Safety Nets: Why Barrier Free Adoptions Can Hurt Animals

“Anyone who wants a dog, will get a dog”. I have recently seen this statement used as a reason to eliminate any and all “barriers to adoption”. Advocates of this approach want to eliminate pretty much all measures that are in place in any rescue/shelter, which screen for the ability to safely add an animal to a potential adopter’s home. I am going to discuss each one individually and focus on dogs, though this subject applies to adopting any animal. I honestly think that it’s critically important that those who love animals and only want the best for them, to have it right in front of them in black and white, as to how very much they may be taking chances with lives, when dispensing with all barriers. Rescuing an animal and providing them with safety should not stop at placement. Now mind you, not all of the barriers discussed should be in place. Many “requirements” should be considered individually with each animal/adopter.  Let’s explore this list below (and more) individually. (Banner photo courtesy of Steph Gregerson. Cubby should expect his furever home to be properly screened for his needs.)

• Home visits
• Vet reference checks
• Landlord approvals
• Multi-page applications
• Family restrictions
• Fencing requirements
• No electronic fences
• Income questions
• No 9-5 type workdays with no one else home
• No out of area/state adoptions or can’t already have a pet in the home if out of area
• References required

Home Visits

Herbert, photo courtesy of Kristin Schuler

Generally speaking, shelters don’t conduct home visits anyway unless (in some cases) a situation exists where a particular dog might have had a lot of notoriety for some reason and/or the breed/mix is attractive enough to the wrong crowd, that humane agents may want to ensure that an adopter is interested in said dog for the right reasons. But most responsible rescue groups do conduct home visits. When I first volunteered with and then ran my own Doberman rescue group, we required them. Why? Because you just can’t get a real feel for how someone lives without seeing for yourself. There are plenty of applicants who look great on paper and then you discover that they expect their dog to sleep on top of a narrow wooden floored stairway landing without even a rug (yes, that happened). Toppling down wooden steps in one’s sleep isn’t my idea of how a dog I spent time and money ensuring the safety of, should spend their nights. Would I have discovered that without a home visit? Nope, not at all. Home visits are also an easy way for the applicant to meet the dog before committing. Seeing the interactions inside of where a dog might live often results in valuable information. Advising on accommodations and in-home safety after adoption can be very helpful to an adopter. Things like windows at dog level and lots of wires/clutter in dog centered areas can give the rescuer ideas on how to help the adopter keep the dog safe after adoption. Many adopters simply don’t think of things that those who have had a lot of dogs come through their home have experienced first-hand. Do rescue groups care if your home is out of Better Homes and Gardens? Heck no, not quality rescue groups. We/they are just looking for a good match. Not a perfect match. But a good match. Relationships are supposed to be forever. Seeing the potential adopted animal and the adopter in their own home goes a long way towards feeling good about the match. Shouldn’t the emphasis be on quality placements that last rather than an increase in promotable numbers?

Vet Reference Checks

I have a hard time with this one, I will admit. I just can’t wrap my brain around not wanting to ensure that previous and current animals (if any) are/were taken care of properly. What is not to like about something that takes only a few minutes of time and reveals a lot of good information? In this day and age, this can typically even be done via email. Time spent, negligible. Yet priceless. A word on this subject though as proper care is a subjective idea evidently. Having at least a yearly wellness visit with appropriate bloodwork and as needed in addition to illness/accident care is important. Preventive care is vital but what preventive care is often a matter of need. For example, I currently have floofy dogs and we hike a lot. So my dogs get NextGard starting when ticks are more active in the spring through when a hard freeze happens and even some times in the winter if the weather might call for it, such as our current warm winter. But they don’t get regular heartworm preventative. That would disqualify me from some rescue groups and that is okay with me. They get tested yearly, they are usually only outside when with me and it takes a hardy mosquito to get through all that floof. Add that we do live in the northeast rather than the south, (where heartworms are truly frightening). When I have short haired dogs, they do get heartworm preventative during the mosquito months. I am informed and educated. This is not going to be the case for everyone. But in the interest of education when that is all that is needed, immediate denial for just *this*subject should not be a thing. Education and informed decision making should. Treat adopters with a respect for their intelligence level. Engage, ask questions, and go from there. Of course, if the adopter is inquiring for a first pet as an adult, they won’t have a veterinarian for anyone to inquire with. This creates an ideal time to educate as to what basic needs need to be met, and the average costs for such so that there is no sticker shock, so to speak. This also provides for the opportunity to refer the applicant, if approved, to quality veterinarians that the rescue/shelter uses/supports for multiple reasons. Win/win.

