Rescue Organisations

[YOLO]

Ok, this is probably going to spark some debate, but please hear me out.

The conduct of some dog rescue organisations is a pet peeve of mine, culminating in a recent incident that I will get to.

The sad fact is that any idiot can go to a pet store, BYB, or some breeders and buy a puppy regardless of how ill-suited that breed is to their lifestyle or situation. (Yes, RESPONSIBLE breeders don’t allow that.)

It seems that many rescue organisations try to compensate for this, by trying to impose restrictions on would be adoptees. That’s a fine idea, but unless they personally visit each family, they can only rely on what’s put on a form which only gives them control over honest people, and consequently they seem to overcompensate by applying OTT conditions. I can’t help but wonder how many would be adoptees have simply given up and gone and bought a pup from a pet store???

We are a responsible dog owning family. We have a huge backyard, which is actually fenced into three separate zones, that can be shut to separate dogs if necessary. I know my breeds, and I know what is suitable for my family and what is not.

Jasper was “rescued” from the RSPCA two years ago. I was told that he was a pedigreed Flattie, and he was entire at that time, but they insisted he be neutered before adoption. That suited us fine, because Coco was entire and we didn’t want them breeding, but it was their comment that I found funny; “We’re not in favour of breeding.” So where are dogs supposed to come from?

At their first meeting, Coco was very shy of this big stupid puppy who simply wanted to lick her all over, and consequently they were reluctant to allow the adoption.

I recently enquired with a rescue association, and before they would even give me details of the dog, they required a registration and approval process, including referees!?!

Recently we visited another rescue organisation. Hidden away along a path there are a couple of Kennels out of the way, and I was surprised to see what was obviously a Flattie. His behaviour was very withdrawn, but with coaxing he came to the fence and licked my fingers. I enquired about having a closer look at him, and was told that he had been fine when first surrendered, but since being imprisoned he had become withdrawn and had even started snapping. I was told that it had been decided that he could not go to a house with other pets or any children. (My youngest is 10.) I asked to able to meet him on a leash in one of their exercise areas and was told that I needed to speak with their trainer first. I left several messages for him over the next few weeks, but he never called me back. I was then told that the dog had been deemed unsuitable for adoption and had been put down.

It is heart-breaking that this poor boy was never given a chance. I’m not an idiot, I would never expose my children to harm, but I would have liked the opportunity to give him a try, let him roam our big yard, interact with our teenagers, and see if he would return to form. I never did get to talk to “the trainer” but it was clear that the other people there had no idea what a Flattie was. This was no pit bull or pig dog, a poor Flattie couldn’t hurt you if he wanted to.

I understand what motivates these organisations. I share their frustrations at irresponsible owners, BYBs, and the puppy industry. I also agree with doing their utmost to ensure that every adoption is well suited. However I also believe that in some cases their fanatical/obsessive behaviour may sometimes be counterproductive. If you can educate would-be owners, great, but if all that happens is that they go and buy a puppy from a shop, then we’ve missed an opportunity. They should also accept that many people looking at rescue dogs ARE responsible owners.

[Gayle.]

Yes, it often is counter-productive. My son approached two rescue organisations about dogs they had available, both were unaccountably rude to him so he found an ANKC breeder who was looking to re-home an ex-show dog of the type he was after. That dog now has an absolutely fabulous home where he is the centre of my sons world. His girlfriend wanted a dog of her own so rather than go via a rescue organisation after their previous efforts, they went straight to the source....the pound. Their little pound puppy has the best life you could ever imagine a dog wanting.

Two missed opportunities for rescue organisations to rehome dogs.

[corrie]

One of the big reasons rescue organisations are particular about the home their dogs are adopted in to is because they do not want the dog ending up in the same situation again.

I think it would be irresponsible to rehome a dog that is displaying human aggression.....especially into a home with a 10 year old child (and even more concerning to household that holds opinion).

This was no pit bull or pig dog, a poor Flattie couldn’t hurt you if he wanted to.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

I think the key word I am reading here is "SOME" rescue organisations.

Speaking from the rescue organisation side, I don't like dealing with members of the general public who insist that "Rover" advertised is the dog for them. Rover has been advertised as not suitable for a home with cats and children but the member of the public insists that their own cat will be "fine" and so will their children. Should I disappoint them I wonder?

