The Nannies of the SPCA

In the past 12 months, our two family dogs, Murphy and Princie, passed away from ailments worsened by old age. About two months ago, we decided it was time to start looking for a new canine companion. Our pets have always been rescue dogs — ignored, abandoned, malnourished, mistreated, you name it — and they've all been wonderful reminders of how a little love and care can pay off big-time — reciprocally, of course. My wife and I are passionate about adopting from the pound, have supported the SPCA in word and deed for decades, and wouldn't soon think of buying a dog from a breeder.

So we filled out a form at the Hancock County (Maine) SPCA, saying we're looking for a medium- to big-sized dog, and answering yes to the question whether we have young children. That turned out to be fateful reply.

For eight or nine weeks, we waited in vain for the shelter to call us with news of suitable pets.

Fast-forward to last Saturday. We decide to drive over and take a look at the available dogs. A bit to our surprise, the woman at the desk won't allow us to walk into the kennel room. She asks us to instead peruse a binder containing small pictures and what little data they have on the dogs, and to choose which one we want to see. She will then usher all the other dogs into a fenced area outside, she explains: "Otherwise they'll all start barking and it takes a while to quiet them down again." Hmm. "Odd that she works at a shelter and is bothered by barking," I think, but then I give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's unfair to the animals to see strangers come into their quarters at all hours of the day; it might overexcite them, or make them anxious, or aggressive, or what have you. So, fine.

We thumb through the binder, which contains information on just six or seven dogs, and notice that at the bottom of each and every sheet — from the little Jack Russell to the 100-pound Saint Bernard — there is a checkmark next to the line that says, "Not suitable for adoption by families with children under 12," or words to that effect. We've always had big canines, including one nervous doberman mix who required a little extra parental attention around our kids, so we feel that, short of a dog that's known to be overly aggressive, we can handle it. Blissfully undeterred, we ask to see Baxter, the Saint Bernard. Judging by his picture (at right), he's a lovable lug, and he's described as having a friendly and affectionate disposition.

The shelter lady makes a face. "As long as you understand that that dog isn't a good choice if you have young children," she intones, eyeing our two- and four-year-old daughters, whom we've schlepped along. We politely ask why not. Is Baxter a problem animal? Neurotic? Dangerous? Prone to biting? No, she replies, it's just that the shelter has to be careful, and that safety is a "top concern." But if we insist... Still looking vaguely annoyed, she goes to remove the other dogs and get Baxter ready for our visit.

Before gaining admittance to the kennel area, the four of us are asked to use hand sanitizer (to ward off human-to-dog cooties, I suppose). Then we meet our candidate. He is as lumbering and as good-natured as we'd imagined. We talk to Baxter, pet him, and attempt to make ingratiating conversation with shelter lady. I lamely joke that given Baxter's size, our recently purchased SUV should have been considerably bigger. My wife asks if shelter lady thinks that Baxter would like to join us for some cozy late-night lazing-about on the living room couch. Shelter lady's lips remain pursed. None of our chit-chat seems to soften her up.

After five minutes of this, Baxter is returned to his cage. We step out into the reception area again, and ask what we need to do to adopt him. "You fill out an application, and we'll consider it," she says, with just a hint of — hard to say. Concern? Sounds more like dismissiveness and condescension to me. My wife and I shoot each other a glance. She's heard it too. So I gotta ask.

"You'll consider it?" I echo. "Sounds like you've already made up your mind. Have you?"

Shelter lady waits just a beat too long, and the momentary panic that sweeps across her face is unmistakable — someone caught in a lie. "We're trying to do what's best," she says, struggling to recover. "As I said, you're welcome to fill out the form."

"That's not what I asked," I shoot back, virtually in unison with my wife. Now I almost feel bad for shelter lady, as if we're ganging up on her.

"We will evaluate your application," she insists, regaining her hauteur only to give the game away again: "Though frankly, your children didn't seem that interested in the dog."

