# Ethical Dilemma



## Sasha1/2 (Dec 22, 2011)

Three years ago I started volunteering with a local, foster-based rescue group. Some of their dogs were local, some from a nearby reserve, some from areas with BSL and some from high-kill shelters. I walked dogs, fostered and did some social media promos for them. I made pleas online for donations of supplies such as leashes, dishes, food, gas cards, bedding, etc. 

I fostered then adopted a dog who came from a BSL situation in another province. I found out later the dog had known dog aggression issues and had been in foster for seven months because he was difficult to place. I didn't learn about his dog aggression until his honeymoon was over at our house and he went after my elderly dog who had demensia (and therefore poor manners). During my home visit the placement coordinator saw I had two old dogs and two cats that were interacting freely with the new dog. She said nothing. I had to learn on my own to "crate and rotate" the rescue dog. 

The placement coordinator knew my was at our city bylaw's dog limit, yet she put fosters in my home and allowed me to adopt the third dog. I learned about the two dog limit when I went to license our new dog. It took me a year of asking the group to get the health records for the dog; there is no evidence that the group ever gave the dog a booster shot. There is no documentation of a rabies shot which is law here and where he came from. 

My family fostered five dogs for the group. We were never asked to provide any behaviour or training updates for the group or potential adopters. The dogs were always suddenly taken from us to be introduced to potential adopters elsewhere. More red flags went up for us when one of the more difficult dogs we were working with was advertised on their site as being "good with..." things we knew she was not. Who was writing these placement ads?! We were mad that potential adopters were not getting accurate information and that the dog could end up being bumped from home to home. Honestly we believe that it would have been best for her to stay with us where we could consistently work on her issues... and maybe even adopt her (because our two old dogs passed away this fall). She is still up for adoption many months later. Who knows where she is being fostered now.

Two years ago the group was asked to help with a hording situation. I loaned the group eight of my own pet crates. I wrote my name and number on them all in permanent ink. The horder changed her mind about handing the animals over to the group and I was told my crates were put in the group's storage locker. I asked a few times for them to be given back to me next time someone went to the locker. 

Just under a year ago the group became heavily involved in pulling dogs from high kill shelters in the Los Angeles area, mostly Pit Bulls and Chihuahuas. Their work on the reserves has all but stopped and they rarely take Canadian dogs anymore; I don't know why. They adopt out dogs within a couple of days of them arriving in our city. I believe they falsely represent the temperament of the rescued dog; I know that dogs are usually "shut down" for up to a couple of weeks 

Two months ago they answered a question on their Facebook page and stated that they do not have not-for-profit status because it takes too much time to become registered. They have been collecting financial donations and are not able to issue tax receipts. 

I wrote again asking for my crates back. Once per week for five weeks I wrote. My emails were ignored. (They were never ignored when I offered to foster, provide supplies or work an event for them.) When I remembered the name of one of their board members I tracked down his email and sent him a message asking if he knew the whereabouts of my crates. He answered immediately that he'd go to the storage locker the same day. Last night he wrote me with an apology. He says he is very disappointed but that my crates are likely in California or Washington with dogs they pulled out of Los Angeles recently. He has offered to buy me eight new kennels. 

My dilemma is this... do I let either the group or this board member (personally) pay for brand new kennel crates for me or do I just let it go? I need two of them, but not the rest. I do think the board needs to be aware of administration issues with the group, poor placement practices, and my disapproval of them advertising themselves on their web sites as being "not-for-profit" if, in fact, they are not.


----------



## DustyCrockett (Sep 24, 2011)

my opinion, for what it's worth: If you are convinced that the group is not worthy of your support (I'm convinced, based on your story), let 'em buy you the crates. If it makes you feel better, contribute them to a worthy organization.


----------



## lisaj1354 (Feb 23, 2008)

Take the new crates, and have nothing more to do with this organization. They sound like they're looking to make a profit, and are probably acting outside the law.

I worked with a rescue that placed a very aggressive dog with me without telling me. I kept him less than a week - he bit me 3 times and my BF twice. When I called the rescue, they seemed unconcerned, but took him back and placed him back on Petfinder with no warnings. I have told my friends and family to stay away from this particular group.


