Rehoming dogs from rescues

kylith

Discodog wrote: »

If rescues operate properly they get criticised for their rehoming procedures. They can be in a no win situation. Add in the huge commitment in time & personal money etc & you wonder why anyone would do it. There should be minimum standards but that should include proper funding & not some "charity" hand out at the whim of the government.

In fairness, some do seem to take it to a bit of an extreme, as some people have said above. If one of my dogs were to die in the morning a rescue wouldn't let me have a dog because my partner and I work, and my other poor dog would be left on her own; something she's never been used to. I was very lucky that the rescue I got my girls from understood my situation.

I know of one guy who wanted to get a rescue dog, but was told he couldn't because he worked. When he told them that his retired mother would be there to look after it during the day he was told 'sorry, we don't rehome to OAPs'.

It does seem like people are being penalised because they work, which they have to do in order to feed the dog! I understand that rescues want the best for the dogs they rehome, but houses where someone will be at home all day are few and far between these days. They need to have more than just a blanket 'you work = you can't have a dog' policy, because that attitude is sending people straight to BYBs and DoneDeal.

Discodog

kylith wrote: »

In fairness, some do seem to take it to a bit of an extreme, as some people have said above.

We speak of rescues as if they are some homogeneous group when the majority are run by individuals. Some of them may be a touch on the "odd" side - they were probably normal till they decided to run a rescue .

If they have made the effort to rescue the dog then ultimately it is up to them to decide who they will or will not rehome to. But because they are all individuals their policies vary. I would have no problems in taking a dog from my local rescue even though I work & do not have a secure garden, because they know me This also means that they will help if I find a stray. I would heartily recommend people to get to know their local rescue.

Bullseye1

I'd never look down on anyone owning a particular breed of dog be it pedigree or mongrel. They are all Man's Best Friend.

planetX wrote: »

I always felt looked down on in the past for owning mutts (the term mongrel was used which I hate) - and I think things have only really changed in the last 10 years or so. Certainly when I was growing up the idea of going to the pound to get a dog was unthinkable for most people, unless you were too poor to buy a 'real' dog. Add to that the fact that you were always excluded from shows and events. It's great that perceptions have changed so much.

ShaShaBear

I've had three dogs in my lifetime, two from two different rescue centres and one who was rescued from drowning, who I still have. The first rescue centre did not ask, and still does not ask, any questions as regards to my personal situation when I adopted the terrier, who turned out to be extremely territorial, food possessive and with an insane fear of raised voices which later turned into agression. He had to be returned after he attacked my (at the time) 9 year old sister after she let out a high pitched laugh. The other unfortunately died from a health problem we were made aware of when we adopted him from the other rescue, who get every dog fully checked out by a vet and have each one fostered for a minimum of four weeks before allowing them to be adopted (as in they have to have racked up 4 weeks of foster time with someone, so they can see the dog's settled traits in a home).

I see the point that the OP is making - that a DD dog could end up in a rescue centre, and you are essentially getting the same dog either way. Unfortunately, someone at some point still paid for that dog, and that person will still breed more dogs that someone will buy. At least an honest person with a great love for dogs, a lot of knowledge and experience and the will to make the effort will give these BYB puppies the home they deserve, rather than it going to a person who will surrender it when they can't manage any more. Which means the dog wont end up in a rescue centre, which will have the same effect on the numbers of surrendered and PTS dogs as that same person adopting from a shelter.

It's unfortunate but seeing as there are so many dogs out there available for rehoming in many different situations, once they go to a loving forever family, I don't think it should matter where they come from.

And as I mentioned above, I can definitely agree that rescue centres can be partially and even mostly to blame for dogs being bought off DD as well as them being returned due to insufficient information/quizzing at the time of adoption.

Evac101

Sorry for the belated reply to this - work has had me bewildered for the last couple of weeks and as such I didn't feel up to a comprehensive reply to peoples posts. Firstly, a thank you to everyone who replied (though we did seem to wander away form the original questions at some points ) and I appreciate the thought put into quite a few of the replies.

