How modern dog rescue centres operate nowadays

[ttaskmaster]

The reason for rejection for a start or indeed the criteria for adoption - see the post quoted, the example is right there in the post you just read.

Criteria - Don't be a ****.
Reason for rejection - You come across like a bit of a ****.

Would you be happy with that kind of rejection?
No? Guess what - No-one would be, which is why such things aren't made utterly transparent... but that's very often what it comes down to. Doesn't matter how many boxes you tick or how much you think you'd be a good match, if you can't convince the inspector or the centre staff.
Like I said, it's very much like a job interview where the prospective employer just doesn't feel you'd fit in with the rest of the staff....

Same for when someone really is a perfectly decent applicant, but they just find someone else even better.

It takes enough time to go through all the applications for a dog as is, and centres have neither the time nor the inclination to argue the toss back and forth with disgruntled unsuccessful applicants. Most won't even tell you if you were unsuccessful, but simply say you can presume you didn't get it if they don't contact you by X date.

I don't necessarily and that's exactly what I'm criticising! The added holistic "woo" whereby someone (the poster in this thread @Tykey ) who has owned a dog previously for 18 years, meets the criteria for a particular dog at a rescue is then rejected for reasons unknown quite possibly perhaps because someone has subjectively just decided that's not the dog for him and they have some other stereotype in mind for the ideal owner.

Welcome to the real world, Dowie.

You cannot quantify and statisticise everything, and since these places have every right to refuse an applicant based on the training, judgement and experience of their staff and their inspection team, it's as subjective as adopting a human child, with a similar number of subjective reasons why a panel might decide against you.

I'm tempted to ask what you think the exact process should look like, but I think if I put my subjectively holistic woo-woo sorting hat on I will have a pretty good idea....!!

 

[dowie]

No? Guess what - No-one would be, which is why such things aren't made utterly transparent... but that's very often what it comes down to. Doesn't matter how many boxes you tick or how much you think you'd be a good match, if you can't convince the inspector or the centre staff.

So you're back to the unsuitable dog owners thing, if that's actually the case with this poster then that's fine but the broader issue is people who are suitable dog owners but there is a desire to micromanage the placement of dogs beyond fulfilling some particular requirements.

 

[FoxEye]

I'm tempted to ask what you think the exact process should look like, but I think if I put my subjectively holistic woo-woo sorting hat on I will have a pretty good idea....!!

Instead of looking for the perfect owner/perfect home, the criteria should probably be, "Is the animal better off than being stuck in a pen at a rescue centre."

Given that everyone seems to know someone who has been rejected by a rescue centre, they're either too exacting or we're all just genuinely awful people Very much suspect it's the former. People who work at these places getting attached to the animals, and not wanting to let them go to anyone with the slightest deviation from what they consider the utopian ideal.

 

[ttaskmaster]

So you're back to the unsuitable dog owners thing, if that's actually the case with this poster then that's fine but the broader issue is people who are suitable dog owners but there is a desire to micromanage the placement of dogs beyond fulfilling some particular requirements.

How are they unsuitable? They ticked every box you can possibly imagine...... Just like the 20% of others who still ended up returning the dogs they adopted.

How is applying a subjective judgement informed by training and years of experience somehow "micromanaging", anyway?

If you want a highly detailed interrogation, with close examination on a case-by-case basis, go to a small shelter that specialises in your breed of choice, as they're likely to have more time to examine your particulars. Beyond that, it will always be a subjective assessment based on what you tell/show them, and their knowledge of the dog during their rehabilitation & rehoming processes.

Instead of looking for the perfect owner/perfect home, the criteria should probably be, "Is the animal better off than being stuck in a pen at a rescue centre."

No-one is going to be perfect... which is why they're not looking for that.

"Better off" is itself a very subjective criteria, though. You can easily get a lovely family come along for a pet and have all the ideals, yet still get it home and neglect it.
How would the person cope if they fell ill, or some other circumstances changed and they were unable to look after the dog? What contingencies do they have in place?
At a shelter they are certain of decent medical care, decent food, a safe place to sleep, secure places to exercise, lots of games and encouragement, and company for most of the time.

Given that everyone seems to know someone who has been rejected by a rescue centre, they're either too exacting or we're all just genuinely awful people Very much suspect it's the former.

