Plan B

That may be true but until it's all families, I still don't accept that pounds should not be recommended. Any dog from rescue or a breeder can develop behavioural issues. I've seen many dogs, everywhere, with those issues - just as often as I've seen dogs in pounds, and then rescue, without them. I don't need to do any of that. I only need offer my best advice - which is to go meet any dog they may be interested in (wherever that may be) and make the right decision, taking into regard various factors. Parvo is always a concern as Pounds aren't on top of quarantine. But could people not be told this? Could advice not be offered to board the dog somewhere for the incubation period? It'd also be interesting to see the stats on just how many people have adopted dogs that have then fallen victim to Parvo. I don't like guessing but I'm pretty sure it's be very low when compared to the dogs that have led healthy lives.

Again though, there are many ways to minimise risk without preventing adoptions. To say that no large dog is suitable for a family, without actually assessing each individual dog, family, and situation, is mind blowing. "Minimising risk" is also why certain breeds are still maligned, deemed 'unsuitable' for adoption, and sometimes killed on the spot.

We're not talking about adopting out known child-unfriendly dogs. Pounds and shelters get sued when they have been negligent. If they are making good matches and offering full disclosure, there is very little chance a case could be mounted. We know this by the millions of large dogs being adopted to families with kids already. When pounds and shelters are meeting their legal responsibilities and not being negligent, there is absolutely no reason they should be having those blanket bans.

That's nonsense. A Pound and Shelter can absolve itself from those kind of liabilities.

Whoever's doing that might want to look at the fact they're consciously getting in the way of adoptions and preventing compatible matches. It amazes me there are people still trying to justify their blanket bans - they only serve to hinder adoptions.

My issue is that not everyone needs to be because the majority of dogs in pounds are normal, happy dogs. I run a rescue so no, not entirely what I'm saying. However, Rescues do not move quick enough in order for all rehomeable dogs to be rehomed. With so many high-kill pounds, it's a constant battle. That's not me saying anything bad about rescues because proper measures do take time but for those dogs who are normal, happy dogs - there's no reason why they can't be rehomed direct from pounds. And if we're not recommending people at least go and see if there's a good match, those dogs' chances of making it out of pounds just got lower. I agree with that and it's a good attitude to have. There are a lot of rescues, groups, trainers etc. who still do support people who adopt direct from pounds too though.

Unfortunately, that's not true for most pounds. And it's simply not about getting any dog into any home. It's about giving pounds the opportunity to adopt out dogs without the need of relying massively on outside help. Rescues are bloody awesome but if people aren't encouraged to go and meet dogs in the pounds and have the opportunity to make compatible matches, many very normal, happy dogs will lose their lives. Is it really so wrong to tell people they should go to Rescues, reputable Breeders, and Pounds to meet dogs and see whether they find the perfect match?

But it would have been given a chance. Without that chance, you'd be relying on a Rescue to take on a dog with issues - something a lot shy away from - and if they don't, the dog will die because of a cautionary tale. It just seems odd to me that hundreds of thousands of people can adopt direct from Pounds each year, worldwide, without issue but somehow it's not advisable? We all know the majority of dogs in Pounds are happy, healthy, normal dogs and most are suited to less experienced people. Rescues and reputable breeders may be a better overall option but Pounds are a brilliant option for a lot of people, including first time owners. All they need to do is go, explore their options, and assess each dog as an individual.

I'd agree that there is less of a chance of things going awry from a breeder or rescue but, also being in rescue, I see a whole lot of amazing adoptions direct from pounds. I see dogs going into rescue that need very little training or behaviour modification and could have been adopted direct from the pound with no issue. That's true for some dogs but, like you said before, a dog can change behaviour from foster home to foster home, so changing behaviour from foster home to adoptive home isn't unlikely either. Adopters can still be left with a dog of 'unknown' behaviour in those circumstances, much like they would be if they'd adopted from some pounds. There are some but those aren't the ones I was referring to. The majority of dogs in pounds and rescue need nothing more than basic training. Some need more, some need less, but most are just normal dogs that have happened to find themselves in pounds because a human relationship has failed them. All these dogs need are the very basics. I think it's a good approach, although I still think pushing direct adoptions from helpful and responsible pounds is the ultimate way to get more dogs good homes.

I can see where you're coming from with this but I don't at all agree. The trouble with going off our own experiences is that they're incredibly limited. If we put up our own 'horror stories' with the amount of successful adoptions direct from pounds of first time owners, we'd likely see our fears shouldn't be fears at all - we just tend to hear about (and see) the horror stories more. Most of the dogs we've had have just required basic training and that basic training and how to implement can be easily learned from searching on Google - not much experience necessary. Plenty of videos on Youtube showing you how to get a dog's focus, teach him to sit, stay, drop, etc. It's always worth, for any adopter, to just look at the individual dog - no matter where it's coming from. Some dogs in pounds will require basic training, some will require a lot more, and some will require a lot less too. For anyone who seriously does doubt their own capabilities, being guided by a reputable breeder and good rescue group could be the best way to go.

