# Small rant about rescues



## patcurt

I do not post here often but I read and learn from everyone here a lot.

Just needed to rant a little as I am home alone and no one is here to listen to me!! Except my Molly and she really could care less!!

I saw a wonderful 3 year old shih tzu on adopt-a-pet. I emailed them to ask a few questions such as did they have a lot of applications, any prerequisites to adopting, do they adopt out of state. I am in NY, they are in PA. I received an e-mail back telling me that they do indeed adopt to NY, as long as I was willing to drive to them. I was also told they had a number of apps but wanted someone with more experience with small dogs. I had already given them a mini history of my household and was told to fill out an application since I did have the experience.

I filled out the application. Got another e-mail to tell me it was received and they wanted to call my references that day so please inform them that they would be receiving a phone call. Called my vet and friend to let them know. Another email asking for home pictures, in and out. Took them and with a lot of trouble finally emailed them. Was told they were received.

Just received another email telling me SORRY but they require a fenced yard. From the very beginning I told them I live on an acre with fields behind my house and it is not fenced. I had a little cry because everything had been so positive up until then and I was actually starting to imagine him in our household. (I know, that was not smart)

Emailed back that I would have appreciated knowing this requirement from the get go so all my time and hers was not wasted. I also told her I was only going to get a rescue locally or buy from a breeder. I am done with the rescue apps. I did wish her rescue good luck in the future and thanked her for being a foster.

Why oh why aren't they up front in the beginning???

Rant over. Thank you for listening.


----------



## Bones

Depends on the rescue. In our applications its outline clearly what we expect- and even then we can be very lenient depending on the home.


----------



## Anniebea

That is very frustrating. when my boyfriend adopted my little Chihuahua mix Rosie, from a petco weekend adoption thing, they were whispering about whether or not they wanted to tell him about her "little problem" he didn't say anything.. i dont know why.. i'm just going to assume it's that she has a peeing problem and is a bit hyper active.. but still it would have been nice to know she wasn't potty trained, and she didn't have any obedience training. My friend adopted a chihuachua from a petco adoption and that shelter was worst than the people who were adopting out my dog. the chihuahua my friend got had back leg problems, the second day she had him he could not walk, so he couldnt eat or go out for potty he was in so much pain. she called the shelter and at first they tried to deny knowing about his leg problems, and that they were sorry but its not their problem, until my friend pointed out in one of their videos of the dog that he was limping while playing. so the shelter paid the 2-3000 vet bill, almost had to amputate his legs and get him a wheelchair. but he has permanent screws in his legs keeping them together. something about his knees didnt develop. i dont remember, but shelters and fosters are okay, but can be real idiots and selfish. i get you want the dog to go to a home, but why risk the adopter bringing the dog back, pissed telling friends not to adopt there because they lie, or something. i dont know. thats my story.. i love my chii rosie pee problems or not


----------



## WheatenDaneMom

HahahAHhahahaAhahhahAHhhaaa.......

Sorry I am not laughing at you, I am laughing with you although... you're probably not laughing right now.

One of my attempted adoptions sounded... oh just like that. Well except they actually made me do a home video of the house, yard, family...etc and post on you tube... along with a 7 page questionnaire, vet references for 10 years and 3 non-family references. 

After all of that and days of correspondences I was denied due to lack of fence on one side of property which cannot be fenced as I am on a corner lot.... at least of not significant height. 

I wish they had said.... and .... and .... or need not apply.

I cried... for about 3-4 days, I was so excited... my hopes were let down... it's a hard process in the wrong hands.


----------



## jessicass

sorry about that,god bless you


----------



## patcurt

I know exactly what you mean. From all the correspondence we had, I was starting to believe she was mine!! After the application (where I said I did not have a fence and never planned on installing one) and I walk my dog on leash, she still told me to let my references know she would be calling. At this point she should have told me a fence was a requirement.

Only local shelters for me from now on.


----------



## Preza

Yuck I just went through the same process. I learned the hard way that the west coast does not believe in out of state adoptions! even if you are the neighboring state. Its like living in New Jersey and not being allowed to adopt in New York because your address is in the wrong state. I hunted forever looking for a small female husky, that fit our life style and our apt, but we rejected because we live out of state! I got so frustrated that I almost cried on the phone. The local shelter also had a dog that fit us but got adopted a couple hours before we got there. It's so frustrating but worth it in the end!


----------



## MariJoy

Yeah, its like you're guilty until proven innocent. I remember trying to get a dog from a rescue for my mom - she had been keeping dogs successfully for 30 years and they turned her down because she was in her 70's. Never mind the fact that she was in very good overall health at the time, had an ideal situation for the dog (her retired, house with secure, fenced yard), and my family as a back-up plan, they said "no-way"...


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

I think the thing to remember is that not all rescues are the same nor are they equal. And if that fails (as it tends to do with these threads) that they legally own and care for their dogs. They can tell you no if your shirt is the wrong color.


----------



## MariJoy

This is true...we got Ziggy from a rescue, 3 our of 4 family members came to the rescue to meet him & we spoke with them at length, they brought him out and he took to us right away, so it was a pretty done deal without a lot of pre-screening.


----------



## KaywinnitLee

I think there is a big difference normally in adoption requirements between a rescue and a shelter. Rescues are typically much more picky about who gets their dogs, especially breed-specific rescues. They go to shelters and pick dogs out (usually) to bring to their rescue. Of course, it's a good thing because they are usually taking dogs off dog death row but then finding a good family becomes practically mission impossible based off of requirements for adoption. Shelters will adopt to practically anyone as long as you have the money for the fee. It's as if the requirements should really be somewhere between those of a typical shelter and rescue. 

My advice: keep trying. I went through a horrible time adopting a dog because I do not have a fenced in yard. I got denied for several dogs after long correspondence and background/reference checks. Then finally a rescue saw that I am responsible and a good owner and agreed to let me adopt the dog I wanted as long as I agreed to walk her even in crud weather. Well I can tell you I have held up my end after walking her in 2 degree weather this morning, lol! Her adoption was 6 months ago and she is the perfect dog for me. Don't lose hope! The right doggie will come along


----------



## Abbylynn

I went through something I feel was really a great idea. Abbylynn was at a shelter/rescue a couple hours away from where I live. It was a shelter but the dogs were actually pulled form another place by a rescue group and put up for adoption. I went to meet the pup and after a little over an hour of meeting and greeting and talking with the people at this facility I was then allowed to put a deposit of $100 towards her adoption. I then had to wait three days before I could actually adopt her. I believe this three day waiting period actually gave perspective adopters a chance to really think it through and be sure this is what they really wanted to do. You know how the "cute" puppy syndrome is ... and have to have it on the spot goes! 

