# Denied by rescues?!?! Frustrated!



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

I do think it's pretty typical of rescue groups, since one of the major goals of most rescues is to reduce the overpopulation of unwanted dogs. It's not a commentary on you in particular.


----------



## Ljilly28 (Jan 22, 2008)

It seems like rescues can get tunnel vision at times. It is well-meaning, but causes animals to lose out on some great homes. My business/ training center partner is also the kennel manager for the Animal Refuge League. She sees such horrible things daily, that it becomes hard for some of her staff to trust in people anymore. It's a tough thing for the staff to let go at times, but ultimately how could a home be better than yours? There is a fine line between protectiveness and something akin to hoarding, a fine line between rules to ensure the animal's safety and rules that work against them by being so controlling they eliminate excellent homes.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

Thanks - I know it isn't a commentary on me in particular, I just find it surprising and frustrating. I could give one of their dogs SUCH a great home, and I wish that wasn't an "all or nothing" deciding factor.


----------



## aussieresc (Dec 30, 2008)

I am with a breed rescue for another breed and we do require all animals be spayed/neutered unless there is a valid reason for not doing so. For example, if someone is showing their dogs in conformation that would be acceptable. A health reason would be another good reason.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

I find it common around here. Since I prefer to keep my crew intact, I am not considered a potential home for rescues. However, breeders sometimes have dogs who were returned to them through no fault of the dogs (divorce, down sizing, illness, moving etc); this might be an option for you since they see beyond the sexual status of the other dogs in your home.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

We haven't neutered Sawyer for a few different reasons - First, because we have a contract that said we would not until between 14-18 months. Second, because our very reputable breeder believes it is what is best for his line of dogs, as they tend to mature more slowly. Third, because I think there are health benefits that make it an attractive option. And finally, because really he has given us absolutely no reason to believe that it is even remotely necessary. He's not aggressive or territorial in the least (he just stayed with Mac/Doolin for a week, and it was immediately evident how very submissive Sawyer is). He doesn't mark unless we are on walks around the neighborhood (never in our house or yard). He has almost never "humped" anything at all - Which oddly, our spayed female did quite often. 

For lack of a better phrase - I'm a bit put off because it seems that these organizations are "cutting off their noses to spite their faces." 

Guess you all here on GRF will have to help me find another dog - And soon!!!!


----------



## paula bedard (Feb 5, 2008)

Sorry this is the case. I understand (sorta) the reasoning...BUT, isn't every dog that leaves a rescue to go to a new home already spayed or neutered? If so, then why would an intact dog in the home be an issue?


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

I feel for you-I have given up trying to rescue, since all of my dogs are intact  I have been able to get retired dogs, or dogs that won't make it in the ring or the whelping box, from breeder friends.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

paula bedard said:


> Sorry this is the case. I understand (sorta) the reasoning...BUT, isn't every dog that leaves a rescue to go to a new home already spayed or neutered? If so, then why would an intact dog in the home be an issue?


My thoughts exactly! And yes, this pup is set to be spayed on Aug. 15th, so I can't imagine what the issue would be.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

Tahnee GR said:


> I feel for you-I have given up trying to rescue, since all of my dogs are intact  I have been able to get retired dogs, or dogs that won't make it in the ring or the whelping box, from breeder friends.


Thanks, Linda. It just seems silly to me. You could always send one of those cute pups my way - Or Bug


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Ljilly28 said:


> It seems like rescues can get tunnel vision at times. It is well-meaning, but causes animals to lose out on some great homes. My business/ training center partner is also the kennel manager for the Animal Refuge League. She sees such horrible things daily, that it becomes hard for some of her staff to trust in people anymore. It's a tough thing for the staff to let go at times, but ultimately how could a home be better than yours? There is a fine line between protectiveness and something akin to hoarding, a fine line between rules to ensure the animal's safety and rules that work against them by being so controlling they eliminate excellent homes.


Totally agree. It would be completely different if a person with an intact male dog were trying to adopt an intact female ... or intact dog, period. Because then you are looking at accidental litters or possibly people who won't neuter the adopted dog. 

But if the adopted dog in already fixed, I don't see why it matters if the other dog is intact. Especially if the home is a good one and the owner has glowing references from vets. It winds up being just another reason why people buy puppies or dogs from breeders instead of adopting.


----------



## Sweet Girl (Jun 10, 2010)

When and if I ever get another dog, mine would be a senior Golden rescue. HOWEVER - I'm already anticipating some pushback, as the application I looked at said, _fenced-in backyard mandatory_. 

I find that tunnel-vision, too. I mean, I live in a townhouse that requires me to go out WITH MY DOG everytime I take her out. It means that to get exercise, we must walk, we must go to the park, we must go to the beach _together_. As in, there would be interaction everytime. And clearly, the dog would be leashed unless in off-leash areas.

I find that as strange as requiring neuter/spay if the rescue dog is already altered. I'm hoping when I describe what kind of dog-owner I am, they'll see that no backyard is NOT an issue.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Sophie_Mom said:


> Thanks, Linda. It just seems silly to me. You could always send one of those cute pups my way - Or Bug


LOL-you would send poor Bug packing, I think! She gets very physical with poor Creed, and he just sits and cries, as she tugs on his cheek or jaw :doh:


----------



## Penny & Maggie's Mom (Oct 4, 2007)

Steph, I'm sorry you're hitting these roadblocks, but I can't help but think that perhaps it's all leading to what fate has in store for you......Soon a dog will come along and be the perfect fit for your family.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

I'm not going to go the rescue route anymore simply because the rescues here microchip their dogs in the rescue name and do not allow owners to add themselves as additional contacts. That's a non-starter for me because we always put the microchips in our name with our veterinary clinic, located less than a mile away, as secondary. In my view if anyone found our dogs chances are they would go to our vet clinic anyway for a scan. Also many times AC goes to the clinic to scan dogs they pick up --I've seen it. We've never lost a dog thank goodness but that's our plan and we don't want to wait for days worrying until a rescue volunteer picks up the voice mail and contacts the shelter. 

I understand why the rescues have these policies and it is certainly within their rights. It's just a choice we made for our situation and that's fine.


----------



## Maggies mom (Jan 6, 2006)

Here in Missouri, it is required by law that all rescue dogs be spayed or neutered or we loose our license.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

Maggies mom said:


> Here in Missouri, it is required by law that all rescue dogs be spayed or neutered or we loose our license.


I completely understand that the rescue dogs are spayed or neutered, as this one would be. They have declined my inquiries/applications because Sawyer, my existing dog, is not neutered. They won't consider placing one of their spayed or neutered dogs in my home because Sawyer is in tact. That doesn't make sense to me....


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

Penny & Maggie's Mom said:


> Steph, I'm sorry you're hitting these roadblocks, but I can't help but think that perhaps it's all leading to what fate has in store for you......Soon a dog will come along and be the perfect fit for your family.


Thanks - I hope so. My heart has ached to get another for a while now, soon after we lost Sophie. I knew that I'd have to wait until after our vacation to do anything about it. Now that I'm back from vacation (as of midnight last night), it's my new project. I hope you are right. Maybe these roadblocks are just forcing me to be patient and Smidge will decide she can live with my Sawyer!


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

It's not a reflection on you in any way. The rescues don't know you personally, if they did, they'd probably be willing to waive that requirement (I know I would), but they have to base their decisions on the overall picture, they have to have some specific guidelines in place or else they'd end up with a disaster on their hands. We tried spay/neuter contracts, against my vigorous arguments, for about a year. People move, people don't return phone calls and people don't follow through on the spay/neuter (even though we were paying for it!). So now every dog is spayed/neutered before they leave the rescue. There are a few good apples and a few rotten ones. 

DG, our rescue has the dogs microchipped with their name as first contact and the new owner can register as the second contact. We did that because some of our dogs ended up in shelters and we wanted to be the first contact. We would prefer to have the dogs reunited with their adopters first and foremost, but we didn't want them euthanized if an owner decided they didn't want them anymore. Again, it's not a reflection on the great adopters (as you would be), but something we had to put in place based on history.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

I knew I should have come and kidnapped your cutest foster puppy in the world!

The puppy I was interested in was going to be spayed by the rescue group. They declined my application because we haven't neutered Sawyer.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

Sophie_Mom said:


> I completely understand that the rescue dogs are spayed or neutered, as this one would be. They have declined my inquiries/applications because Sawyer, my existing dog, is not neutered. They won't consider placing one of their spayed or neutered dogs in my home because Sawyer is in tact. That doesn't make sense to me....


You've run headlong into the political machine of rescue. You are correct that it makes no logical sense whatsoever. The policy arrises out of the inter organizational politics of the groups.

They won't place a dog with you because in their collective opinion, you're one of those "sick, evil, twisted persons that doesn't alter their pets". You're just as bad as those terrible individuals that intentionally "breed" their dogs.


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Sophie_Mom said:


> I knew I should have come and kidnapped your cutest foster puppy in the world!
> 
> The puppy I was interested in was going to be spayed by the rescue group. They declined my application because we haven't neutered Sawyer.


I know and a lot of rescues have that requirement. I can understand why, but I also understand why you want to wait. To be honest, joining here was a good thing for my militant rescue butt! I wouldn't have considered case-by-case at all, but being exposed to responsible owners who have made the informed decision to wait until their dog is mature has really helped me become less cut and dried. But I also do know why rescues are the way they are, so I feel compelled to try to explain where they are coming from.

And I would have adopted that puppy to you in a heartbeat! I hope you had a wonderful vacation!


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

I guess I really don't understand the policy-if the dog is going to be spayed/neutered before being adopted out, why does it matter if there are intact animals in the house hold?


