Do Dog Rescues Have an Unrealistic and Excessively Strict Approach to Rehoming?

kajstring24

ladymarmalade1970 wrote: »

When we decided we wanted a companion for him, another boy, Battersea would only let us have a girl and most of the staffies we looked at they wouldn't let us have because we have children (and cats to be fair). We ended up buying a puppy purely because the rescues were too strict for us.

Can I ask why Battersea felt that you couldn't take a Staffie home because you had children? Cats I can understand, but children? This is a subject very close to my heart, and I often feel like Battersea will look for any good reason to put down dogs, especially Staffies. Staffs can be a little boisterous, but it's a well known fact that they are brilliant with children (hence the nickname 'nanny dog'). I just can't believe that every Staffie they had would be so excitable that they'd be unsuitable for rehoming with children. No wonder they put so many down.

This was covered on Panorama once, and they put down one Staffie because he showed too much of an interest in another dog. It broke my heart. A lot of dogs are over familiar or a little bit aggressive around other dogs, the owner needs to take some responsibility in that situation and take the dog away. It doesn't justify putting the poor animal down.

I hate Battersea, I think the policies they have in place for rehoming are ridiculous.

Raksha

I think some rescues can be a little inflexible. There are plenty of dogs out there who are quite happy to be left for 2 x 4 hours a day, there are plenty of owners who compensate by including the dog in all their other activities.
Some dogs will struggle to cope for 5 mins, especially initially, and some owners will never have the time or knowledge to change that.

Fang_3

kajstring24 wrote: »

Can I ask why Battersea felt that you couldn't take a Staffie home because you had children? Cats I can understand, but children? This is a subject very close to my heart, and I often feel like Battersea will look for any good reason to put down dogs, especially Staffies. Staffs can be a little boisterous, but it's a well known fact that they are brilliant with children (hence the nickname 'nanny dog'). I just can't believe that every Staffie they had would be so excitable that they'd be unsuitable for rehoming with children. No wonder they put so many down.

This was covered on Panorama once, and they put down one Staffie because he showed too much of an interest in another dog. It broke my heart. A lot of dogs are over familiar or a little bit aggressive around other dogs, the owner needs to take some responsibility in that situation and take the dog away. It doesn't justify putting the poor animal down.

I hate Battersea, I think the policies they have in place for rehoming are ridiculous.

Staffies used to have that nickname. The majority in rescues are there due to overbreeding and under-rearing. They're bred for aggression and strength, and the majority of them shouldn't be near young children.

The owner's should absolutely take full responsibility for this but unfortunately it's people like you claiming it's a 'fact' that staffies are good with children that is compounding the problem. A well-raised staffie may well be good with children, but one that's been bought for £50 after someone's teenager decided it would be fun to breed them, won't be.

And actually cost does justify putting an animal down. There isn't enough money or want for these dogs, so instead of aiming your anger at the rescues, aim it at the people overbreeding these dogs.

rising_from_the_ashes

I too would fail most rescue rehoming rules as I also work full time.

However, I think they should treat each case individually and also the dog's history (where known).

I currently have a (now) elderly lab who I rehomed from a work colleague of a friend.

He had always been left all day and when I got him I tried coming home at lunchtime to walk him but he hates it. He got really upset when I left again and literally wreaked the house in the afternoon - it's almost he thinks "you can go out and stay out as long as you like but when you come home - you stay".

So, he's now left all day (not my preferred choice) and is a really happy lad.

As someone said earlier, an older dog will be more than happy to curl up all day and sleep as long as they are walked morning/night and get plenty of attention when "their person" is home.

I can understand why they are reluctant to rehome to homes with very young kids though.

kajstring24

Fang wrote: »

Staffies used to have that nickname. The majority in rescues are there due to overbreeding and under-rearing. They're bred for aggression and strength, and the majority of them shouldn't be near young children.

The owner's should absolutely take full responsibility for this but unfortunately it's people like you claiming it's a 'fact' that staffies are good with children that is compounding the problem. A well-raised staffie may well be good with children, but one that's been bought for £50 after someone's teenager decided it would be fun to breed them, won't be.

And actually cost does justify putting an animal down. There isn't enough money or want for these dogs, so instead of aiming your anger at the rescues, aim it at the people overbreeding these dogs.

