Rescues: Are They Now Charged With Controlling The Amount of Dogs in Circulation?

Published on December 12, 2008 by Freelance Contributors   ·   8 Comments

written by Jon Swinhoe of Zepthedep Rottweiler Rescue

This is a serious question.

Events that have come to light in the last few days have sickened me.

With the news that a rescue has aborted a bitch at 8 weeks into pregnancy and then the same day a representative from the same rescue had the gall to make an unsolicited phone call to our rescue and pass comment on a mother and her litter of 4 day old pups who we are fighting to save the lives of – her comment astounded me:

“You should just let nature take its course ,as we can do without litters of pups in rescue.”

This, from a rescue representative who openly admits to taking in “end of litters from breeders”.

The mother and her pups came to us as we were called upon by another rescue to try and save the lives of these dogs who were being kept in horrendous conditions and needed urgent vet treatment.

They are just some of the 20+ rottweilers we now have in our rescue at this time .

Dog shelters in this country is in the worst state it has ever been in by my recollection , with more and more dogs in rescue, and the shelters full to bursting point as more dogs are being destroyed in dog pounds on a daily basis than ever before.

Our own rescue can have up to a dozen phone calls a day asking for rotts to be handed in. That’s around 3000 calls a year from all sectors, not just the general public, but large national charities to smaller independent rescues who just cant cope with the shear number of unwanted dogs here in the UK.

But should the responsibility of control be down to those in rescue to eleviate this problem by euthanasia of any dogs who come through their doors or abort bitches in pup whatever stage she is at?

Personally this is something I find very hard to take on board and will not contemplate or participate in.

Our Rottweiler rescue rehomes on average 80 + rotts a year.

So with the need for rescues such as ours,I believe it is time to look at the root of the problem and call for a temporary mandatory spaying and castration campaigns by rescues, breed clubs, breeders and the K.C of all dogs with the exception of registered breeders. This must be done under the strictest of guide lines.

I also call for the banning of the sale or advertising of pups and dogs on certain websites, and adverts selling pups/dogs in free add papers/local papers etc to be banned immediately.

But here is the another problem , if some rescues and breeders continue use these unsavoury sites then what chance do we have as responsible rescues, breeders etc to promote to the public how to source and what to look out for when rescuing or buying dogs?

Surely it is now time for both rescues and breeders to step back and take stock and look at the message they are sending out when using these avenues to advertise.

Remember, if you use these methods to advertise, you are in fact giving credibility to them.

If we don’t act soon and get our own house in order, someone will step in and do it for us. It’s my belief that self regulation is better than government legislation .

---

THE FOLLOWING PUBLISHED ON BEHALF OF THE ROTTWEILER RESCUE TRUST:

In response to the article dated 12.12.08 in K9 Magazine we are the rescue he is referring to.

We were asked to take this bitch into our care by several people who had seen her being advertised as “in whelp”, on a website, for £90.

We agreed to take her simply as she was very local to us – in fact she was only about three miles away from where we live.

However, the advertiser had already sold her to a gentleman who subsequently phoned us the next day.

Mr Swinhoe also telephoned us to discuss the bitch with us, and as soon as we had been contacted by the new “owner” we let Mr Swinhoe know. Mr Swinhoe told us that he had been told the bitch was crossed with a Shar Pei and asked what we would do if that was the case. We said we would still help the dog. We also advised the new owner that we would be asking our vet if he would be happy to spay and abort any pups if he felt that there would not be an undue risk to the bitch.

The owners main concern was that the bitch would not be destroyed and would go to a good home, and we assured him that we would not destroy her and would find her a good home.

We picked Lady up, and took her to our vet. He could not feel any obvious pups, and felt that it would be safe to spay her and abort the pups. In fact, Lady was not in whelp – she was having a phantom pregnancy – but we did not know that until she had been operated on.

Mr Swinhoe contacted us about another dog on the same day, and we let him know that Lady had been spayed, and had not been having pups. This was on the 11.12.08. He wrote this article on 12.12.08 and already knew that in fact the bitch was not in whelp at all, so why Mr Swinhoe has chosen to dramatise this is beyond us. None of us spoke to the original owner so had no definite knowledge of how far into any potential pregnancy she might be. He did not make any adverse comments to us about the situation.

However, we do realise that to talk about aborting pups is a very emotive subject. There were several reasons for our decision, and they are as follows

Raising a litter of pups is very hard work, and very time consuming. Lady could potentially have had a large litter, all of which needed to find good, loving homes. Although many people see pups as “easy” to rehome – if you do the job properly it is not easy. All these dogs would have needed to have an experienced, home checked home, with people who had plenty of time and patience. They would have required lots of care in the first few weeks of life – and a dedicated foster carer for both Mum and puppies.

Our other reason was that for every pup in care, our adult dogs spend longer in kennels. These dogs too deserve a chance of a happy loving home.

These pups were not born yet – our adult dogs are.

We were happy to take our vets advice on whether Lady was in whelp, in the first stages of pregnancy, or too far advanced to abort.

With regard to Mr Swinhoe’s statement about one of our representatives making an unsolicited phone call to his wife – the representative was Lorraine Day. Anyone who has ever met Lorraine will tell you she is the softest person you could ever wish to meet, and she would never suggest that letting nature take it’s course and allowing pups to die without trying to save them was the right thing to do. She would fight tooth and nail to help any dog to stay alive and be happy and healthy. In fact, the unsolicited call was about another dog that Mr Swinhoe was going to take into his rescue. We had been offered the dog too, and had also been offered £100 towards it’s keep. Lorraine phoned to ask for their address so that she could ensure the money went to them as they had rescued the dog. Lorraine did make the comment when told about the puppies in Mr Swinhoe’s care that “that is all we need – more pups in care” but it has been taken totally out of context.

We are very sorry that one dog has caused so much controversy and bad feeling, when there are so many dogs out there needing all the help they can get.

We have to say however, that we stand by our decision, and if Lady had been in whelp, she would have been aborted, if in the early stages, and if our vet considered it to be a safe option.

We are also aware that it is not ideal to spay a bitch when she is having a phantom pregnancy, but we are not perfect, and did the best we could on the day.

With regards to our taking into care parts of litters and rehoming them – we have. We have been offered 8 litters or part litters this year, and have taken 4 of them. We took these pups as in those 4 cases, the pups were almost certain to go to any home the breeder could find – whether suitable or not, and in one case because the lady concerned was elderly and in very ill health. We would also point out that Mr Swinhoe also takes and rehomes pups.

With regards to our advertising in Free Ads – we do advertise occasionally in Free Ads and have had some very good homes come forward. We have also had some unsuitable homes, whom we have hopefully talked out of buying a rottweiler at all.

Part of the title of Mr Swinhoes’s article is “IN CIRCULATION” and that is so true. Many of these dogs are IN CIRCULATION – with no stable home and not much chance of finding one.

We are sorry that Mr Swinhoe has chosen to use this route to air the views to which he is entitled, rather than discussing it with us and giving us a chance to answer him directly.

If anyone would like to comment, either positively or negatively, please feel free to ring us and do so – we don’t bite – we just try to do the best for the dogs in our care.

We have no wish to become embroiled in childish arguments and intend to simply get on with finding good, loving homes for the dogs in our care.

Highly Recommended: This could be the most important link you EVER click as far as your dog’s life is concerned – see why….!

Tags:  Animal Charities, Animal Welfare