Probably a can of worms, so I won't de-rail the RSPCA/Crufts thread with this, but have just read a poster comparing rescue societies who have/don't have this policy. I'm not trying to start an argument, just interested in people's views and solutions.

Don't get me wrong, I am obviously a dog lover, or I wouldn't be here. However, whenever I see this I can't help asking myself whether I think this policy is a good thing, or whether it is hopelessly naive. Have just tried to google numbers of dogs euthanased each year, but I can't find anything that looks reliable. However, I think we're all aware (or is it just perception) that rescue centres are absolutely over-flowing, with people being turned away daily because there is no room.

Honestly, those who support this policy - as we'd all LIKE to be able to - what is the solution? Is it better that the poor staff who know which types of dogs are likely to be able to find a home are given yet another crap job of making these decisions, which nobody would wish upon them. Or should more dogs be shoved in, with even less time and resources available to each animal? What happens to the dogs that are turned away? - perhaps a pain-free end would be a bonus to them.

Such a difficult topic, but I do think that it is perhaps a bit pie in the sky to believe that this is a viable policy these days, I'm afraid. Hopefully someone will be able to give me accurate information to prove me wrong.

M.

> What happens to the dogs that are turned away? - perhaps a pain-free end would be a bonus to them.

That is definately what I believe.  When we see charities adverstising this I always assume they mean when they are full they are full and any dog left outside can fend for itself.  I believe it is much kinder to evaluate which dogs have a realistic chance of making a life with a family again and very definately not to keep any that are destined to a life in kennels.

What happens to the dogs that are turned away? - perhaps a pain-free end would be a bonus to them.

Well I've mentioned before that my husband and stepson saw with their own eyes a man bringing a Rottweiler to the local rescue. He said it had bitten his child. The rescue said they could not take in a dog that had shown aggression ad bitten. (Why they couldn't take it in to be put to sleep I don't know.) So the man simply said  he'd dump it along the motorway then.  I've no doubt somebody like that would.

Not all dogs can be homed, for various reasons (good or bad), not all owners would pay to have an animal put to sleep, and I have several other stories of what happened when our local RSPCA got overfull one year and turned away anyone wanting to hand over an animal.

Sometimes, death is NOT the worst that can happen.

I would love to support the policy 100% but realistically some dogs should not be rehomed - health is of course not the only criteria needing to be evaluated by rescue centres.  Dogs of unstable disposition, and, like it or not, in certain breeds especially, may never be able to safely rehome and if a dog has come in that cannot be realistically offered for adoption at any point (ie. following careful evaluation and attempts to rehabilitate) then for the greater good it is better IMO to euthanise such a dog. 

Dogs live by their senses - particularly scent.  There is no quality of life by way of stimulation for an agressive dog (to people) to spend it's life in a kennel and run with highly restricted physical contact and surrounded by other dogs with which it possibly cannot be allowed to interact :(

A difficult and heart searching subject - not easy and one which must be awful for those in the position of making final decisions. 

I have been agonising over this very point since we had to make the horrendous and heart-breaking decision to let our beautiful adored boy go in January when his aggression had re-occurred. My only satisfaction in this situation is that he had a very happy life with us and his mum, a happy last day and a peaceful end, with me and my OH with him, the only owners he had ever known. This to me has got to be better than spending the rest of his life in kennels - and anyway, he was our responsibility and only ours, we could hardly expect a charity to look after him!
My dilemma is that we actually sponsor a dog on a monthly basis with the charity you refer to. We get regular letters from the dog (!) with a message that we could go and visit her, but wouldn't be able to touch her.....in view of our own experience earlier this year, I'm now wondering whether we are doing the right thing, or should we be donating elsewhere.
My final point is that, at a point when I'm beginning to come to terms with what we had to do, that wretched advertisement - see title of thread - inevitably makes me feel guilty all over again. :-(

> Dogs of unstable disposition, and, like it or not, in certain breeds especially, may never be able to safely rehome and if a dog has come in that cannot be realistically offered for adoption at any point (ie. following careful evaluation and attempts to rehabilitate) then for the greater good it is better IMO to euthanise such a dog.

An interesting point. Even where it is claimed that a 'healthy' dog is never euthanased, I would always have assumed that the statement included physical and mental health.

I would absolutely agree with your point, but I'm talking beyond that to - sorry dogs of this ilk, cover your ears! - the unpopular, unattractive, mentally healthy as such but very specialist, those who've bounced back from new homes a couple of times, for example. Just those whose are much less likely to fit in to the average family.

