My Photo

Keep Up

Flickr


  • www.flickr.com
    christiekeith's items Go to christiekeith's photostream

« Facebook isn't letting pages share directly to other pages anymore | Main | Why does Comcast even bother having customer support? »

17 July 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Saving Pets

Great post.

For me it's about mission alignment. If your mission is to 'feed the hungry', you seek out financial supporters for that goal and you give your food to those who need it.

You don't open a restaurant.

(Restaurants are already a thing, and they evidently don't meet your mission/goals. That is why you exist.)

If your mission is to 'save homeless pets and place them in homes' - then you seek out financial supporters to help you achieve that goal. Supporters should be covering the expenses of the work you do. This makes adoption fees no longer an operational requirement.

That’s not to say people can’t give you money when they adopt a pet – but this shouldn’t be a condition of the adoption. If that pet and that owner are a good match, then they should be united together.

Adoption fees are an obstacle to your goal. They are the equivalent of charging for your charity's food.

If you want people to do something, then make it easy for them to do it. Make it free for them to do it. Make it impossible for them to say no to doing it.

We continually put up obstacles up to people to doing what we want. Let’s stop doing that.

Peggy Wildsmith

The problem with NOT charging an adoption fee is ... free dogs can end up in the hands of abusers as they will not pay for dogs but prey on "free to a good home" dogs. A fee is a deterrent to those less than desirable people. Now, before you say, well you should look into who you are adopting a dog to, let me tell you good rescues do just that. However, these bait dog groups and animal abusers and dog brokers are smart, real smart and can go to great lengths to seem normal. Let's say you make a mistake and adopt to someone who is really a broker then they flip the free dog and get $400 to $500 for the dog by selling it to someone else. Rescues and shelters try to avoid that sort of thing but you can't stop them all. So it's not all about covering expenses. It's about making whoever adopts the dog, accountable for the dog. Bottom line, if someone pays a fee for something, in this case a rescue dog, they tend take better care of it.

Christie

Peggy, that was what the FIRST blog post was about. What evidence we have says that's not correct. There's no correlation between what someone pays for a pet and how much they love and value them. And after all, Michael Vick paid for his dogs, and nearly all of us in rescue have taken in a pet we didn't pay for and loved them, right?

It's very important we challenge what "everyone knows" and make sure it's accurate. In this case, it's not. Here's my first post in which I discuss why: http://www.doggedblog.com/doggedblog/2012/09/what-opponents-of-free-pet-adoptions-dont-get.html

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner