# How To Improve Procedures Here?



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

For newer members, the information coming to light about a fellow board member seems so over the top and unfathomable. For those that have been members for a while, we are reminded of past instances where members have used this board and it's collective rescue efforts to get dogs that ended up in less than humane circumstances. 

Each situation taught board members a little more about how to navigate the internet powered rescue world. These were important lessons and ultimately the dogs have benefited from them. 

I don't think we will ever know all the facts of what happened in this most recent situation. That said, it is very normal to want answers when a person feels they have been wronged personally. And most everyone who has supported this person in the past, who encouraged him to adopt a dog, who might have brought a dog to his attention, is feeling like they have been wronged. 

Maybe we can take some of this energy that is being directed at getting answers from Richard, and use it to look at ways that we can make the board's rescue section safer for the dogs and yet still be as effective as possible.

I have long harped on the need to take personal responsibility here. My attitude has been that if you are going to get involved in trying to find a place for a dog in need to go, you should make sure that the people/organizations that you are soliciting are reputable and that you are not simply helping an animal move from one type of bad situation to another. To me, that means KNOWING who you are contacting and not just blindly trusting a Petfinder listing or a benign internet persona. 

But how can we follow through on the pledge to make sure we know where that dog is going? Is it possible to build such a strong network that a home visit or site check would be possible on all rescues/sanctuaries wanting or offering to take a dog listed here? What about adopters? It is easy for me to place a dog in Seattle, hundreds of miles from my home, because I can call on a network of people I know (in a real, face-to-face way) to do the home visit for me. 

Is it possible to build that kind of face-to-face network here? Even if we could, would it be better than the way the board's rescue section operates now?

What do other members think? 
Sheilah


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

I think this is an interesting post, but I don't think the problem is procedure. As the mods have been at pains to explain, the board doesn't place dogs, rescues place dogs. Reputable rescues have good procedures. People supporting rescues need to do their homework.

I think the problem is much much fuzzier than that. It has to do with gullibility and trust and ethics and understanding. I think a number of these situations have been facilitated by people "giving permission" to others to have bad ethics, and there is no way to control that.

I am seeing posts that say that taking 20+ dogs and not vetting them and then reselling them is "rescue". I've seen posts that say that it's okay to lie on an application to get what you want. I have been corrected numerous times by members (most of whom are not active in rescue) when I've asked questions - pertinent questions - about dogs being rehomed. 

I believe that there are very effective networks in parallel to this board. I wish that people did not have to be afraid of being reprimanded for posting good information that might make people think twice about "where that dog is going".


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

You make an excellent point. The problem is very fuzzy, isn't it? And I have been on the receiving end of some pretty dismissive and rude posts and PM's when I have had questions about something unfolding in a rescue thread. 

I don't know. There are certainly no easy answers. We should all feel comfortable in asking questions of anyone and have them answered in a respectful, polite way.
Sheilah


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

Yes - and the key underlying issue to all this is internet relationships. A lot of the dismissive posts when questions are asked are in response to someone picking on a "buddy" who is a long-time member of the forum. 

"You don't need to ask that, he is our 'friend'." So there are some very serious questions in my mind about the loyalty some feel to "friends" they have never met in real life and whose existence is completely mediated by way of a web board. I personally find that frightening in a 1984 sort of way.


----------



## katieliz (Mar 29, 2007)

sit,stay & dd...ABSOLUTELY!!! i have so many thoughts on this and so little time tonight, but this is one of the most important threads i've ever seen here. i will be back...


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

So I am reading the other thread on this situation, where the person in question has admitted to taking over twenty dogs and selling them to just about anyone, with no reference check and no home visit. And rescues have issued a warning to shelters and individuals rehoming animals not to give dogs to this man who _by his own admission _has sent many dogs to an unknown fate. And on this board it's being called "a witch-hunt". 

So I must say I am totally gob-smacked.


