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.
i'm just saying, *every single time* adoption comes up in any context, people feel compelled to share their negative impressions of rescues and shelters (and generally give the impression that all shelters and rescues are the same as the ones they had negative experiences with). i just don't get it. this thread had very little to do with the pros and cons of adopting, but it seems like the mere mention of the word "shelter" brings out the same old gripes.
i'm certainly not accusing anyone of making anything up, but there is a hell of a lot of generalizing going on.
and glitch's very first post on this subject, the one you're all implicitly (in some cases explicitly) agreeing with, posits that buying from a puppy mill is better than adopting from a shelter. he even scoffs at the idea of a reputable breeder. but he's trashing shelters so everyone piles on.
As she said, this was said by someone who has knowledge of which pets end up in shelters, not to mention MAK knows a lot about bulldogs, (everybody loves PC and knows him here) and many people are willing to adopt sick pets regardless.
I have seen people adopting pets with every kind of disease since they are the least "adoptable" ones. And besides, you never know, as with people, today the pet is healthy and any pet might get sick tomorrow.
It is not people's fault they had negative experiences in shelters. It is very frustrating when one is willing to care/love a pet and is denied for outlandish reasons.
that's all very resonable miaiam, but i'm more referring to calling volunteers at shelters "shelter snobs," the initial implication i mentioned before from glitch that it's better to buy from a puppy mill than adopt, and the many, many implications that most or all shelters have unreasonable requirements to adopt.
but whatever, this is all way off topic and i'll stop contributing to the derailment of this thread.
Shelters are forced to do things they don't like. One of them is the adoption requirments. If they diodn't have these requirments, they could adopt 100,000 dogs with no problems, but if just one goes south on them, belive me they will be crucified by everyone. That is the unfortunate fact because animal lovers will make a stink, bpuppy mills will be financiang that stink, politicians will be jumping on it because it gets their 2 minutes of sound bite, news organizations will be ripping it apart because thats what they do, the guys at the diner will be having their say, and sponsors and financial supporters will be shy to contribute. No matter what the shelter does for the good of the a animals or how many happy ending there are, people will create the end of the world if just one adoption goes bad. You want shelters to relax adoption rules, stop acting the goat when some unfortunate things doesn't go right.
Next, Resuce organizations and back yard breeders comes in all shapes and sizes from relaible to down right scams. Many puppy mills have set up fake resuce organizations to peddle their stock. Some so called back yard breeders don't breed anything, they buy from the mills. Take a look atsome of these rescue organizations and notice how many of them have 100 dogs, 98 are puppies and 2 are aduklts but if you want that adult, sorry it's already adopted but we have these cute puppies - and the adoption fee is the same as buying at a pet store.
But this is about puppy mills and puppy mills are factories to produce animals in assemebly line fashion. They don't care about the animals, they are a business to mass produce puppies for sale, often in horrible conditions. This is not about pure breed or mutt, it's not about adoption or purchase, and it's not about shelter policies, IT IS ONLY ABOUT the factory's that manufacture puppies for profits as a salable commidity, not as a living animal.
i agree that this sounds like a reasonable application process, but the puppy mills, pet stores and backyard breeders do not care if people meet these qualifications. their only qualification is "do you have the money to pay for this dog?" or "are you willing to take this unwanted dog off of my hands?"
it's because of puppy mills and any other breeders that "conveniently" provide dogs to anyone who can pay or will take an animal for free that animals end up with the "shelter snobs".
yes, i think some shelters and rescues go too far with their application process, and some shelter/rescue people are probably on a power trip about it. but the vast majority of the time the motivation is not to be exclusive or mean - it's to ensure that the animals end up in good homes and that they will not end up in a shelter again. reputable breeders have similarly stringent application processes, and for the same reason, but for some reason that never comes up.
when i adopted my dog, i had to fill out a questionnaire where i stated how much i thought i would spend a year on her, how long she would be left alone, where she would be when i was out, how often i felt she needed to be walked, whether we owned our home or had permission from our landlord to have a dog, etc. my husband and i work full time and do not have a fenced in yard and we were able to adopt with no problem. i had to agree to a home visit but they never did one (and i happen to know that this shelter only includes that stipulation so they can exercise it if they need to, and to put off people who have something to hide at home). i have adopted many times, from different shelters, and have never faced the kind of scrutiny people here describe. i'm sure it happens, but i seriously doubt it's as universal as some people like to portray it.
