The three day holiday weekend gave me a chance to spend some time with family and friends and it's always interesting talking to my "non-rescue" friends and getting their thoughts on animal welfare issues. The view of the animal welfare world is often very different with those who are looking in on us from the outside.
Between the conversations with friends, and upon catching up on my reading last night, I couldn't help but notice the significant ying and yang of what is going on in "no kill" right now.
First, the good.
As Winograd posted this morning, Indianapolis Animal Care and Control was open on Saturday. While the vast majority of shelters around the country were off celebrating our nation's birthday, IACC decided that with so many people spending time with family over the long weekend, that they might take that family time and use it as an opportunity to gain some adoptions. The thinking woudl be, with people actually having time during the holiday to come visit the shelter, they just might. The net result was the adoption of 150 dogs and cats from the shelter on Saturday -- with several other people who didn't find their family's match at the shelter -- but vowed to return when the shelter got more animals. As Winograd quotes someone from an area group:
There was not only a sense of excitement with the IACC staff today, but also a sense of hope… that the agency is beginning to turn the corner for better helping the animals get out alive. The long, winding drive from Harding St to the IACC parking lot was cars parked bumper-to-bumper on both sides of the drive. People were at the facility who had never been there before, and if they didn’t find who they were looking for, they were planning on returning in the future. There were more people than animals available.
One of the major tennents of the no-kill model is that shelters actually need to be open when people can come vist them. Being open from 10-5 on weekdays doesn't exactly make a shelter easily accessible to the majority of potential adopters. This is an extreme example of how making the time when potential adopters have the time can reap huge rewards for animals needing to find home.
Now the bad.
Over the weekend, we spent some quality time with my wife's family and friends. During the course of conversations, it came to light that no fewer than three of her immediate family and friends (in a group of no more than 30 people) had recently been declined by a local shelter when they tried to adopt a dog.
Her uncle was declined because he had an unaltered dog at home. He actually has a great line of working Beagles that he occassionally breeds for working hunting dogs. He was looking to adopt a dog (and he wanted one that was altered) to be a pet dog. But because he was "a breeder" he was declined from adopting a pet.
Another relative was declined because the shelter didn't want to adopt to him because he wanted the dog as an "outside" dog. He has two dogs already, both "outside" dogs, that live a pretty nice life. They each have dog houses in a well insulated horse barn that is filled with straw and other warm bedding. They have heated water dishes. When the temperatures get too extreme (either cold or hot), they get to stay in the basement of the family home. They live on 50 acres and have free rein to roam on the farm (but really, never get to far away). They spend almost all of their time outdoors caring for their horses and playing with the dogs -- however the rescue told him that they would not adopt an "outside dog" to him.
A third person, a family friend, contacted a shelter about adopting a dog and filled out their online application. For the past couple of months he's been thinking about getting a new dog. His dog Sophie, died a few months ago at the age of 17. Even months later, his eyes welled up talking about Sophie, and how much he loved their dog. This person was declined because he admitted on his application that he didn't consistently keep Sophie on heartworm medication.* The rescue ruled that because of this, in spite of Sophie living a long, healthy life, he was not "good enough" to adopt one of their animals.
* I know some people may be appalled by the not consistently using heartworm medication. However, in this area of the country, we have very cold winters, and there are a least 4-6 months out of the year in which fleas, knats, mosquitos and other pesky bugs don't survive. My own veterinarian even advises us not to use heartworm medication during the winter because with indoor dogs, the damage done by the heartworm medication (which is, after all, a poison) is far worse than the scant likelihood of the dog actually getting heartworms during the winter months. This is actually a common recommendation from many vets in the area that improves the dog's overall health.
So on the one hand, we have a shelter in Indianapolis that stayed open for the holiday and adopted out 150 pets.
On another, I have 3 families (out of no more than 15 total families) at a family and friends gathering that had been denied from adopting a dog even though they either currently owned healthy dogs or had recently owned a healthy dog until it died of very old age -- all for very trivial reasons. What may even be more disturbing here is that all three were denied by different shelters -- so we have multiple shelters in our area denying people for trivial reasons. One of the shelters even calls themselves a 'no-kill' shelter -- even though they are not open admission and apparently aren't adopting many dogs out to free up space for more dogs to come in.
If we are going to ever reduce the number of homeless pets in our community, we must follow Indianapolis' example and find ways and reasons to adopt pets INTO loving homes, and not continually look for reason why NOT to adopt home animals. Many of these same shelters that are denying adopters are then complaining that "overpopulation" is the problem-- when it's not. It's their own lack of willingness to adopt animals into homes for trivial reasons that is causing a large part of the problem.
