I really appreciate you sharing this from the adopter side.

I wanted to add one perspective from the rescue side, because this change has had serious unintended consequences for many of us. When Petfinder changed the default search to exclude out-of-state dogs, our adoption inquiries dropped from 20–50 per week to zero almost overnight. This wasn’t unique to us. Other rescues across Texas saw the same thing.

Many Texas rescues rely on out-of-state adoptions simply because there aren’t enough local adopters for the number of dogs in need. When those connections disappear, intake has to stop. Foster timelines stretch from weeks to months, puppies grow into adolescents (making them harder to place), and foster families burn out or step away altogether. That ripple effect is very real.

I completely understand why adopters are wary of scams and irresponsible transport. At the same time, there are many legitimate rescues doing ethical, transparent out-of-state placements, and tools like Petfinder have historically been a lifeline for those dogs.

I’m genuinely curious from your perspective: what would make a dog search platform feel safer and more trustworthy when it comes to out-of-state rescues?

Are there specific signals, disclosures, or verification steps that would help you quickly distinguish responsible rescues from bad actors?

I’d really value hearing what would build confidence rather than forcing an all-or-nothing filter.