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

I think rescues are wonderful, wonderful organizations that do so much good. I am in awe of those that work in rescue and help all of the animals. I wish that there wouldn't be those hard black/white lines on some issues, this one included. We have a fenced yard and Sawyer NEVER runs free. We have no intentions of breeding him. Oh well. Makes me wonder how many other dogs could be rescued and have great homes if some of these issues were not made deal-breakers.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

Swampcollie said:


> You've run headlong into the political machine of rescue. You are correct that it makes no logical sense whatsoever. The policy arrises out of the inter organizational politics of the groups.
> 
> They won't place a dog with you because in their collective opinion, you're one of those "sick, evil, twisted persons that doesn't alter their pets". You're just as bad as those terrible individuals that intentionally "breed" their dogs.


Gotta say there are a lot of times when that is exactly what I think, they think.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

Go ahead and send me Bug, Linda.... If I (or Sawyer) really can't stand her (HA!), we'll send her packing! Fat chance!!!!


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> You've run headlong into the political machine of rescue. You are correct that it makes no logical sense whatsoever. The policy arrises out of the inter organizational politics of the groups.
> 
> They won't place a dog with you because in their collective opinion, you're one of those "sick, evil, twisted persons that doesn't alter their pets". You're just as bad as those terrible individuals that intentionally "breed" their dogs.


This is absolutely ridiculous on your part and it's a shame that a breeder can be so anti-rescue. There may be some rescue folks who feel that way, but I guess you just proved there are breeders who are just as bad with their stereotypical opinions that paint all rescue folks the same way. One or two rescues don't make the rescue world, any more than one or two breeders make the breeding world. You are just as black and white as the rescues you are pointing fingers at. Sure doesn't make you any better than the black and white rescues, does it?


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

I cannot see any valid reason a rescue would deny to adopt out a spayed or neutered dog to someone with an intact dog.

But the rescue owns the dog and as the owner they may make their rules and they do not need valid reasons for their rules.

There are breeders that may have rules that to me are not valid but they also own the pup and make the rules that jqp has to abide by to purchase their pup.

If jqp doesn't like the rules for the purchase they can go elsewhere.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Tell the rescue that your breeder wants to wait for you to neuter Sawyer. And was Sophie neutered? If she was point that out to them, too....


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

Sally's Mom said:


> Tell the rescue that your breeder wants to wait for you to neuter Sawyer. And was Sophie neutered? If she was point that out to them, too....


Thanks - I did send them a follow-up email, pointing those things out, and stating that my vet and breeder could confirm my reasons for not having Sawyer neutered yet. I also offered to bring Sawyer into them so they could meet him and do a temperament test on him. Yes, Sophie was spayed at 8 months.

I liked the comment that basically, everything happens for a reason and maybe what seems like a roadblock now will be the very thing that "forces" me to wait for the perfect dog. I wasn't going to "jump" immediately anyway, as I'm still hoping that Doolin (Mac) will have the perfect dog for us. We trust him implicitly in finding matches for us.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

I just wanted to reiterate that as I said, I think rescues are WONDERFUL. I am not, in any way, knocking them at all. I understand that they own the dogs, and they have every right to make the rules in who gets to adopt them. I'm just frustrated that the rules will prevent me from potentially being able to give a dog in need a really really great home. Again, I am in awe of rescues and all those that work for and with the rescues.


----------



## iansgran (May 29, 2010)

Whenever you make a strict rule or law in reaction to a situation you always run into exceptions. It is the whole mind set we have in our laws from English common law compared to Roman law. For instance the speed limit says 25 mph, in English law if you go 26 you broke the law. In Roman law 25 is the ideal but if you were way out in the country with no cars for miles you would be within the law to go 50. It is not just rescue groups that have this mentality, but most of our judicial system.


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

Steph,
Maybe if you were to speak to the president or board members and show them the contract of your breeder they might waive it. Not all rescues are cut in stone about the agreement that the dogs in the home have to be neutered or spayed before the adopted dog comes into it. Now having the adopted dog spayed or neutered before leaving the rescue, I can totally understand the reasoning. Besides some states law, there have been too many people that have lied or promised to do the fixing of the pets and never followed thru with it. 

I know my rescue had the rule that all dogs in the home of fosters being spayed or neutered but Bama wasnt old enough to be neutered (not 2 years) so they said as long as I got it done by his 2 yr birthday they would let me foster. I did the neuter and kept fostering. It was only done with the presidents permission. 

Now I saw a rescue that had the rule that you got some of your adoption fee back when you showed proof of the spay or neuter and to me that was just a big accident waiting to happen. People not getting the dogs fixed, having to keep money tied up for refunds that could be used for helping more dogs.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

I really believe the right dog, your dog, will come to you. If you really want to adopt a rescue, maybe start going to some of the events for the rescue groups and get to know the volunteers. Never hurts to make friends.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

I got an email response from one of the rescues - No exceptions, strict policy. It doesn't matter what my reasoning, if my pets aren't spayed/neutered, they will not even consider my application. 

I was honestly just posting this, because I truly had no idea this was a common policy. I expected that a rescue dog that I'd bring in would certainly be neutered, which made me think it wouldn't matter so much with Sawyer. Live and learn, and wait for MY perfect pooch to find me. 

If you all know of anyone looking for a great home, in my humble opinion, I could be that home! Cute and playful a MUST!


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

I can't help myself from looking - But am waiting this one out. Can't go wrong waiting for another Doolin!


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Sometimes rescues cut off their nose to spite their face....


----------



## Jige (Mar 17, 2011)

I dont understand around here the rescue animal needs to be altered not the dogs you already own. I would keep looking there has got to a shelter some place that will let you adopt.


----------



## BajaOklahoma (Sep 27, 2009)

Try to look it from their side. They have a dog that they care about and want to find a great home for life. They have lots of people applying, but don't really know anything about them. They have to come up with a wish list of the perfect owner. Of course they don't want to have any extra puppies produced - any breed, anywhere. So they want the perfect owner to agree with their desire to prevent unwanted pups.

Banker isn't neutered yet, per our breeder's contract and based on newer research. I have a 20 year history with our vet, who can vouch that all of our other dogs and cats were spayed/neutered. I even have friends who are heavily involved with two of the local Golden Rescues. That may not be enough to get a rescue yet.
So be it.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

As long as they have lots of people applying and these dogs are going to good homes, than I have no problem with them creating their wishlists of the perfect owners. My concern is that outstanding homes, like my own, are being passed on for a reason that really doesn't pertain to the situation. I agree they have every right to grant or not grant adoptions to whomever they want, for whatever reason they want. I'm just frustrated that in trying to do what I believe is "best" for my existing dog would prevent me from giving another dog, possibly in need, of a wonderful loving home. My friends/family that I've mentioned this to this afternoon laughed because I am the "crazy" dog person that treats her animals as well (if not better) than her people family. yet then, when I was at our local Humane Society, I saw some jack a%$ that dragged a dog in to "bring him back," because the dog had been afraid of a storm and tore up the trim in the room that they had locked him in alone. It's a very strange world where that man could adopt a dog from the Humane Society, but I cannot.

And these rescues that I inquired into/applied to were general rescues which I found on Petfinder. The dogs I inquired about were mixes/mutts. Not that it should matter, but I seemed to think there might be a difference in the specific breed rescues vs. the ones on Petfinder.


----------



## Tahnee GR (Aug 26, 2006)

I still don't understand the logic of requiring that other dogs in the household must be spayed/neutered, if the rescue dog is already spayed/neutered. Obviously, there is no danger of unwanted puppies in that situation.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

When I applied to adopt Ozzie, I was certain the rescue was going to reject me because Jersey is intact. I thought he looked like a great dog and would be a great match for our home, but honestly I mostly applied on a lark. I'm not going to throw out the name of the rescue here, but let's say that part of their name is an acronym, the first letter being "S" for "Spay/Neuter." When I spoke to the woman the next day she was so excited about my application but I just kept waiting for the other shoe to drop. Then she called me back and said, "I just noticed on your application you wrote that your current dog isn't neutered. Why is that?" I explained to her Jersey's an my situation, which is different than yours. Jersey is 5, a possible breeding prospect, my father was his breeder..... somewhat of a nightmare for a rescue. I explained to them that I have all his clearances and than I compete with him in obedience and agility. And then the most amazing thing happened. She asked if I showed him in conformation... and I honestly said that right now I do not because he would require a professional handler, which I can't afford. She then said, "Well is it possible that maybe someday in the future you might consider possibly showing him in conformation??" Well of course that's possible. And that was it. Done deal. Ozzie was mine the very next day... only 2 days after filling out the application on a whim. 

My point? Not all rescues are quite so black and white. A Doolin dog would be pretty over the top fantastic, but if that isn't meant to be don't rule out all rescues. You might try contacting a few without a particular dog in mind and get an idea of their feelings on the issue before you get your hopes up on a particular pup. Wherever you wind up finding your new friend, best of luck in your search!!

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Tahnee GR said:


> I still don't understand the logic of requiring that other dogs in the household must be spayed/neutered, if the rescue dog is already spayed/neutered. Obviously, there is no danger of unwanted puppies in that situation.


Logically I agree... but this isn't about logic. It's more a philosophical issue. It's not just about preventing an unwanted pregnancy between those two particular dogs... it's about preventing all unwanted/unplanned litters. The fact that someone has an intact dog in their house bucks right up against that. Not saying I agree with the line of thinking (obviously), but just the way I see where they may be coming from.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Logically I agree... but this isn't about logic. It's more a philosophical issue. It's not just about preventing an unwanted pregnancy between those two particular dogs... it's about preventing all unwanted/unplanned litters. The fact that someone has an intact dog in their house bucks right up against that. Not saying I agree with the line of thinking (obviously), but just the way I see where they may be coming from.


I think this is true... and I guess unless you've ever owned an intact dog, you can't comprehend this dog being able to live a full life without accidental breedings happening. A lot of these people have only owned neutered/spayed pets and think that these dogs are hormonal breeding machines unless altered. <- And if untrained and unmanaged, they are. If trained and managed, they definitely are not. But because these people don't spend too much time in those circles where there are intact purebred pets competing (field and performance goldens are bred for their ability and don't necessarily get into the conformation ring), they don't know too many intact dogs who can go out in public without running amuck. 

