Rehoming dogs from rescues

Evac101

First of all, this is intended in the spirit of enquiry/debate, so please read it as such.

I've been thinking for about a year now about the push for people to rescue/adopt/foster rather then sourcing pups from (potentially) less then reputable breeders. One of the big points which I've seen raised both here and on other forums/boards is that without hip-scoring, testing for hereditary illnesses etc that purchasing from somewhere like (but not limited to) DoneDeal is a lottery regarding the long term health of the pet. Not to imply that everyone on DoneDeal is a puppy farmer out for a quick buck obviously, I'm just using that website as a much vilified example.

So, the main thrust of the debate is that when sourcing pups from somewhere like DoneDeal has two big potential pitfalls (a) contributing to inhumane/terrible conditions for both the breeding stock and their offspring and (b) that because appropriate health checks haven't been carried out that the long term 'viability' of the pet is compromised. Before someone hops on me, I'm aware that 'viability' isn't a compassionate word to use to describe this but it was the most accurate and least emotionally laden phrase I could think of to describe the set of conditions we're talking about.

Now, given that
(1)many of the dogs in rescues were originally sourced via sites like DoneDeal and then abandoned
(2)the majority of rescues don't have the money/resources to carry out the appropriate tests (when they're even aware of the exact parentage of the dog)
(3)many of the health problems which people use as examples of uncontrolled breeding pitfalls are ones which can manifest years down the line

Are we being unreasonable in encouraging people to adopt from these sources which, through the very best of reasons, act as a second tier suppliers of dogs which are potential financial/emotional bombs years down the line? Whatever the laudable source the dogs have the same potential for long term health problems so does the supplier forgive the origin in these situations in peoples minds?

Like I prefaced, this is all in the spirit of enquiry and finding out peoples views on this - not looking to start a war

borderlinemeath

Put simply if everybody who was looking for a dog took a dog from rescue rather than purchasing from an unregulated website, think of the loss of revenue to the sellers on the site? It would discourage them to breed so recklessly. Eventually they would go out of business if they had no customers..

gud4u

Interesting.....

There wouldn't be as much terms and conditions and health checks done on a child up for adoption, yet people want perfect dogs.

If they pay top end breeders they have a clause to bring them back, and if they're from a rescue they can also be returned if it doesn't work out.

Are we all just obssessed with perfection.

Maybe people should just take on the full responsibility of a dog when they buy/rescue one, as afterall, it's supposed to be for life, and in fairness, with a dog that's rarely over 18 years.

None of my dogs of which 2 were bought and 2 were rescues have any hip scores, etc, but whatever they need for their health they will recieve.

So if someone buys one from DD and then abandons it and the dog ends up in a rescue/pound then it still isn't because the dog wasn't hip scored or behaviour vetted.

It's because we live in a disposable world where some people just don't care about the welfare of the animal regardless.

Just my thoughts..:)

Evac101

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Put simply if everybody who was looking for a dog took a dog from rescue rather than purchasing from an unregulated website, think of the loss of revenue to the sellers on the site? It would discourage them to breed so recklessly. Eventually they would go out of business if they had no customers..

That addresses the puppy farmers in the long term perhaps but, and I guess this is the core of my query, are we, knowingly, encouraging people to adopt pets on one hand which, in some/a lot of cases, have ultimately come from a source which we equally lambaste as being a source to steer clear of because of long term medical issues on the other hand.

Cherry Blossom

Anyone considering taking a pure-bred dog from a rescue (or their crosses) should be made fully aware of the risks involved with that breed - it costs nothing for a rescue to refer people to relevant information sources for this. I completely agree that people should be afforded the opportunity of making a well informed decision. The breed specific rescues I would guess have a wealth of knowledge on health issues, these being the people that would see these cases in large numbers and I know a lot of them are excellent at passing this information on to prospective owners. If they are not I would question that they do indeed have the best interests of either the dog or prospective owner at heart which ultimately defeats the whole purpose of their existence.

For example - practically every Westie in the country that goes through the re-homing process is done via the breed rescue, the person who runs it, I would consider the ultimate expert in the breed in this country and she is able to provide on-going support and advice for the new owner for the life of that dog. The same sort of rescue exists for bull-breeds.

To be perfectly honest there is good and bad within every aspect of the dog world (and life in general), this seems to escape some people unfortunately when they get caught up in the whole business of trying to 'save' dogs with no thought/knowledge to how the organisations they recommend actually operate in practice.

Hellrazer

gud4u wrote: »

Maybe people should just take on the full responsibility of a dog when they buy/rescue one, as afterall, it's supposed to be for life, and in fairness, with a dog that's rarely over 18 years.

This is the single issue--If people took on full responsibility for the life of their pet and by full responsibility ie neutering,breeding responsibly etc there would be no need for rescues and there would be no abandoned dogs.

Never going to happen though.

Evac101

I understand your points Gud4u and, same as you, when we got our dogs we had the attitude that, better or worse, they're both our problem and benefit for the rest of their lives. It's just that we see so much negative commentary on puppys from dubious sources that I find it hard to reconcile that with the 'Adopt a dog' line which is put forth quite a bit. Don't get me wrong, adopting dogs is a wonderful and worthy thing to do but surely if we're recommending that we need to drop health concerns as a reason not to use the other sources as it's equally valid to use it as a reason not to adopt surely?

Continuing to pursue this with a view to getting peoples opinions and informing myself

LovelyHurlin

There is a bit of a difference between giving a lot of €€€ to a shady breeder in order to get yourself a non-health tested pup and rescuing an innocent dog through the pound/dog rescue.

There may be some chance that you are rescuing a dog with potential health issues, but at least you are not supporting an unethical and cruel industry.

Also, as stated earlier in the thread, most decent animal rescues will provide support after you adopt the dog and will always take the dog back if it comes to that.

I suppose, the advice should be do your research either way - whether you are buying a pedigree pup or rescuing a dog.

Discodog

In getting a rescue dog you balance the slight risk of not being certain of the background etc of the dog with the fact that you are saving a dog's life. If you take a rescue you free up a space for another dog which has either come from the Pound or would be heading there if the rescue didn't intervene.

If you are comparing going to a breeder or a rescue then it is very unlikely that a rescue will have an eight week old puppy of the specific breed that you require - so the argument becomes rather hypothetical.

Personally I have never been looking for a specific breed. I have three different breeds here & they all behave pretty much the same & have the same temperament. I think that the dog that you end up with is 90% down to the owner & 10% or less to the breed.

I also wouldn't be concerned about the dog's background because I would have confidence in being able to "mould" the dog but I can respect that others may not be in such a situation. Two of mine came to me having been abused & as nervous wrecks - they are now wonderful balanced, happy dogs.

F-Stop

I agree that if people are looking for a dog as a family pet they should look at rescuing a dog. Unfortunately a lot of people are really put off by the attitude of some of the rescues, which only serves to make them turn to the likes of donedeal. Also, a lot of people think that a rescue dog is a problem dog, a 'paid for' dog is going to be perfect. Yeah, good luck with that. If you want an easy, no fuss, cheap, takes no time, well behaved dog get a nintendo.

Discodog

F-Stop wrote: »

I Unfortunately a lot of people are really put off by the attitude of some of the rescues, which only serves to make them turn to the likes of donedeal.

If anyone thinks that a rescue is wrong to insist on certain conditions they should read this thread :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056496456

planetX

Evac101 wrote: »

that because appropriate health checks haven't been carried out that the long term 'viability' of the pet is compromised.

you should watch 'Pedigree dogs exposed' - you're not necessarily protected from serious inherited diseases by going to a top breeder. There are certain breeds that should probably be avoided from any source if you want to limit your risk of future illness.

Bullseye1

I've no problem with people rescuing a dog from a shelter there is much to admire. But I do resent them looking down at those of us who love pedigree dogs. Alot of dog owners go through their lives only owning one breed. It also promotes (and I admit not in all cases) a healthy breed.

Hellrazer

F-Stop wrote: »

. Unfortunately a lot of people are really put off by the attitude of some of the rescues, which only serves to make them turn to the likes of donedeal.

Have to say I agree with this sentiment.Ive kept dogs for years and years and a home check etc would put me right off.Personal opinion btw not a mod one before certain people get their knickers in a twist.

Also, a lot of people think that a rescue dog is a problem dog, a 'paid for' dog is going to be perfect.