and all that being said, i personally know of a dog adopted from the same shelter where i got sadie who ended up chained up in her owners' backyard 24/7. neighbors have called the humane officer a few times and now they no longer have the dog. i'm not sure what happened to her. so yeah, it was easy for me to adopt sadie, but it was also easy for these neglectful owners to adopt. could more scrutiny of the adopters have prevented that situation? maybe. that's certainly the view of the "shelter snobs". a home visit, especially post-adoption, would have been a start, and there are posters on this forum who think even a home visit is unreasonable.
yes, i think some shelters and rescues need to take a hard look at their adoption requirements and consider the balance between keeping dogs out of neglectful/abusive homes by being too lenient and keeping them out of good homes by being too strict. but incessantly posting about it whenever the subject comes up just scares people away from even trying to rescue. i've seen it happen on this board more than once.
well said, groar.....
i adopted all 4 of my furfaces from the same shelter and had much the same process as groar .... filled out a reasonable application, a part of which included agreeing to a home visit..... which never happened..... i also work full time and at the time i adopted bailey, did not have a fenced yard..... no problem AT ALL taking ANY of them home......
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAK802
I agree with Glitch as well. My friend wanted to adopt a kitten 3 years ago and went to the local shelter since they had over 40 due to it being kitten season. She was told she can't adopt from them, because she's a single college student! Her neighbor had a stray cat that always visited his yard and she had a litter on his deck very soon after this. When they got older, my friend took one of them and has had him for 3 years now, through 2 moves and a marriage. They lost out on an awesome pet owner because of their ridiculous rules!
And the shelter I used to volunteer for back on the East coast had an 8 page application. 8 pages or some of the most ridiculous questions ever. I get it, you want the best homes, but that was a huge deterrent to many people who simply walked out with the application and never came back.
I've seen countless adoption applications from rescues/shelters. We'd be denied at every single one of these places because we are renters and do not have any kind of yard. I assure you, my dogs don't suffer because there is no yard. We just simply exercise them elsewhere. And to add, we had a very stringent application with by PC's breeder. Just because you have money, doesn't mean he'll give you a pup. Somehow people seem to think that if you show them the money, they hand you a puppy, no questions asked. Doesn't work that way! Try being on a waiting list for over a year, that's how long it took us. He turns down many people because they don't fit his criteria, and is quite involved in the pups' lives after they go to their new homes.
pc came from a reputable breeder ..... BIG BIG BIG difference between him and the more typical BYB or miller .... and those are the dogs that will wind up in the shelters or rescues.......
i do home visits for a few rescues..... and have approved a young single woman who worked full time and lived in an apartment and a couple who only had a TINY area of their yard fenced..... i look for people who are dog-wise (or are willing to become dog-wise .... i can tell that by the questions they ask and how they listen and interpret what i reply) .... and who are open to suggestions..... prospective adopters are always nervous when i get there, but i tend to spend more time chatting with them than i do "inspecting." i am not looking for a perfect home for the dog.... they don't exist.... i am looking for someone with good common sense, a kind heart and who will love and provide for the dog in a safe and kind and consistent and loving manner.... the young woman in the apartment and the couple with only a tiny area of fenced yard knew and understood the dog's requirements for exercise and were prepared to meet it ..... that worked for me.....
i don't doubt that there are "rescue snobs" or "shelter snobs" ..... but that is a pretty broad brush to paint the entire rescue and shelter community with.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAK802
Do you really think the majority of the population is on CD? I'm willing to bet that this forum makes up less than 1% of the animal owning population! The other 99% are deterred from adopting by factors not related to this forum.
And you brought up another good point, both of the shelters where I volunteered immediately disqualified you if you worked full-time. I have friends that volunteer in shelters and rescues all over the country. Every single one of these places will not adopt to you if you work full-time outside of the home and I hear that cited as a huge reason to avoid adoption.
i was working full time (and likely will be for the rest of my life...) all 3 times i went in to adopt my cats and dogs.... no problem at all.....
i suspect that the shelters MAK volunteered with or is familiar with are the reason why SO many dogs are adopted and transported from the southeastern states........
I, for one, hope they do ban the selling of puppies in pet stores. It's at least a start. And I have the utmost respect for reputable rescues and the work they do. Working tirelessly to save animals; fostering; vetting; transporting . . . I'm in awe of how far they will go to save one animal.
IF they are stringent on their adoption requirements ~ so be it. A lot of surrendered animals have health issues and must go to someone with an open pocketbook.
I applied to a King Charles Cavalier Rescue and didn't think the form was all that bad. Ultimately, they didn't call me before I got Lucy; but I will try the rescue route again.
