Loving homeless pets to death

In the past month, I've adopted out both of my two foster dogs.  Both of them went to great, loving homes. Both dogs are loving their new homes. Both families were denied from adopting pets by multiple other organizations prior to us adopting to them.

The idea of not being 'overly selective" for homes for adoptable pets may be the most important, and yet the most controversial (likely because it is the least well understood) part of the no kill equation. The animal rescue community MUST quit loving their adoptables to death.

When many in the establishment hear about limiting barriers to adoption, the first reactions inevitably seems to be that No Kill wants to send pets into homes where they will not be cared for, will live their lives on chains, or will lead to some form of miserable death. That, of course, is completely untrue and there is data that supports this. But its still what some people will assume...

The no kill idea is actually to remove artificial barriers to adoption. Somehow over the years many rescue groups (I find this to be most common with breed-specific rescue groups, although it is not uncommon within all-breed rescues) have put up all kinds of artificial barriers to adoption.  Here are just a few I've run across fairly recently:

1) Refusal to adopt most (or all) of their adoptable dogs to homes without fenced yards. Even if someone intends to walk their dog 3x a day, the rescue still maintains this policy. It's important to note that Kansas City, like many cities, is an urban community where many people live in condos and their dogs have great lives going on multiple walks per day -- or many people live in suburban neighborhoods  where fencing isn't even allowed. While certainly there are some dogs in a program that would be best suited to have fenced yards, most would be perfectly happy sleeping on the couch indoors with their owner and then going for several walks a day.

2) Refusal to adopt dogs into homes with dogs of the same gender -- even though most of the rescue foster homes have 3 or more dogs in their homes (which guarantees same gender placements) and it works out just fine.

3) Refusing to adopt to unmarried couples, or young singles who live in apartments.  Often these people are weeded out by fencing requirements. But even groups without the fencing requirement often refuse to adopt to apartment dwellers, or young couples, because they fear a breakup, or a move to a new apartment that doesn't allow dogs, will cause the dog to come back into the shelter/rescue. While statistically, it is more likely to happen in these instances, the reality is that most of these dogs remain in their homes forever

4) Denying adoption to someone who has another dog, that is unaltered. Note, there is no way that the dog you adopt to them (which is altered) will be part of a birthing equation.

5) Denying people from adopting because they tend to have the dog as an outside "farm dog". Never mind the warm, straw-filled barn, or garage to sleep in. Or the heated water bowl. Or the exercise and stimulation of never ending farm chores.

6) Not adopting out black cats around Halloween, or any pets around Christmas, also fall under these artificial barriers.

Somehow we've forgotten just how adaptable dogs are to our lives (and how lovingly willing they are to adjust their lifestyle to fit ours). It was only a few decades ago that most dogs lived outside.  This was definitely unsuitable for city living because dogs often got hit by cars, but was perfectly great for dogs in rural areas who were farm dogs following their masters around fields. Over time, we gradually brought dogs into our homes -- to which dogs adapted -- and then, started confining them to small kennels during the day. And again, the dogs adapted.

Yet, for some reason, we don't think dogs can adapt to even the slightest variation in lifestyle from our idealic notion of what it should be.  Even though what is ideal for the DOG may vary dramatically based on the dog's personality traits.

I'm sure, there are some who have read this far, and with steam coming out of their ears, will profess that they do some (or all) of these things because they CARE about these pets. Unfortunately, they haven't taken the consequences of their denying adoptions to the next logical question:

What happens to these adopters that your organization is denying for adoption?

We have to realize that in denying a family for adoption, for whatever reason, does not ensure that they never get a pet. It just ensures that they don't adopt a pet. So, after a couple of times getting declined for adoption, the hopeful family goes to a breeder, and buys a dog, because the rescue community is too hard to work with and has continued to deny them the opportunity to own a pet.

So they have a pet, but they left our adoptable pet in the shelter. And then, the rescue community makes the claim that these irresponsible people are causing THEM to have to kill animals in the shelter because there just aren't enough good homes. 

But the reality is these rescue groups loved the animals to death. There are more than enough "good enough" homes. Instead of denying these homes and sending them elsewhere for a pet, it is important that we take every opportunity to, through a little education and follow up, make them into good homes instead of just sending the adopter away and leaving the animal homeless out of 'love" for the animal.