Or the people that call you late at night and want an instant dog? Like 10.00 pm. It just couldn't wait and they are very important you know. They are going to give a very lucky dog a home and you'd better jump to it.

Or the person that called me last week to adopt an old dog, I asked a simple question - is your yard fenced? The answer was yes, three quarters of it is. My answer was that the last quarter of the fence would be the essential part of my decision not to allow him to adopt the dog.

Disappointment after disappointment, served up in the nicest possible way of course.

Edited September 25, 2010 by dogmad

[lovemesideways]

This is an issue of mine also. I understand rescues are trying to do the best they can in making sure that dogs go to the right home after usually not a great start in life. My question is how many more dogs that could be saved, die in shelters because some rescues put conditions on their dogs that are going to be almost impossible to achieve? How many dogs miss out on great homes because of something tiny. I can imagine a rescue saying no to me, because our fences in the yard are not 6 foot. Or because I crate my dogs when going out.

BTW don't forget that this is not all rescues, and I have met some awesome people and rescue organisations striving to do the right thing. (Snap dogmad!)

Edited September 25, 2010 by lovemesideways

[spottychick]

I have to add that before I got Tango I spoke to someone at a rescue group about adopting a dalmatian from them. The conversation went a bit like this.

Me: Hi there I saw your dalmatian Spotty (fictional name) on your website and I'm interested in him. I just wanted to ask a few questions about him.

Lady: Oh you do, do you? Well I've got a few questions I want to ask you first.

Me: Um..... Okay no problems. Shoot

Lady: Do you have proper fencing?

Me: the whole yard is fenced and I have had three dalmatians living here that never escaped.

Lady: Are they all 6 foot high?

Me: Mostly, higher than that for the majority of it but a bit lower at the front. Maybe about 5 foot. Why is he a jumper?

Lady: Not that I'm aware of. It's just a rule we have when rehoming dogs.

Me: Oh okay

Lady: So that's that then. Goodbye

Me: Wait I could .....

She hung up.

I was pretty shocked by this. Her tone was really rude from the start and it nearly put me off rescuing a dog at all.

But a couple of weeks later I rang some other rescue groups about dalmatians who needed new homes. I had no problem with any other person I dealt with - all of whom were from specialist dalmatian rescue groups. In the end I was actually left having to choose between three of them. Tango drew the short straw

I imagine most rescue groups are doing a great job and have a sensible attitude that makes sure the dog is properly rehomed without being too fanatical about it. But there are a couple/few who take it all a bit far and might end up having a negative impact on the "rescue" cause.

ETA a little more I remembered of the conversation

Edited September 25, 2010 by spottychick

[YOLO]

One of the big reasons rescue organisations are particular about the home their dogs are adopted in to is because they do not want the dog ending up in the same situation again.

I think it would be irresponsible to rehome a dog that is displaying human aggression.....especially into a home with a 10 year old child (and even more concerning to household that holds opinion).

This was no pit bull or pig dog, a poor Flattie couldn’t hurt you if he wanted to.

The issue was that it was acknowledged that this poor boy was displaying atypical behaviour as a result of his imprisonment, but they weren’t prepared to give him a chance outside his prison.

As I said (if you read my post) he would only have interacted with myself, and my teenagers, until he had proven that the aberrant behaviour was behind him.

I suppose that under the wrong conditions almost any dog can snap, and a small child could be injured by almost anything, especially if the attack was directed at their face. Difference is that whilst the pounds are full of Staffy and Kelpie crosses, that can actually do a fair amount of damage, a Flattie simply can’t. They have been bred to carry fowl; they have big soft mouths, round teeth, and weak jaws.

I must confess that as a teenager, I taught my first Flattie to catch food that I tossed. (What can I say, I was a teenager, and at least I wasn’t doing drugs) Sometimes he would get over excited and snap, catching my hand. He never even broke the skin.

I’d also mention that when questioned they couldn’t say whether he was actually biting or just mouthing. Flatties will mouth until trained out of it or until they mature.

I can appreciate that rescuers (who are predominately volunteers) must get awfully frustrated at some idiot would-be owners, and I’m not suggesting that they let dogs go into blatantly unsuitable families. However they should give potential adoptees some credit for looking at adopting rather than patronising puppy mills and BYBs.

