Category: Irresponsible pet owning

Downfall of the Alternate Animal Sanctuary

It’s time to regulate private animal rescue sanctuaries.

The events surrounding the demise of the Alternate Animal Sanctuary in Lincolnshire demonstrates the urgent need to regulate such enterprises and shows there are instances when animals need protection from their saviours. The situation began with a lady who found she “could not say no” – a common weakness with some animal rescuers, and ended with three police raids over a period of eight months and hundreds of animals removed for their own safety and well being. And this at a great cost of time and money to the Police, other animal charities and local authorities. This kind of scenario is being played out commonly in the UK and around the world.

The sanctuary owner was in self denial and unable to understand that she was doing anything wrong and maintained she was not to blame. In many respects this was very true. Much of the blame rests with the animal owners who dumped the animals on this obviously vulnerable lady and those who helped and encouraged her to turn her collection into a registered charity which she was clearly unable to manage.

It also pinpoints what happens to many unwanted animals that have been refused under selective intake policies by other major charities because of their age, illness and behavioural problems. More on selective intake policies.

And most of all, it highlights the lack of powers the local authorities, the police and the Charity Commission have in the UK to regulate or close down such mismanaged premises when it all goes wrong.

Police and animal charity vehicles outside the Alternate Animal Sanctuary.
When mismanaged rescue charities fail, the costs to the police, local authorities and other animal charities which must step in to take the animals is enormous. Photo: Anna Draper

The Alternate Animal Sanctuary was visited, or raided as the media like to call it, on three occasions between May 2019 and January 2020 and hundreds of animals removed including dogs, cats, horses and pigs. Three dead cats and a half cremated dog were found. The owner’s comments to the media regarding the dead cats and dog regrettably demonstrates the misguided nature and the state of mind of the sanctuary owner.

“I knew some cats had died but couldn’t find them due to the large size of the enclosure and I wanted help to “catch-up” on the cleaning. I did look, but I clearly didn’t look hard enough. The RSPCA did find three cats and that clearly does not look good, but it was an exceptional case, not run of the mill.”

“Because I don’t get any help, when one of the big dogs died, I didn’t have anybody to help me lift her in the car so all I could do was try to incinerate her, I wasn’t very happy about and it made me feel quite sick, but it seemed the better of two things to do. But obviously I hadn’t made a very good job of it”.

“I don’t go looking for the animals people come to me as a last resort.”

The sanctuary appears to have been operated by just one woman, with little or no help, “caring” for an alleged 400 animals and had a certain notoriety in the local area being well known as a dumping ground for unwanted animals “that no one else was prepared to take” and “I could never refuse to take”.

It had come to the attention of the media before any raids took place, but they were more interested in making the owner a celebrity with the Sun newspaper declaring her a pet lover for having 106 dogs in her house. A TV channel 5 documentary “The Woman With 106 Dogs” included a piece on her and other animal obsessives, but the media seemed to be celebrating their eccentricity rather than the harm they were doing to the animals.

Charity Commission steps in.

The charity was registered in 2013 and due to mismanagement the charity’s auditors were unable to properly audit and provide the Commission with the legally required annual financial records. Incredibly what charity accounts there were, indicated that over £1 million was being raised annually through a third party fundraising agency, but little of the money was being received by the sanctuary and it was in debt. The agency was taking 70% of the donations for fund raising initiatives.

The Charity Commission belatedly began investigating the charity for financial irregularities in November 2016 with a Statutory Inquiry beginning in March 2017, and interim managers were appointed by the Commission in 2019. Meanwhile the sanctuary continued operating with the owner taking in more animals to fill the places of those taken away.

The Commission stated that they had: “serious concerns about the charity’s apparent over-reliance on the agency and the rate of return to the charity.

The Commission is concerned that the public is unaware of the proportion of donations that is consumed by the costs and fees associated with the agreement against what is used on caring for abandoned and neglected animals”.

England & Wales Charity Commission

Word was also going out on some social media sites from concerned animal lovers and potential donors who were receiving “begging letters” from the fundraising agency seeking money on behalf of the sanctuary. They began to question what was happening to the donated money.

Sleeping dogs at Alternate Animal sanctuary.
Some of the 106 dogs sleeping in the owner’s house. Photo Sanctuary Facebook page.

Losing their rationale.

The sad fact is that the owner’s rescue efforts were probably well intentioned at first and she may have genuinely believed she had the first interests of the animals at heart, but had become totally out of her depth and blinkered to the state they were being kept in.

Operating sanctuaries where animals are kept for life without the chance of rehoming need a firm hand at the helm and there is a fine line between true altruism and hoarding. There has to be limit for the sake of the animals involved in order to prevent the saviour from causing the suffering everyone is attempting to avoid. Many animal lovers unfortunately lose their rationale along the way through pressure and anxiety and it can all end in tears for the saviour as well as the saved.

But the stress and anguish to the animals when they must be removed for their own safety is the most tragic consequence of it all. This needs to change – and soon.

READ MORE – Alarmingly and amazingly, anyone can set up an animal rescue charity regardless of experience or ability.

Watch the Channel 5 documentary “The Woman with 106 Dogs” on iPlayer MY5 for more information on animal obsessives.

