# Is Dogs Trust being misleading "we never destroy a healthy dog" ??



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Hi all,

Firstly, take a look at this link which explains my concerns about Dogs Trust 'golden' claim that they "...never destroy a healthy dog" http://www.twitlonger.com/show/j0gf2k

I questioned Dogs Trust via Twitter and got a direct response from their Deputy Chief Exec .... it seems I've hit a 'nerve'.

As you will see, I understand that some dogs do have to be euthanased .... at least Blue Cross, Battersea, RSPCA etc are up front about this issue. They are clear about the irresponsible dog breeding and over-population ... where Dogs Trust are not.

Dogs Trust class dogs with behaviour problems as 'unhealthy' and then group them with the the physically ill dogs which have to be euthanased. They put down 75 dogs with behaviour problems in 2011 (figure provided by Dogs Trust).

Do you think they should provide this information to their supporters, the public and media ... like the other charities do?

Personally I believe they are misleading everyone with their to-good-to-be-true "we never destroy a healthy dog" slogan and have made a formal complaint to the ASA ..... I'll let you know the outcome of that complaint.

Oh and ... I don't want this thread to descend into a charity bashing one for any of those mentioned .... they all do good work and you can go elsewhere if you want to just attack. This is just on the one issue I have raised.

Please review this information and then vote in the poll above. Thanks.

Thoughts anyone?

James.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

If they only put down 75 dogs in 2011 I don't think they're misleading, they must have been extreme cases, and a dogs mental health is just as important as physical health, unless you think people with severe mental health issues are healthy.


----------



## Lola71 (Feb 23, 2011)

I agree with Phoolf, if the behavioural problems stem from mental health issues i wouldn't class the dog as healthy.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Hi Phoolf,

As I've said ... I don't have an issue with euthanasia when suitable/necessary ..... I just find that their slogan "we never destroy a healthy dog" is misleading.

To me it implies physical health.

To me it implies that they don't put down a dog unless it's ill, sick, injured or diseased. Nowhere on their website do they mention the 75 euthanased for behavioural reasons?

At least the other charities highlight this problem and are campaigning for improved dog legislation, compulsory microchipping (which DT are not wanting), a proper dog licence etc

It's just the point of honesty.


----------



## theothersparticus (Jan 8, 2012)

I don't feel it's misleading as such, just depends on what you feel is healthy. I always assumed that there had to be a limit on how many dogs they could take and when vet bills get too expensive that they would have to give up on an animal, they have to rely on donations so there's no way they can fund the treatment for every single dog.

I have to say I felt mislead by PETA, given their fanatical devotion to animals I made the assumption (ass+u+me, I know) that they wouldn't put any pets down, but I was wrong. According to this site they have destroyed dogs in huge numbers :frown:


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Hi Phoolf,
> 
> As I've said ... I don't have an issue with euthanasia when suitable/necessary ..... I just find that their slogan "we never destroy a healthy dog" is misleading.
> 
> ...


But they are being honest. Mental health problems are an illness. They dont state physical health, thats just what you presume.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Interesting discussion there Lola71 .... but it's not my question.

Mine is simply ... what do you understand from their slogan "we never destroy a healthy dog" .... see my comment to Phoolf abaove.


----------



## kateh8888 (Aug 9, 2011)

I would agree with others that have already posted. As in humans, mental health issues can be as serious as physical health. Animals can suffer so much through mental (behavioural) issues.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Hmmmmmm Dobermummy ..... that's the issue.

I have spoken to a lot of my friends and co-workers and the 'assume' from the slogan that only physically unhealthy dogs are euthanased.

As I've said, I'm not anti-PTS .... it is necessary ..... just don't like that DT seem to hide it away. Honesty and transparency should be paramount, especially in the charity sector.

James


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Well, I've read your link and to be perfectly honest I think he did answer your question.

He said:

"_However, there are times when we feel that a dogs mental state is such that he or she is not enjoying any quality of life. In such cases, if there is little or no hope of recovery, we will consider euthanasia as we feel it is in the dogs best interests to relieve incurable mental suffering_."

If a dog is suffering from incurable mental stress then it is not a healthy dog. Hence their claim that they never destroy a healthy dog is valid. And tbh, if out of 15,986 stray and abandoned dogs in 2011, only 75 were put to sleep for behavioural reasons, and even then that only happened after:

"_a review by the centre management team and one of our senior (or an external) behaviourist, after which a request is submitted to head office before a final decision is made. Veterinary advice will also have been considered_"

then I can't see a problem.

With all the wrong in the dog world, surely your energies would be better spent elsewhere, fighting for issues that really are issues?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Hi Phoolf,
> 
> As I've said ... I don't have an issue with euthanasia when suitable/necessary ..... I just find that their slogan "we never destroy a healthy dog" is misleading.
> 
> ...


I think perhaps you should expand your understanding of what health is in that case, along with many other people in this country who discount mental health and only think about physical symptoms.


----------



## LahLahsDogs (Jul 4, 2012)

I don't think they're misleading us and agree with the others about mental illnesses being health issues.

They are a charity, have limited spaces and are doing their best with what they've got. If a dog which does have mental/behavior problems is struggling with it's attitude and can't be homed then i'm afraid there is not alot they can do for that dog.They need to get dogs out of the rescue and into homes, and this is just not possible with some dogs unfortunately. There's no point trying and trying and trying again with a dog who is just not able to be rehabilitated and would not be able to be homed as they just can't afford to do it when they have other 'healthy' dogs that need the funds.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

theothersparticus said:


> I don't feel it's misleading as such, just depends on what you feel is healthy. I always assumed that there had to be a limit on how many dogs they could take and when vet bills get too expensive that they would have to give up on an animal, they have to rely on donations so there's no way they can fund the treatment for every single dog.
> 
> I have to say I felt mislead by PETA, given their fanatical devotion to animals I made the assumption (ass+u+me, I know) that they wouldn't put any pets down, but I was wrong. According to this site they have destroyed dogs in huge numbers :frown:


When researching PETA in particular I came to the conclusion they are not fanatically devoted to animals at all, in fact a lot of their stances are anti-animals. The more extreme PETA activists would be content if they had every single pet animal either released to the wild or PTS, they really are a very cruel and disturbing organisation.


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Hmmmmmm Dobermummy ..... that's the issue.
> 
> I have spoken to a lot of my friends and co-workers and the 'assume' from the slogan that only physically unhealthy dogs are euthanased.
> 
> ...


But they are honest :confused1:

A slogan is just something short to catch attention and be memerable, if you like it or interested you then find out more.

Also to be pedantic  a lot of mental health issues are due to brain chemistry therefore a physical illness too


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Thanks everyone ..... Spellweaver, don't worry I do a great deal for dog welfare in this country.

Again, I need to emphasise that I am in agreement that euthanasia of some dogs is necessary. Entirely agree that where it's not possible to responsibly rehome due to dog-human or dog-dog aggression that euthanasia may be the only option ... especially as there is such a huge problem with too many dogs in this country.

My questions is the simple one that I believe the "we never destroy a healthy dog" is ambiguous ... especially as there is no clarification of 'healthy' on the DT website anywhere.

The other charities make it clear and then use the issue to try and do something about the needless waste of a dogs' life because of it's behavour which has been brought about by irresponsible dog ownership.

Thoughts??


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

I don't think that just because you 'assume' healthy only refers to physical illnesses that makes Dogs Trust wrong. Mental illness _is illness_. It means that a dog is unhealthy and that their quality of life is impaired. So no, I don't think they're being misleading - I just think you are taking your assumptions too far, and I doubt very much that the ASA will uphold your complaint.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

dobermummy said:


> But they are honest :confused1:
> 
> A slogan is just something short to catch attention and be memerable, if you like it or interested you then find out more.
> 
> Also to be pedantic  a lot of mental health issues are due to brain chemistry therefore a physical illness too


BUT .... Dogs Trust don't qualify anywhere on their website what they mean by 'healthy' and most I have spoken to assume it's physical health.

?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> BUT .... Dogs Trust don't qualify anywhere on their website what they mean by 'healthy' and most I have spoken to assume it's physical health.
> 
> ?


Well I'm sorry most people you speak to don't know much about health, but them being ignorant doesn't mean that the Dogs Trust are dishonest.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Pezant said:


> I don't think that just because you 'assume' healthy only refers to physical illnesses that makes Dogs Trust wrong. Mental illness _is illness_. It means that a dog is unhealthy and that their quality of life is impaired. So no, I don't think they're being misleading - I just think you are taking your assumptions too far, and I doubt very much that the ASA will uphold your complaint.


Thanks .... but why don't Dogs Trust say just that on their website? They don'y, anywhere clarify this .... and I've looked and asked them ..... they cannot provide me this information.

It's about clarity and honesty.


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

chirungu1 said:


> BUT .... Dogs Trust don't qualify anywhere on their website what they mean by 'healthy' and most I have spoken to assume it's physical health.
> 
> ?


It's not the Dogs Trusts fault that people are ill educated and ignorant is it?

I'm shocked, and slightly disgusted, that anyone could be so low and pathetic to complain to the ASA about a slogan, when it is they themselves, that are unable to comprehend the meaning of 'healthy' and 'illness'.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Linden_Tree said:


> It's not the Dogs Trusts fault that people are ill educated and ignorant is it?
> 
> I'm shocked, and slightly disgusted, that anyone could be so low and pathetic to complain to the ASA about a slogan, when it is they themselves, that are unable to comprehend to meaning of 'healthy' and 'illness'.


Another example of common sense going downhill in this country. I don't understand black holes but I don't complain to stephen hawking that he should dumb down his literature.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Linden_Tree said:


> It's not the Dogs Trusts fault that people are ill educated and ignorant is it?
> 
> I'm shocked, and slightly disgusted, that anyone could be so low and pathetic to complain to the ASA about a slogan, when it is they themselves, that are unable to comprehend to meaning of 'healthy' and 'illness'.


