# Thoughts about adoption procedures?



## WIBackpacker

Hi All. 

I'm a long time reader & researcher, but haven't commented much, to date.

I'm curious as to what your thoughts are, regarding current policies and procedures for different adoption & rescue organizations. 

Our backstory: we started looking for our second shepherd about a year and a half ago, leaving all of our options open. Puppy, rescue, foster, we decided we were open minded and would look into a variety of possibilities.

Over the last year and a half, I have submitted applications to several area rescues. Some are breed (GSD) specific, some are not. In two (separate, unrelated) cases, we were turned down as an applicant for the following reasons.

1. We do not have a visibly fenced backyard. We live on a lake, and our twisty turny street has a speed limit of 15MPH. No one speeds, or even drives down our road unless they're a resident. More importantly, there is a 10' wide easement through our backyard that would make fencing logistically impossible, unless we were to divide our backyard into two pieces (ridiculous and really not practical). I did explain this, and I inquired if installing electric/invisible fence would qualify, and was turned down. I happily consented to a home visit, but they declined before this could take place.

2. We have two indoor/outdoor "shop cats" at our workplace. They are both spayed, vaccinated, and receive annual checkups as well as preventative care. I turned over access to all of our vet records, which includes our cats. This rescue did not have an issue with us *having* cats, they had an issue with us having indoor/outdoor cats.

I have been a little bit disappointed with this process. I've opened up our entire vet record history, have offered many references that include several trainers (herding, agility, and obedience). Neighbors and personal references as well. The adoption fees are not an issue. Spay/neuter contracts are not an issue. I have a gender preference, but color, coat length, etc. is not important to me. We don't have children. 

I should mention that nearly all of the volunteers that I have talked to have really seemed like kind, caring people. All but one was very polite. We were approved by a third rescue organization, but they do not currently have any dogs that would fit our home. I think we have figured out the direction we are going with our next GSD, but my questions are: 

- Are these policies common, across the country?

- Do any of you think that the indoor/outdoor cat policy is really relevant? The fence requirement is understandable in some cases, but the cat policy was a real surprise. I was a little bit offended because we invest hundreds of dollars in vet care each year, our cats are healthy and friendly and our customers love them. Our cats keep our building free of mice and other critters, and without them we would need to implement some form of trap/bait/poison, which in my opinion is MUCH riskier to resident dog(s).

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!


----------



## WateryTart

I don't really have experience with rescues but my (admittedly uninformed) opinion is that this policy is shortsighted. It's clearly value-driven, just like a policy of only adopting to homes with all resident pets altered, but it probably cuts out some good options for the animals.


----------



## wick

Hi  I actually just read an article about this issue yesterday! It is a fairly common problem that I've seen brought up multiple times online and now I read it in a health magazine (random). I don't know where you live, but it might be extra difficult in areas where there aren't as many homeless animals. We rescued Wick in California, and although it took a couple of weeks in order to answer all the questions and send pictures of our home we were approved by two different groups, which is surprising due to the fact that we travel in a RV and don't have our own yard! I think that this is because they put down thousands of dogs a month in these areas due to over population, and it's pretty desperate. Maybe try applying at one of these if your willing to travel, also the article I read recommended trying to find rescues that use open ended applications where you can explain everything, the issues that you mention do not seem to be that important... I am really surprised you were turned down! Especially since your willig to put in an electric fence. One of the rescues I was approved by (but we turned down) was called petmatchmaker.com they have an organization on both the west and east coasts if you are close to either side. Don't give up! You will find one that fits, and they are not ALL so picky, it sounds like you have a WONDERFUL a set up for a new puppy  although I know what a pain it is to fill those applications out, so I understand how annoying it must be. Do you search on petfinder.com at all? They have hundreds of different shelters and rescues and you can narrow the fields to only see certain breeds or genders and fill the app out for the particular dog you like, that's how we found the two we were interested in . Good luck!


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

What do indoor / outdoor cats have to do with fostering or adopting a dog?


----------



## wick

I couldn't find an online version of the article I read, but here's another good one about all the ridiculous hoops some adoption agencies make you go through http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...a_dog_or_cat_prepare_for_an_inquisition_.html

They are just trying to do what's best for the animals ... But sometimes it's a lot!


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

I see too many animals rot in rescues for years but not for a lack of potential adopters.

I have seen way too many animals adopted out to homes I would not trust with a pet rock while the adopting agency turned down many qualified homes.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Thanks for your responses. It's reassuring to hear that other people can see or agree with my views, and I'm not just being defensive..... 

Wick - I think we've found our next GSD, which is exciting, will know more in a week or so. I was reflecting back on the past year, which started me thinking about the entire process.... and the many foster dogs that we were not even considered for. Hopefully they all find great permanent homes. There's one dog we applied for (we were turned down due to our indoor/outdoor cats) that is still listed on Petfinder, 6 months later. It makes me sad, for the dog. I'm glad you were able to find a rescue with sensible restrictions based on your 'home'. 

MineAreWorkingLine - I agree, I don't understand how the cats are a deciding factor. I would completely understand if our vet records had revealed "skeletons in the closet" - mistreated or injured animals, animals not up to date on vaccines, etc. but that wasn't the case.


----------



## wick

I am so glad that you found one ! That is so sad for that pup you wanted  hopefully the little one is in a great foster home and not a shelter... Your new pup will have so much fun with its sibling running around chasing your indoor outdoor cats  lucky dogs !


----------



## WIBackpacker

Also - that article is really (scarily?) accurate. Thanks for sharing. Over the years we've ended up with "rescues" of all sorts, including a one-horned goat and an injured Canadian goose (permanent damage to one wing, local wildlife rescue placed it with us and now he lives with our domestic geese). We have a game farm/livestock license, DNR paperwork, you name it. I've just been blown away that it's easier for me to cold a captive wildlife license than it is to adopt a second dog.


----------



## Castlemaid

I had adopted my previous dogs from the pound, and had no idea how rescues operated. When I joined this board and heard stories like yours, I was outraged! You would think that rescues would be BEGGING me to take their dogs, but hey, I don't have a fenced yard (it's five acre!), have indoor/outdoor cats, work full time so dogs are not being entertained/exercised during the day (often they come to work with me and hang out in the car inbetween my breaks and lunch time - but I'm sure many rescues would find that an issue also), crate train, feed raw, vaccinate minimally, don't treat for heartworm (we're in NORTHERN BC!), etc, etc, etc. I never did try to go through a rescue, but was already offended because I knew I would have been turned down for all the above reasons and then some.

But then reading about some of the stories about irresponsible owners, I started to see things from the rescue point of view, and learned to not take things personally. The policies you mention above are pretty common to most rescues. While some rescues have iron-clad adoption policies, others will be more flexible and look at adopters on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## MayzieGSD

I was worried about this because I had heard stories like this before but my one and only attempt to adopt from a rescue went great. I don't have a fenced yard and I answered that question honestly and it was not a problem. 

Are you in Wisconsin? (guessing from your username)


----------



## misslesleedavis1

Yes these things are common- 

I've fostered and have worked closely with rescue before,
Why are they common?
They don't want the dog escaping off your property and "electric fences" are for the most part deemed cruel with alot of rescue folks.
No fence/no good for alot of rescue- also depends on who you get, I have approved homes before with no fence because the adopters were super solid, nice people and I knew Roxy would love to live her life in a horse farm, and yes I pushed the rescue into it, my foster dog, my gas money, my time spent with her, my home used by her, my choice were she went. She's happily been there for over 2 years now.

The other issue with the cats, sometimes rescue dogs will not be good with cats or have just not had the initial assessment done to see if there good with cats. As we all know some dogs will kill a cat, this doesn't mean that a dog with proper management can't due just fine, this just means they don't want the dog to hurt the cat and end up right back in the rescue again.

Is this fair ?
No. Again it depends on who you get to intake you and do your initial visit.
One size does not fit all and I can guarantee you their have been good fits for dogs over looked simply by some minor fault. 

Sounds though like you may of found the one!!
Good !!


----------



## Magwart

OP, I'm sorry you've had a bad experience. Here's my perspective as a breed rescuer:

Your application would fall into a "board approval needed" category for a lot of rescues because of multiple things going on--outdoor cats, no fence. 

Please keep in mind people who rescue pull dogs out of situations that are the worst-of-the-worst. We live with the wreckage of irresponsible pet ownership on a daily basis. That makes us very cautious about where we put our dogs in the future -- we get a big pile of shady applications (I got several this week looking for "yard dogs," including one who wants a dog on a chain). People lie to us a lot when they figure out we don't place dogs in those situations. Peruse old threads here, and you'll even find people on this forum coaching adopters to lie to rescues! So when you have other animals that live outdoors, it sends up a red flag that you _actually _might intend to keep your new dog outdoors too. Addressing that worry by sharing photos of previous dogs living inside is a big help in this regard -- some adopters have made their Facebook pics public long enough for us to see their lifetime gallery of pics of a dog that grew old with them to help us understand how their last dog lived. That's a _huge _help when there's something like this in an application.

Every rescue has different adoption policies. Find a rescue to support whose philosophy meshes with yours, and if they don't have a dog you want right now, ask them to find a dog that matches what you want. We do that all the time here -- it's very common for me to have a good application, but not the right dog, so when I'm out doing intake around the state at public high-kill shelters, I'm on the look out for a dog for that adopter. If they're patient with us, I can often find them EXACTLY what they're looking for within a couple of months.

Our rescue HAS put dogs in unfenced homes -- something other rescues don't do (for reasons I very much respect). We've also turned down people in those same circumstances, where we didn't have a good feeling. You need a great app to get a dog from me with an unfenced home, but we've done it many times. 

Personally, I don't care much about cats as long as we have a dog fostered with cats who we know likes them so the cats will be safe. OTOH, people I rescue with wouldn't be as understanding by outdoor cats because they've also rescued cats, and lots of outdoor cats get run over and eaten by coyotes. So we'd have a board discussion about it, and consider the condition of the cats on the home check, as long as we really believed you would have a house-dog.

For us, plans to use an e-fence would be a problem: I'm in shelters every single week, and I see MANY, MANY GSDs and other breeds wearing e-fence collars who are picked up stray. The evidence that e-fences don't work reliably enough to be a sole method of containment is right in front of me in the shelters. I see it constantly. Plans to use an e-fence generally results in a denial in our rescue. I know of situations where a dog with prey drive would take the shock, keep on chasing a squirrel, then could not get back home because of fear of another shock. Those fences are thus "no bueno" as far as I'm concerned. Do they work for some people on this board who've properly trained dogs to respect them? Sure. Am I willing to risk my foster dog's life that they'll work for you? Nope.

Contrast with with a different situation: if you had a history of training dogs to be under voice command (trainer reference, or even utility or other titles, etc.) with no plan to rely on an e-fence, that counts for a lot with me. A good trainer reference and training history could get you a dog from me without ANY fence, if you never turn the dog loose to wander unattended. While I tend to see e-fences as unreliable because of what I see in shelters, I feel okay with someone who is instead dedicated to good training, who never leaves dogs outside unattended. The key would be that I can verify your training history, and you have never had a dog hit by a car or drown in the lake (yes, we'll ask the vet). A history of safety in dog ownership and a good trainer and vet reference goes a LONG way with me. (In fact, we placed a gorgeous young, sable GSD with people who had lake-front property recently!)

Other rescues operate differently. We all do the best we can for the dogs. Remember, please, that we are the ones who have to live with the consequences of adoption mistakes -- if we call in a year to check on the dog and hear it got hit by a car, we will have failed the dog by putting it in an unfenced home. Those mistakes are guilt-inducing and emotionally very painful for everyone in the rescue, and they stay with people for a long, long time. They tend to cause people to burn out and stop rescuing. All of us thus try to get to as much certainty as we can about the quality of the placement, and we all draw the line in terms of where that certainty lies in different places. When people bash us on this board for being too strict, they tend to be people who don't understand what those mistakes mean, or how they impact us, because they've never rescued a dog, never seen the effects of an adoption-gone-bad, or invested their heart in rehabilitating a foster dog you want to see be loved and safe.

Lucia, we just put a dog in a raw-fed home! There, too, as long as the person knows what they're doing, I'd far rather see that than Beneful on an application.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Mayzie - Yes! Wisconsin. Though we have no reservations about traveling for a good match.

Magwart - I really appreciate your response. I didn't in any way mean to criticize volunteers who spend their own resources and time finding the best homes they can. I can only imagine some of the nightmares that occur. 

I've never used an electric fence, and have always relied on supervision and training. I share many of the same reservations you do. I thought I would offer it up as a possibility, since our yard (due to the lake and easement) is not easily "fencible".

I will definitely take your suggestion and open up my Facebook albums for public viewing. We have dozens (hundreds) of pictures of our GSD as she's grown up.... sleeping contentedly in the house, herding & agility lessons (off leash and under control), traveling across the country with us, and leaping off the dock with our neighbor's labs.  Thanks again for your thoughts.


----------



## Stonevintage

I wanted to rescue. Had my name in with 5 different agencies. 3rd time GSD owner. Total shortage of GSD's in my area. One place over state line that had one GSD come in, I couldn't qualify for because I have one stretch of fence that is 5.5 feet and not 6 feet. They were totally inflexible. So I bought mine.


----------



## wick

The thing is I totally understand why they do it, and I probably would be like that too if I was in charge if choosing but this ^^^ (wonderful people buying bc the system isn't working) is a hard pill to swallow when millions of dogs are being put down . Hopefully soon the application and screening process allows for a way to recognize that even if there are things that might be an issue with some owners aren't with others. 

Everyone on here is so incredibly devoted to making their dogs as happy as possible, it's truly incredible to read how much we all care about our pooches and to see that such deserving people missed a chance at saving 2 lives (the one chosen and the dog the rescue made room for) is just such a bummer!

But like I said I see completely where they are coming from and understand the logic, it must be a really hard job trying to decipher the good from the "unfit".


----------



## Stonevintage

I think it should be on a case by case basis. Sometimes I think the "boards" or group who forms the rescue association gets too far removed from the actual adoption process and conversation with the potential adopter. There's more to a good fit than what appears on a form.


----------



## misslesleedavis1

Lots of rescues around me have shut down
They spend alot of time attacking each other, vicious emails, slander, it's got to be some of the most dramatic material going.
I can't speak for rescues out of my area- maybe they got something good going on, I like to look and support rescues that have been around for a while and have stayed true to themselves and the dogs and are not the usual suspects in some online slander fest.
It's almost as hard to find a rescue that you truly want to support and are on the same page with as it is to find that perfect pup you want to adopt.


----------



## MayzieGSD

WIBackpacker said:


> Mayzie - Yes! Wisconsin. Though we have no reservations about traveling for a good match.


Check your PMs. I msged you about the rescue I worked with to get Bruno.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Mayzie - I got your PM, thank you! I need to post a few more times (to hit the 15 post mark) before I can PM you back, but I appreciate it. That isn't a group that I have reached out to yet, but they're not far from me geographically. Much appreciated.

Mislesleedavis, that is really such a shame. Several years back, an adoption organization near us had a person join the board who was very polarizing, many long time sponsors were turned off, and sent their money elsewhere. That person insisted on throwing elaborate gala events where much of the $$ went to fine dining and publicity, instead of fundraising for animal welfare, among other things. It reached a point where the annual event became a formal "black tie" affair. Neither my husband nor I own a nice enough wardrobe to feel comfortable at that that type of event, so we stopped attending. Instead we donate cleaning products a few times per year. The organization is, by all accounts, doing well, so in the end I suppose it's a success for the animals. Which is good.

We left (and continue to keep) our minds open, puppy or adoption, and I'm sure that we will find the right one for us. Best of wishes to everyone else who is in a similar situation.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Stonevintage said:


> I couldn't qualify for because I have one stretch of fence that is 5.5 feet and not 6 feet. They were totally inflexible. So I bought mine.


Wow.... that's really, very strict.


----------



## SkoobyDoo

Stonevintage said:


> I wanted to rescue. Had my name in with 5 different agencies. 3rd time GSD owner. Total shortage of GSD's in my area. One place over state line that had one GSD come in, I couldn't qualify for because I have one stretch of fence that is 5.5 feet and not 6 feet. They were totally inflexible. *So I bought mine.*


But in order to do so, you visited a backyard breeder and (I don't think) came away with even health guarantees or parents with OFA ratings?

I think rescues do that because perhaps the dog you were applying for is a fence jumper?
An apartment dweller may be good for one dog but not for another, too much barking? 
Or too active and actually does need to burn off energy all day?


----------



## Palydyn

In my limited experience I found ASPCA or municipal run shelters were much more accommodating to potential adopters than breed specific rescues. Last year I looked into rescue. One was very nice, but the dog I was interested in needed to be an only dog. The other wanted my tax records to prove I could afford to adopt a dog. No way. I felt bad for the dog I wanted to adopt - he would have had a great life, but I ended up getting a puppy from a breeder.


----------



## SkoobyDoo

THIS POST NEEDS TO BE A STICKY!! 