We'll desex between 10-12 weeks. Even though we'd rather not, there's no way we could send them out entire. Desexing contracts cannot be followed through on and change of ownership must be submitted within 14 days so, there's not a lot of other options.

I think experiences shaping attitudes can be a really dangerous thing, often leading to bitterness and burn-out - things nobody involved in rescue should let into their lives.

I think the trap you fall into with this thought process is that you're assuming the previous owners haven't tried to rehome or hand over to rescue. Many, with dire situations, will go to the pound as a last resort and they don't see putting their dog to sleep an ethical alternative when there is still a chance it could find a home via the pound. And if those who believe PTS should come before 'dumping' at a pound, then I think a lot of rehomed dogs and their subsequent families would greatly disagree. It's a tricky subject but focusing such hate on people we don't know and no nothing of their circumstances achieves nothing. Compassion should always extend to people, as well as animals, and playing the guessing game about an animal's history and previous owners is just wasted energy.

This. I'm always a bit saddened by rescuers/adopters who focus so much on hating former owners (who, most of the time, they have no idea about and are only guessing about a dog's background), instead of focusing on making the dog's present and future more positive. All of my dogs were adopted and I couldn't thank their former owners enough - even though some were traumatised when they came to me - because through their apathy, neglect, or cruelty, they set it in motion so the best parts of my life actually ended up in my life.

I could send you ours and you could just change to your group's name if it's what you need?

Coles are actually really good and supportive of dog related charities. That piece was done by a vet who clearly has no idea and, really, shouldn't have been used - but it was and these things happen. The responses from some 'advocates' did far more damage than anything printed in a Coles brochure. I get so frustrated with some who feel the need to bully others into conforming. That stereotype about owners of some breeds just gets enforced. There's a way to point out something without resorting to aggressive behaviour.

Trouble is, what's stopping them from having a guess this dog is a Pom x Jack Russell (or something equally bizarre)? I wouldn't necessarily guess Tibetan Spaniel. The person standing next to me might but then the person next to him might think something else entirely. I think it's safer not to take a stab at guessing a breed. God knows there'd be a lot less dogs dead if the government, councils, rangers, and shelter management stopped doing it. Saying that, Renbury are good and will contact breed rescues if they think there may be a dog that fits their criteria. And they always put up whatever is on a microchip, so owners have the best chance of finding their dogs. :)

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but it's not as great as it seems. If the name "Mel P" means anything to anyone (it should for a few), it was her.

As Gertrude said, this is Renbury's policy to ensure dogs aren't given the wrong breeds (ask ten people what's in a dog of unknown origin, and you'll get a lot of different answers). But, when people call and mention a breed or describe its looks, the staff will tell them about dogs that may fit the description.

I think the majority of rescues are well run. I think it's the minority that aren't. But still, I don't necessarily see fundraising as taking away from time spent with dogs. It's not like you've got to be patting the foster dogs every second of every day. Really quick and easy to jump online and make a fundraising plea - you can even have the fosters beside (or on) you while you do it.

How? I mean, many well run rescues will have teams of fundraisers and coordinators. How does more fundraising equal less time spent with animals?

I didn't know about the speakers but that's what we're moving into! The blends will have names but they are focusing on behaviour/characteristics/environment, rather than visual identification. We don't breed label at all so it felt like that may be the next step and people like to have a bit of fun. It also means we can literally have millions of blends, so they can still be tailored to each individual dog, but just vague enough that there might be some who will share a blend. Hopefully it also entices adopters to read the full write-up, which really gets into the individuality. Do you happen to have links of OS rescues using that system? I'd love to look at it and steal all their things. :D

I re-read my own post and didn't even add the hyphen to show-er.

I'm not a breeder/exhibitor either and I can definitely see the fun in the marketing campaign. But I just think any marketing/adoption strategy that relies on bad science (visual identification) and can have harmful flow-on effects (people creating these popular 'breeds' themselves) is probably not the best way to go about it. Like I said, promotion of rescue dog shouldn't come at a cost.

I'm happy the dogs are finding homes but the promotion of rescue dogs doesn't need to come at a cost. They're still relying on visual identification, which is impossible in mixed breed dogs. Furthermore, what happens when a popular 'mix' isn't available at the shelter? Will they effectively be creating a demand for crossbreeds? Will Backyard Breeders/Puppy Farmers see this as an opportunity to cash in (especially considering the publicity)?