Please don't let this deteriorate into a slanging match as forums so often do "low and pathetic" is a bit much.

x


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> BUT .... Dogs Trust don't qualify anywhere on their website what they mean by 'healthy' and most I have spoken to assume it's physical health.
> 
> ?


I have no issue whatsoever over whether Dogs Trust state that some of the dogs in their care are pts over mental health rather than physical health, it is all health related whether mind or body. The fact that so few of the dogs in their care are destroyed is to be commended in my view.  to assume that Dogs Trust imply that the only dogs pts are ones with physical issues is a bit of a simplistic view at best. We all know that dogs can have issues that with the best care in the world are never going to be resolved, I only wish we were allowed to pts some humans. 

It would have been nice of you to introduce yourself by the way, instead of just launching into an attack on a rehoming charity.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Another example of common sense going downhill in this country. I don't understand black holes but I don't complain to stephen hawking that he should dumb down his literature.


Careful there Phoolf ...... that comparison doesn't really work.

I don't understand black holes or the off-side rule  ..... it's just the perception of the statement I'm musing here about.

I see at least two people have voted YES ... be interested in their opinions. And no, I didn't vote as being the author of this thread I can't.

J


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Please don't let this deteriorate into a slanging match as forums so often do "low and pathetic" is a bit much.
> 
> x


If you want something to complain about perhaps you should start with the RSPCA.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Careful there Phoolf ...... that comparison doesn't really work.
> 
> I don't understand black holes or the off-side rule  ..... it's just the perception of the statement I'm musing here about.
> 
> ...


Are perceptions based on ignorance worth pandering to?


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

bird said:


> I have no issue whatsoever over whether Dogs Trust state that some of the dogs in their care are pts over mental health rather than physical health, it is all health related whether mind or body. The fact that so few of the dogs in their care are destroyed is to be commended in my view.  to assume that Dogs Trust imply that the only dogs pts are ones with physical issues is a bit of a simplistic view at best. We all know that dogs can have issues that with the best care in the world are never going to be resolved, I only wish we were allowed to pts some humans.
> 
> It would have been nice of you to introduce yourself by the way, instead of just launching into an attack on a rehoming charity.


Hi 'bird' ..... please see my initial post. I make it very clear that I support the work of DT and the other rehoming charities. It's just this one issue which I take exception to.

I will of course introduce myself .... off to do it now.

Thanks.

J


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> If you want something to complain about perhaps you should start with the RSPCA.


Careful now Phoolf ..... I've already asked for this not to deteriorate into a charity bashing thread ..... besides I think the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust Battersea all do great work.


----------



## Dizzy Grace (May 2, 2012)

I think it's easy to assume you are being misled, but in the grand scheme of things a dog with severe mental issues that has no quality of life is not a healthy dog. 

The general public may assume it means that they only euthanize physically sick dogs, but that doesn't really matter, people donate to help dogs and generally speaking most charities at least help to some degree.

Not all are perfect, (don't even get me started on PETA) but for the most part they do their best with the resources they have and they will always need to prioritise and choose what they will spend their time and money on. 

In an ideal world there would be no need for any of these charities at all as everyone would be responsible about their pets.


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

chirungu1 said:


> Please don't let this deteriorate into a slanging match as forums so often do "low and pathetic" is a bit much.
> 
> x


Oh i thought that was pretty tame tbh.

There is a rescue crisis in this country, do you honestly think wasting rescue centres time and resources over your inability to understand the meaning of the word healthy, is the best use of them?

Just to clarify the English language for you and anyone else who can't understand:



> Definition of healthy
> adjective (healthier, healthiest)
> 
> in a good physical or *mental condition*; in good health: I feel fit and healthy


Definition of healthy - Oxford Dictionaries (British & World English)

So, to answer your question, no, the DT are not misleading anyone, and i'm sure the ASA won't pay any attention to such a trite matter.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Careful now Phoolf ..... I've already asked for this not to deteriorate into a charity bashing thread ..... besides I think the RSPCA, Blue Cross, Dogs Trust Battersea all do great work.


Perhaps you should investigate the RSPCA further then if that's your opinion, it might be a better use of your time.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> My questions is the simple one that I believe the "we never destroy a healthy dog" is ambiguous ... especially as there is no clarification of 'healthy' on the DT website anywhere.


But I disagree that it is ambiguous. "Healthy" needs no clarification. Dogs (and people, for that matter) can be ill either physically or mentally; it would not occur to most people to separate the two. If they are detroying dogs who are incurably mentally ill then that is no different from destroying dogs who have incurable cancer. Hence their slogan "we never destroy a healthy dog" is true and unambiguous.

As others have pointed out, it's only ambiguous in your mind because, for some reason, you yourself don't associate mental health on the same level as physical health.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Thanks Linden Tree ...... this does seem to split opinion somewhat.

Also very concerning how some want to to drive this discussion off-topic into charity bashing.

As you will see from my introduction (just posted) .... I have a great deal of experience in animal welfare and the charity sector.

I'll continue to maintain my concern for this ambiguous claim by DT until they at least clarify to the public and their supporters what they mean by 'healthy'. They say it nowhere publicly.

J


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Thanks Linden Tree ...... this does seem to split opinion somewhat.
> 
> Also very concerning how some want to to drive this discussion off-topic into charity bashing.
> 
> ...


Why do they need to clarify a word that does not have an unambiguous definition?


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> But I disagree that it is ambiguous. "Healthy" needs no clarification. Dogs (and people, for that matter) can be ill either physically or mentally; it would not occur to most people to separate the two. If they are detroying dogs who are incurably mentally ill then that is no different from destroying dogs who have incurable cancer. Hence their slogan "we never destroy a healthy dog" is true and unambiguous.
> 
> As others have pointed out, it's only ambiguous in your mind because, for some reason, you yourself don't associate mental health on the same level as physical health.


Incorrect assumption there .... I do associate the two on the same level ... it's Dogs Trust who don't make it clear ..... that's what I'm asking for.

All the other major charities make it abundantly clear on their websites and annual reports and campaigning. Staff within these other charities feel aggrieved by DT's untouchable slogan ..... clarity for the 'ignorant' public is all I'm after.

J


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

I don't see how they're misleading anyone. If a dog is put to sleep because it has mental health issues then they're not putting a healthy dog down.


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Thanks Linden Tree ...... this does seem to split opinion somewhat.
> 
> Also very concerning how some want to to drive this discussion off-topic into charity bashing.
> 
> J


The very nature of discussion can veer away from the opening post, as soon as someone makes a comment to explain their way of thinking someone else picks up on that point and the thread sometimes takes a turn. Sometimes for the better sometimes not.  but as of yet I don't see anything off topic so to speak, just the natural course of conversation.

You do not strike me as a beginner to forum life, so you must be able to understand this.


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Hi Phoolf,
> 
> As I've said ... I don't have an issue with euthanasia when suitable/necessary ..... I just find that their slogan "we never destroy a healthy dog" is misleading.
> 
> ...


Ermm not sure what gives you that impression. However you are way of the mark. Just look through past DEFRA consultations from the last 2 years.

Dogs Trust have been a big voice.

It may also be handy to see who is DT's legal consultant is. He is well known throughout the dog legislation world.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Staff within these other charities feel aggrieved by DT's untouchable slogan ..... clarity for the 'ignorant' public is all I'm after.
> 
> J


Hang on - you've gone from 'people I've asked about it' to 'Staff in these charities'. Which is it? Who are you campaigning on behalf of - the general public who you assume are assuming the same meaning as you, or other charities who have for some reason taken umbridge against another charity's slogan?


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> I don't see how they're misleading anyone. If a dog is put to sleep because it has mental health issues then they're not putting a healthy dog down.


Yep agree ..... but they don't say that. They do not clarify anywhere that mentally unhealthy is classified as 'unhealthy'. Nowhere do they mention the figure of 75 dogs they PTS last year which had behavioural problems. Juast asking for clarity and transparency from a charity I otherwise broadly support.


----------



## Dizzy Grace (May 2, 2012)

So they stated they have put down 75 dogs due to behavourial problems: are you claiming that these dogs were healthy, because it was not physical illness or are you trying to claim that they were not mental health issues? 

I'm not really sure where you think the misleading side of things comes into it? You seem very set in your decision, but you are not really clarifying why you think they were healthy dogs that were put down. You claim mental health is a part of being healthy as well as physical, so where's the clarification needed?


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

Pezant said:


> Hang on - you've gone from 'people I've asked about it' to 'Staff in these charities'. Which is it? Who are you campaigning on behalf of - the general public who you assume are assuming the same meaning as you, or other charities who have for some reason taken umbridge against another charity's slogan?


The OP's post in introductions seems to suggest he/she works for a "rival" of DT.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Pezant said:


> Hang on - you've gone from 'people I've asked about it' to 'Staff in these charities'. Which is it? Who are you campaigning on behalf of - the general public who you assume are assuming the same meaning as you, or other charities who have for some reason taken umbridge against another charity's slogan?


Both .... anyone who cares to join in. I have spoken to staff within BDCH, RSPCA and Blue Cross and they all feel aggrieved by DT's holier-than-thou stance. They do howeber, feel that it is not for charities to have a go at each other ... that's counter productive and turns donors off. So .... it never gets said ..... until I just did 

J


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Attack Mode said:


> The OP's post in introductions seems to suggest he/she works for a "rival" of DT.


Ah. Hence the complaint to the ASA.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Attack Mode said:


> The OP's post in introductions seems to suggest he/she works for a "rival" of DT.


This would not surprise me at all, I'm sorry if he does and his charity is jealous of the work they do and their 'untouchable' slogan, but thankfully they won't have much to back up from on here. Perhaps if he asked opinions from people who have the same misunderstanding of health as himself he would get a response more to his liking.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Incorrect assumption there .... I do associate the two on the same level ... it's Dogs Trust who don't make it clear ..... that's what I'm asking for.


