This is Troy Way's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Troy Way's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Troy Way
Recent Activity
PetDocsOnCall09, One last comment from me: Is it not better to play it safe than take a chance when it comes to placing dogs with unknown history and background in to homes? As a vet tech I'm sure you see the results of animals injured, maimed and killed by other animals in the same home, if you were a nurse you'd see the results of children injured or killed by animals in the home too. I currently have a 120lb mastiff/shep mix in my rescue that I absolutely would not place in a home with a young child for that exact reason. I do not know enough about the dogs history to know whether or not that dog will respond well to children. If I'm less than 100% certain, why take the chance? It only takes one time and one minute for a life to change forever. Would you prefer that rescues take that chance? Who would you blame then?
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2011 on Loving homeless pets to death at KC DOG BLOG
Michelle D, Do you find, as I do, that it's usually the ones sitting on the sidelines that put down the ones doing the work? Out of every ten applicants for a dog there are one or two great potentials, one or two decent potentials, and several complete morons. You deal with that day in and day out and let's see how you feel at the end of the week. Brent, "It does mean, however, that we need to get rid of our old-school thinking that other people are to blame for the animals getting killed in the shelters, and come up with solutions to solve the problem." Who is to blame if not "other people"? The rescues? No. The breeders? Yes. The irresponsible pet owners? Yes. The people complaining about rescues when they could have just as easily gone and got another homeless dog from Kijiji before it ended up in a shelter? Yes. Of course its other people that are to blame for the animals being killed in shelters. It all starts with the breeders, whether they're backyard or "responsible", who continue to produce animals and place them in homes with irresponsible owners. While I'm sure there are some that exist, I am not aware of any rescues that kill animals. Rescues exist first and foremost to save animals lives, secondly to find appropriate homes for them. I'm also not aware of any rescues that prevent animals from going to new homes, only from going to inappropriate homes. I'm sure there are rescues that may be "too" stringent but the majority are flexible with their rules depending on the individual dog and the adopter. It's great if rescuers could educate every potential pet owner out there but seriously, who has the time? People need to take responsible and educate THEMSELVES prior to becoming pet owners. Don't put the onus on the rescues to do so, they're already doing their part. Geographic location is also a factor in our difference of opinion. In my city, most dogs in rescues are not pulled from shelters. They are taken off reserves before the monthly cull, or dumped in the country, found stray and unclaimed by owners, taken from abusive and/or neglectful homes, or in some cases surrendered by owners. I did not say "MOST" dogs in rescues are strays, I said a good portion of them are. If you really want to mince words, any dog that has wondered off its owners property is considered a "stray". If said dog is not claimed and a reasonable effort to locate the owner has been made, it can, after 30 days, be placed for adoption by a rescue. Dogs in Canada are considered "property" and therefore subject to the same laws and requirements as a lost garden shovel or bicycle. You ask me to read a handful of stories from people that have been "denied for adoption", but how about we read the millions of success stories from adopters that have adopted from a rescue instead? That seems to be the more realistic way to go. PetDocsOnCall09, Read your post last minute but would also ask you to produce stats to show that rejectees DO go to breeders for a dog. I pointed out they go to another source such as a classified ad or online where there are thousands of mixed and purebreed "free to good home" dogs needing homes. I was not implying they went online to look for a breeder.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2011 on Loving homeless pets to death at KC DOG BLOG
Sounds like few if any of the posters above are rescue owners. First and foremost, there is no profit in rescue. The MAJORITY of dogs in rescues arrive unaltered and it costs a fortune to spay/neuter and feed all of these animals. Rescues are not here to provide the public with an assortment of adoptable dogs to choose from; they are here BECAUSE of an irresponsible general public. Most adopters that have been rejected do not go to breeders; they visit a shelter or pound with less stringent adoption policies, or they check the classifieds or online ads for pets needing homes. When it comes to having a fenced yard, know that a good portion of the dogs in rescues are strays that have wandered off from their homes, many of those the mythical perfect rural "country home". Obviously they weren't as content doing farm work as this article implies. It would be completely irresponsible to place a dog that strayed from one home in to another home without a fenced yard. If you disagree with common sense - good luck getting a rescue dog. Brent - Why would you want to begin "reversing these restrictions"? Rescues take in animals that have been dumped, abandoned or otherwise rejected by their former owners. Very few take in owner surrendered dogs. To ensure the animals go to homes where they will be loved and cared for the rest of their lives there has to be rules and requirements in place. Instead of trying to change people that are honorably saving animals lives on their own time and often their own dime, why don't you just start your own rescue? You can hand out dogs without screening homes or taking applications, much like pet stores that sell puppy-mill pups. You can appease all the spiteful rejectees by placing a dog with aggression issues in to their home full of kids. Regardless of a dogs behavioral issues, you can put it in a home with an unfenced yard and an owner that has never owned a dog and has no idea about training. Maybe provide them with a crate too, because that's probably where the dog will end up spending the majority of its life with them until they end up "getting rid of it" a few months later. Most rescuers are not new kids on the block. We've seen it all and heard it all. We've been lied by applicants and made mistakes placing dogs in to homes that were not appropriate. It just means next time, we won't make that same mistake. If I was to compromise with you despite my hesitation and put a 10-month old black lab pup in to your home as your first dog and it destroyed your $5000 living room suite while you were at work, who are you going to blame? The dog first and then the rescue. What if I gave you a 3-year old husky and it killed your two 14 year old cats because you insisted the cats "can take care of themselves" - who are you going to blame? There are restrictions for a reason, you'd be foolish trying to change them.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2011 on Loving homeless pets to death at KC DOG BLOG
Troy Way is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 10, 2011