"rescues" For Sale

[Jacobean]

I don't endorse the sale of small animals in pet shops or pet stores full stop. That is a different topic altogether. You are discussing a scheme that has been set up for them to be able to sell on older small animals. Without seeing the leaflet I can't comment any further. I've had a look at their website which is obviously reading differently to their paperwork. Can't you post what is being said on the leaflet? Raiye has mentioned something that says second chance. It's that statement which I am referring to and saying doesn't read incorrectly.

[Ian]

I, yesterday emailed the website and have today received a reply which whilst to be fair it does not deny that any animal may have come from stores / breeders it does state that the majority have been abandoned or donated by customers and that any money donated for the adoption of any of the animals under the adoption scheme will be distributed to animal welfare causes not go to their own profits. I have now asked if they would have any objection to my reproducing this in full.

 

I would not like to comment upon the breeding of their animals for sale without any personal knowledge of where they are sourced and under what conditions.

 

For your own benefit I would also at this point suggest to you that you need to be very sure that you can substantiate each and every accusation you have made. If it were to come to that it is, I believe, legally for you to prove all accusations made, not for them to disprove them.

[Jacobean]

You've said in your first post Kathy that the monies do go to rescues and it does appear that those animal welfare organisations are supporting this scheme by accepting those funds. Whether you think it's right or wrong this does appear to be what is happening and the stores are being completely upfront about it.

[KathyM]

For your own benefit I would also at this point suggest to you that you need to be very sure that you can substantiate each and every accusation you have made. If it were to come to that it is, I believe, legally for you to prove all accusations made, not for them to disprove them.

 

Thank you for your concern, but I haven't made any "accusations". I've commented on something that's open to anyone who looks a bit deeper. Unfortunately many people don't look deeper - the whole point of this thread.

 

Frankly I'm disappointed that some people seem so blasee about it on here - as if "Those rescues endorse it, so hard cheese". If they're not aware, they need to be, and if they are aware, well...

 

Like I said before, if this were dogs we were dealing with, this place'd be up in arms, and quite rightly too. I've worded this very carefully throughout, I haven't named anyone and I don't think I or anyone else quite rightly upset by this is going over the top.

 

Again - how would you feel if a puppy farm opened it's doors, slung up an "Adopt me, I need a 2nd chance!" sign on some of the dogs it had produced but couldn't sell (the ill or deformed, or older ones), put alone in a kennel with no social interaction whatsoever, let them go to anyone who paid for them (and the bed, toys, collar, lead, etc etc, at profit to them) and all of that was endorsed by major rescues who took the meagre donations? You couldn't fault anyone who got them out, but would you be saying the puppy farm and the rescues had no moral accountability?

[KathyM]

You've said in your first post Kathy that the monies do go to rescues

 

Allegedly the money goes to rescues and to funding the project, including the care of the rats being misleadingly advertised.

[Ian]

Thank you for your concern, but I haven't made any "accusations". I've commented on something that's open to anyone who looks a bit deeper. Unfortunately many people don't look deeper - the whole point of this thread.

 

Again - how would you feel if a puppy farm opened it's doors, slung up an "Adopt me, I need a 2nd chance!" sign on some of the dogs it had produced but couldn't sell (the ill or deformed, or older ones), put alone in a kennel with no social interaction whatsoever, let them go to anyone who paid for them (and the bed, toys, collar, lead, etc etc, at profit to them) and all of that was endorsed by major rescues who took the meagre donations? You couldn't fault anyone who got them out, but would you be saying the puppy farm and the rescues had no moral accountability?

 

I do not support puppy farming or any form of cruelty to animals. So, in short, if you have any actual evidence whatsoever of animal cruelty having occured then please do produce it and sure we would all be anything but blase as perhaps would be the RSPCA and local Councils.

 

However, You have so far merely made a number of unsubstantiated statements (I would say they are indeed accusations, but feel to look it up in the dictionary if you seriously dispute that) with no factual evidence whatsoever to support them. You've suggested that an un named friend on an un named forum said ........ The fact that you have been unwilling to name the store - because by your own admission you do not understand the legalities of doing so - has not prevented people from knowing exactly what you were talking about.

 

You admitted earlier that you have not even personally seen the conditions you are now describing as unsuitable.

 

I very much doubt that the store would consider your statements of advocating terrible care as being anything other than defamatory.

 

There are nearer pet stores to me and hence I can only comment on my local stores on the few occasions I have visited them but the animals there were certainly not being kept in puppy farm conditions, nor were they denied interaction with people. I do not know where the store sources it's animals and have yet to see any evidence that you do, let alone that you have any actual evidence of terrible conditions.

