"rescues" For Sale

[KathyM]

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.

 

It didn't start out as an argument against the adoption scheme at all. It started as concerns over mislabelling and misleading the public. They seem to have no problem whatsoever with shoving two rabbits in a 3ft hutch permanently with a"Reduced for quick sale" label on at our local store. Why can't they do that here if they insist on 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.

 

Now that I'd like to see. Where does the money *really* go. Because they're allowed to take some back as vets fees for the animals they were responsible for legally in the first place. Noone relinquished ownership - the shop should be paying their fees out of their own pocket, not out of charity donations.

 

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.

 

This bit I can't argue with other than to say if they weren't paying for someone to farm them and selling them in the first place, they wouldn't need a "2nd chance at happiness". They as a company are responsible for their stock, not the genuine folks who think they're making a donation to charity.

 

And no I'm not happy that rats come from breeding farms but then I don't support this by purchasing any.

 

If that's a quip at me, it's completely warranted. But I didn't directly support the rat farm by buying them. I did support a terrible petshop that I won't be using again. If I hadn't bought them (or if someone else hadn't), they would've been returned to breed from or be sold as snakefood (and this is 100% verifiable as I know their source), THAT would've supported them as they'd have had their money tenfold (Nelly was pregnant). The petshop did not get free replacements, as the farm offers for animals that don't sell. I did however give money (a reduced price, similar to cost) for these rats to a petshop who uses them, so it doesn't make much difference, other than to Pink who would have been dead before being returned, and to Nelly and her babies, and to Gwen and Macy.

Edited July 31, 2007 by KathyM

[raiye]

Am trying to get my head round this a little.

At my local pet shop they are selling "old tyme" bull dogs for £400 each. (not to mention the small animal managerie ) If they then advertised and promised to donate some of that money to animal charities - would that make the selling ok?

[Jacobean]

Kathy I am not having a quip at you at all.

 

You have stated previously that they are mislabelling by calling this an adoption scheme. It's this scheme I keep discussing. The monies do go to welfare organisations through their charitable trust. They will have to account for those donations separately to their main revenue so they probably do have to call it something different to just selling the animals. What would be a good idea would be for someone to actually speak to the store manager raising their concerns and discussing this scheme and the welfare of the animals concerned.

 

By buying pets from any pet store you are keeping the breeding farms in business. Plain and simple. When I say you I mean you in general not you personally Kathy. That's about the size of it. Also if you buy a puppy from a pet shop or directly from a puppy farm you are funding the puppy farm and keeping them in business and able to breed more. There are rescues that take in ex breeding dogs and the pups that don't make the grade from puppy farms. These are adopted by individuals. That is helping the breeding farms too. But I would rather someone took those dogs in than they were slaughtered. Same as these 2nd chance rodents.

 

So the crux of this now is what would you like to happen to these rodents that are part of the "adoption" scheme cos they sure as heck weren't able to sell them as normal stock in their store.

 

By the way I don't actually agree to any animal being sold in any store. I'm just pointing out that legally PAH are doing nothing wrong.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Jacobean

[KathyM]

In an ideal world? Well you know the answer. Suffice to say there'd be no need for their adoption scheme without them selling them in the first place.

 

If they insist on selling animals, I'd like to see them well bred, cared for and sold responsibly with guidance from the varying animal clubs and rescues. I would like to see them sold with up front honesty. I would like to see that owners are checked in some way - even if it's a case of making sure they don't leave without a properly sized cage (or bring a photo like some RSPCA branches ask). I would like to see "charity donations" mean exactly that, not funding for the business's mistakes. I would like to see surplus stock in their sale area, and their adoption areas left for genuine rescues, handins, etc. I would like to see animals in the shop or adoption area suitably housed with company if appropriate (with rats it's essential), shelter and no bright lighting. I would like to see them allow potential owners to handle a pet before adopting one. I would like to see them take responsibility for pregnant and poorly animals, not for them to be on sale. I would like to see them properly treated for lice and mites before being sold. I would like to see them properly sexed and separated at appropriate ages.

 

None of this would make it okay to me to sell animals in a petshop. However, it's not misleading anyone.

Edited July 31, 2007 by KathyM

[Jacobean]

So you are saying that they are making a profit on the sale of these rodents. That they are saying they are giving the adoption monies to rescues but are in actual fact keeping the monies themselves?

[KathyM]

By buying pets from any pet store you are keeping the breeding farms in business. Plain and simple. When I say you I mean you in general not you personally Kathy.

 

Just to add, why not? It's absolutely true! I may not have supported them directly, and they'll have missed out financially in this particular either or situation. However, by removing them from the shop's responsibility I did support the practice itself - not in feeling, but in money. I can't argue against that one bit, it's absolutely true what you said. I do have difficulty balancing up how bad I feel about that with how bloomin' relieved I am that these 13 are safe and in fantastic, loving homes. But I'm a hypocrite none-the-less!

 

So you are saying that they are making a profit on the sale of these rodents. That they are saying they are giving the adoption monies to rescues but are in actual fact keeping the monies themselves?

 

Nope - they said themselves that money from the charity is used for the care (veterinary at least) of animals in the adoption scheme. I'm trying to ascertain at the moment whether that includes animals which never left their care in the first place - animals that they as a business (not the charity) should be responsible for financially.

[Wendbert]

Although I'm sure everyone know's the chain of pet shop's being referred to, please refrain from posting the company name

[Trallwm farm]

I wonder how many people will buy them BECAUSE they are cheaper. Its worrying if the pets are ill or pregnant and people who would not normarily be allowed to adopt from a bonafide sanctuary, have seen a way of not paying full price because they dont have the means to pay or keep a pet in good order.

 

Whatever anyone views it doesnt seem right to portray this as being done purely for welfare reasons when in fact its a clever marketing ploy to sway buyers through the door.

