# Placement of rescues directly into adoptive homes



## mcdoglovers (Jan 15, 2004)

I noticed in a thread on the urgent section that some rescue groups will pull dogs and place them directly into their permanent homes. I wondered if it is common practice for other groups, to send dogs from shelters directly into their permanent homes? We oftentimes take several weeks to assess the dogs temperament and personality in their foster home so that we can make a proper placement. There is absolutely no way for us to judge a dog properly in a kennel environment and we feel we would not be doing the dog or the adoptive family justice. I would love to hear other opinions on this practice, even if they are differing from mine as I am open to new ideas. I realize that we can't rescue as many dogs this way but by working towards quality placements instead of quantity we feel we are doing both the dog and the family a great service. Please share your thoughts.


----------



## Fodder (Oct 21, 2007)

i agree with you in most cases, and often times the rescues here don't even put the dogs up on their site until they've had them awhile... but depending on the age of the dog and the situation the dog is going into, there are times when its okay.

for instance, if its an experienced shepherd owner who has adopted thru that particular rescue in the past, does not have other dogs or cats or kids and the dog in question is a puppy - then there arent that many surprises that could turn up and not be handled. ya know?

this was the case when i got both of my current dogs, however i already had relationships with the rescues.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I would actually be even more hesitant to do it in the case of a puppy not because of behavior but because of possible parvo risk. Most adopters aren't equipped to handle that either emotionally or financially, also might miss important early signs than an experienced foster home would pick up. 

We have a quarantine/evaluation period before we put the dogs up on Petfinder or take them anywhere to events. I feel like it takes at least a week or two for a shelter dog to decompress and show us who they really are. Until I've seen them let it all hang out, I can't tell what kind of home they need and as long as I've been doing this, I've discovered that it's really easy to be wrong on your first impressions. For example dogs that seem terrible with other dogs at the shelter end up being fine, conversely dogs that seem very passive can end up being terrible with other dogs. Shelter evals are a crap shoot.

I used to help broker the occasional long distance adoption directly from the shelter (not through my rescue) but I've pretty much stopped doing that too because trying to arrange a home visit and find a local group willing to serve as a safety net is just too difficult and I've had several bad experiences trying to do it. 

I am noticing a real increase in groups who post shelter dogs from somewhere else on their site and then bring up a vanload of them and do direct adoptions on arrival - not on an occasional basis as I've seen here - but as a general way of operating. Some folks swear by it but I think it's a terrible idea. A lot of those groups are placing dogs they've never even laid hands on, much less evaluated and a few of the groups are placing dogs who haven't even been adequately vetted, which is a public health nightmare among a lot of other problems. I won't send our shelter dogs to groups that do it, but, as I say, it seems to be a growing trend.


----------



## Sue F (Oct 3, 2007)

I would think this type of practice is fine if the group is honest about what they are doing. Someone doing direct from shelter adoptions, in my opinion, are asking for adoption fees to act as a liason between the shelter and the adopter....rather than as a rescue. 

My issue would be with a group calling themselves a rescue, when they really aren't a rescue.


----------



## Jazy's mom (Jan 5, 2004)

Lisa/Hannah I completely agree with both of you.

I do not even advertise my fosters until I have had them for at least 2 weeks. This gives me time to have them vetted and quarantined. And it gives the dog time to settle in so I can see more of their true personality. 

I don't get how a rescue can do this and charge an "adoption" fee. They should call it a finders fee. In reality they are just a middle man to help with pull and transport, not a rescue.


----------



## lsoilm1936 (Dec 28, 2003)

Good point pupresq! My last foster was picked up from the shelter and within 2 days came down with parvo. Had she been adopted directly to a home, there is no telling what would have happened. They may have had her put down b/c the emergency clinic certainly gave us that option. Of course we didn't take it - we chose to treat her, no matter how long and hard a road it was ahead and she is an absolute dollbaby today thriving in her adoptive home - healthy as can be! I just think there are too many things that could go wrong without giving the dogs an adjustment period in a foster home environment. After all - that's the only way we can determine if they are good with other dogs, cats, kids, etc.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I'm new to all this but I fostered a dobie for almost two weeks before she went to her new home. I can say that her personality was just starting to show when she left me. The home she went to is perfect for her and they love her so much!!! They have time to work on her issues and is exactly what she needed.

