Are rescues 'too strict' about adopting dogs out?

[RealPitBull]

btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/2009/06/can-we-all-learn-a-lesson-from-al-hicks.html

Care to share some thoughts?

[loverocksalot]

All I can say is... it is a good point never thought about it that way.

[maryellen]

some rescues go overkill, like the boxer rescue out here who wouldnt adopt a boxer to a couple cause they didnt have air conditioning in their home, they eventually got the dog, but it took months of begging the rescue, that is overkill.

if a person has a bad track record, no i wouldnt adopt to them. there are only so many mistakes one can make , and to keep making mistakes like those are red flags.. then again, each rescue/shelter is different... i just found out a rescue adopted a HA pit bull mix out, to which the dog bit a few people here in NJ... BAD for the dog, bad for bsl..

there will always be politics in rescue/shelter life.. sad but true..

hopefully those that get turned away due to bad track records when they buy a dog have learned their lessons...

[RealPitBull]

I know some rescues deny good homes because some rule just isn't met, even when taking the big picture into account the potential adopter is a great home. And I do think some potential adopters are 'fixer uppers' that, if the rescue wanted, could hand-hold a little while and end up with a really nice home for their dog.

OTOH, the responsibility of rescue isn't to "place a dog at all costs because the potential adopter is just going to go to a breeder so might as well give them a rescue dog". Rescues aren't in control of what people do when they are denied. A rescue's job is to place each dog in the *best possible home*.

And not every person who WANTS a dog should HAVE a dog. Just because a BYB would hand a dog over to a person, doesn't mean rescue is obligated to hand a dog over.

[kcdogblog]

I'm glad this has sparked at least a little thought and conversation. I think handling apps at a rescue may be one of the most difficult jobs out there...because honestly, you never quite know how someone will turn out.

I just think it's important to realize that in most instances when someone is denied by a rescue, they still end up being a dog-owning home....only, this time you've created a scenerio where a questionable home now ends up with an unaltered dog vs a recued dog that has been altered....and we know how that usually turns out.

I don't think there are many cut and dried answers on this. I do think a way too large of a number of shelters and rescues draw the line way too quickly and push people away from adoption unnecessarily. But obviously see the problems with going to extreme the other way. I just think that the default should be to try to find a way to make each person that comes in into a good home, vs turning them away for not being perfect yet.

[RealPitBull]

It's a great topic and I think you present an angle that we don't often look at. It also begs the question: what can we do to make adopting a dog more appealing to the general public who, as you say, is often going to just get a dog ANYway, from rescue or elsewhere. What can we do to market rescue dogs? What can we do to educate better on responsible ownership along with responsible acquisition of dogs?

[tank]

I was denied a dog from my local shelter when I lived in MA. I forget why, but it was a simple thing that they wouldn't work with me on. I ended up "buying" a dog. I actually ended up adopting a dog from someone who no longer could take care of him, she got him from a breeder. Since I have had experience with this, I have to completely agree that some shelters go way overboard with qualifications. I especially think so because we live in a world where so many dogs are euthanized everyday and those same dogs could have had homes if the shelter hadn't denied so many people.
Even down the road shelters ruin things. Because of that experience, I didn't go to the shelter when getting my next dog after that. I know now that shelters aren't all bad, but not everyone has positive experiences with shelters.

[DiamondTiger]

This is an interesting topic for sure.

When I was working at ASCC I had a man come in looking for a watch dog that he could keep kenneled outside 24/7. I learned his intention the way I learned everyone's story, by walking him through our adoptable dogs and talking to him. I asked questions and I listened. The shelter has a lot of dogs that are in outdoor kennels, in fact the majority of their dogs are in outdoor kennels. When the man told me that he wanted a dog that he could keep kenneled all the time, my heart sank. I didn't deny him, but I let him know in the nicest way possible that many of the dogs that were there had spent their entire lives in that setting and that more than anything they would benefit from a good loving indoor home. I suggested to him that any of those dogs would make a better "watchdog" if he would consider having the dog inside as a family member, so that the dog could grow attached and loyal and WANT to do its "job".

He left happy and grateful for my "wisdom" (his words lol) and said he'd think about what I said and come back if his wife would agree to having the dog inside. He never came back, so I don't know if he went elsewhere for a dog. I'd like to hope tho, that his wife agreed to having a smaller dog inside and that they adopted elsewhere because we had no small dogs to choose from.

