# responsibility ends when?



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

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

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


----------



## Remo (Sep 8, 2004)

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

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

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

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


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

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


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

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

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

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

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


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

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

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

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


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

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


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

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

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

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


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

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


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

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

Whew!


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

A few months ago I was asked to participate in a transport that was coming through Idaho. The dog had been adopted from a rescue in Iowa 2 years ago. The adopters had moved to Oregon and subsequently needed to return the dog to the rescue.

The rescue was established and had a good reputation, so was able to network and get help. The dog was a huge GSD, with some travel anxiety, and the cost of flying the dog was prohibitive. The rescue still did the right thing and worked to set the transport up. It took many legs to get the dog back them, but it did get back.

It is my understanding that we are not talking about a 10 hour drive to get the dog in question back to Missy. It is what? A 2-3 hour drive. It seems that none of the original players wants to step up, or is able to step up, for the dog. Even if transportation wasn't an issue, Missy sounds like she can't take another dog into her home. Her experience with rescue is limited, right? Perhaps even limited to just this one dog that was originally placed easily due to being a puppy? I don't think I would classify her as a "rescue", but perhaps as an individual that had placed a puppy that needed a new home.

There is more to doing rescue than just the high of saving a life. This kind of stuff is not as sexy as the life saving part, but it is just as important. I think that aspect gets lost sometimes, and anyone who raises questions about the "what if" aspect of any particular situation gets labeled as confrontational. I know that happened to me just a couple of months ago here, and I did my question asking in private, too, so go figure.

I am prepared to take back any dog that I have placed. If I can't, for whatever reason, keep a foster return in my own home until another placement, I work with other rescues (that I personally know and have relationships with) and move the dog on ASAP. But they stay with me until that happens. That is my obligation and I am always prepared to meet it. I have only had two returns over the years, thankfully, but that is how it works for me. I have taken foster returns from other foster homes, so it works both ways. You can't do this work without a system of support for situations just like this. Nobody has unlimited resources, and we are all aware of what happens when someone takes in more animals than they can safely house and care for.
Sheilah


----------



## oregongsdr111 (Nov 20, 2005)

We back our dogs no matter what.
In this situation we would have the adopter take the dog in for boarding at a kennel until we could get there. 

(I noticed that the "west" thread in the transport area is now gone). It might be possible for the dog to get a transport, if there is a spot on the receiving end.

Transport can be much delayed due to weather, and comfort with driving in bad road conditions.

We have only had a couple of failed adoptions, and one was in Medford. We had a VERY brave and experienced driver that volunteered to go get the dog. It took hours longer than normal. We put them up in a motel, paid for the food, and worshiped them when they made a safe return.

So our answer is we are responsible for the life of the dog.
We make that clear up front. 
We took the dog in; therefore we feel the commitment for life.
I think each rescue may have a different conclusion, depending on the mindset of that rescue. We have a major rescue here in our area that ends the commitment the minute the dog is adopted. If the adopter has issues they refer people the Shelter.

On a side note, one thing I cannot stress enough is the sharing of information on potential adopters. Add a place on your application that allows sharing. When we compare information with other rescues we can find many major discrepancies between applications. (Ages of kids, how many dogs have been re-homed, and why, where the dog will be kept, etc) We had information on this adoption that might have helped.


----------



## Remo (Sep 8, 2004)

Just to make sure, I don't want anyone to think that I was doing anything except answering the question that "Middle" was asking. I wish that we were closer to Missy so that we could help. 

Before I joined up with an organized rescue, I placed dogs, one at a time, all on my own. I fully well understand, appreciate and empathize with Missy's situation. Bless her heart for helping the dogs she has helped.


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

I will always be grateful to people like Missy, small groups and individual rescuers that do their best to help dogs and save those thousands of lives in this way, as opposed to closing their eyes because what they are able to do is not perfection.


----------



## Barb E (Jun 6, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: sit,stayIt is my understanding that we are not talking about a 10 hour drive to get the dog in question back to Missy. It is what? A 2-3 hour drive. Sheilah


Sheilah, The dog in question is in southern Oregon so it's probably close to 5 hours one way


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

This remembers me about another thread where it was discussed about where the responsibility of the breeder ends.

