fukking rediculous!

[sLoWnStEaDy]

I was looking around on petfinder.com and came across "Chicago/Illinois English Bulldog Rescue" that has a bunch of bulldogs up for "adoption". they call themselves a "non-profit" organization yet there adoption fee is like $500-$750+ per dog. Call me crazy but there is no fucking way they aren't making a profit on these animals! A rescue means the dogs where GIVEN to them, even if they have to give them all the routine shots and spay/neuter that is WAY to expensive to not be making a profit. Adoption fee around here is like $100~ and that includes all of the shots, spay/neuter etc...

I just think it is bullshit to be honest. Claiming you are "non-profit" and just "trying to help the helpless" and all that bullshit but if you can't SELL the dog for $500 you will just put it to sleep when the time comes. Taking in "strays" or "unwanted" dogs etc... and then charging $500+ as an "adoption fee" is just crazy!

[NewSpeedSteed]

I agree.
Here in GA (and a few shelters in FL) 'free to good home' adoption at some shelters means free plus whatever fees tacked on to the animal. Seeing that 100-200 is common and not a big deal since like you found includes initial shots and etc.

[sLoWnStEaDy]

I said something about it on their Facebook page... can't wait to see what they say... lol

[blackx-runner]

I can understand an adoption fee for the spaying/neutering and shots that are done. But the 500-700 is a little over the top.

[sLoWnStEaDy]

I can understand an adoption fee for the spaying/neutering and shots that are done. But the 500-700 is a little over the top.

yeah, a adoption fee is understandable if it is the amount of money they "have in the dog". you cannot claim to be non-profit if you have a dog given to you, spend $100~ on shots/spay/neuter and then sell the dog for $500+. Not to mention, I looked around at other shelters in the Chicago area and different breeds have different adoption fees and "pure bred" dogs are most expensive. tell me how it costs more to "care for" a 40lb pure bred English bulldog than it does a 100lb+ Mastiff/dane mutt...

[Deimos]

I imagine it has something to do with the bull dog health problems and alot of rescues pay out the nose to save dogs and give them a better quality of life.

[black88gt]

You realize theres more to "cost" than their direct investment in that dog? They have to pay their employees, pay for their overhead, pay insurance, pay for the food, advertise, etc.

Pretty simple you dont like it dont buy it. If their prices are too high they will close their doors and there will be no one taking care of them.

[Deimos]

Sad part is most rescues are volunteer work

[sLoWnStEaDy]

I volunteer at the Humane Society and I happen to know a lot about the cost and everything. We charge an adoption fee of about $115-$150, it doesn't matter if it is a pure bred bulldog or a mutt. My point is that they are charging $500+ for pure bred dogs that are worth more money and charging shit for "mutts".

They are making a profit, I guarantee you at those prices they are making money! A rescue/shelter is not suppose to "price" their dogs based on the breed and blood line. We have a Blue pit right now that is probably "worth" about $2K or so and the adoption fee is only $115 as it is with a beagle/dachsund mutt we have that would probably be sold for liek $50. Putting more value on one dogs life than another because it is "wroth more" is bullshit. What do you think they are more likely to "get rid of" a dog they are asking $750 for or a dog they are asking $75 for...? THAT is my point. Believe it or not, a lot of perfectly healthy and perfectly adoptable dogs get put to sleep because of overcrowding or lack of interest in adopting the dog.

don't you think it would be fukked up if an adoption agency was "pricing" kids based on their ethnicity? Pure blooded german baby, $25000... negro/irish/italian baby, $2000....
Oh, and if we can't sell the cheap babies and need more room for the expensive babies, we will just kill them...

[Deimos]

All I am saying is know your breed and its problems. A mutt has far less health problems than a purebred anyways.

[JJ240]

That cost is also there to help distinguish who is going to be willing to take good care of the dog. It also goes to help fund medical bills for other dogs. My parents rescued a sheltie from the iowa sheltie rescue group who had been abandoned at the vets when his owners realized it would cost thousands of dollars in surgery to fix him up after he got attacked by a pitbull. Rescue doesn't mean "someone dropped this perfectly healthy dog off to us now lets turn him over make a profit and go blow it on hookers and coke"

[sLoWnStEaDy]

OK... FYI, I am perfectly aware of how "rescues" and shelters work. I have been at the Cedar Valley Humane Society for years and I run a small pitbull "rescue" of my own as well.
Tell me that all 30+ of the dogs they have ALL needed medical attention? Because that is bullshit. Also, your theory on "paying more to make sure it is a good home" is bullshit. I have seen people pay $500+ for a rescue dog just to use it for training the fighting dog.

