More Acceptance for Open Adoption Policies

About a decade ago, long before we ever conceived of the idea of KC Pet Project, or running a shelter, or writing this blog, or me ever being much involved in the idea of advocating for animals, I had several run-ins with some of the challenges people often have in adopting from shelters or rescues.

And over the course of many of these run-ins, I had an epiphany about shelters, rescues, and how many of them were actually hurting the animals they were claiming to help, by actually preventing them from going into homes that were readily available to them.

During a fairly short amount of time:

1) My father-in law was denied from adopting. He lives in the country, and has horses. He spends most of the daylight hours outside tending to his land and horses and was looking for a dog to be his partner in his work. The dog would spend all day with him at the farm, and would sleep at night in the heated horse barn after a long day of running free. He was denied because he wanted an "outside dog".

2) Some friends of ours were asked if their last dog (a Cocker Spaniel that died at the age of 19 after a great life) was kept up-to-date on all of its shots. He said "no", and that at the advice of his vet, quit giving his elderly dog shots because as an inside dog the shots would be more harmful to the dog than the likelyhood of her getting a major disease. He was denied for not providing proper vetting to his previous pet. 

3) Another friend was an avid runner. He lived in an apartment, but ran a couple of times per day and was looking for a running partner that he would give plenty of exercise to and would help make sure he stayed motivate to run every day.  He was denied adoption because the rescue didn't believe a high-energy dog shouldn't live in an apartment.

4) Another friend was denied adopting because she didn't have a fenced in yard, and her upscale historic neighborhood wouldn't allow people to put up a fence.

5) Another person we met, a very successful, young professional woman, was denied from adopting because the rescue thought her job as a lawyer would be too demanding and that she wouldn't be able to have time to properly care for the dog.

6) One rescue group I volunteered with for awhile completely refused to ever do same-sex adoptions, even though nearly every foster home for this group had 3 or more dogs in the home and were able to manage those same sex dogs just fine.

You get the idea. Even as someone who was barely involved in rescue (or maybe because of that), I saw the strangeness of claims that animals were dying in shelters because no one wanted them, and then realizing that many homes that seemed like great homes (and a couple that I knew for a fact were great homes) were unable to adopt because they were getting denied adoption.

Then, a few years later, I was at the Best Friends Conference in Las Vegas, and one of the speakers was talking about the idea of open-adoptions. That speaker (and for the life of me I can't remember who it was) said something that really resonated with me. She noted that when they approach adoptions, they looked for ways to turn people into good homes, instead of trying to look for reasons why they should be denied from adoption.

Over the years, I've attended a lot of sessions and read a lot of materials about open adoptions, and the overwhelming theme is that all shelters have a diversity of animals in them, and that the needs of those animals is as diverse as the adopters that come in. So making appropriate matches is what is important.

It is also important to note people who come to your shelter to adopt have already made a decision that they want to do a good thing by adopting. If we make that an unpleasant experience, it is no good for the adopter, no good for the animal who needs a home, and no good for the concept of adopting as a whole. And if you turn an adopter away, they will still most likely get a pet from somewhere, but you are making sure that it most likely won't be from a shelter (and definitely not your shelter), and may or may not come vaccinated, altered, etc. And in the process, you are pushing people who WANT to adopt to buying dogs, which increases the demand, and revenue, for bred dogs. 

Now let me clarify one more thing about how I describe "open adoptions". This doesn't mean that every person who wants to adopt a pet gets a pet. Most shelters that practice open adoptions do deny adopters who just have no business owning a pet. But those people are going to be a very small minority of the people who come to your shelter. 

While many people may not know a lot about pets when they come there (that's why they came to you, YOU"RE the expert on pets, not them), they genuinely want to do the right thing (that's why they came in the first place) and with a little help are going to be pretty good pet owners. 

Open adoptions means that you look for ways to get to 'Yes" instead of reasons to say no. It means educating (when necessary) instead of interogating. It means understanding that most people  want to do the right thing, and want your help in doing it. It means removing blanket adoption restrictions that artificially minimize the pool of potential adopters and treating each adopter and adoption on an individual basis. It means that "no, adoption is not for you" should be a rarity.

