Fantastic reframing of problem to solution. As a person involved in rescue and volunteering, "rescue" itself has become a badge some people wear to make themselves appear important, that they did a good deed. It only becomes a good deed when the adopter helps the rescue dog live the best life possible, no matter what layers of personality unfold.
That's the 10,000-foot view of all the work I do with dogs and their humans:) Help them both live the best life possible. Sometimes it means letting go of an old narrative and stepping into what's possible. I've learned this with my dog Piper...she's taught me a lot. One of the biggest lessons was to move on from whatever her past was and believe in what we can become together as a team.
I find it ironic that we live in a society where seemingly every human now wants their own label, yet here we are discussing not labeling our furry friends.
We don’t often refer to our beagle as a rescue, but we do sometimes. I think doing so helps us understand that he is not inherently a bad dog, and we are not inherently bad owners, just because he still behaves poorly or harmfully sometimes. He suffered legitimate trauma that will most likely have an effect on him for the rest of his life.
Henny, you raise a great point about all the labels lol. However, this human does not want a label and I'm adverse to learning all the new labels that society wants to dump on us.
This is a well-intentioned post but it's still a myopic ranting from someone akin to An Academic speaking to a world of non-Elites. The Author ventures in and out of the anthropomorphic territory- as if human response to labeling imbues our fur babies. I hate being labeled or pigeon-holed, myself; and certainly, any point trying to encourage Parents to be cognizant of incedental biases towards undermining the wholeness of our non-human children is consequential. But jaded renderings do not (nor should they) necessarily account for what "should be", nor "what is".
The Author provided a throw-away caveat to self-cover, but it gets lost in what The Author really preferred to impart. Even if One says A Thing, does such saying insist that One was/is able to completely articulate Meaning? That is: People do not always possess or summon the "right words" to communicate actual meaning. Most people speak in common, colloquial phrasings and contexts, so I wouldn't presume to judge Another for engaging conversation while "labeling" their fur (or non fur) baby.
This post delves into labeling; and Labeling Theory has a significant, but non-absolute perspective. Just as this article suggests that Some may inadvertently (or even deliberately) use the "rescue" labeling as a crutch when engaging Others ... my most immediate response is that the well-intentioned, published missive wreaks of Academia-types lecturing on about inanities instead of focusing upon Major Issues (priorities). There is so much more Out There to focus on, and to highlight. This post, in my humble opinion, may be evocative, but should be more of a footnote... rather than seeming to appear contrived from a quasi subject-matter academic conjuring the Next Thing to write about. I mean no offense. I'm sure The Author does more for non-human animals than I do, but... every one of my kids was. born with four legs, and was rescued...just like me. Labeled or not, we make our way in The World.
Before I get to my thoughts on your commentary, I have to share what I think you are saying... bear with me...here's a summary of what I'm hearing you say...
---
"I get what you’re saying about labels, and I even agree in part. But this felt a little like an out-of-touch lecture about a small issue. People usually don’t mean harm when they say ‘rescue.’ I think this post was more academic than practical, and maybe not as urgent as other topics. Still, I know your heart’s in the right place."
---
In any case, thanks for taking the time out of your busy day to read my article and write a thoughtful/layered comment. I respect the perspective you’re bringing.
I agree with you on a few points: not everyone has the “right words,” and using a phrase like “rescue dog” isn’t always loaded with deeper meaning. A lot of people say it casually or conversationally. That’s totally fair.
But from where I stand, as someone who works with dogs and their humans every day, I’ve seen how these small, seemingly harmless phrases can subtly influence the way people relate to their dogs. In training, little things always add up. A habit. A routine. A belief. A story we repeat in our head or to others. These things shape the way we treat the dog in front of us, and the expectations we set for them, often without realizing it.
When someone calls their dog “a rescue” for years, even if the dog came home at 8 weeks with zero trauma, it can keep both the human and the dog anchored in a story that no longer serves them. And in my experience, that story can become a crutch. “He’s a rescue” becomes shorthand for, “This behaviour can’t change.” Or worse, “This dog is broken.”
That’s what I’m trying to challenge. Not the label itself, but the weight we sometimes give it. My goal isn't to shame anyone for using it, but to invite people to reflect on whether that story is helping or holding their dog back.
I get that this might feel like a small topic when there are bigger battles to fight. But in dog training, the small things are the big things. That’s where change happens, one word, one habit, one story at a time.
