So angry at local pet adoption rules I could spit (bite, main)

[STLCardsBlues1989]

I have heard stories of shelters and rescues that turn people away for any tiny reason. It wouldn't surprise me if that happens. That's not all shelters and rescues, but probably a small percentage of them.

Probably some consider me a bad pet owner because my cats eat Meow Mix and I don't take them to the vet unless absolutely necessary. I don't get their teeth brushed, either. But my cats are well cared for and happy. I think they prefer that over being dead.

You do the best with what you have, and if you don't have the money to spend more on your cat's food than your own, I think that's okay. The pet's happiness is more important than having the best of everything.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by =^..^=

Not "some rescue" but she said several Rescues. If it were only one it wouldn't have caught my attention. When *SEVERAL* Rescues refuse a person, there is a good reason.

You're completely missing the point. When *SEVERAL* Rescues reject a person from adopting a cat or dog there is a good reason for it. Do you think they simply didn't like her face or accent or the color of her dress?

For someone to be rejected by *SEVERAL* Rescues there has to be one or more serious health issues, or an obvious disability (or some other reason) that tells them the person cannot care for a cat or dog properly. Why can't you grasp this? It seems you missed at least one of my posts in this thread. It would be a horrible Rescue that hands out kitties to anyone and everyone walking in the door.

I'm not missing the point. You're missing mine. I'm taking the word of the forum member in the absence of other evidence. You're making an assumption based on some aspect of reasonability that may or may not be present in the people running these rescues. Good job chasing a forum member away by accusing her of lying and asserting that she must have some problems. Don't you get it? She posts in here frustrated that multiple places turned her down. Your response is not to inquire about what reasons they are giving but instead to jump to "Oh the rescues are just doing their job. What disability do you have?" This is both a) rude and b) most likely irrelevant.

It would be a horrible rescue that hands out kitties to anyone and everyone walking in the door, this is true. Of course I never suggested that was a good idea. And it would most certainly be less horrible than one that insists upon keeping the kitties waiting for perfect homes. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Placing more cats in adequate homes is going to save more cats than waiting for perfect homes. Period.

[greg42]

And someone who is fat, ill or disabled is not allowed to have a pet? Why should that be? What exactly is that achieving, aside from discrimination?

[ParallelJJCat]

Originally Posted by =^..^=

It appears then that several Rescues in the OPs neighborhood are unusually restrictive then since she was rejected by several. The Rescues here have restrictions also, but not restrictive ones especially where disabilities are concerned... unless the person OBVIOUSLY cannot care for a cat such as someone in a wheelchair, a hugely obese person, or someone using a walker or who is on medication for serious mental illness. What is the alternative... to just let anyone who comes in the door leave with a cat or kitten? I can fully understand why they have restrictions. They put a lot of time and money into these cats and don't want them going to a home which proves temporary or where care will be minimal. They want to know the kitty will have a good chance for a good life for the rest of it's life.

I don't know the poster's story. She may or may not have other issues. It's kind of beside the point. That rescues and shelters often have overly restrictive policies is a simple fact. She may have been rejected for something completely unrelated to any disabilities and just doesn't know it. The fact that several rescues have rejected her doesn't automatically mean the rejections were valid. I would be rejected by every shelter and rescue in this area because of my policy on vaccination.

And saying someone who is in a wheelchair or uses a walker obviously can't care for a cat is simply wrong and my aunt with MS would be very surprised to hear about it, since she cares for her pets just fine. Again, this comes down to adopting them the right kind of animal. Maybe a very obese woman can't care for a young border collie, but she can care for an adult lazy Persian mix just fine. Even someone paralyzed from the neck down may have a wonderful support team around them more than willing to help them experience the joys of a pet.

The point is that blanket restrictions don't work. Every person who walks through the door of a rescue or shelter has their own story. There are very few homes or owners that are truly unsuited for ANY animal.

Originally Posted by =^..^=

Shelter or a Rescue? If you were looking to adopt a cat, why would they care about the height of your fence? Our high-kill "Shelter", if you can call it that, only requires that the person own their own home or brings in a paper from the landlord stating that the renter can have a pet. Rescues are generally stricter.

The shelters I'm speaking in my area that have fencing requirements are true community shelters. They are exactly what you think of when you think of a shelter or 'pound.' Overcrowded, underfunded, high kill.

