calliecritturs
Posted : 4/8/2008 3:12:55 PM
It can sometimes be a FINE line between practicality and necessity AND resposibility.
Most people who do rescue are volunteers and the turnover is VERY high -- and often among the people actually doing the fostering/working/manning of adoption days, etc. -- personalities can get in the way of it all. Often rules become a subsitute for common sense -- and rules can bog you down to a point where you never get animals adopted. Then you turn animals away ... then animals wind up staying at animal control/shelters and get euthanized.
I've gotten bitter in the past about "home visits" which down here can equate to "ewww, they're POOR -- eww, she's got dirty dishes and ..." that can quickly degenerate into not placing animals in certain sections of town, or with certain ethnic groups. People may just plain be embarassed to have someone "inspect" their home or can be made to feel like someone's looking 'down' on them when they think they're trying to do a good thing by adopting a dog from a shelter rather than getting a pup from a backyard breeder.
There's a balance to be struck, and honestly I think some groups need to take a real look at their 'rules' and try to figure out WHY they were made.
On the off chance that you may catch one person lying (and probably you won't), is it worth offending 10 others?
I get really jaded here, to be honest, because more and more I see groups take refuge in "rules" and then make REALLY bad calls on what's good or what's bad simply because someone says "the RULES say ..." and no logical, sensible, INTELLIGENT thought is applied. There's never any substitute for **good** judgment -- and it may simply be that your mother was obviously a good candidate.
You can tell these things by watching -- sometimes you can't. But I wouldn't completely discount how well 'screened' someone was because they didn't put enough 'time' constraints on it. I honestly think *reality* has to have bearing on all of this -- too many shelters and rescues fail because they set up rules and standards that can't be humanly followed ... and then NO dogs get adopted out.
There does need to be standards ... but I think if you can adequately judge character and if someone has good references, and is solid, I don't think it should be discounted.
When we got Billy the rescue had ALL KINDS OF RULES -- and as it happened -- he was abused. IN FOSTER CARE!!!!! We literally became HIS rescue because the people were so overburdened that the wrong people were relying on 'rules' rather than on GOOD sense.
Just following "rules" doesn't always make it right. Does that make sense?