At least that's the gist I get from some people in rescue. 

They aren't all like that though. We would not have been able to adopt the collie otherwise. The foster we got him from didn't even blink when we told her we had an older intact male and were planning to bring a puppy home at some point.


----------



## Karen519 (Aug 21, 2006)

*Sophie Mom*

Sophie Mom

I think that most rescues require this, but it sure doesn't hurt to ask.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

I'm sorry you were denied, but I think for the most part, the requirement of all animals in a household be altered is pretty common for most Rescue Groups-I really haven't heard of any that didn't.

I adopted my Roxy from one of the GR Rescues 4.5 years ago that is no longer in operation-they required all animals in the household be altered, it was one of their Adoption Requirements. All dogs for adoption are altered before they are available for adoption.

Rescue groups are trying to be the Solution, not the problem.

I know there are a few states that require animals adopted from shelters or Rescue groups be altered-wish there were more. In my state, there is a big problem with pet overpopulation which results in a very high euthanasia rate. 

The Rescue group I adopted from allowed me to be the first contact person on Roxy's Chip registration, they were the second contact per the Adoption contract agreement.


----------



## momtoMax (Apr 21, 2009)

If you're not happy with their decision and feel like they lost a really great home by having that black and white policy, I suggest you tell them so. Write a long email, put in some pictures, let them know that their policy can sometimes work against them. Maybe it will make them think and change their attitude in the future.


----------



## C's Mom (Dec 7, 2009)

Sally's Mom said:


> Sometimes rescues cut off their nose to spite their face....


Indeed they do.......sometimes. 

I'm just going to throw this out there - perhaps rescues take such a hard line because for the most part the general public are selfish dumba#$'s when it comes to pet ownership. How else can we explain the millions of dogs and cats that are euthed every year? 

As a vet, I'm sure you see owners of every kind and description but at least they bring their dogs to you. I don't have to tax my brain very hard at all to come up with a list of the many dogs in my immediate vicinity who other than having their first shots will rarely, if ever, see a vet. Are these people awful? No, for the most part they are good, hard working families but they don't see dog ownership in quite the same way as we do here on this board.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

C's Mom said:


> Indeed they do.......sometimes.
> 
> I'm just going to throw this out there - perhaps rescues take such a hard line because for the most part the general public are selfish dumba#$'s when it comes to pet ownership. How else can we explain the millions of dogs and cats that are euthed every year?


I agree with this... but again, I think this is why rescues screen a home thoroughly, require vet references and even require that the dog be microchipped with them as the contact. I've picked up stay dogs and had better luck getting a hold of the rescue groups the dogs came from vs the new owners. This because people move without changing tags, etc. Or they simply aren't home when the dog went stray.

This subject came up before and I mentioned a neighbor of mine whose dog kept leaping the backyard fence to get at passing dogs (including my guy). I am happy to say that the owner has "matured" over the past year or so, and that dog spends more and more time inside. I think partly because the wife is on maternity leave and is home during the day. Prior to this, the dog was always outside. <- That's the type of home that gets approved for adoptions? As long as they have a fenced yard and don't own an intact dog?

And fwiw - I know a lot of people who deliberately breed their dogs. Or deliberately permit their dogs to breed. <- Blindly lumping responsible owners who never breed their dogs in with these types is insulting.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

I have a feeling this roadblock is going to lead to something really wonderful for you and the perfect dog will come along. Hang in there, and keep checking places like Craig's List too...


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

momtoMax said:


> *If you're not happy with their decision and feel like they lost a really great home by having that black and white policy, I suggest you tell them so.* Write a long email, put in some pictures, let them know that their policy can sometimes work against them. *Maybe it will make them think and change their attitude in the future.*


As others have said, there's a reason that policy exists. Aside from a few people here and there that feel personally offended by what is a completely logical stance, most people understand and agree with that position.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

C's Mom said:


> Indeed they do.......sometimes.
> 
> I'm just going to throw this out there - perhaps rescues take such a hard line because for the most part the general public are selfish dumba#$'s when it comes to pet ownership. How else can we explain the millions of dogs and cats that are euthed every year?
> 
> As a vet, I'm sure you see owners of every kind and description but at least they bring their dogs to you. I don't have to tax my brain very hard at all to come up with a list of the many dogs in my immediate vicinity who other than having their first shots will rarely, if ever, see a vet. Are these people awful? No, for the most part they are good, hard working families but they don't see dog ownership in quite the same way as we do here on this board.


Alot of the dogs that come into Rescues are pulled from shelters-the Rescue Groups have no idea what their backgrounds are or what they have been through. They want to do everything possible to make sure the dog(s) are adopted into families where they will be loved, well cared for, and given the life they deserve and they are placed in a forever home. Most Rescue groups do follows up on their dogs, have files on each dog adopted so they know where they are living throughout it's life. 

I use to help with Intakes for the Rescue I adopted my girl through-I was frequently shocked at the lack of Vet care many of the dogs we took in as Owner Surrenders received by the owners as well as many other things.


----------



## Debles (Sep 6, 2007)

The right dog will come along at he right time..just like how it worked out for us with Sasha! Sending you very good thoughts and hugs!


----------



## C's Mom (Dec 7, 2009)

Megora said:


> And fwiw - I know a lot of people who deliberately breed their dogs. Or deliberately permit their dogs to breed. <- Blindly lumping responsible owners who never breed their dogs in with these types is insulting.


It is insulting to us because it isn't something that we would do but we are the exception, not the norm. 

Case in point - all of last month I was trying to help my former neighbours (who are very aware of the euth stats) find a small breed rescue for their family. On paper they are the type of family that shelters/rescues would love to adopt to. They said all the right things about getting a dog S/N, the need for regular vet care, exercise, etc.. They had been trying for months to find just the right dog but had no luck. They ended up buying a "Chug" from a backyard breeder and I don't think that little girl pup was home for more than an hour before they started talking about breeding her - UGH!!!!


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Tahnee GR said:


> I still don't understand the logic of requiring that other dogs in the household must be spayed/neutered, if the rescue dog is already spayed/neutered. Obviously, there is no danger of unwanted puppies in that situation.


It's not just the one already altered dog they are placing. What most rescues see when someone has an intact dog is the potential for that person to breed and produce more puppies (regardless that it would not be with the adopted dog), it's the mindset they disagree with and can't support.

Obviously in your case that would not happen, but the rescues don't know you and have plenty of past experience with people who did breed indescriminately. 

We are such a minority of extremely responsible pet owners on this board. I work in rescue every day, you would simply not believe the things I have seen, and the completely irresponsible, moronic people FAR outnumber the responsible ones.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

mylissyk said:


> We are such a minority of extremely responsible pet owners on this board. I work in rescue every day, you would simply not believe the things I have seen, and the completely irresponsible, moronic people FAR outnumber the responsible ones.


Can I ever relate to your comment. I was shocked so many times,when I thought I'd seen it all, something far worse ALWAYS came along.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

For the rescue I foster for: our beliefs are spay/neuter is part of responsible pet ownership and imperitive to reducing the unwanted pet population and reducing the suffering witnessed on a daily basis, euthenasia is not an acceptable means of population control for animals.
Adopting a dog to a home where the existing animals are intact would be going against these beliefs and in essence condoning the keeping of intact animals - which to say the least - is hypocritical. The fact is, there are far more irresponsible people owning intact animals - the proof is in the shelters and rescues and dying on the streets, than there are responsible owners. The only way that you can be 100% sure that your dog is never going to reproduce, is by altering it. From what I understand 'oops' litters happen even in the 'controlled' environment of a breeder, so the risk is even higher with the general public.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

mylissyk said:


> It's not just the one already altered dog they are placing. What most rescues see when someone has an intact dog is the potential for that person to breed and produce more puppies (regardless that it would not be with the adopted dog), it's the mindset they disagree with and can't support.


It certainly is all about mindsets - both sides.

Again, I'm very happy the rescue we dealt with was willing to discuss issues with us and screen us properly. Otherwise, we would not have adopted him and he would either be in limbo or possibly in a home that couldn't afford his vet bills. 

While I love the work that rescue does, I do not appreciate some of the politics. I know as far as one rescue group here in Michigan, after I had a rather rude interaction with somebody over fences and my intact dog, I stopped donating to them. The fact is I was willing to adopt a dog and give that dog a better home than a lot of those that they line up. If they would deny the dog a good home based on their own bias and politics and furthermore treat well-meaning people like dirt, then they do not need my money. 

I guess further that, I would not even be speaking badly about rescues on threads like this if I didn't have negative experience and know exactly what the OP went through. I think we all know exactly the difference between the types of homes that have "oops" litters and those who don't.


----------



## Dreammom (Jan 14, 2009)

Steph,

I am so sorry that happened to you and I understand your frustration.

I have tried to rescue or adopt 5 times in the last 4 1/2 years, I have glowing references but have been turned down every time.
Actually with Sibe Rescue and Golden rescue I was not even allowed to fill out applications - why? I don't have a 6 foot fence, it is only 4 foot! GR rescue told me I did qualify for one of their special needs dogs...ie. epileptic. I am not sure how that works, I am not good enough for a young healthy dog, but am good enough for one that is sick and requires extra help?

Our local shelter had two Siberian Huskies that have haunted me for years, they have spent their entire lives in the shelter. I tried to adopt them when we lost Wolfie and was turned down because we have other dogs and there is a resource guarding issue ummm duh...common with multiple dogs! I wanted to give those two old dogs a family to love them in their golden years...I tried again on a fluke when we lost Aiyana, again was turned down for the same reason. One of the dogs died in the shelter last year, the other is still there, never knowing the love of a family.

I get so frustrated when I am shamed by people that I buy from breeders, that I should only rescue or adopt...trust me I have tried, and my heart has been broken too many times.

The right dog will come to you, they have always come to me.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

From different threads throughout the forum it looks like a lot of dogs miss out on really good homes. 

