# Why won't a rescue place a spayed female into my home with in tact males?



## counter

> Removed email - not allowed to post personal emails without permission from the party who sent them on this board, even in the rescue section. Jean, admin


Can anyone involved with rescues please explain why I have been shunned because I have 3 in tact males with 1 spayed female? I wanted to adopt another female from a rescue, and she would either come spayed (the rescue never made it clear) or I would pay to get her spayed (I would never allow an oops litter), but the above quote is what I received from them as their final answer.

If my females are all fixed, why would it matter if my males are in tact? My holistic vet and I agreed to keep the males in tact for the medical benefits. The vet also agreed that the medical benefits are greater for a spayed female versus an in tact female. He broke it all down and it made total sense, and I had been researching it for 2 years before coming to that final decision, supported by my vet.

I'm steaming inside right now, but am trying to deflate my emotions before I reply to the rescue. I want to blast them for this decision knowing the dog I wanted will go to a lesser home because the rescue can't think outside their own little box. So sad for me, and sad for the dog, and I feel bad for these people in rescue who are wearing blinders.


----------



## counter

And re-reading what they wrote, are they trying to say that anyone who keeps an in tact animal, who is not breeding or showing them, is IRRESPONSIBLE? Did I read that right? I can almost guarantee that I take better care of my animals than they take care of their own. Did they really just say that to me?

Calm down...calm down emotions...calm down...blood is boiling, so I might be misunderstanding their meaning.

I am against overpopulatin and oops litters just as they are, so I get that part. Is that what is driving this? Ugh!


----------



## llombardo

You don't know the dog will go to a lesser home at all. Everything happens for a reason. Regular vets and holistic vets will never agree on these things and most rescues don't use holistic vets. Take a deep breath.


----------



## Moriah

It's the policy of a lot of rescues. I know responsible people who would be great adopters, but they will never be allowed to obtain a dog. Assumptions are made that intact animals are because of irresponsible people.....


----------



## counter

llombardo said:


> You don't know the dog will go to a lesser home at all. Everything happens for a reason. Regular vets and holistic vets will never agree on these things and most rescues don't use holistic vets. Take a deep breath.


So here's why I say "lesser home":

It's not that I'm full of myself or think I'm better than anyone else. It's just that, I know how my friends, family, co-workers, strangers I see out and about, etc. take care of their dogs. I know we are all doing things differently, but when it comes to training, diet, exercise, grooming, etc. I rarely meet people who are as deep into any of the above as I am. Where did I learn to be so good at this? From you guys on this forum and other dog forums, and from research and books! I'm sure there are plenty of you on this forum who are more knowledgeable and responsible than I am, and I look up to you, which is how I learn to better myself for my dogs. But I think we are in the top 5% of all dog owners, at least based on my experiences in person with everyone I meet. 

Instead of being holier than thou, I try to help others when they ask me about dog-related stuff. I want to pass on what I've learned (from all of you) to anyone and everyone who is wanting to also better themselves. But again, we are the minority. And I do understand that what works for one dog might not work for another. I'm not close-minded or elitist.

Sure, this dog could luck out and go to an awesome home, but based on the stats of the majority of dog owners, I feel comfortable and confident that she probably will not. This is why I am saddened that they cannot look past their own walls they've built. They built their wall of rules so tall that they cannot even see out anymore.


----------



## martemchik

To me...a home with 4 dogs, isn't that great of a home for another one. Just cause you train, feed good food, do whatever else you do, still means you have to divide your time and energy between 5 dogs. I can almost guarantee that if I watched you interact on a daily basis with your dogs, Id find plenty of short comings IMO. Just like someone else would find plenty of short coming based on their own opinions from the way I live with my two dogs.

The idea that you make the claim that you're in the top 5% of owners is pretty funny.

Most rescues will see anyone that has an intact animal as contributing to the pet over population issue and not helping the problem that they deal with daily. I know most of us won't agree on this, but having an intact male, no matter how responsible you are, still means there is a higher chance your dog impregnates a female and produces unwanted puppies. This is why vets and rescues push spay/neuter. You can't trust close to 99/100 people with an intact animal, and it's pretty hard to convince people that meet those 99 on a daily basis that you're the 1 that can do it. Btw...all that said, my male is intact.

This is just one of those things you should let go. Rescues have their rules, I'm almost more surprised they didn't raise the fact that you have 4 other dogs as an issue. Many times it's hard to make sure two dogs will get along, let alone 5...


----------



## scarfish

don't even sweat it. i was denied a kitten from the pound 'cause the people there wanted to give the kittens to families with kids. if you really have your heart on saving a dog, try with another rescue but lie about your male dogs or keep an eye out on local kill shelters. i have heard but am not sure that kill shelters are less picky who they hand an animal over to.


----------



## shepherdmom

scarfish said:


> don't even sweat it. i was denied a kitten from the pound 'cause the people there wanted to give the kittens to families with kids. if you really have your heart on saving a dog, try with another rescue but lie about your male dogs or keep an eye out on local kill shelters. i have heard but am not sure that kill shelters are less picky who they hand an animal over to.


Lie to the rescues? Don't you think they check these things? Of course they do. They call your vet references and that is one of the first questions they ask. They also do home visits so they will see for themselves.


----------



## scarfish

not really lying, just withholding some info. he can board his males the day rescue people plan to come over. it's cheating for a good cause. it's not like stealing someones car rims.


----------



## counter

martemchik said:


> The idea that you make the claim that you're in the top 5% of owners is pretty funny.


I would bet that 95% of dog owners are not wasting their precious time on dog forums to better themselves, learning and absorbing information, so their dogs can live a better life. Most of them that I know beat their dogs in the name of "training", stick their noses in poo and pee when they have an accident, nickname them "dumb dog" and "stupid," don't walk them, feed them crap food, don't groom them, don't do obedience, etc. There are a TON of dog owners in the world, and we are the minority on this forum and other dog forums. And then out of the people on the forums, you have people who are obviously more responsible and knowledgeable, and people who aren't and don't care, or are still learning. That's awesome! And sure, there are small percentages of people who are amazing dog owners that don't know about, or don't care about getting online to visit dog forums. I get that.

I have just been so into dogs these last 7 years (never owned a dog until I bought Nara from a breeder), that I have people who have owned dogs their entire lives come ask me for help. It should be the other way around. And again, it's not a brag. It's a compliment to how dedicated and passionate I am about my dogs and dogs in general, and also I'm just stating the truth and facts. If it were the other way around, I'd have no problem admitting to it. I don't think I'm better than anyone else. I want (to help) everyone to put their dogs on such a pedestal like we do. I'm all about picking people up to walk with me versus stepping on them to make myself look better/higher.


----------



## Galathiel

So doing something wrong for the right reasons .. makes it right? Eh no. That's a slippery slope. It's childish to hedge and lie to get what we want. Adults know better and should do better. We should expect more out of ourselves than that. I'm sorry that Counter was unable to get this dog; however, I'm sure that he will find a dog if he wants another and be able to do it without having to lower his standards of conduct for himself.


----------



## scarfish

...and the next guy that walks in there has a perfect life lined up for the dog but it gets up chained to the entrance of a tool shed it's whole life. you never know.


----------



## Bear L

My experience with rescues, especially rescues of specialized breeds like shepherds and border collies - no small dogs, no intact dogs, must have fenced yard. I got denied many times for the first two reasons. It doesn't matter how great of a dog owner you may really be, because to them, they've a checklist they are going by.


----------



## JoanMcM

Go to the head of the rescue if you really want this particular dog, or try a different rescue.

There is a lot of discussion regarding keeping dogs intact at least through puberty for medical reasons. But if this particular rescue/person does not see it as enough to change their policy then there is little you can do. You can forward them data, or have your vet write a note.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Rescues get lied to all the time - that's why they do so many checks. You know, the checks people complain about, because the 'rescue is making them jump through hoops'? Yeah, well, you can thank all the dishonest people for bringing that about and making it necessary.

OP, I do not know of any rescue that will allow placement of a dog into a home with unaltered pets. I'm sure there are case, by case circumstances that the rescue would consider - the resident dog is too old, or too ill, etc. But pretty much, it would be a no.

I adopted both of my dogs as puppies from shelters. They were both speutered, before they were handed over to me. It stunk that my 7 - 8 WEEK old puppies were speutered. I would have loved for them to have been older. The shelter has a policy and I respect that. I understand why they find it necessary. And yes, every shelter application I have ever completed asks if all my other pets are spayed/neutered.

I have other options and so do you. You need to accept the policies of the rescue. Also, while I love this board and have learned a lot, I took excellent care of my dogs for decades, before being a member here. Heck, my GSD was 10 years old, when I joined. Being a member here doesn't make me a better or worse owner than anyone else.


----------



## NancyJ

This is good to know. I would have considered a rescued female for my next dog in a few years, but I am not going to chop up my male just to be able to rescue a spayed female. 

As far as the comment on 4 dogs being too many. I know people who have multiple dogs that absolutely thrive and people with 1 dog who have one dog too many.


----------



## Hineni7

I do believe that rescues can be too hard nosed about some of their policies... When a proven good home arises and they are denied on a technicality (and this is one of them) they are just hurting themselves, the dog, and wasting precious resources. They should have a committee where they can evaluate the given policy that is hindering the adopter, and see if an exception is advantageous. To just disregard and go hard line on it really is not showing wise management of resources. 

I'm not saying to disregard every applicant with a rule discrepancy, obviously... But there are those like the OP whose situation would not cause harm or an 'oops' litter... Definitely a shame..


----------



## Jax08

jocoyn said:


> As far as the comment on 4 dogs being too many. I know people who have multiple dogs that absolutely thrive and people with 1 dog who have one dog too many.


Totally agree. To me, the four dogs we have is to much. But my friend has up to 8 Newfs, Berners and Great Pyr's at any given time and her pack is wonderfully behaved and happy.

What isn't ok for one, has no bearing on what is right for another.

Nancy - I'm waiting for the day I can adopt a CWD or MWD.


----------



## martemchik

jocoyn said:


> As far as the comment on 4 dogs being too many. I know people who have multiple dogs that absolutely thrive and people with 1 dog who have one dog too many.



And just like my statement this is extremely subjective. And I even said that mine was subjective.

But let's put it this way, if OP wants to use statistics, I guarantee you that more often than not, a home with just one dog is going to be doing much better than a home with 4-5. And I can tell you that a rescue probably knows this as well.


----------



## counter

Their decision has sunk in enough that I'm over it and moving on. Thank you to everyone who replied to help me out. I appreciate it.


----------



## Nigel

Hineni7 said:


> I do believe that rescues can be too hard nosed about some of their policies... When a proven good home arises and they are denied on a technicality (and this is one of them) they are just hurting themselves, the dog, and wasting precious resources. They should have a committee where they can evaluate the given policy that is hindering the adopter, and see if an exception is advantageous. To just disregard and go hard line on it really is not showing wise management of resources.
> 
> I'm not saying to disregard every applicant with a rule discrepancy, obviously... But there are those like the OP whose situation would not cause harm or an 'oops' litter... Definitely a shame..


Maybe the rescue sees other things too, but is just sticking to this rule? I thought I've read in the past, rescues often refuse military members? Maybe it was breeders, can't recall. Another reason I've run into is having children under 12.


----------



## Steve Strom

You're own words on why you shouldn't be adding another dog:



> We both agreed that we are maxed out and strapped financially. I just can't see myself as a 1-dog person.


You aren't any where near a 1 dog person now. Only because you posted it publicly asking for comments would I say this. Be happy with the four. There's no good reason to look for a 5th.


----------



## counter

martemchik said:


> And just like my statement this is extremely subjective. And I even said that mine was subjective.


And for the record, I'd put you in the top 4% of dog owners. Ha! I enjoy reading what you write, and learn a lot from you. I look up to you and respect you as I do the upper echelon of this forum's members. Just sayin'!...since I love to use stats and all.

And what's with Mad Max as your avatar? That's one of my fav movies (Road Warrior) of all time. I currently own a side by side 12 gauge stagecoach shotgun that I hope to have sawed off to look just like Max's for home defense (or the apocalypse!).


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom

Counter,

I emphasize with you totally. When I had my wolfdogs, I never neutered the males, they were easier to keep than the male GSDs I have had that I kept intact. I never had a neutered male canine until I got rescues. My males never sired a litter of oops puppies, either. And if I ever buy another male puppy from a breeder, he will not be neutered. And I will never get a puppy from a rescue--they neuter and spay WAY, WAY too young.

That being said, the rescues rarely if ever break their own rules. I'll give you an example why:
My sister has been in and out of mental institutions for nearly 5 years. Each time she has to go inpatient, there is another rule about what the patients can take in with them and what they can't. Example--no shoelaces, no scarves, no sweatpants or hoodies with any strings (we cut them out). The list goes on, even with things as simple as shampoo. Several of the workers explained to us that whenever we see a new rule, that means that something terrible has happened, a patient found some ingenious way to hurt him/herself or someone else, with something they were allowed to bring in. Thus, that item is then forever banned for everyone.

Rescues deal with thousands of dogs going to thousands of homes, and I am positive that they have seen many, many bad results from situations that had maybe one thing that wasn't perfect in the rescue's eyes. So please don't take the rejection personally... It's not you at fault, but all the idiots who did stupid things before you came along. I was once asked by one rescue to do a home check for them on someone within my area, and I thought the home was going to be perfect for a 3 month old puppy. I didn't get any negative vibes at all, neither did the rescue when they talked to the person on the phone, a mother with two children who said and did all the right things. That adoption turned out so bad I swore I would never be involved in home checks or anything else like it ever again, and I meant it.

So there is another side to the story, even though those of us on this forum do know your home is probably better than most of ours. Cool down, cut your losses, and look elsewhere. Believe me, I know what it is to be the type that gets your heart set on a particular animal, and you get as excited as though you were a child again. That's me all over. But I've also learned in over 6 decades on this earth, things don't always work out your way.