I had to go back to the shelter and sign papers stating that if for any reason I could not keep her for ANY reason she would be returned to this facility. I also had to sign a clause in the contract stating that she would in no way ever be an outside dog. I then had to wait another 10 days for her to be shipped to PA to the Vet Tech Institute for blood work and spay and vaccinations. The dog license was included in the $100 fee. After the ten day waiting period ... once she was sent back to Ohio ... I was then able to pick her up ... sign my life away  and take her home. She became mine. 

There was also a clause in the contract stating that if your adoptive animal should die during the spay/neuter you would be refunded your $100. I also wanted to give some money and sponsor a shelter dog.  I would also imagine if the dogs blood work came back bad you could opt out of the adoption. ( for a lack of a better term)

It would be IMO great if all shelters were able to do this. It really makes you step back and review what you are about to do.

I am sure funds are not always available to work it this way though. So sad.


----------



## patcurt

My dog Molly came from a shelter in October 2010. They made us wait three days while they checked our references. Fine with me. My problem with this rescue was they said everything was A-OK and to call my references and let them know they would be calling. This would be the last step in the process. The next day (after NOT calling references ) they said no, sorry.

I firmly believe in rescue, work at the local shelter. But after all the problems we had to work through with Molly, I rethought it and went to a breeder and am now the owner of a three month old puppy. End of story


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

fkkkkk how many times will I post in my life time that not every shelter and rescue are the same nor are they created equal?


----------



## Bones

People should not paint all rescues with the same brush. Not only is it ridiculous but it makes you look a fool.


----------



## patcurt

Not only did I NOT paint all rescues with the same brush,only this one that I dealt with recently. If you read my post, my Molly came from a shelter, no problems. Name calling when you clearly do not understand the original post is why I rarely come on this forum. I am on another forum where this is not tolerated. Reread and maybe, just maybe, you will understand what I posted (but from your post I doubt it)


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

patcurt said:


> Not only did I NOT paint all rescues with the same brush,only this one that I dealt with recently. If you read my post, my Molly came from a shelter, no problems. Name calling when you clearly do not understand the original post is why I rarely come on this forum. I am on another forum where this is not tolerated. Reread and maybe, just maybe, you will understand what I posted (but from your post I doubt it)


You just said one rescue hassled you so you went to a breeder, end of story. What is someone supposed to glean from THAT post other than you are in a thread regarding rants about rescueS.

Don't come dropping "You don't understand bombs" when you couldn't even comprehend what people said to you.


----------



## Amaryllis

Unfortunately, rescues develop what I call "police syndrome". They see so many people do so many awful things to dogs, people who seemed nice, reliable, absolutely perfect for a dog, that they become inordinately suspicious of everyone. Sometimes they add rule after rule after rule to deal with all the situations they've seen and become (understandably) rigid about them. It can be a problem, but it's not done maliciously.


----------



## patcurt

I Have dealt with more than one rescue, more than a few. Sorry if I did not make that clear. The reason this one upset me is that we have numerous e-mails back and forth and I was told everything was perfect and the only thing left to do was for the references to be called. If there is a problem, tell people from the beginning.

I can only have a small dog so was looking for another shih tzu. So what I have found are not as readily available as larger dogs. I am on another breed specific forum and had developed a friendship with the particular person that I acquired my most recent dog from.

And yes I can comprehend what people say to me. What makes you so quick to be nasty to people you do not know? Just ask a question, such as "was this the first rescue you dealt with?" I always thought these forums were for people with like interests to ask questions and learn from each other. Obviously not.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

Every time these threads come up, I say the same thing, and they just keep coming. One rescue is not every rescue and every rescue is not one rescue. Even just the wording "Rescues.." bothers me. Rescues are run by different people with different ideals and rules. One rescue being a PITA is not a declaration on all rescues.

So.. basically telling you what you just said to someone else is nasty to people I don't know but you saying it first, repeatedly to Bones, is not the same thing.


----------



## patcurt

I was not being nasty. Just trying to help you to understand that I was not ranting about ALL rescues. Just this one. I am intelligent enough to know they are all different. Done now. Have a nice life.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

Mad dramatic. I will have a nice life despite this singular upset on an internet forum, you learn how to phrase things appropriately and respond to questioning when they are not.


----------



## Bones

Can you has Cookie?


----------



## KelseyRose

Are we not adults here? I'm nineteen years old, and the way people have acted towards each other makes me feel like I'm in fricking high school again. We are here to help each other, not to belittle someone.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest

Wonderful input to the subject at hand.. two weeks after the thread petered out.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

KelseyRose said:


> Are we not adults here? I'm nineteen years old, and the way people have acted towards each other makes me feel like I'm in fricking high school again. We are here to help each other, not to belittle someone.


Kelsey Rose is my name..How creepy lol.

I'm having very nasty experiences with three exceedingly dodgy 'rescues' at the moment. You know who I bitch to? A rescuer.

Important to remember that just like everywhere, there are bad apples.


----------



## Pawzk9

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=6359 A good read on shelters/rescues and inflexible expectations


----------



## Bones

Pawzk9 said:


> http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=6359 A good read on shelters/rescues and inflexible expectations


That article is downright retarded.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

Bones said:


> That article is downright retarded.


Care to elaborate?


----------



## Bones

Curbside Prophet said:


> Care to elaborate?


For one thing why should someone adopt an animal out to people who are going to let it run loose outside? Be it a cat or a dog letting an animal run loose outside is not only hazardous to animal but also hazardous to the public. Recently someone here got into a fender bender because they swerved and braked hard to miss a cat. While I understand the purpose of a no kill nation there should be some realistic standards by which homes are judged on. Would never adopt a cat or a dog out to someone who would just let it run loose outside.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

The article started very well until it became clear this woman was too far the OTHER way, going on about how indoor cats are bored and fat, and even stating at one point 'NO screening' because she 'trusts the public more than the [insert rant about people complacent about killing.]' Then she lost all credibility.


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> The article started very well until it became clear this woman was too far the OTHER way, going on about how indoor cats are bored and fat, and even stating at one point 'NO screening' because she 'trusts the public more than the [insert rant about people complacent about killing.]' Then she lost all credibility.