Magwart said:


> OP, I'm sorry you've had a bad experience. Here's my perspective as a breed rescuer:
> 
> Your application would fall into a "board approval needed" category for a lot of rescues because of multiple things going on--outdoor cats, no fence.
> 
> Please keep in mind people who rescue pull dogs out of situations that are the worst-of-the-worst. We live with the wreckage of irresponsible pet ownership on a daily basis. That makes us very cautious about where we put our dogs in the future -- we get a big pile of shady applications (I got several this week looking for "yard dogs," including one who wants a dog on a chain). People lie to us a lot when they figure out we don't place dogs in those situations. Peruse old threads here, and you'll even find people on this forum coaching adopters to lie to rescues! So when you have other animals that live outdoors, it sends up a red flag that you _actually _might intend to keep your new dog outdoors too. Addressing that worry by sharing photos of previous dogs living inside is a big help in this regard -- some adopters have made their Facebook pics public long enough for us to see their lifetime gallery of pics of a dog that grew old with them to help us understand how their last dog lived. That's a _huge _help when there's something like this in an application.
> 
> Every rescue has different adoption policies. Find a rescue to support whose philosophy meshes with yours, and if they don't have a dog you want right now, ask them to find a dog that matches what you want. We do that all the time here -- it's very common for me to have a good application, but not the right dog, so when I'm out doing intake around the state at public high-kill shelters, I'm on the look out for a dog for that adopter. If they're patient with us, I can often find them EXACTLY what they're looking for within a couple of months.
> 
> Our rescue HAS put dogs in unfenced homes -- something other rescues don't do (for reasons I very much respect). We've also turned down people in those same circumstances, where we didn't have a good feeling. You need a great app to get a dog from me with an unfenced home, but we've done it many times.
> 
> Personally, I don't care much about cats as long as we have a dog fostered with cats who we know likes them so the cats will be safe. OTOH, people I rescue with wouldn't be as understanding by outdoor cats because they've also rescued cats, and lots of outdoor cats get run over and eaten by coyotes. So we'd have a board discussion about it, and consider the condition of the cats on the home check, as long as we really believed you would have a house-dog.
> 
> For us, plans to use an e-fence would be a problem: I'm in shelters every single week, and I see MANY, MANY GSDs and other breeds wearing e-fence collars who are picked up stray. The evidence that e-fences don't work reliably enough to be a sole method of containment is right in front of me in the shelters. I see it constantly. Plans to use an e-fence generally results in a denial in our rescue. I know of situations where a dog with prey drive would take the shock, keep on chasing a squirrel, then could not get back home because of fear of another shock. Those fences are thus "no bueno" as far as I'm concerned. Do they work for some people on this board who've properly trained dogs to respect them? Sure. Am I willing to risk my foster dog's life that they'll work for you? Nope.
> 
> Contrast with with a different situation: if you had a history of training dogs to be under voice command (trainer reference, or even utility or other titles, etc.) with no plan to rely on an e-fence, that counts for a lot with me. A good trainer reference and training history could get you a dog from me without ANY fence, if you never turn the dog loose to wander unattended. While I tend to see e-fences as unreliable because of what I see in shelters, I feel okay with someone who is instead dedicated to good training, who never leaves dogs outside unattended. The key would be that I can verify your training history, and you have never had a dog hit by a car or drown in the lake (yes, we'll ask the vet). A history of safety in dog ownership and a good trainer and vet reference goes a LONG way with me. (In fact, we placed a gorgeous young, sable GSD with people who had lake-front property recently!)
> 
> Other rescues operate differently. We all do the best we can for the dogs. Remember, please, that we are the ones who have to live with the consequences of adoption mistakes -- if we call in a year to check on the dog and hear it got hit by a car, we will have failed the dog by putting it in an unfenced home. Those mistakes are guilt-inducing and emotionally very painful for everyone in the rescue, and they stay with people for a long, long time. They tend to cause people to burn out and stop rescuing. All of us thus try to get to as much certainty as we can about the quality of the placement, and we all draw the line in terms of where that certainty lies in different places. When people bash us on this board for being too strict, they tend to be people who don't understand what those mistakes mean, or how they impact us, because they've never rescued a dog, never seen the effects of an adoption-gone-bad, or invested their heart in rehabilitating a foster dog you want to see be loved and safe.
> 
> Lucia, we just put a dog in a raw-fed home! There, too, as long as the person knows what they're doing, I'd far rather see that than Beneful on an application.





wick said:


> The thing is I totally understand why they do it, and I probably would be like that too if I was in charge if choosing but this ^^^ (wonderful people buying bc the system isn't working) is a hard pill to swallow when millions of dogs are being put down


Believe it or not, there's actually worse things out there than euthanasia for a pet, and a bad and unsuccessful or even dangerous placement is one of those things, sadly enough! 
Someone who turns their dogs out to run the countryside is not a good match and the adopted dog may wind up killing something, biting someone or being ran over and dying a slow painful death alongside the road somewhere. I think those things are on shelters minds, after all, they usually rescued the dog from that type situation to begin with!


----------



## CDR Shep Mama

Oh the rescue group pains! At least they responded to you, there is a very popular german shepherd rescue group that operates close to me, I wrote them twice in emails, once in facebook message and reached out multiple times in there posts and never once recieve a message back, they completely blew us off (we waited almost two months until I stopped checking for a response). Oh and couldn't call them because they only give out phone numbers to coodinators once you've been accepted.

We did end up finding Commander at an animal control facility a state away weeks later so it was for the best we didn't hear back, but oh do I know the frustration!

Wish you the best of luck finding your match!


----------



## Stonevintage

SkoobyDoo said:


> But in order to do so, you visited a backyard breeder and (I don't think) came away with even health guarantees or parents with OFA ratings?
> 
> I think rescues do that because perhaps the dog you were applying for is a fence jumper?


They didn't say I could not adopt the dog because he was a fence jumper. But, that's not really the point of your post is it?

I explained why I did what I did in my post of several weeks ago. It is not something you need to point out to me. But thanks for bringing the pain back.... that's all you accomplished.


----------



## wick

SkoobyDoo said:


> THIS POST NEEDS TO BE A STICKY!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magwart said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP, I'm sorry you've had a bad experience. Here's my perspective as a breed rescuer:
> 
> Your application would fall into a "board approval needed" category for a lot of rescues because of multiple things going on--outdoor cats, no fence.
> 
> Please keep in mind people who rescue pull dogs out of situations that are the worst-of-the-worst. We live with the wreckage of irresponsible pet ownership on a daily basis. That makes us very cautious about where we put our dogs in the future -- we get a big pile of shady applications (I got several this week looking for "yard dogs," including one who wants a dog on a chain). People lie to us a lot when they figure out we don't place dogs in those situations. Peruse old threads here, and you'll even find people on this forum coaching adopters to lie to rescues! So when you have other animals that live outdoors, it sends up a red flag that you _actually _might intend to keep your new dog outdoors too. Addressing that worry by sharing photos of previous dogs living inside is a big help in this regard -- some adopters have made their Facebook pics public long enough for us to see their lifetime gallery of pics of a dog that grew old with them to help us understand how their last dog lived. That's a _huge _help when there's something like this in an application.
> 
> Every rescue has different adoption policies. Find a rescue to support whose philosophy meshes with yours, and if they don't have a dog you want right now, ask them to find a dog that matches what you want. We do that all the time here -- it's very common for me to have a good application, but not the right dog, so when I'm out doing intake around the state at public high-kill shelters, I'm on the look out for a dog for that adopter. If they're patient with us, I can often find them EXACTLY what they're looking for within a couple of months.
> 
> Our rescue HAS put dogs in unfenced homes -- something other rescues don't do (for reasons I very much respect). We've also turned down people in those same circumstances, where we didn't have a good feeling. You need a great app to get a dog from me with an unfenced home, but we've done it many times.
> 
> Personally, I don't care much about cats as long as we have a dog fostered with cats who we know likes them so the cats will be safe. OTOH, people I rescue with wouldn't be as understanding by outdoor cats because they've also rescued cats, and lots of outdoor cats get run over and eaten by coyotes. So we'd have a board discussion about it, and consider the condition of the cats on the home check, as long as we really believed you would have a house-dog.
> 
> For us, plans to use an e-fence would be a problem: I'm in shelters every single week, and I see MANY, MANY GSDs and other breeds wearing e-fence collars who are picked up stray. The evidence that e-fences don't work reliably enough to be a sole method of containment is right in front of me in the shelters. I see it constantly. Plans to use an e-fence generally results in a denial in our rescue. I know of situations where a dog with prey drive would take the shock, keep on chasing a squirrel, then could not get back home because of fear of another shock. Those fences are thus "no bueno" as far as I'm concerned. Do they work for some people on this board who've properly trained dogs to respect them? Sure. Am I willing to risk my foster dog's life that they'll work for you? Nope.
> 
> Contrast with with a different situation: if you had a history of training dogs to be under voice command (trainer reference, or even utility or other titles, etc.) with no plan to rely on an e-fence, that counts for a lot with me. A good trainer reference and training history could get you a dog from me without ANY fence, if you never turn the dog loose to wander unattended. While I tend to see e-fences as unreliable because of what I see in shelters, I feel okay with someone who is instead dedicated to good training, who never leaves dogs outside unattended. The key would be that I can verify your training history, and you have never had a dog hit by a car or drown in the lake (yes, we'll ask the vet). A history of safety in dog ownership and a good trainer and vet reference goes a LONG way with me. (In fact, we placed a gorgeous young, sable GSD with people who had lake-front property recently!)
> 
> Other rescues operate differently. We all do the best we can for the dogs. Remember, please, that we are the ones who have to live with the consequences of adoption mistakes -- if we call in a year to check on the dog and hear it got hit by a car, we will have failed the dog by putting it in an unfenced home. Those mistakes are guilt-inducing and emotionally very painful for everyone in the rescue, and they stay with people for a long, long time. They tend to cause people to burn out and stop rescuing. All of us thus try to get to as much certainty as we can about the quality of the placement, and we all draw the line in terms of where that certainty lies in different places. When people bash us on this board for being too strict, they tend to be people who don't understand what those mistakes mean, or how they impact us, because they've never rescued a dog, never seen the effects of an adoption-gone-bad, or invested their heart in rehabilitating a foster dog you want to see be loved and safe.
> 
> Lucia, we just put a dog in a raw-fed home! There, too, as long as the person knows what they're doing, I'd far rather see that than Beneful on an application.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wick said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is I totally understand why they do it, and I probably would be like that too if I was in charge if choosing but this ^^^ (wonderful people buying bc the system isn't working) is a hard pill to swallow when millions of dogs are being put down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Believe it or not, there's actually worse things out there than euthanasia for a pet, and a bad and unsuccessful or even dangerous placement is one of those things, sadly enough!
> Someone who turns their dogs out to run the countryside is not a good match and the adopted dog may wind up killing something, biting someone or being ran over and dying a slow painful death alongside the road somewhere. I think those things are on shelters minds, after all, they usually rescued the dog from that type situation to begin with!
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I said I understood why they do it and that I would be strict as well... but I don't think these individuals are bad owners posting on here... They clearly are very invested in their dogs and would have been wonderful rescuers. I am saying that there are many times wonderful people get looked over for specific reasons and I just wish there was a way to avoid that. A great example is that many rescues would not adopt to a family without their own yard living in an rv (such as myself) however Wick lives a life of hikes, swims, walks, playing, and training ...everyday ... All day... I'm a 25 year old Healthy active female that travels in a rv as a stay at home gf... If they had merely looked at the simple run of the mill questions to choose a spot for wick he would have missed out on a lot of attention and exercise! 

