Can we get real about RESCUE?

[Adrienne]

Saw this on Gumtree today. 

 

"Looking for a quiet and loving home for our almost 3yr old toy poodle, Cherry. We bought Cherry a year ago from a rescue group. She had only ever known life on a puppy farm and had never even been on grass. When we first got Cherry she was a nervous, quivering wreck, constantly circling. In the year we’ve had her she has come a long way, but is still a very anxious dog and still circles a lot. Cherry is not suited to a home with children, hence the reason we are seeking a new home for her. My son cannot even walk into the same room as her without Cherry being scared and barking at him. It seems to be getting worse, not improving with time. Cherry would suit a retired single person who will dote on her and build a strong connection."

 

Does anyone simply wanting a pet dog to love, deserve a ruined dog like this? What was the "rescue" group thinking making this placement? Poor dog, poor people, and shame on the "rescue" - this was obviously not an adoptable pet. And the idea that a retired single person should take on a little dog that is not socialised, in fact is traumatised, is not IMO fair. There are a lot of people out there who have upturned their daily routines, said no to outings and participating in community life because of their dogs' problems. How many people are isolated in their homes, not having visitors, not going out and not being able to have the kiddies over because their dog is reactive, fearful, obnoxious etc etc.

 

This is a big fat FAIL for dogs and people. No Kill policies do not automatically lead to happy pets with happy people. IMO people not being prepared to humanely kill animals, are not animal lovers. It can be the best option for the individual animal.

 

In responding to this post, please don't fill it up with individual cases of where some dedicated fully knowledgable person rescued a ruined dog and managed to over years make all the difference blah blah. I am trying to pose a serious question about the purpose of Rescue Groups, the outcomes they achieve, who benefits, and whether or not people are being guilted into participating in a well meaning but wrongly focused idea -  that the most ethical buy is a rescue one....

 

[Loving my Oldies]

I have been involved in rescue for many years and I have never subscribed to the belief "anything with a pulse."  I believe some dogs are better off being released from the sufferings of whatever life has given them or whatever ills and ailments they might have been born with. 

 

A reputable rescue group should always rehome with a proviso that, should the rehoming not work out, the dog is returned to them.  I would be interested to know what has happened in this case.  Maybe the rescue group has folded.  As with every business of any kind there are the good, bad, terrible, etc and everything in between.  

 

The dog was two years of age when adopted.  I think anyone would be prepared to give a dog of that age a chance to heal and become a healthy happy dog.  I wonder how old the son is, what it was like in foster care, etc etc.  If the dog truly came from a rescue group, I wonder how much thought was put into whether the people were suitable for the dog and vice versa.  

 

I believe when dealing with living beings, there should never be a one-size-fits-all approach, each individual needs to be assessed accordingly.  Pounds don't do this: pounds operate on a first come first served basis and this dog might have come from a pound.  A lot of people say they have a "rescue" dog even if the dog has come from a pound or a petshop.  
 

 

 

 

 

[_PL_]

What is the point of this post exactly?

If it's to goad a reaction out of people, you'll get it. If it's to get answers, fair enough.

Personally I find what you've written, plain uninformed and whoever wrote the ad has a flair for the dramatic. 

[tdierikx]

This situation is why the rescue industry should be formally regulated... so many new groups popping up in response to the homeless animal situation, often with big hearts, but no real clue as to the complexity of rehoming animals that may have come into care with certain issues. The mark of a good rescue is not how MANY animals they have rehomed, but how WELL those animals have been rehomed.

 

The rescue I was with for some years previously specialised in special needs dogs. I have seen things I will never unsee, but have also had the privilege of rehabilitating "broken" dogs from many backgrounds and finding them their own perfect homes... and I have also had to make decisions about animals that simply would never be safe to rehome. Sometimes the kindest, and most responsible, thing is to release them from their demons.