----------



## jake (Sep 11, 2004)

1984?i would go more with animal farm/orwell to describe.Posted on other thread-done there.Just want to say all my dogs (to just talk about last 4 which would go back to 1973) have been rescues.NEVER had a home check-one asked for vet reference(not sure if checked) NOW really have doubts about the quality of these rescues.All my dogs have been well loved and hope some of the BAD rescue dogs were as well.
As animal lovers we need to bump up the transparency and try to get sound enforcement at maybe a higher level.Actually think BREED rescue the way to go as it stops the (take all but especially puppies and popular breed of the day)from exploitation.My thing is I can only afford one dog so I give at my level by donating time and supplies/food where I can.


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

The 'sale" was a re-homing fee. The entire community discourages placing dogs without a fee. 

Now, that aside, there are many suspicions raised about the circumstances of the party in the other thread. It appears to be bad so far as what is out there and acknowledged. I suspect there is more that hasn't been spelled out.


This is not a perfect world. Internet or in person you can get taken. 

What can you do? Buck up and question people whether you get accused of being on a witch hunt or not. Raise issues (even if a buddy in rescue will get their tail in a royal knot over it for years - see pedigree data base for how wacko rescue folks can put themselves out there to be). 
Adopt locally to people you can conduct home visits for, to people you can check references on. Remember when you are on the internet - you don't know me from adam. 

It really is up to the individual group placing the dog. Perhaps when referring someone to a rescue group you should let the group know how you know that individual. (I have never met this person, I only know him from the internet, and so on.)
In short: own up. Know your limitations, be willing to own your circumstances.

The world is out there. It has all sorts of people in it. Do your best to get by without getting too singed.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

T-r-a-n-s-p-a-r-e-n-c-y Plain and simple. Transparency on the part of rescues and individuals interesting in rescuing. 

It's the dogs' safety that matters here, not people's feelings. Rescue is such an emotional business and it's so easy to get carried away and get so focused on getting the dog out of a shelter or a horrible situation and into a (supposedly) better one. But that is no reason to skip steps in a thorough adoption procedure. If I ask to adopt a dog on this board and someone I don't know in Ohio is willing to help me then they had better ask for my references and set up a home check. I can either facilitate that process or I can block it. If I'm blocking it then no one should be helping me. 

And everyone needs to accept that this is the standard operating procedure with absolutely no exceptions. 

It drives home just how dangerous a place the Internet is. You think you can know someone but you can't really know them. And I also think it drives home how risky long distance adoptions (and sales, for that matter) really are.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I don't want it to become too cumbersome because I understand on the urgent board time is of the essence, but perhaps for a while the more experienced rescuers could post extra info that lets people know what has already transpired. Okay, I'm not making sense. What I mean is that sometimes to the newer members or the folks who don't go to the urgent board a lot it looks like some people are getting questioned and others aren't and then some of the rescue folks get accused by being "clique-ish" and having a "double standard" when in fact they're cutting to the chase because they've already checked each other out. 

So I guess I'm imagining something where people are working together, they insert a brief comment to the effect of "references checked" about each other. Maybe that would cut down on the perception that some people are above questioning or that the reason certain people aren't being questioned is because they have a lot of posts behind their name rather than because they were already checked out behind the scenes.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Something else we could do is post a sample rescue reference form and home visit check list as a sticky in the rescue section. Then when someone wants to help out or thinks they may in the future want to help out, they can fill out the reference form and have it all ready to send out when the situation arises. And for those doing home visits, it would be an easy place to get guidelines. 

ETA: I'm NOT talking about posting personal info publicly, just posting the blank forms that then people could use as a starting point when they want to get involved. So, I'd have my filled out form on file on my computer and anytime I wanted to help someone new, we could exchange them.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Both excellent suggestions! And I think having rescues come on and say someone's references have been checked and a home check completed is also a very good idea.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Thanks! 

I think the more we normalize the process and really demonstrate how routine it is, the less awkward people will feel asking people they consider "friends" but don't really know these kinds of questions. 

It could be a nice friendly thing where it's like "hi! Let's work together! Let's exchange forms!"


