To think that dog charities are so fussy about rehoming that they drive people to buy from breeders?

[FreshFreesias]

I volunteer and help fund a small very well-run dog charity. We are all volunteers, no one takes any remuneration and we are all united in our desire to help dogs in the direst of situations find a lovely home.

However I struggle with the strict rehoming policy. We are rescuing (healthy, attractive, assessed, socialised and rehomeable) dogs and puppies from the horrors of life in a concrete pen in a `shelter’ in 100 Fahrenheit from which they will never be released, even for a walk; or from a precarious life starving on the streets of in Greece or from life on a chain.

Given that these dogs have absolutely no hope where they are, a loving, sensible, experienced owner in the UK who may well live in a flat or in a big city can most probably give one of these dogs the fantastic opportunity of a new life.

But I’m constantly working with dare I say, dogmatic ladies who, while redoubtable and salt of the earth, have very restrictive ideas of where these hopeless hounds can be happy.

A recent conversation with the rehomer made my heart sink. She explained that while she didn’t rule out homes in London and cities, she didn’t think London was a good place for a dog and that a flat in London would automatically be ruled out. Ironic as I live in a London flat with 3 dogs who have the most wonderful life as I live in the middle of a Common! The most important thing is the right owner, who is determined to make it work.

While I agree that rehoming to someone who is working all day isn’t a good idea, if someone can take their dog to work with them, why not? Oh no’, she replied, what is the dog meant to do in the work place?’ Um, I should have replied, do whatever it will do when it’s at home… sleep, get petted by visitors, potter around or whatever.

This all came to a head when my sister in law recently applied for one of the rescues on the website. She is a really lovely woman who lives with my brother in a modest but comfortable terrace house in Bristol, with a nice garden and near parks. They are middle-aged, no kids, both work from home and have one old dog already for whom they seek a companion. I’m despondent to find out that she applied for a dog on the website but was told he already had a home. Fair enough. But soon after I find out that this home has fallen through and despite SIL having sent in her form and stated her keenness on this dog, has not been informed.

Consequently, this dog is being advertised again. I don’t think she has slipped through the net as the rehomer is supremely efficient but very fussy. (I haven’t let her know that this applicant is my SIL as I am interested in her being a `mystery shopper’ and giving me an insight from the other side, so to speak).

Because SIL lives in a city in a terraced house I have the feeling that she has been tacitly turned down as country homes are favoured. Of course it would be wonderful if all adopters lived in the greenbelt with acres of land but that is not the reality. Many of the best dog owners I know live in London and make good use of all the parks. Many people who live in the countryside have no access to `countryside’ and must drive for miles to access dog-walking fields, so country living is no panacea.

While I am in favour of home checks and dogs going to the right homes for them, do you feel that dog charities are over fussy? It breaks my heart when great homes are rejected and owners then go to breeders. The last thing the world needs are any more dogs when there are millions, even billions, living wretched lives, and yet kind-hearted, dogmatic rescuers are inadvertently making things even worse than they need be.

The other maddening thing is that dogs are often kennelled while homes are being found but due to all the turning good homes down, this can take months and this is a huge expense for the charity.
I’m so fed up I am pulling out of rescue and will stick to raising money for neutering programmes, which is even more vital anyway.

I have to disagree with this. I also volunteer at a dog rescue and the questions they ask potential adopters are perfectly justified. The staff know the dogs far better than anyone and the requirements they need. If they just handed over a dog to anyone they would see a rise in dogs being returned which would be far more stressful for the dog. If they say they can't be left for x amount of hours or can't be around children of a certain age there will be a specific reason for this for each dog not just a set of blanket rules.

@amijustparanoidorjuststoned
City centre issues may mean noisy, on a busy road or nowhere nearby to walk.
Are you applying for a specific dog when you are declined? It might be the specific dog rather than an outright decline

Try some of the smaller rescues if you haven't already, or breed specific rescues. They will be more open to adopting to new owners.

Of course they must look for the best environment for the dog but some of these places are getting too risk averse and their blanket rules at weeding out potentially excellent homes, leaving these dog to be further traumatised by being kept in kennels.

Our DDog1 had a great life with us but under the rules being applied now, they wouldn't even have considered placing him in our home.

Some rescues clearly make better judgements but our experience makes it clear that at least some are denying dogs decent homes without a good reason.

We got an RSPCA rescue dog last millennium, when I was just starting secondary school. We already had a dog (middle aged lab) who was obviously healthy enough.