Ok, I'm fast losing the plot here. I need to recap:

I think the word "healthy" needs no clarification - it means physical and mental health.

The vast majority of posters on here thnk "healthy" needs no larification - it means "physical and mental health".

The dictionary definition of "healthy" includes physical and mental health.

You now say in the above quote that *you* think that mental and physical health are on the same level, so by association that means you must think that "healthy" measn physical and mental health and so needs no clarification.

Yet you are wasting your time writing to the ASA wanting the Dogs Trust to clarify that when *they* say "healthy" *they *mean "physically and mentally healthy".

FFS - what a waste of your time, the ASA's time, and the DT's time :mad2:


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Both .... anyone who cares to join in. I have spoken to staff within BDCH, RSPCA and Blue Cross and they all feel aggrieved by DT's holier-than-thou stance. They do howeber, feel that it is not for charities to have a go at each other ... that's counter productive and turns donors off. So .... it never gets said ..... until I just did
> 
> J


So? It's none of their business how a charity advertises and conducts itself, even if it is a rival. I get aggrieved by the NSPCA on behalf of Social Services, but I don't start polls in comms to (unsuccessfully) try and get people riled up about it. You're telling us not to bash charities _while you're bashing a charity_. It's not going to work.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Dizzy Grace said:


> So they stated they have put down 75 dogs due to behavourial problems: are you claiming that these dogs were healthy, because it was not physical illness or are you trying to claim that they were not mental health issues?
> 
> I'm not really sure where you think the misleading side of things comes into it? You seem very set in your decision, but you are not really clarifying why you think they were healthy dogs that were put down. You claim mental health is a part of being healthy as well as physical, so where's the clarification needed?


YES, I agree with you about the clarification of healthy/unhealthy ...... [sighs] the issue is that the general public read that slogan and make an assumption. That assumption is about physical health and DT's other marketing suggests that they work with all dogs with behavioural problems and give them a happy life forever .. perhaps in their Star unit ..... nowhere on their website or Annual Report do they mention the 75 dogs PTS for behavioural probs. AND, as said ..... I haven't an issue with the act of the PTS .... it's just the lack of clarity and openness about this.

J


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> YES, I agree with you about the clarification of healthy/unhealthy ...... [sighs] the issue is that the general public read that slogan and make an assumption. That assumption is about physical health and DT's other marketing suggests that they work with all dogs with behavioural problems and give them a happy life forever .. perhaps in their Star unit ..... nowhere on their website or Annual Report do they mention the 75 dogs PTS for behavioural probs. AND, as said ..... I haven't an issue with the act of the PTS .... it's just the lack of clarity and openness about this.
> 
> J


Just for comparison and to show clarity from all sides, could you give me figures for other large charities on how many animals they have PTS in 2011?


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok, I'm fast losing the plot here. I need to recap:
> 
> I think the word "healthy" needs no clarification - it means physical and mental health.
> 
> ...


[deep breaths everyone]  .... I agree FFS

Just why don't DT actually tell-it-as-it-is rather than suggesting something it isn't?

x


----------



## delca1 (Oct 29, 2011)

chirungu1 said:


> BUT .... Dogs Trust don't qualify anywhere on their website what they mean by 'healthy' and most I have spoken to assume it's physical health.
> ?


Healthy to most is physical and mental. It's a shame and very sad that those making assumptions don't understand that. They could try looking up 'healthy' in the english dictionary.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> [deep breaths everyone]  .... I agree FFS
> 
> Just why don't DT actually tell-it-as-it-is rather than suggesting something it isn't?
> 
> x


You mean like the RSPCA? If you wanted clarity there perhaps you could campaign for them to put up posters in their shelters along the lines of 'If this dog is not rehomed in x number of days it will be killed' or 'If you hand in your black dog to this shelter it will most likely be euthanised'.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

The wording they use is perhaps slightly misleading..... if their slogan was "we never put a rehomeable dog down" there would not be an issue (except with the fact that Rehomable is subject to differences of opinion).

Some of the dogs they did PTS will have had mental health issues perhaps, some will have had issues due to the circumstance they were raised in/their history, so on face value I guess their wording could have been better.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

I've always taken the "we never put a healthy dog down" with a pinch of salt, because it all depends on what people interpret as 'healthy'. 

I don't think it's a misleading statement in of itself, but I think the criteria for a 'healthy' and therefore an 'unhealthy' dog should be made more public. You can't leave it down to dictionary definitions and assumptions when it's a company policy. It should be made explicit and available to the public what criteria they're working to.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

chirungu1 said:


> Yep agree ..... but they don't say that. They do not clarify anywhere that mentally unhealthy is classified as 'unhealthy'. Nowhere do they mention the figure of 75 dogs they PTS last year which had behavioural problems. Juast asking for clarity and transparency from a charity I otherwise broadly support.


Why on earth do they need to clarify that they mean mentally unhealthy as well as physically unhealthy? Unhealthy is unhealthy whether it's mental or physical :confused1:


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> [deep breaths everyone]  .... I agree FFS
> 
> Just why don't DT actually tell-it-as-it-is rather than suggesting something it isn't?
> 
> x


But how are they suggesting its something it isnt?? They say they never put a healthy dog down, which is true. Just because some people are ignorant enough not to include mental health isnt DTs fault!


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Just for comparison and to show clarity from all sides, could you give me figures for other large charities on how many animals they have PTS in 2011?


Yep

Blue Cross Blue Cross - Reports and accounts

RSPCA Annual Review - Corporate information - About us

Battersea http://www.battersea.org.uk/document.rm?id=1001

Stats you are after are all there. J


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

dobermummy said:


> But how are they suggesting its something it isnt?? They say they never put a healthy dog down, which is true. Just because some people are ignorant enough not to include mental health isnt DTs fault!


But isn't perpetuating that 'ignorant understanding' irresponsible? It's what DT do and the others don't

J


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Both .... anyone who cares to join in. I have spoken to staff within BDCH, RSPCA and Blue Cross and they all feel aggrieved by DT's holier-than-thou stance. They do howeber, feel that it is not for charities to have a go at each other ... that's counter productive and turns donors off. So .... it never gets said ..... until I just did
> 
> J


What a pile of dog poo. 

Sorry but nowhere have I seen or suspected that other dog centres feel aggrieved over another's "holier than thou" stance, remember the saying "let those without sin cast the first stone"  however I will admit that Dogs Trust does have a far better rep than RSPCA. If it's that they're jealous over then maybe they need to look inside to see why.

You are being very pedantic over this, yes 75 dogs were pts last year due to mental health rather than physical, that's rather a low figure in my book and I would be more interested in how many dogs came into their care that they managed to "turn around" and rehome. You are nitpicking for some reason and until you clarify why, somehow I doubt that it's their advertising slogan as it is NOT misleading, or do you want a breakdown of illnesses that dogs have been pts for. 
I.e. Cancer - 40
Chrons - 22 
Etc


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Sarah1983 said:


> Why on earth do they need to clarify that they mean mentally unhealthy as well as physically unhealthy? Unhealthy is unhealthy whether it's mental or physical :confused1:


Problem is Sarah is that most people understand their slogan as physically healthy (not including mental problems) .... Would it be right for the other charities to say the same? No, because we already know their stance we wouldn't accept it.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Yep
> 
> Blue Cross Blue Cross - Reports and accounts
> 
> ...


Perhaps I'm being dim but I can't see in any of those 3 reports where the figure for how many animals they PTS is?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> [deep breaths everyone]  .... I agree FFS
> 
> Just why don't DT actually tell-it-as-it-is rather than suggesting something it isn't?
> 
> x


(Even deeper breath everyone  ) THEY MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR! The only people who do not think it is perfectly clear are morons who either cannot acept that "healthy" includes mental health as well as physical health, or people who have an axe to grind because this charity's ACCURATE slogan rightfully makes other charities who destroy dogs willy-nilly seem inadequate.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> You mean like the RSPCA? If you wanted clarity there perhaps you could campaign for them to put up posters in their shelters along the lines of 'If this dog is not rehomed in x number of days it will be killed' or 'If you hand in your black dog to this shelter it will most likely be euthanised'.


Off you go again with your anti-RSPCA campaign. And yes, I have worked (past tense) for them too .... time limits on dogs before PTS - wrong, black dogs?? .. also wrong and some of the common misconceptions generally proliferated by those who have been prosecuted for animal cruelty x


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Problem is Sarah is that most people understand their slogan as physically healthy (not including mental problems) .... Would it be right for the other charities to say the same? No, because we already know their stance we wouldn't accept it.


Probably because if many other charities said it they would be lying.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Perhaps I'm being dim but I can't see in any of those 3 reports where the figure for how many animals they PTS is?


You're being dim x


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Off you go again with your anti-RSPCA campaign. And yes, I have worked (past tense) for them too .... time limits on dogs before PTS - wrong, black dogs?? .. also wrong and some of the common misconceptions generally proliferated by those who have been prosecuted for animal cruelty x


:lol: Perhaps you should nip your head in the RSPCA thread in the intros forum sometime. Which one of these charities do you work for again?


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

chirungu1 said:


> Problem is Sarah is that most people understand their slogan as physically healthy (not including mental problems) .... Would it be right for the other charities to say the same? No, because we already know their stance we wouldn't accept it.


Well I guess the people you know are very different to the people I know then as they'd consider it to mean ALL health issues, not just physical ones.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> You're being dim x


So where's the figures? I've read something in the region of 63,000 by the RSPCA in 2009, but I can't see anywhere on their flash annual report where they've put it. I've done a search for euthanised, sleep, put down and none of them have those phrases on after me doing a scan myself. Doesn't seem very clear....


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> The wording they use is perhaps slightly misleading..... if their slogan was "we never put a rehomeable dog down" there would not be an issue (except with the fact that Rehomable is subject to differences of opinion).
> 
> Some of the dogs they did PTS will have had mental health issues perhaps, some will have had issues due to the circumstance they were raised in/their history, so on face value I guess their wording could have been better.


