# 1,000 dogs rescued from WVA kennel



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1239512424

Or: 
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2008/08/1000-dogs-rescu.html

It was a witch hunt, according to the owner. 



> Quote: PARKERSBURG, W.Va. (AP) — The longtime owner of a Parkersburg-area dog kennel has surrendered her approximately 1,000 dogs to humane officials after authorities executed a search warrant on the property over the weekend.
> 
> Sharon Roberts, who has operated Whispering Oaks Kennels since 1961, also agreed never to operate a dog-breeding business again.
> 
> ...


She disputes that. 

I wonder how many of these places there are.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I've been following that one on one of my rescue lists. According to some of the mill rescue people, the woman realized she was in over her head and had already approached some rescue groups about selling some of her dogs to them. A lot of the mill groups will pay a small fee for dogs but weren't willing to give her what she wanted. Anyway, however it went down ultimately, I guess she ended up surrendering the dogs. On the one had, looking at the videos and hearing from the people that went there, the dogs were in extremely good shape _for a puppy mill_. Most are pretty friendly, healthy weight, and I haven't seen many reported health problems. But that said - 1000 dogs???? And whether she occasionally took them out or not, they were clearly spending MOST of their time in tiny pens. Glad they're out and headed to better things!


----------



## frenchie27 (Jan 12, 2008)

I am willing to bet there are tons of places like these. However, this is one area that authorities are targetting. I do all in my power to support these organizations (such as ASPCA).

I know that the economy right now is real bad and people are struggling to keep their homes, etc. But to be honest, there is no way on earth I can leave a pet behind. They are just another being who is 100% part of a family (IMO). 

That is one of the main reasons why this is happening so often.

People should really think it thru before becoming a pet owner. I wish breeders and others would make sure a person is 100% committed to parent a pet.

I know I always want to change the world for the better, I apologize for venting...again...but these things just simply make me go insane.


----------



## dOg (Jan 23, 2006)

Makes me wonder, how many is too many?

When does somebody go from hobby breeder to mental hoarder?

What limit must be crossed before the Humane Society or the AKC cares?

Is puppy breath addiction common?

Not making light of it, just don't understand where the lines are.
My opinion of common sense is not as common as I thought.

At 1000, she had a feeling she might be in over her head?
But @ 500, she was cool with it?


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote: When does somebody go from hobby breeder to mental hoarder?


I thinks its more the case of someone going from pet to cash crop.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

"I wish breeders and others would make sure a person is 100% committed to parent a pet."

I am sorry French, but I am confused by your statement. Who are the "others" who should make sure a person is 100% committed to parent a pet?

And it is simply not possible for anyone to make sure a person is 100% committed. 

I suppose if you are a dog owner, you should be happy that the friend or breeder or rescue or shelter did not follow this rule that you want. 

But by helping organizations like the ASPCA you may acheive your goal and theirs -- to eliminate pet ownership completely. These organizations such as HSUS and PETA and others spend money that people send in to help the poor abandonned, neglected, and abused pets, and their money is spent to lobby congress to limit, restrict, or eliminate pet ownership. 

I checked a veterinarian website about a poison question and was linked to the ASPCA poison site. I wanted to ask about my bitch with unweaned pups who ate a toad. They were going to charge $50 for a question! Sorry, but I had already asked my own vet about it and was digging for more info. But I was not going to give $50 to an organization that is constantly getting funds from people whose heart is in the right place. 

If this woman's dogs were in good condition and she is not abusing them, why should ANY authorities target her?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote: I thinks its more the case of someone going from pet to cash crop.


Yep. She's not a hoarder because she wasn't hoarding them - she was selling them hand over fist. I hate the conditions I see hoarder dogs in but I have some compassion for the mental illness that often takes people to that behavior it often really does start off as a desire to save or protect animals, you know, before going horrible awry. 

But this is just a dog factory. Granted - a dog factory where the parts were kept in better working order than many.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Four full-time staff, two part-time staff, and she and her husband managed 1000 dogs. I wonder how many were puppies. I mean, if you have 100 bitches, and each had ten puppies you would have 1100 dogs. But that would not mean that you had 1100 dogs constantly. 

However, if you had 100 bitches whelping and raising litters, it would take a whole lot more than six people to handle them. 

