just found out that when one of (prob all) of the sspca centres get a dog in, they vaccinate, k/c, de flea/worm, the works. the dog may be collected up an hour or so after by the owner, but that dog will have been given the works. surely it would be better to wait at least a day or two to give the owner time to collect. the dog in question may have already been given 'the works' at home the week before and think of all those extra chemicals going into that dog. Why? presumablly the owner will pay for this little lot.

> Why?

You might get a more accurate and detailed answer if you ask them :)

> they vaccinate, k/c, de flea/worm

Could it be to try to prevent an outbreak of disease in the kennels? I would think it would be a nightmare if something like parvo went round the kennels. And an outbreak of kennel cough could prevent dogs finding new homes for weeks.

Without those measures each animal would have to be kept in isolation to protect the others; I doubt any have the space for that many units.

surely if a dog goes in with 'something' it will spread anyway? perhaps an isolation kennel for even a few days for the dogs that will be picked up by owners?

remembering some of our smaller centres only have two/three dogs in them.

> perhaps an isolation kennel for even a few days for the dogs that will be picked up by owners?

I agree, nor will some of these measures offer immediate protection. 
I suspect it is to make them ready quicker for adoption if not claimed but I do think you will only get a definitive answer if you asked them directly, perhaps as a donor concerned about how funds are used.

A little mercenary though JeanGenie....don't you think...???

If a facility doesn't have suitable isolation and assessment units...then maybe it shouldn't be claiming to be a Rescue Centre...???

I know I'd be mortified if I lost one of My Border Collies temporarily....and if I found out He/She had been vaccinated/de-flead/de-wormed...and treated like that....I would no doubt end up sueing them to Hell and back....!

Certainly overkill in my book. Presumably all rescues have GOT to have isolation blocks for new dogs entering. I would have thought it was part and parcil of the liciencing requirements. I suspect it is just to ensure they can be re-homed quickly and possibly  a bit of a money spinner. Those dogs collected within 24/48 hours no doubt have a bill attached to them..not only for the kennel fee but for the treatments too. The kennels will have cheap medication and charge dearly for the privilage of having done it.
I would have thought it unnesesary to do anything for 48 hours to see if the dogs owners claimed it first.
If a dog is picked up harbouring KC, Parvo or anything else then inoculating is of no use whatsoever. As for de-fleeing etc.. then unless there is an obvious infestation it is not essensual to do this untill the dog has been turned over for rehoming.
Aileen

I can't imagine it is to do with rehoming faster as they have to be neutered before rehoming and this can't be done till 7 days are up. Assuming they also wait till the stitches are out they then have 17 days to vaccinate etc. Maybe it's to do with having the vet out anyway to check over a new arrival? I've no idea why they do it, but as Stooge says ask them, and let us all know what they say :-)

You might get a more accurate and detailed answer if you ask them

Policy, thats what we do!

> Certainly overkill in my book.

Perhaps they find a considerable percentage of found dogs have not already had these treatments.  Another thing that may be cleared up if someone asked them :)  Along with an answer to this question as to whether the cost is passed on to owner if and when they are claimed and if the owner is charged a profit on it.  I think we simply do not know.

> You might get a more accurate and detailed answer if you ask them
>
> Policy, thats what we do!

Eh? What do we do? :)

Seems a bit overkill to me too.  I think the Blue Cross work differently insofar that the dogs go into isolation and they are monitored until and after their vet can check them over and it is the vet that decides whether all of that work is necessary.  Maybe the rspca have a larger budget to work with?  But there is preempting and theres preempting isnt there??!!

>Another thing that may be cleared up if someone asked them

Ah, but speculating and working yourself up into a tizzy is so much more fun than getting the facts ... ;-)

> Policy, thats what we do!
> Eh? What do we do?

I think that is the response that poster would expect from the SSPCA :-) unless they work for them and that is the response given out :-)

> I think that is the response that poster would expect from the SSPCA :-) unless they work for them and that is the response given out :-)

Ah, I see :)  Tadog, have you actually asked them and they told you "just policy"? Where did the original information come from?  Is it possible they, also, complete this programme of treatment after a vet assessment?

