A question about re-homing dogs

[juliepoudrier]

I got Jill because her owner had retired her from trialing and after getting to know me decided that I would be a good home for Jill and that I could learn from her (she was still pretty young, but was a third open dog at the time, even though she was successful, she wasn't always consistent). In turn, I had to agree to be her final home, and that was fine with me. I learned a lot from Jill and she's living in retirement now at age 14.

 

But I also agree with Paula that I couldn't rehome an oldster just to make room for a new young trial dog; I just don't operate that way. But I do think there are plenty of times when retired trial dogs are sent into good homes and are great teachers for their new owners.

 

I've also seen working dogs who have given a lot of themselves over their lives only to be relegated to kennels and ignored for the most part once their usefulness has passed. Those poor dogs break my heart. Maybe they would be better off rehomed into a loving pet home (dogs past any real useful working age). It's these dogs, though, that I think the owner really owes something to and that the owner should make an effort to do right by the dog, whether that means rehoming or at least treating it well and with dignity for its last years.

 

It's like a twist on the old Ann Landers saying (how's this for dating myself?): You can ask yourself if your dog is better off with you or without you. If the answer is without you (i.e., the dog is better off with someone else), then rehome it. However, I think the person who runs through dogs and is constantly farming out dogs to make room for yet more dogs probably ought to stop and question him/herself about what the dogs really mean to them. Means to an end? Or companions with benefits (trialing, etc.)? For me, it's the latter, and of course that's probably why I'll never be a big, big hat in the trialing world. I tend to "dance with the one who brung me," even if that one isn't the best one out there (because my dogs are companions first, and helpers around the farm, and trialing is secondary to that)....

 

I don't think anyone needs to feel defensive about rehoming a dog, if you know you've done it for the right reasons (for the benefit of the dog). But I still think that when dogs become simply a means to an end, the people owning them should examine their own consciences, or perhaps choose a sport--as others have mentioned--that relies only on inanimate objects.

 

J.

[Laurae]

I've got a little twist on this. I got Craig at the age of nine as a retired open (sort of) dog. I trialed him for a year and a half before he went deaf, and I learned a lot from him. I feel a responsibility to care for him for the rest of his days. However, he has always been a very difficult dog. He sets the mood in my home, and he stalks and bites the other dogs if they do anything with excitement, especially play, in an OCD kind of way. In the evenings, he claims the couch and Taz pretty much stays in his crate (where he is sometimes a sitting duck for Craig to go in and attack him, though Craig does not actually hurt him). Sophie usually retires to the bedroom. Meg is a whirling dervish, and Craig corrects her frequently to the point of having left a scar on her little muzzle . I can separate him from them by crating him or gating him in a different room, but he is already crated all day while I'm at work and at night (since he would fight with Taz and/or Sophie if he was loose). Last night, I left Craig loose in the house and took Sophie, Taz, and Meg to a friend's house. The difference in all three of their demeanors was very eye-opening. All three were relaxed and playful. In fact, Taz and Sophie both actually played with Meg, which has never happened before (well, it happens very rarely but lasts no longer than 10 seconds at a time). Meg, no longer desperate for their attention, was relaxed and thoughtful herself, showing self-control rarely exhibited at home. I guess I can't say for sure that this happened due to the absence of Craig, but they were in an environment with no history of him attacking anyone and they did not have to worry about him keying on them all the time. And when Craig is not around my dogs for any reason at home, Taz and Sophie are both out and engaging, and much more relaxed, though the difference is not quite as dramatic as it was last night.

 

I really don't know what to do about my situation. Craig is very sweet with me, and aside from his deafness he is in good health. But I hate it that he has such a negative effect on my other dogs. And as bad as I feel for Sophie and especially Taz, who is usually Craig's target, I am beyond devastated that Craig may be affecting Meg's social development as she grows. I feel like I am sacrificing my other dogs for him. But what can I do? I think Craig would do fine in another home--he'd be happy enough with anyone who loved on him--and I know my other dogs would be happier without him. But who would want a difficult, sometimes-aggressive, twelve-year-old deaf dog? He needs a dog-savvy home, but what dog-savvy home doesn't have their own dogs with needs to consider?