If we are going solve the problem, we must adopt pets into homes...we cannot continue to find reasons to deny them and push them to other places (puppy mills, breeders, etc) when their first choice is to go get a rescued dog. We need to encourage people to adopt...not continually make the process harder (or impossible). And we cannot continue to push people away from our animals if our larger goal is to save them. It's time to make placing animals a priority for our local animal shelters.
I'm 110% behind you on this Brent.
Really good, responsible people are getting turned down for, what amounts to small reasons. The bigger picture is 'will this dog have a better life with this person than sitting in this shelter', 'will they be loved by this person more than they can be loved sitting in a crate all day w/ limited care and socialization?', 'will this dog enjoy life more with this person than they would enjoy staring out a cage door?'.
NO ONE is a perfect dog owner, that's an impossible standard...even the most die-heard 'rescue person'. it's not about how 'what's wrong' with potential adopters, it should be 'what's right'. More importantly, it should be what's right for the dogs.
Rescues and shelters see so much bad in people who ruin the dogs' lives that come into their care, that I think they often times have a hard time trusting those that want to adopt and help these dogs have a happy forever after...
Somehow we all have to trust and have faith...we owe that to the dogs that are looking for a new home.
IMO trust (or even the assumption of positive intent by an adopter for that matter) has a key factor in successfully becoming a No Kill Society.
Posted by: krislars | July 06, 2009 at 01:30 PM
I get that shelter workers can get a little jaded and suspicious about adopters, but not only do strict and sometimes capricious policies prevent existing dogs from going to good homes, but all too often, people who've been rejected end up going to pet stores and backyard breeders, which just encourages more irresponsible breeding in the long run.
A couple of my recent bugbears when it comes to adoptions are extra hoops for adopting 'pit bulls,' and fenced yard requirements.
We have a very noisy, crowded, overextended municipal shelter here that has a LOT of bully breeds, but they have all kinds of ridiculous requirements for adopting one. You actually have to wait to get a home inspection to ensure that your perimeter is secure before you're allowed to adopt one of a square headed dog. I think (but am not 100% sure) that they require previous 'pit bull' experience, too. I wonder how many of those supposedly difficult to adopt dogs there have had potential homes rejected.
And the yard requirement is almost stupider. I have a good-sized yard with a sturdy 6' fence. And you know what we use that yard for? Almost nothing. We play frisbee every now and again, and sometimes roll around in the grass, but it would be a very minor adjustment for us if we didn't have it. In fact, I'm guessing my dog would appreciate all the extra walks she'd get if we couldn't just take her out there to do her business. And I'm guessing that a lot of the neglected yard dogs around here would be a lot harder for their owners to neglect and ignore if they lived in apartments.
And just overall, I get so sick and tired of people saying that no kill will never work and coming up with excuses and justifications instead of just giving it a shot.
How can so many people want to fail at this?
Posted by: Lisa | July 06, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Hi Brent,
I keep hearing more stories like this. In fact, a very good friend of mine here in K.C. was recently turned down when she tried to adopt a second dog. This person is one of the best dog owners I know. She takes good care of her dog, has lots of time to spend with her dog because she works from home and is at the dog park with her dog almost every day. The rescue did not give her a clear reason for why they were turning her down and she was sooo upset. She ended up going to Halfway Home and adopting a second dog from there, so it did have a good ending. But that anyone would turn her down is just absurd.
Also, I don't keep my dogs on heartworm medication year-round. I have them tested every year before starting them on it again for the warm season. If rescues are turning people down for that reason, I guess I'm a not-good-enough dog owner too.
Posted by: Allie | July 06, 2009 at 05:03 PM
This is off-topic, but I thought I'd share it for your information, in case you hadn't seen it. I'm in Lincoln, NE and there was some chatter about a pit bull ban. I found this article informative; while not all of the proposed ideas would be helpful, I certainly found them a step in the right direction. Also, as a responsible owner of a pit and a pit mix, I can (hopefully!) rest easier that my dogs won't be seized and euthanized over a hysterical breed ban.
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2009/07/06/news/local/doc4a5152f1619fc250886429.txt#blogcomments
Posted by: avabee | July 06, 2009 at 08:21 PM
Avabee-- I'm going to dedicate a whole blog post to Lincoln this week. A lot of good stuff in there (and some bad stuff) and one really interesting tidbit there that no one is talking about.
