October 17, 2008Comments are closed.attitude, shelter procedure
I adopted a gorgeous labrador cross to a family two months ago only to receive a phone call today from the local pound informing us that the new owners had surrendered her.
The family presented themselves as nice professional people. They already had a dog who got along with this new girl and all in all it seemed like the perfect adoption.
Our adoption contract states that if there is any problems, they were to return the dog to us. But these lowlife creeps never phoned us and had to drive not only past us, but three quarters of an hour to take the dog to the pound. When they surrendered, they said that this dog barked constantly although it had never been a problem before and hasn’t been one since.
Could you please create a blacklist of unsuitable adopters so that creeps like this will never be able to get a pet from a rescue again?
Adoption blacklists certainly exist in certain rescue circles and other industries have used them to screen out potentially unsuitable people – rental accommodation being one that has come under scrutiny recently;
Although no agents will say it openly, hundreds of thousands of Australians have been dumped on computer blacklists which are used by landlords and agents. People with physical disabilities often end up on the databases. So do women and teenagers escaping domestic violence. Community workers and social service groups report it is also common for people to be black listed because of their ethnic origin.
Being named on a tenancy database is a serious matter. It makes it impossible for families and individuals to find rental accommodation.
How does this happen? It’s simple – there are virtually no restrictions on the compilation of these databases. Run by private companies, they operate without specific laws governing their conduct.
So therein lies the problem; how does anyone actually become judge-judicator-and essentially executioner of such a list?
Well essentially, they don’t. Given the nature of a ‘black ban’ list no one can put their name and credibility behind them without then spending the rest of their lives at the small claims court. So these lists form and develop in secret and become a hub for prejudice and misunderstanding.
Yucky. No thanks.
Rather than try and get a list of people to blackball, is it possible to examine why these people felt they couldn’t come back to rescue with their problems?
Sure, they could be ‘creeps’. There will always be jerks in the world, that’s a given. But they’re not majority of people and if they are in fact jerks, they’ll not be pinned down by a ‘headhunting’ style list. They’ll simply apply in another name or lie. Call it the ‘because they’re jerks rule’.
But wouldn’t that level of jerkiness also lend itself to ridding oneself of the pet in the easiest fashion? Opening the front door and letting it loose comes to mind. Or tying it to your door knob. Surely handing the pet over to you would have been easier than driving 45mins out of their way?
Nope, there’s something bigger at play here…
Why do these people not feel like they could come forward with their problems?
Think about it – these adopters show up and look fine. You run your internal ‘d*ckhead’ radar over them – still fine? You do some background checks – still fine. You homecheck – still fine. You speak to them a few times organising the adoption – still fine. But two months later – not fine?
But worse – not fine and not happy to come back and tell you they’re not fine!
But! I can hear you thinking; why on earth would we promote returns?
For the same reason we make it easy for people to surrender; because it’s part of what we offer. And the alternative is often much, much worse for the pet.
Did we follow up often enough to check the pet was settling in? Were there questions that could have been asked that would have revealed that the pet/owner bond wasn’t developing? Was there anything extra in the way of services these new owners could have been directed to, to help the bond form? (training etc?). And was there at least a couple of different (easy) ways for people to reach us should they need to?
In short, did we show these people how much we’d love them to return their pet?
Do you truly embrace returns or do you snipe under your breath when these ‘irresponsible’ and ‘irrational’ owners show up trying to give you a pet back?
Often we don’t see the value in returns. But we should be saying; PLEASE RETURN if this pet isn’t working out. We would LOVE you to come back if you’re not happy. Please consider us a RESOURCE should you be having any problems at all. And please come back ANYTIME in the future of this pets’ life – even if it’s just to surrender – and we’ll be GLAD to see you.
Returns are an opportunity. They’re a chance for us to seriously examine why this pet didn’t stick and whether there is another pet that would suit these people better – after all, these pet owners now know exactly what they don’t want – and for people who up until quite recently had no idea, that’s very valuable information indeed.
Lists of unsuitable people? That’s just wasting energy trying to punish jerks.