Ah .... very sensible ..... I like "we never put a rehomeable dog down" ...... something which the RSPCA has pledged to try and achieve Pledge 2 - Our five pledges - RSPCA in action

Your comment and their honest approach to this I like.

Now, off to walk my dawgs.

J


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Ah .... very sensible ..... I like "we never put a rehomeable dog down" ...... something which the RSPCA has pledged to try and achieve Pledge 2 - Our five pledges - RSPCA in action
> 
> Your comment and their honest approach to this I like.
> 
> ...


Yes, that would be a lovely pledge to keep, if only the RSPCA staff in shelters tried to make the dogs rehomable if they weren't already.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> :lol: Perhaps you should nip your head in the RSPCA thread in the intros forum sometime. Which one of these charities do you work for again?


I'll do that. Have worked for two of them and am currently an independent consultant. J x


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Problem is Sarah is that most people understand their slogan as physically healthy (not including mental problems) .... .


No they don't. The results of your poll so far show overwhelmingly that this is not the case at all. Most people understand that "healthy" means physical and mental health.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> I'll do that. Have worked for two of them and am currently an independent consultant. J x


An independent consultant who is currently consulting for which charity that is jealous of the DT?


----------



## bird (Apr 2, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Problem is Sarah is that most people understand their slogan as physically healthy (not including mental problems) .... Would it be right for the other charities to say the same? No, because we already know their stance we wouldn't accept it.


Oh me thinks I'm going to conduct my own poll on the fields and woods where I walk my boys, just to see whether my fellow dog walkers are part of this majority.  (bet they're not)


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

I don't think the people saying "those who don't think its perfectly clear are dim" are being very fair

If its a company policy then there needs to be standardised working definitions of what is and isn't included as a healthy dog - in detail. I believe these definitions should be made public so there is absolutely no doubt in anyones mind what type of dogs do and do not get PTS. 




Having said that, its sad but understandable that places like dogs trust put to sleep dogs because they do not have the funding, time or expertise to cope with mental illness or severe behavioural issues.

I don't think they're being misleading, but I think they could be more public about the criteria they're assessing dogs with.

When you're dealing with life and death - you shouldn't be relying on assumptions and what most people understand healthy to mean. It should be in black and white for everyone to see.


----------



## magpie (Jan 3, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> clarity for the 'ignorant' public is all I'm after.


Isn't it a bit offensive to assume that the general public are too stupid to understand the meaning of a simple word like 'healthy'?

I don't find DT's slogan misleading in the slightest. They say they don't put a healthy dog down, and they don't. How is this misleading?


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

chirungu1 said:


> Problem is Sarah is that most people understand their slogan as physically healthy (not including mental problems) .


Do they?

Where's the study? Where's the independant, unbiased research?

Seem's little more than sour grapes to me. Maybe certain charities need to buck their ideas up and actually do something to improve their poor reputations, rather than taking pathetic and quite frankly, laughable, swings at those that do a good a better job.

Tbh, i call BS on all this 'most people' rubbish you're spouting.


----------



## Sarah1983 (Nov 2, 2011)

bird said:


> Oh me thinks I'm going to conduct my own poll on the fields and woods where I walk my boys, just to see whether my fellow dog walkers are part of this majority.  (bet they're not)


Well I started a facebook poll. Most of my friends are just your average pet owner so we'll see what results I get.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Ah .... very sensible ..... I like "we never put a rehomeable dog down" ...... something which the RSPCA has pledged to try and achieve Pledge 2 - Our five pledges - RSPCA in action
> 
> Your comment and their honest approach to this I like.
> 
> ...


:lol: OMFG - are you a troll or what? How can someone who is making all this fuss about the ambiguity of a statement that says "we never put a healthy dog down" then go on to say that he likes "we never put a rehomeable dog down" and call it an honest statement! :lol:

Can you not see that "we never put a rehomable dog down" absolutely teems with ambiguity??!! What constitutes rehomeable? A pet who is grieving? A pet who the shelter has no room for? A pet who is upset and hungry and disorientated by its owners death and so needs to be killed by using a bolt gun and pithing, like the rspca did with the gsds? 
I think you need to either stop trolling or reasses your priorities.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: OMFG - are you a troll or what? How can someone who is making all this fuss about the ambiguity of a statement that says "we never put a healthy dog down" then go on to say that he likes "we never put a rehomeable dog down"! :lol:
> 
> Can you not see that "we never put a rehomable dog down" absolutely teems with ambiguity??!! What constitutes rehomeable? A pet who is grieving? A pet which the shelter has no room for? A pet which is upset and hungry and disorientated by its owners death and so needs to be killed by using a bolt gun and pithing?


Exactly

Whatever the phrase, DT should make clear public criteria to accompany their statement for those who are interested.

OP - I don't think DT have been misleading. They should release more information to qualify their statement for people such as yourself who are interested in their interpretation of 'healthy'. But in my opinion, it's just as valid to assess a dog's mental health and behavioural issues, as it is to assess their physical health when deciding whether the dog is 'healthy' or 'rehomable' or whatever


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Yep
> 
> Blue Cross Blue Cross - Reports and accounts
> 
> ...


Actually no, they are not. I've scoured them twice now and not a bean about how many animals they put down in one year so balls to that quite frankly. You want clarity and honesty? A) who are you working for and B) how many animals did THEY put down as these links are not helpful or transparent in any way.


----------



## Dizzy Grace (May 2, 2012)

I'm wondering how the other links are any different to dogs trust, they have annual reports on their website all stating how many dogs they have put down each year when in fact so far I have not managed to find the figures for the other charities you linked.

Their slogan relies on an element of trust, what I deem healthy may be somewhat different to what someone next to me deems as healthy, but I have to trust that the charity is not making up an excuse for a dog they can't be bothered to work with. When it comes down to it, if I am supporting this charity am I happy to trust they will do what's best with my money and that's the same for anyone giving away money to any cause.

Dogs Trusts website does explain what they do for dogs, it explains how they have dedicated STAR's centres that tries to turn around dogs with behavioural issues and they also have a place where people reactive dogs can live out their lives peacefully. Yes all of that is somewhat beside the point, but they do a lot for dogs.

They also explain their selective criteria and that they choose the dogs they take, so technically it's not them putting down as I doubt they would take on any that they felt they had no hope with from the start. This may be a point of contention, if you want to take objection to Dogs Trust, however the slogan itself is in my opinion fairly straight forward.



http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/about/constitution/default.aspx#.UD9Dc9ZlTLI said:


> • To ensure that no mentally and physically healthy dog taken into the protection of the rescue/re-homing centres shall be destroyed.


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

Now the name "Dogs Trust".

They don't make it clear what definition of the word "trust" they mean.

trust (trst)
n.
1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.
4.
a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
b. One in which confidence is placed.
5. Reliance on something in the future; hope.
6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.
7. Law
a. A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another.
b. The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary.
c. The property so held.
8. A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.

Are they saying they can be trusted? Is it a legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another? Or is it one of the other meanings?

I may make a poll to see what meaning of the word "trust" people think they mean.

Also "Blue Cross", is that blue as in the colour, or blue as in "adult nature"? "Cross" as in angry? Or are they trying to give the impression they are connected to religion?

Maybe they need to make things clearer. The public might think ,they are angry dirty joke telling Christians.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Attack Mode said:


> Now the name "Dogs Trust".
> 
> They don't make it clear what definition of the word "trust" they mean.
> 
> ...


Absolutely excellent! What a brilliant way to show the OP about the absurdity of his "complaint"! Rep coming your way for this!


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

By the way, have you even looked at Dogs Trust 2012 Annual report? Because on page 12, it says quite clearly:

Number of dogs died or put to sleep
2010 - 276
2011 - 309

You can even have a look for yourself: http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/campaigns/annualreview2012/annualreview2012pdf.pdf

So what clarification are you actually looking for here? Because it's right there.


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

Seems the op is just on a DT hate campaign.

https://twitter.com/chirungu1


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

Pezant said:


> By the way, have you even looked at Dogs Trust 2012 Annual report? Because on page 12, it says quite clearly:
> 
> Number of dogs died or put to sleep
> 2010 - 276
> ...


Well hit me with a stick and call me Mary. 

Those figures are far lower than say the RSPCA. They have figures in the thousands, not hundreds. Plus some of those were healthy.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Linden_Tree said:


> Seems the op is just on a DT hate campaign.
> 
> https://twitter.com/chirungu1


Wonder who's paying him? I doubt he'll be back to inform us though, he doesn't seem to really believe in transparency.


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

Linden_Tree said:


> Seems the op is just on a DT hate campaign.
> 
> https://twitter.com/chirungu1


Wow. Looks like they're on a lot of hate campaigns. Let's just let this thread go now, shall we?


----------



## IndysMamma (Jan 15, 2009)

I have to say I think they are being perfectly honest

After all they don't necessarily euthanise a dog with say.... diabetes as with correct care those dogs can lead perfectly happy, healthy lives

I would consider *any* condition that impacts on the welfare of the animal as being a health issue and in some cases it simply cannot be treated, at least not within charity resources and the Dogs Trust go much further than other charities in that respect

They have paddocks with shelters for dogs that are dog friendly but people fearful/feral so they can live out their lives with minimal human contact - other rescues would euthanise these dogs within a couple months once rehab showed no progress

TBH I am too much of a pragmatist and am not all that distressed by the shelters that euthanise more regularly as after volunteering in rescues I saw many dogs that were distressed after months/years in kennels and showing stress behaviours like pacing and bar licking.... I also saw several that could never be rehomed because they had become so conditioned to kennel life that they cannot cope with a family home.