[Guest Ams]

Big D I can see your point of view but as a rescuer I have to look at every dog and ask "is rehoming this dog worth my house"? In this day and age of litigation it would take very little for someone to sue me and me lose my house over a rehoming.

BTW I rescue dogs that break down in pounds very quickly and I have and do take them into care when snappy but if this behaviour continues when in my home (I do not have kennels) then the dog is pts. If I can't manage the dog then how could I in all conscience ask someone else to.

And yes I have got it wrong and rehomed dogs to homes that were not suitable. No doubt I will again but I am trying very hard not to which is why I won't talk to potential adopters until they have completed a questionaire.

[Staranais]

Difference is that whilst the pounds are full of Staffy and Kelpie crosses, that can actually do a fair amount of damage, a Flattie simply can’t. They have been bred to carry fowl; they have big soft mouths, round teeth, and weak jaws.

Not this again. Didn't you make this claim in another thread?

Certain breeds of dog do not have "rounder" teeth than other breeds. You can't point to a retriever skull and say "ah ha! that's a retriever skull not a german shepherd or pitbull skull, because the teeth are rounded!" There's just no difference in the tooth anatomy.

And a retriever can do substantial damage to a person or child if they decide to do so, just like any other large dog breed. Watch a raw fed retriever demolish a carcass and you'll see what damage their teeth can do a person if they are so inclined, just like any other large dog.

I understand you like retrievers, and they do usually have nice friendly natures, but making incorrect claims about their anatomy doesn't help anyone.

[tianakaesha]

and yet, if that "poor flattie" bit a child, we'd hear no end of the fact a rescue organisation rehomed an aggressive dog and they obviously didn't temp test properly, were useless in their after sales help, and should be shut down because they allowed an aggressive dog to be released.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

What's to say their behaviourist found significant issue in the dogs behaviour that was risky and inappropriate for a dog that was to be adopted. You say you have not spoken to the trainer. There may have been major issues.

All dogs are capable of sever aggression. Flatties are not immune to temperament issues. Some that may even become apparent in a rescue situation and kenneling.

[Beth.]

Difference is that whilst the pounds are full of Staffy and Kelpie crosses, that can actually do a fair amount of damage, a Flattie simply can't. They have been bred to carry fowl; they have big soft mouths, round teeth, and weak jaws.

Not this again. Didn't you make this claim in another thread?

Certain breeds of dog do not have "rounder" teeth than other breeds. You can't point to a retriever skull and say "ah ha! that's a retriever skull not a german shepherd or pitbull skull, because the teeth are rounded!" There's just no difference in the tooth anatomy.

And a retriever can do substantial damage to a person or child if they decide to do so, just like any other large dog breed. Watch a raw fed retriever demolish a carcass and you'll see what damage their teeth can do a person if they are so inclined, just like any other large dog.

I understand you like retrievers, and they do usually have nice friendly natures, but making incorrect claims about their anatomy doesn't help anyone.

[Dame Aussie]

Difference is that whilst the pounds are full of Staffy and Kelpie crosses, that can actually do a fair amount of damage, a Flattie simply can’t. They have been bred to carry fowl; they have big soft mouths, round teeth, and weak jaws.

Not this again. Didn't you make this claim in another thread?

Certain breeds of dog do not have "rounder" teeth than other breeds. You can't point to a retriever skull and say "ah ha! that's a retriever skull not a german shepherd or pitbull skull, because the teeth are rounded!" There's just no difference in the tooth anatomy.

And a retriever can do substantial damage to a person or child if they decide to do so, just like any other large dog breed. Watch a raw fed retriever demolish a carcass and you'll see what damage their teeth can do a person if they are so inclined, just like any other large dog.

I understand you like retrievers, and they do usually have nice friendly natures, but making incorrect claims about their anatomy doesn't help anyone.

Totally agree.

ANY dog can hurt a child, when will people actually get it?

The legal and moral repurcussions of rehoming a dog that has shown aggressive behaviour towards humans is huge and not something I would expect any rescue group to open themselves up to.

[*Bones*]

and yet, if that "poor flattie" bit a child, we'd hear no end of the fact a rescue organisation rehomed an aggressive dog and they obviously didn't temp test properly, were useless in their after sales help, and should be shut down because they allowed an aggressive dog to be released.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

What's to say their behaviourist found significant issue in the dogs behaviour that was risky and inappropriate for a dog that was to be adopted. You say you have not spoken to the trainer. There may have been major issues.

