5 ms·

I find it a bit ironic that you and the OP seem to be saying these rescue groups work for their actual goal and the goal of the shelter.

AlbertCory 5y ago
What do you think the "goal of the shelter" is? To just move as many dogs out as possible, or to serve the public by giving them fair access to dogs others don't want? Those are subtly different.
- smorgusofborg 5y ago
  Successfully performing an ethical responsibility to house dogs in a good situation inherently deprioritizes every member of the the public getting a great choice in free dogs. That is a successful supply side shortage which is the goal. I don't see how I could ethically agree that people's rights to get the dog they want through a rescue shelter exists and is more important to a shelter than the welfare of the dogs placed in it's care.
  - AlbertCory 5y ago
    Sorry, but you're resorting to word salad here. "The welfare of the dogs placed in it's [sic] care" is not at issue, as I'll demonstrate: Let's say a highly desirable dog, say a beautiful young Golden Retriever, is brought to the shelter, and further, let's suppose the shelter euthanizes all dogs after two weeks. Normally, a member of the public would adopt this dog within a day or less. They're a very popular breed. How is "the welfare of the dogs placed in its care" enhanced by the Golden Rescue group taking it and deciding for themselves who should have it? (If the foster person doesn't keep it for themselves, which often happens.) Let's say the shelter has an agreement with them: "if a Golden is slated for euthanasia within two days, you may take it." That seems fair to me. So the only argument you're left with is "the Rescue group will do a better job of choosing its home." Not proven and doubtful, sorry. Those people are volunteers with no training and no accountability. The shelter is going to be at least as good.
    - pxc 5y ago
      Rescues typically house their dogs in foster homes rather than shared kennels, and are more likely to engage in rehabilitation and training than shelters are. Dogs at breed rescues generally get way more individual attention and care. > the only argument you're left with is "the Rescue group will do a better job of choosing its home." Not proven and doubtful, sorry. Those people are volunteers with no training and no accountability. The shelter is going to be at least as good. Shelters don't generally attempt vetting adopters to the same degree as rescues do, which is much of the source of annoyance with breed rescues that started this thread. Shelters are not going to be 'at least as good' at things they're not even attempting to do.
      - AlbertCory 5y ago
        As for the foster homes: point taken. Although it's irrelevant if the dog is so desirable that someone adopts it right away. Which is the case we're talking about here after all. As for your comment about shelters: you're just plain wrong about that. There's a stereotype that they're about as diligent as the DMV. Wrong. Considering the breed rescue people are mostly unpaid volunteers who don't stick with it very long, it's probably a wash.
        pxc 5y ago
        Fwiw I think what's good about breed rescues, when they are good, are virtues that shelters could also have, in principle (and some shelters do). I would rather rely on robust, publicly funded and publicly accountable shelters that emphasize foster programs of their own than fall back on a ton of random, breed-specific, donor-funded organizations. Seems like that would be better for dogs of mixed and unpopular breeds, as well as more convenient when it comes to locating a dog for adoption. I wonder whether breed rescues have an easier time finding fosters to volunteer for them than shelters do. I could imagine they might, because of emotional attachments people have to breeds that look like dogs they remember from childhood or that they've had positive experiences with or whatever.
        5y ago

AlbertCory 5y ago

What do you think the "goal of the shelter" is? To just move as many dogs out as possible, or to serve the public by giving them fair access to dogs others don't want? Those are subtly different.

smorgusofborg 5y ago
Successfully performing an ethical responsibility to house dogs in a good situation inherently deprioritizes every member of the the public getting a great choice in free dogs. That is a successful supply side shortage which is the goal. I don't see how I could ethically agree that people's rights to get the dog they want through a rescue shelter exists and is more important to a shelter than the welfare of the dogs placed in it's care.
- AlbertCory 5y ago
  Sorry, but you're resorting to word salad here. "The welfare of the dogs placed in it's [sic] care" is not at issue, as I'll demonstrate: Let's say a highly desirable dog, say a beautiful young Golden Retriever, is brought to the shelter, and further, let's suppose the shelter euthanizes all dogs after two weeks. Normally, a member of the public would adopt this dog within a day or less. They're a very popular breed. How is "the welfare of the dogs placed in its care" enhanced by the Golden Rescue group taking it and deciding for themselves who should have it? (If the foster person doesn't keep it for themselves, which often happens.) Let's say the shelter has an agreement with them: "if a Golden is slated for euthanasia within two days, you may take it." That seems fair to me. So the only argument you're left with is "the Rescue group will do a better job of choosing its home." Not proven and doubtful, sorry. Those people are volunteers with no training and no accountability. The shelter is going to be at least as good.
  - pxc 5y ago
    Rescues typically house their dogs in foster homes rather than shared kennels, and are more likely to engage in rehabilitation and training than shelters are. Dogs at breed rescues generally get way more individual attention and care. > the only argument you're left with is "the Rescue group will do a better job of choosing its home." Not proven and doubtful, sorry. Those people are volunteers with no training and no accountability. The shelter is going to be at least as good. Shelters don't generally attempt vetting adopters to the same degree as rescues do, which is much of the source of annoyance with breed rescues that started this thread. Shelters are not going to be 'at least as good' at things they're not even attempting to do.
    - AlbertCory 5y ago
      As for the foster homes: point taken. Although it's irrelevant if the dog is so desirable that someone adopts it right away. Which is the case we're talking about here after all. As for your comment about shelters: you're just plain wrong about that. There's a stereotype that they're about as diligent as the DMV. Wrong. Considering the breed rescue people are mostly unpaid volunteers who don't stick with it very long, it's probably a wash.
      - pxc 5y ago
        Fwiw I think what's good about breed rescues, when they are good, are virtues that shelters could also have, in principle (and some shelters do). I would rather rely on robust, publicly funded and publicly accountable shelters that emphasize foster programs of their own than fall back on a ton of random, breed-specific, donor-funded organizations. Seems like that would be better for dogs of mixed and unpopular breeds, as well as more convenient when it comes to locating a dog for adoption. I wonder whether breed rescues have an easier time finding fosters to volunteer for them than shelters do. I could imagine they might, because of emotional attachments people have to breeds that look like dogs they remember from childhood or that they've had positive experiences with or whatever.
        5y ago