Many open-intake shelters decide to label certain pets in their care as “Rescue Only.” This means that the pet cannot be adopted directly to the public, and in most cases, cannot be fostered through the shelter.
In many cases, there are legal reasons why a shelter cannot let a pet be adopted directly and has to transfer it to a rescue. For example, a dog might be labeled “Rescue Only” if it is a dog that was labeled as a pit bull or pit bull mix and there is breed-specific legislation passed in the city where the shelter is located. The system that leads to these pets being labeled “Rescue Only” cannot be changed at the shelter level, and this discussion unfortunately has to exclude these cases.
In other cases, there is a subjective judgment for determining that a pet should be “Rescue Only.” A dog might also be labeled “Rescue Only” if it displayed fearful or slightly aggressive behavior and the shelter does not feel comfortable adopting or fostering out the dog because of its behavior in the shelter. A cat might be labeled “Rescue Only” if it has extensive and relatively urgent medical issues and the shelter decides not to take on the responsibility of the additional costs and personnel time required for that pet. By the policy of some shelters, all dogs that are heartworm-positive are labeled “Rescue Only.”
In this post, I’d like to explore the function of the “Rescue Only” label and its effect on getting a pet into a rescue or an adoptive home.
Labeling a pet “Rescue Only” limits the pool of people that can pull the pet out of the shelter. Numerous shelters attempt to circumvent this by requesting that potential adopters contact a nearby rescue, negotiate for the pet to be transferred to that rescue, and then attempt to adopt or foster the pet through the rescue. While this acts as a helpful loophole to allow a “Rescue Only” pet to make it from the shelter into a home, it also requires extra steps and networking on the part of the potential adopter.
If Susan sees Boscoe, a “Rescue Only” dog on a Facebook page, and falls in love, she may first contact the shelter to adopt. The shelter may direct her towards a few rescues that may pull the dog for her. Susan calls the rescues. Some may decide to work with her right away, others may refuse due to their current constraints, and some may request that she fill out the adoption or foster paperwork which will have to be reviewed and approved prior to pulling Boscoe into their care. The paperwork might be short for Susan to fill out and reviewed right away by the rescue, or it may involve a home visit that has to be scheduled and performed first. The rescue that agrees to pull Boscoe out of the shelter has to trust that Susan will adopt Boscoe ASAP once they pull Boscoe if the rescue has no space or limited funds for his care. The rescue then has to go and get Boscoe from the shelter and schedule for Susan to bring him home. Sometimes the rescue has to pay a fee to pull pets from the shelter, which might require them to request that Susan pay an adoption fee beforehand. If all goes well and a rescue and shelter both cooperate, Susan takes Boscoe home in the end and Boscoe has a happy life in his new adoptive home.
What if a potential adopter is intimidated by all those steps and having to coordinate with different entities in order to adopt Boscoe? There are other dogs that are not “Rescue Only” that she could just adopt directly from the shelter, and other dogs that she could adopt directly from a rescue. Or she could buy a dog or find one on Craigslist.
What if a shelter didn’t help Susan through the loophole or let her know how she could still adopt Boscoe? She might not inquire further after reading the “Rescue Only” label, and she would not end up adopting Boscoe.
What if no one looks past the “Rescue Only” label to ask how they might adopt Boscoe? Then perhaps a rescue will still pull Boscoe. The “Rescue Only” label might entice certain rescues to take him in, knowing that this is a dog that cannot be adopted through the shelter. Perhaps this is the goal of some shelters in labeling their toughest cases “Rescue Only.” I would really like to hear whether “Rescue Only” pets make it more often into a rescue than pets without that label that have been networked to rescues, from the readers’ experience.
However, what if there is no rescue that decides to take in Boscoe? Depending on the shelter, then Boscoe will either be killed or wait much longer to be pulled by a rescue. Shelter workers might have to network harder for Boscoe and maybe reach out to rescues that are further away and that would require transportation arrangements to be made.
What does the “Rescue Only” label mean for shelters that frequently use the loophole for people that express an interest in adopting a “Rescue Only” pet? The pet that is currently in that shelter’s care will still be adopted in the end, but through another organization. The additional steps might keep a pet in the shelter a few extra days too. There is a higher risk of losing that potential adoption because extraneous restrictions are placed on fulfilling it. Sure, there is less liability for the shelter. But the pet risks losing out on someone that wants him. And if the shelter uses the loophole and aims to be part of a No Kill community, then the shelter wants to maximize this pet’s chance at a loving home and does not want to kill him. Why establish a system that makes it harder to adopt?
If there is no liability concern, what does a rescue have that a dedicated adopter does not have to offer this pet? Knowing a pet’s medical issues, a potential adopter might be happy to nurse him back to health and be moved to pay for the more extensive veterinary care for their new pet. The pet gets to recuperate in a home environment instead of a shelter or rescue environment. A rescue that pulls a pet that needs hundreds in veterinary care would have to reach out to its supporters and to fundraise to pay the bills. It may require a couple of dozens of donors to feel that giving a little makes a difference to the total sum. In the meantime, the pet would recuperate either at a rescue facility or in a foster home. If a potential adopter wants to take in a pet that they know will require lots of extra care, then the costs and efforts are not transferred to a rescue that could pull another pet in need from the shelter instead.
As you can tell at this point, I personally believe that “Rescue Only” labels should be used by shelters only if legally required (e.g. to save pit bulls and pit bull mixes in cities with pit bull bans by transferring them to rescues operating outside the city) if we are to maximize a pet’s chance at adoption and work towards No Kill communities. However, I am curious about the impact of a “Rescue Only” label on getting pets pulled by rescues when no potential adopter has expressed interest. I’d like to hear whether I am missing any sides of the issue as well, or if there are more streamlined loophole adoption systems in place at your shelter for “Rescue Only” pets. I welcome all dissenting opinions too; how has the use of “Rescue Only” labels helped pets move out of your shelter? Open discussion on “Rescue Only” labels could help us all improve shelter practices and help get pets into adoptive homes.
Shelter Positive 
Recent Comments