My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup - Christmas week, 2010 | Main | Fight over Missouri's puppy mills continues -- and learning from the experiences of others »

December 27, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f90869e20147e10e6de7970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When has "rescue" become accomplished?:

Comments

YesBiscuit!

Thanks for helping spread the word Brent. I can't help thinking it shouldn't take an army of volunteers to find out where HSUS has stashed dogs they "rescued".

wendy mcarthur

thanks for sharing the news brent, if you would like to read the answer fr. Mindy Gilbert, AL, HSUS rep. , what happen to the AL dogs Hsus "rescued" i will be glad to share it. I questioned her after Sandra Nathan , from Al., sent out an article on email, about how a black lab was "gassed" after there "recue in NC; It is sicking again what they have done.

DONNA NEEDHAM

OKAY FOR ONE THING IT SHOULD BE A MATTER OF RECORD WHERE THESE DOGS ARE ANY REAL RESCUE CAN TELL YOU THAT RESCUES FOSTER PARENTS AND ADOPTIONS ARE ON RECORD. THEY HAVE TO BE . I RESCUE AND FOSTER AN HAVE FOREVER STAYS. I HAVE RECORDS OF EVERY DOG CAT THAT WENT THROUGH THE RESCUES I WORKED FOR WE MADE 4 COPIES OF EVERYTHING EVEN CHECKED UP ON THEM FROM TIME TO TIME. I HAVE EVEN WENT AND TOOK DOGS BACK AFTER YEARS OF BEING WITH A FAMILY CAUSE THEY DID NOT STAY IN THE GUIDE LINES OF ARE ADOPTION CONTRACT. SO WHY CAN'T SHE FIND RECORDS CAUSE SOMEONE DID NOT DO THEIR JOB RIGHT OR JUST MURDERED THEM AND THERE IS NO PAPER WORK. TELL ME WHO DO WE TRUST. BIG WIG WANTS TO GIVE MIKE VICK A CHANCE WITH ANOTHER DOG. THAT SON OF A BITCH NEEDS TO ROT IN HELL FOREVER. AN THE GUY THAT WANTS TO GIVE HIM THE PET IS A SICK SON OF A BITCH TOO. NO I AM NOT SORRY FOR THE WORDS I AM USING CAUSE IT IS THE GODS HONEST TRUTH!!!!!! DOGLADY

Roberta Beach

AMEN, Donna. I rescue in MO but this year wonder why. I have my license information to submit by Jan. 31. For 2011, according to the ACFA Program Coordinator, ACFA licensed Animal Shelters and Rescues need to pay a general fee of $100 and THEN, $1 for every dog or cat "that is sold, traded, bartered, brokered, adopted out, or given away." However, were I to humanely KILL them all, I would not be "taxed" for each animal I KILLED. This was an amendment during the 2010 legislative session. I am still checking on who was responsible for taxing us to save animals but not to kill them. What message is this sending?

Brent

Roberta,

My understanding is that Brian Munzlinger is the person who proposed the Missouri law that no longer allows rescues and animal shelter to be exempt from licensing. You can reach him at brian.munzlinger@house.mo.gov -- i'm not sure I'm completely opposed to the loss of exemption, for a variety of reasons, but he's the one who, from my understanding, proposed the change.

Roberta Beach

I think you misunderstand. I do not mind being licensed at all - I have been licensed for over 3 years and appreciate my inspector's insights; nor do I really mind the new $100 fee for 2011. What I do mind is the "taxing" of saved animals vs the "no taxing" of killed animals. Thank you - I will contact Brian Munzlinger.