What im trying to say is that keeping the "conversation" between adopters and the rescues open ended could help determine whose fit and who isn't.


----------



## Girl_Loves_Hydraulics

I just think its sad that you have to go through this long drawn out process for a pet, but I can do pop out a kid and no one is checking my background for that (unless you have had prior run ins with CPS then that's something else).

I thankfully know a few people in rescue, so it hasn't been a huge deal as of late. But before those relationships, I was very discouraged with rescue. I think there's a lot of inside politics and such going on sometimes. I actually recently stopped donating to a rescue after I had sent a couple of good personal friends there that wanted to adopt. They were treated automatically with suspicion and were not very welcoming. I told them obviously I need to stop donating because I'm not going to keep donating to an organization that seems unwilling to work with people. They had only adopted out 5 ANIMALS LAST YEAR. They had over 50 at their facility. I like the rescue I work with now, as they are more people friendly and actually WANT to get the animals out of there. There has to be a balance somewhere, it should not be so one sided.


----------



## middleofnowhere

Rescues use their resources (volunteers, time, funds etc) on an animal. They have the right to determine where they will place an animal.

Dogs get hit by cars, get into altercations with neighbors, kill livestock. Dogs see a cat indoors as different from a cat outdoors and may regard the outdoor cat as prey. Outdoor cats kill birds, crap in neighbor's flowerbeds etc. 

This particular case may have been fine or may be not. I'm not running the rescue, it is not for me to say.


----------



## wick

middleofnowhere said:


> Rescues use their resources (volunteers, time, funds etc) on an animal. They have the right to determine where they will place an animal.
> 
> Dogs get hit by cars, get into altercations with neighbors, kill livestock. Dogs see a cat indoors as different from a cat outdoors and may regard the outdoor cat as prey. Outdoor cats kill birds, crap in neighbor's flowerbeds etc.
> 
> This particular case may have been fine or may be not. I'm not running the rescue, it is not for me to say.


Those are all really good points!


----------



## SkoobyDoo

Stonevintage said:


> They didn't say I could not adopt the dog because he was a fence jumper. But, that's not really the point of your post is it?
> 
> I explained why I did what I did in my post of several weeks ago. It is not something you need to point out to me. But thanks for bringing the pain back.... that's all you accomplished.


I am sorry 

No, my point is that when people get rejected by rescues they rush to a BYB, because they often wanted to rescue because a wellbred dog costs too much and honestly people don't want to pay that much for a dog that'll be just a pet.
I get that and do not think that's a bad reason for wanting to rescue or adopt!


> What im trying to say is that keeping the "conversation" between adopters and the rescues open ended could help determine whose fit and who isn't.


I agree! 
Ask plenty of questions if things are up in the air with the rescue!


----------



## misslesleedavis1

Scooby-Doo 
I plan on throwing down 1500 for my next dog, plus shipping.
I don't mind spending and I am done with rescue dogs  
Not in a bad way but I'm just looking forward to going the breeder route!


----------



## WIBackpacker

misslesleedavis1 said:


> Scooby-Doo
> I plan on throwing down 1500 for my next dog, plus shipping.
> I don't mind spending and I am done with rescue dogs
> Not in a bad way but I'm just looking forward to going the breeder route!


^ This is a very good point. The cost (whether it's an adoption fee or the purchase price of a puppy) is not the issue for me, either.


----------



## SkoobyDoo

misslesleedavis1 said:


> Scooby-Doo
> I plan on throwing down 1500 for my next dog, plus shipping.
> I don't mind spending and I am done with rescue dogs
> Not in a bad way but I'm just looking forward to going the breeder route!


That's nice and a rarity, despite that many on here feel the same way, most people in "the real world" don't.
That's been my experience anyway!
There is nothing wrong with that, either, people want to rescue and will 
But don't forget the fact many of us (yes me included!) just don't want to spend 2k on a puppy, or at least not right now, but they want a dog!


----------



## MayzieGSD

WIBackpacker said:


> ^ This is a very good point. The cost (whether it's an adoption fee or the purchase price of a puppy) is not the issue for me, either.


For me, I just didn't want a puppy. I've gone the puppy route and wanted an adult dog this time. I would have been just as happy getting one on craigslist (in fact I looked at two of them) but ended up going with the rescue GSD because he was the best fit. 

I don't care about price. I would have paid a lot more than I paid the rescue (in fact we made a donation to them after adopting because I knew that the price we paid didn't come near what they had put into his care).


----------



## misslesleedavis1

WIBackpacker said:


> ^ This is a very good point. The cost (whether it's an adoption fee or the purchase price of a puppy) is not the issue for me, either.


I've got 2 rescues. Ones a GSD mix off the streets of Quebec, she came with issues that have taken up 2 years to work with them. Very dog aggressive we had a moment were she lit into a terrier and thankfully she didn't kill him but we gladly paid the 2000.00 vet bill, this was our fault off course (one moment lacked management on our half) she's not a bad dog now though. Very people friendly, trustworthy, amazing with kids and now she is not going after dogs, has some skin issues and she has spay incontinence.
The male I have is my baby, lover, cutie pie and mommies boy- 
He's a nervous wreck who hates kids and I can't trust him - never had an incident and he's extremely healthy. He was scooped up from a pound by us for a rescue but we just adopted him.
My BC from my breeder,
No health issues, no temperment issues extremely smart enjoyable dog.
All together I've paid 1200 for the dogs, my suggestion to you is if you do rescue request a trial period and talk to the foster parents!! It's so important to communicate with foster parents.
Also, rescue is a great route! It's selfless and wonderful but don't fall into the trap of "rescue is the only answer " because it's not, lots of wonderful breeders out there


----------



## WIBackpacker

misslesleedavis1 said:


> Also, rescue is a great route! It's selfless and wonderful but don't fall into the trap of "rescue is the only answer " because it's not, lots of wonderful breeders out there


You summed up some of my personal thoughts very nicely. 

I grew up with a shepherd mix, adopted from the humane society, that was picked up as a stray. Zero known about her history, and it took years to get over her fear of bearded men and baseball bats (or anything remotely resembling such). Our woodstove pipe rusted through one night, and she woke the entire family up as the house was silently filling with smoke. She's the reason I love shepherds and can't imagine life without one. Lived a wonderful 13+ years.

My current GSD, now 6, was obtained, after months of conversation and visits, from a breeder. I love her, we've done many things together, she is wonderful.

Which is why, for our second dog, we might get a puppy, or we might adopt. It's not a question of cost (within reason, of course). This is interesting, hearing everyone's experiences and opinions, several very good points. I do know that when we find the right dog we will be very happy.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline

"Still, representatives from the Animal Rescue League are disappointed.
They say prospective adoptive families go through an extensive application process to be sure the animals are going to a home where they will be well cared for."

Resale Of Adopted Yorkie Worries Animal Rescue League « CBS Pittsburgh

Seems that their extensive application process screens all the wrong things. 

Some of my first questions would be do you have a dog? Why not? Have you ever owned a dog? Why not?

Or maybe it is their interpretation of the answers that are flawed.


----------



## WateryTart

Okay so this might be just me overthinking, because I realize that it's driven by a value (belief in the importance of alteration to help keep overpopulation down). But I was reading the website of a rescue a friend is working with to adopt a dog, and I was struck by the lack of logic.

so this rescue, as many rescues do, requires that ALL pets in the home be spayed or neutered before a prospective family can adopt. Pretty standard.

