How do i know if it's a 'no kill' rescue

[Doodlekitty]

Hi all

Not an 'I'm getting rid of my dog' don't worry.

I'm applying for a job at an animal shelter, I'm VERY excited about it as it's pretty much my dream job as I'm animal daft and the job was made for me. I'm familiar with the shelter as I've adopted cats from there in the past, but I haven't, until recently, been aware of the difference between shelters. I think if it is a shelter with a kill policy it would change how I feel about the role. It does not tell me on their website and google has let me down big time.

Hi Doodle,

Assuming you are in the UK? If it's the Dogs Trust then you are OK, but not the RSPCA as they unfortunately don't have a good track record (though there are some lovely individuals working for them). Many Tears, sadly, are also not no-kill.

Is it a pound or a rescue? Pounds usually house strays on behalf of local authorities and after seven days they can be killed. Most (not all thankfully) therefore wouldn't be no-kill.

Most no kill rescues are happy to say so on their websites - this doesn't mean that a dog in their care is never PTS - but the circumstances will be very tightly defined e.g. severe illness etc.

If the rescue is a properly structured charity then a great deal of their information including income, outgoings etc will be on the Charity Commission website. If I was looking for a job, I'd want to look at this since I'd want to know they were going to be financially stable to pay my wages!

You can also have a look at the Rescue Review Website - see if your rescue has any writeups on there?

Alternatively, if you'd like to name them, then i'm sure lots of peeps on here would have info on them. If you don't want to name them publicly, PM me - I have lots of rescue contacts around the country and am still in touch with Valhalla - between us, we prob know most!

Lastly, it is possible that they may be inspected/licensed by the local authority, and if they are, then you are entitled to see any inspection reports. Also worth asking if they are members of the Association of Cats and Dogs Homes - kind of a trade body - most of the big rescues are members. Again, non membership isn't a negative, but membership to me indicates that they are willing to learn and exchange best practice, which is usually a good sign.

Also, there are the annual Burgess Wetnose Animal Rescue Awards - these are awarded annually and I know several charities who've won - again, usually a sign of a good operation.

Just wanted to add, that even if the rescue is a no kill operation, please, please be PREPARED for shelter work to be emotionally very difficult. You really see the absolutely shitty side of what people do and the ridicolous reasons for abandonment, and some very distressing cases of neglect, cruelty etc. Don't want to put you off, but it's hard doing that day in, day out. If you can cope with it, there are also huge rewards .

As a volunteer, even though I take my commitments very seriously, there have been times in the past when I have eased off or taken a break - mainly to preserve my sanity and my marriage! It's also very easy for people heavily involved in rescue to become overwhelmingly cynical about people in general - again, as you see so much of the worse side of people, the lies, the cruelty, etc - sometimes you have to make a real effort to remember not all people are like that.

this is the second time you have bad mouth many tears
can you please tell where you have your information from that they are not no kill?

From MT's own website.

Home page - "though a strong believer in "no kill" rescue homes, I am now a realist not an ostrich. - Sylvia's own words.

Go to Sylvia's blog, entry for 7th June 2011. Description of killing dog who had bitten another. No apparent attempt made to resolve behaviourally.

I see Many Tears has only praise worthy reviews (mainly 5*) on the Rescue Review website. I was turned down by them but have a friend who took on an ex breeding dog from MT and has only the highest regard for them. Although not a charity, they are not making money from re-homing dogs or offering behavioural advice - far from it I imagine. Is there something else Scuttle (as I've also noticed you criticised them on another thread)?

...and what a very sad entry it is:

^We have had some terrible days - the most terrible being last week. One of the dogs that had come from a local pound had proved to be very unreliable with small dogs. I had her moved to a staff only kennel, where she was walked away from others. Sadly one of the staff carrying a pup walked through her play area. She leapt and grabbed at the pup in the arms of her guardian, the second time latching on and trying to rip her out of the carer's arms. The carer laid on the ground on top of most of the pup to save her. Workmen, staff and eventually me heard the screams. No one could get the dog to release. Eventually as I had deprived her of air she released. I pulled her away but she was intent on going back to kill. The pup was taken away to treat and see the vet. Her tail was damaged and broken and she had various puncture wounds but undoubtedly her life was saved by the brave actions of this staff member. Sadly I made the terrible decision to take the dog to the vets and quietly put her to sleep. She fell asleep in my arms. I hate myself for what I did, but felt that she was such a liability and would end up killing a dog. As I cannot have any more dogs like that living with me and am not prepared to have a dog banged up in a cell for the rest of her life, that's what I did.

 It would be easier not to write this, hope no one heard about it and therefore no one would criticise but then I thought about it again. Surely if someone criticises that would be because they could sort another humane alternative out.  There fore I could keep their number and like me they could take a dog like this to their home, and mould their days, years and life around the problems of having very dog aggressive dogs about. Then I could ring them and let them take on these dogs.

