Rescue Ethics

[ladyjubilee]

We went back to local shelters to find our newest member. Even with the restrictions, it took several trips. What we found is before we could get to see a dog, a rescue would pull the dog. Which wouldn't be an issue if we the hard to place dogs were also being pulled. And frankly, these weren't breed specialists. More, the rates the rescues charge are, well, huge. In some cases $500 or more.

I know and understand those fees when the rescue is an all comers or when they also take sick and older dogs or are paying for a trainer to work with the dog...but that isn't always happening. The both of shelters wanted us to take 13 year old + small dogs that have been in the shelter for over a year. We considered doing so, but given Bramble's issues and my son's issues decided we couldn't. An older dog that has been with us and knows the chaos is one thing, dropped into chaos at an older age is a whole different thing. Yet, I would have thought these dogs would have been exactly the kind of dog that needs a rescue.

But my biggest issue is that allowing rescues to pull the "best" dogs, means the dogs in the shelter lose resources. The shelter (aka tax payers), pays the vet bill to address any medical issues, takes on the heartworm testing and treatment, does the first behavior screening, then the rescue pulls the dog at no cost, and with a healthy "A" list dog has no expenses except food.

Then, the shelter is left with dogs that on paper/website are less desirable. In our area that means shelters filled to the brim with pitbulls. These dogs may in fact be wonderful dogs (we saw some that were it not for my son and Bramble would have been contenters) but people don't come through the door because rescues have pulled all the dogs that "look" good on a website.....and after having paid nothing for the dog charge FAR more than the dog actually costs them. Meanwhile the shelter has lost out on the income from the "desirable" dog that could help balance the hard to place dogs. Especially when the rescue gets bumped ahead of interested adopters.

I don't think this is sour grapes on our part. We've taken supposedly less favoured dogs. Dogs that were returned multiple times (like Peanuts and the new dog), dogs slated for euthanasia for biting, with medical issues .....with really big ears with a little dent in the top. And truly we always ended up with fantastic dogs. We talked to someone who works in the field and they said cherry picking is an issue that is causing fewer of the pits to be adopted. Because people don't come thru the door to see the little cairn terrier or maltese, the see that special pit and fall in love with it.

It just seems that like breeding, rescue could be challenged by some ethical delimas.

[centrop67]

You've got a lot going on in this post, and I am not sure I fully understand your point. Tell me if I am close:

1. The shelter wouldn't let you see the dog unless it was pulled by a rescue.
2. 'The rescue charged you for pulling + much higher adoption fees.
3. The rescues are pulling premium dogs leaving the dregs for the tax payer supported shelters.
4. The rescues are getting premium dogs without having to worry about medical and screening fees.

If this is all true I see the possibility that the leadership of your government shelter is corrupt. They probably have friends or relatives in the rescue business and are receiving kickbacks for these rules. Heck, they could even possible own the rescue(s).

Do you have one of those "Help Me Howard" type investigative journalists in your area? That could be one option, but you might also be able to dig a lot of information yourself given that it is a government agency and 5013c corps have to provide public record information.

[ladyjubilee]

That pretty much covers it though it's more oh, can't see because they are pulled by the rescue; the rescues get to pick and choose, leaving the shelters with the hard to place dogs...but only after the shelter has born the cost spaying/neutering, addressing medical issues etc.


So basically, they take a dog that would balance the cost scale while leaving a larger financial burden plus limiting interest flow to the shelter.

While I know there are other factors, I think this has an impact on out local shelters being pretty much pitbull shelters. Which I had people tell me, "oh they just have pitbulls" when I've suggested the shelter.

I think I am going to send a letter to the shelter director and copy the county commissioners. It's an easy problem to fix. Either require rescues to take on more difficult to place with a more "desirable" dog, require an agreement not to "sell" the dog for set amount over the shelter fee, or have them agree to pay 50% of the fee they receive to the shelter. Any of these would limit the cherry picking or would help get those hard to place dogs out of the shelters.

[ladyjubilee]

On the upside, my first trainer did just that. One of his clients sponsored a dog that was ordered to be put down. They were able to rehabilitate him, and he was adopted by a family.