Rescue or Racket ?

[Bossroo]

On last night's evening Ch. 2 TV news in Portland, Ore. the news reporter interviewed a lady that "rescued" 200 dogs from Southern Cal. and Mexico to adopt out locally. She obtains the dogs from shelters in S. Cal. at no cost to her. She claimed that the trip takes 17 hours and that all of the dogs are caged in cary on cages with 1 to several dogs in each depending on the dog's size. She also claimed that the driver made frequent stops to feed, water, and walk the dogs. She also claims that all of the dogs are Vet. checked upon departure and at arrival in Portland. The Cal. and Ore. Agriculture Department make no effort to inspect or regulate this " cargo". Now . I drive from Fresno, Cal. to Portland, Ore. in 13+ hrs driving at an average of 70 mph. with 2 short stops for hamburgers and potty brake. It takes at least 4 and more likely 6-7 hours to get from Southern Cal. to Fresno. Cal. . Who is kidding who with her claim ? This lady said that the adoption fees that she gets range from $200 to $800 per dog depending on size and breed or mix. So averageing the $200 and $800 = $ 500 . So 200 dogs x $500 = $ 100,000 + /- for 4 weeks of her "work " with no cost of purchase and volunteer labor, and what little cost in feed and maybe some Vet. work. She does this frequently over a year's time frame. She makes NO guarantees as to the parentage , age, health, training or temperament of any dog that is " adopted " out. Hmmmm! Makes one wonder .....

 

[BrownSheep]

Seriously......really.....$800 to "adopt".
I can MAYBE see $100, but anything beyond that seems less like a rescue and more like a business.

 

[alsea1]

This woman sounds like a crook

 

[hilarie]

If it walks like bull****, talks like bull****, and smells like bull****, well, you fill in the blank.
You can adopt a lot of homeless, local dogs for $800.

 

[purplequeenvt]

If I'm going to pay $800 for a dog, I'm going to pay that money to a reputable breeder and get a dog of known heritage and temperament.

I am "pro" rescue, but I have a really hard time supporting most of the rescues around here. Most of them are bringing up dogs from the south and adopting them out for hundreds of dollars.

 

[Southern by choice]

She is opportunistic.... I find people that would actually adopt these animals for ANY kind of money to be rather foolish. It is those that adopt with those conditions that perpetuate the insanity.

 

[Bossroo]

Southern... you are spot on ! Adoption means that one does NOT exchange money for the animal. When these so called rescues charge an "adoption fee " they are actually SELLING these animals with not even an inkling of any return on quality of investment to the buyer. I have owned about 16 dogs over the last 50 years, and I have never paid a red cent for any one of them. All have been purebred dogs for protection, herding, or hunting. One AKC Boxer female ( bred in the purple ) even produced 2 champions for us. Now, why in the world would any one be so naive enough to pay anything for a mixed breed of dog when you don't have a clue as to it's genetic purpose , when even a purebred may or may not fulfill the desired outcome.? These types of bleeding hearts aided by media advertising and reporting are doing a pretty good job of brainwashing the unsuspecting public !

 

[AshleyFishy]

If it kept 200 from being euthanized does it really matter?

 

[jodief100]

I used to be on the BOD of a Greyhound Rescue group. We charged an adoption fee and it do not come close to covering expenses. The rest of the funds we obtained by fundraising our butts off.

Transportation from the track and vet bills were the bulk of expenses. Every dog we adopted came with a complete vet check, spay or neuter, teeth cleaning by a vet, shots, worming, first month of flea and heartworm control and any other know health issues that needed to be taken care of were. The dogs are kept in foster care by volunteers and the organization pays for the feed during this time which average about 10 days. It is not easy to do this and it is not cheep. Legally, the adoption fee is a "donation". We would, under certain circumstances waive the fee (older dogs, rehomes, person who volunteers for the organization) but usually we had concerns that if they can't afford or are unwilling to pay the adoption fee, are they going to take good care of the dog?

The group I volunteered for was 501(c)3. That is a registered non-profit. The books are open to anyone who requests them. A good rescue has some guarantee of the health of the animal, has plans for that animal and contingency plans if the arranged home doesn't work out. A good rescue knows the animal and it's temperament before placing it in a home. Rescues have to charge something, dog food and gas aren't free.

That being said, what this woman is doing sounds like a racket. If she is hauling 200 animals at a time, what does she do if they aren't adopted out immediately? Where are they going? what if they are sick or injured?

 

[greybeard]

I used to be on the BOD of a Greyhound Rescue group. We charged an adoption fee and it do not come close to covering expenses. The rest of the funds we obtained by fundraising our butts off.

Transportation from the track and vet bills were the bulk of expenses. Every dog we adopted came with a complete vet check, spay or neuter, teeth cleaning by a vet, shots, worming, first month of flea and heartworm control and any other know health issues that needed to be taken care of were. The dogs are kept in foster care by volunteers and the organization pays for the feed during this time which average about 10 days. It is not easy to do this and it is not cheep. Legally, the adoption fee is a "donation". We would, under certain circumstances waive the fee (older dogs, rehomes, person who volunteers for the organization) but usually we had concerns that if they can't afford or are unwilling to pay the adoption fee, are they going to take good care of the dog?

The group I volunteered for was 501(c)3. That is a registered non-profit. The books are open to anyone who requests them. A good rescue has some guarantee of the health of the animal, has plans for that animal and contingency plans if the arranged home doesn't work out. A good rescue knows the animal and it's temperament before placing it in a home. Rescues have to charge something, dog food and gas aren't free.

That being said, what this woman is doing sounds like a racket. If she is hauling 200 animals at a time, what does she do if they aren't adopted out immediately? Where are they going? what if they are sick or injured?

That's a good question. I suspect she doesn't much care.

You were right of course, to use the "..." quotation marks around the donation term. It's a not very subtle disguise for the description of a fee.
Brought back the memory from when I worked as a volunteer at a county (govt) animal shelter a decade or so ago. Some brilliant someone decided it would be a great idea to institute a $90 "donation" fee to adopt out dogs and cats, ostensibly for the same purpose you described--to weed out those who might not be able to afford to properly care for the animals. We who worked there knew it for what it really was, as a revenue generator. It backfired. Our euthanization to adoptions (ratio) went south almost immediately afterwards, so they dropped the mandatory "donation" down to $50. The ratio began to reverse itself a little but I well remember the teary eyes of kids who wanted a pet but the parents didn't have the $50 right then to pay the "donation", but it all ended when someone in the county filed suit over the "donation". I was a witness at the court hearing, and I remember the judge's words. "This, is no donation--donations mean they have a choice and it doesn't affect the outcome of the process. Call it a fee or call it a tax, but you cannot call it a donation." She went on to ask the supervisor how he would feel, if he took his pregnant wife to the ER or to the maternity ward and they said he would have to pay a "donation" before they would deliver the child. In the end, it was discovered the supervisor was pocketing the "donations" anyway, so he was fired and did 6 months in county jail.
I'm sure he viewed it as just a "donation" of his time tho.

Money or wealth has never been any kind of viable indicator of how much love, care or attention anyone is willing and capable of giving anything--pets included. It's just a way to generate revenue under mostly false pretenses--It used to be known as keeping out the riff-raff.
I can understand having to pay the shelter for required inoculations, but a mandatory "donation"?
No.