Hint: Nathan is a guy. Someone most people knowledgeable about the shelter world are at least familiar with (even if they don't like his answers) The point being, people who work in shelters and rescues frequently see the worst in people, because of the work they are doing. Also because they listen to H$U$, who depends on high kill rates to gig the public for money and support anti-animal lobbying. Is a cat going to someone whose last cat lived a good long life (if they got it as an adult, probably 17 years or so), a bigger risk than allowing the cat to remain in a probably over-full kill shelter?


----------



## Bones

Pawzk9 said:


> Hint: Nathan is a guy. Someone most people knowledgeable about the shelter world are at least familiar with (even if they don't like his answers) The point being, people who work in shelters and rescues frequently see the worst in people, because of the work they are doing. Also because they listen to H$U$, who depends on high kill rates to gig the public for money and support anti-animal lobbying. Is a cat going to someone whose last cat lived a good long life (if they got it as an adult, probably 17 years or so), a bigger risk than allowing the cat to remain in a probably over-full kill shelter?


The unfortunate truth about kill shelters is they exist not for the animals but for the public. To keep stray and unwanted animals from being a nuisance. Until that changes and the mindset of the public changes there will always be high kill rates.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> Hint: Nathan is a guy. Someone most people knowledgeable about the shelter world are at least familiar with (even if they don't like his answers) The point being, people who work in shelters and rescues frequently see the worst in people, because of the work they are doing. Also because they listen to H$U$, who depends on high kill rates to gig the public for money and support anti-animal lobbying. Is a cat going to someone whose last cat lived a good long life (if they got it as an adult, probably 17 years or so), a bigger risk than allowing the cat to remain in a probably over-full kill shelter?


If it's a choice between a homeless cat and the native wildlife in my area, I'll risk the cat being put down in the shelter. 

If the cat roaming thing was only about the CAT, I'd grudgingly say 'well, even though he makes his point by childishly ripping down the opposing team, I am forced to agree with him.' But it's not. The way he talked about the area being so rural made me question how much wildlife was killed in the fifteen years this couple owned the previous cat.

I agree with the contention that shelters frequently only see the bad in people, but I found this article to just be rambling.


----------



## Pawzk9

Bones said:


> The unfortunate truth about kill shelters is they exist not for the animals but for the public. To keep stray and unwanted animals from being a nuisance. Until that changes and the mindset of the public changes there will always be high kill rates.


As long as H$U$ has influence over local shelters there will be high kill rates.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> As long as H$U$ has influence over local shelters there will be high kill rates.


As long as people are irresponsible, there will be high kill rates.


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> As long as people are irresponsible, there will be high kill rates.


As long as people are irresponsible, there will be animals in shelters. Winograd has proven that high kill rates can change when shelter workers set getting them out alive as a top priority.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> As long as people are irresponsible, there will be animals in shelters. Winograd has proven that high kill rates can change when shelter workers set getting them out alive as a top priority.



I must not have made myself clear. The death of an animal is on the people who surrendered it 99% of the time. Yes, rescues CAN make kill rates go down but only by doing what (in my opinion) constitute as irresponsible things. Alive is not always better 'than anything.'


----------



## So Cavalier

> Yes, rescues CAN make kill rates go down but only by doing what (in my opinion) constitute as irresponsible things. Alive is not always better 'than anything.'


So do you think dead is better than being in a perfectly good home? My friends were denied a dog because both of them worked. They are great dog owners. They paid a couple thousand dollars in vet fees when one of their dogs became ill. They even ripped out all their carpets and put in tile flooring to help solve a problem with one of their dogs. Their dogs are very much loved members of their family. But their home was "not good enough" because both adults worked.

I suspect that the vast majority of dog owners who have healthy, happy dogs would not pass the qualifications of SOME rescues. I agree, it shouldn't be an open door, come in and pick out a dog with no questions asked. But some rescues have qualifications that are way too strict. This is one reason people choose to get their dogs from pet shops and backyard breeders.



> The death of an animal is on the people who surrendered it 99% of the time.


I do agree with you on this.....if people were more responsible, pet over population would not be a problem. But that is true with most social ills.


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I must not have made myself clear. The death of an animal is on the people who surrendered it 99% of the time. Yes, rescues CAN make kill rates go down but only by doing what (in my opinion) constitute as irresponsible things. Alive is not always better 'than anything.'


Neither is being dead.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

So Cavalier said:


> So do you think dead is better than being in a perfectly good home? My friends were denied a dog because both of them worked. They are great dog owners. They paid a couple thousand dollars in vet fees when one of their dogs became ill. They even ripped out all their carpets and put in tile flooring to help solve a problem with one of their dogs. Their dogs are very much loved members of their family. But their home was "not good enough" because both adults worked.
> 
> I suspect that the vast majority of dog owners who have healthy, happy dogs would not pass the qualifications of SOME rescues. I agree, it shouldn't be an open door, come in and pick out a dog with no questions asked. But some rescues have qualifications that are way too strict. This is one reason people choose to get their dogs from pet shops and backyard breeders.
> 
> 
> 
> I do agree with you on this.....if people were more responsible, pet over population would not be a problem. But that is true with most social ills.


I didn't say that. Here's an example of what I mean.

There is a VERY irresponsible group that has popped up in Aussie rescue lately. They're called 'Pound Rounds' and what they do is get dogs off the kill list at our largest shelters no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT.

I don't think I need to elaborate for you to see how many tragedies there have already been.


----------



## WTFCas

I'll go ahead and share my point of views on most rescues I've come into contact with and some things I don't agree on. 

First off, I don't think a fence should be the number one priority when it comes to finding a good home for a dog. I think a stable home and job should be. Along with the potential owners being knowledgeable about the breed they are applying for and the care involved with the dog at a basic level. I live in a house in the middle of a 70 acre field and have been denied as a foster home because I don't have a fenced in yard. Fenced in yards aren't fool proof. Dogs will dig, climb and even chew their way out of a fence. A fenced in yard won't exercise the dog and I think it actually isn't as good as taking your dog on leash to do its business or to exercise the dog since you would be with the dog. I understand people's aversion to tethers and kennels however, if properly chained a dog won't be run over by a car. If I can't supervise my dog and its nice outside I will put her on a chain while I do things around the house. I don't think I should be crucified for it. I understand its ideal to have a fenced in yard but in some cases its just not feasible.