But to me it just doesn't make any sense. I have an intact female. Let's say I wanted to rescue a second dog. I do not have any intention of breeding, but my female is intact. They would not allow me to adopt because of this. Never mind that their dog would come to me already altered so even if I wanted to have a litter of puppies with my intact dog and my rescue dog, I couldn't. Never mind that my dog will go on being intact (or not) regardless of their rule. The net effect is that my home is not an option for some dog in need, even though that dog would not be contributing in any way to any litters (wanted or unwanted). 

So if the goal is truly to get dogs who need homes into homes, and there's a shortage of homes, why does the alteration status of the incumbents actually matter? Is there ANY rationale for this that isn't value-driven? I get that principles matter to people, but from a purely practical standpoint, it just seems so illogical.


----------



## middleofnowhere

Well, they do have their "values" and that includes having reliably curtailed reproduction... If they pass you on this, they'll be hard pressed to enforce it with other applicants. There are other dogs in need of a home besides the ones in that rescue. So perhaps that particular dog doesn't get a home with you but that's not to say he won't with someone else and that's not to say that you will not provide a home for another dog that needs one. It's unfortunate for dogs but there is no shortage nationwide of dogs needing homes (maybe in some areas but not overall.)


----------



## WateryTart

middleofnowhere said:


> Well, they do have their "values" and that includes having reliably curtailed reproduction... If they pass you on this, they'll be hard pressed to enforce it with other applicants. There are other dogs in need of a home besides the ones in that rescue. So perhaps that particular dog doesn't get a home with you but that's not to say he won't with someone else and that's not to say that you will not provide a home for another dog that needs one. It's unfortunate for dogs but there is no shortage nationwide of dogs needing homes (maybe in some areas but not overall.)


Oh, absolutely the rules are the rules and I understand you open yourself up to a giant hassle if you bend them for one person and not another.

I was just using myself as an example of the general case - I intend to continue to buy breeder puppies for all of my future canine needs. No rescue. So I don't really care that much, it was just a point of curiosity.

It just seems like there is no reason for having that rule in the first place other than the value. And again, it's their prerogative to have said rule for that reason and no other - but I'm not seeing another reason.

It just seems so illogical if the actual goal is to find homes for every dog, because I bet there are plenty of people who have carefully managed intact dogs that are not being bred, and perhaps many of these people would be open to rescue. The rescue dog wouldn't be contributing to any overpopulation because it would go out to its new home already fixed. So what would be the problem? From a birth control standpoint, there IS none; the dog is fixed. The only issue I can see is that the rescue does not want to do business with someone who doesn't share their values regarding spay/neuter.

And again, that's fair, but it seems very illogical to me if the idea is to get as many dogs as possible into reasonably good homes. Maybe that's not the ultimate goal after all.


----------



## LARHAGE

I think the rationale is that by not spaying your dog you are in fact an irresponsible dog owner, at least that's what I was told many moons ago when I tried to rescue. I was turned down on almost every category, so therefore I am the worst of the worst. :O


----------



## misslesleedavis1

LARHAGE said:


> I think the rationale is that by not spaying your dog you are in fact an irresponsible dog owner, at least that's what I was told many moons ago when I tried to rescue. I was turned down on almost every category, so therefore I am the worst of the worst. :O


I've heard this-
Alot by everyday owners. You are irresponsible if you don't fix your pet, but lots of things can make you an irresponsible owner, I know many wonderful owners that don't fix their dogs.


----------



## Anubis_Star

I think most rescued have REDICULOUS policies. we were just talking about it at schutzhund club yesterday - they'll turn down applicants for any little thing but then dogs will sit in shelters for YEARS.

I think they need to be able to see common sense. If not, screw them.

There were numerous things on the application that I did not qualify for when I adopted my little pom from a puppy mill rescue. For example, all pets in the house must be neutered. Berlin is not. I explained my reasons and they were 100% ok with it


----------



## martemchik

It has nothing to do with assuming that every person is irresponsible. It has more to do with the fact that it's a numbers game...

For every 10 dogs you adopt intact, one of those people will make a mistake or will breed the dog on purpose. That produces 10 puppies. So out of 100, 10 breed, and 10 produce puppies. The statistics show that there are plenty of people out there that aren't that responsible, so even if the minority breeds the dogs (after promising they won't), you're still going to end up with a lot of puppies.

I find it interesting that people feel open to attacking a rescue's or a person's personal feeling about the necessity to spay or neuter, yet they will stand steadfast in their belief of the opposite. Truthfully, if you turn down a perfectly good dog, just because you don't want to neuter it, and you have no breeding plans anyways, you're making just as bad of a value based decision as the rescue who requires the neuter...it's just that on this forum, keeping the animals intact is a much more accepted way to go, and most people will agree with you and your value over the rescue. Go on a rescue forum, post the same stance, and watch yourself get ripped apart by the other 50% that believe in the opposite view point.


----------



## WateryTart

martemchik said:


> It has nothing to do with assuming that every person is irresponsible. It has more to do with the fact that it's a numbers game...
> 
> For every 10 dogs you adopt intact, one of those people will make a mistake or will breed the dog on purpose. That produces 10 puppies. So out of 100, 10 breed, and 10 produce puppies. The statistics show that there are plenty of people out there that aren't that responsible, so even if the minority breeds the dogs (after promising they won't), you're still going to end up with a lot of puppies.
> 
> I find it interesting that people feel open to attacking a rescue's or a person's personal feeling about the necessity to spay or neuter, yet they will stand steadfast in their belief of the opposite. Truthfully, if you turn down a perfectly good dog, just because you don't want to neuter it, and you have no breeding plans anyways, you're making just as bad of a value based decision as the rescue who requires the neuter...it's just that on this forum, keeping the animals intact is a much more accepted way to go, and most people will agree with you and your value over the rescue. Go on a rescue forum, post the same stance, and watch yourself get ripped apart by the other 50% that believe in the opposite view point.


I think that's completely fair, and I would like to make clear that while I think it doesn't make any sense (to me), I understand it's their right to do things that way and I wouldn't try to change it. In my mind, it doesn't make any sense when taken in combination with their supposed goal - but what I didn't say explicitly is that it also doesn't have to.

I don't think it's bad or wrong. I just don't think it's exactly logically sound. It might not be logically sound to do things the opposite way either. It's all in the hypothetical for me anyway.


----------



## SkoobyDoo

martemchik said:


> It has nothing to do with assuming that every person is irresponsible. It has more to do with the fact that it's a numbers game...
> 
> For every 10 dogs you adopt intact, one of those people will make a mistake or will breed the dog on purpose. That produces 10 puppies. So out of 100, 10 breed, and 10 produce puppies. The statistics show that there are plenty of people out there that aren't that responsible, so even if the minority breeds the dogs (after promising they won't), you're still going to end up with a lot of puppies.
> 
> I find it interesting that people feel open to attacking a rescue's or a person's personal feeling about the necessity to spay or neuter, yet they will stand steadfast in their belief of the opposite. Truthfully, if you turn down a perfectly good dog, just because you don't want to neuter it, and you have no breeding plans anyways, you're making just as bad of a value based decision as the rescue who requires the neuter...it's just that on this forum, keeping the animals intact is a much more accepted way to go, and most people will agree with you and your value over the rescue. Go on a rescue forum, post the same stance, and watch yourself get ripped apart by the other 50% that believe in the opposite view point.


Great post and great perspective!


----------



## WateryTart

martemchik said:


> It has nothing to do with assuming that every person is irresponsible. It has more to do with the fact that it's a numbers game...
> 
> For every 10 dogs you adopt intact, one of those people will make a mistake or will breed the dog on purpose. That produces 10 puppies. So out of 100, 10 breed, and 10 produce puppies. The statistics show that there are plenty of people out there that aren't that responsible, so even if the minority breeds the dogs (after promising they won't), you're still going to end up with a lot of puppies.
> 
> I find it interesting that people feel open to attacking a rescue's or a person's personal feeling about the necessity to spay or neuter, yet they will stand steadfast in their belief of the opposite. Truthfully, if you turn down a perfectly good dog, just because you don't want to neuter it, and you have no breeding plans anyways, you're making just as bad of a value based decision as the rescue who requires the neuter...it's just that on this forum, keeping the animals intact is a much more accepted way to go, and most people will agree with you and your value over the rescue. Go on a rescue forum, post the same stance, and watch yourself get ripped apart by the other 50% that believe in the opposite view point.


Wait a second. Because I can't read, apparently!

I do think your point about the value-based decisions having two sides is totally fair.

But the entire premise of what I was saying was based on the rescue dog being altered before it left the rescue (which as far as I can tell around here, that's the case: no adult dogs leave rescue unaltered).

So let's say that Lizzy has a puppy "Janie," who is intact. Let's pretend she also wants to adopt "Charlie." Charlie is neutered already and is ready to go as soon as he finds a home. "Meryton K9 Rescue" does not allow dogs out the door who aren't fixed, nor do they adopt out to homes with any intact dogs.

