# Are rescues too strict with their.................



## flyinghayden

Home requirements??

I have had good luck overall with rescues. I did get denied recently, but that was my own doing, not revealing a change in living situation, but, I have since revealed that to the rescues I got Perle, and Sable from, and they don't have an issue, as long the dogs are taken care of. Because all of the rescues are a long ways away from Alaska, I recently invited the local ACO to my current place of residence to see my dogs, and they said they would be happy to be a reference for me in future adoptions. They had some reservations about me living in a motorhome with 3 dogs, but they were suprised at the cleanliness, the dogs were healthy, and clean, which they said is almost never the case with people who end up in this situation. I wish I had the ability to receive a home visit, because I want rescues to see the conditions my dogs live in. Rescues put alot of effort into these dogs, and I can see why they want them to go to a good situation where they won't get abandoned again. That is what I have.


----------



## Jax08

My personal opinion, outside of home visits which I think should be an absolute, is that the references need to be more stringent. Three personal references means that you only needed to find 3 people that will lie for you.


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I would say that some are. I can see where they are coming from because they don't know who we are and are only taking our word for it. 
I've come across rescues that have specific feeding instructions and where to send your dog to get vet care. That is too far IMO.

The fence issue used to be big with me.
Just recently, Pupresq made a very valid point. Some dogs need the requirements they set, others don't. The person wanting to adopt can argue that they can take can take care of the dog fence or not, but in the end, it's the rescue that has spent the most time with them and knows them best. 

I think it's all a waiting/patience game. Eventually, the right dog/organization will fall right into your lap. I thought some dogs were right for me and in the end they just weren't. Eventually, Bear came along and it just fell into place.


----------



## ldw6559

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I have not dealt with any rescues but at the local animal shelter where I live they will not let you adopt if you own another pet, they will not let you adopt unless you say that you will keep the dog inside 24/7 and of course the in home visit prior to adoption as well as subsequent visits unannounced. A recommendation from a local vet is required as well. I wonder how you get that vet recommendation if you don't own a dog. Yes before you say it they don't like to mix dogs and cats together either.
Oh and by the way this is a kill shelter if they can't get them into foster homes. The process from there is even worse to adoption. I don't really understand this concept at all


----------



## pamela berger

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

As a former reference checker for Mid Atlantic Pug Rescue and a current ref checker for East Coast Asian DOg Rescue, I don;t think there's such a thing as being too strict. Remember, these are dogs that have already lost at least one home, thru no fault of their own (people move and taking the dog is a hassle, a baby comes along and the dog is now too much work, they get a puppy and then don;t have time to train, someone in the family develops allergies [always one of my favorites!]) so we need to make sure that the next home is not only loving and responsible but permanent. Whenever an applicant becomes defensive about having to provide info, it sends up a red flag. If you have nothing to hide, then you shouldn't get your knickers in a bunch about being asked questions or submitting to a home visit. I think three personal references (non relatives) are fine, as long as the vet ref is pristine (this should be for all animals for their entire lives; alot of applicants think they only have to provide a vet ref showing the pet is uptodate. If they cannot provide complete vet refs for the entire life of the pet - and there cannot be any gaps in vet care - they they are declined. That said, I have gotten a good vet ref from applicants but then uncovered discrepancies/lies/omissions/etc. from thoroughly interviewing personal refs. If an applicant states they've had pets their whole life but only give personal refs that have known them for 2-3 years, that is also a concern. It's a bit like being a detective, but that's what is necessary to ensure a good home.


----------



## lauramichelle

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I do think at times they are, but just based off my experience.

Several years ago, we went to adopt a dog. We had 1 dog at home and 1 cat, a house with a yard that was fenced. But they wanted copies of our bank records for proof of income. Well, at the time we were living off of what we made off selling our house (it was substantial) until my husband got a job. They wouldnt let us adopt a dog even though we had money in the bank plenty to care for another animal. And because my husband wasnt about to hand over bank records to the freaky looking lady at the front desk of the rescue center! I think that was too much to ask...a vet reference saying we routinely took our animals to the vet and a check in our home of our current animals would have been sufficient to say that yes, we can afford to pay to properly care for our pets.

However, when I adopted my cat (from different place) I had no problems. I called about the cat I saw on petfinder, went and visited it with my kids with me, told them about our current pets, gave all the references and they were happy to let me adopt my cat.


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: dogsaver If they cannot provide complete vet refs for the entire life of the pet - and there cannot be any gaps in vet care - they they are declined. That said, I have gotten a good vet ref from applicants but then uncovered discrepancies/lies/omissions/etc. from thoroughly interviewing personal refs. If an applicant states they've had pets their whole life but only give personal refs that have known them for 2-3 years, that is also a concern. It's a bit like being a detective, but that's what is necessary to ensure a good home.


I have no issues with being questioned. But for a "scatter brained" person such as myself this is a very difficult task. I've gotten a lot better about maintaining records, but I can't have records for every single little vet visit my dog has ever had. 
So far, I do but if life catches up to me and I have to move or find different vets for whatever reason, that might change. Records get lost, you forget that you've visited different vets. 

Also, as a person that believes in minimal vaccination, yes, there would be "time gaps" in vet care. 
If all I need is a 3 year rabies and my dog isn't sick for 3 years, there is going to be a pretty big gap.

So, I guess I'm having a hard time understanding that. 

As for the friend thing- I'm not a very social person. I don't make friends easily because I find most to be a let down. So because I've only known one good friend in the last 2-3 years and not the entire life of my dog, I'm not a good candidate?

Please excuse the questions, in no way am I trying to be rude. I'm simply trying to understand these rules.


----------



## weber1b

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I don't think I would be comfortable surrendering bank records, but proving a source of income is not unreasonable. I also get the fence requirement as many of these dogs were strays which is how they ended up in the rescue in the first place. If you are a first timer, then I think at least showing who your vet will be and having had an initial contact to validate that would be good.

Bottom line, the rescue has to believe you and feel good about you, or your out anyway. And after working with a rescue very closely, and reading post after post, I tend to side with the rescues and the job they are doing for the most part. These poor animals need a good break and the rescues are trying to do just that.

BTW I have also heard the argument, well I'll just get a dog somewhere else. The rescues certainly know that. They also know if you don't pass their requirements that you just aren't getting one of their dogs. There is no doubt that the requirements will screen out some perfectly good adopters. I would venture to guess though that they save more dogs from going to bad homes than they lose good homes to the process. It would be interesting to see how many dogs end up in rescue from adopters who were rejected by a rescue and went another route.


----------



## dd

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Most rescues are run by volunteers, some of whom may not be all that well screened themselves. There has recently been a scandal about a charity one of whose volunteers used credit card information from donations to commit fraud.

There is no reason a rescue needs to see anyone's bank records, especially with the rising indcidence fraud and identity theft - and I would be suspicious of a rescue who requested that kind of personal information.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: Weber1bI don't think I would be comfortable surrendering bank records, but proving a source of income is not unreasonable. I also get the fence requirement as many of these dogs were strays which is how they ended up in the rescue in the first place. If you are a first timer, then I think at least showing who your vet will be and having had an initial contact to validate that would be good.
> 
> Bottom line, the rescue has to believe you and feel good about you, or your out anyway. And after working with a rescue very closely, and reading post after post, I tend to side with the rescues and the job they are doing for the most part. These poor animals need a good break and the rescues are trying to do just that.


Which is all well and good, but the thing is the process likely scares off more people that would pass any screening or check just fine but don't even want to subject themselves to it in the first place.

Rescues have every right to demand whatever they want, but I don't like to hear about "having a hard time finding homes" for dogs if the process is going to chase off the majority of potential adopters before they even contact the rescue.

My friends and coworkers though I was joking when I asked them to be a reference to adopt a dog.

It's obviously important especially with families or first time dog owners who aren't aware of what they might be getting into to not to be allowed to take a dog that they are likely not going to be able to handle.

And I can see getting photo ID, and verifying a person is who they say they are and seem like they would be a good match.

But it leaves a lot of perfectly good owners who never even contact the rescue and begin the process in the first place due to it's invasive nature and instead end up supporting puppy mills.

There are about 75 million dogs owned in the U.S., most in a single dog household, about 40% of all households.

About one dog in ten sees a shelter each year. 1 of ten of those who do is picked up by it's owner and taken back home.

The likelihood of a dog having a bad home or adopter being a bad owner should be less than 1 in 10. With a little screening as to what kind of home a known dog should adopt to, an interview basically, that should likely be even lower I would think. ie: no aggresive dog for a home with kids etc.



> Quote:BTW I have also heard the argument, well I'll just get a dog somewhere else. The rescues certainly know that. They also know if you don't pass their requirements that you just aren't getting one of their dogs. There is no doubt that the requirements will screen out some perfectly good adopters. I would venture to guess though that they save more dogs from going to bad homes than they lose good homes to the process. It would be interesting to see how many dogs end up in rescue from adopters who were rejected by a rescue and went another route.


That's not really the issue for me. The issue is how many dogs get euthanized because the rescue was too full to take them, because people choose a puppy mill puppy over a rescued dog due to over invasive adoption policies?

As for saving more dogs from bad homes than losing good homes, I really think it might possibly be the other way around. Or at least even. Meaning just that many more puppy mill dogs sold, that many more euthanized dogs because shelters are full up.

Take Monica, no way I would have subjected myself to a home visit etc. to go adopt her but she is such a sweet, smart, lovable polite little girl a potential adopter would have to be a very serious moron not to end up with a great dog with her. And she seems like she would even be awesome for a home with cats and kids, and she's a beautiful dog.

How she stayed in a rescue without being adopted for almost a year is quite beyond me, except she probably was never even seen by anyone, and was never treated for the heart worms she apparently has. From what I've experienced in a couple of days, she would rate right up there with best dogs ever for me with a few years of work.

My other dog Hope, is full sized GSD, and I can see why she was at a rescue for a year. And why they told me they thought nobody would ever adopt her. She was basically feral, and from what I can tell tied up or caged alone from a puppy to three years old without interaction of any kind besides breeding, starving and disease. She was a total mess and would likely be a nightmare for an inexperienced dog owner.


----------



## Prinzsalpha

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

We can do homevisits most anywhere...yes it takes alot more work but rescue volunteers are GREAT people and will make sure to do right by the dog. On that note we would not place a dog in a new home unless one was done no matter what the references say. It might take me longer to find a person to do the homevisit but it will be done.
I have seen applications asking where the applicant is employed and thought that was something we needed to have on our application.


----------



## Myamom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

TxRider...you never answered my question..maybe you missed it...so I'll repost:

So...someday...hypothetically...you have to rehome your beloved pets. Will you let them go to someone that just provides their name and address? You won't want to go out and see where they will be living? For peace of mind? You will just take their word for it that they do vet their animals? That their current pets don't live on a chain in the back yard? That they keep their animals heartworm free? That their past animals haven't been left to roam the neighborhood all day unsupervised...resulting in a few mishaps? That past pets haven't been rehomed because they had potty breaking issues? dumped in a kill shelter? You wouldn't want to know these things? You will just take their word for it? Because I can assure you...these are things we find out on home visits, vet checks and referrence checks.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I know many rescues, I volunteered for quite a few, and have never heard of one accepting credit cards or asking for bank records. Sadly stuff like this ends up generalized and we are all implicitely accused of being thieves.

As to being friendly in the screenig process, GOD only knows how many hours and hours I spent talking to potential volunteers, who after having their hand held and having me tiptoe around them, disappeared from the scene the moment they were supposed to actually DO something. Sadly, i no longer hold my breath that anything useful (beyond me wasting time) is going to come out of the voluneer applications. The time I spent talking and tiptoeing around volunteer applicants could have been spent with the dogs or just sleeping, heaven forbid. I work a full time job (that pays for the dog house and vet bills) and care for dogs other dump in addition to trying to have something that resembles a life. 

I am always surprised that applicants have much higher expectations on rescue volunteers than on professional services they pay a lot of money for. I really do not understand why people treat us as if we were paid big bucks directly out of their pocket. And I yet have to hear a "thank you" for running around those who never end up helping. Most of the time it is listening to complaining about rescues, and whatever is done is never enough or good enough, or charming enough or fast enough. In spite of it, I try my best to be as cheerful as possible for the next complainer - for the sake of the dogs. On some days it comes out better than on others. I guess I am just tired about the constant complaining and listening what I should be doing and how, especially from people who hardly ever do something beyond caring for their own (and criticizing others).

As to home visits, I would rather be with dogs or enjoy life, than spend half a day doing a home visit, especially with someone with a bad attitude. I do it anyway to save a life.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

(Stands up and applauds!)


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: myamomTxRider...you never answered my question..maybe you missed it...so I'll repost:
> 
> So...someday...hypothetically...you have to rehome your beloved pets. Will you let them go to someone that just provides their name and address? You won't want to go out and see where they will be living? For peace of mind? You will just take their word for it that they do vet their animals? That their current pets don't live on a chain in the back yard? That they keep their animals heartworm free? That their past animals haven't been left to roam the neighborhood all day unsupervised...resulting in a few mishaps? That past pets haven't been rehomed because they had potty breaking issues? dumped in a kill shelter? You wouldn't want to know these things? You will just take their word for it? Because I can assure you...these are things we find out on home visits, vet checks and referrence checks.


No I wouldn't. They would likely be rehomed with immediate family or friends, but I'm not a shelter with hundreds of dogs.

The vast majority of dog owners are good owners though, so at some point if I had little choice I would interview, determine the person is who they say they are, and make sure to tell them if it doesn't work out I will always take the animal back and find a new home. Sure some would come back, some would not be well cared for, but I might save many many more dogs from certain death.

Take Monica, When I decided to adopt from a rescue, I went online and looked. It didn't take long before I was screening shelters by invasive extent of adoption process before even looking at what dogs they had.

How many dogs would be euthanized if Monica was taking up a valuable spot for say 18 months, when she strikes me as about the most adoptable dog possible besides the heart worms.

A dog a month? That would be about a dozen dead dogs as the cost of trying to make sure one gets this "perfect" home..

How many puppy mill pups go to good homes because of the process? Meaning more poor dogs like Hope in a cage popping out puppies that should never be born?

To me it's more about saving more dogs, and hurting puppy mills. While one dog sits a year, waiting for that perfect home, how many good dogs die every day because people don't want to go through that process, or are denied, and then go to a puppy mill pup?

I'm thinking of another process, 3 days, then your dead. That's what happens to dogs too often. Taking a chance a person may not be the best owner seems smaller harm to me than watching so many more die with no chance at all.


----------



## Myamom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

And I am not a shelter with hundreds of dogs...nor am I responsible for those hundreds of dogs being there. What I AM responsible for is the one that I stepped up for and made a promise to that they would never suffer again. It is not the "job" of rescues to fix the overpopulation crisis in this country. It is our mission to help that one we committed to. Placing one in a bad situation...due to our neglect.......is one too many.......

I will take quality over quantity any day. 

"Once upon a time, there was a wise man who used to go to the ocean to do his writing. He had a habit of walking on the beach before he began his work.

One day, as he was walking along the shore, he looked down the beach and saw a human figure moving like a dancer. He smiled to himself at the thought of someone who would dance to the day, and so, he walked faster to catch up.

As he got closer, he noticed that the figure was that of a young man, and that what he was doing was not dancing at all. The young man was reaching down to the shore, picking up small objects, and throwing them into the ocean.

He came closer still and called out "Good morning! May I ask what it is that you are doing?"

The young man paused, looked up, and replied "Throwing starfish into the ocean."

"I must ask, then, why are you throwing starfish into the ocean?" asked the somewhat startled wise man.

To this, the young man replied, "The sun is up and the tide is going out. If I don't throw them in, they'll die."

Upon hearing this, the wise man commented, "But, young man, do you not realize that there are miles and miles of beach and there are starfish all along every mile? You can't possibly make a difference!"

At this, the young man bent down, picked up yet another starfish, and threw it into the ocean. As it met the water, he said, "It made a difference for that one."


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:The vast majority of dog owners are good owners though


What are you basing this statistic on?







Because after 20 years of working with dogs and on dog issues, I don't think you're correct. 



> Quote: Taking a chance a person may not be the best owner seems smaller harm to me than watching so many more die with no chance at all.


Any time you place a dog you're taking a chance, but how much of a chance is acceptable to you? Because frankly if someone is unwilling to fill out an application, have their references checked, and a home visit done, that's too big of a chance to me. I see no reason to gamble unnecessarily with the lives of the animals in my care.


----------



## jfisher

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I've always felt that "one size fits all" has problems, and here is a situation that illustrates that. Richard is a wonderful parent to his dogs. He loves them like nothing else. They get to go out to all sorts of places and run free, then come home to a cozy den. They live better lives than the vast majority of pet dogs. But when he wanted to adopt another, especially a senior who are one of the hardest to place, he was declined because of where he chooses to live. Not only is that denying an extraordinary home to that dog, it is one more space being taken up that could be filled by one of the countless dogs being euthanized every day in this country.

Also, myself, for example. I do not have a fence. Many rescues would deny my application based on that alone. Not to sound conceited, but I feel that our home is also one that most dogs would be very happy to have. And one of my very reasons for living is animal behavior and training, so for our two current GSDs, the lack of fence is NOT an issue at all...Plus, it forces one of us to constantly supervise when either of the dogs are outside which is all that much better.

I'm all for rescues being selective on who they allow these poor babies to go to, it's only fair to them after the situations they've been in. However, I think there ARE special cases, and that exceptions can and should be made in those cases. It's not too hard to ask a few more questions so you can get a feel of a knowledgeable owner. Also, during the home check, ask to see an example of their current dogs' behavior. That gives the best reflection on how good a trainer the owner really is.

-Jackie


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

My understanding from Richard's "words of wisdom" post is that he was turned down because he got caught lying on his application not because of his living situation per se. 

I, like many rescuers, will adopt to people without fences if the dog in question is a good match for that situation. I will not adopt if someone lies to me to manipulate the placement.







There's a big difference.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Nobody on this board is a shelter with hundreds of dogs, we are all human beings (same as TxRider). None of the rescue volunteers OWES dogs anything more than any other human being on this planet. The only difference that some care enough to sacrifice a portion of their personal comfort, personal lives, money and "free" time to care for an animal that other irresponsible humans have dumped and/or abused. Some rescue one animal that is not going to be their own pet once in 20 years, others once in 50 years, others never. Rescue volunteers do it over and over again and save another one as soon as the one they rehabilitated gets placed.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:The vast majority of dog owners are good owners though
> 
> 
> 
> What are you basing this statistic on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because after 20 years of working with dogs and on dog issues, I don't think you're correct.
Click to expand...

75 million dogs owned, only about 6 million going to shelters. That's 10%. 1 out of ten dogs. figure double that amount have bad owners, that's still leaves 80% good owners.

I also have worked jobs for years going to people's home daily. Thousands of homes, over years. And I know what I've seen.

Could it be that people who work rescue dogs simply only see the bad side, and never come in contact with most of that 80%?



> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Taking a chance a person may not be the best owner seems smaller harm to me than watching so many more die with no chance at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you place a dog you're taking a chance, but how much of a chance is acceptable to you? Because frankly if someone is unwilling to fill out an application, have their references checked, and a home visit done, that's too big of a chance to me. I see no reason to gamble unnecessarily with the lives of the animals in my care.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone objects to an application, ID and an interview screening, it's not an all or nothing issue. I certainly have no problem giving info about me DL#, address, plenty enough to steal my identity, I trust that you won't do that to me, I receive no trust in return.

And like I said, I'm thinking as much of the dogs that could now be saved from euthanasia, every time that gamble isn't taken, and a spot isn't freed up, more dogs die for sure, absolutely, positively, no gamble to it. 

50% of all dogs at shelters die, how many are kept at shelters/rescues for life?

It's just simple math. 1 of ten dogs ends up in a shelter, for every dog not placed every year one dog dies. 50% of shelter dogs are just killed outright, piled in a dumpster or such. So says HSUS from studies.

Place the 50% and gamble, statistics say 1 out of ten will come back, maybe another 2-3 of ten a bad outcome, but almost 50% who are simply killed currently would have slots in a rescue rather than the dumpster.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I'm not getting the leap of logic that because a person doesn't take a dog to a shelter they're a good home.







Your math doesn't work. 

I haven't just worked in rescue - I've been a vet tech for a mobile clinic, an obedience trainer, a dog writer - pretty much you name it. And my personal job takes me to people's houses quite often. My experience with dogs and their owners is pretty comprehensive and I'm still not going to agree with the idea that the "vast majority" of homes are good ones. 

But more to the point - Myamom and Rebel are both right on. My responsibility is to find a good home for the dogs in my care. I do no one any favors by sacrificing quality for quantity.


----------



## jfisher

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:I haven't just worked in rescue - I've been a vet tech for a mobile clinic, an obedience trainer, a dog writer - pretty much you name it. And my personal job takes me to people's houses quite often. My experience with dogs and their owners is pretty comprehensive and I'm still not going to agree with the idea that the "vast majority" of homes are good ones.


I have as well. Only exception is dog writer but I have also been a show photographer and apprenticed with a professional handler who kept all the dogs he showed on site. I actually tend to agree with you, however, I think it also depends on what your definition of a "good owner" is. If you mean, food, water, and shelter, then yes, most people are sufficient enough. But I think a good owner is far more, and should provide for the dog mentally and emotionally, as well as physical needs. Taking the time to learn to understand the dog, letting him be with you as much as you can, doing your best to educate yourself about training, participating in dog sports with your dog, etc... By the latter definition, yes, I agree that the majority of people who have dogs are not "good owners." (Maybe I should say "are not great owners" to be fair...?







) 

-Jackie

PS - pupresq, to your reply to my earlier post, I can understand your view of the situation as well. Well put.


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Imo, people are taking things as a personal attack when there is none and this thread got wayyy off topic. Some are too strict and that's fine, keep looking. Almost all will have an invasive process.
Some will work with your specific situation, others don't want to see past you not having a fence. 

Frankly, I don't blame Richard for the omission nor do I blame the rescue for terminating the adoption. 

Everything has more than just one side.

I probably won't make any friends saying this, but all the rescue people have the same wants as the people adopting. 
I'm sorry if most people don't pan out, but that doesn't mean that others have to suffer for their mistakes. 

No, I don't expect quality service and fast responses. But common courtesy is not too much to ask.


----------



## jfisher

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Denali,

Very well written post! I totally agree with all of it!









-Jackie


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: TxRider No I wouldn't. They would likely be rehomed with immediate family or friends, but I'm not a shelter with hundreds of dogs.
> 
> 
> Take Monica, When I decided to adopt from a rescue, I went online and looked. It didn't take long before I was screening shelters by invasive extent of adoption process before even looking at what dogs they had.
> 
> How many dogs would be euthanized if Monica was taking up a valuable spot for say 18 months, when she strikes me as about the most adoptable dog possible besides the heart worms.
> 
> A dog a month? That would be about a dozen dead dogs as the cost of trying to make sure one gets this "perfect" home..
> 
> How many puppy mill pups go to good homes because of the process? Meaning more poor dogs like Hope in a cage popping out puppies that should never be born?
> 
> To me it's more about saving more dogs, and hurting puppy mills. While one dog sits a year, waiting for that perfect home, how many good dogs die every day because people don't want to go through that process, or are denied, and then go to a puppy mill pup?
> 
> I'm thinking of another process, 3 days, then your dead. That's what happens to dogs too often. Taking a chance a person may not be the best owner seems smaller harm to me than watching so many more die with no chance at all.


This is interesting logic. Let's do a hypothetical experiment. Let's agree that pupresq, TxRider, myamom and RebelGSD are 4 human beings. All 4 human beings have jobs unrelated to dogs, families and lives. All 4 human beings care for dogs and they each take in a dog that would otherwise be euthanized at a shelter - to save that dog's life. They all take their dog into their home, take good care of their respective dog, treat the dog for diseases, train the dog etc. TxRider will place his dog with family or friends, people he knows well, because he has a major investment, emotional and financial in the dog Monica. pupresq, myamom and RebelGSD do the same thing with their respective dog. Since they have done this with other dogs in the past they have filled up family and friends' homes and have to place their dog with a stranger. They want to see the home that their dog is going to make sure it is a good home. They also want to talk to the vet of the person to make sure that the person has taken good care of his/her pets in the past.

TxRider implies that pupresq, myamom and RebelGSD are potential identity thieves because they are asking to see the home of the person who is taking the dog they have cared for and love. TxRider puts pupresq, myamom and RebelGSD on a guilttrip for keeping the dog they rescued, as long as needed to find a good home, and accuses them for the death of dogs that die in shelters that they could save if they gave away their dog after three day and took in a new dog every three days.

Questions:
Why is it OK for TxRider not to give away the dog he rescued after three days, to take in new dogs that would otherwise be euthanized? Why are pupresq, myamom and RebelGSD, human beings, accused of being responsible for the death of dogs in shelters because they have not rescued one every three days?
Why is TxRider, also a human being, not expected to take in a dog (that is to be euthanized at a shelter) every three days, and why is he not making himself responsible for the death of the dogs in a shelter with the same logic as the other three human beings? 
My question is why is TxRider applying other standards to himself than to the other three human beings?

Comment:
There is absolutely no way that RebelGSD could take in a dog to be euthanized in a shelter every three days and place it into any home. RebelGSD, with a full-time job (unrelated to dogs), family and a life, could not handle financially, in terms of time, energy or emotionally, saving a dog every three days. Can TxRider handle that?


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqI'm not getting the leap of logic that because a person doesn't take a dog to a shelter they're a good home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your math doesn't work.


It works fine, 75 million dogs, 10% see a shelter.

How many are just bad owners, twice the number that their dogs see see a shelter?

Lets just say almost 4 times as many owners are bad owners plus the 10% that end up in shelters, that still a majority good owners.

I have a hard time swallowing the majority of all dog owners are bad owners, or anything near it. I've just not seen it.

Of course definitions differ. I'm talking fed, not physically harmed, and given shelter and looked out for reasonably. Minimum to have a healthy decent dog, which rates much higher than euthanized in my scale of better where half the dogs who see a shelter end up.

I certainly don't see spending the majority of your time in a chain link kennel a wonderful life.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:I have a hard time swallowing the majority of all dog owners are bad owners, or anything near it. I've just not seen it.


Doesn't make it not true. And you can't use the number of dogs in shelters as a proxy for the number of bad owners. There are plenty of lousy owners whose dogs never see a shelter. 

Did you read Rebel's post because I think she nailed it? 

Since you are concerned about the responsibility to rescue dogs from shelters and reduce the number of people buying dogs from millers, can I ask how many dogs you pull from shelters yearly? How many you place?


----------



## Prinzsalpha

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Since GSD's are working dogs they should be worked. Alot of owners put them in the yard to entertain themselves and then the dog gets into trouble for digging or jumping the fence. They are people dogs....not meant for the loneliness of the back 40 either tethered or left to fend for itself. Now if you feel that is an ok way of life I would beg to differ. Quality is all in how you see life. Do they feed them, yes, do they pet them, yes...there is more to owning a dog than just that.
Go to the non-urgent and take a look at the wgsd in houston. Tell me he has had a good life.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

The numbers are not right because the time scale is off.

Let's assume that there are 75million dog owners and their dogs live an average lifespan of 10 years. 6 million dogs get euthanized a year. Over the time these dog owners have the average dog (and do not add to their dog family and are unavailable to adopt one that will be euthanized), 60 million dogs will be euthanized.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Good point!


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSD[
> 
> This is interesting logic. Let's do a hypothetical experiment. Let's agree that pupresq, TxRider, myamom and RebelGSD are 4 human beings. All 4 human beings have jobs unrelated to dogs, families and lives. All 4 human beings care for dogs and they each take in a dog that would otherwise be euthanized at a shelter - to save that dog's life. They all take their dog into their home, take good care of their respective dog, treat the dog for diseases, train the dog etc. TxRider will place his dog with family or friends, people he knows well, because he has a major investment, emotional and financial in the dog Monica.


I also said I would place a dog with someone after an interview, seeing them interact with the dog and proper ID etc. without a home visit, calling references etc. 

That I would take that gamble, because it's a far safer bet than the dog down the road at the pound has with the needle the next day.

Now two dogs have at least a chance, where only one did before.



> Quoteupresq, myamom and RebelGSD do the same thing with their respective dog. Since they have done this with other dogs in the past they have filled up family and friends' homes and have to place their dog with a stranger. They want to see the home that their dog is going to make sure it is a good home. They also want to talk to the vet of the person to make sure that the person has taken good care of his/her pets in the past.
> 
> TxRider implies that pupresq, myamom and RebelGSD are potential identity thieves because they are asking to see the home of the person who is taking the dog they have cared for and love.


I don't imply anything about them at all. I don't pay attention to who works at a shelter and who doesn't. Why do make this personal?

But a person at a shelter is a stranger to me, people I have never met, do not know, and do not plan to ever see again.

They likely now have my credit card number, address, date of birth, my signature, and other details as I have filled out an application, given ID and paid an adoption fee. The point is I'm trusting a stranger, but not being trusted back.

How many strangers do you hand that kind of info to in your life? You asking for trust to take all that information, store it, etc. Is it kept secure?



> Quote:TxRider puts pupresq, myamom and RebelGSD on a guilttrip for keeping the dog they rescued, as long as needed to find a good home, and accuses them for the death of dogs that die in shelters that they could save if they gave away their dog after three day and took in a new dog every three days.


I am not talking about giving dogs up in 3 days, that's just silly. I'm asking whether it is more efficient to save and help dogs in the bigger picture, to not be invasive enough to put many people off adopting.

Would a higher percentage of dogs live a life of at least decent quality than half of them die. That's all. Really it is.



> Quote:Questions:
> Why is it OK for TxRider not to give away the dog he rescued after three days, to take in new dogs that would otherwise be euthanized?


Because I was made to sign a contract that says I legally cannot do so by the rescue first off.



> Quote:Why are pupresq, myamom and RebelGSD, human beings, accused of being responsible for the death of dogs in shelters because they have not rescued one every three days?


They aren't being accused of anything but having an opinion, I have no idea who here works at a shelter or rescue, and I don't much care to. 

And nobody suggested rescuing dogs every three days, just acknowledging that it's a standard policy, and for every two dogs that hit a shelter, one dies, one lives. Placing them faster would seem to me to mean room for more to live. More living dogs, better than more dead ones.



> Quote:Why is TxRider, also a human being, not expected to take in a dog (that is to be euthanized at a shelter) every three days, and why is he not making himself responsible for the death of the dogs in a shelter with the same logic as the other three human beings?
> My question is why is TxRider applying other standards to himself than to the other three human beings?


I'm just as responsible as anyone here. I have money I don't use to save animals, I could likely support a decent sized operation. I choose not to. Many dogs are dying because I choose not to act with all the resources at my disposal. I'm ok with that obviously.

I also stated quite clearly, I understand the sentiment, and acknowledge it's quite clearly a rescues choice what they do with their dogs.

No double standard whatsoever.



> Quote:Comment:
> There is absolutely no way that RebelGSD could take in a dog to be euthanized in a shelter every three days and place it into any home.


I never suggested he/she could or should.



> Quote:RebelGSD, with a full-time job (unrelated to dogs), family and a life, could not handle financially, in terms of time, energy or emotionally, saving a dog every three days. Can TxRider handle that?


I can handle you singly me out for what is an increasingly personal attack, with completely irrational and ridiculous logic.

Does a discussion have to get personal, can you have a rational discussion without going off into emotional personal rips at someone you think you disagree with?

You have taken a simple point, that it might be more efficient to save more dogs lives if rescues backed off the 3rd degree a little bit, making more room for -a few- more, maybe even a lot of, of the 3-4 million dogs on a 3 day death row and turned it into some irrational rant.

