![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
koalathebearThis rant is a bit of a rehash of one of my earlier posts, but it's longer :D
As a member of rescue, I am constantly seeing the posts and articles criticising rescue for being too strict when choosing potential families. Some people are outraged by questionnaires and yard checks, by criteria for adoption ... There's an implication that merely wanting a dog should equate to getting that dog simply because it was dumped/unwanted by its original owner.
Dog Rescue Adoption Groups too strict screening potential adopters
Are Dog Rescue Groups too picky?
I Rejected The Perfect Pet Adoption Family For The Wrong Reasons
Just recently, I had an applicant tell me (about one of our requirements): "I have even spoken to our vet about such a requirement and he agrees with me that it makes it harder for a rescue dog to be placed, OR the new family lie about the [...] arrangements, and I know the latter is true."
Blame is constantly being attributed to rescue groups implying that dogs die/can't be rehomed because we are too strict about our requirements. I've read comments that rescue groups being too strict means that people will go and buy dogs from back yard breeders instead i.e. that somehow dog rescue is responsible for the problem of unwanted dogs.
WTF?
So instead of blaming the backyard breeders, the puppy farmers and the irresponsible owners, it's the fault of rescue for being too selective about potential applicants...
I am the first to admit that there are bad rescue groups out there. It's sad but true. There are unethical rescue groups who give rescue a bad name. There are those who are appallingly careless about how they rehome dogs, rehoming dogs with severe behavioural issues and not finding the most appropriate match. In contrast, there are rescue groups with a list of rules that are ridiculous, that don't acknowledge that people can't always own their own homes, that people work and aren't home all the time ...
But - the bottom line is, the rescue group is entitled to set out the rules that govern its criteria for how those dogs are adopted.
I find the people who criticise all rescue groups for having rules and criteria to be a little hypocritical. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for foster carers to have a few prerequisites for adoption.
There are adopters out there who think they should have their cake and eat it. They want a "de-risked" dog, they want to have the feeling of having "rescued" a dog, but they don't to make any commitments or answer any questions.
If they want to adopt a dog with no questions asked - then they can, and I am not sending them to a backyard breeder. Most pounds in Australia don't have rules for adoption - you pay the money, they give you the dog. So if they just want to rescue a dog, they can get one from the pound and then be filled with feelings of philanthropic notions of goodness.
"Choose me..."
So why adopt from a rescue group then?
It's because with a dog from rescue, you are minimising the risks to your family and home. The foster carer is the one who puts his/her own family at risk. We are the ones who trial run the dog for you - make sure it doesn't bite people or other dogs. Sees how it does being alone. Sees if it's a nuisance barker or an escape artist. See if it will destroy your house or howl the roof down. We are the ones who make sure you don't get a dog that has ring worm, canine parvovirus, kennel cough, fleas, ticks, worms or other nasties because we've already seen the dog through quarantine and the vet work. We also give the dog basic obedience and training.
You won't get the perfect dog from a rescue group - no such dog exists - but you'll know its good and bad points. Not all rescue groups do this, I acknowledge that. There are some crappy ones out there, but with a good rescue, the dog has been de-risked. Dan and I put our own dogs 'at risk' so that the adopters don't have to.
Foster carers have to find out (to the best of their ability), whether the dogs are people-friendly...
child-friendly ...
dog-friendly...
cat-friendly ...
We can never identify all problems. Dogs are living creatures who are unpredictable and can (and do) change over time - but we do the absolute best we can to minimise the risks. We also love the dogs who come to our homes. They are part of the family. We invest time, money and love into them. They are not just things that we hand over to someone just because they are paying money.
I would never not take one of my foster dogs back. Dan and I offer a personal guarantee to people who adopt our dogs - we will always take the dog back, we will personally refund the adoption fee even after the trial period is over and our rescue group will not refund the adoption fee. This applies for all the dogs we've ever fostered. We feel strongly that we have an obligation to these dogs. If I've chosen poorly and the dog has ended up with a family who no longer wants him/her, then we will take him/her back and would much rather take him/her back, rehabilitate and rehome the dog than have him dumped, euthanised or rehomed carelessly.