Charlie is neutered, so even if Lizzy WANTED to breed him to Janie, she couldn't. Janie might remain intact regardless of whether Charlie goes home with Lizzy, so this refusal may not induce Lizzy to spay her just to get Charlie. And Charlie isn't going to contribute to any litters of puppies regardless of whether he goes home with Lizzy, because he's fixed. The net number of future dogs in the world resulting from all of the Charlies is exactly the same - zero - because they all leave Meryton already fixed. 

So I can't think of a logical reason why they would refuse to put a neutered dog in a home JUST because there's an intact incumbent, OTHER than that it's strictly about wanting owners who share their values regarding spay/neuter. It can't be about birth control on the level of the individual rescued dogs, because that's taken care of already.

And if that's the case, that's okay. I want to make abundantly clear that I don't actually care beyond a purely academic level. This refusal is totally fair for Meryton to do. It's totally fair if it's based solely in values; they're a private organization and get to do what they want for whatever reason they want. I was just thinking, "Hmm, that really doesn't make sense if you think about it, unless it's about values."


----------



## LARHAGE

martemchik said:


> It has nothing to do with assuming that every person is irresponsible. It has more to do with the fact that it's a numbers game...
> 
> For every 10 dogs you adopt intact, one of those people will make a mistake or will breed the dog on purpose. That produces 10 puppies. So out of 100, 10 breed, and 10 produce puppies. The statistics show that there are plenty of people out there that aren't that responsible, so even if the minority breeds the dogs (after promising they won't), you're still going to end up with a lot of puppies.
> 
> I find it interesting that people feel open to attacking a rescue's or a person's personal feeling about the necessity to spay or neuter, yet they will stand steadfast in their belief of the opposite. Truthfully, if you turn down a perfectly good dog, just because you don't want to neuter it, and you have no breeding plans anyways, you're making just as bad of a value based decision as the rescue who requires the neuter...it's just that on this forum, keeping the animals intact is a much more accepted way to go, and most people will agree with you and your value over the rescue. Go on a rescue forum, post the same stance, and watch yourself get ripped apart by the other 50% that believe in the opposite view point.


 
But I was not adopting an intact dog, it was a spayed female and my dog was a 9 year old Chihuahua!!!!!!


----------



## shepherdmom

Anubis_Star said:


> I think most rescued have REDICULOUS policies. we were just talking about it at schutzhund club yesterday - they'll turn down applicants for any little thing but then dogs will sit in shelters for YEARS.


Most policies are based on things they have been screwed on before. There are many good reasons behind those policies. Good rescues take their dogs back anytime they are asked so they make darn sure that the dog is going to a forever home. Lack of fencing, lack of neutering other animals all are red flags for problems down the road. (in door/out door cats is a new one on me though)



Anubis_Star said:


> I explained my reasons and they were 100% ok with it


Many good rescues will work with you. You just have to take the time and the patience to get to know them. Respond to their questions fairly and up front. Volunteer let them get to know you.


----------



## SkoobyDoo

> So I can't think of a logical reason why they would refuse to put a neutered dog in a home JUST because there's an intact incumbent, OTHER than that it's strictly about wanting owners who share their values regarding spay/neuter. It can't be about birth control on the level of the individual rescued dogs, because that's taken care of already.


I can think of 2-3 right off the bat...!
Charley starts "marking" his territory because of the bitch in heat, and they don't want to deal with that so they pass him off or give him back to the rescue!
Or he gets beat up because an intact male makes it through the fence while he's out in the yard with the bitch in heat!
Or, he makes a tie with the intact bitch and injures himself and /or her!

Either way I think at the end of the day people who adopt and rescue are people who will do so and continue to, and people who buy and will never rescue are going to always be that way, too.
And people who are going to rescue bash are just going to do so I guess


----------



## Magwart

SkoobyDoo said:


> And people who are going to rescue bash are just going to do so I guess


Yep. These threads have a trajectory, and I've explained the "why" of this before, and it never makes a difference. It's like talking to a wall. 

Here's how the threads always go: inevitably, a well meaning newbie posts a question about adoption procedures. The question gets answered, but the usual suspects who either were unable to adopt from one rescue at some point years ago, or who would never in a million years want a rescued dog because they see them as "less than" are attracted like flies to sugar to start the same old, same old, with posts conveying how much they dislike rescues and rescuers. Rinse and repeat.

Somehow the breed rescuers I know are able to differentiate between good and bad breeders, and many of us even manage to have good relations with ethical breeders. And yet some of the breeders' _buyers_ feel a need to paint with broad brush strokes and sometimes bash...I don't get it. 

This one has been tamer than usual, but it generally turns into (at best) some version rescue volunteers being dumb, illogical, or lazy. We've also in other threads been called unkind, worthless, or deliberate dog killers for turning down applications--there was even a whopper comparing us to tax bureaucrats and another memorable one saying we were dumber than DMV workers....which was just offensive on so many levels (not the least of which was the assumption in made about state employees).

Somehow rescue bashing is totally cool here (even though breeder bashing isn't). 

Meanwhile, I've got to deal with the real-world problems caused by a community where around 60% of dogs are intact, and some desperately poor people breed any purebred dog they can for income, it's year-round puppy season, most dogs have HW disease, and around 100,000 dogs a year are euthanized in shelters in my state. 

Tonight I've got to deal with bad vetting news for a gorgeous 6 y.o. male GSD (picture below) dumped by a breeder with HW, now that they no longer want him as a sire. Our vet just figured out this poor dog has a very serious heart defect (probably sick sinus). That breeders' last litter out of him was dumped at the pound at 5 days old when the dam died of mammary cancer, a few days after birth while trying to nurse. The pups all died within hours of arrival at the pound because they'd been sucking nothing but blood and puss. He's apparently lived in a kennel or on a chain his whole life...and now that he is in rescue in an amazing foster home, he's very sick. That's what intact animals gets us in my community...but hey, it's cool, because everyone's responsible with their intact dogs and breeding ethically, right?


----------



## WateryTart

SkoobyDoo said:


> So I can't think of a logical reason why they would refuse to put a neutered dog in a home JUST because there's an intact incumbent, OTHER than that it's strictly about wanting owners who share their values regarding spay/neuter. It can't be about birth control on the level of the individual rescued dogs, because that's taken care of already.
> 
> 
> 
> I can think of 2-3 right off the bat...!
> Charley starts "marking" his territory because of the bitch in heat, and they don't want to deal with that so they pass him off or give him back to the rescue!
> Or he gets beat up because an intact male makes it through the fence while he's out in the yard with the bitch in heat!
> Or, he makes a tie with the intact bitch and injures himself and /or her!
> 
> Either way I think at the end of the day people who adopt and rescue are people who will do so and continue to, and people who buy and will never rescue are going to always be that way, too.
> And people who are going to rescue bash are just going to do so I guess
Click to expand...

I actually thought you wrote a helpful response. I didn't know, now I do: There are potential behavioral consequences.

I also never said it was wrong for a rescue to have that rule, just that it didn't make any sense to me because it didn't seem like a birth control issue. I appreciate you giving an informative answer.


----------



## WateryTart

Magwart said:


> SkoobyDoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And people who are going to rescue bash are just going to do so I guess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. These threads have a trajectory, and I've explained the "why" of this before, and it never makes a difference. It's like talking to a wall.
> 
> Here's how the threads always go: inevitably, a well meaning newbie posts a question about adoption procedures. The question gets answered, but the usual suspects who either were unable to adopt from one rescue at some point years ago, or who would never in a million years want a rescued dog because they see them as "less than" are attracted like flies to sugar to start the same old, same old, with posts conveying how much they dislike rescues and rescuers. Rinse and repeat.
> 
> Somehow the breed rescuers I know are able to differentiate between good and bad breeders, and many of us even manage to have good relations with ethical breeders. And yet some of the breeders' _buyers_ feel a need to paint with broad brush strokes and sometimes bash...I don't get it.
> 
> This one has been tamer than usual, but it generally turns into (at best) some version rescue volunteers being dumb, illogical, or lazy. We've also in other threads been called unkind, worthless, or deliberate dog killers for turning down applications--there was even a whopper comparing us to tax bureaucrats and another memorable one saying we were dumber than DMV workers....which was just offensive on so many levels (not the least of which was the assumption in made about state employees).
> 
> Somehow rescue bashing is totally cool here (even though breeder bashing isn't).
> 
> Meanwhile, I've got to deal with the real-world problems caused by a community where around 60% of dogs are intact, and some desperately poor people breed any purebred dog they can for income, it's year-round puppy season, most dogs have HW disease, and around 100,000 dogs a year are euthanized in shelters in my state.
> 
> Tonight I've got to deal with bad vetting news for a gorgeous 6 y.o. male GSD (picture below) dumped by a breeder with HW, now that they no longer want him as a sire. Our vet just figured out this poor dog has a very serious heart defect (probably sick sinus). That breeders' last litter out of him was dumped at the pound at 5 days old when the dam died of mammary cancer, a few days after birth while trying to nurse. The pups all died within hours of arrival at the pound because they'd been sucking nothing but blood and puss. He's apparently lived in a kennel or on a chain his whole life...and now that he is in rescue in an amazing foster home, he's very sick. That's what intact animals gets us in my community...but hey, it's cool, because everyone's responsible with their intact dogs and breeding ethically, right?
Click to expand...

