[i]The very old cloudy-eyed, grey faced oldies... the ones with the scared and care-worn expressions, should be the first candidates for a peaceful release from this world if homes cannot be found quickly. I think it very cruel to keep them in scarey, noisy kennels and if they aren't homed within a reasonably short time, it's surely our duty to give them peace. It's a bit like locking your granny up in Wormwood scubs. I

m sorry but this sickened  me - so a dog thats old and a bit down should be pts?  What the hell is old?  My gorgeous greyhound was 7 when she was stuck in rescue - why because she was too old to race!  Now she had never known a home or a life outside racing so should she through no fault of her own been pts because she was a bit past her prime?

She now has a wonderful life curling up on the sofa waddling around on a walk and putting all my others in their place when they need it.  Should she die because she's getting on a bit?

I joined this site because I thought people on here were dog lovers all dogs not just perfect ones, please apart from mastifflover show me Im wrong.

But what I don't like is keeping a dog going well past its time. When its soiling the house and it self, yet the owners say 'oh, can't be helped' when the poor animal is lifted to go out, then drops down, when they have to keep bathing the rear end and the dog is getting sore...I could never put an animal through that.
i find that comment really upsetting- i have an elderly bitch who is incontinenet & sometimes has accidents- i also have to bathe her rear end. she also falls over more frequently & has to be helped up- only to fall over again. howevershe will happily pootle on a good hr long walk- getting into mischeif & investigating smell, saying hello & playing.
should i have her put to sleep as by your standards she is well past her time ( im sure that wasnt the intent & i am aware of owners who keep a dog going when it has no quality of life) but to have such a blanket comment & opinion on what is quality & what isnt is hurtful to those who will do what they can to ensure their dog has a good life to the end. i would not put her in a cart ( i do not think she would have quality- but that is my opinin on MY dog) and all mine are rescues- since she was diognosed with spinal disease 7 yrs ago i have had to listen to hurtful comments asking why dont i put her to sleep & get a new rescue ( she was a rescue as are my boys) its like saying to someone with a seriously ill child- well let them go & adopt one that needs a family .

find that comment really upsetting- i have an elderly bitch who is incontinenet & sometimes has accidents- i also have to bathe her rear end. she also falls over more frequently & has to be helped up- only to fall over again. howevershe will happily pootle on a good hr long walk- getting into mischeif & investigating smell, saying hello & playing.
should i have her put to sleep as by your standards she is well past her time ( im sure that wasnt the intent & i am aware of owners who keep a dog going when it has no quality of life) but to have such a blanket comment & opinion on what is quality & what isnt is hurtful to those who will do what they can to ensure their dog has a good life to the end. i would not put her in a cart ( i do not think she would have quality- but that is my opinin on MY dog) and all mine are rescues- since she was diognosed with spinal disease 7 yrs ago i have had to listen to hurtful comments asking why dont i put her to sleep & get a new rescue ( she was a rescue as are my boys) its like saying to someone with a seriously ill child- well let them go & adopt one that needs a family

What a wonderful response to a very hurtful thread regarding rescues, its wonderful to hear that some people do really believe a dog is for life regardless of the hardships we have to go through to make them happy! 

> i have an elderly bitch who is incontinenet & sometimes has accidents- i also have to bathe her rear end. she also falls over more frequently & has to be helped up- only to fall over again. howevershe will happily pootle on a good hr long walk- getting into mischeif & investigating smell, saying hello & playing.
>

Bless her. My old rescue dog (14yrs) is a lot like this, we had to change all the carpets for hardflooring 2 years ago, because he started to leak a little drops of wee whenever he is walking around. Sometimes he looses traction on the hardfloors and his legs splay out at the back and he falls over, sometimes he can't get back up by himself. He's deaf, blind in 1 eye, what used to be a powerfull walk is now mostly a totter, but he is still enjoying his life. As soon as he wakes in the morning his little tail is wagging, waiting for a fuss, then he'll run around all exited waiting for breakfast, he still likes to play football with the kids and he still has a potter aound on his walk every day which he LOVES, he still has the inclination & energy to chase the cat and he is still up for a game of rough & tumble with our HUGE puppy.

I'm not sure what it is, but there is something that comes from within...you can tell he his happy, you can see it in his eyes, it's like a sparkle of life. I saw that little sparkle dim a couple of months ago, I rushed him to the vet thinking that I was going to have to have him PTS, I was in floods of tears, he looked uncomfortable and unhappy, but amazingly it turned out to be a minor stomach upset, in a couple of days and a few AB's later he was back to his old self. The only time I would have him PTS is when that sparkle dims for good, then I know he has had enough of life. But untill that day if his problems dont' bother him, then they shouldn't bother anybody else.

greyhoundsr4life...

Detach yourself for a second from thinking of YOUR dog. Your dog shouldnt be pts because shes old, she has a home and is happy and is much loved.

What if no one had homed her though - how long should she have waited in kennels for a home, bearing in mind that for a dog, 'now' is all they really have, a concept of the future, of hoping that tomorrow ill bring something better is not really something we reckon dogs can do.

Would you honestly be happy at the idea of your lovely old dog sat, waiting in a kennel for a home that may never ever come?

I know MY old dog would be extremely miserable (i have no doubt actually, she would curl up and die within weeks).

Old is not a reason in itself to put a dog down - 'old, upset, depressed, has been waiting months and is always over looked and is likely to stay here for years until she dies'... that IS a bloody good reason to put a dog down in my eyes. Not for my sake or the rescues sake or anything else, but because its unfair to keep a dog alive on a 'maybe'.  Doing so is done for OUR needs, our desire to not make a horrid decision, our need to believe there will be a happy ending. Not the dogs benefit!

