Thank you for this article. I've heard presentations about "open adoptions." Whoa...
I remember when the head of the San Francisco Humane Society got rid of long applications and just asked for a license to adopt. 25 years ago, maybe? So not a new idea.
No one enjoys grilling a prospective adopter. And lord knows what looks like a "perfect adopter" on paper could be a nightmare; none of us are capable of omniscience. But animals came to the shelter because something broke down in the owner/pet relationship. We owe it to the animals to try to make sure it doesn't happen again, as best we can.
Your suggestions for things like a landlord check, vet check - even a simple Google search for the adopter name! - will help place pets into RESPONSIBLE homes, and are smart & sensible. I've long wished for a way to do an inexpensive credit check...if good credit makes you a better prospect for lower cost car insurance, guess what? It at least means you can afford vet care!
I've heard a humane proponent of Open Adoptions say, "well, if they can't afford vet care we'll just vet the pet ourselves." All very fine & well IF you have an attached clinic, IF it isn't booked (as many are) for the next 5 months, and IF the medical need isn't beyond their capacity.
And yes, focusing on adoption without focusing on on reducing intakes via low-cost spay/neuter, breeding licenses, etc. is like mopping the floor without turning off the faucet. Foolish & short sighted.
Maybe the problem is it's WAY easier to talk to a crowd of animal welfare enthusiasts about some "new idea" than it is to continue the hard grind of persuading the public to stop indiscriminate breeding. AND to provide surgeries in what are often areas where you will, without an investment of staff and community outreach, be intially viewed with suspicion.
Thank you again, Ed, for offering reasonable commentary.
I like this comment: "And yes, focusing on adoption without focusing on reducing intakes via low-cost spay/neuter, breeding licenses, etc. is like mopping the floor without turning off the faucet. Foolish & short-sighted."
Thank you, Vanessa, for your insightful comment! You’ve captured the complexities of this issue perfectly. While “open adoptions” may seem like a progressive idea, the reality is that we owe it to the animals to ensure their next home is truly responsible and capable of meeting their needs. I love your analogy about mopping the floor without turning off the faucet—spay/neuter and intake reduction are indeed the foundation of sustainable animal welfare. Your point about credit checks is intriguing; financial stability is certainly a factor in providing proper care. And you're absolutely right—persuading the public to embrace spay/neuter and responsible breeding requires persistence and community engagement, which can be far more challenging than promoting flashy new ideas. Thank you for sharing your perspective and for being such a thoughtful advocate!
Good to see the comments already sent to you, and hopefully these are just the tip of the iceberg of conversation you generated with this important article. One of the organizations seeking to give animals to anyone who comes in proudly publishes that a good shelter does NOT do or ask for, among other things: Home inspections, Background checks, References, vet references, available time for pets, health status of other pets - nothing. When that animal leaves that shelter, no one has any idea where that cat or dog is going. And there is no followup.
These animals are so in harm's way, so vulnerable, so very at risk that any compassionate shelter staff must have some concern about the fate of these animals. We can only hope that people will read and share what you have so eloquently summarized, and that shelters around the country will take note that they are responsible for these placements.
And while it is a sobering thought, it has been said by many truly compassionate people: 'there are things worse than death.' Ten-foot-high stacks of Cats kept in carriers for the remainder of their lives in sheds, basements and attics are a good example, a real outcome, of adoptions gone bad This does happen - horrifying as it is - even in "nice neighborhoods." Followup, as is screening, is truly key in this work
We hope that this issue of Q/A will be passed around and discussed and will lead to some serious soul searching at shelters and rescues, staff and admin. Thank you.
Thank you, Elaine, for your thoughtful and passionate comment! You’ve captured the heartbreaking reality of what can happen when shelters prioritize quick adoptions over responsible placements. The lack of screening and follow-up leaves animals incredibly vulnerable, as you so eloquently pointed out. Your example of the consequences of failed adoptions is sobering but necessary to highlight. Like you, I truly hope this conversation sparks meaningful change and encourages shelters to take their responsibility for placements more seriously. Thank you for sharing and for your dedication to animal welfare!
