U.S. Department of Agriculture Report Documents Severe Neglect, Animals Suffering Without Veterinary Care
Lilburn, Ga. – The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has just released a new inspection report documenting a slew of fresh violations of the Animal Welfare Act at notorious roadside zoo Yellow River Game Ranch. According to the report, obviously ailing animals were allowed to suffer without any veterinary care, including a lame goat and sheep, a pig who could barely stand and one who had difficulty walking, a bobcat so underweight that his hipbones and spine were visible, and goats with hair loss and flaking skin.
Rabbits at the facility were found confined to stacked steel cages with very little bedding and scant protection from the elements, potentially placing their lives at risk. The bears’ antiquated concrete enclosure had not been cleaned for a long time and contained a buildup of hair, feces, and debris. Seventeen goats were inadequately provided with only two dog igloos for shelter, while pigs were found sinking in the deep mud in their enclosure and were also denied bedding despite winter conditions. Inspectors reported finding hazardous sharp edges of fencing and dangerous gaps in rusty enclosures.
“Yellow River Game Ranch’s latest citations for neglect and failure to provide basic veterinary care—and the description of such ramshackle enclosures—prove that it either can’t or won’t provide animals with even the most minimal care,” says PETA Foundation Deputy Director Brittany Peet. “PETA is calling on this facility to allow these animals to be retired to the safety of a reputable sanctuary immediately.”
This inspection report confirmed many of the ongoing veterinary issues that PETA—whose motto reads, in part, that “animals are not ours to use for entertainment”—has repeatedly reported to the USDA. In 2012, a whistleblower came forward with reports of rampant cruelty and neglect that closely mirror the USDA’s recent findings. In 2014, the roadside zoo was fined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration for allowing its employees to risk their lives by entering enclosures with bears.
A vegan journey
By Lori Lovely
It was a lovely spring day many years ago when a teenager was riding in the passenger seat of a racecar hauler that was being driven through rural Iowa on its way to a race. Gazing serenely upon the passing view, she observed pastoral scenes of cows, young calves in tow, grazing tranquilly on fresh green grass.
It was a familiar sight: the backdrop of her life in small-town Midwest America. But suddenly it struck her. Although not familiar with the unbearably gruesome details of the slaughterhouse, she intuitively understood the future that lay ahead of these gentle creatures. The connection between those rest stop burgers and these mothers with their babies, once made, could never be undone. She never ate meat again.
That teenager was me. That was my moment of clarity.
Giving up meat was easy for me—much easier than enduring the questions, jokes, taunts and sneers slung at me due to my choice. Because of the ridicule hurled my way, I was low-key about it, quietly trying to eat vegetarian options without notice or fanfare. I got so tired of answering questions about what I did and didn’t eat and why I did or didn’t eat it. (No, I don’t eat fish. Yes, they are animals.)
Back then I didn’t proselytize. The choice I made was right for me, but I didn’t push my values on anyone else. I just wanted to eat in peace.
It took about ten more years for the next moment of clarity: The animals just wanted to live in peace. At that point I gave up leather. I also began donating to animal rights organizations, adopting pets from shelters and rescues and respectfully talking to friends about eating meat, hunting, fishing and countless other activities that hurt animals.
As my voice became stronger, my use of animal products diminished even further. And then, one day about five years ago, my husband and I decided to go vegan. Overnight. Done. It seemed the natural progression for me: the next step. I thought it would be much easier for me than for my husband, who wasn’t even vegetarian. I had a lot to learn.
The first person I turned to was Ingrid Newkirk, who had become a close friend. She immediately sent us several books by Dr. Neal Barnard, another good friend. They were a tremendous aid—a sort of instruction manual. While they contained some recipes, their value was more in the instructional guidance they offered.
We followed the steps proscribed in one of Neal’s books. First, we cleared the refrigerator and cupboards of everything that wasn’t vegan. Anything unopened was donated, the rest either fed to the dogs or tossed out.
Next, we went to the supermarket to restock the shelves. It took us ages to shop that day because we had to carefully scrutinize the labels on every single item. We were astonished to see how many items were made with milk. We could hardly find a loaf of bread at our regular supermarket. We felt defeated before we’d even begun. This wasn’t going to be as easy as we’d thought.
We persevered. My husband sampled a few brands of faux meat, but after 30 years of a vegetarian diet, that didn’t interest me. We looked through vegan cookbooks for interesting dishes. There were hits and misses. We struggled with the transition for a while.
