 |
| Bosca has been living the dream since he was adopted from a rescue organisation. |
It’s probably a safe assumption that everyone working
with companion animals strives for one ideal: to ensure that those animals find
happy, safe, “furever” homes. Most shelters and rescue groups don’t adopt
animals to anyone who simply rocks up: most have “vetting” processes where
potential owners are asked about their lifestyle, and occasionally even have
their homes inspected to ensure they are suitable.
On the whole this is a good thing. It means that animals
are matched to the right homes. But there is a side-effect that I am hearing
about increasingly: people who are suitable owners are being rejected,
sometimes for ridiculous reasons. I had a client who told me recently that she
was not allowed to adopt a dog she absolutely loved from a rescue group because
she worked full time.
Hold on a second. I know plenty of people who work in
shelters and for rescue groups who live alone, work full time and take
excellent care of animals. It’s a topic I’ve discussed before.
So I was very interested in this post, shared by my
friend and dog expert Eileen. You can read it here.
This is a heartfelt, honest reflection on the way habit,
compassion fatigue and righteousness can conflict with our desired outcomes. I
have heard from loads of clients, “I didn’t want to adopt from a pet shop but
in the end it was too hard to get an animal anywhere else.”
Depending on how it is carried out, vetting and grilling
applicants can rule out really great potential companion animal owners.
It does not suggest that shelters and rescue groups
should adopt out animals to whoever, whenever. It does suggest the need to
assess these cases individually, in case good homes and good owners are
overlooked. And it’s a great reminder
that no matter how we work with animals, there is value in regularly questioning
our own attitudes and approaches.
What are your thoughts?
