A rescue under scrutiny

[puppyalert]

Many Tears Rescue is well known for rescueing dogs from puppy farms and dog pounds but on this Blog they are comming under scrutiny.

http://dogpolitics.co.uk/?p=249

 

[s4sugar]

We have a similar place not far from here.
Bringing ex puppy farm bitches plus unsold puppies from Irish farms and selling them when the pound is putting down local dogs every week.

 

[MurphysMinder]

That makes interesting reading, particularly some of the comments. People on here have queried the rights and wrongs of taking on ex puppy farm stock I think. I have heard of other dog rescues who seem to be making quite a nice living out of rehoming dogs, it would seem there does need to be some control or legislation but not holding my breath.

 

[lexiedhb]

Shame it does not say anywhere the actual cost of keeping a dog for a year etc

 

[Cinnamontoast]

Shame it does not say anywhere the actual cost of keeping a dog for a year etc

They are not campaigning to close the puppy farms because where would they get their next batch of ex-breeders from? I think their mainstay should be trying to close the farms, not helping them to re-home every ex-breeding dog/bitch they can lay their hands on.

It's a bit illogical, as they prefer to re-home ex-breeders to knowledgeable homes with another dog as the ex-breeder dog will be unused to domestic living. I can imagine some people not wanting that in an older dog, who one would expect/hope to be toilet trained etc and part of the reason for wanting to take on an older dog, possibly.

They also sweep up in Ireland, which I really don't understand or have sympathy with.

 

[lexiedhb]

I agree with you CT- just think it a shame that it is a VERY one sided piece.

 

[Kaylum]

Where does it stop though? Retired greyhounds what do the centres make out of those?

Saw no more tears had loads of westie ex breeders a few years ago. Dont know what to think! and why arent these puppy farms being taken to court for cruelty? i.e. saying the dog has come to the end of its breeding life so we dont want it anymore? Because these people are taking them on to make money out of them I guess.

 

[2Greys]

Its very one sided view and they may well have good reason for doing things a certain way, similar has been said about a local rescue taking in irish & PF dogs, but they do have a quick turnover of dogs, don't neuter before re-homing.

I guess a rescue has to keep a relationship with the PF's to get the dogs handed over rather than let them be killed which would make it difficult to actively campaign themselves. Seeing the state of those ex-breeders must have an effect on those that visit their website who weren't so aware though. I don't really understand why Puppy farms aren't able to be shut down as conditions must be poor.

I doubt much is made out of retired greyhounds,certainly none of the rehoming people i've met have been well off and put in a lot of hours sometimes while doing other jobs to pay the bills. Some groups are better at recruiting volunteers and are more able to fundraise than others. The adoption fee wouldn't cover the neutering at our vets let alone kennelling costs and some can take months to find a new home.

 

[Kaylum]

I doubt much is made out of retired greyhounds,certainly none of the rehoming people i've met have been well off and put in a lot of hours sometimes while doing other jobs to pay the bills. Some groups are better at recruiting volunteers and are more able to fundraise than others. The adoption fee wouldn't cover the neutering at our vets let alone kennelling costs and some can take months to find a new home.

I do agree with you. I was just thinking out loud and I think your right.
I just hate the not accountable bred it, used it, cant be bothered with it.

 

[Clodagh]

I don't understand at all how puppy farms are legal, when the latest legislation is meant to enforce animals being able to love natural lives. They have banned battery cages for chickens in this country, I imagine puppy farm dogs live in similar conditions.

 

[ladyearl]

I don't understand at all how puppy farms are legal, when the latest legislation is meant to enforce animals being able to love natural lives. They have banned battery cages for chickens in this country, I imagine puppy farm dogs live in similar conditions.

Totally agree with you on this - how are they in any way acceptable!

And I hadn't realised MT were not a charity until this, so thank you for opening my eyes. Very interesting!

 

[MurphysMinder]

I've just had a look at MT site, not been on there for a while. It struck me before and still puzzles me that many of the ex breeding bitches are really quite young, 3 and 4 years old, surely puppy farmers would keep them longer to extract more litters out of them?
They have an incredible amount of dogs for homing, most of which seem to be with fosterers, if it is true (as posted in comments on the link) that foster carers only get a bag of food and no other financial help it certainly sounds like a nice little earner.

 

[s4sugar]

How do you tell the difference between a four year old bitch & a six year old bitch?
At three to fours years they are much easier to rehome.

 

[MurphysMinder]

Duh, good point, got my gullible hat on today.