I don't think a home check is asking for too much either. If I put that much work into a dog I would definitely want to know what its living conditions would be like. For example, my Mother has 6 little lap dogs and they pretty much live in her kitchen. I think its sad that they are rarely out of there except to go potty and be put into crates. I wouldn't adopt a dog out to her, nor would I adopt a dog out to someone who wants a yard ornament. I don't mind dogs that live outside as long as they get off that chain or are let out of the yard and get substantial human interaction. One thing that really struck a nerve was a rescue told me I shouldn't have the dog I had if I used reduced cost spay/neuter and rabies clinics. I was taken aback by that considering the clinic used the proceeds to help homeless animals as well as saving me about $120! I felt that person's comment was completely unnecessary. My dogs don't go without food or vet care and I was highly offended at that insinuation.

Pretty much, I understand why their are strict rules to adopt from rescues but these are some things that have really rubbed me the wrong way.


----------



## Willowy

AussieNerdQueen said:


> There is a VERY irresponsible group that has popped up in Aussie rescue lately. They're called 'Pound Rounds' and what they do is get dogs off the kill list at our largest shelters no matter what. NO MATTER WHAT.
> 
> I don't think I need to elaborate for you to see how many tragedies there have already been.


What kind of tragedies? I would like it if you elaborated.

One problem (and I think one of Nathan Wingrad's points) is that people who want pets _*are going to get pets no matter what*_. BYBs, puppymills, pet stores, and people giving away free puppies/kittens don't ask questions. So if they're turned down by a shelter/rescue, they aren't prevented from getting a pet, they're just prevented from getting THAT pet. Which can be good and can be bad, depending on the individual animals and people involved. For instance:

I know a woman, low-income, diagnosed with several mental/emotional illnesses/personality disorders. She depends on other people to do things for her, and my mother is one of the people she's glommed onto. A few years ago she wanted a kitty, and asked my mom to find one for her. She should not have had a cat, and my mom told her so and refused to help her or drive her to the shelter or anything. So she got a 5-week-old tortoiseshell kitten, raised outdoors, from someone giving the kittens away free. Which was an absolute disaster, due to the kitten's "tortitude", age, wildness, and general kitten-ness clashing with the woman's general personality. When she went into Assisted Living my mom took the cat, and she's improved greatly. . .she'll never be a nice kitty but at least she doesn't randomly attack people anymore. But if she had ended up in a shelter she would have been killed pretty quickly. So recently this woman was thinking of leaving the Assisted Living facility, and asked my mom to help her find a cat. . .and this time we would have! If we found her a nice, docile, older cat who only wants to sit on someone's lap all day, it would not be such a disaster. She shouldn't have a cat, we don't _want_ her to have a cat, but she WILL have a cat and at least we can minimize the damage if we help her pick the right one. (Fortunately I just found out she won't be allowed to leave the facility. So it's moot. For which I am eternally grateful. But it certainly made me think about this subject).

And a family friend just got a dog. They aren't super irresponsible pet owners, but also aren't super responsible, and would probably have been refused by a rescue. They went to the Humane Society, and the adoption counselor helped them pick an adult dog that fit their family. They're very happy with her, and when problems did crop up they called the shelter who put them in touch with a trainer who volunteers their time, and everybody remains very happy. If the shelter had turned them down, they were planning to go look at a litter of free Husky mix puppies. And that would have been an unmitigated disaster--a puppy, high-energy mix, with no after-adoption support? Big trouble, and the pup probably would have ended up at a shelter. So 2 dogs would have lost their lives--the one they didn't adopt, and the one they later dumped off.

So sometimes being choosy about who to adopt to can just cause more trouble and more dead pets. And it doesn't prevent any pets from suffering--it just shifts the troubles on to some other pet. And maybe, if the potential adopters were helped and not just turned away, that _would_ reduce suffering.

Most people will feed and water their pets. Most will not abuse them. Maybe the pet won't be living the life YOU think he should, or I think he should, but chances are it won't be a bad life altogether, and at least will be better than being dead. To get too judgey about how other people keep their pets is a slippery slope. I'm sure someone disagrees with how I keep my pets. I'm sure someone disagrees with how you keep your pets. But I think my pets are better off with me than being dead, and I'm sure you think your pets are better off with you ("you" meaning anyone reading this, not anybody in particular).


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> What kind of tragedies? I would like it if you elaborated.
> 
> One problem (and I think one of Nathan Wingrad's points) is that people who want pets _*are going to get pets no matter what*_. BYBs, puppymills, pet stores, and people giving away free puppies/kittens don't ask questions. So if they're turned down by a shelter/rescue, they aren't prevented from getting a pet, they're just prevented from getting THAT pet. Which can be good and can be bad, depending on the individual animals and people involved. For instance:
> 
> I know a woman, low-income, diagnosed with several mental/emotional illnesses/personality disorders. She depends on other people to do things for her, and my mother is one of the people she's glommed onto. A few years ago she wanted a kitty, and asked my mom to find one for her. She should not have had a cat, and my mom told her so and refused to help her or drive her to the shelter or anything. So she got a 5-week-old tortoiseshell kitten, raised outdoors, from someone giving the kittens away free. Which was an absolute disaster, due to the kitten's "tortitude", age, wildness, and general kitten-ness clashing with the woman's general personality. When she went into Assisted Living my mom took the cat, and she's improved greatly. . .she'll never be a nice kitty but at least she doesn't randomly attack people anymore. But if she had ended up in a shelter she would have been killed pretty quickly. So recently this woman was thinking of leaving the Assisted Living facility, and asked my mom to help her find a cat. . .and this time we would have! If we found her a nice, docile, older cat who only wants to sit on someone's lap all day, it would not be such a disaster. She shouldn't have a cat, we don't _want_ her to have a cat, but she WILL have a cat and at least we can minimize the damage if we help her pick the right one. (Fortunately I just found out she won't be allowed to leave the facility. So it's moot. For which I am eternally grateful. But it certainly made me think about this subject).
> 
> And a family friend just got a dog. They aren't super irresponsible pet owners, but also aren't super responsible, and would probably have been refused by a rescue. They went to the Humane Society, and the adoption counselor helped them pick an adult dog that fit their family. They're very happy with her, and when problems did crop up they called the shelter who put them in touch with a trainer who volunteers their time, and everybody remains very happy. If the shelter had turned them down, they were planning to go look at a litter of free Husky mix puppies. And that would have been an unmitigated disaster--a puppy, high-energy mix, with no after-adoption support? Big trouble, and the pup probably would have ended up at a shelter. So 2 dogs would have lost their lives--the one they didn't adopt, and the one they later dumped off.
> 
> So sometimes being choosy about who to adopt to can just cause more trouble and more dead pets. And it doesn't prevent any pets from suffering--it just shifts the troubles on to some other pet. And maybe, if the potential adopters were helped and not just turned away, that _would_ reduce suffering.
> 
> Most people will feed and water their pets. Most will not abuse them. Maybe the pet won't be living the life YOU think he should, or I think he should, but chances are it won't be a bad life altogether, and at least will be better than being dead. To get too judgey about how other people keep their pets is a slippery slope. I'm sure someone disagrees with how I keep my pets. I'm sure someone disagrees with how you keep your pets. But I think my pets are better off with me than being dead, and I'm sure you think your pets are better off with you ("you" meaning anyone reading this, not anybody in particular).


