Foster Care for the RSPCA

 
The main reason is that you already have a pet of your own and we feel it is preferable for fosterers to have no other animals at home.

I never heard that reasoning before.

In my personal experience, I've found that introducing a pet to a home where another pet is already there is a good thing. The two pets keep each other company, so the humans in the home don't  have to be there all the time, and the old pet takes on a parental or older sibling role in relation to the new pet.

Their statement is kind of like saying that someone who already has a human child shouldn't adopt.

ETA: When DH was a child, his mum took in foster children and they all lived together in the same home.  I guess they are lucky they weren't dogs or cats.

Regarding "special care" - my ex and I both worked full time and had a cat with diabetes and one that was deaf and had a heart condition, a thyroid condition and was completely deaf. 

Regarding "special care" - my ex and I both worked full time and had a cat with diabetes and one that was deaf and had a heart condition, a thyroid condition and was completely deaf. 

Exactly!  I've fostered a blind cat, a kitten who'd been burned over half his body, a dog with a broken leg and a kitten with paralyzed back legs ALL whilst working full time.  (not all at the same time of course)

What a shame that its so difficult to do something good

Doesn't the RSPCA eventually put an animal to sleep if they can't find a suitable person to care for it?

It just seems so odd to have such a blanket policy.  Sure, in the US we definitely ran into animals who needed to be "onlies" and they were farmed out accordingly.  Just like you'd evaluate whether an animal seems to be good with kids.  Again, evaluate accordingly.  It doesn't take a whole lot of extra effort to match pets with appropriate homes.  Not all homes are available for all pets and vice versa.  Making blanket rules of "no other pets" and "someone must be home at all times" seems really short-sighted to me.

Doesn't the RSPCA eventually put an animal to sleep if they can't find a suitable person to care for it?

Yes, they do.

Doesn't the RSPCA eventually put an animal to sleep if they can't find a suitable person to care for it?

Yes, which is why I would never donate any money to them.

Yes, they do.

Which is what makes their policies so ridiculous.

Which is worse - to give a puppy to someone who has a full-time job . . . . . .

or to KILL the puppy?