Don't think I am just some random guy bitching about something I don't know anything about because that is FAR from the truth! I have seen people that run some "rescues" that do nothing else but that yet somehow they magically drive around in $50k+ vehicles and live in some pretty damn nice houses. Again, I say... I don't care if they are charging that price if they where charging that price for EVERY animal or if they have health records stating what kind of shape the dog was in when they got it.
However, they DON'T... they charge a couple hundred for a mutt that is PART english bull dog but then $750+ for a pure bred, THAT is what I am saying is B.S. From my experience, about 60%-70% of "rescue" animals come from people who are relocating, having a baby, or just can no longer afford the animal. Rarely do you see the shit like they show on t.v. when you walk in and find 20+ dogs just floating around an abandoned house and you "rescue" them.


FYI: I ADOPTED (not purchased) an english bull dog locally for $200. That $200 covered them getting the dog spayed (she wasn't when I first met her), a micro-chip and the bed that came with her, THAT is an adoption. If they show me where they spent $400~ on the dog, then I could possibly see charging $500~.

[sparkles]

Why on earth would you run a deal rescuing pit bulls? Euthanize all of them. What a bad breed.

[DustinsDuster]

Why on earth would you run a deal rescuing pit bulls? Euthanize all of them. What a bad breed.

really? you really feel that way? pretty surprising to me...

[sLoWnStEaDy]

Why on earth would you run a deal rescuing pit bulls? Euthanize all of them. What a bad breed.

bored again huh? I am not even going to dignify that statement with any type of argumentative post. Read a book, play a video game, go for a walk, there is are plenty of productive things a bored person can do.




Why on earth would you run a deal rescuing pit bulls? Euthanize all of them. What a bad breed.

really? you really feel that way? pretty surprising to me...

No, he is just being a dick, he likes to get on here and "push my buttons" when he is bored. Kind of flattering I guess...

[sLoWnStEaDy]

http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/5452/41410001.jpg
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8158/strayn.jpg
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/4387/bamfanderis4.jpg

[sparkles]

Why on earth would you run a deal rescuing pit bulls? Euthanize all of them. What a bad breed.

really? you really feel that way? pretty surprising to me...

Yeah, yeah I do. I have kids and don't really feel that that breed is a family type of a dog. If you're taking them in from bad abusive homes, (ie: rescuing them) then there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they would be fit to be adopted back out. To me, that breed is wired wrong. I've had numerous friends that have had them, heard all sorts of stories, and seen first hand what they are capable of and how easily their mood changes. A friend of mine is missing half of his ear because his own. Nothing provoked. And yes, I know this can be made a case for all breeds if someone wanted, but just seems it's extremely common for this breed.

And really? You felt a need to start a thread bitching about someone that you would obviously never deal with beings how you have your own sources. Why is is so bad I bitch about something you just divulged I don't agree with? Please enlighten me, oh pit rescuing, "money ain't an issue", Humane Society know it all.

[sparkles]

Congrats, your dog hasn't attacked your son...yet. I truly hope that never happens.

[sLoWnStEaDy]

LOL... You are a joke, I hope you know that...

Everything you said can be said for any breed (as you mentioned) and any race of people as well. The reason pits have a bad name is because of dumb ass owners and dumb ass people in general. They did a study a while back where they showed a bunch of people a bunch of photos of random dogs looking "sweet" and then a bunch of them looking "viscous". 90% of the "sweet" photos where of pitbulls yet no one could say for a "fact" that they seen a picture of a pitbull in that group of pictures. The second group of pictures where of "viscous" looking dogs, NOT A SINGLE ONE was of a pitbull yet the majority of the people in the study claimed they where 100% positive that almost every dog in the photos was a pit bull.

