But everything is wrong with it. I'm sorry, I want to, but I just don't think long-distance adoptions are a good idea. And I've DONE it. Hell, I still have Lanie. She's a perfect example of what goes wrong with them.
#1: Let's start with the concept of fluid adopters. That's not a real term. I just made it up.
What I mean by "fluid adopters" is the basic idea that a person can find a "perfect companion" in many different pets. There are certainly picky adopters (I don't mean that in a negative way at all) who will go to five or six different shelters before finding the perfect dog/cat/bunny/other. Those seem to be the exception, though. Most people will go to shelter A, B, C, OR D and will find a Fluffy or Fido to complete their home. With that in mind - an adoption at any one shelter takes an adoption away from the others.
There is obviously no animosity there - we are all in this to find animals homes, wherever they wind up. Well, most of us are, anyways. But what it means is that a person who adopts locally opens up a kennel for another needy animal in their community. A person who adopts from a kill shelter takes an adoption from a no kill, and vice versa. This is a prime reason for spontaneous adoptions from kill shelters - it's an immediate gratification of "saving" a life, despite hundreds of other animals being put down after close of business. On the other hand, adopting from a no-kill keeps (theoretically) one more pet out of the euthanasia line to begin with. There is no better option and this is a huge issue, but apply it to long distance adoptions:
Adopting from another city or state takes one adoption away from a local animal.
I personally feel that community is the best shot that shelters have at adopting out animals into responsible homes. A good shelter is an active part of the fabric of the animal community - giving back education, services, and care. If community is forsaken by adopters - reaching out to OTHER communities, we mesh together and it's more likely, imho, for animals to fall through the cracks right under our noses. Like I mentioned before, though, we are all in this for the same reason, and a needy animal five states away is as valuable as one next door. I don't think it's a bad thing - I just don't think it's a good one.
#2: When you take responsibility for adopting out an animal, you take responsibility for its wellbeing after going to its new home. On the other end, when you adopt an animal, you are taking direct responsibility for promising it a loving, safe, forever-home. If you adopt long distance...
A shelter cannot:
- Homecheck the adopter
- Meet the adopter and verify they are credible, responsible, and who/what they claim to be
- Perform followup visits and checks
- Verify any future requirements for adoption have been met (like promised fixing/vet care)
- Check the vet care, number, and temperaments of current pets
- Check the household members and their knowledge of the adoption
- Verify safety of the environment, including fencing and hazards
- Verify the adopter has means of transport, for taking the animal to a vet
- Check the credibility of the shelter
- Check the condition, health, temperament, and traits of the animal
- Check that the shelter has not "played up" the friendliness or condition
- Determine first if the animal's a good fit for that person, pets, or household
- Ensure the shelter does not have practices the adopter doesn't condone or support, such as gassing
- Meet other pets that may be a better fit, personality-wise
- Note poor behaviors that could be deal breakers - barking, food aggression, dog aggression, skittishness, etc.
- Easily return animal or seek help if become overwhelmed
I realize that's harsh, and an across-the-board generalization, but it really is the responsibility of both parties that an adoption go smoothly. It doesn't end with signing a paper - it's the before, during, and the long after. You just can't do that long distance, not easily, anyways. There are always exceptions, of course.
#3. When any of those points above fall through, accidents can happen. When we brought Lanie home she had kennel cough. I made the stupid mistake of assuming that "vaccinated for Bordatella and Distemper/Parvo" meant that all the dogs there were kennel cough- and parvo-free. I didn't think. Those vaccines take weeks to work. I later learned that EVERY DOG there had kennel cough. She had been on medication that wasn't sent with her - an antibiotic. I brought home a sick dog to my dog who had just had surgery. That put everyone involved in danger and was extremely unwise. I was very, very angry. No one had told me - but I hadn't asked.
So who gets stuck with a vet bill for new medicine? Whose animals were at risk because I didn't even meet the dog before tagging it and pulling it from the shelter?
I learned the hard way. My other dog is fine, but I'm still not happy. It's taken me two months now and I STILL haven't gotten her adoption papers/records. I'm obligated to get her spayed, but they haven't once called, emailed, or written to follow up that I have. They don't care. They gave a dog away for free to a person they'd never met or verified, not even asking if I had other pets at home. They didn't ask anything. Lanie could have been VERY screwed if the situation were even a little bit different, and if we hadn't maintained painfully strict quarantine, Penny could have been screwed, too. There wasn't anything to do once we'd adopted her.
#4. Huge transport plans. Not everyone, in fact, almost no one, drives the several hours to pick up their pet from a long-distance adoption. In my experience, big, elaborate transport paths are planned. Person A picks up from the shelter and drops off with person B a couple of hours away, who hands the animal off to person C, and so on until they arrive at their final home. That means that ONLY THE LAST PERSON sees the destination the dog is going to. That last person is stuck with the moral responsibility (and the animal) should something be glaringly, or even subtly, wrong. In addition, that animal is the adopter's responsibility from the second it leaves the doors of the shelter - that means if person A, B, C, or other loses the pet between transport, runs off with it, hands it to a fraudulent person, gets in an anccident, or otherwise endangers the animal - that's on the adopter.
You're taking in a pet for the rest of its life. Isn't it worth it to ensure it gets home with you safely? Do you know who those transporters ARE? Are they using kennels and leashes or is the pet riding loose in the car? Will they have the windows down? Do they have AC/heat? Are they passing off papers, too? Are they someone you can trust to meet with safely?
However you look at it, adopting long distance is taking a chance, and it can be very sketchy. Heck, if you need another example, the tripawd I recently helped get out of a kill shelter went from a young, healthy, perfectly friendly and great-shape dog from a caring owner to an underweight, dog-aggressive, over-bred dog with scars and poor breeding from a terrifying owner who later harassed the adopting shelter with nonstop requests for personal and contact details of her future home. You can never go wrong being too careful.
So yes. Long distance adoption just sits wrong with me. I worry those dogs have a lesser chance of staying where they go, or remaining healthy and happy. I think it's a poor recipe. Might just be me, though. I really, really want to love that people are working so hard at casting that wider net, but it just worries me. A lot.
-Mouse