> They are all not necessarily overcrowded either and will only take in so many

My own Local dogs home (which is RSPCA run) have a waiting list for dogs to get in.  Now I am sure some of these people wanting to give their dogs up may not be prepared to wait.  If the rescue is full to overflowing with dogs needing to come in then why keep dogs that are unhomeable going, or keep dogs in kennels for a year or more.

We aren't talking 7 days here, but months and months and sometimes years.

It's an unpalatable fact that most shelters are full, and once at capacity some will need to PTS, or the dogs they refuse will need to be PTS.

My council website shows 37 were PTS last year.

To put things in perspective:

http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/press-releases/2008/apr/wardens-take-on-full-time-responsibility-for-stray-dogs.en
In 2006/07 Bristol recorded 697 strays, over half of which were returned to, or reclaimed by, their owners. 201 dogs were re‑homed and only 37 had to be humanely put to sleep.

Now I just went onto the Bristol Dog home site and their top 10 dogs are listed http://www.bristoldogsandcatshome.org.uk/topdogs.asp some ahve been there over 15 months waiting!!!  Not something I want for any of mine.  I have stipulated if I die that dogs are to be homed within 6 months or PTS.

I don't see why they don't list all their dogs up for re-homing as this method has been found to be good for helping to home dogs as many people can't bear going into the home, and maybe if they have an idea of a couple of dogs they may get over that .

The very old cloudy-eyed, grey faced oldies... the ones with the scared and care-worn expressions, should be the first candidates for a peaceful release from this world if homes cannot be found quickly.

I find that a very hard comment. What if you lost your old dog and didn't manage to track them down in the first few weeks only to track them down and find they had been PTS..................their crime.........being old!!!
A friend of mine a few years ago took on a 13 year old dog whose owner had died and the family wouldn't take him on. He has a fantastic life and is still pottering around in the lap of luxury.

I have also had a rescue dog who I lost 2 years ago at the age of 13. He would under most peoples views on here have been PTS. He had been beaten and was aggressive. He would have failed the food and toy aggressive test some rescues conduct. He was 22 months old and the rescue rehomed him 3 times and all returned him within 24 hours. When I arrived I was at 19 deemed too young to take him on and he was already earmarked to be PTS. After a heated debate on giving him one more chance I took him home. He turned into a beautiful happy outgoing dog, yes I always had to watch him but he could go off lead and be good. He just hated people touching him although after a few months of meeting the same people he would become their best friend. He used to run with other dogs, he used to attend day care and he was a great dog. With the right owner alot of dogs can lead a good life and in my opinion more dogs like him should be given a chance. In the right home they can improve, they weren't born like that, some stupid cruel person made them like it.

Yes rescues are full and decisions have to be made BUT why do rescues then set themselves guidelines on rehoming such as age of person wanting the dog, that limits homes. At 19 I made a much better owner than some twice my age. I do understand there have to be guidelines but what has age got to do with being able to own a dog. 

> Would you honestly be happy at the idea of your lovely old dog sat, waiting in a kennel for a home that may never ever come?

Exactly my sentiments theemx.

I dont want any of my oldies to languish in noisy, smelly, scarey kennels when I've gone so I've put steps in place for this to be avoided. It's great for the one greyhoundsr4life described but not always the case.Sorry if my comments regarding this subject are 'sickening' to you greyhoundsr4life but I'm thinking of the mental welfare of these poor scared creatures.You may have to accept that this is not a perfect world and not all stories end up with a happy ending like yours has.

> They are all not necessarily overcrowded either and will only take in so many.

That comment was in relation to overcrowding, they will only take in so many, surplus dogs will go on a waiting list as you've said, sometimes fostering or transferred to other centres throughout the region which may have places available.  Some rescues have people on their waiting lists waiting for a particular breed of dog coming in.  

Some do get PTS for various reasons, ill heath and beyond medical treatment to sustain quality of life.

I don't know how many in dire circumstances would give their dog up to rescue if they thought they would be PTS in a certain time frame and under some of the suggestions here.  Abandoned dogs could become more of a reality which has detrimental consequences for everyone including rescue.

I don't know how many would donate if they thought rescues were some sort of destruction plant.  If dogs are not found homes in X amount of time, they are PTS.  It could be said that rescue peeps are not trying hard enough.

But this subject for me has much wider implications before we start knocking the door of rescue societies and telling them where, how, and when to PTS their dogs.   Tackling the overabundance of racing greyhounds finding themselves in rescue for a start, perhaps introducing restrictions on breeding in line with modern demand, doing away with puppy farms, educating the public and making dog ownership a privilege, not a right.    This is only from the top of my head and like anything needs careful deliberation before even being considered a possibility. 

I think we are still pretty lucky in the UK as if Bristol is anything to go by where over 200 dogs were re-homed and only 37 put to sleep that means 80% of dogs are re-homed.  In the USA the statistics are the other way around.

Your quite right too many dogs coming through that end up in rescue,b but look at the reactions of people to the idea of culling newborn pups in over large litters in hard to home (lack of popularity or specialist needs) breeds.  The caring breeders who view themselves as custodians of their breeds do everything in their power and circumstances to prevent their breeding and homing activities adding to the rescue problems.