 

One thing that really irritates me is the notion that rescue dogs tend to have issues, or are scarred somehow by their past lives. Back stories told about those past lives are being used to "justify" all manner of problems with an animal, rather than concerted effort going into rectifying those issues before placing it with a new family. This needs to stop. I know that this is simply NOT the case with most dogs, and they CAN be rehabilitated in many cases, BEFORE being rehomed. Rehabilitation takes time however, and there are a lot of rescues who feel the pressure to "save more", and then fall into the trap of offloading under-prepared dogs in order to make room for more needing rescue.

 

My last foster was with me for around 4.5 months. She came to us pregnant, so had to whelp and raise her babies before she was ready to rehome. The pups also had to be old enough and made ready for new homes themselves. Luckily, she was a beautiful natured dog who had very few issues, and she passed on those traits to her babies, who in turn grew into happy, healthy, and confident little canine citizens.... but ensuring all 5 of them were suitable to be rehomed responsibly took time.

 

I have had my current foster for 5 weeks now, and will have him for a lot longer, as he has to lose more weight before he can have cruciate surgery to fix his knee. There will be a recovery period of a good number of weeks after he has that surgery. The rescue will not recover the costs associated with rehabilitating this boy, but he WILL be rehomed responsibly to an awesome family who will love him for the rest of his life once he is fit for the next step in his life journey. My foster boy has the most amazing temperament though, so once he's physically ready, he will rehome easily once we find the perfect home for him. The only real "issue" we have with this boy is that he's averse to eating any form of dog food, and because he requires a metabolic formulation that helps him lose weight, I have to sit on the floor and hand feed it to him while giving lots of praise until he's had his daily required amount... but I have plenty of time to sort that issue before he is ready to rehome. My hope is that once he is down to a decent weight, we can change up his diet to things he likes better, and simply work out how much of that is fed to maintain a healthy weight.

 

T.

 

 

[Mairead]

Gwen Bailey (Blue Cross, UK) told us stories of rehoming. Some easy ones, like the terrier surrendered for digging in the indoor water bowl.

The aggressive English Bulldog first owned by an elderly couple who did not show any leadership. The dog blossomed with a young man who had experience with Bull Terriers. The dog easily gave up his self-imposed leadership role and became relaxed and playful.

Not so easy her personal project Beau, who had already bitten several people. His rehabilitation took two years. I think his story is in her book Rescue Dog, but I've lent the book to people who took on a cattle dog from a pound a long way from where they live and only discovered it had been declared a dangerous dog when it jumped an inadequate fence, went for someone, and the ranger was called. 

[_PL_]

2 minutes ago, Mairead said:

Gwen Bailey (Blue Cross, UK) told us stories of rehoming. Some easy ones, like the terrier surrendered for digging in the indoor water bowl.

The aggressive English Bulldog first owned by an elderly couple who did not show any leadership. The dog blossomed with a young man who had experience with Bull Terriers. The dog easily gave up his self-imposed leadership role and became relaxed and playful.

Not so easy her personal project Beau, who had already bitten several people. His rehabilitation took two years. I think his story is in her book Rescue Dog, but I've lent the book to people who took on a cattle dog from a pound a long way from where they live and only discovered it had been declared a dangerous dog when it jumped an inadequate fence, went for someone, and the ranger was called. 

13 hours ago, Adrienne said:

In responding to this post, please don't fill it up with individual cases of where some dedicated fully knowledgable person rescued a ruined dog and managed to over years make all the difference blah blah. I am trying to pose a serious question about the purpose of Rescue Groups, the outcomes they achieve, who benefits, and whether or not people are being guilted into participating in a well meaning but wrongly focused idea -  that the most ethical buy is a rescue one....

 

@Mairead Doesn't leave you with much room to share legit positive outcomes.  

@tdierikx Absolutely, regulating rescue is overdue. Anyone with a FB page can set themselves up now. (And microchipping can't even be enforced. This is a typical situation where those trying to do the right thing end up getting penalised).
Some startups, with hard work turn out to be good though. 
I've watched success stories and absolute train wrecks. 

I'm just not a fan of sticking the boot into rescue when the people who bred the dogs in the first place have vanished and left others to deal with the consequences.  

[tdierikx]

27 minutes ago, Powerlegs said:

I'm just not a fan of sticking the boot into rescue when the people who bred the dogs in the first place have vanished and left others to deal with the consequences.

