It's all just too much anymore. We seriously need a good pandemic. Preferably one that targets those who think they know better than ANYone else what's good for EVERYbody else.

The human race? We're seriously fucked. You know that, right? As a rule I don't presume to know much of ANYthing, but I do know that.

Another Skenazy thing.

What's good about that kid and her "people friends" like the Chinese lady is that she is not doing what too many kids do these days -- spending their lives only in their peer group and amongst their peer group's parents.

I have the Chatty Broad Gene, as Gregg would probably call it, and I got it from my mother. She talked to everyone and exposed me to a lot of older adults on a regular basis when I went with her to her class at temple on Saturdays (where a lot of people would argue about passages in the Bible).

If I could, and if my neighbors could, we'd have them build a co-housing situation. (This would be introvert Gregg's nightmare on some level, as he prefers people when they are nowhere to be seen, but I'd build him a separate entrance -- a bat cave sort of thing.) Anyway, the idea would be for five or so households to be in a shared space. Separate houses but a community with older people, people with kids, etc. People who are different from each other.

This has been very good, I think, for my little neighbor Lilly, who is 8 now -- living on the same lot with me, a woman with no children. We actually have the same style and I find her filled with charm and joy and love bringing her things (like the little salt shakers that were plastic replicas of wooden shoes), and she leaves me "I love you!" pictures. Awww. Melts my tiny lump of coal heart. Talking to her and hanging with her and her brother reminds me of what it's like to be a kid, and to not lose my sense of kiddishness. Also, it makes me be nice when they are irritating as hell, like when they play the recorder. I've found that instead of asking them to stop, I can go out and distract them with something to get them to do it. Tricky bitch, me.

"It's all just too much anymore. We seriously need a good pandemic."

Pandemic, hell. Some people just need to be shot. An animal shelter that is ultra-picky about who adopts, when they are going to wind up gassing most of the animals that they have anyway? OK, I get that they don't want to give out animals to people who are going to abuse them, and I approve of that much. But no dog parks? Really? Really?

My husband and I have run into "rescues" that want to do pre-adoption home inspections and have contracts stating, among other things, that after the adoption they can drop in unannounced at any time and take the dog back if they don't like what they see. WHAT?

I love my dogs, but they are dogs. They'll do fine if left alone, even outside in my backyard which has a 6 foot block fence. Not that I ever do that for longer than it takes them to poop and have a good run, but if I wanted to, I don't want some whacked out animal crusader treating me like I'm Michael Vick.

I've been saying that for decades

I don't adopt from rescue organizations anymore. They want applications that take hours to complete, a promise to give up your house, job, and retirement if the dog becomes sick, videos of your home, mandatory visits, etc. On top of that, submit all the info and they probably won't even call you back. I will go to the city or county shelters, I will buy from legitimate breeders, I will take in strays, etc., but I won't jump through the rescues' hoops.

I've submitted comments to several rescue organizations about their practices. Petfinder once posted a survey looking for ideas on recruiting more people to adopt from rescues. They don't want to hear the truth. They're too busy blowing smoke up their asses about their nobility to see the absurdity of their requirements.

Christ. The shelters would have had a cow that I recently left my two cats home alone for nearly two weeks with nothing but plenty of food and water, a comfortable apartment and someone to check on them every few days.

Also, we call them furry little retards. That's probably emotionally abusive.

Yeah, I'd rather pay several hundred dollars for a dog from a breeder than deal with some of the hoops some of the rescue groups want you to go through. It seems like the breed-specific groups are the worst. If I don't know you, you're not coming to my house.

If I could, and if my neighbors could, we'd have them build a co-housing situation. (This would be introvert Gregg's nightmare on some level, as he prefers people when they are nowhere to be seen, but I'd build him a separate entrance -- a bat cave sort of thing.) Anyway, the idea would be for five or so households to be in a shared space. Separate houses but a community with older people, people with kids, etc. People who are different from each other.

Here in the Pacific Northwest we call that a trailer park.

The co-housing reminds me of something not really related, but interesting. A Jesuit priest in Africa (Kenya if I recall, and he's now deceased) organized an orphanage for HIV+ kids. He spoke a lot at committees, etc., and explained that traditionally when kids lose parents, other family members step-in; however, with the AIDS epidemic, people were dying so quickly that the orphans had no family left, or those left were too overwhelmed to take them in, or the stigma made the orphans pariahs.