It seems to end up that rescues simply value the dogs they have, and the quality of each one's life far more than the ones being euthanized. It's a value judgment just like the one I make to only save a couple at a time, or for several years none at all.

I salute those who take it farther than I am willing to, just trying to understand why they draw the line in value judgment where I wouldn't, and if they realize other perspectives like mine are out there, and maybe learn how common it might be for people to rule out any rescue that is that is too invasive like I do.

The issue might even be worth a study grant for someone.


----------



## Prinzsalpha

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

It does get personal. We spend many hours a day to save one single dog. So for you to put up numbers to make it logical is way off the richter scale for me. Its one dog at a time. If we had so...many good owners I wouldnt have to do what I do. 
If rescues are so invasive do not adopt from them. That way no one is wasting anyones time.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:I have a hard time swallowing the majority of all dog owners are bad owners, or anything near it. I've just not seen it.
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't make it not true. And you can't use the number of dogs in shelters as a proxy for the number of bad owners. There are plenty of lousy owners whose dogs never see a shelter.
Click to expand...

So there should be something other than just opinion out there that shows most owners abuse and neglect their dogs to the point they should not have them. Some study or something.

Out of the probably 3 dozen dogs I know that people I know own, I certainly do not know one, Maybe I live in an island of good owners and I only associate with good people, but that doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I'm guessing you just must not realize how incredibly offensive your posts are to those of us who donate thousands of dollars of our own money and thousands of hours of our own time to rescue dogs and then be told by someone who isn't willing to do either of those things that we're somehow not doing all that we could or should or that we don't care about the dogs dying in shelters. Of COURSE we care about the dogs dying in shelters.







But we're trying to balance the very real risk of our foster dog ending up in a bad situation with the needs of the dogs who are waiting to come into rescue. 

I'm perfectly aware that plenty of people don't want to fill out an application or submit to a home visit and go buy a dog instead. i'm also aware that the people I turn down for adoption because they want to keep the dog outside, or their last 5 dogs were hit by cars or whatever may very well go out and buy a dog because I wouldn't give them mine. That is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to the dogs in my care. I can't force people to be good dog owners and I shouldn't assume that all people are by the virtue of wishful thinking. 

Maybe instead of us compromising on home standards, people like you could step up and help more of those dogs currently dying in shelters for want of a place.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDThe numbers are not right because the time scale is off.
> 
> Let's assume that there are 75million dog owners and their dogs live an average lifespan of 10 years. 6 million dogs get euthanized a year. Over the time these dog owners have the average dog (and do not add to their dog family and are unavailable to adopt one that will be euthanized), 60 million dogs will be euthanized.


But then the spread of dog ages would also be even spread across ten years, taking a ten year period, a percentage would die each year. 

At an average life of ten years, the dog being born the first year of that ten year life span would die the last year meaning all 75 million would die during the ten years. 10% death per year, 10% replacement per year.

And ten percent of owned dogs are from a shelter/rescue. (according to HSUS) Could that be made to be 20%? How?

Add in the replacement dogs for the ones that died over the ten years and you end up with 150 million dogs.

So we're at 60 million dead with 150 million owned during the decade, right?


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

There aren't any studies on how many "good homes" there are because there's no one definition of what a "good home" is. But if you look at the number of dogs coming into shelters _annually_ (and please see rebel's post about your math because she raised an EXCELLENT point), or the number of dogs that are licensed versus the ones actually out there, or whatever, you will find that the idea that the "vast majority of people are good dog owners" is absolutely silly. 

But let's take the real number that would matter here since the question is about rescues placing dogs and appropriate scrutiny of applicants. So the question is what percentage of homes are revealed to be not so great by reference checks and home visits - and that's going to be an underestimate of bad homes because the truly bad ones aren't even going to fill out an application, but I'm talking about the number of applicants that remind you why you have the procedures you do. I don't know about the other rescues out there, but a LOT of the people who apply with me lie on their applications, which we discover during reference checks, or other info comes to light during our application process that makes it obvious that they do NOT need a dog. 

If someone has never worked in rescue and never processed applications or tried to screen homes I don't see how they can possibly profess to have a clue about what percentage of these people should be getting dogs or whether or not these kinds of checks are statistically necessary. Anybody who has ever screened applications and done these kinds of checks can tell you EXACTLY why they're necessary.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqI'm guessing you just must not realize how incredibly offensive your posts are to those of us who donate thousands of dollars of our own money and thousands of hours of our own time to rescue dogs and then be told by someone who isn't willing to do either of those things that we're somehow not doing all that we could or should or that we don't care about the dogs dying in shelters. Of COURSE we care about the dogs dying in shelters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we're trying to balance the very real risk of our foster dog ending up in a bad situation with the needs of the dogs who are waiting to come into rescue.
> 
> I'm perfectly aware that plenty of people don't want to fill out an application or submit to a home visit and go buy a dog instead. i'm also aware that the people I turn down for adoption because they want to keep the dog outside, or their last 5 dogs were hit by cars or whatever may very well go out and buy a dog because I wouldn't give them mine. That is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to the dogs in my care. I can't force people to be good dog owners and I shouldn't assume that all people are by the virtue of wishful thinking.
> 
> Maybe instead of us compromising on home standards, people like you could step up and help more of those dogs currently dying in shelters for want of a place.


And that is the single best answer yet. I'm clear on where I make a decision and why. Just trying to learn where others make theirs and why.

It shouldn't be offensive to question rationale on this issue.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

What's offensive is your profound misunderstanding of our feelings about the dogs in the shelters and why we make the decisions we do. I don't have any issue with someone asking to understand better how and why we make the decisions we do but a lot of your posts have implicit assumptions attached to them which ARE offensive. 

Hopefully my explanation of the high number of applicants who have significant issues that come to light during the application process helps you understand why I think the process is critical to responsible placement - and why that is not inconsistent with my caring a great deal about the dogs still at the shelters.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqIf someone has never worked in rescue and never processed applications or tried to screen homes I don't see how they can possibly profess to have a clue about what percentage of these people should be getting dogs or whether or not these kinds of checks are statistically necessary. Anybody who has ever screened applications and done these kinds of checks can tell you EXACTLY why they're necessary.


Which is exactly why that type of person might want to go -ask- the type of person who is screening applications, because they -want- to know. 

Because it makes no sense to them they desire to know what knowledge others must posses that leads them to a different conclusion. They question it.

For that they are slammed by defensive personal attacks and told they are stupid, wrong, and offensive.

Sorry I didn't know this place was only for patting each other on the back and no questioning of logic or dissent allowed.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I just added to my above post. Perhaps it will help clarify. It's not questioning or actual logic that are the problem here.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqWhat's offensive is your profound misunderstanding of our feelings about the dogs in the shelters and why we make the decisions we do.


Not one bit more than your misunderstanding of how profoundly offensive it is to me to be treated like a criminal for wanting to adopt a dog, and being subjected to an invasive investigation for simply wanting to help a dog live and have a good life, as I have done all my life.

Maybe I'm just too old but I was raised that a man's word is his bond. It is intensely offensive that I could look someone in the eye, shake their hand, and not be trusted to even care for a dogs welfare.

You don't seem to care about that one little bit, no consideration whatsoever. It counts for squat all, but your feelings are all hurt and you get all offended and angry if I seriously question why?

I'm not being offended by the discussion though, and neither should you be. I think we have exhausted reasoned discussion.

I understand the position, dogs in hand and the possibility of a lower quality of life in a possibly sub standard home outweighs the dogs that are down the road and not going to make it. Same exact position I'm in really, for the same reasons and logic.

Rescues will continue to do whatever they think they need to and I will continue to avoid rescues that do business this way, simply because I find it quite offensive and there are ample alternatives.

And if I do decide to get more into rescues, I'll have a better idea what I'm in for.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I hand over my credit card to waiters in a restaurant, salespeople in stores, many, many places, every day. Unfortunately, paying cash for everything is not feasible and unsafe nowadays. My name is on the card, if they care they can easily look up my information, address and phone number on the internet. I write my drivers license number and phone number on checks whenever I am asked to so so. I fill in my name, address and personal information approximately once a week minimum in some kind of form, both at work and in private life. 90% of the people who get this information do not have background checks. It never occurred to me to imply to them that they could steal my identity.

In the 10+years of rescue I never took a credit card number from an adopter, neither did I take their DL#. I never stole anyone's identity. 

To those individuals who are involved in rescue on this board, making sacrifices in their lives to responsibly place animals into good homes your sweeping comments were a personal attack. Some of those comments are extremely offensive, yours much more so than other posters. If there are hundred people in a room, four of them plumbers, and 20 people start talking about plumbers as potential thieves in ther homes, potential identity thieves who don't work enough, to those plumbers the comments will be an attack and personal. My post was not emotional, it was an objective comparison of 4 caring human beings placing for dogs they care about. I was trying to explain and answer the "why" you posted. You consider simple questions directed to you an attack, yet nobody implied that you would steal somebody's identity, as an example. Rescues are no anonimous entities, there are individual human beings that do this work, you did not seem to understand this and say you don't even care. Repeating that their best effort are not enough and making them responsible for death rates in shelters and putting those who actually do something on a guilttrip for not doing enough is very offensive and is an attack. 

One of the reasons you are being singled out in responses of several rescuers is that you were the only one quite aggressively promoting irresponsible placement of dogs. The responsible placement criteria I am referring to are based on national standards and standards accepted on this board. This is something that the owner of this board Rhaya insists on and you should probably read her post.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I forgot to mention that i went through many home visits and countless reference checks, probably one for every other dog I rescued from a shelter. I welcomed them because it showed that people who did them were responsible and cared for the welfare of the dogs. If I wanted to steal somebody's identity, I would find much easier and less costly ways for that than reference checks and home visits through rescue.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDOne of the reasons you are being singled out in responses of several rescuers is that you were the only one quite aggressively promoting irresponsible placement of dogs.


I'd like you to show me where, I do not believe I did so at all.



> Quote:The responsible placement criteria I am referring to are based on national standards and standards accepted on this board. This is something that the owner of this board Rhaya insists on and you should probably read her post.


All I have done is ask whether more dogs might be saved if the process was relaxed.

The response was no, or basically emotional flurries of how dare you even ask, you are too stupid to have an opinion.

And even a few comments along the lines of "you must have something to hide" which I personally equate with the old witch test that says if you sink and drown your innocent.

I asked why not, and presented what evidence and observation I've experienced, and have read several cogent reasonable answers.

If dogma is to be strictly adhered to, and critical thinking is not allowed even for discussions sake, I'll refrain from doing so here.


----------



## GSDElsa

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Quite frankly, I think the one thing people are forgetting her is that there would be absolutely NO NEED for 10 page applications, reference checks, and home visits if ALL PEOPLE WERE HONEST on their applications (Richard, this isn't meant towards you but in general).

If all rescues all the time gathered all this background info, went to the home and found what they expected, and didn't get iffy answers from these peoples' vets...no rescue would feel the need after all these years to do what they are doing.

The bottom line is TOO MANY PEOPLE have been caught trying to lie and cheat the adoption process. The crazy background checks are there because PEOPLE LIE. If no one lied and there hadn't been a bunch of bad experiences, it would not even occur to do the stringent checks they do.

Although I will say back records is too much. And so is a fence unless it's specifically needed for the dog in question.

It's YOU, the adopter (the general YOU, not the YOU YOU) that has caused these requirements to be enacted. Some overzealous rescue just didn't come up with some not so bright idea and then all the other rescues followed in their steps.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:Maybe I'm just too old but I was raised that a man's word is his bond. It is intensely offensive that I could look someone in the eye, shake their hand, and not be trusted to even care for a dogs welfare.


Spoken like a person who has never screened a single application.









Yes, it would be lovely if we lived in an ideal utopia where people never lied and everyone took great care of dogs. However, the reality is somewhat different. Bad homes are common, not rare and there's no excuse for taking unnecessary risks solely in the name of numbers. 

Do you find it offensive that schools increasingly want background checks on teachers and people who volunteer? I would certainly wager that child molesters are considerably more rare than bad dog owners. Should we just assume that all applicants are being honest and if a few kids get molested by people with records because no one was checking, well that's just an acceptable part of doing business? 

Perhaps banks should stop checking people out before they lend them money and just accept their word that they're able to afford the payments. Oh wait, I think we tried that - how did it work out again? 

The world is full of checks, it's common, and it's common because it's necessary. I'm sorry you find it offensive that people don't trust you at your word but if you look around you'll see why.


----------



## Myamom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Good point pupresq! I had to PAY to have my background check done AND take VIRTUS so that I could VOLUNTEER with the boyscouts. This is also required if I even so much want to help out in my kids school cafeteria. My husband is currently going through all this as well...because he offered to help with the kids Basketball team. And both of us are helping in venues were everyone knows us very well for many years.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I could chose to feel like a criminal every time when the vet asks me to fill out a form (with name, address, and drivers license number and sign the contract that I will pay the charges) or when I do the same with my human doctor. I chose not to because it is my choice and it is within my control how I feel about it. I also chose not to feel like a criminal when I am asked to sign different contracts in my everyday life. I chose not to feel like a criminal when shelters do a reference and background check on me before releasing the dog to me. I guess I am not very emotional about this. As to the credit card information being a big issue, it can be easily solved by paying cash. For me the convenience of a credit card outweighs the danger of identity theft. Since using a credit card is my personal choice, I chose not to feel that everyone is out to get me through my card data. Those are my choices and I respect the choices other people make about how they feel about the same things. 

If someone feels that resposible rescue placement is offensive and and invasive and choses not to use it, it is their right and I respect their decision. I am OK with the level of effort I and other responsible rescues invest into placing their dogs. I feel good about the numbers of dogs I and people around me are able to rescue, and these accomplishment, while they don't solve 100% of the problems, solve many problems. Solving a small part of the problem is much better in my opinion than doing nothing and others certainly have the right to disagree.

One way to prove that rescue procedures are unnecessary is for those who believe the contrary to start an organization with lax procedures and prove with adequate statistics that they work better. Personal experience and rescue statistics prove quite the opposite.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:Good point pupresq! I had to PAY to have my background check done AND take VIRTUS so that I could VOLUNTEER with the boyscouts. This is also required if I even so much want to help out in my kids school cafeteria. My husband is currently going through all this as well...because he offered to help with the kids Basketball team. And both of us are helping in venues were everyone knows us very well for many years.


We just went through that too. And you know how I felt when the school required us to go through background checks? Offended? Absolutely not! I was glad that the school was taking reasonable precautions. I'm under no illusions that such screening eliminates all risk, but I'm certainly glad to see such an obvious base covered. I didn't take it personally that they didn't just trust my word. I would much prefer that they did the background check. Sure, I could have told them I wasn't a child molester - but guess what! A child molester would have said the same thing. Far better that they check people out and I was glad to participate.

This seems to be how our better adopters feel about rescue screening as well. They are glad that we care enough about our dogs to care enough about where they end up to ask them these kinds of questions. There is still risk in any placement and handing over a dog to a stranger, even a screened stranger, still requires a certain leap of faith and level of trust, but when there are easy and basic precautions one could take, it baffles me why someone wouldn't take them. Given the number of bad homes out there, the cost/benefit analysis to proper screening is still way in favor of screening if you care at all about what happens to the dogs.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:If all rescues all the time gathered all this background info, went to the home and found what they expected, and didn't get iffy answers from these peoples' vets...no rescue would feel the need after all these years to do what they are doing.
> 
> The bottom line is TOO MANY PEOPLE have been caught trying to lie and cheat the adoption process. The crazy background checks are there because PEOPLE LIE. If no one lied and there hadn't been a bunch of bad experiences, it would not even occur to do the stringent checks they do.










You got it! 

It's exactly our experience doing this that lets us know why it's important.


----------



## onyxena

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

When I was looking for my first Pure GSD a couple years ago, I looked into resue groups. I already had a smaller dog, 2 cats, and my birds. I also have a young daughter. I had vet records for the $1800 we had spent so far treating our current dog's skin condition. I have a husband who makes very good money. I have been a stay at home mom for my daughter so had lots of time for my pets too. 
I was immediately very discouraged! I understand that they place the dog's best interest first, and have the right to decide what they feel is an appropriate home. I am certainly not against rescues! But the strict policies about children, pets, etc plus other procedures that seem very invasive just turned me away. And that is likely what they want. No way would I hand over all my personal info to someone I don't know and await their judgement on whether I am good enough to own a dog or not.
So I searched for good breeders, and was also discouraged by their policies, prices, waiting lists. Then I saw an ad on Craigslist for GSD puppies with pics of the two boys left and the parents, went to see them, talked to some very nice people and met a dog I really just felt was perfect for us. Yep, they bred their pets and sold the puppies. So the rescue groups ended up supporting a BYB by their policies. 
I got a great dog that I totally love, is healthy and is perfect in our home! My home certaily isn't heaven on earth for dogs, and I am not a perfect owner. But they eat well, gets lots of attention, are socialized, go on hikes and walks, and generally don't have it so bad here. I knew that I was capable of providing a good permanent home for another dog, but wasn't able to meet all of the recuer's requirements. So, am I a bad owner because a rescue group wouldn't adopt a dog to me?
My other two dogs both came from shelters, both kill shelter without rigorous screening. Basically anyone can come in and sign some papers and bring a dog home that day, unless it needs to be neutered first. I like to be able to decide for myself if a dog is going to fit into my family or not. 
All three of my dogs are wonderful, well behaved, and will always have a home!


----------



## Myamom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

No...you chose to support a byb! If you can provide a wonderful home...and a particular rescue had policies against kids or other pets...find one that doesn't.... 

Sorry...but I fostered and adopted with two small kids(2 and 5), two cats and a parrot...

There are people here...that are great..and have been turned down by rescue for one reason or another (i.e. they didn't have a fence or what not)...but their heart was truly set on saving a life and going through rescue....so they continued on their search until they found a rescue that fit them...all rescues have different policies. No excuse.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: Onyxena Yep, they bred their pets and sold the puppies. So the rescue groups ended up supporting a BYB by their policies.
> 
> So, am I a bad owner because a rescue group wouldn't adopt a dog to me?
> 
> My other two dogs both came from shelters, both kill shelter without rigorous screening. Basically anyone can come in and sign some papers and bring a dog home that day, unless it needs to be neutered first. I like to be able to decide for myself if a dog is going to fit into my family or not.


I am going to start with the middle quote. The answer to that is we have no idea. We have no idea in any of these complaints against rescues because we are only hearing the applicants' side, or the rescues' side so we have no way of evaluating. 

For the last thing, yes, anyone can go get a dog, PB or mix, from a kill shelter. 

But the first-absolutely not. The rescue did not make that choice. You did. You chose to buy a dog from a BYB. You could have waited until a PB GSD showed up on Petfinder, or found another rescue to work with, eeep! forgot- or gone with a reputable breeder- but you wanted what you wanted and you got it. Your choice, good or bad is up to you to evaluate, but it was yours. 

A few years ago, I decided I wanted a Schipperke. I found a local breeder, and with what little I knew of evaluating breeders she seemed reputable (screened applicants like crazy, required a fenced yard-a good fence and told me I would need to inspect it regularly, showed her dogs, and got a good vet reference when I called her vet, not a lot of litters). So I was set to get a puppy from her. SHe had a litter-three males-she wasn't sure she'd let me have a male because I had a male. Then as the litter grew-they don't sell Schip pups until 3 months, she told me (and may have just been getting rid of me because I had no Schipperke experience and a male already) that she was holding all 3 boys back to assess for showing. Next litter-maybe a year and a half. 

So, I went to a rescue and got Bella, and then months later, they had a Schipperke-Shepherd mix-how perfect! that I adopted. 

Did that breeder MAKE me go to a rescue?

I suppose seeing the logic here she did. 

But realistically, no. I was impatient, didn't want to continue working with the other Schipperke breeders I was finding and wanted a dog. So I got one. I chose to do it that way. I appreciated and respected that the breeder was doing her best for the dogs she had produced. But not waiting and going another way, was totally up to me. I own it.


----------



## Cassidy's Mom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

As long as there are dishonest people in the world, the prudent thing is to check everyone out as thoroughly as possible. And I just don't understand why anyone would be offended by this.









If I say my word is my bond and that I treat a handshake and a promise as seriously as I would a signed contract - well, why should anyone who doesn't know me accept that? They don't KNOW me.


----------



## onyxena

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I do realize that the rescue groups did not MAKe me get a dog from a BYB, but I guess I was trying to say that when someone decides they want to get a dog, they WILL get one. I would rather in a lot of ways get a dog from a rescue instead of a breeder or even a shelter, but realistically, if I wanted a dog I had to look at those options. My having a young child and several other pets, plus renting at the time did not make me a good candidate. 

I knew I could and wanted to provide a good home for another dog and I didn't rush out and get one that weekend! I looked at several diffent places to adopt and reputable breeders. I did not specifically sek out a BYB, but it just seemed like the right dog at the right time came along. But in the end, I am very happy with all 3 of them and am glad that I was able to adopt 2 from shelters.

I really am supportive of rescues though, andI understand how hard it is to find a home that you feel good abbout sending an animal that you have cared for everyday and grown to love. I should probably also add that I have been involved with a local cat no kill recue and it is very discouraging to see how many are returned even after a rigorous screening process. 

Parrot rescues are very difficult to deal with as well, one out here is far more stringent than most of the dog recues I have looked into. I wanted to add another macaw a feww years ago and immediately realized the rescues were NOT a good place for me to find the bird I wanted. No kids, no dogs, no cats, must own home, several home checks, and way more personal info than my family cared to share. Then they wanted me to pay MORE than what I would pay from a breeder and they would choose a bird for me. So I kept visiting my favorite parrot specialty store until they had an older macaw that needed a new home. And so I bought a new bird instead of supporting the rescue group, but I still think we NEED the rescues. 

They provide so much information and education and really do care about the animals. Even if a family looks into adopting from a resuce and is declined, at least they have (hopefully) learned something. Maybe they will have learned that the breed or species they want needs a very specific diet or is not going to be happy in a backyard all day. Maybe they will then decide on a more suitable breed. Even if they still purchase an animal from a byb myabe they will know more about what its needs are. 

With so many animals needing good homes, I feel that any effort to help them is a step in the right direction, even if it isn't a good option for everyone.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: Onyxena
> So the rescue groups ended up supporting a BYB by their policies.


So it is the rescue's "fault", the rescue that you apparently did not even apply to (that probably did not even know of your existence) and the rescue that did not decline you, that you chose BYB.

Rescue is not the only choice for acquiring a dog. A GSD can be acquired from a
1. reputable breeder
2. shelter (most have no screening whatsoever)
3. private owner (through the same Craiglist, for example), usually very little screening
4. BYB

It was YOU who chose the BYB out of the 5 options, not the rescue. Another question I would like to pose, why not blame the choice on reputable breeders? shelters? private owners? Do you feel that all of these supported the BYB? 

As to BYB, over the past 3 years we rescued 17 dogs (in our small rescue) that were originally purchased from BYB, the owners could or would not keep them or could not handle them and the breeders were known. These breeders refused to take the dogs back and the owners surrendered them to kill shelters. State law says that owner surrenders can be euthanized immediately so we pulled them from the shelter to save their lives. 

An area rescue regularly picks up, from kill shelters, dogs produced by known local BYBs. 1-2 dogs from each litter end up in kill shelters. So again, rescues are to "blame" for supporting BYB. 

We also have many adopters who came to us after bad experiences with BYB.


----------



## Jax08

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out why it would be a rescue's fault that someone buys a dog thru a BYB. In fact, I'm more than a little dumbfounded.

Rescues are in place because of entities such as BYB's...not the other way around. If there were only reputable breeders in the world, and by reputable I mean breeders that rehomed all the puppies they have ever produced, then there would be no such thing as Rescues.

Now, when I volunteered to pull a dog for DPRPA in York they took a chance on me and did not even check my references, which I did offer, in order to save Willow. It worked out well and I now have Baron for them.

When I volunteered for GSR-SP they checked my references and did a home visit. Not only did I welcome the home visit but I was able to discuss any possible concerns or potential problems the could arise because of the layout of my house and lack of fenced in area. It was a benefit to me to have the home check and I learned of problems that I hadn't even thought of. I am approved to foster (therefore I can also adopt) and I'm more aware of how to handle problems due to the home check. 

I think TxRider, and anyone else against home checks, needs to remember...it's not about him/her...*it's all about the dogs *and making sure they will never end up in life threatening/abusive situation again.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

There is one person on this board for whom I have a lot of respect for, flyinghayden (Richard). He joined the board with a big bang a couple of years ago, with initial posts in a MAJOR nasty rescue bashing thread (it got so nasty that it was deleted). Richard used to be a big opponent of rescues, "those horrible places".

Another key attacker was Rena, who was attacking rescues for requiring fences and charging adoption fees. Rena purchased a pup from a BYB and entertained everybody on the board for months with her stories of chasing the puppy down the street in a robe. One of the chases had a tragic ending, the gorgeous puppy, close to a year old by then, ended up being hit by a car in front of Rena and her very young son. The pup's front leg was shattered and he was in pain after multiple surgeries. Rena was proud of his appearance and refused amputation. She disappeared from the board, I fear that the pup was euthanized.

Richard is quite the opposite story. In spite of the intitial difficulties he adopted several dogs from rescues and earned everybody's respect here with his love for his dogs. It took strength of character to admit the recent mistake on a public forum, as opposed to putting blame on others. An applause to Richard and his rescue dogs.


----------



## ILGHAUS

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I think when many people talk against pet rescues screening vrs the ease of going to a shelter they miss the big picture.

They may not be aware that a shelter run by a sheriff's office or other government agency is not set up and run for the sake of the animals. They are to protect the citizens of the community. They are there to take in dangerous dogs, to pick up strays, to collect the animals that people don't want to keep these animals off the street. So while they may have employees who love the animals and take care of the animals, their duty is to people. They only have so much room and so much of a budget to run the shelter. They must move the animals out as they know there will be more coming in. (Yes, many people complain about the kill rate but what do they want the shelter staff do - stack the animals on top of each other? How many of the complainers go to their city/county commissioners and demand that taxes be raised to build more shelters and hire more staff to care for them?) All it takes to pull from most of these shelters is cash. Some require the animal to be S/N but some do not. 

Then you have the no-kill shelters and rescues. They are usually backed by donations or the rescuers themselves. Their reason is not to move large numbers of animals but to take an animal, make sure it is healthy both physically and mentally, and then find the most perfect home for that particular animal. 

If someone doesn't want to go through a rescue then they can just as easily get an animal from the same places that a rescue does. They can go and get an animal from somewhere in their community or go to a shelter and pull one, vet it, and work it through any problems. 

There are many many rescues around the country. It isn't that hard to find one so I'm always amazed when I hear people complaing about being turned down by one because they have a pet already or they don't have the proper fencing. If you don't agree with the policies of one particular rescue then just go to another.


----------



## onyxena

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

No, the rescues did not force me to buy a dog, but I realized that if I wanted to get a dog, i would need to keep looking! I did visit shelters, but none of those dogs were what I wanted. I also visited a dog a friend couldn't keep and he atttacked my current dog and did not like kids. So it's not like I just bought a byb pup out of spite or something! I did not specifically seek out a BYB and I did not have as much knowledge about the issue as I do now. 
I know that rescues are great in so many ways, but I was trying to say that it may not be the best route for everyone. Don't worry I'm not trying to bash any at all, just point out why I did choose to buy a puppy instead of the other options.


----------



## Virginia

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I am not against rescues checking references or doing home visits. But I personally had a very hard time adopting from a rescue before I got Bodie, and I think the rescues I applied too should have looked beyond who I was on paper.

I had a lot of things working against me:
At the time, I was 21 years old.
I was in college.
I had never owned a dog before (that wasn't a family pet), and had no references that could attest to my dog ownership skills.
My references were college-aged peers - probably not the most trustworthy age set to a reference checker. Yes, I had other acquaintances, but there was no way I was going to put one of my professors as a reference for a dog adoption.
I had no vet, and genuinely never thought of contacting a vet beforehand to as a show of good faith to the rescue - I think very few people do consider this option.
For part of the application process, I lived in a small apartment that allowed pets, but had no yard.
After I moved, I lived in a much larger house, but with 5 males, with me being the only female (apparently this raised a few eyebrows). Also my landlord, while amenable to having a GSD on the premise, lives in Texas and is very hard to get a hold of.
I had a tiny - but fenced in - yard of concrete, no grass.
Being in college, I did not have the steady income that I have now.
I listed my family pets on many of my apps, which I shouldn't've done, and could not account for why they were not fully vetted or had gotten yearly vaccines (my parents do not believe in spending money on animals).

Rescues generally only adopt to those locally, so despite the large number of rescues in the country, there were only a handful available to me. 

Many rescues took one look at my app, and either told me "you're too young" or "you're still in college!" or just never called me back. Others went far enough to check out my references, but brought up things on the list above and denied me. Ultimately every rescue I applied to (and I applied to quite a few) either never contacted me again or denied my application, because my situation did not fit their requirements one way or another. 

I desperately wanted to own a dog, but was set on rescuing, so I looked at local shelters. Still had the same problems - too young, in college. The ones that did consider me did not have a dog that matched my lifestyle or was close to what I wanted. 

Finally I was able to find the perfect dog that suited me, and an organization that would take a chance on me. But it was in Kentucky. So instead of sitting around, waiting for my local shelter to maybe get in the dog I wanted, my boyfriend and I drove to Kentucky from Baltimore, 10 hours each way, over 1000 miles total. For the money I spent on that trip I could've easily had a well-bred dog from a reputable breeder shipped to me.

All I'm saying is, I know rescues make a commitment to each dog they take in. But I wanted the same thing those rescues did - a great home for a deserving pooch. If they had just looked beyond my application, came in for a home visit, did an interview, I think they would have given me more consideration. I do not expect any rescue to take my word for it, but I KNOW I am a great home for a dog, and each of those rescues that passed me by missed out on giving one of their dogs a great home. I was more than willing to provide references, submit to a home visit, do an interview, give them monthly updates and photos, but it just wasn't enough.

I do not, for a second, regret driving to Kentucky to get Bodie. He is perfect, one of the best things that has ever happened to me. But I do think that it is ridiculous how hard it was for me to adopt from a reputable rescue, and my options were limited to waiting months for the right dog to come along in a local shelter or on craigslist, driving a far distance to adopt, or buying from a BYB or reputable breeder.


----------



## DnP

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: TxRiderNot one bit more than your misunderstanding of how profoundly offensive it is to me to be treated like a criminal for wanting to adopt a dog, and being subjected to an invasive investigation for simply wanting to help a dog live and have a good life, as I have done all my life.
> 
> Maybe I'm just too old but I was raised that a man's word is his bond. It is intensely offensive that I could look someone in the eye, shake their hand, and not be trusted to even care for a dogs welfare.


I'm 100% in agreement w/ GSDElsa. People lie all the time. and while you may argue that, well, I DON'T lie, I can bet that if a rescue got a dollar for every time they heard that, donations would never be needed. Sadly, a lot of people cannot be taken at their word and in today's world, a man's word and his handshake doesn't mean poop. We don't live in that kind of world anymore.

Not only that, I'm willing to bet that nearly all policies and procedures followed by a rescue is because they've been burned. We aren't talking about dogs that they just take in and house. The dogs are not only housed, but they are vetted, trained, worked with on behavioral issues, and treated like a part of the rescuers' families. And I know that if I was going to adopt out part of my family, you can be darn sure that I'm going to know EXACTLY what kind of home he/she is going to.