 

Let's not forget that breeders are in the same boat as rescues when it comes to adverse outcomes for animals they sell. Just as not all rescues are cowboys fixated on churning through large numbers of animals rehomed in order to classify themselves as "great", not all breeders are pumping out puppies and fixating on the dollars they can make from them.

 

It's a bit of a minefield really, in this day and age where outrage is the standard response to any perceived "wrong". Both reputable rescues AND reputable breeders get tarred with the same brush as their disreputable (and publicised) counterparts... the big difference is that the breeding of dogs is regulated, but rescue is not... leaving the door open to even more abuses of the (unwritten) "rules" by dodgy rescues.

 

T.

[Adrienne]

11 hours ago, Loving my Oldies said:

A lot of people say they have a "rescue" dog even if the dog has come from a pound or a petshop.  

I hadn't thought of this, though when I read this I remembered a breeder mentioning they saw the new owners of one of his pups showing off their new "rescue" puppy on fb! This really does my head in - how complex! The idea of "Rescue" as the only ethical buy is really promoted.

 

11 hours ago, Loving my Oldies said:

If the dog truly came from a rescue group, I wonder how much thought was put into whether the people were suitable for the dog and vice versa.

If a Rescue was involved - that what I call a FAIL for the dog and the family in terms of placement. I also wondered why the family is trying to sell poor little dog to someone else,  clearly she needs to be rehabilitated by knowledgable people ... so FAIL for the current owner.

 

3 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

What is the point of this post exactly?

If it's to goad a reaction out of people, you'll get it. If it's to get answers, fair enough.

I am not goading, I posted soon after I read the ad because I was distressed about it.  Rescue is an important part of Dog World, though in terms of knowing about the real ins and outs of it I am a lay person (who is also a genuine and pragmatic dog lover).  Last night I went back through various old posts on DOL mentioning with Rescue/ rescue groups and wow, yeah... 

 

The space needs regulation and the public need education! 

 

3 hours ago, tdierikx said:

One thing that really irritates me is the notion that rescue dogs tend to have issues, or are scarred somehow by their past lives. Back stories told about those past lives are being used to "justify" all manner of problems with an animal, rather than concerted effort going into rectifying those issues before placing it with a new family. This needs to stop. I know that this is simply NOT the case with most dogs, and they CAN be rehabilitated in many cases, BEFORE being rehomed. Rehabilitation takes time however, and there are a lot of rescues who feel the pressure to "save more", and then fall into the trap of offloading under-prepared dogs in order to make room for more needing rescue.

 

I thought that dogs are not placed until they are rehabilitated (if they need that), and yes big hearts with no specialist knowledge is a recipe for disaster. Perhaps the terms "Rescue" and "Rehoming" would be better not used interchangeably, in my mind they are not the same thing but they seem be be used as if they are. 

 

My own experience of having to surrender to reputable rescue was very personally distressing for me but the right option in my circumstance.  I understand my dogs were re-homed promptly through knowledgable and connected people and I am so grateful for the referral from DOLers and the work of the rescue people.  

 

 

[tdierikx]

People looking to rescue to source a family pet need some guarantee that the animal they are receiving is suitable for the task. Making excuses for poor socialisation or reactivity and expecting someone else to take that on is just not fair on the animal, or the new family it goes to.

 

The aim for anyone rehoming any animal from ANY background should be that it is fit for purpose...

 

T.

[Mairead]

@PowerlegsPerhaps it wasn't clear that the surrendered dogs no longer had issues once in the right home. Gwen kept Beau herself.

Except for the last dog mentioned who lived the remainder of his life on a chain until he developed cancer. I was only told he was a dangerous dog after he bit me, after being OK with me for years.

 

There are people who need to be needed and seem oblivious or not bothered that their dog has issues and is not living a happy life. The more broken it is the better. It happens with children too.

 

I wonder what consumer law would make of the not fit for purpose dogs?

Edited December 7, 2023 by Mairead
More info added

[Loving my Oldies]

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

The space needs regulation and the public need education! 