The SSPCA don't take in strays, only cruelty or neglect cases , so it's very unlikely they would have a dog that would be claimed as happens in a re-homing centre, it's a bit of an assumption ( but an understandable one ) for the SSPCA to think a neglected dog won't have had any recent inoculations.
I can't believe I'm standing up for the SSPCA ! lol

I I think that is the response that poster would expect from the SSPCA :-) unless they work for them and that is the response given out :-)

Somply the response that I was given actually!

Ah, but speculating and working yourself up into a tizzy is so much more fun than getting the facts ... ;-)


Didnt speculate or work myself into a tizzy, you I presume were posting about someone else?

The SSPCA don't take in strays, only cruelty or neglect cases , so it's very unlikely they would have a dog that would be claimed as happens in a re-homing centre, it's a bit of an assumption ( but an understandable one ) for the SSPCA to think a neglected dog won't have had any recent inoculations.
I can't believe I'm standing up for the SSPCA ! lol

The dog in question was picked up as a stray. Def didnt look crueltly or neglect case. owner was in within a couple of hours to get her dog.

>Didnt speculate or work myself into a tizzy, you I presume were posting about someone else?
> The dog in question was picked up as a stray. Def didnt look crueltly or neglect case. owner was in within a couple of hours to get her dog.

Bit confused :)  Are you saying this was your dog and it happened to you ............................or something the owner of the dog told you............................. or you have asked the SSPCA about their policy directly?
If you asked them directly and they said "this is our policy" did you ask them why the policy was introduced by any chance or just left it at that?

I remember a few years ago I found two pups, must have been about 5-6 wks that had been 'dumped' and sure enough the sspca said dont want them, I said that this was surely a case of cruelty as pups so young had been dumped. Nope the sspca would not take them, they had to go to the police station then dogs home.  YET. my local sspca did take in to large breed pups from a breeder becuase she couldnt sell them. so, I feel it is each to there own. However it has made me have a rethink about giving our charity money to them till I find out a bit more about this issue. 

Bit confused :-)  Are you saying this was your dog and it happened to you ............................or something the owner of the dog told you............................. or you have asked the SSPCA about their policy directly?
If you asked them directly and they said "this is our policy" did you ask them why the policy was introduced by any chance or just left it at that?

Stooge, this was a dog I was rehoming and needed to know about vaccinations ect. I myself, rang the sspca involved involved and was told it was their policy. when they told me this I said I thought that was strange to vaccinate straight away and was told that is what they did.

> The dog in question was picked up as a stray. Def didnt look crueltly or neglect case. owner was in within a couple of hours to get her dog.
> this was a dog I was rehoming and needed to know about vaccinations ect.

Even more confused.

> till I find out a bit more about this issue.

Please do and maybe get back to us :)

what is confusing?

the dog in question wandered from his garden, not far from his home he was picked up and taken to sspca centre. so theoreticaly he was picked up as a stray. do this make it clearer?

> the dog in question wandered from his garden, not far from his home he was picked up and taken to sspca centre. so theoreticaly he was picked up as a stray.

Not much theoretical about it, he strayed :)
but no I'm still not clear.
You seemed to be saying the owner collected him within hours but also that you rehomed him.

You seemed to be saying the owner collected him within hours but also that you rehomed him. [url=]

yes that is right, the owner collected him within hours of him going missing.......in June this year.

I rehomed him in August this year.

the reason i said picked up as a stray is because someone posted prev that sspca dont do strays......  which they did in this case.

to clarify, I was rehoming the dog for the breed rescue that I represent, he was not being rehomed to myself.

Ah, all clear now. :) 
Well, let us know if you ever get an explanation as to this apparent policy.

wildo. certainly we will be asking our local branch as it is they that benifit from our donation. and we would not donate if this is how they spend/waste the money.

After a bit of super sleuthing, it seems the SSPCA have picked up the contracts for handling strays in eight area's, mainly in the west, they don't do Fife where I am.
You might find this letter interesting, protesting about the large fee the SSPCA charge owners and that they have pts healthy dogs to make way for council strays.
http://www.ethicalvoiceforanimals.org.uk/shownotice.php?articleid=6

thanks for that Celli, that is not good!