Rescues “saving” adoptable dogs

[Anonymous]

It’s always terrible for a dog to be bounced around but not everyone can keep a dog. I know of one foster that takes in dogs all the time on a temporary basis to help them out because that’s all she can do with her job. Thank goodness she helps but let’s not criticize someone who can’t keep them for personal reasons and actually helps the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s always terrible for a dog to be bounced around but not everyone can keep a dog. I know of one foster that takes in dogs all the time on a temporary basis to help them out because that’s all she can do with her job. Thank goodness she helps but let’s not criticize someone who can’t keep them for personal reasons and actually helps the situation.

How about the rescues instead of reselling dogs support families in keeping their pets especially when the are forced to give them up for medical or financial. Dogs get bonded to their humans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most rescues don’t operate like shelters. They’re not housing a bunch of dogs together in kennels in one central location, with a staff that cares for them. Most rescues rely on a network of volunteer fosters to house the dogs in their own homes temporarily. If a dog has a low likelihood of being adopted and will need care for the foreseeable future, how on earth do you think a rescue will line up fosters to take on the burden of care? It’s not that hard to line up a foster household for a highly adoptable dog that is only expected to need care for a short period. The same household can foster multiple dogs per year. However, finding fosters who are willing to house dogs who have known issues (whether medical or behavioral or breed issues) for years (potentially) is next to impossible. That’s why those dogs stay at the shelter and rescues take the dogs that volunteers can take into their own homes. Also, a lot of times rescues will take pregnant dogs so that these dogs can whelp their pups in a calmer, quieter environment than the shelter, and where they and their new puppies can get more individualized attention.

Rescues have to charge high adoption fees because they generally don’t have public funding that covers their operating expenses. There are expenses associated with transporting dogs, feeding them, providing flea and tick preventatives, making sure the dogs are up to date with vaccines, keeping them groomed, spaying/neutering them, providing any other necessary medical care, such as deworming them or treating parvo, possibly providing some training or behavioral analysis for dogs who adoptable, but come with some issues. They might also have to cover some maternity care or prescription medication or the occasional surgery.

When I adopted my dog from a rescue, they handed over his veterinary records. It was all there in black and white: the rescue spent more money on his medical care than they charged me for the adoption fee — but they didn’t just pay for his medical care, including neutering; they also transported him, fed him, provided him with a collar and leash, and sent me home with a week’s worth of food and a toothbrush and toothpaste. They lost money on the transaction.

They are rescues, not resellers so they should be taking those very dogs who need it the most.

And do what with them? Did you even read the post you’re responding to? Shelters are equipped to house or euthanize unadoptable dogs. Rescues are just volunteers who have offered whatever assistance they can manage.

The point is the rescues should be taking the unadoptable or on the euthanasia list vs cherry pick the ones that can be adopted quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always terrible for a dog to be bounced around but not everyone can keep a dog. I know of one foster that takes in dogs all the time on a temporary basis to help them out because that’s all she can do with her job. Thank goodness she helps but let’s not criticize someone who can’t keep them for personal reasons and actually helps the situation.

How about the rescues instead of reselling dogs support families in keeping their pets especially when the are forced to give them up for medical or financial. Dogs get bonded to their humans.

Shelters do that, using taxpayers funds
Who's going to find rescues to do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most rescues don’t operate like shelters. They’re not housing a bunch of dogs together in kennels in one central location, with a staff that cares for them. Most rescues rely on a network of volunteer fosters to house the dogs in their own homes temporarily. If a dog has a low likelihood of being adopted and will need care for the foreseeable future, how on earth do you think a rescue will line up fosters to take on the burden of care? It’s not that hard to line up a foster household for a highly adoptable dog that is only expected to need care for a short period. The same household can foster multiple dogs per year. However, finding fosters who are willing to house dogs who have known issues (whether medical or behavioral or breed issues) for years (potentially) is next to impossible. That’s why those dogs stay at the shelter and rescues take the dogs that volunteers can take into their own homes. Also, a lot of times rescues will take pregnant dogs so that these dogs can whelp their pups in a calmer, quieter environment than the shelter, and where they and their new puppies can get more individualized attention.

Rescues have to charge high adoption fees because they generally don’t have public funding that covers their operating expenses. There are expenses associated with transporting dogs, feeding them, providing flea and tick preventatives, making sure the dogs are up to date with vaccines, keeping them groomed, spaying/neutering them, providing any other necessary medical care, such as deworming them or treating parvo, possibly providing some training or behavioral analysis for dogs who adoptable, but come with some issues. They might also have to cover some maternity care or prescription medication or the occasional surgery.

