10 ms·

At many rescues the interviews are ran by people who are temporarily caring for the dog who are looking for reasons to disqualify you. The approval process is

At many rescues the interviews are ran by people who are temporarily caring for the dog who are looking for reasons to disqualify you. The approval process is completely arbitrary and far too invasive. The president of the ASPCA was turned down by a rescue a few years ago, and he wrote about the process.

scolby33 8y ago
Link to a similar story I about the Executive Director of Greater Good being denied [0]. Also, a Washington Post article on the subject of adoption difficulty that mentions the ASPCA President’s rejections [1]. Thanks for sending me down an interesting path! [0]: https://greatergood.org/blog/2016/01/05/why-i-was-turned-down-by-a-rescue-group/ https://greatergood.org/blog/2016/01/05/why-i-was-turned-dow... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/02/02/millions-of-dogs-need-homes-why-is-it-sometimes-hard-to-adopt-one/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/02/02/m...
matwood 8y ago
I completely agree that some of the processes are broken. Sometimes it's because of selfish reasons as you noted, but others are people trying to do what's best for the animal. Rescues are by no means perfect, but we should be careful not to ignore the good they try to accomplish.
yellowapple 8y ago
I mean, should they not be looking for reasons to disqualify you? Ain't finding red flags the point of the interview process? Sure, the interviewers would do well to relax a bit and not reject applicants for selfish reasons, but ultimately their job is to put a pet in a home with the best interests of that pet in mind. If even the ASPCA president can't sail through that process, then that's at least somewhat reassuring that pets ain't going to be placed in abusive/neglectful homes.
- learc83 8y ago
  If all rescue interviewers were doing was trying to avoid abuse, I'd agree with your sentiment. But from what I've read and the experiences myself and my friends and family have had, rescue interviewers are more often than not looking for perfect homes not simply trying to avoid abusive/neglectful homes. Is it better to place a dog with someone who works 8 hours a day, or to euthanize it? (there are many people who'd say euthanize, but I disagree)
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    Right, but if they do have applicants who are able to devote full attention to the well-being of the dog, then prioritizing those applicants is probably in the best interests of the dog. Yeah, sucks for the person who does work a full-time job, but if you're unable to take work off (at least at first) to spend time with your dog (especially while your dog is getting used to its new home/family/"pack"), you might not be the right fit.
    - learc83 8y ago
      >Right, but if they do have applicants who are able to devote full attention to the well-being of the dog, then prioritizing those applicants is probably in the best interests of the dog. That's the case for a few highly sought-after breeds, but not the vast majority. If it were the case that demand exceeds the supply for unwanted dogs, there would be no need for rescue organizations. >but if you're unable to take work off (at least at first) to spend time with your dog (especially while your dog is getting used to its new home/family/"pack"), you might not be the right fit. There definitely aren't enough jobless people to handle the supply of unwanted dogs. Kenneling a dog is much more stressful than moving a dog to a new home. Unless you have a particularly damaged dog (which could be the case of course), there's no need to take off work for more than a weekend (provided you aren't gone too long , and you have a fence or someone to walk the dog). It's a dog not a baby.
      - yellowapple 8y ago
        "If it were the case that demand exceeds the supply for unwanted dogs" It ain't just about demand; it's about demand among those with reasonably-provable ability to actually care for a dog. "Kenneling a dog is much more stressful than moving a dog to a new home." That's not guaranteed, or even statistically likely. If that were as true as you seem to believe, then these animals wouldn't have ended up in a shelter at all; they would continue to exist in abusive/neglectful homes, because obviously that's better than being in a kennel, right? The interview process is meant to ensure (with a reasonable amount of certainty) that the dog's not going to end up right back in the shelter (or - worse - not end up in the shelter due to a false sense of trust in an abusive or neglectful new owner). Making that "easier" for the applicant increases that risk. Even with that risk aside, the dog's going from being in a kennel situation (with a lot of other dogs and different people present) to being comparatively alone. That's a pretty sudden and potentially-hard adjustment. Sure, some dogs are able to adjust in a weekend (with or without other dogs as companions); for most, that's probably cutting things pretty short. "It's a dog not a baby." It's a reasonably-intelligent animal that's prone to experience PTSD from neglect/abuse. Its well-being is more complex than just ticking off boxes, even for a dog that seems well-adjusted at first glance. I think right now you're operating on the assumption of a best-case (or at least better-than-average-case) scenario. The people who evaluate adopters of pets have to also consider worst-case, since that's, you know, their job. Sometimes they can be a bit overzealous, yes, but it's not like they'll permanently bar you from ever adopting if there are fixable issues with you adopting an animal at that particular moment in time.

