1 2
True enough, but I don't think that a policy against ... like them myself, though we don't have a blanket policy.

Point is that the rescue the OP is dealing with apparently has a "dog door == automatic disqualification" policy, which ... factors as well, such as how the dog door is used and the actual level of supervision the dogs have.

Agreed. When I think of dog doors, I tend to automatically assume that the dogs are outdoors unsupervised when no one is home, and I don't think that's safe. But it's true that not everyone uses them that way. There are definitely days when I'm home and have wished I had either a dog door or a doorman.
I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with rigid policy, mind you - if it means no agreement is possible between two parties, so be it. Faced with the same issue myself, I'd just move on.

I've found that it works best for some policies to be rigid - - all dogs we place are speutered, for example, and we don't place greyhounds in homes with invisible fences - - and others flexible. There are a lot of dogs looking for homes and a lot of rescue groups placing them, and inflexibility can mean you don't place many dogs.

Mustang Sally
They (again IMO) should look at other factors as well, such as how the dog door is used and the actual level of supervision the dogs have.

Nitpick: there's no way to know to really look at other factors such as level of supervision or how the door is used simply because evaluators don't live with the applicants. In instances like this the applicant's word is all the rescue has to go on and enough people lie about things (particularly those who've been turned down before and have learned the "right" answers) to make rescuers side with caution rather than benefit of doubt.

Everyone has an opinion on the correctness or fairness of this, as they're entitled, but the only person's opinion who really matters is that of the head of the rescue, the one who is ultimately liable for all the rescue's decisions/actions.

Tara
There are a lot of dogs looking for homes and a lot of rescue groups placing them, and inflexibility can mean you don't place many dogs.

Tru dat.

Handsome Jack Morrison
Media Hot Air on Global Warming
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21762

Eco-Imperialism - Green Power. Black death:
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/main.php
Highly Over-Hyped: Greenland's and Antarctica's Impacts on Sea Level http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N13/EDIT.jsp

Antarctic Ice: The Cold Truth
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H
Climate of Uncertainty:
http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.23912/pub detail.asp

More Hot Air on Global Warming:
http://www.aim.org/media monitor/4417 0 2 0 C/
The Oregon Project:
http://www.oism.org/pproject /
World Climate Report:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com /
They (again IMO) should look at other factors as well, ... used and the actual level of supervision the dogs have.

Nitpick: there's no way to know to really look at other factors such as level of supervision or how the ... turned down before and have learned the "right" answers) to make rescuers side with caution rather than benefit of doubt.

I know, I know. It's a sad fact, but you either have to go by a gut feeling, or have an ironclad rule.
Those who have the time, patience, and legal standing to go by gut feelings are lucky.
Everyone has an opinion on the correctness or fairness of this, as they're entitled, but the only person's opinion who really matters is that of the head of the rescue, the one who is ultimately liable for all the rescue's decisions/actions.

I posted earlier in the thread about a too-inflexible rescue with rather unsupportable policies. My hope is that most of them fit somewhere between that one and a pet shop, in terms of responsi- bility.
Ah well.

Mark Shaw (And Baron) moc TOD liamg TA wahsnm == "A dog is the only thing on earth that
loves you more than he loves himself." -Josh Billings