This chapter provided me with an opportunity to share a few facts that are generally ignored by the world at large. It’s critical of a system that allows people to treat living beings as chattels, and not wholly approving of the practices of local authority run ‘shelters’. Much more approbation is given to privately run organisations, which do a sterling job of protecting the lost souls that find their way to their doors.
However, having now dealt with upwards of one hundred rescue organisations, I am not entirely without criticism of the policies adopted by some of them. Typically, this would include those that go something like the following:
We only adopt within a 2.5 hour radius of zip code XXXX
or
We DO NOT adopt out of the State of XXX
There are seemingly good and practical reasons for such limitations being placed upon a dog’s future:
- The rescue cannot do sufficient background/home checks upon potential adopters if they are too far distant.
- Long distance adoptions place an additional burden on already overworked and overwhelmed rescue volunteers.
- The rescue does not have the means to take the dog to a home so far away.
- The rescue fears that if the adoption goes wrong, they will be unable to retrieve the dog. (Sometimes this includes fear that the adoption contract, which is written to protect the dog, will not be valid in another State, let alone another country).
- When large distances are involved, the dog may not meet other pets in the home before they are going to before the adoption takes place.
- The rescue group fears that by adopting outside of their catchment area, they will deprive a dog in another area of a loving home because they have sent one from their area.
These do seem like reasonable reservations. Until, that is, you explore the misgivings from a logical, rather than an emotional perspective, and look at the possibilities that exist for long distance adoptions…
The rescue cannot do sufficient background/home checks upon potential adopters if they are too far distant.
Why not?
If pre-vetting applicants seems arduous, then it should be noted that the standard practice amongst ‘good’ rescues, i.e. those that are really careful and care about the future their dogs face, is to insist upon:
- A completed application form
- A satisfactory telephone interview
- Vet references
- Personal references
- A home inspection
The first four items can be done as easily in one State/Country as they can in another. Telephone connections and internet ensure this is the case. Home inspections are a little trickier to facilitate. However, this can easily be gotten around with a requirement for home photographs, or even better, video footage.
Better still, if rescues formed associations with comparable groups in remote locales (which are REALLY easy to develop, because they are all in it for the same cause) they will conduct home inspections on the rescue’s behalf.
I may be being simplistic in my assessment of this latter statement of policy reasoning, but surely feeling ‘overwhelmed’ or ‘overworked’ comes about due to the stress of caring? Rescues are less overwhelmed and overworked the fewer dogs they have to care for. They have fewer dogs to care for if they adopt them out. They may adopt them out more easily if they seek assistance from other like-minded groups, irrespective of their locations. They may do this if they do not restrict themselves with policies which are not only counterproductive for themselves, but potentially disadvantaging for the dogs they love and want to protect.
Long distance adoptions place an additional burden on already overworked and overwhelmed rescue volunteers.
No, they don’t.
As stated above, the requirements are the same whether the adoption is to be local or long distance. Even in cross-border cases, which must appear particularly complicated to the uninitiated, the only additional requirements are that Trans-border adoptions from the US to Canada require a health certificate, a rabies vaccination certificate and a receipt for the adoption fee. That is ALL.
Consequently, additional work on the part of a rescue (which will surely take the dog to a vet anyway), is negligible. If it costs more, undoubtedly a trans-border adopter will be prepared to pay that additional fee. After all, they are already committing to drive potentially (relatively) vast distances or pay not insubstantial sums to ship or collect a dog they have fallen in love with.
The rescue does not have the means to take the dog to a home so far away.
Fair enough. This is perfectly reasonable. But what’s the problem?
If the rescue is not prepared or unable to arrange shipping of the dog, simply make it clear up front that collection of the dog is the responsibility of the adopter. End of story. This will sort out serious adopters from those who are acting frivolously, or on a whim.
And let's not forget that there are networks of dedicated individuals who selflessly give up their time and are prepared to involve themselves in extensive efforts to move dogs across whole continents. The awesome Pilots For Paws comes to mind as just one (fine) example. Eliciting help is as simple as doing a little research and writing an email.
The rescue fears that if the adoption goes wrong, they will be unable to retrieve the dog. (Sometimes this includes fears that the adoption contract, which is written to protect the dog, will not be valid in another State, let alone another country).
Although appearing to be binding, the ‘contracts’ most rescues use at the time of adopting out their charges have virtually no legal standing or enforceability. They are an attempt to make the adopter take their responsibility seriously and assert third party rights over a species of being that, as yet, is not acknowledged by the courts as being in possession of legal rights. Summary rulings regarding failed adoptions, were such to occur, would almost certainly ignore the rights of any private adoption group. Therefore, actions to retrieve dogs in situations where the adoption did not work out would be reliant upon the goodwill of those who made the adoption.