Random dog picked up as a stray, had only been there 6 days. Just under a year old, no training to speak of. We spoke to him and he wagged his tailed and sniffed through the fence. Stuck our fingers through the fence and he licked them. We filled in a form, and agreed to home visits whenever they decided to turn up etc

Came back next day to get him as by law they had to wait 7 days.

He was the most wonderful pet, smart, loving, protective without being aggressive (would bark in threatening situations but never did anything more). He was the best ever companion for me through my teenage years, we would go out walking for hours and my parents knew we would both come home safe.

Looking now as we are soon in a position to offer a long-term (rest of life) home to a dog with my mother around the corner for day care and the occasional holiday/weekend. DD is 12, and able to understand the dog's needs and be predictable. But looking at a number of 'big name' rescues, we would not be suitable for a rehome. The garden fence, e.g. is only about 4' high. I have a child and the dog-care would not be on-site.

Now, I get that such a relaxed attitude as all those years ago is not in anyone's best interests - it worked out for us but not necessarily for everyone. But it seems to have gone too far in the other direction.

The rescues that adopt from abroad, on the other hand, seem to be more realistic, and I would still rather have an older dog that needs a home than contribute to the breeding industry.

Thanks to everyone who has shared the names of the more flexible rescue organisations - we will be getting in touch with some of them.

@PollyRoe16 that sounds a responsible way to do it but the one I mention has a blanket set of rules, I suspect many are similar. 6 ft fence for a chihuahua or a great Dane.

I can recommend Spanish Stray Dogs spanishstraydogs.org.uk They look at each potential adoptee on an individual basis. They do ask all the right questions and home check, but are realistic about your situation and what will and won't work. They also give back up and support to deal with any issues after adoption.

We were rejected from all the UK rescues we approached despite me working from home, having a large enclosed garden, being an experienced dog owner and living within walking distance of the beach and woods, because we had children under ten.

SSD suggested the perfect dog, child and cat friendly, and supported us through the settling in period. We are now thinking of getting another through them.

We'd most likely get rejected as my son is young, but Sportcat found us instead, oddly enough shortly after my DH brought home a statue of the cat goddess Bastet! We always joke that the goddess thought we needed one of her people to live in our home! She was found in the garden and was a kitten of a feral cat that always had kittens every year but most didn't survive. We took her in even though we were worried she wouldn't make it as very small. But she did and has celebrated her fourth birthday. She mostly sticks to the gardens out the back and has a very happy and spoiled life.

It's sad that the shelters seem to rule out people with children as I've always grown up around animals and if you don't have one as a child you never get the experience to have one as an adult!

Here is our beautiful girl!

Cat rescues (except breed specific) generally don't rule out people with children. They may rule out certain cats, but not families

I have heard so many stories like this. think this is a real problem for many of these animal charities and by extension for the animals who are failing to be rehomed. A lot of these shelters are creating a real PR problem for themselves with these self-defeating attitudes and creating a lot of ill will.

I work full time and live in a flat so I've accepted that having a dog isn't possible for me but see no reason at all why I should not be able to adopt an adult cat (I have a reasonable sized garden, am a previous cat owner, live on a quiet street). I've been turned down by so many cat charities.

The most recent one, which was a blue cross one, I got fairly far down the road of adopting but due to some miscommunication the person running the shelter had missed the fact that I live in London. When this became clear to her she totally retracted the offer to let me have the cat on the grounds that she couldn't "in all conscience" allow someone living in a London flat to take the cat.

I'm sure she was well-intentioned and cared about the cat etc but there was something so pearl-clutchy about it it really got my back up. The implication was that no-one in London should ever adopt an animal.

To be honest that latest episode has put me off shelters and if I do get a cat I will probably get one from a breeder.

I think anyone involved with rescue shelters would do well to take this thread on board. Yes its important that there are proper checks and that the threshold is quite high. But no-one least of all the animals benefits from imposing unachievable standards on people.

The reality is that rescue dogs suitable for children are few and far between because it is incredibly rare that the background of the dog is known, and if it is known that the dog doesn't have issues. Many rescues don't want to take the risk, understandably.
I absolutely understand that: no rescue wants a bitten, mauled or maimed child on its conscience, and finding a home for a dog with a troubled background is a major responsibility. But to have a blanket ban on anyone with DC under ten? As in, told me that, laughed, and ended the call? Did they really never, ever, get in 12 week old puppies, or dogs suddenly homeless because of divorce or family illness?

but you're a nice person doesn't mean that living in a city is the best thing for a dog. I mean, it blatantly isn't.
Surely that depends on the dog and the location of the potential home. Smallish dog with low to moderate exercise needs and a large park just down the road, why not? Large dog with considerable exercise needs within a 5 min drive of Wimbledon Common, why not?

