"irish Rescue Dogs Flooding The Uk"

[EGAR]

Yes, I can understand where you are coming from, Heva, BUT alot of the UK rescues who take Irish dogs, cherry pick the pups and fluffies.

 

Only a handful take sick, old etc ones. Plus, most of them have a bargain, they get vacc'd and neutered dogs and often don't pay for transport either, so they get ready for rehoming dogs which didn't cost them anything. It's catch 22, really.

 

However, if my numbers are right then the UK has 60 million inhabitants as opposed to Ireland with round about 4.5 (?). If you then compare the pts figures, you can clearly see where the problem lies..

 

Most rescues over here work ceaselessly to educate but it's like running against a brick wall.

 

I rarely sent dogs to UK rescues and have also ceased rehoming to the UK but I can understand if others want to get their dogs save to the UK.

[heva]

oh yeah totally agree......thats what i said they were always pups or young ones.....which were pretty colours

sadly they didnt come vacc.... often very sick and infact we lost a few........

 

but then we have had whole litters die that came form down the road!!!

 

there are just too many everywhere

[Mrs Mop]

The main reason I like RDR is they don't cherry pick,they take every dog that comes into the pound but there are others that cherry pick the dogs in the pounds. There is more money in the pups and fluffies because they have a higher turnover of dogs rehomed.

[bluesky]

millrescue take from ireland and most of the dogs arent cute fluffy ones and are old. yes we do take the odd fluffy cute one. they only have 1st vac and are rarely neutered and we pay for the transport over to us. so when you add all that up vac neutering chipping worming flea treatment and the transport over you can clearly see the 150 adoption fee doesnt cover it.

[cycas]

You know, if a rescue knows that there are 25 homes waiting for fluffy young dogs that will not accept older or less fluffy ones, and there are 25 young fluffy dogs that are at genuine risk, I don't really understand the moral case against taking the 25 fluffy dogs and homing them, in preference to taking 5 dogs that they know will spend 5 times as long in kennels before they are homed (and may suffer horribly from kennel stress as a result). Even if they do make a few bob on the transaction, as long as that isn't the sole point of it and the money eventually gets put back into the dogs, you've still saved 20 more dogs than you would the other way...?

 

I mean, it would be great if more adopters were leaping up and down wanting to adopt wonky old/uncute dogs, and we all love to see those dogs find their loving homes - but if there are no homes, that's not the rescue's fault, it's not even the prospective new homes fault really: nobody should be blamed for wanting to adopt a younger dog, or a dog of a particular breed or type. I'm really not sure that if there are rescues focussing on homing the maximum number of homeable dogs, that they are somehow falling down on the job?

 

I don't like that term 'cherry picking'. If you can't sell apples for love nor money, then surely deciding to mostly pick cherries instead isnt' so very awful?

Edited December 1, 2008 by cycas

[Mrs Mop]

There are rescues that will take mixed ages but as there are far too many dogs rescues can't take them all but some won't take the adult dogs, they may not be old, they will only take the pups and cutties.

 

Every dog deserves a chance of a life, cherry picking is making the decision which should live and which should die. I know they are there because of there previous owners, I have had to make decisions whether to give an animal treatment or not in the past and usually managed to work something out with the vets so they lived.

 

At the end of the day it is what we can live with, I couldn't live with myself if I let an older/ugly dog die so I could take in several pups or cuties, that older/ugly dog deserves a good life just as much. It is the same with dogs from other countries.

 

It is the pups and cuties that often end up in rescues because they were treated as babies/cuties and never trained, the older/ugly dogs once in a decent home usually stays there, few are returned.

[cycas]

At the end of the day it is what we can live with, I couldn't live with myself if I let an older/ugly dog die so I could take in several pups or cuties, that older/ugly dog deserves a good life just as much. It is the same with dogs from other countries.

 

But what you seem to be saying is that you would rather see all rescues saving the older and ugly dogs, even if you know those dogs will take 5 times as long to rehome, or even, might never be rehomed and that as a direct result, a larger number of other, younger dogs would die?

 

I appreciate that making the decision must be insanely hard, I'd find it incredibly difficult to do myself, but I don't see that simply taking the dogs in order of arrival avoids having to choose who lives and who dies. If there are far too many dogs (not just a few too many, but thousands and thousands) and some of them will not find spaces, then someone (and I feel extremely sorry for that person) is going to have to choose.

