You need to come down of your high horse. THIS kind of comment makes you look like you think you are better than everyone else. My estimations of you have gone right down for that.

There are alot of us out there volunteering, caring, or even WORKING for rescue centres. It's just that we don't feel the need to brag and make out that we are better than everyone else.

Really dumb thing to say!

Thank you all for your comments comments, some interesting and valid points made.

I don't agree however that those of us who are potentially for it are thinking of the adopter rather than the dog.

I'm also thinking of the dogs that have been in awhile and no-one is willing to take a gamble on the commitment.

An example.

My local rescue had a deaf collie in. he had been in for months and months, as you can imagine was not doing well in kennels. One of the other volunteers loved him to pieces but had no idea whether he would cope with owning a deaf dog or how the dog would settle into a home life.

The rescue said 'take him home and see how you get on - if it doesn't work out, bring him back'. All the 'can I make it work, what happens if I don't?' pressure on the volunteer was removed by this simple arrangement. The dog went home with him and the pair have never looked back.
Of course this was a special situation - the rescue centre knew the volunteer well and continued to work with him and the dog when the dog went home with him. But without that 'trial period', I'm positive that the volunteer would not have risked taking him home and the deaf collie could have remained in the kennels for many more months. Would that really have been better for the dog?

Trial periods aren't necessary or appropriate for all situations - a dog with no known issues going into a pet-free home - well there should be no need for one. Also, the more easily rehomable dogs - the smaller ones, the cute ones etc.; there may be no need for the trial if the rescue knows they can easily rehome them.

But just sometimes, taking the pressue off a potential adopter by giving them the chance to 'give it a go' will give a dog a chance of a home that it wouldn't otherwise have had.

Just a little imput from a Brummie perspective, I remember you telling me about the deaf Collie, but I do think that was special, because the rescue where you help give on going support, and that is wonderful of both Tom and Shona, but here, you'd be hard pushed to get that support.
Take BDH for instance, they will not let you do a trial run, infact the only two suggestions I have ever heard them say is, ''we have a large room where you can introduce your dog/dogs, and ''if it doesn't work out bring it back''.
When my son Gary took Dillon, BC, we made three journeys there and back over a week, first to introduce my dogs and his JRT, second to introduce a cat (one of mine) as his don't travel well, and the cat we used ...Skip...isn't afraid of dogs, and third to introduce Steven's three dogs. Dillon being a big BC, was very ''bouncy'' and recall was non exsistant, Gary asked THEM for advice and all they could say was ''well we don't know, just give him ago'' As a family we worked damn hard with the re-call, in the early days it looked like it was never going to happen, and him being approx 2 years old, he had other idea's to us. Now perhaps if dog homes/rescues were all as helpful as yours then we would of been so grateful that I would of given them a extra donation for thier input.

Some people have asked what is the difference between trial and fostering, well I am signed up to foster, and I think fostering can be months, in that time the true dog comes to light, if a trial is only for two weeks (that an example) the true dog will not come out. It took Dillon 6 months before we saw the ''real'' Dillon and he had other issues other than bouncy and recall that we had to work through.
Thats my opion anyway.

Firstly, as I think C & D said, if there were major problems with an adopted dog, you are bound to return it to the Rescue, so effectively, there is provision in place for those that simply cannot make it work.

Secondly, how do you decide on the "trial period" - as in 1 week, 2 weeks, whatever?

Thirdly, I did rescue an old Yorkie years ago (in doggy heaven now ). He was a very difficult dog. It tooks months of time and dedication (not to mention patience) to get him to the wonderful dog that he ended up. Absolutely loved and adored by all who met him. Though the first couple of months, he pee'd everywhere (had never been housetrained - he was 9 when I got him), he was aggressive to my OH (jealous because he wanted me all to himself and didn't want OH near me), he had bald patches where he'd had a severe flea allergy and he had tummy problems (his owner had died unexpectedly and so nobody could get information as to how this dog had been fed or anything else) which subsided when I found a food that agreed with him - eventually. The Vet bills were enormous and at times I'd sit and cry because he could be such hard work but I stuck at it because I knew that if I returned him, it was kind of a bad mark against him, having been homed only to be returned and this might have, at some stage, turned people off adopting him or led to him being pts so it wasn't an option for me - plus I loved the bald-patched, miserable old git that pee'd all round my house! Anyway, within about six months-ish (if I remember right) he became a gem. When the kids came along, he was just so good with them, even though (as far as anyone knew) he'd had no contact with children before.

So no, I don't think that trial periods are really a good idea. I think that it takes a long time to train a dog to your way of life/home and, therefore, you have to be one hundred per cent committed before even thinking of taking one home.

As for visiting a dog at the Rescue Centre, for as many visits as you think fit and then deciding that your home is not the correct one for the dog, I can only see that doing this is responsible and the best way for the dog, in the end

So you would feel that because someone requested a trial period they wouldn't have as much dedication and commitment as someone else who didn't?

I have 2 other dogs and 16 other animals to consider. If I did decide to bring another dog into my home, they would have to 'fit' quite well with the routine we already have.

That isn't to say that we wouldn't have to work at it; or that extra training (on all dogs) might be required. For me, it would be a precautionary measure to ensure that I didn't have 2 large dogs deciding that they like the new dog outside and on a walk, but won't tolerate the new dog inside 'their' home.

