When she first arrived, the standard policy encouraged counselors to check potential adopters on MyCase before releasing an animal into the adopter’s care.
That policy was first instated in 2022, after the gruesome hanging and stabbing death of a dog that had been adopted from Animal Care Services to an owner with a violent criminal history. The rule was changed about two weeks into Fox’s tenure at Animal Care Services.
“Within the first week or two of me being there, they took away the MyCase policy,” Fox said. “They argued that going to any home, no matter who it’s with, where it is, what not, is better than being in the shelter.”
“They argued that going to any home, no matter who it’s with, where it is, what not, is better than being in the shelter.”
For the shelter, maybe, but not always for the animals.
The shelter near me used to do similar. There was a whole process that included something akin to a soft background check before you could adopt. That was in ~2014 or so when I adopted my first dog from there. I remember the people one desk over being denied because they already had 3 dogs and none had received any rabies or other vaccines since they adopted them.
When I adopted again in 2021 and 2023, it was a totally different, in-and-out process both times. You had to fill out some basic paperwork, but they didn’t check anything or vet the adopter at all.
On one hand, they’re a no-kill shelter with limited resources. I’ve donated and volunteered when I could, but they do have a finite capacity. On the other hand, even the slim chance of some psycho animal abuser walking out with one of the animals should be avoided.
It’d be more merciful to euthanize the animal than send it to an abusive home for the rest of its life.
Legitimately if someone said “it’s better than the shelter no matter what” I’d tell them “okay then, you’re coming home with me. Every night I will kick you because you’re slightly too slow for my liking and in my way. Every morning I will forget to feed you because I don’t really care about you. I might give you my leftovers after dinner. No lunch because you only get two meals a day. Forgotten breakfast included. I will also tie you outside in 95 degree heat for a week and only fill your water every other day because I misplaced my shoe and blamed it on you. When you get sick, I’m just going to break your leg and leave you in the woods.” and tell them not to complain because at least they aren’t in a shelter.
If that isn’t the end of the discussion, then [REDACTED]
You left out “I’m going to lock you in a tiny cage for 14 hours a day rather than train you”, but otherwise, spot on.
There’s a lot that’s left out, but I only have so many hours in a day…
I know when I adopted my dog 3 yrs ago they required that we give them our vets info so they could call to see how well we took care of our animals. I think that is a decent check to make.
Absolutely. That was part of the adoption process I went through back in 2014, though I hadn’t had a dog for about a decade then, so was basically N/A for me.
if anyone would like to give this organization their opinion;
https://www.indy.gov/agency/animal-care-services
i have.
Removed by mod
that are probably just doing their job the best they can.
Did you *read *the article?
Removed by mod
“you’re what’s wrong with the Internet”
Proceeds to do the stupid thing making the Internet bad
This story is about the organization firing people for following organization policy. The person you are replying to is suggesting letting the organization know that they are in the wrong for firing low-paid workers for just following policy.
Replying angrily and insultingly to a post without understanding what they are talking about and without reading the original story… you’re what’s wrong with the internet.
EDIT: I misread. The organization fired employees for NOT following the policy. They were fired for doing background checks when told not to. That’s even worse and more of a reason to be angry.
this story is about an animal organization actively providing abusive homes for animals.
im not sure how that isnt the primary issue for you, but to each his own
my statements to the organization were not about the employees, but the lack of qualifying adopters who are known animal abusers.
If the article is true, that’s astonishingly bad management.
It’s dangerously easy to obtain ownership over an animal in some states in the US, and it’s the reason why so many dogs are euthanized for almost no reason. My neighbor just got a dog from a southern state off of their execution list, he’s not even done growing, full of energy, just being abandoned and unwanted in overcrowded shelters almost cost him his life.
Is the statement at the bottom of the article new or did the earlier posters simply miss it?
… One of Best Friends’ recommendations for due diligence within the adoption process was to focus on the shelter’s existing system, Chameleon, which pulls information related to animal welfare cases. This includes animal abuse and animal cruelty cases. Checking MyCase was discouraged, as its use was problematic and could lead to biased, inequitable vetting of potential adoptees.
This story does not have enough detail, so I looked for more.