What's this now — she knows our kids better than we do? They should have stormed in shrieking with excitement and dying to hug anything on four legs? Should we tell her that when we asked our four-year-old to make a wish list recently, this sensitive kid with a big heart put "having a dog again" near the top? Nah. What's the point? This is going nowhere, and maybe we should just skedaddle.

But now, a tall man wearing an SPCA shirt steps forward — we later learn that he is executive director Doug Radziewicz. "You should understand that we don't know most of these dogs' backgrounds," he says. "It's for everyone's own good. We want to be sure that adoptions are successful, both from the point of view of the dog and the point of view of the family."

I think about this for a moment. It sounds eminently reasonable and illogically fishy at the same time. Putting aside for now the disingenuousness of being told to fill out an application that is sure to be rejected, I tell him that two things bother me. Of course the SPCA doesn't know the provenance of most of the animals it shelters. That's a given. But to tell families with kids that they can't adopt a dog whose history is the least bit murky — even a dog that the SPCA itself describes as friendly and affectionate — is, in my book, a disservice to both the families and the animals. And also, I say, I just don't take kindly to people making unbidden decisions on my behalf, presuming to tell me what's best for me, my wife, and my kids. Would he?

This goes on for a minute or two: Radziewicz, increasingly irate (as am I, frankly), painting a picture of adopted psycho dogs that sink their teeth into a child and asking how that would "look" for the SPCA; me trying to get him to respond to my two points. Then he cuts me off: "That's the way we do it. You don't like it?" His voice now booms with indignation. "Then you should LEAVE!"

The sentence hangs there for a second. Holy crap, he's kicking us out! He's telling us to scram for the terrible crime of questioning his policies!

I do something I immediately regret. Rising to leave, I say in a low, incredulous voice, "You've got some fucking nerve."

That's stupid. By using the f-word, I instantly lose the moral high ground — and it only justifies his decision to kick us to the curb. I'm also not proud of saying it in front of my kids. If I could take it back, I would. Dumb. Unnecessary. Oh well.

Radziewicz is right behind me now as I walk out, his voice still rising, and he's half-yelling that I am never to set foot in his shelter again. I guess Baxter isn't going to find a home today.

Once we're outside, baffled kids in tow, my wife remarks dryly, though with an undertone of mild reproach, "That could have ended better." She's right.

The episode is on my mind for the rest of the day. I keep circling back to these intertwined points:

1. It's admirable that the SPCA wants to carefully match a shelter dog to its new owner and vice versa. But having a de facto policy that prevents families with kids under 12 from adopting any canine with an unclear history (that's almost all of these dogs) is beyond bizarre. (Remember, every dog at the Hancock County shelter was marked unsuitable for my type of family.) I have to wonder if this is just an overzealous local interpretation of the rules, or nationwide SPCA practice.

2. As lifelong dog owners, and as the only two adults who deeply know our own kids and our domestic circumstances, my wife's and my best judgment should at least count for something. I really don't need bureaucratic do-gooders to tell me how I ought to protect my kids, and what I and my family can handle.

3. The reticence and the condescension we encountered at the SPCA are perhaps born of the fear of legal consequences should a recently adopted pet viciously turn on its new owners. No need. I would of course happily have signed a statement saying that the second the dog becomes ours, we relieve the SPCA of all legal responsibility. They can make it as ironclad as they'd like. One page. Three pages. Twelve. It's fine.

4. Kids who grow up with dogs are both more likely to behave safely and appropriately around them (recognizing the warning signs of imminent canine aggression, for instance), and more likely to have dogs themselves once they're adults. You'd think this is exactly what the SPCA wants, but er, maybe not.

5. Tightening pet adoption rules may have been a good idea at some point. Overtightening those rules certainly isn't. Shelter animals are ill-served by policies that prevent their adoption by hundreds of thousands of certifiably responsible parents and dog owners (see under 6). For the SPCA, this is an act of self-sabotage. The organization ends up alienating much of its base and ruining its own success numbers.

