In the UK, we have a crisis of not having enough space in rescue for the amount of dogs that are being given up on. So many people are choosing this route rather than finding other solutions. Rescues haven't helped themselves either and continue enabling this practice, making statements such as;
"It's better to rehome to rescue than it is to do it privately" in fear of dog fighting gangs making use of free dogs.
I agree that there's the potential for it being safer, yet where is the evidence that private rehomes are all bad? Do all rescues check thoroughly? And how much is legal to check anyway? A good con person is likely to be skilled in pulling the wool over peoples eyes, especially one that has every intention of gaining a lot.
But the problem doesn't really lie with rescues. Those organisations are there in an attempt to protect animals. The SPCA was formed in Britain in 1824 (now known as the RSPCA) and from then, stray dogs went from being pests and a public health risk to being considered as potential pets. The shift began to change toward stray dogs and focus was placed on welfare. The RSPCA, while many believe is inadequate, focus their attention on welfare and throughout their involvement have made changes and movements forward to focus on the welfare and protection of animals, such as ending bear baiting in 1835.
"Changing animals' lives has always been at the heart of the RSPCA. We put an end to bear baiting in 1835, and drove the Protection of Animals Act in 1911. We spoke up for wildlife with The Hunting Act in 2005, and helped transform lives with The Animal Welfare Act in 2006." ~ RSPCA
While I could write an entire article on my opinions of the RSPCA, where would we be if they hadn't been formed? They are restricted by the current laws and an ever changing environment that is perhaps moving quicker than the laws are changing to match the current society. What society defines as animal cruelty, is not within the RSPCA's power to act, at this time. If the 5 freedoms of the Animal welfare act are met, the RSPCA is unable to act, often they act with prosecution, so if it unlikely to achieve prosecution, they may be unwilling to step in, if voluntary surrender isn't agreeable. This leaves society frustrated and angry with the very organisation that was formed to make changes toward animals and how they are treated.
To blame the RSPCA however, is another level of neglecting one's own responsibility. People who care for an animal have that responsibility to ensure they are adequately cared for, we should refrain from constantly blame shifting for society's approach to animal care. One can argue that there is enough scientific evidence to suggest prong collars and e-collars reduce welfare and is equivalent to smacking a child being seen as physical abuse. Yet, this opinion is not reflected in the Animal Welfare Act 2006, though there is evidence that it can and does cause distress in the long and short term and have a psychological impact. It is not yet widely accepted that these tools are abusive, despite studies showing they are. We all have a responsibility ourselves to ensure welfare standards are upheld in our own homes and this does extend to the decision to rehome or find solutions.
It is not good enough to allow a dog to be housed outside, with a garden full of excrement and have little human interaction. Many people do report this type of scenario to the RSPCA and are surprised when there is no action taken, however, if the dog has shelter, eats every day, has water and is able to move and act freely, this dog is said to not be neglected, as defined by the animal welfare act 2006, especially where owners express hardship or difficulty but show want to change. These guardians can expect to have repeated visits from the RSPCA to monitor the situation, but it changes nothing for the dog immediately. We could argue that the environment is not suitable, yet, in a court, this may not be upheld. It is a very difficult situation as it is not black and white.
It begins with guardians themselves.
'The buck stops with you', as they say. Take ownership of your own responsibilities and make changes. It isn't anyone else's responsibility to pick up the pieces that others neglect, if one takes on the responsibility of another, be this, having a child or getting a dog, see the challenges through and find solutions. Though unfortunately, somewhere down the line, it became more acceptable to give up and hand over the responsibility.
Many rescue workers can speak of many astounding statements made by those wishing to relinquish their dogs, often accompanied by "I can't give them what they need" or "they need a space they can run around like a farm" or "I work long hours" or "he's humping everything and I can't cope with his behaviour." Etc.
While a person may feel justified in their reasons to relinquish their dogs, it is unjust for that dog. There are some genuine cases where there truly are no other options, however, most reasons given could be solved by working with a professional, but the desire to make it work has to be there and often, it's not. It is more common now just to rid oneself of the problem and obtain another dog who is likely to meet the same fate somewhere down the line.
From an ethical point of view, these dogs are taken from the home and placed, often, in an environment that is very overwhelming and scary, lacking all that they once had, and the person they come to trust is no longer there. We aren't talking about 'it's just a dog, they'll find another home,' we are talking about a living being, with feelings and I am unsure why that doesn't matter to a lot of people.
If the behaviour is problematic, there are solutions if you're willing to work with a professional, and I'm not suggesting anyone is hired for this, I am referring to true, educated, force free professionals that have spent years on their education. See choosing a professional for guidance.
We are coming into an era where dogs are seen and referred to as children. This is a step forward, in my opinion and brings about a change in how we think about our dogs. Not as former wild animals, but as members of the family that crave love, affection, safety, reassurance and compassion. By viewing our companions as children, we do not mean they take the place of children, should be put before a child or sit them at the table to eat their food. We suggest dogs should be a seen as equal and valuable family members that are deserving of the same loyalty and commitment afforded to children.
If you are struggling, reach out to someone, talk about it, brain storm solutions and be open to them. Not every problem is solved by rehoming the dog, it may solve it for you, but it causes an even bigger problem for rescues and for the dog themselves.
Comments