Because among other reasons they don’t want the dogs to be used for bait or worse. OP doesn’t sound bright.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Totally agree about the need for a rescue fee, but some have gotten pretty outrageous. I paid more than $400 to Lucky Dog, which according to their 990 (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/or...212659349300106/full) has $6.6 million carryover in the bank. That includes $400k that they added last year, when they took in $2.4 million and spent $2.0 million. They don't need a $6 million+ cushion. Time to reduce fees and spend down to a more reasonable $2 million carryover.

Oops, mistated the numbers but the point stands.

Last year in the 990, Lucky Dog raised $3.9 million. Spent $1.9 million. Added $2 million to the bank where they have $6.7 million total in assets.

So 3.9 million revenue at 400 per dog equals selling 812 dogs per month for one year. Is this rescue really moving that many dogs or are they doing massive fundraising and not dispensing the money under the purposes of the non profit guidelines?

If they really did take in 9750 dogs last year then they were spending an average of $194 per dog and charging $400.

NP: Lucky dog is an incredibly high volume rescue. They bring dogs up from the south 30 or 40 at a time, put them in foster homes or a boarding kennel for a week or two, and then adopt them out at petco/petsmart adoptions. I am sure they do many thousands of adoptions per year. Their home page states 25,000 in the last 14 years, and one would assume it grows exponentially.

I don't particularly love their model of quantity of homes over quality, but they do move a lot of dogs.

Anonymous wrote:

Totally agree about the need for a rescue fee, but some have gotten pretty outrageous. I paid more than $400 to Lucky Dog, which according to their 990 (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/or...212659349300106/full) has $6.6 million carryover in the bank. That includes $400k that they added last year, when they took in $2.4 million and spent $2.0 million. They don't need a $6 million+ cushion. Time to reduce fees and spend down to a more reasonable $2 million carryover.

Oops, mistated the numbers but the point stands.

Last year in the 990, Lucky Dog raised $3.9 million. Spent $1.9 million. Added $2 million to the bank where they have $6.7 million total in assets.

So 3.9 million revenue at 400 per dog equals selling 812 dogs per month for one year. Is this rescue really moving that many dogs or are they doing massive fundraising and not dispensing the money under the purposes of the non profit guidelines?

If they really did take in 9750 dogs last year then they were spending an average of $194 per dog and charging $400.

They are reselling the dogs.

The vet industry is out of control and the extravagant fees are basically killing more animals than they are helping. There is an an explosion of puppies and kittens now because people are shocked when their vet tells them it will be $800-1200 to spay their pet. This same vet charged $200-$400 5-10 years ago before the original vet owner retired/sold his practice to a private equity owned company. The old vet used to discount services for senior citizens and rescue. New ownership would laugh at that practice! There are many more accidental litters now.

Low cost spay and neuter is overwhelmed so people who could and would afford reasonable vet fees are opting to not get the pet fixed or euthanizing them.

Totally agree about the need for a rescue fee, but some have gotten pretty outrageous. I paid more than $400 to Lucky Dog, which according to their 990 (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/or...212659349300106/full) has $6.6 million carryover in the bank. That includes $400k that they added last year, when they took in $2.4 million and spent $2.0 million. They don't need a $6 million+ cushion. Time to reduce fees and spend down to a more reasonable $2 million carryover.

Oops, mistated the numbers but the point stands.

Last year in the 990, Lucky Dog raised $3.9 million. Spent $1.9 million. Added $2 million to the bank where they have $6.7 million total in assets.

Totally agree about the need for a rescue fee, but some have gotten pretty outrageous. I paid more than $400 to Lucky Dog, which according to their 990 (https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/300559037/202212659349300106/full) has $6.6 million carryover in the bank. That includes $400k that they added last year, when they took in $2.4 million and spent $2.0 million. They don't need a $6 million+ cushion. Time to reduce fees and spend down to a more reasonable $2 million carryover.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But money does buy food and vet care. Love is necessary, but not sufficient.

