Rescue Organisations

[HugUrPup]

I reckon if you are that keen to get a rescue then raise your chances by making sure you have a secure yard and fit the criteria for the dog you are interested in.

Foster people learn from their mistakes I guess, so they know exactly what they are after in a person wanting to give a rescue dog a home.

Most people have best intentions and would love the dog and give them great homes, but there are plenty that want a dog and then it escapes, doesn't suit, they run out of time etc etc and the dog ends back in rescue.

I also believe that with the trail period, they should give people a go even if they are not sure if the applicant is absolutely ideal, because they may be pleasantly surprised and the best outcome is a happy forever home for the dogs.

Edited September 26, 2010 by puggerup

[voloclydes]

i think spotty chick and i met the same rescue person.... might has well been except that the dog we looked at was a digger so concret foundations not a high fence was the drama in that situation.

foster and rescue can come from all walks of life... we adopted sophie from the general board of dol...but others have come via the local buy swap and sell on the radio... friends who want to dump fido for what ever reason.

her update is on the board atm.... we um no i had hoped for some time i she would never find a home. the new family found us without her being advertised... and now she is on trial.

sophies story...http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=205628

[Guest Willow]

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?

They meant they are against backyard breeding. Which is exactly what it would have been had you taken an entire rescue dog & bred it. Would be irresponsible to let entire rescue dogs go out for adoption.

I used to work for the RSPCA, and you would be surprised at the number of people who actually asked for the mixed breed dog they were wanting to adopt to be left entire "so we can have a litter or two".

ETA: am not suggesting you were going to breed....by "you" I meant "general population".....realised it sounded like an accusation once i re-read my comment.

Edited September 26, 2010 by Willow

[mita]

I also believe that in some cases their fanatical/obsessive behaviour may sometimes be counterproductive.

Re-reading your post, I'd question if the examples you've given match your description of some rescues' behaviour as being fanatical/obsessive.

The RSPCA worker rightly commented that they don't believe in breeding...in the context of adopting out a dog as a pet. That comment wasn't referring to the entire world of dogs. Of course, the RSPCA would have the policy of adopting out only desexed dogs. They would obviously be aware of the larger problem in the dog world, where thousands of unwanted dogs are being put down in pounds & shelters for no other reason than that homes can't be found for them within a tight time frame. Go read the research that supports this, from UQ.

Your second example involved a dog that you met only for a few seconds. And that later you found out, had to be PTS on an assessment that a unreliable temperament could likely prove unsafe. More time was spent with this dog by the people who made that decision, than you did at the fence. If your 'wish' to expose the dog to a chance with your own family was met & something serious occurred, you'd be crying to high heaven about rescues being irresponsible. The AWL Qld shelter which is a leader in the field towards Zero kill, bluntly states that this does not discount the fact that some dogs just can't be separated from an unreliable temperament that makes them either unsafe or painfully miserable. And a decision to PTS made.

Frankly, I think that you've mistaken 'thoroughness' for 'obsessive behaviour'. And I'm still looking for an example you've given that would match your labels of 'bizarre' or 'fanatical' (both of which are not descriptive terms, but judgmental).

Edited September 27, 2010 by mita

[Quickasyoucan]

I don't think the rescue organisation sounds unreasonable either

And to add to the sentiment of others, you really need to get over the idea that flatcoats (or any gundogs with "soft mouths" ) are incapable of hurting anyone.

I will add though as regards rescue (and I have a rescue dog) I am not sure where all these mythical "stay at home people" are. If you don't work full time chances are you are:

a. a mother (who potentially will then get refused for having young children, not able to devote enough time to a dog).

b. a university student (potential for refusal due to lack of funds/stable income).

c. a pensioner (see b above).

d. a retiree (potentially too old for some rescue organisations.

There must be very few people who have an independent income, such that they do not work full time. I know some people are lucky enough to work from home, but I don't think they are in the majority.

I work full time, my dog gets walked before work, in the afternoons, by a friend, and in the evenings by me. When I am home he is with me.

Someone said, not every dog is suitable for people who work full time, that should be the criteria, not a blanket refusal to adopt out at all to people who work full time, or all people who are student or all people who are over a certain age etc...

Edited September 27, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[mita]

I will add though as regards rescue (and I have a rescue dog) I am not sure where all these mythical "stay at home people" are. If you don't work full time chances are you are:

a. a mother (who potentially will then get refused for having young children, not able to devote enough time to a dog).

b. a university student (potential for refusal due to lack of funds/stable income).

c. a pensioner (see b above).

d. a retiree (potentially too old for some rescue organisations.

