Rescue centres

Thanks Caryll for inadvertently reminding me.

Rescue centres, for the most part, have very strict rules when allowing adoptions. What are your thoughts?
For example:
Do they miss out on good homes because of silly circumstances like the yard is to small, the owner works to long hours or lives in the wrong area?
Do they give dogs to bad homes because the yard is nice, someones home all day and lives in the right area?

I massively believe they are too picky. I know several people who have been rejected for homes despite being very good responsible owners.

I have been rejected by some rescues as unsuitable - my problem? I have to work to earn the money to look after my dogs. Some rescues will blanket refuse anyone, and I don't believe this is the right way to find good homes for dogs. However, most rescues rely on volunteers, and do not have the resources to check everyone out on an individual basis. It's the classic rock and hard place. I have had rescues in the past, some by stretching the truth a little to fit the criteria. My dogs live happy, fulfilled and healthy lives - it's a shame that some dogs miss out on this due to blanket bans.

Yes. I have also been rejected because the entrance to my property is on the first floor!

They have to have strict guidelines, I accept that, but guidelines are just that - a guide! If someone appears to be a brilliant adopter, then just because one box doesn't get ticked shouldn't debar them from adopting! So many people would make wonderful forever homers but are rejected!

I didn't get to the second box - I was rejected at first 'tick'

When I've had these discussions on forums in the past it's always opened a can of worms due to the fact that most rescues simply don't believe dogs can be left at home for any period longer than 4 hours (that is another subject in itself).

Us, well we work and we have to fit our working life around the dog.

Fortunately, my partner works shifts so it works out quite well and Oreo is very rarely left for long periods. But when we made initial enquires we were point blank refused as we were full time workers. We were never asked if we had family that could help or if we worked shifts, it was just a straight no.

Ultimately, the spaces in resuces are filling up fast and if they stick to these rules too strictly it will only hurt them in the long run.

Rescue centres here are fine with people working. Long as you can show good housing, walks, food etc.

I don't think I have heard of anyone being rejected from rescuing a dog here unless you have a bad history with dogs.

I've been rejected because I didn't live in the area the rescue covered.
There really should be more focus on the individual.

I wonder how dogs survived before humans had to be around constantly.

I think certain restrictions need to be in place, for the wellbeing of the dog and owner(s). For instance, an application from a family with young children to adopt a nervous dog, who isn't entirely comfortable around loud noises - I'd probably side with the rescue centre if they chose not to allow it. Or rejecting an application for a very elderly dog to be adopted to somebody living on a first floor. I do think that they go overboard sometimes, though.

If the adoption centre genuinely feels that the dog and potential owner wouldn't be compatible, I'd prefer for them to reject the application. But on an individual basis, not just a general 'you must tick all of these boxes' basis.

They should use a bit more logic.

Aaah, logic is priceless - it's a shame so many people can't seem to afford it!

Shisa wrote:I've been rejected because I didn't live in the area the rescue covered.
There really should be more focus on the individual.

I wonder how dogs survived before humans had to be around constantly.

Dogs were created by man, they have never not had humans to care/not care for them.

I think what Theresa means is that it never used to be deemed necessary for a dog to have a human being with it for 24/7.

Theresa, please correct me if I'm wrong!

Exactly what I meant Caryll.

Why can't a dog be left on it's own for more than 6 hours?

Shisa wrote:Exactly what I meant Caryll.

Why can't a dog be left on it's own for more than 6 hours?

Other than toileting issues I can't see any reason why a fully trained and content dog cannot be left more than six hours.

Especially when you think that dogs in rescues are often kept in there kennels for 23 hours of the day, the six hours in a warm house with love an affection is the better option every time surely?

I would always advise against leaving a dog for more than 4 hours on a regular basis, but if it means that a dog gets a good home rather than spending months or years in a kennel (or even being pts!) I wouldn't complain!

Caryll wrote:I would always advise against leaving a dog for more than 4 hours on a regular basis

Can I ask why?