Allie, I'm hearing way too many of these stories lately...and unfortunately, not everyone is solving the problem by going to another rescue (and I think it's unfair to expect them to).
Lisa, this is such an individual dog thing. I have one that would hate not having a yard to run in. But the other two would be completely great with never being in a back yard and going for 3 walks a day. A lot of recent studies indicate that people without fenced yards spend more time with their dogs than those with fences (since they're forced to walk them vs just sending them out) -- and yet, dozens of rescues continue with their blanket fencing requirements.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | July 06, 2009 at 08:49 PM
It's absolutely fabulous that IACC adopted out so many pets this weekend, but my concern was how they did it - offering $4 adoption fees.
It just concerns me for two reasons
1. owning a pet can be very expensive, and sometimes people have to surrender their animals due to medical costs (for example, just got an email last week about a dog abandoned at a vet for a $99 bill)
2. dog fighting does exist - and when these animals are cheap and readily available with an already overworked staff - how are they ensuring that these animals are going to safe, loving homes?
Posted by: Nichole | July 07, 2009 at 03:11 PM
Nichole,
Thanks for the thoughts. I appreciate your sentiments and caring about what happens to the dogs, but I personally don't worry too much about them.
#1 really doesn't bother me at all in this case. There will always be situations where a pet will have a medical problem in which they can't afford and the pet will be returned. This will be true whether you charge $50 for adoptions or $4. I guess I'd rather put 150 pets in homes and get 20 of them back than not adopt any of them at all...the net gain is still 130 animals. I don't think shelters should overly concern themselves with what MIGHT happen in the future...which no one really knows.
As for #2, I've heard a lot about fears of dog fighters coming to shelters and adopting dogs for dog fighting...but honestly, have never heard one actual story of it having happened. For the most part, this group of people breeds their own dogs for their own purposes and doesn't have a lot of interest in adopting altered dogs at a fee (with certain paperwork filled out with name/address on it). I guess it could, in theory, happen...and would be tragic for the animal if it did...it's just that for all of the talk I've heard in my life about it happening, I've never actually seen a real occurrance of it.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | July 07, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Supposedly the ASPCA has a stat that 95% of people who are turned down for adoption will still get a pet anyway. Would love to find this stat online, but haven't yet.
Posted by: gretchen meyer | July 07, 2009 at 04:54 PM
That is so awesome about Indianapolis! It just makes common sense to be open when people can come and, to be honest, 3-day weekend holidays are the BEST time to be open. I work for a nonprofit sanctuary and we have tours - we always try to have tours on holiday weekends and they are always the most popular. Logical.
I have to admit I wouldn't - on the outset- adopt to the 2nd person w/ the outdoor dogs. If I did a home inspection and really liked what I saw, it might be different. It's a personal bias (seen too many outdoor farm dogs get killed too soon). I personally think some ranch dogs have the best life - outdoors, with their people, doing what dogs have a natural drive to do. There's a local sheep rancher who has this gorgeous Border Collie. Great working dog. Hate that I see him in the back of the pick-up truck, but the dog has the option to sleep inside or outside - he always chooses inside (not on the bed or in the person's room but in the kitchen generally). To me, it's a nice way to thank a dog by inviting him into the pack's home.
The other two? I'd adopt to them in a heartbeat. It's unreasonable not to, imo. And that's what it ends up coming down to, in some cases, a person's opinion. Like had those two got me as the adoption counselor, well I would have fudged things a bit. :)
Being flexible is key in rescue, and I think that that is lacking in more and more shelters/rescues.
Posted by: Rinalia | July 07, 2009 at 07:09 PM
The person with the outdoor dogs that you think leads to early death had one dog die of cancer and two die from old age - over 14.
So, instead of taking a chance at giving a dog a life on a farm, outdoors where nature originally intended, "rescues" would rather pick certain death. And also, would rather a dog die early from cancer than risk adopting a large breed dog out unaltered.
These same people vilify breeders as EVIL because for every litter it means the same number of dogs die in the shelter. And YET, they will turn down people that want to adopt causing a dog/cat to die.
Funny how people like to pick and choose what is moral, based on what suits their fancy - and no logic.
Posted by: MichelleD | July 08, 2009 at 09:23 AM
"Funny how people like to pick and choose what is moral, based on what suits their fancy - and no logic."
It isn't funny - I'm sure you do it, too. None of us can be objectively unbiased automatons.