Over the past month, I've been hearing an ad campaign from the Ad Council and an organization call Adopt US Kids.  The campaign (you can check out some of the work here), has a tag line of "you don't have to be perfect, to be a perfect parent".  I love the campaign, but also find it fascinating that they are encouraging "less than perfect" people to adopt CHILDREN, and yet many in the animal welfare community find it almost offensive that we would adopt a dog into a home without a fence. I think a lot of rescue organizations could benefit from the idea of "you don't have to be perfect to be a perfect pet parent".

There is more than one type of good home. And that of the nearly 70 million US households that own pets, the vast majority of them are either already very good homes, or could be very good homes with a little help. And denying adopters doesn't prevent these homes from owning pets, it just prevents them from adopting a pet. Sure, there will always be cases in which you just can't responsibly put a pet in a particular home...but this should be a very rare exception.

As Winograd writes in his very good blog post "Good Homes Need not Apply"

"I have long been a proponent of adoption screening because I, too, want animals to get good homes. But truth be told, in shelters where animals are being killed by the thousands, I’d rather they do “open adoptions” (little to no screening) because I trust the general public far more than those who run many animal control shelters—those who have become complacent about killing and willfully refuse to implement common-sense lifesaving alternatives."

And even if your organization is not facilitating in the killing, if the organization that is doing it relies on your organization to help transfer/pull animals, you are doing your part to ensure the practice continues.

Over the past 2 years, I've met many people who have been denied adopting from shelters -- for wanting to have a "farm dog", for occassionally breeding great hunting dogs but wanted to adopt a companion dog, for not giving their elderly, indoor dog heartworm treatment even though they were following the advice of their veterinarian, for not having a fence, for living in an apartment, for being too young, too old, having a young child and for having a good job that the rescue organization thought would be 'too time consuming" for her to raise a pet.

It's foolishness. And it is leading to us killing animals in the shelter. 

For more:

 Good Homes Need Not Apply - -Winograd

No Kill Conference Wrap UP #1 -- YesBiscuit!

Comments

[Valerie]

I was once denied an adoption because my Chihuahua, when placed in a strange and stressful situation, barked. I am not kidding. My husband and I did an internet search of shelters and rescues for a dog after our elderly Pomeranian died, leaving our Chi lonely for canine companionship. I found a (heartworm positive) dog I liked a lot at a packed-to-the-gills private no-kill shelter. I liked him even more when I met him (on my third try--the building was locked and no one answered the door the first two times I visited during posted business hours and my calls were not returned) and had a good talk with the staffer in the shelter's quiet fenced back yard. He asked the usual and perfectly reasonable questions about how we would care for the dog, heartworm prevention, etc. He told me we'd have to bring my dog in to meet him before the adoption could proceed. I assumed that the meeting would take place in the quiet fenced area. Nope. I got there, and a different staffer met me in the tiny parking lot bordered by two very busy roads. I didn't like standing out there--it made me nervous, and neither did my Chihuahua, who is not yappy under most normal circumstances. She barked, and we were told that we could not adopt this HW+ dog because she would stress him too much. The meeting was over in less than 10 seconds and there was no reasoning with her. This shelter pulls from a pound that kills 80% of its intake (sometimes on the truck or in front of other animals) and they looked for the most irrational of reasons not to adopt a dog. The very patient effort I'd put into trying to adopt this particular dog and the animal care experience I'd told them about didn't matter. I have to wonder if she hadn't barked, would they have adopted him to us, or would there have been some other lame excuse? Sad. We could have opened up a kennel for a dog in desperate need that day.

[Troy Way]

Sounds like few if any of the posters above are rescue owners. First and foremost, there is no profit in rescue. The MAJORITY of dogs in rescues arrive unaltered and it costs a fortune to spay/neuter and feed all of these animals.

Rescues are not here to provide the public with an assortment of adoptable dogs to choose from; they are here BECAUSE of an irresponsible general public.

Most adopters that have been rejected do not go to breeders; they visit a shelter or pound with less stringent adoption policies, or they check the classifieds or online ads for pets needing homes.