As you have said commercial breeding and the throw away society with people wanting a dog but not having the commitment to see it through are the main causes of rescue.  If the breeders and to some extent the owners of these dogs had to pay for their dogs time in rescue it was an enforced legal obligation then fewer people would find it profitable to breed (the good ones already take this responsibility so won't affect us), and breeding would only be done by organisations that need dogs like Guide dogs the forces etc, and true breed enthusiasts.

There would be fewer pups available and those who really only want a dog, any dog rather than something specific could take on the lower numbers of rescue dogs, the others would have to be prepared to wait on a waiting list for that well bred puppy or breed rescue.

Problem is that legislation tends to be a very blunt instrument and the ones most affected are the ones who don't need it.

In some countries you have to pay a hefty fee to have an entire animal, prohibitive breeding license fees to be allowed to breed, which are making breeding the way we would prefer to see it more expensive than it already is, and of course the commercial breeders can afford to pay it, and the worst ones just ignore the law.  In some places in the USA the only ones who can afford to breed are the Puppy Farmers.

Oh for an ideal world hey ;]

> Some rescues have people on their waiting lists waiting for a particular breed of dog coming in.

This is where such people should be redirected to breed specific rescues if their requirements are for a specific bred, every recognised breed has at least one, and they don't get the publicity or funding of the large charities.

What if no one had homed her though - how long should she have waited in kennels for a home, bearing in mind that for a dog, 'now' is all they really have, a concept of the future, of hoping that tomorrow ill bring something better is not really something we reckon dogs can do.

So surely if a dog lives in the now they have no concept of how long they have been in kennels - so what your saying is it doesn't matter if they are in there 1 day or 1 year they will be miserable and should be put to sleep - one day, one year whats the difference - mind you I suppose after one day rescues would have a lot more space!

I also fail to understand why rescues are getting such a slating for doing what they do!  Seems to me that a lot of people on here are putting themselves on pedestals - saying that the dogs you produce will never go into rescue because you vet the homes so well - yet rescues are then slated for doing exactly the same thing and trying to do the best for the dogs

but I'm thinking of the mental welfare of these poor scared creatures.

Surely any dog that goes into rescue can be scared sad creatures - do you want them all pts immediately?  Do you honestly think a rescue would leave a dog who was so stressed in rescue just to get on with it?

Why do people think rescues are such horrible places and those that run them don't care about the dogs?  Do you really think that the people involved just chuck them in cage and leave them?  The rescue I was involved in had a few dogs in kennels who were visited every day at least twice, walked played with cuddled and given lots of attention - those dogs in kennels were placed into foster homes as soon as possible where they were assessed before rehoming.

One of my dogs was in RSPCA kennels for a long time, just this weekend were were at a fun show and he went doolally to see one of the workers there - still remembered her and was very happy to see her - couldn't of been that much of a trauma for him.

The local dogs trust has absolutely superb accommodation for the dogs they are not dirty or smelly or scary at all - why would you not make arrangements for your dogs to go to the breed rescue, most of whom foster, or the oldies club who only take on old dogs and into foster homes?  Actually shouldn't they go back to your breeder?

I would prefer it if rescue centres had "foster schemes" where dogs that had been in rescue for a while could go to a foster home to be taught normal life as opposed to life in a kennel and would stand more chance of a forever home.
Depends on the reason for being PTS i guess

Fredmum many rescues do have fostering schemes for just those reasons - however there is a limited number of people who are willing or able to foster more are always needed if anyone here would like to volunteer!

One of my even more extreme thoughts is this: Do we have a bigger rescue problem, because we have got MORE rescues now than we had 30 years ago?

Finally I really fail to understand why rescues are now at fault for the over population in dogs, dunno maybe they should all give up now at least that way there would be no poor traumatised dogs in rescue at all then.

Sorry B, I did mean breed rescue; we were on the waiting list with our local GSD rescue for a GSD male for over 3 months.   She felt she had none suitable and then directed us to one who was just about to go into rescue unless we could take him and we did.  She's known for matching people to her dogs and very selective on who gets one.  People have been known to be turned down simply because she didn't like their vides.  Can't blame her, I'd be the same.

> Not all dogs find kennel life stressful; some practically thrive on it.  Some dogs in homes are confined to kennel life too so I suppose what I'm trying to say is it's not clear cut

i think that calmstorm is right and that certain cases should be released from this life if it is not a good life for them anymore, but i also agree with you spender, each case should be throughly considered on its merits and each dog fully evaluated to see how the center feels they should proceed. i don;t think calmstorm ment simply "oh this dog is aggressive, pass me the needle" the first day they arrive, but if after a while there is no improvement in temp, or if a dog is genuinely distressed in a kennel and cannot be fostered etc it;s worth considering.

i suppose it helps that i am generally ok with death though and believe that they will go somewhere a whole lot nicer and then get another go. in that case for me why keep them suffering here? but yes it is something that in each case should be considered very very carefully, lives shouldn't ever be taken without serious thought and good reasons

i don't think that the comment was intended hurtfully of to be applied to every dog that reaches a certain age and that seems to me an extreme reading of it. i think it was intended to mean that for some dogs being put in a kennel can be a worse fate than death. no one said anything specific about your dog, and 7 is not old anyway, i wouldn't even consider that elderly in my large breed. from my reading the post suggests that if a dog is suffering in it's new circumstance and it's looking unlikely they will get a new home then it is cruel to keep them that way, which it is. as mastiff lover said

>>I'm not sure what it is, but there is something that comes from within...you can tell he his happy, you can see it in his eyes, it's like a sparkle of life.

if the dog clearly is lacking that spark then surely it is better for them to be released from that? if (god forbid) something happened to you and your girl ended up in a kennel and was truly miserable would you want her to stay like, barely seeing people, getting brief walks etc that indefinately till nature took its course? they've commited no crime so why imprision them. i certainly would not want that for my dogs, they are people dogs and a brief visit to their cell every day would never be enough for them. in those circumstance i should much rather have them at the bridge with me.

