Rescuers Guard Saved Dogs

[Yonjuro]

Rescuers guard saved dogs

Liam Croy, The West Australian

October 9, 2013, 8:47 am

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19313583/rescuers-guard-saved-dogs/

Animal rescue groups are making prospective dog owners jump through hoops to make sure abandoned dogs — often impulse buys from shops — go to good homes.

But Perth pet shop owners say the rescuers are unrealistic with their demands and turn down people too often.

Dog adoption services, from the big RSPCA and SAFE operations to individual volunteers, adopt screening that can involve references, police checks and home inspections.

Alyson Lyons, the founder of Total Adogtion Service in Karrinyup, said the checks were to protect the animals, many of which had been mistreated.

People frustrated with the process often abused her but Ms Lyons said the welfare of the dogs was her priority.

“I’m taking this very seriously,” she said. “There are about 40,000 healthy dogs euthanised in WA each year. I would call it close to a crisis.

“Perth is full of people with disposable cash and I don’t think they think it through.”

Ms Lyons said a typical screening involved identity checks, personal information, professional references, a home assessment and a two-week

cooling-off period. This approach was designed to find responsible dog owners with lifestyles that suited the breed.

“To try and break the ice, we joke around and say, ‘Look, it would be easier to get a child’,” she said.

“The better rescuers all have these very stringent screening processes and there are several layers. People can be very misleading and the dogs are very vulnerable.

“If one person in that whole process even has an inkling about anything, we just say no.”

But Michelle Juan, owner of Select Pets Bicton, said some rescue groups went too far with adoption criteria.

Pet shop owners across Perth agreed. They supported rescuer ideals but questioned onerous screening.

“I’ve had customers come in who have done the right thing and gone to a charity organisation first and they’ve been knocked back for a number of reasons,” Ms Juan said.

“I’ve had one lady come into the shop in tears because she’d been knocked back.

“We’ve Six or seven years ago, they were strict, but lately had a lot more people coming in after being dragged over the coals, thinking, ‘Maybe I’m not suitable for a pet’,” she said.

[Clyde]

"To try and break the ice, we joke around and say, 'Look, it would be easier to get a child'," she said.

That's a terrible thing to say! Many people adopt dogs because they can't have children. I groom for a lot of people in this situation.

[minimax]

Rescuers guard saved dogs

Liam Croy, The West Australian

October 9, 2013, 8:47 am

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/19313583/rescuers-guard-saved-dogs/

Animal rescue groups are making prospective dog owners jump through hoops to make sure abandoned dogs — often impulse buys from shops — go to good homes.

But Perth pet shop owners say the rescuers are unrealistic with their demands and turn down people too often.

Dog adoption services, from the big RSPCA and SAFE operations to individual volunteers, adopt screening that can involve references, police checks and home inspections.

Alyson Lyons, the founder of Total Adogtion Service in Karrinyup, said the checks were to protect the animals, many of which had been mistreated.

People frustrated with the process often abused her but Ms Lyons said the welfare of the dogs was her priority.

“I’m taking this very seriously,” she said. “There are about 40,000 healthy dogs euthanised in WA each year. I would call it close to a crisis.

“Perth is full of people with disposable cash and I don’t think they think it through.”

Ms Lyons said a typical screening involved identity checks, personal information, professional references, a home assessment and a two-week

cooling-off period. This approach was designed to find responsible dog owners with lifestyles that suited the breed.

“To try and break the ice, we joke around and say, ‘Look, it would be easier to get a child’,” she said.

“The better rescuers all have these very stringent screening processes and there are several layers. People can be very misleading and the dogs are very vulnerable.

“If one person in that whole process even has an inkling about anything, we just say no.”

But Michelle Juan, owner of Select Pets Bicton, said some rescue groups went too far with adoption criteria.

Pet shop owners across Perth agreed. They supported rescuer ideals but questioned onerous screening.

“I’ve had customers come in who have done the right thing and gone to a charity organisation first and they’ve been knocked back for a number of reasons,” Ms Juan said.

“I’ve had one lady come into the shop in tears because she’d been knocked back.

“We’ve Six or seven years ago, they were strict, but lately had a lot more people coming in after being dragged over the coals, thinking, ‘Maybe I’m not suitable for a pet’,” she said.

Maybe they weren't?

Must be a slow news day.

[mita]

That's a bit rich, pet shop owners criticizing rescuers for being too careful in screening potential owners. When their business model doesn't lend itself to screening. It's a commercial situation where commercial requirements, not animal welfare values, apply.

