Regulating Rescues
- nicky733
- 9 hours ago
- 4 min read
Human hackles will be rising as some people read the title of this blog. The recent BBC documentary "Rescue Roulette" aroused passionate feelings, which I will address in this post..
Please try to read it all and consider, before judging.
It’s true that thousands of dogs have been given second chances thanks to volunteers and rescuers.
Most of these are well-meaning, loving and do their best to keep the dogs safe into their new lives. Some are well-meaning but frankly negligent and few are out and out criminal, as we’ve seen with the recent tragedy of the so-called rescue centre, Save a Paw, where 37 dogs were found dead.
That’s an extreme, we should hope, but between these two ends of the spectrum there are many instances of dogs, scared and traumatised no doubt, offered for adoption on social media with minimal information, handed over at service stations with no home-checks, no information, ill-fitting collars and frayed leads and sometimes health problems or faked papers, to unsuitable homes with unsecured gardens with no proper advice or back-up for owners. The result of usually loving, but misguided, people.
Sometimes, this works out fine, but purely by luck. From our point of view as an initiative concerned with missing dogs, a big concern is that a large proportion of dogs that go missing and need a lot of expert resources to bring them home are recent rescues from abroad. It’s traumatic for the dogs too, to be trapped.
Who should we be thinking of here?
THE DOGS!
Let’s not forget that for one single moment.
The Case for Regulation
Regulation shouldn’t be about red tape, but welfare and safety.
Good rescues are already doing the right things: vaccinating, neutering, behaviour-assessing, carefully matching dogs to homes, and offering support afterwards. They should welcome regulation, because it proves their credibility and protects the dogs.
Bad rescues, by contrast, cut corners and put both dogs and owners at risk.
It’s very hard to tell from a Facebook page which sort of rescue is posting. They all sound loving and caring. Sometimes, maybe inadvertently, maybe not, they are letting down both dogs and potential owners.
The Tough Question of Cost
One of the criticisms of regulation is that it will make adoption more expensive. Certainly, regulators need to be aware of doing all that needs doing to keep dogs safe while not making the bar prohibitively high.
But here’s the hard truth: if you can’t afford an adoption fee, which should help cover vaccinations, vet check, neutering and essential care, then you need to question whether you’re ready for the ongoing costs of dog ownership. If a rescue isn’t making sure these things are done for a dog, they shouldn’t be operating.
Rescued dogs, especially those with trauma, can need extra vet care, behavioural support, and patience. If that level of commitment isn’t possible, then it’s not fair on the dog.
Who Will Police the Regulation?
Proper policing of any regulation is crucial. One of the biggest scandals in the canine world is the way Ireland ‘regulated’ puppy farming in 2010 and then absolutely failed to police the trade, which is now the biggest of its type in Europe.
The work would be carried out by bodies that already have a framework for such inspection, including local authorities, APHA [the Animal and Plant Health agency, a new one on me!] the police for criminal cases and established charities.
‘That’ Documentary
The BBC programme, ‘Rescue Roulette’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002gkhx
was controversial. The overflow of passionate feelings it unleashed on Facebook made me think extra hard about the whole subject.
While the producers clearly felt that balance was observed, by having the RSPCA on one hand and ‘a rescue’ operator on the other, we feel that the fact of the RSPCA being a huge, well-known organisation skewed that balance completely out of kilter. Maybe they were the wrong organisation to talk to anyway?
There was no real context or proper consideration given to why people want to bring dogs in from overseas, or to what a good and successful rescue looks like. Clearly it can be done very well, so just what are ‘best practices’? I should say here that I have an overseas rescue dog alongside my ‘from-a-puppy’ girl. The pre-screening chats, home-checks and back-up support long after adoption have been fantastic.
We agree with the general conclusions, that rescues need to observe better standards in many cases, but it felt like a sledgehammer was being used to bang home the negative points, without sufficient airing of more nuanced and positive points of view. The programme left a feeling of doom and gloom rather than of hope.
Do They ALL Need to be Rescued Across Borders?
I recently heard an inspiring radio programme about the charity Happy Doggo and its founder Niall Harbison. It was so inspiring! There are other such charities around the world.
Niall was distressed by the number of street dogs in Thailand in a pitiful state. Long story short, the charity does bring home a small number of dogs, but its main focus is caring for those dogs in situ. They are given vet care and neutered, and a network of caring people is found to feed them. These dogs are used to life on the street, and with just a little care they can live a healthy life as they are. https://www.facebook.com/wearehappydoggo
This doesn’t apply to all street dogs, of course. If there is war, or a cruel and uncaring culture, then the urge to bring them out must be overwhelming. So foreign rescues will continue to be brought to the UK.
Let’s just make sure every single one is looked after properly, that the new owners are well-vetted, well-equipped and well-informed, and that there is no risk to the general public from their mishandling.
Comments