No no no. 1000 times no. “Save them all” and “no kill” and all of it are lovely slogans but they are just that. Slogans. This ill-conceived trend in animal welfare (and in philanthropy in general, so-called trust based philanthropy) further erodes accountability and responsibility for nonprofits and other agencies, most of whom already play pretty fast and loose with governance and results as it is. It is egregiously easy to form a nonprofit and solicit funds from well-meaning people and misrepresent your results. Even the minimal safeguards in place now in some shelters and other organizations do not do nearly enough to screen adopters: it’s simply jumping through very basic hoops. Like anything else of value in this world, being responsible for other beings lives requires dedication, time, money, and unshakable commitment to their welfare. Those who can commit to this, should. Those who can’t should not. It’s not a right to have animals, it’s a privilege. Spay and neuter, cracking down on breeders, and relentless public education are the only way to make inroads to the problem of animal neglect and overpopulation. Making it easier to ‘get’ a dog is not.
Thank you, HWS, for sharing your strong and thoughtful perspective! I completely agree that caring for animals is a privilege, not a right, and it requires accountability, commitment, and resources. Your point about the dangers of eroding safeguards in adoption processes is spot on—animals deserve better than being placed in homes without proper vetting. Spay/neuter, breeder regulation, and public education are indeed the cornerstones of addressing overpopulation and neglect. Thank you for adding your voice to this important conversation!
Thank you, Barb! It’s wonderful to hear that the organization you volunteer for prioritizes thorough applications and home visits. Responsible practices like these make a big difference in ensuring pets find safe, loving homes. Keep up the great work!
Thanks so much for writing this thoughtful piece. My sentiments exactly. At the Animal Care Center/NYC (the animal pound), we like to say that they adopt to anyone with a pulse. Some get returned, but we have no idea how many are passed on to others who are even less responsible or dumped on the street. Many apartment buildings in NYC do not allow pits or pit mixes -- or any dogs or cats at all. I doubt the ACC checks -- their goal is to get the animal out of the shelter and keep the “live release rate” high. Because that’s what the big box organizations want. And a high adoption rate might result in more donations from people who are impressed by this but don’t understand the issue's complexity
I don’t trust the ACC adoptions but the only good thing is that the law requires animal adopted by shelters in NYC be spayed/neutered prior to adoption. I hope they comply – don’t know if they do.
I believe that most rescue groups still use questionnaires when they adopt out animals – asking the things you mention in your piece – landlord issues, vet references, criminal history – so I am grateful when I see that a New Hope Rescue group has pulled a dog or cat from the Emergency Placement List. I feel more comfortable about the dog or cat eventually getting a good home.
You say this: “Progress is possible. With compassion, diligence, and a commitment to responsible placement, we can ensure that every adoption isn’t just an exit—but a success story.” Sounds good, but the people who advocate exclusively for no-kill also push these shelters to do more adoptions. I hope more people come to realize that we cannot adopt ourselves out of the problem.
Spay/neuter is the answer – fewer animals go into the shelters. But even after the September 13, 2024, hearing of the NYC Council, when this issue was discussed with many people testifying, nothing has happened.
Thank you, Elizabeth, for your thoughtful and detailed comment. I completely agree—policies that prioritize live release rates over responsible placements often overlook the long-term welfare of animals. Your point about NYC’s legal requirement for spay/neuter prior to adoption is especially important, as it’s one of the few proactive measures still in place. Like you, I hope more people recognize that we cannot simply "adopt our way out" of the overpopulation crisis. Spay/neuter remains the cornerstone of sustainable animal welfare, and it's disheartening to see this solution sidelined. Thank you for sharing your insights and for being a strong advocate for responsible practices!
The shelter where I volunteer does extensive screening of potential adoptees. Sometimes people are offended, they don't seem to realize the risk of casually letting just anyone adopt an animal. The shelter staff does a great job of being polite to the public, despite being sometimes insulted by ignorant or self-centered people who think adopting a pet is like shopping for a handbag. This shelter is adamant about spaying and neutering - every animal they re-home is spayed or neutered. I get a little nervous when, a couple times a year, they offer "specials" where older dogs or cats (not puppies or kittens) have the adoption fee waived. I don't want someone financially marginal adopting a pet because I wonder if they can afford vet care? Nor do we want to see people adopt on a whim. But my local shelter still vets the adopters, even when they waive the fee.
Thank you, Jan, for sharing your experience! It’s so encouraging to hear about a shelter that prioritizes thorough screening and spay/neuter for every animal they re-home. I understand your concerns about waived adoption fees, but it’s great to know your shelter still vets adopters carefully, even during specials. Your dedication and the staff’s professionalism make a huge difference in ensuring pets find responsible, loving homes. Thank you for all you do!
