How does a group get 'classified' as rescue??
I guess what got me thinking was not only do we have backyard breeders to contend with but now fake rescues as well?? Are things like this going to give rescue a bad name? When people read or hear about things like this will they then become hesitant to turn their dog over to REAL rescue groups (no matter the breed) when in fact that legit rescue could have helped them immensly?? http://www.clickorlando.com/news/23704049/detail.html/ |
|
|
| Very perceptive question. I rely on NEOESR that any OES rescue contact they list is legit as far as reputation goes, any way. I don't have any resources to check out a rescue organization myself, so one of the major requirements for me is for the group to have 501 (c)(3) Federal tax exempt status. Anyone can call themselves a rescue; further what I consider to be a legit rescue might be very different from what you consider to be a legit rescue. |
| In most states you have to have a license from the Dept. of Agriculture to run a rescue. |
Ron wrote: Very perceptive question. I rely on NEOESR that any OES rescue contact they list is legit as far as reputation goes, any way. I don't have any resources to check out a rescue organization myself, so one of the major requirements for me is for the group to have 501 (c)(3) Federal tax exempt status. Anyone can call themselves a rescue; further what I consider to be a legit rescue might be very different from what you consider to be a legit rescue. Having 501(c)3 status doesn't guarantee that a rescue (or any other non-profit) is legitimate, only that they jumped through the hoops of getting that status. The NEOESR list is a good resource. If you are in doubt of who runs a legitimate organization this is a good place to ask as most OES rescues and adoptive families are represented here. Most of us know each other and who people have had problems with. |
| I wrote that waaaay too quickly, let me clarify a little. I use the 501(c)(3) more like a bright line for legitimacy -- if they've got it it's a huge plus. I don't have the resources to check out everyone, so if they don't have it and I'm not intimately familiar with it, I don't personally recommend. Not having it isn't a negative, but having it is a positive. Same issue with NEOESR -- if you're on the "good" list it's a positive... Not being on the list would make me wonder, but not be a deal breaker. But I have the same issue -- I can't check everyone out myself, and I don't know most of these folks. I have to rely on others' opinions. Everyone who does rescue (501 (c)(3) or not, NEOESR listed or not) is an absolute angel in my books. I can't believe how much effort people put into doing this kind of work. Also I should note that I'm open to change on this "policy" of mine, and any individual rescue person/group that wants to talk about it should just drop me a line. Sorry for any hurt feelings -- they weren't intended! |
| No hurt feelings here. I'm not against it at all, in fact we're close to getting everything submitted for our own 501(c)3. It's very beneficial for the rescue to have it, contributions can be tax-deductible, volunteers can take mileage and some expenses off on their taxes, etc. We know of some rescue (non-OES) that are 501(c)3 non-profits but are less than honest. Sadly, any time there is something that can be taken advantage of someone will find a way to do so. Often in the name of doing good things. |
Maggie McGee IV wrote: We know of some rescue (non-OES) that are 501(c)3 non-profits but are less than honest. Sadly, any time there is something that can be taken advantage of someone will find a way to do so. Often in the name of doing good things. I believe that's where my thought process was going when I was pondering this morning. It seems the more we tryfor good, the more bad there is to contend with. I think rescue organizations are a God-send, and those that work in rescue are brave, caring, tireless beings who I look up to.... so when I read that article and their claim to be rescue & finding homes for these poor dogs.... made me angry. Then the idea of people turning their pets over to them (no matter their reason) and later finding out what happened to their pets-- even though they needed to rehome-- made me sad, then I got just a bit miffed at the thought of the general public reading things like this (I am NOT saying they do not need to tell the story, or the people should not be punished. Just the opposite) and then, heaven forbid, they ever need to use a rescue or help someone find a rescue they will think of people like in the article and instead take their pet to the pound or SPCA or do the whole "FREE TO GOOD HOME" in the paper.... when there are sooooo many good honest folks out there who could help them.Frustrates me!! |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|