Where's my "like" button? Nicely stated.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Willowy said:


> What kind of tragedies? I would like it if you elaborated.
> 
> One problem (and I think one of Nathan Wingrad's points) is that people who want pets _*are going to get pets no matter what*_. BYBs, puppymills, pet stores, and people giving away free puppies/kittens don't ask questions. So if they're turned down by a shelter/rescue, they aren't prevented from getting a pet, they're just prevented from getting THAT pet. Which can be good and can be bad, depending on the individual animals and people involved. For instance:
> 
> I know a woman, low-income, diagnosed with several mental/emotional illnesses/personality disorders. She depends on other people to do things for her, and my mother is one of the people she's glommed onto. A few years ago she wanted a kitty, and asked my mom to find one for her. She should not have had a cat, and my mom told her so and refused to help her or drive her to the shelter or anything. So she got a 5-week-old tortoiseshell kitten, raised outdoors, from someone giving the kittens away free. Which was an absolute disaster, due to the kitten's "tortitude", age, wildness, and general kitten-ness clashing with the woman's general personality. When she went into Assisted Living my mom took the cat, and she's improved greatly. . .she'll never be a nice kitty but at least she doesn't randomly attack people anymore. But if she had ended up in a shelter she would have been killed pretty quickly. So recently this woman was thinking of leaving the Assisted Living facility, and asked my mom to help her find a cat. . .and this time we would have! If we found her a nice, docile, older cat who only wants to sit on someone's lap all day, it would not be such a disaster. She shouldn't have a cat, we don't _want_ her to have a cat, but she WILL have a cat and at least we can minimize the damage if we help her pick the right one. (Fortunately I just found out she won't be allowed to leave the facility. So it's moot. For which I am eternally grateful. But it certainly made me think about this subject).
> 
> And a family friend just got a dog. They aren't super irresponsible pet owners, but also aren't super responsible, and would probably have been refused by a rescue. They went to the Humane Society, and the adoption counselor helped them pick an adult dog that fit their family. They're very happy with her, and when problems did crop up they called the shelter who put them in touch with a trainer who volunteers their time, and everybody remains very happy. If the shelter had turned them down, they were planning to go look at a litter of free Husky mix puppies. And that would have been an unmitigated disaster--a puppy, high-energy mix, with no after-adoption support? Big trouble, and the pup probably would have ended up at a shelter. So 2 dogs would have lost their lives--the one they didn't adopt, and the one they later dumped off.
> 
> So sometimes being choosy about who to adopt to can just cause more trouble and more dead pets. And it doesn't prevent any pets from suffering--it just shifts the troubles on to some other pet. And maybe, if the potential adopters were helped and not just turned away, that _would_ reduce suffering.
> 
> Most people will feed and water their pets. Most will not abuse them. Maybe the pet won't be living the life YOU think he should, or I think he should, but chances are it won't be a bad life altogether, and at least will be better than being dead. To get too judgey about how other people keep their pets is a slippery slope. I'm sure someone disagrees with how I keep my pets. I'm sure someone disagrees with how you keep your pets. But I think my pets are better off with me than being dead, and I'm sure you think your pets are better off with you ("you" meaning anyone reading this, not anybody in particular).


I'm not a fan of saying 'this person shouldn't have a pet, but since they're GOING to get one anyway..' All I think that does is show what a 'me, me me!' society we live in. Rescue animals usually have had it fairly rough the first time round, I don't think it's fair to give them to a n unhappy life so someone who wants a pet can have an 'easy' pet.

Well because they want to get the dogs out no matter what, they are giving dogs to anyone (and I mean _anyone_) who offers to volunteer. They don't temp test they take another group (PoundList's) notes so they are authorizing the release of a dog THE HAVE NEVER MET to a person THEY HAVE NEVER MET.

Two weeks ago a dog panicked in the car, jumped out the window and now has three legs. Last week they handed a dog over to someone without requesting any form of paperwork etc and now it's widely believed that dog was stolen for a fighting ring. A little girl was bitten on the face by a highly not-child-friendly dog they didn't bother to temp test.


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> I'm not a fan of saying 'this person shouldn't have a pet, but since they're GOING to get one anyway..' All I think that does is show what a 'me, me me!' society we live in. Rescue animals usually have had it fairly rough the first time round, I don't think it's fair to give them to a n unhappy life so someone who wants a pet can have an 'easy' pet.
> 
> Well because they want to get the dogs out no matter what, they are giving dogs to anyone (and I mean _anyone_) who offers to volunteer. They don't temp test they take another group (PoundList's) notes so they are authorizing the release of a dog THE HAVE NEVER MET to a person THEY HAVE NEVER MET.
> 
> Two weeks ago a dog panicked in the car, jumped out the window and now has three legs. Last week they handed a dog over to someone without requesting any form of paperwork etc and now it's widely believed that dog was stolen for a fighting ring. A little girl was bitten on the face by a highly not-child-friendly dog they didn't bother to temp test.


I don't understand why the dogs would have to be unhappy because someone is legitimately looking for an "easy" pet. People should be looking for pets who are a good match. And shelters/rescues should be looking for reasonable alternatives to euthanasia. I expect rescues to have reasonable policies to both make sure the animals are suitable to be pets and the owners are suitable to be owners. But, when screening procedures are such that people who live in apartments or with unfenced yards (as long as they have a plan for exercise), people with children, people with other pets, people with no other pets, people who cohabitiate, etc. cannot adopt, those procedures may be unreasonable, and cause animals to die needlessly or languish indefinitely in foster care. As to the organization you mention. If they are as bad as you say, why are the shelters participating?