Landlord Approvals

Again, I will confess a complete and utter state of confusion at why one would not want to ensure that an applicant that rents/lives in someone else’s property, is permitted to have a dog there. This seems to me to be basic common sense. After all, if the applicant is not permitted to have a dog or is limited as to what size of dog, that is valuable information. Eliminate this basic requirement and you will have someone adopt a dog who is then discovered by whomever is in charge of said property. Which then causes the adopter to potentially irresponsibly rehome the animal to the first person who agrees to take him or her, instead of returning the animal to the shelter/rescue or doing an approved responsible rehoming themselves, which can be less stressful than constantly changing venues. What that creates is stress in a dog who has already experienced too much instability in the first place. Rescue should mean emotional as well as physical safety. Checking with a landlord to ensure that a dog is permitted is a simple and minimally time-consuming action that can mean safety to a probably already stressed dog. Do it for the dogs. Added as a last thought on this particular subject: I saw an article that made fun of this requirement, stating that someone adopted while having a friend pretend to be her landlord and she still has the animal. Oh yeah, that’s a great feat to use as a reason to dispense with an easy thing to do that can literally save an animal’s life. Restrictions on living quarters CAN get dogs killed PDQ. Consider breed restrictions. While complete nonsense, they are indeed legal in many areas and the result of having a breed that isn’t permitted is literally that dog’s death. So, just stop with the landlord checks aren’t necessary BS please. The dog that doesn’t have to be surrendered yet again or worse, euthanized, for being the “wrong” breed, will eternally thank you.

Multi-Page Applications

This is one of the things that you won’t see me defending much. Basic information definitely needs included such as name, address, phone number, pets in home already, past pets, vet contact info, landlord contact info if applicable, and dynamics of household as well as some basic past/expected care questions to make a better match (not to judge someone!). The rest can be covered when the applicant is contacted. So many advocates are pushing “conversations instead of requirements”. I am not sure why these advocates think that conversations aren’t part of this protocol. They always have been in, most scenarios, and they always will be. They are the primary source of information about where the dog might end up. They are crucial. But just like any questionnaire that you would complete for any organization/business, applications supply basic information that is valuable because it saves time for conversations about the more important stuff. Certainly, there are many ridiculous applications out there, but their existence should not mean that the majority of adoption applications are irrelevant. That’s just not true, like most generalizations. Shelter/rescue staff/volunteers are seriously overworked and time strapped. Allow them the benefit of a basic information gathering application to proceed forward with and stop trying to make their work harder please. If your rescue group or shelter staff/volunteers have time to dispense with a basic application information gathering process, then you should consider yourselves unicorns versus the standard.

Family Restrictions

Again, a subject that you won’t see me defending much. I say “much” because, common sense should truly be a thing. But individual situations should dictate the match. For example, for a dog who is not great with kids or is simply too large and clumsy to safely live with small children, then don’t adopt to a family who has them. With a dog who is not good with cats, don’t even bother entertaining a family who has felines. Same with an energetic puppy and a frail senior citizen who lives alone.

Honey, photo courtesy of Susan Lydem

These are individual situations. So is the age of an adopter and what breed/age of an animal that they want to adopt. Age limits to adoption should never be a thing. Neither should blanket restrictions of any kind, such as same sex adoptions or no puppies with toddlers, etc. Two situations from my Doberman rescue days come to mind on two of those subjects: one, a ten-week-old puppy adopted out to a family with one toddler and a baby on the way. The family in question demonstrated an amazing amount of dog savviness for children/dog interactions and had a lengthy history with the breed (not necessarily a solid in!) as well as dog behavior savviness. Another situation: a family with three female Dobermans wanted a fourth female addition, as one had passed. I had a female who fit right in, and the family was wonderfully hands on with structure and parenting skills for all four of their girls. Win/win. A lot of rescue groups would have turned these two applicants down for the dogs that they applied for. I didn’t, because each situation deserves individual considerations. But, and here is the important part of this equation, no other basic requirements had to be forfeited in order to do this. Both sides of this equation truly are possible to achieve.