Regards and sympathy,
Susan


----------



## martemchik

counter said:


> And for the record, I'd put you in the top 4% of dog owners. Ha! I enjoy reading what you write, and learn a lot from you. I look up to you and respect you as I do the upper echelon of this forum's members. Just sayin'!...since I love to use stats and all.
> 
> And what's with Mad Max as your avatar? That's one of my fav movies (Road Warrior) of all time. I currently own a side by side 12 gauge stagecoach shotgun that I hope to have sawed off to look just like Max's for home defense (or the apocalypse!).


 I want you to know I’m not questioning your ability as a dog owner, but the whole idea of “I’m a better owner than this guy or that guy” isn’t right. If we were to make a thread about “what makes a great dog owner?” you’d have more issues there than we get in the “what is a reputable breeder?” thread.

We all have our own ideas of how a dog should live, what kind of things a dog needs, and what truly makes a great home for a dog. So it’s just so hard to put a finger on who is a better owner than another person.


----------



## counter

Susan, you're right. They told me about people in similar situations (military, young children, etc.) that returned their dogs for whatever reason. They are worried that I would do the same. Well, I'm not the same. I don't like being punished based on what other idiots did before me. When I accept a new pet into my household, I am sworn to love and protect that animal until one of us dies. I told the rescue that. If I can't bring an animal with me overseas, or in an apartment, etc. I won't live there. I'll find someplace else or some better option. I give my animals my word, and would never just give them back, give them away, put them down, put them up on Craigslist, because my living situation (new baby, whatever, we've read all the excuses) has changed. I'm not that guy. It's insulting to me to be lumped into all of that, especially after how hard I work with my animals, and how much money I've dedicated to them, and how many I've rescued and will continue to rescue.


----------



## wolfy dog

I think it is riskier to add another female to your spayed female than to the intact males. How many hours do you have in your day to work all 5? Adding another female might very well disrupt the (probable) harmony you have now.
I have found from the past (4 dogs) that "more" is not always more fun. I currently have one dog and it is very peaceful and I can work with her often. I still see dogs I would love but I am not going to do it. But everyone is different. If you are set on another dog and you can't get one from a rescue, you could always go to a breeder or rescue a local dog that needs a home.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Speaking for rescues, please keep in mind that we are ALL volunteers. Every dog coming into rescue needs to be evaluated. A rescue person has to go to the shelter, or home, to meet that dog. After the evaluation, he/she must write up a report and give a recommendation on whether or not to accept that dog. Upon approval, dogs are posted on a 'needs foster' list. Some of these dogs have health issues, or need socialization, or other special care. If/when a foster is found, someone needs to pull and transport the dog. The foster is responsible for getting the dog to the vet, taking the dog to adoption events, communicating with potential adopters, and finalizing adoptions. Other volunteers screen applicants, check references, do vet checks and home visits. Volunteers hold many positions within the organization - intake, website, BOD, coordinators for pretty much everything. It requires a ton of man hours. Everyone gets the same pay - ZERO. 

The rules are in place. It may, or may not be possible to bend the rules. The board needs to make a decision every time an exception is needed. It is unrealistic to expect them to do this for every application. Volunteers are people with real lives, families, jobs, etc. We all want to see the dog go into the best possible home. No one wants to see a family struggle with a dog that is not a good match, or a dog be mistreated. I can't say I have ever seen a dog returned to rescue in better shape than when it left. So, like Susan said, this is why there are rules. In rescue, you get to see the very best in people. You also get to see the very worst.


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom

counter said:


> Susan, you're right. They told me about people in similar situations (military, young children, etc.) that returned their dogs for whatever reason. They are worried that I would do the same. Well, I'm not the same. I don't like being punished based on what other idiots did before me. When I accept a new pet into my household, I am sworn to love and protect that animal until one of us dies. I told the rescue that. If I can't bring an animal with me overseas, or in an apartment, etc. I won't live there. I'll find someplace else or some better option. I give my animals my word, and would never just give them back, give them away, put them down, put them up on Craigslist, because my living situation (new baby, whatever, we've read all the excuses) has changed. I'm not that guy. It's insulting to me to be lumped into all of that, especially after how hard I work with my animals, and how much money I've dedicated to them, and how many I've rescued and will continue to rescue.


I know... So sorry. Not much in this world the way it is right now is fair or just.

Susan


----------



## Lykoz

counter said:


> Can anyone involved with rescues please explain why I have been shunned because I have 3 in tact males with 1 spayed female? I wanted to adopt another female from a rescue, and she would either come spayed (the rescue never made it clear) or I would pay to get her spayed (I would never allow an oops litter), but the above quote is what I received from them as their final answer.
> 
> If my females are all fixed, why would it matter if my males are in tact? My holistic vet and I agreed to keep the males in tact for the medical benefits. The vet also agreed that the medical benefits are greater for a spayed female versus an in tact female. He broke it all down and it made total sense, and I had been researching it for 2 years before coming to that final decision, supported by my vet.
> 
> I'm steaming inside right now, but am trying to deflate my emotions before I reply to the rescue. I want to blast them for this decision knowing the dog I wanted will go to a lesser home because the rescue can't think outside their own little box. So sad for me, and sad for the dog, and I feel bad for these people in rescue who are wearing blinders.


I am steaming inside too... They are freaking clueless... And they are depriving the poor dog froim a good home because they lack a basic education...

Wheather your other dogs are neutered or not is none of their business... They are placing a neutered dog in your home... They cant deny a dog a good home JUST BECAUSE YOUR OTHER MALES ARE NOT NEUTERED!!! THAT IS A PERSONAL DECISION FOR ALL OF US....

You can judge living conditions, fit of dogs family dynamic... BUT DONT GO TELLING ME I HAVE TO NEUTER MY PREVIOUS DOGS OR MY CHILDREN BECAUSE OF YOUR FLAWED MORAL VALUES....

Also I am not sold that Neutering a dog has increased health benefits... Overall I feel strongly that all things equal... Neutering causes more health issues than it solves. (Try argue that to them... Like talking to a wall).

Neutering makes sence from a Dog control issue (i.e. preventing unwanted pregnancies....) Sometimes if there are certain conditions like a retained testicle with high risk of cancer... BUT IT IS NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL SOLUTION....

I think give us the email... Or sign a petition... Ill put my name on it...


----------



## Lykoz

Susan_GSD_mom said:


> Counter,
> 
> I emphasize with you totally. When I had my wolfdogs, I never neutered the males, they were easier to keep than the male GSDs I have had that I kept intact. I never had a neutered male canine until I got rescues. My males never sired a litter of oops puppies, either. And if I ever buy another male puppy from a breeder, he will not be neutered. And I will never get a puppy from a rescue--they neuter and spay WAY, WAY too young.
> 
> That being said, the rescues rarely if ever break their own rules. I'll give you an example why:
> My sister has been in and out of mental institutions for nearly 5 years. Each time she has to go inpatient, there is another rule about what the patients can take in with them and what they can't. Example--no shoelaces, no scarves, no sweatpants or hoodies with any strings (we cut them out). The list goes on, even with things as simple as shampoo. Several of the workers explained to us that whenever we see a new rule, that means that something terrible has happened, a patient found some ingenious way to hurt him/herself or someone else, with something they were allowed to bring in. Thus, that item is then forever banned for everyone.
> 
> Rescues deal with thousands of dogs going to thousands of homes, and I am positive that they have seen many, many bad results from situations that had maybe one thing that wasn't perfect in the rescue's eyes. So please don't take the rejection personally... It's not you at fault, but all the idiots who did stupid things before you came along. I was once asked by one rescue to do a home check for them on someone within my area, and I thought the home was going to be perfect for a 3 month old puppy. I didn't get any negative vibes at all, neither did the rescue when they talked to the person on the phone, a mother with two children who said and did all the right things. That adoption turned out so bad I swore I would never be involved in home checks or anything else like it ever again, and I meant it.
> 
> So there is another side to the story, even though those of us on this forum do know your home is probably better than most of ours. Cool down, cut your losses, and look elsewhere. Believe me, I know what it is to be the type that gets your heart set on a particular animal, and you get as excited as though you were a child again. That's me all over. But I've also learned in over 6 decades on this earth, things don't always work out your way.
> 
> Regards and sympathy,
> Susan


There is no other side of the story... The dogs they give can be neutered.. Fair enough....

They have no say in the health of my current dogs!!!!

Maybe my dog has hip dysplasia... Maybe its a pup... Neutering it will impact it's development and likely cause more deterioration...

Neutering is a health issue and a personal choice...

If they neuter all dogs the give out... That is fine... But they have NO SAY on the health of my OTHER DOGS!!!

They could check my living conditions and weather the other dog may or may not be a good fit... But they can not influence my choices on the HEALTH of my other dogs...


----------



## martemchik

So basically...you want to force them to give you a dog just because you are who you are.

YOU have a choice to neuter/spay your animal. THEY have a choice not to give you another animal.

THEY aren't forcing you to neuter/spay your animals. YOU don't have to get an animal from that place, it's not the only place in the world that has dogs.

I love when people get all up in arms about their personal choices, but think that it's not fair for another person or organization to make their own personal choices.


----------



## Ace GSD

At least we know you wont get divorced  . Was it that one dog that you really like ? Or you just want to add malamute ? Maybe try different rescue place.


----------



## Susan_GSD_mom

martemchik said:


> So basically...you want to force them to give you a dog just because you are who you are.
> 
> YOU have a choice to neuter/spay your animal. THEY have a choice not to give you another animal.
> 
> THEY aren't forcing you to neuter/spay your animals. YOU don't have to get an animal from that place, it's not the only place in the world that has dogs.
> 
> I love when people get all up in arms about their personal choices, but think that it's not fair for another person or organization to make their own personal choices.


Lykoz isn't the one who wanted to adopt the maly, it was Counter.

Susan


----------



## DJEtzel

counter said:


> And re-reading what they wrote, are they trying to say that anyone who keeps an in tact animal, who is not breeding or showing them, is IRRESPONSIBLE? Did I read that right? I can almost guarantee that I take better care of my animals than they take care of their own. Did they really just say that to me?
> 
> Calm down...calm down emotions...calm down...blood is boiling, so I might be misunderstanding their meaning.
> 
> I am against overpopulatin and oops litters just as they are, so I get that part. Is that what is driving this? Ugh!


Yes, yes, and yes!


----------



## Lykoz

martemchik said:


> So basically...you want to force them to give you a dog just because you are who you are.
> 
> YOU have a choice to neuter/spay your animal. THEY have a choice not to give you another animal.
> 
> THEY aren't forcing you to neuter/spay your animals. YOU don't have to get an animal from that place, it's not the only place in the world that has dogs.
> 
> I love when people get all up in arms about their personal choices, but think that it's not fair for another person or organization to make their own personal choices.


They are trying to find good homes for dogs in a SHELTER... When one comes along you are going to DENY the DOGS a GOOD HOME BECAUSE YOU want to HAVE A SAY IN THE HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS OF COMPLETELY SEPARATE DOGS?

Again I can understand if somebody is not a good fit... Or the dog MAY or MAY NOT BE BETTER OFF...

BUT THEY ARE WILLING TO GIVE THE DOG IF HE SPAYS HIS EXISTING DOGS!

Basically they ARE overstepping as a SHELTER... RUN often on DONATIONS... They Campaign often against being forced to PUT DOGS DOWN...

However when a GOOD owner comes a long... They dont give the DOG a GOOD home BASED STRICTLY ON THE ETHICAL grounds that another owner MUST make HEALTH decisions based on completely independent dogs....

For god Sakes people... Its like saying you are only allowed to adopt a child if your wife has a sterilisation... The one decision, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other....

This rubs me the wrong way SO BADLY....
These are desperate dogs people.... With idiots running these shelters...

If the people at shelters had their way... Trust me GSD's as a breed would NOT EXIST....
They often show EVIL in buying dogs...
They do good too... But they are overstepping here... And adding to the problem...
They need more educated people making these decisions.


----------



## BowWowMeow

I have been denied by a rescue before. I'm actually not sure why but I didn't get all bent out of shape. All of my animals are rescues and I will only ever adopt. When I got denied I contacted additional rescues and was accepted by several. I then found the perfect dog (for me) and adopted him. 

I have also volunteered for several rescues and was a very active volunteer with a gsd rescue in Wisconsin. I cannot tell you how many people were furious with me because they weren't given the dog they wanted. Everyone thinks they are the "best home" and my experience was that there really are many wonderful homes out there. I certainly think that about my home.  

Volunteers do their best to find the right fit for the animal. Most rescues won't adopt to a home with intact animals because of pet overpopulation here in the U.S. However, shelters do not necessarily have this rule. Therefore, if you have intact animals you might consider adopting a shelter dog.


----------



## Lykoz

BowWowMeow said:


> I have been denied by a rescue before. I'm actually not sure why but I didn't get all bent out of shape. All of my animals are rescues and I will only ever adopt. When I got denied I contacted additional rescues and was accepted by several. I then found the perfect dog (for me) and adopted him.
> 
> I have also volunteered for several rescues and was a very active volunteer with a gsd rescue in Wisconsin. I cannot tell you how many people were furious with me because they weren't given the dog they wanted. Everyone thinks they are the "best home" and my experience was that there really are many wonderful homes out there. I certainly think that about my home.
> 
> Volunteers do their best to find the right fit for the animal. Most rescues won't adopt to a home with intact animals because of pet overpopulation here in the U.S. However, shelters do not necessarily have this rule. Therefore, if you have intact animals you might consider adopting a shelter dog.


Reason people are upset is not being denied a dog for some justifiable reason...

It is the reason why... 
You cant tell people what to do on completely independent dogs...
Neutering is a health concern as much as a social concern...

1 size does not fit all dogs...
You cant force people to do a medical procedure on their own bought intact dogs... Just so they can help and save a dog...

Its completely and utterly incompetent.....

I can often tell dogs that were neutered at a young age immediately just by looking at them... Their structure and development is compromised. Neutering is not a 1 size fits all procedure... 

I can understand neutering the dogs that come from the shelter... Fine... But dont tell somebody they HAVE TO Neuter their Pure Bred Bought GSD's, otherwise they are ineligeble to help a dog without a home... 

You can chose not to place a dog with somebody, because of living conditions... Screening various things... But not the health status on a completely independent and different dog...

