How modern dog rescue centres operate nowadays

[ttaskmaster]

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?

Your conclusion, not mine.
I've already explained how it works and given you dozens of possible explanations, all of which are entirely subjective and down to the judgement of the inspections team.
If you have an issue with that, lodge an official complaint with their RSPCA trainers.

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.

The staff at the rescue centre will base their decisions on their knowledge of the dog and the report of the inspection team, the latter of which are indeed as expert as you're going to get.

If you'd listened to that lot when they said we shouldn't blanket-ban every Pit Bull, we'd never have had XLBs in the first place.
But then, you've now switched to wanting more lax regulation of who gets to own a dog. Good luck with that.

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.

That is about as fair as it gets - ANY reputable source of dogs should say no to a situation if there isn't the history of safety to back it up. The obvious one is lack of history with children, but the same applies to other dogs, other animals and anything else that might crop up as a likely/predictable problem scenario.
If the centre does not have this set in stone as non-negotiable policy, walk away and go somewhere else.

Similarly, if this was something you hadn't initially disclosed, that would also be a black mark against you.

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.

It's a rescue, with gaps in its history. You have no idea if it would attack the chickens, panic and go dashing off, or anything else.

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.

Knowing that risk to the chickens raises the question of their animal welfare.
Remember the duty of care extends to every person and animal affected by the adoption, not just the dog itself.

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!

Do you have a Gucci corner sofa? I hear that's always a winner for pedigree type owners...

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.

They go by how much, or how little, you give them.
Like I said, it's similar to a job interview. If you give one-word responses, or try to ******** your way through, they'll see this.... and again, it's not usually the centre staff doing the inspection, it's a dedicated team of RSPCA trained home inspectors.

 

[dowie]

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.

Apparently so:

This is someone who, by their own admission, has "only just lost" a dog they poured their heart, soul, time and money into looking after, for over 18 years. That's tantamount to raising a child, in terms of time and emotional investment, so a potential negative.
An inspector might feel it's too soon, and many people adopt a replacement to try and displace the loss of the previous pet, rather than resolve that grief first. This also tends not to work out so well.

Successfully owning a dog for 18 years might be a reason for rejection if the Karen in charge uses her vast psychoanalysis skills and experience to determine that they've not resolved their grief.

 

[FoxEye]

They go by how much, or how little, you give them.
Like I said, it's similar to a job interview. If you give one-word responses, or try to ******** your way through, they'll see this.... and again, it's not usually the centre staff doing the inspection, it's a dedicated team of RSPCA trained home inspectors.

The same RSPCA that became notorious for putting down approx 50% of the animals that came into their care? Including scores of perfectly healthy animals? And there was a huge outcry about it? And many of us will never donate a single penny to them again? An organisation that also spends a huge amount of their budget on political lobbying?

That RSPCA? They're the ones rejecting potential owners for suspected psychological issues? Interesting, interesting.

 

[413x]

0

Your conclusion, not mine.
I've already explained how it works and given you dozens of possible explanations, all of which are entirely subjective and down to the judgement of the inspections team.
If you have an issue with that, lodge an official complaint with their RSPCA trainers.


The staff at the rescue centre will base their decisions on their knowledge of the dog and the report of the inspection team, the latter of which are indeed as expert as you're going to get.

If you'd listened to that lot when they said we shouldn't blanket-ban every Pit Bull, we'd never have had XLBs in the first place.
But then, you've now switched to wanting more lax regulation of who gets to own a dog. Good luck with that.


That is about as fair as it gets - ANY reputable source of dogs should say no to a situation if there isn't the history of safety to back it up. The obvious one is lack of history with children, but the same applies to other dogs, other animals and anything else that might crop up as a likely/predictable problem scenario.
If the centre does not have this set in stone as non-negotiable policy, walk away and go somewhere else.

Similarly, if this was something you hadn't initially disclosed, that would also be a black mark against you.


It's a rescue, with gaps in its history. You have no idea if it would attack the chickens, panic and go dashing off, or anything else.


Knowing that risk to the chickens raises the question of their animal welfare.
Remember the duty of care extends to every person and animal affected by the adoption, not just the dog itself.


Do you have a Gucci corner sofa? I hear that's always a winner for pedigree type owners...


They go by how much, or how little, you give them.
Like I said, it's similar to a job interview. If you give one-word responses, or try to ******** your way through, they'll see this.... and again, it's not usually the centre staff doing the inspection, it's a dedicated team of RSPCA trained home inspectors.

They have to take some risks surely?

If they have no info on if a dog likes/doesn't like hens it's a blanket no?
I understand it if you have something that's high value/desirable. But it's the opposite. They have something they want to shift.

Sure.. If dog has a high prey drive. But many don't. And if there's no reason (ie gets on with cats and dogs) just putting a blanket "no" on seems.. Over cautious.

Obviously it's not an exact science. You but there's never no risk.

 

[Jimbeam3678]

The same RSPCA that became notorious for putting down approx 50% of the animals that came into their care? Including scores of perfectly healthy animals? And there was a huge outcry about it? And many of us will never donate a single penny to them again?