6. Yes, certifiably responsible. We have a multi-year record with our local vets that shows that our dogs were always well cared for, and we would have had no qualms about authorizing the SPCA to verify this. Also, my wife and I are in a slightly unusual position, in that officials have probed and scrutinized hundreds of details of our lives numerous times — all in the course of our adopting two wonderful kids. From 2000 through 2006, we've repeatedly and willingly undergone all of the following: We've had our fingerprints taken by both the local police and federal authorities. We've submitted to criminal background checks. We've had to go to friends and relatives to ask them to write letters of recommendation that attest to our fine characters. We've had social workers and child experts come to our home on seven occasions and ask us detailed questions about our physical, mental, and financial health, while they discreetly scanned the rooms for any signs of trouble (incidentally, these folks all met our two dogs). We passed with flying colors, and were deemed great candidates for the adoption of two then-fifteen-month-old babies. Subsequently, we received glowing post-adoption evaluations noting that our kids are healthy, loved, well-adjusted, and thriving.

In other words, we've been declared fit to adopt two baby girls, but unfit to adopt a dog.

A funny old world, this is.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
UPDATE, September 18: I just found out that the SPCA killed Baxter.

Comments

[Oscar]

IS the SPCA the only option in your area? We had a great experience going through BREW to adopt our beagle 2 years ago. They came to visit our house and talk to use before we adopted Simon, but other than that it was a pretty straight forward process - no hints on condescension. Locally, you probably have a number of breed specific rescue groups that would be more than happy to help you adopt a dog.

[David]

I feel bad for Baxter. Instead of going home with a nice family, he's still stuck in the shelter.

Bureaucrats have a tendency to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[Phelps]

What you are seeing is pretty much the norm in all non-municipal shelters now. But you are missing the real reason. They aren't worried about what is right for you -- they are worried about the rights of the dog you are proposing to take home. I would bet real money that the true concern with the children isn't that the dog will attack them -- the concern is that the children will mistreat the dog. Children are grabby and pull tails. Plus, the dog might be high-strung, and loud children "wouldn't be a good fit with the dog."

The giveaway is that they ushered all the other dogs out for thier show and tell. They didn't want to impose on the dogs, even if it means that one of them might get adopted that might not otherwise.

This makes me sad, because all you want to fucking do is get a dog that will probably be put to sleep if he is not adopted, but no, they want you to go to a pet store or something...its so annoying, they think they're "helping" and they just make EVERYTHING worse. The worst part of it is, its probably not that the shelter is worried for the safety of your children - they're most likely trying to cover their asses because nowadays if your kid gets bitten by a dog you can sue the pound or the pet store for not warning you or whatever.

This signifies everything that is wrong with America these days, from the manic desire to take legal action against everyone and everything to the urge to tell everyone what they can and can not do, what is moral and immoral, and what is safe and dangerous.

[Michael Chaney]

The worst part is that Baxter will probably die from being suffocated by CO2 soon. Is the SPCA going the way of PETA?

[colson]

I should have known when you said the SPCA shelter. I used to think the SPCA went out of their way and had a true interest in taking in abused pets. Jeezus effin christo, if you have to go through that kind of process for the shelter to consider you for adoption of a pet, I should go into the pet incineration business.

I wonder if they just like to keep the dogs so they can get more non-profit loot and donations.

[art guerrilla]

i have had an unpleasant experience adopting a mixed puppy who was bound for glory at a pet rescue place, such that i would probably not do that again... without *too* much exaggeration, i felt the interviews for adopting a damn kid would have been less severe and intrusive...
i live in the country on a deadend road, where some of our property is fenced, but most is not... the lady who grilled us was trying to make me say i most definitely *would* fence in all my property if i got the puppy, and i was telling her i most definitely was not.. this went around in circles for some number of minutes... but i was insistent that her insistence had no bearing on the dog running away, getting hurt, etc... (when i am home, my dogs are right near me)
eventually, i guess she saw i was more stubborn than she, and we went home with our chowbrador...
he could not be happier...

