| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
293581 Joined: 08 May 2012 Total posts: 29 Gender: Unknown |
 Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:13 pm
Post subject: |
 |
|
| lanhimom wrote: | Oh boy! I am sorry I even read this thread. I guess southern California rescue are different from the midwest. For example - our adoption fees are only $110 at our rescue and the minimum it costs us to vet the dog is $280. Puppies are more and we charge less if they are under 4 months. And yes, we require that the vetting be done at our vet so we can make sure the dog is fully vetted. This includes spay/neuter, micro chip, all shots, heartworm test and the animal is current on monthly heartworm and flea meds.
No we don't pass on the costs if the dog has required extensive tests, surgeries or meds. We do ask if monthly meds will be a problem for special needs animals. Or if certain animals need special diets.
Yes we do home visits but don't require fenced in yards unless the dog in question requires a fenced in yard. We DO verify with landlords if their tenants are allowed pets. We do vet checks.
We have adopted to people I don't particularly care for but felt they were great for the animal in question.
Some of the practices we follow because state law requires us to follow them. Other practices we follow because "good" rescue mandates those practices.
And yes sometimes I miss a typo. Sometimes I am grammatically incorrect because it's easier when typing. This is a problem for me since I was sick a few years back. I am lucky in that my new limitations do not hamper my ability to care for or foster dogs except for cutting of the nails. I have to make frequent visits to the techs at the vet's office for this. I also don't foster as many bottle kittens as I used to just because. If I had to though I would still get up every three hours with 9 to 12 kittens. It just means I am more exhausted. And my fridge would be full of more bottles since I couldn't see to mix the formulas at night. It also means that I would have to wake my husband for night e-vet visits since my night driving abilities are gone or very nearly. |
 Are you posting to me? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lanhimom
Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Total posts: 5494 |
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:18 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| Nope! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 293581 Joined: 08 May 2012 Total posts: 29 Gender: Unknown |
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:18 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| lanhimom wrote: | How many people here hate the term "you people"?
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:09 pm:
How many people are tired of seeing "you people"?
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:09 pm:
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:11 pm:
How many people remember when the Ellen crazies posted?
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:11 pm:
This too shall pass...... |
Okay...that's funny!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lanhimom
Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Total posts: 5494 |
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:20 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| I wasn't posting to you there either! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 293581 Joined: 08 May 2012 Total posts: 29 Gender: Unknown |
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:24 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| lanhimom wrote: | | I wasn't posting to you there either! |
It still was funny.
Posted Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:45 pm:
| allkreatures wrote: | wow--all I see in all the posts is 293581 is,well, paranoid.
you have taken absolutely EVERYTHING rescue does and personalized it to the point that you remind me of a toddler saying"NO I CAN DO IT".
MOST rescuers know what they're doing more so than someone who "donates". because they are down in the field so to speak and DOING it. which also translates into EXPERIENCE! getting, transporting, washing,feeding and medicating. fighting fleas,ticks, emotional problems in dogs,crying at abuse and staring into an animals eyes --all while YOU write a check. oh, and over long posts.
therefore they have experienced everything you speak of that makes us think we're experts, a term I have never used in doing rescue,by the way. experience= knowledge. YOU however come across as bitter, very suspicious and very self absorbed. even obsessive, Bob Dylan said --"Don't criticize what you can't understand" and I think thats what you need to remember.
IF you understand the world of rescue as you claim, you're not making a good job of proving it, you have proven you can talk a lot, and use emoticons widely, otherwise I see no solid proof that this work we do is even penetrating your brain. I see my vet once or twice a year for shots and when needed. so how is it your vet knows you're an expert dog owner? what you're doing is taking personal something that we ask as rescuers of EVERYONE, so, why does it bother you to the point that you are leaving 6 paragraph posts? why do YOU feel you are exempt? oh and we have a lawyer and a contract sorry, this signed contract DOES allow us BY LAW to take our dogs back, and we have had to at least twice. both times because the adopter tried to "re sell" or "get rid of" the dog on craigslist.
you are generalizing all people as good pet owners, (if that were true rescue would not exist)and all rescues as strict, rotten fools. are you also a racist? just asking, because that kind of generalization exists in that type of thinking.
As far as thinking highly of ourselves. are you effing kidding me??? we cry/sigh/get angry and frustrated over every one we didnt save, on a daily basis. we rarely feel we have done good. let alone ENOUGH! theres no time to feel anything we need to move on to the next animal in need. only people who sit back and do nothing have the time to feel superior. or to point out others faults. we just move on.
so... I dare you to get Involved in rescue. see if once you have walked that path and have seen what we see and do,come back then and give us an "experts" opinion. until then take Dylan's advice. I'm embarrassed for you. |
This is what I've been trying to tell you...Most dog owners have done all those things. But somehow only you peeps are the experts and you assume they haven't. Experience = knowledge...but only for you.