Could I take care of ten litters at one time if it was my full-time job and the litters were at different stages? Maybe. 

I think that they are basically understaffed. Each person would have to clean after over 100 dogs. I think it would be possible, but no way could it be optimum care. 

The pens opened out to excersize areas. So there was thought in the building of the kennel. 

With all the people on this site having trouble putting weight on a dog, or having skin troubles. It is not surprising that a few "appeared" to have mange, and a few appeared to be skinny. With just one dog, some of us have a paralyzed dog. These people have a thousand and one partially paralyzed. I am surprised they did not put it down. Maybe they did not get around to it. Maybe it says that these people are not ogres, and they do not throw a dog out just because it has a problem. Not sure. 

Dachsunds would be an easy breed to keep. Minimal coat care, etc. I can easily see how one could get behind on toenails. 

The dogs were not in terrible shape. And yet this person was given an ultimatum to sign over all her dogs or else they will take her to jail. I kind of think that is disgusting. If the dogs were really bad off it would warrant that. I guess I could see telling them that they need to triple their staff, and scrub the concrete with bleach, and put in a septic system. The people would not be able to comply and would have to reduce the number of animals semi-voluntarily. 

I only read the one news story, maybe there is more that I did not hear.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am not against people making money on dogs/puppies, so long as the animals are not suffering.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

So that


> Quote: The dogs were not in terrible shape.


 and *only *


> Quote: a few "appeared" to have mange, and a few appeared to be skinny


 makes her a good breeder? Puppy mills that are not terrible should just be allowed to keep cranking out puppies? Where do you draw the line between pretty terrible and not really terrible? If you were one of the skinny dogs or one of the dogs with mange, would you think your life was terrible?

What about socialization? There is no way that that few people taking care of 1000 dogs and puppies would be able to provide the proper socialization that puppies need. So if they look ok on the outside and are a mess on the inside, thats ok too?


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

A person with two dogs could have one partially paralyzed and the other with a skin condition. 

Some one with one dog could have one that is super thin. 

That only a few dogs out of a thousand had health issues -- that suggests that she was providing adequate care or had super dogs. 

I am sure the dogs were not as socialized as those dogs of members here who have one or two dogs and spend their entire lives working with them. But you could say the same thing about me and my lot. My dogs are not as well socialized as some of you who are home all day, or that have a house full of people, or that have only one or two dogs. 

Where do you draw the line. We all agree that 1000 dogs is excessive, but would it be if you had 100 employees? No way could ten dogs support a full time staffer though. 

A person with one dog can turn their nose up at someone with twenty. While a person with 15 dogs may do a **** of a lot more with their dogs than some of the people do with only one dog. 

So, where do you draw the line. I draw the line at the condition of the dogs. If the dogs in general are in good condition, we should spend the resources getting rid of the places where the dogs are abused and neglected to the point of significant physical issues in the majority of the population.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

How commonplace is this type of situation? And in reading the comments that attempt to try and justify and defend the breeder, is this type of situation acceptable practice in some areas?

In my own mind, even if she had the staff to handle basic needs, then how would she handle screening adopters? And then following up with them? And everything else that goes along with being a responsible breeder?

I wonder how many of these 1000 and their offspring would have found their way into shelters, both by irresponsible adopters and irresponsible breeders?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm going to go with "buyers" rather than "adopters" and guess that screening involved making sure they had the money to pay.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote: We all agree that 1000 dogs is excessive, but would it be if you had 100 employees?


But she didn't have 100 employees. Six people cannot provide proper care to 1000 dogs and puppies. They cannot provide enough socialization. 

I don't understand how anyone who professes to care about dogs could ever defend having them live like this.


----------



## frenchie27 (Jan 12, 2008)

selzer:

I spent months researching about GSDs. It wasn't until then when I was ready to commit and did it.

I seriously do not think this lady was being responsible for running such a huge business with so little help.

I feel very strong about pets as they can't provide for themselves and that is when us human beings come in. That's all I said.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: selzerI am not against people making money on dogs/puppies, so long as the animals are not suffering.


Who says some of these animals are not suffering (and dying horrific deaths), now or down the road to a long long line of offspring by irrespsonsible breeders and irresponsible owners that are inevitable with a situation like this?!