M.

> We get regular letters from the dog (!) with a message that we could go and visit her, but wouldn't be able to touch her.....in view of our own experience earlier this year, I'm now wondering whether we are doing the right thing, or should we be donating elsewhere.

Maybe it would be an interesting exercise to actually visit and see how you think her quality of life rates. I would be interested to hear how that went.

I'm not specifically talking about any one charity here, as I believe many make the claim, but it would all be very nice if the ones advertised spent their days romping around the fields, as shown in the adverts. Unfortunately, I'm sure this is far from the case, as I guess everyone in rescue centres must have huge demands on them.

M.

Actually that's not feasible as she lives hundreds of miles away. She does say in her letters that she goes and plays on the beach - I've often wondered how that can be, unless of course the kennels have the luxury of a private one!

I give a donation to wiccweays border collie rescue, visit the site and read some of the lovely story's then consider to stop your donations. Especially about the evil that men do.
A chance is all some dogs need, by all means euthanse those that are aggresive and cannot be rehomed to cage an animal is cruel, but many are there because their owners circumstances have changed, some because they are unloved or unwanted, give them a chance. But to save them all ? unrealistic.

> Even where it is claimed that a 'healthy' dog is never euthanased, I would always have assumed that the statement included physical and mental health.
>

I suspect they do and perhaps their advertisements are a little disinguenuous to not be more specific to their donors.

Oh, I bet most if not all of us donate to rescues, Whistler. I donate every month to a 'golden oldies' scheme for my breed, which sponsors dogs which would be unattractive to people looking to rescue because of the high vet bills they might incur. With financial support from the rescue, this enables them to get in to family homes and live a 'proper' life.

M.

Aah good. From the Dogs Trust website: "To ensure that no mentally and physically healthy dog taken into the protection of the rescue/re-homing centres shall be destroyed."

M.

> very specialist, those who've bounced back from new homes a couple of times, for example. Just those whose are much less likely to fit in to the average family.

I think some general rescues fail a lot of dogs as described.  Some would fair better were they handed over to breed rescue and others of course it would matter not - they are not suited to any home/ownership regardless of experience.

We domesticated the dog so it is deserving of a place by the side of the hearth as much as a place in our hearts - to cage it indefinitely is to abuse it.   In such circumstances it is IMO kinder to PTS than to torture them with permanent imprisonment :(

my issue is whats a healthy dog? we had a dog once who for her whole life was an absolute dream, the sweetest dog you'd ever meet. for some reason though when she got a bit older (by no means old) she totally flipped (not any health issue). she started attacking our mastiff for no reason- and this was not a misinterpretation of the signals he was giving, it happened most when he was sleeping. her mother was a bit of a psycho at times as well so i think in this case the genes just won through (fyi, we did not buy this dog, she was the result of an accidental mating that we took in). at one point she went through my then 6 month old nephew to get to the other dog. for my parents that was the last straw and they made the hard decision to have her pts. this is all leading up to what the vet said when they took her in- he did a physical on her and argued with them, really rubbing in how terrible it was having her pts because she was fit physically, he didn't quite grasp that mentally she was not fit.

anyway, there are limited homes available and limited space in shelters so if they do not believe that a dog is physically or mentally fit then definately pts, asothers have said, there are worse things than death.

> I think some general rescues fail a lot of dogs as described.  Some would fair better were they handed over to breed rescue and others of course it would matter not - they are not suited to any home/ownership regardless of experience.
>
> We domesticated the dog so it is deserving of a place by the side of the hearth as much as a place in our hearts - to cage it indefinitely is to abuse it.   In such circumstances it is IMO kinder to PTS than to torture them with permanent imprisonment :-(

absolutely agree, and despite the subject quite a nice sentiment as well, they do deserve the very best from us.

Teri, I very much agree that general rescues would be far better served by liaising with breed rescues. Who is better to find the right home, no general rescue can possibly know the idiosyncrasies of ever breed.

However, in lots of cases I guess the dogs may not be of a specific breed, and some breed rescues must also have far more dogs than homes.

M.

Our vet was completely the opposite - he was 100% supportive of our decision, having noted that we'd trained, seen the behaviourist etc - he said "I only wish more people would do what you are doing - I see the results when these dogs are sent to rescue".
My friend's husband was recently badly bitten when his dog was attacked by someone else's recently rescued dog. The owner muzzled the dog after that, but then it escaped from the garden and killed another dog, after which she had it PTS.

