boxer rescues

[Vela]

I agree with you that not all free animals are treated badly and yes both organizations are necessary. THe rescues for the "hard cases" and the Humane Society for the mass numbers. Not giving the rescue dogs away for free is necessary and for a higher price because those dogs ofen have big and/or bad medical problems and there has to be something to help defray the cost of that for the rescuses. The HS doesn't deal with the difficult cases and therefore doesn't have the huge money outlay for each animal. That's why they can do it for less. But they also don't screen homes and many of the dogs end up back in the shelter so it has it's problems. That would not be the case I think for most rescue dogs. Not all of course but most. They are screened homes and are willing to financially take on that animal and realize how much it will cost most times. I'm sure there are lots of "free" dogs who are very loved, but it does help to weed out people who don't value their animals by asking for a donation in the 200-300 dollar range. If this wasn't true, why would so many of the shelter dogs be returned? Because a lot of times they "didn't cost a lot" and are easy to return. A lot of people who adopt from the HS won't work on problems the dogs have but those coming from rescue often have a LOT of their problems worked on by the rescue and are evaluted and placed appropraitely therefore guaranteeing more success in placement. I just don't see why anyone would balk at spending 300 for a recue organization dog. If they don't have it then maybe it's best not to get a dog until they could afford it. All dogs, free or otherwise cost money to keep.

 

[momstaxi]

Vela
I agree and I don't think $300 is alot for a rescue dog. I know rescue puts alot of $ and time into each dog and wants to be sure it finds a FOREVER home. So I think basically we are saying the same thing

 

[Vela]

Yes I think you are right=) I just didn't want you to think I was bashing anyone who does take care of their "free" dog. I'm sure there are many.

Mostly it was directed to the original poster about why the resuces charge so much more and why its necessary to do so and that they aren't trying to price gouge and hold out rescue dogs for only the "rich".

 

[ozz321]

rescues

i am amazed that not one person that responded to my post can understand what i am trying to say...its scary..and sad. everyone is too busy trying to justify the money that they are not understanding what i am trying to say. i could say so much more to some of the post but im done wasting my time on this. get past the anger that i obviously caused for some of you and try to understand the meaning behind what i was saying..till then, i am not going to comment on this subject again, and again, i am sorry if i have offended anyone

 

[Claudia807]

First we're elitist and charge too much for rescue dogs. We're told we need to revise our fee structure and criteria for adoption. Now we're not bright enough to understand what we read.

Yes, there are people who cannot afford to adopt from a rescue because they cannot afford the adoption fee. I guess that's just the way it is. We have a dog in rescue right now who has cost us $1,900.00. If someone adopts him, the fee is still $200.00. That is a bargain, right? Would you rather pay the $1,900.00 that we've put into him? And if we don't charge a fee at all, how are we expected to remain solvent? Yes, we have policies and criteria that exclude some people from being able to adopt. I don't think people would have much respect for rescue if we just doled out dogs to anyone who wanted one.

I want a Mini Cooper but cannot afford it. Such is life.

 

[Vela]

How are you saying nobody understood what you said? You stated rescues charge too much, why won't they do it cheaper like the shelters, why won't they ever give them away for free and that they hold them out for the rich people who can afford the adoption fee. What is to misunderstand? That is what you said. I posted a clear explanation why and I did not do it in an antagonistic manner at all. If my post did not make snese then perhaps it is you that does not understand. Good luck.

 

[rog1006]

i am amazed that not one person that responded to my post can understand what i am trying to say...its scary..and sad. everyone is too busy trying to justify the money that they are not understanding what i am trying to say.

WHAT IN ALL OF THE WORLD are you talking about? We answered not only your questions, but also defended our policies and reasons for having them in place. All you've done is say negative things about rescues. Might I remind you....

i think that this is rediculous to adopt a dog. the human society only charges about 40 dollars to adopt and they put just as much expense into taking care of their dogs.

Well, we clearly answered that by showing that while the Humane Society does the best it can, they do NOT put as much expense into the care of the dogs.

its ashame you have to be rich in order to adopt a boxer who needs a home. i am very discouraged at rescues right now

We showed how that statement is also untrue. If you can't afford $200-300, then you can't afford any dog. Period.

2 in my opinion, breed rescues portray themselves as an elite organization only available to those that can afford it, and meet their criterias

Again, we discussed how we are not an "elite" group---we are doing something completely different that the HS---we don't want dogs coming back, hence the interview, home visits, etc.

i am totally against back yard breeders and puppy mills and is exactly why i was trying to adopt. i did not want to promote the breeding of more boxer puppies...however, as long as breed rescues continue to charge high prices for their dogs, including the old and feeble, people are going to continue to think...then why not just buy a puppy....for 1 or 2 hundred dollars more....

In one sentence you say you're against byb's then in the next you say then why not just buy a puppy for 1-200 dollars more---that means buying a puppy for $400-500--WHAT reputable breeder sells a puppy for $400-500???

instead, why dont these rescues evaluate someones income also, if they are good people and have a good home, why dont they instead charge them less, something they can afford...why should they have to not own a boxer just because they cant afford 300 dollars.

