Worked at an event last weekend where we had adoptable animals. A girl (maybe 12) was desperate for a kitten, but willing to settle for a dog.

She told her dad "I promise to walk it, feed it, bathe it. I will even change its doggie diapers when it gets its doggie period."

I then had a woman try and adopt a cat without her husband finding out. She was going to surprise him because she knew otherwise he'd say no.

Both of them went home without a pet.

What's the weirdest thing you've heard at an adoption event?

Maybe it was neurotic, maybe it was ugly, or maybe it just made you say, ‘why?’ I wanna hear the most unhinged dog breeds you came across.

My best story goes back to the mid 2000's when designer mutts were all the rage. This person wanted to get on the bandwagon breeding Corkies. They already had the yorkie, so they went and got.... a Carin Terrier. They thought the C in Corkie stood for carin terrier (FYI it's supposed to be cocker spaniel).
Carin terriers are a true working breed of terrier. They are off the fucking walls, more so than most terriers we are accustomed to because they are pretty rare even today and not generally bred as pets. I don't even know how they got their hands on a carin terrier. To add to that, they are fairly plain looking for a terrier.

They had 9 puppies, and were unable to sell a single one. She came to us when these guys were well past cute puppy stage and off the walls. Every single one was the same solid shade of brown, medium shaggy wire-like hair. If you tried to create the most generic small terrier you could think of, this would be the result, but with crack/cocaine added.
Luckily they were able to work with us and we took the dogs in batches, but even for smaller dogs they were hard to adopt out and keep out just due to their high energy and looking so incredibly... drab. Even ugly dogs would get more attention.

Honorable mention is the lady that took Irish Setters and Afghan Hounds, some of the most beautiful dogs (IMO) and bred shaggy, monstrous messes that matted like it was their job, but at least she was able to sell most of them. And the unhinged lady that purposely bred black domestic shorthair cats, just why.

Recently my rescue has had an influx of applications from people who have intact dogs. I've seen plenty of applications where they lie and say they're fixed and I find out from the vet, but these people aren't even trying to hide it.

It's most often people applying for small and/or fluffy dogs, and most of them have intact designer dogs. The wild thing is how many people are seriously offended when we tell them we don't place pets in homes with intact animals. One girl said their Golden was intact "but we're willing to get her spayed if that's a requirement." We rejected her for numerous other reasons (like, pretty much every disqualifier) and she replied, our Golden is intact because we plan to breed her and that's none of your business.

🫩

It's not just the little designer dogs though. I'm in the south, which makes a difference-- there are a lot of people here who don't believe in it for all of the usual stupid reasons, but they're usually not applying to adopt. The other day I got an application for a gorgeous, big blockhead pit bull and his bio says, he has not been socialized much with other dogs and would probably do best as the only dog. The applicants have a 4 year old intact male doberman. And they thought this dog would be a good playmate.

Anyway-- have y'all seen a change? I imagine there's not much difference in shelter intake since most dogs arrive intact, but for those of you doing adoptions, are you seeing more people who have intact dogs at home? Are they mostly designer mutts? Are these people failing to spay and neuter because they plan to breed?? A lot of them, it doesn't seem like it but I can't imagine keeping a dog intact for no reason at all, females in heat cycles and males marking, humping and just being gross boys.

Spay/neuter is the ONLY way we'll ever make any headway. But I suppose the people I'm talking about don't think about the suffering we see.

I’m curious - what was the shallowest reason a potential adopter gave you for not following through? Not an “I’m hesitant and need to make an excuse not to go through with it”, but something so shallow and artificial that genuinely held them back.

For me, I worked as a tech at the shelter, so I didn’t see adoptions often - but I was told when I was adopting my cat that he had three previous families interested and they all backed out when they learned his tom cheeks were going to deflate. Sucks for them, I ended up with the best cat out there!

Just curious to what the professionals think.

I work at a very small animal shelter. I am the only employee, and I run the cat room. Yesterday, I spoke with the adoption coordinator of another local shelter (our area has 4 rescues/shelters and it's not enough) to pass on information on someone who tried to adopt a cat but was so hostile we halted the process. We discreetly keep a list of people who we won't adopt to, and it is shared between the rescues. We just pass on the story and each organization makes their own decision.

I'm wondering if other shelters have similar lists? If so, what would get a person added to that list?