On the balance the answer to my original question seems to be that:

dog pounds/rescues do not represent a range of dogs which can be argued to be any healthier in the long term then those available from BYB's

however

dog pounds/rescues do not carry the same ethical implications of purchasing a dog from a BYB.

In a separate issue many people replied relating difficulties adopting pets from the rescues with the two most popularly quoted issues being full time work and the site visit.

I have to admit that I found these to be issues myself when we were considering a second dog and I'll be happy to argue that my two mutts have a very good quality of life regardless of my wife and my own work schedules. I'm not saying that they wouldn't be happier if we won the Lotto and retired (comon 12, 15, 28, 30, 44, 77! what do you mean there's no 77?!) but we have dogs which people who know them overwhelming regard as happy, well balanced, if "jump up on you", animals. We're working on the jump up thing.

Perhaps the Rescues being a little more open to being flexible regarding adopting, especially if the adopter can provide evidence of being able to care/provide for previous pets while in the same/similar circumstances? I'm not sure what the answer is as each effort to open up access to those dogs also, potentially, opens the opportunity for that to be misused by "the wrong sort".

angry kitten

Hellrazer wrote: »

Id personally prefer to choose my own dog not have one matched up for me.




Procedures were followed.Ok it was before a lot of rescues insisted on home checks but everything else was done by the book--I was unluck that the dogs had serious behavioural issues.But I couldnt take that chance now with young kids in the house.

You do chose your own dog, the home check is to make sure the dog is suited to the environment.

Whispered

There are rescues who consider working homes, granted they may not consider a certain dog for a working home, but this will be down to their knowledge of the dog - one which suffers separation anxiety or who can be destructive maybe. A lot of them won't home a young puppy to a home where they will be alone for a certain amount of time a day.

The rescues are just people at the end of the day, and most will be willing to speak to you about your circumstances. If you wanted a dog but worked maybe have a relative pop in during the day, or consider day care, a dog walker or ask the rescue if they have any dogs who would be secure enough to be alone for so long.


My first dog was adopted while both of us were working full time, there was no issue at all with that because I took steps necessary to make it easier on the dog and I said this to the rescue before I applied to adopt him. My second dog was only adopted recently but has been living with me for a year, I'm working night at the moment so am home all day, however the rescue is aware that I'm not happy with that and am looking for full time work again. When I do, I will again have to make sure the dogs are looked after. These are 2 different rescues and both were happy once they knew I wasn't planning on fecking off for the day without a second thought to the dogs.

Discodog

There may be a few rescues that have hard & fast policies but the vast majority just want to see the dog successfully rehomed. As Whispered says they are people & the best way to get on is to talk to them.

By the way all rescues in receipt of a grant have to comply with the new guidelines published here:

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/animalhealthwelfare/animalwelfare/fundingtoanimalwelfareorganisations/

boomerang

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've no problem with people rescuing a dog from a shelter there is much to admire. But I do resent them looking down at those of us who love pedigree dogs. Alot of dog owners go through their lives only owning one breed. It also promotes (and I admit not in all cases) a healthy breed.

But aren't you assuming there are no pedigree dogs in rescue? It mighn't be 50/50 but it's certainly around 30/70.

I'm heavily involved in rescue, but I do love a lot of different breeds, especially the pastoral breeds. I think if someone loves a particular breed and finds a good breeder and gives the dog a good home, what's not to like?

Bullseye1

boomerang wrote: »

But aren't you assuming there are no pedigree dogs in rescue? It mighn't be 50/50 but it's certainly around 30/70.

I'm heavily involved in rescue, but I do love a lot of different breeds, especially the pastoral breeds. I think if someone loves a particular breed and finds a good breeder and gives the dog a good home, what's not to like?

No I know there are pure breeds in shelters but that does not mean they are not from puppy farms. They may not be well bred. Of course there may be a number of people who have sourced a puppy from a good breeder but normally those breeders will either take the dog back or help rehome it.

boomerang

Sadly I think well-bred pedigree dogs (by which I mean health-tested, well-tempered and properly socialised pure-bred puppies) are as rare as hen's teeth in this country. Everyone seems to go down the DoneDeal route, unless they're seriously into dogs already so they know the pitfalls and are prepared to spend more.

