|
Location: Co. Durham, UK
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,213
|
|
Originally Posted by
lozzibear
Of course their policies aren't foolproof... I think it would be naive for anyone to think that. But they can still do the best they can, at the time the dog is being rehomed. If that's the way you want to look at it, then the same can be said for anyone who gives someone an animal...
You believe what you want, but I think that is an awful comment to make, given that these are people who do their very best to save the lives of many dogs, many of them dedicate their lives to doing it... I don't for one minute think they are 'just' being prejudice. I think it is ALL for the sake of the dogs, and not just the dogs they are rehoming but to the wider population of dogs. If you think it is prejudice then that is your opinion, but I don't think it is fair to say that they don't have those prejudices for the benefit of the dogs.
I have said before that I think some rescues have the neuter policy in an attempt to get people to neuter their existing animals, and that it is (in their opinion) the best thing for all involved.
Where did I say forums are not for discussion???
Must have missed me typing that bit.
You don't want or expect anything from them... hrm, so how do you suppose they would decide if you are responsible?... I guess you don't since you don't want anything from them.
I'm sure they have had many people expressing their opinions on the neuter policy but they are a successful rescue, so I am sure they are happy with the things they are doing, and the policies they have in place. If they didn't, I am sure they would change them.
So, you want them to take the time to do a home check AND spend some quality time with the potential owner to see how responsible they are
I don't think spending that amount of time would give a rescue an idea of how responsible someone is...
You might see it as small mindedness, but I am sure they, and many others, do not.
By having such strict blanket policies they aren't doing "their best" though, that's my point. They're doing a great job, obviously, but by being less discriminatory they could help so many more dogs. Just because they do a good job doesn't mean they shouldn't try to do better.
Getting to know someone doesn't take forever, the vast majority of time instinct will tell you if someone is genuine, along with vet checks etc. I wouldn't add up to a great amount of time, but putting in the effort could benefit the dogs ten fold. After all how much does a home check really tell you, there's so much more to owning a dog than what house they live in.
Oh and it's not their neuter policy I have issues with, more their discrminatory attitude towards those of us who don't wish to lop off our dogs reproductive organs just to prove we're responsible.
Originally Posted by
lozzibear
I will be honest and say I am shocked to hear that... I easily rehomed a dog with young children in the house, and I know of single people who rehomed from the same, and other rescues... I wouldn't have thought it would have been a 'blanket policy' for many rescues.
The neuter one does seem to be more common.
Regardless, it's a true story.
Originally Posted by
Brierley
What may seem ridiculous, could have very valid reasons behind them, for example:
I'm not going to go into the whole of your post because the main issue I have is their prejudiced attitude which prevents dog owners who don't neuter their current animals from rehoming one of their animals. The examples I gave were just in response to rune's post and although I do think they are ridiculous, I can understand the reason behind them. Basing rehoming policies on their own personal prejudice it wrong however. Plain and simple.
Originally Posted by
Collie Convert
I really don't see why many tears cant adapt their rehoming policy...if they KNOW the dog they are rehoming is neutered, why should it matter if potential homes have entire dogs in the house? It shouldn't. I can understand with the rehoming of puppies that are too young to neuter but then again they wont even rehome males to households that are all male.
EXACTLY! It's simply about prejudice on their part, nothing to do with the welfare of the dog being rehomed.
Originally Posted by
rune
I would be very surprised if you had---for the majority of people the problems become obvious once they have seen them at first hand----however I suppose there are always exceptions.
rune
And I'm not surprised that your prejudiced has lead you to be incorrect.
Originally Posted by
rune
Of all my dogs through life that have been rescues only one came from a rescue organisation! Not counting a couple of oldies and a few fosters.
All the rest have come through various other channels. It isn't rocket science to find a dog needing a home! Of course it gets more difficult if you want a particular kind of dog. It also gets more difficult if you have a child because the onus is on YOU to decide if that dog will be good with your child and it is YOU that are landed with the dog if it goes wrong. If you go through a rescue you can hand the dog back and wash your hands of it.
That is the only reson I can think of for not rehoming privately and rescueing a dog that way..
rune
If rescues turn people away time and time again it's inevitable people will become down hearted and find better ways to get a dog, more fool the rescues that's all I can say. Like I've said numerous times, it's the dogs sat in the pounds waiting to be PTS that will miss out.