# Shelter/Rescue Relationships?



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

I am starting a new thread in response to this thread: http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=804168&page=0#Post804168

The receiving rescue made the decision to euthanize Cash based on his health but it turns out that the shelter had the funds and the foster resources to treat Cash. I am hoping that something can be learned from this very sad situation. 

Here are some questions to get us started. Please add your own questions! 

What can we, as a rescue community, learn from this very unfortunate decision?

What can shelters do to be sure they know where their dogs are going and to build more transparent relationships with rescues (I know, a really big question!)?

When a dog comes off of this board does the board have a right to be notified by the rescue if and why the dog is euthanized?

Do/should rescues have an obligation to notify the shelter a dog comes from if they decide to euthanize a dog from that shelter? Is there a time limit on this right and, if so, what should that be?

Do/should shelters have a contract that details their expectations of how rescues will deal with their dogs? If so, what does/should that include?


----------



## Timber1 (May 19, 2007)

I am keeping this current because I wish to respond, but tme is short tonight, and after eading about a dog named buddy on the non-urgent board I am just trying to cool it a bit. 

When talking about realtionships I would add one other group and that is humane societies. Some very helpful, some not.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

*What can shelters do to be sure they know where their dogs are going and to build more transparent relationships with rescues (I know, a really big question!)?*

As a shelter rep, I had a similar situation happen to me with a dog I'd pulled for a rescue, held for a week before transport, and then found out after the fact that he'd been euthanized on arrival after testing strong positive for heartworms. I was absolutely devastated. The shelter I work with has had similar experiences when groups euthanized entire litters of puppies after they tested positive for parvo. It is heartbreaking to hear (when it's too late) about animals being euthanized for treatable illnesses. As a result of these experiences, we built specific questions into our receiving rescue application. 

I do not debate a receiving rescue's right to treat or not treat the dogs in their care, but in the same way that as rescuers, we want to know what happens with our adoptees - many shelters want to continue to support the animals they send out.

There is this stereotype that shelters don't care about the animals there or can't be bothered or whatever. But that's not true! I'm not saying there aren't uncaring shelter employees out there but a huge number of shelter staff and on the ground shelter volunteers invest an enormous amount of time, energy, money, and love into the animals in their shelter. They care a great deal what happens to them!

*Do/should rescues have an obligation to notify the shelter a dog comes from if they decide to euthanize a dog from that shelter? Is there a time limit on this right and, if so, what should that be?*

Yes. I think most shelters assume that rescues will let them know about situations like this and most do, but we learned the hard way that you may have to explicitely specify it. 

In general it's good form for rescues to keep the sending shelter in the loop. Some shelters don't care or don't want to know, and that's okay too. I think the best policy for rescues, if the shelter doesn't state something themselves, is to ask them "Do you want to receive follow up information on this animal? Even if that information is negative?" I don't know what the exact time limit would be on that, but I'd say certainly anything that comes up within 4 weeks of pulling the dog, the shelter should be notified. 

*Do/should shelters have a contract that details their expectations of how rescues will deal with their dogs? If so, what does/should that include? *

We do now. 

Below are the relavant questions from our receiving rescue application:



> Quote:
> Do you treat parvo?
> 
> Do you treat heartworms?
> ...


And then at the bottom of the form it says:



> Quote:By submitting this application you certify that the information you have given is true and accurate. You authorize investigation of all statements made in this application.
> 
> You agree that if any of the information on this application is found to be false or if the animal you are rescuing is not being given proper care (personal or veterinary) we have the right to reclaim the animal and you will surrender them to us upon demand.
> 
> By typing your name here, you affirm the above information is correct to the best of your knowledge and agree to the above conditions:


Now, a group might tell me that they do not treat parvo, or they only treat parvo up to a $200 cap or something, and if they're a reputable group, I might still send them dogs - particularly if the dogs are facing certain euthanasia and this is their one chance. But at least that way I have the info I need to make the decision. 

Keeping shelters in the loop has another benefit in that the shelter may have a better idea than the receiving rescue about what diseases are endemic and what's a big deal and what's not. I once had a huge argument with a vet about euthanizing a dog that was SEVERELY underweight and tested positive for erlichia. The vet's point was that the dog was likely in complete systems failure from advanced erlichia. My point was that the dog was thin because he had been starved, and the erlichia was a separate issue. My plan was to try feeding him and giving him doxycycline, and then if he didn't improve and his bloodwork showed organ failure, we'd put him down at that point. If I'd listened to him, Rufus the redbone coonhound would not currently be off living fat and happy with his 8 year old master in TN, free of erlichia and only in the middle of what I hope will be a long and happy life. 

