Is this something to be proud of?

[motherofmany]

Parents let kids manhandle, sit on and smash small dogs, and let the kids use bigger dogs as a jungle gym.

Not all parents. This is where taking the time to do proper screening and education comes into play. It is extra work, but aren't the dogs worth it?

But hey, if you want to limit in that way it is your look out. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of good rescues that people with children can go to for a family pet.

 

[SizzleDog]

We require adopters to be 21 years of age and we do not adopt our dobermans to families with children under age 6 - most of the Plus dogs can go to families with young children. I don't mind this policy - Dobermans are strong, intense dogs and many have over-the-top prey drive... and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure when it comes to a breed that is often targeted by breed bans, BSL and is on the sh*t-list of every breed discrimination media group and breed-wary parent out there.

As for the "they're dogs, not children" thing - I don't buy that. They're not "just" dogs, IMO they deserve the same amount of respect, responsibility and consideration as human children. I'm not anthropomorphizing, but I would be uncomfortable adopting a dog to a family that says "it's just a dog, it's not like it's a KID or something."

 

[motherofmany]

we do not adopt our dobermans to families with children under age 6 - most of the Plus dogs can go to families with young children. I don't mind this policy - Dobermans are strong, intense dogs and many have over-the-top prey drive... and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure when it comes to a breed that is often targeted by breed bans, BSL and is on the sh*t-list of every breed discrimination media group and breed-wary parent out there

This I can understand completely. Although I would like to say that we had a dobe when I was a wee girl of 3. Her name was Shadow and had been the guard dog for the plant my Dad managed. She used to curl up around me when I was sitting still (rare thing) and never left my side when I was playing. It is a shame they have gotten such a bad rep

 

[Xandra]

As for the "they're dogs, not children" thing - I don't buy that. They're not "just" dogs, IMO they deserve the same amount of respect, responsibility and consideration as human children. I'm not anthropomorphizing, but I would be uncomfortable adopting a dog to a family that says "it's just a dog, it's not like it's a KID or something."

I wasn't saying that they're JUST dogs so who cares about them. Yes, a dog's needs must be met, the same as a child's or a parrot's. But a child or cockatoo's needs are much greater than a dog's. Dogs are pretty flexible and forgiving. The average Joe that I meet takes fine care of their dog... I DOUBT most could provide an equally satisfying life for a cockatoo. I can understand a large parrot rescue turning down a large % of applicants for cockatoos, but when you're rejecting 90% of people who are looking for a pet dog, something is wrong.

 

[Romy]

As for the "they're dogs, not children" thing - I don't buy that. They're not "just" dogs, IMO they deserve the same amount of respect, responsibility and consideration as human children. I'm not anthropomorphizing, but I would be uncomfortable adopting a dog to a family that says "it's just a dog, it's not like it's a KID or something."

It is relevant though, when you consider hundreds of thousands of dog DIE every year because there aren't enough homes. We aren't euthanizing human children wholesale.

It's like the greyhound rescues. They are so, so so controlling about where and who the dogs go to. They wouldn't adopt to me ultimately because I was pregnant, even though a member of their board of directors was begging the other directors to let me have one of the dogs and offered to mentor/sponsor me because both of her children were born after she had adopted her greys. They wouldn't even let me foster before the baby was born, because it was "an unstable situation".

That refusal meant at least one more dead greyhound. I'm a good dog owner. I'd been fostering for another rescue, but was limited in what dogs I could take because the landlord's homeowner's insurance said "no pits" and 99 out of every 100 dogs in the shelter was labeled "pit mix" so they couldn't legally let us foster them. I could have easily fostered one or two greyhounds while pregnant. That would have been one or two more dogs that wouldn't have died. But they did. They aren't "just dogs" and that's why it's so infuriating. Some of these people are willing to condemn dogs to die because they aren't willing to be a little flexible with adopter's individual situations, and see beyond people's ages.

It happened again when we tried adopted a german shepherd from GSD rescue. They said no adopters under 25. I was over 25, my husband 24. They rejected us because HE was under 24, even though I was the one applying. Even though we lived in a house with a fenced yard, fed great food, and someone was always home, etc. Because they refused to be flexible with a couple of month's age gap, another dog didn't get a home. Another died because there was no place outside the kill shelters for it to go.

