Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If there are no statistics, then you or someone needs to develop statistics according to sound statistical methodology so that people know what you are talking about. Attempt to quantify the kinds of abuse you see. Are your methods of matching pets with people effective? Do they have some basis in fact? Or are the shelter managers arbitrary. What does the median home of the adopters they place pets with look like? Why are so many people who seem as if they have good homes turned away?
I'm not angry at all--I would just like answers instead of moral lecturing about the abuse some shelters witness used to justify extreme and arbitrary decisions. I've seen a lot of abuse--but how this relates to shelter policy is open for discussion. Read my first post. I donated the fee of a deceased pet to a shelter that I believed was acting in good faith. They decided to postpone adoption until the cat I was interested in improved. It got worse. But because they were reasonable enough, I decided I would donate the fee.
But this business of perpetual responsibility is ill-founded when it involves unenforceable contracts and circumventing law enforcement. If society does have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of animals, the details should be worked out within the legal and political system. Maybe this is too conservative a position for radicals, who would rather declare a moratorium on pet adoption and ownership altogether.
I don't run my shelter. I'm not speaking as an expert. I'm speaking as a very involved volunteer, and this is an informal discussion here. I know there is a wide variation in shelter and rescue policies across the US, and there are places I wouldn't care to lend my time to. I'm not sure why you're painting everyone as a radical here. I would suggest if you think things could be improved at your local shelter, you go there and volunteer there. Your services will be very appreciated. Getting a first hand look at things may help you understand some policies that you disagreed with, and where you still think there is room for improvement (and lets face it, every organization of every kind has room for improvement), hopefully they'll listen to your suggestions with an open mind.
Change cannot happen if people just throw their hands in the air and say, "Oh well, that's the way it is."
The fact is, ChristianMarks brings up very good and valid points. Points that many rescuers do not want to talk about. There are fanatical rescuers, tons of them. I firmly believe they no longer have the animals best interest at heart but rather are taking their anger out on the general population with their ridiculous and, as pointed out, unlawful rules.
Non profits need to be monitored to maintain their non profit status.
There are good rescues out there, as I said, the problem is, they, as well as the animals, suffer due to those who think it's perfectly acceptable to assume that everyone is going to abuse/neglect an animal and therefore add the ridiculous rules and clauses like, "we have the right to show up at your house unnanounced..." Even landlords don't have that fricken right! Hell, they don't even do that when a human is adopted!
It's my opinion that many rescue organizations, especially those that specialize in certain dog breeds, are just hoarders. Many have no intention of adopting out the dogs, to anyone outside of their circle. Most own numerous dogs. It's easier to adopt children, than some of those dogs!
It's my opinion that many rescue organizations, especially those that specialize in certain dog breeds, are just hoarders. Many have no intention of adopting out the dogs, to anyone outside of their circle. Most own numerous dogs. It's easier to adopt children, than some of those dogs!
There is a certain wisdom in this post and I think it applies to many of the smaller animal rescue organizations. I wouldn't limit it to dog breeds. I'm sure the same behavior can be found with cats, rabbits, ferrets - any animal rescue. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call them hoarders. More like over protective parents.
Because of their level of caring and anthropomorphism, they start to think that all potential adopters need to live up to their own level of caring, and tight restrictions on adoptions ensure that animals under their wing will always have the best care possible.........by staying right where they are. They forget that the point of rescue is to find loving homes for abandoned animals, not taking the animal under their wing forever because they set their standards too high.
I'm not advocating adopting to just "anyone" but there are plenty of people out there who can give animal a decent home without making the animal the focal point of their existence. Just because they view and treat their cat as a cat instead of a child doesn't mean the animal will be mistreated, ignored, or unloved. If you want to make a difference in battling animal homelessness, not every adoption has to be under the "ideal" circumstances to work out for both parties. I'm having a hard time getting at the crux of my meaning......... I guess what I'm trying to say is that finding 100 "pretty good" homes is better than finding 10 "perfect" homes and letting 90 other animals die.
There is a certain wisdom in this post and I think it applies to many of the smaller animal rescue organizations. I wouldn't limit it to dog breeds. I'm sure the same behavior can be found with cats, rabbits, ferrets - any animal rescue. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call them hoarders. More like over protective parents.