This is not exactly a new thread on the topic, either. Lots of forums seem to have something similar, some 15 or more years old, mostly started and attended by people who have been rejected.
But given that the centre's own reputation is at stake if something isn't all rainbows, is it any wonder they're becoming more stringent?

As far as whether people are awful goes - just remember, every single dog in a rescue centre has had to be rescued...
Here's some further insight from a full-timer:

"I assist in running a small local rescue and I'm afraid rules do have to be set. We are lucky that being very small we personally home check every single owner, only rehome to the local area and have at the moment a 100% sucess rate (meaning we've had no mismatched rehomings and no returns!!!). BUT not all rescues are as lucky. The majority are too big, they cannot cope and they are so over run that they cannot give the time needed to match owners to dogs therefore they have to have blanket rules and cannot be flexible with them. The rules are generally there to protect the dogs, and I'm afraid most rescues have little regard for people's feeling, after all when you've seen some of the horrors that people have done to these dogs you do learn that sadly people are not always nice.

I do agree some rescues have extreamly bad attitudes and can be amazingly rude to people, which I do not subscribe to. I will always be polite even if I have absolutely no intention of allowing a dog to be rehomed by you. I will always try and explain why I don't think a dog is a suitable pet eg recently we had a 19 year old single mum to 2 very young kids wanting a 12 month old dali we had...that was NEVER going to work!!! She understood and just before Xmas we found a cavi who'd come from a family with kids who suited her perfectly, dog and owner happy.

Its very difficult and I do understand both sides, unfortunately the general public don't really know the full story of what happens to dogs in this country and I'm afraid that's why the lack of understanding comes about from both sides! Rescue workers have seen so much horror and sadness they become hardened to the human race".

People who work at these places getting attached to the animals, and not wanting to let them go to anyone with the slightest deviation from what they consider the utopian ideal.

That might once have been true in a few cases, but the majority have so many dogs they couldn't possibly hold on to even a fraction of them without going bankrupt in a few months. They depend on the donations of adopters, as even the ones staffed by volunteers aren't cheap to run!
In truth, many are so inundated with pandemic puppies, they're more likely to be found letting standards slide just so they aren't so overwhelmed. I'm surprised they haven't already done so.

But then, it wasn't so long ago that people were complaining how it's 'too easy for anyone to just get a dog from a rescue or something, where they're so desperate that they're practically giving the dogs away', in the wake of various dog attacks.....

So what's it to be? Stringent refusals and broken hearts, or relaxed filling of basic tick-box criteria and broken bones?

 

[dowie]

Oh jeeze, I guess this is tttaskmaster's new favorite topic now, the essays are just going to get bigger and bigger...

 

[FoxEye]

@ttaskmaster You say they aren't looking for the ideal home, but then go on to say they won't rehome with a person who doesn't have contingencies in place for every unforeseen situation that could befall them...

So is a dog better off in a kennel/pen than with a single person, because that single person might get sick, and that might mean the dog not being walked for a few weeks?

 

[ttaskmaster]

Oh jeeze, I guess this is tttaskmaster's new favorite topic now, the essays are just going to get bigger and bigger...

You're just upset that your usual bleats have no grounds.

@ttaskmaster You say they aren't looking for the ideal home, but then go on to say they won't rehome with a person who doesn't have contingencies in place for every unforeseen situation that could befall them...

Those are just the sort of questions that get asked.
Seeing how the dog has a pretty decent quality of life at a shelter (because it's not a Thai prison, as some seem to think), another pertinent question might be - How will you give it an even better home?

But as mentioned above, it's not so much whether you give the answers you think they're looking for, as it is about your honesty, your attitude and your approach to potential problems.
The most common question for interviewees to stumble over is..... "So why do you want a dog?"......

So is a dog better off in a kennel/pen than with a single person, because that single person might get sick, and that might mean the dog not being walked for a few weeks?

Depends.
Do they have family, friends or neighbours who could help? Would they consider a dog walking service? Would they call a vet/shelter/anyone for help?
Or are they adamant that they never get sick and try to divert the interview back to the seventeen acres of lovely dog-walking land they own?

^This is why it gets so subjective.

