Can dog rescue contracts be enforced? - Page 5

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.

Then I guess the dogs can stay in the rescue their entire life, I'd rather they be euthanized like in the old days.  We definately disagree on the purpose of rescues and our perception on how they actually operate.  We are not eye to eye on this issue.  If you want to promote the "storage" of unwanted dogs while collecting donations under tax exempt status then you are part of the problem that exists with many legitimate rescues.  Like I said before, you have your reasons and I am sure you came to that conclusion with various experiences, I just don't agree with it fiscally, because I don't see the value in a tax exempt organization collecting money, filling paper work, managing volunteers, having a mountain of  bureaucracy all in the name of "saving dogs" but essentially hording them to keep the bureaucracy alive.  Whether you agree, believe or dislike this statement its true for the majority of rescues out there, not all, but definately a big chunck of the ones with tax exempt status.

Momo,
Where do you live? In hell????
If you think that this is how the majority of rescues operate you need to go educate yourself.
You are clueless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Most rescues in this country are on a voluntary only basis. Everyone is a volunteer and no one makes any money.
There are a few that do this as an occupation. So be it! Everyone in this country has a right to earn a living.
Judging from what you have written I wouldn't want you as a volunteer in my organization either. It is easy to glean from what you write that you have a problem following other's rules. If so, grow up, put yourself out there and start your own rescue organization so that the rest of us can learn from your infinite wisdom on how to properly run a rescue organization.
What you see as "back room deals" between the pound and breed specific rescues is just a simple working relationship between the two. If the pound gets in a Border Collie they send it to the Border Collie rescue.
What is difficult about understanding this?

I can't wait until you start your own rescue so we can all learn the proper way to do things. You're a Godsend!!!

 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.

Thanks "Big Brother".  How is anyone supposed to learn about breed they are interested in?  Sure she made a bad choice, doesn't mean she can't learn from it, learn more about the dog she has as she goes and hopefully become more of an expert on the breed in 10 years.  Everyone has to START somewhere.  Geez, lets just give everyone cocker spaniels becaue they can't handle a large breed and can't pass the breed specific interview.  Even better lets take the stance of PETA and try prevent animal ownership, so the ramaining domesticated aminals can become the property of huge tax exempt organizations that care for them unitl thier dying day, afterall most people aren't qualified to adopt or foster.

Yes, that's what rescues are really trying to, prevent people from owning pets!!!
What a f...... moron!

Most rescues in this country are on a voluntary only basis. Everyone is a volunteer and no one makes any money.

OGBS, I guess you missed the part where I said "paying for bureaucracy", "managing volunteers"  and that possibly 1-3 people are paid staff.

What you see as "back room deals" between the pound and breed specific rescues is just a simple working relationship between the two. If the pound gets in a Border Collie they send it to the Border Collie rescue.

Thanks for confirming what I what I already stated.  Just because you see it as a "relationship", doesn't mean other governement staff in the same agency don't view it was a "back door deal".  Same process different persepctive.

Yes, that's what rescues are really trying to, prevent people from owning pets!!!
What a f...... moron!

Well, since you are in the business and if what you say about my opinion is correct, I would say rescues have an image problem to some degree.  I am NOT the only person who feels this way, get over it or do something about it.  You want to address it or sick you head in the sand thats you prerogative I guess.  Lets not pretend, people are "turned off" by rescues everyday.  If rescues want to lose this attrition war, they can be my guest.  They simply won't be around in 5 years.  The current recession guarantees that people will close thier pocketbooks and hearts when times get tight and resuces "push and shove" potential adopters.  If you do a good reasonable job, maybe people will notice and write checks, if not, SEE YA.

http://blog.timesunion.com/mydogbandit/do-some-rescues-make-it-too-difficult-to-adopt/968/

Thanks for responding with a bunch of garbled words and attempts at sentences.
Maybe another drink this morning will help you see a little clearer.

Get over what? You are the one that has a problem with rescues. You are the one who needs to get over it or do something about it.

Rescues are not in a "war of attrition". It seems like your brain is, though!
Rescues won't be around in five years??????
Obviously you forgot to look at the label on pill container this morning before medicating!
What is a "hearst when time get tight"?

SEE ya? Nope, don't think so!

Are you sure you aren't DDR-DSH???

I can't wait until you start your own rescue so we can all learn the proper way to do things. You're a Godsend!!!

Thanks for the tip!  You know what my "hook" would be?  Getting dogs into the hands of people that were turned down by rescues.  For example: I would be registering a non-profit tax exempt corp, selling puppies as a breeder would, then have all procedes go to the public shelters. 

Its still a CORPORATION, I wouldn't have to run it based on the current "breed specific resue" model.  Not that I am going to do any of this, but I should have made my point clear, nothing has to be done by the book to be satisfactory, efficient or successful.

Rescues are not in a "war of attrition". It seems like your brain is, though!

Thats why I said to get your head out of the sand.  People and coporations have limited dollars to donate and time to give.  Whether you like it or not you are competing with dollars from donors who want to give to other organizations.  Since they have limted money they decide "do I give money to OGBS or the ASPCA", "do I volunteer and foster for OGBS or Guide Dogs of America".  If you don't recognize this reality, then you will be gone soon enough. 

So you don't like my hastily written punctuation, my points were still clear

It seems like your brain is, though!
Rescues won't be around in five years??????

Get over yourself and your cause.  Food banks that feed the desparate and the poor are in danger of closing.  All of them tax exempt 503c organizations.  Some were very successful fund raisers that are now in trouble.  You think dogs rescues will fare better than a failing food banks if the ecomony doesn't improve?  Look at the big picture please

Now, lets get back to the legal aspects of the topic and not forget about the political stuff:

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...