Welcome to CUR


 
 

This was written by Susan Hogarth and incorporates many of the concerns discussed by rescuers from across the country. CUR endorses this statement and you will see our name in the signatories on Susan's website (URL below). Permission to repost here has been received from Susan. To list your organization or yourself as a signatory, email transport@tribeagles.org. Crossposting, linking and republishing by permission of the author.


Safe Dogs, Safe Rescuers —Think Before You Drive
© 2001 Susan Hogarth

Many pets are now saved from euthanasia as rescuers communicate across long distances
via the Internet. Shelters are becoming more eager to jump at this new chance to save more lives.
But this increased mobility carries risks which need to be carefully weighed by all parties involved
—the shelter, the rescuer, and the transporter(s).
This statement identifies some of those risks and gives guidelines for minimizing them.

Some of the risks in long-distance rescue include poor screening of adoptive homes, health and legal risks in transporting un- or under-vaccinated dogs, the personal risks to transport volunteers, and the impossibility of enforcing spay/neuter contracts at a distance.

While saving dogs in immediate jeopardy is a worthy aim, one must know the dangers and risks associated with interstate transport. Rescuers should form relationships with their local shelters before seeking and accepting dogs from afar. This applies to both adoption and fostering - it is far preferable to adopt a dog locally than to have one sent across several states at considerable expense of time, planning, and resources. No one dog is 'more deserving' of rescue than another, and no one person can save them all. We must make sure we are not merely passing dogs off to any willing person.

Shelters and their advocacy groups should be wary of anyone who prefers a long-distance rescue of a dog when a similar dog can be found locally. This person may have been refused at their own local shelters or may not be fully informed of the intricacies and risks of long-distance rescue and transport. Either possibility is a potential danger to both the humans and the animals involved.

Despite these caveats, we do recognize the benefits of interstate rescue. Certain breeds are in high demand in specific regions and transporting more to that area will increase adoptions. A special-needs dog may benefit from an experienced foster in a different part of the country. But in the case of commonly-available dogs and especially mixed breeds in good health, local rescue should be sought and long-distance rescue only rarely contemplated.

A commonsense approach to rescue may seem hopeless when one is constantly confronted by an *URGENT* posting for a dog, complete with graphic details of its impending death. Such appeals may spark heroic rescue efforts, but can seriously sway the judgment of even an experienced rescuer. And all too frequently the dog or the situation is not quite as advertised, which breeds mistrust among rescue volunteers. Use factual language and less emotional rhetoric in the posting of shelter listings. The word "URGENT" should be reserved for use in situations which are urgent above and beyond the normal risk of euthanasia incurred by most American shelter dogs, hundreds of which will die the same day with no heroic effort on their behalf. Descriptions of how animals are euthanized in a particular shelter should be aimed at discussion of shelter policy, not used as tools to encourage adoption or fostering. Haphazard use of the phrase "kill shelter" is inflammatory and unkind to thousands of dedicated animal advocates who have accepted the burden of euthanizing the unwanted. A posting of shelter animals should not attempt to sway one toward rescuing a particular dog or set of dogs, but should instead respect the intelligence and emotions of rescuers by simply presenting a list of available dogs, their descriptions and (if known) the length of time remaining.

When it is determined that a long-distance transport is warranted, simple health and safety protocols are critical. There are indeed 'fates worse than death' for shelter dogs. Rescue groups and adopters should be carefully screened, and e-mail is *not* sufficient for this. At minimum, a phone interview and/or home visit by a reputable local rescuer should be conducted. Dogs should not be shipped across state lines unvaccinated. Puppies under 4 months old should almost never be shipped except under the most extraordinary circumstances. No intact dogs should be sent to an adopter. The safety of transport volunteers should be paramount. The receiving rescuer or adopter should provide a substantial portion of the transport. The entire transport route should be planned ahead, and overseen by one experienced transport director who is able to be by the phone until the transport is successfully completed.

In summary, we urge rescuers to look locally before being swayed to heroic out-of-state rescue efforts, and we urge shelters and shelter advocates to use basic courtesy and common sense when recruiting adopters and rescuers for the dogs in their care. These basic guidelines will help ensure that volunteers remain in rescue, and that dogs shipped across state lines do not end up in disastrous circumstances. This will lead to a more professional public image of rescue, with many more lives saved in the long run.

 


You can find this piece on the web at http://www.tribeagles.org/transport.html   We encourage you to take this back to your own organizations to consider for endorsement as signers.