Animal Welfare Professionals

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
------------------------------

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.

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.

This is a big pet peeve for me. I have seen some of the local rescues charge breeder fees for "highly adoptable" dogs. And there are rescues near me that also charge higher fee for "designer cats".

In my opinion, this is no better than the breeder mentality. This perpetuates the idea that a certain look or genetics places the worth of some animals higher than others.

We have the same adoption fee regardless of breed. While we could make more money on the more desirable dogs or cats which would help the rescue, I morally could not do this, as it would perpetuate the obsession people have with designer animals and certain breeds. 

When I post a shepherd mix, it takes months to get interest. The second I post a cockapoo, we have a pile of messages and applications to sift through. It is so disheartening and I do not want to contribute to that.

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.

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.

I would like to hear your thoughts on those groups who actually go to dog auctions, and buy the desirable breeds, for adoption at their facility.  That idea has troubled me.

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.

I would like to hear your thoughts on those groups who actually go to dog auctions, and buy the desirable breeds, for adoption at their facility.  That idea has troubled me.

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.

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.

We charge more for puppies/kittens, but it's the same regardless of apparent breed. (And we charge more for the young ones because they get initial shots, spay/neuter, chipped, etc .). We're a transfer shelter, so we never know what's coming in!

What we DO enforce, however, is a strict first come/first serve policy. We encourage people to check out/follow our website, which states that to adopt, they must come in when we open and sign in at the front counter, and adoptions are done in order off that list. So, for "more desirable" puppies, early bird gets the worm, so to speak. Sure, once in a while, we can't please everyone (especially those who don't bother reading the procedures) but for the most part it works for us.

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.

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.

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.

This is such an interesting topic! We currently have one dog who would be considered "desirable". It's something I've been torn about as well because he is "desirable" but also one of our more difficult dogs, so because of that, finding the right home for him would be an added hurdle. However, due to his appeal, it's been suggested that he be adopted at a higher rate. And I do think it is definitely something to consider seeing that the additional funds will be recycled to offset other costs. It's definitely a tough decision, but I've found great insight in what you all have shared, thank you!

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.

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
------------------------------