scolby33 8y ago

Link to a similar story I about the Executive Director of Greater Good being denied [0]. Also, a Washington Post article on the subject of adoption difficulty that mentions the ASPCA President’s rejections [1]. Thanks for sending me down an interesting path! [0]: https://greatergood.org/blog/2016/01/05/why-i-was-turned-down-by-a-rescue-group/ https://greatergood.org/blog/2016/01/05/why-i-was-turned-dow... [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/02/02/millions-of-dogs-need-homes-why-is-it-sometimes-hard-to-adopt-one/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2018/02/02/m...

matwood 8y ago

I completely agree that some of the processes are broken. Sometimes it's because of selfish reasons as you noted, but others are people trying to do what's best for the animal. Rescues are by no means perfect, but we should be careful not to ignore the good they try to accomplish.

yellowapple 8y ago

I mean, should they not be looking for reasons to disqualify you? Ain't finding red flags the point of the interview process? Sure, the interviewers would do well to relax a bit and not reject applicants for selfish reasons, but ultimately their job is to put a pet in a home with the best interests of that pet in mind. If even the ASPCA president can't sail through that process, then that's at least somewhat reassuring that pets ain't going to be placed in abusive/neglectful homes.

learc83 8y ago
If all rescue interviewers were doing was trying to avoid abuse, I'd agree with your sentiment. But from what I've read and the experiences myself and my friends and family have had, rescue interviewers are more often than not looking for perfect homes not simply trying to avoid abusive/neglectful homes. Is it better to place a dog with someone who works 8 hours a day, or to euthanize it? (there are many people who'd say euthanize, but I disagree)
- yellowapple 8y ago
  Right, but if they do have applicants who are able to devote full attention to the well-being of the dog, then prioritizing those applicants is probably in the best interests of the dog. Yeah, sucks for the person who does work a full-time job, but if you're unable to take work off (at least at first) to spend time with your dog (especially while your dog is getting used to its new home/family/"pack"), you might not be the right fit.
  - learc83 8y ago
    >Right, but if they do have applicants who are able to devote full attention to the well-being of the dog, then prioritizing those applicants is probably in the best interests of the dog. That's the case for a few highly sought-after breeds, but not the vast majority. If it were the case that demand exceeds the supply for unwanted dogs, there would be no need for rescue organizations. >but if you're unable to take work off (at least at first) to spend time with your dog (especially while your dog is getting used to its new home/family/"pack"), you might not be the right fit. There definitely aren't enough jobless people to handle the supply of unwanted dogs. Kenneling a dog is much more stressful than moving a dog to a new home. Unless you have a particularly damaged dog (which could be the case of course), there's no need to take off work for more than a weekend (provided you aren't gone too long , and you have a fence or someone to walk the dog). It's a dog not a baby.
    - yellowapple 8y ago
      "If it were the case that demand exceeds the supply for unwanted dogs" It ain't just about demand; it's about demand among those with reasonably-provable ability to actually care for a dog. "Kenneling a dog is much more stressful than moving a dog to a new home." That's not guaranteed, or even statistically likely. If that were as true as you seem to believe, then these animals wouldn't have ended up in a shelter at all; they would continue to exist in abusive/neglectful homes, because obviously that's better than being in a kennel, right? The interview process is meant to ensure (with a reasonable amount of certainty) that the dog's not going to end up right back in the shelter (or - worse - not end up in the shelter due to a false sense of trust in an abusive or neglectful new owner). Making that "easier" for the applicant increases that risk. Even with that risk aside, the dog's going from being in a kennel situation (with a lot of other dogs and different people present) to being comparatively alone. That's a pretty sudden and potentially-hard adjustment. Sure, some dogs are able to adjust in a weekend (with or without other dogs as companions); for most, that's probably cutting things pretty short. "It's a dog not a baby." It's a reasonably-intelligent animal that's prone to experience PTSD from neglect/abuse. Its well-being is more complex than just ticking off boxes, even for a dog that seems well-adjusted at first glance. I think right now you're operating on the assumption of a best-case (or at least better-than-average-case) scenario. The people who evaluate adopters of pets have to also consider worst-case, since that's, you know, their job. Sometimes they can be a bit overzealous, yes, but it's not like they'll permanently bar you from ever adopting if there are fixable issues with you adopting an animal at that particular moment in time.