Every so often i look at local rescues websites out of couriosty and ive noticed they all seem say if the dog is over 6 months they will neuter it befor it leaves, and they also say they wont allow people to adopt a dog if they have an unneutered dog. But why? if the dog from them is neutered why does it matter if the current dog is or not as its not like you can breed it to the dog from them.

Bit like child adoption anyone would think their job was to hold on to the children and dogs by thinking up as many reasons why someone can't have a child or puppy as they can possible dream up.

I have never understood this. I would happily have a rescue or four (!) as I have a soft spot for the oldies, but because I show, my girls are unneutered and so I'm only eligble a handful of places. Its ridiculous!!

thats exactly my thinking, i would maby like to forster in the future but wouldnt be able as mine isnt done and i have no plan to change that. They are allways saying rescues are full and having to turn away dogs as there isnt enough homes for them, yet rescues seem to be turning away perfectly good homes. It just doesnt make sence to me.

It seems bonkers to me too.
I've found that small independent rescues tend to be a bit more flexible, but it does seem that the "big boys " have a policy and stick to it, even if it means passing up on an excellent home.

> all seem say if the dog is over 6 months they will neuter it befor it leaves, and they also say they wont allow people to adopt a dog if they have an unneutered dog. But why? if the dog from them is neutered why does it matter if the current dog is or not as its not like you can breed it to the dog from them.

Presumably dog in this instance is the 'family' term and covers both sexes?  Do you have experience of being turned down?  I'd have thought that it's to discourage people from adopting/buying in breeding partners and to impress upon potential owners their duty of care.  I'd hope there was a little flexibility based on 1:1 assessment and individual circumstances...

Presumably dog in this instance is the 'family' term and covers both sexes?  Do you have experience of being turned down?
i asume they mean both sexes yeah. No ive not applyed, was just thinking it would be nice to maby foster in the future (got my handsfull with the new pup lol)

I'd have thought that it's to discourage people from adopting/buying in breeding partners
But how as the dogs they are adopting out have been neutered allready so they couldnt be bred from. (Not questioning them neutering the dogs befor they go, i can see why they would do that, just dont get not wanting to adopting to homes with intact dogs.)

> But how as the dogs they are adopting out have been neutered allready so they couldnt be bred from

Ah I see.  Well our experience with a rescue is that they rehomed our boy to us, at guessed age of 9/10 months, on the understanding that WE would have him neutered.  They just walked us to the 'cash desk' (their words not ours) with no vetting and only a few cursory questions to ask where we lived.  They never followed up to check whether the op had been done OR how settled in with us.  This was Manchester Dogs Home, 9 years ago.

MDH does not have a good reputation for its approach to homing dogs - I've only read 2 or 3 good reports versus dozens of bad, poorly made matches with no homechecks and the like.

Going back to the original topic - I've never quite understood the neutering thing either - I would understand it if the dog being adopted was not yet neutered and the dog at home was female and entire (or vice versa) - that makes perfect sense.  When I was meeting Linc they checked if all mine were done - they are, but as he already was anyway I did wonder at the point of it.

Possibly it's a responsibility thing - taking the view that if the other dogs are already done, the owner has no intention of breeding generally so is more responsible in that way, but I am theorising there.  It's not a view I take, incidentally, just thinking of possible reasons. :-)

MDH has a terrible reputation :-(  I know someone who worked there and also someone from another rescue organisation that took dogs from them.  They have a reputation for killing anything that 'curls a lip' and also to put hurdles down to stop people (like the person who used to work there but left!) from helping dogs... it's so sad.  I'm sure that they do all those things ... but they do other stuff too :-(

I've had a dog from Dogs Trust and also from a collie rescue - I have a local rescue that I support and direct people too, they wouldn't worry about letting people with entire dogs rescue, they just want a good home.  I don't understand why there are so many barriers to taking on a rescue - they are missing out a lot of good homes.  I would fail on a number of counts from many

*  I breed occasionally
*  I have entire dogs
*  I have a lot of dogs

Yet so do a lot of people.. if they show, or compete they often have a lot of dogs and some will be entire... I neutered my rescue (as stipulated by the rescue organisations) so what's the problem?  They had a good life with me............

