Starting January 1, the Twin Cities-based Animal Humane Society will require people who want to turn in pets to make an appointment and go through a counseling process before they can surrender the animals.
This fall, my wife began as a volunteer at our local Animal Humane Society. That means each week, she goes to work in a cat adoption area at an animal shelter, and I go to a preschool in a homeless shelter.
As we compare notes between how the places operate and how we spend our time, we've found similarities and striking differences.
Both organizations are well-run, caring places that could not function nearly as well without volunteers who supplement the staff.
Our Humane Society pets, Simba and Roxy
Both deal with situations beyond the control of the people nominally in charge of a vulnerable being.
And both places represent hope and redemption — temporary waystations where lives can be redirected in wonderful ways — but they can also be the scene of profound sadness. (The two are really inseparable, for why would anyone need hope if not for its opposite condition?)
So I'm not surprised at the news item about counseling people who bring in animals they intend to surrender. The Humane Society already provides a lot of what could be called counseling to those who come in to adopt and are learning to live with and care for their pets.
County Social Services and other services available at my shelter certainly aim to do the same with the often fractured families that show up at our door.
But here's the really interesting difference between our two shelters.
Before my wife was ever turned loose with the animals and people seeking to adopt, she went through a rigorous screening process that required multiple interviews, three references (who had to complete a questionnaire), and multiple training and orientation sessions that included time spent with a mentor.
In contrast, before I was turned loose with the kids, I interviewed with a volunteer coordinator about how my skills and interests matched with openings, filled out a basic application that involved a check by the county to determine whether I was a child molester, and then I watched a relatively short safety video.
I don't offer these examples to criticize either place. We wouldn't be devoting our time if we didn't think they were excellent.
However, they do raise the question of whether we worry more about a stranger's pet than a stranger's child.