A shelter, as said before, is a county/locally run facility. You will note that those dogs aren't being given the care that a dog in a rescue is. Why...because most can't afford to because of $$$. How many dogs would die in shelters b/c they were heartworm positive or because they have behavioral problems and most people don't want to take that on? MOST people going to shelters are not looking for a senior or a sickly dog that is going to cost them hundreds or thousands of dollars at the get go.

If it weren't for these rescues, I wouldn't have the wonderful dog I have now. I knew that some rescues required a physical fence and I do not have one. So I looked for rescues that did not have that stringent of a requirement for adoption. I was upfront and honest w/ my work schedule, my lack of physical fencing and instead, having an invisible fence. I had every vet I ever visited w/ my previous dog, Dakota. I moved 5 times during his life and had gotten his records from each vet each time I moved. I gave the names of the dog walker I used for Dakota at where I currently live and the one I had when we lived in PA. I was not insulted that the rescuse required a home visit. I joked about it w/ friends and family that the application and requirements were as stringent as if I were adopting a baby. But you know what, I understand why. 

We all have free will to do what we chose. So if you find the whole rescue process offensive, you've already voiced that you won't go to one. And as far as the topic of good/great/bad owners. I can tell you this. By some standards, my brother and his family would be considered "good" owners. However, they have a 110lb dog that doesn't get enough exercise, is destructive, has been poorly socialized and it shows everytime he's gone after a stranger for no reason. But, he is sweet as pie to those he loves. My brother and SIL have their hands full w/ 4 kids and busy schedules. Do they love their dog, yes. Would I consider them "good owners"...not really. More like OK owners.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Our rescue took a chance on several young people and we, unfortunately, have to report a 100% return rate from these adoption. They all seemed committed and responsible at the time of the interview/adoption/home visit and, sadly, returned the dog during the first life event.

In one case the young couple lived in a nice house with a yard that belonged to the parents. The young man was very serious and was a student in the police academy. His girlfriend was stay-at-home. His parents co-signed the adoption contract saying that they will take responsibility for the dog in case the young couple is unable to. The updates were good for several months. Nearly a year later they contacted us wanting the surrender the dog the next day. They were moving and were not taking the dog along. Sadly, the dog was in horrible condition both physically (pretty much emaciated) and emotionally (handler aggression, fearful behavior). They had the pup since he was 9-10 weeks old and he was a happy and outgoing baby at that time. We successfully fixed both problems and Luke is in a wonderful adult home now. The parents that co-signed the adoption contract were nowhere to be found at the time of the return.


----------



## Doubleminttwin

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I don't think its fair to single out young ppl. How many poeple considered mature have returned their dogs, or had their dogs taken away? Yea that is a horrible story but thats one young couple it could just have easily been an "adult". I know when we were looking for a gsd shelters didn't want us either, thankfully the one knew me and were more than willing to give me a chance. Most young ppl get so frustrated they do turn to byb's and then get yelled at by the "old" ppl when all they wanted was a dog. Shelters and rescues should not discriminate against anyone over the age of 18, they are considered adults, have the same reponsibility and privleges as adults and should be given a chance if they meet the housing and excersise criteria. Baya has a wonderful home w/us and it makes me sad to think that ppl like me and my sister and virginia get denied the opportunity to save a dog. You can say that young ppl are more iresponsible all you want but everyone is an individual and I have seen far more cases of "mature adults" abusing, neglecting and surrendering animals than "young ppl".


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

This is not what our experience shows. Young people that we took a chance on did not have stable income, a stable and long term relationship and home with a long-term track record. They are much more likely to move, change jobs and partners (end up with a partner not fond of dogs or a baby with allergies) than people with an established track record, especially of dog ownership on their own. Actually our attorney advised us that only people above 21 can sign a legally binding adoption contract. We require someone to co-sign if under 18, not that it has helped any in the past. 

We do not automatically decline very young people but we did not have a 100% return rate with any other age group so the enthusiasm is low (based on several experinces). I work with people in the 18-30 age range and I would not entrust a dog to most of those I work with as they are not very responsbile and dependeble in terms of their commitments, especially in case of hardship or inconvenience that interferes with entertainment and hobbies. There are always exceptions, of course, sadly the bad apples ruin the prospects for others.


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I don't remember correctly, but weren't you trying to find a temp home for Baya?
That's the situation with lots of people that are off at school, but many don't bother to look for a solution. They give their new dogs up when they become inconvenient.


----------



## Doubleminttwin

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: DenaliFofaliI don't remember correctly, but weren't you trying to find a temp home for Baya?
> That's the situation with lots of people that are off at school, but many don't bother to look for a solution. They give their new dogs up when they become inconvenient.


haha no I wasn't. Sorry you misunderstood the situation.







I was trying to think of a solution that wouldn't have her being boarded for a week, but that situation has been resolved. Why? Because not all young ppl dump their dogs when its not convenient for them, I have seen quite a few "adults" do this though...


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Um no, actually, that was a *compliment* to you and trying to make a point that not all people in school are willing to deal with moving constantly with a dog. You did, good job. 
Try not to be on the defensive so often!


----------



## Doubleminttwin

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I wasn't being defensive, try not looking for faults in ppl all the time. All I did was correct you to the situation and try to explain to the thread that not all young ppl dump their dogs, sorry if you are definsive.


----------



## Jax08

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Denali...if you go into ppl's profile there is a nifty little ignore feature....


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:
> A shelter, as said before, is a county/locally run facility. You will note that those dogs aren't being given the care that a dog in a rescue is. Why...because most can't afford to because of $$$.


It would appear many rescues do not have the $$ either. Both of mine are from rescues, both with issues not treated I assume from lack of money.



> Quote:If it weren't for these rescues, I wouldn't have the wonderful dog I have now. I knew that some rescues required a physical fence and I do not have one. So I looked for rescues that did not have that stringent of a requirement for adoption. I was upfront and honest w/ my work schedule, my lack of physical fencing and instead, having an invisible fence. I had every vet I ever visited w/ my previous dog, Dakota. I moved 5 times during his life and had gotten his records from each vet each time I moved. I gave the names of the dog walker I used for Dakota at where I currently live and the one I had when we lived in PA. I was not insulted that the rescuse required a home visit. I joked about it w/ friends and family that the application and requirements were as stringent as if I were adopting a baby. But you know what, I understand why.


Same here, the reason for discussing was that I would rather not rule out shelters for adoption policy, as I did.

I used a shelter that interviewed me, watched my interaction with the dog, took references (but never called them), and had me fill out a complete adoption form with all the info needed. They followed up via e-mail and asked for pics of Hope as well a couple of months later.

I was fine with that, but not with more. I just have to wonder how many more are like me and what effect the situation has.



> Quote:We all have free will to do what we chose. So if you find the whole rescue process offensive, you've already voiced that you won't go to one. And as far as the topic of good/great/bad owners. I can tell you this. By some standards, my brother and his family would be considered "good" owners. However, they have a 110lb dog that doesn't get enough exercise, is destructive, has been poorly socialized and it shows everytime he's gone after a stranger for no reason. But, he is sweet as pie to those he loves. My brother and SIL have their hands full w/ 4 kids and busy schedules. Do they love their dog, yes. Would I consider them "good owners"...not really. More like OK owners.


The flip side is how good a life does a dog have at a rescue with 200-300 dogs in kennels? Do they get optimal exercise? Optimal socialization? Optimal training?. Are they better off than your brother's dog?

Would your brother be allowed to adopt? If not is that fair to the dogs in a kill shelter waiting for a spot at a no kill rescue?

At any rate I've heard several perspective from rescuers, fosters, etc. and have a better idea why things are the way they are. And people have heard my perspective and I know they know the effects the policies have that they may not see when people pass them by without every contacting them.

Now I need to get over to discussing things I came here for, better ways to handle Hope's possible allergy issues with her feet and ears.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: ILGHAUS
> 
> Then you have the no-kill shelters and rescues. They are usually backed by donations or the rescuers themselves. Their reason is not to move large numbers of animals but to take an animal, make sure it is healthy both physically and mentally, and then find the most perfect home for that particular animal.


And therein lies my misunderstanding. I assumed the reason was to save as many dogs from death as possible.

And I questioned that if that is the case, would not more dogs be saved if standards were not so high that people were put off from going to them in the first place. 

And would it be better in the big picture if more dogs went to "ok" owners and not "perfect" owners, and more dogs were able to be saved from death.

But as you said the purpose is not to save the maximum number of animals, but to find perfect homes for a few.

I don't think many people object to filling out and signing an adoption form, with references, and paying an adoption fee. I certainly don't. I'm just not up for more than that.

I'll duck out with a pic of little Monica from Camp Wolfgang.. What a sweetie she is. about 3yrs old according to my vet, and about 40lbs, I will always wonder what she's mixed with... everyone thinks she's a pure bred puppy.

She's a happy puppy, getting used to her new home fast...


----------



## spiritsmom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Here's a link to a blog written by Nathan Winograd. 

Good Homes Need Not Apply 

His opinion lies somewhere in the middle. I am leaning more towards his views. I used to be at the other end - did not want to adopt to people with unaltered pets, pets that were outside during the day, etc. But although I haven't done any rescuing in the last 2 yrs I find that I was a little too strict back in my humane society days. 

At the extreme other end is the rescue we adopted our little Kuma from whom we lost to parvo. That rescue did have an application but it was a waste of my time to fill it out as they didn't check anything. Didn't call my vet, didn't call my references, didn't even call me! They just e-mailed with me. I sent the app and waited, didn't have to wait too long to hear back that I was "approved" and they could meet me halfway to exchange puppy and money. I had expectations of them doing a home visit or me going to their house to interact with the puppy and adopting him if he was right for us. Instead it was presented to me that I would be met in a parking lot off the highway with the puppy and I just needed to bring the "adoption fee" of $100. This fee covered one shot and one worming - he was not neutered and there was no neuter deposit. I was supposed to have it done and fax them proof of it. They asked no questions of me. It was assumed by them that I would be taking the pup that evening whether he was a good fit or not. To me this was the epitome of how a rescue is not supposed to work. Our puppy died of parvo despite a long battle to save him - we truly feel he had it at the time of adoption. My daughter who doesn't even understand death has had to say good-bye to her first puppy. It's not fair that this happened and follow up e-mails to the rescue have been pointless and they seem to have an uncaring attitude. I have repeatedly asked for the adoption fee back but since they appear to be in it more for the money than for anything else I have my doubts I will ever hear back from them on that issue. I e-mailed them the same night we found out he had parvo and all e-mails from them consisted of "he's in our prayers" - that was all, just one sentence each time. I had and still have no phone number to contact them - they have all of my phone numbers but never once contacted me on their own. I could have been a horrible home for all they knew - they did not check on me at all. I have no issue with home visits and vet checking. 

I have been approved and declined by other rescues. Some didn't like how young my daughter is, some thought I didn't need another dog (I have 4), some thought my vet history was not up to par as I do not vaccinate yearly - they get vet checked yearly but not vaccinated every year, some didn't like the height/type of fencing I have, and still others didn't like that I wasn't a stay at home mom basically (the pup would be crated for 4-5 hours while we worked). But I just went on to the next rescue/shelter. At the time we adopted Kuma we had been approved by 2 other rescues with puppies but decided to go see Kuma first and see the others later that week. We had planned to visit with all 3 and then decide, but we took Kuma because it was just love at first sight and he seemed to be a nice fit. 

Well there's my relatively long and slightly off track response. If I ever get into rescue again in the future I don't plan to have blanket policies and will instead take the dog's needs into consideration when choosing the right home. I don't agree with giving every person who comes knocking a dog but I know that when at the humane society I denied some applications when they really should have been approved since the dog they wanted probably would have fit just fine into the situation I had an issue with. For example, there was a Shepherd/Husky mix named Circa whose application I had denied because they planned to keep her mostly outdoors as companion for their other dog. Inside when they were home and at night, but in an enclosed kennel during the day for about 10-11 hours. She was very dog friendly and looking back would have been fine with that situation. She did eventually get adopted but I know she was with us for many months and taking up a kennel for that long when she could have been sent to this home that would have been fine for her. That's just one that comes to mind immediately and I know there were many others.


----------



## ILGHAUS

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:And I questioned that if that is the case, would not more dogs be saved if standards were not so high that people were put off from going to them in the first place.


More dogs would be pulled from high-kill shelters but rescues are not formed to pull and pass on to anyone who shows up with $$ and a reference in hand. As to being saved, well some would be and some might end up in a circumstance where a quick death would be a blessing.



> Quote: The flip side is how good a life does a dog have at a rescue with 200-300 dogs in kennels? Do they get optimal exercise? Optimal socialization? Optimal training?.


I've never seen a rescue with hundreds of dogs in kennel runs so I'm confused on that statement. Dogs pulled by rescues are normally placed in private homes (foster families) where they can be taken care of to prepare to be placed into their new family. 

When you say rescue are you talking about a low-kill or no-kill shelter? Shelters are not the same thing as a rescue. 

I can only recommend that those people who seem so concerned about rescues and their standards limiting the number of dogs taken from a high-kill shelter probably need to go and adopt one, two, or more extra dogs themselves and also encourage all their friends and family members to do the same. Afterall, if people only adopt one or two dogs that leaves many behind to be euthanized.


----------



## ILGHAUS

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Just for the record, I am in a probably not so common position as I work with and attend advisory/board meetings with both a high-kill and a no-kill shelter in my county. They are formed for different reasons and purposes.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: TxRider
> The flip side is how good a life does a dog have at a rescue with 200-300 dogs in kennels? Do they get optimal exercise? Optimal socialization? Optimal training?. Are they better off than your brother's dog?


This statement shows that you have no idea how rescues operate. 
Rescues with 200-300 dogs in kennels?







It would be a good idea for you to educate yourself about the organizations you keep attacking. When people tried to educate you earlier in the thread you said you don't care to know. 

As to not wanting screening and home visits, it is your right. There are plenty of places (that are not puppy mills or BYB) where you can get a dog/cat without screeing and you and others who feel like should go there (animal control facilities, craiglist). It is easy.

For those who feel that more animals need to be saved, they are welome to do something about it. Empty talking won't save more lives. They can start an organization that works better than those they are attacking and saves more lives, for example. If the new organization is successful, I am sure rescues (whatever you mean by that) will follow the example that was set.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I think the confusion about the 200-300 dogs in kennels was Camp Wolfgang was set up like that and called themselves rescue. I am pretty sure they didn't do home visits either-even before the adoptionpalooza. I am not 100% on that, just remember looking over their adoption information once after someone was going to adopt and mentioned them. 

To me they were a no-kill shelter (which doesn't mean they don't kill, just like a rescue sometimes has to PTS) more than a rescue. 

That is why, to most of us, rescue has a place in terms of quality over quantity. They come in to our homes, we fill the emptiness they have in terms of health, socialization and training that they came to us with, and we give a whole dog to a loving home where love doesn't just mean emotion but also quality of care.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Yes, Camp Wolfgang did try the large numers, failed financially and closed. The large numbers of dogs they took in were again in danger of being euthanized without external help. I wonder if it would have worked better on the long run if they stayed with a smaller number of dogs. We will never know.

The number of dogs a rescue can take is limited by the resources they have, money for care and volunteer foster homes. It is totally absurd to bully a rescue that does not have adequate resources for more dogs to take in more dogs.


----------



## piercesdesigns

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I am not really a part of the GSD world, just here because a very in need GSD found me and I helped him. BUT, I have been doing rescue for many many years. I am "retired" from it. I actually retired from it at age 34. LOL (I am 42)

I HAVE seen, with my own eyes at least one rescue with HUNDREDS of animals. It was awful. I was called by them because a purebred sheltie was there. I drove out to this rural property in NC in August of 2000.

As I drove up the long drive, there was a number of dogs running around, then I crested the hill and saw a line of chain-link kennels on the top of a hill. No trees. One "shelter" per pen. 6+ dogs per kennel. The temperature was in the high 90s.

While I was there, I observed her ripping open bags and dumping them over the pen sides and seeing the dominant dogs eat and the skeletal dogs cower. 

I saw a family pull up in a station wagon with a load of puppies in the back. While I watched in horror, I saw her walk into a pen, grab dogs by one front leg and one back leg and THROW them over the pen into the adjoining one to clear space for the puppies. I got the sheltie and drove away, stopping to throw up on the way home from the horror I had witnessed.

I called official after official. No one cared.

You can read about the ultimate outcome here:


http://petoftheday.com/talk/archive/index.php/t-15559.html


----------



## piercesdesigns

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

BTW, I brought home another dog beside the sheltie from that [heck]. The little golden/cocker had no less than 175 fully engorged ticks on her. The sheltie immediately came down with demodetic mange. 

They found the bodies of thousands of animals in her ponds, in the woods, etc. 

She was a licensed rescue.


----------



## Jax08

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

That is NOT a rescue by any definition.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: spiritsmomHere's a link to a blog written by Nathan Winograd.
> 
> Good Homes Need Not Apply
> 
> His opinion lies somewhere in the middle. I am leaning more towards his views. I used to be at the other end - did not want to adopt to people with unaltered pets, pets that were outside during the day, etc. But although I haven't done any rescuing in the last 2 yrs I find that I was a little too strict back in my humane society days.


Thank you Michelle for this acticle. It was a good read. 

In my hard and fast experiences in the last several years, I question and try to learn everything, about shelters and rescues. 

I want to live in a world where every animal gets the perfect home. My husband and I have often said, we could not run a rescue, we would keep them all because no home would be good enough. When I once went through the horror of trying to rehome, it was because I thought our home was not good enough, (that dog is still with us, because we stepped it up). 

I agree with this acticle and what this man says. That story about the old couple is just heart wrenching, and I bet things like this happen everyday. 

From what I have seen this is what is happening. People WANT to save dogs. Then if they get turned down they go right to a back yard breeder. 

Every rescue has the right to make their own policies. But like he said in an article, if you have dogs or cats in foster for 7 years, come on...maybe you should change them. 

I do not know the solution, still looking, it is gut wrenching. But Txrider and the article has some valid points. 

So sorry for what you went through with Kuma Michelle. My he rest in peace.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

That is not a rescue, it is a hoarding operation. It is a huge problem that people who help dogs keep being or feeling pressured to take in and save more and more. Things can get out of control easily as resources for care are always limited. Next thing, the whole operation falls apart, like it happened with Camp Wolfgang (which which was a no kill shelter and sanctuary) and many others. As a result the dogs end up in a bad situation again.


----------



## piercesdesigns

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

From the article:


> Quoter. Carol Woodlief, animal welfare veterinarian with the N.C.
> Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, said that the Animal
> Welfare Act does not distinguish between types of shelters. "We do
> not govern any shelter policy," she added.
> 
> Woodlief did confirm that BARK is licensed as a privately owned
> animal shelter.
> 
> Under the veterinary division of the Department of Agriculture, this
> type of shelter is described as: "A facility which is used to house
> or contain animals and which is owned, operated or maintained by a
> duly incorporated humane society, animal welfare society for the
> prevention of cruelty to animals or other nonprofit organization
> devoted to the welfare, protection and humane treatment of animals."
> 
> Technically, "what Ann is doing is not illegal," Roser said. Robert
> Hyatt, county manager, confirmed there are no county ordinances in
> place to prevent what has been done.


She inhumanely euthanized 5,077 dogs and cats in 2 years! They believe she drowned many and used phenolbarbital (sp) to OD others. 

I wish I had bleach to remove that memory from my brain. I still cry when I think about it. And all I could do was make phone call after phone call. It wasn't until a sheriff was up for re-election that the place got shut down.

With my own personal work with rescue, I do check references, I do home visits. I have never turned anyone down because they own an animal or because they don't own an animal. I have gone in and removed dogs from placement when I found they violated our requirements. (Finding one of our dogs chained in a backyard with no food or water. I waited in their driveway for 4 hours until they returned home and took the dog home.)

I don't apologize for my standards. I do what is in the best interest of the lives I am entrusted with. I temper it with common sense and compassion for both the animal and the prospective owner. Some rules can be bent, others never. 

But I will say, if someone refused a home visit, I'd immediately cross them off. That is non-negotiable.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

The article Michelle posted applies to the rules and the regulations of the Humane Society of the United States, which is NOT a rescue. Most humane societies operate very differently than rescues do. The ones under attack here are rescues, so it would be great to limit the bad exampes to rescues (in the classical sense). A new thread could be opened on how to fix the Humane Society of the United States another thread for the SPCA or Animal Control. Rescues have no say as to how Animal Control, SPCA, HSUS or hoardersrun their business. Those organizations do not have representatives on this board. Apparently, Camp Wolfgang, that did not have strict adoption policies was unable to place more dogs. Why? Because an area can absorb that many dogs.

As to dogs being in rescue for years, those are the ones with issues that nobody wants. We had several old dogs living out their lives in volunteer foster homes because nobody wanted them. Never even an application and I rather not repeat the comments applicants made when we suggested them to adopt an older dog. They lived out their lives in our volunteer foster homes and became one of our own - receiving the same care as our personal dogs (all fosters do). Other dogs that can be there for a long time are animals with medical issues, aggression issues and behavioral issues. I had two fosters with bite history that were impossible to place because nobody wanted them and because they would have been a liability to place. They stayed with me and lived to be 13 and 12. There are long term dogs dogs in rural areas that have zero adoption rates even though the rescues there have very relaxed policies. 

Around here "adoptable" (not too old, no aggression issues, no major health issues, reasonably OK looking GSDs) get adopted pretty quickly and are never around for years. Honestly, we do not have problems placing the dogs we can handle (financially and with the number of foster homes and volunteers we have) with the adoption policies we have. 

It is really wrong to take extreme cases and failures (hoarding, Camp Wolfgang closing because of lack of funds) of organizations that are not even rescues, generalize them and say that rescues don't work. 

There are maybe 10 000 members on this board, everyone chips in with a negative example they had during their lifetime and then


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSD
> This statement shows that you have no idea how rescues operate.
> Rescues with 200-300 dogs in kennels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a good idea for you to educate yourself about the organizations you keep attacking. When people tried to educate you earlier in the thread you said you don't care to know.


First, I'm not attacking anyone. That defensive reactionary mind set is clouding your responses. If you take any word or question about your position I type as an attack, no meaningful discussion is possible.

I never claimed to be an expert, I'm asking questions so to better understand and educate myself. Maybe even pass on a point of view that isn't commonly heard. Where better to learn than here?

Both my current dogs came from facilities that call themselves rescues. Both facilities had a lot of dogs in a lot of kennels. Both call themselves no kill rescues on their web sites.

Why not enlighten me thoughtfully about hat the proper definition is in your terms, instead of just calling me stupid.

I said I don't care to know and keep track of who here works at a shelter, who works at a rescue, who is just an owner, who works at animal control, who fosters dogs, etc. 

I'm not interested in keeping track of individual people's lives, nor attacking anyone, nor singling out anyone by name or activity/profession.



> Quote:As to not wanting screening and home visits, it is your right. There are plenty of places (that are not puppy mills or BYB) where you can get a dog/cat without screeing and you and others who feel like should go there (animal control facilities, craiglist). It is easy.
> 
> For those who feel that more animals need to be saved, they are welome to do something about it. Empty talking won't save more lives. They can start an organization that works better than those they are attacking and saves more lives, for example. If the new organization is successful, I am sure rescues (whatever you mean by that) will follow the example that was set.


What exactly is the official definition of a rescue, vs a no kill shelter?

According to Wiki, the only real difference seems to be a shelter is government funded. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_group



> Quote:There are two major difference between shelters and rescue groups. Shelters are usually run and funded by local government. Rescue groups are funded mainly by donations and most of the staff are volunteers. While some shelters put animals into foster homes, many are housed on site in kennels. Some rescue groups have facilities and others do not. Foster homes are heavily utilized in either case.


Neither of the places I got my two dogs from would qualify as a shelter, both call themselves rescues, both had many dogs in kennels.

Neither of my dogs were fostered that I'm aware of.

I'm sorry if you can't see any questioning as anything but an attack, but I'm a critical thinker, I question everything. That means your thought process and conclusions and especially my own thought process and conclusions.

If something doesn't make sense to me, I question it. The extent to which some groups go in checking out potential owners after much thought, simply didn't make sense to me.

My whole discussion here has been asking people with other perspectives and experience and presenting my thought process for discussion in order to make more sense of it.

I assumed that would be obvious but I guess it is not.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Another good idea would be, for those who want rescues to take in more dogs, to contact the rescue, get familiar with the operation of that one and ask what needs to be done to be able to handle more dogs. The people who "walk the walk" tend to have a pretty good idea what is needed.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

http://www.shepherdrescue.org/

http://www.magsr.org/

http://www.echodogs.org/

http://www.whitepawsgsr.com/


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

You chose the two places you adopted from because they did not do checks and did not have strict adoption policies. How do you explain that they had so many dogs for such a long time with the lax adoption policies that are acceptable to you? 

It is hard to explain things to someone who does not want to hear (or wants to hear only things that suit a particular agenda). It was explained over and over in this thread that the dogs of the reputable rescues on this board are in foster homes (occasionally in boarding until a home is available). There is a sticky thread in the rescue section about what a reputable rescue is - for everyone to read. Rescues are run by volunteers who cannot be bullied and ordered around like paid employees. If a volunteer who fosters a dog does not like the home the dog goes into, the volunteer can walk away and stop fostering.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Is anyone else spotting the connection between the groups who do exactly what TxRider is suggesting that rescues SHOULD do - take in a ton of dogs and place them without much checking or oversight and groups that are falling down in other ways as well - untreated medical conditions, disease, poor communication, ultimate failure and faced euthanasia of the dogs? Because it's forming an interesting pattern. We have Kuma's rescue - didn't do a lot of checking and placed a young inadequately vaccinated pup with parvo. TxRider says both his dogs had untreated health problems too. 

Compare this to the experience of those of us who have adopted from or adopt out ourselves and DO a lot of checking. It appears that those dogs are coming out of rescue healthy, with full disclosure of any behavioral issues, with the support of a knowledgable rescue person to ease the transition into a new home. 

Quality versus quantity.







ARE these rescues who sacrifice quality "saving more dogs"? I guess that depends on what you mean by "saving." Perhaps they're getting more dogs out of shelters. I'm not even convinced that that's true but more on that part in a minute. But even if they are, where do the dogs end up? Were they truly saved or did they just trade death with a needle for death after being hit by a car because the new home didn't think containment was that important, or death from a disease like parvo in spite of the new home's best effort to save the dog. 

The question has been posed: How many homes are lost by strict screening policies? Let's ask a different question: How many homes are lost because people are turned off after a very negative adoption experience - bringing home a sick dog or one with undisclosed behavioral problems? How much damage does THAT do to the appeal of adopting rather than buying? Because that's something to consider. I stay in touch with the people who adopt from me and they are overwhelmingly positive about their experience. They love their dogs, they love their adoption, and they tell their friends how great adoption can be. Many of their friends and families have been educated about the wonderful dogs available through rescue and gone on to adopt their own next pets because of this positive PR. How many dogs does that save? 

There are a lot of different ways to look at these issues beyond "quick placement = more dogs 'saved'." 

Now back to the idea of the dogs in the shelter - What TxRider doesn't know (and isn't expected to know) is that the entire purpose of my rescue group is to work with rural shelters who have tons of animals and high euthanasia rates. We work our butts off precisely because we care a great deal about the animals in those places but we don't help them by scrimping on our adoption policies and placing them in substandard homes. Our foster dogs get top notch care in private foster homes and are placed only when they're healthy and ready into carefully screened homes. Does that slow down placement rates? Sure, but we owe it to the dogs in our care to be careful. We can still help the dogs back at the shelter in other ways. We organize long distance transports to similarly reputable and careful rescues in other areas. We buy vaccines to reduce the number of puppies at the shelter getting parvo. We coordinate food donation so that the shelters don't have to euthanize for lack of food and the animals can eat a quality diet while they're there. We set these shelters up on Petfinder, often maintaining their sites ourselves, so that their animals are able to get some exposure. Our group has multiple members that each focus their efforts on a particular shelter. Each shelter coordinator works with other rescuers and volunteers to assist their shelter. In the 5 years I've been working with the one I coordinate for, we've lowered their euthanasia rate from 99% to 45%. That's still higher than we'd like, but what a difference! That percentage drop represents the lives of literally THOUSANDS of dogs and cats who aren't in a landfill, they are living happy lives in GOOD adoptive homes. And we've done it all without sacrificing quality. 

There are many ways to help and many ways to care. Sometimes the most obvious "solution" isn't actually a solution at all but is based on misunderstanding the situation. I'm glad people are reading this thread and getting educated. I only hope they're reading with an open mind. I have been doing this a long time in a variety of venues. I too am a critical thinker. I don't accept things on faith or guesswork, I am always trying to improve the system, help more animals, do a better and more efficient job. However, I have come to the inevitable conclusion that the homes we lose by having rigorous screening procedures are not typically homes we want anyway and the small number who may be good homes but are turned off do not represent sufficient numbers to compensate for the increased risk of placing an animal in a bad home. We're far better off trying to save more animals in other ways and keeping our screening the way it is.


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDYou chose the two places you adopted from because they did not do checks and did not have strict adoption policies. How do you explain that they had so many dogs for such a long time with the lax adoption policies that are acceptable to you?


Now I'm having a plain old hard time following...
I realize this is an emotional topic and that TX is way in over his head, but still.
I must have missed it. Where did he say he chose them because they didn't do home checks?


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqIs anyone else spotting the connection between the groups who do exactly what TxRider is suggesting that rescues SHOULD do - take in a ton of dogs and place them without much checking or oversight and groups that are falling down in other ways as well - untreated medical conditions, disease, poor communication, ultimate failure and faced euthanasia of the dogs? Because it's forming an interesting pattern. We have Kuma's rescue - didn't do a lot of checking and placed a young inadequately vaccinated pup with parvo. TxRider says both his dogs had untreated health problems too.


I must have missed something else here as well.
All I see is someone asking questions at the moment?
I think he's got his definition on rescues screwed up and it just needs to be cleared up.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

In the Camp Wolfgang thread (I think it is in the non-urgent adoption now) and he repeated it several times. He basically said that he ruled out every rescue that does home visits and reference checks to start with and the people he knows would do the same. This is how he ended up with the rescue he got Hope from and this is why Camp Wolfgang was acceptable. The whole communication is about rescues are wrong for having home visits and reference checks. If you read the Camp Wolfgang (Ennis, TX) thread, you will find it. He keeps attacking the home visit procedures and reference checks in this thread as well.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDYou chose the two places you adopted from because they did not do checks and did not have strict adoption policies. How do you explain that they had so many dogs for such a long time with the lax adoption policies that are acceptable to you?


I can't explain it for sure. Hope is a large GSD with two cauliflowered ears and basically was feral that they told me they never thought anyone would ever adopt. She would also be a disaster for someone who never owned a dog or didn't know how or take the effort to work hard on her. 

She simply wasn't very attractive or adoptable, and they wanted to make sure if she was adopted it was the right home, no little animals, no young kids, and someone with plenty of experience.

But they did get demand I had proper fencing, gave my DL#, lots of information like work address, work number, they did require references, my last vet, they did interview me on my experience with dogs and watch me interact with her, they did photocopy my drivers license and required $175 adoption fee..

Then they followed up a month or so later wanting to see current pictures of her.

It's not like I just walked up and they handed her over no questions asked. They just didn't ask for a home inspection, and didn't actually call my references. They took my word.

As for Monica who knows? The process was unique in that the shelter was closing. I did basically just walk up fill out an app and take her home. Why was she not treated? The balances owed on the two different vet's bills in her folder, and closure of the rescue apparently due to financial reasons, makes me think it was simply cost. How many other rescues are on the brink, running huge vet balances? I have no idea.

