From the home page ...was there before and is back now...

Why we are not a registered charity
Many Tears is a home based rescue. Basically that means Sylvia and I run this rescue from our house and the rescue operates off our property.
In addition to owning the land and running the rescue, we also operate a boarding business from this same property. The boarding business is how I put our dinner on the table at night. So now we have us, a business, and the rescue, all sharing our house and this property.
For us it works, we all help each other out. If the rescue staff is behind, I will have my boarding staff help walk their dogs. The rescue dog dishes are cleaned inside my laundry / utility kitchen. If the rescue van is out and a dog needs to go to the off site Vet, I take it in my truck. For us it just works, but in the eyes of the Charity Commission, this sharing of the property is quite complicated. The rescue can benefit from my business, or us, or our house and property, but if they ever feel that we personally benefit from the rescue, we have crossed the line.

The other day the tumble dryer in the rescue broke, as they go through much more laundry then the boarders do, I had James pull the dryer from my boarding laundry room and move it to the rescue office- No big deal , crisis sorted ! But, Sylvia is away and I am swamped so I still have not had a chance to go buy a new tumble dryer yet. A boarder is checking out and we washed their bedding and hung it out, but it is still damp, so I run it over to the rescue side and pop it in the tumble drier. No problem, all sorted. Now imagine- my tumble drier breaks and I run a load of bedding over to the rescue side to borrow their drier, again no problem. But what if we were a registered charity? I have just benefited from the charity by using their dryer. Now our little "no problem" becomes a big problem in the eyes of the Commission. As we all share the property we have loads of little "no problems"here. But everything gets done and the rescue still does a pretty good job and everyone here is a happy family. But If we were a registered charity we could no longer operate like this. We would have to legally and formally restructure the entire rescue operation and Sylvia and I would no longer control the rescue. We would have to have lease agreements and legal doccuments drawn up protecting us from the rescue and the rescue from us. If we ever slipped up and handled a "little problem", we could be seen to be benefiting from the charity in the eyes of the Commission; AND the Charity Commission ultimately has the power to dissolve charities, confiscate their endowments and assets and give them to a charity whose aims the Commission approves. Although very unlikely, we did not want to take this risk with our rescue and chose not to become registered. (Don't think it could really happen- look into the history of Redwings Horse Sanctuary).

Still we get questioned, and then told how much more money the rescue could raise if it were registered. So, we have again taken considerable advise regarding this issue and even with taking our particular factors into account it could be done. The process of securing registration has been estimated at a legal cost of £7500 to £11,000 to the rescue. Although it has been suggested that by spending this money we would "have an increased legitimacy in the eyes of the public which would allow easier fundraising" ( legal jargin ) , Sylvia and I would rather not spend the rescue's money on solicitors and bureaucrats to try to prove we are legit. We feel that we already try very hard to show our legitimacy to the public and our supporters- we are open to the public for inspection 365 days a year, we are a registered company-not for profit (no. 6200947), our books are done by a professional accountant, we are fully insured, we are VAT registered. we are licensed and inspected by the local authority. We have an open door policy and invite anyone wishing to criticize or question us to come see what we do and how we do it. We can prove and account for our personal spending. Basically, we try to do it right already. We just try to do it while living here and with our family of staff and supporters. For those of you who have been here and still feel that we are a legitimate rescue without being a registered charity- thank you for trusting us and beleiving in us. For those who have never made it here- Please come see what we do before writing us off over a registration number. We are aware of the financial benefits that come with being a registered charity, but are also aware of the downside and because of the bueaurocracy involved have decided not to pursue this course of action for Many Tears at this time.

Thank you
Bill VanAtta

If many tears didn't take the ex breeding dogs then im sure they would be hit over the head with a shovel and dumped in a pit same as they always have been, its a hard one as the goverment is the only body that can change the law and make puppy farms illegal not a rescue - if many tears don't take the dogs then its no trouble to the puppy farmer as he just ends that dogs life same as he always has, he continues breeding and continues causing misery to hundreds of dogs.
Surely its similar to the greyhound racing industry if rescues didn't take retired greyhounds do you think the trainers breeding them would suddenly stop because they had nowhere to get rid of their unwanted dogs?

Same as back yard breeders if rescues didn't take in any dogs and all were put to sleep if they didn't have a home would people stop breeding - no.

That's up to the puppy farmer. But:

• They will find it hard to 'get rid' (which is a good thing)
• They might be forced to break the law (which again is a good thing - as profiteering unethically is one thing, having to break the law is another).
• Overall things will be more difficult (again a plus point) from worry/upset (if they break the law) to the inconvenience (them being there longer) to everything else that taking 'bad stock' of their hands makes easier for them.

Maybe all of that will get them to THINK long and hard about what they're doing or better still put them off.

I don't think anyone would be in any doubt that making things easier for them will result in them more likely to carry on, whereas making things harder for them will make them think twice.

We have laws against that. That's half of the point - it will force them to do things like that, ie break the law, and as mentioned in my post above, an unethical business is one thing, breaking the law is another.

We do have laws but how many puppy farmers are in prison from getting rid of their unwanted dogs?

Im sure many tears don't take dogs from every puppy farmer around the country and if we are to assume that many tears is a making puppy farmers life alot easier where did all the no longer usefull dogs end up before many tears started?
And what do other puppy farmers around the country do?

Even if the puppy farmers have a vet put all their unwanted dogs to sleep is that preferable to them going to many tears and finding a home - if thats what you believe should happen then why do normal rescues not just euthanise any dogs they take in that are no longer wanted by thier owners?

No it wont they will just use a bolt gun - cheap and legal but not always accurate.

Now that really doesn't sit easy with me. These poor breeding 'machines', still could have a good life in an adopted home. But it's better they were killed, to try and stop the PFs business?

Exactly Azz and if you or I had to hand over a dog owned in such condition we would be prosecuted asap imo

Who says it's legal to kill a dog or cat with a bolt gun?

The RSPCA do it.
Don`t you remember the GSDs they killed?
http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2009/S...0909/rspca.htm