Trouble finding a rescue

[JLSOhio51]

Being a "rules kind of guy", I support a rescue's right (and responsibility)to make rules for its organization. It has, however, been my experience that organizations that refuse to occasionally revisit the rules, no matter the circumstances, are about the organization and not the product (in this case, the product is the pup). That doesn't mean that the rules are wrong or that they have to change, only that every dog and every client deserves every effort to find a good home.

Efficiently developing rules for any situation allows for the potential that not every client will fit the desired (or expected) mold, but they may make a good fit none the less. I am not saying that a rescue must change its rules, only that a refusal to at least consider a potential client suggests that its not about the perfect home for the homeless pup, its about the rescue organization. For that reason, my personal search for a pup includes only a cursory level of research of rescue organizations.​

 

[Sheltie4]

I will jump in on this thread and address the fence requirement from a rescue perspective.

Our organization learned our lesson the hard way, after placing dogs in new homes whose owner's let them run loose. (Although our adoption contract states that dogs must always be on a leash, if not in a fenced area.)

After spending much time, money and worrying, trying to recapture loose dogs . . . and scraping the remains off the road of the unlucky ones, we added the fence requirement. Almost all of the dogs who have run off after being adopted, were placed less than 30 days earlier and they almost always head towards their former foster home.

Another consideration for apartment living, is whether the dog might be a "barker". The vocal dogs would not be appreciated by their neighbors in a home with shared walls.

The bottom line, is that we know the temperaments and habits of our foster dogs, so are in a good position to determine the best type of home.

And yes, we have placed a few dogs into apartments and homes without fenced yards. And yes, they are normally older, quieter dogs.

 

[Jess041]

I am in an apartment and one of the reasons I didn't even bother with going through a rescue organization was because I felt that I would be turned down because of my work schedule (8-5, M-F, pretty normal) and because I was in an apartment without a yard. Something I didn't realize until AFTER I got Missy was that my apartment complex has about an acre of fenced in grass area that you can take your dog to run around off leash. It's actually meant to be a detention basin for flooding, but it never fills up with water. In the year and a half I've had Missy, it's only had one little corner with water, and it's surrounded by plants so she never goes near it. I asked my Apartment Manager if I could take her in there and they said no problem, anyone can use it. It's great because I can take the chuck-it and/or a Frisbee out there and let her run around for a while and play and I don't have to worry about her running off.

There's at least 2 potential problems that I can think of with having a sheltie in an apartment. The first one is you don't have a yard, so it's your responsibility to make sure you dog gets adequate exercise. I am lucky to have the fenced in area to let my dog run to her hearts content. Those without a fenced in area will have to be diligent about walking their dog or taking them to parks or whatever they need to do to make sure their dog gets the exercise they need. Otherwise that's when you have behavior problems or overweight shelties. The second problem is the potential for barking. Shelties are known barkers, and barking dogs and apartments don't really go well. A rescue doesn't want to see a dog come back because it barked too much. Of course those things can be problems for people in houses too.

 

[JLSOhio51]

Jess041:

Your post points out the very reason that I say, whatever the reason for the rescue's rules, the admins. should look at every potential client as a possible point of placement for their puppies. I do not think that they should necessarily change their rules, only that each situation should be studied. With you living in an apartment (that obviously allows pets) and having access to a fenced in area as a part of your living quarters, the supposed concerns of a rescue have been met. I see no reason (absent some other problem) why a person in your circumstance shouldn't be granted a pup from the rescue. My problem would be a rescue standing behind a questionable (to me) rule without at least looking at the applicant's circumstance. If after looking, they still reject the applicant, OK, so be it. That's their right. But, what does it cost the rescue to look? Nada! We know it costs the dog a potential home.

I get that having no fence increases the already existing potential for the dog to get out and that living in an apartment increases the potential for neighbor complaints (which complexes with pets allowed policies are certainly aware of), but how does that equate to not even investigating a potential client?

Interestingly enough, I have been donating some of my time with two different rescue groups (administrative, not hands on), but I have nearly ruled out getting a pup from either of these organizations. While I have found every individual I have met in both units very caring animal lovers, I have issues with several of their operating procedures. In each case, it seems that their operating procedures benefit the organization, the fosters and even the volunteer workers, but not necessarily the potential clients (which to me equates to the dogs). To be sure, if a pup meeting (exactly) my personal criteria were to become available, I might just change my position, but for now, rescues are on the periphery of my radar.