 

You suggest that the animals for adoption are ill, deformed or old. Have you any evidence for that?

 

You state that vets fees are paid for from the adoption fees. Do you have any evidence of that?

 

The store declares specific figures raised for Charities, which are by no means meagre. You imply that you do not believe they donate funds to charity or donate meagre funds to Animal welfare Charities. Again, do you have any evidence to support that claim?

 

You say that your friend has contacted the Store. I contacted them yesterday and already have an answer from them. Has your friend also received a reply and does it differ from what you have suggested?

 

You seem to want it both ways - 1st you say you've personally bought animals from the local pet shop, not proud of it etc but it was better than the alternative. Then you're criticising Charities who want to get animals into homes instead of - according to you - being returned to animal farmers.

 

There are 6 charities named in the reply I received, most of them very well known organisations. Are you credibly suggesting that they have made no consideration of the organisation and it's procedures before entering into relationships with the store?

 

Yes they sell animals, yes they do so without homechecks etc but as I said earlier whether we agree with it or not they are doing nothing illegal in doing so. My view is that these animal welfare organisations are more likely to improve breeding conditions (if indeed there are any issues at present as you suggest) by working with them than you are in the manner you are going about this thread

[Jacobean]

This thread isn't about the sale of animals from breeders. It's about the stores selling animals as a 2nd chance opportunity. Apparently duping people into believing they are adopting from rescue when they are actually buying from the store. The store themselves have said it is an adoption scheme. As all monies from purchases of such animals is given to charities. They do not pocket money from the sale of these animals. It is up to individuals where they purchase other items such as cages etc. The stores do not force people to buy the equipment from their stores. They are free to purchase this elsewhere. Equipment can be bought 2nd hand by other means. The animals themselves come from different sources including stock they haven't been able to sell previously. In the meantime any costs for their welfare up to point of sale is an expense of the business and not the charities.

 

I personally would never purchase any animal from a pet shop or chain as you have done. That is your choice. You know better than I do where they actually come from. If you want to discuss the general sale of these creatures and whether that is right then you are free to open another thread.

 

I'm sure what they are doing at the moment is better than what has happened with these animals in the past. I imagine they used to come with some sort of guarantee where individuals could return then up to a certain length of time but wouldn't know. I wonder what used to happen to the older animals they couldn't sell but can guess. It seems to me that what they are doing now is a step in the right direction. They are taking responsibility for the animals they have bought in for resale. They are not pocketing the revenue from sale of the animals. They are placing that in their charity funds and then passing it on to welfare organisations.

 

As I have said previously though it would be nice to see the excerpt from the leaflet to see what it actually says.

 

By the way anything I have said is my thoughts and nothing to do with Oldies Club.

Edited July 30, 2007 by Jacobean

[KathyM]

Sorry about having to pick this into bits, but it's important I answer each bit I quote below:

 

Firstly the friend I'm talking about isn't a "forum friend", she's a friend IRL. I trust her implicitly, she is a lovely person with a history of helping rescue animals. She knows absolutely everything about rat care in particular and I personally wouldn't hesitate to trust what she says.

 

You admitted earlier that you have not even personally seen the conditions you are now describing as unsuitable. *snip*

I do not know where the store sources it's animals and have yet to see any evidence that you do, let alone that you have any actual evidence of terrible conditions.

 

Where did I say that? I have visited this place (different stores, different locations) and had to complain on numerous occasions about their care of small animals and fish. I only said I wasn't at that particular branch when my friend adopted the rat. Different stores get rats from different farms/breeders. I could give you the link for a rat farm now as an example, but I doubt it'd be appreciated on this forum, which is why I didn't post it.

 

As for ill, old rats being put up for adoption, a member of their staff on another forum mentioned that, also see below about vets fees. You're prolly right that I shouldn't have brought it over here.

 

As for "meagre donations", I meant the actual money taken from the customer for the rat, generally £1-£5.

 

My friend has had a reply from them, yes:

 

Q What exactly is the difference between animals for "sale" and those for "adoption" in *pet shop*?

 

A We have launched a Support Adoption scheme within a number of our stores, animals that are available for adoption have been legally adopted by the *pet shop* Charitable Foundation. Any monies donated for the adoption of these animals is ploughed back into the Charitable Foundation. The cost of caring for the animals within the Support Adoption scheme is met by *pet shop*.

 

Q Are adoption animals those too large / old to be sold in "bunny village or the other sales areas, are they from rescue centres? Are they surrendered to *pet shop* by the public (regardless of where they were purchased? Are they animals returned to *pet shop*?"

 

A The Pets within Support Adoption come from a number of sources including our breeders, our customers and our stores. The majority of animals we offer for adoption have been abandoned or donated for adoption by customers.