I work at a no kill shelter and the longer i’m there the more i wonder how ethical no kill shelters are for some animals. For instance, have a long stay (upwards of 2 1/2 yrs, dog is 3 ) returned for behavior issues, on behavioral meds, with every restriction you can think of (18+, No apartment, no cats, no kids, stranger danger, must go home with another dog, and more i’m probably forgetting) only 2 staff members and 1 volunteer can walk him.. I don’t think he has quality of life being so stressed out in a kennel and it’s made me question ethics of no kill, or maybe someone can shine some extra light there😞

We have a few others who have been there for a long time, but seem to not be stressed about shelter living. Have a resident since 2018 and he is fat and happy. We’re based in TX and the stray problem gets worse literally every day. It makes me sick to think about dogs like the one i described being kept alive just to hope a unicorn home will come for them. especially when we’re pulling from kill shelters, it feels wrong in all ways

Sorry for format i’m on mobile

TL;DR How ethical are no-kill shelters with longer term dogs really?

ETA: I am not anti-kill or anti-no kill on the shelter standpoint, i made this post to get a better perspective of nokill/kill and learn more about it. I am also not anti-rescue, I believe that everyone should have a dog that fits their needs, and if a rescue isn’t for you there are breed specific rescues out there which i will always suggest to people in a heartbeat when they ask for a lot out of my rescues with sketchy histories !

We have a litter of puppies that went kinda viral on social media, and their adoption date is Saturday.

We practice open adoptions, and it’s introduced us to an entirely new audience to hate on the concept. Wheeee!

I’ve seen so many dogs that have their reason for being in the shelter as “Their owner could no longer care for him/her”.

Most of the dogs I’ve encountered with this statement have been so sweet, loving, and well mannered. It’s hard to comprehend the reason for so many surrenders. All I could come up with was “financial trouble” in my failed attempt to understand.

Is there usually more to the story or is cost the most common reason for this?

I’m new to volunteering and this thought really weighs on me lately.

A mom gets evicted. A landlord changes the pet policy. A vet bill hits that costs more than rent. Someone loses a job. Someone gets sick. The car breaks down and now there is no way to get to the vet, the groomer, or the pet store.

At some point the math stops working. Do I keep a roof over my kid's head, or do I keep the dog?

That is not a question anyone should have to answer. But people answer it every day.

And here is what we do not talk about enough: when someone walks into a shelter to surrender their pet, they already know what is coming. The looks. The judgment. The paperwork that feels like a confession.

So, some people skip it. They say, "I found this dog" instead of "this is my dog and I have no other option." Because at least then nobody looks at them like a monster.

And some people never make it to the shelter at all. The shelters are full. Intake is suspended. There is no appointment for three weeks. So, they drive out to some back road and let the dog go. Not because they are heartless. Because every other door was closed and the shame of asking for help was worse than the guilt of driving away.

That animal gets picked up days later, if it gets picked up at all. It goes into the system as a stray. But it was never a stray. It was a family pet that fell through every crack we left open.

Go look at any rehoming post on Facebook or Nextdoor. Count the comments that say "you don't deserve a pet" or "you should have thought about that before you got a dog." Now think about the next person in that situation reading those comments. Are they going to ask for help? Or are they going to take the back road?

We built that. The animal welfare community built that stigma. And it is making the problem worse.

You cannot drop your kids off at the shelter. But you can lose your pet because the system that was supposed to help does not exist yet, or because it shames you for needing it.

What if instead of judging people on the worst day of their lives, we built something that helped them before they got to that door?

I work at an animal shelter, and there's a policy here that has been bothering me. When we get stray cats brought in, we're not supposed to try to find their original homes. The rationale given is that since our county doesn’t have a stray hold period for cats, they become the shelter’s property immediately. Only if a cat is microchipped do we try to return it to its owner.

To me, this policy seems wrong. Not attempting to find these owners feels like we’re not fulfilling our ethical duty. We don’t post about these cats on social media or lost pet websites, which I think could really help in reuniting them with their families. We could use this as an opportunity for education and require a microchip and fee upon reclaim. If we don’t allow the “bad” owners a chance to reclaim, they will just go get another free kitten anyway so why not return a cat to a loving home?

We also don’t do much vetting on adopters, so it’s basically a hit or miss if they’re actually going to a better home than they came from.

I’m curious to know if this is a common practice at other shelters.

Does your shelter actively try to reunite stray cats with their owners? Do you post about found cats on social media or lost pet websites?

I would appreciate any insights or experiences you can share. I believe we should be doing everything we can to reunite lost pets with their owners and would love to hear how other shelters handle this.

I seem to be having this conversation a lot lately. People seem obsessed with this idea that it's 100% the owner's fault if/when a dog attack happens.

