Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Pets
Reply to "Rescues “saving” adoptable dogs"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The shelter just wants animals out. It doesn’t matter to them which ones go. [/quote] Mostly this. Every day a dog is in the shelter, its chances of being adopted out sane decrease dramatically. A shelter is NO place for an animal. I'm glad they exist, and I respect the volunteers who work so hard to help the animals they can, but they'll all tell you the same thing. Shelters are loud and smelly, with hard floors. They're stuffy in the summer/chilly in the winter, and full of scared, anxious animals who spend most of their days (sometimes ALL of their day) in a very small pen, without much stimulation or individual care. Rescues with available foster homes will pull some of the easier-to-manage cases out of the shelter environment, leaving space for shelters to handle more complicated cases, including animals with medical issues. Some breed-specific rescues coordinate with shelters, know their "dropoff days", and yes, get "dibs" on whatever breed(s) they're working with. Why? Because those animal have a better chance going straight to a foster than spending even a handful of days in a shelter, waiting for a new owner who may/may not show. Those same owners (I'm @ing you, pekinese person) can search a little bit harder to find a breed-specific rescue if they really want a particular type of dog. Other owners may be fine with getting a "whatever" mutt from a shelter. There are options, and they're not hard to find. The bigger problem is that people have confused animal shelters and rescues with bargain shopping stores. They only want an animal they can adopt right now, for cheap. It's a mentality that frequently leads to animals coming back to the shelters. Good, Cheap, Fast - Pick two. :lol: You want a purebred cocker spaniel for cheap? You'll need to put your name in at shelter and wait (you'll get queue advantage if you sign up to foster, volunteer a bit, treat the people there like people...). You want a cheap dog and fast? Go to the shelter. I've never seen one empty; there's a dog there you can take home today. You want a specific kind/sort of dog right now? Be prepared to pay for it. Pets are a privilege, not a right. If the upfront cost of acquiring one is too steep for you, you might need to consider whether or not your budget can truly afford the animal and its ongoing care. Anyone needing a pet RIGHT NOW will raise major flags for any responsible/ethical shelter, rescue, or breeder. [/quote] I’m the OP - we went to PG county bc I saw on their website that the shelter is full and they need people to adopt. I still don’t agree with your argument. Yes, shelter environments are stressful and the longer an animal is there the worse off it is. Hence I would think rescues would take the animals who have been there for weeks to allow them to decompress and increase their chances of finding a home. If they are taking “highly adoptable dogs” how is that helping the shelter? The workers are saying they will be adopted quickly regardless. I also find your argument classist. Yes, pets are expensive. Both food and medical care, surgeries. But they should not be a luxury good, only for the wealthy, which is effectively what these rescues are doing by flipping high demand dogs. I can afford to purchase a dog from a breeder or pay the inflated rescue cost, but for those who can’t you’re effectively saying wealthy get a cocker spaniel and the poor can make do with a bully breed. Especially in PG county where the bully ban is in place until next month, this effectively means many people have even less chance of a dog. [/quote] If you are so upset about the practices of the shelter, OP, I'm sure they would welcome you as a volunteer. Also, you are befuddled by the fact that wealthy people have more options than the less well off? Not sure what to say to that. [/quote] Look, the rescue defenders in this thread keep arguing that rescuers are saving all dogs. My surprise is the lack of acknowledgement that they are only “rescuing” the cream of the crop or the low hanging fruit. Any ACO will tell you small, young dogs go fast. According to some post on FB, there are some 15+ dogs shelter at risk of euthanasia next week. None of them are small young dogs. If the point of rescue is to reduce the number of animals euthanized, then pulling the dogs that everyone agrees go fast is not actually helping the problem. Those dogs would be gone within a day or two no matter what. It’s also not reducing the number of days they stay in a shelter environment - because again they would be gone within a day or two and it’s not helping the dogs who have been there for over a month. It just strikes me as BS for some rescuers to vilify purchasing from a breeder while also taking dogs they know are in demand. One can argue they provide better medical care (and some might), but the industry is not regulated and there are also those rescues that don’t disclose behavioral issues or downplay bite history, etc. Why don’t these rescues expend equal efforts toward families who can’t keep their pets? Rethinking Rescue by Carol Mithers is a really good read about pet ownership, classism and the history and evolution of American animal rescues that relates a lot to this conversation. [/quote] So you're going to help by combating the bs breed vilification that leads to some perfectly fine dogs being killed as undesirable so there's no need to cherry pick the "cream of the crop" dogs, right? Because you care about actually solving the problem? You're going to lobby for more strict penalties for pet owners who create unwanted litters of pets we don't need? You're volunteering your time and resources to help families who can't keep their pets? Or are you just whingeing on DCUM about it? 'Cause it really sounds like the latter, and the righteous indignation is ringing hollow af. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics