Rehoming dogs from rescues

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

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, nor is it worse than shipping them abroad by the hundreds and thousands. In some cases it's the best option available in a specific dogs circumstances. I have a neighbour who has a dog chained to a kennel on a 3ft chain. The same person was turned down for a 'house' dog from a rescue because they have no fence, they have since had 2 dogs killed on the road (in less than a year), one killed instantly and I'm told one PTS 2 days later as they they couldn't go to a vet sooner because of work :eek: What I would like to know is why have they been given two cats since by the original rescue they went to?

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.

Any of the strays taken in by my family were legally owned by family members after they did their 5 days.

This discussion will always be rather one sided as the rescues cannot come here & defend their policies.

They can discuss whatever policies they like when they are not named or identified otherwise (by location, slogans, specialisation etc.). This gives them no grounds to threaten us with legal action when they don't like what's said about them.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Any of the strays taken in by my family were legally owned by family members after they did their 5 days.

If a dog comes originally from the Pound or from the Pound to a rescue then it becomes the property of the new owner immediately. The Poundkeeper is deemed to be the owner after he has had the dog for 5 days & he can then dispose of it in any way that he sees fit.

However if the dog is found by a rescue or a person brings the dog, as a stray, to the rescue it does not become theirs until one year & a day from the time that the Guards or Warden were notified. A rescue can't keep a dog for a year so you could have a situation where a rescue rehomes a dog & the original owner appears to reclaim it within the one year period.

Irish law is a little odd in that anyone can assume that a dog is a stray & take it in provided they notify the Guards or the Warden. I suspect that the year & a day rule was introduced to allow time for owners to find their lost dogs.

Cherry Blossom

Anyone can take a dog to do it's 5 days and collect it again when the time is up. All you have to do is make sure they understand completely that you want the dog back and ring on a daily basis to check on its status and reiterate that you want the dog back. All of ours had vet checks first that were paid for and the receipt was shown as evidence of the intentions.

Rescues have no business re-homing dogs that are not legally theirs to re-home.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Rescues have no business re-homing dogs that are not legally theirs to re-home.

Of course they have provided that the situation is made clear to all involved. You cannot expect rescues to risk handing every dog into the Pound & hope that they will be allowed to take it back out especially as they then become liable for the Pound release fee.

Every Pound is different & every Pound keeper is an individual, so there can be a huge variation on policies from Pound to Pound.

Quite a few Irish rescues have a rehoming condition that you never become the legal owner of the dog.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

Of course they have provided that the situation is made clear to all involved. You cannot expect rescues to risk handing every dog into the Pound & hope that they will be allowed to take it back out especially as they then become liable for the Pound release fee.

No they don't, they claim to have the best interests of the dog and re-homers at heart and this goes completely against this. There is no reason why they can't conduct themselves in a professional manner and build a relationship with the pound, they're free to use any one they want. You keep telling us they are over-run with dogs, so what's the problem? Do they also agree to refund the re-homing fee and pay compensation for the emotional distress caused to the new owners?

I've never heard of a rescue that conducts itself in this manner (thankfully). Perhaps you might be better off letting them explain their own policies instead of speculating.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

No they don't, they claim to have the best interests of the dog and re-homers at heart and this goes completely against this. There is no reason why they can't conduct themselves in a professional manner and build a relationship with the pound, they're free to use any one they want. You keep telling us they are over-run with dogs, so what's the problem? Do they also agree to refund the re-homing fee and pay compensation for the emotional distress caused to the new owners?

I've never heard of a rescue that conducts itself in this manner (thankfully). Perhaps you might be better off letting them explain their own policies instead of speculating.

Well if you bother to use google you can actually view the rehoming conditions/contracts of quite a few Irish rescues. You can't only take in Pound dogs. Even the big rescue, that can't be named, only manages to source 70% of it's dogs from the Pound. Dogs get bought in, strays get picked up - what you do, put those to sleep ?

Believe it or not there are Pound managers who will have little to do with rescues - just look at the figures. It is incredibly rare for an owner to "reappear" to claim their dog so, in reality, it isn't a problem. They wouldn't need to pay compensation because the person taking the dog would be fully aware of the facts before taking it.

I personally had quite an anxious wait with two of mine. As an owner I could appreciate that someone would be glad to find their dog. But as I became very attached to them I kind of hoped that it wouldn't happen.

As you know full well the rescues can't explain their policies unless they pay Boards for the privilege of being "verified posters" - even then they would probably be banned.