If anything it takes away from the gene pool... of GSD's..


----------



## selzer

martemchik said:


> And just like my statement this is extremely subjective. And I even said that mine was subjective.
> 
> But let's put it this way, if OP wants to use statistics, *I guarantee you that more often than not, a home with just one dog is going to be doing much better than a home with 4-5*. And I can tell you that a rescue probably knows this as well.


 Maybe, but there seems to be an epidemic of problems people have with dogs, people with just one dog more often than not, just clueless. Someone with four or five probably knows a thing or two, and isn't going to be trying to pry off teets thinking they're ticks (yeah I was at the vet and the guy in the next cubicle...).

There is a point where the number of dogs you have does effect what you can potentially do with each one. But if they are spaced out, keeping a couple of seniors, because they aren't ready to be put down, and having your adult dogs well-trained, and ready to put in another, probably fine.

Rescues are there to find homes for dogs that people couldn't keep -- too many dogs, spay/neuter everything to deal with the problem, do not add to the problem, etc. You should EXPECT them to be pretty hard-nosed on that subject. My concern with adding a spayed bitch to three intact males, is will the change in dynamics cause the males to start fighting amongst themselves. I wouldn't want to home a rescued dog in a situation where it might be likely to create problems down the road where that dog or the others might be looking for a new home because of it. 

If you want to add a bitch to your pack, go to a breeder. They will not prevent you from spaying her if you want her spayed. In fact, you might find a breeder who has a bitch that has either washed from her breeding program or is retired from breeding, but still young enough to make a great pet. I think the reason a lot of breeders become overwhelmed with dogs is because of the stigma of rehoming them, makes them less of an owner. Often you can get a nice, well-bred female, possibly well-trained as well, from a breeder who just wants to ensure she has a good home.


----------



## Colie CVT

As Selzer said, you can usually find older female dogs who need a home from a breeder. That's where I got my Leia.  However I do understand your frustration. It is one of a few reasons that I ended up going against rescue. 

The thing that gets me however is the implication that because your pet is intact that it will add to the population. My youngest dog is still intact. I have been on the fence about if I am going to neuter him or not, and with his heart, I want that all figured out before he goes under anesthesia for anything. Even if its likely not something all that bad. I was talking with a friend about it (who altered her male dogs around 6 months) and told her I wasn't sure. Her response was that I better not let him breed. 

This is a person who has known me for over a decade. Who knows that we've had 3 or so intact males in the house at once with females in heat with no accidents. My dogs stay with me and I work very hard to have my dogs be some of the best behaved out there (not perfect but they can fool people). I had to stare at her for that one. 

I have seen some crazy reasons to neuter. Like this insanely huge paraprostatic cyst the other day. It was twice the size of the dog's bladder. Absolutely crazy! Though if something happens with the prostate, neutering tends to make a big difference then for certain lol.


----------



## BowWowMeow

Lykoz said:


> Reason people are upset is not being denied a dog for some justifiable reason...
> 
> It is the reason why...
> You cant tell people what to do on completely independent dogs...
> Neutering is a health concern as much as a social concern...
> 
> 1 size does not fit all dogs...
> You cant force people to do a medical procedure on their own bought intact dogs... Just so they can help and save a dog...
> 
> Its completely and utterly incompetent.....
> 
> I can often tell dogs that were neutered at a young age immediately just by looking at them... Their structure and development is compromised. Neutering is not a 1 size fits all procedure...
> 
> I can understand neutering the dogs that come from the shelter... Fine... But dont tell somebody they HAVE TO Neuter their Pure Bred Bought GSD's, otherwise they are ineligeble to help a dog without a home...
> 
> You can chose not to place a dog with somebody, because of living conditions... Screening various things... But not the health status on a completely independent and different dog...
> 
> If anything it takes away from the gene pool... of GSD's..


No one is forcing anyone to do anything and it not "incompetent." I'm sure this dog has other offers. The dog is with a rescue, not in a shelter. That means there is no danger of her being euthanized and they can take as much time as they need to find her a good home. 

Don't you live outside the U.S.? Here we have dogs in kill shelters, no-kill shelters and in foster homes with rescues. Dogs in kill shelters are in imminent danger and those shelters are far less stringent about requirements to adopt. Many no-kill shelters also have less stringent requirements. I could walk into either of the shelters here and walk out with a dog that same day. 

However, as many posters have explained, there is a reason behind rescues' adoption policies. They would not adopt to a home where the dogs were kept outside, even though the law says you can keep your dog outside as long as they have shelter and food and water. But rescues want their dogs living inside with the rest of the family. You may not agree with their reasoning but that is not going to cause them to change their policies. The simple solution is just not to apply to adopt from that particular organization.


----------



## Lykoz

BowWowMeow said:


> No one is forcing anyone to do anything and it not "incompetent." I'm sure this dog has other offers. The dog is with a rescue, not in a shelter. That means there is no danger of her being euthanized and they can take as much time as they need to find her a good home.
> 
> Don't you live outside the U.S.? Here we have dogs in kill shelters, no-kill shelters and in foster homes with rescues. Dogs in kill shelters are in imminent danger and those shelters are far less stringent about requirements to adopt. Many no-kill shelters also have less stringent requirements. I could walk into either of the shelters here and walk out with a dog that same day.
> 
> However, as many posters have explained, there is a reason behind rescues' adoption policies. They would not adopt to a home where the dogs were kept outside, even though the law says you can keep your dog outside as long as they have shelter and food and water. But rescues want their dogs living inside with the rest of the family. You may not agree with their reasoning but that is not going to cause them to change their policies. The simple solution is just not to apply to adopt from that particular organization.


Lets not throw in other rules or considerations... I did not object to anything other than the fact that I think it is not reasonable for a shelter to deny a dog a home because they are pressuring someone to make health decisions based on other dogs they know nothing about really...

Also I understand the difference between a kill shelter, no kill shelter and a foster etc...
But remember a foster home is not a permanent solution. There are many dogs even in kill shelters, that could be going to fostering or no-kill shelters... 
Maybe the situation in America is not that bad... I dont know... But many coutries do have a bad problem... They are trying to curb the problem from the source... by steralising all dogs... But what do you think would happen if ALL GSD's were stelerized? There would be No GSD or any other breed... Posting to this forum and supporting what they are saying is hypocritical.. It kills the gene pool... Breeding is not just about winning a confirmation, or some competition... Its about being able to select any of the dogs on this forum for example to breed as a stud dog for example.... Maybe the dog has not done any official competition, but is the ideal candidate to put back into the line... If we sterilised all dogs before 1 or 2 years... You would never be able to select the right dogs... Furthermore the genetic pool would be completely thinned out.

You are backing up the system based on ideals and sociopolitical views that frankly is overstepping as a rescue/shelter or whatever else responsibilities or what they can say...

They need to USE our Support... Not break our balls because we like pure-bred dogs... 

Also I am not angry that the person did not get the dog... I am angry because of the reasoning they used, to deny that dog a good home.

P.S. I have adopted a dog before... And I have never added to the problem.. I have also sterelised dogs before on an individual case by case basis, for various reasons, for my own situation and their health considerations.


----------



## martemchik

No one is pressuring anyone! There isn't a gun to anyone's head when it comes to adopting a dog!

A private organization has the right to refuse a dog to anyone and have any kind of rules they feel like having. I love how you think that it's perfectly fine for you or anyone else to make the PERSONAL choice to not spueter an animal, yet there is a problem when an organization makes their own choice.

There are thousands of rescues across the United States, if you feel that compelled to rescue, you can find one that will give you a dog. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this one refusing to give someone a dog because they have intact animals. This isn't pressure, this isn't anything. It's just a guideline that the shelter has chosen to follow.


----------



## Lykoz

martemchik said:


> No one is pressuring anyone! There isn't a gun to anyone's head when it comes to adopting a dog!
> 
> A private organization has the right to refuse a dog to anyone and have any kind of rules they feel like having. I love how you think that it's perfectly fine for you or anyone else to make the PERSONAL choice to not spueter an animal, yet there is a problem when an organization makes their own choice.
> 
> There are thousands of rescues across the United States, if you feel that compelled to rescue, you can find one that will give you a dog. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this one refusing to give someone a dog because they have intact animals. This isn't pressure, this isn't anything. It's just a guideline that the shelter has chosen to follow.


Yet these same people are constantly asking for DONATIONS to do their work...

And I am inclined to give them donations, simply for the dogs...

There is a shared responsibility with the public in what they decide to do and what not to do.

They can neuter all the dogs they look after... Fine, and I agree... But why try bully people to neuter THEIR own personal dogs...

There would be serious litigation and law cases if citizens needed to get sterlised just to buy an apple phone...

It is not Apple or your local bruger joint... Who can take any direction they want...

And I would even argue that your local burger joint also cant do whatever they like for example... I.e. selling bad food that can make you sick... Or denying a person of colour for example service? Sound Familiar? Yep happened in many countries...

No private institution can do whatever they like... Especially when often run substantially on donations and/or govenrment funds


----------



## scarfish

martemchik said:


> No one is pressuring anyone! There isn't a gun to anyone's head when it comes to adopting a dog!
> 
> A private organization has the right to refuse a dog to anyone and have any kind of rules they feel like having. I love how you think that it's perfectly fine for you or anyone else to make the PERSONAL choice to not spueter an animal, yet there is a problem when an organization makes their own choice.
> 
> There are thousands of rescues across the United States, if you feel that compelled to rescue, you can find one that will give you a dog. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this one refusing to give someone a dog because they have intact animals. This isn't pressure, this isn't anything. It's just a guideline that the shelter has chosen to follow.


i see it as wrong on the rescue's part. i understand there has to be rules and standards. someoe needs to have a place to live, have a job, have dog experience and such. i don't think their rules should be based on baseless stereotypes. people who keep their males dogs in tact are bad pet owners? i see absolutely no difference in that rule than if they denied him for the color of his skin. IMHO.


----------



## Debanneball

Okay, I was going to 'read only', but here goes..

Yes, we all agree.. Counter would be the perfect person to have this dog, thats a given! We know his dedication and love for animals, we know he is an excellent family man!

No, we do not agree with the Rescue's decision.. But can you imagine what would/could be the end result of a person adopting a rescue dog if there were NO rules or regulations? If they gave the dog to the first person that came along? 

These dogs hve not had the best start in life, look where they are.. So, the Rescue is doing the best they can for the sake of the dog. And, unfortunately, Rules must be adhered to..otherwise as an example, I would definitely hate to be driving on a highway where no one paid attention to the rules..... IMHO


----------



## martemchik

Lykoz said:


> No private institution can do whatever they like... Especially when often run substantially on donations and/or govenrment funds


Yes they can...it's up to the donor to figure out if the organization is worthy of their money. And again, another PERSONAL choice of the person to give money to the organization.

People ask for money for EVERYTHING. There's a guy on the corner of my office building asking for money right now, doesn't mean I have to give it to him. Just because someone asks you for money, doesn't mean you have to throw your wallet at them.

I'm assuming that these guidelines are more than likely written down somewhere. So if a donor was wondering, I'm sure they can get the list and see if they agree/disagree. If they don't agree...don't give them money. It's simple. If you want the guideline to change for a particular organization...volunteer, get on their board, get in a position of some sort of power and bring up the change...OR just don't give them money and find one of the other thousand rescues to support that you do agree with.

And BULLYING?!?!? I mean...really? That's bullying? Wow.

To add...this is nothing like the examples of discrimination you posted. Discrimination is based on something a person can't change and has no choice in the matter (sexual preference, skin color, ect). This is a choice. You CHOOSE to not spueter your animal. They CHOOSE not to give you another one.


----------



## martemchik

scarfish said:


> i see it as wrong on the rescue's part. i understand there has to be rules and standards. someoe needs to have a place to live, have a job, have dog experience and such. i don't think their rules should be based on baseless stereotypes. people who keep their males dogs in tact are bad pet owners? i see absolutely no difference in that rule than if they denied him for the color of his skin. IMHO.


BASELESS STEREOTYPES?!?! HA!!! You have no idea what people do with intact animals if you think these are baseless stereotypes. The majority of people I meet with intact animals are planning to breed them, they aren't doing it for health reasons, they're doing it because "fluffy needs to have a litter to be fulfilled in life" or "spot would feel like less of a male without them."

So the fact that you seem to think this forum is any sort of real cross section of what actually goes on in the real world is hilarious. This forum has a much higher percentage of "responsible owners" than the real world does.


----------



## scarfish

martemchik said:


> BASELESS STEREOTYPES?!?! HA!!! You have no idea what people do with intact animals if you think these are baseless stereotypes. The majority of people I meet with intact animals are planning to breed them, they aren't doing it for health reasons, they're doing it because "fluffy needs to have a litter to be fulfilled in life" or "spot would feel like less of a male without them."
> 
> So the fact that you seem to think this forum is any sort of real cross section of what actually goes on in the real world is hilarious. This forum has a much higher percentage of "responsible owners" than the real world does.


i have mentioned many times here that most regulars here are way more knowledgeable on average than the average dog owner. that's why when someone just joins to ask if they should get dog fixed or not i always tell them yes. 

however. he wants the female to be spayed and his other female is already spayed. nobody wanting to breed dogs spays all their females.


----------



## LaRen616

I'm not surprised that you were denied but I would have thought it was because you have too many animals.

When I rescued my cats they were very curious about how many animals I had. The rescue I went through will not adopt out to people that have more than 4 animals but I think that's also because that town has an animal limit as well as my town.

You have 5 cats and 4 large dogs, the shelters in my area would deny you immediately.


----------



## Regen

I have rescued and followed and supported rescues for years. I love them. They work tirelessly to save our beloved breed, take in animals which seem hopeless, sick, and with major behavioral issues, to rehabilitate and find them the perfect home. I have seen what they do, and I have adopted and loved my beautiful baby from them, before he succumbed to lymphoma at the age of 2. I cry and miss him every day and I am thankful to the rescue to give him to me, to let me love him, care for him for 2 years. 

