Good article on slate about animal adoption agencies

[Jelpy]

Animal rescue: Want to adopt a dog or cat? Prepare for an inquisition. - Slate Magazine

[Remo]

Sorry, I respectfully disagree that it is a good article. I need an UNLIKE button to click.

What a biased, one sided slant.

While I agree that there are groups out there that go over the top, this article would lead you to believe that ALL rescues operate the same way.

I wonder how many folks will now be biased against working with a rescue group after reading this article.

[Jelpy]

Maybe I should have said 'interesting' then. I just thought it was worth reading.

Jelply

[Draugr]

I thought it was a very good read. Thanks for posting it.

I have not gone through a rescue organization myself, but for those friends of mine who have, this seems to be - probably not the majority case, but not uncommon, either. On the other end you have rescues that adopt to anybody who drops off a contract unless they write on there that they will beat the dog or something like that. There don't seem to be many (from an admittedly very unscientific sampling) that fit in that happy medium of 'reasonable.'

[JeanKBBMMMAAN]

Yes, let's call it interesting.

More than 40 years ago, an average of 20 million dogs and cats were euthanized annually. Humane organizations started a campaign to spay and neuter pets, especially those coming through shelters, and today fewer than four million dogs and cats are euthanized yearly—still terrible, but a vast improvement.

That is interesting.

Comment in comment section is interesting regarding the author:

Yes, I've worked with rescue groups and been rejected. It is annoying, but I understand that they are working with animals that they've become terribly, terribly fond of, and that they will not place them with "just anyone"--particularly not someone, like Yoffe, who EUTHANIZED A PERFECTLY HEALTHY PET and then wrote about it online, and who COULDN'T HANDLE HER OWN BEAGLE or teach it to potty appropriately. Of course they aren't going to adopt out to her--seriously.

I don't have time to look back at her articles, but guessing it's all there. No idea if this commenter is correct in her assessment.

[gsdraven]

[TrickyShepherd]

I have to say... this article stated exactly what we have been going through, and have gone through in the past as well. We also have friends who went through the same thing. Most gave up after ages of going through this (embarrassment and all) and went to breeders, and a few found their pet later down the road at the SPCA. I have just finally gotten some luck with 2 GSD rescues, but there is still a long way to go. Now we have to find the right one and hope the rescues don't give us any more issues. We would be devastated if we found that "one", got all their stuff and found out we could no longer adopt them. So, here's to hoping a smooth journey from here on out with this, and in hopes that we actually can adopt and give a needy dog a home.

I do, however, still believe there are many great rescues out there that are very fair and still human. I am in no way saying that this is ALL rescues. Unfortunately, there are many that are just like this article states. I wish it wasn't true, but myself and many other people I know and others I have talked to, have had the same problems over and over again. All have been EXCELLENT homes for the pets they were trying to acquire.... and the pets they ended up getting from breeders/SPCA are very very happy and lucky for the home and love they have everyday for the rest of their life.

It's a sad truth that some rescues actually do the opposite by making the screening process a bit ridiculous. I am all for screening and making sure the animals are going to forever homes (I used to do it when I fostered kittens), however saying a perfectly healthy dog can not live in a home where people have to work (even just part time), or the one that kind of makes me laugh a bit: You can't adopt one unless you have adopted one before...... Well.... That's a losing battle... How on earth are you supposed to gain that 'experience' if you can never get passed the front door? Talk about walking in circles! I can understand the children questions.. and although I do not like sharing my personal life and my reproduction plans.. I would definitely see how that could help find the right match. If you want kids sometime during this animals life... you should probably have a pet that enjoys kids so no issues show up down the road. I get it. However, I do not think this should be a reason to destroy the application when everything else is suitable for the pet.... find the animal that is good with kids. Simple enough! If no kids, fine.... if kids show up years down the road, super! Not all, but there are rescues out there that will reject any and all applicants that have/want kids.

I do believe some rescues have gotten to the point like the article says.... where they are so locked into people being these horrible monsters (which... a lot can be.) and with what they see, I do not blame them. However, they are out there to save these pets and find them proper homes.. and in doing so.. they really shouldn't keep the 'all humans are evil' way of thinking, or these animals will never get the homes they deserve. I really think it's now gotten harder to adopt an animal, then going to a reputable breeder. So many people are willing to give these needy animals wonderful homes... but, end up being so frustrated and hurt by some of these rescues.. they end up going to breeders or (god I hate saying this) pet stores! I have no problem with breeders, and I certainly have had pets from reputable breeders before and will again in the future... though, if you have someone who WANTS to adopt rather then go to a breeder.... that's awesome, and they should be able to (within reason though.. they should obviously be suitable for the pet in question)!