It also isn't unreasonable to be interested in how an outdoor setup is when you place a dog, especially one you may have bonded with or who has been in, say, foster for a prolonged period of time (inside).
It also isn't entirely illogical to expect outdoor dogs who may also be ranch dogs to, generally, have a shorter life comparatively. Or, at the very least, it isn't unreasonable to be curious about what "running free on 50-acres means" or what "the typical day for a ranch dog" is.
(Nature didn't intend anything with dogs - we did).
Posted by: Rinalia | July 08, 2009 at 07:22 PM
I have seen this same thing happen with the rescue I volunteer for.. it seems like every time a dog comes back (which doesn't happen very often, but sometimes it doesn't work out) the leadership gets so agonized over the "failure" that new guidelines are put into place in an attempt to ensure "this doesn't happen again". With, of course, the result that it has become progressively more and more difficult for anyone to meet their requirements. In fact, they have stopped admitting new dogs for some time now "because there aren't enough homes" for the ones they currently have in foster care.
And as for the shelters, the REALLY sad part is that these people were turned down because they told the TRUTH!! Although a lot of breed rescues do home checks (which can be very useful but can also be a barrier to adoptions), very few shelters do. If your family and friends had lied, they would have new pets now.
I don't know the actual stats either, but I would be willing to bet that the percentage of people who get pets from another source after being turned down for adoption is close to 100%. In a FEW cases, where there is some clearly defined problem and a real effort at education has been made as to why a certain dog - or certain type of dog - will not likely be a good fit for a particular family, then different decisions may be made. We would hope. But in most cases, the people feel frustrated and offended, and they STILL want a new pet. Not only will they not go back to a different shelter or rescue, but chances are good the experience has put them off of shelters/rescues for life.
Posted by: Barb | July 09, 2009 at 04:19 AM
Dog evolved from wolves with the help of human intervention. Wolves lived outside. PEOPLE lived outside for thousands of years living in little more than big dog houses. Hell, I had a homeless woman living up all winter thru the coldest nights living in a doorway. Humans would get charged with animal cruelty if they left their dog in the same situation. (Please note people tried to help this woman and she refused it.) I'm not saying this is ok, but people/animals can apparently live in less than perfect environments.
PEOPLE have decided dogs belong in the house. Honestly, I don't think dogs "belong" in the house anymore than they "belong" anywhere else. Well cared for outside dogs are generally more balanced than inside dogs in my experience. Inside dogs quite often are fat and don't get enough exercise. Heard of "death by can opener"? I can't believe how many rescuers leave their dogs locked up all day then denounce someone that leaves it outside even with proper accomodations.
I'm not unbiased but at least try to use reason. Not just "this isn't the way I'd do it" or "this is the group think we came up with". You deny an adoption you cost a dog/cat their life. Until we get to no kill that is exactly what happens. Sometimes its justified and more often these days, its absolutely not.
Posted by: MichelleD | July 13, 2009 at 09:51 PM
I think the shelter policy of making sure that the animal is going to go to a good home is a wonderful thing. In a perfect world the same policy would apply to human hospitals when a mother gives birth to a human baby. Our government should use its wisdom at that point to decide whether the baby should go home with the mother, or should be put in a shelter for adoption by a more qualified family. If the world worked this way there would be fewer children raised by single mothers and fewer children going to government school hungry. Of course, once the shelter filled up with babies some of them would have to be humanely euthanized to make room for the more adoptable ones, but that is the cost I am willing to pay.
Posted by: calmassertiv | July 31, 2009 at 01:53 AM
I would say that is a much more radical solution than most people in this country would except (thankfully). I wouldn't be in favor of the government deciding who should and who shouldn't have children (sounds like communist China to me) and I would certainly rather most kids live in single parent homes than face euthanasia. But the reality is, those are the types of decisions made every day at many shelters...that death in the shelter is better than going to just a pretty good home.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | July 31, 2009 at 08:35 AM
I think calmassertiv was being facescious (fa see shus - I don't know how to spell it) Brent...
Posted by: MichelleD | July 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM
This morning I saw a TV news story that the Indianapolis ACC director, Doug Rae, is now on probation partly due to city-county council concerns about his $4 adoption promotion. The story didn't give the details about whether the conerns were due to the shelter relying on the adoption fees as a part of their funding (and so were an "irresponsible" act with regards to their budget) or if they simply think $4 adoptions are a bad idea for other reasons along the lines of those discussed in other comments to this article.
Posted by: IndyElmer | August 12, 2009 at 07:37 AM