You can write checks too if you want. You take a jab at the check writer, but you peeps keep asking for money. Again...there's that both sides of the coin thing.
I didn't say all people were good pet owners. You keep making up stuff. You all seem to generalize potential applicants as not good owners.
"so how is it your vet knows you're an expert dog owner?" How about if you spend some time thinking about that and see if you can figure it out? Just try.
Apparently you gave a dog to someone that didn't have a good attorney.
Bob Dylan psychology....that's a good one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:55 am
Post subject: |
|
|
You are referring to my post in which I said there are worst fates than euthanasia.
Please reveiw your post in which you said some will "suffer". You were implying that one dogs suffering is worth the risk and we should lower our standards of adoption policies and procedures. There is a huge difference between "suffering" and a "lower rated home".
If you are going to make reference to something I state please do so in the context that it was intended. Replacing the word "suffering" with "lower rated home" would have been avoided if you had posted your quote and mine. Odd that you chose not to do so.
[quote="293581"
I also noticed a post that at least one person would rather euthanize than have some get a lower rated home.[/quote]
Posted Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:01 am:
See the key word is "suffer". Don't replace fact with fiction.
| Buter&Lola wrote: | | 293581 wrote: |
I think you are making the wrong choice. Yes, some will not be in good positions...some will suffer. |
There are worst fates than euthansia. I don't want one dog to suffer even if it means saving them all. I really can't believe you would post something so absurd.
If you think one dogs suffering is worth anothers life you are not worthy of being an owner of any animal I ever come in contact with. |
Your logic:
Lower my adoption standards and maybe one out of every ten puppies I adopt out will suffer.
My logic:
Keep my adoption standards high and none will suffer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 293581 Joined: 08 May 2012 Total posts: 29 Gender: Unknown |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 9:55 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Buter&Lola wrote: | You are referring to my post in which I said there are worst fates than euthanasia.
Please reveiw your post in which you said some will "suffer". You were implying that one dogs suffering is worth the risk and we should lower our standards of adoption policies and procedures. There is a huge difference between "suffering" and a "lower rated home".
If you are going to make reference to something I state please do so in the context that it was intended. Replacing the word "suffering" with "lower rated home" would have been avoided if you had posted your quote and mine. Odd that you chose not to do so.
| 293581 wrote: |
I also noticed a post that at least one person would rather euthanize than have some get a lower rated home. |
Posted Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:01 am:
See the key word is "suffer". Don't replace fact with fiction.
| Buter&Lola wrote: | | 293581 wrote: |
I think you are making the wrong choice. Yes, some will not be in good positions...some will suffer. |
There are worst fates than euthansia. I don't want one dog to suffer even if it means saving them all. I really can't believe you would post something so absurd.
If you think one dogs suffering is worth anothers life you are not worthy of being an owner of any animal I ever come in contact with. |
Your logic:
Lower my adoption standards and maybe one out of every ten puppies I adopt out will suffer.
My logic:
Keep my adoption standards high and none will suffer. |
First, you must remember that I am responding to several of you, so you must consider the conversation and the context in the post and previous posts if the conversation is continuing.
Your comment isn’t quite accurate.
Here’s a recap…On page 5, I responded to you and said that my home is my home.
Further down, in response keltoicrone wrote, “Yes, your home/your rules…Their rescue/their rules.” So I responded to that. Then you took one sentence and used it out of context.
Now you are shifting it again, so let me clarify.
Well…maybe…maybe not on your 1 out of 10 example. I have serious doubts that it would be that many. But since you suggested it, I’ll accept that premise for the moment. That means 9 more will be better off than they are now.
My point was, a lot suffer now…so if you try to place more by using the less than great standard (great standard being the one that was presented as “the standard”), some will still suffer but it will be fewer than there are now, and (in your example), 9 more will not. That means 90% will not. That’s a pretty darn good success rate!
Your logic at the end of your post does not account for those that will suffer if they don't get any chance at anything...the other 9, so to say.
Look, I don’t want that 10th little guy to get cheated. I don’t want him to suffer. But the fact is, you can’t and aren’t saving them all…so why not help 9 more if you can? If you help 9 more than you are now, and keltoicrone helps 9 more…and so on, and so on…the overall numbers go down. You aren’t going to solve the problem in the next year or two…but if you keep dropping the numbers…even in small chunks…you are making more progress than you are now.