Like I said, not all rescues are like this.. and I still love the fact that there are so many wonderful people helping these animals escape an untimely and uncalled for death... some of these people are true saints. I just wish I could say all were like this. Unfortunately, there are many like the ones the article stated.

Just like there are horrible breeders... there are also bad rescues. There's never good without bad.... they come as a pair.

[ladyfreckles]

The article is biased, but it's refreshing to see the other side of the story.

Groups like these have high standards for who gets to adopt. Applicants are sometimes subjected to an interrogation that would befit Michael Vick. After receiving this hostile treatment, several would-be pet owners told me, they got offended and gave up. Others push on, answering pages of questions (“As a dog ages, it often becomes incontinent and arthritic. How do you intend to handle your dog's age-related problems?”), supplying personal and veterinary references, and submitting to home inspections. Even after going through that ordeal, you can be told that you are unworthy for pet ownership, for reasons often left mysterious. At this point, many frustrated animal lovers can commit an act they’d previously thought abhorrent: They buy a dog, cat, bird, or guinea pig from a pet store or breeder. I know because that’s what happened to me.

I got rejected for not having a back yard. I live in 3000 acres of trails that I like to use. They said the dog wouldn't get enough exercise if I lacked a back yard. Complete rubbish. With my cats it was less of an issue. They gave me a questionaire and I filled it out and I was allowed to have ownership. It was incredibly easy. I was approved the day of. It depends on the shelter, to be honest.

I'm sure this will annoy the members who work at rescues who adopt out to horrible families. But I've been on the other side, and I've seen the shelters that were too picky for their own good. I've actually been accused of lying on this forum when I mentioned my experience with the shelter. So it's good to see someone representing the other side of the coin.

[JeanKBBMMMAAN]

Originally Posted by ladyfreckles

The article is biased, but it's refreshing to see the other side of the story.



I got rejected for not having a back yard. I live in 3000 acres of trails that I like to use. They said the dog wouldn't get enough exercise if I lacked a back yard. Complete rubbish. With my cats it was less of an issue. They gave me a questionaire and I filled it out and I was allowed to have ownership. It was incredibly easy. I was approved the day of. It depends on the shelter, to be honest.

I'm sure this will annoy the members who work at rescues who adopt out to horrible families. But I've been on the other side, and I've seen the shelters that were too picky for their own good. I've actually been accused of lying on this forum when I mentioned my experience with the shelter. So it's good to see someone representing the other side of the coin.

I think you need to get our terminology to agree, or I am not sure if we are getting what you are saying.

Shelter - IN GENERAL - run by municipality or organization, limited screening of dogs and applicants

Rescue - IN GENERAL - run by volunteers, increased screening of dogs and applicants

When you say that it will annoy rescues that adopt to horrible families - what? Why would we do that? That's what the screening is about.

Take some time and go to this thread: Do You Know Where That Dog is Going?w/Rhaya's Post ( 1 2)

We start with a blank slate on every applicant. We are looking to prove that we should adopt to them, but we are also aware that there are homes that should not have a dog.
Our screening process, the same for everyone, helps us to do that. But most of all, we are using our process for the sake of a dog who has found themselves near death, so that this does not happen to them again.

Even my boyfriend had to have a home check: George Clooney adopts a dog . . . after passing his home visit

[ladyfreckles]

Originally Posted by JeanKBBMMMAAN

I think you need to get our terminology to agree, or I am not sure if we are getting what you are saying.

Shelter - IN GENERAL - run by municipality or organization, limited screening of dogs and applicants

Rescue - IN GENERAL - run by volunteers, increased screening of dogs and applicants

When you say that it will annoy rescues that adopt to horrible families - what? Why would we do that? That's what the screening is about.

Take some time and go to this thread: Do You Know Where That Dog is Going?w/Rhaya's Post ( 1 2)

We start with a blank slate on every applicant. We are looking to prove that we should adopt to them, but we are also aware that there are homes that should not have a dog.
Our screening process, the same for everyone, helps us to do that. But most of all, we are using our process for the sake of a dog who has found themselves near death, so that this does not happen to them again.

Even my boyfriend had to have a home check: George Clooney adopts a dog . . . after passing his home visit

There was a thread not to long ago where people who volunteered said that animals are adopted out to homes just because the person has the money. It was quite heated. That is what I was referring to. The people who work at those kinds of shelters might be annoyed by an article that claims shelters screen too much, because they might view it as not enough. I don't oppose the idea of a home visit, what I oppose is the way shelters/rescues can reject someone for really dumb reasons (living in an apartment, having carpet, etc).

I already said I know some shelters are less selective. I've already read through that entire thread in the past and I stand by my point.

Rejecting potential adoptees because their house isn't perfect, or they work full time, is ridiculous. And it IS done at some shelters/rescues. I'm not going to be specific about the terminology because it's irrelevant to my point.