Hellrazer

angry kitten wrote: »

You do chose your own dog, the home check is to make sure the dog is suited to the environment.

Discodog wrote: »

But if you wouldn't allow a homecheck then how can a rescue match you to a dog ?

So which is it??

I dont want to be "matched to a dog" I want to choose my own dog--The 2 of you are giving different answers so cmon which is it??

mosi

Hellrazer wrote: »

So which is it??

I dont want to be "matched to a dog" I want to choose my own dog--The 2 of you are giving different answers so cmon which is it??

I think that they are both saying the same thing. You see a dog that you like in the rescue and a HC is carried out to ensure that you and your lifestyle are matched to that particular dog.

Hellrazer

mosi wrote: »

I think that they are both saying the same thing. You see a dog that you like in the rescue and a HC is carried out to ensure that you and your lifestyle are matched to that particular dog.

I wouldnt read it like that.

Disco dog is saying the rescue matches you with the dog and angry kitten is saying that I pick my dog and the rescue decides whether its suitable for my home--thats two different answers in anyones book.

So for example If I pick a for arguments sake a boxer--are the rescue going to come along and say no you cant have a boxer you can have a yorkie??

If thats true then its their downfall to be honest.

TooManyDogs

The majority of rescues really do take people on a case by case basis. Some people come in with a very clear idea of what kind of a dog would suit their lifestyle so the homecheck double checks that is the case. Other people come in with absolutely no idea what they want, or what dog would suit them so they're guided towards a dog to suit them, and again a homecheck doublechecks that the home is suitable.

So back to your boxer & yorkie ponderance, I'd say it'd very much depend on the requirements of the boxer, if your lifestyle would suit that particular boxer rather than the boxer breed in general. It'd all depend on personality, age, breed, needs of the dog and your space, hours of work, interest in exercise etc etc. It shouldn't be as simple as 'We'd never allow you have a X breed'

angry kitten

Hellrazer wrote: »

So which is it??

I dont want to be "matched to a dog" I want to choose my own dog--The 2 of you are giving different answers so cmon which is it??

You choose the dog you want. The rescue then arranges for someone from the rescue to go to your house and make sure everything is OK. Rescues wouldn't rehome many dogs if they tried to give people dogs they didn't want. The idea of the homecheck is really about making sure everything is kosher. You'd be amazed at what people will try to get away with. It's also a bad sign if someone is reluctant to have a homecheck, as it can indicate that they've got something to hide. Most dogs that end up in rescues are there because they've been abandoned. Also a lot are ending up in rescues due to emigration. There's a bit of a myth that dogs in rescues are there because of behaviour problems.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

I dont want to be "matched to a dog" I want to choose my own dog--The 2 of you are giving different answers so cmon which is it??

Is this a question or a mock interrogation ?

The answer is pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have previous issues & prejudices towards rescues. You want to lump the rescues together yet they are all individuals with the right to choose how they rehome the dogs in whom they have invested a lot of their time & their money.

If I ran a rescue & someone said " I don't want to be matched to a dog etc" I personally wouldn't rehome a dog to them. A successful rehoming is a partnership where you trust the rescue & they trust you to be a good custodian of their dog. If someone started laying down the law about what they will & will not accept then I would decline them.

If someone is prepared to rescue dogs & in many cases dedicate their lives to helping dogs, the least that we can allow them is the right to decide who rehomes their dogs.

Bullseye1

When you take the dog in its your dog. I don't get this their dog.

If they are also going to decide which breed or dog you get even if it's not what you want why would you bring that dog home. It might work for some but not everyone is going to agree to bring home a breed they have no interest in. They will just go to breeders instead.

planetX

Bullseye1 wrote: »

When you take the dog in its your dog. I don't get this their dog.

If they are also going to decide which breed or dog you get even if it's not what you want why would you bring that dog home. It might work for some but not everyone is going to agree to bring home a breed they have no interest in. They will just go to breeders instead.