First, I looked up Best Friends and they are firmly no-kill to the exclusion of all else. I am guessing the ‘Chameleon’ referenced is this CMS, but I could be wrong. If that is the software, it looks like there is a way for people to add notes about specific animals, but it isn’t clear if you can enter notes about specific people. It certainly doesn’t look like it has a way of automatically checking police records for criminal records. It does suggest you can enter these types of ‘field’ data:
- Calls for service
- Citations
- Bite reporting
- Field staff dispatching
- Shift control and tracking
- Laptop implementation
- Case photos
I’m guessing MyCase is this free Indiana-specific portal.
Now: if they aren’t talking about the free MyCase link I found, then perhaps they are using software that charges the Animal Shelter for each search. I can see getting fired for incurring costs that aren’t in the budget. Alternately, perhaps ‘Best Friends’ is giving them funding based on the shelter NOT rejecting any adopter ever for any reason – or at least thinking that is a condition based on this statement from the Best Friends ‘who we are’ page:
We’re making sure that everyone has the same access to loving pets and that every adoptable pet has access to the comfort of a foster home instead of a kennel in a shelter.
– note that the above is meant to foster diversity and its links to their diversity page (which seems focused on income disparity), but that quoted bit COULD be read to mean ‘everyone gets a pet, no matter what’.
I would think it incumbent on all employees to create notes/warnings about known abusers and have that be a flag if they come back to adopt, but I do see a case for allowing people to re-adopt an animal they voluntarily gave to the shelter because they had gone through a patch where they couldn’t afford to feed it, but now they can. Others might argue that this is abuse or that the owners don’t deserve a pet, but it is clear that Best Friends thinks that refusing such people is discriminatory.
That doesn’t mean that the particular abuse getting uncovered with MyCase was simply surrendering a pet until people got on their feet. Mostly, it just feels like there’s a bunch of stuff going on that no one reported.
I am generally against criminal record bullshit except violence, fuck that shit.
I think in the case of animal adoption, the only relevant criminal check would be for animal abuse. Anything else is irrelevant, and could prevent a person who needs companionship from having that therapeutic comfort.
Add Domestic violence and child abuse to that list. Anyone who abuses their spouse or kids is definitely not above abusing an animal.
No one is above anything. A person could be a loving spouse and wonderful parent and still beat their animal.
Personally, I hold animals in higher regard than people. If a person bit me, I’d bite back.
Abusing animals is an warning sign for abusing humans, therefore the reverse makes sense too. In fact an abusive person who hurts people has very likely already hurt an animal.
I would NEVER put an animal in a known abusers care. Ever. It is completely unacceptable.It’s probably best not to, I agree.
Animal abuse AND violent behavior in general.
I don’t think somebody who has been violent multiple times towards humans will be different to a pet. Just because there was no animal close to this person yet, doesn’t exactly instill confidence that the pet will not be hurt.
I don’t completely agree. It’s very possible to want to beat a person, but never want to harm an animal. Although… it could be a red flag that needs some consideration.
I agree with this sentiment.
The risk of abuse needs to be weighted against need to shelter. World aint perfect
And shelters nowadays seem way to trigger happy to reject an adoption. Live alone and work 8 hours? Rejected because the animal will be alone. Have a 6 fooot fence around your yard? Rejected because 8 is “mandatory” for the breed. I have noticed that humane socieies are way too restrictive with their animals while city run shelters just want to make sure you have permission from the home owner take in an animal.
I’d also want to see if the adopter has a history of not staying out of jail for more than 6 months at a time. For example: my brother has been arrested at least 21 times over the last 15 years. I don’t think his home-life is stable enough to support a pet.
Now, if, say, his roommate wanted a dog, my brother’s bullshit shouldn’t keep the roommate from getting a pup.
A stable home is important regardless of criminal history. When I got my cat I had to bring a copy of my lease. I thought it was a bit much, but I understand the reasons.
Pessimistic take: someone with power in that organisation wants to secretly sell animals for fights or for meat
Prisoners and their cats(ft. gopher and pigeon): https://youtu.be/i8xIwiPk0G8
WISH-TV - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for WISH-TV:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.wishtv.com/news/indy-animal-care-workers-fired-for-checking-adopter-criminal-history/