That's why I ask such critical questions, from a group of people of varied experience, such as the community here.



> Quote:It is hard to explain things to someone who does not want to hear (or wants to hear only things that suit a particular agenda).


Look in the mirror.. You seem to have such an agenda you even read it into all I say. Coloring your perception with your preconceived notion that I have some "agenda" and I don't hear what you are saying. Go back and read more carefully. 



> Quote:It was explained over and over in this thread that the dogs of the reputable rescues on this board are in foster homes (occasionally in boarding until a home is available). There is a sticky thread in the rescue section about what a reputable rescue is - for everyone to read. Rescues are run by volunteers who cannot be bullied and ordered around like paid employees. If a volunteer who fosters a dog does not like the home the dog goes into, the volunteer can walk away and stop fostering.


So stop repeating it, fosters are not the only rescues, and not the only ones who check out adopters. All rescues obviously do not fit into that box.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: DenaliFofali
> I think he's got his definition on rescues screwed up and it just needs to be cleared up.


That is what we are trying, unsuccessfully. It keeps back going to pushing rescues to save more dogs by lowering adoption standards (which are to blame for the dogs being euthanized at shelters).


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I am just copying what TxRider posted in the Camp Wolfgang thread for everybody's reference. this is what started the discussion on the current thread. 

From TxRider:
"Actually that is what I am saying, as well as the process itself scares people away and they do not even contact the shelter.

I have never left a dog at a shelter or pound, any stray I find I keep until I can find it a good home myself, for free, or just keep them for life. Never taken a dog from shelter before Hope, but I decided to try it.

I just don't think people realize how many very good owners are either ruled out, or never ever even contact the rescue/shelter because the intrusive "home inspection" things scares them away and into the arms of a pet store.

I would never buy a dog from a pet store, but I think most would before they would submit to a contract like some I read, and a home inspection etc. and I certainly would, and did rule those rescues/shelters out of my choice.

When I found Hope I was intentionally looking for a harder case, less adoptable dog because I know I can deal with it, but no site with a home inspection and restrictive contract even got a second look from me. I mean, why would I?

I'm not attacking anyone, it's their dogs and their choice of rules completely, just saying it may multiply how long it takes to adopt out a dog, if they ever do, from the perspective of a dog lover and prospective adopter. I'm not sure shelters are aware of the effect.

I'm a responsible person, but most strangers that come to my home are bonded, insured, with criminal background checks, like plumbers or electricians etc. Does a shelter have insurance, bonding, background checks on the person coming to "inspect" my home?

Not worth the hassle, I simply passed them all by."


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

More from TxRider the other thread for clarification:

TxRider
"Would a rescuer gladly allow me to go inspect their home without proper bonding, insurance, background check? Give me enough info to steal their identity as a stranger?

Do most shelters have proper insurance and bonding/background checks on all employees for private home inspections?

Trust is a two way street.

Is the process effective if it chases off so many good adopters?

I talked to the regular crowd at the local dog park today, everyone had rescued dogs, half had never heard of such a thing, the rest said they wouldn't do a home inspection for an adoption.

As for hearts and souls, Hope came from a reputable rescue, who got all my info and a contract and asked for pictures for a couple of months after I adopted her, but she came with serious long term ear infections that cost me hundreds of dollars on top of the adoption fee that I was not warned about. She cost me several hundred dollars the first 90 days just to get her healthy, vaccinated, up to weight and not walking with her head cocked and yelping and scratching her ears. They said they had her for a year.

Monika I just brought home is supposedly heartworm positive, tested last December and not treated so I'll be paying for treatment. They told me she was a year old, so heartworms couldn't too bad, but on closer inspection she's clearly at least 3 years old by her teeth wear and plaque buildup alone and has been pregnant. I may have more discoveries when she gets a full checkup Monday at the vet.

I likely could have done as well at animal Control.

Like I said I understand the sentiment, I just think the odds of a dog going to a dog fighter, or an animal abuser, are pretty low. A lot more dogs could potentially be helped if potential adopters weren't put off by the process maybe.

How many dogs are euthanized because there's no room for them at rescues, because so many are put off by the adoption process and rescues are so full?"


----------



## Jax08

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

TxRider...by this paragraph Rebel posted I'm reading that anyone coming into your home is bonded, insured, with criminal background checks.

So my interpretation of this is that you don't trust the ppl coming into your home to just tell you the truth and that you expect them to have the proper paperwork to prove it. 

So why would you think a rescue should just take a person's word that they are a good home with a fenced yard and that they are terrific people?

I'm just not following your logic at all.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSD
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: DenaliFofali
> I think he's got his definition on rescues screwed up and it just needs to be cleared up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what we are trying, unsuccessfully. It keeps back going to pushing rescues to save more dogs by lowering adoption standards (which are to blame for the dogs being euthanized at shelters).
Click to expand...

Nobody has of yet stated a definition of a rescue. My understanding is that it is basically any facility not owned/funded by local government, making it a shelter.



> Quote:Comparing rescue groups and shelters
> 
> There are two major difference between shelters and rescue groups. Shelters are usually run and funded by local government. Rescue groups are funded mainly by donations and most of the staff are volunteers. *While some shelters put animals into foster homes, many are housed on site in kennels. Some rescue groups have facilities and others do not. Foster homes are heavily utilized in either case.*


From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_group

Is this incorrect? It seems they are pretty interchangeable other than government funding.

I have asked several times for a clear definition, but the response is never clear.

All I keep hearing is that people who foster dogs love them so much they will accept nothing short of perfection, and want to make sure with their own eyes. That's a great answer, but doesn't cover all rescues.

I'm not trying to push anyone to do anything whatsoever, I'm sharing an opinion and asking people what is wrong with it. If that offends maybe you shouldn't answer.

What I have learned is that rescues purpose, as seen by most, is to give the dogs they can save a perfect life, rather than give more dogs an "ok" life and a few maybe a bad life.

That saving as many dogs from death as possible is not the mission or goal. That is what I was missing, and what prompted me to ask the questions.

That's just reality is it not? Acknowledging it is not attacking anyone, nor pushing anyone, it's just acknowledging reality.

People here have explained clearly why they choose this.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

More TxRider
'Just a note, at least from my perspective, I have never nor has anyone in my family had dogs that weren't very well cared for and lived to die of old age related issues.

But I will never even attempt to adopt a dog if it requires a full background check and home visit. Just not going to happen.

I can understand why rescues want to do that, but it surely cuts out a lot of if not most of the good responsible potential owners and makes it significantly harder to place an animal.

Hope was my first experience adopting from a rescue, and even signing the "contract" was against my principles without references and any type of visit required.

I don't mind an adoption fee, but how deep into someone's life do expect to be able delve for wanting to adopt a rescue dog, when they can just go buy a puppy mill pup for the same or less than an adoption fee no visits etc. or references required? Seems a bit counter productive.

Sorry for ranting, but it's something that bugged me when I decided to adopt and eventually found Hope. Any shelter that required calling references or a home visit was ruled right out right off the bat and not even considered. I'm not sure if rescues are aware of how much effect it has.

I have kept in touch with the rescue I adopted Hope from, they did want to see some pics of her which was their way of checking up I guess, and that was all fine with me.

As for these dogs, I did fill out a contract with all my info and phone number for Monica, standard adoption form, but that's it. So they do have records of where they went, and they are all chipped, providing everyone filled out the forms honestly."


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

A while ago I tried to summarize, then never went back to it! I didn't even address facilities, which I should have. I hope you can see it. It is TOTALLY a draft, so go easy on me.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: Jax08TxRider...by this paragraph Rebel posted I'm reading that anyone coming into your home is bonded, insured, with criminal background checks.
> 
> So my interpretation of this is that you don't trust the ppl coming into your home to just tell you the truth and that you expect them to have the proper paperwork to prove it.
> 
> So why would you think a rescue should just take a person's word that they are a good home with a fenced yard and that they are terrific people?
> 
> I'm just not following your logic at all.


Because you ignore what I've posted, or have a reading comprehension issue I must assume. 

I have stated over and over again... Time after time... That an application with references, vet history, drivers license #, proper ID, interview, etc. is just fine.

I've said I even submitted to that, which as far as I was comfortable going. Why do people keep repeating I am advocating taking my word alone?


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I guess because that is what you said and kept repeating. Do I have to pull that one out as well and bring it up as a quote?


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: JeanKBBMMMAANA while ago I tried to summarize, then never went back to it! I didn't even address facilities, which I should have. I hope you can see it. It is TOTALLY a draft, so go easy on me.


So basically, it seems definitions of shelter and rescue overlap severely, and aren't really clear from person to person, or organization to organization. Basically interchangeable in many instances as Wiki says.

Which would make it seem strange for one to expect anyone to not have differences in their perceptions of which is which.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDI guess because that is what you said and kept repeating. Do I have to pull that one out as well and bring it up as a quote?


I have no idea why you would repost anything, is meant to make some kind of point?

If so I'm missing it.

Please do post up where I once said I demanded a rescue allow me to walk up and take a dog on my word alone.

Since you say I repeated it, show several...

Not that going off on a personal attack binge on me does anything to address the subject of the thread at all. But if it makes you happy to assuage your emotional reactivity doing so go for it.


----------



## piercesdesigns

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: TxRider
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: Jax08TxRider...by this paragraph Rebel posted I'm reading that anyone coming into your home is bonded, insured, with criminal background checks.
> 
> So my interpretation of this is that you don't trust the ppl coming into your home to just tell you the truth and that you expect them to have the proper paperwork to prove it.
> 
> So why would you think a rescue should just take a person's word that they are a good home with a fenced yard and that they are terrific people?
> 
> I'm just not following your logic at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Because you ignore what I've posted, or have a reading comprehension issue I must assume.
> 
> I have stated over and over again... Time after time... That an application with references, vet history, drivers license #, proper ID, interview, etc. is just fine.
> 
> I've said I even submitted to that, which as far as I was comfortable going. Why do people keep repeating I am advocating taking my word alone?
Click to expand...

Because not allowing anyone to see where the dog will live is asking them to take you at your word.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

TxRider
"Take Monica, When I decided to adopt from a rescue, I went online and looked. It didn't take long before I was screening shelters by invasive extent of adoption process before even looking at what dogs they had.

How many dogs would be euthanized if Monica was taking up a valuable spot for say 18 months, when she strikes me as about the most adoptable dog possible besides the heart worms.

A dog a month? That would be about a dozen dead dogs as the cost of trying to make sure one gets this "perfect" home..

How many puppy mill pups go to good homes because of the process? Meaning more poor dogs like Hope in a cage popping out puppies that should never be born?

To me it's more about saving more dogs, and hurting puppy mills. While one dog sits a year, waiting for that perfect home, how many good dogs die every day because people don't want to go through that process, or are denied, and then go to a puppy mill pup?

I'm thinking of another process, 3 days, then your dead. That's what happens to dogs too often. Taking a chance a person may not be the best owner seems smaller harm to me than watching so many more die with no chance at all. "


----------



## piercesdesigns

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Perhaps mandatory education classes for all pet owners should be the answer. Want to let your dog have puppies so the kids can witness the miracle of birth? How about first we take the kids to the local county shelter and have them spend a day in the killing room first. One leads to the other, no?

You can blame rescues all day long. The ultimate problem is humans. Humans who want want and they want it NOW. Don't bother them with technicalities like proper care, training, restraint, etc.


----------



## Jax08

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: TxRider
> Because you ignore what I've posted, or have a reading comprehension issue I must assume.


Wow...I was trying to follow all that you've written and was just asking a question! What is it with you ppl that you can't be decent? Get a grip already!

Perhaps it is you that has a reading comprehension problem as you never answered my







question!

Why should a rescue take someone at their word, which is what accepting an application without a home visit is, when you expect ppl to have all their documents before they come to your home?


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Here is the one where TxRider wants people to take his word:

TxRider
"Not one bit more than your misunderstanding of how profoundly offensive it is to me to be treated like a criminal for wanting to adopt a dog, and being subjected to an invasive investigation for simply wanting to help a dog live and have a good life, as I have done all my life.

*Maybe I'm just too old but I was raised that a man's word is his bond. It is intensely offensive that I could look someone in the eye, shake their hand, and not be trusted to even care for a dogs welfare*."


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: piercesdesigns
> 
> Because not allowing anyone to see where the dog will live is asking them to take you at your word.


On one issue yes. But not totally on my word. They have met me, have my personal info on the application, references and my money.

You take someone for their word at some level even with a home visit. What does it "really" give you? That I honestly have a fence and a house? 

Will they actually take proper care of the animal? You would really have to go back several times after to make sure, so your taking their word at some level regardless.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSD*Maybe I'm just too old but I was raised that a man's word is his bond. It is intensely offensive that I could look someone in the eye, shake their hand, and not be trusted to even care for a dogs welfare*."


Which does not state I expect to walk up and be handed a dog on my word alone, unless you read your agenda into it. Which apparently you clearly do.

It simply says I was raised to trust people at their word. And I generally do.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: You take someone for their word at some level even with a home visit. What does it "really" give you? That I honestly have a fence and a house?


Among other things YES! And if you had worked in rescue you'd know that's not a given. I think we've all had experiences where we get out there to do the home visit and things are NOT as they were described on the application - for example there's clear evidence that dogs are being housed outdoors or that the fence is in terrible repair etc. And you've got to figure that there are even more misrepresentations when people know you won't actually be checking. 



> Quote:Will they actually take proper care of the animal? You would really have to go back several times after to make sure, so your taking their word at some level regardless.


Exactly! This has been one of my points - there's a leap of faith and some trust that has to come into play no matter what checks you do. Doing a home visit and actually calling references isn't a guarantee, it's just a relatively simple way to reduce risk, but it doesn't eliminate it. At some point I'm going to have to trust them with the life of a dog I care about and they're going to have to trust me with what I've told them about the dog. Trust is still a big part of this. However, I see no reason to take unnecessary risk and given the number of people we catch lying on their applications, it's clear to me how important these kinds of checks are.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:Which does not state I expect to walk up and be handed a dog on my word alone


Actually that it's exactly what your statement DOES say. No agenda required.


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: You take someone for their word at some level even with a home visit. What does it "really" give you? That I honestly have a fence and a house?
> 
> 
> 
> Among other things YES! And if you had worked in rescue you'd know that's not a given. I think we've all had experiences where we get out there to do the home visit and things are NOT as they were described on the application - for example there's clear evidence that dogs are being housed outdoors or that the fence is in terrible repair etc. And you've got to figure that there are even more misrepresentations when people know you won't actually be checking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Will they actually take proper care of the animal? You would really have to go back several times after to make sure, so your taking their word at some level regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly! This has been one of my points - there's a leap of faith and some trust that has to come into play no matter what checks you do. Doing a home visit and actually calling references isn't a guarantee, it's just a relatively simple way to reduce risk, but it doesn't eliminate it. At some point I'm going to have to trust them with the life of a dog I care about and they're going to have to trust me with what I've told them about the dog. Trust is still a big part of this. However, I see no reason to take unnecessary risk and given the number of people we catch lying on their applications, it's clear to me how important these kinds of checks are.
Click to expand...

I think this sums it all up very nicely. I have much better understanding of it as well.


----------



## Doubleminttwin

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Just reading all of this it seems to me TxRider raised some valid points and questions. The home visit before I had heard of it sounded very intrusive to me as well, your trusting ppl you don't know to come into your home and tell you wether or not your good enough to own a dog. I know a lot of ppl who see this as over the top. I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just saying that I can see it from the other side too. There was no home visit involved w/Baya but idk how I would have felt if there was. I agree there should be reference checks, vet checks and proof you can afford general care ect. But I can see why some ppl might want to lie and say they have a fenced in back yard if thats what it takes to be able to save a dogs life and get a great pet. I think the ppl who don't have the ability to meet these standards are going to be more likely to go to byb's. Doesn't mean their dog wont have a great home, but it does mean a dog in a rescue or shelter will be sitting there another night w/out a home.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Which does not state I expect to walk up and be handed a dog on my word alone
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that it's exactly what your statement DOES say. No agenda required.
Click to expand...

No it does not, in any way.

especially in light of so many posts in the thread saying I have no problem giving all pertinent information.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I wanted to add this but it was too late to edit my post



> Quote:It simply says I was raised to trust people at their word.


That's actually not at all what your statement says. Your statement is that you find it offensive if people don't trust _you_ at _your _word. 

I think part of the reason you don't understand why people are offended by your posts and demeanor is that you're not taking responsibility for or perhaps are misunderstanding what you're actually writing.









I'm a logical person. I'm not reading anything extra into your statements so when I read that you expect someone to trust your word to take care of a dog and you're offended if they don't then that's what I think you mean.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Do I hear troll alert bells ringing?


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

This is so not right. Why do rescue threads ALWAYS end up like this. 

Txrider RESCUED a dog from Camp Wolfgang and will be HW treating it. AND now is being attacked for an OPINON. AN opinon that I hear ALL the time. 

No one likes strangers in their home. Yes, it needs to be done. But they do not have to like it.


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Home visits, wether intrusive or not, should be welcomed. 
The more I think about it the more it *doesn't* make sense to *not* do them

Joe wants a dog. 
Joe applies for a GSD puppy. Joe is book smart about dogs and he really wants this puppy even though he knows he's not ready. But he WANTS it.
Joe lies on his application and says he's got a house on 3 acres all fenced in with a 6ft. privacy fence with no faults.
In reality, Joe is renting a home, where the landlord is iffy with animals. Joe would have to keep his puppy quiet. If the landlord finds out he would have to get rid of it.
The rescue adopts a dog to him. In 5 months the dog is returned because the landlord caught him and threatened eviction. 
1 step forward, 2 steps back???

Without a home check, how would this rescue know that Joe didn't have a house on 3 acres?

Another.

Mary fills out an application for a dog.
She wants to adopt a stray that the rescue strongly feels would need a fence. He's a bolter.
The fence would make it so much easier for the stray dog to adjust and make training in the outdoors safe and easy.
On the application she says she has no other pets, works from home, no kids and no plans to have any. She says she has a fenced in yard and a lot of space inside the house for the dog to live.

In reality, she has no fence. She has 3 kids running around, works a 12 hour shift and lives in a 2 bedroom house.
She THOUGHT she wanted a dog, specifically this stray due to how aesthetically pleasing he was. Within a few months, he's still has minimal training and still bolts out of doors. 
There is no room for him in the house because it's too small and he lives on a tie out.
One day the tie out breaks and he gets hit by a car.

So? Could a home check have prevented this?


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I think this is what a lot of people think but there are some inherent misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions in this thought process. I'll try to break them down:



> Quote: your trusting ppl you don't know to come into your home and tell you wether or not your good enough to own a dog.


No, I'm not making a value judgement about whether someone is "good enough" to own a dog. I'm there to determine whether this applicant is a person _I _feel confortable placing a dog in my care with. Often i'm there to determine whether this person is one I feel comfortable placing this particular dog with. If i decide they're not, that doesn't make them bad people, it may just mean they're not a great match - in my opinion - for this particular dog. 



> Quote:But I can see why some ppl might want to lie and say they have a fenced in back yard if thats what it takes to be able to save a dogs life and get a great pet.


This is a COMMON misconception and I'm glad you brought it up. Here's the thing - people aren't lying to save a dog's life. The places where they dog's life is in jeopardy are nearly always also the places that don't do these kinds of checks. The places doing these kinds of checks are typically foster based rescue groups where the dog of interest is perfectly safe. The people are lying simply to get what they want when they want it. And I don't see how we why we should be justifying that. When someone lies on an application they're trying to manipulate me into placing a dog with them that really may not be a good match. I have dogs that kill cats. I get people lying about having cats because they want this particular dog. They're not lying to save the dog, they just want what they want. And the only reason I discover this lie is by doing vet reference checks and home visits. Apparently I'm more concerned about their cat's welfare than they are. Additionally, what happens if I don't catch it and I place the dog? The dog kills the cat. Now they want to return the dog which is traumatic for the dog and the dog is now labeled "dangerous." Even more common - someone wants a little dog that I've said is bad with kids. They lie and say they don't have any kids. Let's say I trust them and place the dog. Then the dog bites their kid and the dog gets euthanized for being aggressive or returned to me but now I can't place the dog because he's got a bite record and my liability insurance won't cover it. Totally avoidable situation but only if I do my checks. Bottom line - if people without fences or whatever other limitations are concerned about saving the life of a shelter dog there are ALWAYS ways to do this. Lying to a rescue group is not about saving lives it's about wanting what you want, thinking you know the dog better than the foster home, and manipulating people to get your way. 



> Quote:I think the ppl who don't have the ability to meet these standards are going to be more likely to go to byb's.


Possibly, but it's not my responsibility to put my foster dog in a substandard home to stop them. There are other ways for me to fight puppy mills, and better ways for me to educate potential adopters if they really are potentially good homes. 



> Quote: Doesn't mean their dog wont have a great home, but it does mean a dog in a rescue or shelter will be sitting there another night w/out a home.


1. As mentioned above, the dog they got turned down for isn't usually IN a shelter and the dogs in GOOD rescues are being well cared for. And 2. How do you propose we tell the difference between these situations and what I think is far more common - situations where someone is NOT going to provide a good home and so instead of sleeping on a warm bed in his foster mom's bedroom, the dog in question is adopted out without checks and spends the night lying at the end of a chain in a dog house scared and confused? Is the risk of him spending an extra night with me because someone didn't want their references checked or a home visit done a bigger or smaller risk than the risk of him spending the rest of his life in a bad situation? Because you've got to look at both sides of that equation.


----------



## AndreaG

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

TxRider, I had a similar view about people in general, and was told that I was beyond naive, and should join a rescue group and try for myself. So I did. And boy did it change my perspective.

Sure, most people who apply are good (better than those who don't even apply I guess), but still, I learned a lot about why it is important to do this. One gets a ton of info about the people wanting to adopt. And no I'm not talking about the financial stuff at all, but more importantly their personalities. Tons of people out there say they "have GSD experience", but then you show up and have a sense that would be in trouble with a young, untrained, rambuctous dog. 
So I think it's good to know that homevisits can actually be advantegous to the adopter, too! If I know you better, I can recommend you dogs that would be a better fit. That's a win-win, isn't it?


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Tahiry you are right on the money!









And what happens now with the dog Joe adopted? He was a little puppy and a lot of people were interested in him but now he's a gangly adolescent and his adoption options are much slimmer. How many shelter dogs die while Joe's former dog ties up that foster home because he's now not nearly as placeable as he was when he first came in? 

Wouldn't it be better for both the dog in question and those other shelter dogs waiting to come in to place that puppy more carefully the first time so that he stays in his home?


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

This is not a hypothetical example this time, this was a real application that we received.

A wonderful sounding application. 6 foot privacy fencing, GSD experience, a cousin is a GSD trainer. No other pets. Two adults in the home and a 13 yo daughter. Phone interview goes great. The person charming and eloquent, a judge. He talks to our vounteer for an hour and he sounds like a wonderful owner. Next step: meeting the dog and a home visit. Well it turns out that there is no street address in the application. The same volunteer that chatted for an hour with the applicant calls back to get the street address. The applicant goes ballistic, screams at her and is extremely rude and verbally abusive. We check the list of judges for the area and surroundings, out of curiosity. It turns out that a judge by that name does not exist.
The person invented an identity.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:So I think it's good to know that homevisits can actually be advantegous to the adopter, too! If I know you better, I can recommend you dogs that would be a better fit. That's a win-win, isn't it?


Another excellent point! 

I usually spend a big part of our home visit time talking with the owners, answering their questions, trouble shooting etc. Going through these steps helps everyone involved, especially the dog.


----------



## GSDElsa

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

OK...couple points here.

1. Tx...you seemed have have, by your own admission, to have not gotten your dogs from the most "reputable" rescues, as there seems to be quite a few undisclosed issues with them. So perhaps the no home visit policy didn't work in your favor.

2. What exactly IS the deal with having home visit issues? The rescues have your name and your address. Seriously, if they wanted to do something to your house (break in, steal your identity, etc) they could do it with simply that information. You sit here and say it's because of a "trust" issue--or whatever--I still don't get it...but if there were really any ulterior motives, they would "do" something to you with just that info. The people at the supermarket checking your ID when you buy alcohol could have just as much info...or a waitress at a restaurant having 5 minutes alone with your credit card. And aside from that...it's not like you can really force the rescue to not check out your house. Gosh, even with the satallite images online a rescue volunteer could stalk your house. Not to mention do a drive by.

3. If your AREN'T lying, what exactly do people have to fear from a home visit? That the rescue volunteers will think your house is dirty? Are you really that insecure with your life that you worry that someone might judge your house? If you're THAT concerned with it, quite franky, it gives the appearance that you DO have something to hide. Anyone in law enforcement will tell you that the majority of time, the more someone protests, the more they have to hide. 

As a million people have said here before...if you don't like it, go somewhere else. It's as simple as that. But DO NOT try and blame a rescue or anyone else for not getting the results you want. A rescue has just as much a right to ask you questions and refuse to do business with you as you do with them. It's a two way street, and this isn't Macy's with employees giving you a bright cheery smile to get employee of the month.

4. Aside from the trust issue, look at the home visit as the perfect opportunity for someone familiar with the rescue and the dogs to find you the PERFECT match. It's not often easy to get a good feel for a house on paper. I, for one, was thrilled with having a home visit. It gave me the perfect opportunity to sit down with a real live person in my house and make sure they completely understood our situation and what we wanted in a dog.

Bottom line is that I feel like people who stomp their feet and yell about "it's my word! It means everything!" "but I don't trust those RESUCE VOLUNTEERS!!!" "you can't judge me!!!!!!!" "it's my right!" sound like little kids when I read the posts. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Doubleminttwin

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Thats all true and I'm not trying to argue, I'm just saying I can see it from both sides. Every situation is going to be different. People lie for different reasons and I understand what you are saying. I think that home visists are for the most part a really good idea. Thanks for clarifiying the difference between a good rescue and a shelter


----------



## Tbarrios333

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: Another.
> 
> Mary fills out an application for a dog.
> She wants to adopt a stray that the rescue strongly feels would need a fence. He's a bolter.
> The fence would make it so much easier for the stray dog to adjust and make training in the outdoors safe and easy.
> On the application she says she has no other pets, works from home, no kids and no plans to have any. She says she has a fenced in yard and a lot of space inside the house for the dog to live.
> 
> In reality, she has no fence. She has 3 kids running around, works a 12 hour shift and lives in a 2 bedroom house.
> She THOUGHT she wanted a dog, specifically this stray due to how aesthetically pleasing he was. Within a few months, he's still has minimal training and still bolts out of doors.
> There is no room for him in the house because it's too small and he lives on a tie out.
> One day the tie out breaks and he gets hit by a car.
> 
> So? Could a home check have prevented this?


This one could even be changed to:

Mary lies on the application to get a dog that is iffy with kids.
Now one of her kids is bit, and the dog is PTS. 

Or even that she had some cats and put that she didn't have cats on the app. Now the cats get killed and the dog is either returned or PTS for aggression? 

With all the crazy stories, I wouldn't doubt for a second it's possible. 

If home checks could eliminate this crazyness right from the get-go, then why not?


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Not just possible - probable.







I get people lying on their applications on a weekly basis and the only reason I discover the lies is via diligent checking. Some of the lies seem fairly harmless but most of them either would result in a bad match for the dog if I didn't catch them or indicate poor care of the applicant's previous or current pets.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Let me back up and walk through this again in maybe a clearer way why I decided to get involved in the discussion of this subject.

I decided after not having a dog for a while, I wanted to adopt.

I thought about this for over a year.

I decided I wanted a herding breed, as from experience they are my preference.

I decided I would like to have a GSD, or heavy GSD weighted mix, even though, or maybe in some way because two GSD's are the only dogs that have ever seriously bitten me in the past.

I also decided that I wanted to have as much impact as I could, by adopting a dog. I've owned many, I'm really good with dogs, and I felt anything short of a real red zone aggressive dog I can handle.

I thought that I could do the best by adopting a dog that was not adoptable. A dog that requires a 6' fence, experienced owner, no kids, no other pets, and that would be hard to place and likely spend it's life in a rescue that otherwise could use that slot for many dogs over the years.

Not a dog from a pound, but specifically from a rescue to open up a slot many more adoptable dogs might be able to saved by.

And so that is exactly what I did. But I have never dealt with a rescue before, so off to the web sites I go...

In beginning my search through rescues it quickly became apparent that there was a lot more to the process than I ever imagined. I saw a few dogs I might be interested in but when I read the process on some rescues sites I was a little stunned.

The process put me off of any shelter that required a home visit right off the bat before I even contacted them.

So I ended up finding Hope through petfinder.com.

I e-mailed the rescue and asked about her. They answered my questions and sent me a form. several mails were exchanged. I filled out the application, which seems to be pretty standard among all rescues as far as information asked for, answered all the questions and made an appointment to go see her.

Once there I got a chance to see Hope, interact with her, and assess whether she was going to be right for me. She seemed better than I had expected, but very unsocialized and completely untrained.

I felt totally ill at ease about signing a legal agreement that I can never re home her for life, not that I intend to. And that I cannot legally move without informing the rescue, or legally they can take Hope away.

The invasiveness of some rescues process were too much for me to even consider, and a couple of aspects of the contract did as well.

The process left me thinking how many people feel the same. How many dogs sit in a rescue because of it, taking up a valuable slot like Hope did for a year, and might have for 6-7 more, not because they are not adoptable or are hard to place, but simply because good people put off enough by the process to even come see them.?

I would like to think at least one, maybe 2-3 other dogs have already been saved from death over the last year by my taking Hope, who filled a valuable slot for a year that is now open for them to take.

That led me to think that maybe more dogs could be saved overall if indeed there are many like me who are put off by the extent of the process and if indeed many go elsewhere like puppy stores, none of which I am sure is the case, but does make me wonder.

Now Hope is actually doing great. In fact she's almost ready to go take a canine good citizenship test I just need to join a training group because the last work she needs will require other peopl with dogs in a controlled environment.

Last month I decided that I could now go even farther, and use my house, and my very non dog aggressive Hope to help out and take in a foster.

I saw a local rescue with dogs out in front of our petsmart, and asked them about it, and brought home an application.

I have been looking at the application nightly, sitting on my coffee table, asking myself do I really want to get involved with these people, and do I really want to go through this process. Would I be better off just saving a dog from the pound and going it on my own to find a dog a home.

Then I heard about Wolfgang shutting down, decided I could maybe help, and did so. Hope is with me for life, Monica may be re-homed at some point, if I don't decide I cannot part with her which is quite likely.

The issue of adoption process came up, with a point of view of someone being aghast at the thought of them going to homes without "proper screening and home visits" and I added my point of view.

Which led us eventually to here.

Attack me, nail me to a cross, I'm an evil evil man, stupid beyond belief, and a threat to all mankind and animals alike....

I have.. an, an... agenda! To try to be thoughtful and help as many dogs not be killed as I can in my limited way, and be thoughtful of how my limited resources can help save as many dogs as possible, most bang for the buck.

That's it.


----------



## littledmc17

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Good for you!!

I think it is wonderful that you did that 
and I would have to think twice too.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Which would all be great except that you've asked the question, the question has been answered - pretty much unaminously by the people who would know, and you're rejecting their answers. 

Here's the question:


> Quote: maybe more dogs could be saved overall if indeed there are many like me who are put off by the extent of the process and if indeed many go elsewhere like puppy stores


And the answer is no. The risk of placing dogs in bad homes that are missed by inadequate screening is FAR higher than the number of good homes lost because people are put off by the rescue screening process. The experience of 100% of the rescuers on this thread bears this out. Most of us have worked in and placed dogs in multiple venues using a variety of methods. We screen the aps, we place the dogs, we really do know what we're talking about. 