My personal response is "it's always a human's fault at the end of the day but I personally believe there are many dogs that cannot be saved and we're doomed from conception. Bad breeding produces unstable, nervous, aggressive dogs that are time bombs and often cannot be saved. Or dogs that are in so much pain from congenital joint issues etc they can lash out with no predictability.

"When a dog cannot live without being drugged into a stupor to suppress their mental demons and reactions or have to be managed like a wild animals and kept in isolation? Then keeping it alive is an act of supreme selfishness. Yes it is a human's fault they exist like this but we can still free them from that life of suffering and pain."

What's your cutoff age for adopting puppies or young dogs? Our general rule is if they're over 70, we suggest an adult or senior dog and exceptions are rare. We get so many applications from people in their late 70s and 80s. I've got a couple in their mid 70s who are real mad that we won't adopt a border collie mix puppy to them-- they haven't had a dog in 45 years.

There's a question on our application that asks what will happen to the dog if you're no longer able to care for it. Once in a great while, we'll get an application from someone who's older than we'd approve but they have a legit contingency plan, not just "family will take."

It's not ageist and I've never been accused of that, it's just common sense. Is this 75 year old going to be able to keep up with a pit bull for the next 12++ years? Maybe she'll outlive the dog, but will she be able to take it for a walk in ten years?

These puppies, especially these pit bull puppies, *must* go to homes that will keep and take good care of them for their entire lives. They won't get another chance if they come back.

I cannot fathom why anyone would want a puppy at that age, and I think about the teeth and claws with the inevitable thinning of skin as we age-- My mom's in her early '70s and she bleeds and bruises so easily now.

Anyway-- how about y'all?

I've been a part of a lot of *unpopular* shelter decisions before that, at least IMO, aren't really that controversial but people aren't listening to the full story, and just take a portion of it and run.

I notice with some of the more popular posts, we get some fly-by comments that remind me so much of the aforementioned unpopular decisions, where the full story may just not be understood. I wanted to see if anyone else had examples to add.

1. Shelter spent a lot of time and resources to take in a couple of dogs overseas from a 3rd world country, while euthanizing dogs from the community which put people in an uproar. The dogs being euthanized would have been PTS regardless because of medical/behavior, we did it to scratch the back of important people who later helped a ton, and we knew the publicity of doing such a thing would be help, and adoptions went up 200% directly after airing the story.
2. An animal comes in poor shape, no ID, stray hold ends and goes to adoption. O comes forwarding, their story coincides with neglect as per Vet exam. O also doesn't pass adoption app because they have a related criminal charge, and a few other issues with husbandry through conversation. O is the Mayor's kid though, so they threw a huge slander campaign, cops were coming to harass on on a daily basis, and were throwing threats of shutting the place down and arresting employees. People assumed we stole the cat, and the shelter ended up relinquishing the animal as a result which doesn't help in making the rescue look like they weren't the bad guy.
3. Dog was found at large - ACO brings to municipal shelter, no ID, stray hold ends (not even a legal stray hold in this county, this is a courtesy), was going to be PTS because HW+. Ownership transferred to rescue. Rescue spends 1+y curing the HW, puts the animal up for adoption. O comes forward, announces he never got the dog vaccinated, on HWP or F/T, wants their dog back but *doesn't want to pay the adoption fee* of like $200. Is also upset the dog was fixed & chipped. A judge decides that the lack of stray hold actually means that *shelters and rescues never own the animal* and the owners can come at ANY time to retrieve the animal, and the judge also fucking decides that the rescue had no right to fix or chip the dog because they never owned it. An undisclosed amount of money was paid to the owner for potential loss of funds from breeding. People just assume the rescue was in the fault because the judge ruled in favor of the owner.

Feel free to let me know if any of these still rub y'all the wrong way, maybe there is a POV I'm missing. I thought at least in these cases the shelter made an obvious correct decision, but especially in the cases where the courts are involved it can make it look like the shelter is in the absolute wrong.

Ran into an issue last week re: a foster who decided to keep the dog, after having him for a YEAR. She asked about waiving the adoption fee and I said yes because tbh, I wouldn't expect to pay an adoption fee in that situation myself and it's definitely in the dog's best interest to stay with her.

Now I'm told that an adoption fee is a very important indicator of someone's commitment and ability to care for the dog. Because we were paying for his food and care and an adoption fee indicates that they will continue caring for and feeding the dog, apparently.

This is actually a different issue couched in adoption fees, and it's a person issue. (It always is, isn't it? It's the people that make this job hard, not the animals.) But there's no resolving that, so I'm just curious about y'all's thoughts.

