Pets

Dog Rescue Agencies - Omitting certain truths

  • Last Updated:
  • Dec 16th, 2019 12:41 am
Tags:
[OP]
Newbie
Sep 5, 2013
90 posts
38 upvotes
Mississauga

Dog Rescue Agencies - Omitting certain truths

I think there are quite a few animal rescue agencies that knowingly omit certain truths about a dog in question. They actually should be called out and their misgivings made public.
This needs to be spoken of more often to educate people whom are thinking about rescuing an animal from one of the many dog rescue organizations.
Location: s/w Ontario - will not disclose names of organizations at this point in time.


Example 1:
• Dog is well known to attack cats, as indicated in Veterinary records that were discovered later. The rescue agency fails to disclose this information prior to new owner, adopting dog. The rescue agency knew the owner had cats. Although no fatalities occurred, the dog was trained to tolerate the cat and not attack.

Example 2:
• Owner was told the dog would be a great addition to apartment life and was also pee pad trained.
New owner buys dog - not only did the dog pee and/or poop on the pee pads, but also peed/pooped on the carpets and hated going for walks 3 designated times a day. That’s right — the rescue agency knew that the new dog owner to be, lives in an apartment and would be walking the dog. Yet, failed to disclose that the dog has basically not been walked before and/or extremely objects to being walked each and every time. While tolerable and trainable — this older dog’s antics were not fully disclosed. I have a feeling the dog was just let out in the foster parent’s backyard whenever the need arose and more than likely was never walked.

The point to these examples is, just because an organization is run by volunteers doesn’t mean they are people with good intentions. Omitting certain bits of information is devious and costs the new owner a non-refundable lesson. I firmly believe they are desperate to home an animal and will do everything short of lying, to place an animal up for adoption.
Again — they should be called out and held accountable for their actions. Least of all, to embarrass these idiots whom are fostering the animals and intentionally omitting pertinent information to the new owner.
2 replies
Deal Fanatic
Jul 7, 2017
5657 posts
2495 upvotes
SW corner of the cou…
Marc9999 wrote:
The point to these examples is, just because an organization is run by volunteers doesn’t mean they are people with good intentions. Omitting certain bits of information is devious and costs the new owner a non-refundable lesson. I firmly believe they are desperate to home an animal and will do everything short of lying, to place an animal up for adoption.
I do believe they do have good intentions, as far as keeping the animal alive goes, but probably just don't want to know and present the truth (denial is a powerful drug) and are, to say the least, overly optimistic.
Cream rises to the top. So does scum.
Deal Addict
Nov 23, 2008
4828 posts
1553 upvotes
Marc9999 wrote: I think there are quite a few animal rescue agencies that knowingly omit certain truths about a dog in question. They actually should be called out and their misgivings made public.
This needs to be spoken of more often to educate people whom are thinking about rescuing an animal from one of the many dog rescue organizations.
Location: s/w Ontario - will not disclose names of organizations at this point in time.


Example 1:
• Dog is well known to attack cats, as indicated in Veterinary records that were discovered later. The rescue agency fails to disclose this information prior to new owner, adopting dog. The rescue agency knew the owner had cats. Although no fatalities occurred, the dog was trained to tolerate the cat and not attack.

Example 2:
• Owner was told the dog would be a great addition to apartment life and was also pee pad trained.
New owner buys dog - not only did the dog pee and/or poop on the pee pads, but also peed/pooped on the carpets and hated going for walks 3 designated times a day. That’s right — the rescue agency knew that the new dog owner to be, lives in an apartment and would be walking the dog. Yet, failed to disclose that the dog has basically not been walked before and/or extremely objects to being walked each and every time. While tolerable and trainable — this older dog’s antics were not fully disclosed. I have a feeling the dog was just let out in the foster parent’s backyard whenever the need arose and more than likely was never walked.

The point to these examples is, just because an organization is run by volunteers doesn’t mean they are people with good intentions. Omitting certain bits of information is devious and costs the new owner a non-refundable lesson. I firmly believe they are desperate to home an animal and will do everything short of lying, to place an animal up for adoption.
Again — they should be called out and held accountable for their actions. Least of all, to embarrass these idiots whom are fostering the animals and intentionally omitting pertinent information to the new owner.
while I don't doubt there are such places, I would consider the likelihood of them completely lying as quite low.
Think of it, would a group of volunteers waste their time, money, and effort to acquire a rescue, house it, care for it, only to give it to a person who can't handle it? If the new owner of the pet is in over their heads, they would simply try to give back to the pet rescue, or give it to the local pound or shelter.... thus looping right back to them.
I find it highly unlikely that volunteers sacrificing their own energy/time would enjoy seeing that happen over and over, and then continue to put in energy to the rescue organization too.
Volunteers usually do things because believe in it, and will quickly leave when that belief is shattered.

Perhaps that's your experience, but I personally have never even experienced or heard anything like that.

Top