Rescues

Do you think Rescues are becoming over-fussy with their rehoming criteria?

Do you think that rather than blanket rules each individual case should be assessed on it's merits?

I do a fair bit of rehoming and am often shocked at some of the people that I rehome to (and consider excellent homes) that have been refused multiple dogs from rescues.

The one that springs to mind was a couple wanting to rehome a 9y old tiny Yorkie and their home check failing as they 'only' had 4 foot fencing.

Thoughts?

I am assuming that the reason this couple were denied was because of the amount of gym equipment available to the dog including springboards, trampettes, leotards and the dog's ability to perform a double sukohara with a one and half twist?

My Dealings with rescues have been limited ,
But Have only positive things to say about where we got Coco ...
Our homecheck was done on gaps in fences not height as she is small dog ,made sense to me ....

Ludicrous, though, isn't it? Surely to God, rather than a printed list written in stone, a degree of common sense could be deployed?

Sounds sensible.

It's like the f/t workers rule - I wouldnt rehome a puppy but recently rehomed an 8y old Lab bitch who was used to being left 9hrs a day, she now has a new home and a dog walker goes in at lunchtime to give her a 1.5hr walk. They had been refused a dog altogether by rescue as they both work.

At a time when there are so many rescue dogs needing homes, surely sensible, workable compromises have to be made?

They let me explain why my 17year old no longer has boosters ...
I was waiting for a fight on that one ...

On the one hand I agree with your sentiment. On the other, I do have some sympathy with the rescues.

If I was homechecked, I'd probably fail as th fence is only about 4 foot high in places. They can't know that I do not leave the dogs out unattended and that the only time they do go out is for a (supervised) toilet. They have to draw the line somewhere.

But yes, it would be great if they could asses each case on its own merits - if only people were trustworthy eh?

I've had a couple of rescue dogs in the past. Both were from the RSPCA. I had prepared well beforehand so had adequate fencing and systems in place for visits during the day from relatives to attend to the dog while I was at work (full-time during the day).

I was refused one dog for a very good reason - the dog was 'iffy' with children and as I had (then one) grandchild, they deemed it too much of a risk (and I wholeheartedly agree with that decision).

I doubt rescue centres have policies just to be obstructive, rather that they base them on previous experience of what does and doesn't work in respect of matching potential homes with the dogs on their books. It helps no one, least of all the dogs, if they keep bouncing from one home to another with stays in kennels in between.

I don't think they should have blanket policies, but I guess in some ways it makes it easier for them to avoid making mistakes in what home a dog goes to... maybe they just see it as better to be safe than sorry? Although, I think that with the state of rescues, and the vast number of dogs, I think they should try harder to allow dogs into certain homes.

I have had 2 dogs from rescues, and I have to say that both were easy to get... Jake was taken home that day! Whereas with Sam we had to wait a week, but that was mainly because he had just arrived in kennels so had to wait until he had been there long enough to be claimed (although, he was abandoned so no one expected him to be)... we had the homecheck in that week.

Some of the blanket policies and reasons for refusing someone a dog are ridiculous imo. An elderly neighbour of mine was refused a dog on the grounds he was old and might die before it! I had god knows how many rude responses when trying to get a dog from a shelter while living in a flat.