I was  turned away because of this reason they said if my own.girl had seasons or Pups it woukd be psychologically traumatic for her the rescue . As she was used as a brood Bitch in the past, at the time I thought it was a rediculous excuse but now after doing some work for a rescue I see why. But only because she was an ex brood and if she was badly treated and neglected. She may not but if you can think of a poor puppy farm Bitch then I.could easily agree, it could be very traumatic. But when.dogs.are.crying out for homes and we are.not.just your average Joe dog owner then.there loss. I'm happy buying puppies as its not such a.lottery with temperament.

If the dog or bitch is neutered or spayed before leaving the rescue and is going to a home with neutered/spayed dogs I don't see a problem. I do however see a problem when as happened a couple of years ago a bitch who was not spayed was sent to a kennel by a well known rescue and was subsequently bred from, and it was deliberately done too.

> Possibly it's a responsibility thing - taking the view that if the other dogs are already done, the owner has no intention of breeding generally so is more responsible in that way, but I am theorising there.  It's not a view I take, incidentally, just thinking of possible reasons. :-)

Many in rescue/rescues have a very anti breeding ethos.  They have the over simplistic view that if not more dogs were bred then the ones in rescue now would all be found good homes.

The Animal Rights movement whose real aim is to do away with animals kept as pets altogether (and probably all domestic animals) and PETA have admitted it is their ultimate aim, encourage this negative view.

They feel there are no good breeders because the vast majority of dogs they help rescue do not come from such breeders.  the fact is that most reputable caring breeders support and help, rescue over and above their responsibility for dogs they have bred themselves.

My friend tried to help a dog sired by her boy (not bred by her) who ended up in a Blue Cross shelter.  She was considered unsuitable as a multi dog owner.

As part of an extremely small breed specific rescue I can say this had never occurred to us as something to consider, and having considered it - it seems plain silly!  We want the best, most suitable home for each dog in need.  OK, soem are not suitable to be homed in multi dog enviroments, but as long as our Rescue has been or is about to be neutered I don't see why the status of other dogs in the family should have any effect on the suitability of the home.

>If the dog or bitch is neutered or spayed before leaving the rescue and is going to a home with neutered/spayed dogs I don't see a problem.

If the dog or bitch from the rescue has been neutered (castrated or spayed) then it doesn't matter about any other dogs in the household, because it can't be used for breeding.

I got turned away from an SSPCA dog home because I had kids!! The dog we were interested in was a 12 week old mastiff cross but he wouldn't be re-homed with kids because he was a 'bit bitey' and might jump up on the kids and knock them over!!OMG! "He's a pup" came my reply"If he didn't bit and jump up, I'd be more worried"? But no, that pup stayed in that dogs home for another 6 weeks before finding a home.  I found my boy at 5 months through a private rescue thing and they had no problem with homing to us with the kids as the dog was under a year.  Also, It's been left to me to decide when to neuter him as he is large breed but they know I have unspayed bitches.  We have had a run of seasons and I sucessfully kept them all separate but I cannot wait till he gets to the magic 18 months to get them off!!

Some rescues seem to not want to re-home their dogs.  I understand the kids thing with older dogs but not with a pup.  And I understand the neutering thing but surely if the rescue take care of their side(EG The dog they place being neutered), then they have nothing to concern them that way.  More homechecks should be undertaken to assess each case rather than just hard and fast rules.

As a home checker I have been in a couple of homes where the children were so unruly and the parents seemingly unable to control them that I've advised they were unsuitable for a dog, but I certainly don't agree with a blanket ban on puppies and small children, I've met some very kind, dog savvy kids in my time, some better than their parents !. I think the blanket, small kids and dogs ban, is just another example of our nanny state.