Last year at the Best Friends No More Homeless Pets Conference, Dr. Ellen Jefferson of Austin Pets Alive made a great statement -- and I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this:  "If I'm in a pond and there are a lot of animals drowning in the pond, I'm going to jump in and start giving those animals to the people who come to the shore to help me. I'm not going to ask the guy trying to help me if he has a fence or if I can do a home check first, I'm going to get him the pet and save the next one as soon as possible."

Folks, the pond is our American Shelter System. And animals are drowing in our shelters. We have the power and ability to save them, but we need to quit turning away the people who come to help us.

 For a long time, I've felt like Open Adoptions were, for reasons I can't quite understand, one of the most controversial parts of the No Kill Equation. However, recently, a lot of more mainstream organizations have begun to open up to the idea and are even now promoting it. 

Last month, HSUS held it's annual sheltering conference. While I've oft been critical of HSUS having to be drug into more modern thinking by other outside influences, I've heard from several people who were at the HSUS Conference this year that it was a completely different tone and feel and that it was by far the most progressive HSUS conference thus far. 

One of the sessions was about open adoptions. The session included speakers from HSUS, the ASPCA and from Petsmart Charities. I think it's a very good sign for the movement to have these three major organizations pushing for more open shelter (and rescue) adoption policies. Such policies will find more animals homes, and thus, cause fewer to die in shelters.

Here's that presentation in its entirety. It's an hour long, but make sure you take the time to watch. Because it's solid. It talks about how there is no "we" and "them" -- but that We are them.  It talks about "free" adoptions. Pets as gifts? What happens when policies are replaced with dialogue? There is also a lot of great research here about people in under-served communities -- only 3% of whom adopt from shelters (compared to 30% of pet owners nationally) and are open to the adoption/rescue message. This section on adopting to low-income pet owners is particularly insightful and valuable (it's the 2nd half of the presentation).

Open adoptions are what all of us (shelters and rescues) need to be doing to ensure that more animals are finding homes instead of drowning in our shelters. People want to help us. And we should let them.

 

Comments

[Brent]

Well said sarahjaneb. Having the "right" criteria is far more important than having "more" criteria.

[J Hoover]

At any "rescue group" I contacted when I wanted to adopt it was - no fence - not suitable. I walk my dog (which I eventually purchased) a mile a day & am on the other end of the leash for every potty break 24/7. She gets all vaccinations and necessary veterinary care & accompanies us on vacations. But I wasn't fit to adopt? Why would I spend thousands of dollars to put a fence around my property if I am not going to use it? I have talked to many people who have been refused for the same reason, or lived in a condo, etc. I realize the rescue folks mean well, but some are so particular about potential adopters, that I think many animals are truly missing out on what would be excellent forever homes. I didn't have one rescue that I contacted & filled out an application with that would even consider coming to my home - it was "no fence" not suitable.

[Web Hosting Terbaik Indonesia]

Thanks for this information. I will give it to my friend, may be this can be useful for her.

[Laura]

We were just refused by a rescue shelter. We wanted a Shelter German Shepard to have as a companion for another Shelter Shepard/Akita; but we were turned down because they would be "outside" dogs. We have six acres, fenced and gated. We love our
dogs but can't have the large dogs inside. Why is it bad to allow dogs to have 6 acres to run and play instead of keeping them locked up inside all day, making them hold their pee. They are totally sheltered at night, raised beds; with outside access. We are retired and at home most of the time to play, greet and love with our animals. Our dogs get much more activity outside.
Laura

[Lynne]

Using the analogy of animals drowning in the pond...it is not the fault of the person saving them that the animals are drowning. If that person saves fewer because they are being careful that each one the lift out of the water is breathing and safe, they are still saving lives. Regardless of anyone's take on open adoptions or invasive screening, blaming people saving dogs for dogs in shelters dying is ludicrous. Blaming the people doing something for not doing it "the right way" or not doing enough is misguided at best. Animals are dying in shelters because of the actions that people take that result in them being there in the first place. Not because hard working, compassionate, action taking people step up to save them but don't do it fast enough. If you want rescuers to listen and consider open adoptions I would highly recommend that you reconsider starting the conversation with this blame.