It is for this reason that these days, I am confining my dogs to local adoption applications only. We've rehomed two dogs to Victoria (Frida and Nutmeg) and two to Sydney (Twiggy and Chimes) and still keep in touch with those owners. They are awesome people who drove all the way to get their dogs and showed so much commitment and care. These days,though I prefer to rehome locally. If I get an exceptional application from someone in Sydney ... or even SA/Vic/Qld, I might consider it depending on how awesome the application is though, but I'm going to do it on an exceptions basis rather than make 'interstate' an immediate option on petrescue.
I know lots of interstate rehomings go totally fine but I saw far too many interstate rehomings go pear-shaped when I was with a previous rescue group and the poor dog was always the one to suffer. It's easier for us to give post-adoption support if the person is close-by. It's also easier for us to go and get a dog back if the trial doesn't work out. Some rescues love the idea of shipping dogs all over the country - that's totally fine when the applicant is happy - but when the trial fails and it is too expensive to transport an unwanted dog back, then rescue groups have to find another carer locally and the poor dog would suffer ... I've seen this for myself.
I totally totally disapprove of people who rehome a dog within only a few days of getting the dog. You never see a dog's real personality for a few weeks!! It's just not possible. As a carer, I already have nightmares that no matter how careful I am with my training checklist, my observation of the dog's character and my socialisation checklist, as living creatures dogs can behave differently in different environments and as they get older and who knows how a dog will be once it leaves my care??? Some carers are proud of how quickly they can get a dog out the door - this makes me shudder ... poor dog, poor family ... what is the point of foster care then? For me, fostering is supposed to allow me to observe a dog and understand it. I may not be able to fix all the problems, but at least I can identify them so that the owners can decide if they want to take on those issues or not.
When a dog is in foster care, there is absolutely no person more important to a foster dog than his or her carer. The world has let that dog down. The carer is the only person who cares about the dog and the carer will make the decision that gives the dog a good life, or sends him or her down a path no better than the dog's previous life.
It's a daunting responsibility so I welcome the chance to get to know the applicants better - who's more committed? Who's more keen? Who gives me more info? Because the form asks about previous dogs, it gives you the chance to casually ask about what happened to it - that's when you find out it died of cancer and they spent thousands of dollars, or it was run over by a car because they had it off lead ... If the dog was killed because it was off lead - what are they doing to make sure it won't happen again? And yes, we have definitely rehomed to people whose dogs were killed when offlead but were clearly now super vigilant! The application process also lets you find out if the dog will be part of the family or a lawn ornament.
Once the dog is handed over, you have zero power or influence and you would not believe the number of carers who find out to their horror that the dog ends up dumped at the pound. Whether or not a person is prepared to fill out such a stupidly long form says a lot about their commitment. Is this someone prepared to clean up wee, poo and vomit? To stand by the dog if ends up being reactive or has a health issue?
I know that there are many who say that "anything is better than being dead" or "any home is better than the pound" and that at least a dog rescued and rehomed has a life, but to me, if I can't at least attempt to create a better life for a dog, train it and set it up for success in a new family - then what is the point of fostering? To me it's not enough to just pull a dog out of a pound and stick it in a new home, I need to have taught it the skills it needs to be more acceptable in a family home, I need to have been rigorous in being that dog's advocate - identifying the best possible home for it that I can. If I can't do that, then I shouldn't be fostering at all ...
I personally don't think that Dan's and my rules for re-homing are too strict or deter adopters. We have no shortage of people applying to adopt our foster dogs. We can afford to wait until the right owner comes along. We have rehomed 21 dogs - clearly there are people out there who can satisfy our “unreasonable” criteria ...
There are no perfect owners or perfect dogs, but it’s like matchmaking- it’s finding the right dog-family combination. What one adopter thinks is a minus, another owner thinks is a plus and vice versa. When we decline an applicant, it's not because we are saying: "you are a bad person / you are not a good home". We're saying: "We do not think you are the right fit for this dog - there might be another dog out there that would be a better match."
As a member of rescue, I am constantly seeing the posts and articles criticising rescue for being too strict when choosing potential families. Some people are outraged by questionnaires and yard checks, by criteria for adoption ... There's an implication that merely wanting a dog should equate to getting that dog simply because it was dumped/unwanted by its original owner.
Dog Rescue Adoption Groups too strict screening potential adopters
Are Dog Rescue Groups too picky?
