I do agree with this, their boarding business should be paying their wages, not the rescue! What else concerns me a little is the sheer amount of ex-breeders and pups they seem to get through, even with their neutering policy, while other rescues seem to struggle to get the odd adult, under socialised, pet dog rehomed

A lot of their dogs are going to come with serious issues, yet they seem to get re-homed fairly quick by comparison...

I have had another look at their site and notice that they are also quick to drop the price of a 'problem dog' in order to shift out out the kennels.

I used to work for sylvia. There are more articles on that site about her.someone has been doing some homework. Not me L O L. but the site itself has no homepage explaining it's purpose or authorship

Agree with Azz and Rips.

I know nothing about them, but really have no problem with them not being a charity. I do not think they should be allowed to "fund raise" though, as this gives the impression that they are.

Are they actually taking puppies direct from the breeders? I may have read it wrong, but if so, that is totally unacceptable.

Also their blanket ban -

3. If you already own a dog/cat you will only be considered if the animals you own are already spayed or neutered unless there is a medical reason for not doing so. You will need to provide a letter from your vet confirming the medical condition to the rescue..

4. Your garden must be secure with a fence height relative to the size of dog you want to adopt. We usually only home a dog where there is a secure garden (not communal) and where the back garden is separate to the front.

I know, whats my cat not being neutered got to do with the spayed bitch from MT?

I just won't even bother contacting them...who are they to say I will chop my dogs bits off they didn't pay for him, raise him, look after him..

I have thought about Many Tears for a while now and tend to agree with Azz and Rip. There are areas surrounding their organisation which concern me.

I also almost took a dog which was being fostered out by MT in a home not far from where I live. Sections 3 and particularly 4 of their policy (Luthien's post) were certainly not being observed in the foster home, which IMO was not suitable for the number of dogs they had. The fosterers actually had no fencing to keep the dogs in, front or back - they said it had fallen down or been stolen when I mentioned it - and the house was very smelly. I don't know how they would ever have got through a home check. They also had a St Bernard (obtained from another rescue) and several Cavaliers (which were their own dogs) - (neuter status unknown to me) as well as the 3 dogs they were fostering from MT. All these dogs were kept in the kitchen of a very small house with no adequate outside area. To be honest I was a bit shocked. To add to it all I don't know how they adequately exercised all the dogs each day. The man was elderly and physically disabled and his elderly wife didn't seem a very active person. Neither MT or the fosterers had knowledge of whether the dog I was interested in had been spayed (there was nothing in her record to say she had - it wasn't done by MT for sure) and she had a fairly severe on-going skin problem. Again neither party knew much about it or if it had been treated or not, but the fosterers confirmed it was definitely a problem to the dog. I got no useful information on the dog at all - It was really a case of take it or leave it. Nobody from MT answered my e-mailed queries. The fosters were not home checkers, but it was agreed between MT and the fosters that they could do my home check (which I found quite amusing). The fosterers also told me that MTs go over to Ireland and collect a hundred dogs at one go. (I've no idea if that is true or not) but I got the impression from them that it was quite a profitable business.
In the end I became suspicious and reluctantly decided not to proceed unless I received some answers to my queries, but nobody replied to me or questioned why I was concerned, except to say do you want to choose another dog.
My experience with MT was certainly not a very positive one. It left me feeling a bit guilty about not taking the poor dog - I wanted her, but I didn't feel I could take her and condone an organisation which I had a bad feeling about.

Hugs x
That must have been really hard.

mmmnnn i don't know how I feel about it, having helped to just set our rescue up last year as a registered charity so that we are transparent - we wanted people to be able to find out how we spend our money if they so wish. Its a hard thing though, rescue regardless of your reasons, its just a really hard thing to do.

I don't think I could knowingly go into these godawful places and not take dogs that I thought I could help....

As a rescue our aims were to educate, neuter, rehome and train.
We do a lot more rehoming/rescuing( neutered) than anything else, because sadly thats the demand, we have some success stories of dogs we managed to keep with their owners, but otherwise the demand is just too much with more and more dogs needing homes and not enough homes wanting them.

We all have lives too and you can't give yourself 100% over to it as it would make you burn out.
I admire anyone who does it 24/7 because its bloody hard work.

Its depressing, it makes you see another side of human culture/society that many people never see, it brings you into contact with people you quite often wouldn't have the time of day for normally, and sometimes it puts you in danger, yet you do it because ultimately you want to help the dog that never asked to be in that position.

As for the kennel costs, every kennel that they use for a rescue isn't then available for a boarding dog so then they would have to charge to cover it. WE don't have our own kennels so pay for it if we have to kennel dogs ( we try not to but its not always possible) You also have the issue of taking in a dog not knowing if its got vaccs etc so you need isolation kennels away from boarded dogs thus its not quite as simple as if we have a space we can take in another dog.....

I guess its easy to criticise without walking in their shoes.

Having worked in rescue for years myself, i do feel that sometimes people over state and over emote the whole emotional trauma side of things.

Sure, it can be bad, but its not like you see horror cases everyday. On the whole, the worst of your week is seeing cooped up stressed cage dogs all the time, which is similar to boarding kennels.
Not nice, but you can work around it

And we did all get minumum wage or more so, statutory holidays.
And many of us get live in accomodation with free or reduced rent and/or bills.

Im not too sure what i think about constantly relieving puppy farms of puppies.
I can see both sides of the arguement.
I can certainly see the point one needs to be careful in campaigning against puppy farms if one doesnt want to upset the famers themselves, in case they wont let you take the dogs/pups into rescue.

However, a general question to all:
How long does everyone think is an acceptable period of time for maintaining this strategy before one starts working toward the strategy of doing something about the farms themselves?