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

I think posting a sticky with expectations for adoptions facilitated through this board would help too. Then we could just reference it for anyone coming on who is interested in a particular dog.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> I think the more we normalize the process and really demonstrate how routine it is, the less awkward people will feel asking people they consider "friends" but don't really know these kinds of questions.


Absolutely. 
Sheilah


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

I agree with the suggestions, but I was getting at something diffeent, which I think can only be addressed by education, and this relates to the internet format. I honestly don't think people understand processes and terminology.

As an example, I have been asked in the past to provide a reference for someone I have never met and whose facility I have never seen. This person was not trying to be devious, they just didn't understand that a reference is from someone who has had a real life experience with the applicant. That led me to wonder how often that happens - that people who "know" each other from chat boards provide references, because they "know" so-and-so is just a great person.

ETA:


> Quote: The 'sale" was a re-homing fee. The entire community discourages placing dogs without a fee.


When you buy dogs from people, do not vet them, and sell them to the first person offering cash, that's NOT a "rehoming fee" - that is a cash sale for profit of a dog. If he actually did that, which we don't know, because he hasn't told the truth about a whole lot of things.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

dd, I think that in a lot of cases these issues go hand in hand. My involvement in rescue started out in a face to face, real life interaction with my local humane society. That volunteer work led to fostering, temperament testing shelter dogs, pulling for rescues, home visits and transports.

It was a good year or more before I found this board, which was my first experience with an internet community. By the time I became a member here, I was already involved in rescue and had a good idea of how it worked. I saw some of the inherent weaknesses in the rescue efforts that take place in an environment like the internet, only because I could compare how it measured against real life efforts.

It isn't only this board in particular that struggles with this. I also belong to a horse forum and when rescue efforts implode over there, the same stuff is brought to the surface. It is the nature of the internet beast, I think. 

You get someone who has a somewhat unformed or idealistic idea of what rescue means. They might stumble by accident over a rescue forum, or thread, and get caught up in the emotional aspect of what they see happening. They want to participate, but might not want another dog in their home, or can't transport. There are tons of reasons why they don't get involved at a deeper level.

But they still want to help. That is a natural enough impulse, right? Suddenly they remember that Best Friends in Utah takes in really, really hard to adopt animals. So they track down an e-mail for Best Friends and send an urgent plea for them to take dog A. They don't know that Best Friends takes in a small fraction of the animals that they get contacted about, and dog A has only 24 hours to get out of shelter B in (say) Texas. No response from Best Friends, but well meaning internet person has stumbled on Petfinder in their search for the Best Friends e-mail address. They go back to Petfinder and start e-mailing every rescue and sanctuary they can find listed. They feel safe doing it, Petfinder lists the best of the best, right? Remember, this person doesn't really know how any of this works. 

Dog A gets placed, and an internet rescuer is born. They like helping. It feels good and they have found a place full of people that give them virtual pats on the back, a place that they feel a part of. They see their job as finding a place for the animals in question to go. Their job is not to verify the conditions in any of the rescues or sanctuaries that they contact. That is for someone else to do, if it needs to be done at all. They have never meet the people they work with, they have never seen the animal in question (other than a picture circulated in a cross post) and most, if not all, of their rescue work is based on their internet involvement. This isn't a person just bumping a dog's thread. But this isn't someone that has to live with the real consequences of poor placements, either.

In an interest-based reality, more stock is given to the words a person uses. Use the right words and it is almost like having a secret handshake. Richard Hayden had all the right words. So did all the others who have turned out to be somewhat worse in their reality than they were in their virtual lives.

Basically, it comes down to the point that if you make contact with someone or some organization to take an animal, you should KNOW where that animal is going. You should have a paper in front of you, where someone has verified that the talk is walked.

What if all these people used their time to verify vet references? Or did home checks instead of blind cross posts? What if it wasn't considered rude to ask someone on an internet board what they know about one of their contacts, and how they verified that information? What if seasoned rescue people mentored some of these folks, rather than spending so much time trying to work around them?

I hope this makes sense. It is early here and I have a million things going on at once. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, or trying to be mean to anyone. It isn't just this board that struggles with these issues. 
Sheilah


----------