When it comes to having a fenced yard, know that a good portion of the dogs in rescues are strays that have wandered off from their homes, many of those the mythical perfect rural "country home". Obviously they weren't as content doing farm work as this article implies. It would be completely irresponsible to place a dog that strayed from one home in to another home without a fenced yard. If you disagree with common sense - good luck getting a rescue dog.

Brent - Why would you want to begin "reversing these restrictions"? Rescues take in animals that have been dumped, abandoned or otherwise rejected by their former owners. Very few take in owner surrendered dogs. To ensure the animals go to homes where they will be loved and cared for the rest of their lives there has to be rules and requirements in place. Instead of trying to change people that are honorably saving animals lives on their own time and often their own dime, why don't you just start your own rescue? You can hand out dogs without screening homes or taking applications, much like pet stores that sell puppy-mill pups. You can appease all the spiteful rejectees by placing a dog with aggression issues in to their home full of kids. Regardless of a dogs behavioral issues, you can put it in a home with an unfenced yard and an owner that has never owned a dog and has no idea about training. Maybe provide them with a crate too, because that's probably where the dog will end up spending the majority of its life with them until they end up "getting rid of it" a few months later.

Most rescuers are not new kids on the block. We've seen it all and heard it all. We've been lied by applicants and made mistakes placing dogs in to homes that were not appropriate. It just means next time, we won't make that same mistake. If I was to compromise with you despite my hesitation and put a 10-month old black lab pup in to your home as your first dog and it destroyed your $5000 living room suite while you were at work, who are you going to blame? The dog first and then the rescue. What if I gave you a 3-year old husky and it killed your two 14 year old cats because you insisted the cats "can take care of themselves" - who are you going to blame? There are restrictions for a reason, you'd be foolish trying to change them.

[H. Houlahan]

It is possible to be rigorous without being rigid.

My breed rescue deals with a "not for everybody" breed. There are a few civic boosters out there who give the impression that they are the perfect dog out of the box, when the truth is, they are perfect for the people who are perfect for them. Notsomuch everybody else.

So we do screen pretty rigorously.

But I can think of multiple examples in the past year where we adopted to families with one or more of your six DQ's above. Probably there is someone with all six.

Intact other animals not even on the radar. Same-gender done on a case-by-case basis -- only if it's an issue for the particular dog, which we know because we pay attention to the dog in foster care.

I am an active breeder who fosters and consults for our breed rescue. The president of the BoD's bitch is expecting her first litter next month, the founder is a breeder, probably a quarter of the active volunteers are breeders. And a number of volunteers would be breeders, but the dogs they loved didn't meet health and other criteria, so they did the right thing. We breed because we know and love these dogs. We rescue because we know and love these dogs.

I have no fence around my farm (there is a large kennel -- half inside and half outside a pole barn -- for new fosters). The lack of fences is considered an asset for behaviorally-challenged fosters. It means they will be supervised 24/7 until they learn what it is to be a member of their breed.

My current blog postings alternate between updates on our litter of puppies and updates on the retraining of our new foster.

I am NOT in favor of "what the hell" adoptions. Screening and pre-adoption counseling of adopters goes hand-in-hand with screening and training and evaluation of the dogs in the shelter or in foster care. Know the dogs you are adopting out. Know the adopters. Help make a great match. Yes, it is more time-consuming, and it requires actual thoughtfulness and skill. But we need to raise the bar from success = "we won't see that one again" to success = "all the dog's needs and all the human's needs are met by this match, and both are deliriously happy with one another." You *can't* achieve that with rigid criteria and "traps" in the adoption application. You *can* in many cases if you really know the animals in your care and really care for the people who apply to adopt.

[MichelleD]

Troy - please retire. You're too mired in bitterness.

[Brent]

Troy Way,

I've tried to come up with a delicate way to say this, and I've come up with nothing. So here it is: You're wrong.

In this country, we're killing 4-4.5 million pets each year -- and this number has remained pretty consistent for about a decade now in spite of increased compliance with spay/neuter and increased resources for low cost spay/neuter.

Rescues/shelters exist because there will always be a need to find new homes for pets that end up homeless for whatever reason. These groups exist TO FIND ANIMALS HOMES -- not to kill them. Not to prevent them from going to homes - -but TO GET THEM INTO HOMES.