You must understand, what the rescues see and do every day to understand their rules, and sometimes they seem pointless and you may not agree with all of them. I know I don't like and agree with everything they do, but I understand where they are coming from. Unfortunately most people suck. They will lie and promise to be the best home for a dog, and then the rescues find their dogs back in some high kill shelter less than a week later. 

They can deny people dogs, because they are not worried about the dogs in their rescues, they already have fosters, and the dogs are stable and cared for. They would rather keep a dog than have it end up back in less than ideal situations. They do not know you personally, which is why they set up rules and go by them. No, they are not perfect. But they are out there, trying to pull most GSD's that they can from being killed. They are frustrated by the constant supply of them in shelters, by what they see. I, for one, am glad they are out there.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

No guns to the head but definately some arm twisting. Counter was really excited about the prospect of getting this dog. The rescue sure did use this ....ummm ....teaching opportunity to it's advantage.

We've had a lot of members come on here with similar stories. 

I don't work directly with rescues because of their increasingly militant attitudes, NOT just for the dogs they seek to home but because the intent is to force us to comply via legislation. What they did to Counter exemplifies their intent.

I monitor on FB and am acquainted with many rescue people IRL, those of us who are breeders or have bought from breeders should be rotting in h double scribble they say. No one dare speak up and say hey...wait a minute there. A good many are very black and white about this, no compromise.

No exceptions.

It's bad trend being fueled by online histrionics and getting worse.

If I were Counter I would write a polite but well crafted response letting them know he now will be going with a breeder. Just because..... :angel:


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

IMHO it's time to push back on extremist ideas about spay/neuter. If you don't watch for new laws in a neighborhood near you, it's already happened in some communities.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Sure push back on the rescues, which are generally ALL volunteers. They can stop volunteering. The rescues will cease. More dogs will die in shelters.

If you don't like the way a particular rescue operates, or how any rescues operate -
start your own rescue. Make your own rules.


----------



## Magwart

Yup, Jan. It saddens me how people who offer no solutions, who do absolutely nothing to help the problem, feel entitled to complain about the way those who try to help go about it.

If you don't like how your local rescue operates, get off your duff and start your own rescue with your own rules. In cities with multiple rescues, the newer ones often are formed by volunteers who don't like the policies of the older ones -- but instead of whining about the older group's policies online, or refusing to help and punishing dogs who will then have no one, or otherwise being destructive and obnoxious in their community...they get stuff done (their money, their rules once they form their own group).


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Magwart said:


> Yup, Jan. It saddens me how people who offer no solutions, who do absolutely nothing to help the problem, feel entitled to complain about the way those who try to help go about it.
> 
> If you don't like how your local rescue operates, get off your duff and start your own rescue with your own rules. In cities with multiple rescues, the newer ones often are formed by volunteers who don't like the policies of the older ones -- but instead of whining about the older group's policies online, or refusing to help and punishing dogs who will then have no one, or otherwise being destructive and obnoxious in their community...they get stuff done (their money, their rules once they form their own group).


You are absolutely right! At least 2 GSD rescues in my area broke off from another GSD rescue. And you know what? There are still plenty of GSDs to go around. Many sitting in shelters waiting for rescue. New rescues welcome!


----------



## scarfish

it saddens me how nuts rescue people are. i am the biggest advocate of spay/neuter on this site, almost been banned multiple times arguing for it. it should be taken on a case by case basis. at this point i hope the dog dies miserably in honor of the rescue rule nazi freaks that say this guy isn't even worthy of a looking into over a retarded rule.


----------



## martemchik

Man...the intelligence in the previous post is just too much to handle...


----------



## Regen

scarfish said:


> it saddens me how nuts rescue people are. i am the biggest advocate of spay/neuter on this site, almost been banned multiple times arguing for it. it should be taken on a case by case basis.* at this point i hope the dog dies miserably in honor of the rescue rule nazi freaks* that say this guy isn't even worthy of a looking into over a retarded rule.


Hmmmmm, you are calling the rescue people nuts and then spew a horrible statement like that ? Seems to me like you just validated every rescue out there


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

scarfish said:


> it saddens me how nuts rescue people are. i am the biggest advocate of spay/neuter on this site, almost been banned multiple times arguing for it. it should be taken on a case by case basis. at this point i hope the dog dies miserably in honor of the rescue rule nazi freaks that say this guy isn't even worthy of a looking into over a retarded rule.


Why do you think dogs in rescue are going to die? They are not going to die, because they are in rescue, in foster homes. It saddens me that so many people feel this way about rescues. Is rescue perfect? No. What is the alternative? Leave the dogs in shelters, where they will die? 

I guess rescues should drop all the rules. Place dogs into any homes with no screening. Who cares, as long the dog is in a home? Any home will do. I think wishing any dog dies a miserable death is a horrid thing to say.

Those who don't like rescue and don't support rescue - just don't. You don't have to adopt from a rescue. Go to a breeder. Go to a shelter. Go to Craigslist. Do rescue a favor and stay far, far, away.


----------



## scarfish

nuts


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

scarfish said:


> nuts


Correct. Rescues strive to not adopt dogs to nuts.


----------



## misslesleedavis1

To bad good rescues are often few and far between.


----------



## scarfish

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Why do you think dogs in rescue are going to die? They are not going to die, because they are in rescue, in foster homes. It saddens me that so many people feel this way about rescues. Is rescue perfect? No. What is the alternative? Leave the dogs in shelters, where they will die?
> 
> I guess rescues should drop all the rules. Place dogs into any homes with no screening. Who cares, as long the dog is in a home? Any home will do. I think wishing any dog dies a miserable death is a horrid thing to say.
> 
> Those who don't like rescue and don't support rescue - just don't. You don't have to adopt from a rescue. Go to a breeder. Go to a shelter. Go to Craigslist. Do rescue a favor and stay far, far, away.


i'm going to buy all my dogs for the rest of my life and they will all have better lives than the majority of dogs in rescues will ever have. isn't the point to rescue? they are put on instant text message when a breed of dog to their liking is in to die. they scoop them up before anyone else then makes the adoption process impossible to people that can give the dog a good life.

what if he has an un-altered male cat, would that automatically exclude him?


----------



## martemchik

Good rescues are everywhere, there's too many internet jockeys that see a few facebook posts or see a story like this once a month on our forum and then think all the rescues are bad.

For every story like this, 1000s of dogs are getting adopted out all across the nation. To take this story and make it seem like it's the rule is ridiculous.

Unfortunately, it's much easier to sit and complain on a computer than it is to actually do something about it. So that's what people will do.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Yeah, too bad rescues exist at all. Funny, how every time there is a dog in need, the cry is, "Have you contacted rescues?" "Isn't there a rescue that can help this dog?" And every one is soooo happy, when a rescue steps up to the plate - especially to take in one of those shelter dogs who can ONLY be released to rescue. 

Oh well, haters gonna hate.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

scarfish said:


> i'm going to buy all my dogs for the rest of my life and they will all have better lives than the majority of dogs in rescues will ever have. isn't the point to rescue? they are put on instant text message when a breed of dog to their liking is in to die.* they scoop them up before anyone else then makes the adoption process impossible to people that can give the dog a good life.*
> 
> what if he has an un-altered male cat, would that automatically exclude him?


Not true. On any given day our rescue has a waiting list of GSDs waiting for a foster home. Shelter dogs do not get scooped up quickly. Some do not get scooped up at all. There are PB GSDs dying in shelters every day. 

I adopted my previous GSD from a shelter and my current GSD puppy from a shelter. In general, shelters would prefer a dog/puppy go directly to a home than to rescue. If the shelter is running out of space, the dog is sick, injured, old, or has a behavioral issue, the shelter contacts rescues.


----------



## Lykoz

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Yeah, too bad rescues exist at all. Funny, how every time there is a dog in need, the cry is, "Have you contacted rescues?" "Isn't there a rescue that can help this dog?" And every one is soooo happy, when a rescue steps up to the plate - especially to take in one of those shelter dogs who can ONLY be released to rescue.
> 
> Oh well, haters gonna hate.


I was criticising a specific decision they made... 

If I inferred that rescue's did not do valuable work anywhere in my posts in order to support my argument, I am sorry..

That was not my intention...

But just because you provide a good service to society in one way.. Does not give you free reign to push health views regarding other people's dogs..
I have seen all-positive people running and being engaged in animal rights work... They add a lot of value.. But they also mis-educate.. And they have a strong say in the community... I have seen them post reputable trainers and their children on facebook and degrading bussines very badly, because maybe a store had a prong collar for sale.. Or because they were using it in training.. 

A lot of 'activists' blur the lines between real work for animals and what suits their own comprromised idiologies...

So I will critique where necessary... And I will support were necessary.
Social Consiciousness and picking the right battles is important for adding the most value.


----------



## shepherdmom

scarfish said:


> i'm going to buy all my dogs for the rest of my life and they will all have better lives than the majority of dogs in rescues will ever have. isn't the point to rescue? they are put on instant text message when a breed of dog to their liking is in to die. they scoop them up before anyone else then makes the adoption process impossible to people that can give the dog a good life.
> 
> what if he has an un-altered male cat, would that automatically exclude him?


The only dogs scooped up are those put on the "rescue only" list. Rescues do not go scooping up adoptable dogs out of shelters. They take the dogs no one wants, injured, sick or those that don't show well to the general public. Often times they are called in over hording situations. The see the worst things people do to animals every day. You need to go get involved with a local rescue. They are not the horrible people you think they are. I was angry with rescues for a while too after a bad experience but they are not all the same.


----------



## misslesleedavis1

If you directed that comment at me Max, you are sadly mistaken. I have done my fair share of helping rescues, adopting, screening and transport. It's safe to say that in my experience with the rescues I have come across, there is only 2 I would even consider helping, donating too again.


----------



## scarfish

martemchik said:


> Unfortunately, it's much easier to sit and complain on a computer than it is to actually do something about it. So that's what people will do.


it's a GSD forum. anyone who got their hopes up about a certain GSD and was denied over a dumb reason would feel the need to share about it here. you would be upset too and would want to post about it to gather other opinions. 

there's nothing he can do about it as the situation sits, but you can do something about acting like a jerk off and not helping.


----------



## Shade

Lykoz said:


> I was criticising a specific decision they made...
> 
> ....
> 
> But just because you provide a good service to society in one way.. Does not give you free reign to push health views regarding other people's dogs..


Rescues can't force you to neuter/spay your own personal dogs  Just as they can't force you to feed a certain food, require a fence, etc. It may not simply be the fact they're unneutered unless the OP can provide written proof that the rescue sent him something in writing specifically stating "IF you neuter all your currently intact dogs you may adopt her"

Rescues CAN require those things for the dogs that THEY own and adopt out. The contracts are there to protect the dog, not the rescue or the adopters, the dog. 

Honestly this thread is just getting ridiculous. Rescues are a business; you don’t like their policies then move on and find one that you do. It’s not that hard


----------



## Shade

scarfish said:


> it's a GSD forum. anyone who got their hopes up about a certain GSD and was denied over a dumb reason would feel the need to share about it here. you would be upset too and would want to post about it to gather other opinions.
> 
> there's nothing he can do about it as the situation sits, but you can do something about acting like a jerk off and not helping.


Dumb is subjective, it's a rule - doesn't mean you (royal you) have to like it but it's a rule.

Sometimes rules can be broken, doesn't mean they have to be. Otherwise it wouldn't be a rule now would it


----------



## counter

Like others have said, it just wasn't meant to be. I will look elsewhere for a Mal in the future: (reputable) breeders, shelters, a different rescue, wherever. I've never had an issue getting a dog until I went through this rescue, and the grueling application process was borderline insulting and offensive. I understand they were trying to weed out the irresponsible owners to avoid adopting out to them. I'm not an irresponsible owner though, yet they weeded me out in this process by lumping me in with the irresponsible owners who returned dogs or neglected them. That's what hurt.

But it's great to see that they are so strict and care so much about these dogs that they can be extremely picky...EXTREMELY PICKY. I guess for me, when it comes to rescuing animals, I don't care about the rules. I'd rather bend or break them to save a life by giving it a good home (with me!)...but hey, that's just me. This has been instilled within me after 20+ years of animal rights activism, along with human rights and environmental rights.

I've moved on. It was a good experience that I am able to learn something from. I still would've loved to have that beautiful girl though...


----------



## martemchik

scarfish said:


> it's a GSD forum. anyone who got their hopes up about a certain GSD and was denied over a dumb reason would feel the need to share about it here. you would be upset too and would want to post about it to gather other opinions.
> 
> there's nothing he can do about it as the situation sits, but you can do something about acting like a jerk off and not helping.


You have such a way with language...


----------



## shepherdmom

Lykoz said:


> But just because you provide a good service to society in one way.. Does not give you free reign to push health views regarding other people's dogs..


Rescues are not pushing health views on other peoples dogs. They are not forcing you to sputer your animals. They are saying if you want to adopt an animal from them then you follow their rules. It is no different than adopting a child. If your other children aren't vaccinated do you really think you will be able to adopt another one? 

The reasons for those rules are many. Most exist for the safety and long-term welfare of the dog. Some of those rules are in place because of previous bad experiences. Burn them once shame on you but when they have been burned many times they have to take action. You may not like it but it is because of others bad actions that those rules are in place.


----------



## Shade

Counter, I understand both perspectives from being on both sides of the fence. My frustration is not with you  Just like a bad match with a breeder, at least you figured it out before it went much further.


----------



## Lilie

Shade said:


> Honestly this thread is just getting ridiculous. Rescues are a business; you don’t like their policies then move on and find one that you do. It’s not that hard


No kidding. If you want to rescue without any rules, find out where your local dumping ground is located. Sit one afternoon from the comfort of your vehicle and take your pick.

You'll have to pay for vetting of course. Take your chances that they don't have something really nasty and expensive or contagious. Hope the dog wasn't dumped because it ate the neighbor's cat and bit the pizza boy. 

You'll have rescued a dog from the street and not have to worry about any stupid rules. Win/win for you and the dog.


----------



## Lykoz

I would even go so far as to say the users posting in these forums as regular, in general would be a very good home for any dog. 
Yet many people use prong/e-collars etc on these forums... Many people engage in different training methods.. Maybe even trained an ideal stud dog, that would be a great working dog candidate for breeding (Not possible if dog was neutered early)... This is all against what most shelters line of thinking....

