Why aren't rescue dogs free?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the high fee stopped us from adopting one

Dogs are expensive. How did you plan to cover food and vet bills?

Once adopted those are necessary expenses, until then, it's a choice.

Then you didn’t really want a dog that badly, which is fine. The shelter/rescue is free to set their priorities and you’re free to set yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the high fee stopped us from adopting one

Dogs are expensive. How did you plan to cover food and vet bills?

Once adopted those are necessary expenses, until then, it's a choice.

Then you didn’t really want a dog that badly, which is fine. The shelter/rescue is free to set their priorities and you’re free to set yours.

Yeah, tell me something I don't know though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

Nobody thinks a person is bad for being poor, but 1) no one has an automatic right to a dog, no matter how much money they have and 2) veterinary care is very expensive and if you can’t provide it, you’re not necessarily able to “save” a dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

Nobody thinks a person is bad for being poor, but 1) no one has an automatic right to a dog, no matter how much money they have and 2) veterinary care is very expensive and if you can’t provide it, you’re not necessarily able to “save” a dog.

oh man, that sounds awfully judgmental.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

So who should pay for the care the dog received before it was adopted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

I have friends that fit into this category. They generally adopt from shelters, because rescue fees are too high. That requires waiting, watching, and pretty much jumping in as soon as a new dog is posted, to get a good fit. I will tell you though that things are hard when dogs need $$$$ vet care. For instance, one friend had her dog blow TWO CCLs, and that surgery was in the thousands of dollars, which she didn't have. She sold a lot of personal belongings and her artwork to raise the funds, and her friends helped out by buying what she was selling (she would not accept charity). And she used Care Credit. And I'm sure she ate a lot of Ramen for years. A lot of people would have either given the dog up to a shelter, or PTS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

Nobody thinks a person is bad for being poor, but 1) no one has an automatic right to a dog, no matter how much money they have and 2) veterinary care is very expensive and if you can’t provide it, you’re not necessarily able to “save” a dog.

oh man, that sounds awfully judgmental.

WTF there is nothing judgmental about it. Why do many dogs end up back with rescues? Because the owners can't afford the vet bills.
When you adopt a child, you have to show that you're solvent to pay for it. You can't help an animal if you can't afford basic care and food. My gosh eople have taken being "inclusive" way too far and lost all common sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

So who should pay for the care the dog received before it was adopted?

I hate myself for saying this. But, that’s the downside to rescuing all of the dogs instead of euthanizing sick and elderly dogs. They can overburden shelters in rescues. The bills add up and those dogs then become expensive.

(I am not saying to euthanize them. I’m just pointing out that there is a downside to saving all of them.)

[Anonymous]

OP, who do you think pays for the vet bills to update vaccinations and transport the dogs and board them until they are adopted and on and on? The $400 doesn't begin to cover the costs. Then factor in some rescues that have large medical bills and it's not even close.
I rarely walk out of my vet's office for less than $200-300 for a yearly checkup. If you balk at $400, you're probably not financially ready for a pet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

8:56 posted it can prevent abuse. This is absolutely 100% true. You never post a free dog on Craigslist. They can be used for bait dogs. I'm sorry that infringes on your "right to save poor dogs".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

So who should pay for the care the dog received before it was adopted?

I hate myself for saying this. But, that’s the downside to rescuing all of the dogs instead of euthanizing sick and elderly dogs. They can overburden shelters in rescues. The bills add up and those dogs then become expensive.

(I am not saying to euthanize them. I’m just pointing out that there is a downside to saving all of them.)

But even euthanizing the ones who are extremely elderly or who have a poor health prognosis and disposing of their bodies costs money. If people believe anyone should be able to adopt for free, who do they think should pay for euthanasia or spaying/neutering or deworming or vaccinating?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah the high fee stopped us from adopting one

Dogs are expensive. How did you plan to cover food and vet bills?

Dogs aren't that expensive, it's people who like to make them expensive. Dog walkers, groomers, high vet bills etc.. That's all stuff that pet owners have decided to sometimes waste our money on. My old dog was spayed and that was it. Never had any other problems and it got regular baths in the backward with a hose pipe. Say that to people these days and all they want to tell you is how bad that is for the dog because the dog needs "special shampoo" and needs to be pampered because it deserves the same treatment as a human being. My old dog lead a long and I believe happy life. It wasn't expensive at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

Nobody thinks a person is bad for being poor, but 1) no one has an automatic right to a dog, no matter how much money they have and 2) veterinary care is very expensive and if you can’t provide it, you’re not necessarily able to “save” a dog.

oh man, that sounds awfully judgmental.

WTF there is nothing judgmental about it. Why do many dogs end up back with rescues? Because the owners can't afford the vet bills.
When you adopt a child, you have to show that you're solvent to pay for it. You can't help an animal if you can't afford basic care and food. My gosh eople have taken being "inclusive" way too far and lost all common sense.

Calm down Sally. Unable or unwilling to pay 400 adoption fee up-front has nothing to do with what kind of life dog will live post adoption. It has nothing to do with being "inclusive" (or not). It has everything to do with the fact that everyone is capable of giving love regardless of their SES. Money doesn't buy everything you know?

[Anonymous]

People seem to be under the impression that the rescues get immaculate dogs, turn them around, and just make a whole heap of money on them. This is the reality of it:

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=639855491509001&set=a.549652093862675

P.S. You should see that poor mama dog. She seems to be really nice, and I hope her mammary tumor is not cancerous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:8:56 and 8:57 - poor folks are not all bad and even people not as wealthy as you, have the right to save poor dogs.

8:56 posted it can prevent abuse. This is absolutely 100% true. You never post a free dog on Craigslist. They can be used for bait dogs. I'm sorry that infringes on your "right to save poor dogs".

I am on CL daily. I have never seen a bait dog post. Can you post one? No eye rolls necessary.