You know, I've been thinking about this. I've always been an advocate of rescuers allocating their resources to adoptable animals and I probably always will be but... Then the questions arrises... what about breed rescues? What about small dog rescues? What about big dog rescues?
I mean, let's be honest - the Cardi breed rescue is far from overflowing so they can afford to take in, say, a dog that needs a home with no other dogs and no children, and one person who doesn't and is home most of the time. And yes, they can wait for as long as they'd like for that dog to find a home because shelters aren't bursting at the seams with Cardis. Are they doing the greatest amount of good for the most amount of dogs? Nope. Are they obligated to do that? I don't know. When it comes down to it, most of us (myself included) are advocating for rescues to take a utilitarian approach - greatest amount of good for the greatest number of animals. In that case, rescues that specialize in any way are violating that principle to some extent, whether they pull dogs with expensive medical needs, or only rescue Australian Shepherds, etc etc etc.
When the question of the dog suffering because the people at the rescue refuse/can't bear to pass any dog up or put any dog to sleep arrises, well no, I can't agree with that. But I suppose I also can't say that rescues are obligated to only help the most adoptable dogs, because by that token, breed rescues just shouldn't exist. I mean, how many average mixed-breed dogs could have been pushed through foster care, vetted/vaccinated, and found homes while Pumpkin the Schipperke who need back surgery was staying with his breed rescue? Is the foster family wrong for the only being willing to foster a certain breed, and the rescue wrong for only accepting a certain breed? I just don't know.