This type of situation appears to be a population explosion in the making. Since it's not policed very well by peers, it obviously requires the law to step in. Seems like a good example of why we can't have it both ways.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Feeding and watering an animal does not constitute good care. The statistics are mind boggling. 1000 dogs...suppose 500 are female and each female has an average of 6 puppies...that's 3000 more dogs. People buy them for what...$200 or $300 and it goes on and on. Dog gets lost and ends up in the shelter...oh well, I'll just go down the road and buy another one when I have the money. And so on and so on. 

And how many dogs are euthanized per day in our shelters? 

You can argue until you're blue in the face Seltzer, but you're never going to convince me that breeding in this manner is ok.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

This is farming. 

I don't think it's a concept that works for canines.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

Four full time staff = 1920 minutes per day (that's with no breaks)
The two owners = 1920 (that's them working all day except 8 hours of sleep)
Two part time staff = 480 (that's if they work 4 hours per day)

That's a total of 4320 minutes per day.

That's roughly 4 minutes per dog.

Tell me how you can properly clean, feed AND socialize a dog in 4 minutes per day?


----------



## ebrannan (Aug 14, 2006)

There is no way, no how, this woman could ever be considered a reasonable breeder. We have all talked about housing/socialization, feeding and watering ...
What about the offspring these dogs are producing. There is no way this woman is breeding the best-of-the-best, screening potential health problems and ensuring her bitches are at optimal health/age/pedigree to produce offspring. If she bred properly, she would have never been able to house 1000 dogs. 
Her only ambition was greed ... making money off the backs of her dogs. That's all, plain and simple. 
Everything that goes around, comes around ... her karma will probably not be pretty.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: Four full time staff = 1920 minutes per day (that's with no breaks)
> The two owners = 1920 (that's them working all day except 8 hours of sleep)
> Two part time staff = 480 (that's if they work 4 hours per day)
> 
> ...


I have no comment on the rest of this topic, just the math.

In order to calculate how much time it would take to accomplish basic care for those dogs, you would have to know how many dog runs, how close they are to each other, how they clean them, how many dogs per run, how many times each day they clean and feed etc. It is not as simple as you just made it. There is a formula for work scheduling and what you just did, isn't it. Cleaning would also be impacted by what they were feeding them . These were very small dogs, so, depending on the kennel situation, it might not have taken as long to clean them as you might think and if they had multiple dogs in a kennel, it would take even less time.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Vandal
> 
> 
> > Quote: Four full time staff = 1920 minutes per day (that's with no breaks)
> ...


Suppose they had time to spend 45 minutes a day with every dog _area _feeding, cleaning the runs, grooming, etc. Does that make it a good breeder? That's certainly not my definition of proper care.


----------



## dd (Jun 10, 2003)

> Quote:...These were very small dogs, so, depending on the kennel situation, it might not have taken as long to clean them as you might think and if they had multiple dogs in a kennel, it would take even less time.


That doesn't fit my definition of "care". That's warehousing. You can do that with lamps, not with living creatures.


----------



## chruby (Sep 21, 2005)

> Originally Posted By: ninhar
> 
> 
> > Quote: We all agree that 1000 dogs is excessive, but would it be if you had 100 employees?
> ...


Nina, I agree 100%









You know it's always the same few that like to stir the pot on the board. I think they just get their kicks out of arguing....


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Vandal I have no comment on the rest of this topic, just the math.
> 
> In order to calculate how much time it would take to accomplish basic care for those dogs, you would have to know how many dog runs, how close they are to each other, how they clean them, how many dogs per run, how many times each day they clean and feed etc.


Ok, let's redo the math:

If one person was to spend 10 minutes per day with each dog you would need almost 21 people each day.

And that's JUST to spend 10 minutes with a dog.

Looking at the videos and pictures their kennel 'runs' are cages with wire bottoms and I saw about 3-4 dogs per cage. The cages are double stacked with a platform between them.

That would be roughly 250 cages. They did have different cages for bitches with puppies but let's just go with the basics.

So, each cage needs to have the wire floor cleaqned (not all poop falls through). Then they need to remove the waste from the platforms under the cages. They could just wash it off but eventually they will need to get it off the ground.

So let's give them 15 minutes to clean each cage. That's 62.5 man hours per day. That's 7.8 people per day.

And that doesn't include feeding and watering the dogs.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

If you made the cages properly, you could probably clean up after four dogs in three minutes. 