I apologize, Magwart. I don't recall ever seeing one of your explanations before. I do understand the frustration that comes from feeling like you explain the same thing over and over again even if it's to entirely separate individuals. So I'm very sorry to have frustrated you.


----------



## middleofnowhere

So Magwart, you live in the SE? (I spent a few years in Arkansas.) Really sad cases there. Undoubtedly here, too, but it was so in my face down there.

I know I felt intimidated when I went to get a pup from the pound 30 some years ago. I knew they had started asking questions and I was renting (and in a rather pathetic house). My previous two dogs had died at 13 & 16. I'm not sure just how I passed (I drove a vehicle that I had bought after it had been totaled, too.) I didn't have much money. I WAS worried.


----------



## Magwart

I appreciate that, WateryTart. 

If you haven't seen statistics we face in the SE, here's a taste:

HSUS funded a comprehensive professional marketing study done by some excellent survey companies to figure out what was going on in the SE, focussing on reasons for not speutering in the Gulf states in 2009. I don't think the numbers now would be much different. The number one reason for having an intact dog was "haven't bothered to neuter." The other reasons weren't even close. The demographic least likely to speuter were males of lower education (with a high school education or less, the chance of an intact dog was 60% compared to 42% for college grads). Down here, you are lucky if barely half of dogs are speutered overall, and in some locales it's even less (with over 60% not neutered). The survey found that about 40% of those with intact dogs had bred them in the last 5 years (29% said they were by accident, 35% meant to do it, some apparently weren't sure how it happened!). 

I have sometimes walked through one small city shelter and had 16 purebred-looking GSDs staring at me in kennels, all on euth lists. I can maybe leave with 2, the rest will die for no good reason. The numbers aren't going down. As more people know our rescue exists, we just get flooded with more pleas from more shelters in farther away parts of the state.

I've been screamed at many times by applicants who were mad about the intact dog rule because they wanted their "just one litter for the kids" or who believed breeding (and getting a dog from us) are both God-given rights. They always find it outrageous I wasn't excited and supporting of them breeding their CL $500 Continental Kennel Club-registered, "descended from champions" dog to sell the pups on CL "to make back their money." They don't connect what they're doing with the GSDs in shelters, who were mostly someone else's "just one" litter or "oops" litter.

Where I live in the SE, if we don't get traction with more people speutering, this cycle will never, ever end. We can't transport our way out of this problem by shipping dogs up north. We have to solve it locally -- that means convincing people what's happening to the spawn-of-the-spawn they are breeding. These policies are about getting community buy-in and educating about what we are up against, and how dire it is. We approach it not as a denial, but as a "let me talk with you about why you have an intact dog" -- for a good app, I've even offered to arrange super-discounted speuters at rescue rates (through clinics I know would love to help), and offered to help them apply to get a voucher if it's just something they haven't gotten around to yet. If me doing that is the difference between them doing it--and being happy about doing something they've meant to do and "haven't bothered with"--I'm glad to help. We've had some people come back to us a few months later and say "now it's done, I'm ready." That's what I mean by community buy-in -- do we get everyone? No. Do we get some of them, absolutely. The great thing is when those applicants become _adopters _who are our ambassadors to spread the community buy-in.

These aren't Schutzhund homes, or show homes, or homes that _need _intact dogs. These are just plain, old pet homes, where a spayed F is a whole lot less messy, and a neutered M is less annoying. They're pet homes who think saving a life is very cool, and who appreciate being part of a future where we can try to solve the problem as a community.

Believe me, I know that the ethical breeders aren't my problem. They take dogs of theirs back when I find them (we just transported one "home" to her breeder in Indiana when we found her). My problem is the "oops" litters, the "just one litter for the kids" families, and the people who view dogs as an ATM to breed as often as possible to make money, with no vetting whatsoever, and probably not even a real pedigree. THAT is the vast majority of intact in my community. 

Do we miss some exceptions? Undoubtedly. Can people convince us they're the exception? Maybe. We did it once last year, when there was a good medical reason why they wouldn't neuter.


----------



## wyoung2153

Magwart said:


> I appreciate that, WateryTart.
> 
> If you haven't seen statistics we face in the SE, here's a taste:
> 
> HSUS funded a comprehensive professional marketing study done by some excellent survey companies to figure out what was going on in the SE, focussing on reasons for not speutering in the Gulf states in 2009. I don't think the numbers now would be much different. The number one reason for having an intact dog was "haven't bothered to neuter." The other reasons weren't even close. The demographic least likely to speuter were males of lower education (with a high school education or less, the chance of an intact dog was 60% compared to 42% for college grads). Down here, you are lucky if barely half of dogs are speutered overall, and in some locales it's even less (with over 60% not neutered). The survey found that about 40% of those with intact dogs had bred them in the last 5 years (29% said they were by accident, 35% meant to do it, some apparently weren't sure how it happened!).
> 
> I have sometimes walked through one small city shelter and had 16 purebred-looking GSDs staring at me in kennels, all on euth lists. I can maybe leave with 2, the rest will die for no good reason. The numbers aren't going down. As more people know our rescue exists, we just get flooded with more pleas from more shelters in farther away parts of the state.
> 
> I've been screamed at many times by applicants who were mad about the intact dog rule because they wanted their "just one litter for the kids" or who believed breeding (and getting a dog from us) are both God-given rights. They always find it outrageous I wasn't excited and supporting of them breeding their CL $500 Continental Kennel Club-registered, "descended from champions" dog to sell the pups on CL "to make back their money." They don't connect what they're doing with the GSDs in shelters, who were mostly someone else's "just one" litter or "oops" litter.
> 
> Where I live in the SE, if we don't get traction with more people speutering, this cycle will never, ever end. We can't transport our way out of this problem by shipping dogs up north. We have to solve it locally -- that means convincing people what's happening to the spawn-of-the-spawn they are breeding. These policies are about getting community buy-in and educating about what we are up against, and how dire it is. We approach it not as a denial, but as a "let me talk with you about why you have an intact dog" -- for a good app, I've even offered to arrange super-discounted speuters at rescue rates (through clinics I know would love to help), and offered to help them apply to get a voucher if it's just something they haven't gotten around to yet. If me doing that is the difference between them doing it--and being happy about doing something they've meant to do and "haven't bothered with"--I'm glad to help. We've had some people come back to us a few months later and say "now it's done, I'm ready." That's what I mean by community buy-in -- do we get everyone? No. Do we get some of them, absolutely. The great thing is when those applicants become _adopters _who are our ambassadors to spread the community buy-in.
> 
> These aren't Schutzhund homes, or show homes, or homes that _need _intact dogs. These are just plain, old pet homes, where a spayed F is a whole lot less messy, and a neutered M is less annoying. They're pet homes who think saving a life is very cool, and who appreciate being part of a future where we can try to solve the problem as a community.
> 
> Believe me, I know that the ethical breeders aren't my problem. They take dogs of theirs back when I find them (we just transported one "home" to her breeder in Indiana when we found her). My problem is the "oops" litters, the "just one litter for the kids" families, and the people who view dogs as an ATM to breed as often as possible to make money, with no vetting whatsoever, and probably not even a real pedigree. THAT is the vast majority of intact in my community.
> 
> Do we miss some exceptions? Undoubtedly. Can people convince us they're the exception? Maybe. We did it once last year, when there was a good medical reason why they wouldn't neuter.


Very educational and informative. Thank you for taking the time to share this.


----------



## WateryTart

Things are so different where you are, Magwart!

Where I sit, rescuing is hands down the most common way to get a dog. It's considered a much cooler thing to do than buying. (This is fine with me but what isn't fine is the incredibly rude way we've been treated by both rescue volunteers and people who've rescued their pets. I've repeated, "We're happy with our choice and it works for us" through gritted teeth more times than I care to count - this is why I personally am extremely suspicious of the pro-rescue crowd; experience tells me I'm probably in for vitriol.) We are in a tiny tiny minority for waiting to spay our female. We will spay her but we're under contract to wait until a certain age. Based on the research I've done, I'd wait for a large breed dog to mature a bit anyway - but we will do it. We can cope and contain her responsibly through a season or two but don't have a need to keep her intact for life.

But while I haven't looked at stats, the sniff test of people we know or have run across when out indicates that the vast majority of people rescue and either the dog came already fixed, or they got a voucher and were required to do it at six months of age. leaving your dog intact generally just isn't "done" here as far as I've seen. So I appreciate your perspective because it is clear that things are vastly different in other areas of the country.


----------



## WIBackpacker

Magwart said:


> Yep. These threads have a trajectory, and I've explained the "why" of this before, and it never makes a difference. It's like talking to a wall.
> 
> Here's how the threads always go: inevitably, a well meaning newbie posts a question about adoption procedures. The question gets answered, but the usual suspects who either were unable to adopt from one rescue at some point years ago, or who would never in a million years want a rescued dog because they see them as "less than" are attracted like flies to sugar to start the same old, same old, with posts conveying how much they dislike rescues and rescuers. Rinse and repeat.