One night, just as we were finishing chores on the farm, a vegan friend and neighbor who likes to cook brought us a couple servings of the black bean lasagna and Thai salad she had just made. That turned the tide for us. So there were delicious vegan entrees, after all! Modifying her recipe a bit, we’ve made the dish many times, especially when we have guests for dinner. Everyone loves it, whether they’re vegan or not. That led, in turn, to other recipes, more experimentation and additional sharing.
There were setbacks as we learned the vegan lingo that led to us eliminating additional items from our shopping list. I already knew that gelatin and marshmallows are made with beef tallow (although the nutritional label won’t tell you so), but we discovered that casein, a dairy product, is a common ingredient in many foods and some lecithin comes from meat, dairy or eggs. Label reading became trickier.
Vegan items are often stocked in the organic section at the supermarket, but organic doesn’t mean meat- and dairy-free. Nor does vegetarian. Few products carry a vegan label (although I wish the FDA would insist that they did; it would be so much simpler!)
We had to remain vigilant to avoid items with meat and dairy. We became detectives, investigating the food we considered putting in our mouths for hidden animal products. We began eliminating foods when their labels read “may contain milk.” If the producer couldn’t be sure, neither could we.
It’s easy enough to prepare vegan meals at home. However, it’s been tougher on my husband when he travels with the race team, often stuck at a race track until late at night, or stranded at some hotel in a foreign city—or country—with limited options and no transportation. Then there are the countless late nights at the race shop, when they order pizza that he can’t eat. I’m proud of him for sticking to it, taking his lunch to the shop, stashing granola bars in his backpack to nosh while the rest of the team is dining on take-out.
Despite some bumps and detours, the road has become easier with time as new habits develop. We’ve made new vegan friends and found out that a few we already had are now vegan too. Everyone has a favorite dish or recipe or restaurant they’re eager to share. Ingrid sends us vegan care packages every year with new yummies to tempt us and teach us that eating a plant-based diet is healthy, tasty and completely doable. As my neighbor said, it can be a fun challenge to figure out how to “veganize” a recipe.
It’s certainly easier—and more acceptable—to be vegan these days than it was when I first gave up meat 35 years ago. I no longer have to hide my dinner plate or feel like an imposition at the company Christmas party. I’m no longer embarrassed to inquire about the ingredients, or to politely decline if they include animal products.
Now I’m more apt to ask others why they eat meat when there is so much documentation of its adverse health effects and the devastating impact of animal agriculture on our environment … and, of course, for me perhaps the most important aspect of it all: the suffering it causes animals.
Reading labels has become second nature. Neal was right about retraining taste buds. I don’t miss Parmesan cheese. (Yes, we eat pizza without cheese and we like it.) I know I’m healthier since I gave up candy. I also know I feel better about us because we are not contributing to animal cruelty or global warming. There is no cruelty on our plates.
I ask everyone to join us—for your own health, for the future of our planet and for the innocent animals whose lives are so unjustly stolen in the name of cuisine.
Raccoons share a common ancestry with bears, and they originally lived in forests close to waterways. Like their cousins, raccoons are true omnivores who eat a wide variety of foods, including nuts, seeds, fruits, eggs, insects, frogs, and crayfish. They will eat whatever is available, using their dexterous paws to pluck morsels from small hiding places.
Raccoons possess acute senses of sight and hearing and a highly developed sense of touch. A raccoon’s forefeet are extremely agile and resemble human hands with their five slender fingers. Highly independent and somewhat solitary creatures, raccoons are nocturnal. They hunt at night camouflaged by their distinctive coats and rest by day in the hollows of high trees.
Though humans have occupied the vast majority of their traditional habitat, raccoons are opportunistic and curious animals and have learned to coexist with people. For these reasons, close encounters between raccoons and humans are extremely common in urban and suburban areas.
These clever, gregarious animals with the characteristic black mask surrounding their eyes have been known to pry the lids off sealed garbage cans, raid campsites and coolers, and even turn on the tap for a drink of water. While some people take great delight in watching raccoons’ nightly antics, others consider the animals’ high jinks a nuisance. Thankfully, there are plenty of humane, common-sense solutions to perceived conflicts with these wild animals.
Did You Know?
Raccoons are widely known for their unusual habit of “washing” their food or hands in water. In fact, the scientific name for the raccoon is Procyon lotor, the Latin word “lotor” meaning “washer.” Many theories have been proposed to explain why raccoons engage in this interesting ritual, but most scientists believe that it is related to raccoons’ innate tendency to forage for food near water sources.
