Rehoming dogs from rescues

DBB

It is absolutely plain in the law
If the dog goes through the pound, the owner gets 5 days to reclaim. If they don't reclaim in 5 days, the dog is not theirs any more. It is the property of the State. The pounds then either sign the dog over to a rescue, or to a person rehoming the dog direct, or they pts.
In any other situation, the stray dog remains the legal property of the owner for 366 days.
Nobody has any business rehoming such a dog, or neutering it (I would like to hear a vet trying to justify "having" to neuter a healthy dog for welfare reasons... They can't possibly), until the 366 days are up, and the dog legally becomes the property of the finder.
Just because some rescues do ignore this, and in most cases get away with it, doesn't make it right or quasi-legal. There have been a number of instances that I know personally, where rescues have narrowly missed a court case for ignoring the 366 day rule, the only reason they didn't go to court was because the original and rightful owner didn't push all the way to court... But threatened it, and were perfectly within their rights to.
Once again, I reiterate, if one of mine went missing, and I tracked it down months later and found it had been neutered (illegally), and rehomed (illegally), both the rescue and the vet would have a lot of answering and compensating to do. And I say this as the co-ordinator of a fairly busy rescue!
As for dogs remaining the property of the rescue, well, i'd like to see that one tested, because nobody that I know of has ever tested whether this part of many adoption contracts is constitutional.

TooManyDogs

DBB wrote: »

And I say this as the co-ordinator of a fairly busy rescue!

Do you take in stray dogs or only surrendered dogs?

I know of 2 very big rescues who refuse to take stray dogs and I wonder now is this why. The only thing I think is that if all rescues were to refuse to take stray dogs or only take in dogs from the pound the stray dogs in this country would be in a much sorrier place. It may not be legally correct for a rescue to take in a dog and inform the pound, advertise if for 5 days and then rehome it but without rescues doing this I'd dread to think what would happen to hundreds or thousands of dogs every year as a direct result. There simply isn't enough room in the pound to take in every single stray dog.

DBB

TooManyDogs wrote: »

Do you take in stray dogs or only surrendered dogs?

I know of 2 very big rescues who refuse to take stray dogs and I wonder now is this why. The only thing I think is that if all rescues were to refuse to take stray dogs or only take in dogs from the pound the stray dogs in this country would be in a much sorrier place. It may not be legally correct for a rescue to take in a dog and inform the pound, advertise if for 5 days and then rehome it but without rescues doing this I'd dread to think what would happen to hundreds or thousands of dogs every year as a direct result. There simply isn't enough room in the pound to take in every single stray dog.

The large majority of dogs I take in are surrenders. A good chunk of these dogs' owners are put into contact with me by the various pounds before they surrender the dog to the pound. In fact, I would say a huge proportion of dogs are surrendered into rescues having been moved sideways into rescue at the gates of the pound.
Otherwise, the only strays I will take have done their 5 days in the pound.
There was, and still may be, a loose arrangement where some pounds will allow a dog to do it's 5 days with the rescue, and I think I'm right in saying that these dogs have all at least landed in the pound, albeit for a very short time, been logged in their register, then moved out to the rescue. Certainly, I've taken in such dogs, usually because they were in such a deplorable state that the pound didn't want to leave them like that for 5 whole days.
There were a couple of occasions where a pound told me I could rehome a stray dog after 5 days even though it hadn't landed in the pound, and I took the dog in on this understanding. But on each such occasion, when push came to shove, the pound would not sign the dog off after 5 days and left me in the lurch big time. Once bitten twice shy!

