I've heard some groups would give you a hard time but it seems to be the majority rather than the minority. Some of the reasons Prudie of Slate.com (a fab advice columnist from Slate) and others weren't allowed to adopt animals is crazy. They included but weren't limited to: living in an apartment, being over 60 (for a cat), allowing a border collie off-leash, leaving a dog in a fenced yard unsupervised, having the wrong kind of flooring, having children in the next 10 years, and working full-time. It's not just Slate writers who go through this either. One of the Cracked.com stafferswrote a similar article about his ordeal trying to adopt a dog.
I understand seeing the horrible things people do to animals can harden humans against other humans. All of my friends know better than to get me started about that worthless, remorseless son of a bitch Michael Vick. But taking out frustrations about abusers on families who want to adopt animals isn't fair because it's keeping animals from getting adopted. Several people in Prudie's article were either rejected or gave up and went to breeders.
I understand interviewing people and doing a background check. I don't think people like Michael Vick should be allowed to own fish. I can see an FYI at a young couple that certain dogs are not for young kids. I can see asking an older person what they plan to do if something happens. I can even understand a home visit since not everyone knows how to prepare for a dog. But at some point, these 'advocates' are hurting their cause more than helping. I've had more than one friend say they'd rather just buy a dog from a breeder than go through the ridiculous hoops. I think that means what they're doing isn't working.
Current Music: Howl - Florence + the Machine
No comments:
Post a Comment