This doesn't mean we should do no educating and have absolutely no screeing process. It does mean, however, that we need to get rid of our old-school thinking that other people are to blame for the animals getting killed in the shelters, and come up with solutions to solve the problem.

This means giving up rigid adoption requirements with no flexibility. It means educating people about the realities that a particular 10 month old lab puppy may chew up their house, or that the Husky may not be good with cats. And then, when aware of the challenges with a particular dog, if someone still wants to adopt the dog because they feel like the dog, based on its individual temperament and behavior, fits into their lffestyle, being good with that. Even if in 25% of these cases the dog comes back to the shelter, you're STILL many dogs ahead of where you were before.

And most dogs are not "Strays that wandered away from their homes". In fact, such a thing doesn't exist. If they are "stray", then they have no home and shelters need to find homes for them. If they wandered off from their home, then there is likely an owner trying to find this dog and we should do our best to try to help them find it. This is one of the reasons why microchips are our best friend!

You asked "Why would I begin reversing the restrictions"? Because animals are dying in our shelters. Every day. And it is our responsibility as rescuers to save them. And we (collectively) are not doing everything we can to do so if we are continually denying adopters and denying animals the opportunity to go to homes. This doesn't mean just letting it be a free-for-all -- but it does mean putting more faith and trust in the public that they will make accommodations for their loving pet -- just like the other 70 million pet-owning households in this country. We need to change it because not doing so is leading to animals being killed.

Read the stories others have posted here about their own 'being denied for adoption" story -- and tell me THIS is in the best interest of the animals that we're responsible for helping. It's not.

[PetDocsOnCall09]

Troy...I read your post and was ready to fire back an immediate reply, but it looks like Brent has made most of my points already.

As a veterinary technician, someone who is actively involved with several rescue groups AND a history of working in city shelters, I can see this argument from a variety of angles and I must say that Brent and many others have absolutely made valid points.

You mention that "Most adopters that have been rejected do not go to breeders; they visit a shelter or pound with less stringent adoption policies, or they check the classifieds or online ads for pets needing homes." First, what stats do you have that show "most" go to a different shelter and second, the last part of your statement actually proves Brent's points. You have an animal, you refused to adopt it because of some technicality (like the adopting person is over 70 years old) and the person went got an animal from a non-rescue source.

No one says to throw all rules, regulations and guidelines out the window, but we need to temper those with some common sense and a little trust. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I would have been declined by many big dog rescues when I was looking for my Mastiff because 1) no fenced yard, 2) I have a cat and 3) at that time, I had an 18 month old toddler.

Guess what Troy? Two years later, I have a fenced yard, the cat has completely intimidated the 160 lb dog and my now three year old son has a best friend that is NEVER far from his side. But, according to many groups, I was not the best fit or family for their dogs.

I am not trying to sound mean and all of us here do appreciate the work that many rescue groups do. It's hard, it's time-consuming, it eats up money quickly and it's often emotionally draining. But, I don't believe that you can deny Brent's points as being valid. In order to save more animals, we need to start trusting a few more people.

[Troy Way]

Michelle D,

Do you find, as I do, that it's usually the ones sitting on the sidelines that put down the ones doing the work? Out of every ten applicants for a dog there are one or two great potentials, one or two decent potentials, and several complete morons. You deal with that day in and day out and let's see how you feel at the end of the week.

Brent,

"It does mean, however, that we need to get rid of our old-school thinking that other people are to blame for the animals getting killed in the shelters, and come up with solutions to solve the problem."

Who is to blame if not "other people"? The rescues? No. The breeders? Yes. The irresponsible pet owners? Yes. The people complaining about rescues when they could have just as easily gone and got another homeless dog from Kijiji before it ended up in a shelter? Yes. Of course its other people that are to blame for the animals being killed in shelters. It all starts with the breeders, whether they're backyard or "responsible", who continue to produce animals and place them in homes with irresponsible owners.