It's all very well that rescues ignore the 366 day rule, and they will continue to do so I'm sure, and get away with it almost all the time, and I absolutely accept your point that if rescues stop taking dogs in because of it, it'll mean a lot more dogs in trouble. However, a number of rescues are now taking a more pre-emptive approach, and trying to get these dogs before they end up being deliberatley strayed or surrendered to the pounds.. in other words, they try to give owners an reasonably conscience-free way of getting rid of their dog.
But it will take one wronged owner kicking up enough of a fuss about a rehomed stray dog to put a stop to rescues ignoring the 366 day rule. I know a couple of really, really shameful stories of owners finally tracking down their dogs after months, only to find the dog had been rehomed/neutered etc. The organisations responsible for rehoming the dogs were very lucky to get away with it, tbh.

Vel

In a case where an owner comes forward after say 6 months, and I'm presuming the dog isn't microchipped as the rescue would/should have checked this, then what proof are they required to present that the dog is legally theirs to reclaim?

planetX

Vel wrote: »

In a case where an owner comes forward after say 6 months, and I'm presuming the dog isn't microchipped as the rescue would/should have checked this, then what proof are they required to present that the dog is legally theirs to reclaim?

exactly what I was thinking - knowing someone who had a dog stolen, found it, and couldn't prove it was theirs.

DBB

planetX wrote: »

Vel wrote: »

In a case where an owner comes forward after say 6 months, and I'm presuming the dog isn't microchipped as the rescue would/should have checked this, then what proof are they required to present that the dog is legally theirs to reclaim?

exactly what I was thinking - knowing someone who had a dog stolen, found it, and couldn't prove it was theirs.

I can only go by what I do in these cases. The owner needs to be able to describe little details about their dog, little things that only the owner can know. Some photos of said dog are good. There's usually fair indication too when dog and owner meet up, though this can be a difficult one if the dog is the type who adores everyone.
I think the pounds require proof if ownership/dog license, I guess it's down to the individual pound what lengths they go to to establish ownership.
I know there have been cases where people have "reclaimed" a dog that's not theirs, they are rare but there's no doubt it happens.
But microchipping is the bee's knees in such cases.

Vel

Any dog licence being produced would obviously have to be dated prior to when the dog came into rescue for it to be valid proof of ownership.

Given how few people have dog licences and how many dogs aren't microchipped, the person claiming to own the dog could very well have their work cut out proving the dog was theirs.

I wonder whose side the law would fall on if such a case went to court - The rescue can't prove they legally own the dog because it didn't do the required stray time and 366 days haven't passed on the one hand, and the owner on the other who has no legal proof of ownership such as a microchip or a dog licence.

planetX

In this case the dog couldn't be taken from the dog thief - the guards wouldn't do anything as ownership couldn't be proved. If this can happen, I'd hope that a rescue couldn't be prosecuted. thank god science haha, for microchipping:mad:

Vel

planetX wrote: »

In this case the dog couldn't be taken from the dog thief - the guards wouldn't do anything as ownership couldn't be proved. If this can happen, I'd hope that a rescue couldn't be prosecuted. thank god science haha, for microchipping:mad:

I'm referring more to a case where the actual owner comes forward but they don't have any proof of ownership such as a dog licence or microchip.

In a case like that, I'm guessing a civil action would have to be taken by the owner to get their dog back if the rescue in question is not fully satisfied that they are the owner and I'm wondering what proof would stand up in court, other than a licence or microchip.

Discodog

When I found my Greyhound I discussed the issue of neutering with my Vet. She was adamant that we could neuter because, in the absence of a proven owner, I am responsible for the health & welfare of the dog. You cannot hold a dog's welfare & life in limbo for a year on the 1000 to 1 chance that an owner might turn up.

The 1986 Act made no mention of not being able to rehome & neither does the Dec 2012 Guidelines. The only requirement is to notify the guards or warden. One could possibly argue that to be 100% compliant the adopter should advise a change of ownership address ie the address where the dog is being kept to the Guards or the Warden as the dog is no longer physically at the rescue.

As to proof of ownership I also asked the Guards & a Barrister about this. Both were adamant that the owner is the person who holds a valid license for the dog. So if your dog was stolen you would have a license that was valid on the date that it was taken. If you didn't have a license & the thief decided to license the dog then you are going to have a problem proving ownership. I was told that the "Law is Out" regarding whether a microchip is proof of ownership. It obviously backs up the license as evidence but may not be considered proof on it's own. At the end of the day any "custody" case would be for a Court to decide.