Thank you for your thoughts. My intent with this thread was certainly not to bash anyone, I really wanted to gather information for my own understanding.

Geography seems to be a *huge* game changer.... Several of our municipal humane societies here are 75% pit/mixes, or greater. The rescue organization for golden retrievers has so many people on waiting lists (to adopt) that they aren't even taking applications any longer. Many of our friends and neighbors have rescue dogs (of various breeds) that have been brought up from Kentucky and other parts of the SE. There are certainly plenty of problems, and heartbreaking cases, but it seems that the issues locally are much different than in other parts of the country. 

Lots to consider, thank you.


----------



## RunShepherdRun

A story from the North East:

A man wanted to adopt from our GSD breed rescue and wanted an intact animal to breed. Is being informed that a) the law requires 501c organizations to spay and neuter as a condition for tax exempt status, and b) that we don't contribute to what we are trying to alleviate, the overproduction of pet GSDs. 

Since he couldn't get an intact dog from us, he bought pups from breeders who sold with full registration. He bred the dogs. Of the first litter of eight, he was able to sell six. He understood then that he couldn't sell all pups and that he should not breed again. But he didn't spay or neuter the dogs, nor was he experienced or careful enough to avoid an oops during the next heat. Oops, the next litter arrived back to back with the first. Likely due to overcrowding, the bitch pushed several puppies out of the nest and they died. Three girl pups survived. He couldn't sell them either. 

Being a good man who realized he had made a mistake, and remembering how carefully the rescue had screened potential adopters and given reasons for their decisions, he now turned to the breed rescue to surrender all but one of his dogs. I evaluated the dogs with a team, found them placable, and we took all seven which overtaxed our foster resources but we made it happen anyhow. The breeder was extremely grateful and relieved. All dogs are placed well. 

In this case, the person who originally did not receive a dog from us, then produced more dogs, and came back to us b/c with his 'surplus' b/c he had come to understand and appreciate the process. 

All arm chair rescuers who think they know so much better than those who actually do the work are invited to volunteer and learn. 

Excellent posts, Markwart. You rock.


----------



## RunShepherdRun

As Markwart said, there are different types of breeders and different personalities. People who want to buy from a breeder search, speak with several, mesh with some but not with others, and then likely have to wait until they can get their pup.

Same with rescue organizations, you get the whole spectrum of personalities and organizational cultures. Search, speak with several, mesh with some but not with others, and work with the one that is a good match for you. 

When I came to the US from Germany and was temporarily dogless I rented at first. I couldn't find a rental that allowed pets, esp. not searching for an apartment from a long distance away. Once I had settled enough I called management and told them I'd like to get a dog again and what did they think about that. Never hurts asking. They said they tolerated dogs as long as there was no complaint and she knew of several dogs in their units and was fine with them . Asked her how many times there had been a complaint and the dog had to leave? None in 20 years.

So I took that to rescue organizations. Most didn't want to place in that situation. I had no beef with that and didn't waste any time fretting. They had their reasons, their experiences, it's their organization, their responsibility, their dogs. I searched a bit more, it didn't take me long and I had my rescued GSD  From an all breed rescue that was flexible and looked at my individual situation. 

I soon got involved in rescue myself. It is my individual personality, and obviously also Markwart's and many others', to be flexible, and be able to go case by case. But in rescue, among breeders, on this board, at work, in the world, there are all kinds of different people, and some are more, some are less flexible. Life is too short to complain about those who handle things differently. It's probably good that there are many differnt ways of doing things 

And I was shocked at some of the applications I reviewed. You don't know it unless you have done the work. One of my 'faves' was a couple who had toddlers and ran a daycare center, and then wanted to adopt a chihuahua mix who was posted as not good with children, adult home only. Maybe they complained about me elsewhere, tant pis.


----------



## SkoobyDoo

WateryTart said:


> I actually thought you wrote a helpful response. I didn't know, now I do: There are potential behavioral consequences.
> 
> I also never said it was wrong for a rescue to have that rule, just that it didn't make any sense to me because it didn't seem like a birth control issue. I appreciate you giving an informative answer.


Thank YOU for hearing 
I honestly think rescues have their charges best interest at heart and it saddens me to see such a jaundiced view many have here of those rescues who have one of the toughest and most thankless jobs on the planet, and they do it for free out of the goodness of their hearts for the most part!


----------



## WateryTart

SkoobyDoo said:


> Thank YOU for hearing
> I honestly think rescues have their charges best interest at heart and it saddens me to see such a jaundiced view many have here of those rescues who have one of the toughest and most thankless jobs on the planet, and they do it for free out of the goodness of their hearts for the most part!


It actually really resonated with me when Mag said that it wasn't the breeders but the buyers.

I've been treated extremely rudely by some people who volunteer with rescues. They've felt very free to lecture and tell me how I'm the scum of the earth for buying a dog. So it isn't just the adopters. But plenty of the adopters have been worse. So when Mag said that about buyers getting on rescue, I could really understand it from the other side.

I'd really like it to be clear that I could completely understand if it was values-driven; objectively speaking, I think that's completely valid for a private organization. I was just really curious about whether there were also practical reasons for that policy, and I appreciate that you took the time to answer an honest question.


----------



## SkoobyDoo

Hormones are a powerful thing and even altered dogs fall under their influence. 
We probably don't even understand how much exactly, hormones drive behavior outside of mating or breeding but there's a lot more than we realize, I'm sure of that!


----------



## WateryTart

SkoobyDoo said:


> Hormones are a powerful thing and even altered dogs fall under their influence.
> We probably don't even understand how much exactly, hormones drive behavior outside of mating or breeding but there's a lot more than we realize, I'm sure of that!


It makes total sense. I didn't think of that at all, but as soon as you pointed it out, I realized that was probably a very real factor. (And yes I did a forehead smack!)


----------



## Magwart

WateryTart, thank you for understanding, and being open to seeing the other view point. I really do appreciate it. I'm sorry I snapped at you last night---too many of these threads for too long have been getting under my skin. It's really hard to understand what an oversupply of purebred dogs looks like until you walk through some southern shelters. Until I moved to the South, I didn't understand....then when I started volunteering in just one high-kill shelter as a breed advocate and caught a little glimpse of what 100,000 euthanized dogs a year actually looks like...it's just devastating. I had no plan to start a breed rescue, ever. The magnitude of the problem here changed everything for me.

On our side of the fence, I _have_ fussed at people I know in breed rescue for using the "adopt don't shop" line and saying "I hate breeders" in public. I know certain adopters and volunteers are prone to holier-than-thou tendencies, and I try to nip them in the bud. One volunteer who was all about "adopt don't shop" owns a gorgeous, privately rehomed WGSL dog...so we had a conversation about where WGSL dogs come from, and why we should be glad dogs like hers exist. We talked about what would happen if the people who breed dogs like hers vanished. That mentality simply doesn't work for us in breed rescue, and I don't want it perpetuated to our adopters through volunteers. We've even banned people from our FB page when they come to breeder bash in the comments. We also spent some time on our FB page highlighting the integrity of excellent breeders when they step up to take dogs they bred back when they land in shelters -- we want people to know _that _is what ethics looks like in action. We want them asking the right questions if they choose to buy rather than adopt, so there's even a part of our web page in the FAQ dedicated to how to differentiate a good hobby breeder from a BYB!

I know there are rescues who try to shame people for buying from breeders. There are even rescues who try to shame each other for making different choices. Some all-breed rescuers go after breed rescuers as being elitist snobs who perpetuate demand for purebred dogs at the expense of mixes and pit bulls...yeah, I've been on the receiving end of that. It's all a bunch of horse manure from know-nothing people. I can't fix other organizations though. I can just try to keep my own house in order, as best I can.


----------



## WateryTart

No worries, Magwart! I just appreciate you taking my question seriously enough to lay out the situation from your perspective.

As the OP said, geography appears to be a huge game changer. I have no clue what 100,000 euthanasias looks like; it looked to me from what I could tell that my city's shelter has a pretty low kill rate, I know rescues are very active, and you kind of have to look to find the breeding/show communities because it's considered cool and socially conscious to rescue a mixed breed dog - particularly a pit mix. So clearly a drastically different picture, and I can appreciate a lot more where you're coming from. I'm now wondering if maybe the people who flatly refused to believe me when I said I couldn't find what I wanted in rescue even if I was considering it (and I did look, just so I was informed) were picturing something more like what you see daily. They probably were.


----------



## WIBackpacker

WateryTart said:


> As the OP said, geography appears to be a huge game changer. I have no clue what 100,000 euthanasias looks like; it looked to me from what I could tell that my city's shelter has a pretty low kill rate, I know rescues are very active, and you kind of have to look to find the breeding/show communities because it's considered cool and socially conscious to rescue a mixed breed dog......


^ There seem to be many similarities, here. Your state also neighbors mine. The two closest humane societies actually just made a public announcement earlier in the month that they're on the verge of partnering to make our entire county "no kill", although they said they expect it to take a few years to implement fully.

If I saw a row of shepherds, locked up alone, no families or guardians, awaiting euthanasia, I would probably loose it, Magwart. Can't even imagine.


----------

