That last paragraph is your opinion. I know a few rescues who have what many here would consider ‘strict’ contracts and they very much DO want to adopt. What they do not want is to have to re-rescue an animal they have already put so much time, energy and money into to save in the first place. A contract endeavors to protect the animal. That’s a good thing.
1 Like
I would very much love to see which horses get leased by people who are above the levels of the horses. In a world flooded with unwanted horses, I need to congratulate the leaser to manage such feat.
And of course that is my opinion. Is there anything here that are not “opinions?”. Yeah, my opinion says that regardless what they say they want to do, it is their actions that ultimately say what they want to do. A evaluation of an potential adopter is one thing; a clause to dictate the future of the animals being adopted is another. I’m not sure whether the “they don’t want to re-rescue the animals” reasoning flies. They don’t want to re-rescue the animals, but they are happy to perpetually rescuing the same animals? It’s a paradox you see. As long as the animals are under the care of an “rescue,” that animals are being “rescued” in that duration. Wanting control of the animals is the mindset of an ownership.
Yep.
I volunteer at a local rescue, and adopted a mini from there, and this is exactly the case for them. The rescue’s managers visit adopted horses every year, and I was absolutely astonished to learn how many of these poor beasts have to be taken back or hunted down wherever the adopter dumped them when they or their kids got bored.
I understand that the limitations might be annoying, but them’s the breaks. If you’re dealing with a respectable rescue, there’s probably some pretty specific reason for every rule, no matter how odd it might seem at first blush.
1 Like
No, custody of a horse is not ‘rescuing’ and a rescue or sanctuary who has animals who live at the rescue facility longterm or forever are not ‘perpetually rescuing’ them. They are caring for them.
1 Like
I don’t have a problem with humane euthanasia. I am actually not a fan of no-kill shelters that warehouse animals for years in kennels. Many of these cats and dogs live years in a shelter with minimal contact with people. I don’t think that warehousing companion animals is necessarily a better solution. Quite frankly there is such a large overpopulation of adoptable animals compared to the number of appropriate available homes I am not totally adverse to humanely euthanizing an animal. We have limited money to care for all the unwanted animals. Animals do not have the same concept of future that we do.
I don’t like the term bigotry in this application but to go along with it I don’t have a problem with bigotry. The shelter/rescues owns that animal. They should be able to sell/place that animal with anyone they want to or not place an animal with them. I would actually hope that if you sell one of your horses or any other animal you practice a little bigotry. If not then you should have to sell that animal to anyone that walks through the door with the cash even if you know they have a history of animal abuse. (bigotry- intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.). I hope that you have an intolerance to those that abuse animals.
Once again there are plenty of horses/cats/dogs available through sources other than a shelter or rescue. Go BUY one from them if you don’t want to follow the rules of the rescue or jump through their hoops.
For those local no-kill shelters with their hands out don’t donate to them if you don’t like their particular policies.
G- even though I quoted you this next part is not just directed at you. For those that feel many rescues have draconion policies or overly strict clauses what is too strict? Not allowing a mare to be bred? Requiring a fenced yard? Checking with your vet to verify that your current animals are UTD on shots? Not allowing dogs or certain dogs to be adopted into a family with young children? Verifying with the landlord that pets are allowed?
What you consider strict I might consider good husbandry. What you consider invasive to your privacy I might consider good due diligence.
I have found a number of cats and dogs over the years that I have fostered and adopted out. I do have a simple adoption contract that I have them sign. I keep in touch with the adopters. I check with their vet to make sure their animals are current on shots. For dogs in residencial areas I verify that they have a fenced yard. If it was going to be a farm dog that is different.
In exchange for that they have the peace of mind I will take that animal back no questions asked. I have gotten 2 cats back and 1 dog back. The one cat never fit into the household so I took him back after abut a month. One cat the owners got their house foreclosed. They could not find housing that allowed for 2 dogs and 2 cats. They had Holly for 4 years. The owners of the dogs got a little weird as they got older and the house became a high stress household. The dog started to submissive pee so they would yell at her so she would pee. They then claimed it was spiteful. So I took her back after 3 or 4 years.
3 Likes
^ Right on, Sonny’sMom . :yes:
Yes, exactly.
Funny how many people here sound outright resentful because hardworking rescue organizations won’t just give them a horse with no strings attached!
Nobody owes you a pony, little girl. 
3 Likes
I’m the president of a rescue, and their field services manager. We only take in animals that come to us through local law enforcement, i.e. cruelty cases, abandonments, etc. We don’t take owner surrenders. Point being, we see the worst of the worst.
Our contract is what I would consider medium restrictive. Mares can’t be bred, horses can’t be sold, and a certain level of care is required (vaccinations, feet, teeth). We do do an annual check. At the base of it, what we ask is for to be kept in the loop. We have allowed horses to move out of state, allowed horses to be rehomed BUT always with our involvement. We vet the new owners, vet the new facilities, but we are all horsemen and we recognize a good owner.
In the rare instance we have taken a horse back, it was for VERY good reason. One we had to euthanize almost immediately, after it was injured and the adopter did not want to spring for appropriate vet care, one had become elderly and required a level of food and care that the adopter was not giving. That one was re-adopted and is thriving.
We’ve also had a horse returned, and while the reasons were a little hard to swallow, we did it no questions asked as re-adopted him into a fabulous home.
We see the worst of the worst. I’ve seen horses literally on their last legs. Held them as they died. Seen horrific callousness. So yes, we get a little protective and defensive.
