IMPORTANT - THE MANY TEARS RESCUE CON

http://www.denrobchows.com/html/the_many_tears_con.html

I just get a server error message when I click on the link, File or Directory Not Found

Just read Dogs Today magazine again and there is a letter in there from someone who tried to rescue from the Many Tears Rescue Centre. It appears that they are very particular about who they rehome dogs to.

The letter is on p.78 (Too choosy) if anyone else has the magazine.

Can't open it

Can't open the link? I'm interested as I know of a couple of dogs re homed through them?

I think the piece was removed for legal reasons. Basically the rescue centre is conning people into thinking it is a charity - it isn't. It has no charitable status & runs a profit from the dogs it rehomes.

Thanks for letting us know that Caryll, it is frustrating sometimes when we cant open a link.

On the Many Tears website it does say that they are not a charity. I don't understand how they could possibly make a profit from rehoming their dogs. It is very expensive to house and feed dogs until they are re-homed. The homing fee usually only covers the neutering and vaccinations etc. The actual cost to a dog rescue of the dog is usually higher than the adoption fee. If they were in it for the money surely that would just breed dogs. It's far easier to sell a puppy than to re-home a rescue dog. I would have been interested to read that article.

In the past I have been involved in assessments of homes for dogs. It is not always as black and white as it may seem. If someone is turned down often they will then make out that the rescue was being picky and unreasonable. They often omit the real reasons they were turned down.

Dog rescues want the dogs in homes and it is very hard to turn people away as homes are few and far between. But sometimes it is clear that things will not work out for that particular dog in that home. When a dog has had an unsettled life already, the last thing that anyone wants is for the dog to end up back in kennels again.

I can't remember exactly what they were doing, but they were definitely 'hinting' that they were a charitable organisation, but they were making money from the rehoming of dogs.

I'm trying to find out exactly what was involved.

If I remember rightly, some of it was about dogs being given wrong descriptions (ie sweet, calm, gets on well with other dogs etc) & the family being charged £150 to take the dog home. Then it turns out that the dog most certainly isn't sweet, or calm and hates other dogs so it gets returned to the centre. No refunds, the same description is put on again & the dog goes out to another family for £150.
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/exclusive-is-our-nation-of-dog-lovers-being-conned/

I know there were also discrepancies with their charitable status, but I can't remember what exactly.

I have just read the article. I must say that to me it just sounds like someone with a bee in their bonnet. £150 adoption fee is not `extortionate'. I just think that if they really were just in it for the money then they wouldn't take in dogs that are hard to home like ex-breeding bitches. Sometimes a dog can act completely differently in kennels to in a home.

As for the adoption fee not being refunded, I can't really comment on that. But Like I was saying, if they wanted the money they wouldn't be involved in rescue as it is very expensive to run a rescue centre. It would be far cheaper for them to just sell puppies. They are located in puppy farm capital of the UK after all. Puppies wouldn't cost them anything to buy in bulk.

I know some people take issue with being questioned and home checked by rescues before taking on a dog. But if they were in the rescues situation and they had rescued a dog from a bad environment. They are not likely to give that dog to any stranger with money in their hands. They want to find the dog a nice stable home so it won't be passed around anymore. I think people take it personally and feel judged. But what are the rescues meant to do. If they re-homed the dog to a bad home and something happened then they would also be criticised for that.

If it was just the one complaint, then I'd say yes, it's a disgruntled adopter. But there were more (I'm still trying to find the original article) and there were questions about the charitable status.

It seems odd that once the dog had been returned & the centre had been told of the dog's temperament, exactly the same description appeared when she went back up for adoption.

Caryll wrote:If it was just the one complaint, then I'd say yes, it's a disgruntled adopter. But there were more (I'm still trying to find the original article) and there were questions about the charitable status.

It seems odd that once the dog had been returned & the centre had been told of the dog's temperament, exactly the same description appeared when she went back up for adoption.

It doesn't sound like a good responsible rescue does it ?? If there was a problem the dog would be reassessed to rehome in a different manner not just farmed out again , £150 to adopt a dog isn't a great deal of money , but if the same dog is adopted 4 times....................................