He built this orphanage, obtained medications for the orphans, set-up housing that included traditional African elements with house-moms and aunts, and when I last checked several years ago, it had been more than one year since an orphan in his care had succumbed to AIDS.

He was trying to implement another idea, and I don't know if he succeeded. Basically a village comprised of orphans and the elderly, who are also losing their safety net when their adult children are dying. The elderly provide knowledge, guidance, etc., and the kids do a lot of the physical work the elderly can't really do anymore. He wanted the villages to be self-sustaining. I thought it was a great idea.

In the last year my dog Wally has been twice porcupined, kicked by a moose, and brought home many antlers, and even a dead barn owl. He has free reign over an entire mountain, and he's probably the happiest dog alive. He gets to be a dog and has a loyal human to take him to the vet.

http://imgur.com/0OBuB

Some rescues are ridiculous and go way too far in their adoption requirements in my opinion. But I do think, to adopt a dog, you should have to jump through some hoops, as it were. I volunteer for a shelter, and people complain all the time about how "stringent" our requirements are. But they're really not that bad. What we require:

-Permission from the landlord if you rent. This can be a signed written statement, or the adoption counselor will happily call the landlord/property management company to obtain permission.

-A copy of any paperwork showing your HOA's breed restrictions.

-Recommendations from your vet if you have one. If you have several dogs already and don't want to provide your vet's contact info to us, that's a red flag that those dogs aren't spayed or neutered and that you are adopting this dog to breed (and thus fill our shelter with more dogs).

-A get-acquainted meeting at the shelter observed by a staff member if you have another pet or small child in the house. Yes, you think your kid "knows how to behave around dogs," and that your dog "gets along with all dogs." But you don't know how they'll get along with this specific dog you want to adopt.

We also ask tons and tons and tons of questions people consider nosy (about where they live, how often they're home, the hours they work, if small children visit, etc.). We may quiz you on dog body language and dog health issues and obedience training find out how experienced you are with dogs, especially if we know a dog needs an experienced owner. And, on the basis of your answers, we may not adopt to you.

It may seem counter-intuitive to make things "difficult" to adopt, when so many dogs need a home. But what we're trying to do is to make sure you really want the dog, and that the dog is a good fit -- so that the dog you adopt will not get returned. Because, if it gets returned, that goes on its record. And if "return" is on its record it's 1000x harder to adopt that dog to another family. These dogs' lives depend on us getting it right the first time.

I don't want some whacked out animal crusader treating me like I'm Michael Vick.

Well, if they want to pay me $20 million a year...

Eric, Wally is a handsome animal. What a great life for a dog!

@Sofar,

Your post is a perfect example of a bureaucracy, that in striving for a perfect solution, shoots itself in the foot, and probably ends up with fewer dogs adopted.

A lot of people have very little patience with getting the third degree, and steer away from rescue agencies because of our libertarian tendencies. The people most likely to put up with your intrusive list of questions, are two sets of people, true believers in your do gooder mission, and those who do not have the money to go elsewhere.

Just out of curiosity if a dog is brought back for a trivial reason, that is not something dangerous that he would be put down for, who made the rule that it has to be "on his record"?
Sounds to me like a case of circular reasoning...

When it is more difficult to adopt a pet, than it is to conceive, give birth to, and retain custody of your own biological child, it is pretty clear that the pet adoption process is off the rails.

@Isab

Hey, I see your point, but we have a 95% LIVE outcome rate, so clearly, we're doin' something right. :) If you are familiar with shelters, you'll know that that's stellar.

Turns out, putting so much effort into the adoption process actually creates LESS work (aka bureaucracy) for us in the long run. Returned dogs are a pain in the ass for all involved. For one thing, we have to re-admit the dog, perform health inspections (again), try to interview the owner to find out why they brought the dog back (to see if it poses danger), and then monitor the dog's behavior to see if the former owner's complaints are accurate (people often lie about growling, biting and food aggression to make themselves feel less guilty about returning a dog). That all takes time and money. Plus, it's confusing as hell for dogs to be homed, get attached to a family, and then get returned -- and they often start showing behavioral problems because of it, again making them less adoptable.