When this issue has come up in the past Ive pointed out "issues" Ive had with some very messed up rescue dogs so much so that its put me off.I agree that others have had some of the best friends one can have in a rescue but Ive been the most unlucky person when rescuing a dog.

Yeah, good luck with that. If you want an easy, no fuss, cheap, takes no time, well behaved dog get a nintendo.

If you want a no-fuss easy dog--Do your research first into the breeder and breed etc.You cant generalise with a statement like that.

Hellrazer

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've no problem with people rescuing a dog from a shelter there is much to admire. But I do resent them looking down at those of us who love pedigree dogs.

Likewise but I also resent the whole "get a rescue" issue when someone has their heart set on a certain breed.

Bullseye1

As do I. I think I started a thread on that very subject last year.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

When this issue has come up in the past Ive pointed out "issues" Ive had with some very messed up rescue dogs so much so that its put me off.I agree that others have had some of the best friends one can have in a rescue but Ive been the most unlucky person when rescuing a dog.

But if you wouldn't allow a homecheck then how can a rescue match you to a dog ? If you have had bad experiences then maybe you should consider allowing the rescue to follow the procedures that are successful for the vast majority of rehomings.

F-Stop

Discodog wrote: »

If anyone thinks that a rescue is wrong to insist on certain conditions they should read this thread :

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056496456

That's an extreme scenario and should have been flagged pretty early on following a 'reasonable' interview with the family who were going to rescue the dog.

We were given 2 minutes and told that we couldn't rescue a dog because we both worked and the dogs would spend some days outside.

We were rescuing two dogs.
We'd had a rescue dog for 6 years before that and a vet who could have been contacted to verify the condition of the dog and the way it was treated.
We walked out feeling like we had been horrible owners to that dog.

In the end we gave a home to two dogs from a different rescue.
They are both neutered, tagged and vaccinated.
We've had them 18 months now.
Once a year we go on holiday. We book a dog friendly self catering cottage - the dogs come with us.
Both dogs have gone through a four week obedience training course.
One of the dogs is a bit fragile - he has lots of allergies and his diet needs to be changed regularly. Vet fees for him has been around 1,000 euro in the last 12 months for lots of minor little things.
They are insured.
They get walked at least once a day, if they can't be walked the special toys come out and they get lots of attention for a half hour or so.
I recently bought a new (used) car and one of the criteria was that it had to be a hatchback for carrying the dogs - both cars have dog guards.
When we had to find kennels for them we visited a few and found one that we liked. The dogs love going there, of course they don't have to pay for it.
They are not perfect, and neither are we, but rescuing them allowed two more dogs to get a place and potentially get rehomed too.

We put a lot of time into them, I think when you are looking to rescue a dog the people there should put more than two minutes into evaluating your ability to home a dog. Being employed should not disqualify you out of hand.

To top things off, the rescue had taken all my details before dismissing me and six months later sent me a letter requesting a donation. I'm not alone in having this kind of experience, and despite your extreme example my point stands: a lot of people are wary of the treatment they'll get from certain rescues and will therefore go to the likes of donedeal anyway to avoid it.

EDIT: sorry if this has derailed the thread.

Hellrazer

Discodog wrote: »

But if you wouldn't allow a homecheck then how can a rescue match you to a dog ?

Id personally prefer to choose my own dog not have one matched up for me.

If you have had bad experiences then maybe you should consider allowing the rescue to follow the procedures that are successful for the vast majority of rehomings.

Procedures were followed.Ok it was before a lot of rescues insisted on home checks but everything else was done by the book--I was unluck that the dogs had serious behavioural issues.But I couldnt take that chance now with young kids in the house.

Bullseye1

A good breeder also has checks and balances. I was interviewed before I got my first Ridgy.

Cherry Blossom

Discodog wrote: »

If you are comparing going to a breeder or a rescue then it is very unlikely that a rescue will have an eight week old puppy of the specific breed that you require - so the argument becomes rather hypothetical.

Do dogs over the age of 8 weeks not get hip-dysplasia, food allergies, syringomyelia, VWD, epilepsy, cardiac problems, etc, etc? How do 'mould' dogs out of these conditions?

Are you really trying to claim a person is unlikely to find Labs, Staffies, Boxers, Collies, Springers, Rottweillers, German shephards, Huskies, CKCs etc, etc, etc in rescues in this country?

Regardless of what breed you end up with, the person you got it from should have a duty to inform you of the associated health risks and more importantly the potential costs involved with these problems.

F-Stop

Hellrazer wrote: »

If you want a no-fuss easy dog--Do your research first into the breeder and breed etc.You cant generalise with a statement like that.

Whoosh! What? My point was if you want every thing to be easy then get the computer game simulated dog game for you nintendo that you can turn off - real dogs aren't like that.

Hellrazer

F-Stop wrote: »

Whoosh! What? My point was if you want every thing to be easy then get the computer game simulated dog game for you nintendo that you can turn off - real dogs aren't like that.

And my point was you cant generalise with a statement like that.Not all dogs are hard work.

F-Stop

Hellrazer wrote: »

And my point was you cant generalise with a statement like that.Not all dogs are hard work.

I never said hard work. I did imply that they all require some work. And they do. There is no breed that cannot get an infection, that would require being brought to the vet, perhaps require surgery and need to be collected the next day - and all that would have to be paid for with potentially time taken off work. It's not hard work, but it's not always easy. If you want easy get the computer game.

Discodog

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

Do dogs over the age of 8 weeks not get hip-dysplasia, food allergies, syringomyelia, VWD, epilepsy, cardiac problems, etc, etc? How do 'mould' dogs out of these conditions?

Are you really trying to claim a person is unlikely to find Labs, Staffies, Boxers, Collies, Springers, Rottweillers, German shephards, Huskies, CKCs etc, etc, etc in rescues in this country?

Regardless of what breed you end up with, the person you got it from should have a duty to inform you of the associated health risks and more importantly the potential costs involved with these problems.

I have never declined a breed because of the possibility of health problems. If I rescue a dog it is because I want to save a life. Most people looking at classifieds will be wanting a puppy.

If you are concerned about health issues then you should do your research before you get any dog. Virtually every breed will have some potential health problems. It's often hard enough to know what breeds are involved in a typical rescue let alone advise people of potential health issues.

Hellrazer wrote: »

But I couldnt take that chance now with young kids in the house.

Well I would totally trust my three with kids even if, on principle, I wouldn't leave children alone with them.

The good rescues & there are plenty of them, have very low return/problem rates. But their success is dependant on being given the required information by the prospective owner. Rescues don't insist on this just to be awkward. Most of them have had many years experience in rehoming & they have evolved methods that work.

borderlinemeath

Hellrazer wrote: »

Likewise but I also resent the whole "get a rescue" issue when someone has their heart set on a certain breed.

I love Irish setters, always have. I did have my heart set on getting one. Got our first 4 years ago and our second came from rescue last year. With the exception of a handful of breeds I reckon anybody can find what they're looking for in rescue these days. Mores the pity.

gud4u

F-Stop wrote: »

That's an extreme scenario and should have been flagged pretty early on following a 'reasonable' interview with the family who were going to rescue the dog.

We were given 2 minutes and told that we couldn't rescue a dog because we both worked and the dogs would spend some days outside.

We were rescuing two dogs.
We'd had a rescue dog for 6 years before that and a vet who could have been contacted to verify the condition of the dog and the way it was treated.
We walked out feeling like we had been horrible owners to that dog.

In the end we gave a home to two dogs from a different rescue.
They are both neutered, tagged and vaccinated.

We've had them 18 months now.
Once a year we go on holiday. We book a dog friendly self catering cottage - the dogs come with us.
Both dogs have gone through a four week obedience training course.
One of the dogs is a bit fragile - he has lots of allergies and his diet needs to be changed regularly. Vet fees for him has been around 1,000 euro in the last 12 months for lots of minor little things.
They are insured.
They get walked at least once a day, if they can't be walked the special toys come out and they get lots of attention for a half hour or so.
I recently bought a new (used) car and one of the criteria was that it had to be a hatchback for carrying the dogs - both cars have dog guards.
When we had to find kennels for them we visited a few and found one that we liked. The dogs love going there, of course they don't have to pay for it.
They are not perfect, and neither are we, but rescuing them allowed two more dogs to get a place and potentially get rehomed too.

