Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The doghouse

If you're worried about your pet's health, please speak to a vet or qualified professional.

Are Battersea no kill?

37 replies

PercyHorse · 09/10/2014 15:58

Just that really. Met some chuggers earlier who said they were apart from the dangerous dogs they couldn't rehome Confused

OP posts:
bendybrickpumpkinpatch · 09/10/2014 15:59

No I don't think they are.

AuntieStella · 09/10/2014 16:09

There was quite a bit of press coverage a coupe of years ago about the number of dogs they have to have pts.

They avoid it if they possibly can of course, but because they don't turn away arrivals sometimes they just run out of space.

TheHoundsBitch · 09/10/2014 16:12

I don't think many rescues are truly 'no kill'. If a dog is too difficult too rehome because of aggression/ lonf term illness they will have it pts. I think that's probably kinder than life in kennels tbh.

Heels99 · 09/10/2014 16:14

Hi I know someone who has just left a job at battersea because he was shocked at the number getting pts and the small number available for rehome as well as the waste of charity money.

PastorOfMuppets · 09/10/2014 16:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PercyHorse · 09/10/2014 16:35

I said I wasn't interested because they weren't no kill. They were very insistent that they were - apart from the 'dangerous' dogs they put to sleep - and also wanted to know where I heard that they weren't no kill.

OP posts:
muttynutty · 09/10/2014 17:12

No they pts over 2,000 (nearly 3,000) a year from freedom of information searches.

yesbutnobut · 09/10/2014 21:21

Wow that's a lot of dogs pts (very sad). How many do they rehome by comparison?

InfinitySeven · 09/10/2014 21:29

According to their 2013 figures, they took in 5,221 dogs, and put to sleep just under 1,500 of them.

They also took in 2,589 cats, although there is no official figure on how many of those were PTS.

1,682 of the dogs were Staffies, the most represented breed. 627 were mongrels, 527 Jack Russells.

Their expenditure was 1,000,000 more than their income.

muttynutty · 09/10/2014 21:53

Infinity those figures are very low I have figures of 8,000 taken in per year in 2012 with 2873 pts (dogs)

InfinitySeven · 09/10/2014 22:06

Mutty they could be - that's why I said they came from Battersea itself!

Although it does say 8,000 (not exactly but I've left document somewhere) total admissions, cats and dogs together.

muttynutty · 09/10/2014 22:11

I hope yours are right as it is less needing to be rescued and PTS.

EasyToEatTiger · 10/10/2014 08:48

Two of ours are Battersea. One was a long term stay. He was looked after there for at least 6 months. They don't have the space or the money to look after animals indefinitely as some rescues will. Every dog that finds a new home is one that won't be pts.

lucydaniels4658 · 10/10/2014 16:42

I watched a documentary about battersea a few years ago they pts many dogs.One was very friendly but as it passed another dog its neck tensed (apparently a sign of aggression but it didn't growl or go for the other dog) so it was pts really sad showed it going in wagging its tail :-(

Floralnomad · 10/10/2014 17:27

If there were less irresponsible people places like Battersea would not have to PTS so many dogs ,agree with their policies or not ( I have a Battersea dog) there would be a lot more dogs ,particularly staffies ,PTS in London each year so IMO they do a great job.

MagratGarlik · 10/10/2014 23:06

Battersea are a pound, not a no-kill rescue. Yes, they do behaviour assessment, but they are still a pound.

EasyToEatTiger · 11/10/2014 18:27

I think they do a fab job as well. One of ours from Battersea was one of their 'special' dogs. We loved him to bits and it was lovely that Battersea had taken the time to work with him and prepare him for a different kind of life. Our other Battersea hound had been fostered before she came to us.

SecretNutellaFix · 11/10/2014 18:36

No- they are primarily a pound.