[Brock]

http://greyhoundgang.org/adoption.html

[Nathan Benedict]

David Friedman wrote of a similar experience many years ago:

http://daviddfriedman.com/laws_order/laws_order_chapter_13/laws_order_page_images/laws_order_page_184.gif

The gist: the process of rationing stray animals is done mainly to make the people working at the ASPCA feel important. With the exception of people who horrifically abuse creatures, most owners are better than being put to death. Even a life of getting occasional kicks and tail pulling from little kids is a thousand times better than no life at all. The ASPCA is making the classical regulatory mistake of confusing the alternatives. The choice is not between perfect pet owners and imperfect pet owners, but imperfect pet owners and no owners at all (i.e., euthanasia).

[failureman]

In many places (outside of the south) SPCA's don't end up euthanizing many dogs - only those that really are dangerous and can't be handled. In most places there are enough willing adoptees for all the place-able dogs. That means that there is no need to try and place a dog in a family - they can wait for a non-family adopter and have less legal liability.
You can't really write an airtight liability release - when you have a disfigured kid sitting in front of the jury they are going to be pretty sensitive to legalese arguments that the consent you gave wasn't quite informed enough. And any such release is totally useless if you can demonstrate negligence - as seen on little Timmy's sad one-eyed face.

[MysteryFish]

I'm going to have to go ahead and call bullshit on the above comment.

Unless failureman has some statistics google can't find me, national euthanasia rates are somewhere around 50-60% for animal shelters.

Even if the SPCA as an organization has a lower overall rate, I'd argue it's not their charming disposition and ease of adoption but some other factor, say, fewer animals taken in that is responsible.

[Windypundit]

"Even a life of getting occasional kicks and tail pulling from little kids is a thousand times better than no life at all."

Which is an excellant reason for getting a large breed like a Saint Bernard---little kids can't easily injure them.

In the future, you could just lie to the nice folks at the SPCA and tell them you don't have kids. What can they do?

Of course, you can't do that now, because they'll remember you. (Also, because that dick Radziewicz ordered you off the premises, so returning would probably be trespassing.)

You could always just send a friend to go adopt the dog and give it to you. Who'd know? Just don't blog about it...oh, um, but of course you'd NEVER do something like that because it would be...dishonest and wrong...nevermind.

[Jerry Thomas]

Good thing you didn't have to tell them whether you smoked or not, if you did smoke, you would never have had the opportunity to even see the dogs then.
We had a great dog for many years, he lived to be almost 18 years old, a rare, long life for a flat coat lab. But, because we smoke, we weren't able to replace him at the same shelter we got him from all those years ago. Our environment would kill the dog you see, he would contract cancer because we smoke, so we are no longer able to adopt from our local shelter anymore either. I'm over 50, have had dogs my whole life, have never had a case of cancer in any of them, and most lived long happy lives with us. Nanny state is coming, and is getting bigger every year.

[greg]

Lie, lie, and then lie some more!

When I got my last dog I had to tell them that I only worked a part time job before they'd let me have him. I later found this to be the case at 2 other shelters as well.

If you work a full time job, they consider it less cruel to put the dog down than let it be alone for 8 hours a day.

So in the best interest of the dog, and myself. Lie through your teeth and tell them whatever they want to hear. Trying to reason with them will get you nowhere.

[greg]

as for euthanasia rates. the one out in the country had a 78% rate, while the 2 in downtown philadelphia I dealt with had a less than 5% (they actually encouraged you to put applications in so you are able to get the dog you want.......the demand is so high).

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Maine is a long way from Californicate, but I suspect you could do what we did, which was to drop in on several of those Big Box pet stores like Petco on the weekend.