I do not have that situation, and it takes me 20 minutes to feed, clean up after, and transport each dog from inside to outside. So 20 minutes for eight dogs, which includes feeding each one separately, taking each to the yard, waiting for it to poo, cleaning it up, and putting them in their kennel and filling their water buckets. I do this twice a day (in the evening, I clean the kennels, transport each dog to the house, and feed them, this takes 10 minutes. So I spend 30 minutes a day to take care of the basic needs of 8 dogs. 

My issue with this is with the law. The law does not state that you must spend 10 minutes per day per dog -- how could they enforce that???

If there is no law for the number of dogs/the number of staff, then they have no business bothering someone whose dogs are, for the most part, in good condition. If we count all the dogs on this site, we would find more than a few skinny dogs, more than a few partially crippled dogs, and more than a few dogs with skin problems. And we probably do not number 1000 dogs. 

Further, how many of these were puppies. If these people had 300 bitches, and 1/3 of them currently had litters of and average of 5 pups per litter, there is 800 dogs right there. I think that six people could care for 300 dogs. That is only 50 dogs/person. If it was a full time job, it would be a piece of cake to clean and feed them given the facilities are built for ease of use. I could have it done before breakfast, 2 1/2 hours tops in my crappy set up. I expect a well-designed kennel could have this done in an hour. The rest of the day would be spent with the bitches and litters, leaving time for two dogs per day to be groomed, and you could manage 50 dogs and any puppies they had. 

What we object to here is the lack of these dogs being pets. And the idea that these breeders should be "responsible" with our definition of responsible. There is no law that says a breeder must screen puppy buyers. Sorry, that is our expectation, but it is not necessary. The chances are that these people are supplying a chain of pet stores. They are probably shipping out 20 or more puppies per day to pet stores around the country. There is no law against this. 

The law has to deal with facts, not opinions, not feelings. We feel bad for dogs that are raised primarily to be used for breeding. We feel bad for steers raised mainly for beef. Is there really much difference. I hear about how horrible pet stores are, but there are no laws against them selling puppies. As long as pet stores can sell puppies to the general public, there will be breeders who keep breeding dogs primarily to breed. These people were at least keeping the dogs generally healthy. 

Usually, when there is this number of dogs, they are generally in far worse shape. I think that because these people picked a rather low-maintenance small breed, they were able to have a much better situation for the dogs with less work than fewer dogs of a different breed would take. 

Just because you feel that dogs should not be kept in kennels, or crated, or trained with prongs, or chained to dog houses, or fed cheap kibble, or fill in the blank, doesn't mean the authorities should be able to come down, threaten you with jail, if you do not sign over all of your dogs. 

If these people were violating an existing ordinance concerning sanitation, then the authorities could come in and shut them down. But generally, you would think that they would be given what just about everyone else is given, a time period to get up to code. 

I did not read that these people were violating any dog limit laws, vendor licensing laws, kennel licensing, etc. 

The problem I have is that these dogs were not in danger of dying and they were siezed. It could happen to any of us. One of the people said that dogs were not meant to live like this. If you want to get down and dirty and put on your PETA face, then they can take any one of our pets and say, dogs were not meant to live like this. 

Would I buy a dog from such an establishment? No way. But that is because I have a choice and choose not to. 

I just do not like it that because there is a general feeling that this is just awful, that they shut these people down. Even if these people had started this business in good faith and ran it in good faith. The ideology of how dog breeding ought to be done changes, and now we shut people down whose dogs are in good shape. 

I do not believe in limit laws, only in cruelty/neglect laws. If the people were neglecting to feed, clean up after, provide veterinary care for their animals, or were physically abusing them, then they should never be able to own an animal again and need to be sitting in jail. I do not believe people should be relieved of their charges because they "might" not be able to care for them, or they "might" get out of hand.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote: If these people were violating an existing ordinance concerning sanitation, then the authorities could come in and shut them down. But generally, you would think that they would be given what just about everyone else is given, a time period to get up to code.


As the police got involved due to pollution complaints


> Quote:Sims first arrived on the property Saturday to serve a search warrant while investigating anonymous complaints of improper discharge of dog-related pollution into a dry creek bed.


then there was a viable reason that the mill was shutdown. I assume then the deputy saw due cause to do so. Possibly they had aleady been warned in the past. I'm not going to believe that she was forced to turn over her dogs or go to jail based only on what the miller says.