Twotinygirls · 11/10/2014 18:49

I used to work there, yes i was stunned every day at the amount of dogs pts, wjat what else are they expected to do? The volume of dogs that people leave there 365 days a year, day and night, (not to mention the strays) is overwhelming. And they all expect their dog to find a perfect home. It's totally unrealistic that you would ever have a 'no kill' rescue. The issue is with the unregulated breeding. Whilst people are churning out pups (and kittens) just to make money there will always be dogs pts in rescues, they re home the dogs that are 'rehomeable' and they do the best job they can, part of that is humanely euthanising those animals that people couldn't be arsed with.

SpicyBear · 12/10/2014 16:27

As has been said, they are definitely not no kill. It operates as the pound for London so couldn't feasibly be no kill. Dogs Trust can only achieve this by being very selective on intake. A pound has no choice to turn away local strays. I hate that this is the case, but this isn't the fault of Battersea, it's the relentless overbreeding. I have a Battersea dog and my impression is they do what they can in the circumstances, but I'm no insider.

Floralnomad · 12/10/2014 18:05

I do think that what needs to be said is that there is no time limit on dogs that are assessed as suitable for re homing to stay there ,they have had some dogs that have been resident for months .

dirtyprettything · 16/10/2014 14:19

it's a shame they make it so hard to adopt a dog! We were turned down flat because we have children. I'm amazed some places ever re-home a dog

bakingtins · 16/10/2014 14:27

It think it's naive to withdraw support from a rescue/ pound for not having a "no kill" policy. The alternative is long term kennelling for difficult to home dogs, meanwhile all the dogs needing a rescue place have to be PTS because there are no spaces. The unpalatable fact is there are more homeless dogs than there are good homes, and the rescues have to be realistic and think about which dogs they can rehome in a reasonable timeframe. Nobody working for an animal charity wants to kill lots of dogs, they are not the ones creating the problem.

moosemama · 16/10/2014 14:50

True no-kill rescues are becoming fewer and fewer these days, thanks to draconian 'dangerous dogs' legislation and the compensation/legal action culture we have these days. Sadly, they can't risk being sue and shut down and not being able to save the lives of hundreds or even thousands of dogs by allowing a dog to live that then goes on to attack someone. Sadly one bite is often enough for a death sentence, regardless of the circumstances under which it happened.

The alternative is keeping dogs alive, essentially in solitary confinement - which is still not foolproof and obviously not in the best interests of the dog. I used to volunteer for the Dogs Trust way back when they were the NCDL. They had two long-term, unrehomable dogs and only one member of staff was allowed to go in with them (haven't a clue what happened when they were off sick or on holiday). On my first day no-one told me this and sent me over to that block to start cleaning out the kennels. I started with the first kennel in the block - as you would - only to have a member of staff turn up a short while later and go deathly white. Apparently I was in with a dog (enormous GSD) that was known to be highly aggressive and had already bitten badly on numerous occasions. Poor lad, he was beautiful and for some reason showed absolutely no sign of aggression to me, in fact he was retrieving his ball for me when the staff member turned up. They were gobsmacked and said he usually went ballistic if anyone went anywhere near his run. I think I was just lucky that, because I didn't know his profile, I went in there cheerfully and confidently and as luck would have it, he responded positively to that. The fact is, it could have gone horribly wrong, I could have been badly attacked and the dog was clearly extremely lonely and suffering from being kept isolated for so long ... no one is a winner in these situations, not the dog - or the rescue organisation. It's rarely a decision taken lightly, at least not in decent rescues that do a lot of work to rehabilitate and appropriately rehome as many dogs as they possibly can.

As bakingtins said, I don't blame the rescues, I blame the over-breeding, the appalling amount of cruelty towards animals, the treating dogs as toys and throw-away possessions, the complacent irresponsibility of owners that fail to socialise and train or learn even the basics of how to communicate with and meet the needs of their dogs and then dump them when they grow up, are no longer cute or trendy enough and haven't miraculously trained themselves and all the other irresponsible things far too many dog owners do.

Sad
moosemama · 16/10/2014 14:50

Feeling a bit ranty today! Blush

Swipe left for the next trending thread