Adopting From A Pound

[mita]

Dogmad, you've got to admit that an unfenced sheer cliff at the back door, is hard to forget! :)

[_PL_]

Yes Mita - you've got a good memory, that was me .... I've also seen lovely green yards - full of Wandering Jew .... and many other things!

You did a lovely green yard check for me once! I got there a couple of days later and they had stuffed the wheelie bin full to overflowing with wandering jew after your visit. :D

[Cougar]

Just to add what HugL said - I understand the rationale behind the coloured sticker things at the pounds, and i mostly think it's a great idea. Unfortunately with the kid aspect, the bigger breeds are sort of blanket banned from homes with children under a certain age - at least from some pounds/rescues/orgs. Has nothing to do with whether the dog is ok with kids or not, it's based purely on the dog's size. And I know that not all places are like that, it's just something I've noticed while cruising various websites. It disappoints me, mostly as I'm a big dog person.

[gwp4me]

I am still very enthusiastic about the actual deed of getting a dog out of a pound, I would always do it again - if I could absorb another dog into my family. I trust the pound ranger/s to give fair help/advise if asked for.

But it would have to be a dog no larger or stronger than my present weakest dog. What I also noticed - are lots of dogs on death row - with seemingly good hips, which amazes me, as a lot of them are only BYB. Say no more, excuse my pidgin english once again.

[Plan B]

the bigger breeds are sort of blanket banned from homes with children under a certain age - at least from some pounds/rescues/orgs. Has nothing to do with whether the dog is ok with kids or not, it's based purely on the dog's size. And I know that not all places are like that, it's just something I've noticed while cruising various websites. It disappoints me, mostly as I'm a big dog person.

Whoever's doing that might want to look at the fact they're consciously getting in the way of adoptions and preventing compatible matches. It amazes me there are people still trying to justify their blanket bans - they only serve to hinder adoptions.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Plan B

[tdierikx]

Pounds and shelters have to cover their arses with regards to being sued if a dog they adopt out knocks over a little kid and hurts it - and that's why they blanket ban larger dogs for people with small kids. Simple as that...

Rescues normally have more time to properly test their charges with various stimuli (like small kids skylarking about) in a more natural environment that pounds and shelters do, so our "rules" may differ a bit to theirs because of that fact.

T.

[Plan B]

That's nonsense.

A Pound and Shelter can absolve itself from those kind of liabilities.

[koalathebear]

That's nonsense.

A Pound and Shelter can absolve itself from those kind of liabilities.

There are certain legal liabilities that even if you get people to sign a waiver the length of your arm wouldn't be enough to get you there. Then there's trial by media - can you imagine the blow-back a pound would get if it knowingly adopted out a child-unfriendly dog to a family with children. You'd never hear the end of it.

With the rescue I'm with, we focus on working breeds so for us it's never about certain breeds not being suitable for children. We will specify in the profile if the dog is large/rough so might knock over young children. We will expressly state if a dog is not good with children i.e. does not like kids/nips at them and we will not place a chid-unfriendly dog into a home with small kids. We suggest another dog and almost everyone is happy to go with an alternate recommendation.

[Plan B]

There are certain legal liabilities that even if you get people to sign a waiver the length of your arm wouldn't be enough to get you there. Then there's trial by media - can you imagine the blow-back a pound would get if it knowingly adopted out a child-unfriendly dog to a family with children. You'd never hear the end of it.

We're not talking about adopting out known child-unfriendly dogs.

Pounds and shelters get sued when they have been negligent. If they are making good matches and offering full disclosure, there is very little chance a case could be mounted. We know this by the millions of large dogs being adopted to families with kids already.

When pounds and shelters are meeting their legal responsibilities and not being negligent, there is absolutely no reason they should be having those blanket bans.

[Salukifan]

For me, I don't think any inexperienced dog owners should adopt directly from a pound. I really applaud the desire to give a dog a second chance, but I've seen it end sadly too many times. Dogs can present and behave so differently in a pound environment and unless you're very experienced, it's hard to know what they're really like. I've even seen dogs behave so differently with different foster carers - wonderful with one, awful with the next or vice versa.

