Rescue is all about the dog; not the adopter! (Rant)

ORIGINAL: JRTmom

We don't do it because we're "control freaks", we do it to minimize the risk of the dog being rehomed as best we possibly can. If someone isn't comfortable with that, most city pounds and shelters have no or very few requirements. No one is forcing them to adopt from a particular rescue.

Didn't you recently return your puppy to the breeder because it wasn't a good match? Don't you think that situation could have been avoided if the breeder had been more thorough in getting to know exactly what you wanted and allowed for a trial period to see if you "click"?

Yes, I did return a puppy to the breeder and I do agree that SOME screening and matching with temperaments and lifestyle is important. Also, my puppy was shipped sight unseen. If a person has met the dog in person, there's a much better chance that they do "click".

But as far as screening, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. IMO (and a lot of other people's) rescues go too far with the screening. Lenghty applications, vet references, personal references, interviews, home visits etc. are too much.

I think the SPCA has the best system personally. They have the potential adopter fill out a short questionnaire to find out about their dog experience, personality, and lifestyle. Different dogs are coded according to their temperament tests and if the person and the dog aren't a match, the adoption isn't approved. The only other thing they do is call the person's landlord to make sure they're allowed to have pets and if a dog, whether that particular breed or size is allowed. I think that's way less intrusive and a reasonable compromise between the adopter and adoptee's concerns.

Edited to add, I think a trial weekend CAN be a good thing. But in that particular instance I think it was a combination of all the other hoops the adopter was being required to jump through that made her feel like the dog might be taken back, not that she could give him back if she didn't feel it was a match. There's a big difference between the two!!

The shelter we got Lucy from gave us a Trial Night and it worked out wonderfully. I can't believe that Mason's potential adopters would be offended by such a thing. I like trial periods so we can find out if a potential new dog will fit into our family.

ORIGINAL: Luvntzus
Sorry, but I'm going to side with the potential adopters. Tzumommy, when you mentioned the first potential adopter, I thought all the hoops she was having to jump through were definitely unreasonable. Adoption forms, personal interviews, trial weekends, being required to continue the same obedience classes, etc. It's not reasonable to put a person through all of that. [:-]
I understand that you feel responsible for Mason since you rescued him, but at some point you're going to have to just TRUST someone with him. Right now you're trying to have so much control that you might as well keep him. [8|]

I have to disagree.  There has to be an adoption form, and an interview; otherwise, how are you supposed to match the dog's needs with the right environment. 

The obedience class is recommended because it helps to quickly form a bond between the dog and the handler.  The dog begins to see you as the leader more quickly, and that is incredibly important for a German Shepherd if you want to co-exist happily. 

German Shpherds are not the right dog for everyone, and you cannot TRUST that everyone has done their homework on the breed before applying to adopt one.  They require a strong leader (not to be yanked around and yelled at), but none the less, they need to know exactly where their place is in the pack, and they also need a job.  You cannot just stick them in the yard and be done with it, nor is it a good idea to just give them the run of the house.  If you are matched with a dog that requires more handling experience than you have or you are not willing to educate yourself with, then you may very well end up with a dog that growls at your spouse, overprotects your children from their friends, snarls and snaps when someone gets too close to his bone, etc. and so on.  And guess what happens to that dog?  He comes right back into rescue with MORE issues than he ever had.  These are things that we have witnessed in our experience in rescue and fostering.   We've had to put down perfectly good dogs because of uneducated people.  We do get some GSD into rescue that are perfectly suited for an adopter like the first applicant, but Mason really wasn't a good fit for her unless she "wanted" to continue with obedience classes, etc.  I realize that I am attached to him and will always find some fault, but he is less than 2 years old, and he really does needs a dog saavy owner.

As far as the weekend trial; we probably won't offer that again anyway.  We don't usually offer that because most Shepherds have a hard time transitioning from one environment and owner to another.  Mason is still young and pretty flexible; we were offering it to the first potential because she initally expressed a lot of interest in working with Mason and we wanted to make sure she could "handle" him before commiting.  Also, Mason had some "other doggie" issues before, and her neighbor has a rottie on a chain just outside of her yard.  That could have potentially been a real problem for Mason, especially in the hands of an inexperienced dog owner.

