Animal Shelters in Crisis

[Pea-n-Me]

Here, they're shooting themselves in the proverbial foot by making it so hard to adopt. The county shelter is the only one that doesn't want veterinary references and a home visit and fees of several hundred dollars, and even with all that a lot of them have rules about what kind of fencing is okay (we were disqualified by one for having chain link), whether or not they'll adopt to families with children, etc. Then they cry about being full and post fundraisers and Amazon wish lists, but those same rescues *race* to the county shelters to adopt pretty much any non-pit bull dogs that come in, supposedly out of concern for the county's less strenuous vetting of adopters.

I think my favorite was the one that wouldn't qualify us to adopt the dog we were interested in because we have small animals (rabbits & cats; the dog in question was a lab-shepherd mix and apparently those have to go to dogs-only households) but then turned around and asked if we'd be willing to foster. So our household is adequate to care temporarily for dogs of unknown temperament but not to add a "forever" member of the family? Or the one that hosts the vaccine clinic we use for our indoor cats but won't adopt to us because we use their clinic to keep their shots up-to-date rather than taking the cats for full physicals when their shots are due.

We're currently looking to adopt a second dog and the county shelter recently shared an adoptable dogs post with one that perfectly met our criteria... medium size, young but not puppy, female, and of a breed we're familiar with. But it was snatched up by a breed-specific rescue within minutes of the shelter opening the day after the post. Two days later, the same dog is up for adoption on the rescue's Petfinder page for $450 (vs. the $125 the county charges).

This has been my experience over the years too. Why are the "rescue" groups allowed to do this? It is absolutely impossible to adopt anything other than pit-bull mixes directly from the shelter where I live because of this. Call me cynical, but IMHO, this only benefits the "rescue" groups, and not the pets nor the people looking to adopt them. FWIW - we adopted our cats from the shelter, but went to a breeder to get our dog. We didn't want a pit bull and couldn't get the rescue group to respond to our requests, and yes, this has happened multiple times over decades.

I can commiserate. For almost 20 yrs now I’ve had trouble getting a dog from rescues and we have the ideal home for one. I’ve found some of them to be super strict and almost militant at times. I won’t go into all the details as they’re too long, but some of our experiences include: our kids weren’t age 7 yet (they were five months shy); the dog was long adopted before they got back to me (often); they wouldn’t speak to me or answer questions unless I filled out a whole application (filled out about 60 or 70); once we had to leave a dog there that we about to go home with when it bit my older dog in the face, twice; we were lied to about whether a particular dog had lap aggression, thankfully the foster mom pulled my DH aside and told us the truth (the last two being little dog potential adoptions).

My niece adopted what she was told was a Lab that turned out to be mostly pit bull. (I could tell right away when I saw the dog and I imagine the shelter knew, too.) I had two sets of wheels I offered to let the rescue use and they never even responded back to me. The one I had the most trouble with was frustratingly difficult to deal with over email, it was like they were being deliberately obtuse. (Maybe they didn’t want to deal with me, idk; that’s all I could think of. For instance I said I was interested in a particular dog and they’d write back and say, “Let us know when you’re interested in a dog”. Wth.) Eventually I just stopped dealing with them.

Otoh, I think there can be expenses for certain breeds that justify an increased adoption fee. For instance most recently I was trying to adopt a German Shepherd Dog. Often GSDs in shelters and rescues come with issues, and they can be a problematic breed to own, so they often have to involve trainers and evaluators and they may need veterinary care as well as certain criteria from potential owners. Of course this all takes time and when dogs are in foster homes for an extended period, rescues still provide food and medical care, etc. The other dog I have is a Cairn Terrier. On occasion I see one on Petfinder and I will send the info to a friend who is heavily involved in the Cairn world. They may work to get the dog so they can place it in a good home with people who know the breed and may have been on a waiting list or something. (Grooming is a big piece of ownership with that breed and something people should know about going into it. How many times do we see dogs in shelters who are so overgrown and matted they can barely walk? Grooming also costs a lot today and that expense should be part of the overall picture of adopting a dog.)

So I sort of see both sides of it.

 

[Colleen27]

Luckily the two shelters near me I've donated to have all been very gracious in accepting donations, but I know every place is run differently and all have to deal with limited funding in creative ways. It probably helps that I live in a very rural area with the lowest population in the state and things are less bureaucratic - or maybe a little under the radar is a better way of putting it - than in more heavily populated areas.

