The worst happens in the pounds rather than the rescue centres; its the pounds that have to look after teh dogs by law for 7 days and are funded by the councils and then after that they can be 'disposed of' by the pound, so that could be PTS, signed over to rescue or tried to be directly rehomed - it varies so much, some that rehome will rehome to anyone, no neutering or checks made, others will neuter, homecheck and do their best to find good homes.

Many rescues are non destruct (unless of severe behavioural or health issues) so really its not the rescues per se that put to sleep.. its the pounds that have the huge amount of dogs that they just cannot keep/ find homes for that have the problem too.

Battersea openly said they put dogs down when they were on the panarama program, mainly due to behaivoural or ill health issues; but its more than likely driven by numbers? If you have 75% staffies in, and more coming you know that any with any issues are far less likely to be rehomed, its hard enough finding a staffie a home who is child and dog friendly so I guess they have to be put to sleep poor mites.

My local dogs home last time I went had, which is a pound that rehomes (and has to PTS when they reach their licenced number of kennels) had out of 70 spaces, had 62 that were staffies, crosses, rotties or mastiff types. What chance did they all stand of getting homes?

Must be the same at every (urban?) pound in the UK. We are asked to help with dogs and we know its not public knowledge they are PTS and they don't want it known because of the backlash they get from the dog loving public - yet its not their fault what are they to do!

Dogs trust recon approx 10,000 unclaimed stray dogs were put to sleep at in 2009 or 2010 not sure which year, or if that England or the UK. That was from the council pounds who took part in the survey, not everyone did. Also maybe doesn't include dogs who made it to rescue to have to be put to sleep because of health/ behaviour issues etc.

Then the local council should publish statistics in it's newsletter although I can't see that happening for fear of a backlash. It's not the fact that councils or rescuce centres arechoosing to put dogs to sleep (if you see what I mean), it's the fact that they are having to due to the sheer numbers of unwanted dogs.

In some cases it's fairer to the dog (in my opinion) that it is pts than made to endure a stressful life in kennels with little social interaction. I can understand that rescues have little choice as they are swamped by the numbers of dogs (&other animals) that are discarded because of pathetic reasons.

I used to think that rescues were full of dogs whose owners generally couldn't cope with them or had beahvioural problems, genuine reasons that may force a family to re-home an animal but these poor dogs are kicked out for the smallest thing in alot of cases.

My first dog, Toby who is the loveliest, friendliest dog was rehomed because he pulled on the lead a bit - he was walked once a week in his previous so home so no wonder! Despite being an 'easy' dog Toby had two homes prior to living with us.

Roxy was rehomed several times befoire coming to us - we are her 4th or fiufth home, the notes are abit unclear. From what we understand she was kept isolated in a garden in the first couple, no socialisation or walks at all. Then her 'owners' decided she was mental & wanted rid of her - what did they expect? A perfect dog despite no training, no walks, bored out of her brains all day?! Obviously yes, they did but couldn't be bothered to try & address the issues that they had created.

It's terrible that these firgures are almost hidden from people, I think it needs to be clearer that thousands of dogs die every year because they are unwanted. The illusion that these dogs in resuces will all get loving homes & another chance needs to be challenged because many of these dogs won't get the chance.