|02-08-2014 04:55 AM|
I applied for a dog from paws chicago, I never heard back. I see "rescues shows" on tv and they are way too hoarder to me. They prefer to not let the dogs go to homes.
So excuse me if im biased but im not a fan of so called rescues because all the local ones who werent hoarding wanted hundreds of dollars per dog and that smacks of puppymill. The only negative on my resume were apt living. But got no response back from the local chicago "rescues" It took me years to get my dog after that. I just watched Cesar Milan and wished i had a dog. Im glad it all worked out and I got a great first dog like Apache and everything has fallen in place.
|02-06-2014 06:20 PM|
|02-06-2014 05:11 PM|
Im sure its been said a few times but it depends on where you are. Here for example there is a very big stray dog problem and Ive come to learn that it is better to humanely euthanize some of the dogs than let them continue to be stray. The more stray dogs there are, the more stray dogs they keep making and it seems like it will never be under control. We have one shelter here on Guam and they have to put down dogs all the time because of space issues. There are simply too many dogs, they get in dogs and puppies everyday.
|02-05-2014 06:16 PM|
First world problem.
Think of the life of most shepherds during the time of the development of the GSD. Outdoors all the time, often sleeping outdoors but sometimes in a small shack. They didn't buy bags of high end dog-food. Think of the GSDs who went to war in WWI and WW2, living in tents and fox-holes again not being given top brand dog food.
Dog is better in a home that can only afford regular dog food, and if an expensive medical problem occurs will euthanize the dog THEN rather than euthanize the dog NOW because if he maybe gets sick sometime in the future he won't get treatment. That's just backwards.
Regarding shelters having some sort of fee for adoption. The devil is in the details. You don't want a cruel person picking up a dog or cat every few weeks because they are doing sick stuff, or using the adopted animals to train a fighting dog. OTOH, people who really want to do that will pay $200 per adoption, so you really are only stopping the most low-level abusers.
What should happen IMHO is you don't pay an adoption fee just to prove you are financially stable enough to take a pet. Instead these places should ask for pre-payment of standard medical services, as in you pay $200 to adopt the animal and in return you get a voucher good for 1 free pet checkup at the local vet. I approve those shelters where the adoption fee basically offsets the cost of neutering and shots, which are given by the shelter.
|01-29-2014 07:22 PM|
I feel that any animal being set up for possible adoption should be screened for stability- call it what you want but it should be free of behavioral issues that the common/average adopter would be unable to treat.
They should be free of any physical ailments that are not easy or moderately able to be cured.
If an animal is not primarily free of these distinguishing qualifications it should be humanely euthanized.
Exceptions? Of course.
But then that specific animal should already have a permanent placement already established. A stable home waiting to takeover the care and welfare of such an 'afflicted' animal.
And all animals should be screened with potential adopter's for compatibility.
Yes we know that most animals are super excited to meet potential new families. But those who know animal's can 'see' the connection or the potential problems.
As to potential homes.
I honestly do not care how a person lives, or where. If they choose a pet and take care of that animal in the best way they are able, they are not purposely being neglectful or cruel and it is evident that their animal is happy. That is a good home.
I understand that every one has different levels of expectation in care. From health, diet, training, etc. And many of us need to learn to leave each to their own. It can be very hard.
Potential adopters should be screened with their potential pets before they take the animal home. They should be screened, unannounced, throughout the following six months to a year. One to make certain that the animal is well cared for and secondly that any contractual conditions are met (spay/neuter) or other.
I understand that many people will feel/state that following through with home visits is a huge undertaking and that shelters/etc do not have the man power or resources to do these.
I feel that if procedures, resources and placement avenue's to save animals that should have been immediately put to rest(see above mentioned qualification) are used in placing and following through with contractual conditions more animals can be placed, saved and find better families.
|01-17-2014 10:04 PM|
yeah but you don't know how the person feels about
their dog and how the dog feels about it's owner. you
don't know the bound you could be pulling apart because
you don't like the situation. or do you care about the
relationship between the dog and it's owner?
