Some thoughts about Rescue
 

Lately I have witnessed a growing trend in “rescue” that disturbs me; rescuers playing the blame game, pointing the bony finger of shame at the humans.

January 27, 2014 | TheDogPress.com
Elizabeth Brinkley, Paralegal/Legislative Liaison

http://www.thedogpress.com/images/re...inkley-141.jpgThe use of the word “rescue” is part of it. "Rescue" is not a noun, it’s a verb, and unless you ran into a burning building to “save” the dog it wasn’t about rescue. It is a re-homing. Why do we need the drama? Re-homing dogs is something that has been going on for many years.

Among the very best at finding new homes are the parent clubs for AKC breeds. They do truly commendable work with finding, caring for and placing dogs of their breeds. Many breeders have appreciated their work, donated when we can and helped anytime we could. Breed Clubs are the unsung heroes of purebred dogs and they see some horrible sights that most of us don’t want to see.

Sometimes they see so much that is wrong, they can’t see beyond it. They lose track of the fact that the substandard breeders are a MINORITY. They burn out and become bitter and they start blaming. They become so intolerant of the alleged abusers that they can’t see that their intolerance is part of the problem.

The blame game is a losing game for everyone involved. When you point a finger at the owner, several things happen. You look less in the eyes of others once they get past their initial reaction of righteous indignation. You attract the wrong kind of person who wants the dog for the wrong reasons.

Obtaining a dog should be a time for rational decision making--not an excuse for moral preening. If 'adopting' a shelter dog makes you feel 'better about yourself', you don't need a dog. You need a therapist. You back people into a corner, shame them and they “lie” to avoid the blame. In so doing, you lessen the humanity of all involved. Screaming about the “horrible conditions” the dogs were found in is more likely to make people who would be great homes stop and wonder if they really want a dog from that kind of place.

It is self-defeating. We need to find a way to place the dogs without blaming the owners. Unless you were present for everything that led up to the dog being in a bad place, you don’t know what happened in that person’s life. You don’t know how they got to the “mess” you found them in. You don’t know that the woman who brings a dog in because “it doesn’t match her furniture” didn’t have other issues. Maybe she is in an abusive relationship and the abuser is threatening the animal. Maybe “dumping” the dog is the safest route for her and the dog.

You don’t know that the older woman who has too many dogs in bad conditions couldn’t get anyone – family or friends to help her and just didn’t know where to turn. The family that is moving and “dumped” the dog, you don’t know that the father has lost his job and the family is moving to the only housing they can afford and it won’t allow a dog. YOU DON’T KNOW.

We need to extend a hand and stop pointing fingers. Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes. Blaming those who give up a dog accomplishes exactly nothing except to diminish our humanity.

There are PEOPLE involved in every seizure. Maybe they didn’t know any better. Maybe they just saw a quick way to make money. Or maybe they got overwhelmed and no one would help. Instead of blaming, maybe we could let it go and just help the dog. What does it accomplish to run around badmouthing the owner? Does it make the dog more valuable? Does it make the “rescuer” feel superior to this “obviously lousy person”? What is the point? To create drama that raises money?

To me, the blame game just makes everyone look bad – those pointing fingers as well as those who are accused. And another interesting side effect – making a screaming fuss about how horribly these poor doggies were treated plays right into the hands of the animal rights extremists and gives them more ammunition to use against those of us who are trying to do it right.

The more we scream about how horribly those people treated the dogs, the more the ARs say “See, we told you so.”

How someone got a dog does not define him. The dog is not a "Rescue," he's a mix or a purebred, but more than that, he's *a dog.* If you stop defining the dog by the fact that someone owned him before and then didn't want him, then the possibilities open up for someone to decide he's their dog and they will train and care for and love him. Their mental attitude toward the dog will change and they will both be better for it.

Words are important. He’s a dog that needs a new home with responsible owners.

Related Article on Rescue & Re-Homing; It's All About Helping the Dogs

As some of you are aware, I have been involved with a rescue situation in my home province.

This was not the first time for me where I have helped re-home a dog, or pet sat for an owner who had the need for longer term help whilst they sorted out their situation. But the scale of this situation was the first time such a large "rescue" situation in our breed has happened.

And the blame game is something that has been on-going. The questions of "how could this happen?" why did any-one not know what was going on? why did the breeder not ask for help?, how could this person of previous good name let these dogs come to this? To which in all honesty I respond I do not know. And I don't know.