Solving Conflicts Compassionately
Because raccoons are opportunistic feeders, the key to resolving conflicts with them is to contain available food sources. Once food is contained, raccoons will move on. Seal garbage cans (use bungee cords on lids), cover compost bins, and place netting over fish ponds. Putting out garbage on the day that it will be picked up will discourage raccoons from frequenting the area. Feed companion animals inside or be sure to remove any food placed outside when the animals are finished eating. Most importantly, never feed wildlife! Also, keep an outdoor light or radio on at night or use motion-detector lights or sprinklers to deter raccoons.
Raccoons give birth from January through June and often use attics and chimneys as dens to raise their young. If you discover a family of raccoons nesting in or around your home, the animals should not be removed until fall (when nesting season has ended) in order to avoid separating young raccoons from their parents. It is inhumane to let the little ones starve to death, and the mother will also try frantically to reach her young and could damage your property in the process. Young raccoons do not venture out of the nest until they are 8 to 9 weeks of age. Trapping and moving the family is not recommended because it will almost certainly separate the mother from her young. Furthermore, relocating solitary raccoons or small raccoon families is illegal in most places and will likely result in their being mauled and killed by resident raccoons.
When you’re certain that the young raccoons have left the nest, frightening devices, such as a portable radio or a mechanic’s light, can be used to evict the animals. Making the area as smelly as possible by placing a few ammonia-soaked rags is a very useful deterrent. Because raccoons are nocturnal animals, evicting them is easiest around dusk when they begin their nightly routines. Storms, dogs barking, or other atypical outdoor disturbances can delay eviction. If raccoons must be evicted during nesting season for safety reasons, it can take several days for a mother to move babies to a new nest once humane deterrents are in place.
Once you are certain that the raccoons have left, carefully inspect the area for animals before installing exclusion devices. Install a chimney cap and repair and seal openings. Never use smoke or fire to drive animals out of chimneys. This will almost certainly kill young animals who are not physically able to leave on their own—whether they be raccoons, squirrels, opossums, or birds. Once areas are sealed, watch and listen for signs that young animals have been trapped inside, including young animals crying out or moving inside walls or fixtures, mothers pacing in the vicinity, or mothers scratching, chewing, or pawing at the area. If you discover that young animals have been sealed inside, reopen the sealed area immediately so that the mother can attend to her young.
If for some reason you find an adult raccoon in your home after you seal off points of entry, remain calm. If left alone, raccoons will not cause any harm. The best thing to do is to close openings providing access to other parts of the house, open windows and doors through which the raccoon can exit, and then wait quietly for the animal to escape.
Once the raccoons have been evicted, you should not attempt to trap and remove raccoons from the property. Trapping and removing them will do nothing for long-term control, as the newly vacant niche will quickly be filled by raccoons from surrounding areas. Relocating raccoons—even to wild or wooded areas—is illegal in many places and will likely result in their death
Chicago – Following news that an 18-year-old Chicago teen has been accused of pouring boiling water on a cat in a video that he posted to Facebook, TeachKind, PETA’s humane-education division, is rushing letters to local schools urging them to implement humane education and asking the CEO of Chicago Public Schools to add a prohibition against cruelty to animals to its code of conduct. In the letters, TeachKind explains that abusing animals can lead to continued antisocial behavior, from further acts of cruelty toward animals to bullying, aggression, and violence against humans. TeachKind and PETA—whose mottos read, in part, that “animals are not ours to abuse in any way”—are also offering free copies of their “Abuse: Report It if You See It” poster to each school in the area in the hope of preventing future abuse. The cat survived the attack and is now recovering at a local animal shelter.
“The violent attack on this helpless cat should serve as a painful reminder that the time to start teaching young people compassion is now,” says PETA Senior Director of Youth Outreach and Campaigns Marta Holmberg. “TeachKind is asking local schools to let students know that any kind of cruelty or insensitivity is wrong by implementing humane education into school curriculums immediately.”
According to leading mental-health professionals and law-enforcement agencies, perpetrators of violent acts against animals are often repeat offenders who pose a serious threat to the community at large. TeachKind’s staff is always available to send materials to schools, suggest lesson plans, and even host classroom presentations with students via Skype—all for free.
TeachKind’s letters to Chicago schools and the CEO of Chicago Public Schools are available upon request. For more information, please visit TeachKind.org.