Thanks again for reading and responding with depth. I think these kinds of conversations are how we all grow, dogs and humans alike.
Or...or, 'He's a rescue' (as you put it- and as people do say) can also be indicative of One who fondly cherishes the very distinguished position of dogs (and other animals- including humans) that exude a very effervescent appreciation for being removed from a Previous Situation. When "experts" speak matter-of-factly about Things that are not matters of fact - or, in your case, "speaking" one-sidedly, myopically - the ramification can include calls for redress.
[Don't feel obliged to read this response. I suppose, I could've submitted this via Direct Message, but this isn't denigrating, so I'm okay with it being public.]
My point, Good Sir, is that you have A Perspective. My point is that your Perspective is siloed into your particular profession. The title of Your Article is, "Stop Calling Your Dog a Rescue". I understand literary composition, messaging and marketing, quite well. Whether your article's title was so calculating or not, it creates a tone for Readers. You've shared what I perceive as a jaded view, and it came across (to me) as more acerbic than necessary for an entire audience. Had you specifically directed Your Perspective to the likes of people the article says you encounter, that'd have considerably softened Things. But you didn't do that. As elitists do (often, unknowingly), you pontificated about Your Perspective...as if it were superior to Another's. Your messaging approach was rancid. That's what I'm telling you. It wasn't necessarily incorrect, but it also wasn't rounded enough to be wholly palatable for those of us who are perfectly happy with the "rescue" moniker. As I stated in my initial reply, we (including you) do not always communicate complete Meaning. Especially in writing, it can be a tough balance. There isn't any Fault to necessarily lay...unless you are, in fact, elitist. You published An Article...and here is A Response. How you receive the feedback is up to you.
Ingeminating, my point was that the tenor of your messaging needs work if you do not wish to come across as a bloviating lecturer who lacks connection with the broader world. You wanted to make Your Point without representing a Whole Point. Many people, if not most (or even all, at Some Points), do the same. Generally, it takes a lot more effort to account for more perspectives than your own. I acknowledged that your article does tacitly provide a caveat to Your Perspective. The caveat was too flippant, for My Taste...and so I replied. That's the way This Thing works. A well-intentioned article was not necessarily well-received (by me, if only). That is all. Because my humble opinion felt there was significant lack, I offered A Response. "Labels" don't make People "bad". There's an entire, political culture that uses labels in a very corrosive-but-unintentional manner (generally) to support This Cause or That One. I don't automatically (in return) label them as "bad". I may roll my eyes, but I look for Total Perspective- Reality. That is what I expect from One posing as An Expert- including professors and academics.
Elitism is myopic, and so Your Response that My Response may have been too academic is precisely why it would behoove you to read it. I haven't read much of your works, but if you come across as with the same lacking connection to Total Perspective, you limit your audience- which many "experts" will tell you is fine (you're supposed to find and create a niche, according to Them). With your initial article, you're speaking (as your response illuminates) to a specific audience. Your missive lacks accounting for "rescue" denoting an animal's removal from 'trauma'. You focused a very jaded perspective upon what may have led up to an animal (dogs, in your specific case) going into A Shelter, per say. Also, when you state something like, "even if the dog came home at 8 weeks with zero trauma, it can keep both the human and the dog anchored in a story that no longer serves them", your response portends a sense of discounting what Some People might mean. When Some People proudly (or just pronouncedly) state that even a puppy with 'zero trauma' is a rescue, for some of Us, it represents a commitment to rebuke industries (professional and non) that breed animals (including humans) for profit. So, again, my point was that you provided a very myopic, lectern-like submission...that evoked a response, sure. But it also sounds elitist- like your learned way is the proper perspective. It isn't. It is One Way. Hence the (very) measured response.
Some Readers may simply accept the premise of your article and ignore whether or not it is reasonable to question it or, at least, note that you are providing a very sided perspective. Indeed, I trust that you mean well, and I do hope you perform Your Job well. You submitted Some Thing, something that I assume you wanted Others to read. I did read...and submitted My Response. ...hope it helps.
I REALLY want to respond to your comment but I'm not even sure where to start! I'll let the author respond on his own behalf, however difficult it may be 😁
Really, really love this! I don't refer to my dog as a "rescue" because I don't want people filling in the blanks of what they *think* that means. He was well-loved, but a (human) member of his family got very sick and it wasn't possible for him to stay in his home. He wasn't "grateful" to us or any of the things that people imagine an adopted dog must be: his entire life changed in one day and he was sad about it. He was quiet and withdrawn, and it took him a long, long while to really unwind in our home.