I think most of us on this board want the same thing ~ to stop the abuse and mass production of dogs.
If not, here is the basics.
Puppy mills breed large amounts of dogs in horrible conditions.
It cost them money to operate.
They make money to pay the bills by selling to brokers, pet stores, fake resuce organizations, and fraudulent back yard breeders.
So long as they are selling, they will breed.
Cut the demand and they can't continue breeding at the large levels.
Some will no longer be profitable and go belly up.
Others will breed only for any demand.
Some will change their business model from a mill to a acceptable breeder.
In time, the whole face of mills will change because the demand isn't there.
Puppy mills are just manufactures of live animals. It's simple supply and demand, basic 6th grade economics. I don't know where all the talk about dumping comes from because it is all BS. Puppy Mills can not continue producing a product that cost them money to make if no money is coming in on sales. This is such a ridiculus conversation.
1) So you are accusing all people who breed large numbers of animals of abuse? That's a serious charge;have any facts to back it up?
2) Obviously if places aren't making money they will close. However, that will simply clear the playing field of unnecessary competition. Larger mills will buy the smaller one's animals and the world will keep turning.
3) Regulating or enforcing existing laws on breeders AND pet stores would probably the same benefits or greater than an outright ban. Can you cite one instance were banning ANYTHING has caused it stop existing? Or even modified it in a beneficial manner?
4) People wanting inexpensive animals for pets is why those places,good and bad,exist. Unless and until,you curb the desire of people to want cheap pet, then you and banning legislation are simply wasting time and money.
5) Most municipalities are already strapped for cash to care for HUMANS. How effective do you think a ban would be that only affects animals?
Probably not very, as my area is planning on laying off animal control officers.
This is an emotional issue for some people, but its solution needs to be practical and logical or else they will fail.
Um, I think breeding should be controlled better and pet stores are a horrible place for a dog to live - especially when they're puppies and need socialization if not their mothers. People who run puppy mills should be locked up in those cages and sit in their own filth.
That being said, we searched for FOUR YEARS for a smooth collie (or even a rough one!) puppy at shelters and through rescue groups locally and in other states...no luck!!!! Finally had to find a championship breeder in Georgia and pay through our nose to get that smooth collie pup - almost the whole litter was bought before they were even born!
We need those responsible breeders to certify eye, hip, autoimmune, etc, progeny, as well. She interviewed us as much as we interviewed her - this is the proper way the transaction should go down.
stan4, reputable breeders who have humane care in their breeding is not the target of these bans. Most of the bans initially (although that may have been skewed) are to help stop the inhumane mills. There is nothing wrong with using a humane breeder to get a specific dog with specific traits so long as their process is humane. Actually, i would think a person looking at a pure breed would do what you did because they want to get from the most reprutable person since who knows what you'll get from some mall pets store?
banevader,
1. Stop playing the fool, you know exactly what I'm talking about. Puppy production factories, not reputable humane breeders! That's one heck of a smoke screen your throwing out.
2. Not, so. There are other countries who on a national level placed restrictions and it's been working. The US has a problem because one state can't tell another state how to conduct business. The only thing a state can do is put local restrictions on local commerce. If that result in the mills not being able to sell, at least that state did what it could. If enough states did it, those mills will need to clean up their acts. pet stores know darn well what's happening at the factories, so they are not innocent.
3. When the USDA banned the import of dogs from foreign puppy mills, many lost their US customers and went out of business. A few specialty breeds relied upon the US and European vanity markets for the builk of their sales. To prevent them from being cut off from that money, they rebuilt their breeding operations so it could pass unannouced inspection. The humane level went from F- - - - to maybe B+ or A-. And guess what, the humane breeding programs actually produced more money for them because they were't stuck trying to hawk dozens of inferior puppies to black market brokers. They produces only a small amount that they use to produce, but at substantially less cost, with more healthy and adjusted puppies that commanded a higher price in the pure breed buyers.
4. I have no idea what that means and it makes no sense. I think you meant to say people wanting pure breed vanity dogs at cheap prices. If they want a cheap dog, they can get one at a shelter. But they don't want those common diogs, they want a specific dog as a fashion accessory. To be honsest, most people I know who have pure breds and buy them from pet shops are not in it for the breed, they are in it for the vanity. People who get pure brreds who respect the breeds, don't buy from pet stores but reputable breeders.
5. See #1 above.
Don't confuse puppy mills with reputable breeders. Don't confuse pure breed for the breed with pure breed as an accessory.
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.
