Pets
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Slate article about rescues
I read this and thought it was interesting. We have three cats; two were adopted from rescues (and one was found trapped under our house and never left), so I clearly support rescues. However, I've had friends turned down for things like working full-time, even when they planned on coming home at lunch, having a dog-walker come by, doggie daycare, etc.
I just wondered what the pesties thought about the points the article brings up.
Re: Slate article about rescues
My Lunch Blog
The thing I really get from articles like this, about how hard it is to adopt from a rescue (it is hard; I applied to more than half a dozen before we found a breeder and only ever heard back from 1), is that if a rescue sees small issues with someone's application, they shouldn't just outright reject it.
It would be so much smarter to take a potential adopter aside (whether in person or over the phone), and perhaps have a discussion about the points on the application that currently make rescuers automatically reject an application. Should rescuing also be about educating? Wouldn't that mean more animals being placed in great homes than outright rejecting someone just because they live in an apartment, don't have a fenced-in yard, or work a full-time job? Last time I checked, a huge handful of the ladies on this board fit 1 or more of those "rejectable" positions, and yet here you are giving dogs fantastic lives!
I agree the article writer was a tad overzealous in focusing on these rejections, but it does point how how ridiculously over-the-top strict many organizations out there are and how easy it is for the average person to give up and go the breeder route (problematic in itself, since many people don't understand what makes a really reputable breeder the way to go).
B/w 1/8: betas 17,345, progesterone 25.6
There's always going to be that ONE place who is a bit extreme, and of course gives all the others a bad image. I'm wondering, since this is an article, if some of the stories are a bit exaggerated/changed from fact? For example, the stick story - I'm curious if there is more to this than what was in the article. I've seen children do all kids of things with sticks from drawing in the ground (nothing wrong with this) to using them inappropriately to the point where yes, I would be concerned about these children around pets.
I did experience something similar to this when I was younger. My parents (and myself, I supposed) were not allowed to adopt a cat because we would not allow the shelter workers to make random/unannounced visits to our home to "check" on the animal. They wanted to be able to enter our home even if we were not there. Mind you, this was also 1996 or 1997.
There is no way I would EVER allow anyone to enter my home to check something if I wasn't there. The only time that was ever okay was when I had a landlord in college and it was THEIR property. Even then they HAD to let us know they intended to come over to the property; if they got there and no one was home, they could go in, but we had to know they were coming over. How could this be legal for any organization to specify?!
B/w 1/8: betas 17,345, progesterone 25.6
While I agree with you, it's not always realistic. Rescues are generally volunteer-run -- people with full-time jobs, families, pets, maybe fosters, too.
I don't think it's acceptable to never get back to a potential adopter, but I can see how applications slip through the cracks, and people don't get responses.
I'm just saying, try to see things from the other side. Some of these people are essentially working two full-time jobs -- one for pay, one not.
Don't get me wrong. I completely understand that it must be overwhelming to have to weed through so many applications and send out responses. I'm not opposed to having to wait for a response on my application, and I'm sure it's not really feasible for them to send out a message just saying "we got your application, it's being reviewed, and we'll be in touch." That's something a well-run business should always do, but I know rescues don't really have full-time staff available for that kind of thing.
I think it would make a huge difference in the adoption rate if these places could try to get 1 or 2 people on board that could respond to potential adopters if there are a few issues with an otherwise decent application. It's probably wishful thinking, and would definitely take time and probably some overhauling, but wouldn't it be worth it if the outcome was more animals going into great homes? The shelters and rescues might end up saving funds on the care of those animals by getting them into homes and out of the system, which then could toward other animal's costs or even a salary if necessary for the person who would be talking to potential adopters.
By no means do I have a problem with rescues requiring adoption applications; I filled out quite a few. I also believe a home visit is no problem; they're just checking to be sure you've been truthful in your application, I'm sure. If the time is being taken for those things, would it be feasible/a stretch to add in some talks with people who don't quite make the super-strict application passing grade?
B/w 1/8: betas 17,345, progesterone 25.6
I completely agree with you. In my experience (with two shelters and two rescues), getting people to commit to something like that on a regular basis is very hard.
