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 don't have any relevant anecdotes I can relate, but when I used to take foster dogs (and some cats) to adoption events on a regular basis I would always stress that the pet would live anywhere from 10-20 years, would require ongoing care and responsibility, and I always made a point of saying "so how old will you be in 15 years, and where will you be?" (or however long we figured the animal may potentially live.)
I really think that is the biggest thing that drives the huge, sad number of throw-away dogs and cats here. That people too often don't take the commitment seriously and for the life of the pet.
I really think that is the biggest thing that drives the huge, sad number of throw-away dogs and cats here. That people too often don't take the commitment seriously and for the life of the pet.
It definitely is. Too many renters getting pets, and too many unmarried couples and roommates who get pets together, or people getting pets for their kids when they should only get them if they want the dogs/cats themselves (the kids aren't the ones paying and are rarely the ones doing the work). It's one thing when unexpected things happen after the pet is purchased (say, losing a job, leading to a foreclosure, or kids developing bad allergies later), but most circumstances that lead to pets being dumped could be called ahead of time. Many of these people buy/adopt these animals knowing full well in the back of their minds that dumping the animals is perfectly acceptable to them and that it's actually not a lifetime commitment. It's still socially acceptable to do this.
It definitely is. Too many renters getting pets, and too many unmarried couples and roommates who get pets together, or people getting pets for their kids when they should only get them if they want the dogs/cats themselves (the kids aren't the ones paying and are rarely the ones doing the work).
About 2 years ago, for some reason... I was having a notorious time with the 2 groups bolded... the unmarried couples in particular. It seems the women (YOUNG women) thought it would be sooo cuuuttteeee to get a little dog to carry around in their purses and become a fixture on their couches. And of course...the guys were in agreement. So they said. But where was he? As is customary, they'd fill out the app, list the BF as a resident in the home, but didn't think it necessary to include him in the decision, because he would just soooooo fall in loooovvvveeee with this ccccuuuuttttteeee little dahling! I would then ask them to call BF to come to the adoption site to meet the dog. "buy wwwhhhyyy????" they would wail... "this will be mmmyyyy dog! We're not even mmmaarrrriiiieeedd!" Um, because he lives with you? I can't consider the application until all members of the residence has come in to meet the dog. Of course, they wouldn't come back after that.
One girl did get around that by saying she lived alone. And she had a good app. She got the dog. She brought the dog back the following weekend, with BF in tow...who was less than pleased at what she did. Oh, and the best part... she wanted her non-refundable adoption fee refunded. Um, no. And miracle of miracles, he supported us in that. Needless to say, she is on our "Do Not Adopt To" list. Because of this, I am VERY leery of adopting to couples living together where only half of the couple shows up the first time.
It definitely is. Too many renters getting pets, and too many unmarried couples and roommates who get pets together, or people getting pets for their kids when they should only get them if they want the dogs/cats themselves (the kids aren't the ones paying and are rarely the ones doing the work). It's one thing when unexpected things happen after the pet is purchased (say, losing a job, leading to a foreclosure, or kids developing bad allergies later), but most circumstances that lead to pets being dumped could be called ahead of time. Many of these people buy/adopt these animals knowing full well in the back of their minds that dumping the animals is perfectly acceptable to them and that it's actually not a lifetime commitment. It's still socially acceptable to do this.
While I do wholeheartedly agree with the overall message here, which I see as "people who think that pets are disposable should not get them", I do think that making blanket statements like there are too many renters getting pets and too many unmarried couples and roommates getting pets together is crossing a line that I do not think needs to be crossed in this discussion.
While, yes, it may be more difficult to find a place to rent with pets, those places are out there. I know firsthand that there are several very good insurance companies who will not even ask what type of dog you have before insuring you. I live in a very dog-friendly area, and I do understand that there are places that less so. However, I do not think that people should immediately have to defend their desire to adopt a dog simply on the basis that they rent rather than own their place. Frankly, I think that would deny a tremendous amount of homeless animals a great forever home.
The same goes with people who "co-adopt" an animal, IMO. I personally know one gal who got a cat with her live-in girlfriend. This cat was adopted literally off of death row. And, I know this gal would be the one to take care of this cat, and certainly be more than willing to take it should the relationship go south.