|01-17-2014 09:57 PM|
I live in an area that has two different places you can adopt animals from. I've worked at both of them. First there is our "city animal shelter" they are owned by a local vet whom has the contract with the city to take in all the stays that animal control picks up. While working there I had a situation come up that was sort of like this. The applicant could afford the fee. She was not exactly a well washed woman and had a horrible aroma. She definitely looked like someone that others would avoid and she had a physical disability. I worked at the front desk and handled all the applications, i had the authority to approve or deny adoptions. She had her eye on a young lab/husky mix who'd been in the shelter for quite a while. I forget the dog's name...anyway...there had been another lady in the shelter looking at dogs and liked that same mix but was also looking at another dog too. I went a head and checked references for the first adopter, i even called her vet to see if she'd provided good vet care in the past if her previous dogs had ever needed it. They told me that she had and that was enough to satisfy me. I let her adopt the dog. BOY did that make her day. I've seen her in town with that dog several years even after she adopted her....i'm getting off subject...I caught **** from some of our other staff about adopting that dog out to that lady "who looked poor and smelled bad". I stood my ground and expressed "i checked with her vet, she gets them care when they need it. she might not be your typical adopter but i feel like she will really love and cherish the dog." Other people thought i should have waited to see if the "rich" lady was going to adopt that dog or not. If i had waited and the "rich" lady passed the dog up, she would have missed out on a good home because i told someone else no and she'd been in the shelter for some time and i didn't want to risk her missing having a forever home. I know she went to a good home and is loved very much.
the other place in town is a privately owned "humane society" and believe me they'd never adopt to someone like the lady that i adopted that dog too. They are very very picky about who they let take animals home...but i guess if you are privately owned but a bunch of snobby old rich ladies you can have that luxury...BUT not every shelter can risk keeping dogs for too long and risk them getting put down.
It all depends on the situation. I know well off people that shouldn't own an animal and i know people with very little that are the best owners a dog could have...every situation is different.
|01-04-2014 07:18 PM|
Me? I can barely get by and I won the lottery.
|01-04-2014 07:13 PM|
I say any chance at life for a healthy being is the best bet. I saw many happy, homeless, ownerless dogs all over the world while motorcycle touring and none of them looked as if they wanted to volunteer to be euthanized.
|01-03-2014 09:44 PM|
|TAR HEEL MOM||
This subject is a constant conundrum for those of us who work in shelters. I am perhaps a little more lenient than some others that I work with as far as adoptions. I think "almost" any home is better than being locked in a kennel. My personal exceptions to that are homes where a dog is left outside ALL the time regardless of weather conditions and homes where a dog is chained all the time. In those situations I would rather see one humanely PTS.
I also feel pretty strongly about attempted rehab. When a dog comes in to me fear aggressive I can usually tell within a short time if I am going to be able to get it to come around to being adoptable. If a dog is dangerous to have in the kennels or for the workers to handle, I will usually help him to cross over. We just had this situation with one of the prettiest boxer mixes I have ever seen. She was a year old female, gray to fawn color with these awesome tall ears and a black muzzle. One of the prettiest girls I have ever seen and absolutely terrified to the point of biting and having to be moved with a rabies pole. Every time we had to move her to clean her kennel we were just scaring her more and making her life more miserable. She was the worst case I had seen in my three years at the shelter. As much as it saddened me to do it, I put her to sleep. I am certain she is much better off than she would ever have been.
Another bias we run into in my shelter is the people who do not want to adopt to anyone who uses a dog to hunt. Seriously? We always have an over abundance of hounds..Blue Tick, Red Tick Black and Tan,
Redbone, Treeing Walkers...you name it. These guys were born and raised to hunt before they somehow ended up in our shelter, yet we have volunteers and workers who act like it is the worst thing in the world when someone wants to adopt one to use as a coon dog. They want to make all hounds be couch dogs. I have no problem with them hunting as long as they are not going to be chained to a dog house all the time that they aren't hunting.
And what about dogs kept in an outside lot? Say a 8x8 kennel of sorts? What do y'all think about that? What if it is covered and has a good insulated dog house? Yea or Nay? This one is more of a gray area for me. I think my determining factor is - are they going to get the dog out and play with it and love it everyday or is it going to be shut away in the yard with no interaction.
It's such a hard thing sometimes. Maybe there are never any clear cut cases. I just try to handle each one as it comes.
I do agree about the ridiculous fees and conditions of a lot of rescue orgs. I could adopt a child easier than a dog from some of these groups
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|