[cycas]

The whole thing is wrong. Pet shops should not have a stock of animals for sale to anyone who walks into the shop with cash, end of story. This whole thing about what happens if the animals come back in or can't be sold is just a distraction.

 

If you disapprove of pet shops selling animals, stop shopping there and send them a letter explaining why, and tell them exactly how much money you have taken elsewhere as a result. Do not buy anything from them, not toys, not food, not even cat litter.

 

Get your relatives and friends to do the same. Take practical action that will hurt them in their dividends

 

I feel that anyone who is contributing directly to the profits of the company by buying from them does not have the moral high ground when it comes to telling rescues that they should be refusing donations that will benefit needy animals.

 

You cannot save the world all at once. Start in one place, and work up!

Edited July 31, 2007 by cycas

[GSDFan]

I wonder how many people will buy them BECAUSE they are cheaper. Its worrying if the pets are ill or pregnant and people who would not normarily be allowed to adopt from a bonafide sanctuary, have seen a way of not paying full price because they dont have the means to pay or keep a pet in good order.

 

Whatever anyone views it doesnt seem right to portray this as being done purely for welfare reasons when in fact its a clever marketing ploy to sway buyers through the door.

 

 

 

We seem to be in agreement on this one

[KathyM]

The whole thing is wrong. Pet shops should not have a stock of animals for sale to anyone who walks into the shop with cash, end of story. This whole thing about what happens if the animals come back in or can't be sold is just a distraction.

 

If you disapprove of pet shops selling animals, stop shopping there and send them a letter explaining why, and tell them exactly how much money you have taken elsewhere as a result. Do not buy anything from them, not toys, not food, not even cat litter.

 

Get your relatives and friends to do the same. Take practical action that will hurt them in their dividends

 

I feel that anyone who is contributing directly to the profits of the company by buying from them does not have the moral high ground when it comes to telling rescues that they should be refusing donations that will benefit needy animals.

 

You cannot save the world all at once. Start in one place, and work up!

 

 

Couldn't agree more. Should point out at this point I don't buy from them though *lol*.

[AmandaUK]

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.

 

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.

 

I agree very much with you and wonder if those members involved with rescue would like the rescues they represent or help, linked with this kind of stunt?

because I for one consider this does not reflect well on the rescues that are holding out their hands for the donations these poor little critters are bringing in. I question the ethics of the well known charities that are benefittting. They have lost a lot of credibility in my eyes and to a good few people I know, who are aware of this "adoption scheme."

 

They are simply recycling the animals that they sell and that are returned, as well as the animals that grow too big to be cute anymore and so lose their sale value.

 

Pet shops have no place within the animal welfare field, they are the source of so many unwanted small animals. A shop is not the place to keep animals.

 

If it were puppies we were talking about here, there would be a riot. Don't small furries deserve the same concern?

[KathyM]

I came away from this thread last night with the belief that *I* must be odd as I feel this way about it. I was convinced that if people here didn't seem bothered, I was maybe a bit of a fruitloop. I am so, so relieved to see other people saying what I was trying to (and in much better words, thanks!). Maybe I'm not crackers after all (at least not about this!).

 

Edited to add: Forgot to say that I've had a reply to my email asking questions. They're going to contact me with a response from the charity themselves after they're met at the end of the week.

Edited August 1, 2007 by KathyM

[cycas]

If it were puppies we were talking about here, there would be a riot. Don't small furries deserve the same concern?

 

When UK petshops sell puppies, people get angry about that anyway.

 

The issue is not with the 'recycling' of pets, or with the company making charitable donations. The issue is that they are selling small animals at all.

 

Like it or not, the majority of people, even rescue-aware people who care deeply about animals will buy from pet shops that have small animals on sale. They do not object enough to the practice to stop shopping there, even if they wouldn't buy an animal there.

 

You are quite right that they probably wouldn't do so if there were puppies or kittens on sale.

 

I don't see that it is worse for a rescue to accept money from a company that sells animals, than it is, for example, for them to buy in pet food that is made of factory farmed chicken. In fact, that's probably worse: the factory farmed chicken producers are actually getting paid for their work, whereas a pet shop making a donation is giving away money. How many rescues are able to afford to feed their animals exclusively on food that doesn't come from factory farmed animals?

 

If the rescues refused this money, what practical good do would that do? How many animals would it help? Would it stop the store from selling animals? Would it stop unwanted, too-old animals being killed off? Would it mean they took their responsibilities more seriously?

 

No. They would find another charity to give the money to, or retain it themselves, or set up their own 'rescue' that would do what they wanted it to do: ie, make them look caring and involved.

 

I don't see how it would help a single animal for rescues to just turn their back and refuse to be involved. I CAN see that independent rescues getting involved could help animals.

 

Blaming the rescues is putting the cart before the horse. They aren't causing the problem, they aren't encouraging it, unlike all the people that buy from the shop and keep the profits coming in, or the people that work there, or the people that own the business. All they are doing is accepting a donation from a business, that, like it or not, the majority of pet owners are prepared to support with their cash.

 

Should rescues refuse to rehome to people who buy their pet beds and dogfood from petshops that sell small animals too?

Edited August 1, 2007 by cycas

[KathyM]

But it's not a simple case of the rescues having said yes to money rather than no. It's that by putting their names to this, they actively endorse the whole scenario, including the misleading at best sale of surplus stock. I completely agree with your questions about food, BUT you don't go to the food suppliers and see rescue labels saying "Supoort battery farming - we work alongside X rescue" do you?

 

This isn't about the rescues taking the money, to me at least. I've accepted that it's a bit dodgey and I don't like it, but money is money. It's about them putting their names to a scheme that endorses and continues the wrongful trade of farmed animals.