But how can anyone know what an animal needs in a home without first knowing the animal? I think that's a little scary for all concerned.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

That's not rescue, it's brokering placement between (this is how my mind makes a distinction) a purchaser (if no checks have been done) or adopter (if appropriate adoption references and home checks have been done) and a shelter. 

A brokering fee should be called that. And the public needs to be educated of the differences so that they pay for what they get/vice versa. A chart would be nice. 

But most importantly what is really best for the dog is at issue. And I believe the practices of a reputable rescue (see list on sticky post in this section) set more dogs up for success than any other.


----------



## Fodder (Oct 21, 2007)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

i will clarify that speaking for one particular recuse (of the 5 in my area) this happens about 1 in every 100 cases... when its ideal in that situation.

by "puppy" i'm referring to dogs under 18months... so "young" would be more appropriate.

also, speaking for the same rescue, not all of their dogs go into foster homes, unfortunately. there is a boarding facility where a good portion of the dogs go and although you get more time socializing, training, walking, grooming, observing the dogs, etc - it is still a kennel situation in which the dogs true colors may not show until later.

this is not ideal, but between the shelters and the rescues - there are easily over 400 homeless gsd at any given time.

in the rescues defense - any dogs that are not handling the kennel/boarding situation satisfactorily, they will get those dogs out and into foster homes asap. puppies and seniors automatically go into foster homes.

for what its worth (call it luck) both of my dogs were exactly, what we saw was what i got.

and, like mentioned above... if this is a common practice of a rescue, then yes - i would hesitate calling them a rescue and its more like a "broker".


----------



## Jazy's mom (Jan 5, 2004)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

Jean, that is exactly what I was trying to say, you just said it better. They are nothing more than a broker. I would not consider this a "rescue". And yes the general public needs to know that there is a HUGE difference.


----------



## lakota757 (Apr 10, 2008)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

The dogs that are placed from a shelter to a home is nothing more than a time bomb that will eventually explode. This is a very dangerous situation for the dog I think as well as the adopter. To me, it is a very irresponsible practice. I guess there is no law preventing it, but there should be.


----------



## Prinzsalpha (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

We keep them in foster homes for at least 3 weeks to evaluate them. Our job is to find the right fit for the puppers and family. The only way we can do that is to observe and love them.After 3 weeks they finally get on petfinder. Some never make it to petfinder as we know the applicants and the potential foster home and whether its a good fit. I dont know how you can have proper placement if you havent evaluated them. Not to mention the health aspect from going from shelter to potential home. Its not a win-win for the puppers.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*



> Quote: This is a very dangerous situation for the dog I think as well as the adopter. To me, it is a very irresponsible practice. I guess there is no law preventing it, but there should be.


From a safety perspective, it's the same as someone adopting a dog directly from the shelter, which lots of people do very successfully, so I'm sure it can work. I guess, to me, part of what people are getting when they go through a rescue is a dog that has had that extra screening and care in placement. 

My biggest concern is what safety net exists for the dog in the event that the adoption doesn't work out as well as potential liability issues for the rescue group in placing dogs that haven't been fully evaluated. Not that there's not some risk inherent in any placement.


----------



## wsumner26 (Jan 27, 2006)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*



> Quote:I dont know how you can have proper placement if you havent evaluated them. Not to mention the health aspect from going from shelter to potential home. Its not a win-win for the puppers.


I agree..to do any less is not "rescue" in my opinion. I do not consider adopting a dog from animal control and a rescue to be the same thing. We are dealing with a dog who could be potentially dangerous in some cases. I would not want to pull a dog from animal control and place it directly in a family situation, with no idea of the personality. Also, many times dogs have unseen medical conditions that should be addressed before placement.


----------



## lakota757 (Apr 10, 2008)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

Exactly..people who adopt from a rescue expect more. They feel the dog has had any issues be it health or other wise addressed. There is a very good chance the dog will just end up back in the shelter or worse. Just my opinion..this is just not rescuing.


