I have a question for those of you involved with organized rescues. We
are in the process of trying to adopt a second dog, after losing one
earlier this year. The difference between now, and when we adopted our
other two dogs from rescue is that we now have 2 toddlers. It has
amazed us that we are running into groups that refuse to adopt to us
because of the children. No looking at us as parents or pet owners,
just an absolute "no" because of the children. We aren't looking at
high-drive, high-intensity animals here. All the dogs we are looking
at are the stereo-typical family, will take a yanked ear or poked eye
and love it, kind of dogs. Has there been any incident that drives
this? I'm assuming there are national organizations that offer support
and advice to rescue groups. Are these the people making these
overriding recommendations?

While nothing is absolute, I KNOW these fosters have to know these dogs
pretty well. Well enough to know if the dog is a good fit for a
household with children. No, you won't be able to guarantee that there
won't be an incident ... but these are living, breathing, thinking,
feeling creatures. There are documented cases of seemingly docile dogs
raised with a family, maiming or killing adults in the family. I think
people recognize this when they agree to bring a dog into their house.
If the concern is that these people WON'T recognize that, then maybe
they should take the time to explain those possibilties, instead of
just turning them down.

There are dogs that would be great with toddles, and there are dogs
that would horrible with toddlers. There are also families that would
be great with toddlers and dogs, and families that would be horrible
with them. It would seem to me that it would be in EVERYONE'S best
interest if they were to take the time to consider the individual
situation. Otherwise the worsen the situation, because many of these
people will decide that they will just go by a puppy out of the back of
a truck. Anyone wanna take a guess as to where that 11 month old,
mouthy Lab is most likely to end up?

in thread ups.com:
whittled the following words:
We aren't looking at
high-drive, high-intensity animals here. All the dogs we are looking
at are the stereo-typical family, will take a yanked ear or poked eye
and love it, kind of dogs.



I think the this line bothers me enough to disqualify you. Not that things
don't happen. But it's your job to see that it NEVER happens, and don't
condone such things. The fact that you take such dog abuse so casually, is
the clincher for me. It's your job to teach the children when and were the
dog has child free zones, how to treat a dog, etc. The fact that this
kind of stewardship seems to be lacking bothers me greatly.

I'm sorry to give the impression that it was condoned behavior ...
because it isn't. I was describing the nature of the animals we are
considering, and not behaviors that would be acceptable. However, as
you said, it's not as if things don't happen. There is a child free
zone with our existing dog, and the children are taught to respect the
dogs. But I know to never say never, and we are looking for a dog that
will, at most, grunt it's displeasure and leave if he's had enough, as
opposed to snap or worse. That way the lesson can be taught with words
and discipline, as opposed to gauze and stitches.

diddy wrote:
in thread ups.com:
whittled the following words:
We aren't looking at
high-drive, high-intensity animals here. All the dogs we are looking
at are the stereo-typical family, will take a yanked ear or poked eye
and love it, kind of dogs.



I think the this line bothers me enough to disqualify you. Not that things
don't happen. But it's your job to see that it NEVER happens, and don't
condone such things. The fact that you take such dog abuse so casually, is
the clincher for me. It's your job to teach the children when and were the
dog has child free zones, how to treat a dog, etc. The fact that this
kind of stewardship seems to be lacking bothers me greatly.

I agree that it was a very important one. It wasn't particularly
relevant to the central question, so it didn't come up in the original
post. And, quite frankly, the people turning down our applications
didn't even see that much. The application didn't even have an area to
make such a misstep. Which, again begs the question ... is there a
national organization that is promoting a blanket "no toddlers" policy?
Is there some legal precedent that rescue groups are concerned about?
I used to be involved with rescue a number of years ago, and the group
I worked with had no such policy.


diddy wrote:
in thread ups.com:
"Keith" whittled the following words:

I'm sorry to give the impression that it was condoned behavior ...
because it isn't. I was describing the nature of the animals we are
considering, and not behaviors that would be acceptable. However, as
you said, it's not as if things don't happen. There is a child free
zone with our existing dog, and the children are taught to respect the
dogs. But I know to never say never, and we are looking for a dog
that will, at most, grunt it's displeasure and leave if he's had
enough, as opposed to snap or worse. That way the lesson can be
taught with words and discipline, as opposed to gauze and stitches.

Thanks for the clarification. It was a very important one.
However, I'm not the one turning down your evaluation.


diddy wrote:
in thread ups.com:
whittled the following words:
We aren't looking at
high-drive, high-intensity animals here. All the dogs we are
looking at are the stereo-typical family, will take a yanked ear or
poked eye and love it, kind of dogs.



I think the this line bothers me enough to disqualify you. Not that
things don't happen. But it's your job to see that it NEVER happens,
and don't condone such things. The fact that you take such dog abuse
so casually, is the clincher for me. It's your job to teach the
children when and were the dog has child free zones, how to treat a
dog, etc. The fact that this kind of stewardship seems to be
lacking bothers me greatly.

