spiritdogs
Posted : 10/12/2009 9:35:10 AM
AgileGSD
BEVOLASVEGAS
However, if you got your puppy/dog from a breeder, a pet shop, WalMart parking lot, flea market, your neighbor......... I'm sure I missed a few but you get my point. If you paid money then you BOUGHT a puppy. You didn't adopt it. You didn't rescue it. You bought it.
Really you bought the dog no matter where you got it, unless it was free. There is a rescue here that charges $400++ for dogs they "rescue" from auctions. The use of the word "adopt" is not really accurate when describing obtaining animals. Of course, it has become politically incorrect in this country to buy a dog which is probably a large reason why people prefer to say "adopt" instead. And the term certainly appeals to people who have dogs in place of children.
I agree with Bevo, and this post does concern me, because, while I agree that rescues should not be buying dogs for resale, the fact is that many rescues bail dogs from shelters or from private situations when the dog needs help. It isn't the size of the adoption fee that is concerning, it's the fact of how they are getting the dogs. Some very reputable rescues with high adoption fees have those high fees because they are willing to do extensive health care, transport, and spay/neuter which other rescues do not necessarily do, or have the funds for. I have gotten most of my dogs for a small donation to a local shelter - I think I gave $75 when I adopted Sioux (that is the biggest bargain I ever got in my entire life in terms of a donation). But, I fully understand, having just dished out $100 out of my own pocket to get a dog from here to another state to his forever home, without any possibility of reimbursement, that these services are not cheap any longer. One dog I adopted came from a shelter, and once I had her and took her to a vet, she tested positive for heartworm - I treated her and paid for it - in those days (1981), still more than $250. Had a rescue done so, should they not have been reimbursed, so that they would continue to have funds to help other dogs???
By the way, many of us who don't have children still do not consider our dogs to be "substitutes" - if I wanted kids, I'd have had them. You could start a whole new thread on whether people wanted their dogs for that reason, but this isn't it, and frankly, I resent generalizations about childless people the same way I resent generalizations about only children, people who live in trailers, or those who own German Shepherds (yes, you know there is a stereotype about people who own so-called K-9 breeds). So, could we just stick to the facts?