Regulation and education.  We hear this over and over and over again - about any sort of industry.  A report into the NDIS found $1.4bn lost to inefficiency and fraud.  If a loss of $1.4bn of taxpayers' funds isn't enough to galvanise the powers into action, I can't imagine there will be too many people worrying about stressed and dangerous dogs and the unsuspecting people who end up with them.    

 

There are more than enough rules and regulations in place: it is the management and enforcement that are lacking.  And quite often it is those who are supposed to be following and managing the rules and regulations who are turning a blind eye.  

 

Who do you suggest does the regulation and education?  Councils?  We all know councils are some of the most corrupt bodies around.  

 

I don't know what the answers are and the longer I live the more frustrated I become.  

[Loving my Oldies]

5 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

What is the point of this post exactly?

If it's to goad a reaction out of people, you'll get it. If it's to get answers, fair enough.

Personally I find what you've written, plain uninformed and whoever wrote the ad has a flair for the dramatic. 

Unkind.  The poster was just looking for some answers, not provoking.  She was asking to be informed.  

 

Being around dogs who need special care can often be dramatic (and traumatic) as you know well.  

[Loving my Oldies]

47 minutes ago, Mairead said:

 

 

There are people who need to be needed and seem oblivious or not bothered that their dog has issues and is not living a happy life. The more broken it is the better. It happens with children too.

Oh boy, does this resonate with me  .  Many years ago, I put my hand up to look after a woman's little dog as she had to make an emergency trip overseas.  The little dog had several issues, but I was devastated when I met her: the woman had been less than honest and the dog was obviously brain damaged.  I did all I could for this little girl, spending ages with her doing T-Touch (she could not be picked up) and trying to sooth her when she was distressed - which was a lot of the time.  I spent several weeks just being sick at heart for this poor little dog who was never going to get better and lived her life in a state of constant stress and fear.  

 

When the owner returned, I was preparing dinner listening to the sound of my dogs playing on the couch.  The woman came rushing in saying, "[LMO LMO] your dogs are fighting!!"  This woman eventually branded herself as a dog trainer as she'd done some course on line.   God help any dogs she supposedly trained.   

 

And, yes, I have had euthanised a little dog who lived her life stressed, afraid and angry and was a danger to me and other people who visited.  Still haunts me to this day and I will always wonder if I could have done more.  

[tdierikx]

2 hours ago, Loving my Oldies said:

Regulation and education.  We hear this over and over and over again - about any sort of industry.  A report into the NDIS found $1.4bn lost to inefficiency and fraud.  If a loss of $1.4bn of taxpayers' funds isn't enough to galvanise the powers into action, I can't imagine there will be too many people worrying about stressed and dangerous dogs and the unsuspecting people who end up with them.    

 

There are more than enough rules and regulations in place: it is the management and enforcement that are lacking.  And quite often it is those who are supposed to be following and managing the rules and regulations who are turning a blind eye.  

 

Who do you suggest does the regulation and education?  Councils?  We all know councils are some of the most corrupt bodies around.  

 

I don't know what the answers are and the longer I live the more frustrated I become.  

 

I would certainly prefer education over legislation, but when the only "education" getting out there is that of the bleeding heart sob stories that "all" rescue animals have some kind of issue, then I think something needs to be done legislatively to ensure that not fit for purpose animals are not being rehomed irresponsibly by well-meaning, but essentially clueless, people calling themselves "rescue".

 

There are constant calls to ban all breeding of companion animals while our pounds and shelters are full, but the reality is that a very tiny proportion of the animals ending up with that fate are bred and homed by registered breeders - but it's those ethical and responsible breeders that become the easy target for authorities enforcing current and proposed legislation. Meanwhile the largely "underground" practice of backyard breeding carries on as normal, because apparently it's too hard to even attempt to sort that issue legislatively.

