Adoption fee "too expensive"

[KobiD]

 

You're a tough bunch eh. Put forward an opinion which IMO is not even opposing and it all becomes filled with emotion. Feel free to judge however you please Mady. I won't be offended.

 

You all continue to misconstrue everything I post, blowing it out of proportion and adding big dramatic undertones. Are we watching the 7pm news?? I've not used the words inferior, I haven't related them to being serial killers, or any other nonsense things. You're all very good at putting words in peoples mouths.

 

Simply that as a layman walking off the street, looking for a pet to add to a family (inclusive of small children and other small animals) that a rescue or any other adopted dog with no known history can present a risk to the buyer/new owner. Yes you can generally see what you get in size and temperament but you don't see the whole picture after a few visits. With a puppy from a pound you get no history; it will be what it is... and from a breeder you at least get some history (but that is not to say that anything is guaranteed either). End of the day all dogs can pose a risk. They are animals and they have sharp teeth and tolerance levels just like the rest of us.

 

This whole inferior vs superior debate is pointless. Everyone here is well aware that there is no right or wrong when it comes to people and their beliefs (however it appears from you all, that there indeed is). The dog I find superior when it comes to being a pet could very well be inferior if used to work cattle, and vice versa.  Many rescues can be (and indeed are) matched to people who best compliment each other.

 

As per my initial post, I have a problem with anyone who tries to turn a profit through the sales of rescued animals. Costs should cover expenses, and if they don't then perhaps overall prices need to be re-evaluated and public perception changed/educated on why things cost what they do, but my opinion, and my opinion only is that taking a dog off someone to try and flip for a profit is not very ethical. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here and saying that's what you do... and even if you wanted to you would be free to do so because my opinions/beliefs mean nothing to anyone but myself anyway.

Edited May 10, 2018 by KobiD

[Rascalmyshadow]

You are mostly right, rescue dogs unless they have lived in someone’s home for 3 months minimum you can’t be certain what you are getting and personally there’s no way I would spend any where near the amount of $$$ on such a risk as I would a dog with known history, unless they had been in a foster home for some time and been vigorously tested in numerous situations with other dogs, cats, kids, livestock, men and they were guaranteed to be suitable and safe.

 

My Mum is a perfect example, went against my advice and adopted a very large Great Dane Bull Arab mix from a well known shelter, apparently she tested cat safe and dog friendly.

Guess what she hates cats, tried to attack my mums elderly girl, is fine with other dogs when off leash but is aggressive when on lead. My mum is now stuck with a 50kg dog that needs a lot of careful management, she lives outside permanently and the cat can’t go into the backyard.

 

As a past rescuer/foster carer every dog that came through had a vice and it was a matter of matching them to a home that could accommodate, the only way to do that is to keep the dog in care for long enough to see what is issues were, many rescues move their dogs through too fast and shelter dogs behave very differently once they are in proper homes.

 

In saying all of that buying a pedigree pup doesn’t guarantee you won’t have issues, my old standard poodle girl came from a great breeder, parents fully health tested, both came from long lines of show dogs, at 8 years old she was PTS after trying to manage serious aggression issues, I did lots of research before getting her and had owned and rescued numerous poodles, we did everything right however it wasn’t until a year or two later I found out there were issues in her lines, and even though she was healthy and very sound in every other way nothing we did would have changed her temperament.

[Maddy]

5 hours ago, KobiD said:

 

You're a tough bunch eh. Put forward an opinion which IMO is not even opposing and it all becomes filled with emotion. Feel free to judge however you please Mady. I won't be offended.

 

You all continue to misconstrue everything I post, blowing it out of proportion and adding big dramatic undertones. Are we watching the 7pm news?? I've not used the words inferior, I haven't related them to being serial killers, or any other nonsense things. You're all very good at putting words in peoples mouths.