For balance - https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/care/rehabilitation/euthanasia

 

[FoxEye]

For balance - https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/care/rehabilitation/euthanasia

It was widely reported (and it's not hard to find various articles about it) that the RSPCA has put down thousands of healthy animals, for reasons other than those listed in your link. Including just not having space for them.

I'm not sure I would just believe their statement about not having done the thing that would cause them reputational harm if people knew about it.

 

[Tykey]

Quick update about our dog adoption journey - we're getting a home visit tomorrow from 1 of the rescue centre staff to assess if our home is suitable. So that's promising imo. We're over the 1st hurdle I think. Not all rescue centres are as chooosy due to whatever criteria as others. I think atleast some of it comes down to that some rescue centres have more applications so they can reallly pick and choose which has both negatives and positives imo - it should increase the chances of the dog getting a good home but at the same time some perfectly good would-be dog owners are being refused.

I've learnt upto now to do a bit of research to find lesser well known possibly smaller dog rescue centres and give them a chance. The place we've found doesn't charge for adoption unlike the other place which charged £200+. This smaller place also cover the annual booster jabs which would otherwise cost iirc upto £80 as long as their vet does it. We'll be giving them a healthy donation if we are accepted for Ben, already gave £20 when we looked around.

 

[Tykey]

Home visit went well! We're taking home Ben this Friday! So, it's not all bad news regarding dog rescue centres, some of them do actually want their dogs to be rehomed to good homes. My advice, find and consider the lesser known smaller places, where they actually give you a chance. No fee's but they accept donations. Here's Ben :

Edit: to say we're getting him from https://pet-rescuecharity.co.uk/

 

[Jimbeam3678]

It was widely reported (and it's not hard to find various articles about it) that the RSPCA has put down thousands of healthy animals, for reasons other than those listed in your link. Including just not having space for them.

I'm not sure I would just believe their statement about not having done the thing that would cause them reputational harm if people knew about it.

That’s why I said for balance and the daily mail links were from several years ago.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Successfully owning a dog for 18 years might be a reason for rejection if the Karen in charge uses her vast psychoanalysis skills and experience to determine that they've not resolved their grief.

Successfully owning one dog (or even several) does not automatically mean you're the right choice for the next one...

They have to take some risks surely?

Of course.... But in light of the recent increase in incidents, returns and so on, the majority of centres are trying to take fewer risks.

If they have no info on if a dog likes/doesn't like hens it's a blanket no?

Well.... yeah.
As I said, if they have no info on whether a dog is/isn't a probelm around children/other dogs/other animals/strangers, or anything else pretty fundamental, then it's a blanket no. Most centres will say so in advance on their website. Erring on the side of caution.
This also is nothing new. They've always done it this way.

I understand it if you have something that's high value/desirable. But it's the opposite. They have something they want to shift.

They also have a duty of care and responsibility, as a bad placement often comes back to bite them.

 

[dowie]

Successfully owning one dog (or even several) does not automatically mean you're the right choice for the next one...

I didn't say it did, you completely missed the point, I gave several examples of why someone may not be suitable for a particular dog, I'm objecting to the lack of transparency and overly micromanaging the process.

 

[Tykey]

All's I can say is the dogs home that refused us, they missed out on giving 1 of their dogs a good home. Not saying we're the best home a dog could have, of course not, but we know we are more than acceptable. We've had dogs of all shapes, sizes and types over the years and they've all had good happy long lives.

About us still grieving; yes we are. We'll never forget Tyke, like we'll never forget the dogs we had previous to him. But if Tyke could have human thought he would want us to give another unwanted dog like he was a good home. A new dog will help with the grieving process imo. It was about 6 weeks ago that Tyke died, the tears have more or less dried up but he's thought about everyday. More time won't change that, I think I'll think about him everyday until I pass away.

Having another dog will let us channel the love & energy we have to give. Ben will never replace Tyke and I'm glad they appear to be quite different with regards to how they look etc. Ben will no doubt be a great dog for us in his own right.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I didn't say it did, you completely missed the point, I gave several examples of why someone may not be suitable for a particular dog, I'm objecting to the lack of transparency and overly micromanaging the process.

It's no different to the reason why you didn't get a job, or why Mary-Jane Rottencrotch didn't accept your online dating invite... and in both cases you won't ever get any more transparency than this.

As for "micromanaging" - That's their job.
They're not running a shop, where you can just peruse the offerings and decide which one you think you'd like, and it's not as simple or uninvolved as a list of checkboxes.

 

[dowie]

You're just reiterating the status quo, that some employers don't give reasons why a candidate didn't progress has little to do with adopting dogs and indeed some employers do give feedback, it's unclear what your point is there re: that comparison.

Likewise, you could say "it's their job" in response to any criticism about any bureaucracy or admin process, why seek to change or improve anything ever, just accept the status quo right?

 

[ttaskmaster]

You're just reiterating the status quo, that some employers don't give reasons why a candidate didn't progress has little to do with adopting dogs and indeed some employers do give feedback, it's unclear what your point is there re: that comparison.