Sometimes even good vets aren't used to seeing dogs in the kind of condition they routinely show up in at shelters so they see more wrong with the dog than is actually there. Lots of malnourished dogs with upper respiratory infections and internal parasites from the southeast are misdiagnosed as suffering from distemper upon arrival in the northeast because the vets there just aren't used to seeing dogs in this kind of shape. Down here they're everywhere! Sometimes the kindest thing really is to euthanize the dog - that certainly happens. By working with the shelter, the receiving rescue can get a better picture of the true condition of the dog as well as help the receiving rescue explore all possible options for saving the animal, which, of course, is what we all want!


----------



## daniella5574 (May 2, 2007)

I think one thing to keep in mind is that we all take our dogs to vets to be checked and we normally trust their opinion because we arent vets ourselves. I would hate to be a target because I listened to my vet and someone didnt agree with the outcome. 
That being said, I am not saying I agree or disagree with this, I am keeping my thoughts to myself. My point is, that this thread should be used for educational purposes (and I hope it will be) instead of turning this into a blame game.


----------



## Borrelli21 (Oct 16, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: DanniI think one thing to keep in mind is that we all take our dogs to vets to be checked and we normally trust their opinion because we arent vets ourselves. I would hate to be a target because I listened to my vet and someone didnt agree with the outcome.
> That being said, I am not saying I agree or disagree with this, I am keeping my thoughts to myself. My point is, that this thread should be used for educational purposes (and I hope it will be) instead of turning this into a blame game.


Well said Danni- it's why I took the position I did.. I would trust a professional and felt the vet knew alot more than I would ever hope to. I really want to address the above from Ruth, and will. I just don't have 20 secs to do it right now.. Thanks-


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Even though we aren't vets ourselves, I believe it's our job to advocate for the animals in our care. Vets have a range of treatment options at their disposal, which ones they chose - and which ones they encourage us to chose - have a lot to do with the information and preferences WE give them. For example, if a dog is diagnosed with hip dysplasia, there are treatment options which range from doing nothing all the way to $5000 per hip surgery. The same vet may advocate different courses of treatment for the same diagnosis not only because of difference in severity or suitability but also depending on a variety of factors like the owner's attitude towards care, ability to pay, etc. As owners/rescuers we decide how far to go with things and in many cases there is no "right" or "wrong" answer, only different preferences. Most vets are supportive of the choices made by their human clients. If an owner choses to euthanize an animal rather than spend money on chemo for a treatable tumor, I don't know any vets that wouldn't support that choice. Ultimately it's the owner's choice. 

In shelter and rescue work we may seem some strange things now and again but we see the same illnesses over and over and over again. You learn a lot in a hurry about things like parvo and heartworms for example. Just the other day I shared a new remedy for coccidia with my vet that he hadn't read about yet. Vets are only human and that's okay. As a rescue director, I do a lot of research on my own about the maladies that most commonly affect our dogs and cats so I'll know what treatments are available, the pros and cons, as well as the cost. 

Different rescue groups have different policies and procedures when it comes to treating animals in their care. As a sending shelter, I like to have that information when deciding where to send our animals and I appreciate being included in the discussion if euthanasia is being contemplated for a potentially treatable problem. I am not intending to play the blame game here - I have no involvement with the previous case under discussion - I'm just trying to explain my views in answer to Ruth's questions.


----------



## moei (Sep 28, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: BowWowMeowWhen a dog comes off of this board does the board have a right to be notified by the rescue if and why the dog is euthanized?


How would this be of help? How could it be enforced?



> Originally Posted By: BowWowMeowDo/should rescues have an obligation to notify the shelter a dog comes from if they decide to euthanize a dog from that shelter? Is there a time limit on this right and, if so, what should that be?


Is/should it be different for individuals?

Do shelters take a dog back from rescues, in the event the rescue is unable to 'handle' the problem?


----------



## daniella5574 (May 2, 2007)

I understand pupresq- in no way do I mean you or Ruth are doing this. I just know how quickly things spiral on this board at times, emotions get going- my thoughts were that I hope this doesnt happen on this thread. I competely understand what you are saying about treatment options.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:Is/should it be different for individuals?


IMO no. Many shelters have return clauses when they adopt out an animal similar to those of rescue groups. 



> Quoteo shelters take a dog back from rescues, in the event the rescue is unable to 'handle' the problem?


We have and do take back animals from both rescues and adopters if there is an issue if we think we can offer the dog a better alternative. If we have no better alternative then we wouldn't take the animal back, but we try.

ETA: Thanks Danni!


----------