All I know is that it is heart-wrenching to be part of the solution and to try to find homes for these dogs in need.

And I am reminded that in serves no purpose to place blame. It doesn't help the dogs, it doesn't help would be adopters.

And I am reminded of the phrase; There but for the grace of God, go I.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:Excellent article. I agree 100%.

Yes!!!!! Exactly how I feel!

Really, Wonder how the dog across the street from my business feels. On a 8 ft. chain, full of fleas, mange and hungry. Never see his human family give him attention at all. The Humane Society has been called and they are being watched. Just sayin. And for the lady that wrote the article that doesn't want to be recognized????

Oh yes..it's about saving the dogs. I'm not a confrontational person by nature but there are humans that should not have animals at all. I try not to judge but some things are just common sense.

Of course it's not the family's across the streets fault that their dog is miserable. :confused:

There are rescuers that become zealots but there are also alot of rescuers that keep things in perspective and just want to help the animals

Maybe I am misreading this article, but there is a lot I don't agree with.

I find this very hard to believe. Puppy mills and undeniable backyard breeders with really low standards outnumber above-standard breeders.

Relative to blame, when a rescue is called about a Yorkie who was mauled by Doberman and allowed to sit and suffer for a week -- I can't find fault with the rescue person for expressing anger and disgust -- she didn't do it in front of the person responsible for allowing this suffering, as far as I know. There is no glossing over things like this or putting a smiley face on it.

Blame and anger are not always a part of rescue. Like when an older woman with limited resources surrendered her very ill puppy so that the rescuer could try to get her medical attention.

When it comes time to adopt these pups out, I have not noted any anger or blame in the advertisements.

:confused:

True.

Well actually me too, not agreeing with all that was said. Sometimes you post something not because you agree with all the content, but to share, to nudge, to expand our horizons so to speak.

But I reflect on all the conversations here, the Sick n Emergency threads and even the rescue threads. Surely the point is not how bad of a condition the dog came in when placed in the shelter, but this is a dog that needs a for-ever home?

Just thinking out loud.

I've never "rescued" an animal so I'm not sure on how rescue workers treat perspective adopters. I have been audience to a classmate of mine surrendering a dog that she had for 5 years though. Into her fourth year of owning her chow chow she found out she was pregnant
A few months after her daughter was born, the baby had hives all the time, runny nose, red puffy eyes, etc. Took the baby to the doctor for testing and found out she was allergic to dander. Her husband didn't want to keep his little girl on allergy meds until the dog passed so they came to the decision to give the chow to a breed specific rescue. The rescue workers were beyond rude when I went with my friend to turn her dog over. She tried to give it to family but they aren't "dog" people, her friends liked smaller dogs, and she didn't trust animal shelters or putting ads up. The only decision she thought was best was the BSR. Who asked why wouldn't she give her months old daughter shots/pills/etc, why didn't she keep it in a room the baby wasn't allowed in, she was irresponsible, they had too many dogs as it was..as Chachi said there are zealots who I try to stay the h$#! away from whataver the case and those that just want to help. Criticism that isn't constructive isn't helping anyone. Blaming this or that group of ppl to make yourself (not you just generally speaking) feel better is going to make ppl ignore you and your cause. JMHO

Well of course sure it is! But so what? And there are many future so whats and what can be done, so only devout responsible people get to own a dog. I think the point of the article is/was that life happens to folks who own dogs, and some folks should never own dogs, but once a dog comes up for adoption, then it should be all about the dog.

Well that is a tough road to go on for sure. We do know and if they are knowledgeable enough rescue folks should know, that Dander gets everywhere, even with state of the art Hepa filters. And I am sure the rescue had too many dogs as it was.

But their treatment of her and her situation ,well was less than ideal, of course in my opinion.

I disagree there are more bad breeders and puppy mills then good breeders all you have to do is be a person searching for a dog and you can see that. I think making excuses for people who abuse and keep dogs in terrible conditions is wrong and just like burying your head in sand. If you don't call these people out for what they have done then it will just keep happening. Some one should feel better about themselves if they get a dog that came from a bad situation because most of the time you inherit the problems that dog has and you send lots of money and lots of time fixing what others wrongly did. These people do rescue these dogs. Maybe some do it for drama I don't know. What I do know is Linda is one who doesn't and she is one of my heros for all she does for these dogs.