I know I'm a broken record, but Maddies Fund and Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) install themselves via grants with local authorities and shelter directors but do not fund volume accessible spay/neuter programs or legislate for commercial breeding restrictions.
Instead they promote (commercialized) adoptions/foster/rescue as solution as with BFAS motto "save them all" adopt more.
Locally, Maddies and BFAS influence is obvious with "removing barriers" to adoption at one time anecdotal evidence homeless people or those with no fixed address were allowed to adopt.
Last summer in over 110 degree heat I witnessed a man donation begging at intersection with pitt bull with serious heat exhaustion. I regret I didn't stop to render aid, but what could I do as he had water and was fanning the dog.? I didn't have authority to confiscate. I did call the local shelter with animal welfare officers who said they would respond.
A BFAS controlled Humane Society has removed so-called "barriers" to confirm landlords and/or roommates agree to bringing a dog/or cat into residence and the other previous and necessary basic qualifications and adopted animals are subsequently returned or become stray.
Due to vet shortage (their grant funded vets go on to practice in expensive private clinics) they also promote s/n not necessary prior to adoption.
Maddies Fund presentation nationwide emphasizes "data" they present to desperate county supervisors and shelter managers as magic formulas. Yet they now control many databases and can massage statistical data to match their agenda.
The bottom line is why don't Maddies and BFAS, amassing billions collectively, fund volume spay neuter and basic verterinary? It's not their business model. Evidence is abundant without volume accessible (free or lo cost) s/n as original foundation of "no kill" it's mathematically impossible to rescue/adopt/foster, even with reduced "barriers" and other gimmicks to absorb overpopulation without major volume s/n programs.
Thank you, Carmen, for sharing your perspective! You’ve highlighted critical concerns about the priorities of organizations like Maddie’s and BFAS. Their focus on adoption and live release rates overshadows the essential need for accessible, high-volume spay/neuter programs to address overpopulation at its root. Your example of the pit bull suffering from heat exhaustion is heartbreaking and underscores the consequences of removing adoption barriers without ensuring responsible placements. I appreciate your thoughtful analysis and commitment to advocating for sustainable solutions in animal welfare!
Thank you for this article. I've heard presentations about "open adoptions." Whoa...
I remember when the head of the San Francisco Humane Society got rid of long applications and just asked for a license to adopt. 25 years ago, maybe? So not a new idea.
No one enjoys grilling a prospective adopter. And lord knows what looks like a "perfect adopter" on paper could be a nightmare; none of us are capable of omniscience. But animals came to the shelter because something broke down in the owner/pet relationship. We owe it to the animals to try to make sure it doesn't happen again, as best we can.
Your suggestions for things like a landlord check, vet check - even a simple Google search for the adopter name! - will help place pets into RESPONSIBLE homes, and are smart & sensible. I've long wished for a way to do an inexpensive credit check...if good credit makes you a better prospect for lower cost car insurance, guess what? It at least means you can afford vet care!
I've heard a humane proponent of Open Adoptions say, "well, if they can't afford vet care we'll just vet the pet ourselves." All very fine & well IF you have an attached clinic, IF it isn't booked (as many are) for the next 5 months, and IF the medical need isn't beyond their capacity.
And yes, focusing on adoption without focusing on on reducing intakes via low-cost spay/neuter, breeding licenses, etc. is like mopping the floor without turning off the faucet. Foolish & short sighted.
Maybe the problem is it's WAY easier to talk to a crowd of animal welfare enthusiasts about some "new idea" than it is to continue the hard grind of persuading the public to stop indiscriminate breeding. AND to provide surgeries in what are often areas where you will, without an investment of staff and community outreach, be intially viewed with suspicion.
Thank you again, Ed, for offering reasonable commentary.
I like this comment: "And yes, focusing on adoption without focusing on reducing intakes via low-cost spay/neuter, breeding licenses, etc. is like mopping the floor without turning off the faucet. Foolish & short-sighted."
Thank you, Vanessa, for your insightful comment! You’ve captured the complexities of this issue perfectly. While “open adoptions” may seem like a progressive idea, the reality is that we owe it to the animals to ensure their next home is truly responsible and capable of meeting their needs. I love your analogy about mopping the floor without turning off the faucet—spay/neuter and intake reduction are indeed the foundation of sustainable animal welfare. Your point about credit checks is intriguing; financial stability is certainly a factor in providing proper care. And you're absolutely right—persuading the public to embrace spay/neuter and responsible breeding requires persistence and community engagement, which can be far more challenging than promoting flashy new ideas. Thank you for sharing your perspective and for being such a thoughtful advocate!