Because of their level of caring and anthropomorphism, they start to think that all potential adopters need to live up to their own level of caring, and tight restrictions on adoptions ensure that animals under their wing will always have the best care possible.........by staying right where they are. They forget that the point of rescue is to find loving homes for abandoned animals, not taking the animal under their wing forever because they set their standards too high.
I'm not advocating adopting to just "anyone" but there are plenty of people out there who can give animal a decent home without making the animal the focal point of their existence. Just because they view and treat their cat as a cat instead of a child doesn't mean the animal will be mistreated, ignored, or unloved. If you want to make a difference in battling animal homelessness, not every adoption has to be under the "ideal" circumstances to work out for both parties. I'm having a hard time getting at the crux of my meaning......... I guess what I'm trying to say is that finding 100 "pretty good" homes is better than finding 10 "perfect" homes and letting 90 other animals die.
Really, if you don't agree with a shelter/rescue's policies, just go somewhere else. It's not that hard.
Maybe it depends on where you live. I went without a cat for years after mine died because I couldn't afford the high price. When I got that original cat I paid about $20 for her and it saved her from being put down for being so sick. It was a good sort of adoption agency that made sure she'd been spayed and had her shots. They had vets volunteering to do the work. I got that cat back to health by figuring out that she was allergic to some chemical additive in the cat food and all I had to do was find food that didn't contain it. BHT or something.
Finally I wanted a dog but we went to many agencies and filled out their forms, started to fall in love with a few dogs, but always we were told that we couldn't have that dog! It "wouldn't be the right kind of dog for you." ???? My husband has had a lot of different breeds of dog all his life from small dogs to Great Pyrenees but nothing was "right for you."
Other reasons were that we lived in an apartment and didn't have a yard.
Finally we found an older dog on CL. What a darling that dog was. He was free to a good home because the owner who loved him very much was going off to college and there would be no one at home to take proper care of the dog. The person had one stipulation: that she be allowed to come and visit the dog, which she did. The dog had a great four years with us---five mile walks with my husband, natural dog food, lots of love. So what if we didn't have a yard? We walked the dog instead.
That dog passed away last summer and our hearts were broken. Knowing he didn't have much time left I started checking CL again and the day after that dog left this earth, another dog came to us. One thing in our favor was the glowing letters of recommendation from the person we got the first dog from.
The second dog person is still in communication with us by email and I send her cute photos of the dog.
This dog is seven years old and if I ever need another dog, I will NEVER go through a pet adoption agency again. For the first dog we were rejected all over the state of Massachusetts, into Connecticut, and in New Hampshire. For some reason we were just not good enough apparently. I still don't know what that was all about and for their information---we DO have a little yard now. We even built a fence for the dog. The dog has a deck and a front porch and goes for really long walks every day. Food is the best. Maybe some states have better systems for pet adoption but around here about the only thing you can do is go on CL and try to find a pet for yourself. Much faster and less painful than filling in the forms and being told you're not good enough for some reason.
There is a certain wisdom in this post and I think it applies to many of the smaller animal rescue organizations. I wouldn't limit it to dog breeds. I'm sure the same behavior can be found with cats, rabbits, ferrets - any animal rescue. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call them hoarders. More like over protective parents.
Because of their level of caring and anthropomorphism, they start to think that all potential adopters need to live up to their own level of caring, and tight restrictions on adoptions ensure that animals under their wing will always have the best care possible.........by staying right where they are. They forget that the point of rescue is to find loving homes for abandoned animals, not taking the animal under their wing forever because they set their standards too high.
I'm not advocating adopting to just "anyone" but there are plenty of people out there who can give animal a decent home without making the animal the focal point of their existence. Just because they view and treat their cat as a cat instead of a child doesn't mean the animal will be mistreated, ignored, or unloved. If you want to make a difference in battling animal homelessness, not every adoption has to be under the "ideal" circumstances to work out for both parties. I'm having a hard time getting at the crux of my meaning......... I guess what I'm trying to say is that finding 100 "pretty good" homes is better than finding 10 "perfect" homes and letting 90 other animals die.
What I bolded. That is my biggest issue with some of these animal rescues.
I want to state again, not ALL of them are like this. Too many of them are, for sure, but I know for a fact, a personal experience, that my friends, (who I have helped in their rescue), do everything in their power to get those pets adopted and they are not pet nazis.
