I "Adopted or Rescued" a dog

I refer to Rosco and Lexi as "rescues", but if people ask where they came from I say they were adopted at shelters. I tend to think of all dogs from shelter and/or rescues as "rescues" -- using the word as a noun rather than a verb.

With Luna I say we "got her from a breeder." For fosters I call them fosters.

I do know people who say they adopted dogs from a breeder. That doesn't bother me so much. The people I know who do this don't like to think of their dogs as property and the term "buy" lends itself to that, so they avoid using it it. No skin off my back.

I guess the only thing that gets me going is when people say they "rescued" a dog to to make their pet store/byb purchase sound more acceptable. That's just a lie told intentionally to make someone look better and is gross.

I find it a pet peeve when people buy a dog from a breeder and then call it "adopted", too.  You bought, acquired, whatever-you-want-to-say-about your dog.  It's fine, and shouldn't be something to be ashamed of, esp if people do their research and can be proud to say the name of their breeder.

To say that because people pay an adoption fee to a rescue group that their dog is "bought" is crap.  The difference, for me, between BUYING a dog, and "rescuing/adopting" a dog has to do with the recipient of that money.  A rescue organization is non-profit by generalization, if not formal 501c3 designation.  Breeders may not have made money off of their litter, but their dogs aren't/shouldn't be in danger of euthanasia should someone not come along to take their dogs.  The dogs that come from a shelter - whether formal or informal - were rescued. 

I consider Brutus a "rescue" because on the streets he was not cared for, vetted, homed, and Amanda saved him from a crap situation where he likely would have died from being hit by a car, etc.

I do NOT consider the puppy bought at a pet store "rescued", because someone else would've come along to buy him, or his price would be reduced to open the market for more buyers.  I agree with whomever said that offering to buy the brood bitch would be the only "rescue" in that chain of events.

Meanwhile, dogs are still property - children are not. Pretending that the cost to adopt a child is similar to buying a dog from a breeder is somewhat distasteful, IMO.

miranadobe

To say that because people pay an adoption fee to a rescue group that their dog is "bought" is crap.  The difference, for me, between BUYING a dog, and "rescuing/adopting" a dog has to do with the recipient of that money. 

Nope, it's not crap. The part that I'm talking about is "If you paid money then you BOUGHT a puppy.". A person has to pay money to bring home a dog from a rescue or shelter. So the statement above isn't true. It's really simple. So that means I DO agree that a dog obtained from a shelter or rescue organization IS rescued; that's why the statement quoted above is false.

Luvntzus

A person has to pay money to bring home a dog from a rescue or shelter.

Wrong - you don't have to pay.  It's still technically a donation for most/many shelters in order to fall under the 501c3.  Don't tell me my statement is false when I've worked in rescue for over 20 years, thanks.

Interesting thread.  I think rescue implies a few things such as a dog is found living in awful conditions and is removed from the situation by whoever and however.  It can also mean that someone took the dog on regardless of physical risk to themselves. 

I am reminded of one little dog that I found in the snow when I lived up north.  The poor little thing was close to my drive way as I was heading out to work in the morning.  He was totally matted with ice and sticks in his fur.  I tried using little bits of kibble to draw him in.  He took the kibble but wouldn't come near me and then he went around back into the bush.  I called the SPCA, but couldn't stop thinking about him so went home early and looked for him.  There he was.  So I did the kibble thing again.   Eventually the little thing came into my house and slowly we got to know each other.  I gave him a warm bath and cut off all the matting.  The next morning I took him into the SPCA because I knew I couldn't keep him.  He was lying in my lap and I was crying.  Was I at risk?  No.  Did it feel like a rescue, not really, most folks would have done the same thing.

At the same time, I had a rescued Rottie named Bruiser.  When I first got him (at two and a half) he was labeled by the local vets as "vicious, do not touch."  In fact, no could actually pet him properly or touch him anywhere behind the withers.  He was taken from a drug dealer that by all appearance was an upstanding community member.  We started with a squeaky toy.  Eventually I could pet him with the toy and within about six months I could love him up.  A wire muzzle helped to get his shots done and to socialize him with other dogs. Eventually I was able to get to his groin and get his CKC registration.  The breeder was horrified/embarassed and said she had wondered why the fellow had not called her to register the dog in his name.  She immediately registered him to me so that no one could try to take him back.  We had an awesome six years together before he had to be let go for health reasons.