He is skittish around certain things but not because of abuse (as I've often seen people assume must be the case whenever an adopted dog is nervous): he's had some health and pain issues which made him more hyper-alert and sensitive. But if I had taken it at face-value that, oh, he's a rescue and his behavior must be due to trauma, I'd have neglected to actually address his real issue(s).
Emily, this is such a thoughtful and important perspective. I love how you honoured your dog’s experience rather than letting a label tell the story for him. Assumptions can so easily distract us from the truth, and real healing starts when we take the time to listen and observe. Thank you for sharing this, it’s such a needed reminder.
Thank you for this - a great reminder that we can get trapped by labels and actually harm the ones we love.
I did tell people who fell in love with my dogs and wanted to know more about them that they came from shelters (both were abandoned, one was physically abused as well), but that was so that everyone could see how far dogs "with a history" can come - especially people who are reluctant to adopt.
Both had very painful histories, but they showed such strength and courage, and with time and patience, eventually returned to their true selves - sweet, gentle, playful and ever so loving.
You're perfectly right that we must never let labels limit the lives that our furkids can live or what we believe they're capable of.
Though I must admit that I might have spoiled mine more than I would have if they hadn't been abandoned ☺️.
Thank you for sharing this. What a beautiful testimony to resilience and healing. I love how you honoured their past without letting it define their future. And hey, a little extra spoiling sounds well-deserved as long as the dog is biologically fulfilled and behaving well:)
Oooooh this is a mixed bag of feelings lol. The topic is fantastic, and I'm all for controversy whether I'm guilty or not. This part >> "I’ve met people who adopted their dog from a shelter at 8 weeks old, and still refer to that dog, six years later, as a rescue." << GUILTY, except it's only 5 years later 😆
You're right, though; we do tend to add the label as a disclaimer in case they malfunction occasionally.
That part about the influencer adopting for one day....that made me physically ill. I've never heard of that. What a travesty. 😔
Fantastic reframing of problem to solution. As a person involved in rescue and volunteering, "rescue" itself has become a badge some people wear to make themselves appear important, that they did a good deed. It only becomes a good deed when the adopter helps the rescue dog live the best life possible, no matter what layers of personality unfold.
That's the 10,000-foot view of all the work I do with dogs and their humans:) Help them both live the best life possible. Sometimes it means letting go of an old narrative and stepping into what's possible. I've learned this with my dog Piper...she's taught me a lot. One of the biggest lessons was to move on from whatever her past was and believe in what we can become together as a team.
I find it ironic that we live in a society where seemingly every human now wants their own label, yet here we are discussing not labeling our furry friends.
We don’t often refer to our beagle as a rescue, but we do sometimes. I think doing so helps us understand that he is not inherently a bad dog, and we are not inherently bad owners, just because he still behaves poorly or harmfully sometimes. He suffered legitimate trauma that will most likely have an effect on him for the rest of his life.
Henny, you raise a great point about all the labels lol. However, this human does not want a label and I'm adverse to learning all the new labels that society wants to dump on us.
Same
This is a well-intentioned post but it's still a myopic ranting from someone akin to An Academic speaking to a world of non-Elites. The Author ventures in and out of the anthropomorphic territory- as if human response to labeling imbues our fur babies. I hate being labeled or pigeon-holed, myself; and certainly, any point trying to encourage Parents to be cognizant of incedental biases towards undermining the wholeness of our non-human children is consequential. But jaded renderings do not (nor should they) necessarily account for what "should be", nor "what is".
The Author provided a throw-away caveat to self-cover, but it gets lost in what The Author really preferred to impart. Even if One says A Thing, does such saying insist that One was/is able to completely articulate Meaning? That is: People do not always possess or summon the "right words" to communicate actual meaning. Most people speak in common, colloquial phrasings and contexts, so I wouldn't presume to judge Another for engaging conversation while "labeling" their fur (or non fur) baby.