You are disqualyfing ALL of these responsible people in helping adopt dogs... So I can be as hypocritical as I like.. Why make the people on this forum the enemy and not allow them to help, when they are willing to and then happily accept donations thinking you are doing good?

Its a big deal when you start disqualifying some of the most responsible people who can actually help the dogs...

I dont think anyone who owns high quality pure bred working line GSD's is adopting many dogs for personal gain..

They are doing it to help... Let them help...

The policies shown of the shelter exposed by the OP are wrong! They are frankly just disgusting... 

And if you are thinking of this like a normal business (which sometimes is the case, but thats when you see cruelty to animals) then you are confused. It is not just about raking in the profits from human donations.


----------



## Galathiel

I think it passed ridiculous a LONNNNG time ago. I posted a long time ago about not being able to adopt because I don't have a 6 foot tall fence (the requirement for the GSD rescue here in Texas I was perusing). Did I contact them and complain? Tell them they're stupid? No. I just didn't apply. Just because I know that I was not going to leave my dog out alone in the yard doesn't mean that they haven't heard the exact same story from plenty of others, that turned around and did so. GSDs are great at escaping when bored (and get quickly bored), and get killed on the highway or lost.

This isn't directed at the OP at all. Just want you to know that.  I know YOU have moved on past the decision.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

I agree. I'm done. I have to sign off now and contact the rescues I volunteer with. They will be so excited, when they hear we are raking in the profits from all those donations. Profits. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Jax08

Lykoz said:


> I would even go so far as to say the users posting in these forums as regular, in general would be a very good home for any dog.
> Yet many people use prong/e-collars etc on these forums... Many people engage in different training methods.. Maybe even trained an ideal stud dog, that would be a great working dog candidate for breeding (Not possible if dog was neutered early)... This is all against what most shelters line of thinking....
> 
> You are disqualyfing ALL of these responsible people in helping adopt dogs... So I can be as hypocritical as I like.. Why make the people on this forum the enemy and not allow them to help, when they are willing to and then happily accept donations thinking you are doing good?
> 
> Its a big deal when you start disqualifying some of the most responsible people who can actually help the dogs...
> 
> I dont think anyone who owns high quality pure bred working line GSD's is adopting many dogs for personal gain..
> 
> They are doing it to help... Let them help...
> 
> The policies shown of the shelter exposed by the OP are wrong! They are frankly just disgusting...
> 
> And if you are thinking of this like a normal business (which sometimes is the case, but thats when you see cruelty to animals) then you are confused. It is not just about raking in the profits from human donations.


Just because a person is posting on this board does not make them a good animal owner. You don't know people over the internet. People lie. It could be some naked guy sitting in a dark room feeding you a line on what a great dog owner they are. We had one particular sicko several years ago. I won't get into details but dogs died. We've had one particular "rescue" whose founder is up on animal cruelty charges. 

That being said....I don't know the rules for other countries. But here in the US, most rescues are 501c charities. They are not a business. They are a charity with donors. They do not make money on the animals they pull from shelters. Add up the costs of vaccines, spay/neuter, heartworm treatment (YES! Northern rescue regularly pull dogs from the south and incur these expenses along with the southern rescues that are lucky to have a dog NOT HW positive), injuries from accidents, birth defects that were never addressed. Rescues do NOT make any money from these animals. If they do make money on one, they'll lose it and more on another.

Rescue is heartbreaking work. Anyone who has spent their entire weekend on the phone and in emails trying to get a dog a spot in a rescue before their deadline to die comes, knows this. Anyone who has pulled an animal just to watch that animal die from the previous neglect, or age or accident, knows this. Anyone who has nursed a neglected, emaciated, animal back to health, knows this.

These charities have charters, often have a BOD. They have rules and guidelines of what they find to be an acceptable home. And they have the freedom to deny any potential adopter. It is their RIGHT to do so. 

It is our right to not donate to an organization where we do not agree with their rules and guidelines and it is our responsibility to have a full understanding of it. It is our right to go buy a dog from a breeder. It is our right to go adopt a dog from a shelter. It is our right to keep the animals currently in our home in tact if we so choose and not adopt from a rescue that requires that.

Nobody has a civic duty to cater to others.


----------



## martemchik

Lykoz said:


> I would even go so far as to say the users posting in these forums as regular, in general would be a very good home for any dog.
> Yet many people use prong/e-collars etc on these forums... Many people engage in different training methods.. Maybe even trained an ideal stud dog, that would be a great working dog candidate for breeding (Not possible if dog was neutered early)... This is all against what most shelters line of thinking....
> 
> You are disqualyfing ALL of these responsible people in helping adopt dogs... So I can be as hypocritical as I like.. Why make the people on this forum the enemy and not allow them to help, when they are willing to and then happily accept donations thinking you are doing good?
> 
> Its a big deal when you start disqualifying some of the most responsible people who can actually help the dogs...
> 
> I dont think anyone who owns high quality pure bred working line GSD's is adopting many dogs for personal gain..
> 
> They are doing it to help... Let them help...
> 
> The policies shown of the shelter exposed by the OP are wrong! They are frankly just disgusting...
> 
> And if you are thinking of this like a normal business (which sometimes is the case, but thats when you see cruelty to animals) then you are confused. It is not just about raking in the profits from human donations.


How does someone that doesn't live in America make such statements about how non-profit organizations are run in the United States? Quite interesting…

If you read the OP (which you probably didn’t) you’d see that they make exceptions for people that are showing their dogs in conformation. If you have some perfect stud dog, you have probably shoved it into the conformation ring at some point as show ratings are desired. 

Another thing…if you think those of us that are training/trialing/showing dogs, are also adopting. You have another thing coming. Most (and I say most, not all) people that are serious about those things, don’t adopt dogs. They wouldn’t dream of it. Want to know why? The dog would live a terrible life. It would be shunned, it wouldn’t get any attention, as all of the attention would go to the show/trial dog. This is why you see “sport people” rehoming dogs that don’t work out. You have two options…dog lives in a kennel and stays home for the rest of its life, or gets put into a home where people will love it and give it all the attention it deserves.

I love seeing people make statements about things they have no idea about. Go out and meet people and dogs, don’t just focus on the 5 GSD that you’ve owned/known in your life. Meet the people that are showing/trialing and meet the people that are running/helping rescues. You’ll have a much different idea of what these people believe in than what you are currently spewing.


----------



## Lykoz

Jax08 said:


> Just because a person is posting on this board does not make them a good animal owner. You don't know people over the internet. People lie. It could be some naked guy sitting in a dark room feeding you a line on what a great dog owner they are. We had one particular sicko several years ago. I won't get into details but dogs died. We've had one particular "rescue" whose founder is up on animal cruelty charges.
> 
> That being said....I don't know the rules for other countries. But here in the US, most rescues are 501c charities. They are not a business. They are a charity with donors. They do not make money on the animals they pull from shelters. Add up the costs of vaccines, spay/neuter, heartworm treatment (YES! Northern rescue regularly pull dogs from the south and incur these expenses along with the southern rescues that are lucky to have a dog NOT HW positive), injuries from accidents, birth defects that were never addressed. Rescues do NOT make any money from these animals. If they do make money on one, they'll lose it and more on another.
> 
> Rescue is heartbreaking work. Anyone who has spent their entire weekend on the phone and in emails trying to get a dog a spot in a rescue before their deadline to die comes, knows this. Anyone who has pulled an animal just to watch that animal die from the previous neglect, or age or accident, knows this. Anyone who has nursed a neglected, emaciated, animal back to health, knows this.
> 
> These charities have charters, often have a BOD. They have rules and guidelines of what they find to be an acceptable home. And they have the freedom to deny any potential adopter. It is their RIGHT to do so.
> 
> It is our right to not donate to an organization where we do not agree with their rules and guidelines and it is our responsibility to have a full understanding of it. It is our right to go buy a dog from a breeder. It is our right to go adopt a dog from a shelter. It is our right to keep the animals currently in our home in tact if we so choose and not adopt from a rescue that requires that.
> 
> Nobody has a civic duty to cater to others.


Naked guy... yeah.. I got ya.. I said in general... Even though I dont always agree with everyone... Personally I think you are a GREAT Loving owner that is in the top 1%, in showing interest in their dogs... Again its an assumption... But based on what you say.. that is my conclusion.

Well there you go... 

No disagreements... My post was based on someone elses post saying it is a normal private bussiness.


----------



## Lykoz

martemchik said:


> How does someone that doesn't live in America make such statements about how non-profit organizations are run in the United States? Quite interesting…
> 
> If you read the OP (which you probably didn’t) you’d see that they make exceptions for people that are showing their dogs in conformation. If you have some perfect stud dog, you have probably shoved it into the conformation ring at some point as show ratings are desired.
> 
> Another thing…if you think those of us that are training/trialing/showing dogs, are also adopting. You have another thing coming. Most (and I say most, not all) people that are serious about those things, don’t adopt dogs. They wouldn’t dream of it. Want to know why? The dog would live a terrible life. It would be shunned, it wouldn’t get any attention, as all of the attention would go to the show/trial dog. This is why you see “sport people” rehoming dogs that don’t work out. You have two options…dog lives in a kennel and stays home for the rest of its life, or gets put into a home where people will love it and give it all the attention it deserves.
> 
> I love seeing people make statements about things they have no idea about. Go out and meet people and dogs, don’t just focus on the 5 GSD that you’ve owned/known in your life. Meet the people that are showing/trialing and meet the people that are running/helping rescues. You’ll have a much different idea of what these people believe in than what you are currently spewing.


You are speaking nonesense... You can get confirmation on many dogs... even if it is not an ideal breeding candidate...

A dog neutered early in life... even if it was the best candidate... And could win the World championships... Well... It can never be a candidate for breeding? Can it? Why? Because it cant make Babies? Understand?

The dog may have been in training and never done official competitions... Or it may have started training late... Or the owners were not aware of confirmation... And a breeder saw the dog and thought it was a good candidate, and had owner go through confirmation thereafter...

Some people want to engage their dogs in a sport... And have no desire to compete... Or even go through a structural rating... The breeder may convince them to do that at a later stage, because he believes their dog is a good breeding candidate.


----------



## Steve Strom

Just get dressed Lykoz, and spend a vacation in the US. Plan a trip to the Mecca of dog training. Culver City Ca. It'll be an electrifying experience!


----------



## Jax08

Lykoz said:


> Naked guy... yeah.. I got ya.. I said in general... Even though I dont always agree with everyone... Personally I think you are a GREAT Loving owner that is in the top 1%, in showing interest in their dogs... Again its an assumption... But based on what you say.. that is my conclusion.
> 
> Well there you go...
> 
> No disagreements... My post was based on someone elses post saying it is a normal private bussiness.



It is "private" and it is "not a for profit" charity. There is a difference between that and a business. Most rescues in the U.S. are legally charities that are tax exempt. There are some rescues that are legal 501c3 charities with money sitting in the bank. Rescues are 100% dependent on having fosters able to take the dogs, get to know them and rehab them when necessary. If they don't have the fosters but still have the donors, then they have money sitting, at least for a time.

There are some rescues that ARE using it as a business and that is ethically wrong. They are no more than dog flippers.

And for the record, I'm not a man and I'm not naked. But I could be lying. It is the internet after all.


----------



## martemchik

ConFORmation not confirmation.

And I'm the one that doesn't know anything...

Not sure how you can get confirmation on any dog...


----------



## Lykoz

Steve Strom said:


> Just get dressed Lykoz, and spend a vacation in the US. Plan a trip to the Mecca of dog training. Culver City Ca. It'll be an electrifying experience!


I think the conversation is loosing track here.

I plan to take a vacation specific to dog training... Might pick a place in Europe tho... maybe Germany... I hear there good too there...


----------



## Jax08

Steve Strom said:


> Just get dressed Lykoz, and spend a vacation in the US. Plan a trip to the Mecca of dog training. Culver City Ca. It'll be an electrifying experience!





Lykoz said:


> I think the conversation is loosing track here.
> 
> I plan to take a vacation specific to dog training... Might pick a place in Europe tho... maybe Germany... I hear there good too there...


I would still highly advise you get dressed first regardless of where you go.:wild:


----------



## Steve Strom

Lykoz said:


> I think the conversation is loosing track here.
> 
> I plan to take a vacation specific to dog training... Might pick a place in Europe tho... maybe Germany... I hear there good too there...


Yeah, you're right. In hind site maybe an Oshkosh reference would have been more appropriate. Sorry bout that.


----------



## ozzymama

martemchik said:


> Not sure how you can get confirmation on any dog...


Mine had their first communion, so confirmation is next.

There are rules for everything, anybody in finance, has to have good credit. Want to work with children - police clearance, want to adopt a dog, work with the rules of the rescue. 

The rules exist for a reason, just like people who purchase from breeders stack the odds in their favour in doing so, by ensuring breeders have health clearances, titles, work their dogs, rescues stack the odds in their favour by defining what to them is an acceptable and responsible home, they are not correct every time. Just as people purchasing from what they believe to be responsible breeders, can get a bad dog. 

When one considers, a dog adopted makes room for another to be saved, well if the adopted is returned, or ends up back in a shelter, another dog loses it's life. Rescues have to minimize the chances of that happening.


----------



## Lykoz

Steve Strom said:


> Yeah, you're right. In hind site maybe an Oshkosh reference would have been more appropriate. Sorry bout that.


I was thinking more Italy for clothing...

US just does not do it as well...

A bit too commercialised... Like the opinions of some of their citizens..


----------



## Lykoz

ozzymama said:


> Mine had their first communion, so confirmation is next.


Point taken. I will conform. Conf*O*rmation it is. Not Conf*I*rmation 

I would like to give my dog communion too.. How do I go about doing that?


----------



## Stevenzachsmom

Lykoz said:


> Point taken. I will conform. Conf*O*rmation it is. Not Conf*I*rmation
> 
> I would like to give my dog communion too.. How do I go about doing that?


I believe he has to be baptized first.