We now have one Mod who feels that rescues "have their heads up their own arses" & another that thinks that they should only rescue Pound dogs & that they are unprofessional. It makes you wonder whether the "no rescue policy" comes from Boards or the Mods.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

Well if you bother to use google you can actually view the rehoming conditions/contracts of quite a few Irish rescues. You can't only take in Pound dogs. Even the big rescue, that can't be named, only manages to source 70% of it's dogs from the Pound. Dogs get bought in, strays get picked up - what you do, put those to sleep ?

The former owners of surrenders have formally relinquished their rights to ownership by the fact that they have surrendered them, strays can do their 5 days like the rest during which their owner has the opportunity to reclaim the dog. That's the whole point of the system that has been put in place.

My opinion on this matter has nothing to do with rescues, boards or mods it has to do with the fact that an idiot bought a 'weekend' cottage down the road from me some 18years ago, and bought a weekend pup to go with it which eventually managed to dig it's way out and arrive at my house. Owner denied the dog was his for 8 months. My dad told all in sundry about how they had neglected the dog resulting in the man turning up at my door with a dog licence in his hand quoting the year and a day law at me and making a big fuss of the pup who obviously knew and adored him. He took the dog with him, put it in a sack and dropped in a stream where my cousin found it a week later.

You continually deliberately misinterpret the rules here, plenty of posters have given information on threads similar to this one without identifying themselves or the organisations they are involved with or discussing - something you have not done your self in this thread.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

The former owners of surrenders have formally relinquished their rights to ownership by the fact that they have surrendered them, strays can do their 5 days like the rest during which their owner has the opportunity to reclaim the dog. That's the whole point of the system that has been put in place.

The system takes no account of rescues. You are saying that any rescue finding a stray should take it to the Pound & that is insane.

Are you really saying that your opinion is all based on what someone did 18 years ago ?

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

You continually deliberately misinterpret the rules here, plenty of posters have given information on threads similar to this one without identifying themselves or the organisations they are involved with or discussing - something you have not done your self in this thread.

Where have I identified myself ? I am not involved with any organisation other that as an occasional volunteer & personal friendships. Where have I named any organisation ? I note that none of the Mods have seen the need to edit my posts so how am I breaking the rules ?

I could argue that you seek & have sought in the past to deliberately misinterpret my posts in order to issue infractions or bans but I might get accused of soapboxing again

By the way as you are posting as a poster rather than a Mod is it reasonable to criticise my interpretation of the rules or are you moderating in disguise ?

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

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.

Ive already said twice what rules I feel are wrong.

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.

Thats not the issue--People feel that because they have kept dogs all their lives and have given a dog a good home that a rescue isnt the best person to dictate whether they take a dog or not.

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.

Maybe youre right but I still think that its in dogs best interest to be rehomed rather than pts.

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.

Im not saying that Im saying at least they should be give a chance--any chance at a new life.

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.

I dont expect any rescue to take responsibility--I want the dog to be mine and not have the threat of it being returned to a rescue--The responsibilty for the dogs life should start the minute I take it home.

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.

But Ive also always said Im still open to the idea of rehoming--read back through every thread when we`ve had this discussion and you`ll see that.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

I could argue that you seek & have sought in the past to deliberately misinterpret my posts in order to issue infractions or bans but I might get accused of soapboxing again

Thats unfair--If you feel that way start another feedback thread :rolleyes:


Theres no conspiracy theory going on here,theres no one out to get you so again I suggest that you drop this.But Aj is right about one thing though--The rules doesnt allow posters to name rescuses by name--By using their slogan you`ve basically done this...a slight bending of the rules perhaps??

By the way as you are posting as a poster rather than a Mod is it reasonable to criticise my interpretation of the rules or are you moderating in disguise ?

You keep bringing this up--do you want mods to post in the forum they moderate??Bit pointless modding a forum if you cant post in it??All my responses have been in a completely personal capacity and reading through Ajs theyve been the same.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

Ive already said twice what rules I feel are wrong.

Well the only rule that you have mentioned is the Homecheck - you have mentioned being able to choose a dog but that's irrelevant as most if not all rescues will let you do this.

If you had to rehome your dog would you really allow a complete stranger to take it without seeing where it will live ? If rescues started doing this there would soon be an outcry when a dog is rehomed into bad conditions. The rescue would then be blamed for not checking first.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Thats not the issue--People feel that because they have kept dogs all their lives and have given a dog a good home that a rescue isnt the best person to dictate whether they take a dog or not.

Again if you had to rehome your dog you would want to choose where it ended up. Why should be any different for a rescues rehoming it's dogs ? They are the owners or keepers & they have every right to decide who takes their dog. You seem to be speaking as if the dogs are owned by the state or some corporate body rather than by individuals who run rescues.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Im not saying that Im saying at least they should be give a chance--any chance at a new life.

Even it is puts them at risk of further abuse, cruelty, distress etc ?

Hellrazer wrote: »

The responsibilty for the dogs life should start the minute I take it home..

So say for instance someone lies during the adoption process. They say that the dog will be kept indoors but the rescue discover that it is being kept in appalling conditions. Are you saying that the rescue shouldn't have the right to take the dog back ?

Adopting a dog is a two way agreement & the vast majority of people adopt without any problems. I can't publish links but, since you raised the issue, I have had a chat with the CEO of a huge rescue & their return rate is less than 1%.

If, over decades, rescues have developed a system that works for tens of thousands of adoptions why would they change it ? If you do a bit of searching you will find that rescues all over the World work to a similar set of rules.

Hellrazer wrote: »

I dont expect any rescue to take responsibility

Correct me if I am wrong (I can't be arsed to do a search) but didn't you once imply that you thought that the rescue that supplied your previous dog or dogs should of spotted behavioural problems ?

Hellrazer wrote: »

I
But Ive also always said Im still open to the idea of rehoming--read back through every thread when we`ve had this discussion and you`ll see that.

But any rehome will involve an element of risk - just as buying a puppy will but for different reasons. You have given the impression that temperament is the key consideration because you have children. Dogs react to their surroundings & environment so a dog could be fine when it leaves a rescue but it could change if it is subjected to bad stimuli. No rescue can know how you & your children will be with a dog - they can't be there to watch you.

You have also used phrases like "bitching" & "heads up arses" in relation to rescues. This hardly suggests that you are in a frame of mind to trust in a rescue's opinion. If there is no mutual trust then it is pointless.

You have a big thing about your privacy & your right to keep your animals as you see fit - do you remember where you said that you wouldn't allow an ISPCA inspector into your home ? I would love it if everyone rehomed but I honestly don't think that it is for you.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Thats unfair--.............

.............Ajs theyve been the same.

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

You continually deliberately misinterpret the rules here, plenty of posters have given information on threads similar to this one without identifying themselves or the organisations they are involved with or discussing - something you have not done your self in this thread.

This is blatantly unfair because it blurs the line between posting & modding - one could argue that it's back seat modding. If a poster breaks the rules then act as a Mod but don't post like this to try & win the argument.

The facts are that, because of the rules (I thought you hated rules !), it is very difficult to defend or substantiate the claims made in the thread. For example I can't link to rescue sites to verify their rehoming policies. I am accused of lying, sorry speculating, & the person accusing me knows full well that I can't provide proof without breaking the rules.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

Well the only rule that you have mentioned is the Homecheck - you have mentioned being able to choose a dog but that's irrelevant as most if not all rescues will let you do this.

The homecheck is a big deal for me.These people couldnt possibly tell me that Im suitable to rehome a dog from one visit.

If you had to rehome your dog would you really allow a complete stranger to take it without seeing where it will live ? If rescues started doing this there would soon be an outcry when a dog is rehomed into bad conditions. The rescue would then be blamed for not checking first.

If I had to rehome my dog Id be more concerned that she had any home rather than the option of being pts.Obviously Id like to see that the person could look after her but in my opinion the fact that shes rehomed should be more important than the threat of dying.

Again if you had to rehome your dog you would want to choose where it ended up. Why should be any different for a rescues rehoming it's dogs ?

See above^^

They are the owners or keepers & they have every right to decide who takes their dog. You seem to be speaking as if the dogs are owned by the state or some corporate body rather than by individuals who run rescues.

There you go again--"their" dogs--once I take it home with me its MY dog.

So say for instance someone lies during the adoption process. They say that the dog will be kept indoors but the rescue discover that it is being kept in appalling conditions. Are you saying that the rescue shouldn't have the right to take the dog back ?

In that case Id agree--but a home check could easily be set up to fool an agency-its not the check thats the problem but I honestly cant see how an agency can tell someones character by a once off meeting.Its not thourough enough to ensure the dogs safety/future.But even if I was rehoming my own dog the situation would be the same...Im not going to spend weeks with the person so I dont know how they`ll be when the dog actually arrives.

My point is that rescues get too hung up on home checks....when the dog would be better off being rehomed rather than pts.They need to get over this a bit..they cannot possibly tell how good an owner is going to be from a home check.

Adopting a dog is a two way agreement & the vast majority of people adopt without any problems.

Exactly my point but I wouldnt say the home check is the reason for that.Most people feel if they are going to rescue that they are already of the right frame of mind to give a dog a good home and the restrictive rules put *some* people off.

