Most peope dont need more than me saying I specialize in deafies, and there are way more in the States. On the other hand, My dream is to set up a sanctuary for deaf and/or blind dogs... now, would I take in alot od American deafies in that instance? I just dont know... I know ther are a fair ammount of deafies in more populated areas of our countries, so would I take in an American deafie, if a canadian deafie needed the space... probably not, but I just dont know, if the American was in more danger... maybe. Moral dilemma, for sure.

Yup, I'd imagine with the quarentine in place, it costs alot more to import a dog to the UK than to Canada, but even then, I'm sure some of the imports go to people who's lives change, or the dog ends up with issues the people cant/wont deal with... but I'd imagine it's alot more rare there than here, with us having easier access...

Very good point. there truly is alot worse than humane Euthanasia.

I'm quite surprised to see that some think we should sort out our "own" problem first.

A dog in need is a dog in need as far as I'm concerned. I've read some heartbreaking stories of the conditions that overseas dogs have to endure, and some heartwarming tales of the rescues that help these dogs.

I think it's fantastic that there are people who are prepared to help these poor animals - whether they're from Ireland, a Desperate Greekie, or a Nowzad dog.

Well done to all of you.

Michael

Yes that's interesting to see numbers of pts dogs compared to percentages between the UK & Ireland ~ thanks. And it would be interesting to see how many of those were pts because of no spaces or foster homes.

As far as I can make out, the main "imported" dogs are from Ireland & there's no other rescues that regularly import from other countries, so maybe the problem isn't as huge as we thought?

I'll also have a look round to see if I can get any info or stats on pts reasons from the various charity websites.

It seems to me that when rescues run out of spaces, they refuse to take in dogs that are given up for rehoming, & probably use criteria such as what are the chances of rehoming that dog when considering whether to take it in or not. I think some folk just assume that if they no longer want a dog, or find they can't look after it, then a rescue will take it. It's an unfortunate assumption that is patently untrue. I think most of the larger rescues will take, or are obliged to take, strays & cruelty cases from Dog Wardens, so maybe they reserve a certain number of places for these dogs. But to take in a dog from someone who finds they no longer want, or cannot look after their dog, is really got to be dependent on space & the chances of rehoming it. To do otherwise effectively absolves dog owners for their own responsibilities towards their dog ~ hence why so many people lie about the reasons for giving a dog up to a rescue

For me, it is heart vs head. The answer isnt simple.

My heart would want to save all the dogs, wherever they are from. Every dog deserves a chance, no matter where they are from.

But, my head says it just isnt possible. Thousands of dogs die in the UK due to lack of homes... So either way, some dogs are going to die. I just dont think it is right (from my heads POV) to bring more dogs into the country, when the same number will still be dying. The dogs here have just as much right to a home as the ones abroad, so they should be our priority... the other countries should help their own dogs, and not rely on others to help them... and while rescues will bring them here, i dont think they will fully step up. JMO.

But we are a small Island how can we take dogs when our own rescues are filling and dogs are daily being killed just because no home can be found for them ?

But what about the severity of suffering that a dog may be subject to if not rescued? As I & others have said already, humane pts may be the lesser of two evils, so is the number of dogs humanely pts the right criterion to use when considering whether UK or non-UK dogs should be given priority? Maybe money would be better spent humanely euthanising dogs in other countries to prevent such suffering rather than offering them rescue spaces?

There's no easy answer so perhaps economics should play a part?

It is the local council who has responsibilty for stray dogs not the local rescues. The council may have kennels themselves or may have arrangements with a local rescue. But the liability is only to keep them for 7 days to give an owner a chance to find them. After that, the Council can decide what to do. Some rescues may take some (on a for as long as necessary basis) but clearly (by the number of pts) this is not the case with them all and many end up being pts.

I agree with you that more liability should be placed on the original owner and mandatory micro-chipping would be a step in that direction. In the meantime however, people who don't want their dogs will often do anything to get rid of them.


But don't believe that by turning a dog away from somewhere like the DT that the owner suddenly decides they will keep the dog. They don't, they just find another way of getting rid. Some will try to rehome privately but others don't trouble themselves.

Our local dog warden frequently has people handing in 'strays' who almost certainly are actually the owner of the said stray. But how do you prove that? You can't, so the dog warden has to take the dog in, give it its 7 day period and then try to find a home for it or a place in another rescue to make room for the next 'stray' that comes through the door.

Others that don't have the bottle to lie simply turn the dog out on the street (sometimes miles from home) with no identification.

it is these dogs I'm talking about when I say that the Irish dogs are taking their space in a no-kill rescue.

Absolutely agree PTS is not the worst that can happen and yes money may well be better spent humanely euthanising, I just don't see why it's up to this country to provide the money or clear up the worlds problems.

Which is what I've said all along.

Cruelty cases are different IMO and should be considered on their merits because as you say, being pts humanely is better than being left in a cruel state.

But my 'gripe' is with dogs being imported from Ireland to save them being pts. Great for that dog, but all you've done is spend, say, £100 in travel to save one dog at the expense of another. That £100 could keep a further dog 'safe' for another 2 weeks which may be long enough to find more permanent rescue space or a forever home (or the money could be put towards funding for better rescue in Ireland). Possibly therefore saving 2 dogs rather than one.