Yes I know these things can happen, I do homecheck for 3 rescues, one being MT, recently one of the pups on site were offered a home, but the person was found unsuitable by MT as the questions asked she couldn't really answer and things( in her individual case) were not as she seemed on the phone

WHich is why I do not support any of these financially.

If a charity/company/trust truly had at its heart the aim to save/rehome/rehab as many dogs as possible, I fail to understand why they would not leap at the opportunity to free up one of their kennels by handing over dogs to specialist rescues?

I have never received a satisfactory explanation of why this state of affairs exists.

I am not saying THEY should spend their finite resources in contacting breed rescue, but surely they should, when approached by a bona fide resuce, be only too willing to hand over a dog which thus means they can help even MORE dogs?

If they were a BUSINESS they would have to account for their actions to shareholders etc and demonstrate that they used their resources wisely, but they do not appear to be challenged on this by those who donate?

I think in some cases it is a financial decision----the original rescue loses the donation from new owner, in some cases they think the breed rescues are wrong for not always insisting on neutering and in some cases they don't trust anyone except themselves to find the right home.

Misguided maybe but I have heard all three of these reasons given.

Also in our case it can be a logistical problem---someone has to pay for transport usually.

rune

I would guess that this is very often the issue.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you say in principle, but it's often not feasible in practice.

Many breed rescues are "virtual" rescues in the sense that they don't have a kennel (though I know there are some that do), and depend on a small group of volunteers/fosterers. They may not have the facilities/funds to take on dogs that are not at immediate risk.

Exactly - time and time again we have seen this with greyhounds and they are supposed to be tracable (yeah right). Can you imagine just how easy it would be and IS for the p/fs.

There is nothing as blind as one who doesnt want to see - much easier to blame those who work tirelessly to rescue dogs (any dogs).

Who ever is doing this is certainly no dog lover! They are as evil as the puppy farmers IMO may they end up having nightmares of the dogs they have now put to a horrible death for the rest of their lives. (mind you they would probably get a kick out of that). Sick

No, you haven't. I wasn't aware of them when I got my last pup or I would have gone to them.

I know, I look everyday! Not ready yet though, when my old boy makes a vacancy, which hopefully won't be for a long time yet.

Er yes, I know, I work for a couple!

What I am saying is, that when approached with an offer to take the dog off their hands, WHY do such organisations refuse?

I am not talking about some od bod off the street but a person nominated by the registered breed rescue.

]

Well I can only speak for the two I work for.

Neutering is insisted upon and we have a network of people who transport dogs across the country at their own expense.

This is where ego overrides common sense, thinking that "nobody but ME/US is/are suitably qualified to find the right homes"......... sigh.

Is their approach in the best interests of the dogs?

Hmmmm

I didn't say I agreed with it---in fact I got very cross about a gordon setter who ended up bouncing simply because he was a gordon. He should have gone through the breed rescue.

I also get cross when the difficult ones are passed to breed rescue--itsa good cop out if you are a no kill shelter and the dog has bitten or is likely to bite.

rune