Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
tdierikx

New Things Happening At Petrescue...

48 posts in this topic

Point is, they do get a lot of donations and money from advertising and sponsors and partners. Enough for paid staff, an office and all the things most of their 'clients' would love to have. And plenty to cover a neonate litter. Asking for $1000 means they will get much more than that and they have never operated as a rescue group; technically it's a bunch of office people raising a litter who would normally pay out of their own pocket. It'll probably go back into running the charity but the thing is; are they muscling in on a finite donation resource when private cat & kitten rescue is a quick way to send you broke?

I think your assessment is overly harsh and verging on bad taste [sour grapes??]. PetRescue has always provided an excellent, sophisticated and 100% needed resource. If it wasn’t as professional as it is, it would not have lasted. All this takes money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was three kittens? Tiny, Teeny and Teensy Weensey? Raising from a week old? Desexing and vacs for all three could easily cost $700? So I wouldn't have thought $1000 is unreasonable? A bit over $300 of expenses per kitten?

And given that their advertisers and sponsors are not signed up for directly supporting the rehabbing and re-homing of rescue kittens I actually think it's pretty honourable to fund raise transparently for something they don't usually do? The only problem I see is if they use money for this that wasn't originally raised/obtained and ear-marked for this purpose. So overall I don't see a problem.

One died :(

Also agree - cant be spending money given to them for other purposes to raise kittens.

Edited by Scottsmum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

Are these babies going to be rehomed, or are they going to stay on as office mascots? That's one thing that is unclear...

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mita   

It's fair enough that people will raise what they believe are issues for Pet Rescue operation. But have they asked Pet Rescue directly to clarify?

if PR is a registered charity of considerable size & income now, would they have to produce an Annual Report that spells out the specific activities it was set up to do via a Mission Statement & how these were carried out during the year?

It could be checked if carrying out rescue themselves, with fostering, care & rehoming (with costs being met by PR donations) is included.

If not included, it would need to be written in, if they intend to do this work. as opposed to the occasional due to unusual circumstances. I'd expect that would attract feedback (pro & con) from donors/ supporters.

Otherwise, such rescue would be a privately funded matter by whoever at PR is doing the rescuing, which would put them on the same footing as the rescue groups who use the advertising platform but don't get funding from PR.

Edited by mita

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is, they do get a lot of donations and money from advertising and sponsors and partners. Enough for paid staff, an office and all the things most of their 'clients' would love to have. And plenty to cover a neonate litter. Asking for $1000 means they will get much more than that and they have never operated as a rescue group; technically it's a bunch of office people raising a litter who would normally pay out of their own pocket. It'll probably go back into running the charity but the thing is; are they muscling in on a finite donation resource when private cat & kitten rescue is a quick way to send you broke?

I think your assessment is overly harsh and verging on bad taste [sour grapes??]. PetRescue has always provided an excellent, sophisticated and 100% needed resource. If it wasn’t as professional as it is, it would not have lasted. All this takes money.

Try not to read things into my posts that aren't there because you have an issue with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1457312902[/url]' post='6793943']

It's fair enough that people will raise what they believe are issues for Pet Rescue operation. But have they asked Pet Rescue directly to clarify?

if PR is a registered charity of considerable size & income now, would they have to produce an Annual Report that spells out the specific activities it was set up to do via a Mission Statement & how these were carried out during the year?

It could be checked if carrying out rescue themselves, with fostering, care & rehoming (with costs being met by PR donations) is included.

If not included, it would need to be written in, if they intend to do this work. as opposed to the occasional due to unusual circumstances. I'd expect that would attract feedback (pro & con) from donors/ supporters.

Otherwise, such rescue would be a privately funded matter by whoever at PR is doing the rescuing, which would put them on the same footing as the rescue groups who use the advertising platform but don't get funding from PR.

Yep agreed Mita - but if as I suspect, this is an odd one that they are doing and they do it transparently ( which IMO they have) then I still don't see the harm. If they are going to make a habit of it I'd say they need to change their public intentions, deal with any potential conflicts of interests (there may not be any) and I'd be more nervous about it.

I took on and re-homed an elderly chi September last year who was in danger of the green dream as an exception to my rule of only rehabbing and rehoming westies (the only breed I'm really confident with). Would I do it again? Only if I had no other options. And that may well be the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and I forgot to mention - I think in this situation Petrescue are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Petrescue won't rescue kittens? (Damning perception regardless of their charter). Petrescue rescue kittens ? Conflict of interest with the rescue community they serve (regardless of if they fundraise given so many other rescue services fundraise as well)

In their circumstances I would have done the same thing - the kittens come first - and they were only a week old also not as if they could spend time advertising for foster carers or a rescue service to take them on.

Overall, a good decision all considering IMO. smile.gif

Edited by westiemum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shel   

There was never an official announcement put out by them, but I left the organisation in November.

Major corporate funding partnerships - which rescue groups likely couldn't access anyway - always allowed us to run a small, well-resourced charity.

Animal care donations belong to rescue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pet Rescue shouldn't be telling anyone how to or how not to rehome their pets.

My link

Whether you do or don't agree with the article it isn't appropriate to have a piece published on their site telling the public some rescues are being old fashioned, strict and not progressive because we do what works for us.

I'd feel the same if the shoe was on the other foot so pls don't make my post into a pro vs anti application/home check etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no issue with home checks but I do think they can be a barrier at times. I guess it's up to the individual rescue to decide if they are worth the potential lost homes. I'm sure in many cases they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katdogs   

They said they had a fence.

We visited and they were on the corner of two busy roads and there were palings missing.

They didn't get the dog and I'll never not get the yard checked.