It doesn't happen like that at all - the rescue is not interested in ruling your life, they just want the dog to go to a good home where he isn't likely to be returned in a month because of all the stupid reasons we read about on boards.
You go out there, you talk to them, you look at all the dogs. Most rescues are flexible on the rules once they meet you and get the impression that you're committed.

Discodog

Bullseye1 wrote: »

When you take the dog in its your dog. I don't get this their dog.

But whilst it is with the rescue it is their dog, they own it, they are responsible for licensing it. If you had to rehome your dog I bet that you would be pretty fussy as to where it went.

If you or Hellrazer want to rescue a dog & have total control, then get one from the Pound but then you have to take more of a chance. If you want the rescue to take some responsibility then you do have to play by their rules.

You can't have it both ways.

Bullseye1

Absolutely. If I were going to rescue a dog it would be from a pound as it would be rescuing a dog that is going to be put down. But I'm confident enough in my ability to handle a dog. It may not suit everyone.

Evac101

While it's anecdotal obviously I have to say that the staff we dealt with in the three rescues we talked to when getting our second pup were universally nice, friendly and obviously cared deeply about their charges, none of them seemed particularly inclined to believe our assurances that we could care for a second dog in our home (landlord permission given, etc). In two of the rescues we had our first dog with us at the time and the staff fawned over him remarking how friendly/fit/etc the puppy was yet this didn't seem to cut any mustard regarding whether we were in a position to care for a second *shrug*.

I appreciate that rescues feel an obligation to protect their dogs and that there are people out there that will misrepresent their intentions/situation specifically for the purpose of obtaining a dog for 'dubious' purposes however it's also in their interests to make adoption as easy as is reasonably possible. It's a tough balancing act but, once again based solely on my personal experiences, I felt like the 2-3 months of researching suitable breeds, maintaining a watch on the various facebook pages/websites employed by the charities around Dublin and a number of visits to each of the sites would be the hardest part, instead it was attempting to convince someone that I wasn't a bad risk to open up a space to save another dog

*shrug* Maybe my wife and I just have untrustworthy faces

Discodog

Evac101 wrote: »

*shrug* Maybe my wife and I just have untrustworthy faces

What grounds/reasons were given for turning you down ?

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Absolutely. If I were going to rescue a dog it would be from a pound as it would be rescuing a dog that is going to be put down. But I'm confident enough in my ability to handle a dog. It may not suit everyone.

Taking a dog from a rescue is rescuing a dog that would be put down in that it frees up space for another dog that may well be from the Pound. I agree that taking a dog direct from the Pound is not for the inexperienced. The rescues act as filters & get a chance to assess the dog before it is rehomed. I too would have no problem with taking a Pound dog - all three of mine arrived directly to me as totally unknown strays.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

Is this a question or a mock interrogation ?

Genuine question--you and angry kitten have given different answers.

The answer is pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have previous issues & prejudices towards rescues.

Ive explained my reasons but I dont have any prejudices towards rescues--I dont agree with their rehoming rules but I believe in what they do although in my opinion some of the way they do things is wrong.

You want to lump the rescues together yet they are all individuals with the right to choose how they rehome the dogs in whom they have invested a lot of their time & their money.

Another genuine question--you keep saying "their" dogs--do you really think this particular attitude is in the dogs best interest--Surely rehoming by their very name is the most important thing for the dog--rather than being PTS.

If I ran a rescue & someone said " I don't want to be matched to a dog etc" I personally wouldn't rehome a dog to them.

And I reckon you`d rehome feck all dogs tbh.

A successful rehoming is a partnership where you trust the rescue & they trust you to be a good custodian of their dog. If someone started laying down the law about what they will & will not accept then I would decline them.

And you might lose teh chance of rehoming a dog to a good home because of this attitude.Btw once (if I ever to rehome a dog again) the dog is mine and NOT the rescues...I feel that this attitude is to the detriment of any rescue that decides on having a policy like this.

If someone is prepared to rescue dogs & in many cases dedicate their lives to helping dogs, the least that we can allow them is the right to decide who rehomes their dogs.