I work full time, my dog gets walked before work, in the afternoons, by a friend, and in the evenings by me. When I am home he is with me.

Someone said, not every dog is suitable for people who work full time, that should be the criteria, not a blanket refusal to adopt out at all to people who work full time, or all people who are student or all people who are over a certain age etc...

Yes. The devil is in the details. Which is why in-depth questioning is required, in order to tease out those details. Now, those who object to in-depth questioning, seem unaware of this.

You're right, it's not so much the fact of working full-time, it's what provisions you can make for looking after your dog. And a case of selecting a dog less prone to separation issues. In the case of students, there needs to be some certainty that they're in accommodation which accepts pets and that they're aware of the costs in maintaining a pet. And that they've looked beyond the next couple of years, in how their circumstances are likely to change.

In some ways, this in-depth questioning can have a strong 'educational' component.

On the other hand, the rescue or shelter bears the ultimate responsibility for making as good a call as possible on behalf of an animal being rehomed. If in their experience, they decide to make a blanket rule, then they have the right to do so. Like only dogs over a certain age for older retirees or no adoptions to overseas students.

There's numbers of rescues in the 'marketplace', with variety in their policies, to apply to. That's something would-be adopters need to be aware of.

Edited September 27, 2010 by mita

[aussielover]

Why don't they actually list their criteria or tell you straight up???

When I was looking into puppy raising and fostering, Guide dogs had a list of criteria that you MUST satisfy before they would even come out to do the interview.

That included a fully fenced yard, able to be with the pup most of the day (cant be left >3hrs), able to attend monthly training sessions and live in the sydney area. They also had a house check and interview, but it was pretty casual, just discussing things like are you aware of how destrcutive a puppy can be, are you prepared for that etc...

I don't have a problem with house checks, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for the (potential) adopter to require a police check.

I do agree that some of the organisations are painful to deal with and require well-meaning, responsible owners to jump through hoops to get a dog.

A friend of ours whose 17yo!!! Bichons had recently passed away was refused a dog by a rescue organisation. I'm not sure of the reason, but seriously anyone who has has dogs live to the age of 17 can't be doing anything too wrong.

They turned to "free rehoming" and got two gorgeous lucky little doggies who are completely spoilt and doted on. So rescue missed out on a great home for one of their dogs.

[mita]

Why don't they actually list their criteria or tell you straight up???

An informative & succinct handout plus a copy of the Application to Adopt form were given to us, when we went to adopt a cat. Most of the content wouldn't come as any surprise to an already responsible pet owner. To such a person, it would appear to be the bleeding obvious. Which may be why some complain about an adoption process being tedious.

But much of it wouldn't be bleeding obvious to someone who's a bit shakey on being responsible....or on thinking ahead about what owning that pet would entail.

By the way, I've already posted previously, that I'm prepared to jump thro' the required hoops to adopt, even tho' I regard myself as a responsible pet owner. Whether I'm applying to a rescue or to a breeder. And am far more likely to be impressed that those hoops are in place.

Nor am I going to dissolve from grevious insult, if either a breeder or rescuer decides that a pet I'm interested in, is not a match...in their estimation (which is their right & responsibility). Or someone else has beaten me to the draw. I'm a grown-up, so am unlikely to then go off to a petshop, fired up with indignation.

Edited September 27, 2010 by mita

[RottnBullies]

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

You're damn right there!

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

Absolute more rubish

DON'T STEREOTYPE!

[Quickasyoucan]

I will add though as regards rescue (and I have a rescue dog) I am not sure where all these mythical "stay at home people" are. If you don't work full time chances are you are:

a. a mother (who potentially will then get refused for having young children, not able to devote enough time to a dog).

b. a university student (potential for refusal due to lack of funds/stable income).

c. a pensioner (see b above).

d. a retiree (potentially too old for some rescue organisations.

I work full time, my dog gets walked before work, in the afternoons, by a friend, and in the evenings by me. When I am home he is with me.

Someone said, not every dog is suitable for people who work full time, that should be the criteria, not a blanket refusal to adopt out at all to people who work full time, or all people who are student or all people who are over a certain age etc...

Yes. The devil is in the details. Which is why in-depth questioning is required, in order to tease out those details. Now, those who object to in-depth questioning, seem unaware of this.

You're right, it's not so much the fact of working full-time, it's what provisions you can make for looking after your dog. And a case of selecting a dog less prone to separation issues. In the case of students, there needs to be some certainty that they're in accommodation which accepts pets and that they're aware of the costs in maintaining a pet. And that they've looked beyond the next couple of years, in how their circumstances are likely to change.

In some ways, this in-depth questioning can have a strong 'educational' component.

On the other hand, the rescue or shelter bears the ultimate responsibility for making as good a call as possible on behalf of an animal being rehomed. If in their experience, they decide to make a blanket rule, then they have the right to do so. Like only dogs over a certain age for older retirees or no adoptions to overseas students.

There's numbers of rescues in the 'marketplace', with variety in their policies, to apply to. That's something would-be adopters need to be aware of.

Good post Mita, especially the bolded bit.

I would think this would equally apply to responsible breeders and rescuers.

A friend of mine went looking for a rottie, they were a bit surprised to be asked a lot of questions, but I wasn't surprised that they were. They were asked to provide pics of their yard, what their family set up was etc. I got the impression that the breeder in question would rather sell to couples or families than to single males. I can see why, if you are protective of your dogs and your breed's reputation. That is not to say all single males are going to be boof heads, but I bet the breeder had been burnt before....

If I were selling a dog I would want to know that the fit was good, that the owner could adequately provide for the dog's physical and mental well being and that they knew what they were up for in terms of exercise requirements etc.

I think it is arrogant to assume that you have a right to any particular dog (no matter how much you like the look of it or think you are a responsible owner), it is up to the person in possession to make that decision, in the dog's best interests.

ETA bad spelling and grammar

Edited September 27, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

I don't have any problems with screening processes, however, I do have problems with people who don't keep their word, or who go over the top in screeing would-be owners. Work fulltime? Yep, but that doesn't mean never home. Got dogs next door? Yep, but they aren't a problem at all. Got cats? Yep, grown up with dogs and more than able to take care of themselves.

I wouldn't have a problem with anyone wanting to do a home check, however I have got three dogs from ANKC breeders who never wanted to, so I don't see why anyone else would need to either. For a rescue organisation wanting to send someone around to do a home check, I would need a police check done on that person first.

Too often I see on here "Home check needed in Whoop-Whoop" and any old person could put their hand up and go do a home check. They are not necessarily reliable or responsible.

Good point Gayle K - and further to that (police check) if you supply your home address and answer yes work fulltime to said question how do you know where that information is stored and if it is kept in a secure location? As opposed to in a box somewhere in a shelf or worse tossed into a general bin when no longer required that anyone could access. Yet another home invasion last night not that far away so of course people get more and more cautious about security of personal info.

this is the issue for me. with the information requested it would be very easy for someone to use this to break into the house or as identity theft.

so the questions to be asked:

how is this data stored?

is there a secure place for all data storage?

what is the rescues data policy, including how they manage non successful application data?

who gets to read the info?

do the people reading the info have a clear police check?

personally, i would never give anyone who couldnt answer the above questions to my satisfaction my data.

[Steve]

Its pretty hard to list the criteria past a certain point.The object for any rescue group is to assess the dog and its needs - therefore the assumption is that every dog needs to be found a home based on criteria which best suits the dog . What suits one would not suit another.

Guide dogs can list a set of criteria because every dog they foster out is a pup and they know where it comes from and its history - you dont have that luxury with rescue and if a dog is assessed to need 10 feet high chain link to keep him in there isnt much point in placing him in a home which says they have good fencing when still isnt what is needed to keep every one - including the dog happy.

[Bilbo Baggins]

Having rehomed a couple of dogs in the last month, I believe its the fit between the dog and the adopting family.

One dog only lasted 1 1/2 weeks in the new home. We removed it so it could be seen by another prospective adopter, but this was unsuitable so he went back to his foster carer and was rehomed to a totally suitable person 3 days later.

Both people had had dogs before and we did not do yard checks. I feel that this could be seen as intrusive.

One place was visited when paper work completed.

Ther other will also be seen then.

[Adza]

We adopted Tahli from RSPCA the lady who interviewed us was excellent, and I did not feel intimidated by questions by all means come to my house and check it out. As someone said you learn from your mistakes. Even do a criminal check, whatever. You do what you do if you really want the dog.

I'd be cautious if I was working in rescue, I bet you a number of people lie on the questionnaire, as the lady at the RSPCA said to us, so many people get caught out lying about having kids or owning other dogs etc. So no I don't think they are unreasonable. Because someone might lie about having a cat, bring dog home, dog kills it, then they get rid of the dog again.

Sorry but I am very passionate about rescues and thats just my opinion..

[Aussienot]

As in many things, adopting out a dog responsibly is a balancing act. You want to find the best forever home for each dog, so you put criteria and restrictions in place, and you question potential adoptors about their expectations and life situation. At the same time, you want to encourage people to consider adopting, so you try very hard to make your criteria reasonable and justified. And you try to explain courtesly and pleasantly when the fit is not right.

