phoebejo Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 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. Indeed it is another thread, don't even get me started on the subject of the state of their fish. I argued for half an hour with a member of staff about the high number of dead fish in their tanks on display I could rant here for hours about what he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trallwm farm Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 I agree with Kathy M. I personally find it distasteful that these places have taken the word rescue,which means to save and cheapened it to a pound shop level. I choose homes for animals that we have lovingly saved and I get angry when people ask when we are open to come and choose an animal and when of course they think they are buying. It reflects on all of us that find homes for animals not animals for people. Unfortunately the word rescue is not intelectually copyrighted so anyone can use it by the use of chummying up with large orgs who simply have people who work 9-5 IN rescues rather than the rest of us who ARE rescues. A large splosh of cash oils the wheels and makes the imorality that would normarily stick in decent peoples throats slide down to the belly of "lost forever" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Yes but they don't mention the word rescue on their website or in their responses to questions. We haven't seen the blooming leaflet. Could somebody please show us exactly what the leaflet says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 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 don't mind you answering bit by bit at all. I didn't however say she was a "forum friend" or someone you didn't know - I suggested you are asking the rest of us to comment upon a thread from an unknown source - both in terms of the person and forum. We therefore only have your perception of events not what I would consider was a reasonable opportunity to read the leaflet and any related comments you've referred to. Sorry but I don't know what you mean by IRL. 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. You suggested the adopted rat was kept in unsuitable conditions. You still do not appear to have said any different. As I suggested above if the store chose to pursue legal action against you you would need to substantiate the specific allegation about the specific rat - that may not be fair but I'm reasonably certain that if you wished to ask a solicitor they would confirm it to be the case. For the same reason if making public statements on a forum like this you need to be able to prove that the store you are referring to obtains it's rats from sources that operate in those conditions. It is not enough to generalise that farms exist and therefore this store must operate in that fashion. I don't know whether others would or would not appreciate your link to a rat farm but if you feel I would learn anything by having a look at it then you are welcome to PM it to me. 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. Again, we don't have the benefit of reading what this staff member or anywhere has said and cannot therefore reasonably be accepted to comment or form an opinion upon it. Whilst not everyone likes things moving between forums, personally I don't have a problem with it (or any other reputable source) - providing that there is some reference point for it. At no time have I suggested that you (or indeed anyone else with any topic) should not bring them across here. As for the vets fees, fair comment. The reply I received does also say vets fees will be paid out of adoption monies. (in the instance I have perhaps misquoted another comment made where it was stated that the costs of caring for these animals was met by the store ) As for "meagre donations", I meant the actual money taken from the customer for the rat, generally £1-£5. Having apparently received the same (or very similar) reply to that which I received you will appreciate that there are two figures substantially higher quoted their reply and a further substantial sum is mentioned on their website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaLQ Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) How's about this then, for all you ******* fans. This is the adoption label on a rat at one of their branches down south. I wont say where, as I fear that someone will go and get her for the wrong reasons: " Hello my name is Rosie and im a friendly rat girl Im looking for a new home as im pregnant" Tell me now what they're doing is ok, and not detrimental to the animals. Hmmph. Edited July 31, 2007 by Wendbert Edited to remove company name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) 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. Yes, I have read the entire thread thankyou. The fact that you were torn however does not alter the point I raised - ie that when push came to shove you made a decision which you felt was best for those rats. Fair enough, I didn't make any criticism of that decision. You, on the other hand, are criticising a variety of charities for making a very similar decision. To have it both ways is not reasonable in my opinion. At no time have I, or anyone else as far as I'm aware accused anyone of "lieing and making this up" here. What I did say is that you have produced no evidence to support the statements made. That some animals who have previously been available for sale have been transferred to the adoption scheme has not been disputed by anyone - including the store. To what extent does appear to be in dispute, as does the suggestion that those animals are kept in any worse conditions than those sold by the store. As for the fees this one will no doubt raise controversy but in my honest opinion, regardless of how they choose to word the contracts and the wisdom of that, (that is another thread entirely) virtually all rescues (I have seen just one claim not to do so) take an adoption fee for charity for the animals they put up for adoption. True many rescues home check and this store may not (unless those charities involved have addressed this issue? I didn't actually ask that, did you?) but that isn't actually the concern you have raised. 