If you have ever tried to adopt a shelter dog and have been turned down you were probably rather annoyed, to say the least, particularly as the reasons appeared to be unreasonable. Join the club!! I also have been rejected as unsuitable and I didn’t even get a homecheck. This occurred 30 years ago and at the time I discovered that I was in good company. Amongst my clients at the time was a police officer who was also turned down and a hairdresser who threatened legal action unless the charity that she dealt with changed their decision.
This led me to realise that canine adoption/home check at that time was seriously flawed. I can only hope that matters have improved.
PC Thomas Rogers brought his dog Max a 2-year-old German Shepherd Dog for training. The dog had been advertised in the local paper as needing a good home. Max actually was quite well behaved and the constable has already done a good job, however, one problem stubbornly remained. Max was a thief, and as our guardian of the law said. “Can’t have a thief in the family!”
Thomas had attempted to acquire his first dog through a local animal welfare group and was horrified when told he was considered unsuitable.
Because he and his wife who was a nurse worked shifts and there would be occasions when they would both be away from the house together for several hours and it was considered that this was unacceptable. Even worse Police Constable Rogers having anticipated this problem had made provision for this eventuality. To ensure that his dog would not be stuck indoors like so many dogs he had constructed in the garden a state of the art brick built kennel, lined, insulated, heated, with a large run, 6-foot high chain-link fence, drainage, attached bowls and activity toys. Arrangements had been put in place with both neighbours that Max would be fed should it be necessary. Whilst the possibility of Max being left for more than a few hours were very small the policy of the group was that outdoor kennels were totally unacceptable and shift workers were viewed with suspicion.
This, despite the fact that Thomas Rogers was a police officer of seven years standing with commendations and was in sound financial condition.
What puzzled me is that if animal charities had such rigid rules then there would be two consequences. One; the dog that desperately needs a home stays in the shelter and two, the prospective adoptee then goes and finds a pet from another source.
I often wondered how charities justified turning down someone knowing that they then go and get a dog from somewhere else.
Bearing in mind the untold numbers of dogs that are left alone in the house all day with no toilet breaks and with no activity toys or stimulus, it must be galling knowing that you can provide a good home to a needy dog only to be told you are unsuitable because of the constraints of your career and in the further knowledge that in your neighbour’s houses this is happening to their dogs. It’s just nonsensical.
An established charity found itself under fire from a very determined young lady. The client was Karen, the dog was Saffire.
Saffire was a Miniature Yorkshire Terrier and Karen found her in a shelter, fell in love, declared her intent, received a homecheck and was appalled to be told that she was unsuitable. The reason it appeared was that Karen lived in a flat above her hairdressing business in a busy town and it was policy not to rehome dogs to people who lived in flats. The fact that Saffy would spend her days in the salon being spoilt rotten by the clientele cut no ice. Again rigid rules were applied with no proper thought.
Now, this particular case caught my imagination because when Joy and I got together we lived in a small second floor flat with three dogs.
On this occasion, the charity found itself in trouble as Karen was what was then sometimes known as a “modern woman.” Single, a career woman in her 30’s, financially secure, very determined and unwilling to deviate from her chosen goal. She threatened legal action and as far as I can remember it was on the following grounds.
It appeared that the solicitor’s letter that was delivered within 24 hours was enough to bring a change of heart as the charity concerned indicated that the apartment rule was only advisory and only applied to big dogs and there had been a misunderstanding.
“How did you or your solicitor know that they had rehomed a dog to a flat dweller?” I asked.
Karen gave a broad grin.
“I didn’t, but you can’t tell me that in the years gone by they haven’t bent the rules for a friend or family member. Guilty conscience!”
“What would you have done if they hadn’t capitulated”
She gave me the sort of steely look that would have had a special forces soldier diving for cover. It was obvious that I had asked a stupid question.
In a quiet low voice, she gave the answer.
“I never start something I can’t finish.”
As for myself we always have several dogs in the house and at the head of the pack, there would be an older dog that would keep the youngsters in line. On this memorable occasion, the oldest dog had passed away and I thought that we could do with an older, calm, benign dog that needed minimal training. One of the advantages of adopting an older dog is the fact that they very often come fully trained and need hardly any work.
In a shelter, I found one, an 8-year-old Flat-coated Retriever.
Needless to say, I didn’t even receive the courtesy of a home check.
I was told by a friendly kennel maid that I was not even seriously considered. The reason. I would overtrain it!! As if I didn’t have enough to do as a professional dog trainer and behaviourist. Now bearing in mind that the whole point of the exercise was to bring in a dog that didn’t need any training hence choosing a much older dog showed a total lack of understanding of what I was trying to do despite my best efforts to explain.
I didn’t make a scene about it, I reckoned that someone high up in the organisation had an issue with me. I was kept informed as to the fate of the Flat-Coated Retriever and fortunately, he was adopted by a family with children.
I think we all accept that there have to be rules but they are not laws of the land and when they are applied arbitrarily without common sense they become oppressive and cause resentment. Yes, the welfare of the dog is a priority but caring, compassionate homes are lost if strict rules are applied.
Deciding if an applicant is suitable should not be dependent on whether they live in a flat or their garden has a 6-foot high fence. Many devoted owners live In flats and many don’t have 6 foot high fences. In fact, it could be argued that living In a flat or a property that doesn’t have a 6-foot high fence guarantees that owners then take more care of their pets as they have to make greater efforts to ensure the animal’s comfort and security. In my day it appeared that homecheck people received virtually no training other than being given a set of criteria to make a decision. No common sense.
Granny was right. Her favourite expression was.
“The problem with common sense is that it’s not very common!!”
“The road to my heart is paved with paw prints.”
Alanna Chasin
With subtitle or not?