Fencing Requirements

Yet another subject that you won’t see me defend in total. Again, individual dog’s needs should dictate this. But when a rescue group or shelter does decide that an individual dog needs a fence, please accept that they likely did not make that decision lightly. The decision exists for a reason and that reason usually isn’t just exercise. Dogs rarely want to be in fenced in yards alone without their humans. Quite a bit of fun can be had with said human in a fenced in yard though. Typical reasons that a rescue group or shelter might insist on a fenced in yard: a giant breed that needs a barrier to minimize liability, an over-exuberant dog badly in need of space to do zoomies without hurting his or her humans, dogs who have PTSD trauma from something that requires a “safe space” to learn how to comfortably be outside, escape artists notorious for pushing through doors, etc. When a rescue group or shelter requires a fence, they will also have some basic safety requirements/tips about said fence’s structure. Again, no generalizations on all dogs need a fence should be a thing. I will wholeheartedly support anyone who complains about that.

No Electronic Fencing

So now we come to the fencing style that will probably create a target on my back: electronic fencing. Let me preface the following with this: I do NOT condone or support the use of electronic fencing. There are always going to be better options. But there is no getting around the fact that a whole lot of quality dog homes use these systems. Making a blanket ban against these homes is a serious error in judgement. We have an opportunity to educate/change minds when we get to the conversation part of the adoption process. Find out who the adopter is and how they use their systems. We have the chance to point out that a dog they are interested in is not an appropriate candidate for that type of fencing. Or that the location of their system is dangerous. Or that how they use it is not ideal. You CAN change minds when you don’t make an immediate judgement. Please consider this, my fellow modern rewards-based trainers who read this, invisible type fences are not all created equally and by that, I mean the location of the fence and whether it’s a complete folly or a reasonable safety feature. The corner lot in a busy family centered sub-division is not ideal, by any means nor is the grassy yard in front of a house on most typical suburban active streets. Those are indeed an accident or lawsuit waiting to happen. They are a great way to create a reactive dog. But wait, what about the backyard of the same house, which happens to be private and naturally rimmed with landscaping? In this case, it can be used responsibly and by responsibly, I mean supervised by humans when in use by the dog. Other contexts where I could not find fault in the use of an IF style fence: 40 of 80 acres “fenced” along with a pond and another, 7 acres with trees and a creek creating a natural barrier on the “fence” line. I could go on. Individual scenarios need to be considered, including as to whether the dog in question is an appropriate candidate for such a “fence”. You are preaching to the choir when you point this out to me. I already believe that to be the case.

Income Questions

Someone’s income is not a shelter’s or rescue group’s business. That should not ever be a question. And that kind of determination cannot be assumed based on a home address. But what kind of working hours one has, especially when living alone, does matter as far as care goes. Does that mean that someone who works long hours should not have a dog? Of course not. What matters is how they plan on caring for that dog when they are not home. Are they making reasonable accommodations? Petsitters are big business these days. Will they have the energy to give that dog what he or she needs after work? What hobbies do they have, and will they be a good match for the activities (or lack of) that the dog might need? These are all important considerations. Here is a good example, as almost everyone in the dog world knows who Lu-Seal was. Her adopter, Dr. Julia Morley, was doing an emergency medicine residency when she adopted Lu-Seal. Long hours, exhaustion and still Lu-Seal got exactly what she needed. https://www.post-gazette.com/pets/pet-tales/2017/12/08/Pet-Tales-Lu-Seal-overweight-Chihuahua-diet-Petco-Humane-Animal-Rescue/stories/201712090008   Also, as far as income goes, lower income families often forfeit their own luxuries so that their animals have what they need. Love doesn’t have a price tag. This kind of information is what you discover during conversations. Conversations are vital. After the basics.

No 9-5 type workdays with no one home

Covered above. Individual context important. Don’t exclude people who might have weird work hours but otherwise are perfectly willing and able to give that dog what he or she needs.