I like the idea of having a discussion with people we know who might not be ready or able to have an animal, for whatever reason. As people who ostensibly are close to them, we have information (and also presumably the clout) to be able to have a frank discussion about all of the responsibilities of owning an animal and whether we think that they are prepared for them. Rather than making blanket statements about people who "should" or "should not" own an animal, this personal touch, IMO, is a great way to handle things.
Hopes, did your friend even consider that her 4 cats might not take too kindly to an interloper dog and vice versa? Sadly not everyone takes into account the difficulties of co-mingling dogs and cats who were not raised together. I'm keenly aware that most dogs and cats do get along and I love to share pictures of them playing but the chances of 4 different cats happily receiving a large dog into their midst are not promising.
While I do wholeheartedly agree with the overall message here, which I see as "people who think that pets are disposable should not get them", I do think that making blanket statements like there are too many renters getting pets and too many unmarried couples and roommates getting pets together is crossing a line that I do not think needs to be crossed in this discussion.
While, yes, it may be more difficult to find a place to rent with pets, those places are out there. I know firsthand that there are several very good insurance companies who will not even ask what type of dog you have before insuring you. I live in a very dog-friendly area, and I do understand that there are places that less so. However, I do not think that people should immediately have to defend their desire to adopt a dog simply on the basis that they rent rather than own their place. Frankly, I think that would deny a tremendous amount of homeless animals a great forever home.
The same goes with people who "co-adopt" an animal, IMO. I personally know one gal who got a cat with her live-in girlfriend. This cat was adopted literally off of death row. And, I know this gal would be the one to take care of this cat, and certainly be more than willing to take it should the relationship go south.
I like the idea of having a discussion with people we know who might not be ready or able to have an animal, for whatever reason. As people who ostensibly are close to them, we have information (and also presumably the clout) to be able to have a frank discussion about all of the responsibilities of owning an animal and whether we think that they are prepared for them. Rather than making blanket statements about people who "should" or "should not" own an animal, this personal touch, IMO, is a great way to handle things.
People who know they wouldn't give up an animal willy nilly know it doesn't apply to them. It was pretty clear that my post is about people who dump animals as soon as their situation changes, and life changes are a lot more common amongst those groups. Those who work through them while always keeping their pets are not the subject at hand, so why even bring them up?
If my post somehow hits too close to home for someone like that, then they should probably look inside themselves a bit more. Sorry, but the fact remains that those groups, among others, put themselves in situations where their lives are in flux and do not take into consideration the next decade or two. And those are the same people who need to ask themselves additional hard questions about where they will realistically be one year from now, two years from now, five years from now, ten years from now, fifteen years from now. Are there places out there that will rent to dog owners? Yep. Sometimes. Varies on the city. Varies on the vacancy rates. Varies based on neighbourhood. My current city? It's hell on dog owning renters, yet still dog owning renters keep getting dogs, and it's the multitude of shelters, rescues, and craigslist ads that have to clean up their mess. Oh, and veterinarians. My veterinarian regularly gets renters trying to euthanize 1 year old dogs because they have to move.
But that's not the whole story either. Sometimes actually finding a place that will rent to someone with dogs requires being far away from jobs to find those places, sometimes it requires moving out of your ideal school district, sometimes it requires paying a lot more, sometimes it requires living with a slumlord, sometimes it requires looking for an extra long time to find one. These people need to ask themselves how much they're willing to sacrifice for their dogs. Go cruise Craigslist pets section some time. Excluding backyard breeders, the landlord situation is about 80% of the source of irresponsibility, and shelter volunteers can give you a similar high percentage. Roommates and very young people who break up are another big source.
The goal to dealing with pet abandonment is not something that should be dealt with only in the short term by finding as many homes as possible for currently abandoned dogs. That's heartwarming and fuzzy wuzzy and whatever, but by focusing only on that, one perpetuates the cycle where millions more dogs get abandoned and millions more get euthanized every year. There are NEVER going to be enough good homes for these dogs. It's better to focus on ending the cycle and stopping people from getting dogs that they are in no situation to get. It's the demand that needs to be slowed, and social acceptance of this stuff is what is allowing the demand to stay high.
While I do wholeheartedly agree with the overall message here, which I see as "people who think that pets are disposable should not get them", I do think that making blanket statements like there are too many renters getting pets and too many unmarried couples and roommates getting pets together is crossing a line that I do not think needs to be crossed in this discussion.