All dogs are capable of sever aggression. Flatties are not immune to temperament issues. Some that may even become apparent in a rescue situation and kenneling.

But it would be reasonable for the trainer to contact the person interested in rescuing the dog before euthanazing it? Many dogs are so stressed in pounds/rescue they do not behave as usual. And the would be adoptee has, I am sure, some right to know, as the trainer has a duty of care to divulge. If not, they should consider the damage they do to their public image by this type of behavior

SOME trainers are hopeless

SOME of those doing rescue are psychologically unsuited to the emotional difficuties of dealing with unwanted dogs, many with problems. SOME rescue people are not suited to dealing with the public. They are enthusiastic but without people skills, they should not be dealing with the public

Of course Big D would have to prove he could cope with the dog with a problem - if that indeed was the case. But he should have been told.

Edited September 25, 2010 by Octavia

[karly101]

We experienced the same issue...

A lot of organisations weren't even interested in rehoming a dog with us because we work full time ...I can understand some dogs may not be suitable for that situation but they weren't even interested in taking our details down for future dogs or even directing us to other rescues. We aren't new dog owners, have a fully fenced yard and the dog is inside with us whenever we are home.

We did end up getting a nice little maltese cross from RSPCA who is very happy sleeping in one of our beds during the day when we are at work.

[*Bones*]

We experienced the same issue...

A lot of organisations weren't even interested in rehoming a dog with us because we work full time ...I can understand some dogs may not be suitable for that situation but they weren't even interested in taking our details down for future dogs or even directing us to other rescues. We aren't new dog owners, have a fully fenced yard and the dog is inside with us whenever we are home.

We did end up getting a nice little maltese cross from RSPCA who is very happy sleeping in one of our beds during the day when we are at work.

Oh yes, better to be dead than to be in a home where the owners work. What can these rescue people be thinking? If the home is good, somewhere, there is a dog which is ideal......as the maltese cross from the 'rspca

Edited September 25, 2010 by Octavia

[Dame Aussie]

We experienced the same issue...

A lot of organisations weren't even interested in rehoming a dog with us because we work full time ...I can understand some dogs may not be suitable for that situation but they weren't even interested in taking our details down for future dogs or even directing us to other rescues. We aren't new dog owners, have a fully fenced yard and the dog is inside with us whenever we are home.

We did end up getting a nice little maltese cross from RSPCA who is very happy sleeping in one of our beds during the day when we are at work.

Oh yes, better to be dead than to be in a home where the owners work. What can these rescue people be thinking? If the home is good, somewhere, there is a dog which is ideal......as the maltese cross from the 'rspca

This I agree with. We have both worked full time and our dogs are extremely spoilt and well cared for happy hounds

[karly101]

It was extremely frustrating as we were badly missing a dog after the passing of our 21 year oldie ... I had wanted to support one of the smaller organisations as I have volunteered for RSPCA and was frustrated with their management.. but after that....I am appreciative that they were willing to work with us to find the right pup.

[Gayle.]

We work fulltime, but that doesn't mean our dogs are left for endless hours on their own. I am often home by 3.30pm due to some early starts. Husband is self employed and configures his days to suit himself. He often pops home for a while to check on the dogs, play with them, do stuff around the house etc. Fulltime doesn't mean 10 hours of loneliness for a dog, but it's assumed it does.

[Nekhbet]

mum has contacted many many organisations about dogs, she barely works, has a nice big house of her own and one toy breed dog.

Not ONE rescue organisation has gotten back to her at all, even to say no. Well actually one rang to say, yep we'll call you back about this little dog, and no one ever did. She tried a couple of hello, did you get my last one, type emails and even then nothing.

So she just gave up totally. She was very upset too. I almost feel like just getting her a companion dog out of the paper.

[sas]

We work fulltime, but that doesn't mean our dogs are left for endless hours on their own. I am often home by 3.30pm due to some early starts. Husband is self employed and configures his days to suit himself. He often pops home for a while to check on the dogs, play with them, do stuff around the house etc. Fulltime doesn't mean 10 hours of loneliness for a dog, but it's assumed it does.

Yep and that's why my sister got her Staffy from a BYB instead of a Rescue as they were rude and turned her down for a Staffy youngster.