Should An Assistance Dog Ever Need Rescue Help?

[Ian]

Has any rescue ever provided any of the Charities with dogs for assistance training purposes and what committments do you expect in terms of the dogs long term future?

 

Would it be acceptable if your donation of a dog wasn't guaranteed support for life?

 

Would you give your money to a Charity like this?

 

If you don't already know then I'm not intending at this stage stating which Charity is involved but have written to their Chair of Trustees formally expressing my disgust at what they have done, pointing out the contravention of their stated objectives, the irony of doing this when they claim to want to develop relations with rescues and need more money and inviting them to provide assurances that they will never allow this to happen to another dog.

 

Maybe it's just a few who find this story so objectionable - but I'd be surprised so please tell me what you think!

[Mrs Mop]

Without knowing what you are talking about, I can't comment on this.

[Ian]

Without knowing what you are talking about, I can't comment on this.

 

As the title states I'm asking whether an assistance dog should EVER end up reliant on rescue for their futures. I think not - in my opinion the Charity has a duty of care for rest of the dogs life & I certainly wouldn't give either my money or a dog to a Charity who felt otherwise. I'm interested to know whether that is considered the normal view by dog lovers or whether I'm just an oddity & others see circumstances where it is acceptable for the dog to be left reliant on rescue.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Ian

[boosboss]

I'm not a rescue, but re the general gist of what I got from your post. I'd expect any charity providing assistance dogs to expect any dogs they're hoping to place with a person needing assistance to achieve at least a minimum level of competancy, as ultimately such a charity is in place first and foremost for the recipient of the animal. That said, I'd also expect any rescue providing dogs or indeed any other animal, to realise this and insist that it's normal rehoming policy and conditions are adhered to too.

[snow]

Thanks for being careful to avoid identifying the charity Ian I appreciate that makes it rather more difficult to post the issue without revealing more of the circumstances

 

If it's at all possible to provide a little bit more general information tho that might help people understand and be able to comment, for example are you refering to dogs that reach the end of their working lives and are retired and then returned to rescue? Or Dogs that don't make the grade for example? Cos I think personally there's a difference in those 2 scenarios.

[Tilly1712]

I think I know what you're talking about Ian, having had a pm conversation with you re available rescue dogs for my sister.

 

I totally agree with you - any "human" charity that provides dogs to support humans in whatever disability they may have should provide a duty of care to the dog after it has retired, the dog shouldn't end up back in rescue after all it has done through it's working life ....... or am I totally missing the plot altogether?

[murtle]

From what you have said and further posts - I would say if the dog didn't reach required standards then I would expect full support from them in helping (maybe via a rescue) rehome the dog. If it has retired then I would expect full support from them in helping (maybe via a rescue) rehome the animal.

 

hmmm, yes the same for both, I guess I would see it more as a foster situation (although expenses paid by the charity) and then homed.

 

If they didn't, I would hope a rescue would be hesitant at giving them animals.

 

Don't the police extra provide a duty of care to their working dogs?

 

x x

[Brierley]

Does this really happen? I was under the impression that most of the assistance dog charities had waiting lists of homes wanting to adopt, not only retired assistance dogs, but also those that have undergone a certain amount of training but haven't quite made the grade.

[Mrs Mop]

Thanks for being careful to avoid identifying the charity Ian I appreciate that makes it rather more difficult to post the issue without revealing more of the circumstances

 

If it's at all possible to provide a little bit more general information tho that might help people understand and be able to comment, for example are you refering to dogs that reach the end of their working lives and are retired and then returned to rescue? Or Dogs that don't make the grade for example? Cos I think personally there's a difference in those 2 scenarios.

 

 

Thanks Snow, this is what I was trying to say.

[JoC]

Do you mean should assistance dogs ever require rehoming, or are you saying the charity has dumped the dog in question into a rescue?

 

I think if, for example Hearing Dogs (don't know which one you're referring I'm just using an example to make it easier for me) took an 18 week old puppy from a reputable rescue and trained and socialised the dog but found out it wasn't suitable for whatever reason, then I wouldn't be shocked if hearing dogs either found that dog a permanent, loving home, or worked with a reputable rescue with a non-destruction policy to place that dog.

 

I think the charities have enough on their hands sourcing dogs, placing them with puppy socialisers, training them, training and assessing people to put the dogs with, matching the right dog with the right person etc, without the added work of homechecking and looking after rescue dogs.

 

I would rather that the dogs are rehomed responsibly and properly through a good rescue than in a rush job through the charity.

 

I think that's different however, to just dumping them in any old rescue where they might end up having a one way visit to the vet.

[Ian]

Thanks for being careful to avoid identifying the charity Ian I appreciate that makes it rather more difficult to post the issue without revealing more of the circumstances

 

If it's at all possible to provide a little bit more general information tho that might help people understand and be able to comment, for example are you refering to dogs that reach the end of their working lives and are retired and then returned to rescue? Or Dogs that don't make the grade for example? Cos I think personally there's a difference in those 2 scenarios.

 

 

Okay thanks. We are talking about a dog who has not only successfully completed training but then provided years of service before being retired by the Charity. I do not know where she originally came from.

 

I do know that this dog was unable to continue living in the home of service, yet has not been found a suitable foster or permanent home by the Charity. It was in fact alledged that the Charity states she was gifted to the owner and is not their problem - though I have not seen evidence of that. I did back on the 2nd April email the charity and invite a response which was presumably ignored, hence I yesterday formally wrote to the Chair of Trustees.

 

This Charity fundraises with stated purposes including to train and educate XXX XXXX in the proper safe use of such dogs and in the care and essentials of canine care and management

 

and expresses a future strategy as being a desire and intention to enhance links with various rescue centres.

 

This dog has now been signed over to rescue - that is not returned to the rescue which supplied her, merely signed into a rescue for them to deal with.

 

It has been asked that she is not advertised as having been an assistance dog (two seperate sources have told me this) which would to me have offered her a benefit in trying to find a forever home.

 

I think I know what you're talking about Ian, having had a pm conversation with you re available rescue dogs for my sister.

 

I totally agree with you - any "human" charity that provides dogs to support humans in whatever disability they may have should provide a duty of care to the dog after it has retired, the dog shouldn't end up back in rescue after all it has done through it's working life ....... or am I totally missing the plot altogether?

 

No I'm afraid you are spot on - but if you go back and have another look there is an update. This poor dog has been signed over to rescue and has been in utter turmoil.

[Lizzie]

I find it utterly disgusting that a dog 'employed' and fully trained should be treated this way.

 

Surely the charity in question should have a retirement policy in place ensuring that these loyal dogs are treated to only the best at the end of their working lives?

 

Is this a case of using and discarding, all too common in a throwaway society.

[celeste]

I find this a disgusting way to treat a dog who has given years of service, and personaly i wouldn't donate to a charity who did this, what i can't understand is why they don't have a list of homes that would want to adopt retired dogs, with a bit of work on their part i'm sure they would have more homes than dogs

[Jacobean]

I was appalled to learn a few years ago that this type of thing happens all the while and will not give any donations to these kinds of charities as a result. These dogs look after humans so well for so long and then when they get old and need help themselves are no longer required. It's despicable.

[Trallwm farm]

This is why things should be out in the open so we know who not to gift dogs to.

Its a terrible thing to do to a loyal dog.

The charity if it had morals would inform the rescue it came from so they would have the choice. You would think that a trained dog could be offered to someone else waiting or something.

 

Perhaps a letter writing campaign asking policy may persuade them to take responsibility might help future dogs.