The end decisions are not mine to make, although my input does carry a lot of consideration because I "know the dog" best.  I can make recommendations or share a concern, but I do not decide who is approved and who is not.

I also have 2 Shih Tzus, and if I were fostering and placing them in a forever home, I would not be nearly as cautious about the placement as I am with the Shepherds.  I would still want assurance that they are responsible adopters, but 1st time dog owners are perfectly fine for a Shih Tzu.  There aren't nearly as many Tzus surrendered for behavior issues or for lack of handler experience as there are Shepherds. 

If there were, I would be fostering Tzus too!

My experience with our rescue has only been a positive one.  I did not find the application overly-personal, but rather like "pre-canna" classes that are taken before marriage.  You know, the idea is to provoke actual discourse about their devotion to the undertaking...marriage.  I see the queries of rescues in the same light.  I'm not kidding.  They are really asking us...Are you prepared for this?

The questions provided myself and DH possibilities that could arise during ownership that forced us to think long and hard about the responsibility that we were taking on.  It provided introspection that is clearly needed before one takes up dog ownership.  How often do we commend prospective dog owners that come here posting questions about owning a dog, or is the breed choice right for them?  They give out certain personal circumstances, hours spent out of the house, number of kids, size of yard-house-apartment-etc.  We (collectively) have been known to discourage some posters from getting a dog for their lifestyles, because bottom line--it didn't seem a sufficient household for a dog.  According to our individual standards.  Sometimes we agree, sometimes not.

With the time, energy, and devotion spent by many rescues, I would like to believe it is within their rights to make the determinations about where their pets best fit.  It is also the prospective adopters right to seek out rescues that fit them too..it goes both ways. 

I support rescue/adopters that have a standard and work towards appropriate placement.  For the dog's sake, as well as the human's.
 
ETA..Our adoption of Murphy was as a second dog, because we had found our first, Gypsy, abandoned and neglected.  In the rescue groups eyes, I still needed to follow all procedures, in spite of our own "rescuing" of our Gypsy.  I never faulted  them one bit for their "process".

I wish more places would at least do a trial visit, but I know that logistically it's not feasible. But for Marlowe it was a huge advantage that I was a volunteer at the shelter he was in and lived within walking distance of it. So I took him out for a walk and walked him straight to the local park where he could meet Conrad on neutral ground (went swimmingly) then we walked back to our house (where I got a trial run at walking two dogs at once--an aquired skill!) and Marlowe got to come in and look around a bit. He got to meet the cats, and that was huge because coonhounds are one of the "not typically good with cats" breeds. It was a major success for him, he behaved splendidly and passed all the "tests" and I walked him back to the shelter and started the adoption process. Given the cats thing, I might not have opted to adopt him had I not had the opportunity to take him for a test drive.

These dogs in rescue are being cared for by very dedicated people. It is absolutely their right to determine what kind of home they think would be the best match. I personally feel quite strongly about dogs and cats being inside and I would not be comfortable adopting either out to someone who wanted them to be outside unsupervised most of the time. That is not at all an unreasonable concern. If I was fostering a dog or cat I would be very uncomfortable sending that animal out to live somewhere that I thought was unsafe--and to me, being outside unsupervised and unconstrained for any domestic animal is not safe*.

*barring a few trained working livestock gaurdian breeds

ORIGINAL: pndhounds

I did not find the application overly-personal, but rather like "pre-canna" classes that are taken before marriage.  You know, the idea is to provoke actual discourse about their devotion to the undertaking...marriage.  I see the queries of rescues in the same light.  I'm not kidding.  They are really asking us...Are you prepared for this?

 
Well said.  That's exactly what the questions are designed to do.  To provoke a little re-thinking and weigh out the pros and cons of owning a dog.  We want you to imagine the worse case scenerio and still want to do it!  If someone is inconvenienced by some paperwork and probing, imagine how inconvenienced they might be if their dog requires a behaviorist down the road.  Surely for someone like this, it must be "easier" to give him back to the rescue since they do have that option.
 
