For some reason a local Humane Society requires anyone over 18 who is interested in volunteering to have a back ground check done. This is the first time I’ve come across a non-child/vulnerable person/medical/government place requiring one.
I don’t have a criminal record, so I don’t care if they do one, is just seems a little, I don’t know, paranoid. Like a sex offender is going to volunteer to walk/clean/play with dogs and cats just to get access to a victim.
Would you want someone with a conviction for animal abuse or even just someone with anger issues working with dogs, some of which are already traumatized?
This is not about children or vulnerable people; it’s about vulnerable animals.
For the same reasons that you wouldn’t want someone with past abuse issues caring for a child or vulnerable adult, you wouldn’t want that person caring for animals, who can’t speak out in their own defense. Abuse covers a lot more than just sexual abuse – it also includes neglect and violence, both of which pose significant threats to animals.
Yes. Your best chance of having a strange woman/girl stop and talk to you, or even make eye contact, is to be walking a dog. A sexual predator could find no better way to establish trusting contact with a potential victim, than by walking a dog.
But that is not the concern of the animal-care agency, and not for them to police.
As for the thrust of the main question, any person or agency who turns over any responsibility for anything to another person has every right to try to ensure that the person can be trusted.
Sex offenders (especially those w/ records that prevent them from enjoying the target-rich environments of schools, churches and scout troops, will most certainly aim for a position in which others are so grateful that there won’t be close scrutiny. And they are in contact w/ the public in ways that can be less supervised than comparatively rigid environments where everyone is kept track of.
As another person pointed out, the Society wouldn’t want a person convicted of offenses against animals to volunteer for them either.
They need volunteers due to a close margin but that doesn’t mean they don’t/shouldn’t have standards.
Do “anger issues” ever show up on a background check if there wasn’t a conviction? I can see it now - parents threatening little kids, “Don’t bang your toys against the wall when I tell you it’s bedtime! I’ll report you for “anger issues” to The Background Check Office and you’ll never volunteer at the Humane Society EVER! Now go to bed!”
Anger issues could show up as common assault.
Also, in NZ, there are people forbidden from keeping animals or having them in their care. Often they are obsessive about knowing best about how to care for animals and end up with more animals that they can’t look after. Seems like the SPCA or Humane Society would want to know about those people. Does that happen in the US?
Are these kinds of bans only given out after a conviction for an applicable crime (e.g. Aggravated Animal Abuse in the Second Degree with Intent to Commit Mopery) or can you get banned based on the recommendation of an animal control officer, therapist, or your mom?
They are after convictions for animal abuse, either directed abuse or failing to provide food, shelter, medical care type of abuse.
I know when my sis volunteered at the Humane Society, she had access to veterinary drugs. I can see why the organization probably wouldn’t want to give any Tom, Dick, and Harry that kind of access.
When I volunteered at the local pound, we were also background checked, finger printed, had to prove we received certain vaccinations, etc. Of course, this was for the city pound, so they probably also have a standardized process for anyone that deals with city services of any type, whether paid or volunteer, but it made sense to me. And somebody, yes, (though not a volunteer) was caught in sexual relations with a pit bull a few years back, so it does happen.
Not only does it happen in the U.S., there are reality shows about it. And yes, people can be forbidden to own animals or limited to owning a certain number, usually as part of a plea bargain to avoid being charged with serious animal abuse crimes, or as part of a sentence for those crimes.
Volunteers that are also petty thieves are not uncommon.
Also, it can then keep their options open if they do have young/vulnerable volunteers as well, so they’re not having to check if this or that person is OK to, say, take a dog for a walk with a teenager.
I attended a local trial years ago for a man accused of animal abuse. As part of sentencing, the defense attorney was requesting community service in lieu of jail/fines.
While the magistrate seemed willing to agree to volunteer work at any of the local animal shelters, the shelters all loudly refused to have the man on their property.
It’s mainly to try to weed out people who might harm the animals, but remember that animal charities do often deal with vulnerable humans too. They might visit people’s homes to check them out before rehoming an animal (the ones in the UK do), or go to people’s homes to take an animal that an elderly or otherwise vulnerable person is turning over to them due to not being able to look after it, and if they want to do any outreach with schools or let under-18s volunteer then the adults need to be known to be safe.
To be fair…the pitbull DID make the first move…
I read about a camp for trouble kids and there was a service dog at the camp to help comfort kids that needed it. A new boy came to the camp and the dog wouldn’t let the boy near him . The camp counselors decided to do some background check on the boy and found out he abused animals , the dog picked up the boy abusive behavior . The dog could of bitten the boy if he had tried to abuse the dog. It’s dangerous to have person that abuse animals working with dogs that been abused already and it’s not in the best interest for the dogs .
So I say right on for the Humane Society for looking out for animals that been abused and can’t speak for their self! I read this story some time ago and it wasn’t on line so I am not able to post a link for it. This should be done for people before they’re allowed to adopt or buy any pet, have a background check !
There are a lot of weirdos who are drawn to animal rescue. I have heard many stories about rescuers taking animals home (stealing them) and refusing to give them back to their families, etc. It often seems to attract a kind of person, usually female, who has for lack of a better description, a mothering instinct gone bonkers. It can lead them to kill animals to save them from a fate living away from their personal loving arms, to stockpile and neglect animals because nobody can love them the way they themselves do, and many other sick things. A background check might find complaints and lawsuits which such a person has brought upon herself.
The reason I asked is because this is the only shelter I’ve volunteered at that required it.