Now, in answer to the question posed here - "Are rescues 'too strict' about adopting dogs out?"

I think some may be... and I think some shelters may be as well. I had a woman come into the shelter to adopt a dog who had been denied adoption by another shelter for not having a fenced in yard. She was heartbroken because she wanted the dog to be an indoor companion, yet the shelter refused to hear that this was possible. I personally have no problem adopting to homes without fenced yards, IF the adopter agrees to let me or someone else come by for a home visit post adoption. She offered this to me BEFORE I even suggested it and I do believe she was sincere.

I think policy is a necessary thing... but I also think that, as with bust dogs we go to bat for, each applicant should be looked at as an individual and decisions made accordingly. I might still refuse adoption to a home with no fenced yard... depending on how the person answers the rest of my questions and whether or not they're lying or trying to feel me out for the answers I seek. (I hope that makes sense.)

I've also been known to "dumb myself down" when I feel that an applicant is trying to feel me out for the "right answers". Generally this works to open them up to speaking freely and I get their true thoughts / answers, as well as helps me find the easiest way to deny adoption or educate without them taking offense.

[Chloe]

I definitly think some shelters and rescues are way to strict while others are right on the money! I recently suggested a new volunteer position at the shelter I volunteer at, an in-home inspector for people who want to adopt our bullies. They loved the idea and I of coarse volunteered to do it, so now whenever we have an app. turned in on a bully I contact the applicant and set up a time to go out to their house and check it out for myself. I then report back to the kennel supervisor and this makes it much easier for our kennel supervisor to feel good when she approves or denies an application.

[loverocksalot]

Jun 13, 2009 22:49:02 GMT -5 Chloe said:

I definitly think some shelters and rescues are way to strict while others are right on the money! I recently suggested a new volunteer position at the shelter I volunteer at, an in-home inspector for people who want to adopt our bullies. They loved the idea and I of coarse volunteered to do it, so now whenever we have an app. turned in on a bully I contact the applicant and set up a time to go out to their house and check it out for myself. I then report back to the kennel supervisor and this makes it much easier for our kennel supervisor to feel good when she approves or denies an application.

Oh good for you I could have used that help for adopting a second pup. Home visit with the puppy would have been essential. Instead of having to grow through with an adoption just to see how dogs react in the home. ETC. However pup of interest who was clearly a pit bull mix was said to be a Rottie possibly pit mix later a lab mix.
There is one shelter I volunteer at that you just sign in to walk dogs that goes for adults and kids. Then there is another locally I went to to volunteer and the application was the longest application. I still have not filled out yet. But I think I will do it today.

[kcdogblog]

Jun 13, 2009 22:49:02 GMT -5 Chloe said:

I definitly think some shelters and rescues are way to strict while others are right on the money! I recently suggested a new volunteer position at the shelter I volunteer at, an in-home inspector for people who want to adopt our bullies. They loved the idea and I of coarse volunteered to do it, so now whenever we have an app. turned in on a bully I contact the applicant and set up a time to go out to their house and check it out for myself. I then report back to the kennel supervisor and this makes it much easier for our kennel supervisor to feel good when she approves or denies an application.

Great for you -- I'm happy that you're getting involved.

I think home checks are an interesting concept. In many ways, the way most shelters use them, they tend to work as an additional barrier for adoptions - -that people will use them as a reason to "pass or fail" potential adopters -- a step someone wouldn't have to go through if they bought a dog.

I still think home inspections are good ideas - I just think they ought to be used more for educating owners on things to look out for in their home while owning a dog and as time spent "helping" the owner -- and then rejecting only the worst case scenerio. I think home checks can be great -- but not if they are used just to create reasons to fail potential adopters.

[OurPack]

Yes, we do homechecks as well. We usually are really ok with the people before we do the homecheck however so we're usually willing to work stuff out with them. I don't think they should be setting people up for failure.

We are very big on educating people and making it a learning experience for the potential adopter. They adopt a dog and learn a lot while doing it.

None of our adopters are all so perfect. We sometimes have to hold their hand in the beginning. I've never regretted doing this btw, it has worked out every time. I think part of what we do is to be a resource for folks.

As Mary said there are people who simply shouldn't have dogs. I also agree that you can't just give them a dog so they don't go somewhere, that can get you into trouble too. But as Brent points out I don't think it should be a set up where no one can really win at it. We're here to help people too, that's what we try to do with Our Pack. That's why we say rescue, training and education after our name. It's about making a better world for Pit Bulls AND the people who are their guardians.