While I'm sure there are some that exist, I am not aware of any rescues that kill animals. Rescues exist first and foremost to save animals lives, secondly to find appropriate homes for them. I'm also not aware of any rescues that prevent animals from going to new homes, only from going to inappropriate homes. I'm sure there are rescues that may be "too" stringent but the majority are flexible with their rules depending on the individual dog and the adopter. It's great if rescuers could educate every potential pet owner out there but seriously, who has the time? People need to take responsible and educate THEMSELVES prior to becoming pet owners. Don't put the onus on the rescues to do so, they're already doing their part.

Geographic location is also a factor in our difference of opinion. In my city, most dogs in rescues are not pulled from shelters. They are taken off reserves before the monthly cull, or dumped in the country, found stray and unclaimed by owners, taken from abusive and/or neglectful homes, or in some cases surrendered by owners. I did not say "MOST" dogs in rescues are strays, I said a good portion of them are. If you really want to mince words, any dog that has wondered off its owners property is considered a "stray". If said dog is not claimed and a reasonable effort to locate the owner has been made, it can, after 30 days, be placed for adoption by a rescue. Dogs in Canada are considered "property" and therefore subject to the same laws and requirements as a lost garden shovel or bicycle.

You ask me to read a handful of stories from people that have been "denied for adoption", but how about we read the millions of success stories from adopters that have adopted from a rescue instead? That seems to be the more realistic way to go.

PetDocsOnCall09,

Read your post last minute but would also ask you to produce stats to show that rejectees DO go to breeders for a dog. I pointed out they go to another source such as a classified ad or online where there are thousands of mixed and purebreed "free to good home" dogs needing homes. I was not implying they went online to look for a breeder.

[Troy Way]

PetDocsOnCall09,

One last comment from me: Is it not better to play it safe than take a chance when it comes to placing dogs with unknown history and background in to homes? As a vet tech I'm sure you see the results of animals injured, maimed and killed by other animals in the same home, if you were a nurse you'd see the results of children injured or killed by animals in the home too. I currently have a 120lb mastiff/shep mix in my rescue that I absolutely would not place in a home with a young child for that exact reason. I do not know enough about the dogs history to know whether or not that dog will respond well to children. If I'm less than 100% certain, why take the chance? It only takes one time and one minute for a life to change forever. Would you prefer that rescues take that chance? Who would you blame then?

[Brent]

Troy Way,

Regardless of whether the denied adopter goes online to get a dog from a breeder, or another rescue, barely matters. The reality is, that in denying someone you are most likely NOT keeping them from getting a dog, you are keeping them from adopting one of your adoptable dogs. If 1/2 go to another shelter, any question about the home is still a question. If they go to a breeder, you have helped create demand for bred dogs and now put them in control of an unaltered dog.

So what problem have you solved?

It is always best to try to work WITH the potential adopter to try to make them into a solid home than to just deny them. Sometimes you'll have no choice but to deny them because they're a bad home - -but if you're suggesting that 60-80% of your potential adopters are bad homes there is just ZERO evidence that this is the case.

We're killing 4-4.5 million pets in this country -- and little to no progress has been made to decrease this number in that time. We can either try to do the same thing we're currently doing to get a different result, or do something different and succeed. But doing the same thing we're currently doing seems like a recipe for more failure -- and you will continue to blame everyone else for the problem instead of realizing that, based on your numbers, you could be adopting out twice as many animals as you are today if you were not denying 60-80% of them. I'm afraid MichelleD may have the best advice for you.

[Brent]

As for your last statement, no adoption is 100% certain. I've sent dogs to homes I was fairly certain would come back to me that ended up being great homes, and I've sent them to "perfect homes" and ended up with them back. The only thing that can ever be 100% certain is killing the dog....which you appear to be more than satisfied with as an alternative.

No one is saying that you put an agressive dog into a home with a small child -- but the percentages are that the vast majority of dogs are not aggressive and do not bite, and the vast majority of homes are perfectly suitable for pets.

[PetDocsOnCall09]

Troy...I get where you are coming from...completely. But I disagree with your outlook. You commented to Michelle that you get "one or two great candidates, one or two possibles and the rest are complete morons". If I had my employees at the veterinary clinic exhibit attitudes like that, I would fire them immediately and recommend that they never work anywhere where they had to deal with people and their pets.