----------



## Fodder (Oct 21, 2007)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*



> Originally Posted By: lakota757The dogs that are placed from a shelter to a home is nothing more than a time bomb that will eventually explode.


is it safe to say after 9 & 2 yrs that mine won't explode? i sure hope so.

Gia has hip dysplasia and didnt show symptoms for 4+yrs (its not standard for rescues to perform x rays). Tilden... well... no surprises there. he's a little sensitive - big deal









i <u>think</u> i get your point -- but as pupreq said - its no different then the adopter getting the dog directly from the shelter themselves which is successfully done all the time.

at the end of the day, i think some dogs are obvious and some arent (okay, alot arent) but there is a great <u>range</u> of "surprises" one can expect and for that reason - sometimes even 3wks+ isnt enough time to tell.

the only reason i don't consider my dogs "true rescues" is because a good amount of their history was known as both were semi owner surrenders (Gia was dumped, but chipped and original owners were contacted) and both of them had a relatively short time "in the system". no apparent abuse or neglect, etc, and neither were on their "last day".

so really, you can't speak 100% in either direction.


----------



## wsumner26 (Jan 27, 2006)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*



> Quote: its no different then the adopter getting the dog directly from the shelter themselves which is successfully done all the time



I think reputable rescues might disagree that it is "no different then the adopter getting the dog directly from the shelter". There is a huge difference in a good rescue and a gov't run animal control. I am not talking about hip problems that show up years later. Not all dogs are placed in 3 weeks..some stay much longer. The adoptive family appreciates any insight into the temp./personality of their new family member. Rescues also consider the welfare of the dog...many people are not the great adopters they make you think they are.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

I see your point about groups who keep dogs in boarding. I know many groups who do that and while I think most try to send the dogs from boarding to foster before placement, I'm sure dogs do get placed directly out of boarding. I got Grace that way when I adopted her. Boarding does at least address the issue of disease quarantine, and I do think that even in a kennel environment, the group is likely to know more about the dog than a dog coming from a shelter where they've never been. But you're right that dogs in that situation aren't going to get the same level of evaluation as one in a home.

I think my biggest problem is actually one of geography. As a shelter rep, it makes me extremely nervous to send dogs to a direct adoption somewhere far away because if it doesn't work out there's no safety net. This is why I always insist on a local group willing to step in necessary. But in a rescue pull-direct direct shelter adoption situation my concern is what happens if it doesn't work out. Presumably the group will then take the dog - as a shelter I would hope that would be the case. But wearing my other hat as a group director, accepting responsibility and liability for a dog I hadn't fully evaluated that would worry me a lot, especially with a large and potentially temperamental dog like a GSD. 

I don't know. I think it can probably work out fine but is not something I'd suggest as a rescue practice and I have major issues with these groups doing it on a large scale. 

ETA: To wsummer26 - the comment it about it being no different in adopting directly from a shelter applied specifically to the comment about dogs adopted in this way being ticking time bombs, just meaning that the risk to the adopter is the same either way - but yes, totally agree - the adopter would not then be getting what one would expect an adopter to get if going through a rescue.


----------



## Fodder (Oct 21, 2007)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*



> Originally Posted By: wsumner26
> 
> 
> > Quote: its no different then the adopter getting the dog directly from the shelter themselves which is successfully done all the time
> ...


i'm sorry, but you're misunderstanding my post. my post was in response to the member who said dogs going from shelter to home is a ticking time bomb. if that were true - every dog adopted from the shelter would be exploding - and they simply arent.

so - for further clarification. i DO NOT think that a dog going from shelter to new home is the same as a dog going from rescue to new home. obviously a dog from a rescue comes with a better evaluation and more feedback/info as far as temperament, etc. but i DO think that dogs can successfully go from the shelter to the new home and turn out just as well as a dog that goes from rescue to its new home.

"its no different" (meaning the comment i was responding to)
vs.
"there is no difference"

hope thats clearer.


----------



## shilohsmom (Jul 14, 2003)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

I'm glad this topic has come up as it has been on many peoples mind lately. 