We are a small rescue, but our statistics stack up with the best of them.  Out of 179 placements, only 6 have come back to us.  Our rescue leader has told me that her philosophy is if head, gut, and heart all agree, it's a good decision.  5 of the 6 returns were decided on with her heart.  Since then, we have all learned that you have to do the research and stick to the formula that works.
 
Thanks to all for your support.  It does make me feel a little better!

we  adopted amelia from a local rescue. we had to fill out a fairly lengthy questionnaire, have a home visit done, etc. at the beginning of the process, i felt like it was a little bit of an invasion of our privacy, but i realized later that all that stuff was done with the dog's best interests in mind.

no matter how good a dog owner is, the rescue org. doesnt know that. you are just another stranger on the street. i think the potential adopters of mason or any other rescue dog needs to lighten up a little and realize that the rescue group is thinking of the dog's best interest first.

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

but I am guessing that so many good homes are being passed up because of the adoption forms.

yup. You know how many rescues automatically say "no" to people who work full-time? or don't have a fenced yard? without even considering that it's possible for such people to provide excellent homes for dogs.

Yup.
My sister wanted a westie. So she took my advice and began her search with a rescue.  My sister is well read on dog behavior, training, healthy foods, grooming.  She has 4 daughters from 12 to 3 yrs old.  ALL are great with dogs, they've played with my small dogs and have been wonderful around them.  They did not take adding a dog lightly.  She got all kinds of fluffy beds, a crate, fashionable collars and leashes.
But guess what?  She has an 8 yr old and a 3 yr old, and that makes them unsatisfactory adopters. Oh yeah, add the no fence factor in.

My sister bought from a pet shop.  Fortunatly I do know this shop in a small local town and they do get their puppies from local breeders (yes, byb's). 

So whether rescues think they are doing a great job or not by each dog... they push people to do the only other option, buy from someone who's willing to sell to their family.   Some nice rescue dog missed out on a great family!

Although I have worked in rescue myself and turned down people for various reasons, so I can see both sides of the story.

They only push people to another option if people see a petstore as an other option. I would never, ever, ever, not even if you paid me to, buy from a pet store. Not if every rescue in the country denied my application. I would just not have a dog.

Besides, whatever happened to your local pound? Last I checked, most of those will give a dog to anyone who walks in with $30.

Tzumommy, I absolutely agree with your first post - those are very reasonable procedures and standards and widely used by rescues in the area where I live and volunteer.  The main goal is to find the best possible forever home for the dog - without clear guidelines and a thorough screening process, too many end up back in the system - or dead on the road.
In the two examples given in the post after yours, I have to say that my organization (and most rescues that I work with) would have made exactly the same decision.  We don't adopt out cats that will be outdoors, no matter what their issues.  A cat that sprays is not putting the health of others at risk - it just takes more work to clean up after it.  We have several incontinent animals where I work, and they are not endangering the health of others!  There are standard procedures for cleaning and for personal care.
As for the woman who wants a "farm dog" - well, let's just say that about 80% of the dogs that are found dead on the side of the road or that show up in the pounds or that come into rescue in my area are "farm dogs" that were supposedly guarding someone's unfenced property. 
I have approved one home that didn't have a fence - but it was for a very small, older housedog where the very dog-savvy, experienced potential adopter would be walking it several times a day and would never be letting it outside unaccompanied, not even for a pee break.  She lived in an apartment!

Most of the rescues here don't have a "can't work for pay" rule - but for some dogs having a person gone from the house 8-10 hours a day would be problematic so an individual may be considered unsuitable for the particular dog they are interested in.

A person who is really putting the dog first is not going to object to the interview and homecheck and forms to fill out.  It's all about the dogs, not the people. 