> Doing so is done for OUR needs, our desire to not make a horrid decision, our need to believe there will be a happy ending. Not the dogs benefit!

couldn;t agree more theemx

greyhounds your being a bit reactionary here, at what point did anyone "slate" a rescue? rescue organisations do excellent work, they help to clear up the mess that inconsiderate, unthinking people create and then fail to look after.

> so what your saying is it doesn't matter if they are in there 1 day or 1 year they will be miserable and should be put to sleep

no one said that and i'm sure that people would be offended at having such horrendous things put in their mouths. what was said is that dogs tend to exist in the now in a manner different from human beings- they do not plan futures as we might but of course they have the capacity to hope for something a bit better to come about (for example, dogs often know that while its morning now their owners get home from work at X time which is in the future), they simply do not consider it to the level we do and are not given to introspection.

if a dog is in the same miserable situation for a length of time it will become depressed, which it seems a number of us feel is an unfair situation to place an animal who does not have the cognative capacity to reason out that perhaps the families that come tomorrow will take it home- it doesn't know what the people are doing there.

> Actually shouldn't they go back to your breeder?

yes but this is not always possible and can be influencedby particular circumstance (for example if you were reffering to brainless's comment about what is set out in her will she cannot return to breeder as i believe she bred most of hers)

> visited every day at least twice

while this does sound like a good kennel its still hardly ideal is it? my dogs would shut down very quickly if they only got 2 visits a day.

> One of my even more extreme thoughts is this: Do we have a bigger rescue problem, because we have got MORE rescues now than we had 30 years ago?
>

this is not a dig at the rescues but at the public who use them as dumping grounds.

>

> why would you not make arrangements for your dogs to go to the breed rescue, ..... Actually shouldn't they go back to your breeder?
>

Breed rescues have very limited funding compared to the big charities, and in my case I am the breeder of my dogs and I can't see how it would be morally right for me to expect Rescue to step in to home five dogs.

If everyone took individual responsibility for the animals they own or breed there would hardly be any rescues, except in the most exceptional circumstances, rescues could then mainly act as agencies for re-homing the dog direct from the owners and breeders in most cases.  We woudln't tehn be ahving this discussion as rescues would not be overflowing as they are now.

I am fostering a bitch at the moment, absolutely charming 18 months old (supposed to be our breed but appears to be  a cross).  I wonder if her owners truly could not have kept her until a home was found, and it was far to easy too take her to Battersea.  She has probably been in the system at least two or three months (as she ahs been spayed there and the wound is already well on the way to being healed, but coat still not regrown), not good for an adolescent who should be learning her manners, which considering are pretty good.

Chances are she was an impulse buy from her BYB, easy come easy go.

>Each case should be thoroughly considered on its merits and each dog fully evaluated to see how the centre feels they should proceed.

I think that already happens and I wouldn't say for one moment that rescues keep dogs going past their time, when suffering or when having given up the will to live. 

Having been round some of these rescue places in the past, I don't see many dogs without that spark for life in their eye.  I regularly see RSPCA dogs out and about round here being walked, often stop for a chat, especially when they've got a Shep on the end of the lead :-D and they are most certainly not the down in the dumps dogs being described here.  Got plenty of spirit in them.  

> Would you honestly be happy at the idea of your lovely old dog sat, waiting in a kennel for a home that may never ever come?

No, I wouldn't be happy but to whom does this concept really apply to, me or the dog?   A dog has no concept of a home that will never come, dogs live in the now. There are a lot worse homes for dogs than being in rescue.  They are many dogs leading a kennelled life in a home environment with no often than 2 visits and 1 walk a day.  There are many dogs chained up outside in all weathers living in a home environment.  I don't think we should kid ourselves that a home always means our interpretation of what constitutes a perfect existence for a dog.  It just doesn't always happen that way.

> They are many dogs leading a kennelled life in a home environment with no often than 2 visits and 1 walk a day.  There are many dogs chained up outside in all weathers living in a home environment.

i personally don't regard that as a home but your right it certainly does happen.

> I don't see many dogs without that spark for life in their eye.  I regularly see RSPCA dogs out and about round here being walked, often stop for a chat, especially when they've got a Shep on the end of the lead :-D and they are most certainly not the down in the dumps dogs being described here.  Got plenty of spirit in them.  

in which case i would not dream of advocating having them pts, i think that it is a last resort for dogs that are deperately unhappy in this world. you can tell when they are ready to go can't you? everyone on the site knows this from their own dogs reaching that stage, they give you a look as they get more old or ill or tired and you know they can't bear it any more. i think in those circumstance its mercy.

however if the dogs doing fine then great! keep it up, the fates will have their way and you never know, mum and dad are really impressed with how their kids done at school and thinks they would benifit from some aditional responsibility and the perfect family shows up- kid and rescue dog become obedience champs! or just like to cuddle and walk :) who knows!

wouldn't it be nice if they all did end up that way?

>There are a lot worse homes for dogs than being in rescue.

And yet it's odd; I'm sure I've read posts frompeople saying that rescues are too picky about who they allow to have a dog (no fulltime workers, no children under 5 etc), taking the attitude that any home is better than being in kennels ...