We put a lot of time into them, I think when you are looking to rescue a dog the people there should put more than two minutes into evaluating your ability to home a dog. Being employed should not disqualify you out of hand.

To top things off, the rescue had taken all my details before dismissing me and six months later sent me a letter requesting a donation. I'm not alone in having this kind of experience, and despite your extreme example my point stands: a lot of people are wary of the treatment they'll get from certain rescues and will therefore go to the likes of donedeal anyway to avoid it.

EDIT: sorry if this has derailed the thread.

I'm similar to you. I took a rehome of a rottie, locally, a breed I wouldn't have been familiar with and took only because I knew her and knew the owners who were emigrating. She is a classic example of byb and poor pup diet,(so vet said) I kept her anyway, but had backup plan incase a rottie wasn't for me, at 6 and a half she's very stiff and needs regular meds and good food.
She's old now and I wanted another rottie before she got too old. I was turned down for a rescue, they didn't go any further than a phone call.
I later bought a rottie pup, when I could have rescued a one year old one, or a 5 year old x. I have almost an acre at the back of my house, well fenced in and I work part time.

Whispered

adrenalinjunkie wrote: »

.

To be perfectly honest there is good and bad within every aspect of the dog world (and life in general), this seems to escape some people unfortunately when they get caught up in the whole business of trying to 'save' dogs with no thought/knowledge to how the organisations they recommend actually operate in practice.

Very very good point. I think that you should use the same checklists when choosing a rescue to deal with as choosing a breeder to deal with, as far as reasonably possible. There are a few "rescues" out there who should not be operating. Always research, always visit where the dog is kept and always ask as many questions you can think of.

Hellrazer wrote: »

Personal opinion btw not a mod one before certain people get their knickers in a twist.

.

I think so long as you're not typing it in bold and giving a warning in the same post you're ok. Also PM sent to you.

TooManyDogs

Whispered wrote: »

Very very good point. I think that you should use the same checklists when choosing a rescue to deal with as choosing a breeder to deal with, as far as reasonably possible. There are a few "rescues" out there who should not be operating. Always research, always visit

+1 Like everything in life not all rescues are good unfortunately. The policies from an individual rescue may seem extreme or pointless but generally they were put in place as a result of a need rather than simply thought up out of someone's imagination. The dog is getting a second chance, the rescues want to make sure that's the best possible home for the dog and don't want to take unnecessary chances. You know yourself very well but the rescue doesn't and for every decent and genuine person who shows interest in a dog there's at least 2 with not so genuine interests, it's hard not to become skeptical.

I think there is often a big push to rescue a dog rather than buy one for 2 reasons.
1- There are so many dogs in rescues, in pounds or PTS every year, so any dogs rescued rather than bought reduces the numbers.
2 - There seems to be very few people who will do the proper research on their desired breed and find a breeder with really good standards and wait how ever long it takes. There also seems to be astonishment among most people at how much money a genuinely well bred dog from a really good breeder will cost, and aren't prepared to pay the money. They want a relatively inexpensive dog now so end up going for the back yard breeders and adding to the problem.

Discodog

If rescues operate properly they get criticised for their rehoming procedures. They can be in a no win situation. Add in the huge commitment in time & personal money etc & you wonder why anyone would do it. There should be minimum standards but that should include proper funding & not some "charity" hand out at the whim of the government.

planetX

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've no problem with people rescuing a dog from a shelter there is much to admire. But I do resent them looking down at those of us who love pedigree dogs. Alot of dog owners go through their lives only owning one breed. It also promotes (and I admit not in all cases) a healthy breed.

I always felt looked down on in the past for owning mutts (the term mongrel was used which I hate) - and I think things have only really changed in the last 10 years or so. Certainly when I was growing up the idea of going to the pound to get a dog was unthinkable for most people, unless you were too poor to buy a 'real' dog. Add to that the fact that you were always excluded from shows and events. It's great that perceptions have changed so much.

kylith

Discodog wrote: »

If rescues operate properly they get criticised for their rehoming procedures. They can be in a no win situation. Add in the huge commitment in time & personal money etc & you wonder why anyone would do it. There should be minimum standards but that should include proper funding & not some "charity" hand out at the whim of the government.