Once a dog leaves a rescue, unless they have an extremely well-informed network of spies, the rescue is unlikely to be aware of what happens to the dog that they were once responsible for. Only last year, I facilitated the rescue of a dog, released to an adopter under the standard contract term implying ‘you must return the dog to us if anything goes wrong’. That person had then sold the dog to somebody else in another State, who had in turn given the dog to somebody else in a third State, who had then placed the dog in a kill shelter, from whence it was rescued by another rescue group, who adopted it to the person I was transporting it for! I was able to trace all of this because it was AKC registered, and I contacted the original rescue group to let them know what had come to pass. Needless to say, they were mortified, especially as the original adopter lived less than one mile from their base of operations. But what could they do?
If the distance involved in retrieving a dog seems too far, an equally pertinent (but frankly, equally unenforceable) contract clause might be that if an adoption fails, the owner must themselves be responsible for returning the dog.
Alternatively, rescues might focus their attentions on thoroughly researching potential adopters or working with rescue groups local to where their dog is going, in an attempt to ensure that the dog does not go to a home where there is any likelihood that the rescue will fail.
An alarming number of adoptions fail, often inside the first week or two. The reasons for this are many, but often have a great deal to do with the intolerance of the new owner to the stress the dog faces in coming to their new home, or an unreasonably high level of expectation about how instantly ‘perfect’ the new dog will be.
Aside from this, there is the casualness with which adopters will regard their new pet. After all, it’s a rescue dog. It’s ‘second hand’. It’s (relatively) cheap. It’s disposable. Thus, most people who want a rescue dog will seldom travel more than a few hours in order to get it. They just don’t see the dog as worth the investment in their time or money.
So when you get a potential adopter who is prepared to travel hundreds, maybe thousands of miles to get a dog, what does it tell you about that person? What conclusions can you draw about how much they will value the dog in question? What may you infer about how committed the person is likely to be to making the adoption work?
When large distances are involved, the dog may not meet other pets in the home before they are going to before the adoption takes place.
I’m not going to pretend that this isn’t a very valid reason, and to my mind at least, it trumps all the others in importance.
But isn’t it rather obvious that the people in the home to which the rescue dog is going will be acutely aware of their incumbent’s receptiveness to a new companion? And if the rescue itself is worth its salt, won’t they have already gone to extensive lengths to assess the rescue dog’s sociability and likelihood of ability to cope with responding positively to its encroachment on another dog's territory?
When people offer a home to a distant dog, there is an element of voluntary assumption of risk that comes into play. Isn’t it safe for a rescue to rely upon the fact that only a fool would assume that risk unless they already knew that there was a virtual certainty, or at least an extremely high probability of success, before they embarked upon a long-distance rescue? And isn’t it pretty easy in a telephone interview to discover the character and temperament of another’s dog with a few simple questions; or at least make the potential adopter give pause for thought about the course of action they are embarking upon, and perhaps even pull out themselves?
Well, actually, there are a lot of fools out there. Nonetheless, reasonable, measured, realistic assessment of the temperament of both the adoptee and the adopter’s canine(s) can surely consign this concern to the minor leagues of worry.
The rescue group fears that by adopting outside of their catchment area, they will deprive a dog in another area of a loving home because they have sent one from their area.
This type of statement depends upon a fairly base assessment of the reasons why (at least some) people adopt a rescue: because they want a dog. Any dog.
By implication it concludes that individuals will have some pretty fundamental reasoning about the companion they chose, which is underpinned by the assertion that for most people, in essence, any dog will do.
Perhaps I’m unique in my experiences, but I have always found the opposite to be true, at least amongst those who truly love dogs and will care for them as they deserve. Some people, when they are looking for a dog, they will seek out one which they truly feel a connection with. It doesn’t matter where that dog is. It’s that instinctive reaction that is important to them. They may begin a search locally (well, who wouldn’t) but if they are disappointed in that search, they will not be deterred from looking further afield. If the dog happens to be across a State/Provincial or even a National border, it won’t matter to them. Finding the right dog and feeling that connection is more important than just having a dog.
The policy, on the other hand, infers that geographic proximity is more significant to potential owners than that connection.
Ask yourself this. If you were trying to find a home for a dog, which would you find indicative of an owner who was more likely to give the dog a good home:
- The person who is prepared to travel perhaps hundreds of miles in order to collect a dog they feel is right for them.
- The person who lives a couple of hours away who likes the look of a dog.
Of course, the two may not be mutually exclusive, but I know which one I would place greater confidence in.