No, they don't require fencing for a cat, but they do require one for any dog, no matter what size the animal is or other circumstances.

This isn't a shelter vs. rescue problem. If your local shelters don't have these requirements, that's great for the animals in their care. Mine do and so do many, many others. MAS in Memphis, for example, does just about everything they can to make sure pit bulls don't leave the shelter alive because of their overly restrictive adoption requirements for them.

In fact I think this attitude is more likely to develop in high kill shelters. Every shelter or rescue has its own message or ideals that develop over time...in other words, a culture. If the culture that develops is one of blaming the public, the shelter workers can start to feel like the public is the enemy. The message starts to be that the public are dangerous to animals and it's better to kill than adopt.

That is the culture at our local shelter. The director sets the culture and the director believes that cats are better off dead than in an indoor/outdoor home. A dog is better off dead than in a home with a short fence. Etc., etc.

But again, BOTH shelters and rescues are guilty of this line of thinking. The only difference is that in a shelter the animal ends up dead. In a rescue the animal stays stuck in a cage and some OTHER animal ends up dead because they don't get a spot in the rescue.

Originally Posted by =^..^=

After a really bad experience selling a poodle puppy to a family with small children, I would only sell to those with children over 8 or 9 yrs old. Small children can and have accidentally killed or crippled their pets. Parents cannot watch children 24/7.

It's terrible that you had a bad experience. Sincerely, its awful for everyone when something like that happens. I know a disabled girl who accidentally broke her pit bull puppy's neck.

But there are millions of pets in homes with young children right now. How often do you think such tragedies occur? I'm betting less than 5% of the time and I'm high balling it purposely.

It's like parents who won't let their children play in the park because they're so worried about child predators. The actual risk of a child being harmed by a stranger is less than 1%. Almost all predators are someone known to the child, not a guy stalking the local park. This less than 1% risk is used to justify all kinds of things, from keeping children indoors to kicking men out of the children's section at Barnes and Nobles.

So because there is a very small risk of a child hurting an animal, does that mean no children should have pets? Did you grow up with pets? I sure did and my life would have been much lesser if I hadn't.

So again, let's get that kid the right pet for them. Maybe a thin-boned poodle or a puppy of any kind isn't a great idea. Instead a big boned nanny lab might be just right. You can observe the individual child playing with a pet to get an idea of what's right for them. Maybe you'll find that young child is very quiet and respectful, like I was as a kid, and you realize they can handle a kitten after all.

Originally Posted by =^..^=

You're mixing Shelters and Rescues... two different animals. Our so-called Shelter will hand out animals to anyone with the MONEY to pay the free as long as they own their home or have the Landlord's note. Those not adopted in a certain amount of time are euthanized. No one at those places cares much one way or the other. Rescues will not kill the cats and dogs as will the kill-Shelters. They're held until suitable homes can be found for them. There's a big difference.

As already explained, there are shelters aplenty that have restrictive requirements. Oddly, they do so out of claims that they care about the pets. Care so much they'd rather see them dead.

Originally Posted by =^..^=

Do you mean Rescues? Shelters will generally hand over a dog or cat to someone 500lbs, in a wheelchair, receiving chemo-therapy for stage 4 cancer and suffering from schizophrenia as long as they have the cash to pay the adoption fee.

To be very honest, you seem to have something against people who are disabled. Maybe that cancer victim has a husband very willing to care for the pet after she dies (though someone undergoing chemo probably won't be seeking a pet anyway because of the infection risk.) A 500lb individual may have a 180lb spouse. And being 500lb doesn't mean you can't swirl a laser light around for the cat to chase or can't clean out a litter box (or just get a mechanical one if bending is a problem!) Mental illness runs in both side of my family and I grew up with a schizophrenic aunt. She never harmed our animals even before she started taking medication and managed to not only help care for them but help my mom raise six children. A schizophrenic individual may be taking medication for the condition, in which case why in the world shouldn't they be allowed a pet?

Of course there are situations where a pet is a bad idea. Maybe the schizophrenic individual has a repeated history of violence or is unable to care for herself. But to simply state that schizophrenic persons or wheelchair users shouldn't have pets is quite discriminatory. Moreover, I don't even understand it...why can't someone in a wheelchair take care of a cat? I don't think JJ cares about my legs when it's my hands that do the petting and serve the food.