Our local shelter has a volunteer base of about 500 people, and every weekend, there is an email blast BEGGING people to commit to attend an adoption event. 500 people volunteer for the shelter, and they can't get 4 or 5 people to attend a one-time event for three hours on a Saturday afternoon.
That is horrendous. What is the point of signing up to volunteer if you're not going to do it?! I see adoption events as a lot of work, sure, but also a lot of fun and a great chance to interact with the animals and people coming to see them.
I keep telling myself to get involved. But I'm really afraid of how I'll react going in to a shelter and seeing all those animals and not being able to do anything more for them than be there.
B/w 1/8: betas 17,345, progesterone 25.6
It is hard. I'd by lying if I said I didn't leave the shelter in tears some days. You learn to focus on the postives, though.
The very first line in that article is enough to make me not take it seriously. And the caption of the picture "Fed up with her attempt to adopt, the author decided to buy a puppy instead". Seriously?
Are there some rescues that are insane about their requirements? Yeah, absolutely. Didn't we just have someone last week who posted that someone they know was turned down for a pug because their yard wasn't fenced? That is a little ridiculous. BUT, do not blame the entire world of animal rescue because you were too lazy to find other rescues/shelters to adopt from and decided to buy a dog.
Nothing pisses me off more than someone saying, "Well, this rescue was mean to me, so I bought a dog". Then you weren't very committed to rescue.
I also don't like that that the author says she bought from a reputable breeder, but doesn't bother to help identify what makes a breeder reputable.
Also, painting rescuers as "people haters" is ridiculous. I realize she called it a "sub-set" and not the entire rescue community, but that whole article reads like it's from someone who didn't get what they wanted, and is now trying to blame everyone else.
One rescue turns you down? Here's an idea, go to a different rescue. Go to your local humane society. Go to your local animal control. They still ask questions, but they are also trying to get animals out so they don't have to euthanize, so no, they don't tend to be as picky.
We've adopted all our animals, three from rescues/shelters and two from bad previous homes. Even as young, broke, apartment living people, we weren't turned down for an adoption. KEEP LOOKING.
Ugh...now I'm irritated. lol
Snow!
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home DWe really did have some similar experiences to the ones listed in the article and found it ultimately much easier to adopt from a brick and motor rescue.
I think part of it was because we were 1st time dog owners. I know volunteer rescue groups are doing the very best that they can, but more then once we were disappointed on the response that we got or how it was handled. Like no return phone calls, being told we were disqualified because we didn't have a dog already in the home, writing an email about a dog at 8pm one night and at 10pm the dog was removed from the site.
But I am so glad we kept at it! Like I said a few weeks into the search I had pretty much figured out the 3 agency/groups that would work with us, so we just concentrated our search there.
I'm really not trying to pick on you, but please read what I wrote above. These are likely volunteer-run rescues, and these people have full-time jobs, home lives, and other commitments. I'm not saying it's acceptable to not return phone calls in a timely manner (or at all), but please try to see the other side, too.
As for your second complaint, did the description of the dog say he'd do best in a home with other dogs?
As for the third, was it a puppy? An "in-demand" breed or mix? At my local shelter, puppies and in-demand breeds or mixes are often adopted within 20 minutes of being placed on the adoption floor. It's usually first-come, first-serve. Did you ever apply to be pre-approved at a rescue?
How do you go about this?
We're nowhere near getting another dog, but eventually we're bound to be looking, and I'd vastly prefer it to be an adoption vs going through a breeder again. Knowing how to get preapproval if we find a rescue we want to work with would be helpful, since I'm sure just applying to a dog on Petfinder wouldn't get you preapproval if you're not approved for that specific dog.
B/w 1/8: betas 17,345, progesterone 25.6
You submit a completed application to the rescue, along with references, and they determine if you're a suitable candidate to adopt one of their animals. Then when one comes in that matches what you're looking for (breed/mix, age, energy level, whatever parameters you've asked for), they contact you first, since you technically applied before the person who waits until that dog show up on Petfinder to apply.
I have no idea how or if it was legal. The county we lived in at the time (it was the county shelter) had some iffy policies at the time (my dad works with the government - local not state or country) from what I understand, any way. Honestly, from what I remember (since it was 16 years or so) the lady helping us was a real piece of work. She probably just made it up etc.
Anyway - we went somewhere else and got a kitty from the P.A.W.S program.