----------



## Lykoz

Stevenzachsmom said:


> I believe he has to be baptized first.


How... The church says dogs dont have souls...

The pope kind of went against this recently... Are they baptising dogs now?


----------



## Jax08

Lykoz said:


> How... The church says dogs dont have souls...
> 
> The pope kind of went against this recently... Are they baptising dogs now?


Pope John Paul stated dogs have souls.

You can get most any southern baptist to do a baptism. Just ask for the ones with the snakes.


----------



## Lykoz

Jax08 said:


> Pope John Paul stated dogs have souls.
> 
> You can get most any southern baptist to do a baptism. Just ask for the ones with the snakes.


Good to know. Ill make sure to fly to America and get with that church since you recommend them..
(I want to make sure my dogs join the correct church to maximise the chance of him getting into heaven)

I guess i better baptise myself too so that me and my dogs are together in heaven..


----------



## Steve Strom

Jax08 said:


> Pope John Paul stated dogs have souls.
> 
> You can get most any southern baptist to do a baptism. Just ask for the ones with the snakes.


And make sure you can dance.


----------



## Jax08

yes. Dancing is so important

Just practice jumping up and down with a poisonous snake in your hand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qkby-HDqhk&index=18&list=PLDEDmHuzlEOeFiqnY6gRJk4pAZiKWOykX


----------



## Galathiel

yeahhh . . . I think we're getting off on a tangent of mocking other people's religious practices. Not sure how that relates to a story about trying to adopt a dog.


----------



## martemchik

I'm still waiting for the confirmation professional to explain to me how confirmation works. Something about a dog being neutered but winning the world championships...can still get confirmation?


----------



## middleofnowhere

Back to the OP and rescue vs the Pope. 

I find that people inexperienced with the crap that happens to dogs can be very put off by rescues. The process can be over the top. I've never experienced it myself as my "unbought" dogs were, with two exceptions, "private adoptions" so to speak. Two came from pounds/humane societies, one was a PB in bad shape and pretty much in line for euthanasia, one was a puppy. 

So far as the rejection goes - that could have been the first thing they saw that said 'we go no further with this ap.' They could have found too many animals had they needed to look further or who knows what else. I'm glad Counter has moved on. This thread, however, opens up some more issues.

I know we are all convinced that we would be the perfect home. I know that I am an imperfect home. I have two dogs and I should be concentrating on just one. I don't train as much as I should with the youngster.

And I will step in here to remind all y'all that there have been instances in the past where the board has supported people "rescuing" animals and it has turned out that the "adopter" was pretty much a place no animal should have gone.

What we see here is what people post - pretty much what they choose to say. Most of us do not know one another personally. This is the internet. Our basis for declaring someone responsible, or an ideal home is awfully flimsy.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Well....I was going to post about breed specific rescues being a better resource because they aren't so anti-breeder.

Since you want to take it in this direction....

I've been involved in rescue and have fostered. I'd like to do it again and maybe will when I'm done with all this cancer BS I'm dealing with.

In the meantime, A LOT of rescues out there have been and ARE pushing an anti-breeder agenda that does NOT recognize the difference between good and puppymillers. To them ALL breeders are the spawn of evil, they push the propaganda and I'm pushing back. A lot of people buy into and then we have stupid laws against breeders.


THAT is the attitude and problem I'm talking about, specifically. 

Why people have to get all ruffled up and get snarky when I speak of something that is happening, really happening with a LOT of rescues.

I'm just not into denying reality that much lately.








Stevenzachsmom said:


> Sure push back on the rescues, which are generally ALL volunteers. They can stop volunteering. The rescues will cease. More dogs will die in shelters.
> 
> If you don't like the way a particular rescue operates, or how any rescues operate -
> start your own rescue. Make your own rules.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Oh and another thing rescues do that is beyond stupid is pull dogs that are mental cases or deathly ill.

Then they spend all kinds of $$$$$ trying to save one dog while perfectly fine and sane dogs get euth'd. Now why do they do that? Good PR? Get to play 'hero' and in the meantime dogs die.

Dang skippy they are volunteers, that sort of thing could never last in a for profit world, they'd go out of business.

That's why I don't like to donate as much to them anymore because I'd rather my dollars save 4 otherwise healthy dogs then one dog that will have a long hard road and still may never make it or be a suitable pet for a family.

Sometimes rescues are their own worst enemies.


----------



## Lykoz

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Well....I was going to post about breed specific rescues being a better resource because they aren't so anti-breeder.
> 
> Since you want to take it in this direction....
> 
> I've been involved in rescue and have fostered. I'd like to do it again and maybe will when I'm done with all this cancer BS I'm dealing with.
> 
> In the meantime, A LOT of rescues out there have been and ARE pushing an anti-breeder agenda that does NOT recognize the difference between good and puppymillers. To them ALL breeders are the spawn of evil, they push the propaganda and I'm pushing back. A lot of people buy into and then we have stupid laws against breeders.
> 
> 
> THAT is the attitude and problem I'm talking about, specifically.
> 
> Why people have to get all ruffled up and get snarky when I speak of something that is happening, really happening with a LOT of rescues.
> 
> I'm just not into denying reality that much lately.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh and another thing rescues do that is beyond stupid is pull dogs that are mental cases or deathly ill.
> 
> Then they spend all kinds of $$$$$ trying to save one dog while perfectly fine and sane dogs get euth'd. Now why do they do that? Good PR? Get to play 'hero' and in the meantime dogs die.
> 
> Dang skippy they are volunteers, that sort of thing could never last in a for profit world, they'd go out of business.
> 
> That's why I don't like to donate as much to them anymore because I'd rather my dollars save 4 otherwise healthy dogs then one dog that will have a long hard road and still may never make it or be a suitable pet for a family.
> 
> Sometimes rescues are their own worst enemies.


Thank you!

People are so focused on my "i"'s and "o"'s, just about everything I said flew right past them.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Well.....

People around here should know me well enough by now to know that I don't mean all rescues are like this, that I have rescued many dogs myself and have helped rescues too. This is getting real old. 

An awful lot of rescues are trying to control what people think and do with their dogs because they DO have an agenda> no more breeders. 

Thank you Lykoz.



Lykoz said:


> Thank you!
> 
> People are so focused on my "i"'s and "o"'s, just about everything I said flew right past them.


----------



## Jax08

Gwenhwyfair said:


> In the meantime, A LOT of rescues out there have been and ARE pushing an anti-breeder agenda that does NOT recognize the difference between good and puppymillers. To them ALL breeders are the spawn of evil, they push the propaganda and I'm pushing back. A lot of people buy into and then we have stupid laws against breeders.
> 
> 
> THAT is the attitude and problem I'm talking about, specifically.
> 
> Why people have to get all ruffled up and get snarky when I speak of something that is happening, really happening with a LOT of rescues.
> 
> I'm just not into denying reality that much lately.


A whole movement is against breeders. It's crazy. You want to rescue? Go rescue. It infuriates me that a person thinks I owe them an explanation on why I bought a dog from a great breeder rather than rescue this last time. Wellll...lookee you all up in my business. It further infuriates me when I get the "oh I don't look down on you because you bought from a breeder" Umm...I think that boat just sailed. lol

Where do they think K9's come from? You can't just pull any ole dog from a shelter. SAR? Better chance but still slim. Herding? Good luck.

I think what this "movement" doesn't get is that dogs have been our partners for thousands of years. Carefully bred and selected for work.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Right ON! I mean, literally, I was told the other day that people who buy from breeders should rot in h..... That's from a person working a well known rescue around here and that's just going too far. Yes it does burn my biscuits! 

It's not that rescues are bad, it's that they end up tagging onto this meme in order to what, compete, get more attention, feel better about what they are doing?





Jax08 said:


> A whole movement is against breeders. It's crazy. You want to rescue? Go rescue. *It infuriates me that a person thinks I owe them an explanation on why I bought a dog from a great breeder rather than rescue this last time.* Wellll...lookee you all up in my business. It further infuriates me when I get the "oh I don't look down on you because you bought from a breeder" Umm...I think that boat just sailed. lol
> 
> Where do they think K9's come from? You can't just pull any ole dog from a shelter. SAR? Better chance but still slim. Herding? Good luck.
> 
> I think what this "movement" doesn't get is that dogs have been our partners for thousands of years. Carefully bred and selected for work.


----------



## martemchik

Seriously though...why do the agendas matter? Who cares what they're pushing? Can you find the dog you want? Yes...then nothing else should matter.

Don't feel like donating money to a rescue? Don't. It's not a necessity in life.

Rescues aren't going anywhere, neither are breeders. Judge whoever you want for whatever you want, it doesn't matter to most of us.


----------



## Jax08

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Right ON! I mean, literally, I was told the other day that people who buy from breeders should rot in h..... That's from a person working a well known rescue around here and that's just going too far. Yes it does burn my biscuits!
> 
> It's not that rescues are bad, it's that they end up tagging onto this meme in order to what, compete, get more attention, feel better about what they are doing?


That is craziness. The PETA and HSUS commercials have a lot to do with that agenda. You want to stop puppy mills? Cut off their avenue of sales. Stop allowing animals to be sold in pet stores. You want to do your part to stop that? Don't shop in stores that sell animals. Don't buy cheap pets from bad breeders. If you don't want to spend the money on a well bred dog, then rescue. If you believe that rescuing is the way to go, rescue. But don't bash others for buying a dog for a specific reason.


----------



## Jax08

Just want to finish adding

There are a TON of great rescues out there. All of them, regardless of their rules, are doing fantastic work and saving lives. I don't have to like or agree with all of their rules. I do have to respect their dedication to saving the animals. It's hard, heartbreaking, work that can easily consume your time and thoughts. And not everyone can do it.


----------



## Nigel

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Oh and another thing rescues do that is beyond stupid is pull dogs that are mental cases or deathly ill.
> 
> Then they spend all kinds of $$$$$ trying to save one dog while perfectly fine and sane dogs get euth'd. Now why do they do that? Good PR? Get to play 'hero' and in the meantime dogs die.
> 
> Dang skippy they are volunteers, that sort of thing could never last in a for profit world, they'd go out of business.
> 
> That's why I don't like to donate as much to them anymore because I'd rather my dollars save 4 otherwise healthy dogs then one dog that will have a long hard road and still may never make it or be a suitable pet for a family.
> 
> Sometimes rescues are their own worst enemies.


Most people in rescue are great, giving their time and resources to help dogs in need, but there are those on the extreme end, remember this story?

http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...og-saved-shelter-attacks-3-shot-deputies.html


----------



## shepherdmom

Lykoz said:


> The policies shown of the shelter exposed by the OP are wrong! They are frankly just disgusting...


Are you confusing rescues with shelters? They are two very different things.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

So, here's the deal: I have been watching notifications coming in on this thread while I was at work, and can't get to them. I'm home now, but spending some time with my dogs. 

I will be coming back sometime to edit and hopefully keep it open, so keep it civil please, or spend some time checking these out instead:
http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...1809-rescue-stories-classics.html#post6471194

Always nice to start the weekend on an up note.


----------



## gsdsar

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Oh and another thing rescues do that is beyond stupid is pull dogs that are mental cases or deathly ill.
> 
> Then they spend all kinds of $$$$$ trying to save one dog while perfectly fine and sane dogs get euth'd. Now why do they do that? Good PR? Get to play 'hero' and in the meantime dogs die.
> 
> Dang skippy they are volunteers, that sort of thing could never last in a for profit world, they'd go out of business.
> 
> That's why I don't like to donate as much to them anymore because I'd rather my dollars save 4 otherwise healthy dogs then one dog that will have a long hard road and still may never make it or be a suitable pet for a family.
> 
> Sometimes rescues are their own worst enemies.



This is actually an interesting thread. I picked this quote for a reason, but it may take a few paragraphs to explain why...

First, I have bought all my dogs. I feel no shame in that. I have 3 dogs, one is intact. I work with a local GSD rescue. I love them. They take most things on a case by case basis. If you have good reason for keeping an animal intact, they will listen and make a decision. I have seen it happen. I foster for them. They are fine with my boy being intact. But they won't place an intact female in my house. That's cool. I won't take a female at all because I have two already. Adding a third, not gonna happen. 

I think the rules they have on some things are ridiculous. But they are not my rules. But I have also found them willing to listen to volunteers and adjust accordingly. 

They do CRAZY amounts of background checks, property searches, criminal background checks, home visits, reference checks. It takes WEEKS!!! Lots of good homes are lost because if the amount if time it takes to process an application. But it's all volunteer. And sometimes there are not enough people to help process. That makes me sad. But when a rescue gets burned by an adopter that lied convincingly, well, then everyone pays. 

Now for the quote... Rescues want to save animals. And as horrible as this sounds, animals that pull on the heart strings of the public, generate more donations, more FB traffic, more applications. Fact of life. Sorry. Everyone loves a sob story and an underdog. Everyone wants to feel, from behind their computer that are a good person who loves dogs, so they "share" they donate, they comment. Each share and comment gets that post out to more people. It's the way of the world now. And man I sound cynical. But it's truth. Is that the reason the rescues take them on, sometimes, but it's more of a "let's get this story out and help a dog as well". 

Years and years ago I worked with a rescue that occasionally helped a breeder place a returned dog, or a retired dog. In exchange, the breeder donated a respectable portion of each litter sale to the rescue. Win win. Not all rescues are anti breeder. 

I don't think we should knowingly take on aggression cases. Cases where a dog is unlikely to make a meaningful recovery. But if a 1000 vet bill brings in 10 good homes and 2000 in donations, it's worth it. 

The issue I have with the "rescue" mentality, is that it has become the only "right" way to get a pet. I don't like the emotional blackmail if " if you buy, two dogs die that could have been rescued". It really really ticks me off to be held responsible for other people bad decisions. Really really ticks me off. I have never contributed to a dog being abandoned, dropped at shelter, abused, or needing a new home. So I really take offense to people telling me that I am now responsible in part for it happening. I am not. 

It's like telling me that I should ride a bike everywhere because some jerk drove his car drunk and killed someone. Or that I should not give birth to my own child because there are many that need adopting. It's a flawed argument that uses emotional blackmail to make me feel bad about a decision that I make that is responsible and caring, because it goes against the agenda. 