I do see it as a very sad situation that good people are punished and many dogs never get quality homes because there are bad owners out there so everyone with an intact dog "must" be a bad owner themselves.

One of the problems I see with this is that those that are good owners that are denied adoption (over and over) may in time turn toward those with less restrictions. Often this ends up putting the money into less than respectable rescues and breeders. It is a vicious circle.


----------



## AmberSunrise (Apr 1, 2009)

solinvictus said:


> From different threads throughout the forum it looks like a lot of dogs miss out on really good homes.
> 
> I do see it as a very sad situation that good people are punished and many dogs never get quality homes because there are bad owners out there so everyone with an intact dog "must" be a bad owner themselves.
> 
> One of the problems I see with this is that those that are good owners that are denied adoption (over and over) may in time turn toward those with less restrictions. Often this ends up putting the money into less than respectable rescues and breeders. It is a vicious circle.


Or by going to a Pet Store to get their dog.....


----------



## ggdenny (Nov 2, 2008)

I volunteer for a rescue in Wisconsin and I will only add that it has been my experience that the rules and requirements are always in the rescued dogs' best interest. The requirement that the doggie be spayed/neutered is, in my opinion, a good thing. Rescues and animal welfare organizations should be at the forefront of helping to educate the public about the pet population, and working to reduce the number of unwanted pets. A prospective adoptive home may indeed be very responsible and thoughtful and deserving of adopting a dog in need of a home, but the requirement that the dog be spayed/neutered should not be a deal breaker for someone truly wanting to adopt.

To the point that some of the dogs may miss out on going to good homes, that has not been my experience or happened with the rescue for which volunteer. There are far more adopting applicants than dogs in foster care.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> but the requirement that the dog be spayed/neutered should not be a deal breaker for someone truly wanting to adopt.


But it could be a deal breaker if the owner does not want to put their current dog through surgery just so they can adopt. I think even a rescue person said on another thread, if people are going to spend $600+ (cost of surgery + adoption fee), then they might as well buy a purebred puppy instead. 

Guys, sorry - I realize I've been taking a witchy tone on this. Part of it I can blame on a nagging toothache putting me in a crabby mood. I probably should not comment on things with a toothache going on. The rest is I don't believe that people who are crazy breeders or irresponsible breeders are going to be adopting anyway. They just go the BYB route or breed their dogs. Or they pick up free puppies from their breeding neighbors.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

ggdenny wrote:To the point that some of the dogs may miss out on going to good homes, that has not been my experience or happened with the rescue for which volunteer. There are far more adopting applicants than dogs in foster care.


That is awesome!
Unfortunately, that isn't everywhere. If I remember correctly on the forum there was one GR rescue that had over 50 dogs needing adoption in the past week or two. 

ggdenny wrote:The requirement that the doggie be spayed/neutered is, in my opinion, a good thing Rescues and animal welfare organizations should be at the forefront of helping to educate the public about the pet population, and working to reduce the number of unwanted pets.

I think everyone that has spoken up (written) on the thread are in aggreement that the dog being adopted should be spayed and neutered. That isn't what the problem is.
IMO, those serious about working to eliminate unwanted pets would work with adopters more individually instead of painting with a broad brush.
And in your area it looks like you don't have a pet population problem since there are more qualified adopters than dogs to adopt.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Sunrise said:


> Or by going to a Pet Store to get their dog.....


Someone that was turned down from adopting is far more likely to go to a breeder than a Pet Store to get a dog. Anyone that's savvy enough to find rescues online knows all about puppy mills and isn't likely to purchase from a Pet Store to support them.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Sterling Archer said:


> Someone that was turned down from adopting is far more likely to go to a breeder than a Pet Store to get a dog.


I don't agree with this at all. Those that are turned down by rescues for certain reasons might also be turned down by breeders for the exact same reasons. Maybe not Sophie_Mom because, in my opinion, she has a perfectly good reason for her dog not being neutered yet. But a lot of other reasons such as young children, no fence, references not checking out would also be deal breakers for a lot of breeders. 

Instant gratification is the main reason for people going to pet shops and BYBs for puppies. The application process for responsible rescues and breeders can be lengthy and time consuming. If a person had just gone through the process with a rescue and were ultimately turned down, I doubt many would want to take the time for that same process to be repeated with a breeder and then having the same outcome.

Granted, _some_ will go to good breeders, but most want a puppy NOW, so they'll take the easy route and buy from those that don't care who gets their puppies as long as the $$$ is paid.


----------



## THE HONEY WOLVES (Jun 9, 2007)

Sophie_Mom said:


> So, I'm putting some feelers out for bringing another dog home. We are still hoping that things will work out for us to get another dog from Doolin, but we are also leaving other options as well. I sent two inquiries/applications to two different rescue organizations and they both sent me denials because they require all animals in the house to be spayed/neutered. Boo! Is this pretty typical?? Because if so, we won't be able to rescue a dog. I can't believe that a rescue would deny us based solely on that. Our dogs are treated better than most people's children!!! Now I'm just feeling frustrated and disappointed.


We were denied also because we did not have a fenced in yard - we lived in a condo at the time and nobody cares more for their dogs than we do - stupid rules and stupid decisions - the poor dogs that need a home are the losers- while the rescues may have good intentions this kind of stupidity only hurts the dogs


----------



## Deb_Bayne (Mar 18, 2011)

Reading through this thread, I can see many not sticking to the topic. 

Why can't rescues go on a case by case basis? You have a contract with your breeder that you will not neuter until a certain age and does this contract stipulate that you MUST neuter? If so, why is the rescue digging it's heels in on a technicality? I would be contacting my local newspaper and bringing this out publicly and then see how fast the wheels turn then.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Sophie_Mom said:


> Thanks - I did send them a follow-up email, pointing those things out, and stating that my vet and breeder could confirm my reasons for not having Sawyer neutered yet. I also offered to bring Sawyer into them so they could meet him and do a temperament test on him. Yes, Sophie was spayed at 8 months.
> 
> I liked the comment that basically, everything happens for a reason and maybe what seems like a roadblock now will be the very thing that "forces" me to wait for the perfect dog. I wasn't going to "jump" immediately anyway, as I'm still hoping that Doolin (Mac) will have the perfect dog for us. We trust him implicitly in finding matches for us.


When we were looking to rescue we came across a lot of road blocks too. Our issue was the invisible fence and then availability of dogs. It was very difficult to find the right dog and to find one that fit our "loud house". The end result, is that we found Mackenzie through this board(we had to travel over 200 miles to get her)! Don't give up! I truly believe that MacKenzie was meant to be for us.

I do know that the pets already in the household not being neutered is a deal breaker for many, if not all rescues. I would get all your supporting documentation, breeder's contract, vet records for both Sophie and Sawyer and maybe even give them an idea of when you do plan to neuter like "spring of 2012" to prove you are a responsible owner for the next application you fill out.


----------



## cubbysan (Mar 13, 2007)

Sterling Archer said:


> Someone that was turned down from adopting is far more likely to go to a breeder than a Pet Store to get a dog. Anyone that's savvy enough to find rescues online knows all about puppy mills and isn't likely to purchase from a Pet Store to support them.


Unfortunately, I also know people who have bought from pet shops because they "were rescuing that puppy that had not been sold in 6 months". They thought that if they had not bought that puppy, the pet shop would send the puppy to the pound after a specific amount of time.

I have heard people say this multiple times.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Deb_Bayne said:


> I would be contacting my local newspaper and bringing this out publicly and then see how fast the wheels turn then.


I can't imagine you being serious about this.  I'm not condoning them turning down an obviously _great_ home, but giving bad publicity to a rescue that at least cares enough to have and enforce rules would be so counterproductive to _all_ rescues. 

The best thing to do would be to try and actually _talk_ to someone from these rescues that have turned you down. I know the one that had events at my store had the same rule about resident dogs being spayed and neutered and they were very strict about it being enforced. But...they made an exception for one of my customers that plead their case to the rescue's president. Most will make exceptions in certain instances. Those that don't have probably been burned many, many times in the past.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

Hey everyone! I certainly didn't mean to create such a heated discussion! I can certainly see both sides of this debate. As I've added a couple of times - I think rescues and all that work in rescues are beyond wonderful. I wasn't trying to knock or slam them at all. I completely understand their rationale and perspective in this matter. In saying that, I do believe that they are forgoing some really wonderful homes by sticking hard and fast to all of their rules, but that is their prerogative. I basically started this thread because I was surprised, I honestly never imagined that my not having Sawyer neutered at this point would prevent me from rescuing a dog that would be spayed/neutered. Live and learn. I'd never do anything that would show anything but the utmost respect for them and their organizations.

I wasn't necessarily pursuing any particular dog or even actually applying at this point, so although I saw some cute dogs, I was not really attached to any one in particular. My heart was not broken. I basically wanted to start the process, just in case, and make some general inquiries. It is still my greatest hope that my next dog won't, in fact, come from a rescue organization at all. I'm still planning and hoping for Smidge (from Doolin) to be our next pupper. As long as it's a good fit for her and Sawyer, that will definitely be the direction we go. My brain just likes to keep busy, so in the meantime, I was just doing a possible "Plan B."


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

kwhit said:


> *I don't agree with this at all. * Those that are turned down by rescues for certain reasons might also be turned down by breeders for the exact same reasons. Maybe not Sophie_Mom because, in my opinion, she has a perfectly good reason for her dog not being neutered yet. But a lot of other reasons such as young children, no fence, references not checking out would also be deal breakers for a lot of breeders.
> 
> The application process for responsible rescues and breeders can be lengthy and time consuming. If a person had just gone through the process with a rescue and were ultimately turned down, I doubt many would want to take the time for that same process to be repeated with a breeder and then having the same outcome.
> 
> Granted, _some_ will go to good breeders, but *most want a puppy NOW*, so they'll take the easy route and buy from those that don't care who gets their puppies as long as the $$$ is paid.