I think Nathan Winogard has said it best, it's time to change the way we look at how we "save" animals. The old ways aren't working, as he has so often described, and we need to find new and better ways to stop killing pets.

Playing it safe is fine...and yes, there are times when a specific animal won't work in a specific situation (like the one you described). But, can't we view each situation as unique and each person/family as an individual instead of lumping them all in with "the morons".

Let's try a different example...I recently searched for renting a home. Once most landlords hear that I have a Mastiff, they cringe, throw up all sorts of legal roadblocks and objections WITHOUT EVER LOOKING AT ME (AND THE DOG) AS INDIVIDUALS. One place wanted me to make sure the dog was specifically named in the liability coverage of my insurance and it needed to be for half a million dollars. Thankfully, one property management company saw that I was a veterinary technician with an impeccable history of renting and said "no problem".

We see animals injured, maimed and killed by other animals every day...you are right, but that is going to happen regardless of your efforts. The best thing we can do is do our best to educate and help people select the right animals for their situation.

As for stats, isn't the fact that 17 million Americans are willing to rescue or adopt a pet enough? Wouldn't that make a huge dent in the numbers of animals that need homes or even eliminate it entirely? (I will find the link to that study and post shortly)

I don't really think you and I (and the others commenting here) are really that far apart. You bring up valid points for strongly suggesting a potential adopter not take a specific animal (exhibited predatory behavior towards small animals as an example and the adopter has multiple cats), but many of the examples cited here are for less serious reasons.

If I could make one small suggestion though...please take to heart my comment about thinking the pet owning public are all morons and that they bear the lion's share of the blame. That attitude can only lead to continued and growing hatred and that is not good.

[PetDocsOnCall09]

Here is the link showing that a good percentage of people thinking of getting a pet would chose rescue or a shelter: http://www.maddiesfund.org/Resource_Library/The_Shelter_Pet_Project_By_the_Numbers.html

[Karen F.]

Add my sister-in-law to the list of those denied by a rescue for a stupid reason. She had more than 20 years of experience as an owner of both cats and dogs and had successfully raised four kids. She is an intelligent, educated, stable, warm, highly competent person with a good job. She had a nice house in a safe neighborhood in the suburbs. Why was she denied a dog? Because she worked and therefore wouldn't be home during the day. It was mind-boggling. Fortunately, she kept looking and finally found a rescue that would adopt to her. She and the dog fell in love instantly and the dog has been doted on and perfectly cared for ever since.

[Judy Liese]

Lots and lots of years ago after losing a beloved rescue dog I had for 12 years (and mourning the loss) I decided I was ready to adopt another dog. The organization I contacted told me I couldn't because I WORKED TOO MANY HOURS!!! No questions about PLANS I had worked out to accommodate my hours, just NOPE....YOU WORK TOO MUCH! My husband and I three years ago adopted through our local no-skill shelter and there was not a problem in the world with putting this lab mix on our farm and letting her enjoy her life!

[Melinda]

Marsha if infact this is your kitty, why haven't you contacted the media, they would probably love to hear your story and then they will start S**ting in their pants and allow you to see the cat. My heart goes out to you. I would hate if one of mine were missing.

[Andrea]

Great post. Rescue groups really need to consider whether they are driving some people to breeders and pet stores by putting up so many barriers to adoption.

A vet tech I know was once denied by a rescue group because she didn't have receipts for hw preventive & flea meds, since she gets them at cost from her employer. She has special training to work at a veterinary internal medicine practice, yet didn't make the cut at this rescue.

We can all understand why rescues become overly selective. They've run across too many animal cruelty and neglect cases and seen too many situations where people give up their pets without good reason. So while I understand where the selectivity comes from, it's also worth keeping in mind that most people who are seeking a pet will offer it a good and loving home. The "no one is good enough" standard just leads to more killing.

[Linda]

One need only to read Brent's writing, and read all of the comments on this post, to see that the American public (and, well, surely the public at large) is smarter and kinder than they are given credit for by too many rescues.

There is also the insidious impact of SHELTER policies (which determine which rescues are "eligible to pull" animals from a kill shelter, on rescue policies. It's been a peeve of mine for some time, that in the Maryland area, a lot of rescue groups are letting animal control shelters dictate how they run. This is a violation of many of these organizations' missions probably of their corporate charters.