Don't get me wrong I am *horribly* upset that dogs are in the situation to begin with but with the 'no kill' shelters care also has to be taken when to draw the line at mental health


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Linden_Tree said:


> Seems the op is just on a DT hate campaign.
> 
> https://twitter.com/chirungu1


What a complete and utter prannock. This is bordering on the fanatical. Honestly, with all the serious things that *do* need campaigning for in the dog world, I can't for the life of me believe that someone would waste their time on this kind of nonsense.

Well, at least his stupid campaign got the reaction it deserved on this forum! Like the rspca digital communications officer, he got the opposite reaction to what he was hoping for so I doubt he will be back.


----------



## Fifi McK (Apr 13, 2012)

I think the DT does absolutely fantastic work :thumbup: and don't think that they're slogan is misleading at all! :001_unsure:

As you mentioned in an earlier post other charities do take objection to their slogan well I personally take objection to the RSPCA slogan/campaign :angry: - 
Home for life - Leave a legacy - Support us
'Home for Life' which when taken at face value as ordinary Joe/Jane Bloggs member of the public would do it indicates that if you die your pet will be looked after but if examined more closely you can see their carefully worded get out clause :sneaky2:.

Not just me but other people think so too - so much so that it has been investigated and sadly they've not been forced to make it clearer :thumbdown: (due to careful wording) for the general public who according to you previous posts are a bit dim and need things clearly spelt out :huh:



> IHome for Life
> Home for Life is the RSPCA's free service, giving pet owners peace of mind.
> 
> It means *we'll do all we can **to find a new, loving home for your pet/s if you should pass away.
> ...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Fifi McK said:


> I think the DT does absolutely fantastic work :thumbup: and don't think that they're slogan is misleading at all! :001_unsure:
> 
> As you mentioned in an earlier post other charities do take objection to their slogan well I personally take objection to the RSPCA slogan/campaign :angry: -
> Home for life - Leave a legacy - Support us


Totally agree - both about the DT and the rspca.

I wouldn't leave my dogs to the tender mercies of the rspca even if it meant I had to spend my last penny in providing private care for them when I die. I am too afraid that they will come to the house to collect them, hear them bark at them (as they do at strangers) then decide off the cuff that they are unable to rehome them and will destroy them with a bolt gun and pithing rod. (Shudder)

I would have no compunction, however, in applying for a Canine Care Card from the Dogs' Trust so that my animals are taken care of if I pop my clogs:
Dogs Trust - Canine Care Card


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

I decided a long time ago that their claim is bogus, in fact, not just misleading.

This is what they say in their reply to you: _Where dogs are human aggressive and have not responded to behavioural therapy, they can live with other dogs in one of our two sanctuaries where they can enjoy a stimulating life in the company of other dogs._

Why then, when my friend asked them to take her much loved spaniel who was absolutely fine and friendly with adults but hated children, did they tell her over the phone he would be pts?

There was no mention of rehabilitation or assessment. He had bitten a child, he had to go. Full stop.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> I decided a long time ago that their claim is bogus, in fact, not just misleading.
> 
> This is what they say in their reply to you: _Where dogs are human aggressive and have not responded to behavioural therapy, they can live with other dogs in one of our two sanctuaries where they can enjoy a stimulating life in the company of other dogs._
> 
> ...


That's awful. :frown:


----------



## Fifi McK (Apr 13, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> I would have no compunction, however, in applying for a Canine Care Card from the Dogs' Trust so that my animals are taken care of if I pop my clogs:
> Dogs Trust - Canine Care Card


Didn't even know that the DT did this :blush: sounds loads better than the RSPCA one which is heavily advertised - DT should big themselves up more! :thumbup:

Would deffo consider using this - currently have my will leaving everything to my wee brother on condition he looks after and cares for any animals I have at the time of my death until the end of their natural life. Think there's a clause about PTS on vet recommendation i.e. in pain, unmanageable/incurable illness. He's fine with this - has said he would even if it wasn't a condition of getting my loot!

Will might change in the future though as i'm not planning to die anytime soon! :lol: Who knows where i'll be in a few years :001_unsure:, could get married and have kids or end up a crazy dog lady with a house full of them and wee bro might beg me to change the will as he couldn't look after 101 pups! :arf:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

How can anyone run down a charity that does this? 

Dogs Trust: Six months in the life of Dogs Trust Sanctuary


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2012)

IMHO, DT do great work for dogs but like any large charity they do have their faults and the RSPCA slogan is also misleading you just have to read the small print


----------



## raindog (Jul 1, 2008)

chirungu1 said:


> [deep breaths everyone]  .... I agree FFS
> 
> Just why don't DT actually tell-it-as-it-is rather than suggesting something it isn't?
> 
> x


They do - it's only in your mind that there is any lack of clarity. The vast majority of people here (and on other fora where you have raised this issue) understand the issue very clearly!

Mick


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

chirungu1 said:


> Hi Phoolf,
> At least the other charities highlight this problem and are campaigning for improved dog legislation, compulsory microchipping (which DT are not wanting), a proper dog licence etc


For someone who claims to be so knowledgeable on the facts in their communication to Dogs Trust, there is one glaring Mistake there for starters saying that Dogs Trust dont want compulsory Micro chipping and changes to dog legislation:-

Dogs Act: Consultation Response

Compulsory Microchipping

Government is looking at several options on microchipping:

a) Microchip all puppies (governments preferred option)
b) Microchip all dogs on change of owner only
c) Microchip all dogs on change of owner and then after a period of time for all dogs to be microchipped
d) Microchip all dogs within a year of the legislation coming into effect (Dogs Trusts preferred option)
e) No change to the current voluntary situation.

Dogs Trust believes that compulsory microchipping of all dogs should form a central part of any future policy on tackling irresponsible dog ownership. Microchipping will not prevent attacks but we believe that it is the most effective way to link a dog to its owner and to make irresponsible owners accountable for the actions of their dog. Dogs Trust research shows that 83% of the UK population believes all dogs should be microchipped - it is hard to understand why government is so reluctant to take this step now.

And on a broader welfare note, we want to see microchipping made compulsory for all dogs in order to help reduce the burden we, and many other charities, face in dealing with stray dogs. Dogs Trust has been leading the campaign calling on the government to introduce compulsory microchipping for all dogs in the UK and a requirement for owners details to remain up to date on a national database.

Microchipping is the most effective way of ensuring lost dogs are returned to their owners. However of the 8.2 million pet dogs currently in the UK, more than a third remain unidentifiable. This poses a serious welfare issue. In 2011 local authorities took in over 121,000 stray dogs, of those dogs taken in by authorities last year, 6,404 were put to sleep. Dealing with these dogs cost a combined estimate of £25.9 million worth of taxpayers and charities money. If more dogs were microchipped, more could be returned to their owners and the cost to authorities would be vastly reduced, as well as ease the stress and worry to dogs and their owners.

Dangerous Dogs Proposals

Lack of Preventative Measures

Dogs Trust wanted to see the government introduce a new, practical, consolidated piece of legislation that actually works to prevent dog attacks by introducing Dog Control Notices.

These measures would force an owner to take reasonable steps to control their dog after aggression has been demonstrated but before an attack has taken place. This could include training, muzzling, microchipping and neutering. Practical, useful actions that would ensure the dog was being kept under better control and not a danger to anyone. Dog Control Notices are already being used in Scotland.

Extending the Law to Cover Private Property

Dogs Trust supports the extension of the law onto private property in the most severe of cases, as thousands of postal workers, midwives, utility workers and others who have to go into peoples homes in the course of their duties are attacked by dogs. However, we will be emphasizing to government that this will not prevent dog attacks. It may act as a deterrent to some as it will punish the owner of the dog.

Attacks on private property are already covered by the Dogs Act 1871 but this is a civil rather than a criminal matter and it provides no compensation for the victim and no punishment for the owner of the dog.

However, we do not believe the owner of the dog should be prosecuted if the victim is not there lawfully (i.e. a trespasser) nor if there was provocation to which the dog responded.

Improving Welfare

In the absence of a repeal of breed specific legislation, Dogs Trust would like new provisions to be introduced that would better improve welfare for dogs that could be deemed to be of type.

We therefore welcome the proposal to allow the police to leave the dog with the owner (if the dog is not deemed to be a threat to public safety and the owner is responsible) pending any court case. This helps improve welfare as the dog does not have to spend indefinite amounts of time in police kennels and saves the police and ultimately the tax payer money on kennelling costs.

However, we would like to see this go further to further to allow owners who have dogs suspected of being of type, to apply to the courts directly for the dog to be placed onto the Index of Exempted Dogs, subject to police behavioral assessment. This would mean the dog could stay with its owner but would have to be neutered, muzzled in public, microchipped, tattooed and for the

Dogs Trust - Consultation Response


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

chirungu1 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Firstly, take a look at this link which explains my concerns about Dogs Trust 'golden' claim that they "...never destroy a healthy dog" TwitLonger - When you talk too much for Twitter
> 
> ...


Going from your own facts as I havent double checked them, if Dogs Trust looked after 15.986 dogs in 2011 alone I believe you said and only 309 out of this number either died in their care or were PTS and only 75 of these were put to sleep because of behavioural problems then its less the 1/2% out of the whole number

OK so 75 dogs out of that number were PTS because of behavioural problems. They were not just immediately put to sleep though, they were assessed and unresponsive to behaviour modification and re-traning so what are they suppose to do?

They cant rehome them if human agressive Im sure you would be one of the first if you were attacked and bitten by a dog that knowingly was human agressive and in spite of re-training was allowed to be rehomed.

If they keep the dog there to live out its life the staff and anyone coming into contact with it is at risk of being bitten or worse.

With the sheer numbers of rehomeable dogs that are available and waiting to come in or in need of a place what about those? Do you turn the needy or re-homeable ones away or put them to sleep because there are no places and dangerous agressive dogs that cant be rehomed or are putting people at risk are taking up much needed spaces. Do you put to sleep a mum and a litter of pups who havent even began their lifes and are innocent because the human agressive dogs are in that kennel and taking up space they could have had?