Your line of reasoning is that MOST people who are attempting to adopt a dog from a rescue want a puppy NOW? Most rescues that I've ever heard of go through an application process, screen a candidate, etc...as you said. Someone who knows that going in isn't going to jump from one end of the extreme (willing to be screened to adopt a dog) to going to the other end of the spectrum and going to a pet store just because a few rescues shoot them down.




Deb_Bayne said:


> Reading through this thread, I can see many not sticking to the topic.
> *
> Why can't rescues go on a case by case basis?* You have a contract with your breeder that you will not neuter until a certain age and does this contract stipulate that you MUST neuter? If so, why is the rescue digging it's heels in on a technicality?* I would be contacting my local newspaper and bringing this out publicly and then see how fast the wheels turn then.*


It makes more sense and is less time consuming for them to screen applicants if they have a set policy and don't deviate from it. If they had to judge every facet of every individuals situation, it would be a complete waste of time.

Seriously? lol.


----------



## mylspen (Mar 14, 2011)

So have someone rescue the dog for you that qualifies and you then take the dog from them.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

Steph, I'm not sure how animal controls work in your area of the country but when I was helping with intakes with a local golden rescue group at least one suburb's AC had a policy to adopt to the public first, then rescues got the dog. I was called by an intake person once to go to this shelter to pick up a golden and when I arrived the officer told me a family was out in the back with the dog and their city's policy was the public got first dibs. I was fine with that policy because it makes perfect sense to me (it didn't to this particular intake person that called me to get the dog though ). The officer asked if I would go out and visit with the family about goldens and what to expect. I did just that, spent about an hour with them answering their questions, and they ended up adopting the dog. I made sure that they had the rescue's contact information if it didn't work out for them. I just assumed, perhaps incorrectly, most municipal animal shelters worked that way. Anyway, some of the municipal animal shelters here have their own databases of adoptable dogs or use Petfinder and if it works that way where you are a little internet searching or phone calls might turn up a great dog that needs a new home and family.

On another note, you get all types trying to adopt the dogs and it's those nutty people that cause rescues to adopt some of their rules. At one meet and greet one woman was complaining rather loudly that she didn't understand why the rescue would not let her adopt a golden without it being spayed because she wanted to breed a "rescued" female to her unaltered male dog at home. :uhoh::doh: oyyy...:doh::doh:


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

mylspen said:


> So have someone rescue the dog for you that qualifies and you then take the dog from them.


That would be in violation of the adoption contract and the rescue could legally enforce the contract, meaning the dog would go back to rescue.


----------



## kwhit (Apr 7, 2008)

Sterling Archer said:


> Your line of reasoning is that MOST people who are attempting to adopt a dog from a rescue want a puppy NOW? Most rescues that I've ever heard of go through an application process, screen a candidate, etc...as you said. Someone who knows that going in isn't going to jump from one end of the extreme (willing to be screened to adopt a dog) to going to the other end of the spectrum and going to a pet store just because a few rescues shoot them down.


Well, from my own experience of being in pet related fields for 35 years, most of which were dealing with consumers, I stick by my reasoning. I've dealt with many, many rescues holding events at my stores and most of the people turned down, would come in a week or two later with their new puppy. Purchased, usually, from the newspaper or another shop that sells puppies. They _did not_ want to wait. This was also after going through my list of responsible breeders and rescues that I provided for my customers that were looking for a puppy/dog. 

Many also bought out of state from sites like puppyfind and nextdaypets. A lot went to kijiji, too. I worked with thousands and thousands of pet owners over the years and the majority of those purchased their pets from the newspaper, city shelters, (which USUALLY have a very lenient adoption process), BYBs and friend's litters. More and more are adopting from rescues but that wasn't the case until a few years ago. Very, very few actually purchase from responsible breeders.


----------



## CAROLINA MOM (May 12, 2009)

Deb_Bayne said:


> Reading through this thread, I can see many not sticking to the topic.
> 
> Why can't rescues go on a case by case basis? You have a contract with your breeder that you will not neuter until a certain age and does this contract stipulate that you MUST neuter? If so, why is the rescue digging it's heels in on a technicality? I would be contacting my local newspaper and bringing this out publicly and then see how fast the wheels turn then.


I would speak and work with the Rescue Group Adoption Coordinator directly, contacting the media would be counter productive IMO and cause more harm than good. 

Rescue groups have rules and policies in place to protect the dogs and some groups do work on a case by case basis, but I don't feel they will budge on the alter requirements of other pets in the household. They also have the right to not approve applicants they feel do not meet their adoption requirements.


----------



## Dallas Gold (Dec 22, 2007)

kwhit said:


> Well, from my own experience of being in pet related fields for 35 years, most of which were dealing with consumers, I stick by my reasoning. I've dealt with many, many rescues holding events at my stores and most of the people turned down, would come in a week or two later with their new puppy. Purchased, usually, from the newspaper or another shop that sells puppies. They _did not_ want to wait. This was also after going through my list of responsible breeders and rescues that I provided for my customers that were looking for a puppy/dog.
> 
> Many also bought out of state from sites like puppyfind and nextdaypets. A lot went to kijiji, too. I worked with thousands and thousands of pet owners over the years and the majority of those purchased their pets from the newspaper, city shelters, (which USUALLY have a very lenient adoption process), BYBs and friend's litters. More and more are adopting from rescues but that wasn't the case until a few years ago. Very, very few actually purchase from responsible breeders.


One of my good friends, who is very intelligent, was disapproved by a Yorkie rescue for who knows what reason. The next week she came home from a Petland with a Yorkie puppy and told me she wanted a puppy and got it the fastest way she could. I mentioned the dog was most likely a puppy mill dog but she didn't care at that point. She is just one example of what you are pointing out in this thread. She is a wonderful pet owner and her store-bought puppy mill Yorkie is treated like a Queen. The rescue missed out on a wonderful possible adopter and a dedicated potential volunteer, but my friend got what she wanted, when she wanted and didn't look back for one second other than to laugh at the fact she was denied as an adopter.


----------



## dberk (Jul 5, 2011)

Rescues - well meaning but sometimes mis-guided. They generally act to a strict checklist, not case-by-case. So, lots of dogs lose out on good homes. Strange thing though - I have run across several rescues that have different rules for fostering than for adoption. Some will allow you to foster without regards for fixed/not-fixed, fenced in yard, ... But you can't adopt. 

However I think the "goods" of rescues certainly outweigh the "bads".


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Megora said:


> But it could be a deal breaker if the owner does not want to put their current dog through surgery just so they can adopt. I think even a rescue person said on another thread, if people are going to spend $600+ (cost of surgery + adoption fee), then they might as well buy a purebred puppy instead.


That wasn't exactly what I said in that thread. You were suggesting that the rescues get a $250+ spay/neuter deposit for unaltered puppies so that the owners could wait until the puppy was over 18 months old to alter them. I said that if an adopter was going to put out that amount of money (around $900 for adoption fee plus deposit plus S/N at the vet), they would likely just go to a BYB who had no restrictions and charged a lot less than $900.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

fostermom said:


> *I said that if an adopter was going to put out that amount of money (around $900 for adoption fee plus deposit plus S/N at the vet), they would likely just go to a BYB who had no restrictions and charged a lot less than $900*.


And I said: 



> *I think even a rescue person said on another thread, if people are going to spend $600+ (cost of surgery + adoption fee), then they might as well buy a purebred puppy instead. *


I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, Fostermom... and maybe I'm dense here (always a hazard), but whether a person is neutering an adoptable dog or their own dog, the point is about the same. Right? Or what am I missing. :


----------



## DaisyGolden (Jan 4, 2008)

I know she is not near where you live but I saw this sweet looking girl on petfinder and thought I'd show you anyway. Petfinder Adoptable Dog | Golden Retriever | Oxford, MS | Chloe


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

Megora said:


> And I said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, Fostermom... and maybe I'm dense here (always a hazard), but whether a person is neutering an adoptable dog or their own dog, the point is about the same. Right? Or what am I missing. :


The point of the other thread was spay/neuter of an adopted puppy. The discussion was about suggesting charging a very high, refundable fee for the adopter to allow them to alter when the puppy got older. It really is apples to oranges when compared to this thread. This thread is about the owner's dog being unaltered as opposed to suggesting a $250 spay/neuter deposit. 

Nobody is forcing the adopter to alter their dog. There are lots and lots and lots of dogs in shelters. Shelters don't normally require s/n of the family dog(s), though some do require s/n for the adopted dog.

I have been in our local SPCA several times where someone wants to adopt a dog and have argued with the employees because they want the dog left intact. The ignorance is really overwhelming sometimes.


----------



## LauraBella (Feb 9, 2010)

A couple options for you to consider if you are wanting to rescue.
1) Rescue on your own, from a shelter, etc. Adopt a Golden from the humane society. 2) Try a "general" rescue. You can still tell them you are looking for a Golden. Also, mixed breed rescues (in my area any way) see to be less.
3) Perhaps request a letter from your breeder stating the terms of your contract, etc and attach it to your application. You could try emphasizing that your rescue dog will be altered.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> The point of the other thread was spay/neuter of an adopted puppy....


I know.. I wasn't having that dense a moment.  



> Nobody is forcing the adopter to alter their dog.


Not sure if anyone said that? Simply that you are not allowed to adopt with an intact dog. Meaning (this is the part where I'm too dense to figure out the difference between apples and oranges), in order to adopt a $300+ puppy/dog from a rescue, you would have to take your own dog in to the vet to have a $300+ surgery done. 



> I have been in our local SPCA several times where someone wants to adopt a dog and have argued with the employees because they want the dog left intact.


I'm all for neutering and spaying adopted dogs. Even our purebred adopted dog (who came with papers from his previous owner) is neutered. We had no problem with that.


----------



## Sally's Mom (Sep 20, 2010)

Many years ago, the local shelters had an arrangement with many of the local vet hospitals: adopters would get a certificate to spay/neuter for free and also get a free first exam. So many people even though it was free, never did either. Now they are neutered before they leave and most area hospitals still do the free first exam.