Just out of curiosity if a dog is brought back for a trivial reason, that is not something dangerous that he would be put down for, who made the rule that it has to be "on his record"?
Sounds to me like a case of circular reasoning

Great question! The trivial offenses you're talking about generally include things like being an escape artist (jumping fences or digging under them), eating shoes, having a rough play-style, going to the bathroom indoors, and being really good at stealing food. We absolutely put those things on the dog's record, along with a notation that it was observed by a former owner who returned the dog because of it. If we aren't honest and upfront, someone else will adopt the dog and return it for the same reason, and the cycle continues -- now THAT'S what *I* call "circular."

Sure, it sucks for the returned dog (who now has to wait for an owner who is willing to adopt a high-maintenance dog). But, if we warn the customer about a dog's issues upfront, they'll simply move on to an easier dog they're more likely to actually keep, whereas unhappy customers who return dogs to us almost NEVER adopt from us again. So it's pretty simple: making sure an adoption is successful the first time means fewer dogs in the shelter over the long term. Quick, half-assed adoptions might mean some empty cages for a few days, but more full ones in the long-run.

Also...in my years of volunteering, I've noticed the people who balk at our "annoying" questions are the most likely to return dogs (My theory is that boils down to a lack of patience and a need for instant gratification).

I won't adopt a dog for the simple fact that I spend only 11 hours at home 3-4 days a week.

sofar,

Your facility sounds about reasonable on animal adoption. But the rescue facilities are ridiculous.

Especially helicopter parenting animals. A beagle can probably rip the crap out of a human before they can really stop it. But it isn't their style.

"Also...in my years of volunteering, I've noticed the people who balk at our "annoying" questions are the most likely to return dogs (My theory is that boils down to a lack of patience and a need for instant gratification)."

Possibly, but you will never know how many people avoid your shelter all together because they don't want to deal with the hassle.

My daughter worked at a county animal shelter, and it was heartbreaking. My husband bottle fed new born kittens every two hours to keep them alive because sending them home with employees was the only way they stood a chance. It is the reason I now have two extra cats.

Possibly, but you will never know how many people avoid your shelter all together because they don't want to deal with the hassle.

Well, if someone considers it a hassle to fill out some paperwork, get their landlord's permission, and answer some questions for 15 minutes to ensure the dog they want is a good fit for their lifestyle ...then I don't think they are cut out for owning a living creature that will eat your favorite shoes for fun and puke them up on your pillow and then eat the puke.

It is the reason I now have two extra cats.

Yay! Once I'm out of a one-bedroom apartment situation (and my landlord's ridiculous breed restrictions), I can't wait to acquire a few extra animals.

But the rescue facilities are ridiculous.
@Jim P
Yeah, I've seen some pet adoption counselors at rescues handle things so poorly -- and be super snooty about it. I think the trick is to have the attitude of helping a person find the right pet and tactfully tell them when a dog might be too high-energy for them. But some rescue groups (especially those specializing in popular breeds) see themselves as bouncers who will laugh off a family for being too poor, for not knowing which expensive brand of dog food is superior, and for not already being on the waiting list for the most posh puppy obedience school.

I've seen many cases of people buying dogs from breeders because they don't want to go through the adoption process or because they want a pure bred dog, and then deciding they don't want the dog anymore for whatever reason and getting rid of it. Pets should NEVER be an impulse buy or bought as a gift for someone else but unfortunately, are sometimes. People who don't have the patience or knowledge to take care of one shouldn't have them (I'd say that about children too but that's another story). Those pets are often the ones dumped at shelters. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone wanting to adopt a dog to have to meet a minimum level of requirements. If it keeps an animal from being returned or put down needlessly, and the shelter from becoming over-croweded, what's the problem?
I don't think it's responsible to allow people to adopt pets just because they want one. It's not only irresponsible, it's dangerous. If they don't know how to handle a potentially aggresive dog, someone is going to get hurt.
Do I think some shelters act a little 'uppity'?... Yes. But I think I almost prefer that over a shelter that barely bothers to learn your name.

