1 2 3 4
Here's where it gets sticky for me. The rescue is demanding a $375 adoption fee.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but here's my thought anyway. The dog is in her possession, no? So what is the rescue agency gonna do, confiscate a dog? When they come for it, she presents them with the vet bills.

Frankly, my first reaction when this scenario was presented to me was that if she's listed as the owner on all the vet bills, unless they have documentation that lists them as the owners (which they may as they got the dog directly from the original owner) then she could be the legal owner and wouldn't have to give them dime one (though I think a fee is certainly appropriate in this case, even if they paid nothing at all for the puppy).

But I wanted to see what some of the more level headed among us here thought as I know my gut reaction is often more confrontational than is needed.
Ok, so here's a question: A woman takes in a puppy from rescue. She's sort of a foster home, sort ... think. I have limited details, but if more is needed to form an opinion, I'll try and find out. Tara

I suppose the rescue could subtract the $375 from all of the vet, trainer and maintance bills.
The rescue is demanding a $375 adoption fee. Its more than double their regular fee because its a purebreed dog ... groups think. I have limited details, but if more is needed to form an opinion, I'll try and find out.[/nq]With the rescue I deal with, it is extremely unlikely that any charge would be asked of me if I had done what this woman has done. Normally, our rescue pays all vet bills, the foster home deals with food (unless it's a special expensive diet situation) and if the foster home keeps the dog they pay a lower or no adoption charge, depending on the situation. When I adopted Katy, my sister fostered the litter for a week and I took Katy to a vet for an exam because she had a limp.

I paid the normal adoption charge for puppies, I think $300, minus the cost of the vet exam, and then incurred another couple of hundred in vet expenses the following week, but didn't expect the rescue to cover those charges as at that point she was mine. If the charges were incurred before adopting, the rescue would have covered them.
I can't imagine a legitimate rescue asking a person who has incurred significant bills while fostering that were not repaid to pay another high adoption fee on top of that. Just what have they done to be "due" that fee? Adoption fees are supposed to help cover the expenses the rescues incur when dealing with fosters and usually youngsters have a higher fee (and cost less to the rescue) but when the rescue has done nothing but make connections I don't see how they are justified in asking that fee to a foster home.

That shouldn't matter. We have a particular vet we prefer ... the financial responsibility of the rescue group until they're adopted.

I think that it makes a difference, because rescue groups often have negotiated discounts with certain vets and not others, and it certainly impacts the bottom line if the fosters decide to take the dogs wherever they feel like taking them.

I would think that even in that case, the rescue should refuse to pay the difference between what their vet would have charged them under their agreements with the vets they used and what the foster had paid to their vet rather than not pay anything and charge full adoption fees.

"Anyway, other people are weird, but sometimes they have candy, so it's best to try to get along with them." Joe Bay
Ok, fair enough. I still have a problem with them offering no support to eht foster home, and then trying ... that. I'm uncomfortable with a fee of almost $400 for a pup they have never even bothered to evaluate though.

I'm right with you on all the other issues, no support to the foster home, the high fee, etc.
flick 100785