Originally Posted by
AnneUK
The main discussion area is mainly for members of the public, so mostly that's the opinions you'll get. The private rescue section is for those who run rescues, obviously more factual posts can be found in there :smt001
No, i have been member of DP for about 3 yrs, but *never* a member of the private rescue section. But i have still read or posted on threads discussing the worries over the legal enforcement of contracts AND rescues accepting out of area letters from vets or dog wardens, *instead* of homechecks.
Originally Posted by
AnneUK
That's not true, if you did your research
you'll find a lot of the reputable rescues ask for these additional checks :smt001
I already know i have done my research, but have you?
As well as posting on DP, I have worked in 2 rescues and had working contacts with several, many years before i even posted on dog forums, as it happens.
And as *you* are making the statements, that it is only right and fair that you are the one to back them up with links and evidence.
Can you list which rescues have as pre adoption criteria letters from vets and dog training classes?
Again, by putting the burden back on me, the questioner, you are still dodging the questions asked regarding points you have raised.
[I]So:
1) What if the vet is too busy, unavailable, or disinclined to provide a letter? Or wishes to charge?
If they charge, you say they should change vets - so, how then do they get their letter?
2) What if there is no positive based training class available at all, or for another several months?
3) What if the class is too far away and the applicant cannot get to it?
4) What if the whole adoption process is completed, including homecheck, and the vet or dog training class delays things for another week?
Is it fair to force the dog to spend an extra week to get stressed in kennels, whilst another dog may be PTS because it has lost its rescue place?.
Is it fair on the potential adopter whom has been genuine and committed in all the other pre adoption processes we agree are necessary?
Originally Posted by
AnneUK
It's not about making things harder! Everyone knows (or should know) that more care needs to be taken with first time owners. It's not about throwing obstacles in peoples way, it's about doing your utmost to ensure the dog is going to a responsible home. This is why rescues carry out these checks and why I think Breeders should do the same.
Maybe you misread my post? I agree with the extra cautions for first time owners (although *some* people whom use the phrase "i have owned dogs all my life" can be arrogant and think they dont need advice or assessment).
However, when i pointed out the first time owners dont have a vet to get a letter from, you said you only apply that rule to previous dog owners.
Thus, *you* will be making it easier for first time owners
Besides, what if the 'previous dog owner' had a dog a long time ago, and the vet records no longer exists, the vet has retired, the vet cannot remember them, the vet lives in another part of they country where the applicants moved from????. So on, so on.
You see, my point remains, when citing good practice for other industries, we should first make sure it is actually wide spread good practice in our own industry, and provide evidence to state this.
For example, the ADCH good practice standards do not mention pre adoption vet or dog trainer letters.
At the moment, on an Irish forum, as a result of the conditions exposed in an English rescue that ships dogs from Ireland, they have started a 'rescue good practices' section.
They are using these same ADCH good practice standards as the ideal.
Also, you need to think thru the practicalities of each suggestion, and note the illogical inconsistencies in some of them (as above).