Anonymous wrote:Most rescues don’t operate like shelters. They’re not housing a bunch of dogs together in kennels in one central location, with a staff that cares for them. Most rescues rely on a network of volunteer fosters to house the dogs in their own homes temporarily. If a dog has a low likelihood of being adopted and will need care for the foreseeable future, how on earth do you think a rescue will line up fosters to take on the burden of care? It’s not that hard to line up a foster household for a highly adoptable dog that is only expected to need care for a short period. The same household can foster multiple dogs per year. However, finding fosters who are willing to house dogs who have known issues (whether medical or behavioral or breed issues) for years (potentially) is next to impossible. That’s why those dogs stay at the shelter and rescues take the dogs that volunteers can take into their own homes. Also, a lot of times rescues will take pregnant dogs so that these dogs can whelp their pups in a calmer, quieter environment than the shelter, and where they and their new puppies can get more individualized attention.

Rescues have to charge high adoption fees because they generally don’t have public funding that covers their operating expenses. There are expenses associated with transporting dogs, feeding them, providing flea and tick preventatives, making sure the dogs are up to date with vaccines, keeping them groomed, spaying/neutering them, providing any other necessary medical care, such as deworming them or treating parvo, possibly providing some training or behavioral analysis for dogs who adoptable, but come with some issues. They might also have to cover some maternity care or prescription medication or the occasional surgery.

When I adopted my dog from a rescue, they handed over his veterinary records. It was all there in black and white: the rescue spent more money on his medical care than they charged me for the adoption fee — but they didn’t just pay for his medical care, including neutering; they also transported him, fed him, provided him with a collar and leash, and sent me home with a week’s worth of food and a toothbrush and toothpaste. They lost money on the transaction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shelter just wants animals out. It doesn’t matter to them which ones go.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like a lot of people now prefer getting a dog from a rescue/foster situation because they can provide some knowledge about the dog.
I know with my fosters i've had I can tell a prospective adopter if the dog is house trained, good with other animals, kids, age of kids, good on the leash, good off leash, food aggressive etc etc......its hard to get this accurate info from a dog in a shelter environment.

This is one of many advantages rescue volunteers give abandoned pets. Not only does time in a home instead of a shelter benefit the dog, it provides MUCH more information about how the dog might be in a home environment than can possibly be guessed by evaluating the dog in its overwhelmed/anxious state in a loud, smelly, scary shelter.

Ideally, we'd have enough fosters for all the dogs who didn't need medical supervision or behavioral concerns addressed to stay out of the shelter entirely. That labor is worth the minor increase in adoption fees, for sure.

Its cruel to bounce around these dogs and jump from shelter to rescue to fosters to a final home. Thats why they are so anxious.

It's cruel for a puppy/young dog to grow up in shelter environment.
I once fostered dog that spent about a year in TX non-kill shelter, then was transported here. It took almost 6 months for that dog to be her happy spanky happy self. First couple of weeks in my house was brutal - she refused to leave her crate, would not leave the house without my dog in tow, would not pee on leash (only off leash in the fenced yard), wouldn't use the stairs. List goes on and on. She was finally adapted after 8 month in foster care. She had zero chances of being adapted from the shelter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like a lot of people now prefer getting a dog from a rescue/foster situation because they can provide some knowledge about the dog.
I know with my fosters i've had I can tell a prospective adopter if the dog is house trained, good with other animals, kids, age of kids, good on the leash, good off leash, food aggressive etc etc......its hard to get this accurate info from a dog in a shelter environment.

This is one of many advantages rescue volunteers give abandoned pets. Not only does time in a home instead of a shelter benefit the dog, it provides MUCH more information about how the dog might be in a home environment than can possibly be guessed by evaluating the dog in its overwhelmed/anxious state in a loud, smelly, scary shelter.

Ideally, we'd have enough fosters for all the dogs who didn't need medical supervision or behavioral concerns addressed to stay out of the shelter entirely. That labor is worth the minor increase in adoption fees, for sure.

Its cruel to bounce around these dogs and jump from shelter to rescue to fosters to a final home. Thats why they are so anxious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like a lot of people now prefer getting a dog from a rescue/foster situation because they can provide some knowledge about the dog.
I know with my fosters i've had I can tell a prospective adopter if the dog is house trained, good with other animals, kids, age of kids, good on the leash, good off leash, food aggressive etc etc......its hard to get this accurate info from a dog in a shelter environment.

This is one of many advantages rescue volunteers give abandoned pets. Not only does time in a home instead of a shelter benefit the dog, it provides MUCH more information about how the dog might be in a home environment than can possibly be guessed by evaluating the dog in its overwhelmed/anxious state in a loud, smelly, scary shelter.

Ideally, we'd have enough fosters for all the dogs who didn't need medical supervision or behavioral concerns addressed to stay out of the shelter entirely. That labor is worth the minor increase in adoption fees, for sure.

Anonymous wrote:I feel like a lot of people now prefer getting a dog from a rescue/foster situation because they can provide some knowledge about the dog.
I know with my fosters i've had I can tell a prospective adopter if the dog is house trained, good with other animals, kids, age of kids, good on the leash, good off leash, food aggressive etc etc......its hard to get this accurate info from a dog in a shelter environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shelter just wants animals out. It doesn’t matter to them which ones go.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shelter just wants animals out. It doesn’t matter to them which ones go.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shelter just wants animals out. It doesn’t matter to them which ones go.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shelter just wants animals out. It doesn’t matter to them which ones go.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I’ve rescued all my dogs 2 from shelters and 3 from rescues. Did PG tell you that you couldn’t take the dog because a rescue was taking it? They should have let you assumimg you were approved.

I’ve recently started fostering for a local rescue. Al the dogs are in foster homes with volunteers until adopted. My understanding based on my experience is that they pull dogs like to get euthanized that will get adopted quickly, so the fosters arent left with dogs for months on end. The foster dogs are often living with resident dogs so have to get along with dogs and children and be adoptable.

Rescues are not “ selling” dogs. Selling implies someone is making a profit. No one is profiting from any of this. The $300-$500 adoption fee covers all shots, spay/neuter, and helps the rescue provide collars, leashes, crates, meds, etc to the foster. I personally bought all the food and treats for my foster dogs but they provided me with crates and puppy pads.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do shelters allow rescues to “save” dogs that clearly will be adopted rather than taking those who have been there for months? We went to PG county today to try to meet 2 dogs. One was in surgery and the other was being”pulled for rescue”. While there we saw a new dog that had just been posted on their site in the last hour - but the rescue was also pulling him. Both young, small dogs, up for adoption less than a week (or one day, in the one case). There is a list of about 25 dogs up for euthanasia - it seems like the shelter would do better adopting out the easy ones and giving rescues the harder cases. Do rescues pay the adoption fees? If they then ask a $500+ fee, how is that not reselling the dog?

It is reselling the dog. "Rescues" are big business. Did you confuse them with being benevolent organizations?

This and virtue signaling.