Correct me if I am wrong (I can't be arsed to do a search) but didn't you once imply that you thought that the rescue that supplied your previous dog or dogs should of spotted behavioural problems ?

I cant remember--I dont think so.No resuce could ever know how a dog is going to behave when rehomed.

But any rehome will involve an element of risk - just as buying a puppy will but for different reasons.

But at least buying a puppy you have some idea how the dog will turn out...I mean certian breeds are known for their temperament/size etc.

You have given the impression that temperament is the key consideration because you have children. Dogs react to their surroundings & environment so a dog could be fine when it leaves a rescue but it could change if it is subjected to bad stimuli. No rescue can know how you & your children will be with a dog - they can't be there to watch you.

Temperament is the number one for me--size isnt an issue...my dogs have always gotten plenty of exercise etc.My children are taught to not approach a strange dog and are taught to know when to play etc with our existing dog--for example they know not to touch her while shes eating not that she`d ever even growl but its still something I drum into the kids just in case.

You have also used phrases like "bitching" & "heads up arses" in relation to rescues. This hardly suggests that you are in a frame of mind to trust in a rescue's opinion. If there is no mutual trust then it is pointless.

I said some rescues--Stop misquoting me.

You have a big thing about your privacy & your right to keep your animals as you see fit - do you remember where you said that you wouldn't allow an ISPCA inspector into your home ? I would love it if everyone rehomed but I honestly don't think that it is for you.

Think you might be wrong on this aswell.Ive always supported unannounced inspections of any premises when it was regarding cruelty.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75545071&postcount=146

The facts are that, because of the rules (I thought you hated rules !),

No just some rules.

it is very difficult to defend or substantiate the claims made in the thread. For example I can't link to rescue sites to verify their rehoming policies. I am accused of lying, sorry speculating, & the person accusing me knows full well that I can't provide proof without breaking the rules.

Look you well know why rescues have been banned--because :
1.There were threats of legal action against boards.
2.They moaned and bitched about each other continually.
3.They used boards.ie to advertise their animals for rehoming any way they wanted despite us.

gving them

1.Their own forum--the pre moderated one.
2.Their own rehoming thread-some of them posted single threads for rehoming even after this..
3.Free reign to post as they saw fit regarding their rescuing.

They ruined it for themselves.They can still post here as long as they dont push their agenda on other users.

Hellrazer

We now have one Mod who feels that rescues "have their heads up their own arses" & another that thinks that they should only rescue Pound dogs & that they are unprofessional. It makes you wonder whether the "no rescue policy" comes from Boards or the Mods.

Im telling you know--stop misquoting me.I said *some* rescues and I stand by it.

And again you know well where the no rescue policy comes from since Ive told you at least 50 times both in various threads and in pm`s..
See my previous post if you still done get it.

And for what its worth it did come from above after numerous legal threats from one particular rescue and us mods decided it was the best way to deal with it since asking nicely didnt seem to get though to them.

ISDW

Sorry AJ, but there is at least one pound in ireland that will not rehome a dog to anybody from the same area that the dog was found in. So, if someone finds a stray, takes it to that pound to do its 5 days, they will not under any circumstances be allowed to then take that dog home when its 5 days are up.

Also, pounds do not guarantee that they will let someone take a dog home that they have found once they have done their 5 days. There are a lot of different reasons why pounds rehome to certain people. They may have a waiting list of people wanting a particular breed or type of dog, so whoever is at the top of that list will get the first one that comes in, if you're the person who found it, and wants it back - tough.

The question of rescues keeping strays that haven't been through the dog warden though - I don't know any that do that. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but by law, surely thats stealing? A lot of dogs that go through rescues' doors that haven't come through a pound are surrenders, so the rescue gets the previous owner to sign the dog over, not a stray. Rescues have relationships with wardens and pounds, so just because a stray doesn't do its 5 days actually on the premises in a pound, doesn't mean that its not legally doing its 5 days. The more progressive pounds allow certain dogs, puppies, ill dogs etc, to do their stray time in foster homes.

Discodog

ISDW wrote: »

The question of rescues keeping strays that haven't been through the dog warden though - I don't know any that do that. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but by law, surely thats stealing? A lot of dogs that go through rescues' doors that haven't come through a pound are surrenders, so the rescue gets the previous owner to sign the dog over, not a stray. Rescues have relationships with wardens and pounds, so just because a stray doesn't do its 5 days actually on the premises in a pound, doesn't mean that its not legally doing its 5 days. The more progressive pounds allow certain dogs, puppies, ill dogs etc, to do their stray time in foster homes.