 Yes I feel great guilt but you were not there.  You did not try for 5 full minutes to make a 33 kilo dog release it's pray. Just after that incident someone arrived with a westie pup.  He was not breathing well. We took him into our vet and then on for an x-ray with another vet. He came home, ate,  drank waged and then would pant and gasp. His lungs looked a mess, back again to the vet with the x-ray, and our poor little mite did not make it. Did I feel bitter with the rough justice that a poor beautiful pup had no life ahead, that it knew so little love? You bet I did....^

I think it's a little unfair to judge a whole rescue, someones life, on one incident...Especially with what is going on there right now. I admire and respect you Scuttle, but I do think that was a little 'off'

damn italics fail

Yes, the specific question the OP asked was about defining a "no kill" rescue. For the reasons stated, I've said why I think MT are not a no kill rescue, and have given a number of more general pointers on assessing rescues.

I am reluctant for this thread to be derailed into a MT discussion, though I stand by any comments previously made.

More generally, I think the OP's question has illustrated that assessing rescues is a difficult process since there is no single agreed standard and no form of national licensing. My own belief is that transparency and good governance are important issues for animal welfare organisations.

Eve, the OP asked about assessing whether a rescue organisation is a no kill one or not.

I said in response to the OP, that MT, sadly were not. I stand by that, and by what Sylvia herself says on the front page of their website that I quoted above.

How would you define a no kill rescue?

Sylvia writes beautifully emotional blog posts - but the basic fact is that a dog was killed because it bit another dog, and that apparently this was done without behavioural assessment or attempts to resolve.

What is going on there at the moment that makes this particularly timely?

Right now MTAR are in the middle of a sustained attack; website hacked, damaging and defamatory blogs, FB posts etc. There have been physical and personal threats against MTAR, their people, their equipment and their dogs. The police are involved and a lot of people who have been part if MT in the past (in a 'helper' capacity) have been targetted too. It's really not a good time

Yes, OK, Sylvia made a decision that you would not have. But this was one dog. How many thousands more has MT saved?

I believe her comment about being a realist comes from her work in the USA and the decisions she had to make there. I suppose you need to hear her talk about her experiences there to understand her. I know that I didn't understand at first, but in giving her the benifit of the doubt I have come to respect her decisions.

I suppose it's a 'walk a mile' issue.

There is a difference between a rescue like MT and a pound. I dont think dogs should be PTS willy nilly - but in some circumstances (like what lteve posted above) I do agree with it. Not ALL dogs can be rehabilitated into normal life and have a loving home and neither should they be kept in a kennel for life. Its a tough choice sometimes.

This is such a difficult topic. Some rescues are no kill but they are very selective. So they may not themselves destroy dogs but they know by turning them away that could be an option.

Dogs Trust "we never destroy a healthy dog" annoys me - no they don't but they do turn an awful lot of "difficult" dogs away.

LtEveDallas OMG, why would someone do that? :(

My beautiful westie girl came from there, as did her naughty spaniel cousin.

Jax, yes of course rescue is about tough decisions. But if you look at the blog, and see what happened, strip away all the emotion, and a dog was killed because it bit another dog, and no attempt was made to work on its behaviour. Yes, I'd expect that in a pound - but a rescue with an inhouse behaviourist? No.

I've got a high prey drive greyhound right here in the house with me. If I was careless enough to let him loose with a small dog or a cat, I know what the consequences would be. Do I think he should be killed though? No, because we manage him carefully, and he was placed with us by a rescue that looked after him carefully while he was in their care, and then came to us to live. He has a wonderful quality of life, is much loved and is exercised responsibly.

Plenty of behaviourists on here, such as Minimuu, all of whom deal with dogs that bite/have prey drive on a regular basis. These are definitely solveable and manageable issues.

Kladdkaka, I know, it's horrible . A very close friend of mine who fosters for MTAR has been targeted; she gave her mobile number out to someone who had messaged her (very much like Val used to on here) and received a lot of abuse. We believe her number was posted on one of the crappy blogs. It makes me feel very angry and very protective of MTAR.

scuttle The dog that was PTS didnt just lunge at one dog, it had previous. But I really dont want to get into a debate about MT V pounds. I dont have the mental energy at the moment, so lets agree to agree but with a few caveats.

I used to agree to disagree with valhalla on this often.

Totally appreciate rescues are heaving and sometimes things happen that maybe could have been handled better, but all of us make mistakes or look back and realise we could have dealt with something better.

The Dogs Trust and many other "no kill" rescues are only "no kill" because they cherry pick the dogs they take from the pounds. Many Tears take many dogs who are not immediately attractive for rehoming on their last day at the pound before they would be PTS. My own dear staffie was in the pound ( I think in Swansea) he is ancient, threadbare and not good rehoming material, he needed £400 worth of dentistry for one thing. One of the "no kill" charites came and took all the dogs except him and left him to be PTS the next day. Many Tears heard about him and took him at the very last minute, kept him and worked with him for several months and then we came along and took him."No kill" often means that they leave the killing to the pounds and only take the pretty fluffy dogs. You only have to read the profiles on the MT site and look at the type of dog they take to see that they really care, and would only have a dog PTS in the most extreme circumstances.

I have been sickened and upset by the criticism of Sylvia and her team I have come across on some doggie forums and could not commend them more for all the help and support they give dogs in need. Sadly my poor dog has ony had a year with us and is now quite seriously ill, but he has brought such joy and happiness to us - one of those lovely saintly no kill rescues took the others and left him to die.