In fairness, some do seem to take it to a bit of an extreme, as some people have said above. If one of my dogs were to die in the morning a rescue wouldn't let me have a dog because my partner and I work, and my other poor dog would be left on her own; something she's never been used to. I was very lucky that the rescue I got my girls from understood my situation.

I know of one guy who wanted to get a rescue dog, but was told he couldn't because he worked. When he told them that his retired mother would be there to look after it during the day he was told 'sorry, we don't rehome to OAPs'.

It does seem like people are being penalised because they work, which they have to do in order to feed the dog! I understand that rescues want the best for the dogs they rehome, but houses where someone will be at home all day are few and far between these days. They need to have more than just a blanket 'you work = you can't have a dog' policy, because that attitude is sending people straight to BYBs and DoneDeal.

Discodog

kylith wrote: »

In fairness, some do seem to take it to a bit of an extreme, as some people have said above.

We speak of rescues as if they are some homogeneous group when the majority are run by individuals. Some of them may be a touch on the "odd" side - they were probably normal till they decided to run a rescue .

If they have made the effort to rescue the dog then ultimately it is up to them to decide who they will or will not rehome to. But because they are all individuals their policies vary. I would have no problems in taking a dog from my local rescue even though I work & do not have a secure garden, because they know me This also means that they will help if I find a stray. I would heartily recommend people to get to know their local rescue.

Bullseye1

I'd never look down on anyone owning a particular breed of dog be it pedigree or mongrel. They are all Man's Best Friend.

planetX wrote: »

I always felt looked down on in the past for owning mutts (the term mongrel was used which I hate) - and I think things have only really changed in the last 10 years or so. Certainly when I was growing up the idea of going to the pound to get a dog was unthinkable for most people, unless you were too poor to buy a 'real' dog. Add to that the fact that you were always excluded from shows and events. It's great that perceptions have changed so much.

ShaShaBear

I've had three dogs in my lifetime, two from two different rescue centres and one who was rescued from drowning, who I still have. The first rescue centre did not ask, and still does not ask, any questions as regards to my personal situation when I adopted the terrier, who turned out to be extremely territorial, food possessive and with an insane fear of raised voices which later turned into agression. He had to be returned after he attacked my (at the time) 9 year old sister after she let out a high pitched laugh. The other unfortunately died from a health problem we were made aware of when we adopted him from the other rescue, who get every dog fully checked out by a vet and have each one fostered for a minimum of four weeks before allowing them to be adopted (as in they have to have racked up 4 weeks of foster time with someone, so they can see the dog's settled traits in a home).

I see the point that the OP is making - that a DD dog could end up in a rescue centre, and you are essentially getting the same dog either way. Unfortunately, someone at some point still paid for that dog, and that person will still breed more dogs that someone will buy. At least an honest person with a great love for dogs, a lot of knowledge and experience and the will to make the effort will give these BYB puppies the home they deserve, rather than it going to a person who will surrender it when they can't manage any more. Which means the dog wont end up in a rescue centre, which will have the same effect on the numbers of surrendered and PTS dogs as that same person adopting from a shelter.

It's unfortunate but seeing as there are so many dogs out there available for rehoming in many different situations, once they go to a loving forever family, I don't think it should matter where they come from.

And as I mentioned above, I can definitely agree that rescue centres can be partially and even mostly to blame for dogs being bought off DD as well as them being returned due to insufficient information/quizzing at the time of adoption.

Evac101

Sorry for the belated reply to this - work has had me bewildered for the last couple of weeks and as such I didn't feel up to a comprehensive reply to peoples posts. Firstly, a thank you to everyone who replied (though we did seem to wander away form the original questions at some points ) and I appreciate the thought put into quite a few of the replies.

On the balance the answer to my original question seems to be that:

dog pounds/rescues do not represent a range of dogs which can be argued to be any healthier in the long term then those available from BYB's

however

dog pounds/rescues do not carry the same ethical implications of purchasing a dog from a BYB.

In a separate issue many people replied relating difficulties adopting pets from the rescues with the two most popularly quoted issues being full time work and the site visit.