I think the point really matters when a dog needs to be re homed and the dog requires a savvy home.  If a person doesn't really understand what can happen to a dog if it has been abused, and they say they have experience, they are potentially contributing to the statistics that have contributed to the whole BSL situation. 

Bob was initially rescued and kept alive by the SPCA.  As always they went above and beyond the call of duty.  Folks were turned away from fostering and adopting him.  Eventually, I came along and was trusted with his care. Lucky me!  He's still work, but nothing like Bruiser was. 

I'll put a couple of Bruiser's pictures in my photos. 

miranadobe

Wrong - you don't have to pay.  It's still technically a donation for most/many shelters in order to fall under the 501c3.  Don't tell me my statement is false when I've worked in rescue for over 20 years, thanks.

Honestly it is so simple, the person PAYS the adoption fee. So the statement that if you pay money to bring home a dog, then it isn't a rescue, is false. Ugh, I'm done with this topic.

denise m

IrishSetterGrl

I "bought" Cadie (I usually just say we "acquired" her ...again, it sounds better).

 

Why should anyone feel the least bit embarrassed to say they 'bought' their dog? Are people that judgmental? Holy Cow!

It's not that I'm embarrassed at all. Cadie is from a great breeder and I'm not opposed to ethical breeding or getting a dog from a reputable breeder one bit! Rather, I don't like to say I bought my dog because it makes her sound like an object...know what I mean? It just doesn't feel right *to me*. Maybe I'm weird in that sense. :P

miranadobe

Luvntzus

A person has to pay money to bring home a dog from a rescue or shelter.

Wrong - you don't have to pay.  It's still technically a donation for most/many shelters in order to fall under the 501c3.  Don't tell me my statement is false when I've worked in rescue for over 20 years, thanks.

The definition of buy:

 I bought Tootsie and am"owned" by her.

AgileGSD

transitive verb 1 : to acquire possession, ownership, or rights to the use or services of by payment especially of money : purchase

Which is why my contract on Gracie specifically says there is no payment of money in exchange for the right to the dog.  Whatever money I paid was a donation for services rendered on her behalf.

If you found a stray kitten, brought it to the vet for vaccinations, to clean up a wound, whatever, and you paid the bill with MONEY, have you bought the kitten?  No, you've paid for services rendered on its behalf.  You can't refuse to pay the bill there, either, and still walk out the door with the kitten.  Think of the adoption fee/donation requests as something similar.

I may not have bought (and returned) many dogs, but I've handled enough adoption contracts to know there's a reason whatever money you may give the shelter is a donation, and not a sales price... at least not in a 501c3 non-profit rescue/shelter.

I like to keep things simple.  So when anyone asks about one of our pets, I say "We got him/her from" and fill in the appropriate info (one from a breeder, one from a rescue group, one from a county-run shelter and one from a neighbor).  That's more than enough info to satisfy the vast majority of people.

I don't really care for the use of "adopt" in relation to pets, and I would only use the term "rescued" if I directly saved a pet from life-threatening abuse/neglect or from death.  But there are no hard-and-fast, authoritative definitions of these terms in relation to pets, so I don't believe that everyone has to agree with my definitions.

Myra

I don't believe that everyone has to agree with my definitions.

 

I agree. The only time it bothers me is when someone is trying to change the appearance of acquiring their pet from a less than reputable source. Other than that, most folks are not trying to be deliberately misleading.

 

 To me, there are 2 separate issues being discussed.

1) If you buy a dog from someone who is selling it, and the dog is currently in a bad situation, are you "buying" it or "rescuing" it?

I would argue it's usually the former (examples: BYB charging $1,250 for "designer" mutt who is in bad health and desperately needs vet care, buying a dog for $75 in the parking lot of Walmart from some person selling puppies out of a basket, etc.). But I do think there can be shades of grey. What about someone who finds a sickly stray dog, absolutely can't keep it and its real owners are nowhere to be found, so the person tries to find it a home via newspapers, Craigslist, whatever. Meanwhile, the dog is living in sub-par conditions (say, confied in a tiny bathroom because the caregiver isn't allowed to have pets). We always caution people not to advertise "free to a good home" to ward off unsavory characters, right? So if someone pays the $50 (or whatever) I-am-actually-serious-about-this-dog fee to take the dog home, are they "purchasing" it?