No it isn't stealing & the new Code of Practice for recipients of ex-gratia funding 2011 actually mentions this section of the Control of Dogs Act. I have put the relevant section in bold:

All organisations must comply with the Control of Dogs Act, 1986 and be familiar with its provisions. In particular Sections 13(1) and (3) should be noted for attention: Section 13(1) of the Act states “any person, other than a dog warden or a member of the Garda Siochana, who finds and takes possession of a stray dog shall, forthwith (a) return the dog to its owner or (b) deliver the dog to a dog warden, or (c) detain the dog and give notice in writing containing a description of the dog, the address of the place where it was found, and the address of the place where it is detained to the member in charge at the nearest Garda Station to the place where the dog was found, or to a dog warden". Section 13(3) states "where a person has found a stray dog and has retained possession of the dog for a year after the date on which he gave the notice referred to in subsection (1) of this section, and the dog has not been claimed by its owner within that year, such person shall become the owner of the dog and the title of the former owner to the dog shall be extinguished”. Any queries in relation to the Control of Dogs Act should be addressed to the Local Authority in your area.

So taking in a stray is not stealing & any person or a rescue can do so legally provided that they follow the law above. They could also rehome the dog because they would have details of where it is being kept. The recipient would technically be the dogs keeper until the year is up & then could become the owner, subject to the terms of the rehome.

I too know of some "nod & a wink" arrangements with Wardens & Pounds but the Provision & Maintenance of Pounds Act is very specific - it was written in the 1930's when rescues were not a priority in Ireland. I am open to correction but according to the Act the only way a dog can serve it's 5 days is in the Pound - bearing in mind that some rescues have contracts to provide a Pound service to the LA.

In reality no one gives a fig so none of this is ever likely to become a legal issue. But there have certainly been cases of owners turning up at a rescue especially as the rescues post details of their dogs. But I suspect that it would be very rare for an owner to turn up after the dog has been rehomed.

PS: The Pound Act has a wonderful anomaly. You can legally break into a Pound if the animals do not have access to food or water for 6 hours !

EDIT: Legally a Pound Keeper can only refuse to let you take a dog if he has reason to believe that it will not be well cared for. But this is at the sole discretion of the Pound Manager so in reality he can do what he likes.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

The homecheck is a big deal for me.These people couldnt possibly tell me that Im suitable to rehome a dog from one visit.

The homecheck is pretty standard with every rescue - there may be exceptions but I don't know of any. Any potential adopter who voiced any reticence towards a homecheck is just going to raise suspicion.

Hellrazer wrote: »

There you go again--"their" dogs--once I take it home with me its MY dog.

Some rescues insist on a condition where you never become the owner. Most have a condition where you must consult them before disposing of the dog & give them the opportunity to rehome it.

I was not actually criticising the forum rules. I was complaining that statements were being made in the knowledge that I could not provide the links to substantiate or disprove them.

However I would point out that the Pre Mod forum started out because I asked for a separate forum to discuss animal welfare issues. In the time that it was functioning & it pretty much died once it was pre modded, I do not share your view of how it was operating. I do not agree with any of the six points that you raise & I do not feel that they, in any way, represent the rescue community. I also feel that it's a cheap shot to slag off the rescue community whilst denying them any right of reply.

I also must take you up on this constant "Pushing an Agenda " rubbish. You have just posted a series of posts pushing your agenda as to why you don't approve of rescue's rehoming policies. We all have agendas & ideologies & people post them all over Boards every day. It is yet another phrase that only seems to apply to API. I have posted in over 50 different Boards.ie forums without ever experiencing these issues.

I have made these comments in direct response to your post. I suggest that we do not pull this thread off topic & save any further discussion for the appropriate time & place.

planetX

It would be terrible if people were put off taking rescues because of this idea that a homecheck is like an exam. My experience wasn't like that at all, it was a lovely lady that came out, had a look at my boundaries and advised me where I was likely to have problems. And she was right as it turned out.

Magenta

Hellrazer wrote: »

If I had to rehome my dog Id be more concerned that she had any home rather than the option of being pts.Obviously Id like to see that the person could look after her but in my opinion the fact that shes rehomed should be more important than the threat of dying.

Unfortunately, being PTS is not the worst possible thing that can happen to a dog. Being in a home where the dog is beaten, left sick without vet treatment, or various other things that can happen, is far worse for a dog than being pts, which is what the rescues do their best to avoid. Obviously you can't get to know a prospective owner very well after only meeting them once or twice, but they have to make some sort of effort to make sure the dog goes to a good home, to the best of their abilities.
I do agree with your other points though.

