A common trend that i saw across multiple sites was that ownership would not be transferred EVER or it would be, after a substantial amount of time (like 5+ years).
just a question from the devil… does the Rescue carry insurance on the horse for when their horse kills some adopter’s kid? or severely injures some body?
Many rescues have “adoption fees” that are equal to or greater than what you would pay to just go out and buy a horse. There is one place in my area that I might consider getting a horse from but I’m not currently looking for another horse. That organization appears to be run by respected and knowledgeable horse people but I’d still want to make sure their contract didn’t have any unreasonable clauses.
For me, any restrictions on what I can do with the horse–if I have to get approval for the place I board, the vet I use, the trainer I use, what I do with the horse, where I can take the horse, what veterinary care I can or cannot give the horse without prior approval (including whether I can euthanize the horse or must get approval for that), etc.
Either trust my team and I to make good decisions for the horse or don’t give me the horse at all.
Or, at a minimum, have a reasonable “trust but verify” period and turn over full ownership after that period (no more than 2 years, IMO).
I can absolutely understand why a rescue might put in place any one of these types of restrictions I listed and how they might feel it is in the best interest of the horse. I can absolutely understand how other people might be perfectly willing to care for the horse with those types of restrictions in place. I recognize that they may be too draconian for me, but they may be perfectly acceptable to others. That’s why I donate time/money/goods to a few rescues that I feel have pretty reasonable policies and approach to care, even if I personally wouldn’t want to sign their contract.
FWIW, I don’t like leasing (from either end) for the same reasons. I want all control over care or none; I don’t like ownership by committee.
Most do have adoption fees (my local rescue charges a couple hundred bucks, and delivers the horse to your door for that sum) but there are limits on how big these fees can be before the organization loses nonprofit status.
A rescue is not, after all, a business. Their job is to care for old/sick/abused animals that nobody wants, and, peripherally, to place a few horses that are deemed suitable and safe for adoption to approved homes.
The rescue’s prime responsibility is to the animals themselves, not to unvetted people who simply want an animal for cheap. For those people, there are plenty of other avenues for straightforward, unencumbered sales, sometimes as cheap or cheaper than a rescue.
I’ve never seen a horse for free from a rescue. Free on Craigslist, yes. But not a rescue. In fact, around here, you are looking at 800-1200 for a rescue horse. Not free in my book.
If a horse was free from a rescue, I would have serious qualms about the rescue’s ability to function.
Most rescues I personally know of make the bulk of their money through fundraisers and grants of various kinds, not through adoption fees. They can’t, in fact, legally buy and sell horses for profit and retain their non-profit status.
I myself would be highly skeptical of any place that saw it’s mission as a “business”.
Red Barn, you are right in post 86. Which is why they aren’t any higher on the fee, and that actually is almost certainly a loss unless the horse was adopted so fast that the place’s vet and farrier never saw it and it didn’t eat much. Which is absurd. So yes, the fee is a loss and therefore not-for-profit. But, that isn’t free.
Is a non-profit a business? In my opinion, as a board member on several non-profits, it should be run as such. But its business is the care of the horses. However, in my opinion, unduly restrictive policies (I am in favor of some, as I stated) on adoption harm that business model by not effectively using resources. And one of those resources for the business (taking care of the horses) is ensuring a broad group of people who are willing to take care of the horses.
This conversation is ironic, as I just spent the morning at a tack sale at a local horse rescue. They have a horse there that I would love to have, a rather massive youngish draft with shoes who must be a drain on the budget. Totally healthy. They’ve had him several years. The business model of taking care of the horses would be best served by moving that horse on.
Hey, my volunteer work at the rescue consists mainly of installing enough basic training to make the healthy young ones adoptable by non-pros, so yes - your point isn’t lost on me at all.
It’s always better for the rescue’s bottom line when a horse goes to a good home. No question about it.
My point, though, is that this is a lot trickier than most here seem to think. The number of people who claim to be offering an excellent home and intelligent care, but turn out to be con artists, paupers, morons or abusers is staggering. I know this because I’ve seen it myself.
But if a person really is offering a great home, and demonstrates good care over the course of years, believe me - the rescue will almost certainly lighten up considerably. I’ve seen that too - with my own adopted mini, and with other people who keep in close touch with the rescue. And why on earth wouldn’t it? Exactly as you say, lessening the number of horses the rescue has to feed and care for is a real net positive every time.
Red Barn, Agree! 
I guess I am just wary of contracts with such clauses and shifting enforcement, I’ve seen that go very bad, not in the horse world, but elsewhere for all parties. Nothing good comes from a law suit because a use restriction clause was enforced on one person and not enforced on another person. Especially when the clause was dubious at best anyway. The non-profit in question lost very, very badly.
I also think that a large number of knowledgeable, competent potential homes are totally turned off by all the restrictions and therefore won’t consider adopting from a rescue, and instead go elsewhere so that they can just buy a horse outright. Most experienced horse people realize there are a ton of good horses out there, so it’s easier to find a similar horse for a similar price that doesn’t have a million strings attached. Some may be willing to agree to all the stipulation, but I’ll bet they are a significant minority.
