A nice couple with a couple of adopted young chidren also enjoys adopting rescue dogs ó those dogs that are ignored, abandoned, malnourished, and mistreated. After two of the family dogs passed away, the couple decides its time for a family outing to the local SPCA to adopt a new dog for the family. The couple picks out a lovable St. Bernard, but the SPCA representatives balk at approving the couple’s request to adopt the dog. Interesting interaction results, but the bottom line is that the couple has “been declared fit to adopt two baby girls, but unfit to adopt a dog.” Read the entire incredible story.
Houston's Clear Thinkers
Longtime Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall's observations on developments in law, business, medicine, culture, sports, and other matters of general interest to the Houston business, professional, and academic communities.
The SPCA people seemed overly zealous BUT…
When adoptions don’t work out and dogs get dumped, nobody benefits, certainly not the dogs. And believe it or not, quite a few irresponsible people decide they have to have some dog on first sight, it doesn’t fit them, and they dump the poor animal.
It may not be right to treat EVERY potential adopter as a bad fit for an animal, but good shelters typically do set some guidelines, and it’s not an outrageous practice to do so. Indeed, private rescue organizations tend to do the same thing, which is hardly an example of the “nanny state” (unless one is just predisposed to view the world through certain filters, always).
Now, in this instance, everyone could have probably handled the matter better. But when testosterone starts surging and curse words start dropping, things tend to go downhill, nanny state or no.
It is definitely a sad state of affairs when animal shelters are forced by the nature of society to severely limit the availability of their animals for adoption. The truth of the matter is that many people approach adopting a pet the same way as they do buying a car, a computer or an iPod: if something is wrong with it, there should be a quick fix for it or Iím holding you responsible. By the very nature of their situation, there is something “wrong” with every animal in an animal shelter. And the most common problem with these animals is behavioral in nature, typically as a result of improper socialization with people and other animals coupled with the tragic commonplace specter of abuse and cruelty. There is no quick or easy fix to any behavioral problem. And if that problem happens to be in a dog in a household with children, the results could be injurious at best and deadly at worst.
The author states that he would be happy to sign any document relieving the shelter of responsibility of the dog, should it harm one of their children. That is all well and good, but if that dog does harm a child ñ whether or not the shelter is held legally responsible for it ñ whatever public goodwill that has been cultivated by the shelter may be hurt, potentially even reducing their already limited funding. Besides, what shelter worker would like to live with the fact that they adopted out an animal that hurt a child? There is a lot of personal conscience-searching that goes into the decision as well.
I certainly agree that the situation could have been handled better. The authorís behavior certainly didnít do anything but put the notion in the mind of the shelter workers that here is precisely the kind of person they donít want to adopt out an animal to. I am saddened that these clearly worthy dog-owners were denied the chance to save a life that day at the shelter. I hope it doesnít put them off of the idea, and that they go back, speak to the director, and get things sorted out. But I would also hope that they recognize the shelterís side of the story: the ASPCA is there to help animals, but it is also there to help protect the public.
Kev, we’re getting just one side of the story and you note that the SPCA reps seemed overly zealous. But the blogger didn’t have any problem with going through an approval process. His problem was that the SPCA rep who handled their visit appeared to have pre-determined the issue on an extremely superficial analysis of the family’s suitability. If that is Nanny statism, what is?
I remember hearing about this couple on the news. You cant fault the SPCA though. They have these policies in place usually because of past experiences.
Clint