An Awful Adoption Experience

Originally Posted by hadenglock

Rescues think far past the intial fee to adopt, they have to think about the emergency rescue bills that will arise should the animal become sick, or need surgery, if the owner cannot afford something like that, then they shouldnt be putting the animal in that position and should not have a pet. In this case it is better to have them be at rescue because emergencies can be addressed immediatly because they have the money to do it.

I've seen a lot of rescues begging for food, for blankets, for items for their rescue critters. It is my opinion that many smaller rescues do not in fact have the kind of funds needed for very expensive surgeries and/or emergencies. I do not think that is an adequate reason to deny someone an adoption. It is surprising just how much can be scraped together or put on a credit card if the need should come up.

Originally Posted by ShadowAceD

I spent this on the dog I got from Animal Control today minus the 80.00 fecal I will be submitting tomorrow. That changes the grand total of my 75.00 dog into a 5854.14 dog in medical bills alone in three years.

I praise you on your care for your animals, which again comes back to the whole "some rescues are crazier than others" issue, i never said you personally were a bad pet owner........

Originally Posted by Lucille

I've seen a lot of rescues begging for food, for blankets, for items for their rescue critters. It is my opinion that many smaller rescues do not in fact have the kind of funds needed for very expensive surgeries and/or emergencies. I do not think that is an adequate reason to deny someone an adoption. It is surprising just how much can be scraped together or put on a credit card if the need should come up.

Ill disagree with you right now on that, working at a vet clinic, i have calls daily from people asking for free surgeries and free visits for their sick animals because they cant afford it, if a clinic allowed that to happen, they wouldnt be in business!! Somebody will get burned from the deal, simply because people dont want to or cant spend money on their pets when they need it the most. Also i work for a private rescue, we have our own vet who works with us, and my vet also works with other rescues too on payments, so its not impossible.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

I've never been asked to give authorization for them to access records, either. Just asked who my vet is...and about all they can get with that is confirmation that I am a client.

Besides - the needs met for previous animals and vaccination history (etc) have NOTHING to do with financial ability to deal with a pet's medical needs. You're reaching.

you dont have to get detailed records from a client to find if they provide adequate care for there animals or not, all ive ever been asked was when the last time they were seen and if they are good clients or not depending, again, on what theyve been seen for and how theyve been treated. You dont need full access for records to get that. How does financial ability have NOTHING to do with taking your animal to vet? Can you give me an example of somebody who gets there stuff all for free?

I probably could, but that isn't what I was getting at.
You specifically mentioned bills that could arise if animals became sick or needed surgery - the information they could get from a vet contact wouldn't give ANY indication of that. Nor does not being in a position to spend thousands of dollars on a sick cat make somebody unfit to have that cat. Not everybody takes a treat it at all costs approach - and before anybody chimes in with the shouldn't be owning pets crap, think about it. Aside from the fact that many people are intelligent and practical, and simply unwilling to invest $3000 on an aging pet only to find that it was essentially a waste of that money, this is also the era of change. There are a lot of people that were on solid financial footing a few years ago that now find themselves struggling. If inability to pay costly medical bills for one's pets disqualifies them from pet ownership, who should be in charge of making sure our situations don't change? Who will be the one that goes to collect pets from loving, caring homes that - while able to meet the daily needs - would be unable to afford a crisis? (And who would pay the medical bills of those people, after they had the crap beat out of them for trying to take somebody's family pet?)

Originally Posted by hadenglock

Ill disagree with you right now on that, working at a vet clinic, i have calls daily from people asking for free surgeries and free visits for their sick animals because they cant afford it, if a clinic allowed that to happen, they wouldnt be in business!! Somebody will get burned from the deal, simply because people dont want to or cant spend money on their pets when they need it the most. Also i work for a private rescue, we have our own vet who works with us, and my vet also works with other rescues too on payments, so its not impossible.

In the same paragraph you illustrate people who look for help (and so they call) with an emergency, and you affirm that rescues do as well (because the vet takes payments). Neither owner nor rescue had cash up front. I appreciate that you proved my point.

Originally Posted by hhmoore

I probably could, but that isn't what I was getting at.
You specifically mentioned bills that could arise if animals became sick or needed surgery - the information they could get from a vet contact wouldn't give ANY indication of that. Nor does not being in a position to spend thousands of dollars on a sick cat make somebody unfit to have that cat. Not everybody takes a treat it at all costs approach - and before anybody chimes in with the shouldn't be owning pets crap, think about it. Aside from the fact that many people are intelligent and practical, and simply unwilling to invest $3000 on an aging pet only to find that it was essentially a waste of that money, this is also the era of change. There are a lot of people that were on solid financial footing a few years ago that now find themselves struggling. If inability to pay costly medical bills for one's pets disqualifies them from pet ownership, who should be in charge of making sure our situations don't change? Who will be the one that goes to collect pets from loving, caring homes that - while able to meet the daily needs - would be unable to afford a crisis? (And who would pay the medical bills of those people, after they had the crap beat out of them for trying to take somebody's family pet?)

Except now your talking about people who already own their pets and then later are financially unable to care for them.Even if this were the case wouldnt it be smart to set money aside every so often in a savings account to then use later in case an emergency should happen? Or apply for care credit? (ive seen the bill of the previous poster uses care credit which is a good option for those who are stuck in a rut). The point im trying to make is why even adopt an animal if you cant take care of him? I understand when euthanasia is the only practical option, but thats beside the point. What happens when someone adopts a puppy from a shelter, breaks its leg, and then cant afford to care for it? Is it the puppy's fault for breaking its leg and having a permanent limp for the rest of its life? Whose responsible for it? The owner is, and yes i do believe that is bad pet ownership coming from a medical standpoint.

Originally Posted by Lucille

In the same paragraph you illustrate people who look for help (and so they call) with an emergency, and you affirm that rescues do as well (because the vet takes payments). Neither owner nor rescue had cash up front. I appreciate that you proved my point.

Im not proving your point because rescues that come in receive discounts, not payment plans, they still pay there bills when due. sorry for the confusion.

I remember a couple times I had doings with rescues in the past few years. The first is on a chat group, where the rescuer admitted there was nothing wrong with the adopter, she just wanted someone else to get the dog. Apparently when the vet report came in, lo and behold, there was some small item that she could use to knock the previous applicant out of the ring and give the dog to her preferred applicant.

The other time is when I actually asked about a dog in a rescue.
The woman, getting geared up to hear all about my private life, sounded like a fat lady in front of a steak and baked po, and I realized I was the main course.
When she started talking about coming over, I told her to keep her dog.

There are MORE than enough strays, shelter doggies, and Craigslist finds to last a lifetime.
No one is putting sour cream and bacon bits on Lucille

Originally Posted by Lucille

I remember a couple times I had doings with rescues in the past few years. The first is on a chat group, where the rescuer admitted there was nothing wrong with the adopter, she just wanted someone else to get the dog. Apparently when the vet report came in, lo and behold, there was some small item that she could use to knock the previous applicant out of the ring and give the dog to her preferred applicant.

This was probably the case with the North Carolina rescue. When I first applied, they denied me because of the distance. I didn't submit a new one, I just asked them to reconsider my application. They could of easily said something about my app right there. Nope they just gave me false hope instead!