While, yes, it may be more difficult to find a place to rent with pets, those places are out there. I know firsthand that there are several very good insurance companies who will not even ask what type of dog you have before insuring you. I live in a very dog-friendly area, and I do understand that there are places that less so. However, I do not think that people should immediately have to defend their desire to adopt a dog simply on the basis that they rent rather than own their place. Frankly, I think that would deny a tremendous amount of homeless animals a great forever home.
The same goes with people who "co-adopt" an animal, IMO. I personally know one gal who got a cat with her live-in girlfriend. This cat was adopted literally off of death row. And, I know this gal would be the one to take care of this cat, and certainly be more than willing to take it should the relationship go south.
I like the idea of having a discussion with people we know who might not be ready or able to have an animal, for whatever reason. As people who ostensibly are close to them, we have information (and also presumably the clout) to be able to have a frank discussion about all of the responsibilities of owning an animal and whether we think that they are prepared for them. Rather than making blanket statements about people who "should" or "should not" own an animal, this personal touch, IMO, is a great way to handle things.
sparrowmint said it better, but when you're the "foster parent" or in the position to decide who gets the animals that people have put a whole lot of resources and care and time into, one tends to think like insurance underwriters!
And I think that while there are clearly many young/poor/cohabitating/renters/room mates who are fabulous and responsible adopters, it is probably true, as many of us observe, that probably a majority are likely to abandon or pass on the animal in comparison to their older/better off/homeowning/married cohorts.
Speaking for myself, I have adopted out animals to many of the former, but it's a more wholistic process. I would never deny a renting cohabiting couple on that criterion alone! But I will be perhaps a little more diligent with home checks, vet and other referrals and so on.
Yes, it's stereotyping but it's also being very careful.
I'm also more stringent when considering adopters for breeds like pit bulls and Rottweilers or any high drive dog regardless of breed, or dogs with "reputations" and possible breed ban or insurance issues.
If my post somehow hits too close to home for someone like that, then they should probably look inside themselves a bit more. Sorry, but the fact remains that those groups, among others, put themselves in situations where their lives are in flux and do not take into consideration the next decade or two. And those are the same people who need to ask themselves additional hard questions about where they will realistically be one year from now, two years from now, five years from now, ten years from now, fifteen years from now. Are there places out there that will rent to dog owners? Yep. Sometimes. Varies on the city. Varies on the vacancy rates. Varies based on neighbourhood. My current city? It's hell on dog owning renters, yet still dog owning renters keep getting dogs, and it's the multitude of shelters, rescues, and craigslist ads that have to clean up their mess. Oh, and veterinarians. My veterinarian regularly gets renters trying to euthanize 1 year old dogs because they have to move.
I respect where you are coming from, however, I do believe that you are speaking from your own experience and not looking at the bigger picture.
Are you familiar with the circumstances in other areas? While your veterinarian may "regularly" get renters who ask him or her this, do you know what it's like in other areas, or with other vets for that matter?
Of course, ALL people who get animals have to look at where they will be years from now, as best they can. IMO, the biggest question is, "should my situation change, will I do the best I can to keep that pet with me?". If the answer is "no", then they should not get an animal. Renting may be *a* factor in this, but I hardly think it's as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparrowmint
But that's not the whole story either. Sometimes actually finding a place that will rent to someone with dogs requires being far away from jobs to find those places, sometimes it requires moving out of your ideal school district, sometimes it requires paying a lot more, sometimes it requires living with a slumlord, sometimes it requires looking for an extra long time to find one. These people need to ask themselves how much they're willing to sacrifice for their dogs. Go cruise Craigslist pets section some time. Excluding backyard breeders, the landlord situation is about 80% of the source of irresponsibility, and shelter volunteers can give you a similar high percentage. Roommates and very young people who break up are another big source.
I GET it. Like I've said initially, people who want animals have a lot of decisions to make.
However, looking at Craigslist does not really give a good idea of "percentages" of people who get rid of dogs. I've known quite a few people who've had to do just that and have not gone through the internet or shelters.
