responsibility ends when?

[middleofnowhere]

On another thread, it has emerged that a potential "rehome" was originally obtained through a rescue that participates in the board. The party that placed the dog in it's present home is understandably upset with this turn of events (as are many others). However, it appears that they lack the transportation they would need to retrieve the dog (why not require that the person return her?) and have no room.

The issue emerges here -- when you place a dog as a rescue, does your responsibility then end? I thought the standard was that you took the dog back if it didn't work out. If that's the case, I think the folks in rescue need to take a long hard look at what this means. To me, it means that you will be at capacity sooner because at least one spot at all times will be reserved for a returnee. What is your obligation and are you always prepared to meet it? If you are above capacity (ie your reserve slots have been taken by newbies) do you euthanize the returnee or the "last hired?"

[Remo]

VGSR stands behind their dogs for the rest of their life. If an adoption is not successful, we get the dog back.

The situation that you describe is one of the biggest reasons that we do not make very many long distance placements. We always emphasize, prior to adoption, that the adopter is required to return the dog to us, meaning that they are responsible for the transportation for the return.

When a dog gets returned and we don't have any open foster homes, we first put a shout out to our volunteers and beg someone to take in the dog. Most of the time the original foster home steps forward, even if it means they must temporarily be doubled up with dogs. If absolutely no one stepped forward (which rarely happens because VGSR has amazing, huge-hearted volunteers) we would board the dog. We would never euthanize a dog because of space constraints. The only time we would put a dog down is due to extreme health issues or if the dog is vicious.

This does bring up a very good point because we have had plenty of folks get angry with us when we refused to make a long distance placement.

[dd]

I think you need to make a difference between an established rescue and an individual rescuer making a placement. My assumption from reading the other thread is that the person who placed the dog is an individual and not a rescue with policies and contracts. Understandably, the person does not have the resources to take the dog back at a moment's notice. This is why on the rescue boards individuals aer discouragd frmo rescuing on their own - since it is so difficult to set up a proper safety net for a dog.

[JeanKBBMMMAAN]

In this particular case, I am not sure but think that this was an individual helping a dog who was not in an official rescue. I am not sure about that, but if it is, this brings up why we constantly say to people here, get rescue backing, get REPUTABLE rescue backing.

Because an individual may have circumstances that don't allow for additional expenses that a rescue can fundraise for or assist with, or may not have the idea that if something goes wrong, it doesn't matter, you take the dog back because there is a contract with the adopter, and there is an obligation to the dog.

Reputable rescue organizations always take back, regardless of age, health or temperament. It is a lifetime commitment. They also shouldn't make people jump through hoops to return their dog - providing assistance and support is one thing - trying to avoid the situation another.

In the situation above, if the individual person could get rescue backing now it might be helpful.

[RebelGSD]

I wonder how a rescue can "require" someone to drive 10 hours to return the dog if the person does not want to do it. Send the police to force the person? Go to court? The dog will long disappear by then.

I think there is great that there are big rescues that have the resources to do everything perfectly. However, there are thousands of dogs that these rescues cannot accommodate.

Over the past ten years I have seen many dogs rejected by the reputable rescues because of lack of space, distance or behavior issues. There are thousands of dogs like this and very few large rescues with "infinite" resources. Many of these dogs ended up with small groups that have fewer resources. They also ended up with individuals who rescued them and found them homes. I have seen these dogs live happy lives. If they were returned to the rescues or rescuers with expensive crippling conditions or aggression issues that render them unadoptable, I wonder if the rescues would be able to resolve them. Does this mean that all these thousands of dogs rescued by dogs would have been better off killed at the shelters than with rescues with limited resources? I cannot say that they would have been better off dead.

Some posts here make it sound that for every dog there is a reputable rescue that is going to care for them to perfection. The truth is that there is not. Should all these dogs die? The truth is that those who insist on prefection are not the ones that have to put the dog into a gas chamber, stick the needle into a dog's chest, or use the more humane method.


I fostered for several large rescues that is considered reputable some years ago. And viewing from the inside, things were not black and white. There was a rescue some years ago on this board that was considered holier than holy (for many years). Until it became public that the burden of the difficult returns fell on one person, because the reputable rescue always takes dogs back from fosters or adopters. I have seen reputable rescues close and the dogs they placed lost any support.

In an ideal world there would be infinite resources for every child, adult and old person rescieve the best health care, education and support. Nobody would be hungry or homeless. This is not the reality for people and even less for dogs.

In the meantime, I am grateful that there was an individual who did not turn her back on the puppy that would have ended up hit by a car and did the best she could for the animal. Not perfect, but she did more than the reputable rescues and the rest of the human race. Does this person deserve to have stones thrown at her? Next time she will also walk away, like the 90% of the human race, or join the "bumpers".

[JeanKBBMMMAAN]

I don't think anyone is throwing stones at Missy. I hope not. But in the future if there is a foster, she could find a rescue to represent the dog. And maybe now, because she's helped the dog in the past, she may be able to help her now by doing that. I am sure she's shocked that things can go so badly when they appear to be so good in the beginning.

I am not sure about the rest of that stuff or the rescue who had one person taking all the returns, but do still believe that rescues need to stand behind their dogs. IF there are crippling issues, aggression issues that can't be resolved humanely...that is a whole different matter.

And no one on this board is going to solve by themselves the crazy disparity of good homes and good dogs. These poor souls are going to die and it's because owners dump their dogs.

[dd]

No one is throwing any stones at anyone. The reality is if you are one-person operation things are going to be harder. That's all.

[RebelGSD]

I hope that those of you criticizing Missy and others who cannot practice perfection (this is a recurring topic) offer her and the dog some help to her to find that "reputable" rescue. I am just guessing that they will be "full" as usual, especially for the dog that is already known to be less than perfect. And I am guessing that you will not get a response from the local ones and the distant ones will tell they would love to help and this is too far.

I am just guessing that she did this on her own because the reputable rescues were not there when the puppy was running out into the street and she could not bear watch it. I am guessing that the reputable rescues never responded to the e-mails or phone calls asking for help, as usual. Because they are full. And because they don't take dogs that have known owners.

It would be nice if life were black and white. And it is much easier to say that dogs will die if you are not the one looking the dog in the eyes.

[Jax08]

I don't read this as anyone throwing stones at Missy and Middleofnowhere seemed to just be asking what the policies of returning a dog to a rescue is. JMO

[dd]

You know what, Rebel - NO ONE is criticising Missy. We are talking about policies of organisations here. My point was, if an individual took the dog, they probably don't have a policy and may not have the resources to step up at a moment's notice. So we're both saying the same thing. Maybe you could go back and read what was written.

Whew!