 

Sorry, this turned into kind of a feeling-sorry-for-myself rant. I'll probably delete it. But for today, I am a little frustrated with the situation...

[Journey]

Laura, I think only you know the answer to your situation, if there really is a "answer. Don't delete your post though, you never know what may come of complex frustrations!

[PSmitty]

Aww, Laura. That is such a tough situation. I couldn't blame you for re-homing Craig, but as you said, finding the right home for him wouldn't be easy.

[juliepoudrier]

Laura,

That's a problem with no easy answer. Maybe you could find someone who would take Craig for a few days each week, just to give your dogs a break? Maybe someone would be willing to do that if you maintained your financial commitment to him (paid his expenses)?

 

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Fellow Puzzled,

 

No easy answers. We have an ironclad six dog limit which, when we kept three nuetered pups from a genetically defective litter (potential owners can't be saddled with a dog facing extensive vet costs and early death) meant that I was running open dogs that required (and rarely did get) Divine Intervention to be competitive. I learned that I could enjoy a trial if the dog and I did the best we could.

 

In 25 years, I've rehomed two dogs - both taken in with the understanding that they were on trial, both now happier with their new owners than they were with me.

 

Still, I am reluctant to take one on trial with some of my heart held back - the dog can't hold his heart back.

 

In Scotland once, a famous handler pulled up and let his dogs out to empty. Must have been twelve dogs in that van, some International team members, he'd kept because he might still get a stud fee. Matted, uncared for, warehoused in his barn. 12 novice handlers could have got a start with those dogs and the dogs could have had a comforted end.

 

Donald McCaig

[bcnewe2]

Oh Laura I feel for you. So does Jazz and Raven. I will add that Dew really has no lasting effects from Mick's jerkiness. But I def. know what you mean when you say they set the mood in the house.

 

I think it would be hard to find a "better" home than you for Craig so you are going to have to figure out what you can do while probably keeping him, all the while looking for that "perfect fit" for Craig. Even if you don't find one you can still comfort yourself knowing that you're looking.

 

I have rehomed 2 dogs that I bought to keep. And placed fosters after a year or more looking for that perfect home. In all cases I found places that were better than me for those dogs. One rescue that I planned on keeping too.

 

Not sure it's right for all but for me as long as they're going to a better home then I've done well for the dog. Like the OP's story. Why on earth would you keep a dog you didn't like and that dislike showed to the dog? Seems unfair to the dog, specially if there is a home waiting for him that will give them the love that all dogs deserve.

 

I think I draw the line with the seniors, if they made it past say 8 or so, I feel the change in living enviorment could cause more difficulities rather than help. I guess the retired trialing dog would be the exception, as you know a new handler will worship that dog and really will be offering the dog a better situation.

 

I've oftened wondered what the dif is between a rescue, foster and a dog you intend to keep. Nothing in the dogs eye view but it's all in the words to us humans.

 

I missed all the dogs I've placed but I also know for some reason or another they have a much better life than I could of offered to them.

JMHO

[Tea]

I have the last 4 of our rescue retired sled team that live with us. Two are still running, two are very old and simply enjoy watching the commotion that is our lives fly around them.

 

We have two rescue border collies and two young ones.

 

They all work everyday except the two rescues are having some health issues.

 

I thought about what was right.

 

These old dogs are happy and love their homes. They are amusing in their old age.

 

I enjoy them and when I look at them I see the old adventures we all have shared.

[Sue R]

I was just telling Ed the other day that, when I got too old for a young dog or pup, maybe I'd like to be a home for a retiree - a dog that was ready to chill out a bit, take nice walks, help a little if we had some stock, and be a companion. But a dog that wouldn't be too energetic for me and that wouldn't be so young that I'd worry about not being able to care for him/her when I got to that point, and not saddling my darling daughter with a dog that would go on for many years. Maybe. I think these dogs have spoiled me for anything else and yet I know that sometime, I might not be up to a youngster and worrying if I would most likely go before he/she did.

 

Just musing.