“How do you eat an elephant?” One bite at a time…not that you eat elephants…but hopefully you see the point through that common expression. How do you solve a big problem? Bit by bit…and if you can make the bits a little bigger…you solve the problem sooner. The sooner you solve it, the less overall suffering, etc…
Please clarify that you understand my point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 10:40 am
Post subject: |
|
|
To end the issue of the homeless pet population rescue must think quality over quantity. If a rescue chooses quantity over quality everyone fails, and the rescue has failed the animals as many do end up in worse situations and back at a shelter only to face death yet again.
Many of the dogs in shelters have come from a "lower standard" home. To end that horrible cycle rescues find homes with "higher standards". A rescued dog should never have to be re rescued.
I understand what you are trying to say, if we rescue a bunch of dogs and place them in so-so homes we can save more. You have to understand this has been done and is still being done by some rescues. But it only adds to the revolving door at the shelters, including the gas chamber door. By doing so, the cycle of homeless dogs facing death never ends.
Think of a gerbil on a wheel that never goes anywhere, that is what we are trying to prevent. We simply can't rescue fast enough and don't need to spend time re rescuing already rescued dogs who were placed in "lower standard" homes.
I don't want to see any animal face death or suffering. I have had about 50 foster dogs, there is not one I would choose to save if I had to pick another suffer. I can relate it to the movie "Sophie's Choice", I truly could not choose.
That is my viewpoint, it may be different than yours. But it is also my right as an individual.
I have to question why you as a donator and foster can't seem to pass the application process of either a shelter or rescue. Have you stopped to ask yourself if it could be a you issue and not a shelter, rescue or us issue? You can't get a dog from your previous rescue that you fostered for? And those you donated to are not willing to give you one either?
Things that make you go hmmmm..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 293581 Joined: 08 May 2012 Total posts: 29 Gender: Unknown |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:38 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Buter&Lola wrote: | To end the issue of the homeless pet population rescue must think quality over quantity. If a rescue chooses quantity over quality everyone fails, and the rescue has failed the animals as many do end up in worse situations and back at a shelter only to face death yet again.
Many of the dogs in shelters have come from a "lower standard" home. To end that horrible cycle rescues find homes with "higher standards". A rescued dog should never have to be re rescued.
I understand what you are trying to say, if we rescue a bunch of dogs and place them in so-so homes we can save more. You have to understand this has been done and is still being done by some rescues. But it only adds to the revolving door at the shelters, including the gas chamber door. By doing so, the cycle of homeless dogs facing death never ends.
Think of a gerbil on a wheel that never goes anywhere, that is what we are trying to prevent. We simply can't rescue fast enough and don't need to spend time re rescuing already rescued dogs who were placed in "lower standard" homes.
I don't want to see any animal face death or suffering. I have had about 50 foster dogs, there is not one I would choose to save if I had to pick another suffer. I can relate it to the movie "Sophie's Choice", I truly could not choose.
That is my viewpoint, it may be different than yours. But it is also my right as an individual.
I have to question why you as a donator and foster can't seem to pass the application process of either a shelter or rescue. Have you stopped to ask yourself if it could be a you issue and not a shelter, rescue or us issue? You can't get a dog from your previous rescue that you fostered for? And those you donated to are not willing to give you one either?
Things that make you go hmmmm..... |
I understand your post, though I don't believe your numbers.
To answer you question...I have never applied, so I have never not passed the application process. Many here seem to assume that. I read the rules, procedures, etc.... at rescues. When I see that I don't agree with them, I don't apply. I'm not going to argue with a specific organization. Their business, their rules. But it is my choice to not do business with them.
That's an example of why I criticize you/rescues. You are assuming that I am not qualified and that I would not qualify. That is not correct.
It's also an example of a lost, great home. I fully believe that rescues are losing homes because of their rigid policies. Just being open to more flexibility will place more dogs.
So here's a question for you...I saw many posts that indicate you all want great homes. Absolutely that is the ultimate, and I agree with that as the goal. Maybe I'm missing something you Anonymous people are saying...but it doesn't seem as though you are using that as a "goal." It appears as if that is the standard...the one and only option. Is that accurate, Yes or No?
The text below is just an add-on if you're interested.
So if you have a 1 to 5 scale used to rate applicants, it appears that you only accept 5's. I'm suggesting that 3's, 4's and even some 2 1/2's might be good enough. Depending on what you use as criteria, even some 2's might be acceptable. (Someone mentioned inquiring into the type of dog food that would be used.) By that I am suggesting if some people buy grocery store food...if you use that to drop them a number...they should still qualify.
