Not necessarily. Jessie has been spayed but has absolutely no scar to show she has. My vet used a technique where they fold the skin inwards like a seam and then stitch and it leaves no scar.

Based on what evidence? As a 32 year old NHS Staff Nurse I have a relatively good grasp on the nature of the Human Race! Blanket policies will not prevent people lying and getting away with it.

When breeders refuse to home puppies it's generally based on meeting the individual and deciding if a home is right, rather than putting blanket bans in place because they're discriminating based on prejudice.

And yes, it would be discrimination to refuse an entire age demograpic a dog based purely on their age. I know quite a few 80 year olds that are fitter than I am and still go shooting regularly. Their breed of choice? The working type ESS! Here's a little definition of discrimination as you clearly don't understand the meaning of the word:

dis·crim·i·na·tion   [dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn]
noun

1. an act or instance of discriminating.

2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Of course they home their dogs regardless, they'd go out of business pretty quickly if they didn't! What I'm saying is by judging each person on their own merit rather than making assumptions and stereotyping certain demographics far more people would be available to rescue and many more dogs would go to loving homes. There will be dogs sitting in pound kennels waiting to be picked up by MT purely because an owner applying for one of their current dogs has an entire cat! Of course we don't see this happening, but given their ridiculously strict policies there will be a good percentage of people turned down for an animal leading to less dogs rehomed overall. I know of a lot of people who having been turned down by a few rescues have gone down the breeder route instead - my Sister being one of them.

The more flexible a rescues policies then the more dogs can be given homes, it's that simple.

If you are turned down by several rescues then they probably have good reasons.

There are many more ways to rescue a dog than to go to the organisations.

rune

My Sister was turned down because she had a child under 5. She bought a puppy from a breeder instead and has had the dog 5 years now. The younger child is the dogs best friend. She would've preferred to rescue but the blanket policy put paid to that. Who knows, there's a high possibility another dog was PTS when it could've taken up the space of the dog they were refused???

A good friend was turned down as she wasn't married (and that's AFTER they let her choose a dog from the centre).

Another friend was refused because she has an entire male Cocker. They went to a breeder and bought another little male Cocker, both of which get on brilliantly together 3 years later.

I could list more, all of which are ridiculous, stereotypical reasons for refusing people a rescue dog an excellent home. Not good reasons, just prejudice.

Like I said, essentially it makes no difference to me, I just can't help but feel they could do things so much better by opening their minds a little. It will be the dogs that lose out at the end of the day, whether we actually see it or not. Less homing means less space which equals more animals being PTS. It's that simple.

I don't realistically think an organisation, like a rescue, can take everyone as an individual... they just don't have the time, or opportunity, to get to know people in that way. Talking about policies in general, and not just the neutering one, they have to have them in place to try to prevent anyone that they do not consider suitable for a dog rehoming one... just coz someone says 'I am responsible', doesn't mean that they are. Rescues have the lives of dogs in their hands, and I just don't think it is reasonable to expect them to trust everyone... I don't like blanket policies, but I do think that in a situation like a rescue, I think it is more often than not, the best solution.

All rescues have their own policies, but I am sure those people in your examples could have found a rescue that would allow them to take a dog.

I was allowed to rehome a dog even though my niece and nephew stay here a couple nights a week, and at that time, my niece was here during the day too... so, it was basically like they lived here. They were aged 2 and 5 at the time.

I also know many many people who have rehomed dogs, and who are not married... I really really do not understand that one, and I think that is ridiculous

So assuming that everyone who keeps their dogs entire is irresponsible and will automatically add to the stray population is reasonable is it? I think it's outright discrimination, it's got nothing to do with the health or well being of the rescue dog and everything to do with stereotyping and judging people. They're putting their own personal bugbears before the well being of the animals.

I've had entire dogs throughout my life - not once have I had an accidental litter and nor will I, yet according to MT I'm irresponsible?!

I did say I was taking policies in general, and not just the neutering one. But, if they choose to think that way, then it is up to them. What do you seriously want them to do? Ask everyone if they are responsible, and just believe them if they say they are? They don't know you, they don't know if you are responsible, and they have no way to prove it either way... so they need to have policies to follow, coz they don't know everyone who wants to rehome a dog.

Right, because blanket policies will automatically prevent people from lying? People won't tell rescues the dog will only be left for a few hours and then go back to full time work once assessments are over will they? This isn't about having policies in place for the benefit of the dogs, it's about having a policy in place because of their own prejudice which is quite simply wrong.

I don't want or expect anything from them. I think their policy is shocking, I've told them so and I'm expressing my opinion on a thread about their rescue. Forums are for discussion are they not???

I personally think if they have time to do home checks then it wouldn't take much more time to fully assess and get a feel for people. If after a proper assessment I was turned down I'd be happy to accept that, at least it would be based on actual events/evidence not pathetic stereotyping based on their own small mindedness.

Shame these people didn't have enough about them to go down other routes to rehome a dog. It doesn't have to come from a big organisation to 'qualify' as a rescue and give you the feel good factor.

Still---they gave a pup a decent home which is also important.

rune