Why is it okay for dog rescues to ask for money?

Animal rescues are unfortunately something that needs to be around because people either let their pets run loose or don't spay or neuter their animals thus increasing the population of dogs and cats when we already have millions of unwanted pets. They are allowed to ask for money because they are providing a service that is needed, and caring for these poor unfortunate animals cost a lot of money. We (the human race) has caused this problem and rescues are our only way at this time to deal with it. People who have animals should always figure in the cost of vet care when deciding to have a pet but a lot of people that have them would rather spend their money on a new phone, clothes, electronic gadgets, cars, etc. Also if you read a lot of the questions on this site you will notice a trend that is frightening in the fact that common sense is hardly ever used. My dog got hit by a car, what should I do; my cat has blood coming out of its rear, my pet is crying in pain, etc. etc. etc. Anyone with a lick of sense should know that the animal needs to be seen by a professional but they would rather spend time that could be the difference between life or death to jump on their handy little computer and ask a stupid question. Think about what needs to be done to keep your pet healthy and happy before you get one and this includes the costs of having to take to a vet. I understand that some people have good intentions when getting an animal but if you can't afford to take it to a vet if it needs it then you shouldn't have one. I also understand that some people probably had money to start with but then had financial problems that hurt them. These people I do feel for and will make suggestions that might help but if you come on here and say, my dog has a broken leg, what should I do; that's just plain stupidity and angers everyone who truly cares about animals. Sorry if I sound like a bi&!ch but I truly care about animals and just can't understand why others don't feel the need to do everything possible for an animal that is hurt, abused or neglecting in any way.

Because the alternative is that they don't provide that service & the local authority would have to deal with the problem of stray & discarded dogs without any assistance. This would mean:

1) The dogs that are currently available via rescue would simply be destroyed without ever having the chance to find a loving home.

2) As an alternative to option #1, the council might sell those dogs - but the sole motivation would be profit. There would be no reason or incentive to guide prospective dog owners towards the right pet for them, nor any incentive to ensure that the dog is healthy, of sound temperament, no incentive to work with any behavioural issues.... etc.. Most likely it would vary between councils but it's likely that the council's priorities would simply be public health & cost - getting the dogs off the streets & disposing of them in whatever was the cheapest method available.

3) Without any assistance from rescues - council tax bills would go up (AND we'd get a worse service, for reasons described above).

After all that - rescues CAN afford it, *because* they get donations, *because* they have fundraising activities & *because* rescue staff (particularly rescue owners) sacrifice a hell of a lot of their own personal time & money to ensure that the dogs in their care are properly looked after. (Example - I know of one couple - she worked running the rescue - his salary was used to prop up the running costs. Despite him earning a very good salary they lived very, very frugally just to keep the rescue afloat).

WRT people being criticised for not having money for a vet:

* If these people got their pet, then had an unexpected, permanent & unmanageable drop in income that means they genuinely can't afford then I've every sympathy.

These people are a tiny minority. A tragic minority & I'd hope that people were sympathetic to those people but a tiny minority nonetheless. For many people though, the issue is simply that either they didn't think about the cost of pet ownership before making a commitment to the animal. How many questions do we see from people asking where they can find a cheap (or even free) puppy? If people can't afford the initial purchase price of a dog then they have no hope of being able to afford to look after one.

Alternatively, people CAN afford, but would prefer to spend the money on something else. Even though it's obviously a serious issue that requires veterinary assistance

Often, it's both.

I have no issue with people who are unsure asking whether a trip to the vet is necessary (although it's better to go 10 times when it's not really necessary than to not go the one time when it really is) - but many people on here seem to have *already made up their mind* that they are *not* going to pay for a vet because it would mean going without something that's more important to them (than the suffering of the sentient being that's utterly reliant upon them).

The money you pay when you adopt a dog is usually just to make up for the money spent on vaccinations, spay/neuter, microchip & whatever else.

Yes, people love their animals, but you have to think ahead to the future before you get a dog. If you have any idea that you might not be able to help the dog if it's suffering/injured/unwell, then you really shouldn't get one. You'd be causing unnecessary suffering to the animal, which wouldn't be fair at all.

Shelters are mostly non-profit organisations & they rely on donations... Non-profit, meaning that all of the money and donations that come in, goes towards the animals food, bedding, toys, medical care and so on. Here in the UK, the employees are paid by the state (RSPCA/PDSA) - just like the police/fire/ambulance workers. Also, most of the time the employees are volunteers - fully qualified veterinarians taking whole days out of their weeks to volunteer, only to be paid at a much lesser price than a private practice.

You seem very ignorant to me - you're not looking at the bigger picture.

"Am I the only one who sees something wrong with that?"

Yes.

"People clearly love their animals. But then get insulted for coming on here because they don't have money for a vet. "

That's an oxymoron. People who love their animals make sure they get necessary vet care. They borrow the money, take on a part-time job, apply for CareCredit, or perhaps work out a deal with the vet to make payments.

Years ago I had some hefty vet bills I couldn't afford. The dogs got treated and the vet bills were paid via Mastercard. I took on a second, part-time job for several months to pay it off. If I can do it, so can other people--except the whiners such as those that post here who don't want to have to lift a finger and would rather watch their dog suffer or even die. Just last week someone's dog died in agony after being in labor for over 48 hours. Do you really think that would happen at a rescue???

Rescues DO get any vet care that the animals need, so there is no comparison. And people who donate to rescues do so willingly to help the homeless animals. That's a far different cry from an owner who can't afford to pay for his OWN dog.

EDIT:

"You fail to mention Family's with circumstances beyond their control. A death, illness, losing their homes because of the banks greed."

Banks' greed? Some people got in over their heads and the market crashed--both the homeowners and banks are at fault. As for people who are ill or had a spouse die or lost a job, what do you propose banks do? Just write off the rest of the mortgage? Are landlords supposed to allow people to live in their buildings rent-free? That would mean that the rest of us have to pay for them. I'm willing to help people in shelters, not people who have nicer homes than I do.

"One time I posted on here asking why there were more pet rescues then human rescues and my post got deleted. So apparently, that's what the majority on here think of needy humans."

If your post was deleted, that was done by Yahoo because your post violated one of its terms. BTW, I support "human rescues" and I'm sure that many of the other posters on this forum do as well. You don't have to choose one or the other, you can support both.

"And what about all these shelters/rescues charging $200-$300 for a dog? Is it any wonder people go to byb's where you can get a purebred for $100?"

Since the $200 to $300 INCLUDES spay/neuter, shots, deworming, etc., the dog is in effect free. And what BYB's sell even mutt dogs for only $100??? Purebreds are $300 and up up up.

You've got so many good long answers here that I will keep mine short.

I am with a rescue and I can assure you that we definitely pay out far more than we have coming in... fact... also no matter what people do pay for their dog from a rescue, ALL the money goes back into helping another and not lining someone's pocket.

The sort of rescue I am with is held together with volunteers and that means that we all use our own money and time to help these animals.

Yes we get rescue's in for all sorts of reasons, but at the end of the day it is a dog in need of help irrelevant of the circumstances it has come in..

And one more thing to someone that uses this site that is adamant that all rescue dogs should just be pts and that all have problems, I am pleased to report that that couldn't be further from the truth. Lots are well behaved trained dogs but in dire situations like family break ups etc.

Just what is your problem with it anyway. Your whole question doesn't make sense to me at all..

Why is it okay for dog rescues to ask for money?

But not okay for the low-income people to get dogs?

Those two things don't even go together, they are two separate issues, but yes, it is fine for a rescue to ask for money because we can't help the dogs otherwise and we spend far more than we receive, and no, it is not okay for low-income people to get dogs if they cannot afford them.

Because they have more than one dog, sometimes, large rescues have more than 50, it helps when people can offer support to one of these foundations. Why do hospitals or homeless shelters ask for money? By your logic, if they can't afford to reseach,or buy enough food to feed poor people, then why should we help them? They are doing service for the community. Poor people who own dogs are different, dogs need to see a vet, when they get sick, they need a doctor like people do, when someone willingly buys an animal they cannot care for, it is cruel, because this animal Now has less of a chance at living a long healthy life.

Edit: there aren't more pet rescues than human rescues, I think you are just looking for an excuse. And a normal question that followed guide lines would not have been deleted, so obviously you did something or said something against the rules, and it got deleted. You are just a really ignorant person, and you get frustrated when people dont agree with your silliness

Im not sure if you are the only person who sees something wrong with that but i kinda hope you are. Rescue centres dont EXPECT to get money, they try there best to help innocent dogs that have diseases or illnesses because people get dogs and can not afford vet fees! Rescues just appreciate when people do donate money out of the goodness of there hearts. Completely different to a dog owner not being able to afford their own dog. I would never get a dog if I couldnt afford one, its cruel to the dog and an unnecessary risk. No matter how much you 'clearly love your animal' if you cant get it the treatment it needs in an emergency that animal could die. you call that love?

You don't understand. A dog is a living thing that can suffer, and they need a vet at certain times.

If you can't afford to keep one you don't have an automatic right to own one.

Thats the law.

People choose to give to rescues because they are stopping tens of thousands of strays running around the streets, breeding indiscriminately.

The situation in places like Romania and Russia is terrible with people being bitten and catching rabies.

'You people' see the cruelty caused by people who won't pay for pet health insurance, which costs the same or less than broadband every month.

Not everything can be treated at home.

People who don't take their kids to the dentist shouldn't have kids, and people who won't take the dog to the vet when its needed shouldn't have a dog.

Thats the law.

Because unlike low income people they are NON-PROFIT. They charge adoption fees which barely cover the cost of caring for the animal. They give the dogs and cats full medical check ups, shots, some do implant microchips, spay/neuter, as well as personality evaluations to ensure that they can be adopted at all. If they are too food or toy aggressive then they are put down before they are given microchips. Low income families or single people are not NON-PROFIT organizations and don't have a certificate like rescues do.

Try watching Animal Planet and watching something like Animal Cops then you'll educate yourself rather than embarrassing yourself like you just did.

The key word is rescue. These people do this free of charge. They save the lives and rehome animals that have been neglected or injured or deserted .Low income families cannot even afford to feed their kids and keep them in decent clothes. And many low income people are getting paid with my tax dollars. I do no want my taxes being spent on your dog. I take care of myself and my dogs and it is not cheap.

I think you are the only one that sees something wrong with this. When you can afford to feed and clothe your family on your own, then see about a dog. But they are expensive and too many times people get dogs, can't afford them, and the dog winds up a rescue. Since you love dogs so much, why not volunteer at a dog rescue facility ?