Discodog wrote: »

I also must take you up on this constant "Pushing an Agenda " rubbish. You have just posted a series of posts pushing your agenda as to why you don't approve of rescue's rehoming policies. We all have agendas & ideologies & people post them all over Boards every day. It is yet another phrase that only seems to apply to API. I have posted in over 50 different Boards.ie forums without ever experiencing these issues.

Sorry but the No soapboxing/rescue restriction is the best thing that's happened to this forum. I for one was sick and tired of the attitude of some of the posters who were pretty much spamming the forum looking for people to rehome rescue dogs. No matter what the OP's query was.

Typical (hypothetical) examples would be-

"I'm looking for a Golden Retriever puppy, can anyone suggest a good breeder?"

Cue 15 replies pushing rescues and their dogs, none of which are Golden Retrievers, which is not what the OP asked for.

"I'm looking to buy a puppy, something non/low shedding and fluffy, can anyone recommend a breed and breeder"

Cue 20 posts pushing rescue Staffies, "nanny dog" quotes, yada yada yada- not what the OP asked for. Try pushing orphan adoption over in the Pregnant/Trying to Conceive forum with the same vengeance and see how far you get. Yes, I am sure there are people who thought they wanted purebreed breeder-bought dog X and ended up with something completely different that they rescued, but that doesn't mean every post looking for breeder details is an invitation to convert someone to the church of rescuing.

Discodog

planetX wrote: »

It would be terrible if people were put off taking rescues because of this idea that a homecheck is like an exam. My experience wasn't like that at all, it was a lovely lady that came out, had a look at my boundaries and advised me where I was likely to have problems. And she was right as it turned out.

I haven't done a homecheck for quite a while but when I did they were very informal. Yes you do check key things, like the security of the garden, but it ends up as a chat over a cuppa. I made a lot of friends from homechecks.

Rescues have an obligation to their animals & their supporters. They are totally reliant on donations & people who donate expect their rescue to act responsibly by doing their best to ensure that the animals are going to a good home. The rescues are in a no win situation. If they have rules they upset those who can't rehome. If they don't have rules then the animals suffer & the get criticised.

Social media has changed everything. Rescues hardly use forums as Facebook is far more effective.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

The homecheck is pretty standard with every rescue - there may be exceptions but I don't know of any. Any potential adopter who voiced any reticence towards a homecheck is just going to raise suspicion.

The homecheck isnt the problem--Its the fact that they think they can get an idea of someones personality from one or two visits.

I was not actually criticising the forum rules.

Yes you were as usual.

I was complaining that statements were being made in the knowledge that I could not provide the links to substantiate or disprove them.

Why do you need to link to the sites.A copy and paste without names would be acceptable and would fall within the rules.

However I would point out that the Pre Mod forum started out because I asked for a separate forum to discuss animal welfare issues. In the time that it was functioning & it pretty much died once it was pre modded, I do not share your view of how it was operating.

It was pre modded as a *last* chance to actually save the forum from being closed for good and there was an announcement to that effect--Basically users were told that if it didnt stop then it would be closed and it was so in effect we were right.

I do not agree with any of the six points that you raise & I do not feel that they, in any way, represent the rescue community.

I could link to the many,many instances of what I pointed out but that would take weeks.

I also feel that it's a cheap shot to slag off the rescue community whilst denying them any right of reply.

Its not a cheap shot to slag off anyone--I have the utmost respect for rescues-Its *some* of their rules I have a problem with.

Also whos denying them an right to reply??They are welcome to reply as long as long as its within the rules of the forum.

I also must take you up on this constant "Pushing an Agenda " rubbish. You have just posted a series of posts pushing your agenda as to why you don't approve of rescue's rehoming policies.

I stated in my very first post in this thread that I was posting in a personal manner and not a mod one.I also *tried* debating this with you--if anyone wants to read through the whole thread that can be seen quite clearly.I wasnt pushing any agenda--read back one page and I actually asked you to pm me the name of this rescue who you say are one of the best--I am actually considering taking on a rescue puppy so in effect you have made an impact on my decision and one that I am willing to consider very carefully.

I have made these comments in direct response to your post. I suggest that we do not pull this thread off topic & save any further discussion for the appropriate time & place.

Thats great--make your points and then say "lets not go off topic" :rolleyes:

Bullseye1

If its still "their" dog do they contribute to its upkeep? Do they help with insurance and pay a contribution towards its food?

Who in their right mind would take on a dog when it will never be theirs? Even those who foster dogs know they are going to give the dog up at some stage.

planetX

Hellrazer wrote: »

The homecheck isnt the problem--Its the fact that they think they can get an idea of someones personality from one or two visits.

