> have ridiculous rules that are entirely to do with their own politics

and, like it or not, the politics of many other people.  The people they seek to keep them afloat. 
We can all point the finger and say that is a silly rule when it is not something we personally believe in but there are lots of people out there that are anti hunting, anti breeding whatever and these rescues are dependant on being seen to keep faith with those principles.

> Otherwise how on earth do some of the smaller, yet still reg. charity rescues

There is more than one business model in the world.  Some rescues appear to run more on selling dogs than touting for donations elsewhere.

My point is a rescue is entitled to make whatever rules it wants and as everyone has a different opinion about neutering, breeding, never putting a healthy dog down despite any prospect of a home, hunting etc etc it really doesn't matter as long as they are up front about which tack they are taking. 

And mine is, that you seem to be missing - that when they do this they must understand they can put people off rescue as a whole... People have enough trouble understanding the sensible if convoluted rules - whether a rescue owner is anti hunting or not has absolutely diddly squat to do with whether Mrs Pro hunting lady can offer a good, responsible, permanent home to  a three legged blind yorkshire terrier. Just because Ms Jones once bred her horse of a life time wonderful hunter mare, does not mean she is going to use a rescued collie cross as a puppy machine.

> that when they do this they must understand they can put people off rescue as a whole...

I have certain criteria that I will not sell a puppy to but I would not shift from that just because I thought it would put people off buying a puppy at all, in fact I would probably rather hope it would :)
As for the hunting or neutering thing, people have their principles.  It is a free country and they are entitled to their views.   You seem to be taking the view that because you do not agree with them they must not have them. 
I can no more say they should let these principles go just because I may not agree with them than capitulate when posters tell me that I really must sell puppies to people with toddlers.

> And when rescues have ridiculous rules that are entirely to do with their own politics and nothing to do with the welfare of the dogs they rescue and rehome - how is the average sensible potential dog owner to understand that SOME of the rules that seem odd are actually there for a good reason, and some of those rules are just bloody stupid

I have friends experienced dog people , having  rescued several dogs, turned down because of a blanket ban on full time employed people. Shift work means the dog could be alone  for maybe up to 3 hours.  I do understand the need for rules but these need to be flexible, do they not?

It is annoying when rescues have blanket rules on some things - but at least it is understandable why they think the way they do on things like people working full time, even if it is frustrating when a particular home has a really good way around the problem (shift work so that the dog is only alone for a few hours, dog walkers/sitters, dog day care etc)...

  I do think some rescues could do a much better job of explaining WHY they have these rules, and explaining that other rescues may not have these rules because perhaps they are smaller and have more time or larger and have more financial resources, so they can take into account more of each adopters specific situation.

But rules that have nothing to do with the welfare of the actual animal in question and are purely to do with the rescue owners/staffs personal politics or agenda - no, those shouldnt exist and where they do they ARE damaging rescue as a whole.

Things like the examples I have mentioned already (and therefore won't go over again), another example is that I was once turned down for a dog because I was apparently friends with someone the rescue did not like. (I actually wasn't, though amusingly, I am now).

People are perfectly entitled to believe and take whichever side they like, but when that negatively affects not just individual dogs from getting homes, but puts people off rescue in general, something HAS to change.

I do have rescue dogs and I fully intend to continue to have rescue dogs, but MY experiences of rescue and the ridiculousness, the bitchyness, the widespread lack of people-skills AND the accompanying apathy about that ('oh we are here for the dogs we don't like people but that doesn't matter' is an attitude I have come across far too often) mean that I am extremely picky and wary about taking dogs from rescues again.

If I'm wary and struggle to find a sensible practical rescue, why on EARTH should I advise newcomers to the rescue world to go that route? And then when I do, how do I justify the various stupidness that goes on and encourage them to keep trying when, as I said before, there are a multitude of ways of getting a new dog and VERY few of those ways are responsible.

> It is annoying when rescues have blanket rules on some things - but at least it is understandable why they think the way they do on things like people working full time, even if it is frustrating when a particular home has a really good way around the problem (shift work so that the dog is only alone for a few hours, dog walkers/sitters, dog day care etc)...  I do think some rescues could do a much better job of explaining WHY they have these rules, and explaining that other rescues may not have these rules because perhaps they are smaller and have more time or larger and have more financial resources, so they can take into account more of each adopters specific situation.But rules that have nothing to do with the welfare of the actual animal in question and are purely to do with the rescue owners/staffs personal politics or agenda - no, those shouldnt exist and where they do they ARE damaging rescue as a whole.

I think this is completely spot on. If rescues were to make it clear not simply what the restrictions were, but the reasons why they were in place (perhaps even with some annonymous examples to make the point) then people - the general public/prospective owners would understand the logic, even if they did not necessarily agree with it.

Many apparently ludicrous rules and restrictions are encountered during daily life, but when the background for this is provided, often they don't seem nearly as ludicrous.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs thankfully in this country. However, when you are in the position of finding appropriate homes for animals which will otherwise be euthanised and you are turning away people on the basis that you disagee with their politics (or whatever) which has NO bearing on their suitability as owners, then it is plain that the interests of the dog are secondary to your personal preferences.

The situation is rather different for breeders, who are not operating as a charity as they have more perogative to turn clients away on the back of personal 'prejudice' (term is being loosely used - no offence intended.) As a hypothetical example, I might find people who swear as a matter of course offensive and steer well clear of them in my personal life. But while I'm at work I just have to ignore it as I am not in a position to refuse to serve customers on the basis of the language they are using.

I do wonder though, whether some of the stranger reasons given by rescues for refusing to home a dog are actually the real reason. For example, a potential owner enquiring about a young lively collie cross may be morbidly obese. It's possible they are intending on losing weight by walking the dog, but from the rescue's perspective, is this person in a position to realistically offer that dog a suitable home and appropriate excersise? They have to be very careful not to be accused of discrimination so perhaps an alternative reason for refusing that particular dog is given...? Just a thought.

Just been reading this months dogs today and somone had writen a letter to them about this, apperantly they have young kids and an unspayed bitch and were truned down my many tears when they wanted to adopt a female cav becuase of there bitch and the reason they got was "There argument was that if we had puppies with our bitch, those that brough the puppies could have rescued one of their dogs".

The mag also had pages of rescue dogs looking for homes again but most said no kids or no dogs or no cats and some said all three, there was also one dog who was seised under the DDA. there

Hi as I promised caught up with my friend and reminded her that I was interested in a response to the breed rescue specific collaboration question.

The response was 'there is no fixed policy but if rescues centres have a 'rare' or hard to home dog they would then speak to breed rescue. But with breeds such as Labs they wouldn't as they are dogs they can always find homes for without any problems. They also said breed rescues have the opinion that rescue charities such as the blue cross would not know enough about the breed as thy know better. The BC disagree with this view as they feel they assess each dog regardless of breed and it is done on each dog.

I have challenged that view and gave the example of the two Braccos that I tried to help Admin help as they approached them and I went upto Burford where they were to talk to them but got told to go away.

She remembered those two dogs herself as as they are quite 'rare' so lets see what comes back.

I think if breed rescues could get a dialogue up then it can only be good for the dogs :-)