Exactly how I feel :thumbup:

You know TAylor it is Not about making excuses for owners, it is simply not commenting on what a bloody well bad owner they were for allowing their dog to be in this condition or that. And quite frankly you don't know just exactly how they qualified as a bad owner. By whose standards, are there not any exceptions?

The article is food for thought, even if that thought is uncomfortable and portrays a view point different to the main.

In your experience calling someone out and exposing them helps the situation? From my perspective it doesn't. People just get "sneakier" or have an attitude of " I'm an adult I can do as I please". Doing something that is good/nice for someone or thing wouldn't make me feel better about myself. I would do it because that's just the type of person I am. I'm not looking or expecting to feel a certain way because I donate my time or money to a cause I believe in. I do it to make the receiving person happy.

When you keep a dog or dogs in cages where there is no food, no water no human contact and freezing to death you deserve to be called out and even charged with animal cruelty, when you beat and abuse a dog you deserve to be called out and charged, when you fight one dog with another you deserve to be called out and so on. When you turn your dog over to a rescue because you can not afforded that care for the dog you deserve a pat on the back because you just showed the ultimate sign of love. Abusing an animal is the same as a busing a human or stealing and so on and you deserve to be called out and do your time for the wrong you did because it is against the law. If we don't call these people out and show others how it's wrong and that there are actual consequences then people will keep doing it and that's not fair to the dogs. The unconditional love these dogs can give and the loyalty they give they deserve for the future to look brighter for them they deserve it. We have to stop people from doing it not give them a reason to do it.

Calling them out also means charging them with braking the law. It makes me happy to help people and animals so in a sense it makes you feel better about your self. I am a nobody who will probably not amount to much do to my illness but when I help someone or something it makes me feel like for that time that I actually helped and maybe made a difference to them.

I'm confused. The article seemed pretty judgmental but maybe it's just my mood today having just watched a video of a row of starving, abused dogs, many of them shaking and ill, semi-starved and hurt. Who is she unhappy with - the rescuer that took the dog or those that place them? She seems hung up with the term rescue when what it's called doesn't matter one whit but giving a scared, hurting dog proper care, love and rehab after it's come from a nightmare does matter greatly to most of us. I think they are angels on earth and if they want to use the term rescue, who cares? I know the poor dog doesn't.

With the huge number of dogs being abused and neglected, overbreeding and overbuying apparently perking along, huge numbers of dogs relinquished into shelters, abandoned and left to die on their own or confiscated and put to sleep in this country in the millions each year, perhaps it's time dogowners in this country start to look at their fitness or ability for having a dog before they get one and reasonably come to terms with whether they can keep the dog once times go bad for them and the dog is having to do without. I'm the first person to care about hurting and severely disadvantaged people going through terrible times but when I see cages full of thin, ill or injured rescue dogs with draining, crusted eyes and broken bones and dogs scared out of their wits of humans, cowering in the backs of their cages and turning away from an outstretched hand in horror, I quickly lose any tendency to feel very sorry or try to understand many of them. But who is doing all the shaming and guilting she is talking about - I couldn't get that.

Now that I'm totally for. If you're abusing/torturing I'm for prosecuting. I'm not for rescues trying to shame or make (responsible) owners feel less than because they have to rehome their pets with good reason. I'm sure not all rescues are like this just the ones I've come across.

This was my point -- when a dog is put up for adoption, I do not recall any of the rescues that I am familiar with focusing on blame or anger.

They give a brief history and may include information that is relevant to future care. For instance, medical information and things like the dog was kept caged for the first 3 years of his life in a basement, not socialized. The rescues I know do their best to rehabilitate dogs before adopting out, but this information is still important for prospective adopters.

I also give 'bragging rights' to people I know who have rescued a dog from bad circumstances and completely transformed the dog. Lane of Doggie Debutantes is one example. Spent the first 3 years of life without her paws touching the ground, forced to breed in squalor. To be able to teach a dog from those circumstances how to love fetch, have affection for humans, and how to socialize with other dogs is amazing and should be shared.

Taylor I believe that not to be true. I do so hope you find a way to believe that about yourself.

Already you contribute much to this board.

But the thrust or point of this article in my opinion is not to denigrate those owners who have had to surrender their dogs, but to focus on the dogs themselves. It is not to focus on the terrible conditons they found the dogs in, for does that really in the long term and for the right reasons attract would be adopters?