Seriously, do you think they're sending out a psycologist or something?
Why would a rescue care about your personality? All they want to see is that you are going to keep the dog in decent conditions, and not be returning it next month because you didn't know it would - be a normal puppy and nip your children/ escape from the garden and chase sheep/ go mental because you leave it alone all day. It's for everyone's benefit that they check this out, I can't understand the objection.

Hellrazer

planetX wrote: »

Seriously, do you think they're sending out a psycologist or something?

Dont be silly :rolleyes:
Read my previous post..They cannot possibly tell how someone is going to be from a single visit....they need to relax a bit with the home checks as it is putting people off or come up with a better method of monitoring the dog for a longer period.

Why would a rescue care about your personality? All they want to see is that you are going to keep the dog in decent conditions, and not be returning it next month because you didn't know it would - be a normal puppy and nip your children/ escape from the garden and chase sheep/ go mental because you leave it alone all day. It's for everyone's benefit that they check this out, I can't understand the objection.

I meant personality as in how Id be around the dog once I got it home--Sunday morning hangover and I couldnt find the right word

I completely understand the reasons behind it but I cannot understand how they can hold up a rehome because of it..and believe me I know plenty of people that had a rehome turned down on the basis of a single 15 minute visit.

Why for example in their *contract* could they not say that they can call say 3-4 times in the course of a year to check on the dog unannounced.Would that not be better than basing a rehome on a single visist??

planetX

Hellrazer wrote: »

Why for example in their *contract* could they not say that they can call say 3-4 times in the course of a year to check on the dog unannounced.Would that not be better than basing a rehome on a single visist??

can't imagine many rescues having the volunteers for that kind of ongoing monitoring. One near me doesn't even have enough volunteers to walk the dogs in the kennels.

ISDW

Discodog - I meant stealing as in a dog is viewed in law as an object, owned by someone. Its the same as if you found a wallet in the street, after one year and one day you would legally own it, if nobody came forward. But would you give it to someone else before that time was up? I don't know how anybody could rehome a dog, knowing that its not their to rehome. If you don't own something, and give or sell it to someone else, then surely that is stealing? Also, what would the implications be of vaccinating, neutering a dog that hasn't done its stray time? If an owner turned up within the year and day time frame, they could take legal action for any medical procedures.

Hellrazer

planetX wrote: »

can't imagine many rescues having the volunteers for that kind of ongoing monitoring. One near me doesn't even have enough volunteers to walk the dogs in the kennels.

Suppose so--Theyre probably understaffed as it is.Just throwing an alternative idea out there.

Discodog

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If its still "their" dog do they contribute to its upkeep? Do they help with insurance and pay a contribution towards its food?

Who in their right mind would take on a dog when it will never be theirs? Even those who foster dogs know they are going to give the dog up at some stage.

You are failing to distinguish between the owner & the keeper.

Tens of thousands of people do so happily because they understand why those rules are in place. If people in general objected to these rules then how come the rescues are so successful at rehoming ?

ISDW wrote: »

Discodog - I meant stealing as in a dog is viewed in law as an object, owned by someone. Its the same as if you found a wallet in the street, after one year and one day you would legally own it, if nobody came forward. But would you give it to someone else before that time was up? I don't know how anybody could rehome a dog, knowing that its not their to rehome. If you don't own something, and give or sell it to someone else, then surely that is stealing? Also, what would the implications be of vaccinating, neutering a dog that hasn't done its stray time? If an owner turned up within the year and day time frame, they could take legal action for any medical procedures.

The law really is very clear. In these cases a rescue is not "giving" the dog to someone else. All the law requires is that the Guards or the Warden are aware of where the dog is being kept. It was a necessary piece of legislation because, especially in 1986, there was a even more severe shortage of rescue spaces. I had to "use" the law when I found my Greyhound & my youngster. The Warden's comment was "good that's one less for me to deal with". Thieves don't go to the Garda station to report what they have stolen !

Because the original owner of the dog failed to comply with the legal requirement for an ID tag, allowed their dog to stray & failed to contact the Warden or Guards to report it's loss they are not going to get very far if they tried to complain about any treatment that the dog had received.

I made an effort to find the owners of my two & rescues usually post on the "found" sites but the law doesn't insist on any of this. If your dog goes missing it is up to you to inform the Guards or the Warden. Provided people do this then there is no chance of their dog being "stolen" by a rescue.

ISDW

Discodog wrote: »

Because the original owner of the dog failed to comply with the legal requirement for an ID tag, allowed their dog to stray & failed to contact the Warden or Guards to report it's loss they are not going to get very far if they tried to complain about any treatment that the dog had received.