The January Dogs Today magazine has an interesting section on rescue/rehoming dogs. There are several pages of dogs looking for a home and I tried looking at them all hypothetically to see if there was one which would suit my circumstances. There wasn't one which fitted I'm afraid, if they weren't too big then they were not suitable with other dogs, or young children, or had issues if left alone. I've heard a lot of people say they wanted to rescue a dog but were constantly turned away by rescues big and small for reasons such as they had cats, children, another dog etc and the blanket neuter policy was mentioned too. Even if they were deemed suitable, chances were the only dogs available/offered were staffy types, which probably wasn't what they really wanted. Many people faced with the restrictions posed by rescue centres end up buying a pup after all. Sometimes they are sensible and go to a good breeder but others simply end up fuelling the trade of puppy farmers and BYB which puts so many dogs in rescue in the first place!

I feel desperatly sorry for dogs who end up in rescue through no fault of their own, but I don't think trying to persuade every potential owner to have a staffy type is the way to go either. It's not a breed that is suitable for all by a long shot. There needs to be far far more focus on the places/people that are breeding these willy nilly to combat the number that are ending up in shelters and the rehoming charities perhaps need to be a little more flexible with their policies. It may be that on enquiry, they are willing to make exceptions but many people are probably deterred by the stated policy and won't go any further.

Celli, I know what you mean.  I, too, do homechecks and temperment assessments for a specific breed rescue.  Some homes are really unsuitable and the kids are just awful.  You wouldn't give them a goldfish!!  But then there are the kids(like mine) that are brought up with dogs as part of the family.  They are raised to know not to treat them like a toy, to know that if you push too far you will get told off(growling) which if, no attention paid, will be followed by teeth(never happened but kids know), to know that the dogs have feelings too, to know to either hang onto something or get out the road of the door rush!!lol, and many more such rules.  This is what I mean by a case to case basis, especially with pups, when their is enough in rescue allready.

I, too, read the dogs monthly article with the resuces in.  NO KIDS ALLOWED!!PAH! All of the dogs were suitable for homes with older kids over 10!! No cats, no other dogs.  My new question is....what are all the behaviourist doing if they can't re-train those simple issues?

I have never tried to rescue a dog through an organisation but i have two rescue cats. When i was looking for cats to take on i tried several of the bigger name rescues and was turned down because i have children under 5 and big dogs. This was a blanket policy. So i tried a small local rescue outfit and they welcomed us with open arms and we had two young cats installed within a month selected for us because they liked big dogs when tested! I do agree that the attitude of some rescues is driving some people into the hands of backyard breeders. Some friends of mine tried to put their name down for a pup from battersea from a rescued litter. They were turned away as they had a child under 5. So instead they went to a backyard staffie breeder and bought a pup. Now their pup has got his forever home but i bet one of the others in that litter or their offspring are sitting in battersea waiting for rescue! Its such a pity

I don't agree with a blanket ban, it would be better for the rescue's to assess each individual, potential new owners circumstance's.  Saying that though i can think of one rescue that always seem to be so stretched & manically busy i doubt very much they would have the time to consider individual circumstance's.  I guess its more straightforward for them to place the blanket ban & insist all resident dogs are neutered/spayed.

Another reason perhaps & i speak from experience with having one neutered boy, one spayed girl & 2 unspayed girls atm....hormones!!!
One of my girls gets extremely tetchy & a bit unpredictable (she is going to be spayed after this season) when her season is due & for the 1st few days into it.  This does cause quite a lot of upset/friction within their little pack.  If someone were to mix in another dog from a rescue into this kind of situation it would be totally unfair on the rescue dog.  The rescue's need to do everything in their power to find a forever home & to constantly have to rehome the same dog from one home to another must be very upsetting for any dog & sad for the rescue's. Which in some situations could have been avoided.

Apologies if this has already been mentioned on another post, I've been in bed with the flu!!
Thought this was an "interesting" article.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081502/Stray-dogs-There-345-day-hard-dog-loving-home.html

I hope the rescue comes and takes the dogs back the stupid woman. What a message to send out lie and get what you want just because you think it is wrong. The reason why there are so many dogs in rescue are because so many dogs are sold to inappropriate homes, talk about the potential to compound the problem :-(

She came to a canix race with Juno and did a story on it, she totally mocked the whole event and even lied about the distance she ran and her time !!  Her and her husband were typical "townies" wearing totally inappropriate clothes.  She came back from her run completely clean, the rest of us were filthy.