This post delves into labeling; and Labeling Theory has a significant, but non-absolute perspective. Just as this article suggests that Some may inadvertently (or even deliberately) use the "rescue" labeling as a crutch when engaging Others ... my most immediate response is that the well-intentioned, published missive wreaks of Academia-types lecturing on about inanities instead of focusing upon Major Issues (priorities). There is so much more Out There to focus on, and to highlight. This post, in my humble opinion, may be evocative, but should be more of a footnote... rather than seeming to appear contrived from a quasi subject-matter academic conjuring the Next Thing to write about. I mean no offense. I'm sure The Author does more for non-human animals than I do, but... every one of my kids was. born with four legs, and was rescued...just like me. Labeled or not, we make our way in The World.
Before I get to my thoughts on your commentary, I have to share what I think you are saying... bear with me...here's a summary of what I'm hearing you say...
---
"I get what you’re saying about labels, and I even agree in part. But this felt a little like an out-of-touch lecture about a small issue. People usually don’t mean harm when they say ‘rescue.’ I think this post was more academic than practical, and maybe not as urgent as other topics. Still, I know your heart’s in the right place."
---
In any case, thanks for taking the time out of your busy day to read my article and write a thoughtful/layered comment. I respect the perspective you’re bringing.
I agree with you on a few points: not everyone has the “right words,” and using a phrase like “rescue dog” isn’t always loaded with deeper meaning. A lot of people say it casually or conversationally. That’s totally fair.
But from where I stand, as someone who works with dogs and their humans every day, I’ve seen how these small, seemingly harmless phrases can subtly influence the way people relate to their dogs. In training, little things always add up. A habit. A routine. A belief. A story we repeat in our head or to others. These things shape the way we treat the dog in front of us, and the expectations we set for them, often without realizing it.
When someone calls their dog “a rescue” for years, even if the dog came home at 8 weeks with zero trauma, it can keep both the human and the dog anchored in a story that no longer serves them. And in my experience, that story can become a crutch. “He’s a rescue” becomes shorthand for, “This behaviour can’t change.” Or worse, “This dog is broken.”
That’s what I’m trying to challenge. Not the label itself, but the weight we sometimes give it. My goal isn't to shame anyone for using it, but to invite people to reflect on whether that story is helping or holding their dog back.
I get that this might feel like a small topic when there are bigger battles to fight. But in dog training, the small things are the big things. That’s where change happens, one word, one habit, one story at a time.
Thanks again for reading and responding with depth. I think these kinds of conversations are how we all grow, dogs and humans alike.
Or...or, 'He's a rescue' (as you put it- and as people do say) can also be indicative of One who fondly cherishes the very distinguished position of dogs (and other animals- including humans) that exude a very effervescent appreciation for being removed from a Previous Situation. When "experts" speak matter-of-factly about Things that are not matters of fact - or, in your case, "speaking" one-sidedly, myopically - the ramification can include calls for redress.
[Don't feel obliged to read this response. I suppose, I could've submitted this via Direct Message, but this isn't denigrating, so I'm okay with it being public.]
My point, Good Sir, is that you have A Perspective. My point is that your Perspective is siloed into your particular profession. The title of Your Article is, "Stop Calling Your Dog a Rescue". I understand literary composition, messaging and marketing, quite well. Whether your article's title was so calculating or not, it creates a tone for Readers. You've shared what I perceive as a jaded view, and it came across (to me) as more acerbic than necessary for an entire audience. Had you specifically directed Your Perspective to the likes of people the article says you encounter, that'd have considerably softened Things. But you didn't do that. As elitists do (often, unknowingly), you pontificated about Your Perspective...as if it were superior to Another's. Your messaging approach was rancid. That's what I'm telling you. It wasn't necessarily incorrect, but it also wasn't rounded enough to be wholly palatable for those of us who are perfectly happy with the "rescue" moniker. As I stated in my initial reply, we (including you) do not always communicate complete Meaning. Especially in writing, it can be a tough balance. There isn't any Fault to necessarily lay...unless you are, in fact, elitist. You published An Article...and here is A Response. How you receive the feedback is up to you.
Ingeminating, my point was that the tenor of your messaging needs work if you do not wish to come across as a bloviating lecturer who lacks connection with the broader world. You wanted to make Your Point without representing a Whole Point. Many people, if not most (or even all, at Some Points), do the same. Generally, it takes a lot more effort to account for more perspectives than your own. I acknowledged that your article does tacitly provide a caveat to Your Perspective. The caveat was too flippant, for My Taste...and so I replied. That's the way This Thing works. A well-intentioned article was not necessarily well-received (by me, if only). That is all. Because my humble opinion felt there was significant lack, I offered A Response. "Labels" don't make People "bad". There's an entire, political culture that uses labels in a very corrosive-but-unintentional manner (generally) to support This Cause or That One. I don't automatically (in return) label them as "bad". I may roll my eyes, but I look for Total Perspective- Reality. That is what I expect from One posing as An Expert- including professors and academics.
