Rehoming your dog

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less dogs = less need to encounter them in public indoor and outdoors places. Nothing wrong with liking a dog from afar.
-love dogs.

A lot of people who weren't adequately prepared to raise and train good dogs with good manners got "pandemic puppies" and shouldn't have. Post-pandemic, a lot of those dogs got returned (and I think a lot of in-over-their-heads owners were somewhat relieved by it). RTO is going to be another round of people who aren't dedicated dog owners getting out of the game (or out of the way, depending on your perspective). Personally, I'm for it. If you can't afford to properly care for a pet, you should put them with someone who can.

Or, maybe these rescues can provide support to families struggling rather than taking the dogs and selling them for profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dogs can stay in a crate all day so I do not see why they would rehome them when returning to office. They will adapt to the new schedule.

That's a terrible practice and bad for dogs in lots of ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, dog walker, day care, bring to office, leave at home. My husband is RTO and he brings our dog in 2-3 times a week.

That's incredibly insensitive of your husband

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less dogs = less need to encounter them in public indoor and outdoors places. Nothing wrong with liking a dog from afar.
-love dogs.

A lot of people who weren't adequately prepared to raise and train good dogs with good manners got "pandemic puppies" and shouldn't have. Post-pandemic, a lot of those dogs got returned (and I think a lot of in-over-their-heads owners were somewhat relieved by it). RTO is going to be another round of people who aren't dedicated dog owners getting out of the game (or out of the way, depending on your perspective). Personally, I'm for it. If you can't afford to properly care for a pet, you should put them with someone who can.

Or, maybe these rescues can provide support to families struggling rather than taking the dogs and selling them for profit.

No rescue is making bank reselling dogs. Just stop.

As for the "rescues should provide support to families struggling", how? The time for rescues to be supportive is in the "educating potential owners" phase, when we pre-screen and refuse the families we see having trouble down the line (no adult at home during the day, families with young children who want a large-breed puppy, zero previous dog-owning experience). If rescues were doing this for a profit, they'd give anyone who asked any animal(s) they wanted to pay for. That's not how any of this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, dog walker, day care, bring to office, leave at home. My husband is RTO and he brings our dog in 2-3 times a week.

That's incredibly insensitive of your husband

Why is it insensitive? The office allows dogs and many bring their dogs. If you are allergic or hate dogs, sit somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less dogs = less need to encounter them in public indoor and outdoors places. Nothing wrong with liking a dog from afar.
-love dogs.

A lot of people who weren't adequately prepared to raise and train good dogs with good manners got "pandemic puppies" and shouldn't have. Post-pandemic, a lot of those dogs got returned (and I think a lot of in-over-their-heads owners were somewhat relieved by it). RTO is going to be another round of people who aren't dedicated dog owners getting out of the game (or out of the way, depending on your perspective). Personally, I'm for it. If you can't afford to properly care for a pet, you should put them with someone who can.

Or, maybe these rescues can provide support to families struggling rather than taking the dogs and selling them for profit.

No rescue is making bank reselling dogs. Just stop.

As for the "rescues should provide support to families struggling", how? The time for rescues to be supportive is in the "educating potential owners" phase, when we pre-screen and refuse the families we see having trouble down the line (no adult at home during the day, families with young children who want a large-breed puppy, zero previous dog-owning experience). If rescues were doing this for a profit, they'd give anyone who asked any animal(s) they wanted to pay for. That's not how any of this works.

Food, medical care, training. Especially if families got their dogs from a rescue. It’s cruel to make a dog move to a new family and it’s financial but they want the dog. Sounds like you have a bad rescue if you don’t provide support. I can contact our breeder at any time for help or advice. Rescues are for profit. They are selling the dogs. It’s a business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less dogs = less need to encounter them in public indoor and outdoors places. Nothing wrong with liking a dog from afar.
-love dogs.

A lot of people who weren't adequately prepared to raise and train good dogs with good manners got "pandemic puppies" and shouldn't have. Post-pandemic, a lot of those dogs got returned (and I think a lot of in-over-their-heads owners were somewhat relieved by it). RTO is going to be another round of people who aren't dedicated dog owners getting out of the game (or out of the way, depending on your perspective). Personally, I'm for it. If you can't afford to properly care for a pet, you should put them with someone who can.