Rescue gone wrong
By Lori Lovely
Erick Pleitez / CC by 2.0
Animal rescue is a noble calling: selfless work that demands sacrifice, countless hours and a significant budget, often filled with heartache and fewer happy endings than hoped for. Too often, however, those who work in animal rescue come to consider themselves nobility, dictating inflexible rules for adopters and neglecting the best interests of the animals because the rescuers have developed controlissues, ego and a sense of power.
“In my experience,” writes Natalie, on http://my.arfie.com/profiles/blogs/bad-animal-rescues-groups, “rescue groups attract people with control issues.” She concedes that many rescue groups are good, the rescuers committed to helping homeless or abused animals. However, she adds, “some rescue groups are run by people who are in it for the power trip. Some rescues have such idiotic adoption requirements that they end up rescuing very few dogs, while hanging on to their dogs for months and in some cases years.” Not only are the animals kept in overcrowded foster homes, she states, in some cases, dogs (and cats) are caged for a year or more – while applications are denied for reasons such as lack of a fenced yard or plans for a possible future move. “I wish these rescues were accountable for how much money they take in and how many dogs they end up placing in permanent homes.”
So-called adoption fees rival purchase prices charged by breeders; adoption contracts compete with mortgage applications in length and provisos. Rules and regulations imposed can preclude approval of prospective adoptions and personal opinions about re-homing can ncloud a rescuer’s vision about what constitutes a good home. This, in turn, can lead to a hoarding, not a rescuing situation. The purpose of rescue is to find good homes for the animals, but too often that purpose is obscured.
In the end, the animals suffer because a potential adoptive family is turned away due to complicatedprocesses, exorbitant costs or overbearing, controlling rescues. Stories of rescue gone wrong are many, and exemplify the problem of an unregulated industry.
Shawn, of Oakland, CA, wrote on http://www.yelp.com/biz/fremont-animal-shelter-fremont that his adoption application was denied “because we planned to allow our dogs inside and outside access to the house at their leisure (once they were successfull housebroken).” The rescue group insisted that the dog was not to be allowed outside without a leash and supervision, even in a securely fenced yard. “I suppose we could have lied, but who does that to an animal shelter? Instead, since he didn’t meet the group’s standards of a “responsible pet owner,” he went to a local breeder. “Too bad,” he says. “We were looking to take home a pair of dogs. The blood is on their hands.”
Even if a rescue insists on an indoor life for a dog, it usually requires the adoptive home to have a fenced-in yard. One dog lover who applied to a retired greyhound rescue was rejected because his yard wasn’t big enough. “Paid thirty bucks for the application fee, only to get rejected because my backyard was not big enough,” he says. “My back yard is 1,000 square feet, but apparently that was not big enough.” Although he found the dog of his dreams in the rescue, he now says he’ll search the shelters instead of turning to another rescue.
Because most rescuers believe the only suitable life for a dog is as an indoor pet, even very large dogs bred for centuries to live with their flock or herd as livestock guardians are placed as indoor-only pets. One adoptive dog owner ignored a rescue’s rules, placing her herding dog on a farm. “She lives the life of a working dog, not a pampered pet in an urban environment,” she said. “She’s happy.”
Sadly, not all dogs get the opportunity to live the life they were born to because many rescuers are unfamiliar with breed characteristics … even if their rescue specializes in that breed. One longtime volunteer foster “mom” for a white German Shepherd rescue denounced an adopter for using a dog to herd farm animals because she believed the only job they were intended to do was as police dogs, ignoring the word “shepherd” in the name of the breed. Complaints abound. “‘Rescue groups’” for specific breeds can have very high standards and make you sign a contract saying they can take the dog back if they feel you aren’t being a good owner,” says one person who had a bad experience with a rescue. Contracts between rescue groups and adopters typically include provisions prohibiting the adopter from selling or giving away the pet and a few rescue groups include a clause to maintain co-ownership. Some contracts provide access to the adopter’s property by rescue representatives to conduct inspections at any time, with or without notice.
Almost all of them allow the rescue to take the animal if they deem conditions warrant it.
Denied and lied to
Insisting the dog remain indoors is only one of the typical rules of rescue. They can also be fussy about who lives in the home: children and other pets can become issues that preclude adoption. Sometimes, as Larissa found out, having lost a pet can disqualify an applicant.