I would not sign an agreement that would allow a shelter to claim the ownership of an animal retroactively. Cases involving abuse or neglect ought to be referred to law enforcement. I would never abuse or neglect an animal in my care, but if I did, I should be subject to penalties under the legal system. This, apparently, is not sufficient for some shelters.
If there is evidence of abuse or neglect sufficient to trigger repossession of an animal--which suggest that the rescue still owns the animal--then the authorities have jurisdiction, or should have, not animal shelter vigilantes showing up without warning whenever they feel like it. Contracts permitting shelter vigilantism are generally unenforceable in any case, which is why I include the name of a rabid attorney as a reference in my applications to shelters that wish to exercise this privilege.
Rescues could report perceived abuses to the authorities. But acting as self-deputized law enforcement ought to be strongly discouraged. Adopters should have legal recourse against shelters who confiscate their pets under false pretenses, or for any reason whatsoever. This is the jurisdiction of legitimate law enforcement.
You are making an assumption that the various states have written standards of care that are good. Most do not.
Would you consider a outside dog chained 24/7 on a 6 foot chain attached to a flimsy plywood dog house with no insulation even in temps well below freezing adequate care? In most states that is OK.
Several years ago my group did indeed have to take back a dog who had started out with a good enough owner. Things changed and the dog was eventually in such circumstances as I described above. It was not getting feed every day, was emaciated, covered in fleas and ticks and was heart worm positive when we got it back. Why? The owner had gotten addicted to meth and was not taking care of himself, never mind the dog. If we had not had a clause in our contract that enabled us to take the dog back when we did it most likely she would have died long before animal control was legally able to act.
Most rescues have standards of care that far exceed anything that the state legislators are willing to enact.
Check out your states laws and see if you think they are sufficient to ensure that animals in your state receive minimum care.
Most organizations have neither the paid staff nor the volunteers to do much follow up on any adoptions. We try to contact each adopter a couple of times via phone or email in the first few months to see how things are going and to offer help if they re having problems. Beyond that we simply don't have the resources. The only way we knew about the above mentioned case was that a concerned neighbor contacted us to see what, if anything, we could do to help the dog. They did not know that the owner had adopted the dog from us about 6 years prior.
You are making an assumption that the various states have written standards of care that are good. Most do not.
Would you consider a outside dog chained 24/7 on a 6 foot chain attached to a flimsy plywood dog house with no insulation even in temps well below freezing adequate care? In most states that is OK.
Several years ago my group did indeed have to take back a dog who had started out with a good enough owner. Things changed and the dog was eventually in such circumstances as I described above. It was not getting feed every day, was emaciated, covered in fleas and ticks and was heart worm positive when we got it back. Why? The owner had gotten addicted to meth and was not taking care of himself, never mind the dog. If we had not had a clause in our contract that enabled us to take the dog back when we did it most likely she would have died long before animal control was legally able to act.
Most rescues have standards of care that far exceed anything that the state legislators are willing to enact.
Check out your states laws and see if you think they are sufficient to ensure that animals in your state receive minimum care.
Most organizations have neither the paid staff nor the volunteers to do much follow up on any adoptions. We try to contact each adopter a couple of times via phone or email in the first few months to see how things are going and to offer help if they re having problems. Beyond that we simply don't have the resources. The only way we knew about the above mentioned case was that a concerned neighbor contacted us to see what, if anything, we could do to help the dog. They did not know that the owner had adopted the dog from us about 6 years prior.
Six years prior?.................Six years! So your organization makes people sign an open ended contract giving you the permission to visit in perpetuity? Wow. I couldn't imagine signing a contract like that for ANYTHING let alone an animal in a world where millions are put to death each year for lack of homes.
This meth head thing was an isolated incident, part of a small percentile.........and one that if the need arose, the local humane society could have dealt with. While I'm not a big fan of most humane societies, I will acknowledge their rapid assistance many times in the past when I've contacted them about abused animals.
By making potential adopters sign over their civil rights, you're alienating a huge portion of the population, you're denying your shelter animals a potentially more fulfilling life, and crippling future rescues.........and reasons like that, will keep those types of animal rescues spinning their wheels forever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