These rescues face a terrible choice: comply with requirements to stringently screen and reject most adopters for largely inconsequential reasons, like the shelter itself does; or stand by and see animals die which the rescue knows it COULD have found homes for.

It is a perverse form of blackmail, and sort of an illustration of how Stockholm Syndrome works in the animal shelter and rescue world. Shelters kill most of the animals they take in; then rescues, which adopt the same awful adoption limitations, wind up unable to place animals because the limitations limit the eligible pool to almost no one.

It is sad, and yet, most rescues I have had contact with, are blissfully unaware of the degree to which they are run by the shelter whose work they are doing!

[Michelle]

When I lived in Augusta, GA I went to a Petsmart adoption event looking for a playmate for my cat. The org that was there told me they wouldn't adopt out to me because they didn't want to take the chance that the new cat and my cat, wouldn't like each other. It's ridiculous how stringent these rules are. Get these animals adopted out and stop being so damn picky!

[Brent]

Michelle -- let me go out on a limb and assume that if didn't have a cat you would have been denied for not having any experience owning a cat.

[Bett Sundermeyer]

This is so true. Last December, my mother decided to adopt a large dog to be a companion to her obnoxiously rambunctious Rottweiler. She wanted to adopt what most would consider a harder to adopt out dog i.e. she wanted a BIG dog with A LOT of energy.

She went through h*ll and back with some of the rescues. Some were unbelievably rude to her. She was ready to give up and go to a breeder just so she didn't have to deal with the rescues anymore. I took a whole day to drive her around to some of the shelters to check out dogs. I also helped her wade thru the mounds of application paperwork that NO ONE EVER READ, and deal with the rude employees at several kill shelters.

I know exactly why people go to breeders after seeing what she went through with rescues and shelters just trying to save a dog.

FYI: The huge, EXTREMELY energetic dog that she finally adopted is the perfect companion to her Rottweiler. They run and play all day long. It is very cute.

FYI2: The same applies to adopting out cats.

[Nichole Korb]

We had the same issue! We were looking for a second dog to bring into our family and home with the one we already have. We have a South African Mastiff. At the time she wasn't fixed yet, due to the fact that we were letting her go through her first heat cycle before she got fixed because from what I read and our vet advice that large dogs like mastiffs and such should go through at least one heat cycle, to help thier growth, before being fixed. Well yall can all guess that did not help adopting a dog. I found some mastiffsaint bernard mix pups on petfinder, pretty as could be!, and were within the next state south of us at a rescue. I called and talked to the owner of the rescue, which I must say was prettty darn cold with me. Just by his tone and how he was he wasn't really friendly, but i thought maybe he was just having a bad day. Everytime i asked a question about the puppies and told him my families story he just kept telling me you have to fill out an application and upon approval we will adopt a dog out to you, I mean just sonded so automated. So I filled out an application, which I had no problem with, and I sent it in. I called a little over 24hours later and left a message and never heard anything back. I also emailed them again within a couple of days after leaving a message and tried calling a few more times, and still heard nothing back. I'm guessing it's because we had an unfixed dog, along with no fenced in yard..yet we have an electric fence..and we are constantly always out there with them. They simply ignored the other answers where I gave a detailed answer of our past dog ownership, which their were two dogs that we had for forever since I was little..and one died of old age in 2008 and the other died of bloat in 2010. We take our dogs to the vet regularly and whenevr they get sick or something happens, we learn from our mistakes..like after our past doggie died of bloat we take the precautions to make sure that never happens again..and they get their monthly preventives on the first of every month! I just really felt insulted, and after a few more times of being denied by several other rescues just because of these things I doubt I will ever try that again. I will jsut go to my local kill shelter the next time, but you do luck out..We finally found a dong on petfinder, he was in florida..the man that was trying to find a new loving home for his brailian mastiff picked us because I was so enthustiac about adopting him..I sent him like two or three detailed emails, and one phone call with him, with a whole bunch of pictures and he said that there couldn't be a better home for him..the picture that won him over was the picture I sent him of my dad on our floor once we got home wtih our mastiff puppy, Zoey, when she was 9 weeks after driving 12 hours to tennessee and 12 hours back just for her..anyways the picture is of him on the floor and her on top of him licking his face..and for some reason that showed this man that his dog was going to an amazing home and he is in a great home and his first family gets to see all kinds of pictures of him and talk with us to see how he is doing whenever he wants. Anyways, I find it rude when rescues do such things, because it makes us good families feel like we aren't good enough or that we are somehow bad pet owners..