Sorry but you are being totally unrealistic and its just petty nit picking.
Dogs trust every year give an annual statement nothing is hidden, the also produce accounts as to where the money is spent on the internet for every one to see, see examples below.

If you feel you need to campaign, then do something worthwhile like campaining against all the puppy farms causing misery churning out sick and dying puppies by the bucket load kept in squalor and bad conditions, and the breeding bitches and stud dogs who only know cramped conditions and never even see day light. or all the back yard breeders who dont give a stuff and are adding to the situation and problems for breed welfares and animal rehoming centres world wide.

In short I think you need to grow a pair and take a look at the real world of Dogs.

http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/_resources/annualreview2011.pdf

http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/about/accounts/accounts2010.pdf


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

OP I have just read your twitlonger link.

I am shocked that you continually mention you are "experienced", a "professional" and so on, yet spout such untruths in your reply to Dogs Trust.

I touched upon it earlier but will mention it again.

Dogs Trust are one of the major players behind supporting changes to Dog Legislation in some forms.

Just search for any news about the recent changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act. You are bound to see a quote from their legal consultant in a newspaper or such like showing their support.

Some examples.
https://news.google.co.uk/news/stor...a=X&ei=cXo_UKa6Le-10QWMyIGYBA&ved=0CC4QqgIwAQ

But if we now concentrate on DT themselves about compulsory microchipping. According to your comment in this thread and in your DT reply, they are against it.

Dogs Trust - DOGS TRUST COMMENT ON COMPULSORY MICROCHIPPING

Are you sure, they are against it? Because it doesn't come across like that from that press release above. 

Now regarding the return of the dog licence. You state every other charity are for it, but the DT are against. I suggest you do your research. The Dogs Trust are not alone in this feeling.

In fact the biggest supporter of a return is the RSPCA. This is because they want to control it. Most others are against it, and have been since it was first looked at a few years ago.

However, if you have had these strong feelings about possible dog legislation changes, or have suggestions for changes. Have you ever responded to any of the DEFRA consultations that have taken place over the last 4 or so years?

This covered things from compulsory microchipping, return of a dog licence, compulsory insurance and etc.

If you didn't respond and use your voice, it is rather foolish to now complain things are not getting done. You had your chance to share your views.

People that did share their voice include most of the charities you have named. So I suggest you read up their responses to each consultation, which are all published online.

By reading these responses you may actually see your claims about who does/doesn't support various dog legislation changes, are incorrect.

ETA: Just noticed Sled Dog Hotel has already highlighted these mistakes by the OP.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

he doesn't strike me as a professional at all - more like a fanatic (and not a very intelligent fanatic at that!)


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I find it quite sad that the OP would rather nit pick over a statement that s/he belives MAY be misinterpreted 

Seriously there are so many things you could be doing with your time :mad2:


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> he doesn't strike me as a professional at all - more like a fanatic (and not a very intelligent fanatic at that!)


That's what I find hard to understand ... why would a 'professional' person who has worked in the animal welfare sector be so hung about about this :confused1:

Unfortunately there are so many other areas that they could be helping to improve, raise awareness of, etc that I am staggered that anyone who truly cared about animals would be acting in such a petty way


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

chirungu1 said:


> *Problem is Sarah is that most people understand their slogan as physically healthy *(not including mental problems) .... Would it be right for the other charities to say the same? No, because we already know their stance we wouldn't accept it.


Why do you keep repeating this OPINION when over and over many posters tell you that it is incorrect?

Prove that the general public or most people understand the DT slogan to mean physically healthy.

I don't believe they would or that they do. I believe MOST people are well aware that mental health is included in their description of a 'healthy animal'.

CC


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

Seems like an awful lot of fuss about nothing from the OP.

The dogs trust are good guys, they are a rescue that help our rescue with pound dogs in PTS situation and often take the difficult and dogs with behaviural or medical issues and really go the extra mile for them. Some of the dogs that went there needed alot of work and they have given it to them; so any dogs that are put down must have really been poorly/ very bad behaviour issues.

If anyone cares that much about dog welfare etc, then there are far better ways to spend time.

Not been able to post before - just been helping the rescue I volunteer with take and find safe places for four healthy staffies who were due to be killed this morning as no room anywhere else. 

Now thats what I call worthwhile - not picking at the DT. If you don't like their policies or wording then don't donate.

I find that statement causes more issue anyway with anyone with an ill or dog with a bad behaviour issue thinking that they just just be able to ring up DT and they take them in open doors style.


----------



## BumbleFluff (Jul 23, 2011)

i havent read through all the replies (11 pages is far too much to read) But dogs trust are slightly misleading. They personally do not put down healthy dogs, but they will send them back to the place they came from (stray kennels etc) to have them put down for petty reasons which may put people off from rehoming (pulling on the lead, chasing shadows etc etc) they will only put down dogs who are mentally and physically unwell.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

OP hasn't replied in a while...just thought I'd point it out


----------



## Fifi McK (Apr 13, 2012)

Noticed OP had disappeared too. :confused1: After telling people they were dim they took themselves off bout 11.30 


chirungu1 said:


> Now, off to walk my dawgs.
> 
> J


Must be a v long walk - lucky dogs! :arf:


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

He might be too upset to post. He has 5 followers earlier on twitter, now he has 4.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Attack Mode said:


> He might be too upset to post. He has 5 followers earlier on twitter, now he has 4.


What a whole 4!! Obviously the recruiting drive didnt make the numbers soar.:scared:


----------



## EmCHammer (Dec 28, 2009)

> i havent read through all the replies (11 pages is far too much to read) But dogs trust are slightly misleading. They personally do not put down healthy dogs, but they will send them back to the place they came from (stray kennels etc) to have them put down for petty reasons which may put people off from rehoming (pulling on the lead, chasing shadows etc etc) they will only put down dogs who are mentally and physically unwell.


Dogs trust have NEVER asked us to take a dog back ? our stray kennels wouldn't take a dog abck anyway they only take dogs in from the dog warden. Is that known facts - maybe different branches from the ones we work with.

And that includes some dogs who have bitten or who are old or who who have turned out to be quite ill, or who have been with them along time - and including lead grabbers and dogs wiht little socialisation or training or manners. I can only say good things about them tbh having visited them with a view to rehoming and having seen how they deal with the dogs that have gone there from our pound.

They may not be able to take in all and sundry and that gets them a moaning at quite often; but they can't just take in every dog they are contacted about, why should they nor every single dog with severe behavioural or health issues that they may be contacted about - even as a big rescue they have only a certain amount of space.


----------



## BumbleFluff (Jul 23, 2011)

EmCHammer said:


> Dogs trust have NEVER asked us to take a dog back ? our stray kennels wouldn't take a dog abck anyway they only take dogs in from the dog warden. Is that known facts - maybe different branches from the ones we work with.
> 
> And that includes some dogs who have bitten or who are old or who who have turned out to be quite ill, or who have been with them along time - and including lead grabbers and dogs wiht little socialisation or training or manners. I can only say good things about them tbh having visited them with a view to rehoming and having seen how they deal with the dogs that have gone there from our pound.
> 
> They may not be able to take in all and sundry and that gets them a moaning at quite often; but they can't just take in every dog they are contacted about, why should they nor every single dog with severe behavioural or health issues that they may be contacted about - even as a big rescue they have only a certain amount of space.


I only know about them sending dogs back because my best friend works in kennels that take strays, and several times dogs trust have returned dogs for stupid reasons to have them put down. I still sponsor DT and support them, but some of the reasons they have given when returning a dog are just ridiculous


----------



## Ducky (Nov 23, 2008)

since i work for DT, i thought id just butt in for a second 

i cannot speak for the other centres, as i do not work at them, but in my 1.5years so far at my centre, we have only PTS a handful of dogs. and they were all through old age/illness.(and only after everyone is in agreement that its the right thing to do) we have never put a dog down through behavioural issues. we have dogs in our centre who have been with us for many years, but we still strive to find them homes, and we do find them homes! we have dogs with various behavioural issues, we work really hard to help them with these, and potential new owners get loads of help and support to carry this on in new homes. if we get in dogs with physical health problems, we treat them as best we can and continue to help when they go home.

our centre would never tell anyone to PTS their dog if we cant take them in at that time. we have a 6 week waiting list all the time. and we try and accomodate everyone as much as we can. we have also never sent a stray dog back to the kennels they came to us from. 

as i have already said, i cant speak for the other centres, but the staff i work with are ridiculously dedicated to the dogs in our care. we treat them like they are our own from the minute they arrive to the day they get sent home, and beyond! just recently i got an update from a dog i was very fond of and had a great bond with (had been with us for just under 2years when he left), and to know he is doing well in his home makes me feel brilliant  

so sorry if you find it misleading, but certainly in my experience, we have never done that.


----------



## rocco33 (Dec 27, 2009)

> I have spoken to a lot of my friends and co-workers and the 'assume' from the slogan that only physically unhealthy dogs are euthanased.


Well you know what they say about 'assume'?

It makes an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'! 

A health dog is one of sound body and mind. Mental illness is as much of an illness as physical illness.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Thanks various for your comments. Certainly interesting reading and clearly among the majority on this forum .. I'm barking up the wrong tree, if you'll excuse the pun.

Oh, Attack Mode etc .... thanks for the kind comments about another forum member .... here I was thinking I may get some sensible debate. I do have other things to be doing with my time you know 

I think we've been over and over this quite enough though and again, thanks for the comments.

Just one last thing .....

I've just heard that the RSPCA is going to adopt the same slogan as DT "we never destroy a healthy dog" ..... clealry it's fine for them to do this as well then 

x

J


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

One last ... last thing ... it IS interesting that nearly 20% of voters agree with me. That is not an insignificant minority? Bye for now x


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

:lol: What a joke you are. I hope you're happy with your pay cheque from whatever 'charity' it is that is paying you to try and slander a far superior organisation.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> :lol: What a joke you are. I hope you're happy with your pay cheque from whatever 'charity' it is that is paying you to try and slander a far superior organisation.