I don't think it all hinges on whether a dog is mentally or physically well, the fact is there are not even enough homes available for all the dogs that are both and given that I believe the responsibility falls to making a hard decision of which amongst them will have the best chance of being successfully homed.

>From the Dogs Trust website: "To ensure that no mentally and physically healthy dog taken into the protection of the rescue/re-homing centres shall be destroyed."

Pondering further on my own posts now! It does make you wonder how - for example - Carene's sponsor dog fits into this category if they know that they couldn't trust her to have any stranger touch her. Carene, is she the 10 year old?

M.

Our GR came from a national rescue. He was given up at 10 weeks, complete with KC papers, by the person who had bought him from the breeder. When I asked the rescue why he had been passed to them rather than returned to his breeder I was told that the purchasers had more money than sense and that it was their decision what happened to him and they had decided on taking him to a rescue centre in the area where they lived - I think embarrasment also played a part.

The rescue staff were quite dismissive of the idea that the breeder would probably want him back to rehome ( we were told he came from a reputable source )  and we were not allowed to know who had bred him but were given a date of birth for insurance purposes, which we were later told was an approximation despite the fact that they had his correct date of birth on his papers. The staff member I dealt with at the rescue was very dismissive of pedigree dogs in general but I got the impression that this was because they so often dealt with dogs from dubious backgrounds who would not be wanted back by the breeders. We were not allowed to receive his papers and any mention of breed rescue was not met favourably. The impression I got was breed rescues weren't really considered for use by this particular rescue because pedigree dogs were easy to rehome and weren't in their rescue for very long.

In view of the huge numbers of dogs that go into rescue, and the lack of available spaces, I would have thought that being able to free up a space by passing a dog on to a breed rescue would have been jumped at. The rescue we dealt with seemed to have a "them and us" view where pedigree dogs are concerned which I was quite surprised by.

To be honest, I've no idea how old she is, but we have been sponsoring her for quite a while! Come to think of it, we originally started this sponsorship thing in 1997 - it was a different sponsor dog then - as the local rescue from which we had had our previous dog, and which we used to support financially, was very off-hand when, after the dog died, we took in all his bedding, food etc as we had no intention of having another dog. We were distraught with grief for that dog at the time, and had hoped for a bit of empathy...:-(

I know of an RSPCA centre near to me where they had one of my breed some years ago and they would not part with it - even although I tried to explain the dog (a young bitch of around 10-14 months,mouth visibly overshot by about an inch :( ) had a better chance of finding a home through breed specific rescue.  I was asked to go there representing breed rescue in the first place because of a TV programme which had briefly shown the kennels and a fleeting glimpse of what appeared to be another of my breed (adult, different variety).  The older dog was no longer there (if indeed it ever was one of my breed).

I also know of cases where breed rescue volunteers have had to purchase a dog from the same RSPCA centre just to get the dog out of there - then still having to pass them through breed rescue :(

The centre had an abundance of pedigree dogs in all shapes, sizes and age brackets - I'm sure several breed rescues would at the very least have been interested to know of their whereabouts.  I hope the RSPCA have a change of policy in these matters as some breeds definitely require in depth knowledge in order to find a new forever home and not have a dog being bounced around for months or years only to end up being PTS through no fault of its own :(

Talking of rescues, did anyone see "New Tricks" last night, when Brian and his wife were looking for a rescue dog after losing Scruffy - they were turned down for a puppy as "too old", and poor Brian was in despair - he said the only people rescue seemed to consider were young people with no children who were home all day and had a large garden....I think this point has been raised before recently, obviously they want to be sure the dog will have a happy, permanent home, but perhaps sometimes a bit of flexibility wouldn't go amiss.

I think that a much as THAT BBC programme highlighted issues (some real, some very over exaggerated and I beleive some blatant lies) with pedigree dog breeding, there are also serious issues which need to be addressed within rescue centres too, as many of the posters experiences on here show.

My friend approached a well known rescue to find a dog, and was refused outright on the phone as she was asked if both her and her partner worked - she said yes they both did, and was told 'well we won't rehome a dog to people who are both out all day, so sorry, you can't have a dog'. They actually hung up on her, and didn't give her the chance to say 'yes, but...I only work mornings and hubby works from home 3 days per week minimum.' They ended up purchasing a pedigree from a breeder in the end.

I fail to understand why rescues would pass up the opportunity to move a dog to breed rescue where people who understand the breed are best able to rehome the dog.  It would be lovely to think that no healthy dog would ever be PTS, but there are fates worse than death, and if a dog stands little or no chance of finding a forever home through rescue, then to be PTS in my eyes is a better option than a limited life without the amount of exercise, stimulation or human/dog contact that is needed for good mental and physical health.