I Rejected The Perfect Pet Adoption Family For The Wrong Reasons
Just recently, I had an applicant tell me (about one of our requirements): "I have even spoken to our vet about such a requirement and he agrees with me that it makes it harder for a rescue dog to be placed, OR the new family lie about the [...] arrangements, and I know the latter is true."
Blame is constantly being attributed to rescue groups implying that dogs die/can't be rehomed because we are too strict about our requirements. I've read comments that rescue groups being too strict means that people will go and buy dogs from back yard breeders instead i.e. that somehow dog rescue is responsible for the problem of unwanted dogs.
WTF?
So instead of blaming the backyard breeders, the puppy farmers and the irresponsible owners, it's the fault of rescue for being too selective about potential applicants...
I am the first to admit that there are bad rescue groups out there. It's sad but true. There are unethical rescue groups who give rescue a bad name. There are those who are appallingly careless about how they rehome dogs, rehoming dogs with severe behavioural issues and not finding the most appropriate match. In contrast, there are rescue groups with a list of rules that are ridiculous, that don't acknowledge that people can't always own their own homes, that people work and aren't home all the time ...
But - the bottom line is, the rescue group is entitled to set out the rules that govern its criteria for how those dogs are adopted.
I find the people who criticise all rescue groups for having rules and criteria to be a little hypocritical. I believe that it is entirely appropriate for foster carers to have a few prerequisites for adoption.
There are adopters out there who think they should have their cake and eat it. They want a "de-risked" dog, they want to have the feeling of having "rescued" a dog, but they don't to make any commitments or answer any questions.
If they want to adopt a dog with no questions asked - then they can, and I am not sending them to a backyard breeder. Most pounds in Australia don't have rules for adoption - you pay the money, they give you the dog. So if they just want to rescue a dog, they can get one from the pound and then be filled with feelings of philanthropic notions of goodness.
"Choose me..."
So why adopt from a rescue group then?
It's because with a dog from rescue, you are minimising the risks to your family and home. The foster carer is the one who puts his/her own family at risk. We are the ones who trial run the dog for you - make sure it doesn't bite people or other dogs. Sees how it does being alone. Sees if it's a nuisance barker or an escape artist. See if it will destroy your house or howl the roof down. We are the ones who make sure you don't get a dog that has ring worm, canine parvovirus, kennel cough, fleas, ticks, worms or other nasties because we've already seen the dog through quarantine and the vet work. We also give the dog basic obedience and training.
You won't get the perfect dog from a rescue group - no such dog exists - but you'll know its good and bad points. Not all rescue groups do this, I acknowledge that. There are some crappy ones out there, but with a good rescue, the dog has been de-risked. Dan and I put our own dogs 'at risk' so that the adopters don't have to.
Foster carers have to find out (to the best of their ability), whether the dogs are people-friendly...
child-friendly ...
dog-friendly...
cat-friendly ...
We can never identify all problems. Dogs are living creatures who are unpredictable and can (and do) change over time - but we do the absolute best we can to minimise the risks. We also love the dogs who come to our homes. They are part of the family. We invest time, money and love into them. They are not just things that we hand over to someone just because they are paying money.
I would never not take one of my foster dogs back. Dan and I offer a personal guarantee to people who adopt our dogs - we will always take the dog back, we will personally refund the adoption fee even after the trial period is over and our rescue group will not refund the adoption fee. This applies for all the dogs we've ever fostered. We feel strongly that we have an obligation to these dogs. If I've chosen poorly and the dog has ended up with a family who no longer wants him/her, then we will take him/her back and would much rather take him/her back, rehabilitate and rehome the dog than have him dumped, euthanised or rehomed carelessly.
It is for this reason that these days, I am confining my dogs to local adoption applications only. We've rehomed two dogs to Victoria (Frida and Nutmeg) and two to Sydney (Twiggy and Chimes) and still keep in touch with those owners. They are awesome people who drove all the way to get their dogs and showed so much commitment and care. These days,though I prefer to rehome locally. If I get an exceptional application from someone in Sydney ... or even SA/Vic/Qld, I might consider it depending on how awesome the application is though, but I'm going to do it on an exceptions basis rather than make 'interstate' an immediate option on petrescue.