And probably less "yuppie-fied". That's a big part of it here - private rescues are mostly pet projects of upper-middle and upper class individuals who want to make a difference, and their attitudes about things like used bedding or grocery store brand food shade their attitudes toward donations. I think that affects the approach to adoptions too, because if the person running the rescue has a "spare no expense" attitude toward her own "furbabies", she's not going to believe people with a more pragmatic/country/old-fashioned view are decent "pet parents".

And I know that people like to bash how expensive some adoption fees are, but they are a fraction of the cost of care. Heartworm testing, vaccines, spay/neuter, flea medication, deworming, FelV testing each adoptable pet adds up. Not to mention the cost of animals who need more extensive care. Our local shelter has achieved no kill status (adopts out 95% of intake), and they will do much more extensive veterinary care such as heartworm treatment, eye removal, limb amputation, fracture repairs, etc. Some fees are higher to weed people out who maybe can’t afford the commitment that is needed for the cost of a pet.

And honestly if you aren’t taking your current pets in for yearly exams (which they should have every year since I doubt any one on this thread is palpating their pets lymph nodes and abdomen, performing a retinal exam to look for hidden signs of hypertension, or performing thoracic auscultation) and they are not on appropriate parasite control and up to date on vaccinations, then the rescue assumes that you won’t take appropriate care of a new pet since that’s the history they have to go on. I have no problems with them denying someone for these reasons. The veterinary references I have filled out are basic—what pets does the family have, are they up to date on vaccines and parasite control, do they bring their pets in for yearly exams which is required to have an established veterinary-client-patient relationship, have you see any signs of neglect, etc.

That last point in your first paragraph is absolutely true, and absolutely something I have a problem with. Over the last 20-odd years as a pet owner, I've seen this shift toward believing only people who are willing and able to absorb vet bills in the thousands to preserve the life of a suffering animal deserve to be pet owners, and I think that's just awful. There's nothing wrong with a pet having a good life for many years but not being screened for hypertension or having access to Xanax to deal with fireworks or being subjected to surgery-and-medication to live a little longer with chronic illness.

And that kind of ties in to my feelings about veterinary care. I've had pets most of my life, some of which lived to exceptional ages (my childhood dog made it to 19) and some that we lost too soon (my favorite lab-mutt developed cancer at 7). In both of those cases, we had to deal with pushy vets encouraging surgery and aggressive treatment when in both cases I felt it would be cruel to subject the animal to that course. I actually "broke up with" our family vet over the latter situation after he was less than accepting of our decision, rooted in both my views about quality of life and our financial situation, not to spend $4700 on a surgery he said Lady had a "fair chance" of surviving and which would have required daily medication and follow up care for the rest of her life. We found our current vet through 4H and adore her; she's an animal lover but doesn't confuse them with people, and doesn't require our constant presence in her office to consider us established patients. Our pets have good lives, all but the show bunnies are fixed, they're up to date on vaccines (we occasionally get bats in the house - I wouldn't dare let even our strictly indoor cats fall behind on their shots!), the dog and cats are on parasite prevention, and they're a generally spoiled bunch because my youngest is a true animal lover. But they go to the doctor when we have reason for concern, not just because.

 

[disneyseniors]

This has been my experience over the years too. Why are the "rescue" groups allowed to do this? It is absolutely impossible to adopt anything other than pit-bull mixes directly from the shelter where I live because of this. Call me cynical, but IMHO, this only benefits the "rescue" groups, and not the pets nor the people looking to adopt them. FWIW - we adopted our cats from the shelter, but went to a breeder to get our dog. We didn't want a pit bull and couldn't get the rescue group to respond to our requests, and yes, this has happened multiple times over decades.

That's all true, and very sad for the animals. Our shelter charges a lot to adopt, and they mostly have pit bulls or pit hybrids. And like you, we are not interested in that breed. We need a small lap dog at our age that we can pick up and take to the vet, etc.

 

[Moliphino]

And probably less "yuppie-fied". That's a big part of it here - private rescues are mostly pet projects of upper-middle and upper class individuals who want to make a difference, and their attitudes about things like used bedding or grocery store brand food shade their attitudes toward donations. I think that affects the approach to adoptions too, because if the person running the rescue has a "spare no expense" attitude toward her own "furbabies", she's not going to believe people with a more pragmatic/country/old-fashioned view are decent "pet parents".



That last point in your first paragraph is absolutely true, and absolutely something I have a problem with. Over the last 20-odd years as a pet owner, I've seen this shift toward believing only people who are willing and able to absorb vet bills in the thousands to preserve the life of a suffering animal deserve to be pet owners, and I think that's just awful. There's nothing wrong with a pet having a good life for many years but not being screened for hypertension or having access to Xanax to deal with fireworks or being subjected to surgery-and-medication to live a little longer with chronic illness.