 

As for the rescue industry, one only has to look at the OLG list of approved rescues - those who get exemptions from desexing and registration costs when taking animals from the pounds - there are only some 90-100 groups on that list, but just in Sydney alone, there are MANY more than that number operating. In order to get the OLG approval, rescues must commit to keeping a range of records about outcomes for animals in their care, and submit details about their foster carers - so those who don't bother with the approval process aren't required to keep any records at all, can have unsuitable foster homes that may be overwhelmed by having more animals foisted on them than they can appropriately care for in order to "save" as many as possible, and then there are those who are simply disguising other practices, such as hoarding and/or backyard breeding the animals they take in. In what sense of the word are those practices actually "saving" the animals in question?

 

I'm sorry to harp on about it, but it's beyond time that the rescue industry was regulated legislatively. Those operating ethically and responsibly already will not have any issue with this concept.

 

T.

 

T.

Edited December 7, 2023 by tdierikx

[Adrienne]

9 hours ago, Mairead said:

 

There are people who need to be needed and seem oblivious or not bothered that their dog has issues and is not living a happy life. The more broken it is the better.

 

8 hours ago, Loving my Oldies said:

Oh boy, does this resonate with me  

I agree, I have seen this too. It's pretty disturbing. I've come across two types, one is a person who needs to be needed and won't tolerate their animal progressing beyond severe dependance on them, and another other a type who is so hard themselves - so "old school" that they seem impervious to their animal suffering.

 

And also many people who don't understand that most animals are very stoic and staunch (by way of instinct) and don't realise their animal is suffering. Or people who think some behaviours are just their animal's "quirks" and not indicating stress or anxiety. Or people who over respond to their animal's stress behaviours which tip the animal into global anxiety... 

 

6 hours ago, tdierikx said:

As for the rescue industry, one only has to look at the OLG list of approved rescues - those who get exemptions from desexing and registration costs when taking animals from the pounds -

what is OLG? 

[Mairead]

Office of Local Government

[Adrienne]

Maybe some naming and shaming would be helpful for the general public. I am not suggesting to do that on this forum, but elsewhere. Truth is a solid defence against defamation.

[tdierikx]

7 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Maybe some naming and shaming would be helpful for the general public. I am not suggesting to do that on this forum, but elsewhere. Truth is a solid defence against defamation.

 

I'm not necessarily a fan of this approach - there is a very fine line between what is "truth" and what is considered a legal defence against defamation and/or libel. Also, this sort of knee-jerk reaction to a rescue making mistakes (and occasionally even the very best rescues might make a mistake) only results in public distrust of ALL rescues, which is certainly not desirable.

 

I will go so far as to say that most rescues are set up and run with the very best intentions with regard to tackling the problem of pet animal homelessness, just that some may over-simplify what their role actually should be in that sphere. Some have a focus on how many animals they can rehome as quickly as possible, ostensibly so they can take in more animals needing help, but this approach has some rather serious flaws in the way it may be applied, and the long-term welfare outcomes for the animals rehomed. Some rescues may focus on the harder cases that may take longer to rehabilitate before they can be rehomed, but that can also lead to issues if more animals are taken in than can adequately be cared for - and possibly become "hoarding" type situations if carers become too attached to the animals in their care. There really is no "one method" approach that is 100% perfect when it comes to rescue, as each animal taken into care will have it's own individual requirements before it should be considered for rehoming to the general public.

 

Regulation of the industry would be able to set basic codes of practice for those operating within it. Those who don't follow those codes would then be accountable for breaches of those codes in a very real sense. Regulation is the sensible option now that the industry has become such a large part of the pet animal sector.

 

T.

[_PL_]

No to naming and shaming. There is or was a FB group for that nonsense anyway.  

I've been through lies and attacks and threats on FB, via email, phone and internet. All because I stood up for myself and others. Long story best left behind.

 

A gent contacted me yesterday. Really very cranky about a dog. Turns out it had nothing to do with me and he had the wrong rescue. He could easily have slammed me publicly instead of messaging. That's how easy it is to get 'named and shamed'.

[Loving my Oldies]

13 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Maybe some naming and shaming would be helpful for the general public. I am not suggesting to do that on this forum, but elsewhere. Truth is a solid defence against defamation.

i don't know how naming and shaming would help.  One of the things I do when people ask about dogs or even just in conversation, is to point out the pitfalls, the best rescue organisation and stress the need to do their homework.