I've looked into various shelters and animal rescue places because I'd like to adopt a shelter cat someday, and I find that 2 and 3 are pretty common. Like you, I'm uncomfortable with having the fine print handed to me after going through the whole process, so I suppose focusing on shelters & rescues that are more upfront from the start is the way to go.
1 and 4 are just bizarre, IMHO, and I'd object strenuously to both. In short? No, I don't think you're crazy to find all that a bit too much. I understand they want what's best for the animal, but eesh.
As someone who has worked for breed-specific rescues, I completely understand your concerns. I guess all I can offer is that you have to look at their intent, they've done this (hopefully) a few hundred times and the rules are in place because, sadly, there's been problems. I'm not excusing the policies, but offering you some of the backstory on these sorts of things
( ... )
Thanks for the reply. I get the intent, really I do, but I don't like deceptiveness and manipulation, no matter how well-intended it is. Two and three have the effect of pushing you into making a legally-binding decision in the heat of emotion, and I do think that's manipulative. And yes, I've seen the covering problems thing a bit myself. For instance, not telling someone up front that a dog is a pit mix, and not telling people that they absolutely *must* check with their lease or homeowners insurance before adopting a pit bull or a pit mix. The group I'm currently volunteering with seems to have this problem, and I'm not really down with that. OTOH, volunteering with an all-breed rescue is a good way to meet lots of types of dogs-- but if I'm holding a pit or a pit mix on adoption night, I'm going to tell interested people this stuff, they need to know it. I'm also going to feel them out over time, see where they're going with some of these things (they don't, thankfully, do #1. #1 is a dealbreaker with me, period. I understand why
( ... )
No, I don't think you're crazy at ALL. I think it's good for places to want to investigate a person a little bit before adopting to them. However, I think some places are just going a BIT far with it.
Hidden and cryptic fees and messages, never letting you offically OWN the pet...I mean damn. Do they want the animals to have a home or not? When people get that picky and shitty about things, they can't expect too many people to want to help these animals and that's sad because they really do need help....
Wow. I had no idea there was so much red tape involved in adopting a dog. I guess we've only adopted cats from the local animal shelter, but that was in the Midwest, where I can imagine they'd be more lenient. We got our (now deceased) family dog from a pet store when I was little. Once Sajuka and I move to a new location (preferably a house!), I want to adopt a kitten or two, preferably from a shelter, but I haven't really looked into it yet. That much red tape would totally scare me away though, even if I did meet their qualifications. And they wonder why they can't place their pooches in good homes? Oy!
I did read the good points made by someone above though, which I understand, but sheesh! (LJ doesn't show previous replies when posting new replies anymore, so I don't know who made the post)
I'm fine with interviews, insisting on classes, home visits, adoption fees, and trial periods. Am I crazy to find the above items to be a bit too much?
NO! I think it is unfair not to be up front with all the terms and conditions. I would never adopt a dog without becoming it's full owner, and after a trial period, I would object to being "checked up on" by the shelter, etc.
I wouldn't mind a stipulation saying if I could no longer care for the animal, I'd surrender it back to the shelter rather than taking it somewhere else.
I firmly support sliding scales for adoption. There are different things that need to be considered depending on the age and health of the dog.
And I agree that you shouldn't rush finding the perfect pet for you! The right dog is out there, and you will connect.
Comments 6
1 and 4 are just bizarre, IMHO, and I'd object strenuously to both. In short? No, I don't think you're crazy to find all that a bit too much. I understand they want what's best for the animal, but eesh.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Hidden and cryptic fees and messages, never letting you offically OWN the pet...I mean damn. Do they want the animals to have a home or not? When people get that picky and shitty about things, they can't expect too many people to want to help these animals and that's sad because they really do need help....
*hugs*
Reply
I did read the good points made by someone above though, which I understand, but sheesh! (LJ doesn't show previous replies when posting new replies anymore, so I don't know who made the post)
Reply
NO! I think it is unfair not to be up front with all the terms and conditions. I would never adopt a dog without becoming it's full owner, and after a trial period, I would object to being "checked up on" by the shelter, etc.
I wouldn't mind a stipulation saying if I could no longer care for the animal, I'd surrender it back to the shelter rather than taking it somewhere else.
I firmly support sliding scales for adoption. There are different things that need to be considered depending on the age and health of the dog.
And I agree that you shouldn't rush finding the perfect pet for you! The right dog is out there, and you will connect.
Reply
Leave a comment