Now, this isn't to say that even the best run shelters aren't going to have problem adopters. If someone wants a dog bad enough, they'll find a way to get one, even if that means lying. There's no way to tell if someone is feeding you a line of shit at the time if they check out on paper and answer everything the way they are "supossed" too. So, I guess, in some ways, the process can be counter-productive but it's better than nothing I suppose.

This may sound harsh and cruel, but no one who is on government assistance should have pets. I am not talking about earned benefits such as social security or retirements.
What I am talking about is ssdi, afdc, welfare, medicaid. If you can't ever meet your own needs, without the aid of the government, you sure don't have the money to support a pet. Volunteer for a shelter, or rescue agency if you want contact with animals, but don't sign up for the obligations of owning one yourself.

Isab: "This may sound harsh and cruel, but no one who is on government assistance should have pets..."

Right you are. I used to live in a rural area where some families living on welfare and food stamps owned as many as 10 dogs.

Also, living in a rural area does not mean you can let your dog roam free. Prospective dog adopters who believe otherwise should be rejected.

In a rural neighborhood I used to live in there were three dogs that were always free at night, and they repeatedly attacked my neighbor's chickens. When he complained to the dogs' owners they denied that it was their dogs that did it. Late on the night that they killed the last of his 36 chickens he shot all three of them.

Another woman had a large black dog that was extremely aggressive. When she was away from home she kept it tied on a long rope outside her front door. It frequently broke the rope and went after any child it saw. When the dog was loose it roamed the neighborhood and everyone, especially small children, had to stay indoors. Complaining to the owner only got an angry reaction. One day the dog attacked and seriously bit an 8-year-old girl. When her dad got home he ran the dog over and killed it.

One neighbor had a German shepherd that was allowed to run free. It attacked and bit my daughter when she rode her bicycle past their house. I complained to the neighbor, and his response was that I should keep my kids "in the house where they belonged." The dog went after my daughter another time and frightened her, but didn't seriously hurt her. I complained again and got a response similar to the first time, so I told the neighbor if his dog attacked one of my girls again I would shoot it. He told me if I tried to shoot his dog he would shoot me. I complained to animal control, as did several other neighbors who had problems with other people's animals, but that was ineffective. A few days later the dog came onto my street and attacked my daughter as she rode her bicycle in front of my house. That time the bite, though not real serious, drew blood. I went over to the dog owner's house and shot the dog on his front porch. I never saw the neighbor or his wife or little boy again. A few days later the house was empty. What else should I have done?

I'm in favor of screening prospective dog owners. Some seem to have less intelligence and common sense than the animals they want to adopt.

Just went through this last month.

First a lot of shelter employees have leeway to stall an adoption. which I whole heartily support. When we were adopting our first dog from the local muni shelter a mom (use the term loosely) came in with 3 unruly kids. They kept wanting to adopt a kitten, mainly cause two of the idiots she bore into this world wanted to. She had already returned a kitten because she couldn't afford a vet. The shelter person gave her the 3rd degree and blocked the adoption. We were there same shelter same employee I was in my blue collar Sunday finest no problem. Just asked if we would take our doggy to the vet if he got sick. No third degree no threat of house visit. Almost laughed at the women as her and her hoard marched out crying. Fuck em no pity.

Breed specific organizations are a fucking nightmare. In truth I really doubt they have any desire to adopt out a dog to anyone that's not a member. It feels like a free pure breeds for us organization. Tried with saints tried with Newfoundland dogs. They both pretty much said I had to join the organization and be a member for a given amount of time to be considered. This included multiple events I was expected to volunteer at. It's one thing to reduce the financial incentive to adopt. I see exotic (expensive) birds adopted just to be sold at a profit. Always to idiots that can not take care of the bird. But requiring significant outlay AND slave labor is bullshit. I sat down and figured out that time plus money I could buy a pure breed puppy and donate enough to save 20 shelter animals. Now not all are like that but any that host sought after expensive dogs tend to become this fairly quickly. Just like how HSUS went from an animal welfare organization to a PETA front. Their magazine has vegan everything.