On 12 Jan 2007 18:17:17 -0800, wrote:

I have a question for those of you involved with organized rescues. We
are in the process of trying to adopt a second dog, after losing one
earlier this year. The difference between now, and when we adopted our
other two dogs from rescue is that we now have 2 toddlers. It has
amazed us that we are running into groups that refuse to adopt to us
because of the children. No looking at us as parents or pet owners,
just an absolute "no" because of the children. We aren't looking at
high-drive, high-intensity animals here. All the dogs we are looking
at are the stereo-typical family, will take a yanked ear or poked eye
and love it, kind of dogs. Has there been any incident that drives
this? I'm assuming there are national organizations that offer support
and advice to rescue groups. Are these the people making these
overriding recommendations?

Wouldn't know. Have never encountered a "national organization" that
offers support to rescue groups.


While nothing is absolute, I KNOW these fosters have to know these dogs
pretty well. Well enough to know if the dog is a good fit for a
household with children. No, you won't be able to guarantee that there
won't be an incident ... but these are living, breathing, thinking,
feeling creatures. There are documented cases of seemingly docile dogs
raised with a family, maiming or killing adults in the family. I think
people recognize this when they agree to bring a dog into their house.
If the concern is that these people WON'T recognize that, then maybe
they should take the time to explain those possibilties, instead of
just turning them down.

IMO and IME, what rescues base these decisions on is families with
toddlers who freak out and return the dog after their little Johnny
climbs on the dog/smacks the dog/whatever and the dog growls.
Growling is aggressive, growling means the dog will eat the child, dog
gets returned. The dog might even snap, dog gets returned even
faster. This sort of thing happens more often with toddlers because
toddlers speak an entirely different language from that which dogs
speak, and instinctively do things (such as walk into the dog's face)
which dogs instinctively shy away from. It wouldn't be such a big
deal if parents understood that a growl equals a warning in dogspeak,
but most JQP parents don't understand that. Rescue groups have
limited time, people, resouces; therefore they may prefer not to deal
with families with toddlers. Also, and here's a question I've always
wanted to ask: how do you suppose rescue groups know when a dog would
"be great" with toddlers? We don't have any foster homes with
toddlers, because parents of toddlers are too busy to foster, and
there are certainly no toddlers in this house, so how are we supposed
to know that?

There are dogs that would be great with toddles, and there are dogs
that would horrible with toddlers. There are also families that would
be great with toddlers and dogs, and families that would be horrible
with them. It would seem to me that it would be in EVERYONE'S best
interest if they were to take the time to consider the individual
situation. Otherwise the worsen the situation, because many of these
people will decide that they will just go by a puppy out of the back of
a truck. Anyone wanna take a guess as to where that 11 month old,
mouthy Lab is most likely to end up?

Not in my rescue, because I don't do Labs. I understand your
viewpoint, but you need to understand that of rescue groups as well.
You're right, rescue groups need to consider the individual situation,
and my group makes every effort to do that; but you (and other
families with toddlers) need to understand what often happens with the
dogs + kids scenario, as well.

Mustang Sally

On 12 Jan 2007 18:17:17 -0800, wrote:

...
While nothing is absolute, I KNOW these fosters have to know these dogs
pretty well... There are documented cases of seemingly docile dogs
raised with a family, maiming or killing adults in the family. I think
people recognize this when they agree to bring a dog into their house.
If the concern is that these people WON'T recognize that, then maybe
they should take the time to explain those possibilties, instead of
just turning them down.

I have never heard the slightest hint of any organized effort to deny
adoptions to households with small children. However, I do see rescue
groups becoming more cautious, more savvy about avoiding litigation and
potential animal neglect/abuse. Some members of the public view this
sort of thing similar to the way you see it. Others are far more
negative, and a few people see it as a great thing. Those folks say
things like, "Oh, they're a very strict rescue group; so, they must be
very loving and have great dogs!" Undoubtedly, some rescue groups are
strict, in order to gain that sort of recognition. While other strict
groups merely want they're dogs to receive great homes.

Other responders agree with you that adoptions should be made or denied,
on individual basis. There are many good/bad reasons why that doesn't
happen: manpower and liability are probably the top two reasons.

Personally, I consider the general public very ignorant about pet
ownership--just like I was, before making it a point to learn. I'm not
sure there is such a thing as "common knowledge" anymore. A lot of
people are amazed that I don't know how to play cards. And I'm amazed by
what I hear people say about their care of their pets. Some of it is
borderline abuse--but done with love, and misinformation.

...Otherwise the worsen the situation, because many of these
people will decide that they will just go by a puppy out of the back of
a truck...

Sadly, I realize you're right; I've read about it and heard people talk
about doing just that. However, just as you rightly want every
prospective adoption to be considered individually, you need to consider
each rescue group individually.

I'm sorry for each rescue group that did not make a true effort to help
you see their point of view [even if you still disagreed with their
stand].



________________________
Whatever it takes.