Does shelter/rescue pricing cause harm??

[mulroony]

I was just thinking and was wondering does shelters/rescues only charging a minimal amount (usually under $200) make the pets more disposable to the buyers?

My thinking is that if you go out to a breeder and pay $1000 for a pet, this make the owner more inclined to keep the pet if something goes wrong then the person who pays $80 at a shelter. Granted it is already hard to get people to adopt, but quite often when people are acting on emotion and not thought they go to shelters/rescues because emotion will justify $100, and not $1000. At the same time if someone is having difficulties they can cut a $100 loss much easier then $1000, if they decide to give up or return the dog.

Let me know what you think...

[PitBullie09]

Im guessing because they want to get the dogs out of the shelter ASAP, and most people wont buy a dog in a shelter if it is over 200 expessially if its not a purebred.

[Raised By Wolves]

Personally, I don't like to see people of lower incomes, not being able to give a dog a loving home due to their financial status. But, I do understand the point you are making here.

I have more of a problem with status seekers, who have money to burn, going out and buying a purebred just because it's the "in" breed at the moment.

I've seen some of these folks grow tired of the dog when they realise a dog needs to belong in their home as a family member in need of actual care and nurturing, and not a just an ego extension.

[Tiffany0204]

The problem I see around my area is that people don't want to pay for everything up front. With a puppy from a breeder, they don't have to worry about getting the dog fixed for another 4 months or so, whereas with the shelter system the dogs normally are already fixed.

Alot of these people would rather get the free puppies. They feel that they're doing justice by rescuing in the first place, so they shouldn't have to pay the $300 for the dog.

Friends of mine were looking to adopt a kitten from the humane society, but were told they'd have to pay $150 for a regular kitten (not fixed). She was like "Why spend $150 for a KITTEN when I can go to the petstore and get one for $80?".

I mentioned that she wouldn't be supporting the mills by going to the SPCA, but she does have a point. Why would anyone buy an animal for more when they can get one ALOT cheaper? Especially with shelter animals, you don't know where they're comming from either.

I don't agree with it, but I understand why they do it. Sorry... not much of an answer I suppose =/

[Mellie]

I don't think the cost (or adoption fee) of a dog has anything to do with the care it will receive. What does, in my humble opinion? ... The person's set of ideas, values, and beliefs.
This is why a lower-income person can potentially be approved to adopt a dog over a higher-income person. Price/Cost/Money is not the entire story.

I believe shelters understand this. Sure, they want the best possible home for every dog in their care. And they would not adopt out a dog to a home where the care of the pet will be a financial hardship. But they will base their decisions on various factors.

I do not believe pet stores understand this. A business cares about business. If you can afford the dog, you can walk out with that dog within minutes of meeting it. There is no home check, no references checks, no steady employment check (to see if one can continue to care for the pet after it is purchased).

I do not think all reputable breeders believe this. Just like shelter workers, breeders want their dogs to go to the best possible home. Who can blame them!? But some might lose sight of what constitutes a loving, repsonsible home when the lower-income applicant is compared to the higher-income applicant.

[mulroony]

RBW - I know I hate to see people of lower incomes not being able to afford a dog as well, but what happens when the pet needs surgery or something? The Paris Hiltons of the world make me sick as well...

Tiffany - That kind of shows (not completely) what I was saying, if your friends are not willing to pay more for a pet then do you think they are as likely to pay a lofty vet bill or deal with a troublesome pet?

Mellie - I agree that the amount you pay does not determine the quality the owner (I only paid $85 myself).

The thing is when I talk to most shelters (not the same with rescues exactly) they say the fee is usually nominal simply to discourage people that do not value pet's lives, but would pick them up anyways because they are free. My question is why can't shelters and rescues charge more, and then invest the additional in pet insurance, or something along those lines, to be sure that the pet is cared for.

[Mellie]

I'm actually surprised shelters do not charge more.
At my local shelter, one can adopt a puppy OR dog for $95. A kitten or cat is $75. This includes the cost of spaying/neutering.
Less than $100 is just as good as free, in my opinion. Yet I've witnessed people try to haggle for a lower price. Just recently, a woman interested in a shelter kitten asked if the price could be lowered because the kitten has a chronic sinus problem.
Maybe this kitten should cost more to defray the vet payments the shelter has made for her antibiotics and treatments.
It is a good, and I think reasonable, point to question why shelters can't charge more to enable them to better care for the animals. Unfortunately, not everyone else out there thinks shelter animals are really priceless, as we do here.
I could go on and on with my ideas and opinions on shelters and adoption fees. But I'm afraid I've gone on long enough and might risk steering the thread in a different direction.

[PitBullie09]

The price to adopt here is $50. Its use to be $35. I think it should stay low because they NEED to be adopted. Here atleast. The pound here is terrible, IMO.

[flyndog]

Too many people perceive something as not having any value if it has a low price tag. Although I believe shelters need to put a value on the animals they adopt out, I think $100 is too much.

To people who don't have much disposable income, a $100 dog *is* an expensive dog. Expensive is relative. I don't think it has a direct bearing on disposability.

Rather than stop offering reasonably priced animals, perhaps potential adopters should be questioned about how they perceive the value of an animal.

[GSD]

Originally Posted by mulroony

RBW - I know I hate to see people of lower incomes not being able to afford a dog as well, but what happens when the pet needs surgery or something? The Paris Hiltons of the world make me sick as well...

This can be viewed from two ways. What if the pet needs surgery, what type?? I think people that are spending thousands of dollars on hip replacements and medicating the **** out of their dogs, just so they can be around are doing the dog a bigger diservice than if they'd just put it down. Are all these surgeries really for the dogs, or are they for our own fragile ego's, in hopes that we're doing the right thing?? If you can feed, train, and give your dog love, that is ALL that should be required of an owner. Being able to buy pet insurance and afford expensive surgeries IMO is for your own ego, not in the best interest of the dog.

[TinyAlbinoDancer]

I'm with GSD. If a low-income individual/family adopts a shelter dog and is able to take care of basic emotional and physical needs (from food to just loving on it), but suddenly they can't afford surgery, would you rather that dog lived in comfort and was absolutely loved for it's perhaps shortened life, or would you rather a family/individual of greater income took it in and was able to give it surgery, but didn't just love on the dog for the duration of it's life because it's simply viewed as an ego boost or something every American has? (And hey, how's that for a run-on sentence?! :-D)

I would rather an animal have a shortened, well-loved life. I really would. How much happier (and pardon me for putting human emotion into it) is a dog with new hips that still isn't loved on?

I think regardless of a shelter dog's price tag, dogs will still end up in the wrong hands, and they will still end up in shelters and rescues. Look at the number of purebred dogs in shelters, and consider how much that original owner paid for it. I hear stories every-so-often of $1000 dogs being given up because they owner's having trouble with them. It's not as uncommon as one would think. I think $80-$100 is absolutely reasonable for a dog's adoption fee if it covers the dog having it's basic shots and being speutered already. That amount wouldn't cover what the owner would have to pay for the basic first-step needs of the dog if they took it to get shots/altered themselves, in most areas.

Mellie, if I was taking in an animal with obvious medical needs and I was asking for a lower price, it would be to save money needed towards the vet costs from then on. It's rather selfish, yes, but in the end the intention could be decent.

[Mellie]

Originally Posted by TinyAlbinoDancer

Mellie, if I was taking in an animal with obvious medical needs and I was asking for a lower price, it would be to save money needed towards the vet costs from then on. It's rather selfish, yes, but in the end the intention could be decent.

Agreed. I was just using the most recent situation I could think of to make a point. Don't counter it to make my point less effective!

Anywho, here are some tidbits taken from this rescue's website (http://www.ccndr.org/index.html ). There is an entire page devoted to the explanation of adoption costs.
Here you are:
"The Central Coast Northern Dog Rescue (CCNDR) is NONPROFIT, why are the dogs not free? Why is there a reimbursement of adoption costs?
While CCNDR is nonprofit, and in fact has only a volunteer staff--no staff members are paid, CCNDR does have costs. Every dog is spayed/neutered, and all vaccinations are given that are needed.
Some dogs have additional medical needs from simple worming medication to the treatment of infections or injuries they sustained before rescue. Some dogs require bathing, as they arrive so dirty and often smelly that they cannot be adopted to anyone, or even brought into a foster home.
CCNDR retains a reserve fund for unexpected medical costs in the event of a dog becoming severely ill while in fostering, and to cover additional expenses incurred in running CCNDR. Some funds are used for specific items, such as reproducing forms and materials for Adoption Information. Other funds are kept as a reserve for future contingencies brought about by changing responsibilities and demands.
At least once a year, we endeavor to take on a "project dog". These dogs are highly deserving of rescue, but may have a medical issue that requires a large outlay of funds to resolve. In May, of 2000, we spent more than $2600.00 on Daybreak for cataract surgery. We raised much of this money through a special fund, but our reserve fund paid the difference. We hope to continue rescuing the special dogs that require us to have faith in people and their willingness to see another fine dog rescued that has exceptional expenses associated with the rescue, fostering, and placement."

Everything is written in laymen's terms. There are no judgments or expectations made in the writing. It is all about kindly informing the public about the reasons behind adoption fees. I think, under such conditions, most people would willingly agree with the fees. I think more shelters should explain similar reasons, educating the general public as to why shelter dogs come with the fees they do. It would just take a little time, patience, and effort on the part of the shelters out there to change the way many people feel about the "cost" of a shelter dog.
Sigh...
maybe I'm too idealistic.

[Tiffany0204]

I think regardless of a shelter dog's price tag, dogs will still end up in the wrong hands, and they will still end up in shelters and rescues

Hear, hear! That's what I tend to think as well. Paris Hilton is prime example of even though her dogs cost "alot" of money, it certainly didn't save them from having a good owner.

[DFrost]

<<< don't think the cost (or adoption fee) of a dog has anything to do with the care it will receive. What does, in my humble opinion? ... The person's set of ideas, values, and beliefs.>>>>

I think you make an exceptionally good point. The price one pays for anything has nothing to do with moral character, values and beliefs.

DFrost

[mulroony]

I agree with the fact that the price one pays does not determine the quality of care or ownership, my question is how much more effective would a higher adoption cost be in detering the emotional adoptions. Sadly most shelters I have seen do not have enough staff or resources to consider/inspect the homes the pets are going to beyond a gut decision. Shelters need to get their pets out, but they do not want them going to homes where they will be neglected because the pet was nothing more then a spur of the moment decision.

To counter the no-need for surgery, when my dog jackson was young he broke his leg pretty bad while playing. Without surgery to correct it, it would have become deformed, never really healed, and the entire leg might have had to be removed at a later day or he could have possibly died. Because we could afford the sugery (not cheap) he is going on 6 now and the leg hardly gives him any trouble. Without it we would love him no less, but he would have had to learn to cope with his disability and would be much more limited in the range of activities that he currently is involved in.

Why is giving our dogs the same benefits of our advancement as we use regularly ego driven? Dogs are animals that exist mostly because of humans, and most could not exist without us, so why not use our resources to care for them? I understand your arguement when you are looking at a dog that is older, and the surgery might only prolong their life a month or so. Even then my Grandfather had a surgery and was not expected to live more then 6 months after, but it was well over 3 years before he finally passed away and most of that time was spent in good health. I really doubt that many people when taking their dogs in for surgery are doing it for any reason other then heartfelt concern for their pet. Like with humans we must decide if a surgery is worth it or not with pets. I doubt most vets will do a sugery when they feel the pet already has one foot in death's door, and the surgery would do nothing to help that.

A lot of the things that money helps correct are situations artificially created by humans because of our intervention into breeding. A large portion of the dieases that affect the canine do so because we have created an unnatural breeding condition, which would not exist in nature.