It has become the "in" thing to adopt. And in the grand scheme of things, I don't have a problem with that. I love rescue. I think it's amazing and I support it and I suggest it, a lot. But it has turned in to a cult like mentality of, "if you don't rescue than you are a horrible person". And that I hate. A lot. 

Counter, I am sorry you got denied. You do sound like a good home. And I feel like the email they sent was inappropriate and judgemental. Very unprofessional and nasty. I would be very upset to get that email. It was rude. Just plain rude. 

I hope you keep looking and find a great dog to add to your pack.


----------



## MamaofLEO

Hmmm....I am happy with my "oops litter" puppy. (and he is loco.)


----------



## Jax08

gsdsar :thumbup: Great post


----------



## Lykoz

Jax08 said:


> gsdsar :thumbup: Great post


I agree Jax it is a great post...

Its funny I have been saying the same thing this entire thread...

However you chose to poke fun and try attack me personally... Yet when somebody else is saying the exact same things I was saying you pipe in with great post...

Talk about a suck up...

Do you like being part of the cool kid crowd?


----------



## Jax08

Lykoz said:


> I agree Jax it is a great post...
> 
> Its funny I have been saying the same thing this entire thread...
> 
> However you chose to poke fun and try attack me personally... Yet when somebody else is saying the exact same things I was saying you pipe in with great post...
> 
> Talk about a suck up...
> 
> Do you like being part of the cool kid crowd?


WHAT? I did not once attack you nor did I make fun of you. But you are certainly are attacking me in this post. You are so off your rocker. Your idea of being "attacked" is extreme to say the least.


----------



## selzer

Frankly, I'm a breeder, and I agree with the rescue here. I am going to give my reasons. 

As a breeder, we want puppies to go to good homes. We try to screen them carefully, and weed out the people who might not give the dog a good home. We get contacted, and we screen them over the phone. We might go back and forth on e-mail. Maybe there is a questionnaire. At the end of the day, though, we have to take what the people have said, and make a decision for the little fur ball that we care an awful lot about. If we are too choosey we will become animal hoarders because no one will be good enough for one of our pups or dogs. But if we are not choosey enough, our pup is going to go to the wrong place, and if we are fortunate, we might get the pup back, otherwise, we will find out later what became of him. That is heart-breaking. 

A rescue has similar issues. It may not be just one person making the decisions on whether or not someone is good enough to take one of their dogs. Some have a board of directors and they create policies.  They work together with other rescues and learn from their mistakes. They learn from their own mistakes. Probably they have a rule about 6' fences because a dog they moved heaven and earth to get into a home, managed to go over the fence and got struck and killed in the roadway. 

They certainly have a rule about spaying and neutering before the dog goes into the home. No one seems fussed about that one, and even I agree that makes total sense. The rule that is freaking people out is what the status of the other dogs in the house is.

The thing is, rescues have only so many resources. They talk to you on the phone. They make you fill out a questionnaire. They maybe come and do a home check. At the end of the day a decision has to be made about a perfect stranger. We _know_ Counter, at least as much of himself as he has been willing to give, and in the light that he has chosen to present himself in. The rescue does not know him at all. Of course they are going to make a decision for the dog they are responsible for with respect to the care/management/decisions he has made for the animals in his care. They would be remiss not to do so. 

I think if you find a rescue that is ok with other dogs in the home being intact, then you have to wonder what else they are ok with. Maybe you have found one who has an alternate view of altering pets, but that just seems to be a contradiction of some sort. The rescues have to base their judgement of the situation they are putting their dog into on something. I don't have an issue with this. 

Maybe you pass up some homes, and those people go to breeders for dogs instead. That is a risk you take in order to avoid a worse risk. 

Let's look at why dogs are left intact:
1. Dogs belong to a breeder, may be used for breeding or show.
2. Dog is a show dog.
3. Dog's owner thinks it is more healthy or better suited for work if left intact.
4. Dog's owner is squeamish about the procedure, doesn't like the idea.
5. Dog's owner just never got around to it, or didn't bother. 

My guess is that in the past, most of the dogs left intact were left intact because the owners just didn't care to fix them, didn't want to waste the money, couldn't be bothered. Those people still exist. Not every person out there with an intact critter is leaving them intact because they have researched and made that decision. 

So the point of weeding people out because they haven't fixed the critters in their home is actually valid. And the risk of putting a dog in a home where the owner couldn't be bothered about management or health care trumps the risk of letting potentially good home go to a breeder instead, after being turned down.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Because agendas often = legislation.

Legislation equals laws against breeding. Essentially forcing all of us to comply with their agenda, whether we got our dog from a rescue or not.

Further this is NOT a hypothetical, ask some of the breeders about laws, currently in existence, from county level on up.

That's why it matters.

I also dislike the "us against them" tactic many rescues use, literally demonizing people who breed or buy from breeders.







martemchik said:


> Seriously though...why do the agendas matter? Who cares what they're pushing? Can you find the dog you want? Yes...then nothing else should matter.
> 
> Don't feel like donating money to a rescue? Don't. It's not a necessity in life.
> 
> Rescues aren't going anywhere, neither are breeders. Judge whoever you want for whatever you want, it doesn't matter to most of us.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

:thumbup:




Jax08 said:


> That is craziness. The PETA and HSUS commercials have a lot to do with that agenda. You want to stop puppy mills? Cut off their avenue of sales. Stop allowing animals to be sold in pet stores. You want to do your part to stop that? Don't shop in stores that sell animals. Don't buy cheap pets from bad breeders. If you don't want to spend the money on a well bred dog, then rescue. If you believe that rescuing is the way to go, rescue. But don't bash others for buying a dog for a specific reason.


----------



## martemchik

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Because agendas often = legislation.
> 
> Legislation equals laws against breeding. Essentially forcing all of us to comply with their agenda, whether we got our dog from a rescue or not.
> 
> Further this is NOT a hypothetical, ask some of the breeders about laws, currently in existence, from county level on up.
> 
> That's why it matters.
> 
> I also dislike the "us against them" tactic many rescues use, literally demonizing people who breed or buy from breeders.



If you think your little local rescue has anywhere near enough money to get a law passed...Id go talk to them about spending some of it to rescue more animals.

The amount of money generally needed to pass a law is not something a small volunteer group will ever have.

The current laws...haven't seen them really affect anyone. Haven't really heard anyone complain about the law unless it was in a hypothetical "this might happen to me one day." I don't think any breeders that many of us would use have been affected in the least bit by any law that was passed.

We have tons of useless laws on the books all through out government, it doesn't stop many of us from going on with our days and doing whatever it is we do. You'd be amazed at how many small guidelines are set by our governing bodies...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yes, GSDSARs post is very good, I still don't agree with some of the PR tactics rescues use but I've made my case, well, enough for now anyways. (Haven't even gotten into the problems with the ones that won't adopt unless you only use PO training methods....*sigh*)

Lykoz, happens to me all the time, I'll post something, someone will come along, word it differently and that post gets picked up on.  My posts usually only get noticed when I'm going to get in trouble. LOL 

Anyhow, I appreciate your posts. I don't think Jax and the others were picking on you but rather trying to lighten the mood a little. I've noticed there are others who have given you positive feedback too. It's all good. 





Lykoz said:


> I agree Jax it is a great post...
> 
> Its funny I have been saying the same thing this entire thread...
> 
> <snipped>


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

*sigh*

Max, of all people I shouldn't have to clarify for you. 

Our *little* rescues did participate in changing some local ordinances. Larger groups work at state and federal level.

It's part of a TREND. 

Right now people who try to be more pragmatic get shouted and shut down. We hide our prong collars, we call dogs 'fur kids', God forbid you don't else your an evil abuser.





martemchik said:


> If you think your little local rescue has anywhere near enough money to get a law passed...Id go talk to them about spending some of it to rescue more animals.
> 
> The amount of money generally needed to pass a law is not something a small volunteer group will ever have.
> 
> The current laws...haven't seen them really affect anyone. Haven't really heard anyone complain about the law unless it was in a hypothetical "this might happen to me one day." I don't think any breeders that many of us would use have been affected in the least bit by any law that was passed.
> 
> We have tons of useless laws on the books all through out government, it doesn't stop many of us from going on with our days and doing whatever it is we do. You'd be amazed at how many small guidelines are set by our governing bodies...


----------



## martemchik

Id love some concrete examples. So far, I haven't seen anything passed that has affected my life as a dog owner in any capacity.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Now I'm going to post a video of Cherry Shrimp and try to enjoy my Saturday......offline. . Have a good day everybody.

Oh and later I will share what I have been doing wrt dogs being dumped in shelters. A few weeks ago I hatched an idea that I am currently working on but it focuses heavily on preventing the need for rescues......


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

You didn't see the great big long thread about the new USDA laws!?


Or Vandals comments about the laws in Cali and how they affected her?!!!!

Go look them up.

In the meantime I believe in being proactive, if you don't that is your perogative as this is not a trend that started just last week ya know?

I have to move on now.

Have a good day Max, hope you get to enjoy training with your dogs.....






martemchik said:


> Id love some concrete examples. So far, I haven't seen anything passed that has affected my life as a dog owner in any capacity.


----------



## Remo

From a quick search, in Elmore County Idaho, you are considered to be a "residential kennel" if you have a total of more than four dogs over the age of six months. 

I don't know if this requires any sort of license, but you may want to check into this before you add another dog to your pack.


----------



## sitstay

counter said:


> If my females are all fixed, why would it matter if my males are in tact?
> 
> So sad for me, and sad for the dog, and I feel bad for these people in rescue who are wearing blinders.


Hi Kevin!
I know it is difficult not to take it personally, but their decision has NOTHING to do with you and EVERYTHING to do with how wrong they have been about other people in your circumstances.

The fact is that _*many*_ people who keep intact animals, when they aren't left intact for competitive purposes, do so without any clear understanding of what it takes to be a responsible owner of an intact animal. So having a blanket policy regarding intact animals in the home has nothing to do with whether or not one of your males can impregnate your spayed female rescue, and everything to do with the fact that they don't want one of their dogs to go to a home where an intact male might roam and impregnate dogs in the community. The fact that they consider competitive imperatives leads me to believe that this rescue is not as anti-breeder/intact animal as some rescues are. Look at it from their point of view: how would their credibility fare if a bunch of Craigslist yahoos advertising their mutt puppies talk about the "Daddy Dog" living with a rescued dog from XYZ Rescue. They don't want to contribute to the problem and there is a huge problem here in the Treasure/Magic Valley area. They don't have a crystal ball that allows them to know you are the exception, rather than the rule.

I have meet you. I have meet two of your dogs and it is clear that you are involved and passionate about their care. And you wouldn't have been so happy at finding a closer training community if you weren't also dedicated to training. But again, you have to take a step back and look at it objectively. You work. Your wife works. You have young children. And you have four dogs that are considered high-maintenance in general. If you were in their shoes, and had seen placement after placement fail for those reasons, would you take a chance? Remember, your commitment isn't to make the applicant feel appreciated and acknowledged. Your commitment is to make the very best, permanent placement for the dog. 

You're also military. And yes, there is a difference between being deployed and moving. But for every military person like you, who sticks to their commitment to their pets, there are ten who don't. Every military community is rife with animals being surrendered. That is just the way it is. 

And your wife is not on board. I know. I know! She would have come around. My husband would have, too. But is it really fair of us to take advantage of that and force it on them when they have expressed their desire not to bring another animal into the home? They have valid points backing up their positions. I still feel bad that I bulldozed my husband and bought a second horse last summer. He was right. I don't have the time. The cost is crippling. But I knew he would accept my decision if I ignored his input and so I went ahead and bought the horse anyway. I wanted what I wanted.

It is sad for you. You had an idea in your head about what it would be like to bring this dog into your home. And now that won't have a chance to happen. It is probably not sad for the dog. If they told you "No" then it sounds like they are careful about vetting their placements. That bodes well for her. 

You're a great owner. But they had to weigh all the facts and make a decision that accounted for their experiences in an objective fashion. It wasn't personal. 
Sheilah


----------



## Lykoz

sit said:


> Hi Kevin!
> I know it is difficult not to take it personally, but their decision has NOTHING to do with you and EVERYTHING to do with how wrong they have been about other people in your circumstances.
> 
> The fact is that _*many*_ people who keep intact animals, when they aren't left intact for competitive purposes, do so without any clear understanding of what it takes to be a responsible owner of an intact animal. So having a blanket policy regarding intact animals in the home has nothing to do with whether or not one of your males can impregnate your spayed female rescue, and everything to do with the fact that they don't want one of their dogs to go to a home where an intact male might roam and impregnate dogs in the community. The fact that they consider competitive imperatives leads me to believe that this rescue is not as anti-breeder/intact animal as some rescues are. Look at it from their point of view: how would their credibility fare if a bunch of Craigslist yahoos advertising their mutt puppies talk about the "Daddy Dog" living with a rescued dog from XYZ Rescue. They don't want to contribute to the problem and there is a huge problem here in the Treasure/Magic Valley area. They don't have a crystal ball that allows them to know you are the exception, rather than the rule.
> 
> I have meet you. I have meet two of your dogs and it is clear that you are involved and passionate about their care. And you wouldn't have been so happy at finding a closer training community if you weren't also dedicated to training. But again, you have to take a step back and look at it objectively. You work. Your wife works. You have young children. And you have four dogs that are considered high-maintenance in general. If you were in their shoes, and had seen placement after placement fail for those reasons, would you take a chance? Remember, your commitment isn't to make the applicant feel appreciated and acknowledged. Your commitment is to make the very best, permanent placement for the dog.
> 
> You're also military. And yes, there is a difference between being deployed and moving. But for every military person like you, who sticks to their commitment to their pets, there are ten who don't. Every military community is rife with animals being surrendered. That is just the way it is.
> 
> And your wife is not on board. I know. I know! She would have come around. My husband would have, too. But is it really fair of us to take advantage of that and force it on them when they have expressed their desire not to bring another animal into the home? They have valid points backing up their positions. I still feel bad that I bulldozed my husband and bought a second horse last summer. He was right. I don't have the time. The cost is crippling. But I knew he would accept my decision if I ignored his input and so I went ahead and bought the horse anyway. I wanted what I wanted.
> 
> It is sad for you. You had an idea in your head about what it would be like to bring this dog into your home. And now that won't have a chance to happen. It is probably not sad for the dog. If they told you "No" then it sounds like they are careful about vetting their placements. That bodes well for her.
> 
> You're a great owner. But they had to weigh all the facts and make a decision that accounted for their experiences in an objective fashion. It wasn't personal.
> Sheilah


Your post is very logical. Great view of the other side...