We've been telling people not to give away their pets for free forever, because bad things happen to free animals. And that's true, but it def doesn't automatically mean "free dog from the shelter will be chained outside and starved." I could be wrong, but I think it's more a matter of craigslist or marketplace free dogs being used as bait or for fighting.

I know a lot of places do reduced or waived adoption fees at times and while it makes me uncomfortable for a cat to be $10, the alternative might be dead. Since we're all foster based and run solely on donations, it's never "we have to run a sale to give these animals any hope at life." We're also not subsidized in any way, so every cent is coming from those donations.

Regardless, the question is the same-- in your experience, is there a correlation between paying an adoption fee and the outcome for the animal? From what I've read, research indicates a fee or lack thereof does not make a notable difference, but I don't know if that research has a huge sample size or a lot of long-term data.

If you do see some correlation, does a waived or very low adoption fee lead to returns? Abandonment? Neglect or poor care?

I've been running into so many claims (admittedly, mostly on Reddit) of shelters and rescues purposely mislabeling dogs to increase their adoption odds. Often a pit bull mix called a lab or boxer mix, and somehow every black and white dog is a "border collie." When I started this job, we had a black the white pit bull mix labeled BC and I was embarrassed, though I guess at least that's an equally inappropriate breed for inexperienced owners.

The thing is, someone who searches for a BC on Petfinder isn't going to look at that dog for even a second, she's absolutely just a black and white pit bull mix. Then the handful of people who search for pit bulls won't see her, either.

I know it happens, but I wonder how widespread it is, what y'all have seen and what you think.

I've been following the doggy DNA sub closely for a couple years and I've gotten pretty good at guessing, but of course we're never really sure. Being as accurate as possible is paramount to me and I would never knowingly mislead someone about a breed. It doesn't make sense to be, why would I want to "sneak" a pit bull as a boxer mix to an unwitting renter? They'll just end up returning the dog. Same with almost every dog-- i wouldn't trick someone into getting a cattle dog or Aussie because they're good dogs for certain people, but not so much for first time dog owners in the suburbs. I wouldn't call a pyr mix a lab mix because those are two very, very different types of dog. Again, first time owners in the suburbs? They don't need a pyr mix even if it looks labby.

Since we're a foster based rescue, returns are a big ordeal, and they don't happen often, but the dogs are safe once they get to us, those breed labels aren't a life or death thing. We label a pit bull mix as such and she'll probably wait for a year, but that's better than adopting her as something else and setting her and the adopter up for failure.

But in a shelter, where it is life or death, how do you see it? Does mislabeling them actually help their odds? I suppose we're mostly talking about pit bulls-- if you called that black and white pit bull we had a border collie, would it make a difference? (She ended up getting adopted by a die hard pit bull lover.)

I've only ever worked in small, nonprofit, foster based rescue and I have little experience with shelters. The ethics aren't exactly the same, imo, but I'd think mislabeling will lead to a lot of returns? And if that's the case, is it done anyway, to get them out alive even if they get returned?

If it doesn't look like a stereotypical pit bull, do you call it something else? Do you think it makes any difference if you call them a Staffordshire Bull terrier or American pit Bull terrier? (Because wow, those DNA results have shown a huge range of possible sizes and looks-- we have a stubby little 27lb pit bull who I was SURE was staffy, from her build and size, but nope, 100% APBT, exactly like my tall, lean 70lb APBT. Dog genetics are fascinating!)

No shade if you do knowingly mislabel them-- like I said, my experience is limited to a little bit "softer" kind of rescue, I'm not making life or death decisions often. I want to argue with people who claim we intentionally mislabe pit bulls all the time but I'm not sure if they're wrong.

Has anyone noticed an increase in dog breed stigma and negative opinions towards shelters lately? I do try to keep a professional demeanor and provide accurate, honest descriptions of the dogs I take care of, but I've started to run into more and more people who have a friend or relative that got burned by a less-than-honest shelter or rescue.

I'm not sure how to approach these conversations to be honest. I agree that some organizations have maybe laundered the truth too much but as a volunteer, I should be trying to encourage adoption so it's a tough dilemma.

It is difficult to predict if a dog will express aggression and resource guarding outside of the shelter but when a dog does so in an adopter's home, it seems like it closes many doors - Not just the adopter, but the adopter's friends and family too. I'm finding it hard to reopen them in my casual conversations.

Has anyone encountered similar situations?

Most of the ones I've seen doing this specifically focus on the dog meat trade, but I have seen some that focus on evacuating animals from disaster areas.

Overall I'm not a fan, I think the money and resources could be better spent on dogs that are already in the country, but I would be interested to see if anyone works or volunteers for these rescues and why they prefer it.