This (very questionable) aspect of adoption policy is also cited as demonstrating respect for other dog rescues. If a rescue group adopts to somebody who lives within another group’s ‘catchment area’, then they have deprived that group of an adoption which is surely ‘rightfully’ theirs.
Well, apart from the logic already covered above, is it not the case that people get into dog rescue because they love dogs and want to help them? Surely what is important to all in rescue is the fact that a dog, irrespective of where it comes from, has found a new home, rather than some ridiculous notion of respecting other rescue’s ‘turf’? Aren’t they all, in essence, doing the same job? Have they never heard the Hebrew proverb (albeit somewhat distorted) “Save one dog, save the world”?
So what are my conclusions?
I accept totally that the policies enacted by rescue groups are brought into being with the sole purpose of protecting the animals they love. I know that however frustrating I may find it, these organisations, by and large, do a great job in helping those animals in need.
But I really do wish they’d take a look at the basis of the logic they have used to form their operating mandates. If they did that, they may realise that with some care, they can safely release their charges to remote places they consider beyond the pale. I can vouch for this because at the moment, we have facilitated the cross-border adoption of over 50 dogs, and not one single adoption has failed. Yet in several painful cases I have come across, the well-intended rescue grimly hangs on to a dog, in spite of (perhaps several) failed attempts to place the dog in the right home, simply because it is unprepared to consider any potential home outside of what they deem to be a reasonable catchment area.
So to all of those groups who operate under restrictive policies, I would say this.
I have nothing but admiration for what you do. This is not a criticism as such. But letting a dog go to any new home is a risk. With a little discernment, distance adoptions need be no riskier than local ones, perhaps less so. Your due diligence and precautionary stances may be no more effective in the State next door than they are for the country next door. But if a person is willing to travel hundreds, rather than tens of miles, to take a dog they have fallen in love with, you may be confident that they will care enough to look after that dog's best interests, whatever may come.
Don’t undermine your own effectiveness by letting paranoia and fear about what ‘might be’ spoil the excellent opportunities homes in seemingly distant lands may offer. You won’t be doing the dog in need any favours.
ADDENDUM
In response to my comments in this blog, I was contacted by an individual who related a story about some people who’d traveled 6½ hours each way to meet with a dog they were interested in rescuing, and another 6½ hours each way to collect it, once they had made their decision that they wanted to adopt it. But still the rescue failed, and the people rejected the dog.
It’s a sad story, but even after everything I’ve written in this blog, I wasn’t surprised. Neither do I change my stance one iota. If anything, the story proves my point that a distance adoption does not automatically mean that an animal is ‘lost’. These people, in their nature, were caring and committed enough to ensure the dog's safe return to rescue. Surely their preparedness to travel such vast distances had already evidenced this?
However, let me clarify the essence of the message I’m trying to convey in this blog. It’s in the title:
Shooting themselves in the foot – Why rehoming dogs in distant places need not be a concern for rescues
Note the specific use of the words NEED NOT. It does not say SHOULD NOT.
A successful adoption comes down to three things:
- How thoroughly the rescue vets the potential adopters.
- How realistically they present them with the facts about adopting a rescue dog.
- How realistic the adopters are about the way any rescue dog is likely to be.
Vetting procedures need to be beyond thorough. Those doing the vetting need to be well versed in interview technique and understand simple concepts like open ended, interrogative questioning, as a bare minimum.
My critic pointed out that people may submit photos of fenced in back yards that are non-existent (not theirs) or not secure (despite claiming they are). Video footage solves this to some extent. A video should contain images of the front of the house showing the street address (which must be matched with a utility bill proving ownship/occupany) and evidence the construction material, height and secure nature of fencing, in its entirety. Interviewing those given as referees should further reveal truths.
As for being realistic about the nature of taking on a dog: In ‘For Dog’s Sake’, the chapter on rescue dogs goes into considerable detail about the emotional explosion that may impact both the dog and its new people. It explains why so many rescues, proximate or remote, fail. In my experience, rescue people themselves don’t necessarily understand this; while adopters tend to wear foolishly rose tinted spectacles, naively assuming everything will be immediately wonderful once the dog gets to their home, and that they’ll all live happily ever after. The subject matter of the chapter should be compulsory reading for both rescues and adopters!
Only when all of those aspects related to distance adoptions (covered in the blog) are aligned to evidence a high probability of a positive outcome, may rescues feel confident that distance adopting is the right thing to do. But that still doesn't mean that there isn't a need for discernment, an application of common sense, and shrewd judgement.
I remain unmoved in averring that excluding distance adoptions as a matter of rigid policy is folly.