I have to admit that I found these to be issues myself when we were considering a second dog and I'll be happy to argue that my two mutts have a very good quality of life regardless of my wife and my own work schedules. I'm not saying that they wouldn't be happier if we won the Lotto and retired (comon 12, 15, 28, 30, 44, 77! what do you mean there's no 77?!) but we have dogs which people who know them overwhelming regard as happy, well balanced, if "jump up on you", animals. We're working on the jump up thing.

Perhaps the Rescues being a little more open to being flexible regarding adopting, especially if the adopter can provide evidence of being able to care/provide for previous pets while in the same/similar circumstances? I'm not sure what the answer is as each effort to open up access to those dogs also, potentially, opens the opportunity for that to be misused by "the wrong sort".

angry kitten

Hellrazer wrote: »

Id personally prefer to choose my own dog not have one matched up for me.




Procedures were followed.Ok it was before a lot of rescues insisted on home checks but everything else was done by the book--I was unluck that the dogs had serious behavioural issues.But I couldnt take that chance now with young kids in the house.

You do chose your own dog, the home check is to make sure the dog is suited to the environment.

Whispered

There are rescues who consider working homes, granted they may not consider a certain dog for a working home, but this will be down to their knowledge of the dog - one which suffers separation anxiety or who can be destructive maybe. A lot of them won't home a young puppy to a home where they will be alone for a certain amount of time a day.

The rescues are just people at the end of the day, and most will be willing to speak to you about your circumstances. If you wanted a dog but worked maybe have a relative pop in during the day, or consider day care, a dog walker or ask the rescue if they have any dogs who would be secure enough to be alone for so long.


My first dog was adopted while both of us were working full time, there was no issue at all with that because I took steps necessary to make it easier on the dog and I said this to the rescue before I applied to adopt him. My second dog was only adopted recently but has been living with me for a year, I'm working night at the moment so am home all day, however the rescue is aware that I'm not happy with that and am looking for full time work again. When I do, I will again have to make sure the dogs are looked after. These are 2 different rescues and both were happy once they knew I wasn't planning on fecking off for the day without a second thought to the dogs.

Discodog

There may be a few rescues that have hard & fast policies but the vast majority just want to see the dog successfully rehomed. As Whispered says they are people & the best way to get on is to talk to them.

By the way all rescues in receipt of a grant have to comply with the new guidelines published here:

http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/animalhealthwelfare/animalwelfare/fundingtoanimalwelfareorganisations/

boomerang

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I've no problem with people rescuing a dog from a shelter there is much to admire. But I do resent them looking down at those of us who love pedigree dogs. Alot of dog owners go through their lives only owning one breed. It also promotes (and I admit not in all cases) a healthy breed.

But aren't you assuming there are no pedigree dogs in rescue? It mighn't be 50/50 but it's certainly around 30/70.

I'm heavily involved in rescue, but I do love a lot of different breeds, especially the pastoral breeds. I think if someone loves a particular breed and finds a good breeder and gives the dog a good home, what's not to like?

Bullseye1

boomerang wrote: »

But aren't you assuming there are no pedigree dogs in rescue? It mighn't be 50/50 but it's certainly around 30/70.

I'm heavily involved in rescue, but I do love a lot of different breeds, especially the pastoral breeds. I think if someone loves a particular breed and finds a good breeder and gives the dog a good home, what's not to like?

No I know there are pure breeds in shelters but that does not mean they are not from puppy farms. They may not be well bred. Of course there may be a number of people who have sourced a puppy from a good breeder but normally those breeders will either take the dog back or help rehome it.

boomerang

Sadly I think well-bred pedigree dogs (by which I mean health-tested, well-tempered and properly socialised pure-bred puppies) are as rare as hen's teeth in this country. Everyone seems to go down the DoneDeal route, unless they're seriously into dogs already so they know the pitfalls and are prepared to spend more.

Hellrazer

angry kitten wrote: »

You do chose your own dog, the home check is to make sure the dog is suited to the environment.

Discodog wrote: »

But if you wouldn't allow a homecheck then how can a rescue match you to a dog ?

So which is it??

I dont want to be "matched to a dog" I want to choose my own dog--The 2 of you are giving different answers so cmon which is it??

mosi

Hellrazer wrote: »

So which is it??

I dont want to be "matched to a dog" I want to choose my own dog--The 2 of you are giving different answers so cmon which is it??