Don't you think it possible they've just been given the boot from DT


----------



## Pezant (Jul 6, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> One last ... last thing ... it IS interesting that nearly 20% of voters agree with me. That is not an insignificant minority? Bye for now x


Yes, and over 80% of people on this forum think you're ridiculous. I think that's quite a good majority, don't you? Ta ta.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

rona said:


> Don't you think it possible they've just been given the boot from DT


Quite likely. Either that or just another useless RSPCA worker trying to make them look good to no avail.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> Quite likely. Either that or just another useless RSPCA worker trying to make them look good to no avail.


And we are all idiots, apparently, for running down the RSPCA. See the other thread - think you could be right.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Dogs trust is one of the only animal charities that i will support, along with just for dogs and ashbourne animal welfare. You really need to brush up on you dictionary, health is not just physical its your mental state aswell, so therefore they are saying if the dog is healthy, physically and mentally they will do their upmost to home it, i dont see the problem tbh


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Quite likely. Either that or just another useless RSPCA worker trying to make them look good to no avail.


Nice ... really nice .... you've just dismissed the sterling work of around 1300 people who do a great deal of good for animal welfare. How very gracious of you.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Nice ... really nice .... you've just dismissed the sterling work of around 1300 people who do a great deal of good for animal welfare. How very gracious of you.


:lol: And what is you're aiming to do with your hate campaign? You're nothing more than a hypocrite, coming online to try and slander the DT as if you're asking an honest question when actually your motivation and intention is less than honest. Perhaps you should try pushing your ignorance on people less savvy, they're less likely to ask probing questions.

Still waiting for your figures on how many animals were PTS by other organisations btw, because as pointed out the links you gave are as much use as a chocolate teapot. Talk about transparency!


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

If we put it this way, and yea its very sad, but people might understand. Most charities only have a limited amount of funds (the rspca are exempt from this comment) to help alot of animals. So they can either spend hundreds and hundreds of pounds on one dog to help it with its problems and then it _*may*_ get adopted. Or it can use the hundreds and hundreds to help another 10 dogs?? Yes it is sad that it happens but what right do you have to come here and start bashing a charity and its work just because *YOU* have a problem with their slogan?? Very sad in MHO


----------



## Fifi McK (Apr 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Just one last thing .....
> 
> I've just heard that the RSPCA is going to adopt the same slogan as DT "we never destroy a healthy dog" ..... clealry it's fine for them to do this as well then
> 
> ...


Surely they'd be lying though :confused1:

Many instances (too many to mention again) where this is not the case - see the 'hello from the RSPCA' thread :mad2:

Personally I hope they do adopt the slogan then the ASA would have to uphold complaints against such a clearly misleading and false claim from the RSPCA! :thumbup:


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

tashax said:


> If we put it this way, and yea its very sad, but people might understand. Most charities only have a limited amount of funds (the rspca are exempt from this comment) to help alot of animals. So they can either spend hundreds and hundreds of pounds on one dog to help it with its problems and then it _*may*_ get adopted. Or it can use the hundreds and hundreds to help another 10 dogs?? Yes it is sad that it happens but what right do you have to come here and start bashing a charity and its work *just because YOU have a problem with their slogan??* Very sad in MHO


I think what's even more sad is that he seems to be being paid by someone to try and prove people have a problem with this slogan. :mad2:


----------



## Guest (Aug 31, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Just one last thing .....
> 
> I've just heard that the RSPCA is going to adopt the same slogan as DT "we never destroy a healthy dog" ..... clealry it's fine for them to do this as well then
> 
> ...


Well that would be very misleading now wouldn't it  A bit like their "Home for life" campaign 

If you want to slate organisations on their "misleading slogans" then I suggest you look closer to home :thumbup:


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Just a thought on the argument for health versus behaviour.

What about health problems that are untreatable that can affect behaviour and cause agression and wont respond to treatment, or nothing can be done like brain lesions, psychomotor seizures and brain tumours they can all cause behaviour problems if affecting the part of the brain that controls behaviour.
How do you know that this sort of thing wasnt a factor in some of the dogs that were a very small proportion of dogs that were PTS because of behaviour problems. You dont.


----------



## Linden_Tree (Jan 6, 2011)

Dogs Trust Never Put a Healthy Dog Down, A Dog is for Life, not just for Christmas and A Dog is for Life are all registered trademarks belonging to the DT.

The RSPCA can not legally use such slogans, and if they tried to use even a vairation, the DT would have a good legal case.

Plus the RSPCA can not make such a claim, as they do euthanise on a very high scale; around 60,000 animals a year.


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> :lol: And what is you're aiming to do with your hate campaign? You're nothing more than a hypocrite, coming online to try and slander the DT as if you're asking an honest question when actually your motivation and intention is less than honest. Perhaps you should try pushing your ignorance on people less savvy, they're less likely to ask probing questions.
> 
> Still waiting for your figures on how many animals were PTS by other organisations btw, because as pointed out the links you gave are as much use as a chocolate teapot. Talk about transparency!


Hi again. I too am struggling to get you the Blue Cross figs other than;

Fundraising cost: £8.7million
Clinical services costs: £9.4million
Rehoming cost: £7.4million
Rehabilitation costs: £1.5million

RSPCA (approx as on a bar chart)
Fundraising cost: £22million
Overall income: £118million
Overall costs £124million

All the RSPCA stats you're after are on page 12 of their 'Reports & Accounts' available to all on their website: http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232729540914&mode=prd

J


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Hi again. I too am struggling to get you the Blue Cross figs other than;
> 
> Fundraising cost: £8.7million
> Clinical services costs: £9.4million
> ...


So not on the links you gave originally, not a very good RSPCA communications officer are you? You atke umbridge that the DT put down 75 dogs with problems in 2011 and yet in 2010 the RSPCA put down 7009 dogs? My maths isn't the best but that means the RSPCA put down 93.4 times as many dogs as the DT do, and yet you seem to have a problem with this? Hmmmm....

Can you please tell us who pays your salary?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> And what is you're aiming to do with your hate campaign? You're nothing more than a hypocrite, coming online to try and slander the DT as if you're asking an honest question when actually your motivation and intention is less than honest. Perhaps you should try pushing your ignorance on people less savvy, they're less likely to ask probing questions.
> 
> *Still waiting for your figures on how many animals were PTS by other organisations btw, because as pointed out the links you gave are as much use as a chocolate teapot. Talk about transparency! *





chirungu1 said:


> Hi again. I too am struggling to get you the Blue Cross figs other than;
> 
> Fundraising cost: £8.7million
> Clinical services costs: £9.4million
> ...


So in answer to the original question regarding PTS not finances....As per "pledge 2" 625 rehomable dogs, 667 rehomeable cats and 91 rabbits in 2011 - i dont understand why you didnt just say that rather than financial reports that werent requested...

Transparency?

Note these are stated to be REHOMEABLE animals, not animals with stated behavioural or health implications...


----------



## chirungu1 (Aug 30, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> So in answer to the original question regarding PTS not finances....As per "pledge 2" 625 rehomable dogs, 667 rehomeable cats and 91 rabbits in 2011 - i dont understand why you didnt just say that rather than financial reports that werent requested...
> 
> Transparency?
> 
> Note these are stated to be REHOMEABLE animals, not animals with stated behavioural or health implications...


yep, that's because the volumes of animals coming into the RSPCA and other charities are utterly unsustainable. This country is in crisis. At least the RSPCA is honest about it: Pledge 2 - Our five pledges - RSPCA in action


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

numbers dont really mean much, tbh, Id be more interested in percentages as some rescues may take in more numbers than others - what percentage is the 625 rehomeable dogs against their intake altogether that year for the RSPCA.

The DT had 14276 admissions, making 75 euthanisias based on poor mental health* less than 0.5% of all dogs*.

(PS Im another who believes mental health contributes towards a "healthy animal" )
If you consider mental health to not be part of general health, as you are stating the nearest comparable figures we have for the RSPCA are the PTS of "rehomeable" animals...
I struggled to find admission figures for the RSPCA - but total animal intake was at 119,126 - so assuming these are ALL dogs, cats and rabbits that means *at least 1.16%* was euthanised that were rehomable. Of course we know that the total number will include rodents, birds, horses and all manner of wildlife - so the % will be higher. If anyone has more accurate info, it would be interesting to see


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> yep, that's because the volumes of animals coming into the RSPCA and other charities are utterly unsustainable. This country is in crisis. At least the RSPCA is honest about it: Pledge 2 - Our five pledges - RSPCA in action


See my reply above - i missed this as i was digging through various reports to find figures...

This all seems to be about your poor interpretation of the original statement. But thats already been discussed.

Edited to add - I also very much doubt that serious behavioural issues fall into the RSPCAs "rehomeable" catagory, and so will sit in the 7009 euthanisias of dogs they consider un-rehomeable, so its a poor comparison, but best we can do with the murky information the RSPCA provide.


----------



## Amy-manycats (Jun 15, 2009)

I think I am in the minority, but I do think its misleading. However I don't think its wrong to PTS the extreme cases, and I expected it to be many more than 75. I think there is line to be drawn between behavioural rea ons related to mental health and phycial healty. Sadly I bet the majority of public if they knew would be generally upset, there would also be cries of " Ceasar could have fixed them" etc. And accusations of Dogs trust etc not trying hard enough ( which I am sure is not the case)


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Amy-manycats said:


> I think I am in the minority, but I do think its misleading. However I don't think its wrong to PTS the extreme cases, and I expected it to be many more than 75. I think there is line to be drawn between behavioural rea ons related to mental health and phycial healty. Sadly I bet the majority of public if they knew would be generally upset, there would also be cries of " Ceasar could have fixed them" etc. And accusations of Dogs trust etc not trying hard enough ( which I am sure is not the case)


To be perfectly honest, i think the majority of public would not rehome a dog with a known history of _serious_ aggression; and would agree that these dogs are not suitable for rehoming.