Edit: The GSD folks when I talked to them about it said, since we were newlyweds they felt uncomfortable letting us have one of "their" dogs. They talked about the rate of divorce, etc. Oh. My. Gosh. I'm so glad it was over the phone because I might have punched someone. Even if a person gets divorced, it doesn't mean all the pets are flushed down the toilet. Even if something happened to the relationship a few years down the road, what is the likelihood that the 9 year old shepherd we were looking at would even be alive at that point? Seriously? That dog probably died of old age in his foster home, when he could have had a real home.

 

[thehoundgirl]

That is majorly CRAZY! Those dogs need care too and homes. 10%? That is ridiculous. Those dogs are never going to get homes then if they are acting like that. We require the adopters to be atleast 18 years of age and financially and home-wise stable.

That goes with ALL potential adopters though. If your references (Vet and checking with other shelters that you are responsible and take care of your pets) check out OK and if you rent we must get the landlord's consent and if the home check goes well you are approved. Depending on the dog and there is young children in the home let's say a 6 month old child and the dog is really hyper we may not adopt you that dog.

But it depends how the dog does with your child, really. Not many people come in with a newborn baby or a 6 month old child. It's usually toddlers and children up to 8 years old. We may suggest a dog that is more calm, but it also depends if we feel the dog is the best match for the dog first and you second. But this rescue in the original post seems a little.. odd. How are they helping the animals by adopting out 10% of the animals?

 

[motherofmany]

It seems to me the simplest solution is proper screening and then requiring the adopters attend an appropriate training class. Blanket policies that do not take individual's levels of experience, knowledge and committment into account...that simply reject potential adopters because they don't fit a cookie cutter image of what a "good" adoptive family looks like...those types of policies are hurting dogs in so many ways. Beyond the rescues not getting homes, the adoptive "rejects" sure as heck aren't going to be rejected by the pet store or BYBers!

 

[Romy]

It seems to me the simplest solution is proper screening and then requiring the adopters attend an appropriate training class. Blanket policies that do not take individual's levels of experience, knowledge and committment into account...that simply reject potential adopters because they don't fit a cookie cutter image of what a "good" adoptive family looks like...those types of policies are hurting dogs in so many ways. Beyond the rescues not getting homes, the adoptive "rejects" sure as heck aren't going to be rejected by the pet store or BYBers!

Exactly!

All three dogs we obtained after those experiences were from breeders. Fortunately, we were educated enough to go to good breeders, but so many people don't know better or don't have access to them. I plan to get most of my dogs in the future from breeders. I do want to adopt a couple, but have a really specific idea of what I want and will probably troll craigslist for someone ditching their elderly dog when I go to adopt, NOT go through a formal rescue.

 

[*blackrose]

Not all parents. This is where taking the time to do proper screening and education comes into play. It is extra work, but aren't the dogs worth it?

But hey, if you want to limit in that way it is your look out. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of good rescues that people with children can go to for a family pet.

Yup, exactly. We've always had a cat around since I was two years old (and not just a cat, but a kitten!) We got our first dog/puppy when I was five, my brother was seven, and my little twin siblings were just born.

Rush, our cat, made it through the birth of three kids and living with two toddlers.

Blackie, our dog, made it through two kids under the age of 8 and the birth of three more kids.

Those boys were my heart. I couldn't even imagine not growing up with them around. They lived their lives out to the fullest, even if at the time we weren't "ideal" dog owners. And to some we still aren't, because our yard isn't fenced and the dogs stay kenneled outside if it is nice out or we're going to be gone for a long period of time. Not to mention I don't vaccinate annually. Or we can be gone anywhere from 4-12 hours a day. And we *gasp* frequently have young children around.

But you try to tell me Blackie, Rush, Rose, or any of our animals would be happier or safer somewhere else, or they'd be better of put to sleep than be placed in my home? I'd laugh in your face.