Once again you say "their" dogs for the third time in this post--In my opinion and for the third time I feel that this attitude could be losing alot of dogs a loving home.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

Another genuine question--you keep saying "their" dogs--do you really think this particular attitude is in the dogs best interest--Surely rehoming by their very name is the most important thing for the dog--rather than being PTS.

And I reckon you`d rehome feck all dogs tbh.

It isn't an attitude. I have never come across a rescue that doesn't want to rehome. The most important thing is the right home & not any home. Any rescue will tell you that having to take a dog back is a nightmare & very hard on the dog. Often they come back with behavioural issues that weren't there when they were rehomed. They also have to go back into a kennel rather than home environment & they can easily end up in a worse state than when they first arrived. You can also end up with an ex owner slagging the rescue & blaming the dog.

Yes I would find it difficult to rehome but the rescues do a pretty good job. An ex regular poster here has personally, with no help, rehomed well over a thousand dogs & she has rehoming criteria. Our newest major rescue has pretty strict criteria & they are rehoming over a thousand dogs per year. They use a tag line that "you can trust" one of their dogs. They can only do this by having a vetting system that they have developed over a hundred years of rehoming. It must be working as they rehome over 16000 dogs per year in the UK from 17 centres.

A rescue has to balance relaxing it's policy with the risk of getting dogs returned. I use the term their dog because when you take in a stray you don't own it for a year. So if you take a rescue dog it can't immediately become yours. Some rescues also put written, contractual, conditions on the rehome that you must return the dog to them if there is a problem & not dispose of the dog yourself.

Yes a few people may be put off but experience shows that this is offset by not getting lots of returns. These policies weren't just dreamt up, they have evolved over many years. Any animal lover, seeing the huge amount of good being done by the rescues, is going to understand the need for policies.

Evac105

Discodog wrote: »

What grounds/reasons were given for turning you down ?

To a dog we were informed that any dog we felt got along with (if he was with us) or would get along with (if he was absent) our first pup wouldn't be suitable for the type of home/conditions which we had specified in our applications. I'll be honest, I think it was our work schedules that did in for us, which we could have lied about I guess but I tend to avoid lying generally ya know

So, as an aside, are 9-5 owners just generally a bad idea for dogs from rescues or, in peoples opinions, is it better for most dogs to go to a 9-5 home rather then sit in the rescue for however much longer waiting for a owner with more time? (and obviously independent wealth :P )

Discodog

Evac105 wrote: »

I'll be honest, I think it was our work schedules that did in for us, which we could have lied about I guess but I tend to avoid lying generally ya know

Being out during the day need not be a problem for an adult dog but it is not acceptable for a pup. When I found my little chap, as a stray, he was about 6 months old & I made plans to send him to a local rescue because I work.

I then realised that he was adorable & decided to change my routine so that I could bring him with me. He is now old enough to stay at home with my other two but he still comes with me as he loves it

angry kitten

Hellrazer wrote: »

Genuine question--you and angry kitten have given different answers.


Ive explained my reasons but I dont have any prejudices towards rescues--I dont agree with their rehoming rules but I believe in what they do although in my opinion some of the way they do things is wrong.



Another genuine question--you keep saying "their" dogs--do you really think this particular attitude is in the dogs best interest--Surely rehoming by their very name is the most important thing for the dog--rather than being PTS.



And I reckon you`d rehome feck all dogs tbh.



And you might lose teh chance of rehoming a dog to a good home because of this attitude.Btw once (if I ever to rehome a dog again) the dog is mine and NOT the rescues...I feel that this attitude is to the detriment of any rescue that decides on having a policy like this.



Once again you say "their" dogs for the third time in this post--In my opinion and for the third time I feel that this attitude could be losing alot of dogs a loving home.

Different rescues will have different policies. It has been my experience that the rescue centre asks people to sign an adoption contract for the dogs, agreeing to look after the dog and to ensure that its needs are met, ie if the dog gets ill at any point that the owner will take it to the vet etc. It gives the rescue a bit clout if the dog is seen to be neglected by new owner. I've not come across any who would take a dog back unless there were reports of the dog being mistreated. Rescues are under so much financial pressure that they are only too happy to rehome dogs in good homes. Like I said different rescues will have different policies.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

It isn't an attitude.