 

I know someone who spend some time working in a high-kill american shelter , and she tells me that practically every day in the season they had to euthanase litters of puppies or kittens because there was simply nowhere to put them. In that sort of situation, I'm just going to hope that whoever is making the choices is doing it with compassion, whatever the choice ends up being.

 

I do actually believe that there are far more potential adopters for older and slightly less obviously desirable dogs than is often percieved: I think the Oldies Club has demonstrated that. But at some point, a choice is made, whether that choice is to take the next 5 dogs, or take the 25 easiest to home: if you take the first 5, then probably some of the next 20 will be killed.

[EGAR]

Cycas, your reasoning is right as well, which is why I wrote it's catch 22. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. I never offer to take pound puppies or fluffies as I know they will be snapped up. I concentrate on the "undesireables". And I manage to find homes for them .

[Mrs Mop]

But what you seem to be saying is that you would rather see all rescues saving the older and ugly dogs, even if you know those dogs will take 5 times as long to rehome, or even, might never be rehomed and that as a direct result, a larger number of other, younger dogs would die?

 

No I am not saying that, they can have a few older/ugly dogs in but still take the puppies.

 

One of mine was in rescue a long time and is an oldie, she loves life, is still very active at 16 years old but her life could have ended 6 years ago when she went into rescue. I would have lost out on a wonderful companion.

 

There are many people like me that don't want puppies or cutes, they want the older dogs/ugly dogs, by taking all puppies and fluffy dogs these people don't get the chance to adopt the dog that they really want. I know of several who took on a pup because they couldn't get the dog they wanted and regretted it.

[supafrisk]

Not to mention that in this day and age, what percentage of the average person looking to rehome a dog has the time and resources to look after a pup, compared to an adult dog?

 

10 years ago if you saw someone walking a greyhound, it was probably someone who either owned or trained greys for racing.

Nowadays, how frequently do you see retired racers being walked by loving families who never went looking for a pup, but an adult dog they could show compassion for and cherish for the rest of it's life?

 

Where I live, the most prominent breed of dog being walked is a greyhound, and most from rescue. In fact, judging by tattoos, I'd say a lot from Ireland too.

 

Says me with a Welsh dog and fiercely proud of him. And thankful that the rescue involved looked beyond the geographical barriers and put their Christmas to one side for his life, I will be forever in your debt.

[cycas]

There are many people like me that don't want puppies or cutes, they want the older dogs/ugly dogs, by taking all puppies and fluffy dogs these people don't get the chance to adopt the dog that they really want. I know of several who took on a pup because they couldn't get the dog they wanted and regretted it.

 

Yes indeed. I did the technical set up of the Oldies website and wrote a lot of the info on it that says exactly that, and I have adopted older dogs. One of mine is an Irish greyhound. I certainly am not arguing that dogs that are older are unhomeable, or that if all dogs are able to get a chance at rehoming, they should not be allowed one. Though to be honest, I also think that if the people you know really had to take on a pup because they couldn't find an older dog, then maybe they should have considered looking a bit further afield or trying other rescues? There is definitely no shortage of oldies available for adoption.

 

(Personally I've had great difficulty persuading people I know to consider older dogs. In my area, many people tend to be very active and want dogs that will do a lot of walking, and will go on wanting lots of exercise for years. There are some that don't, but not as many as I'd like! )

 

What I am saying is that I think it is reasonable for a rescue that is bringing in dogs from another area (presumably because there is a lack of dogs of a particular type/age on their doorstep) to choose the dogs that they will be able to home fastest, if they feel that's the most effective strategy for the kind of homes that are local to them. If a rescue knows that they had, say, 2 staffies that sat in kennels for a year because they were unable to find anyone locally that wanted them, then it seems to me that it would be entirely reasonable of them not to import more staffies to sit there getting more and more stressed in kennels. If they reckon they can use the same resources to home 2 collies, a lab, a poodle and a pom, then why not? And if a rescue is pulling dogs from somewhere like Ireland where very large numbers of dogs are euthanased then they could be saving more lives that way.

 

There is only so much a rescue can do to create a demand, particularly if, unlike EGAR, they are not specialists and experts in a particular type so don't have any special expertise in identifying the right homes and convincing them to adopt. If they have a queue of people wanting labs and spaniels, and labs and spaniels are being euthanased in other places not so far away, then why not move the fluffy dogs to the fluffy homes?