There is a fine line to tread.  Always always always, you have to think what would be best for that animal.  I'm going to go way out on an emotional limb here and say if I was that spraying tom, I'd want the barn option and a loving family, not a cattery for 5 years.  Even if I was aware that it might shorten my life.  Same with a dog, if I was a dog in a kennel, I'd just want a home and family of my own to give me a chance and the shelter to be upfront and honest with the family about my issues - either to put them off so I get a home better suited to me or to help them work through my problems "post-sale".
 
If I get a dog, I make a commitment.  If I encounter a problem, I deal with it.  If I can't do it alone I get help and advice.  The only time I might make an exception is if there was a serious safety concern.  With an attitude like that you can straighten out almost any shelter dog.  WIthout an attitude like that, almost any shelter dog will end up being bounced.  Shelters should have more of a realistic "can do" attitude IMO.  I can see botgh dies here, but I think there needs to be give and take and a lot of the shelters just don't want to compromise.  And I think thats sad, because if you were a dog in their kennels, wouldn;t you want them to compromise a little?
 
Just a little less screening, just a little more trust and a lot more honesty about the dog's issues and a lot more back up provided after the dogs gone home is what is called for IMO.  Get the prospective adopter "onside", build a rapport with them, tell them This dog has a problem - can you deal with that OK?  Do you want us to help you with it or would you rather pick a different dog?

ORIGINAL: JRTmom

While I understand how frustrating it can be from an adopter's perspective, I don't feel either of those 2 examples were out of line.

For example 1, the shelter clearly had a policy that they were not willing to budge on and I respect them for that. I know from expereince that making exceptions is a very slippery slope. It's their cat, and they've cared for it for 5 years (and undoubtedly saved it from being euthanized) so it's their decision to make.

I completely see the issue with example 2. I would NEVER adopt one of my fosters out to a home that planned to leave them unsupervised in an unfenced yard. It only takes one car to kill a dog, so "very little traffic" is not an excuse, and that's not the only danger.  It shouldn't matter whether she was a previous employee or a complete stranger, the rules are put in place to help ensure a dog's safety.

If someone has a problem with the way a shelter or rescue is operated there are more than enough dogs needing homes from animal control, the general public and more lenient rescues for them to find something that suits their needs. []

So a dog would be better of dead than enjoy a long life on a farm?  I've had 6 dogs in my life time. 3 of them died of being hit by a car.  All of them had fenced in yards.  All of them were primarily inside dogs.  They all  snuck out the front door right into the street. 

You know, if my grandma didn't know any better, like most people, she could just go to a breeder or a pet store.  Is that what your asking people to do?  Are the dogs better of dead than on a farm in an Oh Noooo unfences yard in the middle of no where?

My father used to be the executive president of the National Animal Control Association and later the president of a handful of county Humane Societies.  He's been out of the animal business for 13 years now.  My step mom was an animal control officer for Orange county California.  Both are them are completly annoyed with some of these new rules. 

There are worse things than having an unfenced yard.  There are some sub divisions that don't allow fences.  Are you saying that those people should go to a breeder or a pet store?  Personally, I think feeding Ol'Roy or some other bad dog food is far worse and life threatening than not having a fenced in yard.  But shelters don't hold nutrition or "how much research have you done" tests, do they.

So a dog would be better of dead than enjoy a long life on a farm? I've had 6 dogs in my life time. 3 of them died of being hit by a car. All of them had fenced in yards. All of them were primarily inside dogs. They all snuck out the front door right into the street.

 
If half of your indoor dogs have died from being struck by cars, then it should be obvious to you that allowing a dog to roam freely is taking huge safety risk .
 

You know, if my grandma didn't know any better, like most people, she could just go to a breeder or a pet store. Is that what your asking people to do? Are the dogs better of dead than on a farm in an Oh Noooo unfences yard in the middle of no where?

 
Are you suggesting that shelters and rescues should just throw their standards out the window (that are in place to help insure the safety of the animals) because people threaten to buy from a pet store instead? If someone is ignorant enough to buy from a byb or pet store because it's easier then chances are they won't be a responsible owner in the long run. Like myself and several others have already pointed out, just because ONE shelter or rescue turns you down doesn't mean you can't rescue a dog! I'm sure your grandmother could have saved a dog from the local pound for less than $50 with no questions asked.
 