----------



## Sophie_Mom (Jan 21, 2009)

I'm feeling really badly that I started this thread... I really had no intentions of it turning into such a debate. 

My perfect outcome is that Doolin's Smidge will come and live with us and be a great loving companion for us and a fun-loving companion for Sawyer.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Sterling Archer said:


> It makes more sense and is less time consuming for them to screen applicants if they have a set policy and don't deviate from it. If they had to judge every facet of every individuals situation, it would be a complete waste of time.
> 
> Seriously? lol.


Yes, seriously. If the rescue I worked with didn't look deeper at the facets of my situation, Ozzie would not be with me. This dog has an awesome home, top notch training, will likely compete in obedience and agility when he is older, has every vacation planned around the "dog friendly" factor, and has his every need and whim catered to. Seriously? There is no better home for this dog. Thankfully that rescue didn't see having a conversation with me to better understand my situation as "a complete waste of time." And horror of horrors, I was completely honest with them and told them that my current dog is not only intact, but a breeding prospect. Some rescues get that not all owners are irresponsible schmucks and take some of the gray areas into account.

That said, until working in such a rural area, I never had really witnessed the sheer irresponsibility of many many many many otherwise wonderful people. I get it. I really do. I just think rescues, and the dogs they are advocating for, would be better served if more would take the time to look at things on an individual case-by-case basis.

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Sophie_Mom said:


> I'm feeling really badly that I started this thread... I really had no intentions of it turning into such a debate.
> 
> My perfect outcome is that Doolin's Smidge will come and live with us and be a great loving companion for us and a fun-loving companion for Sawyer.


Don't feel bad!!! These types of debates have happened more than a few times on this forum. And while there's certainly a level of disagreement between members, I honestly believe it is these conversations that have really bridged a lot of the gap between breeders and rescues on this site. Someone earlier in this thread stated how the conversations here had opened their mind to the idea of delaying neutering until maturity, which they previously would never have considered. I think in the end these conversations almost always turn into a good thing unless it turns personal and someone feels attacked.... and from what I've seen, everyone in this thread has done a really good job of avoiding that. 

Good luck with Smidge! Don't take the first rough meeting too hard. Keep in mind, she's just had a litter and probably isn't feeling top notch. I would imagine that at her best she's a pretty playful girl herself, and though she may teach Sawyer his place (lol, the bitches always do... ask Jersey) they'll likely get along great!


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sophie_Mom said:


> I'm feeling really badly that I started this thread... I really had no intentions of it turning into such a debate.
> 
> My perfect outcome is that Doolin's Smidge will come and live with us and be a great loving companion for us and a fun-loving companion for Sawyer.


I'm sorry, Steph... 

I've been sensitive about this issue since an incident last year with a dog who I fell in love with (english setter/golden or lab mix, I met him, etc) and wanted to adopt. This from a rescue that I'd been giving money, food, stuff to for the last few years. So when you posted this thread, I knew EXACTLY how you felt. :doh: 

There are other options out there - other rescues, etc...


----------



## fostermom (Sep 6, 2007)

> *That said, until working in such a rural area, I never had really witnessed the sheer irresponsibility of many many many many otherwise wonderful people. I get it. I really do. I just think rescues, and the dogs they are advocating for, would be better served if more would take the time to look at things on an individual case-by-case basis.*


But Julie, you are starting to see what the rescues in NC/SC have to deal with. To be honest, if it weren't for the influx of northerners coming down here, nothing would change. I am not saying bad things about native southerners, my son is one! LOL. But the fact is, in the south, spay/neuter is not anywhere at the top of things people do with their pets. 

With the sheer number of animals that come through rescue, there isn't time to devote to each adopter individually. We have to have some sort of parameters in place to work from. Otherwise, it's almost impossible to work through all the applicants. 

BTW, for those disparaging rescues, most of the purebred rescues were founded by reputable breeders and the guidelines have been in place from the beginning, though they do change as things change over time.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Dallas Gold said:


> On another note, you get all types trying to adopt the dogs and it's those nutty people that cause rescues to adopt some of their rules. At one meet and greet one woman was complaining rather loudly that she didn't understand why the rescue would not let her adopt a golden without it being spayed because she wanted to breed a "rescued" female to her unaltered male dog at home. :uhoh::doh: oyyy...:doh::doh:


I was just glancing back through the thread and can't believe I missed this gem. OMG. :doh:


----------



## BeauShel (May 20, 2007)

I know some people here have had some negative experiences with rescues but you have to understand rescues have rules for reasons and have to answer to other people themselves. Like a board and insurance people. It is not just a bunch of people sitting around saying lets make this rule and that rule to keep people from adopting dogs. If you were involved in rescue like some of us are, then you would see some of the stories and lies that people (not saying anyone here is a liar) give us. 
I personally had a woman have on paper a glowing application and references. Talked to neighbors all good. Then talked to the vet techs and they gave me a whole different story. All bad. Had a woman say "oh no shaving a golden is bad then when I adoped a golden to her, looked at her fb page and there was her adopted golden shaved. I am not a happy camper. I told the rescue president about that Saturday night. She is putting the negatives of shaving in the monthly newsletter as a reminder to all adopters. We have had people lie to our faces, hide dogs from us to keep us from taking them back. And they all looked great on paper. So unfortunately everyone pays because of the bad people. 

Again I am not saying anyone here is a bad person or not deserving to adopt from a rescue. Also if you do get denied send a letter or call and ask to speak to the president of the rescue. Write the board of the directors to get an exception, you never know it might work. There can be exceptions sometimes.


----------



## Maggies mom (Jan 6, 2006)

Our rescue years ago adopted a spayed female out to a family who had an intacted male... the first couple weeks were fine, then the male kept mounting the female.... the fight broke out... and kept breaking out...The male wouldnt back off.... Needless to say the female came back to us.. These rescue dogs have been through enough that we want them in a forever home.Not all goldens get along with intacted males or unspayed females. Im not pointing this as the Op would be a bad owner either, but If this happen in your house ... and you had a choice of bringing the dog back or get yours altered..what would the choice be?


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Maggies mom said:


> Our rescue years ago adopted a spayed female out to a family who had an intacted male... the first couple weeks were fine, then the male kept mounting the female.... the fight broke out... and kept breaking out...The male wouldnt back off.... Needless to say the female came back to us.. These rescue dogs have been through enough that we want them in a forever home.Not all goldens get along with intacted males or unspayed females. Im not pointing this as the Op would be a bad owner either, but If this happen in your house ... and you had a choice of bringing the dog back or get yours altered..what would the choice be?


There is somebody I go to class with who was amazed that her neutered male still tries to mount her female. So even if a dog is neutered, that isn't a sure bet that he's going to be a good boy or that mounting won't happen. Especially with a new dog in his home. There is a lot of confusion that the dog is going through, especially if he's been in a single dog home. It's not always a sexual thing. There is a lot of hierarchy sorting. 

A new puppy at our house will most likely have more trouble from the neutered collie who is very dominant and assertive. <- Some of which helped when he was helping out with raising Jacks. 

Definitely my feeling is that if somebody is bringing a new dog home - puppy or adult, they need to be controlling all interaction. And reinforcing manners training... and that's intact dogs or not.


----------



## Maggies mom (Jan 6, 2006)

I agree, you have people who are going to be in control and watch the interaction, then on the other hand some cant be bothered, with training either..... When we have new rescues come in we wont even put them in with spayed or neutered dogs, because the fight 80 % of the time breaks out and its with the unspayed or unneutered one


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Jersey's Mom said:


> ...I just think rescues, and the dogs they are advocating for, would be better served if more would take the time to look at things on an individual case-by-case basis.
> 
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


You do realize rescues function totally on volunteer time, people taking time out of their lives, out of their families lives, to volunteer to screen applications, interview applicants, check vet references, do home visits, and show dogs to prospective adopters?

If there were no guidelines and volunteers had to review each and every application on a case by case basis, without anything to guide them, first it would be horrendously impossible just from a time perspective, and second imagine the number of people who would be p*&*ed because they got rejected and the rescue had nothing to back up why.

There have to be guidelines and policies, no group could function without them.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Maggies mom said:


> Our rescue years ago adopted a spayed female out to a family who had an intacted male... the first couple weeks were fine, then the male kept mounting the female.... the fight broke out... and kept breaking out...The male wouldnt back off.... Needless to say the female came back to us.. These rescue dogs have been through enough that we want them in a forever home.Not all goldens get along with intacted males or unspayed females. Im not pointing this as the Op would be a bad owner either, but If this happen in your house ... and you had a choice of bringing the dog back or get yours altered..what would the choice be?


Some intact dogs are like this, true. But definitely not all. I daresay that if Jersey responded this way around other dogs, he would likely not have remained intact this long.... because he's always lived in a multi-dog situation and I don't think my sanity could take it. He has lived with another neutered male (when I first got him, my roommate had a mix from the humane society) as well as a variety of intact and spayed females, both related and not (at my parents' house).... and now he lives with Oz. 

Rescues require that the resident dog and potential adoptee meet and socialize on neutral ground and at the house during a home visit... and my particular rescue required a 7 day trial period before they would consider the adoption finalized (they called me 2 or 3 times that week to check in and make sure everything was ok, did not cash my check, etc.). There can be personality/temperament conflicts whether the resident dog is neutered or not.... which is why all these tests and safeguards are in place, correct? So really, one could argue that it shouldn't make a difference.

I really do get the deeper philosophical issue and as fostermom pointed out I am seeing a lot of the reasoning behind it up close and personal recently, so I hope none of this comes off as attacking or lecturing. I've not been around the forum much lately, but those that have gotten to know me over the years know that I love a good debate and often use it as a way of learning myself. (and that I tend to be a tad longwinded, lol).