> Quote:I have.. an, an... agenda! To try to be thoughtful and help as many dogs not be killed as I can in my limited way, and be thoughtful of how my limited resources can help save as many dogs as possible, most bang for the buck.


Can you not see that that's the SAME agenda as every rescue person on this thread and that those people exhaust CONSIDERABLE resources of time and money to that end? Can you accept that all of us ask ourselves daily "how can I help as many animals as possible? How can I get the most bang for my buck?" And that we might actually know what we're talking about when we come up with some answers?


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: GSDElsaOK...couple points here.
> 
> 1. Tx...you seemed have have, by your own admission, to have not gotten your dogs from the most "reputable" rescues, as there seems to be quite a few undisclosed issues with them. So perhaps the no home visit policy didn't work in your favor.


Could well be true, I can't say. I would think Wolfgang was reputable, I have seen nobody say otherwise. How is a common person who has no experience with rescues supposed to know?

I do not mind taking care of the girls, might have been a little easier to plan for financially had I known with Hope though. Monica I did know before I took her. They just said she was only a year old, when she's three or more, which has different implications for the heartworm positive status.



> Quote:2. What exactly IS the deal with having home visit issues?


I'm not quite sure in reality, I've asked myself and it seems to be a combination of just being surprised anyone would even demand it, to a sense of not being trustworthy, to just too much an invasion of privacy. It seems insulting to me, and it may not be rational.

Maybe having been a victim of identity theft twice so far has something to do with it.

But that is beside the point. The question is how many other John Q publics out there, also knowing nothing about rescues, will feel the same way. I have no idea really, but several people have posted here that they felt the same way, so I am not alone..



> Quote:Bottom line is that I feel like people who stomp their feet and yell about "it's my word! It means everything!" "but I don't trust those RESUCE VOLUNTEERS!!!" "you can't judge me!!!!!!!" "it's my right!" sound like little kids when I read the posts. But that's just my opinion.


The only people I see verbally stamping feet are the people so offended that I would present an opposing viewpoint or question policies that as a pretty regular citizen don't seem to make much sense.

And doing all they can to misrepresent my position, in order to attack me.

I couldn't care less if they demand a home visit personally, it's their dog their choice.

But to deny that the choice to follow those stricter standards has it's own consequences that may include more dogs may die overall, is a bit immature in my view. 

To stamp feet screaming "your offending me!" and rant on with personal attacks for simply questioning why that choice is made is childish as well.

I'm just trying to get information, and pass on a viewpoint they can take or leave. But it seems some can't leave it at that. I'm mainly just responding to posts personally attacking me by name, or I wouldn't be posting any more in the thread at all.


----------



## AndreaG

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I know it has been said a milion times before, but maybe it can not be said enough... If you are considering adopting a dog, and want to go the "reputable rescue" route, you have to realize that they may be very different in their policies. They might seem similar on their websites, but their way of dealing with adoptions, people, etc. may be night and day. All are dog-friendly, but some are more people-friendly than others.
Some have strict rules they always adhere to, some are willing to look at individual cirumstances and want to work with your situation if they can. 

Another point... People tend to do dog rescue not because they love people so much, but because they love dogs. Something to keep in mind.







Not everybody is willing to do this. You are dealing with a select group of people who care so much about dogs that they are willing to deal with almost anything to help them.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> Can you not see that that's the SAME agenda as every rescue person on this thread and that those people exhaust CONSIDERABLE resources of time and money to that end? Can you accept that all of us ask ourselves daily "how can I help as many animals as possible? How can I get the most bang for my buck?" And that we might actually know what we're talking about when we come up with some answers?


Of course I can, I already said so.

I even concluded that rescues make the same choice I have.

And that would be it, if not for continued posts and attacks aimed at me personally by name that I respond to for misrepresenting what I've said..


----------



## Myamom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

awww...doesn't she sound like a doll??

Hi, good evening,
I am writing in regards to your pet Aussie mix that you have for adoption on Pet finder, I am a single mom with three children age 11, 13 and 9, live in PA, have the two kitties, own my own home, have a fenced in Yard, experience with Aussies. We recently lost our much loved family dog and would love to add another one to our family, I am a stay at home mom who works from home, lots of time, love, etc to devote to a canine family member, Your pup/dog would be spoiled rotten. I hope you will give me the chance to give her a good forever home. I look forward to hearing from you, Missy
I am interested in the black/white female. I would love to see a photo of them if you could. thanks.

Yes...apparently Missy was very sweet and persuasive...I have tons of these sweet letters...............

Missy was able to acquire hundreds of animals from shelters, owners and breeders. No...of course no HV...if anyone asked...she disappeared. But there were oh so many that will willing to "trust her"....to the point of even driving the dogs right to her locale from other states. Whatever happened to them all? We will never know...and I shudder to even think about it. Oh...she was good...so many many different names you head would spin. 

I also have a collection of horrified letters...from owners who now realize what a mistake they made...and unfortunately will never know what happened to that animal they gave her. 

I truly hope...should you consider to rehome this dog...that you really think about all we've said....


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:And that would be it, if not for continued posts and attacks aimed at me personally by name that I respond to for misrepresenting what I've said..


Actually - and this is not an attack, just an observation - you're the main person I've seen misrepresenting what you've said. Perhaps it's an innocent mistake and you are meaning one thing but saying another?


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Possibly, I'm not the most eloquent person, I'm not a writer, and it is quite easy to read most things people post on forums in more than one way.

A little bit of benefit of doubt is usually necessary in this format.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quoteossibly, I'm not the most eloquent person, I'm not a writer, and it is quite easy to read most things people post on forums in more than one way.
> 
> A little bit of benefit of doubt is usually necessary in this format.


Agreed - and it cuts both ways. Perhaps what you're seeing as personal attacks are just people trying to explain an issue they're passionate about.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

This thread was essentially started because of the issues you have raised. Many rescue volunteers put in significant time effort to explain things to you over and over and it seems that slowly it is getting through. It seems that you were the only one in the entire thread who had such a hard time understanding, which is why more and more people joined in to try to explain it yet again. It is normal that people adress you by your sceenname when they are directing their answers to you, answering the questions you asked. As to the personal styles you don't like, your own style is certailnly not very considerate, even though you probably don't realize it and may not be disrespectful of their work end efforts and offending people intentionally. I am sure everybody will give you the benefit of the doubt, even those that you have accused of having comprehension problems and dogmas.


----------



## ILGHAUS

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

If I can put something out there. You can not take everything you read on wikipedia as the truth. Who writes what is in wikipedia? The readers who put in their opinions. Some back up with references to other sources while some do not.

The part about shelters being founded by government sources while rescues are not is not correct. Many shelters such as my local Humane Society (no-kill) receives no government money. They are a shelter and not a rescue. They average 200 dogs and cats at any given time. They fund raise, plea for donations, and apply for grants from businesses. They also have about 15 staff members who clean kennels, disburse medical care, bathe the animals, and play with the animals. They also have volunteer dog walkers who come in to help staff. Again, even with all the walking trails and fenced in play yards with plastic swimming pools in the summer, they are not a rescue group.

There are individuals and business ventures out there who tack on the verbage "rescue" to their facility just to give the perception that they are a charitable group. It can make asking for donations easier. _Another FYI on a term that can be confusing is that there is no law governing or regulations on who can call themself a humane society. Again anyone can tack that name onto their facility._ So what a group of individual calls themself is not necessarily what they are in fact. 

I do not nor would I ever consider a facility with 200-300 animals in runs a rescue but possibly that is based on my opinion and my experience with shelters, rescues, and foster families. Such a place to me (again my opinion) is that if the animals were cared for and with the proper number of staff to see to their needs would be a shelter.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Are you responding to me? Because I haven't posted anythng about Wikipedia or about funding beyond a very general statement quite a few pages back. I agree with your post.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quoteossibly, I'm not the most eloquent person, I'm not a writer, and it is quite easy to read most things people post on forums in more than one way.
> 
> A little bit of benefit of doubt is usually necessary in this format.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed - and it cuts both ways. Perhaps what you're seeing as personal attacks are just people trying to explain an issue they're passionate about.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you are correct, which is why I have tried not to single people out and tried to keep it as an intellectual discussion and not get too emotional and personal and to attempt to steer things away from personal attacks that serve nobody.

I decide I will only help two dogs. It is a choice, it has consequences.. I have ample resources to help many more if I chose to. Due to my choice many dogs die that might otherwise live.

I have tried to make sure I have the most impact I can within the scope of helping those two dogs.

It's not that I do not care, but I am also not offended to face that reality, that my choice has consequences including more dogs dying that I could prevent.. It is just the hard reality of my choice.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Intentional or not, many of your posts deviate quite a bit from those aims.









In terms of what we can all do and the choices we make, are you under the impression that rescues have not considered how best to help as many animals as possible and how to balance that with helping animals as substantively as possible?

Folks on the front lines of this situation are pretty face to face with the reality of their choices.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDThis thread was essentially started because of the issues you have raised.


Yes it was, and because several others said they too were put off by the process.



> Quote:Many rescue volunteers put in significant time effort to explain things to you over and over and it seems that slowly it is getting through.


It got through long ago. 



> Quote:It seems that you were the only one in the entire thread who had such a hard time understanding, which is why more and more people joined in to try to explain it yet again. It is normal that people adress you by your sceenname when they are directing their answers to you, answering the questions you asked. As to the personal styles you don't like, your own style is certailnly not very considerate, even though you probably don't realize it and may not be disrespectful of their work end efforts and offending people intentionally. I am sure everybody will give you the benefit of the doubt, even those that you have accused of having comprehension problems and dogmas.


I understand perfectly, and stated so pages ago. The answer was stated quite cogently by ILGHAUS..



> Quote:Then you have the no-kill shelters and rescues. They are usually backed by donations or the rescuers themselves. *Their reason is not to move large numbers of animals but to take an animal, make sure it is healthy both physically and mentally, and then find the most perfect home for that particular animal.*


Meaning that rescues reason for being is not to save as many dogs as possible from death, but to place as many dogs as possible into perfect homes.

If that simple reality is offending, as it appears to be, maybe the goal should be changed?

If not why be offended?

My misunderstanding was that I assumed the goal was to save as many from death as possible.

The rest has been little more than trying to clear up misunderstood posts and defending my position when misunderstood or misstated.

The result I didn't expect, is that after this discussion I seriously doubt I will ever associate myself with a shelter, volunteer, or attempt to foster with one.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqIntentional or not, many of your posts deviate quite a bit from those aims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of what we can all do and the choices we make, are you under the impression that rescues have not considered how best to help as many animals as possible and how to balance that with helping animals as substantively as possible?
> 
> Folks on the front lines of this situation are pretty face to face with the reality of their choices.


Nobody is perfect.

Of course I think they considered those issues, which is why it puzzled me that I saw those policies that seemed self defeating.

Until it was cleared up that the mission is not to save as many dogs as possible, which was what I assumed.


----------



## ILGHAUS

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:Are you responding to me? Because I haven't posted anythng about Wikipedia


No, just hit the reply button at the end of the line to answer the poster who was quoting wikipendia terms.


----------



## ILGHAUS

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: The result I didn't expect, is that after this discussion I seriously doubt I will ever associate myself with a shelter, volunteer, or attempt to foster with one.


Please don't be put off from shelters as a whole. There are some very nice ones out there. Just continue to educate yourself by seeking knowledge and later you may want to rethink that position.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:Until it was cleared up that the mission is not to save as many dogs as possible, which was what I assumed.


If what you mean by this is that their ONLY mission is not to save as many dogs as possible, then you're correct. One of their missions is to save as many dogs as possible but that mission is balanced by the desire to save dogs as responsibly as possible. Some of your statements seem to oversimplify and miss that nuance. 

Another issue is what precisely is meant by "save." A dog removed from a shelter has not necessarily been "saved."


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Until it was cleared up that the mission is not to save as many dogs as possible, which was what I assumed.
> 
> 
> 
> If what you mean by this is that their ONLY mission is not to save as many dogs as possible, then you're correct. One of their missions is to save as many dogs as possible but that mission is balanced by the desire to save dogs as responsibly as possible. Some of your statements seem to oversimplify and miss that nuance.
> 
> Another issue is what precisely is meant by "save." A dog removed from a shelter has not necessarily been "saved."
Click to expand...

It not really a question of "only" or "nuance", to me, it's simply a question of choice of which one has priority over the other which then dictates which drives the policy..

I had assumed the priorities were opposite what they are.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:It not really a question of "only" or "nuance", to me, it's simply a question of choice of which one has priority over the other which then dictates which drives the policy..
> 
> I had assumed the priorities were opposite what they are.


You still seem to be missing my point but I'm not sure how else I can explain it. Neither has priority because it's not that simple. The whole starting premise is off. There are a multitude of factors that come into play and it's a fairly complicated and dynamic decision making process of which dogs to pull, where to place them, etc.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

As I have stated, I feel good about the numbers of dogs I saved, the way I care for them and the kind of homes I place them in. So do others in rescues.

You said openly, over and over, people in rescue, everybody but you, should be saving more. I feel that someone who choses not to save any beyond their own pets (or maybe one dog beyond their own pet) has no moral right to tell me or others who do rescue that they are not doing enough. Obviously it is a free country, and people can say to others whatever they please, regardless of moral right or any other considerations. I was raised with the values that I have no (moral) right to expect from others something I am not prepared to do myself. I have lived my life that way and I think it is a good way to go - for me. Obviously others live by other principles. 

In rescue we are accustomed to people who would never make their hands and homes dirty by caring for a homeless animal that are not to become their own pet, knowing everything better, putting down what we do, how we do it, how much we do, who we are, etc. And often they get angry when we don't immediately roll over for them and they don't get their way. I guess it makes them feel better and it probably gives them the sense that they are "contributing" something (I would guess) . Often these comments show total lack of knowledge of the situation and problems. We try to educate as much as possible. Obviously life goes on without these people and dogs will be helped without them.


----------



## mysablegsd

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDI know many rescues, I volunteered for quite a few, and have never heard of one accepting credit cards or asking for bank records. Sadly stuff like this ends up generalized and we are all implicitely accused of being thieves.
> 
> As to being friendly in the screenig process, GOD only knows how many hours and hours I spent talking to potential volunteers, who after having their hand held and having me tiptoe around them, disappeared from the scene the moment they were supposed to actually DO something. Sadly, i no longer hold my breath that anything useful (beyond me wasting time) is going to come out of the voluneer applications. The time I spent talking and tiptoeing around volunteer applicants could have been spent with the dogs or just sleeping, heaven forbid. I work a full time job (that pays for the dog house and vet bills) and care for dogs other dump in addition to trying to have something that resembles a life.
> 
> I am always surprised that applicants have much higher expectations on rescue volunteers than on professional services they pay a lot of money for. I really do not understand why people treat us as if we were paid big bucks directly out of their pocket. And I yet have to hear a "thank you" for running around those who never end up helping. Most of the time it is listening to complaining about rescues, and whatever is done is never enough or good enough, or charming enough or fast enough. In spite of it, I try my best to be as cheerful as possible for the next complainer - for the sake of the dogs. On some days it comes out better than on others. I guess I am just tired about the constant complaining and listening what I should be doing and how, especially from people who hardly ever do something beyond caring for their own (and criticizing others).
> 
> As to home visits, I would rather be with dogs or enjoy life, than spend half a day doing a home visit, especially with someone with a bad attitude. I do it anyway to save a life.


On the other end, I tried to volunteer as a foster home and got brushed off. Hubs and I are home 24/7, except for Dr. visits and shopping, we have a 6 foot chain link fence with large rocks around the bottom, a basement, ex-pens, crates etc.

I said I would take a dog on their site, and at the last minute, she emailed me not to bother. Tell you the truth, I think she was insulted that I told her I thought the dog was a Plott Hound or mix and not a Lab mix. Never heard from her again.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Did you contact any other rescues to offer your help?


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDAs I have stated, I feel good about the numbers of dogs I saved, the way I care for them and the kind of homes I place them in. So do others in rescues.
> 
> You said openly, over and over, people in rescue, everybody but you, should be saving more.


No I did not. I questioned whether certain policies were counter productive to the goals of rescue.

You may believe I did, and read it that way, but you are wrong.



> Quote:I feel that someone who choses not to save any beyond their own pets (or maybe one dog beyond their own pet) has no moral right to tell me or others who do rescue that they are not doing enough.


Then you are not speaking about me.



> Quote:Obviously it is a free country, and people can say to others whatever they please, regardless of moral right or any other considerations. I was raised with the values that I have no (moral) right to expect from others something I am not prepared to do myself. I have lived my life that way and I think it is a good way to go - for me. Obviously others live by other principles.


As was I, and haven't stepped over those morals here. I haven't asked anyone to do anything but share their opinion.



> Quote:In rescue we are accustomed to people who would never make their hands and homes dirty by caring for a homeless animal that are not to become their own pet, knowing everything better, putting down what we do, how we do it, how much we do, who we are, etc. And often they get angry when we don't immediately roll over for them and they don't get their way. I guess it makes them feel better and it probably gives them the sense that they are "contributing" something (I would guess) . Often these comments show total lack of knowledge of the situation and problems. We try to educate as much as possible. Obviously life goes on without these people and dogs will be helped without them.


I certainly hope you don't misunderstand and misrepresent their intent as badly as you repeatedly do mine and respond to anything but a pat on the back with a kneejerk emotional reaction and ranting.

Lighten up Francis. Not everyone who asks you a question is attacking you.

All I expect to contribute is an opinion, and what led me to it, and ask people to shoot holes in it. In an appropriate forum, with the most appropriate people to do so.

That is the purpose of a discussion forum after all, to discuss yes?

Discussions often have different points of view, and the purpose is to share and exchange them yes?

If you can't participate in that without getting your nickers in a knot, don't reply..


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:It not really a question of "only" or "nuance", to me, it's simply a question of choice of which one has priority over the other which then dictates which drives the policy..
> 
> I had assumed the priorities were opposite what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> You still seem to be missing my point but I'm not sure how else I can explain it. Neither has priority because it's not that simple. The whole starting premise is off. There are a multitude of factors that come into play and it's a fairly complicated and dynamic decision making process of which dogs to pull, where to place them, etc.
Click to expand...

Maybe I can help, strip the multitude of factors down to the few rules which shall never be broken. Those are the highest priority factors.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:I certainly hope you don't misunderstand and misrepresent their intent as badly as you repeatedly do mine and respond to anything but a pat on the back with a kneejerk emotional reaction and ranting.
> 
> Lighten up Francis. Not everyone who asks you a question is attacking you.
> 
> All I expect to contribute is an opinion, and what led me to it, and ask people to shoot holes in it. In an appropriate forum, with the most appropriate people to do so.
> 
> That is the purpose of a discussion forum after all, to discuss yes?
> 
> Discussions often have different points of view, and the purpose is to share and exchange them yes?
> 
> If you can't participate in that without getting your nickers in a knot, don't reply..


Please read your own posts as critically as you claim to be able to read other people's. If you can't see why people would find your demeanor and comments offensive, having NOTHING to do with simply holding a different point of view, then you are not the critical thinker you proport to be.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:Maybe I can help, strip the multitude of factors down to the few rules which shall never be broken. Those are the highest priority factors.


What do you mean?







What sort of unbreakable rules are you imagining? And how would oversimplifying a complicated process "help"? Help do what? Please clarify.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> Please read your own posts as critically as you claim to be able to read other people's. If you can't see why people would find your demeanor and comments offensive, having NOTHING to do with simply holding a different point of view, then you are not the critical thinker you proport to be.


I claimed just up thread that posts in internet forums are often misunderstood, and that I am likely guilty of it as well.

It would seem that simply applying critical thinking to some subjects for sake of discussion is just out of bounds and offensive to some. I can't help that.

Demeanor isn't really apparent in text, and my comments have more reserved that those directed at me.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Really? Because I find your comments to be belittling and sarcastic to the people who disagree with you and things like "not getting your knickers in a twist" to be far more blatantly personally offensive than anything anyone has said to you.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Maybe I can help, strip the multitude of factors down to the few rules which shall never be broken. Those are the highest priority factors.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What sort of unbreakable rules are you imagining? And how would oversimplifying a complicated process "help"? Help do what? Please clarify.
Click to expand...

Will you adopt a dog without a home visit? If not its an unbreakable rule.

Will you adopt to an owner without a fence? If so, it is dependent and a fence is not as high priority as a home visit is.

Some policies (rules) are unbreakable, some are dependent.

Make sense?


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

This is *not a discussion forum *it is a *rescue forum*. I guess if the purpose of the entire thing was an empty discussion in the air than I admit I misunderstood it. We tend to post here with the intent of action not for the sake of verbal exercise.

As to lightening up, others could apply it to themselves.

And, since there are so many people misunderstanding one person here, maybe that person could start wondering about the way of his/her communication.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I don't see why that list is helpful. It's still an attempt to oversimplify a complicated process for no useful reason that I can see. The point is that I've had a lot of experience placing dogs. I am taking a lot of information about the particular foster dog in question and all the info I can gather about the possible home and using my experience and knowledge to try to make a good match. Good rescue isn't about a flow chart and even if it were worth the time to make one, every rescue's flow chart would be somewhat different.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqReally? Because I find your comments to be belittling and sarcastic to the people who disagree with you and things like "not getting your knickers in a twist" to be far more blatantly personally offensive than anything anyone has said to you.


I agree, I tend to respond sarcastically at times when someone attempts to force words into my mouth and bend my word to try to fit into their preconceived perception of me.

And I apologize, I didn't know anyone actually still wore knickers in this day and age. I'll use "don't get upset" next time.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqReally? Because I find your comments to be belittling and sarcastic to the people who disagree with you and things like "not getting your knickers in a twist" to be far more blatantly personally offensive than anything anyone has said to you.


Ditto that! And you certainly take criticism poorly.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqI don't see why that list is helpful. It's still an attempt to oversimplify a complicated process for no useful reason that I can see. The point is that I've had a lot of experience placing dogs. I am taking a lot of information about the particular foster dog in question and all the info I can gather about the possible home and using my experience and knowledge to try to make a good match. Good rescue isn't about a flow chart and even if it were worth the time to make one, every rescue's flow chart would be somewhat different.


None of which addresses the point. 

Are policies dictated to support the goal of moving as many dogs as possible to any decent home, with maybe a mistake now and then, or are they dictated to support the goal of moving as many dogs as you can find a perfect home for?

If you can't see that there's a priority choice there, I don't see where we can ever understand each other.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: when someone attempts to force words into my mouth and bend my word to try to fit into their preconceived perception of me.


What I saw was you becoming sarcastic and offensive when people held you to the literal normally understood meaning of the actual things you said. Again, I encourage you to apply your much lauded critical thinking skills to your own posts! The comment about a man's word being his bond is a perfect example.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSD
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted By: pupresqReally? Because I find your comments to be belittling and sarcastic to the people who disagree with you and things like "not getting your knickers in a twist" to be far more blatantly personally offensive than anything anyone has said to you.
> 
> 
> 
> Ditto that! And you certainly take criticism poorly.
Click to expand...

Really? I just agreed with some criticism, and not for the first time in this thread, have you?


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Sigh. 



> Quote:Are policies dictated to support the goal of moving as many dogs as possible to any decent home, with maybe a mistake now and then, or are they dictated to support the goal of moving as many dogs as you can find a perfect home for?


Your starting premise is wrong so everything that's coming out of that is misplaced. Let me try to explain again. 

Rescue policies are designed to save dogs. Saving dogs is more than removing a dog from a shelter. No one is trying to achieve absolute perfection, people are simply trying to place dogs responsibly in good homes. To figure out which homes are good, rescues need to use screening tools like reference checks and home visits. 

The number of "bad" homes that will slip through the cracks without these safeguards is far higher than "a mistake now and then". That doesn't mean that rescues aren't concerned with saving as many dogs as possible, it means that "saving" them is a more comprehensive process than giving them to the first person who asks for them. 

The answers to all your questions are in this thread. I encourage you to let go of the defensiveness and sarcasm and look for them.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> What I saw was you becoming sarcastic and offensive when people held you to the literal normally understood meaning of the actual things you said. Again, I encourage you to apply your much lauded critical thinking skills to your own posts! The comment about a man's word being his bond is a perfect example.


Only a perfect example when taken alone out of context with the many posts before it.

Or are you seriously saying after several posts of repeatedly saying that normal ID checking and application info is fine means nothing? 

And that taking one sentence from one post that is obviously meant to say something else actually representative of my position on the subject.

Lets see what I said before the cherry picked gem your attacking me for...

Here we are..



> Originally Posted By: TxRiderAnd I can see getting photo ID, and verifying a person is who they say they are and seem like they would be a good match.





> Originally Posted By: TxRiderI don't think anyone objects to an application, ID and an interview screening, it's not an all or nothing issue. I certainly have no problem giving info about me DL#, address, plenty enough to steal my identity, I trust that you won't do that to me





> Originally Posted By: TxRiderI also said I would place a dog with someone after an interview, seeing them interact with the dog and proper ID etc. without a home visit, calling references etc.


So with all that preceding it in the thread do you still want try to tell me it's honest to take that line and bend it to mean I think someone should be able to just walk up and shake a hand and take a dog? 

Really? And not just a simple statement that I was raised to trust people as it was obviously meant?

It's a direct, deliberate, intentional misrepresentation. Dishonest and cheap. Period.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Defensive much?


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

After reading this thread, I cannot help but conclude that the rescue policies and home visit policies are discouraging the right people.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqSigh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Are policies dictated to support the goal of moving as many dogs as possible to any decent home, with maybe a mistake now and then, or are they dictated to support the goal of moving as many dogs as you can find a perfect home for?
> 
> 
> 
> Your starting premise is wrong so everything that's coming out of that is misplaced. Let me try to explain again.
> 
> Rescue policies are designed to save dogs. Saving dogs is more than removing a dog from a shelter. No one is trying to achieve absolute perfection, people are simply trying to place dogs responsibly in good homes. To figure out which homes are good, rescues need to use screening tools like reference checks and home visits.
> 
> The number of "bad" homes that will slip through the cracks without these safeguards is far higher than "a mistake now and then". That doesn't mean that rescues aren't concerned with saving as many dogs as possible, it means that "saving" them is a more comprehensive process than giving them to the first person who asks for them.
> 
> The answers to all your questions are in this thread. I encourage you to let go of the defensiveness and sarcasm and look for them.
Click to expand...

Yes the answer is that a rescue as defined places a higher priority of putting dogs they can into a perfect homes, over placing as many dogs as they can in any home.

Quality is a higher priority than quantity.

Perfect homes for the dogs you have, is more important than placing more dogs.

You keep saying that is wrong, but it's exactly what has been told to me over and over, you just don't like it when I say it for some strange reason.

Here it is your own words.



> Originally Posted By: pupresqMy responsibility is to find a good home for the dogs in my care. I do no one any favors by sacrificing quality for quantity.


Quality over quantity, yes?


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDAfter reading this thread, I cannot help but conclude that the rescue policies and home visit policies are discouraging the right people.


Again with the insults...


----------



## AndreaG

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

LOL, Rebel!

Tx, seriously... if this was a cooking website, this is what this whole thread would look like:

- All of you professional cooks out there... don't you think the way you roast a turkey in the oven is inefficient?
-umm, no, why?
-well, I think it should be done differently, or it will never be good.
-how many turkeys did you ever roast?
-two, but I KNOW it should be done the way I would do it if I ever decided to roast turkeys for the rest of my life.
-we really do know how to do this, we roast turkeys every day.
-no you don't. 
-yep, we do, but show us by your example and we will follow if yours tastes better.
-who, me? I never want to roast another bird in my life!!
-well, then.
-aurggh!!! you all can't take criticism! shame on you! Now I will definitely never want to roast turkeys, like, EVER.
-*shakes head*

(just wanted to lighten up the mood a bit... sorry.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*
























Andrea, you are a genius!!!


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:Yes the answer is that a rescue as defined places a higher priority of putting dogs they can into a perfect homes, over placing as many dogs as they can in any home.
> 
> Quality is a higher priority than quantity.
> 
> Perfect homes for the dogs you have, is more important than placing more dogs.


No, not right. 

No one is demanding or waiting for absolute perfection. We are focused on saving as many dogs as possible but saving them means placing them in _good_ homes. And the only way to know which homes are good is _to screen them_. Bad homes are a great deal more common than you seem to think. The small number of good homes lost by screening is more than compensated by the large number of bad homes _avoided_ by screening. So the quality/quantity idea that screening results in "saving" fewer dogs is actually false. Screening results in _placing_ fewer dogs but number _placed _does not equal dogs _saved_. And over time, as dogs placed carefully are far less likely to be returned than dogs placed casually, screening helps with placement rates as well.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: AndreaGLOL, Rebel!
> 
> Tx, seriously... if this was a cooking website, this is what this whole thread would look like:
> 
> - All of you professional cooks out there... don't you think the way you roast a turkey in the oven is inefficient?
> -umm, no, why?
> -well, I think it should be done differently, or it will never be good.
> -how many turkeys did you ever roast?
> -two, but I KNOW it should be done the way I would do it if I ever decided to roast turkeys for the rest of my life.
> -we really do know how to do this, we roast turkeys every day.
> -no you don't.
> -yep, we do, but show us by your example and we will follow if yours tastes better.
> -who, me? I never want to roast another bird in my life!!
> -well, then.
> -aurggh!!! you all can't take criticism! shame on you! Now I will definitely never want to roast turkeys, like, EVER.
> -*shakes head*
> 
> (just wanted to lighten up the mood a bit... sorry.


ROFL I see it more like this..

- All of you professional cooks out there... don't you think the way you roast a turkey in the oven is inefficient?
-umm, no, why?
-well, wouldn't it work maybe better if you tried it like this?.
-how many turkeys did you ever roast?
-two, but I have eaten a few, again why not?
-we really do know how to do this, we roast turkeys every day.
-ok, so, umm what's wrong with my question again?
-be quiet stupid man, go away
-who, me? what's wrong with my suggestion?
-well, you see, we're not trying to roast a turkey for the same reason
-Ahh ok, I see now. Fine I see where I was missing your goal.
-Oh no you don't, you could never understand stupid man
-no really I do
-No you don't
-no you don't
-Yes I really do
-No you don't
-Yes I swear I do
-some people are so stupid
-Who are you calling stupid?
-You don't understand
-Yes really really I do.

and so forth...


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*








Andrea! 

And I guess add to that - I've SEEN turkeys roasted the "alternate" way it's being suggested here and it's a disaster. But what do I know? I only do this every day.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I wonder why you keep calling yourself stupid?


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: be quiet stupid man, go away
> -who, me? what's wrong with my suggestion?
> -well, you see, we're not trying to roast a turkey for the same reason
> -Ahh ok, I see now. Fine I see where I was missing your goal.
> -Oh no you don't, you could never understand stupid man
> -no really I do
> -No you don't
> -no you don't
> -Yes I really do
> -No you don't
> -Yes I swear I do
> -some people are so stupid
> -Who are you calling stupid?
> -You don't understand
> -Yes really really I do.
> 
> and so forth...


Alas, you really really don't. You're setting up a false dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. Far from dismissing your posts, people have devoted pages and pages to trying to help you understand where they're coming from and yet you keep ignoring all that info and reverting back to your initial idea which is based on a false premise. I wish I could help you understand but I've given it my very best effort and it seems to be met with further misunderstanding. Maybe if you took a break and came back to it with fresh eyes? Re-read the posts with the possibility in your mind that maybe there's something here you're missing?