So many different points of view!

A good vet I know said that the first month of kennelling is psychologically the worst for dogs - beyond that the stress gets no worse - but it doesn't necessarily get any better either.

Both my dogs are rescues from a well known national rescue. I am quite worried about the future of my two dogs if something happened to me and my children were unable to keep the dogs for whatever reason.

In this case, due to the terms of adoption, both dogs would have to be returned to rescue. Our GR would not have a problem in finding a new home but our terrier cross would be much harder to rehome and I have the feeling he would be in and out of rescue a fair few times before he found a forever home as he is not the easiest dog in the world to live with :). I have always had rescue dogs but am now of the opinion that in future, as I get older, I would only have a dog from a reputable breeder as I know that their future would be secured and that any decisions concerning an elderly, infirm dog would be mine and mine alone if anything happened to me.

I know my dogs have a great home and live a full and interesting life but the thought of them being rehomed to someone whom I know nothing about does not sit easy with me.

I know several people who had dogs from the same rescue as me, and at the same time, who have handed their dogs back when they got past the puppy stage because they hadn't put the training or socialisation in that is needed in order to achieve a harmonious life for dog and owner :(

if (god forbid) something happened to you and your girl ended up in a kennel and was truly miserable would you want her to stay like, barely seeing people, getting brief walks etc that indefinately till nature took its course? they've commited no crime so why imprision them. i certainly would not want that for my dogs, they are people dogs and a brief visit to their cell every day would never be enough for them. in those circumstance i should much rather have them at the bridge with me.

See this is the bit I don't understand - why do people assume that all rescues keep the dogs in cells, hardly getting any attention from uncaring people?  Why do you assume I don't want the best for my dog, do you really think I would put my dog into a bad rescue because it was easier for me to not have her pts?

while this does sound like a good kennel its still hardly ideal is it? my dogs would shut down very quickly if they only got 2 visits a day.

Sorry I should of pointed out these are made by the rescue volunteers in addition to what the kennel staff do - these are boarding kennels.

in which case i would not dream of advocating having them pts, i think that it is a last resort for dogs that are deperately unhappy in this world. you can tell when they are ready to go can't you? everyone on the site knows this from their own dogs reaching that stage, they give you a look as they get more old or ill or tired and you know they can't bear it any more. i think in those circumstance its mercy.

Its not only dog breeders or owners that know when a dog is ready to go, rescue people are quite capable of doing it as well you know, again why is it assumed that rescues keep on dogs that should be pts either through medical pain or anguish?

Just a couple more points before I bow out, I assume that people saying dogs are miserable in rescue kennels never board their dogs for holidays or emergencies?

Also if a dog spends all its life in kennels - right from puppies to then be homed at an older age is that also wrong - ie taking them out of the only environment they've ever known?

>And yet it's odd; I'm sure I've read posts frompeople saying that rescues are too picky about who they allow to have a dog (no fulltime workers, no children under 5 etc), taking the attitude that any home is better than being in kennels ...

Indeed...there are some people that I wouldn't give a dog to, never mind rescue.  Kennels may not be ideal but then there are some homes far from ideal in some people's views as well. 

Cultural differences play a part too, there are dogs I know still chained up in Ireland, living outdoors in all weathers, some in kennels, might not see a human unless at feeding times and they are none the worse for wear.  There are people who believe this is the best existence for a dog, outside with their own kind in the fresh air, being a dog, they balk at the idea of having their dog in the house and don't think that this is healthy.  And there are others who think the opposite.   Different stokes for different folk.    

And yet it's odd; I'm sure I've read posts frompeople saying that rescues are too picky about who they allow to have a dog (no fulltime workers, no children under 5 etc), taking the attitude that any home is better than being in kennels ...

In reply to the above i don't think rescues should make these sort of rules, but should look at the individual home and dog. Why preclude anyone with a child under 5 from having a dog? we have had dogs with young children and had no problems, so long as the dog isn't afraid of or agrressive to children, and the prospective owners understand how to train the dog so it can grow up well in a family, this should not be a blanket rule. Nor should working full-time, unless the dog is a puppy or suffers separation anxiety, lots of people on here work full time (I do, but i work from home) and manage to look after a dog, perhaps with the help of a walker to come in midday, or whatever.

> why is it assumed that rescues keep on dogs that should be pts either through medical pain or anguish?
>

Because this is certainly what one rescue shows in it's TV advertising campaigns.  My local Dogs home no matter how nice and dedicated the staff and volunteers, is like a Prison with Kennels and runs, smells a bit unavoidably and is noisy. 

Even a boarding/Quarantine kennel where the dog we imported stayed for 6 months, which is pristine, is a place I would want my dogs to stay for any longer than a few weeks or months.

In this case, due to the terms of adoption, both dogs would have to be returned to rescue. Our GR would not have a problem in finding a new home but our terrier cross would be much harder to rehome and I have the feeling he would be in and out of rescue a fair few times before he found a forever home as he is not the easiest dog in the world to live with  . I have always had rescue dogs but am now of the opinion that in future, as I get older, I would only have a dog from a reputable breeder as I know that their future would be secured and that any decisions concerning an elderly, infirm dog would be mine and mine alone if anything happened to me.

Sorry but surely if you got your dog from a reputable breeder you would still be contracted to return the dog to them - so the decision would still not be yours and yours alone!

Any good rescue will ensure that what is done is whats best for the dog, why would they not?

You say your dog would be in and out of rescue - why do you think this?  Good rescues just like good breeders try to ensure that the dogs go to the most suitable home.

