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.
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?
Absolutely, what is best for the animal (which I have typically had in my house for weeks or months, so I'm attached) and also what is the best fit for the adopters. But paramount is the welfare of the animal that I have fostered. I get attached!
Quote:
"Probably" a majority, or in reality?
I have not read up on current studies; so this is my perception and experience. I have been fostering dogs, plus some cats, and been involved one way or another since 1991. I'd certainly welcome any data, even if it contradicts me.
Quote:
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.
And that is OK. I was a poor renter with Rottweilers, in a state that allowed breed discrimination by insurers, for years starting in the mid 1980s. So I get both sides. And I also understand how freakishly difficult it can be trying to rent with a 100 lbs plus dog that many insurance companies (depending on your state) will refuse to insure, whether you're the renter or the homeowner.
All I can do is give you my personal perspective from over two decades of being very involved in dog rescue and training, and my thought process. I'm not speaking for anyone else.
Just to clarify; if a wealthy, married, straight homeowner family was interested in a foster dog or cat: No way would they get an automatic pass. I'd still check stuff! And do a home visit and check references. But yeah....I'm more diligent with young, poor renters. Also, you will note, extra-diligent with pit bulls and similar breeds.
It is what it is.
Quote:
You *do* know that there is at least one national insurance company that will insure regardless of breed, correct?
Yes, duh, helloooo, State Farm, and that's who insured me back in Colorado when nobody else would.
Thank you for that clever hint, though.
However, last time I checked, they do not insure homes under $50,000. Where I live now? The majority of homes are valued at under 50K, including my own.
I have not read up on current studies; so this is my perception and experience. I have been fostering dogs, plus some cats, and been involved one way or another since 1991. I'd certainly welcome any data, even if it contradicts me.
I would hope that you would welcome *any* data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiroptera
And that is OK. I was a poor renter with Rottweilers, in a state that allowed breed discrimination by insurers, for years starting in the mid 1980s. So I get both sides. And I also understand how freakishly difficult it can be trying to rent with a 100 lbs plus dog that many insurance companies (depending on your state) will refuse to insure, whether you're the renter or the homeowner.
Again, I will say, there is at least one national insurance company that will NOT ask what type of dog you have, renter or homeowner. The insurance issue should not be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiroptera
All I can do is give you my personal perspective from over two decades of being very involved in dog rescue and training, and my thought process. I'm not speaking for anyone else.
And, I'm giving you mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiroptera
It is what it is.
Yes, and that's a cop out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiroptera
Yes, duh, helloooo, State Farm, and that's who insured me back in Colorado when nobody else would.
Thank you for that clever hint, though.
However, last time I checked, they do not insure homes under $50,000. Where I live now? The majority of homes are valued at under 50K, including my own.
Nope, not State Farm. I'd say "duh", but that might be interpreted to be smug.
If you try the other 2 or 3 national companies, I would just about guarantee that you would get a different answer from at least one of them.
Again, I will say, there is at least one national insurance company that will NOT ask what type of dog you have, renter or homeowner. The insurance issue should not be a problem.
And, I'm giving you mine.
Yes, and that's a cop out.
Nope, not State Farm. I'd say "duh", but that might be interpreted to be smug.
If you try the other 2 or 3 national companies, I would just about guarantee that you would get a different answer from at least one of them.
OK...well last time I checked, it was State Farm. As I stated.
And if you are a renter, yes it IS a problem. Because as a renter you cannot control your landperson's insurance company. Is this somehow a difficult concept for you to understand? I can help you with that, just ask.
I said I would welcome any data that contradicted or clarified what I said. Did I not? I don't get you, here. I say what I mean and mean what I say, pretty much.
I'm being completely honest from my POV as someone with over 20 years experience in the matter at hand, and you are pissed off about it for some reason. How very odd.
OK, then that is your choice. Let me know if you need any help.
Have a delightful day.
OK...well last time I checked, it was State Farm. As I stated.
And if you are a renter, yes it IS a problem.
Why are you being so hostile?
I'm being completely honest from my POV as someone with over 20 years experience in the matter at hand, and you are pissed off about it for some reason. How odd.
OK, then that is your choice.
Have a delightful day.
I am hostile? Nope, I'm just giving you my perspective as I see it. As a matter of fact, I believe that I have not been hostile in the least in this discussion.
If it is a problem that I (or anyone else) is a renter, then I am expressing my opinion that you are being closed-minded if one phone call, to the landlord, does not allay any trepidations that you may have.
Otherwise, yes, you are not doing your dogs the best service that you can. That's what you are in this for, correct?
If you choose to read this far, you may want to check another insurance company. You may know "dog rescue", but I have a *bit* of experience in insurance. Having the knowledge of what insurance companies may or may not insure particular breeds is important, no?
The other people I have tried to talk out of it don't realize how expensive dogs are.
This is always a struggle, and some of it is because they see a lot of people around them at a similar or lower income level who do have dogs, so they think they can too. However, sometimes those other neighbours/friends are making other sacrifices to keep those dogs (like maybe they don't have cable TV or as big of an entertainment budget, something like that), or alternatively, sometimes they're not good owners (don't take their pets to the vet, only feed the cheapest foods, etc). Dogs are indeed "cheap" if you're feeding them Ol'Roy, not giving Heartgard monthly, and never take them to the vet.
This is always a struggle, and some of it is because they see a lot of people around them at a similar or lower income level who do have dogs, so they think they can too. However, sometimes those other neighbours/friends are making other sacrifices to keep those dogs (like maybe they don't have cable TV or as big of an entertainment budget, something like that), or alternatively, sometimes they're not good owners (don't take their pets to the vet, only feed the cheapest foods, etc). Dogs are indeed "cheap" if you're feeding them Ol'Roy, not giving Heartgard monthly, and never take them to the vet.
Just wondering, when you adopt a dog out, do you require a full financial profile?
Like I have said, I GET these issues, but I do wonder if you require a prospective owner to let you know what disposable income they have per month.
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.