 

[FoxEye]

Those are just the sort of questions that get asked.
Seeing how the dog has a pretty decent quality of life at a shelter (because it's not a Thai prison, as some seem to think), another pertinent question might be - How will you give it an even better home?

But as mentioned above, it's not so much whether you give the answers you think they're looking for, as it is about your honesty, your attitude and your approach to potential problems.
The most common question for interviewees to stumble over is..... "So why do you want a dog?"......

Depends.
Do they have family, friends or neighbours who could help? Would they consider a dog walking service? Would they call a vet/shelter/anyone for help?
Or are they adamant that they never get sick and try to divert the interview back to the seventeen acres of lovely dog-walking land they own?

^This is why it gets so subjective.

What if they have no contingencies and the dog won't get walked for, let's say, 4 weeks.

The person doesn't get sick very often, but they get unexpectedly sick for 4 weeks and the dog can't get walked for those 4 weeks.

You'd have to think twice about whether the dog was better off in kennels than placed with this person? Honestly?

Also if the quality of life at the shelters rivals being adopted, perhaps it's no longer emergency accommodation, and more like a dog hostel... and maybe people will consider that when deciding whether to donate.

These places should be geared up to placing the dogs in people's homes, not giving them a loving home in the shelter itself...

 

[ttaskmaster]

What if they have no contingencies and the dog won't get walked for, let's say, 4 weeks.
The person doesn't get sick very often, but they get unexpectedly sick for 4 weeks and the dog can't get walked for those 4 weeks.
You'd have to think twice about whether the dog was better off in kennels than placed with this person? Honestly?

Again, it's not about whether someone actually has loads of contingencies already planned out and in place, but their attitude toward the possibility and how they respond when such questions are put to them.
Same for the question about why they want a dog - If their response is that it'd go perfectly with their Karen Miller handbag, they're definitely not getting the dog.... and yes, that one was a genuine response.

Also if the quality of life at the shelters rivals being adopted, perhaps it's no longer emergency accommodation, and more like a dog hostel... and maybe people will consider that when deciding whether to donate.

It's good enough to provide the basics for however long the dog ends up there before adoption, hence not being like a prison, but it's also not geared around the home lifestyle a dog should get. It's a facility catering for many dogs, which requires a different level of funding. I'd say it's somwhere between a motorway services and a caravan holiday park, in that it's fine and even enjoyable for a short period, but you wouldn't want to live there permanently.
Actual foster homes are far superior, but also geared toward more dedicated and focussed rehabilitation before they're suitable for adoption.

For most of the charitable centres, adoption donations only cover maybe half of the running costs, most of which are food, medical and utilities.

These places should be geared up to placing the dogs in people's homes, not giving them a loving home in the shelter itself...

Most people won't want some bedraggled basket case looking like the Peters/Nichol PoW photos. They'll want to see a dog that is happy and rehabilitated from being well-cared for in a decent environment. This takes a certain level of care.

 

[413x]

For us..
We couldn't get a dog from a UK shelter so went abroad
If that hadn't worked, would we have gone to a breeder?
Ideally not.. And we would have tried more rescues.
But in the end my gf wanted a dog so bad she probably would have gone to a breeder.


I'm sure this is the same for most people? Ie... They are going to get a dog one way or another?


Obviously you aren't going to rehomed a dog to someone grossly unsuitable. They have cats, the dog hates them. But when it comes to the owner it's away 3 hours = OK.. But 5 hours = no.. That's the sort of issue I have difficulty with.

 

[dowie]

Yup, that should seem obvious, but here we are; ttaskmaster's explanation for why people like @413x, @Scuzi and @Tykey got rejected:

Criteria - Don't be a ****.
Reason for rejection - You come across like a bit of a ****.

Back in reality it seems way more likely that there's simply too much micromanaging of the process, the self-appointed experts who want to take their Harry Potter sorting hat process to allocating dogs because they know best are putting up an additional barrier that doesn't need to be there - if someone is otherwise deemed suitable to own a dog, isn't an obvious ****bag and meets any specific criteria for a given dog then it doesn't matter if Karen at the dog centre didn't personally visualise Bruce the Boxer's ideal owner as being a Leo or having brown hair.

