# Those questions rescues ask pet parents



## maggieh (Dec 16, 2007)

Several people have commented that rescues are "too fussy" about who adopts from them and that in being "picky" they are preventing dogs from being placed. I saw this on FB today and thought it described perfectly why rescues are indeed picky about where they place the fluffs in their care. It's a few years old, but explains it very well.

Those darn dog rescues with all of their rules and questions - what gives? - National Dogs | Examiner.com


----------



## eiksaa (Jun 8, 2012)

Thanks for sharing, Maggie. 

I personally don't think that placing a dog with any owner is OK. I don't think anyone who was questioning the process was saying that. So on that, completely agreed with the author. 

Where I disagree is the assumption that they can accurately judge from these applications whether someone will make a good pet parent. For example, I was rejected on two counts - newly married couple and might have kids in the future and two, live in a small apartment. Now I know plenty of people in the same situation as me who would never be able to rescue because of these factors perceived as an issue. 

Secondly, I think it's a little ridiculous to assume that a newly married couple will dump a dog as soon as baby arrives. We all know that happens a lot but we also know many new moms here on SM who still haven't sent their dogs packing. 

So, you cannot judge from a questionnaire how long someone will keep their rescued dog. I can say with confidence that I'm a good pet parent and so are many of my friends who were rejected by rescues, so I'm not an outlier either. 

I don't mind answering the questions, but I just can't keep filling 10 pagers knowing very well they will reject me because I don't check one of their boxes. While the questions aren't the problem, my belief is that if most of the stuff checks out then rescues should atleast meet the applicants instead of judging based on the answers. 

I am not holding anything against rescues. I supported them previously and support them now. These are just suggestions so that more dogs can go to loving homes.


----------



## CloudClan (Jan 31, 2007)

maggieh said:


> Several people have commented that rescues are "too fussy" about who adopts from them and that in being "picky" they are preventing dogs from being placed. I saw this on FB today and thought it described perfectly why rescues are indeed picky about where they place the fluffs in their care. It's a few years old, but explains it very well.
> 
> Those darn dog rescues with all of their rules and questions - what gives? - National Dogs | Examiner.com


I responded to this link when it was shared on FB by Sue. I would like to share that same response here: 

This is a very nice response to folks complaints. I find it interesting how many folks complained when I was fostering about the adoption process and the way rescues were so "picky." I do not get many of those same comments as a breeder. When I ask questions about how the dogs will live and what the lifestyle of the new family will be as a breeder "most" recognize this as concern for the dog and part of my responsibility as a breeder. When I was fostering, people seemed to feel I should be grateful to have any inquiries at all. It is interesting to note that dogs from reputable show breeders rarely end up in shelters(and when they do of course the ethical breeders take responsibility when notified) but it is not uncommon to see folks who have adopted a dog from a shelter or a pound return the dog. I remember seeing a statistic like 50% of shelter dogs are returned. I think this comes partly from the mentality that some people have. They feel they are doing the dog a "favor" when they adopt. This is only true if they are fully committed.



eiksaa said:


> Thanks for sharing, Maggie.
> 
> I personally don't think that placing a dog with any owner is OK. I don't think anyone who was questioning the process was saying that. So on that, completely agreed with the author.
> 
> ...


Aastha, I agree with a lot of what you have said here. For sure I would agree that you provide a wonderful home for your Maltese. I did not always agree with the rescue groups I worked with and who they selected and who they denied. I will say however, that there were usually far more applicants for the young healthy dogs than there were ever dogs available. For older, or sick dogs, the inquiries were certainly less forthcoming. 

I know the rescue groups I worked with did not dismiss newly married couples on the chance that they might have children. But many did dismiss homes with children. This was due to the fact that one of our most common reasons for taking in new fosters was a problem with the Maltese and the kids. Or a lack of time commitment to the Maltese in the family due to the busy lifestyle of a family. 

The groups also did not reject apartment dwellers, though they did require proof that the landlord accepted pets. I know a breeder friend who recently took a puppy back because the new owners were unprepared to deal with barking in an apartment setting. 

Sadly, it is often very difficult to tell who will be the best owners, whether it is on a questionnaire or in an in person interview. I think the rescue groups are trying to do their best with the limitations in their resources. They may miss some good homes, but again, typically there are far more homes for those young healthy rescue Maltese than many folks realize. And the older or sicker dogs need as solid a placement as the system can provide.


----------



## eiksaa (Jun 8, 2012)

Carina, I completely agree with you. Let me clarify, I actually think it is justified why rescues need to do this, I get it. However, my point of view is that it is not the most reasonable approach anymore and there might be ways to improve the system.

Believe me, I know there are many, many applicants for a small white healthy fluffy puppy; especially in SoCal. I have no doubt that is why the rescues I got in touch with could afford to be that picky. I am sure I was just one of the many applicants. And you are right, (ethical) breeders ask you all these things too. If anything, Cindy probably asked me way more questions than anything I had to fill out on the questionnaire. However, I was OK with that because it was in person, it felt like a conversation, and I felt like I stood a chance. Had she sent me a questionnaire too instead, I doubt it would have been the same experience. On that thought, do you know if any breeders do it like rescues i.e. send questionnaire? I honestly don't know and am curious now.

What ended up happening because of this experience was that I am pretty much counting out rescues now. I still live in a small apartment, that hasn't changed, and we still might have children; which means I still disqualify. So before I got Mieka I went straight to breeders, didn't even bother this time to try rescuing again. If a friend who is in a similar position talks to me about rescuing a dog, I tell them something like "try it but I don't think it' gonna work". I also speak from personal experience but that is all we go on. Unless this reaction is what rescues are going for, there could be improvements made to the system.

Part of me thinks maybe the SoCal rescues are too overzealous about this, because you mention the rescues you work with would not disqualify me for those reasons. So maybe the solution is just having more relaxed guidelines for that initial screen? I think overall the world used to be more paperwork based, but now we are slowly moving to less bureaucratic systems, making interactions more human both in the physical and digital world. Perhaps rescues could learn something from this shift to make the adoption process easier, or atleast possible for prospective pet parents.

I hear you about limited resources too, what comes to mind is start-ups where people come up with creative solutions to address issues with limited resources. Again, going for a more human and less bureaucratic approach. IMO there is always room for improvement, and even if rescues are OK with the collateral damage of rejecting people who could've been good owners, there could be changes made to the system to make it better so there is less of that damage.


----------



## eiksaa (Jun 8, 2012)

Here's another idea. What if Petfinder like websites allowed rescues to upload an initial screening test? Say 10 questions or so that are a must have for that dog. Couple of benefits -

1. Petfinder does the work of setting up the system to do this so rescues don't need resources 
2. It actually saves a lot of time for rescues because people who would've definitely been rejected are weeded out in stage 1. 
3. People are not disappointed because they got hopeful and spent 2 hours filling in a 10 pager only to be rejected on a technicality.


----------



## zooeysmom (Aug 1, 2011)

Aastha, I think that's a great idea! It really angers me that you were turned down to adopt a Malt  It just goes to show that really good homes are being overlooked and something needs to change.


----------