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> I don't understand why the dogs would have to be unhappy because someone is legitimately looking for an "easy" pet. People should be looking for pets who are a good match. And shelters/rescues should be looking for reasonable alternatives to euthanasia. I expect rescues to have reasonable policies to both make sure the animals are suitable to be pets and the owners are suitable to be owners. But, when screening procedures are such that people who live in apartments or with unfenced yards (as long as they have a plan for exercise), people with children, people with other pets, people with no other pets, people who cohabitiate, etc. cannot adopt, those procedures may be unreasonable, and cause animals to die needlessly or languish indefinitely in foster care. As to the organization you mention. If they are as bad as you say, why are the shelters participating?



Shelters aren't. They aren't a shelter or a rescue group, I'm not sure how the laws work but they're handing the dogs over to volunteers for their group.

I was referring specifically to Willowy's example of the lady who wanted the cat. I stand by what I said, I really believe that it's wrong to adopt an animal out because 'they'll get one anyway.' 
Unfenced, works all day etc are difficult and should be case by case.


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Shelters aren't. They aren't a shelter or a rescue group, I'm not sure how the laws work but they're handing the dogs over to volunteers for their group.
> 
> I was referring specifically to Willowy's example of the lady who wanted the cat. I stand by what I said, I really believe that it's wrong to adopt an animal out because 'they'll get one anyway.'
> Unfenced, works all day etc are difficult and should be case by case.


If they are working with dogs on the kill list, then obviously the dogs are in the shelter. If the dog is in the shelter, it is up to the shelter to decide when to release them, and to whom to release them. I don't think people get animals because they want to abuse or abandon them. It CAN happen, but is a lot more rare than many who do rescue realize (because the rescuers are dealing with those animals who do end up homeless, those are the animals they see) They aren't looking at the people who go the extra mile to work with a difficult dog, or spend money to the point of hardship for their dog's health. Within a reasonable range, I would much rather see people get the benefit of the doubt who go to the trouble of going to the shelter or a rescue to give a dog (or cat) a home, than see the animal put down for lack of space, or other animals put down because some rescues are chronically full because they basically don't think anyone is good enough to own one of their fosters. (Isn't that a common mental illness problem with hoarding situations? People who think nobody can be trusted with their animals except them.) Note: I am not stating that all or even most rescues do this. I did a lot of rescue for a long time, and some of the best placements I made did not look that good on paper.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts

WTFCas said:


> I'll go ahead and share my point of views on most rescues I've come into contact with and some things I don't agree on.
> 
> First off, I don't think a fence should be the number one priority when it comes to finding a good home for a dog. I think a stable home and job should be. Along with the potential owners being knowledgeable about the breed they are applying for and the care involved with the dog at a basic level. I live in a house in the middle of a 70 acre field and have been denied as a foster home because I don't have a fenced in yard. Fenced in yards aren't fool proof. Dogs will dig, climb and even chew their way out of a fence. A fenced in yard won't exercise the dog and I think it actually isn't as good as taking your dog on leash to do its business or to exercise the dog since you would be with the dog. I understand people's aversion to tethers and kennels however, if properly chained a dog won't be run over by a car. If I can't supervise my dog and its nice outside I will put her on a chain while I do things around the house. I don't think I should be crucified for it. I understand its ideal to have a fenced in yard but in some cases its just not feasible.
> 
> I don't think a home check is asking for too much either. If I put that much work into a dog I would definitely want to know what its living conditions would be like. For example, my Mother has 6 little lap dogs and they pretty much live in her kitchen. I think its sad that they are rarely out of there except to go potty and be put into crates. I wouldn't adopt a dog out to her, nor would I adopt a dog out to someone who wants a yard ornament. I don't mind dogs that live outside as long as they get off that chain or are let out of the yard and get substantial human interaction. One thing that really struck a nerve was a rescue told me I shouldn't have the dog I had if I used reduced cost spay/neuter and rabies clinics. I was taken aback by that considering the clinic used the proceeds to help homeless animals as well as saving me about $120! I felt that person's comment was completely unnecessary. My dogs don't go without food or vet care and I was highly offended at that insinuation.
> 
> Pretty much, I understand why their are strict rules to adopt from rescues but these are some things that have really rubbed me the wrong way.


Agree with this. 

Fences need to be a case-by-case basis. Some dogs will need fences to prevent them from wandering. Some dogs will need fences to prevent them from attacking passerbys. In large part, this is going to be dependent on how the owners manage those dogs. Some dogs will never need fences. The shelter from which I adopted my dog required a fence, and they did a home check to make sure I had one. But honestly, a fence is useless for my dog, and was useless from the day I adopted her. First, she's not going to exercise herself in the back yard, so I can't just turn her out and walk away. And second, her natural inclination is to stick close by. If I opened the door and shoved her out, she wouldn't run - she'd stand there whining to be let back in. My fence has been in a state of disrepair since the home check 3 years ago. The dog couldn't care less.

And the home check thing...
People get all uppity about this, privacy issue or something. Gotta say, I really don't get that. If someone has something I want and they're willing to give it to me if I let them take a peek around my house, what do I care? The point of a home check isn't to judge people for the condition and cleanliness of their home. If it makes the home checker feel more secure about the dog's future, and if it prevents a few wackos from adopting dogs that they shouldn't, then I'm all for it.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> If they are working with dogs on the kill list, then obviously the dogs are in the shelter. If the dog is in the shelter, it is up to the shelter to decide when to release them, and to whom to release them. I don't think people get animals because they want to abuse or abandon them. It CAN happen, but is a lot more rare than many who do rescue realize (because the rescuers are dealing with those animals who do end up homeless, those are the animals they see) They aren't looking at the people who go the extra mile to work with a difficult dog, or spend money to the point of hardship for their dog's health. Within a reasonable range, I would much rather see people get the benefit of the doubt who go to the trouble of going to the shelter or a rescue to give a dog (or cat) a home, than see the animal put down for lack of space, or other animals put down because some rescues are chronically full because they basically don't think anyone is good enough to own one of their fosters. (Isn't that a common mental illness problem with hoarding situations? People who think nobody can be trusted with their animals except them.) Note: I am not stating that all or even most rescues do this. I did a lot of rescue for a long time, and some of the best placements I made did not look that good on paper.