[Lucinda Picardo]

The SPCA of Texas would rather kill all dogs coming from no-kill shelters simply because they compete with them for funds. Maura Davies, the spokeswoman for the SPCA of Texas, uses the same tired cliche over and over again, "worst conditions she has ever seen" and fails to let the news media know that they heavily encourage law enforcement to deny the due processes to people they raid. Nine times out of ten, if a no-kill shelter contacts the SPCA of Texas for assistance in some way, within a very short time, the no-kill shelter is raided, the shelter providers arrested for neglect and then their animals are taken away and used by the SPCA of Texas to get donations from unsuspecting city folk or they are killed shortly after the arrested no-kill shelter providers fail to come up with the exorbitant fees the SPCA of Texas imposes for supposed care when in reality, the "care fees" are fictitious and nothing has been done in the way of vet care for said raided animals because the SPCA of Texas staff knows they will be euthanizing ALL of the animals taken save for the "cute adoptable ones."

How do I know this? I used to volunteer for the SPCA of Texas. Please note, I said...USED TO!

[Nichole Korb]

maybe rescue groups that are looking to change could come up with basically a little quiz that basically helps pair up the adopting party with the animal that needs adopting..say a family with kids that are active would benefit from having a more active dog..like a lab or collie..a quiz that basically gives a color at the end of it showing that this adopting party would benefit from looking at dogs in this category..which yellow could be for active so with the animals they have available for adoption, on that animals file they could have the color that they belong in..I believe the no kill spca in my area does it that way..and within that quiz they can put the application as well..and i really think rescues need to look more at how loving the adopting parties are at first..I mean they ask all these questions on the quiz like vet reference, past dog and/or animal ownership..but it doesn't seem like they read any of that..get rid of the has to have fenced in yard, and/or has to have other animals fixed..because trust me if the animal they are looking at getting is from a rescue..they are most likely going to be fixed and also if they are looking to adopt a puppy or the animal they already has has some sort of medical issue or is too young to be fixed then how does that make the rescue look to automatically say no to them???..Oh and to the people that were commenting on how rescues will get a dog/animal from a shelter, that already has a home or find an animal and not try to find the owner..shame on them!!..thats why I urge everyone to microchip their animals!!! it hardly costs to get it done and it's a great thing to have if they were ever to get out..because if they are picked up by anyone like AC or brought to a vet they firstly must check for that now and if one is found then by law they ahve to call and try to get in touch with the owner before ever adopting the animal out to anyone else..so even if your a farmer..please look in to doing this the local spca usually does it for low cost..but any vet will do it and it doesn't cost that much at all! Oh and if you wondering what you ahve to provide to the microchip company, which I don't now how many there are, but we use home again..they are the best..you provide, name, address, all phone numbers you can be reached at, current picture of dog, and also when you know they have gone missing then you contact the chip company and they put out an alert that your animal is missing and if they are ever found and the chip is checked in them there is a missing alert that will come up on them right away..and for all that the cip only cost around $20 to $30 to get put in your pet.

[Nichole Korb]

OMG, yall i'm so sorry for all of my spelling errors..I was typing to fast and didn't realize I spelled so many things wrong..like in my first comment the one before my last one I spelled "dong" instead of "dog" please note that was definitely suppose to be dog!

[Nichole Korb]

Just thought this link would cheer some of you commenters upafter it sucks to see animals taht are killed in shelters, and animals that do sit forever not ever getting adopted out..I'm glad to see that this little pitbull puppy ended up in the best hands..they say that for every 600 pit bulls taht are in a kill shelter, only 1 will make it out alive..and I believe those odds need to change..at least for this puppy he never met the inside of one!
http://www.examiner.com/american-pit-bull-in-national/to-the-rescue-a-town-a-mom-the-fire-department-and-a-pit-bull-puppy