Im now getting to the stage of being a bit shocked. Talk of costs, vets bills etc. No matter where you get a dog from you will "always" have to bear in mind that at some point you will have to pay money out.

Of course the dogs your respOnsibility & your dog once you adopt & take it into your life & home, no one least of all the rescue is saying it isnt! What they are "asking" & ask you to sign a cintract for, is that should the need arise sometime in tbe future if you can no longer care for the dog that they are informed - they may have a waiting list of people wanting to adopt, someone you could meet & possibily "like" to take the dog on. So much the better if the dog stays in the home its used to until such an adoption takes place.

Most of the time a lot dont want to which is why there is the clause that the dog goes back to rescue should the need arise.

To me, whether a rescue contract is enforceable legally is totally irrelevant. When you sign such a contract with a rescue organisation, you are agreeing to that contract. Any honourable person will then be morally (if not legally) bound to honour that contract.
If you don't like the contract, simple - don't rehome a dog from that particular rescue!!!

Well said Mick!

H reading between the lines again, you may be worrying about something which will never happen.

I think I would contact the rescue concerned and have a chat with them explaining your worries, this may help to remove some of them from your mind.x

The reason I am talking of it is someone else's statement that adopters are essentially long-term foster homes while the rescue retains ownership. Every foster person I know doesn't pay vet expenses and often don't even pay for food or training. So if a rescue really does think they still own the dog and their adopters are really "long term foster" people then they should be the one paying for everything.

Obviously as an adopter I expect to pay all those bills, but I also expect to be able to say the dog is 100% mine, not just that I'm taking care of it for someone else.

In some instances they do - again i am speaking for the small/er rescues i am involved with. If there is a long term problem & the rescue knows about it, they can offer finnancial support if there is someone interested in adopting
the dog.

And that's nice of them, but that still doesn't make someone a long-term foster as they're not paying THAT person to keep the dog. Otherwise that person's financial status wouldn't matter since the rescue paid for all.

Do you really see nothing wrong at all with a rescue retaining ownership and calling their adopters "long-term foster homes" yet at the same time expecting those "long term foster homes" who don't actually own their dogs to pay for everything?

I dont think its fair to say long term foster homes, however rescues only have the dogs best interests at heart. They enplace trust in you when they allow you to have one of their precious little tykes. Its only right to adhere to a contract you have agreed upon.

I know breeders who have taken back pups from people they dont believe are meeting their contract, so I dont see why rescues cant do the same.

Rescues do home checks all of the time, therefore are likely to have a better understanding of what they believe is best for the dog, than someone emotionally attached to the dog.

Out of interest, does anyone know if ownership is actually handed over? I know when giving up a dog they need to sign ownership, would people take a contract as signing over ownership?

I wouldn't consider adopting a dog from a rescue that doesn't state in their contract that the dog should be returned to them if the adopter could no longer keep it. After all, wouldn't we all bash a breeder as "bad" if they didn't state the same thing on a contract when we buy a puppy


Jann xx