The pet shop owners also mix in different circles. They source puppies from 'breeders' who pass them over to be sold on to people, who just happen to have the money & are not carefully screened.

The good breeders, who value their dogs beyond money, would never do that.

They apply rigorous screening. We've been screened by good breeders & wouldn't have it any other way. It showed they valued the welfare of their dogs.

Rescuers mix with those who run pounds & those who surrender pets. They see how disposable pets can be in the hands of many, many people. So they screen very carefully. Again, we've been screened for a rescue cat. Very comprehensively by UQ Adoptions. Wouldn't have it any other way. It's about the future welfare of the pet... not about me.

I'd say, keep up your good work, rescuers & good breeders. Can't say the same for pet shop owners.

Edited October 9, 2013 by mita

[sandgrubber]

In placing pups from my recent litter, I've had a couple people come to me who were turned away by Lab rescue for such reasons as owning a dog (now deceased) that was not desexed and not endorsing crate training. In both cases they have owned Labs who lived to a ripe old age, owned their own homes, had large fenced yards, and good, stable incomes.

Screening is good, but sometimes it goes too far.

[mita]

In placing pups from my recent litter, I've had a couple people come to me who were turned away by Lab rescue for such reasons as owning a dog (now deceased) that was not desexed and not endorsing crate training. In both cases they have owned Labs who lived to a ripe old age, owned their own homes, had large fenced yards, and good, stable incomes.

Screening is good, but sometimes it goes too far.

I don't think it's a matter of good or bad. The rescuer (or breeder) who presently owns the dog & has responsibility for it. That person has the obligation to make the best call, in their mind, for the dog's future. Which means there's a high level of subjectivity. On both sides of the process.

My own first choice of cat at the UQ Adoption Program did not match the circumstances/lifestyle we offered, in the staff member's assessment. I had no worry with that being pointed out. Moved on to another offered, which they believed did match. If that first choice cat had been the only one available at that rescue, I would not have gone around whinging 'Foul!'.

Edited October 9, 2013 by mita

[bamboo]

I totally get that if you have a foster dog you love and care about of course you want to do everything possible to guarantee it a good permanent home, and you have every right to undertake the screening you feel necessary to achieve this. However, as a person who is by nature quite private I would be put off by a rigorous screening process. I don't like people coming to my house and looking around that I don't know - I would tolerate it for the perfect dog, but it would make me uncomfortable. Lots of personal questions on top of that, I am probably going to go elsewhere. My fences aren't fabulous, however my 2 year old bc has never escaped. If no-one is home he has access to the house and a secure courtyard only. My 3 previous dogs never escaped. But I expect I would be failed on the fences. Some shelters insist that a resident dog should be taken to the shelter for a meet and greet with prospective new dogs. My dog is not going to go well in that environment, he is selective about which dogs he likes, has numerous doggy friends, but there are some he dislikes and will respond aggressively towards, especially if he is leashed or in a stressful environment. 2 years of obedience has taught me to predict accurately which dogs he will like immediately and be trustworthy with. But if I have to take him with me to a shelter type environment I can pretty much be sure his responses will not be calm and friendly. Failed again! My point is that nothing is black and white - I know I am a loving, competent and responsible owner, and that any animal I take into my home will be given a good life, but I would not be confident about passing some screening processes. I'm not whinging, I just think screening is a difficult and imperfect process. Anyone who is involved in rescue has my respect, and I would accept their decision, because it is theirs to make.

[tdierikx]

Some rescues have a more thorough screening process than for adopting a human child... I'm of the opinion that those ones are taking their responsibilities a little too far really...

Some rescues have virtually no screening process at all.

The best rescues have found a happy medium between the two, and adjust their screening for each and every individual animal available for adoption - after all, they all have different needs to be met, yes?

T.

[_PL_]

Norty rescuers. Impulse buys and inappropriate best-intentions homes should not be written off. You're a bunch of mean dog-hoarding crazies.

But Perth pet shop owners say the rescuers are unrealistic with their demands and turn down people too often.

Good for business then, so why the bitching?

[~Anne~]

I guess the important point is that the message rescues are sending is being seen negatively. I'd suggest it's time to think about what is said and how it's said, and processes that are followed. Not just when it comes to screening either. There are many areas of rescue sending out wrong messages to the public.

Media articles like his I see as wake up calls.

If we are not careful we will see a similar situation of reversal as we saw in the pedigree world where oodles became more popular than purebreds dogs.