 

Simply that as a layman walking off the street, looking for a pet to add to a family (inclusive of small children and other small animals) that a rescue or any other adopted dog with no known history can present a risk to the buyer/new owner. Yes you can generally see what you get in size and temperament but you don't see the whole picture after a few visits. With a puppy from a pound you get no history; it will be what it is... and from a breeder you at least get some history (but that is not to say that anything is guaranteed either). End of the day all dogs can pose a risk. They are animals and they have sharp teeth and tolerance levels just like the rest of us.

 

This whole inferior vs superior debate is pointless. Everyone here is well aware that there is no right or wrong when it comes to people and their beliefs (however it appears from you all, that there indeed is). The dog I find superior when it comes to being a pet could very well be inferior if used to work cattle, and vice versa.  Many rescues can be (and indeed are) matched to people who best compliment each other.

 

As per my initial post, I have a problem with anyone who tries to turn a profit through the sales of rescued animals. Costs should cover expenses, and if they don't then perhaps overall prices need to be re-evaluated and public perception changed/educated on why things cost what they do, but my opinion, and my opinion only is that taking a dog off someone to try and flip for a profit is not very ethical. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here and saying that's what you do... and even if you wanted to you would be free to do so because my opinions/beliefs mean nothing to anyone but myself anyway.

You raise points, ignore rebuttals and move on to the next point, which is abandoned just as quickly when challenged (or even denied outright).

If we were allowed to use the word that refers to the creatures of folklore that live under bridges (and are fond of eating billy goats), I'd be pretty tempted to suggest some of that particular word was happening here.

 

[~Anne~]

Forgive me for my laziness, but I havent read the entire thread - just page 1 and now this page - and I’m only going to focus on one point - profit.

 

@KobiD  Profit is not and should not be a dirty word in rescue. The reason why rescues are often considered less than worthy of any other dog/cat is that we focus on the emotional pull of rescue (this poor little dog has been abused) and we expect a rescue to run on the smell of an oily rag. We sell the perception that it’s under par, desperate and lacking.  We should be selling it as a choice for pet owners and it should be run as a business. A business that should educate in animal welfare matters and enable people to own and love a pet. We should aim to make a profit.

 

Profit is not a dirty word. Profit doesn’t mean ‘I’m off on a holiday or to buy a new car’. Profit can be reinvested into animal welfare, into desexing programs, education programs, awareness campaigns, promotion, facilities and resources.

 

Rescue is broader than welfare. The welfare mentality drepesses me. There’s a lot that I think is really off in the way rescue has evolved over the years and the perception created by the industry as a whole. 

 

Waiver: Im not sure I’ve made a clear point and I apologise for that. I’ve debated so much in the rescue arena over the years that I don’t have the energy anymore to spend time in debates. 

[KobiD]

1 hour ago, ~Anne~ said:

Forgive me for my laziness, but I havent read the entire thread - just page 1 and now this page - and I’m only going to focus on one point - profit.

 

@KobiD  Profit is not and should not be a dirty word in rescue. The reason why rescues are often considered less than worthy of any other dog/cat is that we focus on the emotional pull of rescue (this poor little dog has been abused) and we expect a rescue to run on the smell of an oily rag. We sell the perception that it’s under par, desperate and lacking.  We should be selling it as a choice for pet owners and it should be run as a business. A business that should educate in animal welfare matters and enable people to own and love a pet. We should aim to make a profit.

 

Profit is not a dirty word. Profit doesn’t mean ‘I’m off on a holiday or to buy a new car’. Profit can be reinvested into animal welfare, into desexing programs, education programs, awareness campaigns, promotion, facilities and resources.

 

Rescue is broader than welfare. The welfare mentality drepesses me. There’s a lot that I think is really off in the way rescue has evolved over the years and the perception created by the industry as a whole. 

 

Waiver: Im not sure I’ve made a clear point and I apologise for that. I’ve debated so much in the rescue arena over the years that I don’t have the energy anymore to spend time in debates. 

I would consider that to be 'not for profit' if the intention is to put any capital back into the business. I've never suggested that people should have to volunteer their time, nor that businesses need to run at a near loss to be ethical.