We are partnering with local rehoming centres and we are actively encouraging our customers to ‘think adoption first’. We are promoting our partnered rehoming centres in store and are actively encouraging them to hold fundraising/awareness days in store.

 

Q Does the required donation go to charity?

 

A All the monies raised through Support Adoption are ploughed back into The *pet shop* Charitable Foundation. These monies will be distributed by the Trustees to rehoming centres around the country and will also be used for veterinary fees for those animals within the Support Adoption Scheme. Over £100,000 has already been raised to date year.

 

You seem to want it both ways - 1st you say you've personally bought animals from the local pet shop, not proud of it etc but it was better than the alternative. Then you're criticising Charities who want to get animals into homes instead of - according to you - being returned to animal farmers.

 

That is exactly why I opened it to discussion. Did you actually bother to read the bottom of my first post, where I said I was torn? I'm less torn now I've been accused of lying and making this all up. And I'm less chuffed about the attitude on here - I was expecting some level of concern about farmed animals being sold off for adoption fees for charity.

 

There are 6 charities named in the reply I received, most of them very well known organisations. Are you credibly suggesting that they have made no consideration of the organisation and it's procedures before entering into relationships with the store?

 

If I was being honest, I think I'd be sad to say that they prolly know exactly what's going on, which is depressing and which is why I was hoping they'd just fallen for the misleading spiel. I was trying not to say that in my posts because I'd like to retain some sort of hope and faith in good rescues. How they could support this is beyond me, much as I appreciate I don't personally like the alternative.

 

Yes they sell animals, yes they do so without homechecks etc but as I said earlier whether we agree with it or not they are doing nothing illegal in doing so. My view is that these animal welfare organisations are more likely to improve breeding conditions (if indeed there are any issues at present as you suggest) by working with them than you are in the manner you are going about this thread

 

You seem to be hell bent on accusing me of having said this is illegal. At no point have I said it is (I did say I felt it was morally questionable), and I'm not stupid, so please don't talk down to me. At least I care a bit. As for the rescues changing anything - what's the point when they've already leapt in with both feet and said "Yes please"? Surely they could've insisted on the proper care and breeding of the animals before agreeing to take money from their farming and sale?

 

Still no answer to the puppy farm comparison? Like I said, it'd be a different story on here if it were farmed dogs being palmed off.

[cycas]

And I'm less chuffed about the attitude on here - I was expecting some level of concern about farmed animals being sold off for adoption fees for charity.

 

I am concerned about small animals being sold in pet shops, how they are bred, raised and kept. Very much so. I have said this before, as have many others here.

 

However, if small animals ARE to be sold in petshops, then it seems to me that the damage is already done. I don't really understand why you think it's so much worse for an animal that has failed to sell, to be re-listed in another section of the store for charitable purposes, than it would be for that animal to die.

 

If pet shops are going to sell animals, then yes, I think they should be trying to find homes for the ones they can't sell - even if they are older, or ill or deformed. If the money from that goes to a rescue, then OK, that's slightly dirty money, but so are most corporate donations. So are a lot of private ones, for that matter.

 

I can understand why some charities might get involved with this. I don't believe you can change the world by refusing to even touch an organisation that is doing some things you don't approve of. It doesn't stop them operating, and very likely they won't even understand why you refused to get involved. Partner with them, talk to them - and you stand much more of a chance of being listened to. You can't fix everything at once. It would be nice to run a rescue that didn't feed its animals any factory farmed meat, too - but how many rescues are able to do that?

 

And actually, much though I love my rabbits and appreciate their individual quirks, I *do* think that selling dogs from pet shops is worse than selling rabbits, in the same way that selling slave children would be worse than selling dogs. Dogs are brighter than rabbits, have more complex needs, are easier to break, need more space and attention, and are much more dangerous when damaged. If pet shops are going to sell animals, I'd rather they sold rabbits than dogs. I can't speak about rats, as I've never owned one.

[KathyM]

Thanks for the reply cycas.

 

In response to the bit you quoted me on, I was meaning the feel of the responses on this thread, not the board. I'm sorry I worded it badly. There, got that bit out of the way.

 

You're right that the damage is already done if petshops insist on selling animals. I did say at the end of my first post that I don't know yet how I feel about the adoption scheme as a whole - that's not my argument on here. The bit I truly know I don't agree with is not letting on (at least without a fair bit of pestering) that they're selling their surplus stock in there. I honestly don't think I'd have quite as much of a problem with them doing that *if* they were a. upfront about it, b. not being misleading about it, and c. if rescues weren't mixed up in that (although I accept your point about "dirty money", I don't know the answer to that problem).

