Can dog rescue contracts be enforced? - Page 4

Thanks everyone for staying on this topic.  Here is another issue.  In California the caretaker/keeper of the dog is only partially liable for dog bites.  When dealing with rescue adoption contracts is the person adopting the dog a caretaker or an owner?  If the adopter is only a caretaker wouldn't that make the rescue liable for dog bites?  In a worse case scenario I would guess that if an adopted dog bites someone the caretaker, rescue agency and the landlord (if the adopter is a renter) could all be liable for a dog bite in California.  Its seems to me that some rescues want to have their cake and eat it too, meaning the rescue owns the dog, but is not responsible for dog bites as an owner would be.  Like I said, seems like a lot of unnecessary administrative work and liability for nothing in return.  Wouldn't this issue need to be clarified for contracts in California, and if it was clarified that the caretaker was solely responsible for bites wouldn't it make the adopter the defacto owner and not the rescue?

This is why I keep brining up property laws.  Dogs are property under the law, so who pays when damages are judicated and the dog is co-owned or outright owned by the rescue organization?  Also it would seem to me that if the adopter is solely liable for dog bites and damages caused by the adopted dog, they could then preempt any chance of a dog repo by taking legal action first, regarding the wording of the contract in regards to "dog bites".  I would argue you can't "co-own" a dog or own the dog through a "backdoor clause" without being responsibile for liabilities.

Not than I am advocating this, just being a "devils advocate".  It seems to me that the surest way to end these crazy "co-ownership" contracts with rescues would for an irresponsible person who looks good on paper, to get a dog and let it maul someone or another animal.  Then let the rescue "co-own" the responsibility of paying for damages.  Why do you think city shelters have been signing over 100% ownership to adopters for 50 years?  Because of cost and liability. Jut saying...

momosgarage,
Some rescues are loony and some have their heads on straight. If you want to volunteer, pick one with a pretty decent contract and do what I do. Educate them. For example, one of my rescues has a policy that "no dog shall be left outside unattended when no one is home". Basically, this means if you're at work, the dog is supposed to be in the house. The clause is there for a reason. To protect the dog, theft, gates opened, poisoning, fence jumping, etc and to make sure it's not just stuck in the yard and forgotten about. No problem for most dogs and most people who adopt. But, a huge problem for a driven dog, one used to being outside all the time, or a destructive dog. The rescue's solution was to crate the dog. What a life, 8+ hours a day in a crate while people are working, etc and crated all night, No thanks. I suggested proper secure kenneling, explained the benefits and pros of it and now that's accepted. Better a 10'x10' kennel than a 2'x3' crate. Less problems, less returns, happier dogs and happier adopters. The clause in the contract has not changed, but kennel exceptions are made on a case by case basis and written into that specific contract.

No matter what representative of the rescue sugns the adption contract, the contract is valid for the lifetime of the dog. If the person leaves, no matter, the contract is between the organization and the adopter.

Can't tell you about dog bite laws in california. But I can say, that's one reason why rescues have to be picky over what dogs they take. Liability issues. If for some reason (say severe dog aggression) a dog in foster care can't be adopted out it's either PTS or adopted by the foster parent. Again, that depends on the rescue. Some rescues have a do not PTS policy and will keep a dog essentially forever in foster care. To my mind, that's still a foster adoption but just not finalized on paper. In that case, if the dog bit, the rescue and the foster parent would be held liable.

I am not an attourney, but I will give my opinion on the original topic.

Yes, these contracts are enforceable.

Yes, you own the dog. You are responsible if the dog bites someone, too.

Yes, one can make contracts pertaining to property, and as long as both parties agree on the terms of the contract, it can be anything. For example, my mom owns a townhouse. She was cited by the association for having a small decorative birdhouse outside the front of her door, that's not allowed, no ornaments and she also got a warning because if you have a hook on the front door it must have a wreath on it (they don't wanna see empty hooks), you'll also get a citation if your dog pees and you don't pour water over it (burns the grass).  It does not matter if she owns it, she has agreed to certain terms to live there.  If she continued to violate, they could fine her or kick her out.  I could sell you a car, but only under the condition that you don't paint it, and if you agree to that, then it is such.

The only thing is: Does the rescue have the will (do they really want to take the dog back) and the time to bring it to civil court?  It may only cost them a filing fee of a small claims court, or it may cost an attourneys fees, however, some rescues I'm sure have an attourney on a volunteer basis.  A retainer for a civil case could be a couple thousand dollars otherwise, at least with mine it is.

As for that agreement you posted, they could also reclaim the dog if you were not taking proper care of it.  If you signed it, then you are bound to it.  Would they really take your dog away for not getting its annual booster shots, probably not, but they would if you were medically neglecting or keeping it locked in a basement or something- hence the reasons for periodic checks. 

One way I like to check on my adopted dogs is by calling up the vet they go to and asking when the last time the dog was in, if everything looks good, I called one recently and they said "Yep, he was just in 2 mos ago, got his Heartguard, shots, etc." so I know they are taking care of them-- and for that case I don't need to call the owners and ask.  I also emphasize the first rights of returning the dog in my agreement, and specify the dog must live indoors, so if I were to drive past their house and see it tied up to a doghouse all day, I would have a problem with that.  Most of this is prevented by screening homes.