 

Just that my opinion is that running a business with the sole reason of earning money and my view of 'rescue' don't go together. I tend to think the same with people; there is a market for adoption; people who want babies but can't have them, and babies who need homes; but the concept of human trafficking doesn't sit well with many on an ethical/moral level. The end goal is to improve the quality of life for all parties involved.. not make someone rich.  

[~Anne~]

Yes, agree. I guess we are looking at it from different angles of intent. I would be horrified if anyone started a rescue with profit being the aim, which is I believe you’re  referring to, and that I can now see. 

 

Profit should be an outcome, and it’s healthy for it to be an outcome. It shouldn’t be accidental, it should be planned. 

 

My angle is from years of being involved in the arena of rescue and welfare, albeit now just on the peripheral. 

 

I think we need a lot more open discussion in rescue. It’s a basket case that thankfully has never yet fallen over in a cataclysmic way. That risk is there though. 

 

[Helen&thehounds]

Rural Pug don't feel bad. If people can't afford/whinge about  the adoption fee then how are they going to afford to take it to the vet when it's sick, the council fees, taking it to any obedience training, buying (quality) food for it etc etc. 

 

Keep up the good work! 

 

[Rascalmyshadow]

Just curious what people think, I noticed in the last few days there is a litter of 5 very small xbreed puppies for adoption, not the type you see as puppies often in rescue.

Their adoption fee is listed as $2000 each, does that sound like someone trying to make a profit or is it a fair ask???

[~Anne~]

11 hours ago, Rascalmyshadow said:

Just curious what people think, I noticed in the last few days there is a litter of 5 very small xbreed puppies for adoption, not the type you see as puppies often in rescue.

Their adoption fee is listed as $2000 each, does that sound like someone trying to make a profit or is it a fair ask???

$2000 dollars each! I’d call that a fantastic fundraising drive! 

 

Being serious though, they’re probably not actually selling them using that messaging and they’re taking advantage of a situation. Not knowing what the situation is, or the who the rescue is, I’m not sure anyone could say if it was definitely unethical but it surely sounds like it might be. 

 

 

[_PL_]

RSPCA had $2500 Frenchies and people were queued out the door.

I expect the rescue has considered how much you'd pay for a breeder's dog + fully vetworked + whatever outstanding bills they may have. No idea if it's a fair price but I've seen $1800 for a pretty pup on petrescue.

I hope it goes back into a registered org so it can help other dogs.

 

I'd query if it was just a lone ranger selling pup after pup. Or someone not desexing early so they could get a litter of desirables. 

[Rascalmyshadow]

Looks like a legit rescue with all vet work done, they have changed their ad a little to say the price reflects market value and the money will pay for other vet bills, guess people had been querying the price.

I’m just a bit shocked I could get a tiny purebred chi with papers for less.

The pups are a mix of multiple breeds they are just very small.

They want $1000 for the mother (also a xbreed)$11,000 for rescuing a few little dogs is a pretty good profit!

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Rascalmyshadow

[tdierikx]

I'd love to see pricing for rescue animals reflect their true value... in many cases the animals in question have been thoroughly vetworked, temperament assessed, and if necessary, rehabilitated for medical/physical/mental issues. Homes are usually fairly well checked out and matched to a particular animal's/family's needs... and that alone is actually priceless IMHO.

 

The myth/perception that rescue animals are in some way "lesser" than animals sourced from anywhere else, and as such should be cheaper to purchase, needs to be kyboshed...

 

T.

[KobiD]

42 minutes ago, tdierikx said:

I'd love to see pricing for rescue animals reflect their true value... in many cases the animals in question have been thoroughly vetworked, temperament assessed, and if necessary, rehabilitated for medical/physical/mental issues. Homes are usually fairly well checked out and matched to a particular animal's/family's needs... and that alone is actually priceless IMHO.

 

The myth/perception that rescue animals are in some way "lesser" than animals sourced from anywhere else, and as such should be cheaper to purchase, needs to be kyboshed...

 

T.

I agree, however I think costs need to be averaged out across multiple dogs. No point investing a load of time and dollars into a particular animal only to then put a higher price on it and cutting out potential buyers. 