----------



## Jax08

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*








Rebel!


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*









Where are those knickers to knot? Has anyone seen my knickers?
No knickers to knot!!!! Help!


----------



## Raziel

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Im gone for one day....and look at all the stuff Ive missed!


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Have you seen my knickers?


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDI wonder why you keep calling yourself stupid?


To entertain you?


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Oh, thank you!


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: be quiet stupid man, go away
> -who, me? what's wrong with my suggestion?
> -well, you see, we're not trying to roast a turkey for the same reason
> -Ahh ok, I see now. Fine I see where I was missing your goal.
> -Oh no you don't, you could never understand stupid man
> -no really I do
> -No you don't
> -no you don't
> -Yes I really do
> -No you don't
> -Yes I swear I do
> -some people are so stupid
> -Who are you calling stupid?
> -You don't understand
> -Yes really really I do.
> 
> and so forth...
> 
> 
> 
> Alas, you really really don't. You're setting up a false dichotomy that doesn't actually exist. Far from dismissing your posts, people have devoted pages and pages to trying to help you understand where they're coming from and yet you keep ignoring all that info and reverting back to your initial idea which is based on a false premise. I wish I could help you understand but I've given it my very best effort and it seems to be met with further misunderstanding. Maybe if you took a break and came back to it with fresh eyes? Re-read the posts with the possibility in your mind that maybe there's something here you're missing?
Click to expand...

Look in the simplest form I simply asked if maybe more quantity would be better than more quality.

Response has been no, more quality is more important than more quantity. And explained why that is the choice.

I say Ahh ok, I understand. It's more important to make sure what dogs can be placed in assured good homes are placed than take chances and move more dogs through the process.

Response is No, it's wrong when you say it, you don't get it.

You can add qualifiers, delve in to all the infinite detail of the process and every little nuance of every dog rescued, every home placed, that doesn't change the basic answer. Quality over quantity.

It's just wrong when I say it, due to your perception of how you think I mean it.

And I truly don't think anything I can possibly say would change that.


----------



## Jax08

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDHave you seen my knickers?


CNN reported they are flying from Colorado towards Kansas on a balloon. Don't worry. Black Hawks are in the air and the National Guard is working on a rescue plan.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

You're oversimplifying it to the point that it's not true anymore, but as I said, I've explained that every which way I can. If you still insist on making it about a false dichotomy, then I say this turkey is cooked.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqYou're oversimplifying it to the point that it's not true anymore, but as I said, I've explained that every which way I can. If you still insist on making it about a false dichotomy, then I say this turkey is cooked.


I am?

I'm using same words you did exactly when you posted it to me 7 pages ago!

"My responsibility is to find a good home for the dogs in my care. I do no one any favors by sacrificing quality for quantity."

But when I say it it's somehow wrong!

Because you want to believe i mean something different in using the same words?


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Mmmmmm...turkey.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:But when I say it it's somehow wrong!


I've already explained what I meant by that and where you're missing my point twice in the last couple pages. If you chose to ignore those explanations, not much I can do about it.


----------



## Jax08

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

We could eat turkey and look for Rebel's knickers..







..just a suggestion.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I agree. Has anyone checked the turkey for the knickers? Perhaps that's where they're knotted up? Or it's a cross dressing turkey? yuck yuck.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

So the roasted turkey in the balloon is wearing my knickers !?!
I sure hope the National Guard will rescue all the roasted turkeys so that I can get my kickers back!


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Please don't eat my knickers with the turkey!


----------



## SunCzarina

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDSo the roasted turkey in the balloon is wearing my knickers !?!
> I sure hope the National Guard will rescue all the roasted turkeys so that I can get my kickers back!











I haven't been following this thread at all but that is funny.


----------



## beppesmom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I see many of the posts are from the rescue folks. I guess I am at the other end, being the adopter. So I thought I would put in my 2 cents on how I felt about the experience. Two of my 3 dogs are from rescue. I was somewhat acquainted with the president of the rescue group and I asked if she felt she had any dogs to fit our family. She knew a little about me from dog camp and she had met my current dogs at the time. I was still asked to fill out the application, provide references, agree to home visit and give vet info. I was not insulted by this. I just felt it meant they cared about the dogs. And no, I don't have a big, fancy home...just a plain house....clean, but decorated for my own comfort and that of my dogs. There were quite a few questions to be answered on the application such as about a fence and previous pets, etc. There were questions about jobs and how long would dog be left alone days, and all sorts of other questions I am sure are about the same for many rescue groups. I never felt they were asking in order to prove me a bad pet parent, or to gather information to use in any other way other than to make sure I would be a suitable adoptive doggy parent. There was nothing I found offensive or out of line. Iwas not insulted by any of this in the least. I think I would have been a little worried if they hadn't asked.

I know they did check my references as they called at work and did check with my vet. They also called my personal references.
On the other side, the woman worked with me to find just the dog that would fit. I had chosen this rescue as folks had said they were very good at the evaluation process and would be very honest with prospective adopters. Very good track record. I spent several hours on the phone as well as being given the opportunity to speak with the kennel owner where the dog was being boarded and also to speak with the vet who treats their rescues. I know the rescue regularly turns prospective adopters away after recieving applications or speaking with the people.

So the rescue group spent a ton of time checking me out, even more time working with me to make sure the dog and I were a match. They spent so much of their time making sure everything was right.They were also available after the adoption to help or answer questions, etc. It was then I realized just how much you rescue people give of yourselves and how much work rescue is. I want to thank all of you involved with rescue for all of the work you do!

And yes, it was a perfect match!

Karen
MacGyver
Jesse Jim (The Artist Formerly Known as Tahoe)
Sam (Sam I Am)


----------



## GSDElsa

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Tx,

I think the problem people are having with you (and the other people with your opinion) is that you are giving your opinion based soley on your "feelings." They are giving an opinion based on "feeling" and EXPERIENCE. You are saying "I think you need to do X because it would have better results." Yet X policy (no home checks) has already been tried by them or others, and Y policy (home checks) has been proven by them to be produce better results.

You aren't coming up with some cutting edge problem-solving idea that no one has thought about before. Indeed, the home-check or other stringent policies would not be in effect if they have not shown to be needed. These rescue folks KNOW their policy is better than your "feeling" that your policy is better because they have seen the results of both.

Imagine you, regular Joe off the street, walking into a financial powerhouse and declaring "I know you're making more money now than the way you were running shop with the 'before' way, but I really think that you need to go back to the 'before' way because I "feel" it's best. What's my expertise on the subject?! Well, I have a 401K of course!" Maybe considering the current financial state of the world that's not the best idea, but you get the point.

Your "feeling" on the subject would carry a lot more weight if it was actually backed with experience. Adopting a couple dogs does NOT make you well-informed about the way a rescue runs. Now, if you were posting that your "feeling" about the subject is such because the last 5 years you had run a successful rescue with these policies in place with a 0% dog-return rate and have contact with all the adopters to prove that they are in a happy, healthy environment...well that's one thing. But you don't have that experience to back your "feeling."


----------



## Brightelf

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

The OP was asking, I believe, everybody the original question. So, it's a good thing to hear folks's opinions from both sides! 

I think adopters need to remember that rescuers are thinking of the dogs safety and are using their experiences to help set those rules and parameters.. and that rescuers need to consider also, that adopters may also be thinking of the dogs wellbeing and may be bringing their own experiences (which may also be extensive and not simply emotion-based) into this also. 

This is a GREAT chance for both sides to listen. This isn't one side wanting to get a cheap pet and one side trying to do make rules for the sake of exclusivity... this is both sides wanting what is best for dogs-- and things get understandably emotional. 

Rescuers have seen what can go so alarmingly wrong when they place a dog into a situation that turns out horribly for the dog, despite all i's dotted and Ts crossed. Adopters see foster spots held for a long time by dogs they would care well for if not for an otherwise sensible rule that may not make sense with this particular dog or situation. 

While I believe rescue's strict rules may hinder some good placements, *I am glad such safeguards are there. Because: What if we were all on the OTHER side?* Yup. Imagine that God forbid in a year's time, you lost your DH, your job, income, your home-- and now just received devastating news about a terminal illness. Life can throw us curves all at once like that. If it was you who had to trust your beloved dog to a rescue.... how careful would you wish them to be, to ensure that your furry sweetie's new home was safe, stable, and would make him/her truly happy until you could meet again at The Bridge?

I'd be very grateful for those strict rules. May we never be the ones who need them for our fur-buddies.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

There are plenty of organizations, as this thread has shown, that have very relaxed adoption criteria, including paying 15 bucks cash to a shelter to walk out with a dog, no questions asked no personal data taken. So there are plenty of options out there for excellent homes and dog owners to adopt and save a life without having to turn to puppy mills, petstores and BYB. Rescues with strict adoption criteria are far from being the only way to save a dogs life. So the argument that people will go to BYB, petstores etc. because the rescues drive them to this, is iffy to say the least. There is plenty of room, options and opportunities for these wonderful dog owners to save lives. Rescues will more than welcome this choice since this will be another life saved. If these people were to decide that they want a particular dog that is in the care of a rescue, and insist on getting this on their own terms without following the adoption steps of the particular organization (and they differ from organization to organization), well that is not going to work. It happens often that the rescue gets threatened that people will go to BYB of puppy mills instead, and it is good that rescues do not change the quality standards because of emotional blackmail. People who care for the dog have the right to set their own rules. If someone is very upset about these rules, there is always the option for them to start a better organization that will save more dogs and accommodate the wonderful dog owners rescues drive away. Again, rescues will welcome this. There is no lack of opportunities for good people, good dog owners and good homes to save lives: each should pick the option they are most comfortable with. Lives will be saved regardless where the dog is adopted, there is absolutely no need to push and force every adoption through rescue. Rescues fill a small niche in the big picture of saving lives of discarded animals.


----------



## Brightelf

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Rebel, good points! I'm glad rescues are not governed (by the government) into comforming to certain rules, and that each rescue can each make their own rules.







This gives rescues freedom to ensure safety for dogs, and gives adopters choices in where to search, too.


----------



## mysablegsd

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqDid you contact any other rescues to offer your help?


Yes. The humane society said I was too far away. I was willing to drive one day a week to clean cages, walk dogs, whatever. They wanted only people in the city.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

You could try Echo, they have foster homes all over the country. Or Dogs Deserve Better?


----------



## flyinghayden

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I want to throw a couple things in here. Firstly, thanks Rebel, you're too kind, yes I have come along ways in 4 years. My initial take on rescues was that they came into your home to see where the dog was going to live, and that you got the dog on sort of a loan basis, that they always owned the dog, and that the rescue would forever pester you to make sure the dog was still living that perfect life. And I was way off the mark. In fact, one of my dissapointments was, once the dog came into my life, the rescue sort of dissapeared. In reality, I knew they stilled cared about the dog, but for every one adopted, a dozen more were taking their place, and the rescue's hands were full. The dog became my own, to care for, and love, and I have yet to have a rescue contact me. I have always contacted them. The other thing is, I will not work with rescues who require home visits, because I simply live too far away, so I have to do a VIRTUAL VISIT, as it were, with my camera. I wish I could accept home visits, but hopefully, an ACO, as well as my new vet will work as a reference. I try to aim for dogs that have been around the block a time or 2, as they fit better into my setting, and I just love seniors. I will likely never get another puppy, it will be rescues from here on out. Thank you to all the posters for being civil for the most part, and I guess we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I think a home visit by the ACO or vet should satisfy most rescues.


----------



## piercesdesigns

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

In my rescue we often relied on outside parties like known breeders or ACO's to do home visits if the person was far enough away. Like it has been pointed out, no one cares what color your furniture is, or paint colors. We just want to know that you have the things you listed on your app (fence, a house, not 100 animals).


----------



## sitstay

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I have done a few long distance adoptions, and because of that I haven't been the one doing the home visit. But in each case I have been able to network with someone else to get it done. And in some cases, I have been the one doing the home visit locally for the out of state rescue. The woman I work with most often is a huge resource in that regard. 

I use the home visit for a few different things. First, I tell the prospective adopter that it is their chance to sit down and ask me in depth questions, it is their chance to show me their home and get my opinion on any concerns they might have (i.e. is their current crate big enough for the dog they are looking at, are the two steps down into the back yard too steep for the senior dog they want to adopt) and since I usually only have one dog available at any one time (so when people contact me it is almost always about a particular dog I have posted on Petfinder or a breeder's website), it is a chance for everyone to physically see that particular dog they are interested in actually in their home. I always stress to prospective adopters that one big reason for the home visit is just that reason. I like presenting the home visit as meeting several equally important goals, not just verifying their application statements. I always present it as the time for the potential adopters to ask themselves if this is the right dog for their home, and not just the time for me to be asking if this is the right home for the dog. We all want the same thing, which is a successful adoption. 

I have yet to have someone refuse to have a home visit, but still insist on going through with the adoption. I have had a couple of different applicants refuse the home visit, but that was the end of the process and they walked away. I don't see it so much as an invasion of privacy as I do an opportunity for everyone to get an idea of what life with that dog would be like in that house. It can be a pain in the butt for everyone. After all, it is hard to work with different schedules and find a time that works for everyone. 
Sheilah


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: GSDElsaTx,
> 
> I think the problem people are having with you (and the other people with your opinion) is that you are giving your opinion based soley on your "feelings." They are giving an opinion based on "feeling" and EXPERIENCE. You are saying "I think you need to do X because it would have better results." Yet X policy (no home checks) has already been tried by them or others, and Y policy (home checks) has been proven by them to be produce better results.


True enough, but those feelings did come from the experience of being introduced to the process for the first time, from the perspective of a first time rescue adopter.

A lot of the time people deeply involved in something lose the perspective that someone outside that world might have. What seems perfectly reasonable might not to most "outsiders".

Like the contract I signed. If I move, they have the legal right to take my dog.

If I get sick and can't care for her, and I have my family take her on until I'm able to, they can legally take her.

I signed the contract knowing this, and not liking it, but assuming it wasn't going to be enforced.

Not that they are likely to, but they can. And her chip still points to them. It's just something that will be in the back of mind as long as she lives. Legally, she's not really my dog.

I'm sure to a rescue it's no big deal, but knowing they have a legal claim on my dog forever is a very strange thing for me to come to terms with, she is my family now. And I can't believe I would be that uncommon in that feeling.

Maybe my reaction to the experience will be dismissed totally out of hand, written off as so much BS from an idiot, but maybe it will make a few people a little more understanding to some potential adopters, and understand why some perfectly good owners might be quite apprehensive about this issue, and not for nefarious reasons.

It's a rather moot point for me personally now, Monica (well actually she's Kaya now) is not going to be re-homed, I've decided already I want to give her a good home forever. Unless I decide to foster and deal with three dogs, which wouldn't be for another year until Kaya is healthy and socialized, trained and stable, I won't be dealing with it.


----------



## katieliz

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

wow, lots to read here. this quote struck me tho...

"Maybe I'm just too old but I was raised that a man's word is his bond. It is intensely offensive that I could look someone in the eye, shake their hand, and not be trusted to even care for a dogs welfare."

txrider...yup, that is an idea (grand tho it is), whose time has come and gone. gone, gone, gone. thank you for helping the two dogs you've helped. you are entitled to your opinion, and you are theoretically right when you say that more dogs could be saved (initially), if standards were relaxed. HOWEVER, most of us here feel an enormous responsibility for each and every dog we rescue. 

i, for one, would probably want to come to your house to see how you cook your turkey and have a look at your knickers.

pupresq...always the eloquent voice of experience...you (and others) have gone above and beyond to try and spread understanding of the rescue philosophies most of us here work with...but...you can lead a horse to water but sometimes you just cannot get them to eat turkey or wear knickers. what was it that roseanne roseanneadanna used to say...

"never mind..."


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

The one issue that has not been considered is that dogs in rescue are cared for by VOLUNTEERS who can walk away any time they don't like something. They do it because they feel comfortable with the way the dogs are cared for AND PLACED. If the rescue were to place one dog into a home that barely satisfies acceptable care standards (set pretty low by txrider) the rescue would not only lose the volunteer that fostered that dog, but also a bunch of others. So very soon there would be no volunteers fostering the dogs and no dogs would be saved (rather than more). Interesting how "solutions" imposed by naive but opinionated outsiders can backfire and ruin the system. This is experience talking.

To imagine that a person whose foster dog (that slept in a bedroom of the family for months during recovery) was placed in a home to be kept on a chain (or into a home one knows nothing about) will ever foster another dog for that rescue is pretty absurd and very naive. With one action like that the rescue would lose not one, but many volunteers.

The entire thread is motivated by revolves around the "feelings" of one adopter, who is certaily entitled to those, and this "intellectual" discussion revolved around them. 

The entire rescue concept builds on feelings of COMPASSION of those who CARE about dogs other than their own to the extent of making their hands dirty (as opposed to leading endless intellectual discussions about what should be done by others and why they know better, and there are many of those people out there). These feelings of compassion are the reason rescues exist and dogs are saved - because rescue volunteers could easily pursue personal gain and comfort as the world around them. 

Their feelings and views have been ridiculed through the thread, see turkey run, run turkey, catch the knickers, find the knot turkey, run... 

Without them, there would be no dogs rescued.


----------



## Castlemaid

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Well, this is interesting! I have been where TxRider is a few years ago, completely insulted by intruisive adoption process that I was reading about on this rescue forum. My previous dogs and my cats have been adopted from local shelters - simple process. Shelters but just way too happy to have someone walk in and walk out with a dog or cat. They have been great pets, wonderful family members, cherished and loved dear friends. They have been doted on, spoiled, fed, vetted, groomed, and completely loved. How insulting that a rescue may want a home visit and a multi-page questionaire? 

I remember starting a similar thread on this forum - offended and insulted that had I gone the rescue route as opposed the shelter route, I may have been turned down for a number of reasons, not having a fence for one example. 

So the good rescue people, with much patience and much good sense, gave example after example of why their screening process is needed, and even necessary, and explained what goals and aims the process is meant to cover. I was so naive myself at how bad a lot of homes are, even though people consider themselves to be good homes, good dog people. I was completely shocked to hear of people's lack or commitment and responsibility to their dogs, how quickly they turn around and dump the dog for the slightest inconvenience. I was very shocked to hear how people lie all the time just to get what they want - what a sense of entitlement can make one do. 

I listened. I read in disbelief. I understood!! This was not about me! How short-sighted I was! This was about looking out for the best interest of the dogs in the care of the rescue, in a world where dogs are disposable extras. I have completely changed my mind on the subject of rescues and breeders going through a detailed questionaire, and in the cases or rescues, requiring home visits as something ABSOLUTELY NECCESSARY!!! Not because I, Castlemaid, can't be trusted, but because such a large number of people out there can't be trusted!!! That is WHY the dog or cat in question ended up in rescue or a shelter in the first place!!! Adopting these animals out without the detailed screening process the rescues have may only increase the chance of perpetuating the situation that they work so hard to try and remedy. 

And I'm wondering about these two quotes from the same poster:


> Quote:Maybe I'm just too old but I was raised that a man's word is his bond. It is intensely offensive that I could look someone in the eye, shake their hand, and not be trusted to even care for a dogs welfare.


and also:


> Quote:Like the contract I signed. If I move, they have the legal right to take my dog.
> 
> If I get sick and can't care for her, and I have my family take her on until I'm able to, they can legally take her.
> 
> I signed the contract knowing this, and not liking it, but assuming it wasn't going to be enforced.


which to me implies that you feel you can break the contract you signed as it won't be enforced . . . which would bring up questions about your "word" and its credibility. 

Now I understand that you feel that you may not really "own" your dog with the rescue having claim on her, but in my book, I would never sign a contract I did not intend to honour. That is just not right. Not saying that you don't intend to honour it, but the wording of the comment does have that connotation - which makes me wonder. 

I signed a similar contract when I purchased my puppy from a breeder - This breeder will move heaven and earth to ensure that none of the dogs she has ever been responsible to bring into this world EVER end up in a shelter, or a bad situation. I respect her and think very highly of her for that level of commitment to the puppies bred in her kennel - good rescues share that level of commitment to each and every dog that comes through their door. It is something to be lauded not criticized. 

Most of this thread has been how offended the poster is at the questioning and the contract signing - I understand, I've been there too, but once I understood the magnitude of the problems rescues face in finding and identifying good, for-ever homes, my own ego was put to the side and I whole-heartedly support their efforts! 

And if a person does not want to deal with a rescue, does not want to sign a contract of any kind, there are shelters overflowing with dogs of all breeds, mixes, sizes, ages, and wonderful temperaments. Those dogs would be just as grateful as any for a chance to live and be loved - and it is still a rescue, still a life saved.


----------



## dd

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Castlemaid - thank you for posting. Great comments!


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: Castlemaid
> And I'm wondering about these two quotes from the same poster:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Maybe I'm just too old but I was raised that a man's word is his bond. It is intensely offensive that I could look someone in the eye, shake their hand, and not be trusted to even care for a dogs welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> and also:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Like the contract I signed. If I move, they have the legal right to take my dog.
> 
> If I get sick and can't care for her, and I have my family take her on until I'm able to, they can legally take her.
> 
> I signed the contract knowing this, and not liking it, but assuming it wasn't going to be enforced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> which to me implies that you feel you can break the contract you signed as it won't be enforced . . . which would bring up questions about your "word" and its credibility.
> 
> Now I understand that you feel that you may not really "own" your dog with the rescue having claim on her, but in my book, I would never sign a contract I did not intend to honour. That is just not right. Not saying that you don't intend to honour it, but the wording of the comment does have that connotation - which makes me wonder.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head.

It is a contradiction of my values to break it, so I will not. I will tell them if my family keeps her for me, and if I move, and will deal with whatever comes.

I assume they will not decide to take my dog. But they do have a legal right to do so.

Would they demand an application, references and a home visit at my family members house? A home visit to the house I plan to move to?

Those are the kind of issues that were going through my head as I signed the contract.

I assume they would just respond with "whatever, thanks for letting us know".. "good luck"...

Then there is the question of something happening, someone opening my gate if I forget to lock the padlock I keep on it, and she gets picked up, scanned, and the rescue is called as they are on the chip. Would I lose her?

I just kept of a couple of stray puppies overnight I found out on the street a few weeks ago, if I had not taken them in, they would have gone to the shelter. I searched around and found their owner the next day, and someone had opened his gate and not closed it securely, he thinks his real estate agent. (he was selling the house). Things do happen sometimes.

It's not a huge deal, just sharing thoughts here.

As you yourself said, first exposure to the process is a bit daunting and I can easily see it putting off many responsible people.



> Quote:Most of this thread has been how offended the poster is at the questioning and the contract signing - I understand, I've been there too, but once I understood the magnitude of the problems rescues face in finding and identifying good, for-ever homes, my own ego was put to the side and I whole-heartedly support their efforts!
> 
> And if a person does not want to deal with a rescue, does not want to sign a contract of any kind, there are shelters overflowing with dogs of all breeds, mixes, sizes, ages, and wonderful temperaments. Those dogs would be just as grateful as any for a chance to live and be loved - and it is still a rescue, still a life saved.


I'm just using myself as an example, and playing devil's advocate a bit. It's not about me at all, it's about the dogs. It's about wondering how many people do lie, how many do dump dogs or abuse them, and how many good potential adopters are put off by the process.

I really do not know, which is why I wanted to more fully explore the issue. Unfortunately posing the questions for general comment, and following up, is seen by some as an attack on them.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: katieliz
> i, for one, would probably want to come to your house to see how you cook your turkey and have a look at your knickers.


I could post some pics!


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I think that the discussion was about individuals and their ego, who expect others to automatically consider them thrustworthy just by looking at them, whereas they are very untrusting towards the rest of the world. It is about ego and not about the dogs.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDI think that the discussion was about individuals and their ego, who expect others to automatically consider them thrustworthy just by looking at them, whereas they are very untrusting towards the rest of the world. It is about ego and not about the dogs.


Despite nobody in the entire discussion ever saying that an application with relevant info, ID etc. wasn't perfectly acceptable and expected.

And being perfectly willing to trust that information to a rescue.

You read into it what you wanted to read into it, and still are, turning the discussion into something it's not actually about.


----------



## ncgsdmom

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Just want to toss a few thoughts in here as well.

The fact that the dog is microchipped to the rescue is again part of the overall safety net. The rescue commits to these dogs, and the chip is one way to help ensure that the dog is safe. Yes, the registration of the dog does stay with the rescue, but the adopter is supposed to also register the dog to their name. So it is a double safety net. If the adopter does not register the dog, the chip still has contact info back to the rescue in case the dog gets loose for whatever reason.

You may think that is not that common, but I have had 3 foster dogs in the past year that were chipped but not registered. One was a stray a friend found locally...his chip originated in Arkansas, but was never registered. Two others were strays pulled from one of the local shelters...again, both dogs had chips..one from Missouri, one from SC, but again no contact info. 

Additionally, there are always a multitude of tragic what-if scenarios...suppose something happens to the adopter unexpectedly...car accident, etc. Well, maybe the family really doesn't want to have the responsibility of the dog and goes and drops the dog off at a shelter...at least there is a chance that the rescue can find out and go recover the dog. Think of all the petfinder link descriptions that start off with "owner passed away...

Again, it is just a bit of security towards the welfare of the dogs.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: Despite nobody in the entire discussion ever saying that an application with relevant info, ID etc. wasn't perfectly acceptable and expected.
> 
> And being perfectly willing to trust that information to a rescue.
> 
> You read into it what you wanted to read into it, and still are, turning the discussion into something it's not actually about


Actually people addressed many of the specific things that you said. It's just that many of your comments were not internally consistent and you expected people to overlook very clear statements you made in favor of other statements that you made depending on the context that suited you. The "word as bond" comment being a good example that several people have cited. 

Reading on your other thread, I'm really bothered that Camp Wolfgang was placing dogs who hadn't been HW tested, much less treated. I don't know a lot about this organization but I do tend to wonder if cutting corners on things like home visits is commonly associated with cutting corners in other areas like vetting. There are many different ways to do rescue but these are worrisome policies.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: VSnapJust want to toss a few thoughts in here as well.
> 
> The fact that the dog is microchipped to the rescue is again part of the overall safety net. The rescue commits to these dogs, and the chip is one way to help ensure that the dog is safe. Yes, the registration of the dog does stay with the rescue, but the adopter is supposed to also register the dog to their name. So it is a double safety net. If the adopter does not register the dog, the chip still has contact info back to the rescue in case the dog gets loose for whatever reason.
> 
> You may think that is not that common, but I have had 3 foster dogs in the past year that were chipped but not registered. One was a stray a friend found locally...his chip originated in Arkansas, but was never registered. Two others were strays pulled from one of the local shelters...again, both dogs had chips..one from Missouri, one from SC, but again no contact info.
> 
> Additionally, there are always a multitude of tragic what-if scenarios...suppose something happens to the adopter unexpectedly...car accident, etc. Well, maybe the family really doesn't want to have the responsibility of the dog and goes and drops the dog off at a shelter...at least there is a chance that the rescue can find out and go recover the dog. Think of all the petfinder link descriptions that start off with "owner passed away...
> 
> Again, it is just a bit of security towards the welfare of the dogs.


Which is a very good and valid point, and understood, but doesn't change the legal aspects of the contract.

And leads to yet another question. Do rescues ever help the adopter register the chip? 

It would seem the best method to have the proper forms on hand and take care of that at adoption time.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: Do rescues ever help the adopter register the chip?


yes, depending on the chip provider and how they do their registration, the registration may be done on the adopters behalf by the rescue or shelter.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



pupresq said:


> Quote: The "word as bond" comment being a good example that several people have cited.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I believe it was the only example, and not a good one at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:Reading on your other thread, I'm really bothered that Camp Wolfgang was placing dogs who hadn't been HW tested, much less treated. I don't know a lot about this organization but I do tend to wonder if cutting corners on things like home visits is commonly associated with cutting corners in other areas like vetting. There are many different ways to do rescue but these are worrisome policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She was tested, just not treated. I don't find it that bad considering it was around the beginning of this year and they were likely very tight on funds. I can easily understand where there would be higher priorities.
> 
> It's a bit more troubling I was told she was a year old, so the issue was likely not very bad. But my vet says she is three, and I had a HW test this morning and he says it's a pretty significant case, and that she will require an overnight stay, and later a two night stay for two sessions of treatment.
> 
> They did tell me was HW positive though, and I took her knowing I would have to deal with it. I'm not upset at them at all, it just might have been nice if I had more accurate information.
> 
> She'll get the best care my vet can give her.
> 
> Also as for the rescue I got Hope from not calling my references, I only really know they didn't call my personal references, they may well have called my old Vet, and if so that would have been ample reference for any rescue. He was my vet for over 15 years, and the last visit I had with him was putting my best dog down at 16yrs of age that he treated for most of her life.
> 
> Is it common for rescues to call a prospective adopters vet first? Or even at all?
Click to expand...


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Do rescues ever help the adopter register the chip?
> 
> 
> 
> yes, depending on the chip provider and how they do their registration, the registration may be done on the adopters behalf by the rescue or shelter.
Click to expand...

Neither did for me, When I got Hope I got no information. Wolfgang told me who to contact to register and explained it.

I certainly would have appreciated it, and gladly paid a fee for it as well.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: Actually I believe it was the only example, and not a good one at all.


Well, you say that, and yet multiple people interpreted it exactly the way I did, so I think the possibility is there that perhaps the common explanation of that statement is the one that most people got from it, not whatever you are now saying you intended. 



> Quote:s it common for rescues to call a prospective adopters vet first? Or even at all?


Yes. A vet reference is probably the most important one a rescue can do.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Actually I believe it was the only example, and not a good one at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you say that, and yet multiple people interpreted it exactly the way I did, so I think the possibility is there that perhaps the common explanation of that statement is the one that most people got from it, not whatever you are now saying you intended.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps out of what? 20+ posts on the subject that show otherwise, I wrote one line that wasn't exactly clear and could be interpreted more than one way, and certain people refuse to believe any intent but the one they wish to ascribe to it?

If my meaning was as you say, I would solidly stand behind it.



> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:s it common for rescues to call a prospective adopters vet first? Or even at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. A vet reference is probably the most important one a rescue can do.
Click to expand...

So it's likely they called my old vet, and decided they didn't need to call my other references then.

I've been wanting to take Hope back by the rescue for a visit, maybe I'll ask them.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I wouldn't assume they called your vet reference. I'm just answering your question that yes, that's a common and important reference.

As far as the rest, I think I'm going to have to defer to Katieliz's wisom and agree with her!


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

We have offered to help with some Camp Wolfgang dogs and I read through the descriptions of all of them. Many of the dogs were treated for major medical conditions as well as heartworm. There were approximately 5-6 that were marked as special needs (these were the ones we considered in particular). Most of the special needs were heartworm positive, one of them was a tripod. It is obvious from the description that they were all heartworm tested. The HW+ ones were more recent dogs that were not treated up to the moment when the decision to close CW was made. The description said that they would be treated soon. The closing obviously changed many things. I was impressed by the quality of the description of each of the dogs. Each one was tested with different dogs, cats and children. They had a trainer working with the dogs and have rehabilitated several with aggression issues. I think that they relaxed their adoption procedures because of the closing. As it was mentioned in the other thread some of the dogs were supposed to stay at the shelter for life rather than being placed into a home that was not a good match.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

That's better than what it sounded like then. From some of TxRider's other posts (not the most recent obviously) it sounded as though the heartworms were a surprise after he adopted her. Glad to hear that's not the case.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I looked her up on the web-page after he posted about the adoption. It was clearly indicated that she was HW+. It also said that she would be treated soon (same as several other dogs), however this did not happen because of the closing. They definitely did not attempt to misrepresent dogs in terms of their HW status. I think there was a disagreement in the age estimates between CW and TxRider's vet.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Age differences are totally understandable. It's so much of a judgement call.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDWe have offered to help with some Camp Wolfgang dogs and I read through the descriptions of all of them. Many of the dogs were treated for major medical conditions as well as heartworm. There were approximately 5-6 that were marked as special needs (these were the ones we considered in particular). Most of the special needs were heartworm positive, one of them was a tripod. It is obvious from the description that they were all heartworm tested. The HW+ ones were more recent dogs that were not treated up to the moment when the decision to close CW was made. The description said that they would be treated soon. The closing obviously changed many things. I was impressed by the quality of the description of each of the dogs. Each one was tested with different dogs, cats and children. They had a trainer working with the dogs and have rehabilitated several with aggression issues. I think that they relaxed their adoption procedures because of the closing. As it was mentioned in the other thread some of the dogs were supposed to stay at the shelter for life rather than being placed into a home that was not a good match.


Yes the process when I went there (didn't spend much time looking at the petfinder site) was that they had most of the dogs separated into kennels and waiting for rescues to come pick them up.

They had other kennels that were where they had the dogs up for adoption. The gave a list to me when I got there that described the dog and what kind of home it was suited for.

I found talking to the staff there quite good, and very busy if not overwhelmed at the time. I decided to just wait patiently to have time with a staff member to talk over the dogs and learn from her rather than the list they gave me.

Other than the difference in age thing, which isn't really a big deal, it was a very good experience. They were obviously taking care to place dogs in homes that would be appropriate for the dog the best they could in bad circumstances.

My vet keyed in on her teeth wear and plaque level, which is more then my other girl who is also about 3yrs old.

As for others, I have been quite careful to say that they told me she was HW positive right off the bat. In fact it is stated in the very first post I made when I brought her home. I don't appreciate the insinuation I didn't. I only had her tested day before yesterday, why would I even bring it up in discussion if they hadn't told me up front?

I've also been quite clear that I assumed she probably wasn't treated due to lack of funds and impending closing and it was understandable, and a pretty obvious assumption given the circumstances. They took her in last November/December.

I don't know if it was intentional or not, but the girl told me (and a family that was looking at her) she was a year old, so the HW would likely not be very bad. I give her the benefit of a doubt though, I don't believe it was intentional misrepresentation, just a mistake.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I agree you have been very clear as you stated above. 

My answer to the orginal question is "Yes". 
If we lived in a world where all rescues could be as wonderful as they need to be, then OK they can have all the policies in world and find the PERFECT home for every dog. 

But this is NOT my experience. The only GOOD rescues I know of are represented on this forum. And in other states. Not here where I live. Yes, there are some I am sure if I looked at other breed rescues. But not many. 

They pull dogs then stick them in boarding. No training, very little vetting. Then they want to rake someone over the coals, To find the perfect home. I do not think it is warranted. It has led me personally to do some desperate things with dogs, very sad I know, and I have lived and learned. BUt there is NOT a lot of support out there, for people rescusing OR dogs. 

The lesson I think people who run rescues and make policies should take from this thread is BEND a little...for the dogs. 

80% of good dog owners I talk to will NOT go to a rescue, because of their restrictions. I would even be denied by some rescues, and probably quite a few people on this board. 

We can continue to ignore the public perception and spin our wheels or BEND. I think there is a lot of glory seeking with rescue people and I do not think they will do this. They need people good enough for "their" dogs. 

A friend of mine wanted a cat. She wanted to "help" a cat, the best way she could. She wanted one, that day. So instead of directing her to the local no kill shelter where the cats have it made so much they watch TV, I directed her to a high kill shelter that I had been told was way full. She got her cat. Paid double just to help out. Then found out later the cat was not spayed like they said it was.....I just shurgged my shoulders, that is what happens when you want an animal now. 
SO I understand WHY the policies are in place, but the general public does not, they go out of their way to avoid them. I think the rescues will not bend and do not care because their animals have it made in the rescue foster homes. BUT in the mean time, dogs and cats die in shelters because rescues are FULL. 

I have said it a million times it is overwhelming. My answer is still yes, they are TO strict.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: I don't appreciate the insinuation I didn't. I only had her tested day before yesterday, why would I even bring it up in discussion if they hadn't told me up front?


For goodness sakes! Not everything is a deep dark personal affront. I didn't say you deliberately misled anyone or anything I just said that from some of your posts I assumed it was news - like, about her just now being tested. Normally we'd test a dog to find out if they have heartworms or not. I thought that was her first test. You have a lot of posts on several threads. I didn't review them all. I made an incorrect assumption based on a few of them and said I was wrong when Rebel corrected me. Chill!


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Hi Kelly,

I fundamentally disagree with a lot of the statements in your post. Not because I'm "glory seeking" but because I've been doing this a long time and I've seen where cutting corners leads. 

I also deal with the general public quite a bit. Until very recently I spent all day every weekend dealing with the general public at adoption events held at retail stores. I have not encountered this 80% of people who refuse to deal with rescues because of our policies but are otherwise good homes. My experience is that there's a rescue or shelter out there for nearly every need if someong really wants to save an animal. For example, if someone doesn't have a fence, a little time on Petfinder or at their local humane society or county animal control and they can easily find a pet. There are also lots of rescues like mine that don't require fences and take that issue on a case by case basis.

Which policies do you think should be bent and what is the data showing that this will result in more dogs and cats winding up in good homes? Since we're talking about literally life and death issues here, I would hope that people's recommendations about how rescues should be run for optimum result are based on experience and fact.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqHi Kelly,
> 
> I fundamentally disagree with a lot of the statements in your post. Not because I'm "glory seeking" but because I've been doing this a long time and I've seen where cutting corners leads.
> 
> I also deal with the general public quite a bit. Until very recently I spent all day every weekend dealing with the general public at adoption events held at retail stores. I have not encountered this 80% of people who refuse to deal with rescues because of our policies but are otherwise good homes.


Which is one of the reasons I asked in the first place, would you ever see these people, if they never contacted you because they avoided it.. A lot of experience in a retail front and such would tend to say yes you would see them.

Do they say they don't like it? Or maybe just take the paperwork etc. home and are never seen again?

I seriously brought this up to try to get a feel for an answer, is it 80%?, more like 40%? or is it more like 10%?



> Quote:My experience is that there's a rescue or shelter out there for nearly every need if someong really wants to save an animal. For example, if someone doesn't have a fence, a little time on Petfinder or at their local humane society or county animal control and they can easily find a pet. There are also lots of rescues like mine that don't require fences and take that issue on a case by case basis.


Another very good answer. What percentage of rescues would you think have more strict requirements? A few? Many? Most? That's another part of the issue I hoped to gain knowledge about by discussing.

I'm not sure exposure from petfinder etc. really gives an accurate idea.


----------



## Castlemaid

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: Daisy1986
> 80% of good dog owners I talk to will NOT go to a rescue, because of their restrictions. I would even be denied by some rescues, and probably quite a few people on this board.


Honestly, I would be denied too by some rescues: No fence, cats allowed outside, away from home 10+ hours a day. 

So what? At one time, I would have been offended. Later on, if a rescue was looking for specific requirements, and I did not meet them, big deal!!! That does not make a rescue bad!!! Just makes them a specific type of rescue that does not fit with my situation. 

There are enough dogs out there needing homes, that it isn't hard to find a dog in need of adoption from many different sources. 



> Quote:I think there is a lot of glory seeking with rescue people and I do not think they will do this [bend the rules to place dogs]. They need people good enough for "their" dogs.


Frankly, I think this is ridiculous!! Rescue people doing it for glory seeking? I think it has to be one of the most selfless, giving, loving, generous souls who would be willing to put so much time and emotional energy into rescuing and fostering dogs who often have been physically and emotionally abused. 

Personally, I think it is the adopters who are glory seeking by going to a rescue: as shown by some of the posts in this thread - and I was one of them a number of years back: we, the potential adopter, feel that we are doing something heroic and self-less and correct by going to adopt a throw-away, unwanted dog, and give him or her a chance at a normal happy life. WE feel that we should get some kudos, recognition, and a tad of glory for being willing to take on such a dog, instead of playing it safe and buying a puppy that we can mold and develop from day one. But instead, as Daisy said, we are racked over the coals, and we feel insulted and let down. WE are the ones glory seeking! 

pupresq and Rebel have done an excellent job explaining WHY those stringent requirements and policies are in place. They have actual examples of rescues that had more relaxed policies in order to be able to adopt out more dogs, AND IT DIDN'T WORK!! The dogs adopted out ended up coming BACK into rescue, or meeting an early demise due to the inadequately screened new owner's irresponsibility! 

I don't understand why people who don't agree with a rescue's policy feel that this is a personal insult - especially when one can get a GSD or other dog from just about any Shelter anywhere in operation! Just look at the Urgent and non-urgent forum. HUNDREDS of pure bred dogs needing homes! No need to go through a rescue. A person can just go and adopt direct.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: Castlemaid
> 
> 
> Daisy1986 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why people who don't agree with a rescue's policy feel that this is a personal insult - especially when one can get a GSD or other dog from just about any Shelter anywhere in operation! Just look at the Urgent and non-urgent forum. HUNDREDS of pure bred dogs needing homes! No need to go through a rescue. A person can just go and adopt direct.
> 
> 
> 
> Part of it for me was that this was the first time in my entire life I have ever chosen a dog for myself.
> 
> Every dog I have ever had has been one that came to me. A stray, a dog a family member couldn't keep, a dog someone I knew couldn't keep, etc. All mutts of uncertain origin. A bird, an Iguana, cats, and I have never chosen a pet in my life.
> 
> This was the first time I got to choose.
> 
> I really liked that rescues would talk about the dog, it's personality, and enough information to base a choice on.
> 
> But it seems the better information you get, the more intrusive the policies to adopt.
> 
> I settled for in between. I wrote off the pound early, and wrote off what I felt was intrusive requirements later, and settled in between.
> 
> Which raised many questions in my mind about these issues, which I brought up for discussion here to try to learn more about. Especially since I am nearing what I hope to be semi retirement and may be interested in getting deeper into helping animals.
> 
> From many responses here it seems I'm far from alone in having these questions and the initial reaction to some policies.
Click to expand...


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:But it seems the better information you get, the more intrusive the policies to adopt.


I don't think this is universally true but I'd guess that you're right about a general pattern. And I think it extends from there. I would never adopt out a dog with a pre-existing treatable condition like heartworms but I also wouldn't adopt out a dog without a home visit. I do think there's a relationship. The more time, energy, money, individual attention, you spend with a dog the more you care about being careful where the dog ends up. Again, generally speaking anyway.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Taking a stretch break. Could someone post the reputable recue list here? Maybe that would help. 

Andwhat Daisy posted would indicate a good comfort level with volunteering in an open or moderately open adoption shelter. And if someone can do that, they should.it would be great and appreciated I am sure! 

But allow reputable rescues to do what their comfort level dictates and do not try to undo those standards. Especially since there are already programs in place like shelters who cannot or do not screen. 


Lucia-your posts-thanks-like a nice sorbet!


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: Do they say they don't like it? Or maybe just take the paperwork etc. home and are never seen again?


It varies. The biggest "negative" response I've encountered was from people who thought the dogs should be free. I've definitely gotten the "what do you mean this dog costs $100 or $200 (or whatever)??? I can get get a free dog out of the newspaper." a lot. Which of course is followed by our explanation of what the $200 covers in vet work and how it's actually a pretty good deal. Most people are responsive to that but some aren't. I tend to suspect that the ones who aren't are the ones who weren't planning to do that vet work in the first place, so having it already done doesn't save them any money. But those are not what I would call "good" homes, so I don't feel like the dogs have lost out when they decide not to adopt. 

As Rebel mentioned in one of her posts, you do get quite a bit of emotional blackmail and threats from people you turn down. "If you don't give me this dog, I'm going to go get one from a petstore! How do you like that?" Kind of stuff. But what can you do? If you're turning them down for a good reason, which are the only reasons we DO turn people down, then I don;t think it's right or fair to send a rescue/shelter dog to a poor home just to stop someone from supporting a puppy mill. At some point that decision has to be their responsibility. 

After talking to thousands of people at these things, you do get a pretty good sense after a while. I don't know exact percentages and wouldn't want to guess but most people are positive. Much of the conversation is education and I'd say the majority of people who seem to genuinely care about animals are happy to learn more, even if some of the information is news when they first come in. We get a lot of repeat adopters and friends and family of other adopters. The people with an obviously negative attitude and taking offense to our policies are also the ones who want to be able to do things with our animals that we're really just not okay with - keep them outside all the time for example. That's a big one. Very common and people can get personally offended if you deny them because of that. And I get it. I mean to them, that's a good way to have a dog. They don't see the problem with it and they feel like we're being unreasonable. I try to explain our point of view on the subject "dogs are pack animals, they really enjoy being with their family etc." and we're always very polite, but some people are not interested in changing their behavior, they just want you to do what they want you do to. Maybe this is the kind of area where Kelly is saying rescues should bend? I don't know. I know some rescues and certainly a lot of shelters who DO bend on this point. So there are adoption options for people who want outside dogs. I've seen some outside dogs who actually have pretty decent lives, so I'm not saying it can't be done. But my foster dogs live in my home. They sleep indoors. They are members of the family and that's the kind of home I'm looking for for them. I feel like each step should be a step up - from the shelter to me, from me to their adoptive home. I don't feel like they should backtrack in their living conditions.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote: I think the rescues will not bend and do not care because their animals have it made in the rescue foster homes. BUT in the mean time, dogs and cats die in shelters because rescues are FULL.


I really feel like I need to respond to this. I take HUGE offense to this statement. As I mentioned in a previous post, the entire mission of my rescue group is to help the animals in rural shelters. When I started working with my target shelter, I was doing it entirely alone, driving 2.5 hours each way into eastern KY a couple times a week on my own dime to take all the pictures and come home and write all the PF listings just so these animals could get some exposure. Most of the shelters we work with don't have computers when we start with them, so all this stuff is done by people in rescue like me. I named those dogs and cats, I agonized about how to portray each one so that maybe someone somewhere would see how special they were, and I took every darn one that I could responsibly fit into my home home with me. I placed them as quickly AND as responsibly as I could and I went back for more. Never for one second was I complacent about the animals back at the shelter because my fosters were safe at home. I have shed more tears than I can tell you for all the dogs and cats I couldn't save and all the bodies I had to step over in my efforts to save the next precious souls coming in. 

Please do not insult the thousands of volunteers like me who are on the front lines of what is essentially a war to save animals by saying that we don't care about the animals in the shelters. We care so much our hearts break every day and yet we peel ourselves off the ground and keep going back because the animals need us. Not for glory. Not for accolades, but because we love those animals. Not just the ones in our homes but all of them.

Thank you Lucia for understanding that.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote: Do they say they don't like it? Or maybe just take the paperwork etc. home and are never seen again?
> 
> 
> 
> It varies. The biggest "negative" response I've encountered was from people who thought the dogs should be free. I've definitely gotten the "what do you mean this dog costs $100 or $200 (or whatever)??? I can get get a free dog out of the newspaper." a lot. Which of course is followed by our explanation of what the $200 covers in vet work and how it's actually a pretty good deal. Most people are responsive to that but some aren't. I tend to suspect that the ones who aren't are the ones who weren't planning to do that vet work in the first place, so having it already done doesn't save them any money. But those are not what I would call "good" homes, so I don't feel like the dogs have lost out when they decide not to adopt.
Click to expand...

I wondered about the adoption fee when I first saw it, but I had no problem with that. It costs money to keep a dog. Mine were spayed, that takes money. Perfectly reasonable.



> Quote:As Rebel mentioned in one of her posts, you do get quite a bit of emotional blackmail and threats from people you turn down. "If you don't give me this dog, I'm going to go get one from a petstore! How do you like that?" Kind of stuff. But what can you do? If you're turning them down for a good reason, which are the only reasons we DO turn people down, then I don;t think it's right or fair to send a rescue/shelter dog to a poor home just to stop someone from supporting a puppy mill. At some point that decision has to be their responsibility.


Anyone silly enough to attempt to blackmail would put me off as well, immediately. As in end of discussion I do not want to speak to you ever again.



> Quote:After talking to thousands of people at these things, you do get a pretty good sense after a while. I don't know exact percentages and wouldn't want to guess but most people are positive. Much of the conversation is education and I'd say the majority of people who seem to genuinely care about animals are happy to learn more, even if some of the information is news when they first come in. We get a lot of repeat adopters and friends and family of other adopters. The people with an obviously negative attitude and taking offense to our policies are also the ones who want to be able to do things with our animals that we're really just not okay with - keep them outside all the time for example. That's a big one. Very common and people can get personally offended if you deny them because of that. And I get it. I mean to them, that's a good way to have a dog. They don't see the problem with it and they feel like we're being unreasonable. I try to explain our point of view on the subject "dogs are pack animals, they really enjoy being with their family etc." and we're always very polite, but some people are not interested in changing their behavior, they just want you to do what they want you do to. Maybe this is the kind of area where Kelly is saying rescues should bend? I don't know. I know some rescues and certainly a lot of shelters who DO bend on this point. So there are adoption options for people who want outside dogs. I've seen some outside dogs who actually have pretty decent lives, so I'm not saying it can't be done. But my foster dogs live in my home. They sleep indoors. They are members of the family and that's the kind of home I'm looking for for them. I feel like each step should be a step up - from the shelter to me, from me to their adoptive home. I don't feel like they should backtrack in their living conditions.


Well I would be one you wouldn't know about. I would ask, and if I didn't like it I would just politely leave, probably take an application while I thought it over, and just never be seen again.

I wouldn't ask the questions, or try to discuss it like I do here. Not the place or time, and I wouldn't want to get in the way of what they are doing or waste their time. You would never know, and I likely wouldn't at all show, my reaction.

Thinking about it even more, it could well be that a lot of my reaction and perception is also based on approaching this mainly through the web. Which might be a different ball game than approaching a rescue in a public venue, which I might have if I was aware of one close by, the web is much less interactive.

Maybe a little of a "I'm not letting a stranger I ran across over the internet into my home" kind of thing.

As for my dogs, they get to choose whether they want to be or stay in or out. The choice so far has always been consistently inside.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

My post is the way I feel. And it is my experiences. It is not a personal attack on anyone. 

If you want to take it that way, that is up to you. 

I think I said the good rescue are represented on this board. AND that "I" understood polices. But that is OK, lower me and attack me and tell me I need to go volunteer in a shelter, I would be proud to do that by the way, I am not to good for that. An open policy shelter. 

My post is, my knowledge, and my experience, my opinon. AND answering the OP question.
There are shelters in MO that ONLY rescues can get the dogs out. All of our rescues are full. So, no one can pull them. Now their money and resources are drained. 

They would have more money and resources if they worked with the public instead of alienating them. This is just my opinon. I do not think people should be blasted for how they feel or be made to feel they need to change their mind.


The Missouri rescue that took 30 dogs out of Camp Wolfgang was not a GSD rescue or a 501 C3, it was a rescue I had never heard of for a breed of dog I have never heard of, "Caucasion Ovarkas", btw. Just FYI.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

But it's not your experience that rescues don't care about the animals in shelters - it's your perception and that's not really the same thing. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many rescuers who aren't doing what they're doing precisely because they DO care so much about the animals still in the shelters. If I said "I think the reason Kelly doesn't volunteer more at shelters is because she doesn't like dogs" that would be an opinion to which I'm entitled, but it would be about _your_ motivations and probably pretty insulting if it wasn't true, right? When you say that the reason I, as a rescuer, don't want to bend my policies is because I only care about the dogs already at my house and not the ones still at the shelter, that's an opinion about my motivations - and an extremely incorrect one. 



> Quote:They would have more money and resources if they worked with the public instead of alienating them. My post is, my knowledge, and my experience, my opinon. AND answering the OP question.


Which is fair enough - and I'm asking what specific changes you think should be made and what your evidence is that they would result in a positive outcome for the animals?

I'm certainly not saying that every rescue or shelter for that matter is perfect and that there aren't any improvements that could be made. But many of the suggestions I've seen in this thread are either general bashes of rescues without specifics or they're for specifics that i've personally seen in action with very bad results. 

I would like to know exactly the changes that people think there should be and how they know this will work.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:But it seems the better information you get, the more intrusive the policies to adopt.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is universally true but I'd guess that you're right about a general pattern. And I think it extends from there. I would never adopt out a dog with a pre-existing treatable condition like heartworms but I also wouldn't adopt out a dog without a home visit. I do think there's a relationship. The more time, energy, money, individual attention, you spend with a dog the more you care about being careful where the dog ends up. Again, generally speaking anyway.
Click to expand...

Well maybe it is for the best then.

While I like information, and don't like intrusion, I also am not that choosy nor need someone to screen for me what I can deal with or be happy with.

I really do not need someone to tell me what dog will fit me, I have plenty of experience to know and read dogs well.

I can handle any dog really, and train and socialize and manage just fine. I always have. I just wanted to screen for serious aggression issues really, and choose dog that wasn't too old and I would have to part with too soon.

I am also not put off by needing to vet a dog for whatever it needs when I adopt it, and have the means to do so, always have for strays.

It could be I am not representative of "the average adopter" in any way, and as such should leave rescues and the intrusive policies for those who really require them for their own good as well as the good of the dogs. It could be I'm more of an anomaly and they just aren't right for me as an adopter.

As I remarked earlier about perspectives being skewed, coming from a perspective of owning many dogs and animals, I totally lack the perspective of a first time dog owner, or inexperienced dog owner. I can't put myself in their shoes so to sleak.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Hey look at that! You and I talked long enough and now we agree!









I think you're right on the money and I'm sort of the same way myself. I feel pretty comfortable in my knowledge of dogs and my ability to pick out a good pet for me - or to deal with any unexpected issues should they arise so for me, direct shelter adoptions are a good way to go. Of my current 4 dogs, 2 came from rescues, and 2 from shelters, but even the two from rescues didn't come with much info (or home visits). I didn't pick the groups because of that, they just happened to be the groups who had the dogs I wanted, but the lack of info was okay for me. Both of the dogs from rescue groups had substantial behavioral issues when we got them, but I knew that from meeting them and it was the reason I adopted them - I felt like these were dogs that I had the knowledge and willingness to help and that other people might not.

I am not the average adopter and it doesn't sound like you are either. I can definitely say that the "average adopter" would be freaking out over having to treat heartworms themselves. You're coming into your adoption with a really different perspective than most people and so it stands to reason you might have different needs and expectations than most people as well. 

I do get emails from people who are more like you in that respect and I'm always happy to talk with them and possibly direct them to a shelter dog that I recently saw crossposted or another rescue group that might be a good match for them. I don't think they're put off by my specific policies, we just help each other network and find homes for dogs in different ways.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I am not getting in a back and forth with you. You are not in question you do things right. What good would it do me? You do everything I would exspect a rescue to do. 

You and Tx have pretty much covered it all on this thread. 

There are rescue's that DO not do things right. If all of them were as good as you, then there would not be a problem. There are to many not playing by the rules, people know this, so it is raiseing questions. Well, why should I do this, why should I pay this, this dog has been in a kennel, this dog has a this illness? This dog has behavior issues. THIS forum is full of threads where people get GSD's from rescues and they are full of problems. 

People get resentful, I went through all of that to get this dog?

I wish there were more rescues like you. But there are not. That is not who Tx dealt with, with Hope. That is not who I have dealt with....

So, I guess if we need to get off topic, which everyone keeps doing, it is Rescues need improvement. Or it needs to be more defined, so everyone cannot just carry that name. Or they are just a shelter, that should not be strict with their screening. Then people KNOW what they are getting into.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Kelly, I apologize if I've misunderstood you. From your post about rescues needing to bend their policies so that more dogs will be saved and the reason that they don't is because they don't care about dogs in shelters, that seems like that's aimed _directly_ at rescues like mine - rescues that have strict policies of the sort that have been under discussion in this thread like reference checks and home visits. Those are the rescues who TxRider was originally saying needed to reconsider the invasiveness of their policies. 

I totally agree that when someone goes to a rescue it's a two way street and they have a reasonable expectation to honesty from that rescue group about the dog's temperament and condition. As I said to TxRider a few posts back, I do think there tends to be a connection between the rescues who ask the most questions of the adopters and the rescues who provide the most information and care in turn. 

If there are groups in your area not doing that, then it sounds like the problem isn't with them needing to "bend" their rules as you put it but with them needing to do a better job with the animals in their care and with their public liason. 

It would help a lot if you would elaborate on what specific policies you find problematic and what you think rescues should do to improve (also how they might do this - given constraints of time, resources, we're all volunteers etc).


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> I'm certainly not saying that every rescue or shelter for that matter is perfect and that there aren't any improvements that could be made. But many of the suggestions I've seen in this thread are either general bashes of rescues without specifics or they're for specifics that i've personally seen in action with very bad results.
> 
> I would like to know exactly the changes that people think there should be and how they know this will work.


My intention has never been to bash. It has simply been a question. Are the policies counter productive in some way?

The changes might be eliminating a home visit, or maybe handling references a little different. Depending on the adopter.

How would I know it would work better? I don't know, or I wouldn't be asking.

I don't know how many rescues have such policies, how many do not.

I do know I hear constantly that rescues and shelters are full and struggling.

I am not up to date on shelters and their policies, other than it seems most still have a 3 days and your dead policy, and increasingly for many dogs they die within an hour.

I am not up to date on puppy mills, backyard breeders, if they are worse or less problem over the last decade, growing or shrinking.

I do not know how many pet stores there are, or most of their polices or prices or how many dogs they sell.

I don't know how many breeders there are, their prices, policies and how many well bred dogs are sold.

I also know many dog owners, and while their dogs don't have the lives mine have, they are healthy, taken care of reasonably and seem happy. It doesn't really take much to keep a dog pretty happy.

I only knew my experience with dogs and owners, and how the experience seemed to me, that it put me off, and that I questioned whether more dogs might be saved, with reasonable happy lives, if they were relaxed some.

A question that after all this I'm not really sure anyone can really answer.

But what I have come to terms with during this is that anyone like me put off by the process has many other options to use, besides a pet store puppy mill dog, and people like me who do not need to be screened are likely better off for all concerned using them..

And that maybe that's the best we all can do.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:Are the policies counter productive in some way?


Depends on which policies. I would argue that some policies _are_ potentially counterproductive but they aren't the ones concerning screening. 


> Quote: The changes might be eliminating a home visit, or maybe handling references a little different. Depending on the adopter.


Trouble is that you can't distinguish between adopter types without doing the screening.







I'd say the evidence from groups that handle adoptions without home visits or do minimal screening is that the result is not an improvement for the dogs. And given the large number of adoption outlets that don't require these things, I don't think there's any evidence that relaxing those policies in the groups that do require them will result in more dogs placed/fewer euthanized. It's a somewhat intuitive proposition, just not one that translates into a positive result in the real world.



> Quote:How would I know it would work better? I don't know, or I wouldn't be asking.


I think asking is great and as long as it's asking and not telling, I have no issue. I think the conflict has been that there are people on this thread who really do know - from lots of experience - what would work better so when they answer it is with the voice of that experience, not off the top of their head.



> Quote: I don't know how many rescues have such policies, how many do not.


There is an ENORMOUS spectrum of policies out there. From meet you in a parking lot, give me twenty bucks and here's a dog to month long application processes complete with home visits and multiple checked references. And everything in between. It really varies. 



> Quote: I do know I hear constantly that rescues and shelters are full and struggling.


Agreed! But this is due to the overwhelming number of animals needing homes, not overly restrictive rescue policies. The people to blame are the ones who abandon their pets, let their pets breed willy nilly, breed and don't take animals back if there's a problem and the list goes on. It's not the rescuers. If people are concerned about the number of animals dying in shelters I encourage them to consider fostering. The more foster homes a rescue has, the more animals they can save. 



> Quote: I am not up to date on shelters and their policies, other than it seems most still have a 3 days and your dead policy, and increasingly for many dogs they die within an hour.


That varies a lot between shelters as well as by region. I don't know if I'd say "most have a 3 day policy". Plenty do but others have 5 days or for others it depends on how adoptable they think the animal is or disease or other factors.



> Quote:I am not up to date on puppy mills, backyard breeders, if they are worse or less problem over the last decade, growing or shrinking.


Again, this varies by region. There are miller hotspots in this country that reflect local ag laws. There have been large increases in certain areas - Amish puppy mills for example are a relatively new phenomenon. In other areas and venues the numbers are going down. I don't know if anyone has absolute figures because so many of these places exist unliscensed and unsupervised.



> Quote: I do not know how many pet stores there are, or most of their polices or prices or how many dogs they sell.


Pet stores typically buy puppies in bulk from large wholesalers for low prices. The wholesalers (millers like Hunt Corp) make their money in economies of scale. The petstores mark up the price several hundredfold so consumers are typically paying hundreds of dollars, maybe over a thousand dollars, for a puppy that cost the store a few bucks. 
More variability in terms of the number of stores. The number of direct marketing physical stores are down in most places. There is greater public awareness of the connection between the horrors of puppy mills and pet stores and public adoption events/adoption stations at major box stores like Petsmart and Petco have given consumers a better option. However, Internet marketing of puppies is up, so while the retail outlets may be hurting, the mills are often doing just fine. 



> Quote:I don't know how many breeders there are, their prices, policies and how many well bred dogs are sold.


Again, hard to know numbers because most are unregulated. As far as policies - it varies. And what is a well-bred dog? That's a highly subjective term. Most breeders will tell you their dogs are well bred. And then there's policies - some breeders have screening that is similar to that of the more intensive rescues - applications, reference checks, maybe even home visits. Others will give a dog to anyone with the cash and most are probably somewhere in between. Some breeders have lifetime contracts on their dogs and of those, some actually enforce them and others don't. Lots of dogs are sold without that safety net, including some that by any definition would certainly be considered "well bred." The breeder may be putting a lot of effort into their production of "quality" puppies but not feel like they have any responsibility for them after they're sold. There are some epic threads on this topic in the archive. Opinions on what makes a "responsible" or "reputable" breeder vary widely. And then there are all the people who aren't exactly "breeders" but breed a couple of litters because they have a purebred dog. 



> Quote:It doesn't really take much to keep a dog pretty happy.


And yet so many homes don't even meet that basic standard. I only have to walk down my block to find dogs in pens, dogs on chains, dogs who never get any training or interaction (and I live in a nice area). What is Happy? And who decides? Like "well bred" that's a pretty subjective term. I've got some neighbors a couple houses down who are super nice people and I think they would tell you there dog is happy and they are good dog owners. Maybe they are. I wouldn't adopt to them because their Shepherd mix is not allowed in their house. She roams loose a lot and in the winter she is chained to a dog house with no bedding located down at the very bottom of their yard by the ally. She used to be allowed in the house but then she started having diarrhea so instead of taking her to the vet or changing her diet, she became an outdoor dog. I do think they love her and she's lived a long life. Is that a "good" home? I'm sure they think so. I'm sure some people would agree. I suspect that when she passes they'll contact me about adopting a dog at which point I'll be in the very awkward position of not adopting to them and having them be mad about it.



> Quote: and how the experience seemed to me, that it put me off, and that I questioned whether more dogs might be saved, with reasonable happy lives, if they were relaxed some.


Except that even though you were put off from those particular groups, you STILL adopted your dogs. So it seems like the system is working - you might have not liked that group's policy but your commitment to saving a dog was intact and you found another way to do it. No fewer dogs were saved. 