An after thought is that if the owner comes forward & doesn't have a valid license then the rescue could own the dog by virtue of it's general dog license. If the dog was stolen it would be recorded as such by the guards & different rules might apply compared to it being lost.

Zapperzy

DBB wrote: »

There's usually fair indication too when dog and owner meet up, though this can be a difficult one if the dog is the type who adores everyone.

I'd be screwed so, my guy would go off with anyone and greets strangers with more enthusiasm than he does me if I'v been away for a few days or weeks. I'd say given the choice of me or a perfect stranger he'd pick the stranger! At least he's microchipped, has a dog licence and I'v a million photos of him just in case.

DBB

Discodog wrote: »

When I found my Greyhound I discussed the issue of neutering with my Vet. She was adamant that we could neuter because, in the absence of a proven owner, I am responsible for the health & welfare of the dog. You cannot hold a dog's welfare & life in limbo for a year on the 1000 to 1 chance that an owner might turn up.

I'm afraid in this situation, your vet was wrong. You can only assume the owner is absent after 366 days. That is it, plain and simple. The ethical "what ifs" are of no concern to the law, and whilst the finder of the dog is responsible for its welfare, the finder simply does not have the legal authority to neuter a stray dog before the 366 days are up. Ensuring the health and welfare of a healthy dog does not include neutering... not neutering such a dog is NOT a welfare issue for that dog, which is what the courts would be concerned with.
There is not a finder of a dog, nor a vet in this land, or any land, who could reasonably argue that they neutered a healthy dog on health and welfare grounds when the dog was not yet the finder's to have neutered. The only health and welfare grounds under which a dog could be neutered in this instance is if the dog is suffering from a health condition which is being exacerbated by retaining the reproductive organs: pyometra, or prostatitis, for example. But for a healthy dog, there is no argument for neutering them when the dog is not the legal property of the customer. Not neutering a healthy dog is not holding it's health and life in limbo.
It is rather a large risk to take, and as I said before, there have been instances where rescues have been very lucky not to be dragged over the coals for ignoring it. There might be a 1000 to 1 chance an owner will show up, but this is immaterial in the eyes of the law. The owner has the legally enshrined right to wait 365 days to claim their dog, if they so wish. You may not like this, but that is the way it is.

The 1986 Act made no mention of not being able to rehome & neither does the Dec 2012 Guidelines.

It is absolutely implicit in the law. The dog remains the legal property of the original owner for 366 days. Of course it's not going to say "the dog may not be rehomed within the 366 days", because it is already implicit that the dog can't be rehomed. It can't be rehomed simply because it is not the finder's to rehome. It is absolutely black and white in the law, whether you like it or not!

As to proof of ownership I also asked the Guards & a Barrister about this. Both were adamant that the owner is the person who holds a valid license for the dog.

You didn't say anything about this (re the holding of a licence) in your above post! The licence would indeed be deemed as strong evidence of ownership.
However, there is a very large assumption being made that just because an owner doesn't come forward immediately, that they probably don't have their dog licenced. The simple matter of fact, and law, is that the owner MUST be give 366 days to come forward to prove whether they have or haven't got a licence that was valid at the time the dog went missing. To assume they don't is taking a pretty big risk. In my county (Louth), the uptake of licences is pretty high because the wardens do regular licence checks, so if one finds a dog here, there is a strong enough chance that it is licenced.
I know these facts may not be palateable, but the fact is that it is simply illegal to rehome or neuter a stray dog until after the 366 days are up. The ethical ins and outs of it are one thing, I am simply stating that the law is what it is, it is quite clear, and an owner would be perfectly entitled to prosecute a rescue, and/or their vet, if their dog is rehomed or neutered before the legal 366 days are up.