Agree completely. Simply too many unknowns taking a dog direct from the pound. I recommend responsible, knowledgeable rescues and that goes double for any family with children.

Plan B

Is it really so wrong to tell people they should go to Rescues, reputable Breeders, and Pounds to meet dogs and see whether they find the perfect match?

It's wrong to include pounds for families with young children or people who won't cope with a dog with any kind of behavioural issue - and that's a lot of families. I too have seen how rescue dogs have made family owners heartbroken rather than given them the pleasure a pet can bring. Dog reactivity, serious escape artists, resource guarders... and many of these issues will not be evident in a pound environment. I don't see it that there's necessarily anything wrong with pound dogs but you need to mitigate the risks of a bad choice and the easiest way to do that is obtain a rescued dog from an organisation that simply has more knowledge of it.

I'd also not put a family through the experience of parvo - and if the dog serves a quarantine period with a decent rescue, they won't have to endure that.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Haredown Whippets

[~Anne~]

It's called risk aversion. It's not the Council covering themselves because of litigation necessarily, it is the Council minimising risk to the purchaser, the dog and the council. The risk can take many forms - litigation, bad publicity, injury to a human, potential displacement or worse for the dog.

It's sensible really. More rescuers should try analyse different risks and ways to minimise it.

[Plan B]

It's called risk aversion. It's not the Council covering themselves because of litigation necessarily, it is the Council minimising risk to the purchaser, the dog and the council. The risk can take many forms - litigation, bad publicity, injury to a human, potential displacement or worse for the dog.

It's sensible really. More rescuers should try analyse different risks and ways to minimise it.

Again though, there are many ways to minimise risk without preventing adoptions. To say that no large dog is suitable for a family, without actually assessing each individual dog, family, and situation, is mind blowing.

"Minimising risk" is also why certain breeds are still maligned, deemed 'unsuitable' for adoption, and sometimes killed on the spot.

[Cosmolo]

My parents recently started looking for a dog. They are experienced with dogs and have a great home to offer. I recommended they go to a reputable rescue- NOT a pound because of the reasons KTB and HW mention.

[Plan B]

It's wrong to include pounds for families with young children or people who won't cope with a dog with any kind of behavioural issue - and that's a lot of families.

That may be true but until it's all families, I still don't accept that pounds should not be recommended. Any dog from rescue or a breeder can develop behavioural issues.

I too have seen how rescue dogs have made family owners heartbroken rather than given them the pleasure a pet can bring. Dog reactivity, serious escape artists, resource guarders... and many of these issues will not be evident in a pound environment.

I've seen many dogs, everywhere, with those issues - just as often as I've seen dogs in pounds, and then rescue, without them.

I don't see it that there's necessarily anything wrong with pound dogs but you need to mitigate the risks of a bad choice and the easiest way to do that is obtain a rescued dog from an organisation that simply has more knowledge of it.

I don't need to do any of that. I only need offer my best advice - which is to go meet any dog they may be interested in (wherever that may be) and make the right decision, taking into regard various factors.

I'd also not put a family through the experience of parvo - and if the dog serves a quarantine period with a decent rescue, they won't have to endure that.

Parvo is always a concern as Pounds aren't on top of quarantine. But could people not be told this? Could advice not be offered to board the dog somewhere for the incubation period? It'd also be interesting to see the stats on just how many people have adopted dogs that have then fallen victim to Parvo. I don't like guessing but I'm pretty sure it's be very low when compared to the dogs that have led healthy lives.

[koalathebear]

Plan B I think your passion is admirable but as I've mentioned, even though almost all of my fosters are pound dogs, I wouldn't have taken them on without the foster support network and for me, if I'm going to recommend an option to people - it's one where they will have maximum support and recourse given that they are going to be the one living with the consequences of their decision.

They're not going to get that sort of support from a pound. They won't even get it from all rescues and breeders - for me it's about recommending someone they can trust will be there to help them out if things go pear-shaped. I'm not saying a breeder is necessarily better than a pound - it has to be a good breeder. Despite what people say on DOL, I HAVE seen well-bred, pedigree show dogs from breeders end up in rescue .... So I'd be recommending a good breeder that you can trust. Even with my own rescue, I'd be recommending that people get a dog from a foster carer they trust and who is willing to offer post-adoption support.