Sorry, but there must be a point where it ends and the responsibility of the adopter has to have some weight. All right, not all adopters are perfect, sometimes their lives take a turn, but since they have already committed to this dog is it now THEIR dog, THEIR responsibility!

I understand giving the adopter time to let things settle, to see how the dog adapts to his new home, family members and other pets, but once they consider that dog theirs it is also their responsibility to fully assume.

I'm all about safety nets for the dogs because they are living creatures, but put the burden where it belongs and not over the shoulders of volunteers who do the best they can with limited resources.


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

No one is arguing that the primary responsibility rests with the rescue and not the adopter. In the case that inspired this thread, what we are discussing is the situation when the adopter irresponsibly flakes out. That primary responsibililty is broken. 
We rail on here about breeders being responsible for the dog for its lifetime - that doesn't say that the purchaser doesn't have significant responsibility - it says what we expect the breeder to do when that other responsibility gets chucked.

I posted it as a heads up to folks to think ahead about how they are going to handle such a situation.

BTW I expect perfection of no one & I seriouisly doubt that meeting this obligation would make any one or any group "perfect." So could those of you rallying to the defense of someone who was not attacked please get on topic and discuss what you think both the best policy is and what the practical policy is when things go south?


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

There is a difference between breeders and rescue volunteers. Breeders choose to put dogs into this world and many do it for the money alone. Judging by the numbers of dogs in shelters bred by someone at some point, very few take responsibility for the life they created. Rescue volunters do not put dogs into this world, they clean up after others. 

Volunteers in rescue come and go, funds can be there one day and depleted the next, what is possible one day with the resources available at that time may not be feasible a week later. I am often amazed at the expectations people - in particular those who would never drive half accross the country themselves for a dog that is not their own or take in or take responsibility for a dog with temperament issues or any dog other than their own for that matter - have on "rescue" as an anonymous entity. I am amazed that volunteers, in particular those who make thair hands dirty with real dogs as opposed to posting and cross posting, last as long as they do under the constant beating they get from all sides. I was raised with the old fashioned notion that one does not have the moral right to demand from others what one is not prepared to do oneself. For some reason rescue volunteers are held to higher standards than most people in this society and are expected to deliver more than highly paid professionals. An example is when very well paid professional trainers or breeders tell clients/buyers to dump the dog on volunteers in rescue. 

As to policies, what happens when the policy is there and nobody volunteers to execute the policy? A dog ruined by the owner gets returned to the rescue with a bite history? Whose job is it to take this dog in forever since the dog is unadoptable? A dog gets returned with severe dog aggression after years. Whose "job" is it to risk the safety of the resident dogs and their own to satisfy rescue policy? I am sure that those who would never do it themselves can discuss forever how things should be done (see the recent thread about rescues expecting too much from adopters and cooking turkeys), but it boils down to one individual taking personal responsibility for a problem others created. If the person capable of handling difficult dogs already has one too many, which policy can force them to take on even more? The reality is that anyone can walk away from the rescue any time. 

Honestly, after thinking of everything that can go wrong and the expectations, I am surprised that there are people who chose to rescue dogs other than their own.


----------



## sitstay (Jan 20, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: RebelGSDThere is a difference between breeders and rescue volunteers. Breeders choose to put dogs into this world


But rescuers also make a choice. Nobody is holding a gun to my head, demanding that I participate against my will.

If a policy is in place and nobody "volunteers" to execute or follow through on the policy, then there is a problem within the organization. 

I am of the belief that sometimes there really isn't a home for every animal that needs one. I also believe that in some cases, in some very few cases, a humane euthanasia is preferable to what happens with "unadoptables". They end up being warehoused, often poorly. Sometimes they end up with hoarders and sometimes they get kicked from home to home until the health issue or the behavioral issue reaches a breaking point. Quality of life counts, too. At the very least, a reputable rescue should take back a dog even if they do so knowing that they'll euthanize it as soon as they can get it into a vet. It isn't all hearts and flowers and little angel icons. 
Sheilah


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

I know Missy helped this dog out on her own. She gave her a chance at a great life. It is unfortuante that it is not working out. I hope a way can be found to help this dog. 

I have the utmost respect for rescues and rescuers. I wish I had the stamina and dedication for rescue.