Amen. A 5 week supply of my dog’s kibble cost $67 in 2020. It’s $91 now.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

But money does buy food and vet care. Love is necessary, but not sufficient.

When I volunteered in rescue we lost money on all adoptions. It cost an average of $400 per dog to vet/fix all incoming animals, and we charged $250 and fundraised the rest. This was 5 years ago. I'm sure post covid, vet costs are higher and most vets don't have time for discounted charity rescue work.

I would have LOVED to give dogs away for free to loving homes, but the reality is we would have had to shut down after the first dog, because I can't personally pay for other people to get a pet.

I do agree that the sob story cases of "dog is found on side of the road hit by a car and needs $8000 of surgery" is a situation where humane euthanasia is probably better, but the vast majority of dogs are perfectly "healthy", they just need shots, dewormed, a physical, spay/neuter, maybe a little basic training so they go home ready to stay for the long haul. That's easily $400.

Anonymous wrote:There is a lot of money in animal rescue. You can look up the financial records of a lot of non-profits that are in the NOVA area and see how much money....

It is a business don't forget.

Are you saying the people who run rescues are making a nice living from it? (I just need to know how divorced from reality you are)

Shelters need money to run. Also its an easy way to help weed out people who may not be invested in actually having a pet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

GTFO. They don't post them advertised as bait dogs. Are you serious?

You are the one who made the claim. I am asking for a proof. Yes, I am indeed serious.

I posted above, but I’m not that poster.

I don’t think people are on the hunt for bait dogs. If it happens, it is a fraction of a percentage. I don’t think it’s as common as people think or if people want make it.

Obviously, the vast majority of people who are interested in getting a dog have nothing to do with the world of dog fighting. Most people who would express interest in an ad for a free dog really do want a pet. The problem is that 100% of the tiny population of people who procure dogs for the purpose of dog fighting would like to get their hands on free dogs. If you’re giving your dog away to a stranger for free on CL, how to you separate the bad actors from the good ones?

Are you real? So, people who can pay are "good" actors and people who can't are bad apples?

Certainly not. In fact, it’s the opposite: bad actors WILL NOT pay because it’s a business decision for them and not about loving the dog.

You have a real chip on your shoulder, but making sure a potential adopter has some skin in the game weeds out people who have no intention of sinking any money into an animal because it’s not going to be their pet.

You think I have a chip on my shoulder? Look in the mirror!

? Care to elaborate? If I was rehoming my dog, I wouldn’t be looking for wealthy people, but I would be looking for someone who I’m confident will love him and meet all of his basic needs, which aren’t cheap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

GTFO. They don't post them advertised as bait dogs. Are you serious?

You are the one who made the claim. I am asking for a proof. Yes, I am indeed serious.

I posted above, but I’m not that poster.

I don’t think people are on the hunt for bait dogs. If it happens, it is a fraction of a percentage. I don’t think it’s as common as people think or if people want make it.

Obviously, the vast majority of people who are interested in getting a dog have nothing to do with the world of dog fighting. Most people who would express interest in an ad for a free dog really do want a pet. The problem is that 100% of the tiny population of people who procure dogs for the purpose of dog fighting would like to get their hands on free dogs. If you’re giving your dog away to a stranger for free on CL, how to you separate the bad actors from the good ones?

Are you real? So, people who can pay are "good" actors and people who can't are bad apples?

Certainly not. In fact, it’s the opposite: bad actors WILL NOT pay because it’s a business decision for them and not about loving the dog.

You have a real chip on your shoulder, but making sure a potential adopter has some skin in the game weeds out people who have no intention of sinking any money into an animal because it’s not going to be their pet.

You think I have a chip on my shoulder? Look in the mirror!

There is a lot of money in animal rescue. You can look up the financial records of a lot of non-profits that are in the NOVA area and see how much money....

It is a business don't forget.