Good to see the comments already sent to you, and hopefully these are just the tip of the iceberg of conversation you generated with this important article. One of the organizations seeking to give animals to anyone who comes in proudly publishes that a good shelter does NOT do or ask for, among other things: Home inspections, Background checks, References, vet references, available time for pets, health status of other pets - nothing. When that animal leaves that shelter, no one has any idea where that cat or dog is going. And there is no followup.
These animals are so in harm's way, so vulnerable, so very at risk that any compassionate shelter staff must have some concern about the fate of these animals. We can only hope that people will read and share what you have so eloquently summarized, and that shelters around the country will take note that they are responsible for these placements.
And while it is a sobering thought, it has been said by many truly compassionate people: 'there are things worse than death.' Ten-foot-high stacks of Cats kept in carriers for the remainder of their lives in sheds, basements and attics are a good example, a real outcome, of adoptions gone bad This does happen - horrifying as it is - even in "nice neighborhoods." Followup, as is screening, is truly key in this work
We hope that this issue of Q/A will be passed around and discussed and will lead to some serious soul searching at shelters and rescues, staff and admin. Thank you.
Thank you, Elaine, for your thoughtful and passionate comment! You’ve captured the heartbreaking reality of what can happen when shelters prioritize quick adoptions over responsible placements. The lack of screening and follow-up leaves animals incredibly vulnerable, as you so eloquently pointed out. Your example of the consequences of failed adoptions is sobering but necessary to highlight. Like you, I truly hope this conversation sparks meaningful change and encourages shelters to take their responsibility for placements more seriously. Thank you for sharing and for your dedication to animal welfare!
No no no. 1000 times no. “Save them all” and “no kill” and all of it are lovely slogans but they are just that. Slogans. This ill-conceived trend in animal welfare (and in philanthropy in general, so-called trust based philanthropy) further erodes accountability and responsibility for nonprofits and other agencies, most of whom already play pretty fast and loose with governance and results as it is. It is egregiously easy to form a nonprofit and solicit funds from well-meaning people and misrepresent your results. Even the minimal safeguards in place now in some shelters and other organizations do not do nearly enough to screen adopters: it’s simply jumping through very basic hoops. Like anything else of value in this world, being responsible for other beings lives requires dedication, time, money, and unshakable commitment to their welfare. Those who can commit to this, should. Those who can’t should not. It’s not a right to have animals, it’s a privilege. Spay and neuter, cracking down on breeders, and relentless public education are the only way to make inroads to the problem of animal neglect and overpopulation. Making it easier to ‘get’ a dog is not.
Thank you, HWS, for sharing your strong and thoughtful perspective! I completely agree that caring for animals is a privilege, not a right, and it requires accountability, commitment, and resources. Your point about the dangers of eroding safeguards in adoption processes is spot on—animals deserve better than being placed in homes without proper vetting. Spay/neuter, breeder regulation, and public education are indeed the cornerstones of addressing overpopulation and neglect. Thank you for adding your voice to this important conversation!
The application for the organization I volunteer for is thorough and requires a home visit.
Thank you, Barb! It’s wonderful to hear that the organization you volunteer for prioritizes thorough applications and home visits. Responsible practices like these make a big difference in ensuring pets find safe, loving homes. Keep up the great work!
Thanks, Ed!
Thanks so much for writing this thoughtful piece. My sentiments exactly. At the Animal Care Center/NYC (the animal pound), we like to say that they adopt to anyone with a pulse. Some get returned, but we have no idea how many are passed on to others who are even less responsible or dumped on the street. Many apartment buildings in NYC do not allow pits or pit mixes -- or any dogs or cats at all. I doubt the ACC checks -- their goal is to get the animal out of the shelter and keep the “live release rate” high. Because that’s what the big box organizations want. And a high adoption rate might result in more donations from people who are impressed by this but don’t understand the issue's complexity
I don’t trust the ACC adoptions but the only good thing is that the law requires animal adopted by shelters in NYC be spayed/neutered prior to adoption. I hope they comply – don’t know if they do.
I believe that most rescue groups still use questionnaires when they adopt out animals – asking the things you mention in your piece – landlord issues, vet references, criminal history – so I am grateful when I see that a New Hope Rescue group has pulled a dog or cat from the Emergency Placement List. I feel more comfortable about the dog or cat eventually getting a good home.