Bev Allbright

HSUS will not be getting another dime from me. Michael Vick should not ever be allowed to have another pet of any kind. Any organization that would be willing to allow this man to have an animal is not a rescue in my book. I have my own small rescue and I would not call the HSUS did rescue it sounds more like a pathetic attempt to make themselves look good in order to get donations. Sure they can say " Look at us we rescued 44 dogs " but in reality the dogs are not safe only shuffled around. If they get lucky they end up in the hands of a good rescue or a no kill shelter. I can track down any one of the dogs I have either rescued or fostered in a matter of a couple of calls. With all the people and money that HSUS has at there disposal you would think they would be a better more efficient organization.

Gwplady

Out of all of the Dogs Gsp's, GWP's, Weims and Brits...there were only 11 left when all was said and done. We took 4 gwp's and all had suffered terribly. Belly crawling, yelping when touched and one had not walked in the 10 months at the shelter...of course their nails were so long they were curled under so maybe they could not walk.

One is still here, he is making progress slowly, and think he will someday be adoptable.What happened was a no win for the dogs...their welfare was never first, by anyone.

PAMM - People Against Mad Moms

Where was MAAL during the discussions of taxing saved animals and incenting the killing? Oh yeah, with their heads up H$U$'s ass passing a stupid law that will be overturned and NEVER addressed the real issues anyway.

PAMM - People Against Mad Moms

MAAL STILL doesn't have one single item about the new rescue fees on their website or in their last newsletter to what I could find. There whole site is dedicated to puppy mills...which is fine if they want to start being honest that the only thing they care about is shutting down breeders and NOT about animal welfare. They blame everyone else for their "unjust" criticism when everyone should be furious that they let H$U$ push their way into our state - RUINING any chance any REAL animal welfare people have at working with legislators to get better laws. Talk about sleeping with the enemy...wonder if they support Vick as well?

I digress...

Roberta Beach

Your initial question, Brent, is very viable. Just when is "rescue" done? I think it is when a dog/cat/horse is in a new home for several months w/o return to rescue. Then it is done. On the other hand, I have a bumper sticker that says "we can rescue them, only you (the public) can save them."

Eilleen

All HSUS does is lobby. They have millions of dollars in their coffers but do no actual rescue of animals. They get much publicity and pay Wayne Pacelle a nice salary but as for actually rescuing animals they don't do it and never have. I wouldn't give them a dime. Since they are a nonprofit organization they must post their Form 990 tax returns. See what the spend on animal care or rescue.

Gwplady

Go to www.Guidestar.com and look them up...you can see the 990 forms and exactly where the money is going

kmk

I'm going to have to read RSMo 273 definitions again. Are "rescues" and "shelters" the same thing? Munzlinger's bill (HB2102) never mentioned rescues, so I'm a bit confused on that part.

Brent

I read the law earlier today, and I read it to define "shelters" as any shelter or rescue with a brick and mortar facility (which, to me, makes sense, because they should require inspections)...but there are several organizations that have been billed that are 100% foster family adoption groups.

I'm actually amazed that today is the first I've heard of this...

kmk

I knew about the law but didn't think it was going to apply to rescues, as I interpreted it the same way you did, Brent. The biggest thing the law did was prohibit the state from using non-profits for inspections and enforcement, as has been done in other states.

I'll see what I can find out.

kmk

Per the "definitions" in the Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 273, Dogs/Cats, Section 273.325, rescues fall under the "shelter" definition. I remembered them being defined separately, which is what I get for relying on memory.

Dog pounds are exempt, as they are defined as "shelters" operated by a government entity (city, county, etc.).

that's the Cliff Notes version. I sent Brent the details.

Dawn Ashby

Brent, As usual, your blog topics never cease to interest, inform, amaze, and force me to ask more questions; even if some of those questions are uncomfortable to face. Thank you. Dawn Ashby

Lori Northrop

The orginizations that recieve money for helping "rescue" dogs should have to help after the fact if they are going to recieve funds. I don't believe it is rescuing if they are dumped onto the local shelters who cannot find permanent homes for these animals!

FortheLoveofPits

Brent, this is becoming a huge issue for us! We are seeing so many high kill shelters posting dogs on Facebook and passing out dogs to anyone as long as a "rescue" steps up to claim the dog. These shelters don't take responsibility for the dogs they dish out and, for the most part, neither do the rescues. So, in our view, no one is looking out for the dogs.

In our view, "rescue" is never accomplished. Reputable rescues must commit to the dogs for life so they don't end up in bad circumstances ever again. It's great when dogs end up in good homes but reputable rescues should always be a resource for the family or person adopting a dog. And, if circumstances occur causing the family or person to want to surrender the dog, the rescue should step up. It's not easy but it's the right thing to do. And, it shows a level of commitment by the rescue and love for the dog. If more rescues/organizations/shelters made a life-long commitment to the animal, it's likely such rescues/organizations/shelters would begin to be more careful when placing the animals so they don't have so many returned.

Rescues and animal welfare organizations should be primarily concerned with the best interests of the animals for life. Giving animals to anyone and not following up after the animal is no longer with the organization certainly is contrary to the animals' best interests. It would be great if people expected more from our animal welfare organizations and for our dogs and other living beings that depend on us to keep them safe. Out of sight should not be out of mind.

Brent

FTLOP,

Yes, I do agree that shelters/rescues should be responsible for their own returned adoptions -- for whatever reason. I do think they have this responsibility.

However, I get very concerned about phrases like: "rescues being more careful when placing animals". I don't think animals should be sent to bad situations, but I think the attention to "careful' causes a LOT of organizations to deny adoptions for little-to-no reason. In the process, they end up sending potential adopters to buy pets because they weren't able to adopt, and the keep pets from finding permanent homes and end up clogging up the shelter/rescue system and needlessly increasing shelter euthanasia.

While I think following up with adopters is nice, it's important that rescues and shelter effectively transfer ownership to the adopter. By doing so, this gives the rescue organization no rights to that animal after they leave the premises. While this sounds a little scary to many, it really is sound policy because not doing so creates unnecessary liability issues for the adopting organization:

http://www.animalfarmfoundation.org/pages/Liability-Hysteria

FortheLoveofPits

With the right contract there is no liability for the animal welfare organization. When we adopt out dogs, we continue to follow up and have the right to pull the dog for certain specified circumstances. Our attorneys have reviewed the contract and it's binding. We protect our dogs for their lifetime and continue to rescue additional dogs. We also have strict placement requirements to ensure our dogs are treated like family companions and are adopted by responsible owners.

What we are seeing these days with dogs going to anyone who will take them is troubling. Some things are worse than humane euthanasia.

Brent

I'd agree that there are some things that are worse than humane euthanasia. On the flip side, all too often I see the opposite being true in that dogs are kept from finding ok homes in favor of waiting for "perfect" homes -- and in the process, euthanasia becomes a replacement for "ok" homes...which I don't agree is better.

When I hear "strict placement requirements", I tend to think that that is what is happening. Most homes are not worse than death and dogs are far more flexible with different living arrangements than we give them credit for.

I'd also argue that if your contract is binding and you can pull an animal back at any time, you are also taking on the liability should that dog ever be involved in an altercation -- a burden I don't think shelters/rescues can or should carry. We should hold owners solely responsible for their pets.

Brent

BTW, I did a little skimming of your website. Now, while some of the information is old and outdated (including mention of Ohio's pit bull law), I will assume that the placement requirements are the same.

Upon quick review, I notice that you do "unannounced" home checks, which I'm not sure I, as an adopter, would ever agree to.

Meanwhile, you note that smokers may be screened because to "ensure the dog's health and longevity". I'm not going to disagree that smoking can have negative health impacts on dogs, but I feel 100% certain that given the state of the US Shelter system, that the dog's health and longevity will be greatly compromised in the shelter. While a a limited intake rescue, this is no repercussion on your dogs, but it does on the ones that remain in the shelter that you cannot pull into your program.

The comments to this entry are closed.