"i Consider Him A Rescue"

[Gayle.]

When a dog is rehomed via a breed rescue service, whether it was bred by the people who run the service (ie, a registered breeder or a breed club) or bred in another state, or bred by backyarders, then it's a rescue.

Regarding the statement in bold. I have to ask. Are their breeders out there who work for rescues that are using the rescue resources rather than their own to rehome dogs they have bred? I am not talking about just contacts for people who might be looking for homes as these can often be passed freely between breeders and rescues and I would not class a dog as a rescue because the dog was united with a person through a contact list of people looking for dogs (my friends just got a lead for a dog through a rescue but dealt with the owner who was rehoming the dog - while the lead came through rescue the dog is a rehome). I am talking about in general classifying a dog as a rescue and possibly using rescue resources to rehome a dog where they are the breeder of that dog.

Depends on the breed, I suppose, and how active they are in rescuing and rehoming their own breed. In my case, the breeders are also the state rescue service for the breed and the dog came back to them via that service and was rehomed to me through that service. They told me she was a rescue dog and told me her story (and there's a lot more to the story than I will ever tell here).

In Vic, the Australian Shepherd club form an active network to rescue and rehome dogs that are in pounds (not too many, thank goodness) or have been surrendered by their owners. They are not a formal rescue service, but what they do equates to the same. In a nutshell, if the dogs aren't surrendered and rehomed, they'd be dumped in a pound and/or euthanased.

[Guest lavendergirl]

One chain of puppy selling pet shops has recently decided not to support "puppy farms" and instead is taking puppies from BYB. So they mostly have "accidental" litters of SBTx or farm dog bitsa in their perspex walled cages. I did notice that one food court that I walk through to get from A to B - had one of these chains in it, and it has since disappeared. And good riddance.

There is still another one across the mall though I think that one has puppy mill puppies. ARRGHH.

My dog is such a good ambassador for pound puppies - I got her from AWL and she's such a friendly dog - people are amazed you can get a friendly dog or a 10 week old puppy from the shelters. Don't all those dogs have behaviour problems? Erm, no!

Totally relate to this. I get comments like "he is so well behaved for an RSPCA dog" - like we all know they are inferior or have problems right?? Unfortunately the ones that do actually "have problems" don't often make it through the assessment process prior to being offered for adoption.

[tdierikx]

For anyone in non breed specific rescue, it's no surprise to find that the majority of dogs in the pounds are really nice dogs all around... and we are happy to share that knowledge at every opportuntity... *grin*

T.

[Greytmate]

When a dog is rehomed via a breed rescue service, whether it was bred by the people who run the service (ie, a registered breeder or a breed club) or bred in another state, or bred by backyarders, then it's a rescue.

Regarding the statement in bold. I have to ask. Are their breeders out there who work for rescues that are using the rescue resources rather than their own to rehome dogs they have bred? I am not talking about just contacts for people who might be looking for homes as these can often be passed freely between breeders and rescues and I would not class a dog as a rescue because the dog was united with a person through a contact list of people looking for dogs (my friends just got a lead for a dog through a rescue but dealt with the owner who was rehoming the dog - while the lead came through rescue the dog is a rehome). I am talking about in general classifying a dog as a rescue and possibly using rescue resources to rehome a dog where they are the breeder of that dog.

I agree with what you have been saying in this topic espinay.

A breeder running a 'rescue service' and then using that service to rehome their own failed placements? There is a perceived conflict of interest there.

When I ran GAPQLD, I never referred to it as rescue. We rehomed dogs on behalf of their previous owners and breeders. We didn't pluck them out of pounds or collect them from dire situations. We took them from a waiting list. We rehomed dogs, we adopted out dogs. We did not rescue them, even when we took back our own failed placements, that isn't rescue.

The reason I think this topic is important, is that there are real RESCUE groups out there, that really rescue dogs and rely on charitable funding. For the integrity and reputation of ethical rescue groups, we need to stop labelling ordinary dog purchases as rescues. It sounds lovely for somebody to say they rescued a dog, it is often the perfect excuse for any of the dog's faults. Sounds much better than saying they purchased a second hand dog, or that they chose to buy a cute randomly bred puppy on impulse rather than going to the trouble of buying a well-bred one.

[PuddleDuck]

I have to say I was very proud of my mum the other day. She was over with her Maltese X that was a pet shop puppy and my MIL asked where she had gotten him. Mum (before I could start to growl) turned around and said "I got him from a pet store, which I shouldn't have done, because I know now that probably means he came from a puppy farm. You should never buy a dog from a pet store". I was so proud of her - just goes to show what can come of one little seed planted in someones mind....I have no doubt that she tells everyone that now.