I guess for me the main difference between "buying" a dog and "rescuing" or "adopting" it (in the broadest sense) is the intention of the seller. Is the intention to make money by getting rid of the dog, or is the intention to ensure a good home and/or cover costs? The intention of the buyer doesn't matter, IMO.

2) Is a dog only a "rescue" if you take it out of a dangerous situation yourself, or does it still count as a "rescue" if you go through a third party (such as a rescue organization, the SPCA, the pound, etc.).

For me, I don't really care about this distinction. This may ruffle some feathers, and I certainly don't mean it as any disrespect to the "on the front line" rescuers who work their butts off to get the dogs into safe third party situations, but it seems like the only value to differentiating between the two is to make the work of actually removing the dog from the bad situation seem more important/valuable than taking that dog and giving it a home.

To me, both parts are about equally important - what would would it do to remove dogs from bad situations if they were never able to find homes? Certainly the "in the trenches" rescuers can't take them all in. The one exception I can see is taking the dog from a bad situation and euthanizing it so it doesn't suffer any longer. And yes, the work required to get a dog out of a bad place is harder than the work required to pick out a nice dog and take it home, but then the adopter is committing to many more years caring for the dog. It is (or should be) a very long-term commitment, which IMO balances things out. So if the "trenches" rescuer and the home-providing adopter are essentially equal partners in saving the dog, why does it matter which one gets the title of "rescuer"?

The other thing to think about is that when talking to people in brief conversation, referring to a dog as a "rescue" has a lot of connotations that can make the situation easier to understand. Maybe the dog has a bad temperament, wasn't socialized well, is still working through fear issues, etc. Referring to the dog as a "rescue" essentially gives the owner a little extra leeway to explain the dog's behavior. "No, I'm sorry, you can't pet her - she's a rescue, and we're still working on her fear of strangers" conveys a whole different meaning to passerbys than "I'm sorry, you can't pet her because we're working on her fear of strangers." People stop and think, "WHY is she afraid of strangers? What is wrong with you, as a dog owner, that you didn't raise her properly?" whereas if you use the word "rescue," people understand that the dog is from an unknown background and may have "issues" from being mistreated in the past.

Another time people are likely to use the "rescue" buzzword is with a dog that was abused in its previous life - it does not reflect well on the current owners if the dog cringes and hides every time someone raises their hand, or holds a newspaper, or speaks loudly. But if the owners explain the dog was a "rescue," it's immediately understandable - oh, the dog was mistreated before, so it still remembers that even though it's in a loving home now.

As an example, BF's parents refer to their dog as a "rescue." He came from a breed rescue and had been fostered for a week before BF's parents took him home. He was still emaciated, and had mysterious health problems that resulted in explosive diarrhea for two months before they were able to find a food that worked for his stomach. BF's parents spent a fortune on vet bills, wormers, etc. trying to nurse him back to health. While he looks great now, he still has the behavioral (and physical) scares of being mistreated as a puppy - easily frightened, easily overexcited by people paying attention to him (this is slowly improving), and totally food-obsessed. It's hard for people to understand and relate to his behaviors if they think of him as a "normal" dog, growing up in a loving household with plenty of food, but when they hear "rescue" they understand he was beaten and starved, and so his behaviors make sense and the people are much more likely to listen to instructions on how to interact with him. ("He was a rescue, so he steals food whenever he can - please make sure not to leave anything on the counters" etc.)

I think sometimes even more than not being deliberately misleading, people are trying to educate others and help them better understand the situation.

Intersting topic...Looking at my crew, I bred one, was given one, bought 2, and recently pulled one from a shelter. I never thought about it before, butwhen people ask me where he came from, I say we pulled him from a kill shelter. I do agree that too many people say they rescued or adopted when they really bought the dog. One interesting thing that happened when we "pulled" our boy was that two rescue groups also showed up to pull him. Even though we were planning on giving him a permanent home, we had to enter a lottery with the rescues to see who would get the dog. We won and Wally is happy to be part of our family. I was surprised that these rescues would compete with an individual to pull dog. I would have thought they'd be pleased that he had a home and that they could use his space for another needy dog. Odd..... Oh well! He's now part of the family, housebroken, neutered, heartworm negative and much loved.