When I adopted my dog from a rescue, they handed over his veterinary records. It was all there in black and white: the rescue spent more money on his medical care than they charged me for the adoption fee — but they didn’t just pay for his medical care, including neutering; they also transported him, fed him, provided him with a collar and leash, and sent me home with a week’s worth of food and a toothbrush and toothpaste. They lost money on the transaction.

They are rescues, not resellers so they should be taking those very dogs who need it the most.

And do what with them? Did you even read the post you’re responding to? Shelters are equipped to house or euthanize unadoptable dogs. Rescues are just volunteers who have offered whatever assistance they can manage.

The point is the rescues should be taking the unadoptable or on the euthanasia list vs cherry pick the ones that can be adopted quickly.

Rescues decide what their mission is when formed. And some do things you describe - take dogs off euthanasia list and keep them. Those usually located in more remote arenas, sometimes called sanctuaries. I assume you donate time and money to one of them (there are couple in the area, always looking for volunteers to help, there is plenty to do on the farm that house 100+ mostly unadoptable dogs)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s always terrible for a dog to be bounced around but not everyone can keep a dog. I know of one foster that takes in dogs all the time on a temporary basis to help them out because that’s all she can do with her job. Thank goodness she helps but let’s not criticize someone who can’t keep them for personal reasons and actually helps the situation.

How about the rescues instead of reselling dogs support families in keeping their pets especially when the are forced to give them up for medical or financial. Dogs get bonded to their humans.

NP. I actually don't think that's even close to the top reasons that people get rid of their dogs. I have worked with shelters. Moving and can't keep the dog, owner's death (the breed I like is a small toy breed and this is the #1 reason they are given up. Old ladies have sweet little dogs, but then they pass away), and then there's that the dog is poorly behaved and the family wasn't prepared the the sheer amount of work it takes to train a dog.

I personally don't like breed rescues as they get to be very persnickety. I was told no last year because I had an almost 4 year old. I went to breeder route and my 4 year old is the sweetest with our new puppy. She has so much patience and will play fetch for hours with the puppy. I think the rescue had no idea what kids are even like since it's all childless people running the rescues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most rescues don’t operate like shelters. They’re not housing a bunch of dogs together in kennels in one central location, with a staff that cares for them. Most rescues rely on a network of volunteer fosters to house the dogs in their own homes temporarily. If a dog has a low likelihood of being adopted and will need care for the foreseeable future, how on earth do you think a rescue will line up fosters to take on the burden of care? It’s not that hard to line up a foster household for a highly adoptable dog that is only expected to need care for a short period. The same household can foster multiple dogs per year. However, finding fosters who are willing to house dogs who have known issues (whether medical or behavioral or breed issues) for years (potentially) is next to impossible. That’s why those dogs stay at the shelter and rescues take the dogs that volunteers can take into their own homes. Also, a lot of times rescues will take pregnant dogs so that these dogs can whelp their pups in a calmer, quieter environment than the shelter, and where they and their new puppies can get more individualized attention.

Rescues have to charge high adoption fees because they generally don’t have public funding that covers their operating expenses. There are expenses associated with transporting dogs, feeding them, providing flea and tick preventatives, making sure the dogs are up to date with vaccines, keeping them groomed, spaying/neutering them, providing any other necessary medical care, such as deworming them or treating parvo, possibly providing some training or behavioral analysis for dogs who adoptable, but come with some issues. They might also have to cover some maternity care or prescription medication or the occasional surgery.

When I adopted my dog from a rescue, they handed over his veterinary records. It was all there in black and white: the rescue spent more money on his medical care than they charged me for the adoption fee — but they didn’t just pay for his medical care, including neutering; they also transported him, fed him, provided him with a collar and leash, and sent me home with a week’s worth of food and a toothbrush and toothpaste. They lost money on the transaction.

They are rescues, not resellers so they should be taking those very dogs who need it the most.

And do what with them? Did you even read the post you’re responding to? Shelters are equipped to house or euthanize unadoptable dogs. Rescues are just volunteers who have offered whatever assistance they can manage.

The point is the rescues should be taking the unadoptable or on the euthanasia list vs cherry pick the ones that can be adopted quickly.

Ah, I see. You didn’t read the post you were responding to and you just keep suggesting an idea that is not remotely feasible.