 

I do not believe, by the way, in the idea that older dogs do not bounce from homes. Sadly, they do. That's why the OC keeps all the records in a 'rehomed' section: so when the dogs bounce they can easily be re-advertised right away. Whether they bounce more or less than younger dogs is another matter, but I would guess that this may depend a great deal on the type of homes available locally to each rescue. Even if young dogs are more likely to bounce, I don't think that's an argument for leaving them in a pound to die and taking an older dog instead!

[Mrs Mop]

Even if young dogs are more likely to bounce, I don't think that's an argument for leaving them in a pound to die and taking an older dog instead!

 

 

I am not saying only take older dogs, I am saying that rescues that rehome mainly puppies and the fluffy dogs can take on a couple of harder to home dogs not matter what their age or breed is.

 

Many rescues do have Staffies in that are not being rehomed, it is understandable that they are not taking in any more Staffies, they can only do so much but some will only take on the puppies and fluffy dogs and won't even take on one older dog because they take time to rehome.

 

One reason why older dogs bounce is because their new owner expects them to fit into their life right away but these dogs need time and space to adapt to their new life. When they are not given this time and space, the dog reacts which makes it more difficult to rehome him again.

[ReikiAnge]

I am not saying only take older dogs, I am saying that rescues that rehome mainly puppies and the fluffy dogs can take on a couple of harder to home dogs not matter what their age or breed is.

 

Many rescues do have Staffies in that are not being rehomed, it is understandable that they are not taking in any more Staffies, they can only do so much but some will only take on the puppies and fluffy dogs and won't even take on one older dog because they take time to rehome.

 

Margaret, when you talk of these rescues that will only take on puppies and "fluffies" (not entirely sure what that would include), do you mean these rescues are only taking these types from an out of area pound, or that they will only accept these dogs full-stop? I ask as I can think of at least one rescue that does offer to take small, dog-friendly dogs (of any age) from out of its area when it can, but they accept all-sorts from the local area.

 

I think there's a difference between moving dogs into areas where there is demand for them and not enough dogs of that type (whatever that type may be) in the local area, and moving say staffies into an area where there are already staffies being pts because there are too many looking for homes. Although even then, a dog-friendly young bitch is presumably more likely to find a home than a dog aggressive older male, for example, so there must be differences in the ease of rehoming even within a "type".

 

I think a balance is good, of easier and harder to rehome dogs, but I can understand a rescue's reluctance in taking on a dog that they are sure they'll never be able to rehome, unless they have to take them (eg local stray contract).

[cycas]

I think there's a difference between moving dogs into areas where there is demand for them and not enough dogs of that type (whatever that type may be) in the local area, and moving say staffies into an area where there are already staffies being pts because there are too many looking for homes. Although even then, a dog-friendly young bitch is presumably more likely to find a home than a dog aggressive older male, for example, so there must be differences in the ease of rehoming even within a "type".

 

A local rescue told me when I transported a very old staffy to them that they could rehome them once they got to that age, because some visitor would be bound to feel sorry for a dog like that, but nobody would even look at a younger dog of the same breed so there was just no point in bringing them in as then they just 'get stuck'. Weird eh?

[heva]

I know what marg means i know i have seen rescues offering poundies spaces and week in week out they offer for yorkie/nice things...... but often there too late as we have said understandably they get snapped up as ppl knwo they are more likely to help them.

Its just heart breaking if your trying to find spaces and say offer a brindle med xbreed 4yrs and say well this needs a space they all of a sudden dont have a space anymore!!!!! its just sad and hard...........and i know that they may sometimes have theat type of dog in so cant rehome (but sometimes you know they dont and they just want easy dogs) which is hard when its you trying to get the spaces!!!!!!

 

But again like you said if someone didnt take 20 pups from ireland they would be dead!!

but i do struggle sometimes to understand in my head how when we have 100 dogs on books waiting to come in....................we can still always find homes for pups.............and at what level do we ever know or aacount for person A taking dog into rescue/pound/vets and then person A going and getting an irish pup!!! does that make sense........not meaning evry home is bad or anything but at what point do we flood the market more than the homes for dogs there are out there!! dont think that makes sense but i know what i mean