ETA: Parvo is not that easy to handle. We did a very careful quarantine at our house - best we could manage in the absence of a proper quarantine - but nothing is perfect, so even though we only kept the pups on bleachable surfaces and then bleached the hell out of everything afterwards, we still won't be taking on any unvaccinated dogs until after 12 months has expired. One of the things my rescue is doing is that we are vaccinating dogs at time of save in the pound so that the vaccinations have time to kick in before they get into the homes of carers given that there's almost always a delay before transport can be arranged - that delay can be used to allow vaccinations to take effect.

Edited November 5, 2013 by koalathebear

[Plan B]

I can definitely see your point of view, Koalathebear, and I respect your opinion. Everyone's entitled to recommend what they feel comfortable with and I'm not trying to argue that, just that there are ways to minimise risks without closing off avenues altogether.

And with the blanket bans, I have trouble with some of the scenarios people seem to support here. Like:

• A large dog is in a pound that has a blanket ban on adopting out large dogs to families with kids.
  
• A family with kids wants to adopt him but can't, regardless of their experience and circumstances.
  
• That dog then dies because he had no other options.
  

That just can't be acceptable? To put it down to being a sensible decision on the Pound's behalf is ludicrous to me.

[~Anne~]

It's called risk aversion. It's not the Council covering themselves because of litigation necessarily, it is the Council minimising risk to the purchaser, the dog and the council. The risk can take many forms - litigation, bad publicity, injury to a human, potential displacement or worse for the dog.

It's sensible really. More rescuers should try analyse different risks and ways to minimise it.

Again though, there are many ways to minimise risk without preventing adoptions. To say that no large dog is suitable for a family, without actually assessing each individual dog, family, and situation, is mind blowing.

"Minimising risk" is also why certain breeds are still maligned, deemed 'unsuitable' for adoption, and sometimes killed on the spot.

I don't support nor condemn either way. I'm talking about a process.

I'm talking about the big picture. A broad process in a local Government department.

[tdierikx]

I can definitely see your point of view, Koalathebear, and I respect your opinion. Everyone's entitled to recommend what they feel comfortable with and I'm not trying to argue that, just that there are ways to minimise risks without closing off avenues altogether.

And with the blanket bans, I have trouble with some of the scenarios people seem to support here. Like:

• A large dog is in a pound that has a blanket ban on adopting out large dogs to families with kids.
  
• A family with kids wants to adopt him but can't, regardless of their experience and circumstances.
  
• That dog then dies because he had no other options.
  

That just can't be acceptable? To put it down to being a sensible decision on the Pound's behalf is ludicrous to me.

I'm not saying that it's "acceptable" - rather that the world we live in has become a rather litigious one, and that due to the fact that most pounds have a very limited holding time for the animals in their care, they have to be doubly sure that they dot all the i's and cross all the t's when they adopt out a dog to anyone really (not just people with kids).

How the heck are they really going to say that dog X is going to be fine with kids after knowing it (in a stressful pound environment no less) for a limited period of time? Truth of the matter is that they can't guarantee anything - but Joe Public will be wanting some sort of guarantee that their kids will be safe around dog X... implied or otherwise.

And you can bet that a huge public stink would be made about any pound that adopted out a dog that harmed a child - unwittingly or otherwise... and what would that sort of publicity generate for adoptions from pounds?

In a perfect world...

T.

[_PL_]

Which pounds have blanket bans on large breeds with children? I've never heard of that. I don't know anyone who has been turned away if the dog they are looking at is suitable per the evaluation of the staff.

Rescues yes they have their individual policies, and that's their right. That's my right for my dogs.

[Salukifan]

Parvo is always a concern as Pounds aren't on top of quarantine. But could people not be told this? Could advice not be offered to board the dog somewhere for the incubation period? It'd also be interesting to see the stats on just how many people have adopted dogs that have then fallen victim to Parvo. I don't like guessing but I'm pretty sure it's be very low when compared to the dogs that have led healthy lives.

You want dogs potentially incubating parvo sent to commercial dog boarding facilities from pounds??

Edited November 5, 2013 by Haredown Whippets