Good points that aren't brought up much Brent!

[loverocksalot]

When I went to walk dogs at this shelter I was told how they thought this was a perfect family with children. After this incident I would think they could benefit from doing home visits. I do not believe this is a volunteer shelter. As it is animal Control for the large town.

Dog starved to death, found frozen
Greenwood Lake, NY (US)

Incident Date: Thursday, Feb 1, 2007
County: Orange

Charges: Misdemeanor
Disposition: Convicted

Defendant/Suspect: Maryann Adams

Case Updates: 4 update(s) available

Princess was 80 pounds of St. Bernard-collie mix when Maryann Adams adopted her from the Warwick Valley Humane Society last summer.

Princess was 30 pounds of frozen carcass seven months later, and Adams was under arrest. The 33-year-old from Greenwood Lake was arraigned in Warwick Town Court on a misdemeanor charge of failure to provide sustenance to an animal.

Princess's eyes were matted shut. She had no food in her digestive tract. A veterinarian told Orange County Sheriff's Investigator David Ayers that an infection had invaded Princess' uterus.

"The doctor said it took a two- to three-month period for the dog to be in this condition. He said it was a very agonizing death," said Ayers, who began an investigation after he got a complaint from the Humane Society.

Neighbors told the Humane Society that Adams left water just outside the dog's reach, and that she took the top off the doghouse when it rained.

"It seems to me that this abuse started right when she got the dog, that this was deliberate and intentional and that she was really tormenting this animal," said Suzyn Barron, the director of the Humane Society.

The society finds homes for 150 to 200 dogs a year, usually without a problem. "Most of the time, people get in touch when they're having a problem. We work with them," Barron said. "In some cases, if it's not working out, we take the animals back."

In Adams' case, "There was no reason to think she wouldn't be able to care for this dog."

But on Feb. 1, one of Adams' neighbors called the Humane Society to say that Princess was in distress. Workers from the Humane Society went to Adams' house and rang the bell.

When they got no answer, Barron said, they walked around back. Princess was motionless in her doghouse. The workers took Princess' body back to the shelter, and Ayers took the case.

He interviewed the neighbors, consulted with prosecutors and arrested Adams at her home yesterday. She was arraigned before Warwick Town Justice Peter Barlet and released on her own recognizance.

She's due back in court on April 17. She faces up to a year in jail.

Barron recalls getting a phone call from Adams the day after Princess' body was recovered. Adams told her she was a single mother raising three kids.

"Basically," Barron recalled, "Her question to me was 'Well, what can I do now?' "


Case Updates

Although this defendant has been sentenced, officials may still benefit from receiving community feedback regarding the outcome of the case.

Warwick, NY Town Justice
Mr. Daniel Coleman
Town of Warwick
132 Kings Highway
Warwick, NY 10990
Phone: [phone] (Ask for Justice Dept.)
Fax: [phone]

Prosecuting Attorney
Mr. Jamie Ferrara
District Attorney Office
18 Seward Avenue
Middleton, NY 10940
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Tips for Effective Letter Writing:
www.pet-abuse.com/pages/action_alerts/letter_writing.php
Source: Town of Warwick
Update posted on Aug 31, 2007 - 2:18AM
Back to Top
A Greenwood Lake woman whose dog starved in her backyard avoided jail yesterday because Warwick Town Justice Daniel Coleman was concerned about the welfare of her three children.

"If you didn't have any children, I would put you in jail for a year," Coleman told Maryann Adams. "You're being spared from jail, and you can thank your children."

Prosecutors had asked that Adams serve 60 days spread over 30 weekends. Instead, she must perform 100 hours of community service and pay a $1,000 fine and $300 in restitution to the Warwick Valley Humane Society.

Adams pleaded guilty in June to a misdemeanor charge of failing to provide sustenance to Princess, a St. Bernard-collie mix. She may not own another animal as long as she resides in New York.

She called the sentence "fair for the sake of my children," ages 4, 6 and 9. "The guilty plea does not reflect my innocence or guilt."

The sentence outraged a group of eight animal-rights activists who gathered outside the courthouse to vent their anger over Princess' death.

They waved signs with the dog's picture and yelled at Adams as she was driven away after the sentencing.

"This is an absolute disgrace," Humane Society member Lee Peterson said. "They should open the jails and let everyone with children out. Compared with Michael Vick, it's nothing, but the judge made a terrible ruling."