Elitism is myopic, and so Your Response that My Response may have been too academic is precisely why it would behoove you to read it. I haven't read much of your works, but if you come across as with the same lacking connection to Total Perspective, you limit your audience- which many "experts" will tell you is fine (you're supposed to find and create a niche, according to Them). With your initial article, you're speaking (as your response illuminates) to a specific audience. Your missive lacks accounting for "rescue" denoting an animal's removal from 'trauma'. You focused a very jaded perspective upon what may have led up to an animal (dogs, in your specific case) going into A Shelter, per say. Also, when you state something like, "even if the dog came home at 8 weeks with zero trauma, it can keep both the human and the dog anchored in a story that no longer serves them", your response portends a sense of discounting what Some People might mean. When Some People proudly (or just pronouncedly) state that even a puppy with 'zero trauma' is a rescue, for some of Us, it represents a commitment to rebuke industries (professional and non) that breed animals (including humans) for profit. So, again, my point was that you provided a very myopic, lectern-like submission...that evoked a response, sure. But it also sounds elitist- like your learned way is the proper perspective. It isn't. It is One Way. Hence the (very) measured response.
Some Readers may simply accept the premise of your article and ignore whether or not it is reasonable to question it or, at least, note that you are providing a very sided perspective. Indeed, I trust that you mean well, and I do hope you perform Your Job well. You submitted Some Thing, something that I assume you wanted Others to read. I did read...and submitted My Response. ...hope it helps.
Good Things
I REALLY want to respond to your comment but I'm not even sure where to start! I'll let the author respond on his own behalf, however difficult it may be 😁
Understood. 🙂
"Progress over pity." I like that.
Really, really love this! I don't refer to my dog as a "rescue" because I don't want people filling in the blanks of what they *think* that means. He was well-loved, but a (human) member of his family got very sick and it wasn't possible for him to stay in his home. He wasn't "grateful" to us or any of the things that people imagine an adopted dog must be: his entire life changed in one day and he was sad about it. He was quiet and withdrawn, and it took him a long, long while to really unwind in our home.
He is skittish around certain things but not because of abuse (as I've often seen people assume must be the case whenever an adopted dog is nervous): he's had some health and pain issues which made him more hyper-alert and sensitive. But if I had taken it at face-value that, oh, he's a rescue and his behavior must be due to trauma, I'd have neglected to actually address his real issue(s).
Emily, this is such a thoughtful and important perspective. I love how you honoured your dog’s experience rather than letting a label tell the story for him. Assumptions can so easily distract us from the truth, and real healing starts when we take the time to listen and observe. Thank you for sharing this, it’s such a needed reminder.
Thank you for this - a great reminder that we can get trapped by labels and actually harm the ones we love.
I did tell people who fell in love with my dogs and wanted to know more about them that they came from shelters (both were abandoned, one was physically abused as well), but that was so that everyone could see how far dogs "with a history" can come - especially people who are reluctant to adopt.
Both had very painful histories, but they showed such strength and courage, and with time and patience, eventually returned to their true selves - sweet, gentle, playful and ever so loving.
You're perfectly right that we must never let labels limit the lives that our furkids can live or what we believe they're capable of.
Though I must admit that I might have spoiled mine more than I would have if they hadn't been abandoned ☺️.
Thank you for sharing this. What a beautiful testimony to resilience and healing. I love how you honoured their past without letting it define their future. And hey, a little extra spoiling sounds well-deserved as long as the dog is biologically fulfilled and behaving well:)
Oooooh this is a mixed bag of feelings lol. The topic is fantastic, and I'm all for controversy whether I'm guilty or not. This part >> "I’ve met people who adopted their dog from a shelter at 8 weeks old, and still refer to that dog, six years later, as a rescue." << GUILTY, except it's only 5 years later 😆
You're right, though; we do tend to add the label as a disclaimer in case they malfunction occasionally.
That part about the influencer adopting for one day....that made me physically ill. I've never heard of that. What a travesty. 😔