I really hope the rescue come and take the dogs back, what a stupid article to write !

>I called the dog home to register our interest and was told their policy was never to re-home puppies into families with children younger than eight years old because -- and I quote: 'We can't guarantee the puppy won't, at some point in the future, bite one of your children.'

>Instead, we were offered an older dog, one that had been assessed and deemed suitable to be around small people.

I wonder why she could not see the intelligence behind that reasoning.

This is an interesting situation. Firstly what absolutely stunning dogs! Secondly, I never believe anything that is written in the papers and can guarantee her article will be full of exaggeration and 'writers' license' to entertain or provoke her readers. Thirdly, if the dogs are in a busy family environment and well fed and well exercised and have health care and games and space and all is suited to their needs and energy levels etc etc then that is a great life for them and I would never dream of removing them from their home and family just because of a women making money out of telling stories starring her dogs and behaving in an annoying way!

As for assessing dogs for suitability around children... I really don't see the intelligence behind the reasoning and would welcome a bit more info on this. I don't know what the tests involve. I can agree that not all puppies in a litter would be suitable for a home with small children, but why would they always assume that none would be and yet be happy to send older dogs to a home with small children? As a parent I find myself agreeing instinctively with the writer on this point. As I posted above, I know that others feel the same way and often end up getting puppies from poor sources because they are turned away by rescues. (Not me I hasten to add! And not because I failed to bang on about where they should look to find a puppy!) Why do rescues think they need to 'guarantee' a dog's or pup's behaviour beyond assessing and placing with care? Is it the litigation culture affecting their policies? If so, what a pity.

> I don't know what the tests involve.

I presume experienced people assess their behaviour and reaction to children.

> Is it the litigation culture affecting their policies?

That and the prospect of children being hurt I expect.

> She came to a canix race with Juno and did a story on it, she totally mocked the whole event and even lied about the distance she ran and her time !!  Her and her husband were typical "townies" wearing totally inappropriate clothes.  She came back from her run completely clean, the rest of us were filthy.

Interesting! So I guess we can look forward to more inaccurate stories focussed on the dog world in future?

> I really hope the rescue come and take the dogs back, what a stupid article to write !

I wouldn't really wish that on anyone - but she's either being inaccurate about what she said and did to get these dogs, or deliberately leaving herself wide open to that possibility. Rescues do read the national dailies and certainly could recognise those dogs in the photo!

Perhaps her next article will be how she stood up to the rescue in court when she defaulted [by omission] on the contract she signed with them?

> Perhaps her next article will be how she stood up to the rescue in court when she defaulted [by omission] on the contract she signed with them?

That could be very interesting indeed as I have long wondered how these contracts fall within the eyes of the law.  I suspect the law would say "you pay for a dog, it is yours"  When I buy a skirt from Oxfam you could say I am making a donation but I would still be outraged if they came and took it back because I had put on weight and I looked like splitting the seams or some other abuse :)
Has one of these contracts ever been contesting does anyone know?

> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">Apologies if this has already been mentioned on another post, I've been in bed with the flu!!<br />Thought this was an "interesting" article.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2081502/Stray-dogs-There-345-day-hard-dog-loving-home.html

When i read this yesterday i felt sickened....who does she think she is!!!  no doubt she would be rushing either of the dogs back to the rescue if they did bite her children.  One of the worst things was hiding the fact that she had a toddler!!  Disgusting.

> Has one of these contracts ever been contesting does anyone know?

Wouldn't it be similar to puppy contracts?

> Wouldn't it be similar to puppy contracts?

Probably :)  I only ever regard my contract as reassurance to the buyer.

> Probably :-) I only ever regard my contract as reassurance to the buyer.

I read one recently where there was a £8,000 penalty clause included if the buyer defaulted on the conditions.

> I read one recently where there was a £8,000 penalty clause included if the buyer defaulted on the conditions.