Animal Rescue intake policies explained

It is that time of year when animal rescues the world over brace themselves for a rush of unwanted and abandoned animals, but how easy is it to part with a pet? In this modern era of disposable pets, the acceptance of unwanted animals by the larger independent and national animal rescue charities has become an extremely complex operation.

Should unwanted animals be turned away because they do not fit the right profile?

They have been forced by our reckless pet ownership to use animal profiling and retail business practices in order to cope. They have to aim for a quick turnover by maintaining a balance of products (animals) to satisfy the whims and needs of potential customers (adopters) and measure their success by the amount of merchandise they shift. This is particularly so with dogs.

This means that for many owners it is no longer a simple case of fronting up or telephoning your local rescue and expecting to have your pet accepted for rehoming. It can be a long process or you may be refused altogether if your dog does not fit the required profile.

The continual overpopulation of dogs and cats in most countries forces rehoming rescues to be “selective” in what animals they accept as they cannot afford to take in too many animals that “clog up” their kennel space such as the old or sick, those with severe behavioural problems and unpopular breeds such as Bull Terrier type dogs.

Understanding the world of Selective and Non-selective intake policies.

Most professional organisations have a mission statement and what is called an intake policy on their website. These lay out the ethos of the charity and govern the circumstances under which they will accept or refuse to take in your pet for rehoming. These are normally a selective or a non-selective open door policy. Some charities try to use the term non-selective to their advantage in the compassion stakes by highlighting it in their literature, decrying others for not doing so.

The U.K. Battersea Dogs and Cats Home is one charity that follows a “NON-SELECTIVE” policy and states that:“Our open intake policy is increasingly rare in the animal rescue sector and it’s at the heart of everything we stand for”, but still accepts that this is “subject to space”.

“Our mission is to never turn away a dog or cat in need of our help. Subject to space, we will open our gates to all dogs and cats in need of care and shelter and we will do all we can to either reunite them with their owners or to rehome them into loving new homes”

Battersea Dogs and Cats Home mission statement.

Acceptance by animal profiling

Rescues strive to maintain a balance or varied choice of breeds which are appealing to the whims of adopters. They accomplish this by refusing the difficult ones and concentrating on the young, healthy, well behaved and attractive breeds that provide a “quick turnover” with the least outlay and cost, referred to by some in the industry as the “desirables“. Organisations which have a selective policy either make a judgement on the telephone or by a suitability selection interview whereby the owner brings the dog in to be assessed.

Yorkshire Terrier puppy, desirable breed
Understandably, desirable dog types are far easier to rehome, but what about the less desirable.

When refusing an animal most charities helpfully put details on a waiting list, often never to call back, and give owners a list of telephone numbers, websites and addresses of other rescues that might be able to help. In reality these are generally full as well and when contacted commonly try to refer owners back where they started It can become a frustrating nightmare merry-go-round to part with a pet.

No Kill policies and the fate of undesirables

By using these strategies, U.K. charities have the luxury of not killing healthy unwanted animals and would not dare do so as it would be suicide for them. But local authorities do still kill an estimated 2,000 stray dogs each year which generally passes almost unnoticed as does the fate of those turned away from rescues.

Unfortunately charities in most other countries which suffer from huge populations of stray, roaming and unwanted dogs and cats only have two options: either leaving them to their fate or to euthanise many of them to make room for others. And this happens in many or our well regulated civilised countries such as the U.S.A where an alleged 2-3 million dogs and cats, representing 36% of those handed into rescues, are killed each year, many of them healthy.

Although these shelters and staff are declared evil and heartless, the guilt solely lies with the irresponsible owners who put them in this situation and society’s failure to get on top of the problems.

If being ‘selective’ means more lives saved, then selective we will be

A year or so ago I read an interview with a executive of a dog rescue who summed up the present situation quite succinctly: “priority is given to dogs most likely to be rehomed, and when taking in dogs, we generally look for those that have a good temperament and are not incurably ill. Those with temperament problems have to stay longer for training and the longer they stay the fewer dogs we can save and those that pose a risk to staff are not accepted. Good temperament is important as we want dogs to share kennels helping to maximise the numbers of dogs saved. If being ‘selective’ means more lives saved, then selective we will be. We are in control of which dogs come into our centres. We do not have breed specific policies but do seek to ensure that our centres do not become full of any one particular breed.”

The major issue that arises with these polices is the fate of the unpopular, difficult and elderly dogs which are refused, the undesirables so to speak . In many ways the whole system seems biased against them and yet they are possibly the most vulnerable to ill-treatment, abandonment or being passed on to unsuitable owners via social media and arguably most in need of compassion and help. So should charities be more concerned about the future welfare of those turned away.

In fairness most rescues do their upmost to accept as many animals as possible, but in reality find themselves fighting a losing battle and for this reason can only pick and choose. Charities the world over cannot be blamed in anyway for whatever decisions they may make in order to cope with our selfish attitude to pet keeping. Until the time arrives when we make serious attempts to solve irresponsible ownership once and for all, the demand for space for the unwanted will sadly never decrease and tens of thousands will spend the yuletide in cages.