Can dog rescue contracts be enforced? - Page 3

Any contract is only as good as the teeth built into it ( damages detailed for violation) and the extent that the person wishing to enforce it has the finances to take it to court and be part of a legal battle that can go on for quite some time. This is true of Rescues, shelters, breeders... you name it.

I've seen so many people advertise a puppy for sale "With papers and everything" what ever that means.... and as "Fully Guarenteed for life"... wonder what that means?  All best intentions go out the window in the face of conflict and legal fees, especially if it's a poorly written contract.

I think, Prager, because some of these contracts are so restrictive and also mean that the rescue does in fact own the dog for its lifetime.  For instance, I know people who adopted 2 dogs; they live on a 55 acre farm.  The adoption contract states that dogs can NEVER be outside without a leash.  These dogs had the happiest life going for walks on their 55 acre property. Until the humane society found out about it.

I didn't have a problem with these good people adopting a dog knowing it would walk off-leash with them on their farm & don't think they behaved dishonorably.  THEY were the ones who cared best for the dogs, not the humane society.  It did bother them, though, and nope, they won't rescue dogs any more, but buy them.

Thank you TessJ10, for mentioning your example.  Thats exactly where I wanted this thread to go.  This is my issue with rescues; not applications, not initial home visits, not interviews, but the possibility that the rescue group can interfere with ownership of the animal for the lifetime of the dog.

As to Prager's comments, there is no honor in a bureaucrats legal wiggling.  You think the laws american politians pass are honorable? I don't, but by your philosophy following the rules of looney toons is honorable because a piece of paper says so.  I too like Bhaugh have been trying to volunteer for rescues over the last coupe of years and have seen that many have some crazy clauses in thier contracts, which in my opinion threaten an adopters ability to own the dog and make descisions on caregiving.  I do wonder how much variation there is based on local property laws however. 

How is this ANY different from breeders who retain right of first refusal on their puppies? Or who (quite responsibly) microchip any dog that leaves their kennel or demand to be informed should any dog born to them suddenly be up for grabs? Are we not (rightly) pissed off at breeders who do not want any part of their dogs who end up homess later in life? I'm sorry, I see no difference between wishing to be responsible for a dog you rescued and wishing to be responsible for a puppy you bred. 

VM, there's a HUGE difference between right of first refusal when a dog is going to be rehomed and dictating that the dog cannot be off leash on its own 55-acre home property.

Also, a right of first refusal means you get the first chance to get the dog back; you don't have to, you get the first chance, which of course alerts the breeder that the dog needs to come back.  However, this also means that the breeder can say no thank you (right of first  REFUSAL) and then the owner can indeed sell or give away the dog elsewhere, with the owner choosing the new home.  Again, huge difference to an "adoption" contract which does not allow the owner to do this but demands the owner relinquish the dog to them and only to them.  And as others have said, rescue personnel change over time and may not be the best people to take care of the dog.

Sure rescue personnel change, but that also means the contract changed. If the rescue personnel are the same ones WHO SIGNED, it's still valid. I don't think it's enforceable any more if the original signers aren't even there. I sure wouldn't be willing to pursue it in court if that were the case.

I would never send a rescue dog to a 55 acre property that didn't have at least a small portion FENCED. I think that would be pretty standard.

 

I would never send a rescue dog to a 55 acre property that didn't have at least a small portion FENCED. I think that would be pretty standard.

VomMarischal, I am not questioning your reasoning, I am sure you have a valid reason in your mind.  But that doesn't do the dogs any good, nor does it encourage people to get a "rescue dog" that have such a property.  I really think its more administrative effort than its worth because the people with the "unapproved" fencing will stil get the dog they want.  In my opinion that move to buy a puppy instead of the rescue, doesn't help the overall mission "one iota" because the rescue still doesn't have a home for thier dog and another dog was born to take its place on the "unapproved property".  Many times the dog sits in a foster home or kennel for a year or more becasue someone didn't have an "approved fence".  Sure its a judgment call, but I would say anything is better than the kennel.  

Now for another issue and I am not accusing anyone who has posted here of this.  Some rescues, while not "making money" from dogs, do need to keep dogs in "hock" to keep donation and funding comming in, good aoptive homes be damned.  If all the dogs in "storage" find homes qucikly how will the rescue keep its profile up for continued "giving"?

I dont think the original poster was questioning could the contract be enforced if he violated the terms, but could the rescue group have control to do some of the things the contract may state such as food requirments and not being able to have the dog off leash. Of course this is somewhat needed as irresponsible people are the reason the dogs are in a rescue. I think some of the rescue contracts can be a bit much and I wouldn't agree to be told how to handle my pet so I wouldnt rescue from one unless I can honestly say I am going to obide by the entire contract. I love to take my pets off leash if the scenario is right. But that is a decision I will make not some organization. But to the original poster they can be enforced and some by ignorance in the name of love for the dog so not exaclty a bad thing. Just not something everyone would agree to.

 The good thing is that there are so many dogs for sale or adoption out there, that should it be tied to a looney breeder or rescue...go find another one. Very simple. There is not one single person or rescue that I have to have a dog from. If I don't like the values of the people I will be dealing with - no business.

Having said that, I have been an approved foster home for different rescues. Others have turned me down. I have fostered and found some to be cool and others I would not send my most hated animal too. There are unreasonable folks in every area.
A new breed rescue sprung up here a while back. When I read their very first ad on CL looking for fosters I broke down laughing...I would never qualify for them....because I am not a person that enjoys frolicking in the forest singing a little song walking my energetic dog.....LOL