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.
Soooo stupid. What's the point, what does any of that have to do with adopting a pet?
There are several privately owned shooting ranges around here where you MUST be an NRA member to join as a member. What does that have to do with trap shooting?
I have quite a bit of experience in shelters including having volunteered in Humane Societies in 3 different states. I also have quite a bit of wildlife rehabilitation experience. The personalities involved with non-profit animal charities are wildly diverse. I have known some horrible people in it for ll the wrong reasons because they like the attention and image of being "do-gooder" even though what they actually do is hoard animals and embezzle from the charity. Then there are those who are so protective it's hard for them to adopt out any animals looking for that perfect spot. Then there are those that do light screening and adopt out lot of animals and hope for the best. The one I had the most experience with was the latter one and while I agreed with the approach there were some truly heartbreaking situations with some that came back to us.
there is also a LOT of competition and bad blood between many of these organizations. Accusations fly regarding methods and motives and who is doing best for the animals. I can't say I'm surprised about this case with the shelter that is weeding out people for reasons unrelated to pet ownership. It is sad, but knowing the kinds of personalities in that work I can't say I'm surprised. If as an earlier poster indicated they deal with the highly adoptable dogs there will be no harm done, thankfully. If she was intaking older animals, bigger dogs, bully breeds, etc., then she is limiting their chances and I would have a hard time squaring that with what I assume is the mission to do the best by the animals. It's one thing to be overly protective about your criteria where the criteria are related to pet ownership (although some go too far IMO), but I really don't see any justification of this in terms of helping ensure pets find loving homes.
A lot of shelter prohibit bringing guns on site and that I have no problem with. That's their right as property owner and/or operator. The adoption criterion is something else entirely.
They won’t let you have a dog for hunting, only “companionship.” They all ask why you want the dog on your application. I know this all sounds strange but people who have adopted pets in places like CA and NJ know what I’m talking about.
The reality is that many dogs that won't hunt or are too old to hunt are dropped off at shelters or rescue centers. So maybe this adds to the shelter's hesitation to let dogs be adopted if they are intended to be trained to hunt.
The reality is that many dogs that won't hunt or are too old to hunt are dropped off at shelters or rescue centers. So maybe this adds to the shelter's hesitation to let dogs be adopted if they are intended to be trained to hunt.
I don't know how many ways I can say, "I'm good with rescues deciding who can adopt their dogs". The feeling of ownership and protectiveness rescuers feel about the dogs they've rescued and have nursed to health/better behavior/whathaveyou, and the fear they have that their precious animals will be abused in a new home, IMHO, gives the rescuers a right to choose based on who they believe will be the best, most loving owners.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about bakers who refuse to make cakes for homosexual weddings because of their religious beliefs? Do you support these bakers? If so, then I will commend you for being consistent in your views as to the rights of business owners to choose with whom they will do business. But if not . . . then why not?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enough_Already
Prove that statement.
The only way her policy would be sending a dog to the euth room that otherwise would have a home, is if that gun owner was so stupid he didn't know other places he could get a dog, OR, is so uninterested in adopting one that he immediately gave up because he actually changed his mind about getting a dog after being told by this one very small rescue he wouldn't get one of hers.
So, there's that. A gun owner changes his mind in one afternoon and decides against pursuing getting a dog, or has zero idea that dogs can be procured elsewhere.
In the real world, he'll get a different one from somewhere, although it's not one from this particular rescue, and the numbers of adopted vs. euthed dogs remains the same as before she put that criteria in her adoption policy.
People who wish to buy a dog will get one somewhere else.
Anyone SHE refuses to adopt to, can go right down to the kill shelter to begin with and get a dog.
I understand VERY well how nokill shelters, and no kill rescues, can't operate without using kill shelters, because pretty soon the whole city would be overrun with dogs in kennels.
But if you think her denying a particular applicant a dog means they just can't go to the city shelter in the first place and get a dog, you're not looking at this correctly.
These are her charges. She's going to make sure based on her best intuition, that they'll all go to great homes.
She's not obligated to take overflow from anywhere, and move dogs lickety split with placements she's not comfortable with. She's not obligated.
By refusing to adopt to gun owners, she is not sending one more single dog to the euth room than would be going anyway, without her own policy.
You have no clue what you're talking about and you are the one who is not looking at this correctly. The longer her dogs sit, because of her little power-trip the longer those dogs are taking up the space of a soon-to-be-euthanized dog. That is a FACT. Nothing you say will change that fact.
All you did was basically repeat some of what I already said, like you're giving out new information. And then you flat out lied about the real consequences of her actions.
She is not making sure "on her best intuition", she is playing politics and she's on a power trip. Being pro or anti gun control has absolutely nothing to do with a person's ability to properly care for an animal.
If she said "I won't adopt to anyone unless they are pro 2A", she would still be WRONG.
You don't play politics or power trip with the lives of animals, if you claim to care about animals.
When you do, everyone can see that you, in fact, do NOT care about animals.
It's a neon flashing sign.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 7 days ago)
35,630 posts, read 17,968,125 times
Reputation: 50652
Quote:
Originally Posted by .sparrow.
You have no clue what you're talking about and you are the one who is not looking at this correctly. The longer her dogs sit, because of her little power-trip the longer those dogs are taking up the space of a soon-to-be-euthanized dog. That is a FACT. Nothing you say will change that fact.
All you did was basically repeat some of what I already said, like you're giving out new information. And then you flat out lied about the real consequences of her actions.
She is not making sure "on her best intuition", she is playing politics and she's on a power trip. Being pro or anti gun control has absolutely nothing to do with a person's ability to properly care for an animal.
If she said "I won't adopt to anyone unless they are pro 2A", she would still be WRONG.
You don't play politics or power trip with the lives of animals, if you claim to care about animals.
When you do, everyone can see that you, in fact, do NOT care about animals.
It's a neon flashing sign.
nope
Sorry. I live in a city that's wrestled valiantly to become a no-kill city, and I've been privy to that process.
You're wrong about the numbers of moving dogs around. Extremely adoptable dogs, like the ones she appears to offer, based on her website, have wait lists and don't sit on the market for more than a minute.
She's not working with the dogs that are extremely difficult to adopt and so denying a rare interested potential adopter will doom that dog in the long run.
Looking at her pictures of dogs, she's got the kind of dogs where adopters brag "oh, she's a rescue", when in fact that meant they beat out other potential adopters in the race to the adoption desk the first morning the dog came up for adoption.
Would you be okay if she screened out gay people? Muslims? Democrats? Trans? Black people? Latinos? Something tells me you would be changing your tune.
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.
And then you flat out lied about the real consequences of her actions. 
