Originally Posted by
AnneUK
Haven't dodged the questions at all I've already answered them...
Nowhere on this thread have you *directly* answered the *specific* questions listed. You have also ignored examples demonstrating the opposite to what you claim. And have claimed your own personal interpretations of some rescue practice as fact, without providing the evidence specifically requested.
Why is this different from Nero on the docking threads?
However, as you state you have made the replies, we can only go by what you have - or havent - written.
Therefore, can we take it that you maintain;
VETS LETTERS
1) *No* vets would *ever* charge for a letter?
2) If a vet did not provide a letter, it means the suspicion must fall on the applicant, and that it cannot be equally considered that the vet could be just inefficient, unhelpful, or unavailable?
3) That the applicant whom has owned a dog before has *always* -
a) owned a dog recently enough for the vet to be still practising (if he is retired, why
should he provide free services to anyone???)?,
b) owned a dog recently enough for the vet to remember him?
c) to be a recent enough client of the vet for him to still hold records?
d) to be still living in the same part of the world as a vet?
OR, that you do not believe all these points to be *always* attainable for *all applicants* and *all rescues*, but still insist upon them anyway?
Therefore, does this mean you are happy to deny otherwise very good applicants the chance to adopt dogs due to no fault of their own?
And therefore force the dog to still suffer the stress of not having a good home or being stuck in a kennel?
And let the dog that would have had that rescue space to be killed by its current owner as a result of the extra added delay?
Proof Of DOG Training Placement
4) That *every* rescue (even the rural ones) has enough positive based trainers whom run classes OR one to ones to cater for *all* the potential dog owners in the area (not just rescue) so that every person that applies for a rescue can imeadiately present a letter of placement with a trainer *prior* to adoption?
How many million dog owners are there?? How many members of the APDT - 500?.
5) These trainers they are *all* positive training variety, and they *all* do home visits, and are *always* available straight away?
OR...see paragraph above.
Originally Posted by
AnneUK
oh please it's not rocket science to phone up your vet and ask them to email a letter of reference
hard days work that
For the second time you have completly missed the point about the lack of logic in your *own* statement.
- i said what if the applicant hasnt owned a dog before and doesnt have a vet?
- you reminded me it is only a rule for *previous dog owners*
- i said then you are making it harder for previous dogs owners compared to first time dog owners as they have to do one thing extra.
- you told me of course it is right that it should be harder for first time dog owners
- i said i just said that, so why give first time owners one *less* thing to do?
Again, if they havent owned a dog before, how do they get a letter of referance
Originally Posted by
AnneUK
Yes and believe me that's been a long time coming.
Sadly with the ADCH they don't inforce their policy of standards, even with their own members, they are only recommendations
Exactly! There are many 'reputable rescues' in the ADCH. The ADCH has a code of conduct that is considered the ideal, yet you
now agree not all the members follow this list, and that this list *does not* include a letter from a vet and a letter from a dog trainer.
You have now just confirmed my whole point of posting. How can you tell another section of dogdom - reputable breeders - to follow the example of another - reputable rescues - when you state that the object of the example doesnt *always* follow its own good examples?
AnneUKcough, cough, my original post....
Yes - but now see your post above
AnneUK: Most reputable Rescues thoroughly check out homes before allowing one of their dogs/pups to be adopted
Yep - i know - i agree - this wasn't part of my questions.
As i have already posted, I agree with all the rest of your original list of your original post, and therefore its application to breeders.
However, it is
still fair to appreciate exceptions to the rules regarding practical problems, ie, "distance to travel", when we allow the same exceptions to the rules for reputable rescues.
For example - Lizzies Barn and Many Tears - distance - drop homecheck - just accept a vets or dog warden letter.
Battersea, Manchester, and Birmingham - huge centres - too many dogs - most dogs *not* homechecked - extensive pre adoption interviews and computer matching only.
See, it pays to examine the workablility, logic, consequences of *every detail* of all your ideas before implementing them.
Also, to research the actual practices of other rescues.
And most importantly, to be fair and balanced with people.
I have received a few message praising me on my reasoned balance postings on here. As a rep of the rescue movement, I am proud to be viewed with these qualities - plus flexibility -
when needs be.
This way the public has a better opinion of us and adopts more of our dogs.
As a rule, i believe rescues should do *every other thing on your list*, and so should breeders, and I HAVE been accused - online and at FOAL Farm - of being inflexible and unreasonable by persons objecting to those criteria.
But sod 'em - on those points THEY are the unreasonable ones, and don't qualify for a dog anyway, and on that, I know I have public opinion on my side.