The thing is, I've only worked with only 1 rescue in my short dog-owning life and having had the experience of them be so willing to hear me out, really check my references, be so open minded and take the issue to the board for debate and approval -- well, I just can't imagine why others would not be willing to do the same. And remember, this was a cute puppy who surely would have been easily snatched up by someone... not an older dog or a dog with any sort of issue who they may have worried wouldn't have another good opportunity. AND unlike the OP, I hold open the possibility of using my boy as a stud and am not just honoring the breeder contract and seeking the health benefits by waiting to neuter.... and being the person that I am, I was fully honest and upfront about that fact. Like I said earlier, I was certain they would turn me away.... but so very very lucky that they did not.

I understand that it is quicker/easier/more efficient (I'm not sure the best wording) to have strict rules and keep everything black and white. But if this is truly about finding the best forever homes we can for dogs, then doesn't it demand that we look at the whole , individual picture? Perhaps there are some rescues like the one mentioned earlier that have way more suitable applications than available dogs... but bottom line is that's nowhere near the picture at most rescues. By turning away perfectly suitable homes (like the OP's or others in this thread who have shared similar stories), doesn't the rescue in essence shoot themselves in the foot? Or worse... tie up foster space unnecessarily, ultimately denying the chance for another dog to come into the rescue (with all the very sad possibilities that come along with that.)? 

Julie, Jersey and Oz


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Maggies mom said:


> or neutered dogs, because the fight 80 % of the time breaks out and its with the unspayed or unneutered one


One thing I noticed with our one golden after we neutered him - he really became protective of his rear. And this changed a lot of the natural interaction with his brother. 

I wonder if that's why these fights happen? I mean our dogs never "fought" (outside of playfighting) when they were both intact and even after the older guy was altered... but Sammy would most definitely snap at Danny to get him to back off if he got too close to his rear.

^ This has nothing to do with the topic, but we did find it was interesting when we went through that with our boys.


----------



## Maggies mom (Jan 6, 2006)

Jersey's Mom said:


> By turning away perfectly suitable homes (like the OP's or others in this thread who have shared similar stories), doesn't the rescue in essence shoot themselves in the foot?
> Julie, Jersey and Oz


I can only speak for our rescue and to this question I would say not really, most of our adopters are ones that have adopted from us, We really dont have a shortage of new people wanting to adopt from us either. And this isnt just adopters in our area, we have them come from out of state as well.

Some of our policies are in stone, but others are not. Our place can house 25 dogs, plus we have different vets that board for us and our foster homes, If we need a place for a dog, our foster homes open up and will take more than one if need be.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

mylissyk said:


> You do realize rescues function totally on volunteer time, people taking time out of their lives, out of their families lives, to volunteer to screen applications, interview applicants, check vet references, do home visits, and show dogs to prospective adopters?
> 
> If there were no guidelines and volunteers had to review each and every application on a case by case basis, without anything to guide them, first it would be horrendously impossible just from a time perspective, and second imagine the number of people who would be p*&*ed because they got rejected and the rescue had nothing to back up why.
> 
> There have to be guidelines and policies, no group could function without them.


You're 100% right... I'm not saying to completely trash all of the rules/requirements. And I have the utmost respect for the people who choose to take time out of their lives to do all of that work. The rescue that I adopted from has the same rule as all the rest, "All resident dogs must be spayed or neutered." But I gave greatly detailed and completely honest answers on my application, I provided strong references, I explained my position to them in a phone interview, they met Jersey, Oz met Jersey, etc. etc. All of the same things that normally happen. They took the entire picture of my situation into account, (which I honestly don't believe took significantly more time than closely vetting someone without an intact dog... they go through all the same steps for every adoption) and decided in the end to make an exception. And in this case, everyone won. I got an awesome dog, they freed up foster space and gained an avid supporter, and Oz got a great forever home with the coolest big brother dog ever (if I do say so myself  ) 

I honestly do not believe that fully vetting me was that much more time consuming than it would have been to toss my application, wait for another application (which could take goodness knows how long... in about 2 months, Ozzie's twin brother had a few inquiries but no applications, but very luckily wound up a failed foster as they fell in love with him) and fully vet the next person. Folks in rescue pride themselves on their screening process for adopters.... it's why we encourage people who come to this forum to go through rescue and not just put an ad for their unwanted dog (or the dog they can't keep because of the financial situation or illness or some other truly heartbreaking reason) in the paper or on craig's list or put up flyers or whatever. So how does it swing from "we do a thorough check of all adopters" to "there's just no time to thoroughly check people out"? (Note: I'm not implying that's a direct quote or even paraphrase of what you said... the quote marks are just an imaginary person possibly saying words to that affect).


----------



## Maggies mom (Jan 6, 2006)

Megora said:


> One thing I noticed with our one golden after we neutered him - he really became protective of his rear. And this changed a lot of the natural interaction with his brother.
> 
> I wonder if that's why these fights happen? I mean our dogs never "fought" (outside of playfighting) when they were both intact and even after the older guy was altered... but Sammy would most definitely snap at Danny to get him to back off if he got too close to his rear.
> 
> ^ This has nothing to do with the topic, but we did find it was interesting when we went through that with our boys.


Could be, we havent figured it out yet and might not ever.... I have one that he gives you 1 free sniff of the rear end and after that he will growl or snap to back strange dogs off.


----------



## CarolinaCasey (Jun 1, 2007)

mylissyk said:


> You do realize rescues function totally on volunteer time, people taking time out of their lives, out of their families lives, to volunteer to screen applications, interview applicants, check vet references, do home visits, and show dogs to prospective adopters?
> 
> If there were no guidelines and volunteers had to review each and every application on a case by case basis, without anything to guide them, first it would be horrendously impossible just from a time perspective, and second imagine the number of people who would be p*&*ed because they got rejected and the rescue had nothing to back up why.
> 
> There have to be guidelines and policies, no group could function without them.


Our rescue has guidelines, but we still look at each and every application with the same fine-tooth comb. Yes, it takes time but the time can lead to more information about a family and a better match. To say that it takes too much time to dig deeper and evaluate the few "case-by-case" isn't true. There are some applications that are definite throw aways because of other reasons. The applications are few and farther between that need a case by case evaluation.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

CarolinaCasey said:


> Our rescue has guidelines, but we still look at each and every application with the same fine-tooth comb. Yes, it takes time but the time can lead to more information about a family and a better match. To say that it takes too much time to dig deeper and evaluate the few "case-by-case" isn't true. There are some applications that are definite throw aways because of other reasons. The applications are few and farther between that need a case by case evaluation.


Exactly. We do the same.


----------



## mylissyk (Feb 25, 2007)

Jersey's Mom said:


> You're 100% right... I'm not saying to completely trash all of the rules/requirements. And I have the utmost respect for the people who choose to take time out of their lives to do all of that work. The rescue that I adopted from has the same rule as all the rest, "All resident dogs must be spayed or neutered." But I gave greatly detailed and completely honest answers on my application, I provided strong references, I explained my position to them in a phone interview, they met Jersey, Oz met Jersey, etc. etc. All of the same things that normally happen. They took the entire picture of my situation into account, (which I honestly don't believe took significantly more time than closely vetting someone without an intact dog... they go through all the same steps for every adoption) and decided in the end to make an exception. And in this case, everyone won. I got an awesome dog, they freed up foster space and gained an avid supporter, and Oz got a great forever home with the coolest big brother dog ever (if I do say so myself  )
> 
> I honestly do not believe that fully vetting me was that much more time consuming than it would have been to toss my application, wait for another application (which could take goodness knows how long... in about 2 months, Ozzie's twin brother had a few inquiries but no applications, but very luckily wound up a failed foster as they fell in love with him) and fully vet the next person. Folks in rescue pride themselves on their screening process for adopters.... it's why we encourage people who come to this forum to go through rescue and not just put an ad for their unwanted dog (or the dog they can't keep because of the financial situation or illness or some other truly heartbreaking reason) in the paper or on craig's list or put up flyers or whatever. So how does it swing from "we do a thorough check of all adopters" to "there's just no time to thoroughly check people out"? (Note: I'm not implying that's a direct quote or even paraphrase of what you said... the quote marks are just an imaginary person possibly saying words to that affect).


The key here is that you gave enough information on the application to warrant a closer look. I would encourage anyone who has a similar situation to do just that, provide any and all information that might give a rescue a reason to check people out more thoroughly than the normal process.


----------



## goldengirl09 (Jul 23, 2009)

I didn't go through this whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating anybody but I was just going to suggest going through a shelter or even craigslist if you're getting turned down by rescues.

Now when I say go on craigslist, you obviously have to be very careful doing that so you don't support puppy mills or anything but there are a lot of people that are just going through a rough time and have to give up there pet. I know if I ever really had to give up my dog, I would want to find his new forever home myself instead of putting him in a shelter or foster home. Some will even give you the dog for free or perhaps you could pay in the form of a donation to your local rescue or shelter.

Anyway, just an idea. Best of luck with whatever you end up doing!! 

Also, if you call the rescue and demonstrate what a great owner you are and explain your reasons for waiting to neuter, they might be willing to hear you out. Offer references and whatever else. Good luck!


----------



## goldengirl09 (Jul 23, 2009)

Almost forgot, you might already know of the site but petfinder.com is a great way to look for pets! You might find a shelter dog or a rescue that's more flexible.


----------



## laprincessa (Mar 24, 2008)

Question - one of my friends just lost her poodle to cancer, and she's looking at rescuing. She isn't working right now. Is that a reason to deny her? I thought it would be a plus, she has lots of time to spend with the puppy - but she's concerned that it will be a negative.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

goldengirl09 said:


> I didn't go through this whole thread so sorry if I'm repeating anybody but *I was just going to suggest going through a shelter or even craigslist if you're getting turned down by rescues.*
> 
> Now when I say go on craigslist, you obviously have to be very careful doing that so you don't support puppy mills or anything but there are a lot of people that are just going through a rough time and have to give up there pet. I know if I ever really had to give up my dog, I would want to find his new forever home myself instead of putting him in a shelter or foster home. Some will even give you the dog for free or perhaps you could pay in the form of a donation to your local rescue or shelter.
> 
> ...