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. Excuse me, and you ask whether I bothered to read your post in full? The very first statement I made in my earlier reply was that I do not support puppy farming or cruelty to animals in any form. How much more of an answer did you need? Edited July 31, 2007 by Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 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. My friend was only told after she pestered to know - the person who dealt with her was less than keen to part with the information, quite understandably considering. According to their response in email, the three main areas these animals come from are other stores, people they themselves sold them to, and their dodgey breeders. None of those situations would be necessary if they didn't stock the animals in the bloomin' first place. How anyone can say this is the best situation for these animals is beyond me. The best situation would be this chain saying they won't buy in from rat farms and instead passing genuine potential owners on to local rescues, surely? I don't think it's getting "excited" to denounce animal farming and to be disappointed at what they're misleading people about. If the three main situations are the ones they themselves said in the email response, why is it not mentioned once in their spiel that these animals are just being resold, and in many cases plugged for their first sale? Is it too much to ask for some honesty, especially when many of the potential owners will only take those animals thinking they're adoption scenarios when they're not? No the chain do not use the word "rescue", although they do bandy around the term "adoption" and use the backing of rescues to say these animals are getting "a second chance of happiness in a loving home". They say they want to do everything they can to "support adoption" - here's an idea, stop selling animals as if they're adoptions! Stop selling animals full stop *lol*. They never stood a first chance as long as this chain and their newly founded rescue friends support rodent farming to cash in and let them go to anyone with a quid in their pocket with no checks whatsoever. Jacobean - I'll see if I can get a copy of the leaflet - my nearest branch is Bradford and they don't run the scheme, but I'll see what I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 How they could support this is beyond me, much as I appreciate I don't personally like the alternative. 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? If you don't want this scheme and you don't want the alternative what is your solution? Actually at no time have I ever accused you of saying this is illegal. It was actually suggested that The Charity Commission, Trading Standards etc would be interested if you were correct. I replied that I don't think so becuase none of this is illegal. Not directly to do with your comments at all! Nor have I said you were stupid, or as far as I'm aware talked down to you. I did imply that your argument on not having accused anyone of anything was stretching beyond all credibility. Given that you've now taken to using "accused" in reference to me I take it you do indeed know what it means and therefore will realise that you have indeed accused, either directly or by implication, both the store and various posters here of a variety of things - from misleading customers, to animal cruelty to lack of concern etc etc. What's the point of rescues changing anything? Well if things are as bad as you suggest what else do you want them to do - maintain the status quo? In reference to what these Charities can insist upon, well actually absolutely nothing. They can choose to be involved, or not involved but the store is, as I've said before acting within the law and none of those charities have any power to insist on any alternative suggestions. They can only work in partnership to achieve their aims. Both I, and subsequently Cycas have presented reasons why we believe these Charities working with the store could help animals in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) How's about this then, for all you ******** fans. This is the adoption label on a rat at one of their branches down south. I wont say where, as I fear that someone will go and get her for the wrong reasons:Tell me now what they're doing is ok, and not detrimental to the animals. Hmmph. First of all I don't think anyone has said they are fans of anyone. I would merely like to see reasoned argument and evidence for statements. When people make accusations they cannot substantiate or even worse begin to take the law into their own hands the public and lawmakers of the country tend to categorise reasoned animal lovers in the same mould and listen to no one. That does no animal any good. Do I approve of this? No, not really. However as you say the store is not a suitable environment for the mother let alone her babies and you don't want her sold as normal stock what alternative are you offering. Someone adopting this animal would surely be no different to Kathys purchase early in the thread? (and some the money will go to animals welfare, not the store profits as her purchase would have done) Edited July 31, 2007 by Wendbert Edited to remove company name from quoted post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) Yes, I have read the entire thread thankyou. The fact that you were torn however does not alter the point I raised - ie that when push came to shove you made a decision which you felt was best for those rats. Fair enough, I didn't make any criticism of that decision. You, on the other hand, are criticising a variety of charities for making a very similar decision. To have it both ways is not reasonable in my opinion. You're saying they don't have a choice, what tosh, of course they do, just as I did. My choice was that for those rats it was in their best interests for them to come home with me. I said all along that was the wrong choice for the bigger picture, something rescues are generally more in tune with. They're not making personal attachments with specific animals. They're not going in and saying "That rats got a respiratory infection, if I don't take her, she'll get sent back and be snake food if she lives that long." This is not about animals, it's about money. I said all along what I did was wrong for the bigger picture. I don't know how much more I can say that. Am I glad I did it? Most of the time absolutely hell yes. Some of the time, no, I'm ashamed of it. A rescue is an orginisation, not a fallible individual like me that risks the bigger picture for the one offs. To what extent does appear to be in dispute, as does the suggestion that those animals are kept in any worse conditions than those sold by the store. I didn't say they were worse kept than those on the shop front. They probably kept exactly the same - in unsuitable housing, sometimes wrongly sexed, under strong lighting, often but