> Quote: The problem I have is that these dogs were not in danger of dying and they were siezed.


 Do they have to be dying for you to see anything wrong with this? Is that your gold standard? To me, that is very sad.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I see a lot of stuff that I feel is wrong, but I cannot go around arresting people because they do not conform to my idea of what is right. 

I was in a training class a couple of months ago and my inclination was to smack the owner of a dog a few times about the head and shoulders and relieve her of her dog. I would be sitting in jail right now if I had done it. 

We the people (and that includes puppy millers) deserve due process of the law. 

An animal's condition or the conditions that the animal is kept in is sometimes so bad that an animal official (dog warden, etc) may feel that they must seize the dog. But the dog should be in an immediate, life-threatening situation for them to by-pass due process of the law. That did not happen here. 

None of these dogs would have died if they waited for a judge to make a determination in the case. 

I do not affirm breeding in large scale like this. I do not think people should keep more animals than what can be considered companions. But how do you make such a determination by law? Limit laws? My limit and yours may be far different. I believe I take care of my eight dogs much better than a lot of people care for one or two. But limit laws are usually two to three dogs. What happens to the rest of our dogs when they decide no one needs to own more than two? 

If you all want to stop this type of breeding, lobby your government to prohibit the sale of puppies in pet stores, or by individuals other than the breeder. These gigantic breeders would not be able to sell the puppies and would be shut down. 

This type of thing is scarey to me because someone may come to my trailer and say that no way should I be able to keep 15 dogs on the property, in my house or in my kennels. And regardless to the fact that they are generally in good health, 7 are puppies, 7 are titled, and all of them are family. None of that matters to these gargoyles. If they dislike the crates I have in the sun room, or the kennels I have in the back -- and there are weirdows out there who believe all dogs should run free in a pack-- then they can decide to remove my perfectly healthy dogs, and threaten me with jail??? 

I understand that there is a difference between 15 and 1000, but if neither of us are being abusive or neglecting our dogs' basic needs, and we built up our kennels within the current laws of our area, we should be given due process of the law before our animals are removed. 

And yes, I AM paranoid enough to believe that SOME of the people engaged by the Humane Society, ASPCA, etc., MAY skew things against ANY breeder regardless to how well they are performing the job.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote:We the people (and that includes puppy millers) deserve due process of the law.


She had a choice. She could have fought this, but instead she avoided prosecution by surrendering the dogs. 

If you are within the legal limits for dogs in your area and you take good care of them, no one is going to come in take them away from you. I'm glad I don't share your paranoia.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

There are no legal limits where I am.

That can change at any time. It is scarey. I doubt people with one or two dogs would ever worry about it. people with three should start getting nervous. People with four or more should share my paranoia.

They gave these elderly people the ultimatum, "sign over all your dogs or go to jail." That is a little different than "sign over all your dogs or we are going to court to sieze the animals, or going to prosecute." 

I can see driving off of every domestic abuse call with a perpetrator, and I can see arresting people and processing them for cruelty to animals, and gross neglect of animals (which is cruelty). I do not see dragging people away to jail because they will not sign over healthy animals. I do not like the threat of that. 

Unless there is more to the story, that I am not seeing. These people had too many dogs in the opinion of the dog-authorities. Even if this was only 300 dogs and 700 puppies, it is certainly a lot of animals. But I think that animal control should have to work within the same laws as everyone else. 

The breeder of Rushie told me a story: A buddy gave him a Rotty, said he couldn't keep it and it was a nice dog, so the guy took the dog. Come to find out the buddy left his wife and took the dog. The wife found out where the dog was and called the ASPCA. 

This woman comes to my breeder's home, and walks right into his house. He told her to get the H out of there. But she walked over to his couch sat down, picked up the phone and called the sherriff. 

The sherriff had the property surrounded. 

She took the dog, no one was arrested, no charges were filed. But the sherriff told my breeder that this woman and the game warden have more power than the FBI. They can walk into your home without a warrant to look for meat in your freezer or any dog related complaints. 

I do not understand why these people should have more power than the people that are going after drugs, child abuse, and any number of other types of criminal behavior. 

But the fact is that the dog warden and game warden have a lot of power already. I do not like the idea that they can make it up as they go along. 