But, every rescue has different criteria, and so you can simply look for one whose ethics coincide with your own.
Or, you can go to any auction or troll craigslist, and find horses in just as much need that you can own free and clear and do whatever you like with.
At the end of the day, if you are keeping a horse well, giving it good care and seeing to its needs, you are doing the right thing. Period. Where it came from, and how it came to you is unimportant. Good luck with whatever you decide!
7 Likes
You adopt children; you buy or lease animals. The idea that you can “adopt” an animal is nonsense. If you want to do the “rose by any other name” defense then why not just conform to normal commercial/legal standards?
I “get” the “we don’t want to re-rescue” issue but if you’re going to do these restrictive contracts then you either commit to enforcing them (which will mean hiring attorneys or getting someone to do pro bono work for you) or you don’t. If you don’t obtain counsel you have NO legal route to enforce them. I’ve yet to see a “rescue” that did site visits even for horses besides the one I was VP at. I happened to know the person who received the animal but did a site visit anyway. Maybe others do and I’ve just never heard of them If a rescue is serious about the “no re-rescue” issue then that’s what really needs to happen.
The “bigotry” is saying “all barn owners are unworthy because they starve and mistreat their cats and therefore we won’t deal with them.”
I concur that before you deal with one of these places you have to do your due diligence.
G.
2 Likes
I just wanted to point out that as one of the posters that said they won’t adopt from rescues, I actually have donated a good amount of time and money to them (training, transporting, networking, photographing, nutritional planning, evaluations, etc). I just do not want a horse with strings attached and I certainly don’t think I’m owed a pony. I did try to adopt from a well known organization at one point in time, their major hang up that they would not make an exception for? Oh that my brother was my farrier. Didn’t matter that he works on international caliber sport horses, that he has documented education, that he is recommended by several vets and my horses all have amazing feet- nope they wouldn’t budge.
3 Likes
Mine in red
1 Like
^ No kidding.
@angela Freda, Interesting. So did you restrict your horse so that the dressage rider that lease your horse is prohibited from taking him/her to a dressage show? Did your horse need extensive work before he/she is ready to be mounted? Did the leaser pay you a fee on top of assuming the upkeep of the horses? Did anyone lease a trail horse that cannot be trail ridden? Did you tell your leaser," Now he is yours, but I will dictate how you may use him?"
Do you take donations for the horses that are leased out, as well as those that are still in your care?
I would assume not.
How do the “rescues” care for the rescued horses without the generous donations of others?
Leases are not adoptions.
If you want to run a rescue and actually want the animals to be adopted, you have to accept that some animals will not have an happy ending, and you will probably need to step in to intervene, however heart breaking it is. These are the kinds of rescues that deserve full support of the generous donors. The alternative is, to keep all animals in your strict controls, and don’t adopt them out, because guess what? Some of us who might be inclined to take in an animal in need are super busy, and simply don’t have time or inclinations to deal with nonsense.
1 Like
You summed up my feelings perfectly! Some of this spills over into pet rescues too. Then everyone wonders why no one is adopting…
3 Likes
How about, there are lots of roads to Rome, and what you seek and what a rescue might offer/allow don’t have to mesh to both be ‘ok’ and acceptable.
In the end you both, the rescue and you the person seeking a horse, have the choice to not ‘do business’ as it were, if you don’t agree on terms you both decide you can live with.
2 Likes
I follow a local turtle/tortoise rescue and they have some stipulation about providing proof of address by doing something along the lines of including a piece of addressed mail in a photo of your yard. Seems really weird and intrusive, but my guess is that they’ve had issues with people taking pictures of friend’s yards with nice big open areas, when they actually live in a townhouse with a postage stamp yard, or an apartment or something, and are looking to adopt a sulcata (which are in the neighborhood of 100 pounds when mature).
2 Likes
@angela Freda, My goalpost is, “you don’t lease a horse below your level.” When a person leases your horse, she expects to get something out of it. In your case, she expects to learn something from your horse.
Wow. That’s interesting.
But yeah: people do incredibly stupid, thoughtless, short-sighted shit. This is what the Gimme-My-Pony faction seems to missing.
1 Like
Interesting…so what is reasonable? as someone who found the rescues’ requests unreasonable and therefore apparently believes the universe owes me a pony, I’ll give a stab at answering…
Reasonable: vet and farrier references, credit check, appropriate fencing/living area determined by a site visit if needed, no breeding clause.
Unreasonable: requests for multiple visits before adoption, no showing clauses, other no use clauses not dictated by the horse’s physical limitations, requirement for 24-7 turnout, requirement for a specific style of fencing, reserving a right to visit the horse at any time in the future unannounced, reserving a right to seize the horse at any time in the future should vague clauses about welfare (beyond and including those explicitly stated) not be met to satisfaction (also not defined), said right of seizure not contestable, requests for information about who else lives on the property, requests to meet those people, requests about employment history.
Those aren’t by the way all from one rescue, but they are all clauses I’ve encountered.
4 Likes
If somebody’s giving you something for free, “reasonable” is whatever they say it is. If you don’t like that (and I’ll readily admit that a couple of the things you listed wouldn’t be acceptable to me either) you go somewhere else and BUY a horse.
I guess I just don’t see what’s wrong with that.
2 Likes
Which is not any different from someone who adopts a horse from a rescue organization that they may never own outright, but still enjoy while they are steward of the horse.