 

[DEL 707]

For us..
We couldn't get a dog from a UK shelter so went abroad
If that hadn't worked, would we have gone to a breeder?
Ideally not.. And we would have tried more rescues.
But in the end my gf wanted a dog so bad she probably would have gone to a breeder.

That's pretty much my story. I wanted to rescue a dog, but the family wanted to buy a puppy.

After failing with trying to get a rescue I conceded and went to a council licensed breeder.

 

[ArcticHeron]

It's sad reading all these bad experiences. I used to work for the Blue Cross when I was 18/19 as a volunteer and I don't ever remember the rehoming process being quite as stringent as some have described. I get it, they need to vet potential owners. The last thing they want is dogs being returned or rehomed after the fact as that does the animal no good, but there's certainly a way to go about it. Have to get the tone right at the very least.

We've had a few greyhounds now from different charities in the Midlands and every time the experience has been a dream. Of course, you need to be compliant in certain areas as it's quite a distinct breed with it's own issues, but generally speaking it's been a doddle.

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.

Lovely. We used to love doing that with ours but he's developed a pretty crippling corn problem and he can't really get up to speed anymore. We've tried everything from honeyboots to daily creams on his pads, but it's almost as though he's allergic to walking on anything other then grass.

Watching a Grey get up to speed really is something special. There's a real majesty to it that can't be explained (though it's bloody terrifying when they're charging you at full speed only to swerve at the last moment...)

 

[ttaskmaster]

Yup, that should seem obvious, but here we are; ttaskmaster's explanation for why people like @413x, @Scuzi and @Tykey got rejected:

POSSIBLE reasons.
Like I said, it's a very subjective judgement and every centre will be different, as well as it depending greatly on how you come across. You could be THE dog whisperer, but if you don't convince the inspection team of that, what else do you expect will happen?

Back in reality it seems way more likely that there's simply too much micromanaging of the process, the self-appointed experts who want to take their Harry Potter sorting hat process to allocating dogs because they know best are putting up an additional barrier that doesn't need to be there - if someone is otherwise deemed suitable to own a dog, isn't an obvious ****bag and meets any specific criteria for a given dog then it doesn't matter if Karen at the dog centre didn't personally visualise Bruce the Boxer's ideal owner as being a Leo or having brown hair.

More disingenuous tabloid bleating.

There's nothing to "micromanage" beyond making sure the applicant doesn't seem like a dick. The centres have a duty of care to both the animals and the humans affected by the adoption, as they get it in the neck if they get it wrong. Getting a rescue is not the same as just getting any old dog, which is why some people just won't be suitable even if they have a long history of dog ownership:

Woman gives up beloved rescue dog after it flips out and tears her lips off

WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT Sadee Duernberger has spoken of her usually 'sweet' former pet dog Alice, and how she had to give them away after the pup tore her lips in half after the 21-year-old got too close to the pooch

www.dailystar.co.uk

Judge orders rescue dog is put to sleep after attack on pensioner

The dog's owner Tracy Basham was handed a suspended prison sentence

www.gazettelive.co.uk

Bitten By A Rescue Dog? No Win - No Fee Solicitors

Legal guidance on where you stand if you are bitten by a rescue dog. Contact our free helpline for further expert guidance.

www.sleeblackwell.co.uk

So in light of all the increased incidents and injured parties clamouring for tighter restrictions on rehoming dogs, you and your ilk strangely want to relax things??!!

It's sad reading all these bad experiences. I used to work for the Blue Cross when I was 18/19 as a volunteer and I don't ever remember the rehoming process being quite as stringent as some have described. I get it, they need to vet potential owners. The last thing they want is dogs being returned or rehomed after the fact as that does the animal no good, but there's certainly a way to go about it. Have to get the tone right at the very least.

I seriously doubt everyone's experience has been as bad as they make out, or that they're disclosing the whole story objectively.
A lot of applicants always get quite melodramatic and upset at the level of detail and the depth of the 'interrogation' by the home inspection teams, but none of this is especially new and it's clearly necessary given the previous and current return rates. If you're that serious about adopting a potentially damaged dog and proving you'll do the right thing by it, this should be water off a duck's back.