75 is a VERY small number, and demonstrates to me that these would be only extreme cases - huge amounts more than half a percent of dogs coming thorugh would have behavioural issues, so these would be extreme cases. Im sure if they published the case histories of these dogs people would agree it would not be fair to cause the dog a lifetime of stress be un-homeable in kennels for the rest of its days, especially if they have extreme fear of people etc.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

grumpy goby said:


> To be perfectly honest, i think the majority of public would not rehome a dog with a known history of _serious_ aggression; and would agree that these dogs are not suitable for rehoming.
> 
> 75 is a VERY small number, and demonstrates to me that these would be only extreme cases - huge amounts more than half a percent of dogs coming thorugh would have behavioural issues, so these would be extreme cases. Im sure if they published the case histories of these dogs people would agree it would not be fair to cause the dog a lifetime of stress be un-homeable in kennels for the rest of its days, especially if they have extreme fear of people etc.


And even the dogs that are fearful/aggressive to humans live in a sanctuary to have happy lives alongside dogs! I would imagine those 75 cases were dogs who were shut down to human and animal interaction and could not be saved/had rage syndrome-type illnesses.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

chirungu1 said:


> Oh, Attack Mode etc .... thanks for the kind comments about another forum member .... here I was thinking I may get some sensible debate. I do have other things to be doing with my time you know


You got sensible debate in the first instance ......... and you ignored it because it didn't agree with your nonsensical "cause" . And as for having better things to do with your time, I think you'll find several people on here have suggested that you find some worthwhile cause to take up your time instead of wasting time persuing the cause that never was. 
[/QUOTE]



chirungu1 said:


> One last ... last thing ... it IS interesting that nearly 20% of voters agree with me. That is not an insignificant minority? Bye for now x


:lol: - if you said the moon was made of green cheese you'd get some people agreeing with you - what is much more interesting is that 80% don't agree with you. Now THAT is a significant majority! Why are you ignoring that statistic?


----------



## CaliDog (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't think its DT fault that you don't know the meaning of healthy! if a person had dementia which is a mental illness would you describe them as healthy? No same with a Dog in my opinion just because they can be physically healthy there mental state may be causing them stress and therefore they are suffering! 

Most of the other posters on this thread have the same opinion as i do although you seem to be ignoring it and just keep waffling! :mad2:

The Dogs Trust are a fab charity and do lots of good work and have saved many dogs and put them in a nice forever home! :thumbup:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> :lol: - if you said the moon was made of green cheese you'd get some people agreeing with you - what is much more interesting is that 80% don't agree with you. Now THAT is a significant majority! Why are you ignoring that statistic?


You mean it isn't?


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> You mean it isn't?


No. Its Stilton.


----------



## Lisaj (Feb 4, 2011)

Nope don't find it misleading. Mental illness is as debilitating and as relevant to me as physical illness and I would have assumed this to be the case.

if it were happening in huge numbers I may question it. But it's not.


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Just to play devil's advocate here, OP, on a broader level, if you take out the obvious charity bashing involved in the question, it is an interesting one - WHAT is healthy? As Bupa's advert states: healthy is different things to different people. For example, are you unhealthy if you smoke, or do you become unhealthy if/when you get cancer or other associated diseases. Same with drink and drugs. Are you mentally ill if you're under a lot of stress, or is it only when it forces you to take time off work? Are you healthy if you get flu, but otherwise enjoy good health with a healthy, active lifestyle, or unhealthy because you're clearly not well at that moment in time? I could go on, but it's something that would keep me going all night and could possibly annoy people here  

Therefore, to get back to the original debate, you asked if DT are misleading the "general public" (your term) by saying they never put a healthy dog down. You DO realise, don't you, that every single person who's replied - whether yay or nay, on the poll or in the thread - IS a member of the general public. Do you have any evidence to suggest that people are unhappy or confused with the slogan? Or is this purely a charity-bashing? Have you conducted any independent research into whether people are happy or unhappy with DT's claims? Where's the stats that suggest Joe and Jane Bloggs feel DT's slogans are unclear? If you don't have any stats to suggest that the general public "assume" healthy means physically healthy alone, you're insulting the intelligence of the same general public you claim to be speaking up for.

Tbh, I myself, never thought much of DT's claims until I read your thread. I took "healthy" to mean physically and mentally fit enough to "fit in" with a loving family home. It never once entered my head that it could be unambiguous. I therefore replied NO in the poll. 75 is a TINY minority. More people die every day than DT put down due to behavioural issues last YEAR. If they were maybe putting down that many in an hour, I'd probably agree with you.

Having wrote all that, I must admit I've merely glanced at the links posted by both sides of this debate because of lack of time so my opinions above, at this point, are entirely my own. I will, however, go and read them now.


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

I never used to support DT because I disagreed with their slogan of "not putting a healthy dog down". I felt that it was unfair to keep a dog alive who was struggling with kennels or had little hope of being rehomed. 

It was pointed out to me that this applies to mental Health so they will PTS a dog whom is not coping. 

Just because I misunderstood I don't see that Is the DT being misleading.. I see it as my fault for ASSUMING


----------



## MyMillie (Jun 17, 2012)

Attack Mode said:


> The OP's post in introductions seems to suggest he/she works for a "rival" of DT.


Definitely looks that way....
I've only just found this thread, I was searching if anyone had made a comment about the RSPCA thread that was closed??? I find it strange that this thread was only started yesterday and the RSPCA thread has been locked today!! now how did that happen?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

MyMillie said:


> Definitely looks that way....
> I've only just found this thread, I was searching if anyone had made a comment about the RSPCA thread that was closed??? I find it strange that this thread was only started yesterday and the RSPCA thread has been locked today!! now how did that happen?


It's since been reopened.


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

MyMillie said:


> Definitely looks that way....
> I've only just found this thread, I was searching if anyone had made a comment about the RSPCA thread that was closed??? I find it strange that this thread was only started yesterday and the RSPCA thread has been locked today!! now how did that happen?


This is the intro thread I was on about.

http://www.petforums.co.uk/introductions/256679-who-hell-chirungu1.html


----------



## MyMillie (Jun 17, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> It's since been reopened.


Thats such good news, thanks for that


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

chirungu1 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Firstly, take a look at this link which explains my concerns about Dogs Trust 'golden' claim that they "...never destroy a healthy dog" TwitLonger - When you talk too much for Twitter
> 
> ...


The verb is euthanISE (or IZE - and an ellipsis has three dots, not four or five.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bird said:


> I have no issue whatsoever over whether Dogs Trust state that some of the dogs in their care are pts over mental health rather than physical health, it is all health related whether mind or body. The fact that so few of the dogs in their care are destroyed is to be commended in my view.  to assume that Dogs Trust imply that the only dogs pts are ones with physical issues is a bit of a simplistic view at best. We all know that dogs can have issues that with the best care in the world are never going to be resolved, I only wish we were allowed to pts some humans.
> 
> It would have been nice of you to introduce yourself by the way, instead of just launching into an attack on a rehoming charity.


If the mental illness of a dog manifests itself as aggression, which it well might, then the dog will be extremely difficult to rehome, if at all. I am sure they assess the dogs very carefully, far more carefully than some other large charities. 75 sounds to me like a very small number.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> (Even deeper breath everyone  ) THEY MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR! The only people who do not think it is perfectly clear are morons who either cannot acept that "healthy" includes mental health as well as physical health, or people who have an axe to grind because this charity's ACCURATE slogan rightfully makes other charities who destroy dogs willy-nilly seem inadequate.


I do agree, Spellweaver, but would say that in this country, unfortunately, mental health is still a bit taboo, and tends to be swept under the carpet. Sure DT assumed that everyone would include mental problems in their idea of healthy or unhealthy; but not everyone does.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Attack Mode said:


> Now the name "Dogs Trust".
> 
> They don't make it clear what definition of the word "trust" they mean.
> 
> ...


Well, Attack Mode: a few years back many charities which had the word LEAGUE as part of its name changed their names. International League for Protection of Horses are now World Horse Welfare and they got new expensive uniforms to go with the new name. Canine Defence League became DT and Cats' Potection League became Cats' Protection. All happened about the same time as i remember, must have cost the charities quite a bit to change over, but the word LEAGUE was suddenly scrapped.


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

Calvine said:


> Well, Attack Mode: a few years back many charities which had the word LEAGUE as part of its name changed their names. International League for Protection of Horses are now World Horse Welfare and they got new expensive uniforms to go with the new name. Canine Defence League became DT and Cats' Potection League became Cats' Protection. All happened about the same time as i remember, must have cost the charities quite a bit to change over, but the word LEAGUE was suddenly scrapped.


My thinking (which may be way off the mark, without looking into it) is:

I wonder if it has any connections to sounding like groups such as, English Defence League. The EDL have this image surrounding them (rightly or wrongly), and these animal charities didn't want to give off, the same image in peoples minds.

But I could be wrong.

ETA: A quick search before I go shopping found this - http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/news/618731/?DCMP=ILC-SEARCH


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Attack Mode said:


> My thinking (which may be way off the mark, without looking into it) is:
> 
> I wonder if it has any connections to sounding like groups such as, English Defence League. The EDL have this image surrounding them (rightly or wrongly), and these animal charities didn't want to give off, the same image in peoples minds.
> 
> But I could be wrong.


Yes, I wondered if they thought it made them sound too officious - I can't think of any other good reason.


----------



## Attack Mode (Aug 13, 2012)

Calvine said:


> Yes, I wondered if they thought it made them sound too officious - I can't think of any other good reason.


Not sure if you have seen my edit. But sounds like I could be slightly right.


----------

