It happens occasionally. Our shelter, which is usually full of larger, mixed-breed dogs, sometimes gets small, "pure-breed" dogs. The dogs are often labeled with the slightly cringe-worthy "highly desirable." It is common practice for shelters that obtain "highly desirable" dogs to charge a significantly higher adoption fee. It makes sense from a utilitarian perspective; the more money these dogs bring, the more resources we have to support the rest of our work. It's win/win, right? I no longer think so.
At my agency, adoption fees are used to help offset some of the animal care costs. However, these fees don't come close to actually covering the costs and are often reduced or waived. In an area where supply outstrips demand, attempting to recover costs fully through fees would be counterproductive, significantly impacting the number of adoptions. So, we charge a small fee (less than $100) based on the animals' age.
When we received a clutch of Yorkies recently, I realized I could likely get a couple hundred dollars each in adoption fees. It was a tempting prospect, for sure. However, the more I thought about it, the more bothered I became by the idea. By slapping a substantially higher fee on the Yorkies, we would declare their lives more valuable than the other dogs in our care. At the same time, we are elevating them above the other dogs in our shelter; we would be reducing the value of life of all dogs (including the Yorkies), to something that is driven by market forces, not intrinsic in nature, something that only reinforces breed-centric culture and the treatment of animals simply as property. I find that thought morally troubling.
A second problem is that the selective high adoption fees serve as gatekeeping. By elevating fees for selected "desirables," we are implying that those who cannot afford the raised fees are somehow not worthy of certain types of dogs. This doubles the issue from above. Not only are we saying one dog is more valuable than others but that only certain people (those with more significant disposable income) are worthy to care for it. I don't think we've looked deeply enough into this type of gatekeeping (intentional or otherwise) and the damage it could be doing to our communities.
Policy and procedures have consequences, sometimes way beyond their intended effect. When we commodify dogs, we send multiple signals to the public, and they are not all good. Next time you get that batch of "desirable" dogs in, think twice before bumping up their adoption fees.
#AdoptionsandAdoptionPrograms#Diversity,Equity,InclusionandJustice------------------------------
Cole Wakefield
Good Shepherd Humane Society, Inc.
Eureka Springs AR
------------------------------