[Christina]

Some of the questions can be intrusive & the answers & their acceptability can be a matter of personal preference on dog ownership, not always relevant.

Fencing, other animals owned, can they afford any grooming etc are relevant.

For the very few adult dogs I have placed in new homes I have suggested a home visit first explaining that it is for the dog to visit so that it is not going into a strange environment with a person it hasn't met before.

Then I take the dog home & deliver it back a few days later so it doesn't have to leave home with a stranger.

Obviously if the home wasn't suitable it gives chance for an excuse not to take the dog back. Which has never happened.

Gives the prospective owner a chance to see the dog out of its environment too.

This comes across as less intrusive than saying home inspection. While they do have to be careful & try & do the best for the dog some are over the top & miss out on good homes.

[airlock]

I have to admit we were quite put off by our first visit to the rspca. Its great that they take the re-homeing process so seriously but some of the criteria seemed far to extreme and the staff were pretty blunt about it. We were looking after a Friends dog at the time and were told we couldn't adopt a puppy while the other dog was in the house which just seemed stupid.

In the end we went back because we fell in love with one of the puppies and managed to work things out but we were pretty close to going down the gumtree route.

[Yonjuro]

I guess the important point is that the message rescues are sending is being seen negatively. I'd suggest it's time to think about what is said and how it's said, and processes that are followed. Not just when it comes to screening either. There are many areas of rescue sending out wrong messages to the public.

Media articles like his I see as wake up calls.

If we are not careful we will see a similar situation of reversal as we saw in the pedigree world where oodles became more popular than purebreds dogs.

These are good points Anne.

My thoughts on the article are as follows:

I do believe that screening needs to be done for the welfare of the animals, however if screening is too personal or too rigorous and gets in the way of significant numbers of dogs being re-hommed then this could be a disservice to the very animals they are seeking to help - the only result I can see from excessive restrictions or attitude is that the rescue will need to turn away a higher percentage of incoming dogs that will probably have to be put to sleep.

I don't think that a person knocked back from this rescue due to some misdemeanor or such, is going to just give up and say 'oh well, I guess I am not worthy of caring for an animal.' They will just go elsewhere and probably end up supporting some puppy mill or byb as mentioned in the article.

It is all good and well to have a 'holier-than-thou' attitude but such a rescue may have, directly or indirectly an excessively high kill to re-home ratio.

Anyway it is a real tough one - on one hand I applaud the rescuer in the article and on the other I have to ask myself, are they getting in the way of some dogs having a new and happier life?

[~Anne~]

Some of the questions can be intrusive & the answers & their acceptability can be a matter of personal preference on dog ownership, not always relevant.

Fencing, other animals owned, can they afford any grooming etc are relevant.

For the very few adult dogs I have placed in new homes I have suggested a home visit first explaining that it is for the dog to visit so that it is not going into a strange environment with a person it hasn't met before.

Then I take the dog home & deliver it back a few days later so it doesn't have to leave home with a stranger.

Obviously if the home wasn't suitable it gives chance for an excuse not to take the dog back. Which has never happened.

Gives the prospective owner a chance to see the dog out of its environment too.

This comes across as less intrusive than saying home inspection. While they do have to be careful & try & do the best for the dog some are over the top & miss out on good homes.

My process for rehoming was very similar.

I visited to see how the rescue would be housed and cared for and to see the dogs behaviour in the new environment and with other pets. Whilst there I made mental notes of what I thought. Visual clues of dogs only living outside, inadequate fencing or too many animals were obvious points to me. It's also a lot harder for potential new owners to lie to me when you are sitting in their living room having a cuppa.

I also took the dog back home with me that day explaining it gave me, the dog and the potential new owners time to think and assess. I asked them to speak with all of the family during the interim now that they had met the dog and to contact me within 48 hours so we could discuss if and how we would progress the adoption.

I never had any negative comments about my process. I never 'grilled' people or spoke to them negatively. There's a way of talking to people and you have to use judgement. Some people can be sensitive to rejection.

[sandgrubber]

What bothers me is ideology based screening. The animal rights inclined rescues in the US are so big on desexing that some of them automatically exclude any potential adopter who doesn't desex all animals. I won't qualify as a foster with my local breed rescue because I have a litter, occasionally, and I don't like crate training.

[~Anne~]

Sadly, that attitude is held by some Australian rescues too. It's illogical and over reactive IMO.

Edited October 12, 2013 by ~Anne~