We explained in detail why this won't work. If we let everyone name their own price, there would be NO rescues because without any money coming in for all the money we shell out, we wouldn't be able to exist.

You criticize, yet when I ASKED YOU for some suggestions as to how you would fix the problem, you said NOTHING. Remember this?

If you don't have criteria, how can you be certain that the boxer isn't going BACK into the same abusive situation you just rescued him from? How can you be sure that just because someone has had 15 years worth of boxers, that they've been treated well and not neglected? How can you make certain that the dog won't be running wild, with no shelter or security? How is a rescue going to stay afloat FINANCIALLY if they don't require a donation for a dog? We have vet bills that are right at about $7,000 a month and we MAY adopt out about 10-15 dogs a month (on a good month) at a donation of $200--that totals at the most $3000 in donations so you can see that it is NOT enough even at $200 to stay afloat. What would your solution be? If someone cannot afford a $200-300 adoption fee, what will the family do when the dog gets sick and needs $500 worth of vet care and medicine?

I think we've tried to explain things clearly and professionally for you (and others that are following this thread) so rescues are portrayed CORRECTLY. If you still cannot understand, then you are the one that is confused--not all of us.

 

[tatev94]

i am amazed that not one person that responded to my post can understand what i am trying to say...its scary..and sad. everyone is too busy trying to justify the money that they are not understanding what i am trying to say. i could say so much more to some of the post but im done wasting my time on this. get past the anger that i obviously caused for some of you and try to understand the meaning behind what i was saying..till then, i am not going to comment on this subject again, and again, i am sorry if i have offended anyone

Well, initially, I thought you were offended that someone woulddare to interview you & do a home safety check.

Then I thought you were just upset over the price.

Then I thought you were just pointing out that if it were cheaper, tons more people would be able to give Boxers a home (not that it would be a good home, but who cares as long as it's a home, right? And anyway, how would anyone know without an interview & home check?)

Now I just think you're being defensive about others' opinions. Sorry to offend YOU, but I agree with everyone else. Good luck & I hope you find a great Boxer companion cheap & easy - just the way you want it.

Paula

 

[Tiggerolgy]

Ozz,

While you didn't mean to offend anyone, it is clear that you did. Likewise, while you feel you did not effectivly convey your message, I do think it reached some of the readers. Yes, it is unfortunate that animals are becomming more and more expensive to adopt. Yes, it is unfortunate that unwanted animals are being euthanized by the thousands every day. However, as the number of these animals increases, in direct proportion with the number of irresponsible pet owners, cost, unfortunatly, is one of the few screening methods that is available.

Obviously, adopting from a rescue organization isn't the right way for you to aquire a new companion.

But if you feel so strongly about changing the way things are managed in rescue organizions, why don't you get involved yourself?

By doing this you will not only help needy animals aquire homes, but offset the cost for these animals by volunteering your precious time and resources. You singled out rescues as being discriminatory based on breed, but aren't you doing just the same? Why don't you adopt a different breed of dog from your local animal shelter?

While you claim your email's bottom line wasn't about dollars, in all actuallity it keeps comming back down to that. The bottom line of this world, if you want to live in it, is bottom dollars. Yes, its a sad fact, but a realistic one.

Perhaps you should volunteer for a week at a shelter or local veterinary clinic. Then you would see the good that all people involved in re-homing unwated animals, including shelters, rescues and those souls that can't leave an animal out on a rainy night, are doing.

If you aren't willing to change your mind, then don't post on a discussion board. Closed-mindedness will get you no futher in cyber space then it will in the real world.

 

[Brutus and Amaya's Mom]

I have to jump in and defend the rigorous adoption guidelines. I know the rescue I work with is strict-- and I love it. After fostering a deaf baby for 9 months this year I wanted to be VERY strict in where he went. He was one of my own babies at that point.

Unfortunatly other people have lied to us, promised us the world and after awhile you learn you cannot accept the risk. People who apply without a fence ALWAYS take the dogs out on leash- but unfortunatly people lied to us and dogs were lost or hit by cars. People NEVER leave the dogs outside all day in the kennel run- but we then get calls when they got loose mid-day. People have girl dogs that love other girls- but I have fostered 3 girls that came from homes where the girls decided to hate each other.

Sorry--- we have our rules for a reason. I am sure there are people out there who walk the dog every day. But--- I admit that on cold snowy days in Iowa even I may skip that walk. There are people who always use a leash and don't tie the dogs out-- I guess they don't live in my neighborhood where the stakes seem to come out after a few weeks.

I will not apoligize for our rules or being picky. If I am going to invest 9 months in a dog, train them, nurse them to health, open my home to potential adopters, feed them with food I bought etc--- they will go to a home that I would leave my own kids for the weekend. They are going to their forever home.