[Brent]

Lynne,

Regardless of who's fault it is that the animals are in the pond, if we are in the pond saving them, and someone shows a way to save more of them more quickly so that fewer die, why would we, as a movement, be resistant to making changes in our processes so that fewer die?

It doesn't make sense to me that anyone would have the mindset that "it's not my fault that they're here, so even if there is a way to save more animals I'm not going to do it".

[Leah M.]

When you put it the way you do, of course it sounds bad. But if you actually saw the things I have seen at such places maybe you would think twice. These kinds of places basically will let ANY person at all take a pet home, even if they are CLEARLY not a good for for either a particular animal or for animals in general. It makes it incredibly hard to be able to turn down an adoption for a legitimate reason. And with as easy as it is, just sign a few papers and take the animal home in less than 20 minutes, many people don't think things through. There is nothing wrong with having certain restrictions and trying to make sure that the animal is going to a GOOD home, not just ANY home. Your friend in the apartment-did he work all day and was he planning on leaving a very active dog in a small apartment alone most of the day? That's really not good for some dogs. A more relaxed, chill dog who doesn't mind just hanging around and napping all day is fine for that. But a very active young dog? Not so much. Especially if they are going to be crated all day, and since they are active they will likely need to be if they are left unstimulated and bored, wanting to get into everything when left alone. You will find that almost all rescues just aren't okay with outside dogs. Even most open adoption rescues will heavily discourage that. There are some really ridiculous reasons to deny an adoption, but to have no restrictions at all isn't good either. What is the point of saving these animals if we are going to let them go to the first people that come forward who can't give them the home they need? There was a couple who came in and noticed a dog we had. Very young, super energetic dog with sever separation anxiety, had to be with his people all the time. They asked about her, I explained the kind of home she needed (one where she could get a lot of attention) and they immediately said it wouldn't work, as they are both gone all day and couldn't give her the home she needed to be happy. They were very nice about it and left. A few days later they came back and decided they wanted her. They didn't care anymore that they would be putting her in a home where she would be alone, anxious, and unhappy all day long, locked up in a crate with nothing to do. I got SO much crap for telling them I didn't think it was a good idea. They tried to avoid me the whole time, lied to me and my coworkers many times and refused to just be honest and try to work with us. They were being irrational, not thinking clearly about the situation. They decided they wanted the dog and didn't care about what she actually needed to be happy. The fact that we were not even supposed to try to talk someone out of an adoption such as that (not even saying no, just talking out of) really made me question just how helpful open adoption really is. The number of adoptions being higher doesn't matter if many of those animals went to unhappy homes, or ones where they were put through the stress of being returned four or five times because the people who took them home were simply not thinking things through. Restrictions, applications, and waiting periods help a lot in that. Of course the restrictions should make sense, but they are there for the good of the animal, to make sure they go to a home where they can be happy for the rest of their lives.

[Brent]

Leah, I think you exactly proved the point I was trying to make (and not in the way you hoped). Of course we should explain to people the individual behavior needs of our adoptable pets -- but what you are describing is then judging people's lifestyles to determine that they can't handle the dogs' needs and that they "aren't thinking rationally" when they fall in love with a dog and want to adjust their lives to accommodate that dog. These are people who WANT to adopt a dog. They WANT to bring a pet into their lives. And have learned what the dog's needs are. LET THEM ADOPT.

I always laugh about the concern of the "Stress from the dog being returned" and yet most shelters/rescues use foster programs, dog's day out programs etc and the dogs LOVE THEM. To the dog, they're the same thing.

Harsh restrictions, long applications and waiting periods frustrate adopters, push them toward other venues for their pets, and keep pets from finding homes. And when the shelter system is currently killing 3.5 million healthy pets per year, keeping pets from finding homes and turning away potentially loving homes is not helpful....