Over the past few months I've sceen alot of responses to Urgent posts with something that reads like "Do you know anything about him/her, are they good with other dogs/kids, etc. i MIGHT HAVE A HOME/POTENTIAL ADOPTER FOR THIS DOG!' These posts many times followed by some type of statement about how happy the adopters are about their new dog. What???? How could they even know anything about this dog-its in a Shelter, its likely tramatized. To the reader of such responses (especially when there are so many of them, it tells me 1. they know nothing about this dog other than the picture we are all looking at. 2. These dogs are going from Shelter to 'new home'. 

In my opinion this is only setting up everyone, including many of these dogs, for failure. Worse yet, it gives rescues a bad name and when someone has a bad experience in something like this they talk-they talk to family, friends, co-workers, etc. So this isn't just hurting that one rescue, its hurting all the rescues.


----------



## middleofnowhere (Dec 20, 2000)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

Consider, please, that for many years before "rescue" people were adopting directly from pounds or shelters or humane societies. I thought that rescue's goal was to prevent dogs from being euthanized and find them homes -- not to thwart adoption.


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

The principle might be fine as long as the person/rescue brokering the arrangement is prepared to be the safety net. In other words, is there a contract in place for the dog to be returned to the brokering organization if the adoption doesn't work out? Is there a foster prepared to step up just in case? Are they prepared to help with behaviour and/or medical issues? Or is the rescue gambling that the dog will be fine - in which case the dog could simply end up in a kill shelter in a different location, and even more stressed out and less likely to be adoptd.


----------



## Avamom (Sep 28, 2004)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*



> Originally Posted By: middleofnowhereConsider, please, that for many years before "rescue" people were adopting directly from pounds or shelters or humane societies. I thought that rescue's goal was to prevent dogs from being euthanized and find them homes -- not to thwart adoption.


And that continues today, many people adopt straight from a shelter with excellent results...thank God because there are always more dogs than there are homes. But that is what a shelter is for....a rescue is different. That is the point of this thread. I am not sure how you are getting anything from this topic that suggests rescues are thwarting adoptions??? People going to rescue's are expecting healthy dogs with known temperments, hence why there are adoption fees, good rescue's put a lot of money and time into getting their dogs healthy and socializing them. To call yourself a rescue and just transport a dog straight from the shelter to an adopter is not rescue and should never be called rescue. Its great to refer an approved adopter who you know can handle a dog straight from the shelter to a dog in need at the shelter, but that, for us, is a rare instance. Heck most people applying are at the minimum requiring the dogs to be housebroken.

I think another thing to think about when rescue's follow this practice of shelter to home adoption, is was this a dog that was temp tested by an experienced GSD person or are you going on the word of a shelter worker who may or may not be fully disclosing any issues because they want this dog they have taken a liking to to get a second chance. You are only guessing at whether a dog is good with cats when cat testing at a shelter...when in a home and the cat has freedom to run that may change....you are only guessing a dog is good with children when testing at a shelter with kids, when at home and toys are involved and kids are running around screaming (as they would in a foster home) that dog may react differently. Those are serious chances you are taking!! 

I think I am a decent temp tester but I have been wrong more times than I can count because a dog in a shelter, especially a GSD, can be completely different in a shelter than in a home....especially if there is a health issue. I have done that right here on the board with a dog I would have bet my paycheck on had DM, due to his extreme hind end weakness, knuckling and general "old dog" appearance...send him to Remo with VGSR and he blossoms into a healthy, young dog under her care...call me embarrased, I thought I was sending a hospice case! Thank God I was wrong and she was prepared and willing to have a completely different dog on her hands!!! 

Many times the GSD's that shelters release to rescue are for "rescue only" sometimes for no good reason, but often because their is a health issue or they need an experienced handler....if you don't have foster room to take in a dog from the shelter how do you have room for any returns if those multiple straight to home placements don't work out!


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

Great post, Sinclair!