Sorry, I'm not explaining myself well! They are a group that takes dogs on the kill list at my state's major pound each week. They don't actually meet the dogs but the ladies who run the group ask for volunteers to fosters, and as they steal the photos and notes, they don't know if they're matching the right dog with the right family. Not 100% on how they get around it, but they are not technically a shelter or rescue group, they do not hold the proper paperwork.

Fair enough, you raise a valid point and I have to agree. I just guess I feel there is a BIG difference between 'this is a wonderful family for this dog who happen to go slightly off what we expected this dog would need, otherwise a fantastic match' and 'unwell person unable of caring for an animal is getting one, might as well direct them to a shelter' like the lady Willowy referenced. I guess what I'm saying is I believe the rules should be more slack but I believe if a breeder wouldn't sell to a person for a (like the lady Willowy referenced) why should a rescue have lower standards? To me it is a big difference, and I hope I explained properly this time haha!


----------



## Willowy

But most breeders WILL sell to anyone. Not a good breeder, of course, but there are tons of not-so-great breeders who'll send a pup (or kitten) home with anybody who ponies up the cash. Anybody who wants a pet will get one, one way or another.

I doubt a great breeder would sell to me. Probably not most rescue groups either. Maybe not even a shelter with a strict-ish screening process. But I think my dogs have a great life.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Willowy said:


> But most breeders WILL sell to anyone. Not a good breeder, of course, but there are tons of not-so-great breeders who'll send a pup (or kitten) home with anybody who ponies up the cash. Anybody who wants a pet will get one, one way or another.
> 
> I doubt a great breeder would sell to me. Probably not most rescue groups either. Maybe not even a shelter with a strict-ish screening process. But I think my dogs have a great life.


Obviously I was referring to good breeders.

Well if someone who is not going to be a good pet owner insists on getting an animal, they can try a shelter and a good breeder and hopefully learn something. If they don't? Well I certainly don't think it's the good guys who should be lowering their standards.

Obviously that doesn't apply to issues like fencing and working, I'm talking about someone who just wouldn't be a good pet owner (we all know them.) 

If a good breeder or a shelter won't sell to you, where are your dogs from? :S


----------



## Willowy

AussieNerdQueen said:


> If a good breeder or a shelter won't sell to you, where are your dogs from? :S


Penny was dumped in the country and found by my mother (who is a rural mail carrier). The vet said that someone else had come in with her brother (found on the same road in the same week), so I guess she wasn't dumped alone. Hopefully if there were more puppies than just those 2, they were also found by nice people instead of meeting a bad end. Toby was from a high-kill city shelter that didn't ask any questions. I showed my driver's license (to prove legal age) and signed a paper saying I'd have him neutered (state law), and that was it. Moose belonged to a friend (who bought him from a breeder) who couldn't keep him anymore. No shortage of pets needing homes!


----------



## Abbylynn

I also believe that a fence being required should be on an individual basis ... I have no fence, I have three dogs, had 4, actually had 5 ..... I do not WANT my dogs outside loose. Even with a fence I still could not and would not leave them outside unattended ... when living in a rural area there is other wildlife that would enjoy nothing more than a meal or a small snack out of your smaller dog breeds/mixes when your back is turned. If the rescue is going to make a home visit ... this is also something IMO they should pay close attention to and consider in their final decision. 

There are other alternatives ...... I use a tie-out while I am outside gardening or something similar and when I want my dogs to be with me ... they are tethered momentarily ... not running loose.

Just because you have a fence does not mean that you are the ultimate owner ......


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Just wanted to vent about about that stupid rescue I referenced, I am LIVID!

Well it was bound to happen..One of the dogs they adopted out (whom they had never met!! Therefore never temp tested) attacked the adopter's son so severely he had to helicoptered to hospital. The dog went straight for the boy's throat and it's unsure if he'll survive.

That could have been avoided by temp tested!!! Or at least MEETING THE DOG!!


----------



## Pawzk9

GottaLuvMutts said:


> Agree with this.
> 
> Fences need to be a case-by-case basis. Some dogs will need fences to prevent them from wandering. Some dogs will need fences to prevent them from attacking passerbys. In large part, this is going to be dependent on how the owners manage those dogs. Some dogs will never need fences. The shelter from which I adopted my dog required a fence, and they did a home check to make sure I had one. But honestly, a fence is useless for my dog, and was useless from the day I adopted her. First, she's not going to exercise herself in the back yard, so I can't just turn her out and walk away. And second, her natural inclination is to stick close by. If I opened the door and shoved her out, she wouldn't run - she'd stand there whining to be let back in. My fence has been in a state of disrepair since the home check 3 years ago. The dog couldn't care less.
> 
> And the home check thing...
> People get all uppity about this, privacy issue or something. Gotta say, I really don't get that. If someone has something I want and they're willing to give it to me if I let them take a peek around my house, what do I care? The point of a home check isn't to judge people for the condition and cleanliness of their home. If it makes the home checker feel more secure about the dog's future, and if it prevents a few wackos from adopting dogs that they shouldn't, then I'm all for it.


There were a few dogs I intentionally placed with people who didn't have fenced yards, because fencing couldn't be depended on to limit those particular dogs. As to home checks, I haven't seen anyone say they are a bad idea. And I HAVE turned people down because of things I discovered during the home checks. When it becomes a problem is when people are so controlling or policy is so rigid that normal people who would make good owners get turned away - people without fences, people who have kids, people who have other pets, people who don't, people who live with significant others. If it prevents a few wackos (doubtful - a lot of "wackos" can be very charming, and meet the rigid qualifidcations) but also eliminates a large number of potentially very good owners, I see that as a problem that hurts more dogs (and people) than it helps


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Sorry, I'm not explaining myself well! They are a group that takes dogs on the kill list at my state's major pound each week. They don't actually meet the dogs but the ladies who run the group ask for volunteers to fosters, and as they steal the photos and notes, they don't know if they're matching the right dog with the right family. Not 100% on how they get around it, but they are not technically a shelter or rescue group, they do not hold the proper paperwork.


I still don't get it. If the dogs are on the kill list, they are obviously in the shelter and it is the shelter's responsibility to say where they go. If the shelter has employees or volunteers who are stealing their paperwork and photos, well, they need to do something about that


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> Just wanted to vent about about that stupid rescue I referenced, I am LIVID!
> 
> Well it was bound to happen..One of the dogs they adopted out (whom they had never met!! Therefore never temp tested) attacked the adopter's son so severely he had to helicoptered to hospital. The dog went straight for the boy's throat and it's unsure if he'll survive.
> 
> That could have been avoided by temp tested!!! Or at least MEETING THE DOG!!