Casually considering adding a puppy to her family, she and her husband took their three children to the Apple Fair in Hendricks County, where they fell in love with a pit bull. Because the dog had heartworms, there was no adoption fee. “The lady there was begging us to take her,” Larissa recalls. “I have a great vet, [so] my husband and I decided we would take her.” After taking a photo of the dog with her children, they instructed her where to pick up “Sweetheart” the following week once the dog had been vaccinated.
However, days later she was informed that the dog was no longer eligible for adoption because of her condition. When she inquired about adopting a different dog, the director of adoptions informed her that by honestly answering a question on the application about an animal that had passed away in her care, she was not considered a responsible pet owner. The rescue did not conduct a home inspection or check her veterinary references.
Larissa explains that the 7-week-old pit/boxer mix puppy had been vaccinated and given a clean bill of health by her vet, but passed away unexpectedly of natural causes. She later found out that one of his littermates died of complications from a weak heart. The director ignored the fact that Larissa had another dog and cat, both healthy, and vet records. Instead, the director informed her that her photo would be circulated to prevent her from nadopting from other groups. It was Larissa’s first – and last – experience with rescue. Describing the director as “god-like” and rude, she was stunned by the attack on her character. “It broke my heart that my little puppy died and now to be accused of this is heart-wrenching.”
Perhaps the most difficult aspect is explaining to her children, who had been promised by the rescue workers that Sweetheart was theirs, why they weren’t getting the dog. “My two-year-old just doesn’t get it at all,” Larissa says, “but my nine-year-old took it the hardest.” Knowing that being honest on the application canceled the adoption, she feels guilty. “Had I lied, Sweetheart would be here in my home, getting health treatment and I wouldn’t have had to go through the emotional stress of being lied to and emotionally battered and having to tell my kids we aren’t getting the doggy.
“I’m sad that I can’t have Sweetheart,” she continues. “Not many people are going to be willing to pay the money it takes to take care of a sick dog, and I’m offering her a forever home. But to talk to me like I’m a criminal and accuse me of being an irresponsible pet owner isn’t fair. The lady had me in pure tears, I mean the ugly cry. I didn’t think my heart was ready for another dog, then we were begged to save this dog and now my heart is broken again.”
All she wanted, she says, was a “sweet large-breed dog.” Through with rescues, she is now planning to purchase a dog from a reputable breeder.
Other rigid requirements for adoption include a veterinary reference, but that can be difficult for a first-time pet owner. David wrote on http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100525124841AARm3Xj that he was hoping to adopt a puppy from a rescue: breed didn’t matter. After filling out applications and paying a fee at two rescues, he was denied because he couldn’t provide the mandatory vet reference. “I’m completely put off from contacting any rescue group,” he says, “leaving me to neither wait for a pup to arrive at the local shelter or, groan, buy a pup from a pet store.
No reason at all
When Lisa tried to adopt a Teacup Chihuahua from a rescue in Kokomo, IN, as a companion for her spayed Chihuahua, she was turned down without any explanation. No home visit was conducted. She’s not sure if they checked with her veterinarian of 20 years, who has treated numerous animals she took in because they were hurt or abandoned. In addition to caring for her two dogs and cat, Lisa has a record of paying to treat abused animals, which she then rehomes. She has reunited lost pets and their owners. She has taken stray cats to be spayed or neutered and vaccinated – all out of her own pocket. “I do all this out of the kindness of my heart. I have also brought in pets that friends can’t afford to help them. I am a huge animal lover and would help any animal in need.”
Nevertheless, after answering a detailed questionnaire that asked for “everything but the kitchen sink,” her application was rejected – and she still doesn’t know why. “Why didn’t they call me to ask me questions or discuss? They don’t even know me.” An invitation to visit her home was refused, leaving her to believe that “they don’t want to adopt out.”
Like so many others, she says she has been forced to turn to breeders. “Rescues promote peopleto buy from breeders and puppy mills. They interrogate you to death and tell you no. I will never try to adopt from a rescue again! I can buy a puppy somewhere for the same amount of money and not get any interrogation … and not told ‘no’!”
Lisa’s observation is shared by others and raises the question: do rescues really want to find homes for the animals in their care? One person who witnessed rescue from the inside points out that “rescue work is very emotional so I think there is a strong protective element when it comes to rehoming dogs. Some volunteers have a hard time giving up the pet they have fostered.”
Are contract clauses deliberately stringent in order to scare off the majority of applicants? If Larissa had been able to adopt Sweetheart, she would have been required to take the dog to the rescue for her first vet visit. “We live far away from where they’re located,” she indicates. “I think a fax from our vet should have been sufficient.”