And that kind of ties in to my feelings about veterinary care. I've had pets most of my life, some of which lived to exceptional ages (my childhood dog made it to 19) and some that we lost too soon (my favorite lab-mutt developed cancer at 7). In both of those cases, we had to deal with pushy vets encouraging surgery and aggressive treatment when in both cases I felt it would be cruel to subject the animal to that course. I actually "broke up with" our family vet over the latter situation after he was less than accepting of our decision, rooted in both my views about quality of life and our financial situation, not to spend $4700 on a surgery he said Lady had a "fair chance" of surviving and which would have required daily medication and follow up care for the rest of her life. We found our current vet through 4H and adore her; she's an animal lover but doesn't confuse them with people, and doesn't require our constant presence in her office to consider us established patients. Our pets have good lives, all but the show bunnies are fixed, they're up to date on vaccines (we occasionally get bats in the house - I wouldn't dare let even our strictly indoor cats fall behind on their shots!), the dog and cats are on parasite prevention, and they're a generally spoiled bunch because my youngest is a true animal lover. But they go to the doctor when we have reason for concern, not just because.

Pet owners should be able to afford vet care and sometimes that means spending a lot of money. There are plenty of medical issues that are entirely fixable that will cost you thousands of dollars. One of my dogs needed surgery for bladder stones and laryngeal tieback surgery (years apart)*. Rescues don't want dogs dumped back on them or put to sleep when these situations arise.

*We did have to have this dog put to sleep years later at 16.5 when she had a fractured hip and they found a tumor on her leg bone. Our vet did not push extraordinary measures when was little hope of a good outcome.

 

[Mango7100]

And probably less "yuppie-fied". That's a big part of it here - private rescues are mostly pet projects of upper-middle and upper class individuals who want to make a difference, and their attitudes about things like used bedding or grocery store brand food shade their attitudes toward donations. I think that affects the approach to adoptions too, because if the person running the rescue has a "spare no expense" attitude toward her own "furbabies", she's not going to believe people with a more pragmatic/country/old-fashioned view are decent "pet parents".



That last point in your first paragraph is absolutely true, and absolutely something I have a problem with. Over the last 20-odd years as a pet owner, I've seen this shift toward believing only people who are willing and able to absorb vet bills in the thousands to preserve the life of a suffering animal deserve to be pet owners, and I think that's just awful. There's nothing wrong with a pet having a good life for many years but not being screened for hypertension or having access to Xanax to deal with fireworks or being subjected to surgery-and-medication to live a little longer with chronic illness.

And that kind of ties in to my feelings about veterinary care. I've had pets most of my life, some of which lived to exceptional ages (my childhood dog made it to 19) and some that we lost too soon (my favorite lab-mutt developed cancer at 7). In both of those cases, we had to deal with pushy vets encouraging surgery and aggressive treatment when in both cases I felt it would be cruel to subject the animal to that course. I actually "broke up with" our family vet over the latter situation after he was less than accepting of our decision, rooted in both my views about quality of life and our financial situation, not to spend $4700 on a surgery he said Lady had a "fair chance" of surviving and which would have required daily medication and follow up care for the rest of her life. We found our current vet through 4H and adore her; she's an animal lover but doesn't confuse them with people, and doesn't require our constant presence in her office to consider us established patients. Our pets have good lives, all but the show bunnies are fixed, they're up to date on vaccines (we occasionally get bats in the house - I wouldn't dare let even our strictly indoor cats fall behind on their shots!), the dog and cats are on parasite prevention, and they're a generally spoiled bunch because my youngest is a true animal lover. But they go to the doctor when we have reason for concern, not just because.

As a veterinarian, this is a problem for our field. Clients think that vets just push yearly exams and screenings because they want to make money. we just do it for kicks or we are bored. And it’s absolutely false. Why do I recommend yearly exams? Because it’s the best care for your pet. Believe it or not, there are tons of things that can be discovered on exams and bloodwork that you may be able to treat if caught early enough and can improve the quality of life for a pet. So yes, pets can live long years without being screened for hypertension. But if I screen your pet for it, they have it, we can get them on medications for it, and maybe avoid them going blind or developing kidney failure because of it. If I screen a cat with yearly blood work and find early kidney disease, I can change their diet to help slow progression of the disease. I can help them early in the course of disease—I can’t do much if they are in end stage kidney disease and so far gone that euthanasia is the only humane choice. I can give them meds for fireworks instead of letting them be terrified and think the world is ending. There are plenty of pets that have been subjected to surgery and medication to live a longer and happier life with chronic illness.