> Quote:I questioned whether more dogs might be saved, with reasonable happy lives, if they were relaxed some.


I genuinely do not think so.


----------



## valleydog

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I went through each page of this thread, as it's a topic that interests me.

We live half the year in California and half in Colorado. In California we have a big yard with high solid fences. We're both home all the time and our daughter is in college. Our 5 year old Molly loves to play with other dogs. She's stayed at Camp Bow Wow. She's taken agility, herding, obedience and fun nose work lessons. 

But in Colorado we have more than 100 acres and no fences. The fence issue disqualified us from adopting a dog we were interested in. I can understand that rescued dogs are more likely to be runaways. I could have just not told them about Colorado. We worked with a trainer and an e collar to develop a solid recall with Molly. Oh well.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

And finally...

More and more people are adopting. Sites like Petfinder have revolutionized the world of sheltering and rescue. I think the biggest historical impediment to adoption was never policies it was accessibility to the pets people wanted. And like it or not, people (including me - I'm not casting stones) want what they want. If you want a specific breed of a certain age, temperament, or whatever, your odds of finding that animal in your local shelter at the moment you happened to visit were pretty low. And most people weren't going to spend a year or whatever trolling their shelter for that perfect dog. The people who were super flexible in what they wanted adopted the next nice dog they encountered and those that wanted something specific bought. And breed rescues, while they existed, weren't well known outside of super dog savvy circles. 

With the Internet all that changed. Suddenly you you can browse your local shelter's listings from your desk. Not only that, but you have access to the listings for literally hundreds of other shelters maybe a little farther away, but still accessible. Breed rescues are right there with a click of the finger tips. If you want to get a Bichon Frise male, under 2 years, you do a little browsing and here are 20 of them to chose from. Maybe a couple of the groups won't adopt to you because you're out of their adoption area, but there are plenty of other options. 

All this is possible because of a combination of technology and the time and dedication of volunteers and shelter staff. Adoption numbers are steadily increasing and with every positive experience someone has, the word gets out a little more about all the wonderful animals so readily available and the great resources and knowledgable people out there to help the public find them. So while the overall picture is still pretty bleak, especially in geographical regions like mine, thousands of animals are being saved every day, not by rescuers scrimping on standards or care but through education, effort, and hard work.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

The rescue policy fence issue has been addressed ad nauseum on this board. While I understand that your lack of a fence meant that you were unable to adopt one particular dog that interested you, given the rest of what you wrote I know that there were many many other adoption outlets who would be happy to place a dog in your care. Not having a fence does not mean someone cannot adopt a dog if they want to save a life. And many groups, mine included, may require a fence for some dogs and not others, depending on what is known about that specific animal.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Pupresq, Your PM's are full. 

I just tried to PM you this. I might as well put it here. 

I am sorry I have had a very bad day. None of this is directed at you. I do not know exactly who your rescue is...

I am upset about this guy.
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1234367#Post1234367

His eyes have went straight into my heart. I have cried most of the day. 

Also, my husband's very first friend in the USA his mentor died of cancer yesterday. It is just a rough day. 

Now I have insulted Jean that I admire, and it is a mess. I am just tired of hearing how rescue's are full, and I cannot get this guy out. 

I went down there twice, once with a all breed rescue to take the boy. The next pretty much on my own, it was a disaster. 

I need to take a break from this forum, it is kicking my butt once again. I will never forget that face, it hurts so bad, he will die tommorrow at 10 am, and there is nothing no one can do.


----------



## dd

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

The dog does not seem to be tagged as "rescue only". Why can't you get him if you are nearby and want him? Can you explain the situation - maybe on his thread? He is a lovely dog.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

He is abousolutely "rescue" only. 

I can get him tagged by a rescue. But the 3 I know of that can do it are FULL! 

He cannot come here. I have already been down that road with the last one I went and got. Not going to rehash that story. He needs quarrantined. 

I am 3 hrs away. They are allow the pull person in from noon to 1, his PTS time is 10 Am. He is gone. This is the first one for me, the first one I have seen a picture of feel in love, and not saved. OK, maybe all of you have been through this, he is my first...









I saw him to late. Even if I saw him sooner...I do not know what I could do.


----------



## dd

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I am sorry. Some kennels do offer quarantining, as do vet offices, but that costs. I hope someone will turn up for him.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1232512&page=1&fpart=2

Not sure this is my only hope it says all the way at the end of this pup's thread that the male was claimed by owner. Drying my tears, I hope this is true.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Hi Kelly,

I'm sorry you're going through this. Yes, the ones you can't save DO hurt - they hurt enormously. That was why I got so upset by your post. I have posted many a picture and cuddled many a shelter dog that ultimately wound up dead because there are simply more dog than homes to go around. Rescues are made up of people like you and like me. Sometimes we can take dogs in, sometimes we can't and when we can't we feel terribly sad if that dog falls through the cracks. It's not our fault that we can't always take that next one in but that doesn't make it hurt any less. 

I know it's human nature to want to blame someone for that pain and it seems as though rescues and their policies are often on the receiving end of that blame (not from you, just in general), but it's not the rescues that put the dogs in the shelter. Good rescues are people doing the best they can with the resources they have. If they can't take an additional dog in, it's for the same kinds of reasons that anyone else can't - cost, time, a spouse who has had enough, other animals who need special care. Rescuers are just people. The more people that join that effort the more animals that are saved. The more people who choose to adopt, the more animals that are saved. The more people who are responsible about their pets' reproduction, the more animals that are saved. They're all pieces of the puzzle.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Feeling kinda silly if he is cuddle up with his owner right now. 
BUT very happy if that is the case. 

Will try to confirm in the morning. 

The rescue I volunteer for is full. They asked me to head up Springfield, MO. This task is to overwelming. They are to sick. I am not giving up, but I cannot go down myself and bring them here any more. I do not have quarrentine. My dogs got sick last time. 

I have to find other ways. Sorry for getting so upset. It is not rescues fault they are full. I just hate hearing stories of good owners getting turned down.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Hoping this guy is safe and sound!









Most foster homes I know don't have good quarantine set ups either so I definitely sympathize. It stinks to be trying to help and accidently do something that hurts your own pets. 

All this thread has gotten me wondering about a couple things about these good homes who supposedly get turned down or are turned off by rescue policies. On this thread we have a couple stories of people who were turned off by the policies of particular rescues but they went on to adopt a dog somewhere else. I'll add my own story to that - I found this board when I contacted another rescue about a dog they had in foster care and got turned down because I lived outside their area. I was disappointed but committed to adoption. The foster mom suggested I check the urgent forum on this board which I did and found our boy Leo. Two days later I drove to GA and sprung him from the shelter. So we've got people who get turned off or turned down, but they still adopt and dogs are still saved. 

I have to wonder in a lot of the stories we see posted by people who were "good homes" and turned down so they "had" to buy a dog instead if that's really the whole story.









I would be willing to bet that a fair number of the people who were turned down for "no reason" or whatever were actually turned down for very GOOD reasons that any of us would agree were legitimate. For example, the main reasons I turn people down are because they want an outdoor only dog, because they have a history of failure to care for the pets they've already got or multiple animals gotten rid of in the past etc. But those people will tell you they're great homes and I was wrong to turn them down.







So I'm thinking they account for some of the stories.

Then there are the people who really ARE good homes but they are turned down because they're simply not a good match for the particular animal they want - I had a lot of people who wanted Rafe who had cats. He wants to eat cats. Similarly, I get a lot of people with small kids wanting to adopt snappy little dogs. Yes, I could place the dog in a bad matched home and go save another one, but I really don't think that's in anyone's best interest.

And then there are some times when you've got a dog that is so desirable you just have more good homes than you have dog to go around. You choose the one you think is going to be a good match but ultimately some people will be disappointed and some of them get upset that you didn't chose them. But here again, turning them down doesn't affect the number of dogs saved because I'm placing the dog quickly. I always try to refer those people to other rescues or shelters who have similar dog or might be able to help them.

Finally I think there are a fair number of people out there who feel a social pressure to adopt rather than buy but who want to buy a puppy. I think many of them use rescue policies or one refusal as a way to rationalize their decision to buy a dog. But I don't think they truly represent "homes lost" because they're not really all that interested in adopting but they feel guilty about it. I wish they would just be honest and stand by their own decisions instead of shifting blame onto the rescues. I don't think they mean anything destructive by it, but it contributes to a lot of misunderstanding about how rescue works and situations like this thread.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I think part of the problem is that homeless animals are a problem of the society, the ENTIRE society, not the rescue alone. The solution is not beating overextended individuals in rescue to do even more, the solution is more people doing more to prevent animals from dying.

One problem that rescues get more beating than others is that the rescue dogs are cleaned up, trained and better cared for than shelter dogs. More information available. Because of the smaller volume they get better care. So more people want that particular gorgeous dog with a beautiful photo when he is in rescue. Nobody wanted the same dog with a poor shelter photo. And some people may feel that they are entitled to that dog on their own terms, because they are such a good home.
So people apply for the pretty dog and only one person can get him. Then they end up being angry with the rescue for not letting them have the dog they picked.

I guess this is the sitation of the Greek tragedy, whetever the rescue dogs they get a beating.


----------



## Effie325

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

It is frustrating. An average Joe might not be able to cope with a GSD or a Golden in an apartment, but I absolutely guarantee you *I* can because I am hardcore, and dogs are my existance (dogs and my son!). Yet when I lived in an apartment, I couldn't adopt a dog from anywhere, even a shelter. So I rescued dogs directly, fostered, and rehomed- and I rehomed almost all of them to people rescues had turned down over no fence, over having a baby or another dog, or for no reason at all given. And I did home checks, vet checks, long talks, and I still keep in touch. Blanket policies may save time for a very busy group, but they hurt dogs and good homes by excluding the exceptions that thankfully I do have time to check out and interview. Do I turn homes down? All the time!! But I find some real gems, too! It makes me sad when a successful family with a nice home and everything tells me at the dog park that they just bought a puppy from a BYB because rescue turned them down because they are 25 or because they work full time. In fact, this just happened to me yesterday! A young Coastie and his wife bought a GSD puppy in terrible shape from a horrible breeder, because GSD rescue turned them down and never got back to them. They have two adult, altered, gorgeous, healthy dogs, one of which is a rescue. Why were they turned down? They are at the park every day with these dogs, and I know them- the guy works with my husband. Stuff like that does upset me.

I totally agree dogs need GOOD homes, especially after having been living a bad life before. I don't disagree in 12 years of doing this, that's priority one!

I think the vet thing is ridiculous. I have four dogs- they get Ivermectin. I don't BELIEVE in annual shots, and I believe titres are not necessary for healthy dogs. I do two sets of puppy shots. I do a booster at 18 months and maybe at five years. I get rabies at AC because it's five dollars for the shot AND license there. I don't do fecals or HW tests because I give ivermectin and my dogs get Drontal plus routinely since I bring in fosters all the time. My dogs eat raw. Their teeth and coats are awesome. They're strong, fit, and in hard working condition. Knock on wood most don't go to the vet for years except the rabies shot, because there is no need. I think things need to be looked at more deeply.

If clueless Joe Pet Owner doesn't bother going to the vet and giving HW prevention, that's one thing. If Dog Person to the Extreme gives ivermectin and vaccinates her own dogs, why would this person be denied a dog?

Anyway, gotta run! More dogs to save


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

We have approved people who vaccinate on their own and can show proof of that. Same with ivermectin and titers. We have placed dogs with people who live in apartments and homes without fences. Others rescues stated the same.

In the same way that blanket statements and policies should not be applied to people, they should not apply to rescues either. The statement that shelters don't adopt to people in apartments simply does not hold. My own, and most others will adopt to anyone who will come up with buck for the adoption fee. The young couple could have adopted a nice dog from the shelter, if they wanted to.


----------



## Effie325

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

They wanted a GSD, though, and there weren't any here in our county animal control (who is very strict, btw). This is a pretty well to do area (my immediate county) with no rural parts at all (all suburbia and city) and the only dogs in shelters here in Pinellas animal control are mostly pit bulls. They didn't want a pit bull. I am sure it depends area to area, but I lived in an apartment for years and I could never adopt. They wouldn't even consider me with breed rescues, and again, the only dogs in shelters in county were pits, maybe some chow mixes. I didn't want those breeds- they aren't right for me. So I left the county when looking for a dog for someone to adopt who came to me seeking a certain breed not available at the shelter- the rural shelters are just grateful for a loving home willing to vet the dog. 

I think people also are impatient- and they don't understand that rescue workers are all giving their time and have busy lives too. Adopters give up if a week or two goes by with no response. This is a diffuclt problem- people DO have lives! So, I feel like adopters need to understand it takes more time than they may have first thought. Not sure how to educate the public on that- it's the most common complaint I hear: "Golden/GSD/whatever rescue didn't get back to me for two weeks, so I thought they blew me off. So I went and bought a dog/got a dog off Craigslist/whatever"

How can we help to solve that problem? More helpers is the only thing I can think of. People to check email and reply to applicants and at least keep communication open so they know they haven't been blown off. Same on the other end. I've pulled dogs off Craigslist after asking if they contacted breed rescue, only to be told they did a month ago by phone and email and never got any response. 

It's just sad all the way around (not the fault of rescues- they just want to help but are regular people too with jobs, families, and their own pets!)


----------



## dd

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Yup - completely agree with Rebel. One of my dogs was adopted from rescue and I had no fence at the time I adopted him.

These threads about how "unreasonable" rescues are seem to come up about once a year. How refreshing it would be if we had a thread with solutions to the pet overpopulation problem instead - how to educate the public, how to help ensure pets aren't dumped, how to help some of the organizations trying a solve a problem not of their own making.


----------



## Effie325

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I would NEVER place a dog with someone who would keep it outside or wanted an outside dog, or whose own dogs were not in great shape. I've turned people down just because their dog was fat or had kind of long toenails or a couple small tangles in the feathering! Those are all peeves of mine. I think letting your dog get fat is abuse. So I guess some would say I'm too strict, too. I've turned down people who truly were perfect but I just didn't like them- gut feeling stuff. Or turned people down for a certain dog and suggested another I felt was better suited, and it's







them off. So- I DO see both sides. I really do.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Maybe someone can educate the young couple that there is a wold beyond their own county, and the crown will not fell of their head if they get into a car and travel a couple of hours (it is once in 10 years that they acquire a new dog) for their new family member. Rescue volunteers to it on a weekly basis for dogs that are not even their own. And, as offensive as it may seem to them, there may have been better applicants for the dog they did not get from the rescue.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Yes dd, you are right. Nobody likes to hear that it is within their power to do something. Keeping it an "intellectual" discussion about the entity of "rescue" allows individuals to avoid even the notion of personal responsibility and action to solve the problem. It is so much easier to criticize others for not doing enough as opposed to making our own hands dirty and becoming a part of the solution. Casting stones on others and "intellectual" discussions are easy.


----------



## Effie325

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I'm not casting stones- I have nothing but respect for rescues, even if I disagree with the policies of some of them. I'm just saying what I have witnessed, and hoping we can find solutions to help educate people who really just don't get it. That said I'm driving four hours each way today to rescue a dog so I DO hear you!!!









Thanks to every one of you for all that you do!


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: ddYup - completely agree with Rebel. One of my dogs was adopted from rescue and I had no fence at the time I adopted him.
> 
> These threads about how "unreasonable" rescues are seem to come up about once a year. How refreshing it would be if we had a thread with solutions to the pet overpopulation problem instead - how to educate the public, how to help ensure pets aren't dumped, how to help some of the organizations trying a solve a problem not of their own making.


I for one think this thread is in part about educating the public, I for one am part of the "public" seeking knowledge. I assume threads about the other issues do come up as well.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDYes dd, you are right. Nobody likes to hear that it is within their power to do something. Keeping it an "intellectual" discussion about the entity of "rescue" allows individuals to avoid even the notion of personal responsibility and action to solve the problem. It is so much easier to criticize others for not doing enough as opposed to making our own hands dirty and becoming a part of the solution. Casting stones on others and "intellectual" discussions are easy.


If intellectual discussion is so easy, why is it that it so rarely happens without people getting emotional, offended, and personal?

An intellectual discussion about the entity of a rescue is what the thread is about.

Getting involved and one's own hands dirty etc. is a bit off the topic and taking things into the personal realm all too often.

Seems to me having an intellectual discussion is quite difficult on this subject, and almost impossible with some.


----------



## oregongsdr111

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

What I do has nothing to do with intellect. It has everything to do with emotion, passion, and YES I do get REALLY offended and take things VERY personal.

It is impossible, I think for anyone to understand the reasons and decisions made as an agency unless you have been through all the steps that got us to where we are.

I have been a general pet owner, a rescue worker and a Shelter worker. I have euthanized thousands of animals in my time at the shelter. Most did not have options for adoption as they were feral, sick, dangerous, or aged. 

I do not blame people for not understanding why rescues do what we do. Unless you have spent hours with a single dog praying each night that in the morning the dog will allow you to touch it, or nurtured a two week old puppy that even the vets have given up on, and spending days with no sleep as you are monitoring the pup 24 hours a day, and seeing them to success, you cannot understand why we are so protective. After paying thousands of dollars out of our personal pocket for medical, because the rescue has no money and the dog is at a clinic ready to be PTS because the owner has no money you can not fully understand the bond with those animals. We have the right to be concerned where that dog is going. Our rescue is PICKY, and strict. I will have it no other way.

We rescue however many we can. It is not our duty to intake every pet that the public disguards. It is our choice to pick whatever dogs we have space for, and pour ourselves into making those dogs happy, healthy, and well balanced for the next owner.
We have to sleep at night with our choices. Those of us that think of the dog first, probably are in it for more that fast adoptions, and fat pockets. 

If you don't like our choices and you as the general public become offended, so what, move on. 
Any person afraid of an application, and a friendly home visit that allows you the opportunity to see how a dog is in your home prior to a financial commitment, is not seeing how valuable the process is. I would love to not do home visits. I set myself up to go into a stranger’s home that could harm me if I do not find that the dog is a good fit. Being on your turf is a much greater risk to me, than I am to you. Driving hundreds of miles one my few hours off and many times spending the adoption fee on gas is not my idea of a fun week-end. Again we do it to try and make sure we are offering the dog in our care the best opportunity for success. 

Personally, I have wonderful relationships with my adopters. I sit for them if they go out of town. We speak several times a year. We bounce behavior issues off of each other, and I think it stems from the home visit. They feel like we have a friendship after the experience. We do not care about your things. You can live in a dump. We want to see the yard set up, and if it is safe for that particular dog. We have adopted to the rich and mighty, and we have adopted to everything in-between. Dogs don’t care about monetary things; they just need to be safe, and cared for.

As for all the wonderful people that con the average citizen into thinking they are wonderful, on places such as Craigslist, let me tell you every week at the shelter we killed dogs that were gained through the famous list. I post to almost every GSD owner on the list, and offer our application and adoption questions. We offer advice on placing their dogs. Time after time with in the week those same dogs would end up at our shelter to be PTS. I would tell the new adopter that I had seen the dog on Craigslist and ask if they let the owner know. NEVER ONCE did they. If the dog had a chip, or I had a real e-mail address I would notify past owner. Three times I got the dog returned to the owner. The owner told the dumper, they would take the dog back. The dog ended up in our hands anyway.
Leaving the shelter was the hardest choice I have ever made, as I knew the volume of dogs that would not get saved due to my not being there, and going the extra 1000 miles I went to every day. Seven years gives you a full picture of society.

People that are the average pet owners do not know what we know. They have not seen what we see. They are usually the ones that say to a shelter worker" I love animals to much to work here". My perspective was I love them too much to not work here. They live in a safety bubble. 

Until every person on this earth steps up and reports abuse, lectures people on the street when they see testicles still attached to a person’s dog / cat, and takes an active eyes wide open look around them nothing will change. Small groups will do what they can, and animals will die. 

In my opinion no group is ever too strict. If we know our dogs like we should, we know what will work and what won't. If you disagree okay, but don't run off at the mouth like you have been done wrong. Go elsewhere, but please find a dog that is compatible with your family, living situation, financial situation, and abilities.


----------



## dd

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Paula - thank you for a beautiful and heart-breaking post.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: TxRider If intellectual discussion is so easy, why is it that it so rarely happens without people getting emotional, offended, and personal?


Those preaching the "intellectual" discussion may need to look into the mirror and ask themselves the same question to figure out why they respond by being offended, deeply, by the simple home visit and why they are so emotional and defensive about checks that most people accept as part of everyday life, as imperfect as it is.



> Originally Posted By: TxRider
> An intellectual discussion about the entity of a rescue is what the thread is about.


This is a public forum whose content is not necessarily dictated by a single or few strong minded individuals who chose to oversimplify a topic and take it out of a societal context to prove a point. Oversimplifying a problem, as it was very eloqently addressed by pupresq numerous times, easily leads to erroneous results and conclusions in any branch of physical or social sciences. 



> Originally Posted By: TxRider
> Getting involved and one's own hands dirty etc. is a bit off the topic and taking things into the personal realm all too often.


It is good there are many topics in this thread to address a very complicated issue, as there should be. It is again good that is is a public board where a single individual is rarely able to monopolize the topic thanks to the eloquent explanations of those who have true hand on experience on the subject and know well the turkey and the knickers. "Intellectuals" all over history have often hidden in their "intellectual ivory towers" to avoid taking true responsibility themselves. 





> Originally Posted By: TxRider
> Seems to me having an intellectual discussion is quite difficult on this subject, and almost impossible with some.


It is difficult as the "intellectual" discussion can quite easily turn into "quasi-intellectual" when participants are inconsistent with their statements and make conflicting statements when it suits them, pointed out eloquently by pupresq and others numerous times, for the sake of the "intellectual" exercise. Luckily there are very intellingent people in this board, familiar with the art of logical reasoning as well as the big picture on the subject who have successufully pointed out these inconsistencies. These individuals, with personal example, clearly demonstrate the success of combining "intellectual" and "making hands dirty" for the benefit of the dogs. The way they have earned the respect of their community and this board is by avoiding the "from the intellectual high-horse" approach. To TxRider, who choses to percieve policies actions, actions and statements of of others as personal attack, he is not meant by this statement.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I'm certainly not above going astray of topic, and not above not always stating clearly what I mean in such a clear and concise way that it cannot be perceived in more than one light. It's a very common thing in almost any internet based discussion of any topic.

And I am not above responding in kind when a perceived personal comment is directed at me.

The point is that an intellectual discussion is far from easy on a topic that is very emotional with many people. It requires a little benefit of a doubt be granted to people, and active self control of emotions. 

Not an easy thing to do, and impossible for some.

Pointing out inconsistencies with statements is useful to clarify what the poster meant. It's part of the discussion which after all is an attempt to share what is in each persons mind with others in a very imperfect medium and format. 

When any clarification is then ignored in favor of some personally held perception it's not so useful. It tends to kill discussion and run off into the realm of personal attack.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Quote:The point is that an intellectual discussion is far from easy on a topic that is very emotional with many people. It requires a little benefit of a doubt be granted to people, and active self control of emotions.
> 
> Not an easy thing to do, and impossible for some.
> 
> Pointing out inconsistencies with statements is useful to clarify what the poster meant. It's part of the discussion which after all is an attempt to share what is in each persons mind with others in a very imperfect medium and format.
> 
> When any clarification is then ignored in favor of some personally held perception it's not so useful. It tends to kill discussion and run off into the realm of personal attack.


All good points that would be well applied to many of your own posts.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

There is a saying in one of my European languages, roughly translated about "seeing the grain of sand in somebody else's eye and not seeing the brick in the own eye"


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> All good points that would be well applied to many of your own posts.


Heh, I thought that's what I just did?



More food for thought... And part of why the subject likely comes up regularly, and likely will forever...

Read these blogs and especially all the comments.

The first actually asks people what they thought of the polices.

http://blog.timesunion.com/mydogbandit/do-some-rescues-make-it-too-difficult-to-adopt/968/

http://blog.timesunion.com/mydogbandit/cats-in-scotia-rescue-at-risk-of-euthanasia/822/

http://blog.timesunion.com/baumgartner/puppies/658/

And facilities dealing with in different ways...

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/oct/19/shelter-might-modify-its-adoption-policies/

Or a non pet oriented discussion site..

http://www.city-data.com/forum/cats/499385-so-angry-local-pet-adoption-rules.html

http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/petdebate/msg1211473311360.html

Just from a simple search and reading, it would appear that public comments are overwhelmingly one sided on the issue.

And a cogent page about the issue from a best friends animal society

http://www.bestfriends.org/archives/forums/adoptionpolicies.html#three


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

It is a very one-sided search. You missed all the Do-not-adopt posts and the lists frequented by rescues. Also missed the blogs about successful adoptions.


----------



## AndreaG

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Tx, this whole thread is not about a theoretical problem; it's about a real issue. These are actual breathing, living, hoping, sad, abandoned animals we are talking about. 
Some people make it their first priority to take care of them.
Some just "want to discuss" them.
Who do you think should decide about what happens to them, and why, and how?


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

The (rescue) theoreticians, of course








Theoreticians are often trying the same in science and are surprised that naughty nature and reality disobey their theories.








Naughty, naughty reality...


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: AndreaGTx, this whole thread is not about a theoretical problem; it's about a real issue. These are actual breathing, living, hoping, sad, abandoned animals we are talking about.
> Some people make it their first priority to take care of them.
> Some just "want to discuss" them.
> Who do you think should decide about what happens to them, and why, and how?


Are doing something about it, and discussing it, mutually exclusive?

I'm not sure what decisions should be made, why, how and by who... The goal of discussing is to gather enough information to hopefully do so.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDIt is a very one-sided search. You missed all the Do-not-adopt posts and the lists frequented by rescues. Also missed the blogs about successful adoptions.


Not especially, did you read it all?

Particularly the last link?

Many successful stories in there.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Those who do both seem to agree to disagree with those only cooking intellectual discussion turkeys with knickers.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDThose who do both seem to agree to disagree with those only cooking intellectual discussion turkeys with knickers.


So then you must not do both...


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

No, cooking empty intellectual discussion turkeys with knickers is not really my thing. I have better things to do. I enjoy annoying intellectual discussion turkeys with home visits in my free time.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDNo, cooking empty intellectual discussion turkeys with knickers is not really my thing. I have better things to do. I enjoy annoying intellectual discussion turkeys with home visits in my free time.


Don't knock cooked turkey in your knickers until you try it...


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Am I the only one having Cheers/Sam and Diane flashbacks!























Daisy- I was trying to be sincere. If someone is able to volunteer in a shelter they should. I could not-our local shelter doesn't allow real screening but they need help walking the dogs, grooming them etc. I chose instead to try to help local rescues as best I can. (Eta- I chose that bc if I were at the shelter walking the dogs and some crackhead -i know- bad example, came in and got a dog I would not handle it well)

So while it works out for adopters to have the choice between shelters and rescues, it also works for volunteers.


----------



## AndreaG

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Tx why don't we discuss why you are not saving more animals? Theoretically, ... don't you feel responsible for that? more could be saved if you did something about it.

And once you hold one in your arms, I would like to tell you how you should proceed with finding a new home for that one, and once you did, I want to tell you to run back and get another one right away, OK?

Oh and how about we make some other really intrusive suggestions about how you should do other things in you personal life, simply for the intellectual pleasure of talking about it? The more you care about that topic, the better, since you will probably react very emotionally to them, and we can pick you apart for that, too.

This is, of course, just a theoretical suggestion, no reason to ruffle your feathers about it. ;-)


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I love the new discussion topic, Andrea!
I vote to switch topics as this one is getting old and boring. The new intellectual discussion will be much more interesting, theoretically.


----------



## Daisy1986

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

This thread is pointless. 

Tx you would be better off contacting your local rescue, and helping them with your ideas. People here are taking this, like you are attacking their life's passion and work. Like you are personally attacking them. I know that is not what anyone means to do. 

There is no longer a point to this. 

It is also very clear to me that you do not know people from being on a forum, at all. Jean I cannot believe the way you have addressed me. That is OK, these are lessons I need to learn, and move on with my life, I do not know how many different ways it can be shown to me. I have had a lot of problems here. 

I have made friends, that I feel I have taken outside of this forum, and wonderful rescue contacts. I am done. 

Pupreq bless you for all you do and the woman from the Oregan rescue. I do not know the others. I am sure their work is valid.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Can you explain what I've said? That was bad? Shelters need volunteers. Rescues need volunteers. But you have to find what you are comfortable with-which can vary from shelter to shelter and rescue to rescue-and go with them. Each needs help and as long as they are reputable you work with the one that you fit with best. How is that a bad thing? I am not sure that I am writing what you are reading or vice versa. Maybe someone else can explain what I am saying better. 

Or help me understand...


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: AndreaGTx why don't we discuss why you are not saving more animals? Theoretically, ... don't you feel responsible for that? more could be saved if you did something about it.


I already addressed that. I choose to limit myself to what I have done and due to that choice of mine, more dogs die that I could save. That's just reality.

My choice has consequences. All choices have consequences.

I may change my mind and make different choices in the future, maybe even some based on input received here.



> Quote:And once you hold one in your arms, I would like to tell you how you should proceed with finding a new home for that one, and once you did, I want to tell you to run back and get another one right away, OK?


I'm not telling anyone to do anything. Only asking people to share thoughts on a subject.



> Quote:Oh and how about we make some other really intrusive suggestions about how you should do other things in you personal life, simply for the intellectual pleasure of talking about it? The more you care about that topic, the better, since you will probably react very emotionally to them, and we can pick you apart for that, too.


What does your or my personal life have to do with it?

Start a thread in the proper forum about turkeys and knickers and I'll play.


----------



## Effie325

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Well while you were assuming I'm a jerk I WAS out doing the dirty work. I've been gone for eight hours doing a rescue.

In the end, all of us who are decent just want the dogs to be saved- and in GOOD homes. I think we should just work together- my entire point is that regular people DON'T get this like WE do. We have to educate them. Most people aren't born into families of real dog people with knowledge of rescue and showing and good breeders and so forth. I want to help educate them so they understand why things are the way they are, and to solicit more helpers so that each case can get more evaluation so that some of the great homes without a fence (or whatever) are more likely to indeed be able to adopt a dog.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I didn't mean to offend anyone- I've done as much rescue as anyone else on here most likely, and I've seen horrible things. Today included- I'll share pics in another thread of what I rescued today. So, I do understand. If you (anyone) thinks I'd let this baby I pulled today go anywhere but the best, then you're crazy. She already has touched me so deeply.

Anyway, best to all.


----------



## RebelGSD

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

Well, the point is that while this is an intellectual game for someone who takes pleasure in causing disruption among those who are involved and care. It is a free country, people are entitled to their opinons and everything has been explained ad nauseam in this thread. People have to be open minded enough to be educated.

And there are trolls on discussion forums who show up to stir up spirits. Some trolls are imaginary and others real, and they feed on the disruption they create. Don't fall for the naive little "I am just asking intellectual questions to be educated" act.

What is left at this point is to stop feeding the troll.


----------



## pupresq

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*

I tend to agree. I have written out long thoughtful explanations to all his questions and comments and they've been largely ignored. At this point I've explained everything I can as well as I can. Time to get back to the work of rescue.


----------



## TxRider

*Re: Are rescues too strict with their.............*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqI tend to agree. I have written out long thoughtful explanations to all his questions and comments and they've been largely ignored. At this point I've explained everything I can as well as I can. Time to get back to the work of rescue.


Yes you have, and it hasn't been ignored at all.

Rebel said earlier agree to disagree. Reality is I don't know that I disagree with either of you really.


----------