One rescue volunteer defends his industry, although his attitude toward potential adopters supports the grievance many have voiced. “Why on earth would I even consider giving a living thing to someone who won’t sign a contract? We exist for the benefit and safety of the dogs, not the convenience of every nut who wants a dog. Contracts are written and signed to protect the animals. It is one of the few ways we have to somewhat guarantee that an animal will be safe and well cared for, and not end up euthanized next week after we walk away.”
“Meanwhile,” notes another rejected adoption applicant, “while they hold onto their dogs, hundreds die every day in shelters.”
The other side of the coin that gives rescue a bad name comes from rescuers so desperate to move animals out of their overcrowded living conditions that they deliberately misrepresent the facts in order to make them more appealing to potential adopters. One Indianapolis “rescue” posted an ad for a Great Pyrenees on Petfinder that indicated the dog got along well with others, despite being told by the previous owner and personally witnessing at their facility his aggression towards other dogs.
Similarly, when Chelsea wanted to adopt a small male dog listed by a rescue on Petfinder, she was told he was “98 percent housebroken.” He would urinate on plastic bags: his foster “mom” called it a “quirk.” The dog was reportedly good with cats, children and other dogs, neutered and vaccinated. “According to the rescue, nothing was wrong with him.”
Once she got him home, she realized very quickly that he was not housebroken. She took him to her veterinarian for a general exam and found out that he had several retained deciduous teeth that were causing intraoral problems. He had also developed skin problems from allergies to the “less-than-decent kibble the rescue feeds their dogs. He needed a complete dental work-up, which was estimated at being right around $700. I know they had him for at least two months before he was adopted out – why hadn’t they taken this step themselves? Leaving those teeth in his jaw would have eventually caused very serious problems.”
Chelsea put the dog on a prey model raw diet, and within a few weeks the weak baby teeth had come out on their own and the plaque build-up was gone. The diet also helped with his skin.
“His coat is now thick and shiny, and he is the epitome of a healthy dog,” she reports.
The “good with cats” claim also proved to be misleading. Chelsea says she had to train the dog to play nicely with her cat. In addition, she says he doesn’t play well with dogs his size and that because he was “never taught bite inhibition and wants very much so to be as close to your face as possible,” she doesn’t consider him safe with children. “I’ve been working with him for almost a year with this, and it’s not easy to break with easily excited small dogs. As a result, I try to avoid situations with children. The rescue was clearly not honest about any of this. In all honesty, I felt like they were in a hurry to get rid of him.
“I love my dog very, very much,” she continues, “but if I had been given more information about him from the get-go, I could have avoided the majority of what negative sides of him I’ve run into and could have become more efficient of an owner far more quickly. Unfortunately, the problems I had with them have been ongoing.”
When her dog started behaving strangely in response to fireworks last July, Chelsea emailed the rescue, looking for insight. “I was essentially told that I was a bad owner and she insinuated that she regretted adopting him out to me. I was given no hints that he would become an entirely different dog around loud noises, and they didn’t give me any useful advice. What advice I was given would have been completely counterproductive, and their main opinion was to have him put on canine Prozac.”
Rescue groups are not regulated so there’s no one ensuring they follow Animal Welfare laws or pay taxes. Since there is no licensing organization to oversee rescues, it’s important to verify the group’s claimsn and investigate their operation.
One Indianapolis “rescue” claims to be a non-profit group, although the owners admit, when pressed on the issue, that they have yet to file any paperwork to acquire a 501c3 designation. Registered non-profit groups are listed on Guidestar.org.
An adopter has to be careful that they are getting a dog from a reputable group. Ask questions. Do the rescue workers know the care requirements for the breed? Are the animals given play time outside the cage? Are they kept with other animals of their species?
Do they have proper food and shelter? How long, on average, are the animals in foster care before they are rehomed? If you find that they spend years in foster care on a regular basis, walk away. Ask to see the contract before you provide your personal information on an application. Beware the “mandatory donation” in place of an adoption fee.
Many backyard “rescues” are little more than hoarders, keeping too many animals confined in small spaces, dirty conditions, or caged all day. One Indianapolis “rescue” keeps cages of birds and rabbits stacked one on top of another in their garage.
Always make sure that you nvisit the place where the animals are being housed and if anything seems out of place, walk away. Better yet, report them to an animal welfare agency. Any group who puts their needs or greed before the animals should not be dealt with. There’s nothing noble about neglecting an animal’s physical and emotional needs.