----------



## Pawzk9 (Jan 3, 2011)

I would allow the board member to buy me the new crates. He's on the board, he has some input as to policy, and can probably get them to reimburse him. Then I would sever all ties with this organization


----------



## Sasha1/2 (Dec 22, 2011)

Thank you for your ideas, everyone. 



DustyCrockett said:


> ... let 'em buy you the crates. If it makes you feel better, contribute them to a worthy organization.


I'm so glad I posted. I never would have thought of this, but it does take my guilt away. Thanks!

By the way, my husband now refers to them as dog brokers. He believes they are scooping death-row dogs from California and bringing them up here where there is a demand. Often these dogs have adopting homes lined up here before they even leave the USA, which means less expense to the group.


----------



## JulieK1967 (May 29, 2011)

Take the crates!


----------



## hamandeggs (Aug 11, 2011)

Sasha1/2 said:


> By the way, my husband now refers to them as dog brokers. He believes they are scooping death-row dogs from California and bringing them up here where there is a demand. Often these dogs have adopting homes lined up here before they even leave the USA, which means less expense to the group.


This group sounds totally disreputable, from the other things you describe, and I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. But this, I don't see a problem with it. It's very common among east-coast rescues and is in fact exactly how I got my dog (pulled from a high-kill shelter in South Carolina by a very reputable DC-based shelter, and we were already lined up as the "forever" adoptive home before she arrived in DC). I don't see a problem with it - it saves dogs and makes sense.


----------



## Sasha1/2 (Dec 22, 2011)

Yes, it makes sense to move dogs from a high-kill area to an area where there is demand. To clarify, though, they often market these shelter dogs as "awesome with kids, cats, other dogs," etc. without really knowing these dogs. A shut down dog can seem very mellow. Once the honeymoon period is over, though...? I'd rather they say "background and temperament unknown."


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

I would take his offer on two crates you need, the other six you donated, and maybe the dogs got to homes because of you. Maybe write a letter to the rescue manager with your concerns, and possibly to the paper. Lesson learned.


----------



## Sasha1/2 (Dec 22, 2011)

I told him my urgent need was for two crates and that I'll wait for the others to be returned. A co-manager is my concern. I will write to her partner and the board member who is helping me with the kennels.


----------



## hub3 (Jul 10, 2010)

Absolutely take the crates and then cut ties with that group. There are far too many lousy rescues giving the good ones a bad name. If they can not do things properly - I question their motives completely, they are criminal for taking all of those crates from you - don't let sympathy cloud your judgement.


----------



## Zoey's Mommy (Mar 3, 2012)

Sasha1/2 said:


> I told him my urgent need was for two crates and that I'll wait for the others to be returned. A co-manager is my concern. I will write to her partner and the board member who is helping me with the kennels.


Not sure where you're at with the crate issue, but having this guy replace the crates is a good opportunity to "chew" his ear a bit... not to say you should tear him up one side and down the other, but I'd definately give him a brief summary of your concerns. Their behavior is giving other rescues and budding rescues a bad name. It's important to take the "long view" in these matters, their behavior could *negatively* impact the opinions of literally thousands of other potential adopters!


----------



## LeadTime (Mar 5, 2012)

Sasha1/2 said:


> Two months ago they answered a question on their Facebook page and stated that they do not have not-for-profit status because it takes too much time to become registered. They have been collecting financial donations and are not able to issue tax receipts.


I know it's a bit late... I don't know about Canada, but in the US that is pure hokum. not-for profit is fairly easy to do if money is actually being managed and accounted for. It does require certain records to be kept and published...

Keep in mind that not-for-profit still doesn't mean they don't pay their board/employees quite handsomely. CharityNavigator.Org tracks a lot of the info for many charities, they don't have info on everyone...but you can see how some are maybe not managed properly.

For example: 
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3812
President/CEO got almost 260k in a year that the charity had a $600k deficit between expenses and revenue.


----------