I claim it's fact because it is fact. It's actually people like that build on the bad name these dogs have because you're too ignorant to open your eyes and realise that Staffies have ALWAYS been good with children and people. They are strong dogs, but will only attack if trained to do so. It's not in their nature to be viscous, so it doesn't matter how many are irresponsibly bred, they will grow up to be good-natured, unless in the wrong hands.

This is what makes me so bloody angry about some people. I've seen someone say that Staffies are as dangerous as guns and should be banned. It's pathetic, and research needs to be done before people mouth off and claim that I'm 'compounding the problem' by believing in something that is actually true.

I'm shaking with anger at the above post. They are STILL known as the 'nanny dog', and regardless of the stupidity of the breeders that make Staffies aggressive it DOES NOT justify some jumped up !!!!! such as yourself taking the moral high ground and sticking with the pathetic reputation that these poor dogs have been given.

Fang_3

kajstring24 wrote: »

I claim it's fact because it is fact. It's actually people like that build on the bad name these dogs have because you're too ignorant to open your eyes and realise that Staffies have ALWAYS been good with children and people. They are strong dogs, but will only attack if trained to do so. It's not in their nature to be viscous, so it doesn't matter how many are irresponsibly bred, they will grow up to be good-natured, unless in the wrong hands.

This is what makes me so bloody angry about some people. I've seen someone say that Staffies are as dangerous as guns and should be banned. It's pathetic, and research needs to be done before people mouth off and claim that I'm 'compounding the problem' by believing in something that is actually true.

I'm shaking with anger at the above post. They are STILL known as the 'nanny dog', and regardless of the stupidity of the breeders that make Staffies aggressive it DOES NOT justify some jumped up !!!!! such as yourself taking the moral high ground and sticking with the pathetic reputation that these poor dogs have been given.

Have you quite finished your pathetic little rant?

Good.

Oh yeah, staffies are always good with people and children, until they attack them. Like all dogs.

The fact is there is an abundance of unwanted staffies because they are aggressive, and so they're being put down. Either help with the causes of the problem, or shut up moaning about it. Simple.

gettingready

byb3 wrote: »

.... Some of the places we've seen are asking for a minimum donaton of £150 when you adopt the dog from the Shelter. I understand this is to cover their own costs which can't be cheap and I know this is harsh to say, but they are pricing themselves out of the market.

We've just bought a new Springador Puppy from a lovely family for £150. We got to see the mother, the father and his brothers and sisters which puts your mind to rest. There are no unknowns.

Well, wait till you get your new dog microchipped, vaccinated and neutered - then talk about cost.

Most rescue dogs would have all that done already - so yes, the £150 would barely cover the cost.

Springador - a mongrel then? No unknowns? Sorry - LOL

ska_lover

A springerdor is a cross between a labrador and a springer spaniel - lovely disposition. I a lovely chocolate brown springerdore, and she is so easy to live with, easy to train and very loving and very exitable, really has 'personality'.

If I had small children in the house, I would never have a staffie or any other similar breed, as why put your children at risk of having such a powerful animal around? It is just not worth it. Staffies are powerful and stuborn dogs - and yes all dogs can snap, but a staffie or a rotweiler could easily kill a small child, whereas a less powerful dog could do less damage - its a fact. However much we love our pets, you can never be 100% sure that they will not flip out one day. It is not suprising that most dogs in a rescue centre are these huge dogs that people feel nervous of.

Getting a dog, especially such a powerful one, from a rescue centre, is a risk in my mind, as you do not know its history, if it has attacked before etc.

gettingready

ska_lover wrote: »

A springerdor is a cross

Exactly - so is any other mongrel, a cross. But they do not get "posh names" and people do not pay silly prices for them.

I have nothing against everyday mongrels, they are lovely dogs but trying to come up with "designer" names for crosses and make them look as something "better" is just plain silly.

ska_lover

Yes,no-one is suggesting otherwise, no idea why they get a posh name . I am not with the 'designer' dog set, I am afraid - It makes not the slightest bit of difference to me weather she was a pure breed or otherwise.

I paid £25 for my dog as a puppy five years ago, which I didn't feel was a 'silly' price. I wasn't deliberatly in the market for a spingerdor, I was looking at spaniels at the time. It was through a friend of a friend, but she didnt give me any discount, every pup went for the same price. I didnt realise people were paying more for them. Since I have had her, I have paid £45 for vacinations, and £15 to be microchipped, not at all unreasonable.