How modern dog rescue centres operate nowadays

[Droolinggimp]

To be fair, this does depend on the dog - our grey has zero recall (pretty common in the breed). Coupled with the fact she can accelerate to 40mph in seconds means she doesn't get to go off the lead except in the garden or when we hire a fully fenced field. Even when we taking her for a "run", she barely breaks a sweat, so they do need a relatively big enclosed space to regularly exercise.

For a more trainable dog you can let have a run around in the park then agreed, as long as there's space for them to do their business and they aren't able to jump the fence, then what more do you need?

You have a point on a dog with poor recall but a good walk should be enough for most dogs, even Greys, might just have to have a longer walk haha. My Lab has a big engine, could run for hours on end, but hes happy with a 20 min walk or a 2 hour walk.

 

[Mr Jack]

Just not the way it's done any more, and likely won't ever be until the rates of timewasters and idiots returning their dogs goes down.

Yeah, it's this. Idiots ruining it for the rest, as always.

 

[dowie]

Have you not had enough of dog owners who think they know best??!!

A dog rescue centre sees, on average, a couple hundred people every day, all with the same stories about how they'd love a dog and how they're so suitable, yadda yadda.
When you see that many people, and get to know them fairly intimately during the checks, inspections, etc, you do get a pretty good grasp of who is suitable for which dog, who are kidding themselves, who are the deadbeat timewasters, and who shouldn't ever be allowed near animals (or children, for that matter).[...]

I think you completely missed the point there, that wasn't about not doing background checks but rather the post was about people who *are* suitable for adoption (you've gone off on a tangent to talk about people who aren't, that some aren't is already a given)... It's the Harry Potter sorting hat approach that is being criticised. i.e. if you have some people who are deemed suitable to adopt a dog why not give them a choice (conditional on the obvious already mentioned - specific restrictions re: some dogs like garden size or presence of kids, a cat, other dogs, that particular dog requires an experienced owner).

Beyond the basics, it's getting into OTT micromanagement of the process and has clearly turned away otherwise suitable owners such as @Scuzi and others in this thread who have then resorted instead to buying from a breeder.

 

[Kelt]

I'm not in the market for a dog, but potentially looking to get another cat, and if it's the same as here, then that's just totally and irrevocably put me off going to a cat rescue centre.

 

[dave28]

This is not relevant for this thread really but Police forces in the UK are often looking to re-home retired dogs.

It is a massive pity that a cherry picked, highly skilled, obedient, brave, clever problem solving, extremely trainable, will die to protect you dog is put to sleep.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I think you completely missed the point there, that wasn't about not doing background checks but rather the post was about people who *are* suitable for adoption

It seems you appear to have completely not read things properly, again....

Owners changed their minds, didn't realise that big dogs were big or that working dogs could be energetic, didn't think their landlord would notice or had lied in some other way about their circumstances, didn't think them working 12-hour shifts would upset the dog they left at home, didn't think they'd have to house train the dog, didn't think the dog would be unsettled going to a new home, etc... All of them will have 'checked every box' and 'fulfilled all the right criteria', yet still 20% of them were returning dogs they themselves have chosen, and the rescue centre too often got blamed for all these things.

^See.....

It's the Harry Potter sorting hat approach that is being criticised. i.e. if you have some people who are deemed suitable to adopt a dog why not give them a choice

They were deemed suitable and they did have the choice. 20% of them either chose wrong, or should not have been approved, given the BS reasons for return.

Beyond the basics, it's getting into OTT micromanagement of the process and has clearly turned away otherwise suitable owners such as @Scuzi and others in this thread who have then resorted instead to buying from a breeder.

And given the high post-covid rates of incidents for which the owners were ultimately responsible, is it any wonder that centres started clamping down?
Without meeting the individuals in question we cannot say why the centre would reject someone, but if they treated the application as simply a box-ticking exercise then I suspect the centre would have recommended adopting a smart appliance instead of a dog. We see a fair few people like that in training classes, where they think they can just punch instructions into a dog and it will return results like a computer. There's no heart, no soul and ultimately no connection to another sentient being. They generally don't pass examination.

 

[413x]

Problem with rescues being over cautious is that if someone gets a rescue dog and doesn't get on with it, they can give it back m

If a person gets a pup from a breeder because they couldn't from a rescue and doesn't get on with it, that's another dog in a rescue.

Its a fine line. And some should be refused. But because you can get a dog from a breeder like buying a bike, with sometimes no checks, it's not like it's going to be a net benefit.

 

[dowie]

And given the high post-covid rates of incidents for which the owners were ultimately responsible, is it any wonder that centres started clamping down?

How are they clamping down? They believe they have some special abilities to match owners with specific dogs?

We see a fair few people like that in training classes, where they think they can just punch instructions into a dog and it will return results like a computer. There's no heart, no soul and ultimately no connection to another sentient being. They generally don't pass examination.

Again I'm not talking about people who are unsuitable owners in general but rather people who are suitable and seemingly don't have a choice (save for obvious restrictions mentioned like has children, cat etc..)

 

[ttaskmaster]

How are they clamping down? They believe they have some special abilities to match owners with specific dogs?

It's not a special ability as such - It's called experience, and they've always done this.
Presumably in addition to the previous box-ticking, they now have their own additional criteria to help decide whether they think you'll be a good owner. Probably the same as adopting a child really.

Again I'm not talking about people who are unsuitable owners in general but rather people who are suitable and seemingly don't have a choice (save for obvious restrictions mentioned like has children, cat etc..)

Again, I'm not talking about such people either. What's your point?

 

[dowie]

It's not a special ability as such - It's called experience, and they've always done this.

Presumably in addition to the previous box-ticking, they now have their own additional criteria to help decide whether they think you'll be a good owner. Probably the same as adopting a child really.

They clearly haven't always done this and this isn't about adopting a child either and again I'm not talking about whether someone would be a good owner or not but given that they are approved as an owner shouldn't they have some say in the matter? Why not be transparent re: the criteria? Or are you making that up? It seems like they're just micromanaging the process bit too much in the cases of some members here.

Again, I'm not talking about such people either. What's your point?

Why bring them up in a reply then?

 

[dlockers]

How are they clamping down? They believe they have some special abilities to match owners with specific dogs?

You are arguing the people who home dogs for a living have no ability to read the room on what dog may best suit the individuals who are enquiring? :S

 

[ttaskmaster]

They clearly haven't always done this

Err, yes they have, and so have quite a few breeders.
If they feel a particular dog (or puppy, in the case of breeders) is really not a suitable match for you, they will not let you have it no matter how many 'boxes' you think you tick.

again I'm not talking about whether someone would be a good owner or not but given that they are approved as an owner shouldn't they have some say in the matter?

And again, I'm talking about that 20% who were approved, passed every check and criteria, got the dog, yet still returned the dog, usually for bull **** reasons.
They had their say, and the returned dog was the result.

Why not be transparent re: the criteria? Or are you making that up?

How am I not being transparent??!!

It seems like they're just micromanaging the process bit too much in the cases of some members here.

Only because 'it seems' like you've not understood what the processes actually are in adopting a dog.... Perhaps you should apply, or at least read up on how different centres handle it.

Why bring them up in a reply then?

Err... I didn't bring such people up. That was you.
Is this going to be another thread where you don't actually read what's written and just spout your usual bleatings?

 

[Jimbeam3678]

Here. We. Go. Again

 

[dowie]

You are arguing the people who home dogs for a living have no ability to read the room on what dog may best suit the individuals who are enquiring? :S

"Read the room" isn't a good argument and ttaskmaster isn't, as far as I'm aware, someone who rehomes dogs for a living rather he's someone who has adopted and likes to defend the status quo.

In this case it's the sorting hat approach to allocating dogs and in another thread it's opposition to banning XL Bullies. I'd certainly not assume that some self-declared dog "experts" really do know best there.

 

[dlockers]

"Read the room" isn't a good argument and ttaskmaster isn't, as far as I'm aware, someone who rehomes dogs for a living rather he's someone who has adopted and likes to defend the status quo.

In this case it's the sorting hat approach to allocating dogs and in another thread it's opposition to banning XL Bullies. I'd certainly not assume that some self-declared dog "experts" really do know best there.

Ah you're joining some other thread up with this one. Gotcha

 

[dowie]

Ah you're joining some other thread up with this one. Gotcha

No, I was replying to this one an commenting on the issue re: rehoming dogs, sometimes when things are controlled too much in a top-down way they become inefficient... Then Mr essay writer popped in.

 

[Felon]

His rescue picture is so sad.

Man.... That's very moving.

The before and after contrast is breathtaking.

 

[FoxEye]

I tried to rehome a few dogs last year and it was a nightmare. Lots of crazy women. We met all of the ideal criteria but it still seemed like they didn’t actually want to give up any of the dogs. We almost went down the route of adopting a dog from Romania or Macedonia, but that seemed dodgy as hell the more I found out. Went and bought a puppy in the end.

Yup it seems pretty darned obvious that the more exacting these adoption places are (perhaps unreasonably so) then enough people will simply go to a breeder.

Along a similar vein, most cat rescue places will flat out refuse to let you adopt if you tell them you are going to keep your cat indoors. They'd rather keep them in little pens than let them live a cushy life in somebody's home. It never made sense to me.

 

[FoxEye]

Simply not buy from someone who profits from selling animals?

If you try hard enough you'll find an adopted dog, my sis in law just got 2 off the streets in romania.

There's breeders and there's backyard breeders, and they are not the same. But I guess if you're anti buying and selling animals then you're going to have to ban farming, too.

You aren't a vegan by any chance?

 

[dowie]

Yup it seems pretty darned obvious that the more exacting these adoption places are (perhaps unreasonably so) then enough people will simply go to a breeder.

You'd think!

Along a similar vein, most cat rescue places will flat out refuse to let you adopt if you tell them you are going to keep your cat indoors. They'd rather keep them in little pens than let them live a cushy life in somebody's home. It never made sense to me.

There is an exception to this, a friend of mine wanted a cat and living in central London she wanted an indoor cat. She also lives in an apartment, that her apartment is bigger than the average UK house in terms of sq ft doesn't really matter - indoor cat + apartment = very little chance. Except she could adopt one with cat aids/FIV, they *have* to be indoor cats to stop the spread.

So if you really, really want an indoor cat you can always adopt the FIV ones.