When emotions are envolved, it's always hard to be professional and pleasant to someone who is upset about not getting their way. Some people in rescue are great with dogs, but not so great on the people skills. Rescue is a hard and mostly thankless job. I think it's a bit unfair to label the rescue's practices bizarre just because you would have liked it done differently.

I am sorry you had a bad experience and you didn't end up with the dog. I hope that you would consider rescuing a flatcoat again in future, because wanting to give a dog a home is a good deed.

[~*Shell*~]

A friend has just gone through the same thing - 4 different rescue organisations and a big NO from all of them. She is a fantastic lady, works from home a lot of the time and has a great dog-friendly house. All of the organisations said no for different reasons.

She is thinking of having a baby in the next couple of years - one place wouldn't give her a dog because she didn't have kids and another wouldn't because she had kids around too often (she has nieces and nephews). Both times she was trying to adopt a puppy of the same breed with similar temprements. Another wouldn't because she works full time (even though she works from home a lot of the time) and then another one was because she didn't have another dog to give the rescue one any company.

As it is, both her and her partner are completely over it and they have now found a wonderful registered breeder with a litter of pups on the ground which should be ready to come home in 6 weeks. It would have been 100 times easier to get a pup straight from the pound than deal with what they went through and it's completely turned her off rescue which is very sad because she has a great home and is committed to bringing up a well adjusted pup.

[dee lee]

I have had very bad experiences with some rescue organisations and wonderful experiences with others. I had equally diverse experiences with registered breeders.

I think that for BOTH, you need to take into account that the people you are dealing with are passionate about dogs and have the dog's interests at heart, not yours.

I also think that for BOTH you need to "shop" around until you find a rescue organisation or breeder that you can work with to find the perfect dog for your circumstances, and that will give you ongoing support if needed.

You shouldnt dismiss all rescue orgs and breeders because of singular (or even several) bad experiences.

[BMAK]

if it wasnt for these rescue groups all these dogs would be dead sometimes the majority wins over minoirty help 20 dogs or help 1 !!!

ok some are stricter then others but they do there best to ensure dogs dont end up at the shelters again i have heard of dogs being rehomed 4 TIMES!

MAYBE IF THEY HAD STRICTER RULES EARILER THIS DOGS WOULD BE TOYED WITH MULTIPLE TIMES, SO NOW THEY DO HAVE STRICTER RULES I BET YOU WONT SEE HIM BACK AT THE POUND?

there are many pros and cons to rescue groups they want to have dogs that get the required amount of attention and exercise on a daily basis if not fair other wise hes better off with a different family

if you work full time when does the dog get a chance to play 1 hr exercise and interaction a day isnt very much is it ?

the dog may be out of a pound but its not fair on the dog to be stuck behind 4 walls i think!

dogs that are bred and instinctually have characteristic that show they need alot of mental and physical deserve to find the right home for example a working kelpie no way in hell i would give that dog to a family that doesnt include it in activities where he wont be worked,like in agility herding or obedience.

[freundhund]

I am concerned also about how rescue operations choose applicants and suitable dogs.

Yesterday when I went to training, there was an incredible agressive Chihuahua, to the point it was lunging and snapping at people and dogs!!!! If it had been a GSD, Rotti, Malinois, Dobe, Flat Coated Retriever or any other of the large breeds it would not have been rehomed.

My next issue was that the person who had "rescued this dog" was herself so extremely aggressive she was not helping her dog at all with her own behaviour. I got screamed at and told I didn't understand that this was "a rescue dog", and that it hadn't had the nice, "priviledged" upbringing that my own dog had had.

As far as I am concerned someone with this persons temperament and behavioural issues should not have been allowed to adopt, and the dog should not have been adopted out either. I was concerned that a child at the obedience club could potential be bitten by this dog.

[Snout Girl]

if you work full time when does the dog get a chance to play 1 hr exercise and interaction a day isnt very much is it ?

I'm sorry I completely disagree with this shocking generalisation.

My dogs definently get more than one hour of my time a day- they are walked twice a day, do obedience training every day, go to obedience school and have started agility. they are inside with us 15 of 24 hours a day being part of the family.

just because someone doesnt work full time doesnt mean they spend 24/7 with their dogs.

each person should be taken on merit, not their working status.

in this day and age of rising costs everywhere it is a reality that a lot of households have both adults working.

if we exclude these families from adoption you will be excluding a large pool of the population and making it harder to find the perfect home as your choices are so limited.

having a blanket 'no full time workers' policy is self destructive in my opinion.