When I read the original post however I am pressed to believe that their decision was based on the fact that he had intact dogs.

Not most of the other considerations.

Maybe they said that only to not 'insult' the person...
But to me, they still need to give a better reason than dont keep intact dogs...

weather he is irresponsible or not (with regards to unwanted puppies) will not make a difference in weather they give him a neutered dog.

They are trying to put pressure on him to neuter the current dogs, and give him the new dog.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Yes. That is why Counter was confused. He specifically stated this in the other thread as well when I asked him why he was surprised. He said because the rescue had bent multiple other rules, it's was only the fact that he had intact dogs. 

The email they sent him implies by leaving his males intact they will have a greater chance of dying of cancer. Appealing to emotion, guilt, implying that he is not being a good dog owner by keeping an intact dog.

The email was deleted by admins but I saw it before it was deleted, no ambiguity.

He's in a other state? O.k. 4 dogs currently, o.k. Military, moves a lot, well, o.k. Small children well that was o.k. In the end they cited the dogs he owns that are not neutered.



Lykoz said:


> Your post is very logical. Great view of the other side...
> 
> When I read the original post however I am pressed to believe that their decision was based on the fact that he had intact dogs.
> 
> Not most of the other considerations.
> 
> Maybe they said that only to not 'insult' the person...
> But to me, they still need to give a better reason than dont keep intact dogs...
> 
> weather he is irresponsible or not (with regards to unwanted puppies) will not make a difference in weather they give him a neutered dog.
> 
> They are trying to put pressure on him to neuter the current dogs, and give him the new dog.


----------



## martemchik

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You didn't see the great big long thread about the new USDA laws!?
> 
> 
> Or Vandals comments about the laws in Cali and how they affected her?!!!!
> 
> Go look them up.
> 
> In the meantime I believe in being proactive, if you don't that is your perogative as this is not a trend that started just last week ya know?
> 
> I have to move on now.
> 
> Have a good day Max, hope you get to enjoy training with your dogs.....



That's the thing...I remember the thread, and I also remember nothing came of it. No one has come on here complaining that they weren't able to sell a puppy, or that they couldn't buy a puppy. It was just a lot of "well this could happen" and no actual stories of what has happened. We have enough breeders on this forum that I would've expected at least a story or two by now of how big brother prevented some sort of sale from happening.

Those things are like speed limits, they exist, but it stops very few people from actually speeding.

Training was great btw...small group, lots got done!


----------



## selzer

martemchik said:


> Id love some concrete examples. So far, I haven't seen anything passed that has affected my life as a dog owner in any capacity.


 You haven't yet. It will come. You are into working dogs. Well, maybe you will want to import your next one. Unfortunately, the new law states that if you do not want to fall under USDA guidelines, you must sell only dogs whelped and raised on your premises. What this means is a lot of breeders who have excellent reputations, and good connections over there, are going to stop importing dogs. The only people importing, will be those who are under USDA guidelines, which are pretty much the mills. 

You personally may be able to import as an individual. But, the fact is, there is as much garbage over there as there is over here, and unless you trust the breeder over there, have a working relationship with them, they are not going to send you the cream of their crop. Sorry. They will download the dogs they want to get rid of, and keep and sell their better stock to people they know. There pretty much is no return the dog if you don't like it clause when you are buying from overseas. That is why, it is really better to go to someone here who knows people there if you want to import.

Don't think the price of importing/working with someone to import will not be effected as well.

And that is just one of the ramifications of bad legislation. Another is that breeders will be less likely to buy dogs, as they cannot sell them if they do not work well with their lines. Maybe they will kill these dogs. They can't sell them because they were not whelped by them. So, any dog that is purchased from another breeder is stuck for life with the breeder they go to. Why is this bad? It is bad because as I think you said, if the dog isn't being shown or bred, it is going to be stuck in a kennel and won't get the attention. This legislation practically seals that fate for dogs that breeders purchase. 

Want to give a puppy for a stud fee? Not so fast. You can't sell that pup if it doesn't work out. 

When discussing this with a group from my club, another breeder told me they would still do all those things, they won't get caught. I think that is a terrible attitude. We are making laws that won't be enforced, are not expected to be followed, that people plan not to follow, and everyone seems ok with that. If our breeder is skirting the law in some ways, why not in many ways? Do you then trust that person. 

We haven't begun to see the ramifications of this legislation. I expect in 10 years, you are going to be able to mark differences in the breed by where physically in the country they were bred. Southern dogs may have longer legs and snouts. Far west dogs, terrible backs and weak nerves. Who knows but I think that it is going to be bad for the breed all around, and it will effect us all to some extent.


----------



## martemchik

Sue...do you realize the type of enforcement you'd need to figure all of that out and actually catch someone? On top of all that...somehow there are still tons of brokers in business and not hiding the fact that they import dogs for resale. None of them are out of business yet.

I could care less when people skirt by unenforceable laws...especially when they're not hurting anyone. On top of that, they're not laws, they're guidelines. I believe that to fall under USDA you have to be a borderline puppy mill anyways, so it's probably not someone Id buy from in the first place.

Our government makes laws all the time to make people/groups/lobbies happy that they know perfectly well will never be enforced. It's not the end of the world IMO. And for all you "I follow the law all the time no matter how dumb it is" please check your speedometer the next time you're going 2 MPH over the speed limit.

If you're really all worried about one day the government putting breeders out of business, I suggest donating more money to the AKC or whatever other organization supports breeders...yet most people don't.


----------



## Lykoz

selzer said:


> You haven't yet. It will come. You are into working dogs. Well, maybe you will want to import your next one. Unfortunately, the new law states that if you do not want to fall under USDA guidelines, you must sell only dogs whelped and raised on your premises. What this means is a lot of breeders who have excellent reputations, and good connections over there, are going to stop importing dogs. The only people importing, will be those who are under USDA guidelines, which are pretty much the mills.
> 
> You personally may be able to import as an individual. But, the fact is, there is as much garbage over there as there is over here, and unless you trust the breeder over there, have a working relationship with them, they are not going to send you the cream of their crop. Sorry. They will download the dogs they want to get rid of, and keep and sell their better stock to people they know. There pretty much is no return the dog if you don't like it clause when you are buying from overseas. That is why, it is really better to go to someone here who knows people there if you want to import.
> 
> Don't think the price of importing/working with someone to import will not be effected as well.
> 
> And that is just one of the ramifications of bad legislation. Another is that breeders will be less likely to buy dogs, as they cannot sell them if they do not work well with their lines. Maybe they will kill these dogs. They can't sell them because they were not whelped by them. So, any dog that is purchased from another breeder is stuck for life with the breeder they go to. Why is this bad? It is bad because as I think you said, if the dog isn't being shown or bred, it is going to be stuck in a kennel and won't get the attention. This legislation practically seals that fate for dogs that breeders purchase.
> 
> Want to give a puppy for a stud fee? Not so fast. You can't sell that pup if it doesn't work out.
> 
> When discussing this with a group from my club, another breeder told me they would still do all those things, they won't get caught. I think that is a terrible attitude. We are making laws that won't be enforced, are not expected to be followed, that people plan not to follow, and everyone seems ok with that. If our breeder is skirting the law in some ways, why not in many ways? Do you then trust that person.
> 
> We haven't begun to see the ramifications of this legislation. I expect in 10 years, you are going to be able to mark differences in the breed by where physically in the country they were bred. Southern dogs may have longer legs and snouts. Far west dogs, terrible backs and weak nerves. Who knows but I think that it is going to be bad for the breed all around, and it will effect us all to some extent.


People need to stop victimising breeders as a whole... And start identifying good from bad.

Good breeders are the only thing making and improving GSD's and PB lines.

I support everything you are saying. 

This type of thinking/push in legislation is not specific only to america.
Breeders are being attacked all over the world... 

And instead of focusing on best practises and responsible guidliness.. They are doing 1 size fits all...pushing for Bad legislation.. etc.

Part of the problem stems in this 'militant' degregation of all breeders stemming from many people who call themselves 'animal activists'.

They dont see the full picture. They are forcing current breeders to thin out their lines and to produce inferior dogs.

I think good breeders need to start educating people about the things they do to make sure the create good dogs... All the effort they put in... And we need to support that push...

Videos for example: for why breeders need to import dogs... etc... 
Explain...

Visibility on why a good breeder acts differently... Why he takes certain actions...
Transparency, so people can find, select and access good breeders..
This sort of transparency would also influence legislation against the 'good guys'.


----------



## selzer

martemchik said:


> Sue...do you realize the type of enforcement you'd need to figure all of that out and actually catch someone? On top of all that...somehow there are still tons of brokers in business and not hiding the fact that they import dogs for resale. None of them are out of business yet.
> 
> I could care less when people skirt by unenforceable laws...especially when they're not hurting anyone. On top of that, they're not laws, they're guidelines. I believe that to fall under USDA you have to be a borderline puppy mill anyways, so it's probably not someone Id buy from in the first place.
> 
> Our government makes laws all the time to make people/groups/lobbies happy that they know perfectly well will never be enforced. It's not the end of the world IMO. And for all you "I follow the law all the time no matter how dumb it is" please check your speedometer the next time you're going 2 MPH over the speed limit.
> 
> If you're really all worried about one day the government putting breeders out of business, I suggest donating more money to the AKC or whatever other organization supports breeders...yet most people don't.


People should not have to make a choice between following good breeding practices and obeying the law. 4 females is all you need. Any intact bitch over 4 months old. Remember that breeders want to grow them out a bit to decide whether this bitch should be bred or not. And yes, you should be breeding for the future, meaning breeding your own lines. This means you should keep a female puppy now and again. So if you have one retired bitch, two producing bitches, and a puppy, and you ship 1 puppy to a buyer without handling the sale face to face, OR sell 1 puppy/dog not whelped on your property, then you fall under USDA guidelines. 

What this means is that you have to register with the USDA and be inspected by them regularly, following all their regulations/guidelines, or when they inspect your property, and find you have both dogs and bitches in your home, or find that you have puppies on the wrong sort of surface, like wood or carpet, then they will write up their findings, find you in violation, fine you, give you so much time to rectify the situation, and then they can shut you down. They can probably seize your animals, but I doubt that would happen. People will just spay their retired bitch, tell the guy who wants stud service for a puppy to get lost, and stop shipping puppies to anyone. 

I do not qualify to be under the USDA -- I don't ship puppies, but the department of agriculture sent me a letter and I had to send it back with an explanation why I do not qualify to be under them (state of Ohio). In Ohio anyone who sells 60 dogs/puppies or more, or has 9 litters or more in a year falls under the department of agriculture. And I would agree that that definition has enough breeders on the edge of puppy mill that they should be inspected. 

These aren't guidelines, these are laws. If you fall under the USDA, then you MUST follow their guidelines and be subjected to their audits. If you fail the audit, there are consequences. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are not making their guidelines for critters being raised in homes, and kept as pets. By the letter of the law ALL these great breeders would fail these audits, even though their dogs are better cared for than most children.


----------



## Lykoz

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The email was deleted by admins but I saw it before it was deleted, no ambiguity.


Why would the admins delete the original e-mail in its full context...
He did not even cite a name etc...

Why change the initial meaning of the topic of debate.

This makes this conversation much weaker... late posters are confusing the original post, and its context, because it is no longer there anymore.

Reading the e-mail makes it absolutely clear what happened.
No buttering around the fact...

What the e-mail said was very specific... About non-neutered dogs being unhealthier and that they were willing to give him the dog if he sterilised his current dogs. (I.e. Neutering his other dogs, was the only thing stopping him from getting the dog)


----------



## scarfish

i can't believe you guys are still on this.


----------



## scarfish

here i am



Lykoz said:


> What the e-mail said was very specific... About non-neutered dogs being unhealthier and that they were willing to give him the dog if he sterilised his current dogs. (I.e. Neutering his other dogs, was the only thing stopping him from getting the dog)


i don't remember exactly what it said but i thought it was much different.

i got out of the original email that only irresponsible dog owners keep intact dogs.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair

Max, Sue's points are valid.

I'm surprised that you have gone to the "because it hasn't happened to me it's not a problem" type of argument given that's something you yourself strongly object to.

Last week on two occasions, two different rescue people from two different rescues said fellow human beings should rot in h double scribble if they buy from a breeder. Their followers cheered them on.

At some point we need to stand up and say enough, even if it means (in this case me and Lykoz too) are "bad guys".

There is way too much reactionary behavior among the humans and none, nada, almost zero prevention and problem solving.




martemchik said:


> Sue...do you realize the type of enforcement you'd need to figure all of that out and actually catch someone? On top of all that...somehow there are still tons of brokers in business and not hiding the fact that they import dogs for resale. None of them are out of business yet.
> 
> I could care less when people skirt by unenforceable laws...especially when they're not hurting anyone. On top of that, they're not laws, they're guidelines. I believe that to fall under USDA you have to be a borderline puppy mill anyways, so it's probably not someone Id buy from in the first place.
> 
> Our government makes laws all the time to make people/groups/lobbies happy that they know perfectly well will never be enforced. It's not the end of the world IMO. And for all you "I follow the law all the time no matter how dumb it is" please check your speedometer the next time you're going 2 MPH over the speed limit.
> 
> If you're really all worried about one day the government putting breeders out of business, I suggest donating more money to the AKC or whatever other organization supports breeders...yet most people don't.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

If the OP wants to PM to reopen this, they can PM me and I will respond to them. 

Otherwise, this is a round and round, OT globally from the situation locally, so start a new thread in another section if you'd like.


----------