Because this is certainly what one rescue shows in it's TV advertising campaigns.  My local Dogs home no matter how nice and dedicated the staff and volunteers, is like a Prison with Kennels and runs, smells a bit unavoidably and is noisy. 

Even a boarding/Quarantine kennel where the dog we imported stayed for 6 months, which is pristine, is a place I would want my dogs to stay for any longer than a few weeks or months.

I think you need to watch the TV campaign again - they do not put down healthy dogs - this covers both mentally and physically.  The dogs they have as sponsor dogs are far happier living in kennels than being placed in a home where they would be mentally stressed, why should these happy health dogs die?  Again why do people think rescues are so uncaring as to keep a dog that's in pain alive.

I don't understand your last point you say you would not want your dogs to stay there any longer than a few weeks yet put a dog through 6 months of being there?  A contradiction surely.

> Any good rescue will ensure that what is done is whats best for the dog, why would they not

This may not be what the dogs owner feels best. 

With a dog from a breeder the owner has full right and can decide what happens, even if that is to go back to the breeder, and any good breeder would abide by the owners wishes as regards the dog being homed by a family member etc.

A rescue are not as likely to knwo the individuals circumstances as well as the dogs breeder should.

> I don't understand your last point you say you would not want your dogs to stay there any longer than a few weeks yet put a dog through 6 months of being there?  A contradiction surely

I imported with freinds a 9 week old puppy who wnet through quarantine.  He had not yet had any life away from his litter so for him the kenenl environment was not soemthing worse than what he had known.

He has frru owners and I visited him for several hours 3 times a week,a dn his other owners as and when they coudl, but the lady he lives with at least once a week.

When he changed environments on coming out of Quaratine his lifestyle improved,a dn hsi life expereinces were enriched.

I would not have considered importing an adult or adolescent dog if it had to be Quarantined, even though mine is an independent confident breed.

With a dog from a breeder the owner has full right and can decide what happens, even if that is to go back to the breeder, and any good breeder would abide by the owners wishes as regards the dog being homed by a family member etc.

See I thought that breeders usually put it in contracts that dogs have to be returned if there are a change of circumstances but actually the owner can ignore this and do what they see fit?  So for example if the owner thought it best that the dog was put into rescue .............?

Why would rescues not know the individual circumstances and what does that have to do with the dog?  Surely it should be the best interest of the dog who a rescue rehomes to?

>And yet it's odd; I'm sure I've read posts frompeople saying that rescues are too picky about who they allow to have a dog (no fulltime workers, no children under 5 etc), taking the attitude that any home is better than being in kennels ...

Rescues are a bit picky.  When I got Copper the guy that was the owner was very picky.  The dog had been in half a dozen homes in 4 years.  The man I got Copper from didn't want him, fair enough, but he wasn't about to give him to just anyone.  He asked me to return the dog if I decided he wasnt for me.  He would have come to my house to check me out and I agreed.  The owner told me no children, no cats, must have garden and said Cops was a difficult dog.  My vet told me eventually he would have been put down.  But thankfully no need to do that.  Rescues are very hard work.  I suppose that's why they're rescues?  I think rescue centres are especially picky because they don't want the dog to come back with yet more baggage.  Just my own thoughts.

CG

>I think rescue centres are especially picky because they don't want the dog to come back with yet more baggage. 

I think you're absolutely right. Every change of environment is very stressful for a dog, so they need to take extra-special care that a dog doesn't become a serial returner, when each rehomer finds out that he doesn't quite fit in. It's a vicious circle - the mroe times a dog is rehomed the harder it becomes to find him the next home, and eventually he becomes unhomeable, and yet still has all the baggage that does with his traumatic life.

claraclogs......I'm sorry I upset you, no intention meant. Your dog still has quality of life though, she can still walk and enjoy herself outside, and plays. This is not what I meant, the dog I am refering to are those that can no longer enjoy a walk, however short, who are now confused, messing themselves and becoming badly sore or ulcerated, exisiting in pain and discomfort fought off by constant drugs but drugs wear off. Not able to move much, needing their owners to carry them out and back again. Somehow the poor thing is carrying on living, but dogs carry their pain so well, because of this the owners keep going. They can't let go. I'v had, over the years, dogs that have become incontnent, stiff, slow...its part of the ageing process and no, I could never have one pts just because its old and a bit smelly, but when they can no longer care for themselves, when they are full of cancer/whatever problem and are now struggling to live on drugs, apitite is going or they are becoming skin and bone.. then no, I won't drag it out. I care for them to much. I only wish the same could be done for me should I be the same state.

> See this is the bit I don't understand - why do people assume that all rescues keep the dogs in cells, hardly getting any attention from uncaring people? 

who mentioned uncaring people? the staff in rescue centers are anything but, however they are but human and the majority of rescues are astly overcrowded and understaffed- there is only so much each person can do. if your one person with several kennels to clean and dogs to see to there is a limit of how much time you can spend with each one

> Sorry I should of pointed out these are made by the rescue volunteers in addition to what the kennel staff do - these are boarding kennels

still hardly ideal though is it?

> Its not only dog breeders or owners that know when a dog is ready to go, rescue people are quite capable of doing it as well you know, again why is it assumed that rescues keep on dogs that should be pts either through medical pain or anguish?
>

because sometimes they do- vastly expensive campaigns to keep single dogs alive that in the majorty of family situations would be put to sleep.

bit confused by that comment though as thats what the whole discussion is about... whether to pts certain rescue dogs. not all rescues do not pts

> Just a couple more points before I bow out, I assume that people saying dogs are miserable in rescue kennels never board their dogs for holidays or emergencies?
>

actually i haven't, w always arrange for family to do it and were i to consider to in future i would check out the kennel very carefully before hand to see how much time was spent with each dog etc.