And the pet store went broke a few weeks after she got him, which made me feel a bit better as well

[AmandaJ]

I know this is a little OT - but - I consider my 3 to be rescue dogs....they rescue me every day from a clean, hair free house, a tidy well maintained garden, sleeping alone and from having money in my purse. I wouldn't have it any other way.

The only good pet shop is one without pets!

[espinay2]

When a dog is rehomed via a breed rescue service, whether it was bred by the people who run the service (ie, a registered breeder or a breed club) or bred in another state, or bred by backyarders, then it's a rescue.

Regarding the statement in bold. I have to ask. Are their breeders out there who work for rescues that are using the rescue resources rather than their own to rehome dogs they have bred? I am not talking about just contacts for people who might be looking for homes as these can often be passed freely between breeders and rescues and I would not class a dog as a rescue because the dog was united with a person through a contact list of people looking for dogs (my friends just got a lead for a dog through a rescue but dealt with the owner who was rehoming the dog - while the lead came through rescue the dog is a rehome). I am talking about in general classifying a dog as a rescue and possibly using rescue resources to rehome a dog where they are the breeder of that dog.

Depends on the breed, I suppose, and how active they are in rescuing and rehoming their own breed. In my case, the breeders are also the state rescue service for the breed and the dog came back to them via that service and was rehomed to me through that service. They told me she was a rescue dog and told me her story (and there's a lot more to the story than I will ever tell here).

In Vic, the Australian Shepherd club form an active network to rescue and rehome dogs that are in pounds (not too many, thank goodness) or have been surrendered by their owners. They are not a formal rescue service, but what they do equates to the same. In a nutshell, if the dogs aren't surrendered and rehomed, they'd be dumped in a pound and/or euthanased.

I am not talking about breeders rescuing and rehoming thair own breed, but rather breeders OWN dogs that they have bred and had returned to them for one reason or another. To me while some of the stories may be similar to a rescue, the fact that the breeder has taken responsibility for their own dogs to me implies it is a rehome.

Rescue to me is where no one who has a connection to the dog - as an owner or a breeder - has a part in the process because they are either unknown/unidentifiable or because they have abrogated their responsibility.

The reason I ask is that the idea that breeders may be using the funds etc of a rescue organisation they are involved with to rehome a dog they have bred and calling it 'rescue' does not sit too well with me.

JMHO

[mita]

I'm on the mission to find a kitten at present, and have a similar feeling when I look at the websites of registered breeders. Whilst not rescuing, it is 80% of the time referred to as "adopting your kitten" which I cannot help but feel is a tad manipulative, much like the notion of "rescue". Am I wrong to feel this?

Breeders are stuck between a rock and a hard place as far as I am concerned.

If they refer to sales, selling etc they are accused of being too commercial or profit driven. I don't think the wording is manipulative at all.

I agree with you Crisovar. I can't see anything manipulative in the wording either.

In fact, I think 'adopting' is an accurate word to describe getting a companion animal from a registered breeder. 'To adopt' a child means to take him or her into your family & making every provision for care, love and support. So it's jolly good wording for a decent registered breeder, who cares about their animals' future lives, to use, if he/she wishes.

I always talk about how all your p/b tibbies were 'adopted' from good registered breeders. Who keep a link & interest in them....a little like 'birth mothers'.

And if I get a pet from a shelter, rescue group or from other source, I will always refer to it as 'adopting' that pet, too.

Because my emphasis is on the care, love & support the pet will get on joining the family.

Edited August 20, 2011 by mita

[Pheebs]

I guess for me it's just the mental correlation of the word

'adopt' as being synonymous with rescue. It's only something I've noticed in the last 3 months in researching kittens - not something I've really seen used in the dog world - but that's just a superficial observation

Just to clarify: by "manipulative" I mean in the sense of pulling on the heartstrings of prospective families - not manipulative in intent. Poor choice of wording

[mita]

I guess for me it's just the mental correlation of the word

'adopt' as being synonymous with rescue. It's only something I've noticed in the last 3 months in researching kittens - not something I've really seen used in the dog world - but that's just a superficial observation

Just to clarify: by "manipulative" I mean in the sense of pulling on the heartstrings of prospective families - not manipulative in intent. Poor choice of wording

Pheebs, I get it now, what you meant. We both just linked the work 'adopt' with different ideas. Me....with being taken into a family to be well cared for. Wherever the pet's come from.

And you....with it's common use in rescue. So it'd follow that you'd see 'adopt' as pulling on heartstrings. I did, too....but for a good reason. Taking a pet into a home is taking it into your heart as well.

I don't think either of us is right or wrong. It just shows how people read the same thing and interpret it differently.