I'd like to see that stand up in court! :-D 

> I'd like to see that stand up in court!

So would I.... but as a spectator not a defendant....

:)

TBH, at one stage when we were dealing with the re-homing centres, I contemplated 'hiding' my toddler.  I didn't do it because I had a perfectly good home to offer the dog in question so I shouldn't have to lie but I just wanted to get that pup out of the horrible council kennel environment at such a crucial stage of his life.  I told the warden this and he as much as told me that I should have because most other people do!

With regards to this writer and her experiences, I am horrified that she HAD to lie!  And what hoops she had to leap through to 'rescue'.  I know my temper would have went long before hers.  I used to take my old girl on homechecks but she always was groomed as if going to a show.  I feel that a homecheck, vet check and family visit to see the pup should have been sufficient.

> I feel that a homecheck, vet check and family visit to see the pup should have been sufficient.

All that is done in the acknowledgement that some homes are just not suitable.  No point in doing it to just tick boxes and give the dog over anyway. 
To me the wrtier does not sound at all like a person who can safely manage puppies and children nor does it appear she has made particularly wise choices having decided to dispense with the properly informed recommendations from the rescue society. 
The last think a dog in rescue needs is to be sent to yet another unsuitable home.

Going back to the original question...

Some rescues with this policy will tell you its because entire dogs will upset neutered ones, it will cause fights, blah blah etc...

The actual reason is that they point blank refuse to support or condone breeding of any kind, OR the keeping of entire animals (because according to them, entire animals are THE problem that causes unwanted dogs. Apparently responsible owners have nothing to do with it.)

You will find there are rescues who will refuse to rehome a dog if you are pro hunting of any kind (I know someone turned down because she described her horse as a hunter - she in fact has never hunted!), if you have bred OTHER species of animals (i know someone turned down because she pointed out her homebred mare and foal in the field), if you ever intend to keep the dog outdoors for any period of time (again I know quite a few people turned down because they have secure outdoor kennels for those odd times they need a dog put away somewhere secure. One lady had no intention of using the kennels, they came with the house!)....

Many of these decisions are based on the rescue owner/staff's own personal politics and have NOTHING to do with animal welfare or the risk of their animals being bred from or returned to rescue.

In addition to that, many many rescues and very pro-rescue people will not deal with anyone who breeds AND rescues - they do NOT see it as a reputable breeder doing their bit for rescue dogs at all, so if you thought you were being helpful by rescuing or helping with the rescue of your breed, alongside occasionally breeding a litter, you are the very DEVIL incarnate!

To balance this out, there ARE some great rescues about, who don't have an agenda or extremist views and will assess each potential adopter on their own merits and find them the right dog for their home - but JUST like finding a reputable, responsible breeder - finding a sane rescue run by sane people is bloody hard work!

> The actual reason is that they point blank refuse to support or condone breeding of any kind, OR the keeping of entire animals (because according to them, entire animals are THE problem that causes unwanted dogs. Apparently responsible owners have nothing to do with it.)
>
>

> Many of these decisions are based on the rescue owner/staff's own personal politics and have NOTHING to do with animal welfare or the risk of their animals being bred from or returned to rescue.
>
> In addition to that, many many rescues and very pro-rescue people will not deal with anyone who breeds AND rescues - they do NOT see it as a reputable breeder doing their bit for rescue dogs at all, so if you thought you were being helpful by rescuing or helping with the rescue of your breed, alongside occasionally breeding a litter, you are the very DEVIL incarnate!
>
>

Sadly this has been my expereince when I have contacted some rescues when they have one of our breed in to check it isn't one of mine if age and location give me a heart stopping moment (I ask them to check for ear tattoos), and then pass on our breed Rescues details.  Some rescues won't deal with breed rescue or breeders wanting to be responsible, teh Dogs Trust will work with us.

Exactly Stooge if you saw the amount of dogs that rescue get through where they have been in three or four homes because of the lack of proper investigation or thought about fitting the right dog with the right owner you will see why rescue will act with extreme caution when placing dogs in new homes.