My father used to be the executive president of the National Animal Control Association and later the president of a handful of county Humane Societies. He's been out of the animal business for 13 years now. My step mom was an animal control officer for Orange county California. Both are them are completely annoyed with some of these new rules.

 
These new "annoying" rules are enforced to ensure the well being of animals. No dog deserves to bleed to death alone in a ditch after being hit by a car. 

There are worse things than having an unfenced yard. There are some sub divisions that don't allow fences. Are you saying that those people should go to a breeder or a pet store?

 
I don't have a fenced yard and every single time my dogs go out they're on a leash (or at the off-leash dog park). It's not always the lack of fencing that's the problem; it's the lack of supervision. There's a HUGE difference.
 

Personally, I think feeding Ol'Roy or some other bad dog food is far worse and life threatening than not having a fenced in yard. But shelters don't hold nutrition or "how much research have you done" tests, do they.

 
Even if they did (and some rescues do) they still shouldn't feel obligated to put a dog in an unsafe situation just because the adopter plans to feed them a premium food.
 
I honestly don't understand how someone can condemn an organization for doing the best they can to ensure the dogs that they have invested their time, energy and money into have a chance to live a long, happy life. Do you think it doesn't kill them inside every time a dog is euthanized in their arms? Are you envisioning them sitting in the back office giving each other high-fives when they turn down an application? [:'(]
 

It looks like every one of your responses there is going to the other extreme of jojo's standpoint.  The fence-thing - I can see their point, having a fenced yard does NOT mean the dog will safe and won't be involved in a RTA.  As you say, supervision is more important.  So, perhaps what jojo is suggesting (and what I am definately suggesting) is that shelters could work more to educate the people taking their dogs rather than have blanket policies that ensure dogs miss out on potentially great homes because one of their unbending standards was not met.
 
Nor is jojo suggesting (nor anyone else as far as I can see) that any shelter should "throw their standards out the window" or that they "give each other hi-fives when turning down an application".  I'm sure we all agree that some screening and some matching process is necessary - what a few of us are opposed to is the stringency of the rules set and the unbending attitude of some shelters.  And it's true that most people aren't as savvy as many on here and won't see any harm in going to a pet shop or byb if reputable breeders and shelters make it too ard for them to buy/adopt.  Again education is necessary - not endless forms and interviews and screenings - but that's JMO.
 
I admire the OP and that particular shelter because they were willing to compromise (sadly possibly not again due to the womans attitude), but the adopter took it the wrong way, got the hump and backed out of the adoption.  I also think that some breed rescues do need to have more stringent matching up processes, because some breeds really aren't for everyone, especially first timers and a few can be downright dangerous in the wrong hands.  Many of the posts since then have been about shelters in general, not breed rescues so its a little different.
 
OK, I'll give an experience with one shelter (will remain nameless) that a friend of mine tried to adopt a cat from.  They turned her down flat the moment they found out she worked full time.  She offered to take 2 cats as company for each other (adults, not kittens) and they still turned her down.  She said she would be taking time off work to make sure they settled in OK - and they still turned her down.  Same organistaion, different shelter, refused to adopt out a dog (a small-medium sized adult spayed bitch) because the family had young children.  They just didn't adopt out to families with young kids apparently.  On another occasion they were in our local paper for "seizing" a dog back because there was a dog kennel in their yard.  The family insisted that had been there for their previous dog and that they didn't make the new dog use it - the dog preferred to be in the house and they were OK with that.  On yet another occasion they refused to help an elderly lady and give her any animal because she specified what kind of dog she felt was best for her.  She was told "we are not a supermarket". ????!!!!!!!

So a dog would be better of dead than enjoy a long life on a farm?

We are a rescue organization, not a kill shelter; so I absolutely positively feel that they are better off in foster care than outdoors on an unsupervised farm.  Apparently the shelter you referred to isn't a kill shelter either if they've had the cat for 5 years.