Likewise, you could say "it's their job" in response to any criticism about any bureaucracy or admin process, why seek to change or improve anything ever, just accept the status quo right?

The thread is about how they operate 'nowadays', which for the most part has not changed in several decades.
The only real difference is that these days you have to select the animal you want and be successful in applying before you can even go meet them. You can't 'walk the line'. This is partly a hangover from Covid, and partly them reducing the number of timewasters.

You'll get the odd karen at such a place, or the occasional one that is a bit too restrictive, but if it were in any way representative of centres in general, people would either have stopped using them or they'd have changed their practices long ago.

 

[tangey]

When I retire, I'll definitely get a dog, we always had a dog in the house when I was younger, but not right to leave a dog on it's own during the day, they are a social/pack animal.

There is a shelter reasonably close to me, and I know they are always genuinely struggling to fund themselves, food vet bills etc etc. So, accepting that they have to do some checks on the people and the intended home, you would imagine that their priority would be to get dogs into homes (i.e off their books), and not overly put in obstacles such that they are actually making the issue worse (people buying pup etc). Some of the stories related above sound a bit bonkers to me.

Koda pictured upthread has an absolutely wonderful face.

 

[Tykey]

The thread is about how they operate 'nowadays', which for the most part has not changed in several decades.
The only real difference is that these days you have to select the animal you want and be successful in applying before you can even go meet them. You can't 'walk the line'. This is partly a hangover from Covid, and partly them reducing the number of timewasters.

It has changed. I went to a dog rescue centre near Manchester iirc 2005, you could "walk the line" so to speak, pick the dog, then apply. Now, that same place has an online application before anything, you get no feedback, you only know if you are unsuccessful if they don't contact you. No reason given. The same place I emailed an enquiry about a dog, not an application, they didn't even bother replying.

You can still "walk the line" in some rescue centres, we did that with the dog we've just homed today. You pick a dog, apply, have a home visit, and we got feedback at every stage. Not all dog rescue centres are the same (thankfully). Imo the big well known one's have got too choosy. They refused our perfectly good (imo) application, the dog we applied for is still sitting in its cage afaik. They offered no feedback, and as mentioned ignored a general enquiry about a dog. Early days with our new furry friend but all the signs are excellent.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Now, that same place has an online application before anything, you get no feedback, you only know if you are unsuccessful if they don't contact you. No reason given. The same place I emailed an enquiry about a dog, not an application, they didn't even bother replying.

As I said, the online application before seeing the dog is all that's changed, which is partly Covid and partly having so many timewasters.
Everything else is as much of a hoop-jumping exercise as it's always been, including not replying.

They can be choosy, especially the big centres, because there are so many people applying. Often there will be dozens of applicants for every dog. Many of them are either entirely unsuitable, or get auto-rejected due to certain criteria, so they're doing all that sifting ahead of seeing the dog.
Beyond that, it's then down to whether you're first in line for the animal, whether they feel another applicant is even better suited, or some other similar reason.

I'm not an especial fan of it, but that's just how it goes nowadays, at many centres. In general, the complaints over refusals have not changed in decades from their usual disgruntled tone, with nothing to suggest that recent changes have worsened things.

 

[Tykey]

As I said, the online application before seeing the dog is all that's changed, which is partly Covid and partly having so many timewasters.
Everything else is as much of a hoop-jumping exercise as it's always been, including not replying.

They can be choosy, especially the big centres, because there are so many people applying. Often there will be dozens of applicants for every dog. Many of them are either entirely unsuitable, or get auto-rejected due to certain criteria, so they're doing all that sifting ahead of seeing the dog.
Beyond that, it's then down to whether you're first in line for the animal, whether they feel another applicant is even better suited, or some other similar reason.

I'm not an especial fan of it, but that's just how it goes nowadays, at many centres. In general, the complaints over refusals have not changed in decades from their usual disgruntled tone, with nothing to suggest that recent changes have worsened things.

I think being more choosy is a good thing. Years ago we got a dog from an rspca centre in warrington iirc and there were no home checks or anything like that. Just walked around the dogs, picked 1, filled in a form & paid, too her home. We could have been anyone. I just think the pendulum has swung a bit too far the other way and may encourage people to go breeders when their original intention was to re-home a rescue dog.

 

[Tefal]

0


They have to take some risks surely?

If they have no info on if a dog likes/doesn't like hens it's a blanket no?
I understand it if you have something that's high value/desirable. But it's the opposite. They have something they want to shift.

Sure.. If dog has a high prey drive. But many don't. And if there's no reason (ie gets on with cats and dogs) just putting a blanket "no" on seems.. Over cautious.

Obviously it's not an exact science. You but there's never no risk.

I suspect thier point there is they don't want the compo face article "rescue dog murdered my chickens" on that days daily mail website.

As you just know that would get blown up "they gave a dog they had NO Idea about how it would handle chickens" demanding that more checks should be done as they sit with a face like a smacked arse infront of the coop