Just because there is a glut of dogs shouldn't mean rules should be relaxed.

I get some of the rules - and others I disagree with.  But I definitely agree that relaxing the rules is not the way to go.  BUT - why won't most rescue centres work with breed rescue.  It seems like petty politicing to me - can anyone thing of a good reason why they don't?

It is a question I have asked somebody who I know who is a senior manager at the Blue Cross who was on the fund raising side. She was going to ask the powers that be . I will remind her when I see her next to see whether she got an answer .

It was the Blue Cross who refused to let my friend help a pup sired by her dog, and considered her being a multidog owner and exhibitor good reason to not allow her to even foster him.

That to me makes little sense - surely someone who is heavily involved in a particular breed is going to be the best person to foster/adopt that breed?

> surely someone who is heavily involved in a particular breed is going to be the best person to foster/adopt that breed?

but they disapprove of those who show and breed on principle, in the mistaken belief that if all breeding stopped the rescue problem would be solved (well it would be as dogs would die out).

I probably wouldn't own a dog at all if I couldn't have the type temperament size and bred that I have been able to choose.

In the same way I would never choose to have a puppy whose parents had not been health screened, as I would want them to be bred with maximising the chances of good health, not trusting to pure dumb luck.

I think we have to remember that most rescues are charities that have an obligation both morally and financially to their donors.  At the end of the day they have their protocols.  They are entitled to make them and obliged to stick to them.

I think everyone is aware of that Stooge - but what I am not sure rescues are entirely aware of is that NOT everyone feels that being permitted to take on a rescue dog is a huge priviledge that they should bow, scrape and leap through hoops of fire for.

Rightly or wrongly, the situation very much IS that there are a multitude of ways of obtaining a dog, of which rescue is just one - there is a huge amount of choice, and some rescues do not see the damage their more extreme, bizarre, illogical or even just sensible, but not obvious to non-dog-geek types, rules and agendas can and IS in many cases doing, to rescue and rescue dogs as a whole.

Bad news ALWAYS travels faster than good - I do firmly believe that rescues have a responsiblity not just for the dogs they take in and rehome but to 'rescue' as a principle - when rescues turn people down because they once bred a litter of hamsters, or own a hunter type horse, or show dogs - people who would make perfectly good homes are turned off rescue and go elsewhere.

Some rescues are pushing people away and those people are then 'free' to make the wrong decisions about where to get a dog from.

You don't have to bow, scrape and leep through hoops of fire you just have to meet their criteria. 
Some policies may seem bizarre to us but rescues could not exist at all, not the charity ones anyway, unless they have clear policies that those who support them, and give them the very money that allows them to operate at all, can see and approve of.

> Some rescues are pushing people away and those people are then 'free' to make the wrong decisions about where to get a dog from.

Like the rest of us I am sure they get enquiries from people that really should not have a dog, at least in their current situation.  We can't expect them to accomodate everyone, that would not be in the dogs interests.

I don't quite see how you get from what I wrote to the idea I am implying rescues should rehome to anyone and everyone who asks - clearly they should not, my own experience with the dog owning Joe Public is that the very vast majority of them shouldn't have ownership of a Beanie Baby, let alone a real live dog...

But tell me - how is it beneficial to rescue dogs, to rescue in general, to deny rehoming to;  and also in what way is it a risk or danger to any dog (particularly a spayed/neutered animal), a prospective owner follows the local hunt, or once a long time ago, bred their horse and raised the resultant foal themselves...

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.

It is no wonder people lie to rescues (and I am not condoning that in the slightest!) when even pro rescue people (and I am one of them, 2 out of my five are rescues!) have to say 'ah yes, some rescues have silly rules as well as good rules'.

I think your idea that all people who donate money are fully conversant with that particular rescues rules and policies is a bit idealistic - and I doubt that beyond a basic mission statement to promote neutering, reduce unwanted animals and rehome animals to safe, permanent homes, any registered charity has to go in depth about its rehoming criteria. Otherwise how on earth do some of the smaller, yet still reg. charity rescues, manage the fact they have very sensible, flexible rules?