It’s my job to be the pets advocate and tell people the truth, whether they want to hear it or not. I will tell you the medically recommended plan, and if they elect to not do that (for whatever reason), we move to plan B. But I will also tell you why plan B isn't as good and what risks you are assuming. There are some cases where I have told families that we could do surgery/chemo/etc but I don’t think the benefit outweighs the risk and we move to palliative care. A dog that has no pain sensation in its back legs due to disc rupture and has a poor prognosis—no, I’m not going to recommend surgery because the benefit is so small. I have literally counseled hundreds if not a thousand families on euthanasia decisions. I’m not saying you have to spend thousands and thousands of dollars all the time. But on the flip side, I have seen so many people get a pet, not be able to afford any care, and then yell at me for “not really loving animals” because I can’t treat them for free. But we don’t recommend things “just because”. Vets get so much verbal abuse from clients—we only do it for the money, if we loved animals we would do it for free, people don’t listen to any recommendation because they “researched” on the internet or talked to a breeder, why can’t we fix their pet even though they didn’t follow one single recommendation we have made, etc. And that’s why the vet field is shrinking and why vets have a much higher suicide rate than other professions.

 

[MamaMermaid]

It's such a shame some rescues make it SO HARD to adopt an animal. We've been denied because we didn't have a fence (yet my husband worked from home and could/would walk the dog anytime), because we had to return an animal to the shelter that was aggressive with my toddler, etc.

My heart breaks for these animals.

 

[mumto3girls]

It's such a shame some rescues make it SO HARD to adopt an animal. We've been denied because we didn't have a fence (yet my husband worked from home and could/would walk the dog anytime), because we had to return an animal to the shelter that was aggressive with my toddler, etc.

My heart breaks for these animals.

Yes, we found out very quickly that we were not considered “suitable” pet owners because we don’t have a fence. Actually we do have a fence, but it’s a split rail (installed by the previous owner) and would do nothing to keep a dog in the yard. So we got our dog from a breeder. She’s almost 11 and fine without a fence. We take her out in the morning, right before bed, before we leave the house and when we get home plus anytime she scratches at the door. We take her out on a leash. Works for us.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm kind of torn on the debate here. We do spend rather a lot on vet care for our cats. (In fact, our little one is currently being switched to a renal support diet due to some screening tests.) So I get that people should be aware up front of the potential costs.

But I would also much rather see a cat given to a family that maybe can't afford all the extras, but can provide a safe and affectionate home, rather than that cat being euthanized because the shelter is too crowded.

 

[Skywalker3]

We are blessed with a wonderful shelter in our county. They recently opened a very nice, much needed upgraded facility. We've adopted 5 cats from there over the years, and just recently, took in a stray, and the shelter has a wonderful kitten spay/neuter program. We've not tried to adopt a dog yet from them, though, so not sure how that process works. Maybe in the coming years.

 

[mom2rtk]

I'm kind of torn on the debate here. We do spend rather a lot on vet care for our cats. (In fact, our little one is currently being switched to a renal support diet due to some screening tests.) So I get that people should be aware up front of the potential costs.

But I would also much rather see a cat given to a family that maybe can't afford all the extras, but can provide a safe and affectionate home, rather than that cat being euthanized because the shelter is too crowded.

And that’s a critical piece of this discussion. As long as pets are being euthanized in shelters we need to be careful not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[TippyThomas]

I'm kind of torn on the debate here. We do spend rather a lot on vet care for our cats. (In fact, our little one is currently being switched to a renal support diet due to some screening tests.) So I get that people should be aware up front of the potential costs.

But I would also much rather see a cat given to a family that maybe can't afford all the extras, but can provide a safe and affectionate home, rather than that cat being euthanized because the shelter is too crowded.

It's really sad because we've always prided ourselves in being a no-kill shelter unless health reasons existed that made it necessary. We've unfortunately had to euthanize more animals the last few months than we've had in years, and health was not the reason for its use. I honestly don't know how difficult our adopting process is, but I have a feeling they've been lowering the standards lately just to give some of the animals a chance. Also, a large percentage of our dogs are pit mixes that many are afraid to home. I hope things improve but I honestly think this is going to be a long term problem. I agree with you though, I'd much rather see these animals in less than perfect homes compared to how some of them are living at the shelter or how some of them had ended up euthanized for no other reason than we had no room for them. I wish I knew the answer to fix the problem.

 

[TwoMisfits]

And that’s a critical piece of this discussion. As long as pets are being euthanized in shelters we need to be careful not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This x 1000.