I know lots of interstate rehomings go totally fine but I saw far too many interstate rehomings go pear-shaped when I was with a previous rescue group and the poor dog was always the one to suffer. It's easier for us to give post-adoption support if the person is close-by. It's also easier for us to go and get a dog back if the trial doesn't work out. Some rescues love the idea of shipping dogs all over the country - that's totally fine when the applicant is happy - but when the trial fails and it is too expensive to transport an unwanted dog back, then rescue groups have to find another carer locally and the poor dog would suffer ... I've seen this for myself.
I totally totally disapprove of people who rehome a dog within only a few days of getting the dog. You never see a dog's real personality for a few weeks!! It's just not possible. As a carer, I already have nightmares that no matter how careful I am with my training checklist, my observation of the dog's character and my socialisation checklist, as living creatures dogs can behave differently in different environments and as they get older and who knows how a dog will be once it leaves my care??? Some carers are proud of how quickly they can get a dog out the door - this makes me shudder ... poor dog, poor family ... what is the point of foster care then? For me, fostering is supposed to allow me to observe a dog and understand it. I may not be able to fix all the problems, but at least I can identify them so that the owners can decide if they want to take on those issues or not.
When a dog is in foster care, there is absolutely no person more important to a foster dog than his or her carer. The world has let that dog down. The carer is the only person who cares about the dog and the carer will make the decision that gives the dog a good life, or sends him or her down a path no better than the dog's previous life.
It's a daunting responsibility so I welcome the chance to get to know the applicants better - who's more committed? Who's more keen? Who gives me more info? Because the form asks about previous dogs, it gives you the chance to casually ask about what happened to it - that's when you find out it died of cancer and they spent thousands of dollars, or it was run over by a car because they had it off lead ... If the dog was killed because it was off lead - what are they doing to make sure it won't happen again? And yes, we have definitely rehomed to people whose dogs were killed when offlead but were clearly now super vigilant! The application process also lets you find out if the dog will be part of the family or a lawn ornament.
Once the dog is handed over, you have zero power or influence and you would not believe the number of carers who find out to their horror that the dog ends up dumped at the pound. Whether or not a person is prepared to fill out such a stupidly long form says a lot about their commitment. Is this someone prepared to clean up wee, poo and vomit? To stand by the dog if ends up being reactive or has a health issue?
I know that there are many who say that "anything is better than being dead" or "any home is better than the pound" and that at least a dog rescued and rehomed has a life, but to me, if I can't at least attempt to create a better life for a dog, train it and set it up for success in a new family - then what is the point of fostering? To me it's not enough to just pull a dog out of a pound and stick it in a new home, I need to have taught it the skills it needs to be more acceptable in a family home, I need to have been rigorous in being that dog's advocate - identifying the best possible home for it that I can. If I can't do that, then I shouldn't be fostering at all ...
I personally don't think that Dan's and my rules for re-homing are too strict or deter adopters. We have no shortage of people applying to adopt our foster dogs. We can afford to wait until the right owner comes along. We have rehomed 21 dogs - clearly there are people out there who can satisfy our “unreasonable” criteria ...
There are no perfect owners or perfect dogs, but it’s like matchmaking- it’s finding the right dog-family combination. What one adopter thinks is a minus, another owner thinks is a plus and vice versa. When we decline an applicant, it's not because we are saying: "you are a bad person / you are not a good home". We're saying: "We do not think you are the right fit for this dog - there might be another dog out there that would be a better match."
(no subject)
Date: 2017-07-14 10:44 pm (UTC)On the other hand though... seven weeks ago I adopted an adult cat. As this was to be my first animal ever, I thought it'd be best to adopt from a rescue group, because then I could get info on the cat's character, health and habits/peculiarities. However, I ended up adopting via our local equivalent of craigslist, from a woman who was moving abroad and was seeking to rehome her cat. As it turned out, she lied to me about the cat's health, so it's been an expensive month and a half, but that's a whole another story.
The main reason why I didn't go with a rescue group? All of them, in the adoption papers, required me to agree to two conditions I found unacceptable:
1) that I'd agree not only to a pre-adoption visit (obviously), but also to surprise unscheduled post-adoption check-ups.
2) that I would not rehome the cat under any circumstances, even if after a reasonable while we completely didn't mesh, and - at the same time - that there was NO trial period.
Now I'm thinking about getting a second cat in a few months. I'll have to search hard for a rescue group that allows trial periods, because it's not a given that the two cats will go along well.