Originally Posted by =^..^=

And neglect of veterinary care is a reality when you're talking about someone with a limited income such as someone on welfare or SSD/SSI. Sooner or later almost every cat will need veternary care of some kind, especially those fed a cheap dry food... what then? Some of these poor people don't even have the money to pay a vet to euthanize the cat.

In a perfect world every cat would be feed a high quality wet food only diet. Sure. Problem is, life isn't perfect. The reality is that ANY cat is better off eating dry food from Walmart than dead in a dumpster. ANY cat is better off with a family that can only afford basic medical care than to be already dead.

How high would you set the requirement? We did a MRI for Heather a few years ago to the tune of $5,000. I've spent over 20,000 on JJ over his life so far. Should anyone who can't afford that be denied a pet? Even if it means the pet they didn't get is injected with Fatal Plus?

I would honestly rather see a cat have ten good years with a family and never see a vet than for that cat to be killed right now in a shelter. It's not ideal. It's not perfect. It's still better than death. I'd even rather a cat be declawed then dead.

Since you continue to say that local shelters don't have restrictive requirements because your local shelter does not, here's the websites for my two local shelters:

http://ccasnj.org/for_adoption/paperwork.html- this is the Camden County shelter and arguably the better of the two. Click on the adoption application and take a look at the many, many questions. Does that look like a county shelter that just adopts to anyone with cash? This shelter serves the Camden area of New Jersey and is high kill. Most of the dogs are pit bulls. They are more leniant than the other shelter, but will still turn people away for working more than 8 hours, trying to adopt an indoor/outdoor cat, etc.

Page not found: http://www.co.gloucester.nj.us:80/depts/a/shelter/adoption.asp- (404) This shelter is run by one of the most militant 'pets are better off dead' persons you'll ever meet. She'll deny an adoption based on ANY excuse. They will not adopt out a cat if it will be declawed...but they'll euthanize that cat no problem. Notice how right on their page they apologize for how frustrating and exhausting their adoption procedure is. When you have to apologize like this, you're doing it wrong. (it won't let me just copy this for some reason...either copy/paste the address into your browser or google Gloucester County Animal Shelter)

So I have no problem believing that the poster went to several shelters or rescues and was turned down for no good reason.

Again, I understand that people want to protect the pets in their care. Killing them is NOT protecting them. Blanket restrictions that keep them in cages and out of homes is NOT protecting them.

[STLCardsBlues1989]

Like with children, people have different ideas of what is okay for their precious little ones. If I went to a rescue looking for an animal (which I won't any time soon since I have enough pets), and they said I wasn't up to their standard, I would go somewhere else. Some places standards' are way too high, and it ends up hurting their animals because they adopt fewer out. That's their choice, but if I'm not a good enough pet owner for them I would find another shelter or even get an animal from the newspaper and give it my love. I care that my pets have the veterinary care they need (not all veterinary care is vitally needed), that they are well-fed (they are), and that they are loved (and they very much are). I do the best with what I have.

[JRR]

A local rescue group had a cat on Petfinder we were interested in. Their online cat adoption form wanted to know (among lots of other things) who would get the cat in a divorce. We are heading toward our 38th anniversary; who would get custody of a cat is not a topic we have actually discussed. Thought that was a bit over the top. Lady at the SPCA shelter where we adopted got a good laugh when I asked with a serious face "Don't you want to know who will get Cassie if we get divorced?"

[smith-great]

A couple years ago I visited a local rescue looking to adopt a cat. I was interested in a 10 year old cat that the rescue said should be in a home with no kids, no dogs, and no other cats. Things were going well until I came across the following line in the adoption application:

Rescuer will be allowed to make follow-up phone calls and/or home visits to assure adoption was a successful match. Failure to stay in contact or refusing to stay in contact with Rescuer will be a breach of this contract and Rescuer has the right to terminate this Adoption Agreement and retrieve adopted animal. If Adopter refuses to surrender adopted animal, Rescuer will file legal action against Adopter for return of said animal and Rescuer will be entitled for reimbursement of any and all legal expenses paid out in this action.

I'm all for making sure to put cats in decent homes, i.e. contacting vet and what not, but this was over the top. Would I have been approved to adopt the cat? Probably. But why put up with this level of interference with my life.