 

[CAYLA]

£270,000 *gulp* Im not sure what to say, I was always alarmed by the site and I have never agreed with churning out x breeders for the space to be filled with a new younger version who will sit in misery like the last. But I kind of see it now.
Can anyone answer this, how on earth can you raise funds of £270,000 without being registered I always thought you could not raise funds this way/this amount unless registered. It just shows you how big they are and how much publicity they get for a food company to supply them with "free food" when they are not a registered charity
I know we dont have as many dogs as these or rehome as fast it seems, and we only have 2 foster homes, good experienced foster homes are very hard to come by, but then again we don't have a rescue full of fluffies we have staffs, rotts, greyhounds and all kinds of dogs people tend to overluck, meaning they stay a bit longer.
We do no fundraising at all (I am very uncomfortable with it), infact the hoodie and calendar fundraising is the 1st (and where other people fab ideas) and made me feel better people where at least getting something (not just donating) and my mam is just as useless and has no time because she spends her life with the dogs or at work.
We have a vet that runs a few marathons a year to raise money for us (it goes direct onto my mams vet bill) and we charge an adoption fee but we also neuter, chip, vax, de flea, de worm, feed, use petrol for home checks. We do get more donations at Xmas as people who have our dogs tend to donate a sum at this time and my mam gets a good discount from work in regard to her charity stuff (helps massivly) esp in regard to broken legged and starved animals (which we get dumped on us alot) and obs we can do aftercare. Our food bill is ALOT per month and that alone is not even covered with adoption fees or donations. The mind boggles.

And as for the allowing bitches to whelp (I am very against this) and do not understand any rescue who deals with the amount we do wanting to bring more into the world, plus the stress of chasing up for neutering

 

[CazD]

I've never quite been able to make my mind up about MT - certainly the rescue I adopted my terrier from did not have much good to say about them. What I always find peculiar is that they allegedly dont "cherry pick" dogs but that they dont seem to have the same proportion of staffies, lurchers etc that most rescues are full of. I also cant work out why they charge a full adoption fee of £180 for dogs with disabilities ie blind, crippled, heart problems. Why would anyone pay an adoption fee for a dog that is definitely going to be uninsurable and require continuous vet care?

 

[s4sugar]

Some rescues are a nice little earner and they fit just outside of the licencing boxes. The one I mentioned earlier should have a pet shop license at least.
Not all genuine rescues have charitable status:-
Smaller breed rescues in particular usually fund raise within their breed, maybe a raffle or a Companion show, and work using volunteers on a shoestring. (The responsible breeders picking up after the BYBs in many cases.)


Some of the bigger breed rescues are registered charities and all their costs & income have to be accounted for to the last penny.
Lots of well known rescues are bringing in Irish dogs -Why when there are too many dogs here already?

Slightly off topic but how many people are aware of this - http://dogstrustblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/six-months-in-life-of-dogs-trust.html

Personally the idea horrifies me.

 

[Sleighfarer]

Can somebody point to the bit of the Many Tears website where they say they rehomed 2000 dogs in 2011? I can't see it, but am probably just being thick. That is a lot of dogs - 166 a month. Do they really have that many kennels?

 

[CorvusCorax]

Slightly off topic but how many people are aware of this - http://dogstrustblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/six-months-in-life-of-dogs-trust.html

Personally the idea horrifies me.

Wow. Never knew about that.

 

[MurphysMinder]

Can't point you to where it says 2000, but it would seem that many of their dogs are out with foster carers rather than in kennels which could explain how they can handle so many.

 

[SusieT]

So should all rescues be running on a shoestring budget? Or does it make more sense that if they get a sound financial plan in place they are more likely to be around for longer and helping more dogs? Note it only says 270k is their fees for geting the dogs adopted-that does not take into account any costs whatsoever.

Scenari B-Let's say they decide to condemn all puppy farmers, say it's run by cruel evil people. What do you think the puppy farmers do? Give the dogs to them still? Or shoot them round the back fo the shed? I know which one I think they'd go for.
then again, if they are getting bitches in who have obviously been maltreated and not recieved appropriate care (bearing in mind they may well be compared with farm animal welfare which is in many cases as bad) or veterinary attention, that puppy farm should be subject to a welfare case.

What I would be less happy about is the idea of the rescue and boarding facilities sharing anything. It does not make sense for them to share any facilities and I hope (thought I doubt it) that staff working in both quadrant sdisinfect before going from one to the other.

 

[lq22]

SusieT - think that would be seen as a waste of shells, a filled bath is more likely unfortunately

 

[Broodle]

Slightly off topic but how many people are aware of this - http://dogstrustblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/six-months-in-life-of-dogs-trust.html

Personally the idea horrifies me.

Maybe I am a callous witch, but I just cannot understand this at all. If these dogs are so aggressive/have such deep-seated fears that they cannot interact with humans in a (even semi-) normal way then why on earth are they not being put down? But then I find the 'never put a healthy dog down' attitude of the Dogs Trust wrong on so many levels. I cannot understand why they wouldn't chose to put their formidable resources into working with those dogs who have a realistic chance of a new life in a new home, rather than those who have such huge issues that they are doomed to spend their (miserable?) days in kennels

As to the original OP, I am also uncomfortable with the idea of rescue centres having arrangements with puppy farmers. It doesn't stop the miserable business of puppy farming, and may even help to sustain it. I know that the alternative is probably a bullet, but I'm honestly not so sure that that is such a bad thing... at least such practices might help to fuel a public outcry against puppy farming?

 

[PucciNPoni]

I've been watching this thread and not wading in because I really wanted to hear what others are saying. However, my own experience with MT isn't exactly direct. There's a woman near me who fosters - and many of these fosters she brings to me, pays from her own pocket, and just wants them to feel and smell nice so that they are easier to rehome. She has adopted many and has a houseful herself!