Adams adopted Princess, an 80-pound dog, in summer 2006. In February, a neighbor called the Warwick Valley Humane Society to say that Princess was in distress.

Workers from the Humane Society went to Adams' house and found Princess motionless in the backyard. Her eyes were matted shut, and she had no food in her digestive tract. A veterinarian said she had a uterine infection and likely took two or three months to die.

"I believe this was a deliberate act on Adams' part," Humane Society director Suzyn Barron said before the sentencing. "We have seen everything from dogfighting cases to hoarding cases, and this probably ranks as one of the worst because the dog suffered horribly."

[Chloe]

Jun 14, 2009 14:27:19 GMT -5 kcdogblog said:

Jun 13, 2009 22:49:02 GMT -5 Chloe said:

I definitly think some shelters and rescues are way to strict while others are right on the money! I recently suggested a new volunteer position at the shelter I volunteer at, an in-home inspector for people who want to adopt our bullies. They loved the idea and I of coarse volunteered to do it, so now whenever we have an app. turned in on a bully I contact the applicant and set up a time to go out to their house and check it out for myself. I then report back to the kennel supervisor and this makes it much easier for our kennel supervisor to feel good when she approves or denies an application.

Great for you -- I'm happy that you're getting involved.

I think home checks are an interesting concept. In many ways, the way most shelters use them, they tend to work as an additional barrier for adoptions - -that people will use them as a reason to "pass or fail" potential adopters -- a step someone wouldn't have to go through if they bought a dog.

I still think home inspections are good ideas - I just think they ought to be used more for educating owners on things to look out for in their home while owning a dog and as time spent "helping" the owner -- and then rejecting only the worst case scenerio. I think home checks can be great -- but not if they are used just to create reasons to fail potential adopters.

Oh we dont use the home checks just to deny people, we only do checks on people we like or arent to sure about either way. If we dont like them at all it doesnt even get that far. We do wrk with people to an extent, Ive approved more people than I've denied after doing a home check. If I get to their house and discover they have lied about anything on their app. then I deny them, if they already have pets in the home that r not well taken care of, I deny them, if they have something like a broken fence and r willing to fix it 1st then we work w/them. If I discover that they arent suited for the dog they wanted but would be fine for a different dog at the shelter then we talk about that to.

[valliesong]

People may think I'm crazy, but I like to do all my own adoptions for my foster cats including homechecks. It is actually pretty rare for a cat rescue to do homechecks, but it is just as important as it is for dogs. The way I explain it to my adopters is that I am looking for pet proofing and anything that might be an issue for the individual cat. Blind cords that are a hanging hazard, broken window screens that may lead to escape, food the cat may steal, knick knacks they may break, etc. I also take the cat with me and do drop off if everything works out ok.

The adoption process isn't so much about approval or denial. If I had my way, everyone would be a responsible pet owner and I'd never have to decline an adoption. It's really about matching the right pet with the right owner, and providing education and support to make the match work. Unfortunately in some cases the right pet may be a stuffed one.

[tank]

You all are giving examples of mostly breed specific rescues that rescue animals who are going to be put to sleep usually. What about all of the animal shelters out there who deny applications out there left and right for simple things as not having a full fenced in area (which is why I was denied and because I rented and could do nothing about it even though our yard was HUGE) or something else minor just to turn around and euthanize adoptable animals every day?
I think we all get how strict you guys are with your home visits, and you can never be too careful, but I am still convinced that animal shelters are way too strict on the smallest things. That has been my direct problems with them. Maybe I am from a different area than you and things run differently in MA, but I have a hard time trusting normal shelters in that area. I have never had a good experience, and my family has adopted dogs my whole life. I also went to a reputable animal shelter/hospital in Boston, MA who sued me over money I didn't owe them. Where are their priorities there?

[Chloe]

Jun 12, 2009 11:04:22 GMT -5 tank said:

I was denied a dog from my local shelter when I lived in MA. I forget why, but it was a simple thing that they wouldn't work with me on. I ended up "buying" a dog. I actually ended up adopting a dog from someone who no longer could take care of him, she got him from a breeder. Since I have had experience with this, I have to completely agree that some shelters go way overboard with qualifications. I especially think so because we live in a world where so many dogs are euthanized everyday and those same dogs could have had homes if the shelter hadn't denied so many people.
Even down the road shelters ruin things. Because of that experience, I didn't go to the shelter when getting my next dog after that. I know now that shelters aren't all bad, but not everyone has positive experiences with shelters.

