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.