5 ms·

>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

>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.
- learc83 8y ago
  >It ain't just about demand; it's about demand among those with reasonably-provable ability to actually care for a dog. That's the problem. I don't have the same standard for what is "reasonably-provable ability to actually care for a dog" that dog rescue volunteers tend to, and I don't think they are better qualified to determine that. In fact I think that because of confirmation bias and their attachment to the dogs, they are the worst people to make that decision objectively. >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? Your conclusion doesn't follow. It can both be the case that taking the average dog to a kennel for boarding is more stressful than moving it to a new home on average, and that some percentage of dogs will end up abandoned. Many rescue organizations even buy dogs directly from breeders. >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. What is that risk? I guarantee you rescue organization volunteers aren't using risk models to adjust the difficulty of their interview processes. They can just randomly decide that need to work from home, have a fence with at least half an acre of grass, have lived in the same place for 5 years, and have a perfect credit score--despite not knowing whether those things are necessary or even well correlated with dog well being outcomes. >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. Dogs in kennels spend a lot of time alone in cages. Moving to a new home in most cases, the dog will get more attention, not less. >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. It's an animal that has evolved to read human emotions. This ability makes us much more likely to anthropomorphize dogs. There are complications, but most of the time it's well being really is just--did I tick off the boxes, does the dog seem fine, and does it have any disruptive behavior problems. This is coming from someone who cared for many healthy and not so healthy dogs through the end of their lives--including an 18 year old dog who was mostly blind, deaf and incontinent for many years (and someone who was responsible for caring for numerous litters of puppies when my parents ran a small poodle breeding operation when i was a kid). >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. Many of the problems that will bar you from adopting are things that aren't easy to fix. Like, you need to work from home, you have kids, or your yard isn't big enough. >also consider worst-case, That's the problem, rescue workers are suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias. They only see the results of worst case scenarios, they don't know what the average case is.
matwood 8y ago
> It's a dog not a baby. One of the reasons that so many dogs end up in shelters and rescues is that people think this way. What people need to realize is that in many ways a dog is just like a baby that never becomes self sufficient. > If it were the case that demand exceeds the supply for unwanted dogs, there would be no need for rescue organizations. Rescue organizations typically have more applications than dogs (very different than a general shelter). In these cases the organization is really a matching service. Older dogs are hard to place no matter what, particularly ones that already have health problems from years of neglect, abuse, and breeding.
- learc83 8y ago
  >One of the reasons that so many dogs end up in shelters and rescues is that people think this way. What people need to realize is that in many ways a dog is just like a baby that never becomes self sufficient. No analogy is perfect and you shouldn't attempt to apply them beyond the scope of the intended similarities. A dog isn't like a baby in that babies require many hours of attention per day. Dogs do not, and the vast majority of dogs are fine being alone for a few hours. >Rescue organizations typically have more applications than dogs (very different than a general shelter). In my area the shelter has been taken over completely by a rescue organization. They conduct the rescue type perfect fit required interviews for all adoptions. They definitely do not have more applications than dogs.
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    > They definitely do not have more applications than dogs. How do you know this?
    - learc83 8y ago
      You just said this: >Rescue organizations typically have more applications than dogs (very different than a general shelter). Implying that general shelters do have more dogs than applicants. Since I'm talking about a general shelter...

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.

learc83 8y ago
>It ain't just about demand; it's about demand among those with reasonably-provable ability to actually care for a dog. That's the problem. I don't have the same standard for what is "reasonably-provable ability to actually care for a dog" that dog rescue volunteers tend to, and I don't think they are better qualified to determine that. In fact I think that because of confirmation bias and their attachment to the dogs, they are the worst people to make that decision objectively. >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? Your conclusion doesn't follow. It can both be the case that taking the average dog to a kennel for boarding is more stressful than moving it to a new home on average, and that some percentage of dogs will end up abandoned. Many rescue organizations even buy dogs directly from breeders. >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. What is that risk? I guarantee you rescue organization volunteers aren't using risk models to adjust the difficulty of their interview processes. They can just randomly decide that need to work from home, have a fence with at least half an acre of grass, have lived in the same place for 5 years, and have a perfect credit score--despite not knowing whether those things are necessary or even well correlated with dog well being outcomes. >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. Dogs in kennels spend a lot of time alone in cages. Moving to a new home in most cases, the dog will get more attention, not less. >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. It's an animal that has evolved to read human emotions. This ability makes us much more likely to anthropomorphize dogs. There are complications, but most of the time it's well being really is just--did I tick off the boxes, does the dog seem fine, and does it have any disruptive behavior problems. This is coming from someone who cared for many healthy and not so healthy dogs through the end of their lives--including an 18 year old dog who was mostly blind, deaf and incontinent for many years (and someone who was responsible for caring for numerous litters of puppies when my parents ran a small poodle breeding operation when i was a kid). >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. Many of the problems that will bar you from adopting are things that aren't easy to fix. Like, you need to work from home, you have kids, or your yard isn't big enough. >also consider worst-case, That's the problem, rescue workers are suffering from a serious case of confirmation bias. They only see the results of worst case scenarios, they don't know what the average case is.

matwood 8y ago

> It's a dog not a baby. One of the reasons that so many dogs end up in shelters and rescues is that people think this way. What people need to realize is that in many ways a dog is just like a baby that never becomes self sufficient. > If it were the case that demand exceeds the supply for unwanted dogs, there would be no need for rescue organizations. Rescue organizations typically have more applications than dogs (very different than a general shelter). In these cases the organization is really a matching service. Older dogs are hard to place no matter what, particularly ones that already have health problems from years of neglect, abuse, and breeding.

learc83 8y ago
>One of the reasons that so many dogs end up in shelters and rescues is that people think this way. What people need to realize is that in many ways a dog is just like a baby that never becomes self sufficient. No analogy is perfect and you shouldn't attempt to apply them beyond the scope of the intended similarities. A dog isn't like a baby in that babies require many hours of attention per day. Dogs do not, and the vast majority of dogs are fine being alone for a few hours. >Rescue organizations typically have more applications than dogs (very different than a general shelter). In my area the shelter has been taken over completely by a rescue organization. They conduct the rescue type perfect fit required interviews for all adoptions. They definitely do not have more applications than dogs.
- yellowapple 8y ago
  > They definitely do not have more applications than dogs. How do you know this?
  - learc83 8y ago
    You just said this: >Rescue organizations typically have more applications than dogs (very different than a general shelter). Implying that general shelters do have more dogs than applicants. Since I'm talking about a general shelter...