Claire

>I don't think it all hinges on whether a dog is mentally or physically well.

Me either,  I'm sure healthy dogs are pts even under a non destruct policy. That "healthy dog" statement is a bit of a coverall isn't it and comes down to what is considered healthy by that rescue.

But you can't blame the rescue centres really, how many dogs are handed in to rescue every year in the UK?  Lots of those dogs will have behaviour problems, can't be left for more than 2 hrs, can't live with children, can't live with other pets. Or is this just the rescue being over careful so that the dog doesn't end up back in rescue?

I think the re-homing criteria should be based on the merits of the individual dog & potential owner and not the blanket policy of the re-homing centre.

I hate it that dogs are killed daily because no one wants them, but PTS is kinder than living in kennels for you whole life with no chance of a comfortable loving home.
 

The DogsTrust has a house within it's own grounds where some of their "un-rehomable" dogs go to live out the rest of their lives. Resident housekeeper and staff to look after the dogs. Have been trying to find a link to post but not had any luck so far - it was featured in their magazine.

> The DogsTrust has a house within it's own grounds where some of their "un-rehomable" dogs go to live out the rest of their lives. Resident housekeeper and staff to look after the dogs. Have been trying to find a link to post but not had any luck so far - it was featured in their magazine.

I love CD - even on subjects I'm not quite so interested in I find the comments and topics often lead me to wander off and do a bit of further research in places I might never have visited!!  I've just spent ages on the DogsTrust site.  I think this is the bit you might mean?

I just looked at one of their rehoming sites and found a few less common pedigree dogs listed - I wonder if breed rescue was ever informed?

And doesn't poor Rex, the 'bulldog cross', look like a great candidate for being held under the DDA :(  That poor mite is likely to end up in 'prison' regardless of Dogs Trusts policies.

Rather strange no photos of the dogs with a field, shelter and 'hierarchy' of their own ..... TBH, I don't think I find some of their info very credible.

Now here's an interesting concept from my wanderings on their website. Not sure what I think of this one, as it's so out of the realms of what I would have expected - although that doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing.

M.

>Some of our dogs prefer not to live with people and these live in our sanctuary.

>This large secure field with shelter, allows dogs to roam and form a natural hierarchy.

>The dogs here are happy, content and living a life that nature intended. They are fed regularly, health-checked and have human interaction with two dedicated carers.

That was one of the pieces that concerned me too - I can't honestly say that if it's true I'm comfortable with it (potential for feral behaviour etc) but equally I'm not inclined to think it is entirely true, or at least not with the rosy picture they are presumably trying to portray .......

How securely kept are these "as nature intended" dogs really?   What happens if the only two folks with which they have any trust are sick, on holiday, leave?  How are they 'health checked' in this roaming environment?

Sorry, I don't buy this.  Perhaps the RSPCA need to look more closely at what this lot are up to ;)

It's a very bizarre thought, isn't it?

M.

>The dogs here are happy, content and living a life that nature intended. They are fed regularly, health-checked and have human interaction with two dedicated carers.

You really would not be the least surprised to find that on a PETA site would you.

>> I don't think it all hinges on whether a dog is mentally or physically well.

What I meant was I don't think it can.  There simply aren't enough homes for the fully fit in both departments.

I'd be interested in numbers of dogs living in Dogstrust "sanctuary" and a little fuller description of how they work this, introduce new dogs etc. I agree Teri those carers must be incredibly dedicated if they dont take leave or go sick! Heaven forbid they die.

I have recently been arguing with a work mate as she cannot see past the dog trust. She got her pup from them last year. Her first dog, and thinks they are wonderfull. I was somewhat shocked they sold her a 6 week old pup that had to be spayed before it was ayear old.  She says quite happily that if she had to give the dog up for any reason she would take it back to the dogs trust and let them rehome it.  I have asked what happens if they cant and she is very happy to let her much loved pet live in kennels for the rest of its life. I just dont understand this.  She says all Dogs Trusts kennels are situated either on the edge of a woods or beach so they can walk the dogs daily. Any dog that is there for life is treated to these daily walks.  But they are still kennel dogs but she couldnt see it. I would never ever want my two girls to end up in kennels for life. I wont even put them in boarding kennels as i know they would hate it  instead i have holidays so I can take them with me. They sleep in my bed at night and are like children to me.  I would also worry that they were homed and then bounced back for some reason. Maybe the new owners wouldnt want them to sleep in their beds and they howled at night because they didnt like being left alone. This is the kind of thing they wouldnt know until they were homes. How many homes would they go to until they decided they were not homeable?  They are totally bonded to each other and i would hate the idea they were to be seperated but what chance do two dogs have to find a home especailly as they are different breeds and have totally different characters