> Also if a dog spends all its life in kennels - right from puppies to then be homed at an older age is that also wrong - ie taking them out of the only environment they've ever known?

thats a complicated question, i guess it depend on the dog and how they take to the new lifestyle

> See I thought that breeders usually put it in contracts that dogs have to be returned if there are a change of circumstances but actually the owner can ignore this and do what they see fit?  So for example if the owner thought it best that the dog was put into rescue .............?
>

The breeder once they sell a dog have no legal rights to it at all.  a sensible owner needing to give their dog up is going to jump at the chance of it going back to the breeder rather than a rescue as the breeder should be far better qualified and have more a vested interest in the dogs they have bred, in order to find them a new home.

Sadly despite the breeders efforts some people do give their dogs to rescues, but some rescues are also going to work with a good breeder or breed rescue, if this happens, after all lessening their workload has to be a good thing.   That is why I have my current foster as breed rescue were contacted.

> Just a couple more points before I bow out, I assume that people saying dogs are miserable in rescue kennels never board their dogs for holidays or emergencies?

No I never have nor ever will put my dogs in one of the establishments mentioned above.
    I am my breeder and if I can possibly help it, none of my dogs will ever end up in rescue.

> why do people assume that all rescues keep the dogs in cells

It will certainly be far from what they are used to.

>why do people assume that all rescues keep the dogs in cells,

Kennels generally involve a confined space with hard flooring, instead of the run of several carpeted rooms with upholstered furniture, and access to a lawn as they would have been used to. So 'cell' is a pretty accurate description.

>> Just a couple more points before I bow out, I assume that people saying dogs are miserable in rescue kennels never board their dogs for holidays or emergencies?

Not since 1976.

who mentioned uncaring people? the staff in rescue centers are anything but, however they are but human and the majority of rescues are astly overcrowded and understaffed- there is only so much each person can do. if your one person with several kennels to clean and dogs to see to there is a limit of how much time you can spend with each one

I don't understand you're saying that because dogs in rescue don't get the one to one attention dogs in a home do then what do we put them all down?  Im not actually sure the majority of rescues are vastly overcrowded - full yes but overcrowded? 

still hardly ideal though is it?

So because its not ideal by your standards they should be put down?  surely its better than being dead?  (An improvement on their previous lives - but that's a different matter). 

whether to pts certain rescue dogs. not all rescues do not pts

Actually I don't know of any rescue that does not put down - many will not put down healthy dogs but this does not mean they have a no kill policy and will make a dog continue its life in pain or misery

actually i haven't, w always arrange for family to do it and were i to consider to in future i would check out the kennel very carefully before hand to see how much time was spent with each dog etc.

But what if it wasn't quite the ideal - as apparently no kennel situation can be?

thats a complicated question, i guess it depend on the dog and how they take to the new lifestyle

Sorry that was a bit of a loaded question and one for another time really.

The breeder once they sell a dog have no legal rights to it at all.  a sensible owner needing to give their dog up is going to jump at the chance of it going back to the breeder rather than a rescue as the breeder should be far better qualified and have more a vested interest in the dogs they have bred, in order to find them a new home.

Thank you I did know that the contracts are basically worthless and as you've said the breeders have no say over what happens to the dogs once sold.  But why is it more in a breeders vested interest in rehoming a dog than rescues?

Sadly despite the breeders efforts some people do give their dogs to rescues, but some rescues are also going to work with a good breeder or breed rescue, if this happens, after all lessening their workload has to be a good thing.   That is why I have my current foster as breed rescue were contacted.

I think that rescues should get in touch with breed rescue and also try to contact the breeders if at all possible (apart from 1 breed) however they do not always have the resources or financial backing to do this.

But this subject for me has much wider implications before we start knocking the door of rescue societies and telling them where, how, and when to PTS their dogs.   Tackling the overabundance of racing greyhounds finding themselves in rescue for a start, perhaps introducing restrictions on breeding in line with modern demand, doing away with puppy farms, educating the public and making dog ownership a privilege, not a right.    This is only from the top of my head and like anything needs careful deliberation before even being considered a possibility.

Could not agree more with this

I am my breeder and if I can possibly help it, none of my dogs will ever end up in rescue.

But you cannot guarantee one of the dogs you have bred will never end up in rescue

It will certainly be far from what they are used to.

Not necessarily!  It could also be better than what they are used to.  If it was one of the dogs you have bred would you rather it went into a good rescue - maybe where they foster would you rather it be put down?

Kennels generally involve a confined space with hard flooring, instead of the run of several carpeted rooms with upholstered furniture, and access to a lawn as they would have been used to. So 'cell' is a pretty accurate description

Actually a lot of the rescues centres do now have sofa and chairs in the runs to make the dogs more at home and a lot have outdoor runs with grass.  I still dont see why healthy dogs should be put down because a rescue is not the same as a home -which is where this seems to be going/

> Thank you I did know that the contracts are basically worthless and as you've said the breeders have no say over what happens to the dogs once sold.  But why is it more in a breeders vested interest in rehoming a dog than rescues?
>

Maybe that was a poor way of putting it.  A breeder has a personal investment in the dogs they have bred, they are the offspring/siblings of their one loved dogs, they helped give them life and reared them to an age where they could be homed, so they do have a personal vested interest in those individual dogs.