Discodog

DBB wrote: »

I'm afraid in this situation, your vet was wrong. You can only assume the owner is absent after 366 days. That is it, plain and simple. The ethical "what ifs" are of no concern to the law, and whilst the finder of the dog is responsible for its welfare, the finder simply does not have the legal authority to neuter a stray dog before the 366 days are up. Ensuring the health and welfare of a healthy dog does not include neutering... not neutering such a dog is NOT a welfare issue for that dog, which is what the courts would be concerned with.

Out of interest I have recently asked two other Vets the same question & they would neuter. In any event a Vet never asks for proof of ownership. I have been in Court on occasions when Vets give evidence & they rarely have to justify their actions. To my knowledge there has never been a Court case so we may be talking about a hypothetical situation. In my experience legal action or the threat of it, gets dropped when one side realises that they probably won't win which may explain the lack of actual cases.

Most Judges will take a balanced view & assess the pros & cons. In this situation we would have a person who has lost their dog. So it might be a matter of why & how they lost the dog, why wasn't it wearing a collar tag, was it licensed & what steps did they take to notify the authorities & did they use every means to find it ?

On the other side would be a rescue. They have found the dog & checked for a collar tag & a microchip. They have also notified the Guards/Warden. They have taken the dog to a place of safety & attended to it's needs, including veterinary treatment at their own expense. They have a license for the dog & they will of probably listed it on lost & found sites. Before it is rehomed it will probably be listed on their website together with photos.
They would also be able to say that, on the balance of probability, there was very little chance of the owner turning up.

This would not be like a criminal case. The rescue can not be guilty of theft. So it would be assessed on a balance of the law, fairness, who has acted responsibly etc. The final decision is totally up to the Judge.

You say that it is a big risk to take but the evidence suggests the exact opposite because it seems that no case has ever come to Court. But even if it did a Judge may only compensate the owner for any loss that they can prove to have suffered as a result of the dog being neutered. Unless it is a Pedigree, that will be zero & it would be balanced against the peace of mind provided by the rescue saving the dog. The rescue could also seek all their costs associated with that dog as could the person who rehomed it including food, shelter, vet bills, exercise time etc. This might be the real reason why these cases don't proceed. If the owner of either of my two had appeared, with the 366 days, they would of faced a very big bill & possibly a cruelty prosecution.

You keep assuming that rehoming means a change of ownership. All the law requires is that the Guards or Warden know where the dog is located in case an owner appears. After that it is a civil matter.

Just because an owner has 366 days doesn't mean that they can delay reporting the dog missing or trying to find it. There is a principle of mitigating loss. For example if the rescue has complied with all of it's requirements but the owner doesn't report the dog as missing, it is the owner's fault as they could of mitigated their loss.

In many parts of Ireland, including my patch, licensing is a rarity. I think that Galway hasn't prosecute one person in the past few years. A person can't just appear at a rehome & say "that's my dog". I was very concerned with my Greyhound because their were some suggestions that she might of originated from a certain community. When I expressed my concerns to the Guards at the main station they assured me that, unless someone can show them a dog license valid before the date that I reported the dog as found, the dog remains mine. They even joked that the likelihood of this happening or that anyone would report the dog as lost, was zero.

So what are the real chances of a rescue ending up losing in Court.

The owner has to appear - given the thousands of rehomes what are the chances.

The owner has to decide to prosecute rather than settle - to our knowledge it has never happened before.

The Court has to find in favour of the owner - I think they only would if the rescue had not followed proceedure.

The Court has to decide that the neutering is worth enough compensation to of made the prosecution worthwhile - no chance unless it was a serious show dog. The compensation would have to be balanced against the rescue's & the rehomer's counterclaim for 366 days of expenditure. We all know how much a dog costs per year !

Add these together & I would put the chances of a successful prosecution as so tiny that it wouldn't be worth ever considering it. The absence of past cases suggests that others came to the same conclusion.