Now my current doggy and why I do support strict but reasonable adoption standards. I just got a papered St. Bernard from the local municipal shelter. She was there because her half lit degenerate owners kept her locked in the house for 2 years unspade and completely unsoclized. As a result she has some issues that need work. The shelter made sure she went with someone that had the time, space and money to fix them. I had to sign an affidavit promising not to tie her up in the back yard. Gladly as the area I live in has dog fighting issues. As a gentle giant she'd make a great training dog for some welfare degenerate (human). She pulls (dick cheese owners again) so someone that can physically hold her when need be. Also the obvious issue of feeding her. Main reason saints get returned is the same idiot that spent 2k on a dog can't afford to spend 2-3K per year to feed, just feed one of these giants. Which these semi lits apparently didn't get so she was also 30 lbs under and stunted.

I have never bought a cat or dog and I can't see ever doing so.

Hubby wants a German Shorthair Pointer. I have a friend who does GSH rescue and referred us to one, so we applied (TONS of paperwork, provided references, two phone interviews). Drove 45 miles north into WI to meet what appeared to be the ideal dog for us. Professional photo, sparkling description, etc. Within the first three minutes I KNEW that if I brought the dog home, my husband would have shot it out of mercy. The dog didn't bark or yip or whine, it SCREAMED incessantly. The foster that was keeping him had all of his stuff packed up even though I reiterated on the phone that it was just to meet the dog. She was furious that I wasn't taking him. I called my friend on the way home as my kids were crying in the backseat. My friend said it sounded like a brain parasite that could be possibly cleared up for between $500-$1000. Not a gamble I was prepared to take, adopting an expensive screaming psychotic dog. Haven't looked for a dog since.

We tried to get a german sheperd from a rescue group here. Filled out the application, had the phone interview, then the home visit and in person interview. We were turned down because they "didn't think I had enough time to devote to a dog". Excuse me, I don't work and wasn't in school then. Who in the f-ing workd had more time at home, except maybe a trust fund kid?

I think a lot of these people are animal hoarders using a nicer title for themselves. Have 15 dogs? hoarder. Have 15 dogs and call yourself a rescue? You're a saint.

Just because you are rural and poor doesn't mean you can't have a dog or cat. In true rural america and elsewhere, the cats catch their dinner and the dogs eat scraps. Better than being gassed. And there are plenty of private lowcost veterinary services, although even if a pet never sees a vet past the rabies shot, it's still a better life than no life.

"In true rural america and elsewhere, the cats catch their dinner..."

There is no ecology lab on the planet that advises this. If you let your domestic dog or cat roam, you are killing the native wildlife every bit as much as the poacher you may deplore.

Do not be or remain an idiot. Control your pets. If they show up out here in the sticks, they will be killed instantly because of the above.

" Excuse me, I don't work and wasn't in school then. Who in the f-ing workd had more time at home, except maybe a trust fund kid? "

Oh gee fucking wiz 4 kids might be the fucking problem. Also if they were close in age the obvious assumption is you'd keep breeding like a bunny.

"although even if a pet never sees a vet past the rabies shot, it's still a better life than no life."

God almighty being that fucking stupid has to be painful. No dieing slowly of any number of condition is not better then being put to sleep.

"Just because you are rural and poor doesn't mean you can't have a dog or cat."

Then go get a cat or dog from the local shelter not a pure breed from a rescue.

A bit late, but I'd just like to add to what sofar said. I volunteered at two different shelters over the course of two years. Part of my duties was talking to visitors, and I can't count how many of them would say "I just want a dog that I can put in my front yard as a guard dog." And then the dog would be returned, because the family didn't interact at all with it, so it didn't have any reason to protect them or their belongings. Yes, the application process can be a bit tedious and some organizations go overboard with the vetting (hah), but it is situations like this that is the reason for the process.

"Do not be or remain an idiot. Control your pets. If they show up out here in the sticks, they will be killed instantly because of the above."

Not only that, your cat or dog may end up as a coyote's dinner in many parts of the US. I remember several incidences when I lived in Colorado where pet dogs were snatched out of people's yards by mountain lions as well.

"Hey, I see your point, but we have a 95% LIVE outcome rate, so clearly, we're doin' something right. :) If you are familiar with shelters, you'll know that that's stellar."

Of course, if you are now doing 100 annual placements at 95%, rather than 1,000 at 85%, you see how your rate is pretty pathetic, don't you?

In short, you would be letting the near perfect be the enemy of the very good.