Because of that line in that application, the cat spent another 7-8 months at the rescue, not a permanent home (when the cat was taken down from petfinder and presumably adopted). Two other cats from nearby animal shelter found their way into my home instead.
__________________________________________________ _____________

Many rescues want their cats to only be placed in "ideal" homes. As a volunteer at a nearby animal shelter, I observed that the "ideal" homes typically were all full. The owners knew how many cats they could care for and that is how many cats they had. Such owners would usually come to the shelter to adopt a new cat when one of their previous cats passed on. Only a few very lucky cats were placed in "ideal" homes. Most of the cats were put into good and decent homes and adoptions usually worked out well for the cat and owner, even if the home wasn't "ideal." Restricting adoptions to only the "perfect" homes means that cats may spend months or years at the shelter before finding a forever home.

[=^..^=]

Originally Posted by STLCardsBlues1989

I have heard stories of shelters and rescues that turn people away for any tiny reason. It wouldn't surprise me if that happens. That's not all shelters and rescues, but probably a small percentage of them.

Yes, a small percentage are run by fanatics bordering on Hoarders. But these are not the norm. Shelters are less picky but also need rules of some kind. Where it live, the shelters are more concerned about where the adopter lives than anything else. That's because too many people rent and ignore the leases they signed stating "no pets." The cat or dog is then returned to the shelter with all the paperwork that entails. Most Rescues also want to see proof of where the person is living.

Probably some consider me a bad pet owner because my cats eat Meow Mix and I don't take them to the vet unless absolutely necessary. I don't get their teeth brushed, either. But my cats are well cared for and happy. I think they prefer that over being dead.

If MeowMix is all you can afford, so be it. There are worse things the cats can be eating, such as sour and rotten garbage from a dumpster. As for being dead. The way some cats suffer for months and years under the hands of the hoarders and others who should never own a pet, they may be better off in kitty-heaven.

You do the best with what you have, and if you don't have the money to spend more on your cat's food than your own, I think that's okay. The pet's happiness is more important than having the best of everything.

There's more than money and what people feed their cats involved.

[=^..^=]

Originally Posted by greg42

I'm not missing the point. You're missing mine. I'm taking the word of the forum member in the absence of other evidence.

The other evidence is that *SEVERAL* rescues refused her. When several refuse a person, there is a good reason. A person has to be, in the opinion of the Rescue workers, obviously unable to properly care for the cat (or dog) to refuse them. One Rescue I can understand, their rules may be overly restrictive, but SEVERAL? She herself admitted she was disabled. Having diabetes and being age 51 is not considered too disabled to adopt a pet. So there was something she chose not to mention. And that "something" was what got her rejected by several Rescues. Sorry, but it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

You're making an assumption based on some aspect of reasonability that may or may not be present in the people running these rescues. Good job chasing a forum member away by accusing her of lying and asserting that she must have some problems. Don't you get it? She posts in here frustrated that multiple places turned her down. Your response is not to inquire about what reasons they are giving but instead to jump to "Oh the rescues are just doing their job. What disability do you have?" This is both a) rude and b) most likely irrelevant.

Her disabilities are not irrelevant when you're considering handing over a living sentient being to her. A being able to suffer and die without the proper care. A being the Rescue put time and scarce money into and most likely love as well. We're not talking about handing her a inanimate pair of shoes or a sofa. She came here putting down Rescues, which you seem to have missed entirely, belittling the very people who devote their time, money and often their very lives to saving and finding forever homes for these cats.

It would be a horrible rescue that hands out kitties to anyone and everyone walking in the door, this is true. Of course I never suggested that was a good idea. And it would most certainly be less horrible than one that insists upon keeping the kitties waiting for perfect homes. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Placing more cats in adequate homes is going to save more cats than waiting for perfect homes. Period.

You're assuming the Rescues are looking for the perfect homes for the kitties they rescue, with no evidence at all. Why are you doing that? Pot calling kettle black? They're not looking for perfect homes and you know that. They're looking for ADEQUATE homes with the person being ABLE to properly care for the kitty. Some people are too disabled mentally or physically to give the kitty an adequate home. I should not have to repeat that over and over.............

[=^..^=]

Originally Posted by greg42

And someone who is fat, ill or disabled is not allowed to have a pet? Why should that be? What exactly is that achieving, aside from discrimination?

Please re-read my posts. You've obviously missed most of them or simply skimmed over them looking for key words to latch onto.