I think to I would have to have a very good reason to part with my girls and if I did I think I would have to rehome them myself and not use a rescue or pts then I would know they were safe and happy.  She thinks this is awfull and cant understand as a so called animal lover how I can even think along these lines.  Because I love my dogs so much

Some of our dogs prefer not to live with people and these live in our sanctuary.

I'm hoping that these are dogs which do not show people aggression, IMO if so they should be pts and would be a great danger to keep alive. Imagine a pack of people aggressive dogs, as said very dangerous.

I'm hoping that for whatever reasoning they have just been brought up with a fear of humans, the kind of dogs which will run and hide, cower from humans, some dogs have had terrible lives, and as we know they go one of two ways aggressive or extremely submissive, perhaps these are the traits of such dogs and they feel the healing process of introducing human and dog as trusted friends would be too difficult to climb.  I think for dogs such as this a natural pack and open sactuary is wonderful and that they get to live a good life still.

If so, it's  heartwarming to think such dogs have a happy ending, and are not pts as they have no purpose as pets.

Our local DogsTrust has a house in the grounds in which the manager lives. I understand that the longterm residents that have not found a  home live in the house with the manager. I know that she often has one of the dogs in her office with her and that, on occasions, a dog that has not settled in the kennels will be out with the staff behind the reception desk.

There are at least 2 dogs there who have been in rescue for over a year and these dogs are housedogs with the staff. Staff will often accomodate dogs that are not doing well in kennels at their homes if they possibly can.

The kennels have a lot of land and have just acquired more to build a new centre next door.

I will have to search for my copy of Wag (DT publication) and reread the article on the sanctuary.

I went for an interview once at a well known rescue centre who opperates the "no Healthy Dog is PTS" policy.
At interview one of the questions I was asked was  how I felt and how I would react  about them having to put dogs to sleep when

1 the dogs are agressive
2 there is no room for them as the centre is full

as they said if you get too upset and let it affect you too much you wouldnt cope with the job very well

So I know that the no "healthy dogs are PTS" policy   is not strictly true....However I do sponsor dogs there myself in the hope that they will be looked after somewhere for the rest of their lives.

When i was looking for a dog before i have my current boy i checked through many different rescue centres and they  advised that the 2 breeds i was looking i would have to call their breed rescue. They had a huge book will all contacts in different breed recues. So maybe they may do this.

I was flicking through all the dogs up for rescue on the DT website and found a pedigree Norweigan Elkhound, well i was aghast that it was there and not in breed rescue considering they aren't all that popular compared to other breeds. I actually called the NE club rescue up and advised them. They said they would look into it, hoping they got that dog out of there.

I know with certain breeds the breed rescue's can't take them all in like Rotti's and Staffy's, they have a tough time of rehoming what comes to them without all the ones in general rescue.
Sad state of affairs in my mind.

What horrified me in in this link was of the 10 week old GR being put into rescue.. What goes through these peoples minds, do they really think bringing up a puppy is easy, did the breeder do a good enough job of expressing how demanding they can be at this age?? Who knows, maybe the owners thought they could cope..
If i had any issues the breeder would be the first point of call, then the owner of the sire, then would go through all contacts in the breed that may be able to assist and then i would try breed rescue.

I think a lot of it is lack of knowledge on certain breeds and their traits.

Battersea has a dept dealing with rescue Akita's alone. Which in a way is good as they can't go to just any home, though it makes me think is the breed rescue full to breaking point as well??
Taking on something like an Akita is not for the faint hearted.

Every dog shoud be given a 2nd chance in my eyes unless its due to extreme aggression etc, espicially if the dog through no fault of its own has become homeless I would much much prefer to know he is a kennel in rescue then dumped on the streets starving waiting to be killed by a car or PTS in the prime of his life when he was always able to be rehomes just cause we dont see the need to save dogs which dont have homes :(
The Blue Cross do amazing things and they are so much more helpful then the rspca, but thats just me :)

> just cause we dont see the need to save dogs which dont have homes :-(

I think it is more a case of being realistic about the posibility of every single one getting a home.  How are the logistics supposed to work when all these homes do not exist?  Nor is there space in all these kennels for life even if you think that is an acceptable life for a dog to live.