Anyway, she tends to offer permanent homes to the ones that are so riddled with health problems that they would generally be un-adoptable. However, prior to her adoption, and same goes for the other adoptees, many have had veterinary care which includes dental work, spay/neutering, mammary strips, lumps/tumours excised. These dogs are often in a terrible state but do come right. Many aren't hugely clued up on the outside world, but are generally pretty easy to integrate.

All these things cost money/time/effort. If they are fund raising and charging money to offset their costs, I'm personally okay with that. And would rather that they have a healthy bank balance to know that they're still going to continue to do, which perhaps naiively, I think is a job well done.

 

[ester]

broodle having watched the vid of the dogs trust sanctuary none of the dogs looked particuarly fearful/aggressive with people, well not to the point that I would guess noone would be able to get through to them anyway. I imagine that is a much less stressful environment for those that don't do well in kennels/lots of human visitors, hopefully being there will increase their rehoming chances than reduce it maybe?

re the many tears article, without a breakdown of costs it seems very difficult to determine whether 270k is a lot or not!

 

[Broodle]

broodle having watched the vid of the dogs trust sanctuary none of the dogs looked particuarly fearful/aggressive with people, well not to the point that I would guess noone would be able to get through to them anyway. I imagine that is a much less stressful environment for those that don't do well in kennels/lots of human visitors, hopefully being there will increase their rehoming chances than reduce it maybe?

re the many tears article, without a breakdown of costs it seems very difficult to determine whether 270k is a lot or not!

Yeah, have now watched the video and it looks better than it sounded iyswim. Still think the cost per dog must be insanely high, and can't see that it is the best use of resources. But that's just my (admittedly not very informed) view.

Agree with you on the costs front. £270k turnover doesn't actually seem that high for such a huge operation...

 

[EAST KENT]

Maybe I am a callous witch, but I just cannot understand this at all. If these dogs are so aggressive/have such deep-seated fears that they cannot interact with humans in a (even semi-) normal way then why on earth are they not being put down? But then I find the 'never put a healthy dog down' attitude of the Dogs Trust wrong on so many levels. I cannot understand why they wouldn't chose to put their formidable resources into working with those dogs who have a realistic chance of a new life in a new home, rather than those who have such huge issues that they are doomed to spend their (miserable?) days in kennels

As to the original OP, I am also uncomfortable with the idea of rescue centres having arrangements with puppy farmers. It doesn't stop the miserable business of puppy farming, and may even help to sustain it. I know that the alternative is probably a bullet, but I'm honestly not so sure that that is such a bad thing... at least such practices might help to fuel a public outcry against puppy farming?

If a dog is traumatised by life beforehand to be unsuitable to rehome into a household should it be killed? Now,it just so happens I have a bull terrier bitch ,she was difficult before she went out to an approved home..but on being returned she was much worse.Dogs don`t lie,it was very evident that through the last home`s inept attempts at managing her violence had been resorted to,including bashing her whilst confined in a crate.So ,what had been a very jolly but challenging dog now is unreliable behind a wire fence,or near her food.Should she die because some scrote had mistreated her? Actually I don`t think so,and we have adopted her;she is funny,highly intelligent and a great piss taker,yes she is not in the house,but she is happy ..just like those Dog`s Trust ones.
Oh,and the idiot home found chicken wings "too difficult to find" and fed her..you guessed it ..Bakers!!

 

[Spudlet]

Re the Dogs Trust - the only thing I find horrific is that people have managed to mess these poor dogs up so comprehensively. If they were being kept in kennels forever I would strongly disagree with this, but they look perfectly happy in that environment.

The Dogs Trust is a charity so if people don't agree with them the answer is simple - don't donate to them. But personally, I'm glad they're there and I will continue to support them.

 

[SusieT]

re:sactuary-I think it's an excellent idea personally-It is not the dogs fault humans have mistreated it. Dogs trust has enough resources seemingly to not pts a dog until it really has not other option. The dogs have plenty of exercise, company-why on earth would they need pts?
And DT seems to get reasonable rehoming success, with not many long term stayers. And their kennels are actually quite nice, with a good layout. So it doesn't appear to be a project at the expense of other dogs.

 

[Toffee44]

Had my own experience with MT found them the rudiest of the lot actually. I felt me and OH had a lot of judgement thrown at us (young couple, wanting big dog, new house etc) We enquired about a male OES that appeared some time last year explained we had experience with the breed etc.

However because I had not yet had Dylan neutered they wouldnt even consider doing a home check yet. I spoke to my vet who was happy to write a letter that Dylan would be done when he was a year old and that he agreed with my reasons for doing so, he was also happy to make note that Dylan was a lovely natured dog etc.

So MT were offering a 5yo ungroomed, un neutered, un vac'd, not toilet trained dog a home but wouldnt rehome to me because I wanted to wait until Dylan had done most of his growing until I neutered him and said there was no point in sending the letter as they wouldnt consider until he was neutered, they were also concerned and I quote that I was under 25 in my first home.

A few months later we got Buster un groomed, entire, not vac'd, wormed, de flea'd hes a bit vocal but a lovely lovely boy