PR is changing. I don't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maddy   

I've never had a potential adopter back out because they didn't want a home check :shrug:

I'd like to believe that 99.99% of people who want to adopt are honest on their applications and I've only ever turned down one adoption based on a home check. But in that case.. had I failed to do that check, I would've been sending the dog to a situation involving hoarding, undesexed cats and dogs everywhere (and the resultant kittens/puppies) and worrying neglect. Obviously that family had not noted on their application that they were being dishonest with me about their situation because of course not?

So yeah, I home check.

I make it clear to potential adopters that the purpose of the visit (with the dog) is for everyone, including other pets, to have a chance to meet the dog, for the family to talk over any issues/concerns they have have and to do a check of fences to make sure they're suitable for the dog in question. I'm not there to judge the cleanliness of their house (unless it's the dangerous sort of uncleanliness- like things that would be considered a substantial risk to safety) or whether or not their kids are still in their pajamas at 2pm (because honestly, I'd be in my pajamas at 2pm if I could :p ) and before the home check, I discuss the purpose of the check so they know what to expect- and not to panic about vacuuming or washing up.

I take dogs out of danger so that they can have a better life, not so they can be thrown straight out of the frying pan and into the fire. Their futures are my responsibility.

Also, I guess I don't see how Maneki Neko Cat Rescue's approach is at all progressive. They have a blanket policy of refusal to anyone who does have an issue with a home check so.. same as most other rescues? Whether or not they follow up on the "threat" of home check seems beside the point, to me. They've already weeded out a portion of adopters without any real dialogue (none that is mentioned, anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Panto   

So many times we hear of people saying that they got their rescue pets from PetRescue, rather than the actual rescue they found via PetRescue... this is only going to add to the confusion of the general public...

T.

Just on this - I don't think it's a bad thing, I think it means less confusion, with so many rescues that pop up then disappear, at least the general public have something to go to, to adopt a rescue. Friends/colleagues who have adopted a rescue have said they found their dog via PR, they wouldn't have known where to look otherwise, short of going to the pound and taking pot luck at a dog when they don't know enough about choosing the right dog for them.

Unless of course, I've got this totally wrong and you meant that the general public might be confused that PR is the rescue organisation themselves...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maddy   

So many times we hear of people saying that they got their rescue pets from PetRescue, rather than the actual rescue they found via PetRescue... this is only going to add to the confusion of the general public...

T.

Just on this - I don't think it's a bad thing, I think it means less confusion, with so many rescues that pop up then disappear, at least the general public have something to go to, to adopt a rescue. Friends/colleagues who have adopted a rescue have said they found their dog via PR, they wouldn't have known where to look otherwise, short of going to the pound and taking pot luck at a dog when they don't know enough about choosing the right dog for them.

Unless of course, I've got this totally wrong and you meant that the general public might be confused that PR is the rescue organisation themselves...

I think this is what tdierikx means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people do think PR are a rescue group and I explain that they are an advertising tool for the many Rescue Groups around, also their figures for rehoming stats are not accurate as we have a website ourselves and list on PR, we do rehome many of our dogs from our own website so if we rehome say 80% from our site we also would rehome 80% from PR according to their stats when in fact it is only 20%

Any group who does not do home checks, in my opinion, is not having the best interest's of the dogs future as their main objective. I know one group who sells their dogs/cats outside Wollies in an arcade/shopping centre, most of their dogs come from their own pound and to not even do a home check I feel is lazy and irresponsible to not care where their dogs go and how they will live for many years to come.

Edited by keetamouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people do think PR are a rescue group and I explain that they are an advertising tool for the many Rescue Groups around, also their figures for rehoming stats are not accurate as we have a website ourselves and list on PR, we do rehome many of our dogs from our own website so if we rehome say 80% from our site we also would rehome 80% from PR according to their stats when in fact it is only 20%

Any group who does not do home checks, in my opinion, is not having the best interest's of the dogs future as their main objective. I know one group who sells their dogs/cats outside Wollies in an arcade/shopping centre, most of their dogs come from their own pound and to not even do a home check I feel is lazy and irresponsible to not care where their dogs go and how they will live for many years to come.

Agree on every point Keetamouse. I've been trying to find a dog for an elderly lady who won't be walking a dog but is active in her own house/yard. She wanted something of 10+ and has family back up but from a distance. As with every situation, it is best to make a very thorough match for it to be happy for person and dog.

Yesterday the family got fed up with waiting and took her to meet a dog with another rescue group, no questions asked, just pay your adoption fee and here you go, no yard check.

She's ended up (as a very inexperienced owner with physical limitations) with a young Jack Russell. Day 1 and the dog escapes ....

My thoughts are unprintable but hey, the dog got a home so according to what is being suggested on the article with Petrescue, this is a life saved with no hassles for anyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one of the links they provided; a full rundown of why we should be dropping all policies.

Remove Obstacles

no application, no home check, no landlord checks, no dog to dog introductions, and no fences requirement etc etc etc

Who else got this copy&paste response?

Thanks for your emails, and for your feedback.

PetRescue supports more than 900 rescue groups, shelters and pounds across Australia - organisations that vary greatly in terms of resources, processes, volunteer networks, and demand for the rescue pets in their care.

With so many different organisations (not to mention different types of animals, and of course individual pets) we don't espouse a one-size-fits-all approach - but we do like sharing examples of how groups try to address the many and varied challenges in rescue.

We are always interested in feedback regarding the content of the PetRescuer - so if there are any particular areas of interest you'd like to see in the future, please feel free to drop us a line.

Kind regards

Each to their own and PR should respect that and leave the adoptions to rescuers. At least Shel kept her own blog for 'sharing examples' editorials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What annoys me also is when people use an American study, has nothing to do with what Australian rescues do??? and doing a "home check" should NEVER be used with the word "obstacles"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×