« Fair is Fair: The Pennsylvania Fair Data Act | Main | Thinking About Taking Your Cat on a Spaycation? »

07/14/2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Therese

Absolutely it is worth it. The dog I recently purchased from a rescue received its shots, it also got a pernicious case of kennel cough and came with the "bonus" of a severe intestinal parasite infestation causing the dog to be way too skinny. The parasites, cough and weight gain were on me to treat out of my pocket and she's a sweet, healthy little bundle of energy today.

If a breeder had tried to sell a dog to me in this condition they would have rightfully been shut down. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Marcella Smith

The rescues are already charging whatever adoption fee that they think they can get, but as a rescuer, I am assuring you this money already goes to the vets. We ALWAYS owe the vets money. Heartworm treatments, one parvo puppy, etc. really adds up in a hurry. The adoption fees don't cover it. My rescue does lots of fundraisers year round and individuals kick in a lot of personal money. I understand they want a health certificate, but why can't they let a vet tech, or someone slightly cheaper handle the inspections? Additionally, some sicknesses will not be apparent, even to the very best vet in the world. So now youre talking quarantine and the poor dogs have been in jail long enough. Or perfectly healthy dogs on a mass transport could easily catch something. I see the problem, but don't feel like legislation is the answer.

Verjean

>>

>>

I think that interstate transport of animals should require health certificates and proof of vaccination. As exhibitors, we are expected to have those when we travel out of state to shows. We also need those same documents and more, if we are flying dogs. As a member of two rescue organizations, I profoundly understand that rescue is underfunded, and generally losing money. However, that is the case with most responsible breeders as well. And while there are many animals in need of rescue, there are far too many these days being seized unnecessarily in my opinion...and I see it from both worlds. No one has had issues placing restrictions on breeders through what has become an onslaught of legislation and regulation, and if what we are doing is REALLY about the health and welfare of dogs, then those same restrictions and regulation should apply to ALL dogs/cats/pets regardless of the "entity" which is responsible for them. As a fancier, I didn't agree that legislation was the answer either, and from a rescue perspective, in those days it was easier TO transport across state lines. Whether the legislation itself was intended to regulate breeders only, the truth is...it has far further reaching consequences...and many non 501(c)3 rescues are going to have a tough time. Private rescues are barely perceived as better than breeders, and in most cases they are perceived as "hoarders". I agree legislation is not/WAS not the answer...but it's now on a roll, and I don't see any stopping it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Donate!

Support NAIA!

Tip Jar

Become a Fan