 

In regards to lesser animals, it is all perception for sure. Every animal is an individual and should be treated as such, and while an unknown mix can be a bloody good dog, it's still an unknown mix and that decreases the value to some people depending on what they are looking for. I certainly would pay more to have the ability to see the parents size/character, liaise with the people who raised them (both before buying and after), and papers as well..

 

It doesn't make the animal any less, but does take value out of the transaction.. at least from my point of view.

 

 

[Rascalmyshadow]

I was taught when it comes to business/selling products ( yes I know dogs aren’t exactly a product) the value is only as much as a consumer is willing to pay.

If the majority of people don’t think a xbreed rescue dog is worth as much as a purebred pedigree dog that has fully health tested parents along with guarantees for genetic issues, shouldn’t the price reflect that.

[tdierikx]

Refer to a crossbreed by some fancy "breed" name and flog it for a motza on Gumtree... perfectly acceptable apparently...

 

... but refer to the same dog by it's breed mix and advertise it as a rescue, and suddenly it's "worth" less?

 

I'm not comparing crossbreeds/rescues to purebred dogs from reputable and ethical breeders... apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.

 

T.

 

 

[Rascalmyshadow]

Ok thanks for clearing that up and I know there are so many people willing to hand over ridiculous amounts of money for xbreed mutts, I just never thought an ethical rescue would encourage that.

[Maddy]

11 minutes ago, Rascalmyshadow said:

Ok thanks for clearing that up and I know there are so many people willing to hand over ridiculous amounts of money for xbreed mutts, I just never thought an ethical rescue would encourage that.

If it helps to subsidise the rehoming of less desirable dogs, or dogs who require extensive vet work, I'd say that's a reasonable way of going about it. 

With PR gobbling up public donations as efficiently as they are, it's harder for rescue groups to stay in the black, and as long as it's not straying into ethically questionable territory (like only rescuing the highly desirable dogs, and leaving other rescues to deal with the large bully crossbreds that seem to make up most of the pound population), I can't see any problem with it. 

[RuralPug]

I agree with Maddy on that.

Leaving aside breed specialty rescues, which are a different kettle of fish, if the rescue or shelter mostly offers for adoption the less popular but common mixed breeds at reasonable prices then I see no problem with them charging a substantially higher price for a popular type or baby puppy if one or two should happen their way. 

However I am the first to sneer at so-called "rescues" who offer almost nothing except highly priced puppies.  As far as I am concerned these (and there are a few around) are simply a front for puppy farmers and blacken the name of rescue. 

[Maddy]

17 hours ago, RuralPug said:

I agree with Maddy on that.

Leaving aside breed specialty rescues, which are a different kettle of fish, if the rescue or shelter mostly offers for adoption the less popular but common mixed breeds at reasonable prices then I see no problem with them charging a substantially higher price for a popular type or baby puppy if one or two should happen their way. 

However I am the first to sneer at so-called "rescues" who offer almost nothing except highly priced puppies.  As far as I am concerned these (and there are a few around) are simply a front for puppy farmers and blacken the name of rescue. 

I think it even happens in breed specific rescues. There have been a few times I've been asked to take dogs from group situations, after other rescues have already picked out the desirable dogs- females, fawns, blues, cat safes- leaving me to collect the huge, black males, who are barely small dog safe and are difficult to rehome. It's annoying to be left with the dogs that take several months to rehome but unlike the people who turned them down to start with, I'm not going to leave a dog to die, just because it'll be more work. However, that also means less exposure from people sharing photos of pretty/interesting dogs, higher expenses from keeping dogs longer and less dogs helped (which equals less donations because it appears you do less work). As always, being ethical in what you do, often disadvantages you. Unfortunate but true.

[Guest crazydoglady99]

Going off topic here..

 

Just wondering others thoughts.. what about the little 'one person' rescuers, that have a million dogs that they can barely afford to feed, let alone vetwork. When they cry out desperately needing food, wormers etc. Are we really helping by dipping into our pockets? Or just enabling?