Oh, and what's the divorce rate these days? About 50% or so? Having a marriage certificate in hand doesn't necessarily mean happily ever after, animals included. From my experience, both with married couples who have broken up as well as unmarried couples who have, there is usually one party who wants the animal and will fight for it. If there is not, perhaps that goes back to the original discussion here, in terms of having a frank discussion with friends or family about getting a pet to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparrowmint
The goal to dealing with pet abandonment is not something that should be dealt with only in the short term by finding as many homes as possible for currently abandoned dogs. That's heartwarming and fuzzy wuzzy and whatever, but by focusing only on that, one perpetuates the cycle where millions more dogs get abandoned and millions more get euthanized every year. There are NEVER going to be enough good homes for these dogs. It's better to focus on ending the cycle and stopping people from getting dogs that they are in no situation to get. It's the demand that needs to be slowed, and social acceptance of this stuff is what is allowing the demand to stay high.
And, I AGREE with you. However, I also believe that the lines that you have drawn would only serve to exclude some terrific owners, who would view ownership of this pet as a lifetime commitment.
As well as being a dog lover and owner I am also a landlord. I have a no pet policy because I have hardwood floors and all of my tenants are grad students who would complain in a minute if barking noises were to become a problem.
Last year I had a young lady medical student who really wanted to adopt a shelter dog. She was living alone, far from home and wanted companionship. She had 2 more years left on her lease when she asked my manager if she could get a dog. When my manager contacted me I immediately said no. But somehow the young lady found out who I was (I don't deal directly with tenants) and she begged me to let her get the dog.
I gave her certain conditions just knowing she would never meet them.
1- she had to get written statements from all the other tenants that they would not object to a dog in the building. These statements had to be notarized.
2- She had to pay for an enclosure to be built in the back and it had to have a nice dog house so she would not be leaving the dog unattended in her apartment. She also had to promise she would take down the enclosure when she left and fill in any holes or low places caused by the dog.
3- She had to write me a letter stating she would never leave the dog unattended in the enclosure or in her apartment for more than 3 hours.
4- She had to promise me that if tenants started complaining about the dog she would rehome it or take it to a pet sitter.
5. She had to promise she would pick up after the dog whenever it pooped on my property.
6. I had to have written proof the dog was spayed and current on all shots and that she had renters insurance which covered dog damages as well as liability policy absolving me as landlord for any liability if the dog bit anybody.
7. And finally I asked her to make a $250 non refundable pet deposit in addition to her security deposit. This amount is what is generally charged in my area.
I admit I tried to make it nearly impossible for her to get the dog but dang if she didn't do all of those things cheerfully and within 10 days! Turns out she already had the dog and it was staying with a friend and she would have done anything I asked to bring her new friend home. It all worked out fine but I doubt I will agree to a dog again because as soon as she brought the dog home other tenants wanted to adopt dogs. None however went to the trouble to meet all the requirements i asked for.
sparrowmint said it better, but when you're the "foster parent" or in the position to decide who gets the animals that people have put a whole lot of resources and care and time into, one tends to think like insurance underwriters!
I get that.
However, in thinking like an "insurance underwriter", you are implying that the bottom line is most important. That is to say, looking at, as you have said, the "resources and care and time", what would be the best result for this animal?
I say this with all sincerity, and really do want to know, is that what you meant by this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiroptera
And I think that while there are clearly many young/poor/cohabitating/renters/room mates who are fabulous and responsible adopters, it is probably true, as many of us observe, that probably a majority are likely to abandon or pass on the animal in comparison to their older/better off/homeowning/married cohorts.
"Probably" a majority, or in reality?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiroptera
Speaking for myself, I have adopted out animals to many of the former, but it's a more wholistic process. I would never deny a renting cohabiting couple on that criterion alone! But I will be perhaps a little more diligent with home checks, vet and other referrals and so on.
Yes, it's stereotyping but it's also being very careful.
Yes, it is stereotyping. I can only speak from my personal perspective here, but I would be quite put off if I were to find out that someone was being more diligent with home checks and referrals simply because I am a renter and not an owner.
If I knew you were using a "more wholistic" process simply because I didn't own, and it wasn't just one simple phone call, I would say thanks but no thanks.
Do I have a reason to be put off? I believe that I do. And, though in my personal circumstance, that would not drive me to an unscrupulous breeder, I can imagine that it would for others.
Like I've said, I GET it. I GET that there are a lot of abandoned animals out there because of these issues. But, I also believe that people need to get a better grip on the commitment that people would have to the animal, by looking at the bigger picture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiroptera
I'm also more stringent when considering adopters for breeds like pit bulls and Rottweilers or any high drive dog regardless of breed, or dogs with "reputations" and possible breed ban or insurance issues.
You *do* know that there is at least one national insurance company that will insure regardless of breed, correct?
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.