I can't think of many people I know that conform to some of the standards set by rescue groups...but I can think of many people that own multiple dogs and take very good care of them. Sure, they may use invisible fencing, they may not feed the best foods, and they might not attend proffesional obedience classes...but the dogs are happy, healthy, and full of life and that is much better than being dead.

 

[SizzleDog]

(Disclaimer = I'm not speaking on behalf of the organization I volunteer with, these are my own thoughts)

Not all parents are careless- there are wonderful parents out there - but then who makes the decision what constitutes a "safe" home with infants versus a nonsafe home? What happens when Family A is allowed to adopt but Family B isn't, and Family B finds out and goes crazy on the rescue? Sure, some families miss out on a great dog - but there are tons of great dogs out there, with other shelters and rescue organizations without such strict guidelines.

As for Dobermans, this breed as a whole is extremely sensitive when it comes to the bond they have with their owners. They aren't a breed that is known for being "flexible and forgiving" when it comes to the amount and quality of contact and interaction they need with their people. Not all breeds are like this, not all breeds need their humans as much as they need oxygen - but this breed, in general, does need their humans wholly and completely. And because of that, it's very important that the homes they go to understand the unique needs of the breed and are prepared to do what is necessary to ensure a lifelong bond.

 

[Whisper]

I think PWC nailed it.
It's extremely important to make sure that a dog is going to a good home. That goes without saying. But some requirements are so ridiculous that a dog that might have had a home gets euthanized because the only person to apply to adopt it is 2 months away from turning 25, or their yard is a a little too small.

I personally know people who have started out with a big heart and good intentions, wanting to adopt a dog who needed them, but they were turned immediately away by a rescue for a small thing that they could fix, but were never given the chance to. So what does someone do? They want a dog. They might not know how to find a great breeder. Waiting and getting turned town often makes people turn to a pet store, a puppy mill, or a breeder who doesn't care where their pups go. They get a dog right away without getting shunned for no being a good enough owner. It is their responsibility to educate themselves, but that doesn't make the original rescue any less of an addition to the problem.
If people keep waiting for only the absolute best owners, like the educated people of Chaz, those dogs are going to waste away before owners are found.
Ideally, of course dogs would only go to the wonderful dog owners such as Chazzers, but it's not going to happen.
A loving home, maybe without a big yard, maybe not the best food, but with exercise, good vet care, a comfortable safe home. . .well, IMO, that's a hell of a lot better than dying alone on a cold metal table.

/rant

 

[SizzleDog]

PS - on most dogs we DO require an obedience deposit and proof that the dog is taken to an obedience class within 6 months of adoption.

 

[Brattina88]

Ideally, of course dogs would only go to the wonderful dog owners such as Chazzers, but it's not going to happen.

There has been a lot of chazzers who've been turned down for adoption, though


To answer the OP - 10% seems awfully low... It's not something I would brag about!! One out of every ten dogs... Which mean 9 of those are still stuck in the rescue, which also probably means dogs on death row are stuck where they are at, too
I could be wrong, but it seems these are also the type of rescues that are begging for foster homes because they're always full and turn those down, too...

I believe that as a rescuer your job is to also educate... If they are not approved for adoption, and its something that could be helped (by educating them) then why the heck not??? jmho

 

[ACooper]

Whoever used the word PRETENTIOUS was right on. Not just the policy, but the actual statement issued from the rescue!

Ok, you have a 'nobody under 25' rule, and a 'no kids under 10 rule'.........state that, I don't think those blanket rules are good, but if that's your policy...fine. But to add all that other 'high and mighty' stuff about the 'top 10%' and junk? PRETENTIOUS is the exact word. And no, I would not even submit an app for them whether I was assured of being accepted or not, just couldn't deal with those people.

I would also like to agree with Motherofmany about the kids policy. When we adopted Phoebe from the HS, I had a 6 month old baby, 3 y/o toddler, 6 y/o, 7 y/o, and 9 y/o as well. That was sort of the WHOLE POINT in getting a FAMILY dog..........we had a (albeit large) FAMILY! LOL We intentionally LOOKED for a FAMILY type dog. If we had put in an application on a dog the rescue/shelter didn't feel was a good 'family type' dog, instead of just flat turning us down they should TALK to the applicants and maybe steer them towards a dog they think would suit them better in hopes of meeting the needs of ALL involved........the dog and family alike *shrugs* Just a thought.

With the exception of the baby (now 11 years old) trying to eat from Phoebe's dog dish now and then when he was crawling, it's been a match made in heaven, LOL

 

[elegy]

Sure, some families miss out on a great dog - but there are tons of great dogs out there, with other shelters and rescue organizations without such strict guidelines.

my concern is more that some dogs are missing out on great families, and that those families are discouraged from rescuing and turn instead to the petstore or the family down the street who bred their family dog.

it just seems so counterproductive to what i assume is the rescue's goal- to save dogs.

 

[Sweet72947]

If we had put in an application on a dog the rescue/shelter didn't feel was a good 'family type' dog, instead of just flat turning us down they should TALK to the applicants and maybe steer them towards a dog they think would suit them better in hopes of meeting the needs of ALL involved........the dog and family alike *shrugs* Just a thought.

And that's what FOHA does. And we have a good adoption rate. We adopt to familes with children of all ages (although I've never, ever seen anyone bring a newborn). We really don't get many returns for jumping on kids or anything. We have had two returns this year for dog snapping at kids (one I could see snapping at a kid if the kid crawled on her or whatever, she's a little shy and has a low pain tolerance, I'm not sure who's bright idea it was to adopt her to a family with young kids. The other I never could figure it out, I did a million things to her and couldn't get one bit of aggression out of her). You can't ensure that you will NEVER get returns. Sometimes people are just morons. We had a dog adopted and then returned later the same week because she pooped on the floor and chewed up a leash.

Sometimes you just have to do your best to place the animals appropriately, and cross your fingers.

 

[crazy_paws]

(Disclaimer = I'm not speaking on behalf of the organization I volunteer with, these are my own thoughts)

Not all parents are careless- there are wonderful parents out there - but then who makes the decision what constitutes a "safe" home with infants versus a nonsafe home? What happens when Family A is allowed to adopt but Family B isn't, and Family B finds out and goes crazy on the rescue? Sure, some families miss out on a great dog - but there are tons of great dogs out there, with other shelters and rescue organizations without such strict guidelines.

As for Dobermans, this breed as a whole is extremely sensitive when it comes to the bond they have with their owners. They aren't a breed that is known for being "flexible and forgiving" when it comes to the amount and quality of contact and interaction they need with their people. Not all breeds are like this, not all breeds need their humans as much as they need oxygen - but this breed, in general, does need their humans wholly and completely. And because of that, it's very important that the homes they go to understand the unique needs of the breed and are prepared to do what is necessary to ensure a lifelong bond.

I agree with all that Sizzle has brought up.

And when I have fosters in my home, I'll keep them longer rather than go to an iffy home. If that makes me a horrid rescuer, I'm okay with that. I have to live with my decisions.

I think this particular rescue was trying to encourage applicants to be realistic. Because, yes, there are some people who go NUTS when a rescue is at all picky. They may have worded it over strongly, but perhaps they are a rescue of an uncommon, highly-in-demand breed, ie have fewer dogs available than homes wanting them.

 

[Brattina88]

they may have worded it over strongly, but perhaps they are a rescue of an uncommon, highly-in-demand breed, ie have fewer dogs available than homes wanting them.

good point.

 

[Upendi&Mina]

I looked up the rescue and I wouldn't go to them for many reasons, one of them including a $750 adoption fee. That's just plain outrageous.

 

[ACooper]

good point.

It's a yorkie rescue. So while they might be in 'high demand', they are most certainly not uncommon, in short supply, or dangerous breed in the wrong hands.

And ya, $750.00 'adoption' fee? Erm.......no, IMO that isn't 'saving' these dogs, it's SELLING THEM. I am the FIRST to understand costs, helping future rescues, etc etc..(check past threads)....but it seems to me, the adoption price along with their high falutin statement, they are attempting to make something akin to the 'designer dog' in that certain people can have 'bragging rights' for rescuing and more 'bragging rights with the big price tag/eliteness they so adore. IDK........jmo.