not always on wood pellet cat litter (which is dangerous to small animals) and sold singly to anyone with a bit of money, to their detriment (rats *need* to live in same sex groups). This particular rat was put in a tank in the "adoption area" alone with no company, when there was no worldly reason to keep her separate from the other rats on the shop front. The *only* conceivable reasons would be that a. she or they were ill (which they weren't labelled as nor indicated as by the staff) and b. they did so to pull on the heartstrings. True many rescues home check and this store may not (unless those charities involved have addressed this issue? I didn't actually ask that, did you?) but that isn't actually the concern you have raised. Actually, that's a point I've raised on more than one occasion. No they do not check out homes or owners. They will accept donations as low as a quid for a rat, meaning anyone can walk in off the street and buy one on a whim. They do however have a form to fill out. One good thing is that apparently they have a clause in this form to neuter rabbits, something I *do* feel is positive. How's about this then, for all you ****** fans. This is the adoption label on a rat at one of their branches down south. I wont say where, as I fear that someone will go and get her for the wrong reasons:Tell me now what they're doing is ok, and not detrimental to the animals. Hmmph. That's absolutely disgraceful, and not at all surprising considering who's selling her. Someone adopting this animal would surely be no different to Kathys purchase early in the thread? (and some the money will go to animals welfare, not the store profits as her purchase would have done) Absolutely spot on Ian - anyone buying that rat would be in the same position as I was. The company would've fulfilled their target of having an individual guilt tripped into buying them. I never, not once, said what I did was right, I said the opposite. and I never, not once, said that the petshop was right for putting them up for sale pregnant and dying. Edited July 31, 2007 by Wendbert Edited to remove company name from quoted post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Indeed it is another thread, don't even get me started on the subject of the state of their fish. I argued for half an hour with a member of staff about the high number of dead fish in their tanks on display I could rant here for hours about what he said I don't know whether our two stores are any different to the majority but whilst I've only been in the latest store once or twice and the other infrequently I can honestly say I haven't seen any dead fish in the tanks when I've been in. The rabbits & guinea pigs certainly (and to the best of my recollection the smaller animals too) were not in empty cages either. The staff are not in my opinion animal experts but then they are not paid vetinerarian level salaries. I certainly haven't seen any evidence of an uncaring attitude in our stores - quite the opposite, when I last visited one gentleman who stopped for a chat as I was looking at the rabbits & guinea pigs as I passed and began petting his dog as they approached had walked some miles, taken his dog into the store, and each were on 1st name terms with the staff, as he apparently did this regularly. There are advice leaflets (free) and books (for sale) on a variety of animal issues. If you are unhappy with the care in a particular store I would say the first step was to complain to the Store Manager, if disatisfied Head Office. If that fails the local Council and RSPCA are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 As I have previously said the actual selling at all of any livestock is a whole other topic. This thread started out as an argument against the stores' "adoption" scheme. To be fair to them how else do you want them to word it. The monies raised from selling the animals is given to the welfare organisations. They may have to do this for accounting purposes for all we know to show the split between revenue made by the company and adding to their profits and monies raised for the charitable trust. The tax man could be after them if they word this scheme differently. I've never had small animals from any kind of pet source so have no idea how things have worked in the past or present. What I keep thinking of here is I am just glad that these animals have A chance of finding a home and are not going to die. What did used to happen to these animals that were past their sell by date in the past? Were they killed? Or were they left in stores incase at some point they were sold? I honestly don't know. And no I'm not happy that rats come from breeding farms but then I don't support this by purchasing any. My local store doesn't run this scheme either otherwise I would be obtaining a leaflet and reading it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Indeed it is another thread, don't even get me started on the subject of the state of their fish. I argued for half an hour with a member of staff about the high number of dead fish in their tanks on display I could rant here for hours about what he said This is a very common scenario with this chain. I myself have had to complain in more than one store about dead fish (in Bradford's case in every tank one time), diseased tanks, mislabelling of "tankbusters", poor care advice, etc. They sell Biorbes and Spongebob tanks with goldfish that need 20-30 gallons minimum each. They sell common plecs saying they don't get over 6" and that you should have one for each 1ft of tank. I've spoken to others all over the place that have had the same problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacobean Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 Yes but Kathy most small animal rescues do not homecheck either and will let anyone walking in adopt one of their charges too. There is no difference in that respect. Some of these rescues do but a lot more don't and never follow up afterwards either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KathyM Posted July 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) I've adopted from small animal rescues. Some required homechecks, some didn't. But not one of them didn't do some sort of check on me, and not one of them sold pregnant animals, and not one of them gave me poor care advice, not one of them bought in or bred rats to "rehome", not one of them sold rats singly with no company, and not one of them sold pets as a moneymaking byline from rodent farms. Edited July 31, 2007 by KathyM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts