I don't have a problem with them neutering or spaying, but I do think they do it too early in most cases. And I think the only way to combat this is to follow it up. A phonecall or a letter sent from the vet to say this has been done is all that is needed, unless they really don't trust that person they don't really need to go out. But again there are flaws in both sides of the argument.

I agree with the cheek of rescues saying I should have my dogs spayed or neutered when I adopt. If I was going to breed my animals I wouldn't be rescuing an already neutered/spayed fe/male (it was male in my case) and I certainly wouldn't be getting a boy since the only female I have is hardly here and never here in season due to my entire boy. I think they are just stopping the animals they rescue from getting a loving home - something they deserve. I got told when enquiring about a dog, that I was to get Louie neutered (I'm waiting till after christmas as then he will be over 18 months - can't afford it at christmas) but atm he's only 15 months and not fully matured yet. I know they could see the not matured as another reason, but I was going for an older (albeit by 7-8 months or so - they don't really know how old all the dogs are) dog - so Louie maturing wouldn't have affected that dog.

I could go on all day about it, but I see both sides and I'm leaning more towards the smaller rescues who do not have these policies. Not because I want to breed in the future (I don't) but because I want to help a dog and not put my own under the knife before it's needed - if at all it is needed.

I have no problem with rescues charging as much as they do..

Rescues have to charge a fee, most rescues end up as rehoming services for many of the owners you defend.
People who don't neuter or believe in neutering for the good of the dog etc-

As for the charge we have just taken on a lovely wee dog, hugely overweight, overgrown claws, skin condition, sore feet, turns out she us deaf possibly from skin condition that has severely scarred and blocked get ears and turns out she is 14 not 11 that we are told- she is going to cost a lot to treat- where does the money come from that if not from donations made for rehoming.
Why shouldn't rescues charge for their dogs? Breeders do and can't make guarantees on the dog any more than rescue can, and quite frankly if someone isn't willing to pay the fee then they won't get a dog from us. You ate ultimately not paying for that specific dog you are contributing to kennel costs/ vet treatment/ advertising etc. We work our butts off every weekend spent at events organising walks etc to get word out and to get money in, and it really irked me when you get people flagging off rescue, because of certain policies which are ultimately there to stop idiots from getting dogs that have already been through hardship.


I think if more people took on what rescues do they might be s bit more understanding about what it takes to run a rescue.

The amount of lies and stories owners give for getting rid of their dogs, trying to work out what's true about their dog, finding home for said dog because it's not perfect etc

It's flipping hard work and rescues ate overflowing and have to turn away dogs because they can't take more, owners give abuse when you have to say no to rehoming because don't have the funds to kennel, and they need the dog gone today cos they are - going away/ emigrating/ starting new job/ had a baby/ chewed something/ etc etc

What is the solution to not neutering - what do you think will happen?
More and more dogs PTS because there is no where for them to go.

Arrggh rant over!

I do not think anyone is objecting to paying for a dog, I am not, I object to how MUCH as of course it is considered a DONATION not a purchase in many cases with the rescue retaining ownership and the individual being merely the KEEPER of the animal.

Again, one of the (many) reasons I would never have a rescue (from a rescue society etc) even if they would let me have one, which of course they would not as I (shock horror) work full time.

I'm not defending anyone Danni - just posting my views

I'm not saying Rescues don't need money, just think the priority should be finding a new home, and perhaps other ways to generate revenue might be better... I'm not an expert so don't have the answer - was just putting the opinion out there.

I think because then it will feel like a sale for many people. Money in exchange for something = sale in most people's book Maybe that's one of the reasons people are quick to re-rehome or give animals back, because it's more like a financial transaction that the want to 'rescue' an animal.

Aww we know you do a lot of hard work Danni thank you.

I'm just suggesting that maybe it's a good point to evaluate things - are things still bad in the dog world? (yes) Is it worth considering trying new things to see if they work better? (perhaps)

I can't say I know the answer. But can suggest things I think might be worth pursuing.

I don't really know much about females, but from what I've read neutering females has more pros than cons - so certainly think the policy should remain as it is there. I don't think it's a good idea to neuter males tho - at some point you have to trust people to do the right thing, perhaps by being more stringent in the vetting process. Maybe the person needs a reference - like when getting a job? Maybe the person needs to complete a dog welfare course? Or both or more. It just has to be reasonable.

Re funding, I still think getting new families with their dog to do a sponsored walk (no matter how short) within the first 2 months could be a really good idea - can you see how the families might be really excited to do that? Getting sponsors and feeling like they're actually doing some good for the place they 'rescued' their dog from? I certainly think it's worth trialling

Get to off your chest Danni - we all need to rant every now and again

I don't castrate my male dogs for the reasons you posted, but I think rescues would be mad not to neuter every animal they rehome, that said I don't agree with 8 week old neutering. (I do find some rescues need to insist current dogs are neutered beyond ridiculous though, but I won't go into that here! )

I met a bloke with a gorgeous Staffy X the other week. This dog had a lovely temperament and played really well with both my dogs. We got on to the topic of how there are so many Staffies and Staffy crosses in rescue. He agreed and said it was terrible. He then noted Oscar wasn't castrated - I explained why etc and he then went on to say how disappointed he was that the rescue centre had castrated his dog as he would've liked to have seen what sort of pupppies he would produce.

I mean what a numpty - he clearly didn't connect with the "I'll breed just cos I can" attitude with the over population of Staffy crosses in rescue. I have to say I was absolutely gobsmacked when he came out with that one!

I have to say what i see if owners areund here it needs done - and asap
most likely ben would have sired pups if i haddnt had him done

several times he has been out, i have seen one of his doggy friends, she is offlead and i let ben go and play

THEN the owner comes over to me and say 'shes in season, but i dont mind if ben catches her cos he has a lovely nature'

you dont know the level of fool you are meeting till it is too late

i have also heard several owners ignoring the letters from the shelter for as long as they can cos they want a litter out of her before the free neutering

it may be different in different areas - but this is what is common here

Also many of us who would not have a dog from rescue actually do quite a lot of work FOR them in terms of assessing dogs, transporting dogs, assessing homes or providing advice, help and training so dogs can stay in their homes.

Agreed, i foster and do fundraising for a greyhound/lurcher rescue and they have taken on dogs where the medical history was lied about and the rescue have had to pay thousands for their treatment, apart from the routine vaccs, microchip, neuter/spay etc and our rescue has to ay for the use of isolation kennels too so i think some people are really living in dreamworld

Why do you think there are so many dogs in rescue ? breeding so it makes sense to me that rescues neuter/spay at least that dog won't be used for breeding and adding to the huge numbers of strays etc.

Personally i can't see why anyone wouldn't neuter unless they want to breed.

I am quite offended at the why can't they fundraise instead of charging people for dogs...i have spent hours freezing my butt off running various stalls and rattling tins in shopping centres and i take on foster dogs, i wonder if these people with this attitude have/do anything for rescues ! probably not i'd say. Do people not think that rescues try every fundraising activity they can, we have online auctions, coffee morning, sponsored runs/walks/waxings ! allsorts of money raising things. The money our rescue charges for the dogs doesn't even cover the vaccs, chip, etc they make hardly anything it is relying on donations and our fundraising efforts.

Why would a homecheck put people off ? if they've nothing to hide whats the problem, do you think rescues should let dogs go to anyone

Personal choice and neutering isn't always the correct option for individual dogs.
I have an entire dog here,he isn't used for breeding,isn't shown,doesn't have any issues,isn't and has never shown aggression to other dogs,why should I risk putting him under a GA ?

As I said previously this comment is not unusual from thos pro neutering.

Again, some of us, like me, do a great deal of work for rescue ie assess dogs, homes, transport and actual hands on help DESPITE the fact that we may disagree with some of the policies of rescue.

So naturally we get "quite offended" by the " I wonder ...... probably not" comments which come from assumptions and jumping to conclusions.

It is not, as in so many cases in real life, an EITHER/OR issue.

If we disagree with some policies that does not make us ipso facto "anti rescue".

Most things in life are not black and white.