Have to disagree--But it is.There are some rescues who think they are the be all and end all of dog rescuing and as such have their heads so far up their arses that they dont know a good owner when they see one--Actually I should rehrase that--they dont know how to tell a good owner from a bad one because that good owner may not tick all their rules.

I have never come across a rescue that doesn't want to rehome.

I have on numerous occasions--again because of their restrictive rules...Two of the people that I know(who btw have kept dogs all their lives) were turned down by rescues because they didnt meet their critera went off and bought puppies from so called back yard breeders---surely thats wrong??

The most important thing is the right home & not any home.

We`ll agree to differ on that--I firmly believe that any home is better than a good dog being put to sleep.Most people who have already sought out a rescue believe that they are doing the right thing but when a rescue turns them down they get pissed off and go elsewhere.

Any rescue will tell you that having to take a dog back is a nightmare & very hard on the dog.

Agreed but being pts is even harder on the dog.

Often they come back with behavioural issues that weren't there when they were rehomed. They also have to go back into a kennel rather than home environment & they can easily end up in a worse state than when they first arrived.

Id say that true aswell..but surely any second chance given to a dog is better than none.

You can also end up with an ex owner slagging the rescue & blaming the dog.

Thats one thing I cant say Ive seen-usually if an owner has to return a dog for whatever reason they can be quite devastated especially if that dog has been with them a while.

Yes I would find it difficult to rehome but the rescues do a pretty good job. An ex regular poster here has personally, with no help, rehomed well over a thousand dogs & she has rehoming criteria. Our newest major rescue has pretty strict criteria & they are rehoming over a thousand dogs per year. They use a tag line that "you can trust" one of their dogs. They can only do this by having a vetting system that they have developed over a hundred years of rehoming. It must be working as they rehome over 16000 dogs per year in the UK from 17 centres.

If youre that confident in them or even if theyre that confident in themselves pop me a pm--Im looking to maybe find a friend for my Lab now that shes getting on a bit...I will always consider a rescue and if this new rescue is as good as you say Im willing to give them a go.

A rescue has to balance relaxing it's policy with the risk of getting dogs returned.

Some of them need to relax it a lot.

I use the term their dog because when you take in a stray you don't own it for a year.

I ask you again--do you not think that this is putting people off??I think it is.

Yes a few people may be put off but experience shows that this is offset by not getting lots of returns. These policies weren't just dreamt up, they have evolved over many years. Any animal lover, seeing the huge amount of good being done by the rescues, is going to understand the need for policies.

Any figures for the number of returns??Id imagine its quite low to be honest?

Discodog

What "rules" do you think are wrong or too rigid ? I have rarely seen a rehoming condition that didn't make sense or that couldn't be worked around.

Just because people have kept dogs for all their lives doesn't make them good owners. I know of such people who claim to love dogs & then keep them chained up all day & night. If you are declined by a rescue you can work around the restriction, find a more flexible rescue or go to the Pound. If you are the kind of person who will throw the toys out of the pram & go to a back yard breeder then maybe the rescue made the right decision in declining you.

Do you really think that being PTS is worse than a life in poor conditions ? If my three were to end up in a rescue I would rather they were PTS than rehomed somewhere where they would be unhappy.

I don't need to PM you the name of that rescue. There is only one that uses the tag line "you can trust a dog from......". But they have firm "rules" which is why they can make the claim. You want the best of both worlds in that you want to have total control & you expect the rescue to take responsibility. In your particular case I would surprisingly recommend that you buy a pup - so that everything that follows is down to you. You said yourself that you couldn't take a risk.

By the way the "year & a day" rule is nothing to do with the rescues - it's part of the Law. Anyone taking in a stray has to notify the Guards or Dog Warden & it only becomes theirs if it is not reclaimed within a year.

The returns are low because of the rules. The long established UK rescues would tell you that they were much higher before the rules were adopted.
This discussion will always be rather one sided as the rescues cannot come here & defend their policies. I was actually at a rescue, that used to regularly post here, when a dog was returned. The reason was that the man's new girlfriend didn't like the dog - we've had a few of those on this forum.