Adopting a dog is a long term commitment, and should not be done from pulling at the heart strings of would be owners. There is no easy answer in my opinion. And yes I am pretty emotional about this topic, as I have posted elsewhere.

I think some info is needed for adopters if possible like if the dog was kept in a crate for the first couple of years the adopter might need to know this so they don't put the dog in a crate instead use a different method and so on. I actually wish we knew my moms adopted yorkie Sammy's history because it might explain a few things and help in the "fixing process". All we know is he was very matted and I guess the people tried to comb him out and hurt him because if you brush him now and hit even the smallest little tangle he jumps and used to nip. The scars all over his body can't help but make me hate whoever put them there.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
As a person who has adopted 8 Yorkies, 4 of those I won't even go into again the horrors they suffered before ending up with a rescue group.

To me there is alot wrong with this article and some things are true.

I'll say this about people taking responsibility about dog-ownership. It's time more did it and faced life knowing ahead of time that it gets very bad and hard at times. Plan ahead. That old lady with the several dogs - she likely manages to arrange to get her social security, medication, beer, cigarettes, manages to pay for her insurance and groceries and pays her cable bill - but she couldn't run an add and carefully choose and rehome all but one of her dogs as she aged and faced her reality? She could call a vet, social services, 211 or any number of places and begin to ask questions of how she can get help placing her excess dogs now that she's old and incapable of caring for all of them. And something needs to be said for why she irresponsibly got so many dogs later in life to start with.

And many of us lose our jobs more than once in life but have planned our lives for that and other contingencies - haven't lived beyond our means for years and worked hard and saved for those rainy, rainy days and aren't totally sandbagged by the loss of our income, so we keep our dog, our home and look for another job.

Few people even adequately bother to train their dogs and most of them are surrendered due to behavioral problems as the main reason. That can be fixed immediately by a caring, responsible owner.

It's taking responsibility for one's life well ahead of the bumps and losses that keeps one from being totally devastated by at least some of the hard things that come along. And when a devastating illness, a tragedy such as a tornado or fire happens, all the planning in the world isn't that helpful but for the most part, that's not why dogs are surrendered or abandoned - it's failing to plan or take responsibility - and the dogs are often paying the price when they face death at the end of the needle in the animal shelter.

In a perfect world everyone would be able to plan and have money set aside for emergencies this isnt a perfect world and never will be so ranting about what people should do is futile. Everyone despite their circumstances is deserving of respect and I think just because someone doesnt have money they shouldnt be treated like they are a irresponsible pet owner or a less than person or be treated in a demeaning way. Rescuers need to keep their perspective and not become zealots in the name of helping animals

I'm ranting as loudly as possible because people don't take responsibility for their own lives, let alone that of their dogs and the dogs are DYING because of it. And now we have someone apparently pointing the finger of judgment at those who have to rescue - or am I not allowed to use that term or be judged as needing therapy - them, find them a vet, nurse them back to health and sanity and try to place them in a forever home. And according to the writer of that article, those who are left with the full responsibility of the dogs are I guess never to say to the owners that maybe they should have not let things go so far or let it get so bad for the dog! Enabling those who often own dogs they can't afford to care for, obviously never train them yet expect them to grow up knowing how to behave, never plan that they will get serious ill or injured and then hand them over when times get tough are the very reason WHY millions of pets are being surrendered and killed each year in this country. But the writer of that article thinks the rescuer should just quietly and humbly take that person's dog off their hands and assume full responsibility for it and its care and costs, shut their mouths, never suggesting there was always a better way and asking how in the world did they let things get so bad for the dog? Is that the message the writer was sending? As I said, I didn't quite understand her article. At times, she even took the person who finally rehomes the dog to task for calling what they did "rescuing" it. When usually, that's exactly what it was.

Yes I do agree. These people should be commended for their successful efforts.

II am not going to say anymore i took a break from this forum so maybe i just have a fresh perspective. I wish Ann would give her opinion here she always has a way of putting a non judgemental common sense response

Imo ranting never helps. Having convos and speaking with someone respectfully without letting my emotions get the better of me furthers my point with the opposing party. Unfortunately yes pets are surrendered every year. Unfortunately what someone's life was like 2 years ago when they were perfectly able to take care of their pet(s) may not apply to today or tomorrow. I wish we could forsee everything in our future and plan for it but we can't. My point is if someone is surrendering their animal with good reason rescues shouldn't jump to conclusions and belittle the owner when they're probably having a bad enough time with it as it is.