Adoption fee "too expensive"

[_PL_]

That's a really good question, never thought of that before.

I've seen pop-up rescues, seemingly very inexperienced, get into trouble very fast. You have to work within your means.

That being said, you can toddle along quite nicely with even the best management and some cash behind you but one massive unforeseen bill and you're done for.  Rescue is unpredictable that way.  

 

IMHO if there's a constant & desperate begging for help, they should be encouraged or assisted to get their fundraising approval so they can put out donation tins, do bbq's, approach businesses, sell merchandise. Pro active stuff.  

 

The term enabling makes me think of hoarding though. Without naming names, is that what you're seeing? 

 

 

[Guest crazydoglady99]

Oh I don't know.  I am on an email list that sends the pound needies and temp notes for the local pounds. It also has bits and pieces/requests from rescue groups.

It just seems to be the same ones, constantly needing food, bedding, wormers etc etc. 

 

Probably the issue is more me, and I feel terrible that they are struggling. But I can't help but wonder..

 

Edit to say - working within your means. You nailed it. 

Edited June 23, 2018 by crazydoglady99

[Rascalmyshadow]

Another question on ethics, I used to be friends with someone who was fostering through a rescue group, she was given lots of donated food, coats etc, not only was the stuff being used on the foster dogs but her own dogs as well.

Is this ok.

[tdierikx]

6 hours ago, Rascalmyshadow said:

Another question on ethics, I used to be friends with someone who was fostering through a rescue group, she was given lots of donated food, coats etc, not only was the stuff being used on the foster dogs but her own dogs as well.

Is this ok.

If there is surplus, and won't be used by the rescue before the use by date, then I'd say that would be OK...

 

I've been in the position where my own dogs were given food by the rescue my fosters were with... but usually I'd be the one supplying food for all animals at my house - my own AND the fosters. It can even out... sometimes...

 

T.

[_PL_]

I don't know the answer  very interested to know what others think/feel about it. 

Maybe it would depend on if they were just topping up to help with overall costs ... or completely taking advantage?Like using the rescue's resources to allow them to afford their own dogs? 

 

Jumpers. I really enjoy giving the fosters first wear of new ones, like a special treat.

They last so long though so yes they go through the wash, and are then used by everyone until they wear out.

There's always pristine beautifully hand made ones set aside that go out in adoption packs. (Plus the harness, collar, lead, brush etc from my own pocket.)

Food. Costs me a fortune. If somebody donated barf or chicken breast it would really help. LOL

Edited June 23, 2018 by Powerlegs

[Guest crazydoglady99]

I think using surplus is fine. Most foster carers are supplying everything themselves (well I did!), so I think it all just goes full circle. 

 

It's a tricky subject!

[westiemum]

On 4/5/2018 at 1:18 PM, W T said:

this is a pure breed forum?

 

now, pure breed is for many dog owners linked somehow to quality. And the term quality is often used by breeders to justify the price for the dog, and I guess there is nothing wrong with it.

 

However, if I see the quality of some dogs (age, blind, deaf, on medications etc.) advertised for adoption, IMO it is understandable that people interested in these kind of dogs might think that the adoption fee asked for is too high.

Gawd WT - that's a slippery slope - so do you discount eyes more than ears, what about legs?  And what happens if the 'problem' is simply cosmetic (damaged tail etc)? So no absolutely not.  Dogs are not 'products' and ' commodities' that are discounted if the box is damaged.  Rescue dogs are not 'damaged goods' who need to be discounted anymore than people with disabilities are.   

 

Rural Pugs 'solution', is the best one - people need to learn that the vast majority of rescue dogs cost big bucks.  The only rescue dog I've ever 'given away' was a surrender who cost me nothing except food and time.  The most expensive rescue I've re-homed I was out of pocket well over $2000.  So $350 for a fully worked rescue dog where the dog is matched behaviourally as well,  is a fantastic deal.  And people need to get with it - or go buy a puppy from Gumtree (and all the risks that entails!) or from a registered breeder.   

[westiemum]

22 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

That's a really good question, never thought of that before.

I've seen pop-up rescues, seemingly very inexperienced, get into trouble very fast. You have to work within your means.

That being said, you can toddle along quite nicely with even the best management and some cash behind you but one massive unforeseen bill and you're done for.  Rescue is unpredictable that way.  

 

IMHO if there's a constant & desperate begging for help, they should be encouraged or assisted to get their fundraising approval so they can put out donation tins, do bbq's, approach businesses, sell merchandise. Pro active stuff.  

 

The term enabling makes me think of hoarding though. Without naming names, is that what you're seeing? 

 

 

Yep absolutely corrrect PL.  Which is why I never take more than one rescue dog at a time (although I'm often asked to take 'just one more').  One is all I can do, my breed rescue (westies) is usually expensive and I'd rather stay well within my capabilities than fail a whole bunch of needy dogs. 

[Maddy]

On 23/06/2018 at 11:31 AM, crazydoglady99 said:

Oh I don't know.  I am on an email list that sends the pound needies and temp notes for the local pounds. It also has bits and pieces/requests from rescue groups.

It just seems to be the same ones, constantly needing food, bedding, wormers etc etc. 

 

Probably the issue is more me, and I feel terrible that they are struggling. But I can't help but wonder..

 

Edit to say - working within your means. You nailed it. 

I guess it depends on how desperate that need is, if you get what I mean?

If they're constantly down to their last few cups of food, with no capability to self-fund if needed, there is an issue. As PL said, sometimes things go to shit and that's just the nature of dealing with living creatures. But if you can't self-fund enough to ensure basic welfare requirements are being met, and things are becoming urgent on a regular basis, that's pretty clearly indicative of management problems. 

Personally, I worked out what my costs were, decided how much I was willing to self-fund if there was no other income, and I don't take in more dogs than that amount would cover. It limits chances of things go badly into the red and gives you a point at which you can comfortably say no. 

 

With regards to foster carers using donated items on their own dogs.. I guess it depends. If it was to the detriment of the foster dog (for example, using the coat on their own dog while the foster dog stayed cold), I'd be pretty upset. Sharing items while in care..  doesn't bother me too much, as long as necessary items go with the foster dog to their new home. In saying that.. because I mostly self-fund, I wouldn't appreciate a carer using more expensive things like worming/flea treatments on their own dogs, because that money comes out of my pocket, and limits the dogs I can actually help. Of course, on the other hand, if one of my fosters somehow caused a carer's dog to become infested with worms or fleas, I'd absolutely cover their costs. It comes down to being considerate and neither side taking advantage.