It is the shelter's responsibility to say where their dogs go


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> I still don't get it. If the dogs are on the kill list, they are obviously in the shelter and it is the shelter's responsibility to say where they go. If the shelter has employees or volunteers who are stealing their paperwork and photos, well, they need to do something about that


They are in a pound, and this groups takes dogs directly from the pound to new homes. I don't know how the legalities work as I am not involved with pounds.


----------



## Willowy

Well, a lot of breeders will sell a dog to somebody they've never met. Nextdaypets, puppyfind, etc. I don't think that buying from a breeder sight-unseen is any safer than adopting from a shelter sight-unseen. 

And high-kill city shelters usually hand out animals to anybody who comes in. If a third party gets involved, there's not much difference, except that a lot of people are unwilling to go into a high-kill shelter. Those people could just as well have adopted the dogs from the shelter themselves. Some of those situations could have happened to anybody (I don't think "do you always close your car windows when you're transporting a dog" is a common screening question). It's not ideal, but there are so many less-than-ideal situations in the way we deal with pets that I don't think that's any worse.


----------



## spanielorbust

Willowy said:


> . . . . If the shelter had turned them down, they were planning to go look at a litter of free Husky mix puppies. And that would have been an unmitigated disaster--a puppy, high-energy mix, with no after-adoption support? Big trouble, and the pup probably would have ended up at a shelter. So 2 dogs would have lost their lives--the one they didn't adopt, and the one they later dumped off.
> 
> So sometimes being choosy about who to adopt to can just cause more trouble and more dead pets. And it doesn't prevent any pets from suffering--it just shifts the troubles on to some other pet. And maybe, if the potential adopters were helped and not just turned away, that _would_ reduce suffering.


I wish there was a like button. Didn't want to requote the full post, but it was all wonderful. I especially liked these points.

SOB


----------



## Pawzk9

AussieNerdQueen said:


> They are in a pound, and this groups takes dogs directly from the pound to new homes. I don't know how the legalities work as I am not involved with pounds.


If the dogs are in the pound, it's the pound's responsibility where the dogs go. If their workers are stealing paperwork (as you've stated) or stealing dogs, that's the shelter's responsibility to get those people prosecuted. Nobody and no group can just walk in an animal shelter and demand the shelter let them take dogs out. I can tell you from personal experience that around here, the major shelters expect you to provide credentials and go through their system to be able to take a dog out for rescue. This just doesn't make any sense


----------



## Pawzk9

Willowy said:


> But most breeders WILL sell to anyone. Not a good breeder, of course, but there are tons of not-so-great breeders who'll send a pup (or kitten) home with anybody who ponies up the cash. Anybody who wants a pet will get one, one way or another.
> 
> I doubt a great breeder would sell to me. Probably not most rescue groups either. Maybe not even a shelter with a strict-ish screening process. But I think my dogs have a great life.


I'm thinking "most" is probably not so. Maybe in your area (which seems to be a terrible place to own a pet) but not the breeders I know. Breeders can afford to be pickier about homes because they do not have a steady stream of waiting animals waiting to come into the program. Some breed rescues can be pickier too. Some put dogs at risk when they get unreasonably picky and kill shelters certainly do. I am not so sure why you think nobody'd consider you for a dog. And if they wouldn't, in my mind that's a problem. I may disagree with you in a number of animals, but you sound like a responsible dog owner who really cares for your animals. If someone would turn you down, that would be unreasonable in my mind.


----------



## AussieNerdQueen

Pawzk9 said:


> If the dogs are in the pound, it's the pound's responsibility where the dogs go. If their workers are stealing paperwork (as you've stated) or stealing dogs, that's the shelter's responsibility to get those people prosecuted. Nobody and no group can just walk in an animal shelter and demand the shelter let them take dogs out. I can tell you from personal experience that around here, the major shelters expect you to provide credentials and go through their system to be able to take a dog out for rescue. This just doesn't make any sense


Like I said, they SAY they're not a rescue group but maybe they're lying? I don't know enough about how these systems work, I can only go on what I have seen.

But yes, I certainly agree the pound holds responsibility here!


----------



## Willowy

Pawzk9 said:


> I'm thinking "most" is probably not so.


I dunno. . .there are thousands of breeders supplying pet stores and sites like nextdaypets. I really do think that breeders who wouldn't sell to a place like that are in the minority. Different ratios in different areas, I suppose.



> Maybe in your area (which seems to be a terrible place to own a pet)


Eh, not such a bad place to OWN a pet, because nobody really cares what you do, and I live close enough to the city to have a good selection of food/supplies and vets. The rural areas are a pretty crummy place to BE a pet, though. 



> I am not so sure why you think nobody'd consider you for a dog. And if they wouldn't, in my mind that's a problem. I may disagree with you in a number of animals, but you sound like a responsible dog owner who really cares for your animals. If someone would turn you down, that would be unreasonable in my mind.


 Thanks you . But I was once turned down (around 10 years ago) by a rescue because I had 4 cats, and they were all "up-to-date" on their shots back then. Now there are considerably more then 4 cats, and I have considerably crankier opinions about frequent vaccination. Some shelters seem to be overly hung up on all pets in the house being UTD on vaccinations. It probably won't ever be an issue for me--I have never had a shortage of people wanting me to take their unwanted pets--but if I ever did want to get a dog through those channels I would anticipate trouble.


----------



## TxRider

To me it's just too much hassle. I always adopt unwanted dogs, everyone in my family does.. Most of the dogs I have owned I never wanted or looked for, the dog was there, I was there, it needed a home, and I had one. I keep the dog safe and train it and find it a home if I need to.

I adopted Hope and Kaya from two different rescues, even tried to talk to one about being a foster, but no more rescues for me. I'm just not willing to deal with any of them again and go through the BS. Just like I don't fly anywhere because I don't want to deal with TSA BS. The airlines can live without my business, and the rescue can keep the dog and keep their kennels full. I'm sure a lot of other very good dog owners feel the same. I just find the process unpleasant and quite aversive and like a good dog they have conditioned me to avoid them entirely.

I'll just go on being my own little rescue one or two dogs at a time taking in strays or dogs someone wants to get rid of and finding homes for those I can't keep myself.


----------

