Log in

No account? Create an account
.::.::...... ..

May 2018
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Aerden [userpic]
Regarding Animal Shelters

I just read this entry in wen_spencer's journal.

This makes me wonder if animal shelters might be in fact harming the very animal populations they are trying to save by instituting regulations which hinder a person's ability to adopt an animal--or at the very least, which make the adoption process prohibitively inconvenient.

It's clear that the regs, which require the adoption of two kittens at a time, as well as the presence of the entire household to see the kittens in question before adoption, are meant to ensure that the kittens have adequate socialization and that everyone in the household accepts and wants the responsibility of caring for kittens.

However, Wen states that the cat shelter she went to is very crowded--and crowded with older kittens. It seems likely that part of the reason for the overcrowding might be that potential adopters are deciding that, rather than adopt two cats when they only want one, they will adopt none at all or go to a shelter where they can adopt only the number of cats they want.

I can also see where this requirement that the entire household be present could cause problems. As Wen said in her entry, her husband has to take off from work to satisfy this adoption requirement. How many people are seriously going to take off from work to do this sort of thing? Granted, it might be more people than I think. I'll admit that I would be unwilling to take off from work when I could simply answer an ad in a newspaper over the weekend and have a kitten that day. It's more flexible with my schedule, and it doesn't inconvenience my co-workers.

So I am feeling dubious about this. I like the fact that shelters with such regulations are placing the animal's well-being above simply adopting out as many animals as they can. But I do have to wonder whether, in the end, the animals' well-being is being best served by these requirements.

Current Mood: thoughtfulthoughtful

When I lived in London, long long ago before The Golden Age of Theo, I had Jones. My partner at the time and I both decided that we wanted a second dog, so we Did the Good Thing and went to Battersea Dogs Home.

After waiting for five hours to be interviewed we were told that we were unlikely to be given a dog, especially the dog we were looking at. My partner had a malamute in the States, and we wanted to adopt a malamute they had in the shelter. Despite the fact we already had one dog in very very good condition - we even took Jones along to show them what good condition she was in - and the fact we had a huge garden with a pet door and a huge park just around the corner from our house, and even despite the fact my partner had the relevant experience of handling and training a big old stubborn malamute, we were told it was pointless asking for the malamute.

The reason?

We both worked full time, i.e. we were both out of the house together for more than five hours a day.

So despite proving that we were good pet owners already despite the fact we both worked, proving that we were financially responsible for the burden of another dog... we'd have done better if one of us had been on welfare.

And Battersea Dogs Home put down animals that can't be rehomed in accordance with their rules.

I can understand why some rules exist, sure. It's to stop people who work and club and party and are out of the house eighteen hours of the day from having a dog and ignoring it. But surely some rules should be flexible when it's clear the pet is losing out on a potentially good home otherwise.


So in other words, if you have a good job and work full-time, showing that you're a responsible person, you can't adopt a dog?! Even if you bring a demonstrably happy dog with you that the new dog can play with while you're at work?

*incredulous look*

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable. Where are these people's brains?