Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how paying several hundred dollars to an animal rescue proves that you can afford a pet. Many people may give pets away because they do not want to be spending discretionary dollars on the pet anymore regardless of whether they can afford or we're OK spending several hundred dollars a few years ago.

The rescue re-home fee is the business model to fund the rescue. Honestly, I wouldn't donate $300-$700 if it was only a voluntary/suggested donation. If the rescue dog that we wanted was $700, I would pay them.

The problem is that there are probably many people who can afford to keep a pet and would be loving owners but do not want to pay several hundred dollars in one shot to adopt an animal. More animals would be placed in homes if the rehoming fees were significantly less BUT the rescues wouldn't have funds to operate.

The rescues I'm familiar with ask between $300-500 per animal, and it's supposed to cover vet bills (including spaying and neutering, and frequently lots of other vet bills). I have no problem with that. OP is referring to people privately rehoming a pet that they no longer can keep or want. In that case, why would that person expect money for the pet?

I'm not sure how paying several hundred dollars to an animal rescue proves that you can afford a pet. Many people may give pets away because they do not want to be spending discretionary dollars on the pet anymore regardless of whether they can afford or we're OK spending several hundred dollars a few years ago.

The rescue re-home fee is the business model to fund the rescue. Honestly, I wouldn't donate $300-$700 if it was only a voluntary/suggested donation. If the rescue dog that we wanted was $700, I would pay them.

The problem is that there are probably many people who can afford to keep a pet and would be loving owners but do not want to pay several hundred dollars in one shot to adopt an animal. More animals would be placed in homes if the rehoming fees were significantly less BUT the rescues wouldn't have funds to operate.

"Are you surprised that people want money to recoup some of the costs?
Many affluent people on this board (who claim they are not rich!!!) have no idea how ordinary people live and economize.
It makes sense to try to get some money back if you can't take care of a pet anymore and you know people are ready to pay a fee for a pet."

I agree. Not that I support the practice, but it makes sense that people who are in a position of not being able to afford a pet, or take it with them with they move, or downsizing from a home to apartment, likely are pretty in need of some extra cash.

You know how you can stop this kind of horrible behavior....don't "adopt" this way.

Please visit the Washington Humane Society or other reputable rescue group.

Are you surprised that people want money to recoup some of the costs?
Many affluent people on this board (who claim they are not rich!!!) have no idea how ordinary people live and economize.
It makes sense to try to get some money back if you can't take care of a pet anymore and you know people are ready to pay a fee for a pet.
There are many reasons a pet has to be rehomed - not all of them are the original owner's fault.
A donation sounds ideal in theory! If you don't need the money...

Anonymous wrote:I saw on our neighborhood dogwalkers listserv a year ago (we all know each other, small group) someone decided basically they had enough of dogdom. Already outrageous post, asking someone if they could take the dog. They go on to state a multitude of terms, including: (1) You cannot change the dog's name; (2) You must have a home with a fenced yard; (3) You must provide such-and-such food; (4) We would like to recoup at least 50% of our cost for the dog's bed and toys.

Are you surprised that no one was interested?

If I really liked a specific dog none of that would turn me off. For example we once had neighbors with a lovely large male yellow English Lab. Loved that dog and there was a possibility of them having a overseas assignment and a teeny apt.

Changing a dog's name upon rehoming does not faze the dog at all. That would be the least of the dog's worries. That is totally the owner's vanity and projected anxiety.

Anonymous wrote:I saw on our neighborhood dogwalkers listserv a year ago (we all know each other, small group) someone decided basically they had enough of dogdom. Already outrageous post, asking someone if they could take the dog. They go on to state a multitude of terms, including: (1) You cannot change the dog's name; (2) You must have a home with a fenced yard; (3) You must provide such-and-such food; (4) We would like to recoup at least 50% of our cost for the dog's bed and toys.

Are you surprised that no one was interested?

I agree with the name thing, but not that the "donor owner" has any dang right to make demands of someone taking HIS problem away from him. Sheesh.

I saw on our neighborhood dogwalkers listserv a year ago (we all know each other, small group) someone decided basically they had enough of dogdom. Already outrageous post, asking someone if they could take the dog. They go on to state a multitude of terms, including: (1) You cannot change the dog's name; (2) You must have a home with a fenced yard; (3) You must provide such-and-such food; (4) We would like to recoup at least 50% of our cost for the dog's bed and toys.

Are you surprised that no one was interested?

We're in the process of rehoming our dog (I'm the OP of a recent post about our dog biting my child) and considered charging a rehoming fee only for the purpose of weeding out folks that weren't serious or couldn't afford to take care of him. Fortunately, we were able to find a home through a coworker's family and I don't feel the need to charge a fee... but I can see the reasoning behind it. I never thought about the donation, though - that's a great idea. Wish people did that instead.

Anonymous wrote:I saw a similar diatribe some time ago. Wonder if it's the same poster.

Nope, not the same. I belong to a few military spouse facebook pages and get so sick of seeing it. I doubt many of them even know the rehoming fee is supposed to keep the weirdos away.

Bravo, 11:19! It does show their intent to refuse that offer.

11:06, yes. Many times people try to rehome their pets before taking them to a shelter. I've seen people ask for up to $500 fees! Granted, maybe they spend $2000 on the dog, but that's their problem.

100% agree with you. I suggested the donation to a shelter when I was adopting a Craig's list dog. Owner said no, which shows the real motivation.

The diatribe seems highly acceptable to me. You mean you have to pay the former owner of a shelter dog?

I saw a similar diatribe some time ago. Wonder if it's the same poster.

I start this vent by stating, I totally understand that many people charge a rehoming fee to make sure it's someone who 1) can afford to properly care for the animal and 2) keep sickos/weirdos from taking a free animal. But, why the hell should you, the person who can't care for the animal for whatever reason, recoup any of your costs? I don't care if you're giving me gold embossed dog food bowls or diamond leashes. You want me to relieve you of the responsibility of a living creature you promised to love forever, ease your mind, AND pay you back a portion of what you paid for the animal and all it's belongings? Give me a break - you should be paying me the rehoming fee!

In my world, it would be much better if rehoming fees were done as donations to the local humane society. You can't keep your dog? Then charge me a $200 donation to whatever animal shelter you choose. Make me bring a cashier's check payable to them, or show proof of an equal donation. You get nothing.