I know that I personally would be very unlikely to consider adopting, even if I were just looking for a light riding trail/family horse, simply because it’s a pain in the ass to jump through all the hoops and consent to having people show up unannounced to check up on me when are plenty of other nice horses in need of good homes.
I guess it depends on the rescues’ priorities. By placing fewer restrictions on potential adopters and future uses/ownership of the horse, they would be able to help more horses, but they wouldn’t be able to be 100% certain the horses would never end up in bad situations several years/owners later. By retaining ownership and putting lots of restrictions on the horse’s use and having the right to take the horse back at any time for any reason, they can be absolutely certain that the horse won’t end up in a bad situation again, but they will only be able to help a smaller number of horses overall.
Oh, I get it. I really do.
I’m sure we could also have a long, fun-filled conversation about all the so-called “rescues” that have turned out to be bat-shit crazy hoarders who shouldn’t be entrusted with a pet cockroach, but I’m supposed to be doing cold, tedious chores outside . . . Rats.
Our humane society did not, but our “non-custodial” evaluation period was quite short. We did our homework ahead of time and once it was done it was done.
Those that keep title? I don’t know.
G.
That is a common misconception, a rescue must be ran as a business if it wants to stay in operation.
http://factmyth.com/factoids/nonprofits-cant-make-a-profit/
LOL
I’m sure Bill Gates manages to profit from nonprofits, but I know very few legitimate horse rescues who pay “generous salaries” to anybody.
Do you?
What does paying generous salaries have to do with what you said when you incorrectly stated it was illegal for them to make a profit?
It’s from your link:
In other words, a non-profit isn’t going to be the same as a for-profit public company, but they care just as much about the bottom line as any other company, can reward their employees generously (within reason), and can most certainly make a profit while enjoying a tax-exempt status. This is perfect for businesses whose ends were non-profit anyway, like those who are trying to influence national and global policy
Beyond that, I think you and I will simply have to agree to disagree. Any reputable article on the subject you can find (and I’ll provide as many as you like) stresses the fact that rescues exist to help animals, not to enrich rescuers.
Running the operation sensibly and sustainably, sure. If you don’t do that, you’ll simply close. But charging enough in adoption fees to pay “generously” or somehow “influence global or national policy”?
LOL. No. I think this link is talking about a whole 'nother world of nonprofits.
Ok you can agree that there is a pretend law that states it’s illegal for a non profit to make a profit and I will disagree since that simply is untrue. You really think a rescue buys a horse at auction for $400 and must adopt/sell it for $399 or less or they are breaking the law? What about if someone donates a horse for free? Do they have to pay someone a dollar to take him? We all make mistakes, why not own up to this one, as I said it’s a common misconception so you have plenty of company who doesn’t know that is incorrect as well, it’s no big deal?
When folks here say “non-profit” what do they mean? Lots of small, local “social clubs” that have dues to support the club activities (tailgating, monthly “knife and fork” societies, group travel to sporting events, etc.) are “not for profit” in that their dues are sufficient to pay the expenses of the club (web site, news letter, etc.). Or maybe folks mean “not for profit” under IRC Sec. 501(3)©. That is a VERY different thing and must meet strict requirements.
As for salaries, the American Red Cross is a 501(3)© entity and pays it’s CEO $500,000/annum. The Salvation Army pays $13,000. So there can be quite a range.
A 501(3)© non-profit has to bring in at least enough to pay the bills and if it is prudent enough to give some “cushion” against increased demands for its service or a decline in revenue. If it raises money it has to meet some objective standards in what it pays it’s staff and administration, spends on fund raising, and actually spends to support its stated goals. If it fails to give enough to its intended beneficiaries then that tax-exempt status can be revoked and some big tax liabilities fall upon the wrongdoers. And, to make life really interesting, I seem to remember that the IRS can go back and audit donors who deducted contributions to the entity and deny the deduction and assess penalties and interest even if they were made in good faith. I remember this from tax courses I’ve taken in the past; I have not researched current law.
IIRC it’s a felony to claim 501(3)© status if it is not actually held.
Charities are a great way to scam, finance a hoarding habit, or engage in other financial shenanigans. I have run across one or two in my lifetime. In the late '60s and '70s getting a “mail order religious ordination” and then forming a church was a frequent scam.
Certainly a non-profit business must be run as a business and that mean it has to take in at least as much, and maybe a reasonable amount more, than it spends. As long as the numbers are reasonable there won’t be any trouble with The Authorities.
G.
Oh, please.
I never said that a nonprofit can never, ever, come out ahead by a few bucks. I said that there are limits on how much they can charge for donated animals without becoming a retail broker and losing their nonprofit status. If you don’t believe this, just look at the incredible complexity of tax law around this stuff and see for yourself.
Are you just bored or something?
I like that capital A in “Authorities”. Very Kafkaesque.
In fact, though, there seems to be an increasing number of so-called “retail rescues” either pocketing donated funds or using them to buy and sell animals for private profit, and The Authorities seem to be having a hard time keeping up. To try and counter this, reputable rescues suggest potential adopters be reasonably skeptical when checking out any rescue:
https://www.hanaeleh.org/ways-to-ide…-horse-rescue/
I think this is a pretty good list, and I’d be skeptical of any place that was lacking on too many of these points.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
