RSPCA Adopt a pet

NaomiJane_2

Oh and another thing. if they request a Donation but put a suggested amounts list next to it it does NOT mean that you have to pay that amount. A donation is a donation and they cannot refuse it if it is reasonable.
a guideline is not a set of rules

scottishfreebiehunter

wherediditallgo wrote: »

The Blue Cross also provide pets for adoption.

How much does it cost to adopt?

A minimum donation is requested dependent on the type of animal being adopted. This donation helps pay the costs of the animal's care during its stay with us. Please check with individual centres for more information, but here's a guide:
Dog: £70-£100
Cat: £35-£45
Rabbits, guinea pigs and other small domestic animals: £10-£20
What care do we provide?

All cats and dogs are vaccinated, microchipped*, wormed, examined by a vet and (if old enough) neutered prior to adoption. If not neutered, the new owners will receive a voucher to assist with the cost of doing so. All rabbits are vaccinated, microchipped and insured, and some may be neutered. Some guinea pigs may also be neutered.


Dogs, cats and rabbits also leave us with six-weeks' FREE pet insurance, and we recommend adopters continue with insurance before the free cover expires – this helps ensure the pet gets the treatment it needs if it becomes sick or injured.

roughly the same idea as where I got my puppy last year just after xmas and a good job they included the health care by there vet as the poor wee thing was sick for a few months and lucky to pull through as some useless :mad::mad::mad: had left them tied to a post or something I was told and If I had not had that included it would have cost me hundreds to get the wee thing sorted ,all is well in the end and he is a happy cheeky wee chap now
Though I do think people should be vetted as many the dog homes do up here now before the dog etc leaves.

wherediditallgo

NaomiJane wrote: »

I don't agree. there is no way I could afford to pay that amount of money for a pet.
Money has nothing to do with commitment .... I would be willing to pay a reasonable amount/pay a donation for a pet but think of the things I could do for and with that animal with the money that they ask.

You might not be able to afford that amount just like that, but the cost would mean you'd have to save up for a bit longer to be able to have it. The money some centres ask for isn't just for food - it's also towards everything else they've had during their stay. Some of the animals come in in a dreadful state, & many are there for several months (especially the older ones, or those with feline HIV who are difficult to re-home) & what it has cost to keep them there & get them well again will be far in excess of the money being asked for to get them.

I've got no reason to doubt that you love the animals you have, & you are right to say they're part of your family. I've always looked at any pets I've had as part of my family, & wouldn't have it any other way. However, there are many people who listen to their children begging for a pet or who simply don't give enough thought to what having the pet will entail. When I did some voluntary work at a local centre, it was absolutely heartbreaking to see animals come back any time between January & April because the family no longer wanted them. They hadn't taken into account things like having to take the dog for a walk of up to an hour a day regardless of the weather or whether you felt up to it, those who'd taken long-haired cats or dogs hadn't factored in grooming the animal, something you can't whizz through & something that if it's not done properly can affect their health. Then there were the cases of children who'd sworn blind they'd look after the pet & got bored a few months later, so the parent who'd never really wanted it in the first place eventually got fed up with the workload & returned it. It's not just young children either - teenagers who wanted a dog & would have almost sworn in blood that they'd do the walking etc, but then cried off when they had loads of homework, wanted to go out, or wanted to spend their holidays travelling. The home visit assesses the home, but it can't properly assess the amount of effort that's going to be made once the initial fascination has worn off. I was the one who wanted my dog in my home, I had to save up half the money for him & it was made absolutely crystal clear that it was my responsibility to look after him.

Some people seem to put more thought into getting the latest gadget or electronic game than they do into having a pet. Having to lay out anything over £35 concentrates the mind a bit more. If people are approaching an organisation that charges, they'll hopefully plan for the new arrival properly & use the time they're saving up the money to think more deeply about what they're doing. I can't afford the £60 right now, but I'm putting something aside each week for the cost of getting mine plus paying for the initial bits like a bed, bowls etc. I won't be approaching the organisations until I've got at least £100 up front.

NaomiJane wrote: »

you should not measure how much you love something by th mount of money that you pay for it.

Totally agree, but that's not what they're doing. They want to be as sure as they can be that the animal will be going to a home where it will spend the rest of its days, not be moved from pillar to post. The animals have gone through enough already to end up in the centre/home without that to come on top. If charging a fee means some people think harder about the commitment they'e making, then it's a very good thing.

wherediditallgo

scottishfreebiehunter wrote: »

Though I do think people should be vetted as many the dog homes do up here now before the dog etc leaves.

I agree. A home visit wasn't done when we got my dog, but that was some 25 years ago or more. All the centres that cover my area now say a home visit will be done - maybe they don't do it in all cases in the end (especially for people already known to them), but I wouldn't be surprised if the thought of having someone come round to make sure they were offering a suitable home put some people off.

Wassat

wherediditallgo wrote: »

Totally agree, but that's not what they're doing. They want to be as sure as they can be that the animal will be going to a home where it will spend the rest of its days, not be moved from pillar to post. The animals have gone through enough already to end up in the centre/home without that to come on top. If charging a fee means some people think harder about the commitment they'e making, then it's a very good thing.

Since when did money buy you love????

This philosophy would condemn over 99% of the world's population!

Far sooner an animal in a poor home that loves it than a wealthy home that has it as a fashion accessory.

wherediditallgo

Wassat wrote: »

Since when did money buy you love????

This philosophy would condemn over 99% of the world's population!

I've never said that it does, & I don't know where people are picking up that angle from, as no-one else has said that in this thread either. All I've said is that having to pay a fee means some people will think harder about what they're doing, because it's not simply a question of popping round to the centre & picking up a pet with only a few minutes thought. Just because someone can pay the £60 doesn't mean they've got it to spare. I'm having to save up for mine. Some would say those that are willing to pay it (especially if they've had to save up) are showing more regard for the centre's work than those who could save up but decide not to make the contribution (& that's all it is).

It's horses for courses, & you'll find bad owners everywhere regardless of income. Love has nothing to do with their bank account, but that doesn't mean the centre shouldn't get something towards their costs. Whatever they're asking for, it's not likely to come close to what it's cost to keep the animal. I can accept the reasoning behind centres giving away animals that are elderly or need special care because of a condition/disease. They are much harder to re-home, & I would rather they go to someone who's going to look after them to the end of their days than be condemned to spend months if not years at a centre. I can also accept that an elderly person who wants a pet shouldn't be charged the full fee if the situation is means tested (not every pensioner is on the breadline). But those situations aside, I really don't see why someone should get a pet totally free of charge when it's cost a lot to get the animal healthy & ready to be re-homed, & is going to cost them money anyway to keep it in their own home. The centre isn't making an assessment of whether the person could love the animal, they're charging a fee that's a proportion of what it has cost them. Charity has been extended to the animal, but that doesn't mean it should also be extended to prospective owners (the above circumstances notwithstanding).

Wassat wrote: »

Far sooner an animal in a poor home that loves it than a wealthy home that has it as a fashion accessory.

Totally agree. But just as not being able to afford the fee (or not being willing to pay it) doesn't mean you'll love the animal any more because you got it for free, being willing to pay the fee doesn't mean you'll love the animal any less.