----------



## RebelGSD (Mar 20, 2008)

I will take the unpopular (and take the bashing for it) view that if a dog has lived with its family for years, it is not particularly humane to drag the animal cross country, stress it, house it with vets and stranges, to be euthanized by and among strangers - so that some policy can be satisfied and the rescue can feel reputable. The people who ruined the dog or lived with the animal for years can do that as well (and take the responsibility for it). The outcome is the same, but it is less stress for the dog. 

After fostering for many, big and small, and taking in many returns that nobody else in the rescue would touch, I have yet to find the ivory tower rescue where there is nothing wrong with the organization. Some were better at the show than others.

Maybe those that have 5 dogs for 400 volunteers have everything going rosy. If I had the money I would still rather donate rescuers like Missy.


----------



## oregongsdr111 (Nov 20, 2005)

The reason we take the dog back is so we can evaluate the dog.
Way too many people confuse GSD behavior with aggression due to bad advice from a vet or trainer.

We take the dog in, let it settle, and make a determination based on what we observe. I placed two 6 month old pups that were from a shelter, went to a GSD rescue, (out of our state) and were returned for aggression to the shelter. We took both dogs in based on age, and our experiences with described behavior. Both dogs took a few months to work through the behaviors, and now live in homes with families and other pets. 

We have had one return that was so damaged we did end up after a few months having to PTS. It is case by case. We feel that we made a commitment to the dog; we owe it a final evaluation. If it is PTS it has been with us and is not in the arms of strangers. With a shelter back ground you quickly realize most people will lie about the reason they are going to PTS the dog. For dogs trying to enter rescue, we recommend the owner PTS for some situations after talking to a vet, and a behaviorist because we know we could not correct the behavior, and or find a safe placement.

I agree that no rescue is perfect. We learn and grow. I do feel that people doing personal rescue need to partner with rescues close to them, to see if there has been an issue with the adopter. If this had happened in this case, I would bet we would not be in this situation today.

Many times rescues have a waiting list of approved adopters. We would have gladly let an adopter know if a person had a dog to place and try to match them up. We did it all the time. We just need to try and communicate, and work together for the betterment of rescued dogs.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:There is a difference between breeders and rescue volunteers. Breeders choose to put dogs into this world


I completely agree with this. Rescues and breeders are apples and oranges. In the same way that a foster parent for humans volunteers their time to take care of a child who needs someone is dealing with a completely different set of expectations than someone who gives birth to a child. I think we all have an expectation that parents will be responsible for their children no matter what. When they're not, it's a failing of their parental responsibility. A foster parent, in contrast, may chose to accept responsiblity for someone else's child but their obligation (or not) to do so is very different. 

I do believe in taking dogs back if their adoption falls through - but not because I believe that rescues have the same kind of responsibility that the people who created these dogs in the first place do. I believe in it because I care about all the dogs I foster and I choose to be there for them. I'm not saying it very well, but it's a different dynamic.


----------



## Fodder (Oct 21, 2007)

i did not read thru all of the replies - but i think i have the jist of this thread.

i only wanted to add that i've done a couple private party adoptions with rescue backing and there are a couple of ways to go about it. one being that you contact the rescue, "surrender" the dog to their organization and just operate as a foster home. OR... what i did because i felt comfortable enough doing the screening process myself and wanted control over setting a fair adoption fee - i posted a courtesy listing on the rescues website, with permission used their adoption application and agreed to donate the adoption fee that i collected from the adopter to the organization... in return, they allowed me to revise the contract stating that i carried out the adoption myself but should the adopter not be able to care for the dog for any reason - that i be contacted and if i am not in position to take the dog - they would surrender the dog to that particular rescue.

one fault of mine that i'll make sure to do next time is that i provided a line for my signature as well as the adopters, but i did not get a signature from the organization saying that they agreed to it. i only have correspondence documentation thru e mail which may or may not stand if that particular volunteer leaves the rescue.

live and learn.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

That can be a good way to create a safety net if you can find a good group willing to do that.


----------



## DorianE (Jan 5, 2009)

ty for this thread. I am unsure of the circumstrances or what the turn out was, but it was very informative and does help clarify issues that some people may never ask.


----------