Besides, 'the best' isn't always feasible, whereas 'good enough' might well be. Surely it's better for a dog to be happy in a 'good enough' home than languishing in kennels for months and months waiting for 'the best'?

@sportinguista 😍😍😍 Sportcat 😍😍😍

As for dogs being better with a couple of acres to run around in, that isn't such an outrageous statement. Most dogs would indeed benefit from that. Just because you fancy having a dog and you live in a city but you're a nice person doesn't mean that living in a city is the best thing for a dog. I mean, it blatantly isn't.

Ridiculous. Have you heard of parks?

As for dogs being better with a couple of acres to run around in, that isn't such an outrageous statement. Most dogs would indeed benefit from that. Just because you fancy having a dog and you live in a city but you're a nice person doesn't mean that living in a city is the best thing for a dog. I mean, it blatantly isn't

I agree in general. I do think however, that it's nicer for a dog to live with a loving family in a flat with a park locally (as long as it doesn't bark and annoy everyone else in the complex of flats) than it is to live in a rescue centre. And a tick box blanket rules approach isn't going to work sensibly other than stopping come-back for the charities involved - a bit like DBS checks really.

As for dogs being better with a couple of acres to run around in, that isn't such an outrageous statement. Most dogs would indeed benefit from that

So only the landed gentry should be allowed to adopt a dog then?

@GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman
Puppies are rare, and surrenders with no issues are rare (eg divorce). When these do come in there is a queue a mile long waiting to adopt.
A blanket ban for under 10s is irritating, I agree. But not true of all rescues. I know many that happily adopt to under 10s.

@OpportunityKnocks please could you recommend any rescues that will consider rehoming to families with children?

I'm amused by the above poster who insisted that the 'animal welfare professionals' always know best. While accepting that rescues have to run things in the best way for them, you don't need any qualification to run a rescue.

I just heard of a family being turned down; despite being perfect in every way, when the rehomer found out they had a blind child with Downs Syndrome, they were turned down, without even meeting said child.

I always assumed that Downs Syndrome children and many others with SN were very gentle with animals and often build up a special rapport.

Do you think a blanket ban on SN kids is too stringent or justified?

Do you think a blanket ban on SN kids is too stringent or justified?

If nothing else, it's disability discrimination.

Just because you fancy having a dog and you live in a city but you're a nice person doesn't mean that living in a city is the best thing for a dog. I mean, it blatantly isn't.

Well that's a load of old bollocks from someone who very clearly hasn't got the first clue about what they are typing. I used to have springer spaniels in London and they had the absolute time of their lives. We used to so often just pack up lunch or plan a route with a dog friendly cafe and head off for a whole day of exploration and walks. The Lea Valley, Epping Forest, Forty Hall, Cheshunt, Highgate woods, Hampstead Heath, Wimbledon Common, Richmond, Wandle river walks that go on for miles and miles. Not to mention the literally hundreds of huge beautiful lesser known parks that are all over the city.

Ime, dog ownership is an awful lot easier in cities because they are full of parks dedicated to public leisure, whereas the fields in the countryside are largely private property dedicated to farming. Even in country parks you need to be more on guard as the public parkland often borders private farmland and they don't have secure fencing dividing them. It doesn't mean you can't have a dog in the country, just that it's often an awful lot easier in a city/town.

Just because you fancy having a dog and you live in a city but you're a nice person doesn't mean that living in a city is the best thing for a dog. I mean, it blatantly isn't.

And this is the attitude that seems to block a lot of dogs being adopted.

I live in a big town, but there are several large parks near me, plenty of places to walk dogs and loads of people have them. I don't because I'd rather have a cat.

I completely agree. Bonkers the number of people I know who were turned down when they are brilliant pet owners. So we all go private ... fault of the charities, imo.

Just because you fancy having a dog and you live in a city but you're a nice person doesn't mean that living in a city is the best thing for a dog. I mean, it blatantly isn't

What a pile of crap. My DD lives in the city, but walks her dog to a huge open wooded area where he can run about off lead and meet other dogs. A well as his big walks, she also takes him into town where there are several dog friendly places and lots of outside seating.
He is a well exercised and stimulated dog.

I actually have the opposite TheYeaSayer. I live very very rurally, and it's not actually that great for my dog, because she never gets to go into town and rarely meets other dogs.

It means she's not very socialised - which is putting it mildly!