Or, maybe these rescues can provide support to families struggling rather than taking the dogs and selling them for profit.

No rescue is making bank reselling dogs. Just stop.

As for the "rescues should provide support to families struggling", how? The time for rescues to be supportive is in the "educating potential owners" phase, when we pre-screen and refuse the families we see having trouble down the line (no adult at home during the day, families with young children who want a large-breed puppy, zero previous dog-owning experience). If rescues were doing this for a profit, they'd give anyone who asked any animal(s) they wanted to pay for. That's not how any of this works.

If they are charging it’s for profit. They got the dogs for free so find them a home for free. In human foster care it’s free to the adopting families and often they get a stipend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less dogs = less need to encounter them in public indoor and outdoors places. Nothing wrong with liking a dog from afar.
-love dogs.

A lot of people who weren't adequately prepared to raise and train good dogs with good manners got "pandemic puppies" and shouldn't have. Post-pandemic, a lot of those dogs got returned (and I think a lot of in-over-their-heads owners were somewhat relieved by it). RTO is going to be another round of people who aren't dedicated dog owners getting out of the game (or out of the way, depending on your perspective). Personally, I'm for it. If you can't afford to properly care for a pet, you should put them with someone who can.

Or, maybe these rescues can provide support to families struggling rather than taking the dogs and selling them for profit.

No rescue is making bank reselling dogs. Just stop.

As for the "rescues should provide support to families struggling", how? The time for rescues to be supportive is in the "educating potential owners" phase, when we pre-screen and refuse the families we see having trouble down the line (no adult at home during the day, families with young children who want a large-breed puppy, zero previous dog-owning experience). If rescues were doing this for a profit, they'd give anyone who asked any animal(s) they wanted to pay for. That's not how any of this works.

If they are charging it’s for profit. They got the dogs for free so find them a home for free. In human foster care it’s free to the adopting families and often they get a stipend.

Adopting human children isn't free or easy. Taxpayers do subsidize the cost of adoption from foster care, but that doesn't make it free. Private adoption can get really expensive. Adoption fees for pets generally go towards covering the cost of care while the dog is with the rescue. Vet care, transportation, boarding, grooming, none of that is free and there isn't a taxpayer subsidy for private rescue groups, only for city/county government run shelters. If you want free, wait for the fee waived days and go to the government shelter. They'll still vaccinate and neuter for you, just the same as if you paid the fee. After that, your pet, your responsibility nobody anywhere is ever paying you a stipend to own a pet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less dogs = less need to encounter them in public indoor and outdoors places. Nothing wrong with liking a dog from afar.
-love dogs.

A lot of people who weren't adequately prepared to raise and train good dogs with good manners got "pandemic puppies" and shouldn't have. Post-pandemic, a lot of those dogs got returned (and I think a lot of in-over-their-heads owners were somewhat relieved by it). RTO is going to be another round of people who aren't dedicated dog owners getting out of the game (or out of the way, depending on your perspective). Personally, I'm for it. If you can't afford to properly care for a pet, you should put them with someone who can.

Or, maybe these rescues can provide support to families struggling rather than taking the dogs and selling them for profit.

No rescue is making bank reselling dogs. Just stop.

As for the "rescues should provide support to families struggling", how? The time for rescues to be supportive is in the "educating potential owners" phase, when we pre-screen and refuse the families we see having trouble down the line (no adult at home during the day, families with young children who want a large-breed puppy, zero previous dog-owning experience). If rescues were doing this for a profit, they'd give anyone who asked any animal(s) they wanted to pay for. That's not how any of this works.

If they are charging it’s for profit. They got the dogs for free so find them a home for free. In human foster care it’s free to the adopting families and often they get a stipend.

Well, I assume you don't work for free neither you have access to free food, transportation, housing and healthcare. Same applies to rescues - they need funds for taking care of the animals (food, vet care, facilities), transportation, spay/neuter/Chip them, organize and advertise events, staff to vet potential adopters etc. Who do you think should cover all those expenses?

