calliecritturs
Posted : 6/21/2008 6:23:16 PM
We're about to get off topic here, but since it's your thread I'll answer you as I see it.
When you're talking about something like the SPCA or Animal Control -- those folks are all working pretty much at minimum wage, and scooping poop all day into the bargain. They may "like dogs" ... they may be well-intended, but well-educated usually isn't on the list.
They may have a list of priorities -- a fenced yard or no-go. A dog under X pounds can't go to a home with kids. etc. Some of those rules actually have their roots in sanity, some of them don't. But rules "protect" them -- they stay within their 'rules' and figure they've done well. They may avert some disasters but that doesn't mean they're good placements.
Depending on how volunteer driven it is most shelters are long on 'rules' and short on good decisions and sensible choices. No one wants to be responsible, and everyone's got an opinion. They often *think* they know dogs, but most of it is often pre-conceived notions and sometimes a thinly disguised way of railroading things thru.
Breed rescue can get even worse.
There's a breed rescue here in Orlando (which shall remain nameless). I tried last year to help them with a demodex dog -- David and I took a lot of our own time (drove to S. Orl on a Friday after work to meet with people to 'teach' them, etc.) David had already given a sheer monetary contribution (sizeable) because we knew the vet they were using was good but spendy.
We would have taken that dog and adopted it -- because it had major special needs and always would. We're 'good' at that particular thing, and our annual vet bills are usually around $15,000 *on average*.
BUT they have a "policy" that they won't adopt to **anyone** who doesn't have someone in the home 24/7. If you both work they won't adopt to you. Won't even consider it because they consider their breed 'babies' who need 'mommy at home'.
???
This is horrible, but after watching them for a year or better and knowing most of these folks live in the more pricey golf and elite communities -- I have a terrible feeling this is simply their way of making sure these dogs are adopted by people with lots of money. They can easily discriminate -- no matter your color or bank account if you can't afford to be a stay at home mom or retiree, no way. It LOOKS like they have the dog's best interest at heart -- I honestly think they think they do. But with that one requirement (and they have others, none the least is a home-visit with open-ended criteria - you don't kNOW what they're looking for) they can simply avoid adopting to anyone they would rather not deal with - they can discriminate and it doesn't look that way. I'm as WASP as they come, but I've heard them talk and it's pretty easy to see how they think.
One would think "in-service" training would be required at somewhere like that. Things like breed-related problems, how to spot a 'lie' or a rep from an animal-testing facility posing as an adopter.
But those sorts of requirements usually don't fly in a situation where they are hard-pressed to find volunteers to keep things running or to deal with the low-income wages they pay.
They want "easy" placements -- because there are so many animals and so few homes their biggest problem is what to do with them. And if you are trying to complicate their placement (with the facts ... but *complicate* being the operative term here) they really don't want to hear about it and they probably wouldn't *trust* your research anyway (because people aren't to be trusted -- particularly not the ones who 'complicate' an adoption!)
Circular thinking to be sure ... but unfortunately it happens.