There we found rescued/abandoned dogs offered for sale by private organizations. We got two mixed breeds that were already fixed, up to snuff on shots, and healthy. It wasn't cheap (the days of wandering the neighborhood until you find a sign that says FREE PUPPIES are over) but it wasn't onerous either.

Did I mention the dogs were both large breeds and we have children under 10?

[Dave]

The thing you run into at some shelters is that you deal with people that have never been in charge of anything in their lives. Often they are housewives whose children have grown up enough that they have free time or retired guys that worked on the line all their lives. Suddenly they are in charge and lack the people as well as organizational skills that those folks that clawed their way up the ladder had to learn so they become little dictators. Once they are entrenched they fight off any other volunteers that may unseat them because power is addictive. I suspect that if you check these are probably the kinds of people running your local shelter and their is a little clique of them that has been there for a long time. They most likely make life miserable for volunteers that don't tow the line until they go away.

[Russ 2000]

Next time, look in the want ads.

[Gospazha]

Our local Humane Society lost my support through similar, though not identical, overzealous intrusion. Several months ago, it announced the new policy of ratting out to the local police any household known to have adopted 6 or more animals within some unspecified timeframe.

The purpose? It wasn't to catch potential hoarders. It wasn't to make sure the animals were being abused or sold for some nefarious purpose. Nope, it had nothing to do with the health or welfare of the animals at all.

It was to allow animal control to clamp down on anyone who had 6 animals without obtaining a kennel license. It mattered not one iota whether the animals were being a nuisance to the neighbors or were being improperly cared for. Nope, it was all about revenue-generating paperwork and licensing.

Way to go, Humane Society. Alienate as many future homes as possible.

[lore]

I tried to adopt a cat, but they wouldn't allow it unless I had a fenced yard. Come on, they make you promise it will be an indoor-only cat (fine with me), but then require a fenced yard? and no renters, no kids, no apartments, no trailers, no other pets, no one who has moved in the past year, no college students, and no one who has never owned a pet before. Not suprising that they had a 97% kill rate.

[John Bigenwald]

I thought my experience in suburban Chicago was unique. My wife and I (with our young kids...) left the shelter feeling inadequate to the task...

Now we have a great dog (from a breeder) who loves running around our non-fenced yard and playing with our kids. Tough life...

[Concerned in Maine]

I so agree with your comments and was saddened by your story. You might look into the rescue organizations that bring up dogs from the south to adopt in the Northeast. There are so many dogs there that need help. Of course many people who work with shelter animals have seen the worst that humans can do. But these people should not punish the good people or the animals for that matter. Not every dog should go to a home with children but to deprive the animal of a loving family and the children of a loyal loving companion is just wrong. Saving a dog's life so that he can waste away in a shelter cage is not just or right. I think a dog would rather be dead than spend years inside a kennel.

[Douglas]

Wow, all the lurkers emerge when the subject turns to dogs. I guess people must love dogs. I see a fellow Greyhound rescuer has already struck before me; really, they are very sweet dogs.

[Julian]

http://www.spcahancockcounty.org/available.html

[Marty]

In St. Charles Co, MO, the animal control will now automatically microchip any dog they pick up and you're fined $50. A second fine is $75. They wanna keep track of 'dangerous' dogs... My dog was being watched by mom and he wandered up the street a bit. This 14 yr old lab must've looked dangerous, because the cop called animal control. Our phone number was on the tag!

Since I've moved out to the country, I started giving my dogs their vaccinations myself. The same exact vaccinations I'd have to pay $200+ dollars for cost $18 (with a couple of big bones thrown in) if I buy them from the CO-OP. The dogs didn't get their 10 minute annual exam, but they're young and healthy.

I wonder how much of the vaccination costs the vet passes on is because of govt. hoops he has to jump through. Or, maybe he jacks up his costs because he knows people are required to have it done by law.

It cost less money to have the dog's leg stitched up than it did to get vaccinations!

Thanks for the story- makes me wanna have a tea party!