Your right, not everyone has positive experiences w/shelters, they have their flaws, as does everything else. Sometimes people who should get approved dont (because of a flaw or human error) and sometimes those who do get approved shouldnt, again because of a flaw or human error.
I'll be the 1st to admit that even the in-home checks arent fool proof but they are another positive step we take to try to insure that the dogs and/or cats we are responsible for go to the best possible homes.
I'm sorry you had some bad shelter experience's and hopefully any other shelter experiences you have in the future will be good ones!

[valliesong]

I do believe it varies with geography, and also the individual shelter. There are many shelters that still do cash-n-carry adoptions with no real screening, and some don't even S/N or microchip first. Some of these are so-called "rescues" who say they care, and others are municipal shelters, some who are prevented by local government from doing a better job. Obviously this approach does almost more harm than good.

I personally believe it is very important to look at pet-owning history, as past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If someone has had multiple pets run away or get hit by cars, is a frequent flier at animal control for dog-at-large, has surrendered or given away pets, has any kind of animal cruelty or animal control citation - these are all huge red flags and there better be a damn good reason or the application should be denied.

Other things require education, and the person should only be denied if they aren't willing to comply. This includes the topics of declawing, allowing a cat offlead outdoors, keeping a dog outside, spay/neuter, diet, obedience training, etc. If the adoption counselor is reasonably certain the adopter will follow the advice (and abide by the adoption contract) and follow up can be provided, the adoption may be approved. Many people just need a little extra education.

Other things should be based entirely on the individual animal the person wants to adopt. For example, if they want an outdoor mouser for a cat, they can adopt a feral or semi-feral cat, but not a friendly housepet. If they insist on declawing, they can only adopt a cat that is already declawed. If they don't have a fenced yard and aren't an avid jogger, they should only adopt a more sedate dog that can be easily exercised on leash. If they are inexperienced/uneducated owners, they shouldn't be adopting a young puppy or a challenging dog. (This, by the way, is where good temperament testing or foster home evaluation really come in handy!)

Most adoptions will fall in the last two categories. There have been a lot of people that I have told, "Fifi would not work out in your household, but why don't you look at Fluffy?" There have also been many others that, once educated, really do believe that declawing is inhumane or that dogs should be kept indoors or that obedience classes are a good idea. Others I have given some education, but referred to other resources and told them to come back after they learn some more. Sometimes you can get really good adoptions this way, but other times people can be stubborn, unreasonable, impatient, etc. and will buy a dog instead of listening to sound advice.

I just want to share one anecdote. In one shelter that I worked at, when I began my employment we were doing pretty rigorous but fair adoption screening. We would decline for lies and inconsistencies on applications, inability to reach landlord or landlord says no, poor vet references (particularly based on rabies vaccines, since the shelter was charged with upholding the state rabies law), pets previously surrendered, cruelty investigations and repeat animal control issues, and sometimes having intact pets at home (depending on the reasoning). We also would decline adoptions of specific animals, such as young puppies to homes with toddlers, boisterous or sensitive dogs to homes with children, out of control dogs to inexperienced homes, etc. And we always declined adoptions to people who wanted to keep the animal outside or as a guard animal (per the adoption contract).

Using these guidelines, we did a fair amount of adoptions and relatively few returns. Most of the animals would stay in the homes they were adopted to, and we wouldn't see them as surrenders or strays.

Then the director got behind the new line of thinking that we should just throw animals at people and hope they stick. In fact, for a time, we weren't allowed to deny any adoptions without management approval. And do you know what happened? About half the animals adopted out would come back in the first month or two, as strays, adoption returns, or bite cases. Yes, bite cases, because skittish dogs were going to homes with kids and inexperienced owners were taking on too much dog - all because, despite the education from the staff, people were choosing their pets based on appearance and not listening to advice. Or because these people threw up obvious red flags and we sent animals home with them anyway, thinking, maybe this time it will work.

And the sad thing is that every time an animal comes back to the shelter, they decline a little. They become more depressed or more anxious or more hyperactive or even aggressive or fearful. Eventually they may not even be adoptable anymore. Others, despite the fact that they are wonderful animals, are repeatedly overlooked because a returned pet is seen as being damaged goods or having issues. So each time they return to the shelter, they are less likely to make it back out.

So while pets may die from declined adoptions, they also die from approved adoptions. There needs to be a healthy balance.