Here's another example...the local shelter requires people to have a dog house for every dog. Sorry, but I'm not going to waste all that money on something that will never be used. None of my dogs have ever spent a night outside, and they aren't locked outside at any time. So, I don't apply at that shelter. Their shelter...their rules, but they lose a great home.
I just re-read your post. You said you had 50 dogs and you wouldn't pick one to suffer to save another. I'm saying you might have been able to have 100 dogs...but yeah...a few might suffer.
What do you think I mean by "suffer"? How are you interpreting that? I'm not suggesting that you put dogs into dog fighting rings or where people eat them, if that's what you think.
Last edited by 293581 on Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:52 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:48 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| What numbers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 293581 Joined: 08 May 2012 Total posts: 29 Gender: Unknown |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 11:55 am
Post subject: |
|
|
| Buter&Lola wrote: | | What numbers? |
I should have put "numbers" in quotes. My bad.
I was referring to your suggestion that there wouldn't be an improvement in the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Buter&Lola Joined: 30 Jan 2008 Total posts: 4963 |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 1:01 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I am just bored with this conversation which seems to be going in an endless circle. I would imagine you are bored of it as well.
You have your opinion and I have mine.
The end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lanhimom
Joined: 17 Jun 2007 Total posts: 5494 |
Posted: Thu Jul 12, 2012 8:16 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| The end |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| job's mom Joined: 17 Sep 2011 Total posts: 124 Gender: Unknown |
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:23 am
Post subject: |
|
|
293581, I checked in after being gone for a while to see if you adopted a dog yet and was amazed to see this long thread. I can understand your frustration because some Southern California rescues can be especially extreme in their demands, but the rescuers in this thread are pretty sensible folks who just want to make sure they're giving their rescue dogs to the best possible homes. They're entitled to set whatever standards they want for their rescues and you're entitled to avoid rescues and go directly to shelters or Craigslist or Petfinder's classifieds or whatever you want.
Anyway, I believe that you can/will provide a good home to another dog, so I'm anxious to hear how your search is coming along. Why not pour your energy into that good, positive activity instead of this thread? At the ricbrowde.com/wordpress site, he says the situation is becoming very dire at Baldwin Park. And if you look at the Lancaster shelter website (also part of the LA County Shelter system), few dogs make it past a week or 10 days before they're killed. Go save a life. It will make you a lot happier than prolonging this conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| 293581 Joined: 08 May 2012 Total posts: 29 Gender: Unknown |
Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:15 pm
Post subject: |
|
|
| job's mom wrote: | 293581, I checked in after being gone for a while to see if you adopted a dog yet and was amazed to see this long thread. I can understand your frustration because some Southern California rescues can be especially extreme in their demands, but the rescuers in this thread are pretty sensible folks who just want to make sure they're giving their rescue dogs to the best possible homes. They're entitled to set whatever standards they want for their rescues and you're entitled to avoid rescues and go directly to shelters or Craigslist or Petfinder's classifieds or whatever you want.
Anyway, I believe that you can/will provide a good home to another dog, so I'm anxious to hear how your search is coming along. Why not pour your energy into that good, positive activity instead of this thread? At the ricbrowde.com/wordpress site, he says the situation is becoming very dire at Baldwin Park. And if you look at the Lancaster shelter website (also part of the LA County Shelter system), few dogs make it past a week or 10 days before they're killed. Go save a life. It will make you a lot happier than prolonging this conversation. |
Thanks for the reply. While I agree that each can make their own choice, I don't agree that they're "sensible." I fully understand and agree that they want the best for their animals...and for clarification purposes, I wasn't attempting to get one of their animals...I don't believe that they think about everything. That is certainly up to them...but when one is trying for the best, all information is considered. Had one of them...just one of them showed open-minded thinking as opposed to the defensive control position, I would have donated to their organization. But I fully acknowledge that they get to choose what they do.
As for the thread...eh...it was fun. An active thread is an active thread!  At the very minimum, it's information and a life lesson. So I see it as a positive, not as a negative. Also...some here could have learned a few things from me.
I absolutely appreciate your assistance and thank you for the info.
Update FYI...I had a few local possibilities, but they went somewhere before I had the opportunity to meet them. One was gone by the time I learned about him and another went as I was on my way. And I need to keep my others in mind during the process. My old boy had to have surgery  ...and then there was a problem afterward...so we put it on hold. I absolutely wouldn't want to stress my boy during his recovery!
I saw this...What's your opinion on it? Good? Bad? Okay?
Apparently San Fran is going to pay panhandlers/beggers to stop begging and care for puppies.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/07/16/peta-balks-at-sf-program-to-pay-panhandlers-to-care-for-shelter-dogs/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Profile
FAQ
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
Calendar