[Anonymous]

The title to this thread makes me argue: I'm definitely NOT rehoming my dog. Never.

If you rehome your dog, write about you. Take accountability, because it's a pretty sad thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. get a dog walker.

I take my dog to doggie day care. She's happy all day and cared for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less dogs = less need to encounter them in public indoor and outdoors places. Nothing wrong with liking a dog from afar.
-love dogs.

A lot of people who weren't adequately prepared to raise and train good dogs with good manners got "pandemic puppies" and shouldn't have. Post-pandemic, a lot of those dogs got returned (and I think a lot of in-over-their-heads owners were somewhat relieved by it). RTO is going to be another round of people who aren't dedicated dog owners getting out of the game (or out of the way, depending on your perspective). Personally, I'm for it. If you can't afford to properly care for a pet, you should put them with someone who can.

Or, maybe these rescues can provide support to families struggling rather than taking the dogs and selling them for profit.

No rescue is making bank reselling dogs. Just stop.

As for the "rescues should provide support to families struggling", how? The time for rescues to be supportive is in the "educating potential owners" phase, when we pre-screen and refuse the families we see having trouble down the line (no adult at home during the day, families with young children who want a large-breed puppy, zero previous dog-owning experience). If rescues were doing this for a profit, they'd give anyone who asked any animal(s) they wanted to pay for. That's not how any of this works.

If they are charging it’s for profit. They got the dogs for free so find them a home for free. In human foster care it’s free to the adopting families and often they get a stipend.

Adopting human children isn't free or easy. Taxpayers do subsidize the cost of adoption from foster care, but that doesn't make it free. Private adoption can get really expensive. Adoption fees for pets generally go towards covering the cost of care while the dog is with the rescue. Vet care, transportation, boarding, grooming, none of that is free and there isn't a taxpayer subsidy for private rescue groups, only for city/county government run shelters. If you want free, wait for the fee waived days and go to the government shelter. They'll still vaccinate and neuter for you, just the same as if you paid the fee. After that, your pet, your responsibility nobody anywhere is ever paying you a stipend to own a pet.

I adopt kids, not pets. Again, they should not be charging a fee and families can donate if they choose to. Governments have shelters. These rescuses are a business, just like the private adoption agencies are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Less dogs = less need to encounter them in public indoor and outdoors places. Nothing wrong with liking a dog from afar.
-love dogs.

A lot of people who weren't adequately prepared to raise and train good dogs with good manners got "pandemic puppies" and shouldn't have. Post-pandemic, a lot of those dogs got returned (and I think a lot of in-over-their-heads owners were somewhat relieved by it). RTO is going to be another round of people who aren't dedicated dog owners getting out of the game (or out of the way, depending on your perspective). Personally, I'm for it. If you can't afford to properly care for a pet, you should put them with someone who can.

Or, maybe these rescues can provide support to families struggling rather than taking the dogs and selling them for profit.

No rescue is making bank reselling dogs. Just stop.

As for the "rescues should provide support to families struggling", how? The time for rescues to be supportive is in the "educating potential owners" phase, when we pre-screen and refuse the families we see having trouble down the line (no adult at home during the day, families with young children who want a large-breed puppy, zero previous dog-owning experience). If rescues were doing this for a profit, they'd give anyone who asked any animal(s) they wanted to pay for. That's not how any of this works.

If they are charging it’s for profit. They got the dogs for free so find them a home for free. In human foster care it’s free to the adopting families and often they get a stipend.

Well, I assume you don't work for free neither you have access to free food, transportation, housing and healthcare. Same applies to rescues - they need funds for taking care of the animals (food, vet care, facilities), transportation, spay/neuter/Chip them, organize and advertise events, staff to vet potential adopters etc. Who do you think should cover all those expenses?

Yes, I do a lot of work for free... I don't have a paid job. I volunteer with the PTA and started a PTO. Rescues can get donations/grants like we do. I think the rescues should cover it. Or, let the dogs stay in government shelters, which is more appropriate. The rescues are taking the dogs and reselling them.