No Out of State/Area Adoptions

My thoughts on this are probably not going to be popular with the “throw out all of the requirements” crowd: every single shelter/rescue group has the absolute right to limit their adoption area to one that they are comfortable with. I truly understand that this is the day and age of transporting dogs all over the place. But, for those who do right by the animals in their care by conducting home visits and requiring that a failed adoption be returned to them (as they should), their volunteers have to be able to get to home visits easily and more importantly, be able to comfortably get an animal back when an adoption goes wrong. Hundreds of miles away and a recalcitrant adopter are not a good combination. And despite the best intentions, it does happen to everyone placing dogs occasionally. Vowing to keep a dog safe means that the ones who spent time rescuing that dog get to make the rules of what they are safely able to do. Volunteers are just that, volunteers. Adopters are not a customer purchasing a product. Rescue groups and shelters don’t have to place a dog with anyone. It matters little whether the dog would have been treated like royalty. There is a match to be made within the caretaker’s personal comfortable geographical limits, trust me. Don’t throw a tantrum. Just scour the internet for a dog who needs you within the area where you live or go to another organization who doesn’t have those limits. You would be likely doing that dog a favor. And as the bullet points above mention, it’s especially tricky when there are already other animals in the home and a home visit is not practical. Truly, respect a group or shelter who makes these rules. They really are out for protecting the welfare of the dogs in their care. That is a good thing!

References Required

My own thoughts on this one was initially: no one calls those or if so, they shouldn’t. Vet references can easily be the only references needed. After all, who is going to put down a reference who would badmouth them anyway? Buuuuuuuttttttt, I was told by a trusted long time shelter worker friend that I would be surprised at how many references actually were horrified that so-and-so was trying to adopt a dog and were quite emphatic that so-and-so should not get that dog so call away if you already do so. Who knew?

Here is where I add my own pet peeve requirement, training methods. Yes, you guessed it. I am wholeheartedly in favor of requiring that an adopter ONLY utilize modern rewards-based training methods or risk forfeiting their adoption. Why, you ask? Although it can certainly be opined that training methods are a personal opinion, I strongly disagree. To follow science supported rewards-based methods for minimal learner stress and maximum bonding between humans and dogs should be considered part of the baseline of rescue care. Why bother rescuing a dog if they are going to potentially be subject to punitive methods in order to “train” them? More on that subject here;   Why Rescue Groups Should Use Rewards-Based Training Methods

An aspect of removing barriers to adoption that I wholeheartedly support is free/low-cost adoptions. Clear The Shelter events generally involve the same basic criteria that shelters always have in place. The cost of the adoption itself has been subsidized by someone/some corporation. This is a GREAT thing! This helps people spend their hard-earned cash on the dog him/herself! Win/win!

Now before I end this, I want to address the well-meaning but misled people who support this practice of dropping all screening as well as the adopters who agree. Adopters are mostly good-hearted people looking to help a dog. So are those of you who think that this eliminating the barrier thing will magically mean that all animals will have a home, but you will likely never ever know about the ones whose stories had a bad ending because of this practice. But here’s the real issue with this thought process: to those who are not well educated enough (or at all) in dog behavior; love isn’t enough. Yes, most rescue groups and shelters completely understand that adopters plan on loving the heck out of that dog. That is noble and we all respect that, but a good match cannot be made effectively on that knowledge alone. Lifestyles *are* important. What a dog needs in a home *is*important. Love is not enough. Dogs are not inanimate accessories that we can ignore, once added to our lives. Personalities must mesh for best long-term success and there is no getting around that fact.

Some proponents of this no barrier approach state that people get pushed towards breeders when adopting is too difficult and intrusive. Here’s the thing though, responsible breeders ask/require the same information of their potential puppy buyers, if not more! It’s only the puppy mills and pet stores and internet sales that don’t care, it’s just a money maker to them. Which is why they should not even be legal. In addition to much better federal humane laws overall and tighter requirements for who can breed dogs, what we should primarily be focusing on and what will reduce homelessness in dogs, is more education on what dogs need. Here is an article about what dogs wish that we knew about them.

Additionally, what we need in place as a nation, is subsidized low/no cost veterinary assistance for dog parents as well as help with various needs such as food, accessible and safe housing, etc. Let’s KEEP dogs in loving homes. Appropriate homes are not determined by income. They are determined by a human’s willingness to provide what an animal needs. Help exists for human children, the same should be said for animals. Studies show that animals enhance or emotional lives. They should not be an income based luxury. Win/win by helping animals stay in homes.

As for humane/safeguarding laws that help dogs, we should be looking towards Germany. Germany requires that those who want a dog, to be educated in what that dog needs and they have to take a test to prove it. Requirements are in place for the welfare of the dog, as well as training methods that are permitted to be used on said dog. This is what we as a nation should be pushing for, minimum requirements for adding a dog to one’s life, not everyone wants one, everyone gets one. Quantity is not as important as quality and it’s time that we stop trying to lower the standards and start pushing for better standards. I know which philosophy the dogs would vote for. Your guess?