I think that they are both saying the same thing. You see a dog that you like in the rescue and a HC is carried out to ensure that you and your lifestyle are matched to that particular dog.

Hellrazer

mosi wrote: »

I think that they are both saying the same thing. You see a dog that you like in the rescue and a HC is carried out to ensure that you and your lifestyle are matched to that particular dog.

I wouldnt read it like that.

Disco dog is saying the rescue matches you with the dog and angry kitten is saying that I pick my dog and the rescue decides whether its suitable for my home--thats two different answers in anyones book.

So for example If I pick a for arguments sake a boxer--are the rescue going to come along and say no you cant have a boxer you can have a yorkie??

If thats true then its their downfall to be honest.

TooManyDogs

The majority of rescues really do take people on a case by case basis. Some people come in with a very clear idea of what kind of a dog would suit their lifestyle so the homecheck double checks that is the case. Other people come in with absolutely no idea what they want, or what dog would suit them so they're guided towards a dog to suit them, and again a homecheck doublechecks that the home is suitable.

So back to your boxer & yorkie ponderance, I'd say it'd very much depend on the requirements of the boxer, if your lifestyle would suit that particular boxer rather than the boxer breed in general. It'd all depend on personality, age, breed, needs of the dog and your space, hours of work, interest in exercise etc etc. It shouldn't be as simple as 'We'd never allow you have a X breed'

angry kitten

Hellrazer wrote: »

So which is it??

I dont want to be "matched to a dog" I want to choose my own dog--The 2 of you are giving different answers so cmon which is it??

You choose the dog you want. The rescue then arranges for someone from the rescue to go to your house and make sure everything is OK. Rescues wouldn't rehome many dogs if they tried to give people dogs they didn't want. The idea of the homecheck is really about making sure everything is kosher. You'd be amazed at what people will try to get away with. It's also a bad sign if someone is reluctant to have a homecheck, as it can indicate that they've got something to hide. Most dogs that end up in rescues are there because they've been abandoned. Also a lot are ending up in rescues due to emigration. There's a bit of a myth that dogs in rescues are there because of behaviour problems.

Discodog

Hellrazer wrote: »

I dont want to be "matched to a dog" I want to choose my own dog--The 2 of you are giving different answers so cmon which is it??

Is this a question or a mock interrogation ?

The answer is pretty obvious to anyone who doesn't have previous issues & prejudices towards rescues. You want to lump the rescues together yet they are all individuals with the right to choose how they rehome the dogs in whom they have invested a lot of their time & their money.

If I ran a rescue & someone said " I don't want to be matched to a dog etc" I personally wouldn't rehome a dog to them. A successful rehoming is a partnership where you trust the rescue & they trust you to be a good custodian of their dog. If someone started laying down the law about what they will & will not accept then I would decline them.

If someone is prepared to rescue dogs & in many cases dedicate their lives to helping dogs, the least that we can allow them is the right to decide who rehomes their dogs.

Bullseye1

When you take the dog in its your dog. I don't get this their dog.

If they are also going to decide which breed or dog you get even if it's not what you want why would you bring that dog home. It might work for some but not everyone is going to agree to bring home a breed they have no interest in. They will just go to breeders instead.

planetX

Bullseye1 wrote: »

When you take the dog in its your dog. I don't get this their dog.

If they are also going to decide which breed or dog you get even if it's not what you want why would you bring that dog home. It might work for some but not everyone is going to agree to bring home a breed they have no interest in. They will just go to breeders instead.

It doesn't happen like that at all - the rescue is not interested in ruling your life, they just want the dog to go to a good home where he isn't likely to be returned in a month because of all the stupid reasons we read about on boards.
You go out there, you talk to them, you look at all the dogs. Most rescues are flexible on the rules once they meet you and get the impression that you're committed.

Discodog

Bullseye1 wrote: »

When you take the dog in its your dog. I don't get this their dog.

But whilst it is with the rescue it is their dog, they own it, they are responsible for licensing it. If you had to rehome your dog I bet that you would be pretty fussy as to where it went.

If you or Hellrazer want to rescue a dog & have total control, then get one from the Pound but then you have to take more of a chance. If you want the rescue to take some responsibility then you do have to play by their rules.

You can't have it both ways.