I know thats true, but its just so sad :(

It doesnt help when stupid programmes come out blasiting peds so more end up in rescue, Id hate to think of how many healthy cavs are in there now wondering what they did wrong to deserve being rehomed..... :(

I still donate to the blue cross over the rspca tho but again thats just me.

Just quickly to add - I still think that a life ina kennel no matter for how long with caring people around you and regular exercise is still better then being pts or left for the fates to decide on roads and stuff from being chucked out, its sad they would have to live in a kennel but thats better then being abused etc, just wanted to add that :)

Rach, I think you're entirely under-estimating the number of dogs in rescue kennels, let alone those who have been turned away because there is simply no room to squeeze them in.

And I still maintain that NO dog is in rescue because of that programme. I'm sure various people found it a super excuse, but loving dog owners do not put their friends in to rescue because of something that may or may not happen in the future.

M.

> Rach, I think you're entirely under-estimating the number of dogs in rescue kennels, let alone those who have been turned away because there is simply no room to squeeze them in.
>

I think if I was to admit the real amount I wouldnt be able to stop crying thinking about those poor dogs just waiting for a home :(
I know every dog cant be saved, there just isnt the numbers of people or homes which is so heartbreaking but I do salute blue cross for what they do. and at least try to help that little bit more...

> But loving dog owners do not put their friends in to rescue because of something that may or may not happen in the future.
>

Completely agree 100%.
That programme hasnt put me off wanting a Cav when Im older and want a lap dog or a small dog what so ever, just made me wanna learn more about them and understand their breeding more so I know where to go for a well bred KC reg one, why cant everyone else think like that rather then let the media think for them? :(

Anyway its still so sad about these dogs but I do agree with what your saying....just so sad....

>I think if I was to admit the real amount I wouldnt be able to stop crying thinking about those poor dogs just waiting for a home

That's the reason why we on here get so fed up with the BYBs and people who want 'just one litter because Flossie's so sweet', or 'she'd be a great mum', or all the other feeble excuses to add to the canine population.

Never Put A Healthy Dog Down

I think that we all need to accept it will have many different meanings, to even different rescue centres.

All rescues/charities start off to do the right thing, to give a home and hopefully a new life to unwanted dogs. Unfortunately, money, staff, the amount of resources, kennels etc they have, always gets in the way.  Any rescue is only ever going to be as good as the money it has to keep it going.  And they and only they have the decision to make as to what is healthy and viable to keep in kennels, healthy will in some cases just be a good all rounded dog mentally and physically.

Personally I feel we need even more rescue kennels it is an ever increasing problem, but that probably isn't viable and I guess some will look and say why are we funding to have all these dogs that can not be homed, perhaps there will be more and more of rescues turning away peoples dogs when they are full to capacity.

It is pretty obvious at least to me that many dogs will loose their lives who have minor health issues and behavioural problems.

There surely is not the room, to never put a healthy dog down.

We know many dogs are with the wrong owner or get sent off to rescue when they become a tad unruly, perhaps it is time to put the blame where it should be, perhaps rescues should charge £5-£10 a week for dogs taken in until re-homed, or a one off £100 charge to take in a dog?  Though I guess that may cause serial dumping, but it is just a thought.

So true JG and I have had my first expierances of it too for the first time since we got Turbo and when I walk Turbo and Mitz together I have had a few people seriously ask if I am going to mate Mitzy and Turbo???!!!?!?!?!?!?! and when I have said no way I would never ever mate her as she isnt KC reg and shes leggy they STILL say 'well I would do it as they would have good looking pups and I would buy one, let me know''

Mitz was spade and we always planned too because we knew we could never ever breed her 1- because she is our first bitch and breeding her would have been too scary and immoral and 2nd she isnt kc reg or to the standard I wish other would follow suit then this converstaion wouldnt even need to happen :(

That was a nice post Carrington, espicially like the fee bit for rescue thats a good idea, but like you say it may cause more motorway drop offs :(

Actually I understood that some rescues do charge people a fee when they take in a dog?

Really?  Good for them! :-)

> That's the reason why we on here get so fed up with the BYBs and people who want 'just one litter because Flossie's so sweet', or 'she'd be a great mum', or all the other feeble excuses to add to the canine population.

Exactly!  It is not more bleak kennels or even kennels mascarading as nice little fields with chums in that dogs want it is a holt to the massive overbreeding, particularly so in some breeds more than others.