 

I *do* have a problem with rescues being okay with that. I can't explain why I think it's wrong, and it's certainly not my place to stop that, money's money after all. It is my choice though whether I'll support those rescues in future, and at the moment I'm not *sure* I would. I do think people need to be aware of these kinds of scenarios though so they can make reasoned choices either way about where their money/help goes.

 

My comparison with the puppy farming imaginary scenario was not meant to make you think of whether selling dogs is worse than selling rats/rabbits/chinchillas/fish/whatever. It was on the rescue involvement side of things. If we're all in agreement that selling pets in shops is wrong, then surely taking money from selling animals in petshops is, when that money comes from mass breeding with no care/attention into health/temperament, etc.

 

If this chain cared one bit about animal welfare, a. they'd not sell them and b. they'd direct people to genuine rescues who carry out some form of checks, make sure they're properly housed, socialised, cared for, etc. To me this scheme is nothing more than a PR exercise to get people off their backs and make money in the process. And cornering a niche that may otherwise not choose to buy from petshops, they at least should be being open and honest about the true situation of these animals.

[Jacobean]

I'm not happy that they sell live animals full stop. Have already said that. However it is better they continue to try to sell old stock and give the money raised from sales to charity than to either pocket the money themselves or have the animals destroyed. What do you want them to do with these animals? They are showing responsibility towards them. Would you rather the animal welfare organisations turn their backs and say don't want anything to do with that. What could happen to these animals then. At least by joining with them it is known these animals do have a chance of a life.

 

The rescue side is no different to rescues that work with puppy farms. Take their old breeding stock and rehome them. Those rescues pocket donations. I'm sure they spend more out on the animals but that's a by the by. They still work with the farms to try to help these dogs. Rescue is about helping animals wherever possible. You sometimes have to put your feelings to one side and help an animal in desperate need or on to a life.

 

The problem is because they are misleading people to believe the animals are from rescue centres? Their website does not say that and does indeed explain what they are doing. They have themselves explained to your friend what they are doing.

 

I keep asking you to let us know what the wording is on the leaflet. Without seeing that I can't say any more about it.

 

Not all rescues do homecheck. Most rescues of small animals don't.

[LisaLQ]

As Kathy has said, and the shop have said, some of the money goes into the care/feeding/vets fees of those in the "adoption" centres in the pet shops. So no, not all the money goes to rescue.

 

Also, nobody is questionning that getting their old stock new homes is a good thing, compared to what they used to do. What folks are questionning is labelling old stock/returned stock as "rescues". They are not rescues, they are just pets they've not managed to sell.

 

I also think it's shocking that any rescue could put their name to something like this - somewhere where "rescue" (said in the loosest sense) animals are palmed off to someone with a couple of quid, with no homecheck or even correct care advice.

 

As for how well they're cared for - you just have to go and look to see it's far from ideal. As I said on the other forum - I've personally seen the poor conditions their fish are kept in, as for rats - bare cages with no toys and bright lights all day, far from ideal, dont you think? But that's another thread.

 

Even so - any rescue who put their name to the resale of pets to possibly unsuitable homes, in their name for their benefit, is highly questionable.

[pollylolly]

I've read this and pondered on it - as for rescues that support this being 'highly questionable' personally I think they are actually being 'realistic' - acknowledging that this goes on, that they are NOT going to be able to stop it and at least those animals in the adoption bit are given a chance of a home above and beyound that in bunny village or where ever they were when they were tiny. At least any monies raised can then be seen to be doing some good.

 

In a perfect world this would not happen but we dont' , unfortunately live in a perfect world

 

The majority of the public dont even KNOW there are rescues for small animals !

[LisaLQ]

Surely it would be better than to leave the rehoming to those who know what they're doing and do it properly, and the shop in question should point them towards that instead?

 

If I worked in rescue, and was offered "donations" from someone who was selling animals as rescues who weren't rescues, I'd politely decline. I know it's not as simple as that - and that rescues are desperate for money, but should desperation rule out morals?

[cycas]

If we're all in agreement that selling pets in shops is wrong, then surely taking money from selling animals in petshops is, when that money comes from mass breeding with no care/attention into health/temperament, etc.

 

I don't think there is any 'surely' about it. You are arguing as if the rescues removing their participation would somehow stop this from happening. I don't see why it would. Whereas, independent rescue involvement, in the longer term, might produce real improvements in care and practice.

 

You have said this business has not been open and honest - yet, your friend was told, when she asked, where her rat had come from. She emailled and got a pretty detailed response which openly said that the animals "come from a number of sources including our breeders, our customers and our stores."

 

The complaint seems to be primarily that this information wasn't in the leaflet, which I must say I find hard to get excited about.