Yup. We got a puppy from one of my wife's co-workers for free (they advertised on the bulletin board at work). They'd left their pure golden female (not spayed) in the backyard (unfenced) and their neighbors GSD/Husky mix got a hold of her. 

Are they a "backyard" breeder? No. Their dog just got knocked-up and had puppies, like umpteenzillion other dogs in this country. We both work, but I had no interest in spending $500+ on a breeders puppy if I could get a perfectly good dog around town for nothing. As it turns out...I don't think we could have hoped for a better natured dog.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

Sterling Archer wrote: They'd left their pure golden female (not spayed) in the backyard (unfenced) and their neighbors GSD/Husky mix got a hold of her. 

Are they a "backyard" breeder?
_________________-

Well, their dog was bred in the backyard. 

I probably wouldn't call the people back yard breeders because for me the definition of a backyard breeder is more than one irresponsible breeding.

They certainly were irresponsible pet owners. Hopefully they have become much better pet owners and that was the only irresponsible thing they have done with their pet.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

solinvictus said:


> Sterling Archer wrote: They'd left their pure golden female (not spayed) in the backyard (unfenced) and their neighbors GSD/Husky mix got a hold of her.
> 
> Are they a "backyard" breeder?
> _________________-
> ...



Exactly. That is why I can't see having a dog without getting it spayed/neutered. 

My brother in laws dog has gotten knocked up twice :uhoh:. After the first time, his wife told him to go get he dog spayed. He of course blew her off and it happened again. If you leave an intact female dog alone outside, it's only a matter of time until that happens. Even if you do have a fence, a dog can find a way around that little obstacle.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sterling Archer said:


> Yup. We got a puppy from one of my wife's co-workers for free (they advertised on the bulletin board at work). They'd left their pure golden female (not spayed) in the backyard (unfenced) and their neighbors GSD/Husky mix got a hold of her.


Where were the owners of these dogs? 

The owner of the intact and in heat female left their dog outside to wander around or whatever. 

The owner of the intact male left their dog outside to wander? 

That is the ultimate of stupidity. And not just because I'm against leaving dogs unattended outside.

Our cats are let loose outdoors, but because there is no way to keep a cat on the property - much less catch that cat if he doesn't want to be caught, they are neutered asap LONG before they are permitted to go outside. It is the responsible thing to do. 

The fact that people don't do that with their cats and dogs... *bangs head against wall* That's the problem. And I just wish that people who do not need to be "educated" about owner responsibilities and accident prevention would not be automatically lumped in with those idiots. Please. Thanks.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Megora said:


> *Where were the owners of these dogs? *
> 
> The owner of the intact and in heat female left their dog outside to wander around or whatever.
> 
> ...


Probably off smoking crack cocaine. I mean seriously...what do you think? lol. Like everyone else that just leaves their dogs unattended, I'm sure they were off doing whatever it is people do when they leave their dog on a lead/unattended in the backyard.

The intact male dog was in a fenced backyard. This goes back to my point that anyone who keeps an intact dog around and thinks that a fence will keep it that way is mistaken.
Edit: The male dog is part Siberian Husky. Siberians are escape artists.

Anyone that keeps a intact dog around and thinks that their superior grasp on canine care will keep it from getting knocked-up will likely be proven wrong sooner or later. However, as they're educated, they aren't "idiots" like the people that don't know any better.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sterling Archer said:


> Anyone that keeps a intact dog around and thinks that their superior grasp on canine care will keep it from getting knocked-up will likely be proven wrong sooner or later.


If they leave their untrained dogs outside without proper monitoring and management - yes, definitely. :doh: Dogs (intact or not) - jump fences. Especially if there is something outside the fence that they are anxious to get at. 

Idiots. 

My intact golden can train and work around females in heat without knowing they are around. He can be offleash. He can be in a stay 10+ feet away from me, right next to those females. 

This is a credit to the distraction proof training that we've done with him. And the way I look at it, we could be in the ring somewhere and a dog could be in heat without their owner knowing it and in the ring with my dog. So he is proofed. It does not mean he would not get into breeding mode if left unmonitored or unchecked around intact females in heat. 

My parents both came from families who never neutered or spayed their pets. No breedings. And they grew up with shepherds and beagles. 

Our dogs have never been bred or had accidental litters or anything like that, going back the past 20 or so years that we've had goldens. No breedings.

Accidents happen when they are permitted to happen.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Megora said:


> If they leave their untrained dogs outside without proper monitoring and management - yes, definitely. :doh: Dogs (intact or not) - jump fences. Especially if there is something outside the fence that they are anxious to get at.
> 
> Idiots.
> 
> ...


I'd go "knock on wood" for that one.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

Sterling Archer said:


> I'd go "knock on wood" for that one.


I do not rely on luck. I rely on common sense, training (meaning training the people in our house to follow the rules as well as keeping the dog on the property), and hard work on my part and my family's part to make sure that our dog does not spawn. Responsible ownership.

I think the rest is I've never owned a female dog. I can't comprehend leaving one intact, simply because I know there are people who do not control their intact or neutered male dogs. And of course coyotes... It would be living hell trying to figure out how to take care of my female for a whole month that way. Especially since we _can't_ put up a tall fence to keep animals out of our yard. 

My part is simply making sure my boy dog is under control.


----------



## Sterling Archer (Feb 8, 2011)

Megora said:


> I do not rely on luck. I rely on common sense, training (meaning training the people in our house to follow the rules as well as keeping the dog on the property), and hard work on my part and my family's part to make sure that our dog does not spawn. Responsible ownership.


Yes. Responsible pet ownership is serious business.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

A slight drift.

In my book whether the dog is intact or castrated it should be completely trained to be able to handle dogs in heat and other situations when in the company of the owner. To me to be a responsible owner that is the level the dog should be trained to.

I think it is a real shame that many pet owners don't train to this level, in fact that many hardly train the dog at all.


----------



## dberk (Jul 5, 2011)

solinvictus said:


> A slight drift.
> 
> In my book whether the dog is intact or castrated it should be completely trained to be able to handle dogs in heat and other situations when in the company of the owner. To me to be a responsible owner that is the level the dog should be trained to.
> 
> I think it is a real shame that many pet owners don't train to this level, in fact that many hardly train the dog at all.


No argument from me on wishing every owner trained their dog.

However, training (to any level) is not a guarantee of anything. Dogs are very situational, and there are just too many potential situations. I love my dogs, that is why I would never truly trust them to do exactly what I want in every situation, 100% of the time. Eventually, a situation will arise where instincts will overcome training. 

Example - my Maddie loves other dogs and people. Every one of them ... until 1 day. We were walking down the sidewalk towards another dog (a little black puppy), a situation we have faced hundreds of times and Maddie "always" sits when she gets within 20 yards of other dogs. That is what I trained her to do. 

But not this time, she went after that dog with ferocity I have never seen in her. She was 4 at the time and I raised her from a pup. She never did anything remotely resembling that behavior before that day, and she has never done anything like it since. What did that combination of owner/dog/environment/mood/... trigger in her? I will never know. So I can't ever be 100% certain that she is totally trained. 

If I would have had her off-leash because I thought I had trained her sufficiently - there could have been big trouble. 

I am not picking on the poster. Very happy to hear their belief in training. I totally agree. Just reading it caused me to want to share a story in hopes that it would help others.


----------



## Megora (Jun 7, 2010)

> However, training (to any level) is not a guarantee of anything. Dogs are very situational, and there are just too many potential situations.


Exactly. That is why people need to be trained in addition to the dogs. Trained to know their dogs. Trained to recognize warning signs. Trained to think ahead as to what can happen. Trained to remember their dogs are animals who will scavenge, fight, and breed to survive - if allowed. 

If I put a piece of meat in the middle of the kitchen floor, I can totally train my dog to leave it - to the point where my dog won't even LOOK at the meat. Because he knows I will correct his behavior. 

But let's say I walk out of the room and leave my dog alone and loose (not in a stay, etc) in the kitchen with the piece of meat - he will MOST DEFINITELY eat it. Because as much as I train him, leaving the food on the floor and walking out of the room made it very easy for him to follow his natural instincts. 

My dog is very situational. All dogs are. They are very much into the now and present. They are not thinking ahead. <- We as humans have that ability, and need to use it before leaving our dogs out loose in the yard or whatever where they can be bred or break out to breed with the neighbor's dog, etc.

I train my dog so he will be manageable and obedient when around distractions. Particularly to buy me time to correct him and regain control LONG before he lunges after another dog.

ETA - One thing I meant to add before I run out to lunch (into the rain - ugh) - I am by no means trying to encourage everyone else to stop spaying or neutering their dogs. The level of responsibility is much higher when you own an intact dog. And I do not think that is for everyone. 

My only point is speaking as somebody who has intact dogs and trying to show why I think the "irresponsible owner" tag being applied to owners simply because their dogs have danglies is insulting. Yes, some owners of intact dogs are pretty irresponsible - but based on how they keep and control those intact pets. But you would have no idea unless you discussed the matter completely and did a home visit. 

I've talked to really great breeders, and I can guarantee the points that always come up are the lack of fencing, my unwillingness to crate my dogs, and my willingness to neuter the new dog "if required". And these are all things I'm perfectly happy to discuss with any breeder.* And to back that up, the breeders will generally ask for vet references - which again is not a problem. <- There is never any outright rejection based on any of these points. And I would hope that rescues operate the same way, even though they have a far great volume of applicants to sort through than the average breeder keeping a list. I would absolutely not expect a rescue to operate like those breeders out there who will sell dogs to whoever has the money. The fact that they will go over these points is a credit to them. Outright rejection or labeling people who do not meet requirements as irresponsible on the other hand... 

*I talked with a lab breeder (really great breeder) and she and I discussed these points via email and phone conversation. I advise anyone to be perfectly open and be the first to bring up the fact your dog is intact and why. This was not even a problem with the breeder based on what I explained. She was more concerned about the fence situation.


----------

