I was made part of a thread on Facebook yesterday that really started delving into a topic that has been on my mind for awhile now. I shared some thoughts there, and I’d like to echo those thoughts here. With that, I’d like to also point to one of my first posts that I’d ever made on this website, which is very relevant to what I’m about to write.

The question that some people might need to ask is the question that’s at the top of this post. I’ve personally heard of so many different things in the short amount of time that I’ve been photographing shelter dogs, advocating for them, that I’ve found myself kicking that very question around on numerous different occasions. Do people intend to do well? I’m sure they (most of us) universally do. Do they have the means to do well? That’s a different question entirely. Then, next, what defines “well”? I have my own philosophy of what a “rescue” looks like… Regardless of the dog, regardless of the person–I believe that if you pull a dog, you are responsible for that dog’s well being, and you should see that rescue through, until its appropriate forever home is found. This process could take weeks, it could take months, it could take over a year. There are many facets of this that get quite detailed, and yet they all revolve around doing your absolute due-diligence, and doing it on the animal’s behalf.

That short synopsis aside–I’ve seen many rescues (both 501c3’s and not), as well as “independent” rescuers, fail to live up to their responsibilities. This comes with many different examples, but one of the most troubling things that I’ve personally seen is when a legitimate 501c3 rescue/rescuer has a “pull list” that has been compromised, either with or without their knowledge. The people on this list then act as liaisons who freely give their access to other people–who many times are never checked out or ever followed up with. This has irresponsibility written all over it, and yet it’s justified for a laundry list of reasons that I won’t bother getting into at this time.

For those of you that aren’t totally clear: A “pull list” is a collection of people who are officially able to pull an animal from a shelter, under a specific rescue’s 501c3 status, and on that rescue’s behalf. That animal would then legally become the responsibility of that rescue. If you are on this list, you are deemed appropriate to represent that rescue in these matters, and it’s common knowledge that everyone on the pull list ultimately reports to the rescue. The problematic part is when you see people who are “officially” on a rescue’s pull list, then pulling and handing off animals to 3rd or 4th party individuals (they themselves (many times) acknowledged as “rescuers”), and then just trusting that everything goes well, never to follow up again. This happens way more than it should.

Are there ways to appropriately take those types of steps? I’m sure that there sometimes are–and more power to those people who, in times of necessity freelance a bit to achieve a genuine objective. But it’s GOT to be done responsibly, and you should always remain accountable for your decisions. In my opinion, people are out taking advantage of this tactic, and it’s creating a messy landscape, which is sadly becoming more and more commonplace.

Just to be clear: I’m not trying to criticize anyone specifically, as I’m not a rescuer and there’s much that I obviously don’t know… I’m simply observing and trying to create a dialogue on the topic, which might hopefully inspire better practices going forward… At the end of the day it’s just beyond horrendous to hear that animals that were “rescued” from 1 shelter, may many months later end up in another shelter (or worse)–only to then be tracked back to their original rescue puller, who in many instances had no idea that they were even pulled in the first place! That’s inexplicable nonsense.

How does this happen? I suppose a previously thought to be “good” adopter could, down the line, choose to abandon their previously adopted animal without giving the rescue from which it came prior knowledge of their decision. That does likely happen (albeit hopefully not very often), but in which case that rescue should be contacted by the shelter and immediately reclaim the animal. But that’s not what I’m talking about here… So then you ask, are certain rescues knowingly being so irresponsible with their pull rights? Some likely are, many may not be. Many may just have rogue pullers… Either way, it ultimately comes back on the rescue, and should. My main point is that if a rescue/rescuer isn’t keeping good records, ^that scenario is unfortunately the type of crap that may end up happening. How does a rescue honestly not know which dogs they’ve actually had a hand in pulling? If you’re a rescue/rescuer and you can’t produce a record of every dog that you’ve ever pulled, as well as having a noted contact and location as to where that dog is/was physically residing, then you just need to get out of the rescue business. Honestly. And if this stuff was ever done unbeknownst to the core of your actual rescue, then you need to immediately track down whoever was behind that decision and cut that bait.

I know that’s an overall harsh tone to take, but people need to take their organizations and their reputations a little bit more seriously. The sheltering system is a HUGE multifaceted problem and these animals count on efficient rescues to handle their business appropriately, as well as counting on others to actually want and aspire to become good rescues as well, and do it in the right way and for the right reasons… This type of a thing playing out obviously has the opposite effect, that goes without saying. Just as importantly, it then gives tyrannical killing shelters MORE of a reason to limit access to legitimate rescuers who consistently do things the appropriate way. And again, by no means am I insinuating that anyone isn’t a legitimate rescue/rescuer. That’s honestly not a pissing match that I want any part of… But I can speak to illegitimate practices. I’ve seen them happen. If a rescue/rescuer is employing someone (or allowing an employee to “downlow” employ another) who is doing a shit job, then that rescue/rescuer needs to get rid of that person before their entire reputation as an organization/individual is damaged beyond repair. That does nothing good for anyone, animals included.

Lastly, at no time should a genuine rescue/rescuer ever just “leave” a dog with a foster, with little to no follow-up, and an insinuated unwritten responsibility transfer… I’d want to believe that any good rescue/rescuer, if given the foresight of bad circumstances happening, would immediately then swoop in and protect/re-collect those animals that they are ultimately responsible for. Unfortunately, I know that there are many times when this doesn’t happen; and quite the opposite actually ends up happening instead. Please do better. There’s no excuse for this kind of stuff. People can’t get away with an “ignore the problem, focus on a solution” attitude (which is dismissive of the problem, and when ignored, invites it to repeat itself), when those people who are ultimately the problem are still prominently involved and are still out doing what they have done incorrectly in this instance. C’mon!

I honestly hope that this was a fair criticism, and that people will be able to relate to it. I’ve met many great and wonderful people since starting this website. Loving, compassionate people. Many times I’ve personally tried to go an extra mile and help different individuals in an assortment of ways; by networking, fundraising, 1-time “guest pulling” when a rescuer couldn’t get off of work, freely transporting, even fostering. At the end of the day, I chose to offer myself up for the dogs, and as a favor to the individuals that should have been absolutely responsible for the things that they’ve willingly and knowingly signed up for. Fortunately, I’ve witnessed many things go beautifully. By the same token, I’ve witnessed other things hit snags. Things do at times hit snags, and that’s just part of life. Some snags are totally uncontrollable, yet many are actually directly relatable to the lack of due-diligence that these “rescuers” do. The people pulling these dogs need to have a plan, and a backup to that plan, and then the intestinal fortitude to create another, if necessary. The dogs deserve nothing less than that. Admittedly, a portion of the content of this article is solely based on what I have heard, yet much is based on what I have actually seen. There’s no doubt that the things that I’ve stated here will likely ruffle a few feathers, but at the end of the day, so what? I do believe this content to be meaningful and important.