I'd hate to have to break up fights all the time, but surely having a harmonious life is in the best interests of the dogs as well as the people.

I don't think a rescue should make every potential adopter aware of the fact that they might offer a trial period. And I also think that each case should be taken on it's own merit. I think someone with kids, other dogs, other animals etc would be more suited to a trial period than a prospective home with no dogs/animals/kids.

Just goes to show how difficult it is for rescues to get the balance right though doesn't it. Done 'willy-nilly' I definitely agree that it could be a bad thing - dogs being returned with more issues than they went away with etc.

As for the comparision with fostering, I agree that on the whole there is a big difference, but of course it will depend on individual cases. Some dogs won't be with the foster home for very long, others it will be months. Some 'trials' will act very like a foster home in terms of bringing the dog on, others could make them worse.

I also agree it does take months to see the true dog, but with 2 of my rescues, we've had a really good idea of their character after the first week. Stumpy of course was a bit more complex and is still changing even now

I think if someone wants a trial period (as opposed to back-up) it would be because there is a doubt about the suitability of the home for that dog. Rescues are there to look out for the best interests of the dog, not to provide people with the perfect dog.
There are ways of assessing suitablility without taking the dog home. For instance - if you`re not sure how a new dog will get on with yours you visit and walk them together first surely, or go on past experience of other dogs entering your home. Most experienced people could look at the make-up of a pack or family and see where problems could arise. I would not bring an un-neutered dog into mine for instance, or a feisty bitch. On the other hand, providing I am sensible and don`t leave toys out or feed them together or shut them in a room together I am confident that I can bring any other dog in. If there are problems, you deal with them. It`s my house, not the dogs`.

Having had another think about this, I believe that (as with most things) each case should be considered on its own merits. It depends on the circumstances of the rescue centre, as well as the dog's personality and the potential adopters commitment. Large organisations may struggle to cope with the extra work involved with dogs going out on trials.

I think small rescue organisations would be better placed to offer a trial period. They tend to know each dog's personality due to having less animals in at one time and also how well particular dogs would do in certain situations/homes - and indeed whether a trial period may benefit the dog or not.

Regarding the trial period, the rescue I was talking about in Lancaster offer a weekend or overnight trial - in fact, I believe they encourage any potential new homes to take the trial before signing the papers. It obviously works for them as they have an excellent rehoming record.

I was a volunteer for GSD Rescue for many years, and even though we never offered trial periods , I think if someone I had interviewed, assessed and home-checked and passed as suitable for one of our dogs, had requested a couple of days with a particular dog, I would have agreed. If it means that a dog gets a loving and permanent home, then I don't see why the opposition.

I don't think anyone is saying that dogs should be shunted backwards and forwards between different trial homes, as that certainly wouldn't be in their best interest, but I can certainly see the benefits to all involved in particular cases.

Also, I would like to stress that I would only agree with trial periods on the basis that the home and adopter had been thoroughly interviewed, assessed and home-checked prior to a dog going into that situation.

But the way my 2 behave on walks is totally different to the way they are in the house; and, strange as it may seem, the only dogs that have been in our house are other family dogs, whom Max and Muphy have known all their lives. Plus, a lot of rescue's wouldn't check to see if a new dog was 'duck/chicken friendly'...

I'd much prefer a trial period if I was to take on a rescue dog. Of course, I'd expect to be interviewed, homechecked and for the dogs to have met on neutral ground first.

Okay...
I asked to have a 'trial run' with a rescue at my home, that trial run was only an afternoon or overnighter.
I asked because I was not sure how my dogs would respond to the dog in our home and I was not sure how the dog would respond to my dogs in the home.
Thsi dog had never lived with other dogs in a home environment and was only meeting mine either onlead or in a large 'training' area. It was impossible to tell what they would be like in a home environment. Like Isochicks dogs, my dogs are VERY different when out and about to the way that they are at home, so all I wanted to do was to spend a bit of time with the dog to see how my dogs would respond and how he would respond in a much more enclosed area.

I agree, letting rescues out willy nilly on foster periods could throw up massive problems and I don't think it should necessarily be a 'done' thing for a rescue...BUT each case should be decided on its own merits.

I do not think any less of rescue dogs than pups...as was suggested, but the thing is I know my dogs readily accept pups into their home, they have done it loads of times. I know they readily accept adolescent females into the home as they have done it plenty of times....but an adolescent, just neutered male I did not know about.

The last thing I wanted to do was end up bouncing a dog back to a rescue centre...I did not want to take him home as a permanent addition and then find my dogs would not accept him as I think that would be the wrong thing to do. So I asked for a few hours with him. I don't see how that would create a problem for him given he had just also spent an overnighter at the vets....

I DO understand people think I was thinking the rescue wasn't as 'good' as a pup....BUT the fact is I know how my dogs react to puppies....I know how they react to older dogs, I know how they react to adolescent females...but NOT adolescent males...so I wanted to see for myself. I am responsible and experienced and I suspect despite the policy the rescue would have allowed it as they know me...

It is about assessing each case on its own...treating each dog and potential adopter as individuals.