----------



## weber1b (Nov 30, 2008)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

I have taken a dog from rescue and now one from a shelter. Clearly a family who is unprepared for the unknown would be better off with a dog from a rescue that has been evaluated and perhaps had some behavioral correction. While my wife and I were prepared for taking someone like Max from a shelter, there is still so much we have dealt with and learned that we were not thinking of prior to taking him on. Someone who was not as prepared would probably have taken him back to the shelter, or if it had been done through a rescue, back to them.

I think it comes down to an expecation, at least in my mind, that the rescue has "filtered" out potential issues and has put themselves in a position to better match the dog.

Now having said that, as long as the adopter was capable of handling whatever may come, and they understood the rescue was in essence just a conduit, then if another dog is saved, hurrah. This would be especially true in the case of a longer distance adoption, where someone was stepping up to save a dog and the rescue could pull the dog, but had no room to keep them and therefore expidited the move.


----------



## Remo (Sep 8, 2004)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

Hey Sinclair - JD sends his regards! He is pretty slow moving these days, but heck, it has been almost four years! I don't know how we got along without him. He said to tell you thanks for saving his life! 

I have seen HUGE personality differences in dogs a couple of weeks after they leave the shelter. Ones that temp test just fine with other dogs can turn into real bullies once they are no longer scared straight at the shelter. 

It works both directions - sometimes the change is wonderful after a couple of weeks, and sometimes it goes completely the other direction. 

Once in a great while we will have an owner surrender dog that is "bomb proof" that I would feel OK about putting in a home in less than a couple of weeks in foster, but that is generally the exception to the rule.

I think that the folks coming to rescues depend on us to give them an honest evaluation of the dog - it takes a couple of weeks to get to know them!


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

In answering the OP I do not agree with this practice. 

But it is not a perfect world right now. A lot of rescues are full and running out of foster homes. If they want to back up the adopters, then more power to them if it saves a dogs lives. (The fees that is in ques). 

I do know rescues that are so full, and no fosters they keep many dogs in boarding and unvetted. Then they sometimes go straight to adopters (vetted first), this is no better. 

I have pulled straight from AC twice, once right from the hwy, and I learned valueable lessons. I wish I had a rescue behind us (like we do now). From our last experience I have learned a lot and maybe more able to pull straight from AC with a rescue behind me, someone's got do it...but also it will be a long time and I will think long and hard before ever doing it again.


----------



## weber1b (Nov 30, 2008)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

To my earlier comment about Max, when I pulled him I did have a rescue back-up. Would probably not have pulled him if I didn't cause I had no way to test him with Clover. Fortunately it all worked out.

We have since done a temp foster for our rescue and once Max's dog aggresiveness is solved and my daughter moves out with a couple of the cats we are looking to move to a more regular fostering situation.


----------



## shilohsmom (Jul 14, 2003)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*



> Originally Posted By: ddGreat post, Sinclair!


I couldn't agree more, great post Sinclair!


----------



## Sue F (Oct 3, 2007)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

I think the conversation started on the Franklin GA dog needs to continue to be discussed...as I said on that thread, I am concerned as well about getting dogs out of shelters and keeping them from being gassed, but people are willing to look the other way when dogs are taken into "rescues" and placed into homes within days, or even hours, without vetting, home checks, vet checks, etc....

Call a spade a spade.

I agree that these dogs need all the help they can get, but self-regulation on the part of rescues needs to happen, or real rescues get a bad name because of supposed rescues who are actually just doing shelter placement assistance with buyer beware policies. 

I have no problem, per se, if a placement service wants to do that...it does serve a purpose...but don't call yourself a rescue when you aren't one. I have heard of purported rescues who cannot offer housebroken dogs simply because all they do is kennel the dogs from the shelter! Again...not a bad thing...but that is not a true rescue.
_________________________


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

I agree that adopters expect more from a rescue than they do from a shelter, that there is an expectation that a family is being matched to a dog that is not only healthy, but well understood by the rescue placing the animal.

But not doing proper vetting is an even bigger issue. Massachusetts closed its borders to rescues some years ago because unvetted dogs were being brought into the state and being placed without quarantine. This practice has wider repercussions than just on the receiving families. Diseases not common in the north were being brought and spread by rescue dogs from the south - not only giving rescue a bad name but creating medical risks. This is an issue that needs to be carefully considered by anyone transporting dogs from one region to another.