Sorry but what if a dog is stolen, and the collar with the legal tag removed? the dog's owner has done nothing wrong. They will report the dog missing to their local Warden or Guards, but you and I both know that dog could be moved anywhere in the country very quickly, there have been numerous stories like that.

DBB

Discodog wrote: »

The law really is very clear. In these cases a rescue is not "giving" the dog to someone else. All the law requires is that the Guards or the Warden are aware of where the dog is being kept. It was a necessary piece of legislation because, especially in 1986, there was a even more severe shortage of rescue spaces. I had to "use" the law when I found my Greyhound & my youngster. The Warden's comment was "good that's one less for me to deal with". Thieves don't go to the Garda station to report what they have stolen !

Because the original owner of the dog failed to comply with the legal requirement for an ID tag, allowed their dog to stray & failed to contact the Warden or Guards to report it's loss they are not going to get very far if they tried to complain about any treatment that the dog had received.

A very risky strategy for a rescue methinks!
Whether the legal owner reports the dog missing or not, whether there is a tag on the dog or not etc etc, the law is crystal clear in one respect: an owner has 366 days in which to reclaim their dog.
The law is also clear on what happens if someone finds a dog. Even if the finder calls the warden/guards, and the dog does not go into the pound, the legal owner still has 366 days to come forward. The 5-day rule does not apply unless the dog physically goes into the pound, and several pounds who have conveniently ignored this have found themselves in deep trouble as a result.
So, if a rescue takes a stray dog that has not gone through the pound, they are legally required to hold onto that dog for 366 days. If the rescue decides to adopt the dog out within that time, then they must make the adopter aware that the dog might be reclaimed. I know of no adopter that I have dealt with that would adopt a dog in such circumstances. If the dog's legal owner arrives on the scene 365 days after the dog went missing, the adopter would be legally obliged to give the dog back. What a terrible position for a rescue to put an adopter into!
If the dog has been neutered in that time, regardless of what way the legal owner dealt with their dog going missing, the legal owner is well within their rights to take an action against the rescue: it is not the rescue's dog to neuter until 366 days have passed. The only circumstances under which it could be deemed acceptable to perform any surgery or procedures on a dog in these circumstances would be to stop suffering, and neutering does not fall into this category in the vast majority of cases.
That is the law.
I know if one of my dogs went missing, and for whatever reason it took me a few months to track it down, and I then found my dog had been neutered, there would be hell to pay. And I would be quite within my rights, with the full support of the law, to take the rescue to court for criminal damage to my property.

Discodog

DBB wrote: »

is category in the vast majority of cases.
That is the law.
I know if one of my dogs went missing, and for whatever reason it took me a few months to track it down, and I then found my dog had been neutered, there would be hell to pay. And I would be quite within my rights, with the full support of the law, to take the rescue to court for criminal damage to my property.

When I found my Greyhound I was very wary of giving the dog a home & then losing it. So I spoke to the ISPCA, the Guards & I asked a family friend, who is a barrister to give an opinion. All three stated that the law allowed me to take the dog & that I could have any necessary Veterinary treatment carried out without any risk of future repercussions. The 1986 Act didn't take theft into account. The rescue could argue that the neuter was carried out under Veterinary advice for the well being of the dog. There would of been every possibility that, had I handed my Greyhound into the Pound, that I would never of seen her again.

You have already said that some Pounds will not cooperate & it would be impractical & unfair for a rescue to keep a dog kennelled for a year. The law allows a simple, effective solution & the fact that I have never heard of a case where it has gone wrong suggests that it works.

I do recall a discussion of this topic involving Irish rescues, which I think was on PI. I will PM the link if I find it. With some rescues you never become the legal owner of the dog. One might think that this would put people off but they still rehome many dogs - again I will PM you a link. The important thing is that any adopter is made fully aware of the situation before they adopt. Any conditions are normally put on the adoption form & the adopter signs to confirm acceptance.

EDIT: I must be still asleep ! The issue of possible theft is covered by the 1986 Act. If your dog is lost or stolen you report the loss to the Guards. If you find a dog you also report this to the Guards or Warden. So the law envisaged that there would be some cross referencing & that the Guards would be the focal point for reuniting dogs & owners. For this to work the Guards would need to put the lost/found onto a centralised system & the Wardens should check with the Guards.

I wonder if the Pounds check with the Guards before killing a dog ?

Sorry one further thought. In the recent DoAg guidelines they are at pains to bring the "366 day" law to the attention of rescues. However they haven't seen any need to advise rescues not to rehome these dogs. Surely they would of implemented a rule if their were any potential legal implications ? Even if a dog does it's 5 days before going to a rescue it doesn't prevent the possibility of an owner turning up at a later date & wanting their dog back even if it isn't legally theirs.