The new adoption policy ratings system.

[Dogsfevr]

All that should be required are honest rescue groups who do right by people adapting.

To easy to become a rescue and then wipe your hands of the dog once gone.

 

I cringe at some of the breed right ups,the misleading info that only fools a potential adapter in thinking it’s the right dog for them and getting high and mighty if you pull them up on the info.

 

For example a breed I owned came up in a rescue .The breed right up was not correct for the breed nor was the suggested type of home .

 

I politely  told them so and offered my breed knowledge as assistance to list the correct info and what an ideal home would be .

I posted that info on there FB page for that dog.

My info was deleted,fast forward 3 months person who adapted dog emailed me regarding that dog and some serious issues they where having .

When I asked what the home situation was for people and dog red flags where abundant.This dog bite someone and attacked another dog .

First time dog owners who thought rescue was right and had no clue about the breed they adapted except what they read ,thought the dog was cute so put there name down.

Rescue grp no help dog PTS .

We have boarding kennels and board people who have adapted dogs and been terribly let down and refuse to go down that path,many saying they would sooner by from a pet shop .

Also have many clients who have lost there pet and decided to rescue,awesome homes who where refused for ridiculous reasons .

 

 

[juice]

The pound don't vet people , if you want the dog it's yours , they do allow meet and greets with your own dog . I just don't understand how they have authority to vet people for a dog that isn't theirs. Seems an odd setup . 

[RuralPug]

It does seem a different way to go about things.
 I'm presuming that the rescue does actually pull dogs from the pound before it finalises the adoption otherwise the would be adopter could go straight to the pound.
I've no idea if that rescue gives support to new adopters or takes the dog back if needed - those things would be an improvement on a direct pound/shelter adoption.

 

[_PL_]

Back on topic, pretty much this: Devaluing Rescue 

Quote

When PetRescue started, it celebrated that rescue offered a service which was useful to pet owners and superior in outcomes to pet shops. It also acknowledged that direct from pound/shelter adoption wasn't going to suit everybody and that bringing in rescue groups helped assess pets, and guide owners. Now they seem to be saying that this rescue process is defunct/non-useful and rescue pets should be a choose-your-own-adventure for potential owners. Rescue groups should abandon their processes in favour of walk-in-walk-out adoption policies.

 

[melrose]

The system PR have come up with is a bit of a blunt instrument and I imagine that the majority of rescues won't neatly fit into just one of these categories. The concept of giving a potential adopter a heads-up as to what the process will be like is fair enough though, as I'm sure there's potentially good homes that are put off rescue altogether from one poor experience (either spending forever filling out forms only to be forgotten about, or have an unsuitable dog "posted" to them).

 

I personally don't equate "flexibility" with lax standards or not providing follow-on care. My idea of flexibility is judging every home on its merits and trying to figure out face-to-face with the family whether the foster dog I have will work in their home and, if not, help them find another dog that would be a better fit. To me, "strict" means having a pre-defined view of the home that will work, pages of forms to fill in before even clapping eyes on a dog, and decisions being made based solely on the information contained in the form, which is a scenario I try to avoid at all costs.

 

"Flexible" also means being able to shape your approach to meet the needs of the dog and home, rather than the other way round. Usually we (my wife and I) take inquiries on a "first come, first served" basis and figure out whether the dog fits that home or not, before moving onto the next inquiry. We find that this reduces people feeling that they are in a competition (which can sometimes result in poor choices being made) and I personally don't have a problem with the possibility of 'adopt on the day'. I've only done it once though, on New Years eve 2015. I always take our fosters round to the adopters homes, so the yard check is part and parcel of the meet and greet. We spent a few hours together chewing the cud and it was clear that the dog would fill a huge hole in the adopter's life. We returned later that evening to drop the dog off and had a bbq to celebrate. It's been an incredibly successful adoption and we receive regular updates. They've now moved to an island off the coast of Brisbane where the dog is spoiled rotten :). However, with our last foster dog, we went round to the new home with the dog 5 times over the space of about a month before finally leaving her with her new family. She had some fear issues and there were young kids and another dog in the house, so slowly-slowly seemed like the best plan for her situation.

 

Saying all this, there's a significant variation in the adoption experience within our foster organisation depending on the carer and the dog, which is another reason that the PR tier system isn't really fit for purpose. I get a slow drip of interest for my adult, boofy, dogs, so can provide detailed replies and tend to meet in person most of the folks that enquire about our dogs. If our foster isn't quite right, then there's usually a number of others that might be a better fit - either in care or at the pound - that I can point them towards. This is quite a different scenario from the carer who received 100+ enquiries in a 24hr period for a litter of puppies that came into care recently. Others in our group have successfully gone down the interstate adoption route for some of their fosters too (usually to rural homes that are nowhere near any pound, but in a region that the carer has family ties etc) - it's not something that suits my particular situation though.

 

I guess the short version of the above is that flexible, moderate, or strict policies can all either be made to work incredibly well or incredibly poorly depending on implementation.