----------



## WiscTiger (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

So is there any resources that people can review on what is a good rescue. I know that Chris Wild has a page on her website that states things to look at when buying a pup from a breeder. So I was wondering if there are any sources that people could read on what is a rescue verses a placement group and the pros and cons. 

Val


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

My recommendation would be to ask the rescue for vet references and to check with shelters local to the rescue to get their perception of the rescue. 

Chatting with the rescue's vet will give you an idea on whether the dogs are regularly vetted, whether the rescue will treat dogs with parvo and heartworm and whether they keep their animals on regular heartworm preventatives. 

How long dogs remain in foster care with a rescue is another good indicator (i.e. is there a minimum dwell period?).


----------



## WiscTiger (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

So other things that a person should ask the rescue, would they include things like how long has the dog been with the foster family and would it be out of line to ask where the dog came from? 

Val


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

I don't think it's out of line to ask where the dog came from. I was lucky enough to get my dog's medical records from his original family because they surrendered those with him to the shelter.

I asked why he had been surrendered as well as background information on his living conditions there, as well as his personality as perceived by the rescue.


----------



## WiscTiger (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

OK, so another thing they could check before they go for a visit is that the organization is listed with the government as a legal 501 (c)3. Not saying that some people who aren't is always a bad thing, just make sure that they aren't misrespresenting themselves.


----------



## ded37 (Jan 18, 2005)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

I just saw this thread - Placement of rescues directly into adoptive homes - 

My input has already been written and written very well at that: 
I agree 110% with Sinclair/Noble and Lea/VGSR.

I think if we are honest, all of us have seen dogs have one personality in a shelter and then another after settling in with their foster family (after the "honeymoon period"). Not that emerging personality is necessarily troublesome, just different. So what we thought may have been a good fit for our rescue dog/forever family may actually not be.

Even with set procedures in place, we get it wrong sometimes.

More times than not, rescues have very little knowledge of a dog's background, both life experience wise and medically. While sure, an adopter can go to the shelter and adopt a dog, that is not what "rescue" stands for.

It is simply common sense, pulling a dog from a shelter and shortly thereafter sending them on their way is not rescue.

As a rule, we keep our rescue dogs in foster care a minimum of three (3) weeks. Which, in all honesty, is probably even a short time, however many stay longer, either because of timing or that we do not feel they are ready to leave.

We will adopt our rescued pups, under the age of 6 months, in two weeks:

1) IF we see no concerns; AND
2) IF they are already altered. We will not adopt out any dog, unaltered, including pups, unless there is a written, concurred medical reason that one should not be altered before leaving us, yet they are ready in all other ways to go to their forever home. 

It is not about quantity. Getting them in the door and sending them out the door, without having the proper "tools" before starting a new life, should not be the goal (would you want to be "rescued" that way? - not me). The goal is to try and help those we can, place them well in appropriate foster homes (I am not saying boarding or temp fostering for a short time is not okay), get to know them medically and temperament wise, as much as possible and go from there with finding them a good, hopefully, great home.

Trust me, I am just about as soft as it comes when I look at all the faces that need help. I am thankful everyday, 1) I have a partner who keeps me balanced, or tries







AND a core group of rescue people that are intelligent, have huge hearts and also keep in mind what rescue should mean.

The pure definition of rescue, according to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, is actually a pretty striped down basic.."to free from confinement, danger, or evil : save, deliver : as a: to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody" So in that sense of the word, pulling a dog from a shelter and doing barebones work - is rescuing.