 

[Haggisman]

Watching a Grey get up to speed really is something special. There's a real majesty to it that can't be explained (though it's bloody terrifying when they're charging you at full speed only to swerve at the last moment...)

I know what you mean... although at the same time there's something utterly goofy in the way ours runs, along with pure happiness in her face - you can tell she absolutely loves it (even though she was a crap racer )

 

[Scuzi]

POSSIBLE reasons.
Like I said, it's a very subjective judgement and every centre will be different, as well as it depending greatly on how you come across. You could be THE dog whisperer, but if you don't convince the inspection team of that, what else do you expect will happen?


More disingenuous tabloid bleating.

There's nothing to "micromanage" beyond making sure the applicant doesn't seem like a dick. The centres have a duty of care to both the animals and the humans affected by the adoption, as they get it in the neck if they get it wrong. Getting a rescue is not the same as just getting any old dog, which is why some people just won't be suitable even if they have a long history of dog ownership:

Woman gives up beloved rescue dog after it flips out and tears her lips off

WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT Sadee Duernberger has spoken of her usually 'sweet' former pet dog Alice, and how she had to give them away after the pup tore her lips in half after the 21-year-old got too close to the pooch

www.dailystar.co.uk

Judge orders rescue dog is put to sleep after attack on pensioner

The dog's owner Tracy Basham was handed a suspended prison sentence

www.gazettelive.co.uk

Bitten By A Rescue Dog? No Win - No Fee Solicitors

Legal guidance on where you stand if you are bitten by a rescue dog. Contact our free helpline for further expert guidance.

www.sleeblackwell.co.uk

So in light of all the increased incidents and injured parties clamouring for tighter restrictions on rehoming dogs, you and your ilk strangely want to relax things??!!



I seriously doubt everyone's experience has been as bad as they make out, or that they're disclosing the whole story objectively.
A lot of applicants always get quite melodramatic and upset at the level of detail and the depth of the 'interrogation' by the home inspection teams, but none of this is especially new and it's clearly necessary given the previous and current return rates. If you're that serious about adopting a potentially damaged dog and proving you'll do the right thing by it, this should be water off a duck's back.

Yes, thats exactly the sort of emotional guff that those with a genuine interest in rehoming a dog have to encounter. You have exemplified it perfectly.

 

[dowie]

There's nothing to "micromanage" beyond making sure the applicant doesn't seem like a dick.

Sure... so the several posters in this thread who were refused dogs were all dicks then? That's the most likely explanation in your mind?

Not some Karens at the rescue centres being overly controlling of the process, no couldn't possibly be that as they're the "experts". You listen to that lot when they said all dogs can bite/we shouldn't ban XL Bullies and now you're blindly accepting their 6th sense dog placement skills.

 

[ArcticHeron]

I know what you mean... although at the same time there's something utterly goofy in the way ours runs, along with pure happiness in her face - you can tell she absolutely loves it (even though she was a crap racer )

Aha aye, it can be slightly creepy at times, like a mammalian spider...

Ours was equally terrible at racing. Never one a thing according to his tats

 

[413x]

So I just spoke to the gf and part of the reason we got noped was i have chickens. And the rescues never had any details on this so it was a blanket no.

So it was a red line. I'd say if a dog is OK with cats it's probably OK with chickens. Besides the chickens are in when the dog is out.
But this was also a nope.

The abroad rescue "thought" they had a dog that was OK with hens. Besides, it's risk to the hens not the dog. And we got koda.

He went for claudia once with testing. But he's OK with them now.

The other reason was the hours (at the time only back at lunch time) which again, was a no. That's one that breeders probably overlook. I mean it's hard to afford a pedigree without a job!

 

[FoxEye]

Again, it's not about whether someone actually has loads of contingencies already planned out and in place, but their attitude toward the possibility and how they respond when such questions are put to them.
Same for the question about why they want a dog - If their response is that it'd go perfectly with their Karen Miller handbag, they're definitely not getting the dog.... and yes, that one was a genuine response.

So the guys at the rescue centres are tasked with psychological profiling and building a comprehensive picture of the prospective owner's thought processes. That sounds like it would be really hard to do for people whose primary responsibility is to care for dogs. I hope they don't just end up jumping to wrong conclusions based on gut feelings and extremely limited information.