Recently my wife and I were looking into adoption of a dog from one of the animal rescue spots in the area. Each one had an application online to complete prior to adoption.
We looked at the pictures of dogs that were up for adoption and believed one was the right age, size, etc.
When we arrived at the site, we were told they were very busy and it would take about an hour for the staff to get to us. We agreed to wait.
Another staff member approached us and told us that after reviewing our application, they could not find proof that we owned our home. She further said we would need to provide documentation of ownership of our home if we wished to be considered, in addition to asking other belittling questions.
Not once did anyone ask us these types of questions when we had our children — let alone want to visit our home for an inspection.
We thought we were about to do something good. Is it any wonder that some of these poor animals stay in these shelters for months and months?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Voters capable
- Scapegoating easy; solutions not
- Progress not reflected
- Blame misdirected
- Steel at stake, too
- Pedro must go
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Duty to disclose
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Good riddance
- Oberdorf firing