So, this is Part 2 (of 3 parts) of the post I started yesterday, about differences in policies / procedures / adoption fees.
In today's post, I'm going to talk about the second part of the adoption process for the other rescues, which was that the adoption application had to be approved by many people. Again, this is one of those things, I can see how it can be good, I can also see how it can be problematic.
Raise your hand if you've ever asked a group of friends an opinion question, and gotten different answers from everyone. Yep, that's what I thought.
Now imagine that's all those people reviewing an adoption application. Will the people who get through and are able to adopt be the absolute best homes ever? Most likely! However... will some good homes slip through and not be approved, due to someone not liking how something is worded and not everyone being able to agree? Also likely.
Let's go back to my Part 1 post for a second. On my adoption form for the chins, it asks if people have an established exotics vet. Some people put yes, some people put no. Here's the thing... if you've never had a chin before, or never had a small pet before... and therefore, never had the need / opportunity to take a small pet / chin into the vet... should a "no" answer be that big of a deal? I don't think so, at least not in all circumstances. If someone puts no, I ask them, do they know of a vet in there area that does see chinchillas, should the need arise? Ideally, people should at least know that. Now, if someone tells me that they don't have an established vet, because they don't believe that it's worth taking a sick animal to the vet, and would rather it suffer and die... I think we can all agree that's different. But you see, a "no" answer isn't always the end of the world, and in my case, doesn't automatically disqualify someone.
This sort of thing actually goes for a variety of stuff on the adoption forms. I've shown some friends adoption forms before (identifying information removed, of course), to show interesting answers to some of the questions. In some instances, those people have said, it's not worth the effort, just tell them that they can't adopt. For me... often those people just needed guidance. Some hadn't read the care packet and weren't aware that some of the products that they put down that they would use (food, treats, etc) were unsafe. When this was suggested to them, and they were given safer alternatives, many were happy to learn of better, healthier treats, as most people do want their pets to live as long as possible (suppose this shouldn't be a surprise, eh?). Many of those people return to continue to purchase supplies / food / treats / etc from us, so I know they are continuing their pet on a healthy diet and healthy treats... but if it was up to my friends / other rescues, sometimes, these people would not have been approved to adopt.
Of course, it's a fine line. You can't approve everyone, and have to draw the line somewhere. But at the same time, if criteria is too strict, you won't approve as many as could be approved, and many of the non-approved-homes could actually be good homes. And this is where it can be hard to get everyone to agree on whether or not someone should qualify to adopt.
Sure, I acknowledge, I do sometimes ask my friends and other rescues, something along the lines of, "hey, this person wrote this on their application... what are your thoughts?"... so that I can get insight. But the reason we don't have basically an approval committee (besides the fact that I can't get many volunteers as it is, much less that many people at all times, haha), is because I think that actually makes the process harder, and can deny some homes that should be approved. But, to each their own.
... continued tomorrow...
No comments:
Post a Comment