I do not find that agreement intrusive, I feel those who find it intrusive have something to hide. I did see a few rescues that wouldn't let you adopt a pet unless all your other pets were spayed and neutered. I thought that was a bit over the top. The Bulldog rescues has income requirement (due to the breeds health issues), and states that if you own other pets you will not be priority because they want the dog to go in a home with the most attention on them. Can't blame the rescues, they are just trying to do right by their animals.

I do not find that agreement intrusive, I feel those who find it intrusive have something to hide.

Thats a pretty bold assumption.  Sure there are great rescues out there and there are others that are arbitrary in the enforcement of their contracts.  If you haven't dealt with or seen any, great.  I have seen otherwise, not breed specific, not the example I posted either and not a majority.  But I have seen them and "attempted" to volunteer.

Let me be clear what I mean by intrusive.  In my opinion when I aquire a dog:

I own the dog and I decide on caregiving, if I die the dog goes to my mother or my soon to be mother-in-law (they have owned GSD's too),  the microchip contacts are myself, my mother and my vet (I have an arrangement with my vet for emergencies).  Maybe adopting from a rescue isn't the right venue for me, I still have my ideas about what I have seen.  If the rescue want to continue to check in short term, I am fine with that, its like a persons probation period when they are first hired.  But at some point that relationship ends, I move for work, I change jobs  and things change.  I can only accommodate the rescues "needs" to check up for a period of time, which is not indefinate.  Maybe I am "old shool", but a dog is not  piece of licensed software with a "click wrap" agreement that haunts me to doomsday.  Not to be negative, but I wish more folks took a stand like mine with rescues, then maybe they would get the dogs out into homes faster and the ones who are milking in-kind donations would have less folks who "buy in".  I refer back to TessJ10 example as best describing what I am getting at:


I think, Prager, because some of these contracts are so restrictive and also mean that the rescue does in fact own the dog for its lifetime. For instance, I know people who adopted 2 dogs; they live on a 55 acre farm. The adoption contract states that dogs can NEVER be outside without a leash. These dogs had the happiest life going for walks on their 55 acre property. Until the humane society found out about it.

I didn't have a problem with these good people adopting a dog knowing it would walk off-leash with them on their farm & don't think they behaved dishonorably. THEY were the ones who cared best for the dogs, not the humane society. It did bother them, though, and nope, they won't rescue dogs any more, but buy them.

You know what, there are thousands of rescues out there. Find one that suits you. Leave the ones that don't alone.

You get that there are all kinds of things that you buy that have restrictions, right? you can buy property with the caveat that you can never develop it; you can buy a house in a development and never be allowed to paint it Pepto Bismol Pink. LOTS of things you buy have restrictions. Look in your medicine cabinet and you'll see tons of them. Just get over it. It's not a big deal. If the rescue you are dealing with wants you to agree to more than you want to agree to, go to a different rescue!

Leave the ones that don't alone.

Too bad some rescues are running around to the public run shelters and scooping up the quality surrenders in my area.  Like I said I do a lot of government work and have access to some "people in the know" pending on sector/industry etc.  Its all going on behind the scenes too.

Well then, I guess you're in a lose/lose situation. Perhaps some butt kissing would be in order.

Well then, I guess you're in a lose/lose situation. Perhaps some butt kissing would be in order.

Only if the world offer us just two choices for every situtation, there are plenty of other ways to aquire another dog or do public volunteer service related to GSD's.  It just seems ashamed to me that good quality young dogs get scooped up by fairly large breed specific rescues with steady funding, sit in purgatory for a couple of thier prime learning years and then are "released" when fresh new faces come in.  All to the tune of paying 1-3 of the 503c staff real salaries (including the non-profits president and founder in most cases) and brining in enough donations to keep a pretty steady organization with paid staff, that "adopt out" very few dogs a year, but have 50 or so in the bullpen, that somehow never find "qualified" homes to live in.

RE: Not to be negative, but I wish more folks took a stand like mine with rescues, then maybe they would get the dogs out into homes faster

Is that what it's really about?  It's better to have quality over quantity.  Too many mis-matches and people who got a dog that is not suited for them at all.  One of my clients is about 105-lb female, a year ago she adopted an adorable little 8-wk pld puppy from a shelter... an American Bulldog.  The dog is so strong she can't even correct him for dog-aggression.  Now, if she had gone to a better rescue, they would have said "maybe a male American Bulldog is not for you."  Don't underestimate the stress a dog owner and the family goes through when they have problems with their pet.

I would rather have the rescue be selective about the matches they make-- they are ensuring a good fit.  Maybe they should also be a bit more strict with their temperament guidelines.  Some of the dogs are in shelters/rescues because of extreme separation anxiety, fear biting, etc.  And instead of euthanizing them like they should, they make excuses for the dog because it's a rescue and must have had trauma. Is it really right to spend a long time "rehabilitating" one agressive dog (or at least trying), meanwhile dozens of perfectly friendly and normal dogs are dying for lack of space?  This is the no-kill.  Doesn't matter if the animal is stressed out almost all the time, it's no-kill, keep the dogs moving off the shelves quickly.

Yes, Dober, looking for the proper fit...trying to make sure that situations like Phoenix's don't happen. Quickie adoptions freqently result in fight bait or lab dogs.