You say this: “Progress is possible. With compassion, diligence, and a commitment to responsible placement, we can ensure that every adoption isn’t just an exit—but a success story.” Sounds good, but the people who advocate exclusively for no-kill also push these shelters to do more adoptions. I hope more people come to realize that we cannot adopt ourselves out of the problem.
Spay/neuter is the answer – fewer animals go into the shelters. But even after the September 13, 2024, hearing of the NYC Council, when this issue was discussed with many people testifying, nothing has happened.
Thank you, Elizabeth, for your thoughtful and detailed comment. I completely agree—policies that prioritize live release rates over responsible placements often overlook the long-term welfare of animals. Your point about NYC’s legal requirement for spay/neuter prior to adoption is especially important, as it’s one of the few proactive measures still in place. Like you, I hope more people recognize that we cannot simply "adopt our way out" of the overpopulation crisis. Spay/neuter remains the cornerstone of sustainable animal welfare, and it's disheartening to see this solution sidelined. Thank you for sharing your insights and for being a strong advocate for responsible practices!
The shelter where I volunteer does extensive screening of potential adoptees. Sometimes people are offended, they don't seem to realize the risk of casually letting just anyone adopt an animal. The shelter staff does a great job of being polite to the public, despite being sometimes insulted by ignorant or self-centered people who think adopting a pet is like shopping for a handbag. This shelter is adamant about spaying and neutering - every animal they re-home is spayed or neutered. I get a little nervous when, a couple times a year, they offer "specials" where older dogs or cats (not puppies or kittens) have the adoption fee waived. I don't want someone financially marginal adopting a pet because I wonder if they can afford vet care? Nor do we want to see people adopt on a whim. But my local shelter still vets the adopters, even when they waive the fee.
Thank you, Jan, for sharing your experience! It’s so encouraging to hear about a shelter that prioritizes thorough screening and spay/neuter for every animal they re-home. I understand your concerns about waived adoption fees, but it’s great to know your shelter still vets adopters carefully, even during specials. Your dedication and the staff’s professionalism make a huge difference in ensuring pets find responsible, loving homes. Thank you for all you do!
I know I'm a broken record, but Maddies Fund and Best Friends Animal Society (BFAS) install themselves via grants with local authorities and shelter directors but do not fund volume accessible spay/neuter programs or legislate for commercial breeding restrictions.
Instead they promote (commercialized) adoptions/foster/rescue as solution as with BFAS motto "save them all" adopt more.
Locally, Maddies and BFAS influence is obvious with "removing barriers" to adoption at one time anecdotal evidence homeless people or those with no fixed address were allowed to adopt.
Last summer in over 110 degree heat I witnessed a man donation begging at intersection with pitt bull with serious heat exhaustion. I regret I didn't stop to render aid, but what could I do as he had water and was fanning the dog.? I didn't have authority to confiscate. I did call the local shelter with animal welfare officers who said they would respond.
A BFAS controlled Humane Society has removed so-called "barriers" to confirm landlords and/or roommates agree to bringing a dog/or cat into residence and the other previous and necessary basic qualifications and adopted animals are subsequently returned or become stray.
Due to vet shortage (their grant funded vets go on to practice in expensive private clinics) they also promote s/n not necessary prior to adoption.
Maddies Fund presentation nationwide emphasizes "data" they present to desperate county supervisors and shelter managers as magic formulas. Yet they now control many databases and can massage statistical data to match their agenda.
The bottom line is why don't Maddies and BFAS, amassing billions collectively, fund volume spay neuter and basic verterinary? It's not their business model. Evidence is abundant without volume accessible (free or lo cost) s/n as original foundation of "no kill" it's mathematically impossible to rescue/adopt/foster, even with reduced "barriers" and other gimmicks to absorb overpopulation without major volume s/n programs.
Thank you, Carmen, for sharing your perspective! You’ve highlighted critical concerns about the priorities of organizations like Maddie’s and BFAS. Their focus on adoption and live release rates overshadows the essential need for accessible, high-volume spay/neuter programs to address overpopulation at its root. Your example of the pit bull suffering from heat exhaustion is heartbreaking and underscores the consequences of removing adoption barriers without ensuring responsible placements. I appreciate your thoughtful analysis and commitment to advocating for sustainable solutions in animal welfare!