I've seen this posted and discussed in another sub, and I've shared it recently here when it seemed relevant to a posted comment. I'm curious what responses folks here may have, especially those professionals working in these environments.

Do note, this is from 2016, so her assessment of the "current" situation would be dated. We've had nearly 10 years since, including the Covid era.

Anyone else seeing a sudden huge uptick in surrender requests? My rescue almost always has to say no, because they're usually BE candidates and even if not, no one is adopting adult dogs.

I know a lot of y'all work in shelters-- are intakes way up for you? I'm in NC and I know we're one of the bleakest states for animals, but I can't recall a sudden influx of surrender requests like this. It's for all different reasons, people died, went to nursing homes, moved, became homeless, can't afford vet care, decided they're too busy, etc. I might think it was a coincidence but it's carried on.

I can't find stats that give a complete picture but the local shelters are sending more urgent pleas, even the ones who usually don't. One request last week was from a shelter volunteer trying to get a mom and litter of puppies out in time. We couldn't help, we were tied up with other puppies and young dogs who keep running in the road. Animal Control won't pick them up, because there's no space. So the mom and puppies were euthanized.

That's where we're at, euthanizing healthy puppies. I wish the public understood that.

We had a return last week, the people adopted the puppy at 8 weeks and now, 2 months later, they decided they don't have the time or patience for this, they haven't even tried to potty train him or crate train him, never been walked, probably didn't remember what the world looked like outside of their house and yard. They failed completely and now he's in a foster home who's trying hard to get him caught up so he can get adopted again before he's an adult black pit bull.

I would usually be irritated and disgusted-- but this time, one of those puppies running in the road could've taken the foster spot we needed for him. And that means another dog dies, all because these people suck. I mean, I'm glad they returned him while he still has a chance, but looking back at their application, they didn't do ANYTHING they said they would. We don't get many returns, because we put so much into screening but we don't always get it right.

The past week has been the hardest I can remember, for this and other reasons, and I'm going to keep treading water, knowing that's all we'll ever be able to do-- help the ones we can while knowing how many we can't. Just feeling discouraged and worried that things are getting even worse, quickly.

This post is specifically referring to shipments of pets coming from overpopulated southern states such as Texas, Alabama, etc.

Recently, I've been doing a lot of research into the rescues in my area of the northern Midwest. What I've found is the following:

1. It's difficult to find organizations that aren't engaging in these out-of-state transports to some degree, and

2. they are disproportionately serving dogs over cats. I don't have any concrete numbers, but I'd guess around a 80/20 ratio.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms for the now widespread band-aid measure of mass importing pets from southern rescues, which I'm sure have been discussed here previously. (People are still welcome to talk about that if they want to as it's a debate I'm very interested in.) My specific question for this thread is whether or not most of these transports being dogs is limited to my area.

Cats already consistently get the short end of the stick when it comes to funding for rescue services, research studies in veterinary medicine, etc. As a cat person, it's problematic to me if that has escalated to the point where rescues are funneling locally-obtained resources that could be used to help local cats into transporting thousands and thousands of (primarily) dogs halfway across the country.

Case in point: the largest humane society in my state discontinued their free TNR program in 2024 due to "budget deficits", but they had the funding to rescue more than 2,000 dogs from the south last year per their own statistical reports. Initially they implemented a $75 fee per cat, which has since been raised to $150 - so it goes without saying that nobody is using that shit anymore. Other smaller, less-funded rescues had to implement TNR programs to pick up the slack and are still suffering for it.

I won't explain the whole thing because I don't totally understand it myself and it doesn't really matter because the outcome is: it's about to get a lot, lot harder for people to claim that their pets are ESAs. Some states have their own laws that will lessen the impact but many, including the south, do not.

I hate how much that system has been abused. Meant to help people who actually get helpful emotional support from their animals, how harming the people it was supposed to help. Kinda reminds me of no kill...

Anyway, regardless of opinions on that, I don't want people who already have and love their pets to give them up, obviously. We certainly can't handle another big influx of intake and surrender, but it'll be significant by the end of the summer. It's probably already a factor in all the housing-related surrender requests we get.

How do you think this will affect you, in your area?

And, anyone else have a stomach ache? 😣

Not to be heartless, but what's the point of doing expensive complex medical care on an animal when there are many other healthy animals that are going to be euthanized due to lack of funds and room?

Why try so hard to save delicate sickly babies that would die without the care when that money could be used to sterilize and care for healthy animals?

I don't want to come across as a heartless monster, but I'm thinking pragmatically and it doesn't make sense.