>If it was one of the dogs you have bred would you rather it went into a good rescue - maybe where they foster would you rather it be put down?

My worst fear would be for one of my dogs to go into rescue rather than come back to me, they are my responsibility (and if all breeders and owners accepted that fact there would be hardly any need for rescue), and should not be overloading the rescue system. 

This is why I do all that I can to help ensure it doesn't happen, by careful vetting, stressing to buyers that the dog should come back, no recriminations, and permanently identifying every pup I have bred (except the first litter of four, only one of who is still living) by ear tattoo.

Yes JG and that is what it was with Copper.  He was becoming un-rehomeable.  He is still very difficult but no way is he un-manageable.  He's a great wee dog, but extremely difficult.  It just takes someone to take a difficult animal on board - we do our best :)

CG

> Not necessarily!  It could also be better than what they are used to.  If it was one of the dogs you have bred would you rather it went into a good rescue

My dogs come back to me and no-one (so far) has ever let me down......and I'm talking nearly 30 years.

> Actually a lot of the rescues centres do now have sofa and chairs in the runs to make the dogs more at home and a lot have outdoor runs with grass

But not their family and their familiar surroundings.

> surely its better than being dead?

I know I can only speak for myself but I strongly believe that there are worse things than death. Many agree I'm afraid   ...... that's why they remove inmates belts and laces when they are incarcerated in prison.

> surely its better than being dead?

That comment shocked me.  I would keep the most awful dog imaginable rather than see him/her dead.  Life is better than death.

CG

I think many people will disagree there are worse things than death.

> what do we put them all down?

no one said put them all down, where are you getting that from? what was said was that dogs that either cannot adjust to kennel life and are miserable, have behavioural difficulties and cannot be rehomed are extremely elderly and so are less likely to adjust or have a serious pysical problem should possibly be pts NOT all rescues, thats ludicrous.

> So because its not ideal by your standards they should be put down?  surely its better than being dead?

if my dogs were put in rescue and were suffering psychologically then for their sakes yes. however if they coped ok and were likely to find new homes (which they all probably would) then certainly not. its a matter for careful assesment over a period of time

> Actually I don't know of any rescue that does not put down - many will not put down healthy dogs but this does not mean they have a no kill policy and will make a dog continue its life in pain or misery

council rescues do

> But what if it wasn't quite the ideal - as apparently no kennel situation can be?
>

guess i'm going on holiday where he can come then :) i didn't say no kennel situation can be, i've not been to or seen every kennel so couldn't say, but there is a standard for me that i wouldn't relax for my benefit> But this subject for me has much wider implications before we start knocking the door of rescue societies and telling them where, how, and when to PTS their dogs.   Tackling the overabundance of racing greyhounds finding themselves in rescue for a start, perhaps introducing restrictions on breeding in line with modern demand, doing away with puppy farms, educating the public and making dog ownership a privilege, not a right.    This is only from the top of my head and like anything needs careful deliberation before even being considered a possibility.

>

also couldn't agree more

greyhounds - you seem to be reading things into some posts that just arent there.

No one has said ALL rescue dogs should be put down, no one has said ALL old dogs (or unpretty ones, or wonky ones, or whatever)....

I have said and people have agreed with me, that dogs UNHAPPY with life in kennels, in a rescue that cannot foster them out, dogs who are miserable, who (yes they live in the now but they can remember the past as well!) plod through a miserable, very limited existance, fearful or depressed, mentally damaged... these dogs should NOT be kept in rescues month after month, year after year.

I know none of my dogs would be happy at all in such a situation, I wouldnt put any of them through it either, as much as it may be easier to think 'well hopefully a nice lady will take them..'

No one has said kennel staff are awful or that rescues treat dogs badly on purpose, but I have yet to find a rescue, that kennels, that can provide the home life our pets are used to and enjoy.

Some dogs do really well in a kennel environment, and thats great for them, they stand a good chance of finding their new home. But for those who do badly the situation is made worse by the fact htat a miserable, unhappy dog does not advertise himself well to potential new owners - those dogs who suffer in kennels develop problems that many owners cannot or will not deal with, so every day they spend in kennels their chances of a good new home are fewer and fewer.

Most of the rescues I know of are run by lovely people, doing the very best job they can, with the very best facilities they can provide.

Not one of those would say that their dogs were better off in those kennels than in a good home though - so when it comes down to it you have to think, if you cant FIND a good home... is it fair, or right, to keep the dog kennelled.

And I will not change my mind, there ARE worse things than death, I do not and will not believe in preserving life at any cost.. what IS a life if its miserable and frightening, its a life sentence!

> Actually I don't know of any rescue that does not put down - many will not put down healthy dogs but this does not mean they have a no kill policy and will make a dog continue its life in pain or misery

council rescues do

Im sorry but I think you will find that council rescues or pounds do have a destroy policy and its usually 7 days - many of course try extremely hard and liase with other rescues to get these dogs to a safe place but some do not and others run out of time.

There has been organisations set up to 'rescue ' dogs from council rescues.  If they can't get those not claimed a place at a rescue centre after the 7 days, many are PTS to make room for the next batch.   Maybe we should suspend breeding for a few years to get the numbers of dogs under control......

i meant that they do have a kill policy

> And I will not change my mind, there ARE worse things than death, I do not and will not believe in preserving life at any cost.. what IS a life if its miserable and frightening, its a life sentence

could not agree with you more theemx