Main Entry: res•cue 
Pronunciation: \ˈres-(ˌ)kyü\ 
Function: transitive verb 
Inflected Form(s): res•cued; res•cu•ing 
Etymology: Middle English rescouen, rescuen, from Anglo-French rescure, from re- + escure to shake off, from Latin excutere, from ex- + quatere to shake 
Date: 14th century 
: to free from confinement, danger, or evil : save, deliver : as a: to take (as a prisoner) forcibly from custody b: to recover (as a prize) by force c: to deliver (as a place under siege) by armed force 
— res•cu•able \-ə-bəl\ adjective 
— rescue noun 
— res•cu•er noun 
synonyms rescue, deliver, redeem, ransom, reclaim, save mean to set free from confinement or danger. rescue implies freeing from imminent danger by prompt or vigorous action <rescued the crew of a sinking ship>. deliver implies release usually of a person from confinement, temptation, slavery, or suffering <delivered his people from bondage>. redeem implies releasing from bondage or penalties by giving what is demanded or necessary <job training designed to redeem school dropouts from chronic unemployment>. ransom specifically applies to buying out of captivity <tried to ransom the kidnap victim>. reclaim suggests a bringing back to a former state or condition of someone or something abandoned or debased <reclaimed long-abandoned farms>. save may replace any of the foregoing terms; it may further imply a preserving or maintaining for usefulness or continued existence <an operation that saved my life>.


This is not a rant about perfect rescues. No rescue and no rescue person is perfect. However, it would be great if all rescues had the same ideals or similar - not be in each other's business or be holier than thou, but rather know that we could all trust one another, unfortunately, that is not reality. We all must choose who we trust to work with.

Yet, we cannot forget what the goal should be...preservation of life and betterment of life, - spiritually, medically and environmentally. We owe that to each and every dog we commit to.

Wanting to save every dog is not an answer, I am not even sure if "we" could, that would even be the right answer. It just feeds into the problem, it does not fix it.

Even we as rescues, feed into the problem, save one and there is another one or two or three in his/her place needing a rescue or adopter. Whole other topic. 

I certainly don't have the answers and I believe in rescue, but there are days I bang my head, several times, against the wall when I read certain things.


----------



## ded37 (Jan 18, 2005)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

Val, good tool, but one can have its 501c3, but does that make you a great rescue? Just not sure about that. I understand it helps....


----------



## lakota757 (Apr 10, 2008)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

A wonderful well worded post Darcy!!!


----------



## WiscTiger (Sep 25, 2002)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

Darcy I was thinking more along on the lines that if groups say they are a non-profit and are not a 501(c)3. I would have issues with any group mispresentating themselves and IMHO applied for doesn't count. That just means you sent the paperwork in, doesn't mean you are approved.

I would also ask to see their adoption contract. I want to see what is spelled out there.

Val


----------



## ded37 (Jan 18, 2005)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

Understood!


----------



## lovemyShepherd (Feb 10, 2006)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

I just want to chime in? Their are groups that are designed to work with shelters.. Such as Friends of Genesse County Animal Shelter or Pound Buddies they do adoptions directly from the shelter.. They provide a wonderful way for people to adopt homeless animals. 

In My humble opinion they are also RESCUES and do a **** of a job!!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

From what I can tell, those are groups that are dedicated to promoting adoption and reducing euthanasia at that shelter. The people are adopting _from_ the shelter. That's a really different thing than a rescue that pulls dogs from a shelter, usually from far away, and then places them directly into homes without proper quarantine or evaluation - but people are adopting from the group, not the shelter. 

I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that friends of the shelter type groups are bad; totally different set up.


----------



## ded37 (Jan 18, 2005)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*



> Originally Posted By: pupresqFrom what I can tell, those are groups that are dedicated to promoting adoption and reducing euthanasia at that shelter. The people are adopting _from_ the shelter. That's a really different thing than a rescue that pulls dogs from a shelter, usually from far away, and then places them directly into homes without proper quarantine or evaluation - but people are adopting from the group, not the shelter.
> 
> I don't think anyone on this thread is saying that friends of the shelter type groups are bad; totally different set up.


Agreed!


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

*Re: Placement of rescues directly into adoptive ho*

What if a rescue is maybe pulling to many dogs?
AND then putting them in boarding with little or no support (training, health, etc) OR putting them in foster homes that are not trained or equipt to handle the "problem dogs" whether it be health or behavior related??? 

To me pulling a dog and putting it in a foster home then giving that foster little or no support...is the same as directly putting the GSD directly into adoptive home. 
If the foster does not understand what to do to prepare the dog for a forever home, then it is only adding to the dog's issues.


----------