[Chloe]

Jun 19, 2009 23:04:02 GMT -5 valliesong said:

I do believe it varies with geography, and also the individual shelter. There are many shelters that still do cash-n-carry adoptions with no real screening, and some don't even S/N or microchip first. Some of these are so-called "rescues" who say they care, and others are municipal shelters, some who are prevented by local government from doing a better job. Obviously this approach does almost more harm than good.

I personally believe it is very important to look at pet-owning history, as past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. If someone has had multiple pets run away or get hit by cars, is a frequent flier at animal control for dog-at-large, has surrendered or given away pets, has any kind of animal cruelty or animal control citation - these are all huge red flags and there better be a d*mn good reason or the application should be denied.

Other things require education, and the person should only be denied if they aren't willing to comply. This includes the topics of declawing, allowing a cat offlead outdoors, keeping a dog outside, spay/neuter, diet, obedience training, etc. If the adoption counselor is reasonably certain the adopter will follow the advice (and abide by the adoption contract) and follow up can be provided, the adoption may be approved. Many people just need a little extra education.

Other things should be based entirely on the individual animal the person wants to adopt. For example, if they want an outdoor mouser for a cat, they can adopt a feral or semi-feral cat, but not a friendly housepet. If they insist on declawing, they can only adopt a cat that is already declawed. If they don't have a fenced yard and aren't an avid jogger, they should only adopt a more sedate dog that can be easily exercised on leash. If they are inexperienced/uneducated owners, they shouldn't be adopting a young puppy or a challenging dog. (This, by the way, is where good temperament testing or foster home evaluation really come in handy!)

Most adoptions will fall in the last two categories. There have been a lot of people that I have told, "Fifi would not work out in your household, but why don't you look at Fluffy?" There have also been many others that, once educated, really do believe that declawing is inhumane or that dogs should be kept indoors or that obedience classes are a good idea. Others I have given some education, but referred to other resources and told them to come back after they learn some more. Sometimes you can get really good adoptions this way, but other times people can be stubborn, unreasonable, impatient, etc. and will buy a dog instead of listening to sound advice.

I just want to share one anecdote. In one shelter that I worked at, when I began my employment we were doing pretty rigorous but fair adoption screening. We would decline for lies and inconsistencies on applications, inability to reach landlord or landlord says no, poor vet references (particularly based on rabies vaccines, since the shelter was charged with upholding the state rabies law), pets previously surrendered, cruelty investigations and repeat animal control issues, and sometimes having intact pets at home (depending on the reasoning). We also would decline adoptions of specific animals, such as young puppies to homes with toddlers, boisterous or sensitive dogs to homes with children, out of control dogs to inexperienced homes, etc. And we always declined adoptions to people who wanted to keep the animal outside or as a guard animal (per the adoption contract).

Using these guidelines, we did a fair amount of adoptions and relatively few returns. Most of the animals would stay in the homes they were adopted to, and we wouldn't see them as surrenders or strays.

Then the director got behind the new line of thinking that we should just throw animals at people and hope they stick. In fact, for a time, we weren't allowed to deny any adoptions without management approval. And do you know what happened? About half the animals adopted out would come back in the first month or two, as strays, adoption returns, or bite cases. Yes, bite cases, because skittish dogs were going to homes with kids and inexperienced owners were taking on too much dog - all because, despite the education from the staff, people were choosing their pets based on appearance and not listening to advice. Or because these people threw up obvious red flags and we sent animals home with them anyway, thinking, maybe this time it will work.

And the sad thing is that every time an animal comes back to the shelter, they decline a little. They become more depressed or more anxious or more hyperactive or even aggressive or fearful. Eventually they may not even be adoptable anymore. Others, despite the fact that they are wonderful animals, are repeatedly overlooked because a returned pet is seen as being damaged goods or having issues. So each time they return to the shelter, they are less likely to make it back out.

So while pets may die from declined adoptions, they also die from approved adoptions. There needs to be a healthy balance.

I agree w/this 100% and then some! Good job! U nailed it!!

[tank]

That was a really good way to put it valliesong. I can see both sides of it. The truth is that some shelters are just not run right and it can go either way. Some will adopt out the wrong dogs to the wrong people for the sake of either laziness, high volume, or government funding etc and some will be too strict to even adopt out to the best owners because of little annoyances. The truth is, that there isn't always the perfect home for a dog. sometimes shelters/ rescues have to be willing to put some effort in to help new owners know whats right for their new companion and a lot of places just aren't willing (or can't) to do that.