When Racism Disguises Itself as Rescue

Across Canada, Indigenous communities continue to experience a troubling pattern. Outside ‘rescue’ groups enter communities without permission, remove dogs that are clearly cared for by local families, and then post dramatic stories online about having “saved” animals from neglect. These posts often have little connection to what actually happened, yet they spread quickly and raise significant amounts of money for the individuals or organizations involved. Communities are left dealing with the harm: families distressed, trust broken, and their entire Nation publicly framed as unsafe or uncaring.

This pattern is not accidental. The online narratives that follow these incidents rely on sensational images, crisis language, and coded messages that imply that Indigenous people do not care for their animals. Supporters respond with outrage and donations. The racism moves quietly beneath the surface.

This is dog whistling. It is coded communication that activates bias while allowing the speaker to deny harmful intent. It is a way of telling the public what to believe about Indigenous communities without saying the racist part out loud. In animal welfare, dog whistling is often paired with sensational “rescue” stories that position outsiders as heroes and Indigenous families as failures. The resulting narrative often does far more damage than any single incident.

Much of this behaviour overlaps with what we have written about as white saviourism and the role of judgment in shaping public reaction. Online narratives often invite audiences to measure remote Indigenous communities against dominant-culture expectations of “fur baby” pet care. Those expectations assume easy access to veterinary services, the presence of animal-related infrastructure, transportation, and disposable income. As we wrote in our Healthy Debate article, critics often jump to moral judgment without acknowledging that many communities were never resourced with the systems needed to meet those same expectations. The issue is not a lack of care. It is a lack of infrastructure.

Dog whistles thrive in that misunderstanding. The posts may never say anything explicitly racist, but the message lands: “They do not care. We had to step in.” The more extreme the “rescue porn,” the faster it circulates. Stories that erase context and exaggerate crisis attract attention. They also attract donations, which creates an ongoing incentive to repeat the behaviour.

Below is a short guide to help identify dog whistles in animal welfare.

How to Recognize Dog Whistling

• Blaming an entire community without naming access barriers or service gaps.

• Graphic content shared to provoke outrage rather than inform.

• Stories centered on a heroic outsider (an individual or a team or organization) who “had to intervene.”

• Judgment based on urban cultural norms of idealized pet care.

• Fundraising tied to crisis narratives with no community partnership.

• No engagement with local leadership, permissions, or public-health context.

These narratives do real harm. They undermine trust, erase Indigenous leadership, and distract from the public-health reality that animal health challenges in remote regions stem from long-standing infrastructure gaps and policy design, not from individual morality. They also reinforce damaging stereotypes about Indigenous families and communities, many of which are developing approaches that fit their own priorities, culture, history, and community health goals for both people and animals.

Across Canada, Indigenous communities are leading solutions. They are passing animal bylaws, hosting mobile vet clinics, building animal-related infrastructure, and reshaping animal management as part of community health and safety. These are systems solutions for systems problems. They reflect community care, not neglect.

Dog whistles collapse all this nuance into a simple story of blame. When racism disguises itself as rescue, both people and animals are put at risk. Real change comes from supporting Indigenous-led work, not reinforcing racist narratives that were never true.