humane Society often has BC mixes and they almost always say NO KIDS due to hyperactivity. Well, I have 3 kids and 2 dogs, one of which is a BC - so technically I do not qualify to adopt one from the Humane Society. But frankly, I'm exactly the kind of owner they are looking for - but they very likely will not consider me due to 1 specific item, Kids. In that respect, it's conditions such as this that I think the rescues do work against themselves. The PNW Rescue website says you have to have a fence etc. Well, it took me a few months to finally submit an application because I don't have a physical fence, I have invisible fence. But I decided, you know what? I'm going to submit anyway - but like me someone who is TOTALLY qualified and appropriate would be disuaded.

 

I think rescue is a very thankless and consuming job and I'm sure glad they are there.

 

I don't think anyone has any right to bash iLLt3cK for his question or his interpretation of the kong issue. I think he's totally inline and many of you are reading into it.

Thank you. Exactly.

[juliepoudrier]

Hmmmm...I probably shouldn't bother, but here goes anyway. My problem with this whole thread, and it's why I didn't respond initially when it was first posted, is that the original post seemed "loaded" to solicit bad responses. Instead of just asking "What were your experiences?" the OP asked some very slanted questions. Because of the tone/direction of those questions, many responders inferred that the OP had an issue with rescue. It turns out they were at least in part correct. Those responders asked what the impetus was behind the original post and the OP responded, which was in my mind appropriate and not unfair to the foster. BUT, I think it would have been nicer if the OP had posted less slanted questions in the first place, as it was quite obvious from that original post that the OP had "an agenda." Now I'm not trying to be the posting police here, but when anyone posts a question(s) that is obviously based on a specific situation or that seems to imply an issue, that poster should expect that (a) people are going to ask for the story behind the question(s), ( people are going to assume things about the situation if the poster didn't bother to explain, © and people are going to assume the worst (human nature). So while I can understand why the OP might have posted the questions in the first place, I also think that, given the way they were posted, he shouldn't then be upset when people interpreted that original post to be rescue bashing. After all, rescue bashing does happen fairly regularly, and it's rare that someone posts questions about the adoption process because they've had a *wonderful* experience or thought they were treated very nicely (hence why so many assumed--correctly--there was a problem). Just my two cents.

 

J.

[muggs]

I try not to make too many assumptions based on any written exchange - whether email, forum posts, written applications. I wouldn't read into the foster's email just like you didn't want her/him to read between the lines of your application. It's a starting point, and if I believed someone took something I said wrong or literal, I would ask to communicate by phone or in-person.

[Pippin's person]

I'll pipe in my two cents from several sides of the rescue question. Just to locate myself in the debate. We have one 2 rescued dogs and 3 whom we purchased from breeders. I work with a BC rescue organization and have fostered and placed many BCs.

 

I know that people want to show all they have to offer and to show that they are caring, careful, and committed dog owners--I do the same. In my own experience, though, when I get emails from people who say they are certain X will (or won't) happen in their care, it gives me pause and I want to inquire further. I especially want to know what the plan is in case that certainty proves wrong. This doesn't mean that other great qualities are negated or overshadowed, just that I want more information on that particular point.

 

It's impossible to know what was going on with the foster you were corresponding with as others have said. But, if I'd gotten your e-mail, I would have probably inquired further as well. Since you don't tell us how you responded to the second query, there's not much further to go with that part of the discussion, though.

 

It's great to ask questions and try to understand the process. At some level, the organization (and especially the foster home) is like the dog's lawyer and their job is to get the best "deal" for the dog as possible. It's true that in the end, it's the foster's assessment of the dog's interests that will generally trump and that often means disappointment. But, it can work the other way too--I've had foster dogs passed over because they weren't "fluffy and cute"; because they weren't a particular gender; because they were over 2; because they weren't housetrained yet; because they had too much drive; because they had too little drive. In the end, the adopter is also looking for the best fit--as they should be.

 

I don't think it's quite right to say that the rescuers who've responded here are taking this personally. From my read, they've been responding to your questions; explaining that your experience is not necessarily out of the ordinary when dealing with rescue; and that careful screening does go with the territory.

 

It sounds like you've done a lot of homework and planning and that you plan to continue working with the rescue and that's great. Rescued dogs are definitely a treasure.

 

Robin

[M.L.]

All three of mine are rescues. I did not go through a BC rescue though. I have had no problems with Bailey and Ginger, but I adopted them when they were puppies. Willow, on the other hand, she was a lot of work! I adopted her through animal control. Therefore I had no idea what kind of BC I was ending up with. She had severe separation anxiety. She also had no personality for about 6 months. She would just lay around. No happy tail wagging, no playing with the other two. She snapped at and attacked any dog that came near me. She was very fearful. She wouldn't even pick up a toy. She would bark whenever I wasn't around. She didn't want Bailey or Ginger near me. Needless to say, I worked very hard for the first 8 months or so. We are still working on some issues, but for the most part she is the most wonderful dog now! She has tons of personality. She runs and plays with the other dogs. I am finally able to let her off leash at the dogpark. It took a year to get to that point! I wouldn't trade the experience for anything. We have bonded over the past year and she is such a loving, silly dog now. I appreciate Willow even more because I watched her progress slowly into the dog she is now. I helped her overcome her fears and insecurities.

 

I definitely recommend going through a BC rescue that can place a dog with you that matches your lifestyle and family situation. It can be tough not knowing what you are getting into. I think the average person would have given up on Willow and sent her back to the pound. Definitely find out the personality of the dog you are thinking about adopting and don't give up! I have heard that some BC rescues are really tough to adopt from. It's because they want the best for their rescues!

[Kitch]

Can a rescue work against itself? Sure. My favorite example is the rescue that states 1) a fenced in yard is required and 2) the dog can't be left alone for more than 4 hours unless they are with another dog.

 

Those are 2 examples of policies that, in my opinion, are counter-productive. No one will ever be able to convince me that whether or not someone has a fence has any bearing on their ability as an owner. Same with the four hour rule. This rescue misses out on many potentially wonderful home for their dogs, IMO.

 

*But* rescues are run by people and people are opinionated. This is what they think makes a good applicant and since they are putting in the effort to run the rescue they get to make the call. I personally don't agree with some of their policies so when I decided to volunteer for a rescue, I choose a different rescue.

 

Can a foster home be too picky/overprotective? Again, yes. In our organization, the foster home is the contact and main decision-maker for each dog in their care, as they know the dog best. People have to have an approved application on file (which goes to the rescue, not the FH - though it is available for review by the FH) and has to have a completed home visit (done by whatever volunteer is closest) but when it comes to choosing an individual dog, the foster home is the contact and they have the responsibility to screen the person in relation to their foster dog. If the foster home doesn't feel it is a good fit, then the applicant doesn't get that dog. Can you get over-protective? Absolutely - which is why the pros and cons of an applicant are often discusses with others in the group, esp if you find yourself turning down a few applicants in a row. Most foster homes are aware of this potential and try to keep themselves as objective as possible.