I also have to think that relatively healthy dachsunds would probably move in shelters around the country a lot faster than shepherds, or labs, just because there are more buyers for small dogs. So you got to wonder if they were happy to take these people's dogs because they knew that they could process the dogs, send many to other shelters for adoptions, and make money off of many of them themselves.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote:They gave these elderly people the ultimatum, "sign over all your dogs or go to jail." That is a little different than "sign over all your dogs or we are going to court to sieze the animals, or going to prosecute."


We don't really know if that is what they said to the woman or her angry spin on it.



> Quote: wife found out where the dog was and called the ASPCA


 She called the local animal control, not the ASPCA. If she had proof that she displayed to the sheriff that this was her dog, then it was right that she get her property back. 



> Quote: They can walk into your home without a warrant to look for meat in your freezer or any dog related complaints.


I'm sorry, but I have a real hard time believing that.



> Quote:make money off of many of them themselves.


Rescues don't work that way. These dogs will need socialization, some will need medical care, all will need to have at the very least a checkup and vaccinations. That all costs money. Rescues usually lose money on every dog. Thats why they do fundraising, to make up for the gap between the adoption price and what the dog costs to make him ready for adoption.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I agree that rescues probably do lose money on every dog. Rescues do not go in and sieze dogs either. They foster and work with the dogs in their care, vet them and try to match them up with prospective owners. 

Some shelters though, do as little as possible -- how else would puppies with parvo or rabies leave a shelter to new homes? These shelters feed absolute junk, use the worse techniques for euthanization, leave the dogs in tiny cages, in urine smelling rooms full of barking animals. They withhold medical treatment if there is a question of ownership. And then they charge depending on the marketability of the animal in question. Our shelter will give you a shepherd or lab for $25 but will charge more for small dogs and puppies. But we are cheap compared to a lot of the other places. 

A lot of the vet work is done pro-bono, and what is not is greatly reduced. 

It is possible that shelters would be happy to take these dogs because they look like they are in good shape, and they are highly adoptable. 

Oh and you cannot get a shepherd from our shelter unless it is unsuitable to go to a rescue. They hold the dogs with decent temperaments for rescues. The ones that are too nervous/aggressive are available until they put them down.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

It is right for her to get her property back and he gave her the dog. However, is it ever right for someone to walk into your home uninvited and without a warrant?

Divorces are ugly, and who knows all sides of such a story. Knowing my breeder, he would have given the lady her dog if she would have asked him. But she obviously did not know that. 

Rush's breeder is a small breeder with 8-10 dogs so this was not a gigantic breeding organization.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

I agree that shelters are a mixed bag and I have no idea of what the SPCA in that area is like. Some shelters are wonderful and make the most of every penny they get, others who knows. 

My local shelter, they only call rescues for the unadoptables or the dogs who have been there too long. Any that are highly adoptable they want to adopt out themselves. Their point of reasoning, which I understand, is that if they turned all the adoptable dogs over to rescues, all that people who come to the shelter to adopt would see are Pits. 



> Quote:A lot of the vet work is done pro-bono, and what is not is greatly reduced.


That is an wrong impression. Vets need to make a living too and possibly in cases such as this they may take a reduced fee but they are not doing the work for free. I was Treasurer for GSGSR for 3 years and saw every bill that came through. At best we got 20% off the vet bill. Some vets, including my own vet, refused to discount any care. Others might discount the office visit but require full price for everything else. My sister does rescue in Md. Her primary vet gives a minimal discount but she knows that she can bring a dog in without an appt, which to her is worth more than getting a discount.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I believe the vets do it pro bono for the shelter here. I could be wrong, but I heard that. There are several of the vets who do speuters for them at cost. But ANYONE can call themselves a rescue and try to get deals from vets. 

The thing is that there IS overhead and expenses to running a veterinary clinic that most of us generally do not give any thought to at all. So charging the shelter $25 to speuter a dog, the vet is donating their time. The rest goes into paying the vet tech, cleaning supplies, anesthesia, and supplies, etc., not to mention the fact that if the vet was not in surgery with the shelter dog, they might be seeing a paying customer. 

I believe the workman is worthy of their hire, and the vet should be paid to provide a service to a shelter or rescue dog. If some of them offer discounts of any type they should be appreciated, but not expected.


----------