Any mid-sized dog that is not 100% recognizable is just automatically assumed to be a "pit bull". Rottweilers, German shepherds, pit bulls, huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas have all been linked to fatal attacks in the last 10 years and in all over THIRTY breeds have been linked to fatal attacks.
Another issue with dumb people is this; When you get bit by a small dog you just assume it was because the dog was scared or something and it didn't do much damage BECAUSE OF ITS SIZE so no one ever calls it in. Obviously, a larger dog will do more damage no matter what and people don't give bigger dogs the same "oh, poor thing was scared" excuse that they give the small dogs.

Up until low-life POS people like Michael Vick came around they where known only as a FANTASTIC breed very eager to please their owner which is what they STILL are! Do you really think a dog WANTS to fight to to the death or point of serious injury? the answer is NO, they do it because they are wanting to please their master and that is what their master wants them to do. Pit Bulls score an 85.3% passing rate with the American Temperament Test Society, which is better than the fucking Border Collie which scores something like 79.6%.

Pit bulls are the NUMBER ONE breed when it comes to "Animal Therapy". They are also used a lot as drug/bomb sniffing dogs and a Pit Bull actually holds the record for the largest bust which was 3000 POUNDS of cocaine. Of course, lets not forget "The Little Rascals"

[sLoWnStEaDy]

Just to put it into perspective for you dense mind, here are a small amount STATISTICS (not I heard, or someone mentioned or I think it was a pit) from the ATTS... so STATISTICALLY, Pit Bulls are "safer" than Shih Tzu's, Pomeranians, Lhasa Apso's, Chihuahua etc... there are MANY more breeds that have lower rates than Pit Bulls but I thought those "popular" breeds would get the point across.

AMERICAN PIT BULL TERRIER 85.3%
SHIH TZU 77.5%
AMERICAN ESKIMO 82.5%
BLOODHOUND 71.9%
BORDER COLLIE 80.6%
BOXER 83.6%
RAT TERRIER 77.8%
BULLDOG 70.2%
CHIHUAHUA 71.1%
COCKER SPANIEL 81.9%
DACHSHUND 72.7%
DALMATIAN 81.9%
GOLDEN RETRIEVER 84.6%
POMERANIAN 75%
JACK RUSSELL TERRIER 83.1%
LHASA APSO 69.2%

average passing rate for every single breed of dog tested was roughly 80%
It is estimated that of the 53 million dogs in the US, about 20% of them (10.6 million) are Pit Bulls. There where 318 reported pit bull attacks in the U.S. Last year. that means that .000003% of pit bulls attacked people last year...
Wow, they do seem dangerous when you look at it like that :roll:



Out of about 200 breeds, Pit Bulls have a higher passing rate than almost 140 of the other breeds. In another study the ATTS did with 122 breeds, pit bulls had the FOURTH highest passing rate. [/color] Sorry, I know STATISTICAL FACTS can be harder to swallow than a bunch of dumb ass people just blubberin' away at the mouth.

If you want to talk about stuff you "seen first hand"... I went to my buddy James' house last summer. He had 3 pitbulls and 2 Jack Russell's. the pit bulls where, of cousre, as sweet as could be. One of the Jack Russell's on the other hand decided to LITERALLY bite a chunk out of my calf THROUGH my pants. What happened? the owners (his aunt/uncle) said "he must of been frightened by all the noise, please don't turn him in", I didn't. A couple weeks later, he took a bite of the mail man and a couple days after that, James' 9-year old cousin.

there is no such thing as a "bad breed" just like there is no such thing as a "bad race". Every animal and every person should be dealt with on a "case to case" basis. I think it is B.S. that people can ban certain breeds of dogs, you can't ban certain races and there is NO difference...

[sparkles]

So much for not dignifying my argument I guess. And please, feel flattered all you want. When someone makes a comment I don't agree with, I tend to say something about it. The only thing that points out is that (are you ready?) I don't agree with you 99% of the time. And yes, I do like pushing your buttons to a point. It's pretty funny you get so butt hurt about it actually. You try to make yourself look cool by saying dumbass things like "I'm so above him that I won't even respond" or "He's just mad because he has no money". Yeah, you got me. :roll:


Sorry, I know STATISTICAL FACTS can be harder to swallow than a bunch of dumb ass people just blubberin' away at the mouth.
Yup, everybody on the planet, (except you of coarse) is a fucking moron and has no idea about what they're talking about. Especially those that have owned the breed in question and had bad situations arise. Yup, you should always take the word of a "study" over the word of someone that has actual experience. Thanks for the vast knowledge dude. I bow to your superiority :prayer:

You're such a fuggin tool dude.

So you're saying these dogs that you're rescuing from bad homes, being abused and mistreated, make great family pets huh? Years of kicked and locked in cages make them just awesome I bet. And I'm also just absofuckinlutly sure that the dogs they used in your "take it to the bank" study included pit bulls that have snapped on there own owners in the past, right?

They did a study a while back where they showed a bunch of people a bunch of photos of random dogs looking "sweet" and then a bunch of them looking "viscous". 90% of the "sweet" photos where of pitbulls yet no one could say for a "fact" that they seen a picture of a pitbull in that group of pictures. The second group of pictures where of "viscous" looking dogs, NOT A SINGLE ONE was of a pitbull yet the majority of the people in the study claimed they where 100% positive that almost every dog in the photos was a pit bull.
Sooo....? What does that have to do with anything? That they can look cute and other dogs can look mean? Yeah, and...? What's your fuggin point?
Hey, watch this: They did a study a while back where people were showed pictures of a Ford Pinto and asked if it looked safe and then showed pictures of a Volvo wagon. People picked the Pinto 6 to 1. See? I can do it too.

[sLoWnStEaDy]

So much for not dignifying my argument I guess. And please, feel flattered all you want. When someone makes a comment I don't agree with, I tend to say something about it. The only thing that points out is that (are you ready?) I don't agree with you 99% of the time. And yes, I do like pushing your buttons to a point. It's pretty funny you get so butt hurt about it actually. You try to make yourself look cool by saying dumbass things like "I'm so above him that I won't even respond" or "He's just mad because he has no money". Yeah, you got me. :roll:

[quote]Sorry, I know STATISTICAL FACTS can be harder to swallow than a bunch of dumb ass people just blubberin' away at the mouth.
Yup, everybody on the planet, (except you of coarse) is a fucking moron and has no idea about what they're talking about. Especially those that have owned the breed in question and had bad situations arise. Yup, you should always take the word of a "study" over the word of someone that has actual experience. Thanks for the vast knowledge dude. I bow to your superiority :prayer:

You're such a fuggin tool dude.

So you're saying these dogs that you're rescuing from bad homes, being abused and mistreated, make great family pets huh? Years of kicked and locked in cages make them just awesome I bet. And I'm also just absofuckinlutly sure that the dogs they used in your "take it to the bank" study included pit bulls that have snapped on there own owners in the past, right?

They did a study a while back where they showed a bunch of people a bunch of photos of random dogs looking "sweet" and then a bunch of them looking "viscous". 90% of the "sweet" photos where of pitbulls yet no one could say for a "fact" that they seen a picture of a pitbull in that group of pictures. The second group of pictures where of "viscous" looking dogs, NOT A SINGLE ONE was of a pitbull yet the majority of the people in the study claimed they where 100% positive that almost every dog in the photos was a pit bull.
Sooo....? What does that have to do with anything? That they can look cute and other dogs can look mean? Yeah, and...? What's your fuggin point?
Hey, watch this: They did a study a while back where people were showed pictures of a Ford Pinto and asked if it looked safe and then showed pictures of a Volvo wagon. People picked the Pinto 6 to 1. See? I can do it too.[/quote:xnhmm9vu]

I didn't dignify the first statement you made because it was so ignorant and absurd that I thought you where just being a dick to piss me off. I thought to myself "there is no way someone can be that fucking stupid" but I guess I was wrong.

Funny how you ignored most of the statistical facts I posted and just kept running your mouth. the point of that study was to show that the MAJORITY of people have a bias to the breed. That no matter what kind of dog it is, if it looks "angry" or "viscous" people just say it was a pit bull because they hear bad things about that breed.

the other post, from the ATTS was not a STUDY, that is the test they put EVERY SINGLE dog through that is in a rescue or shelter that is to be re-homed. You can disagree with my OPINIONS all you want but you can't argue the FACTS. If it is personal (not sure how it could be as I have never met you nor do I even know who you are), I will be glad to meet up with you in person and work it out. Otherwise, feel free to dis agree with my OPINIONS and the 15~ years ecperience I have with pit bulls and the people I know with a combined 100+ years experience all you want because of what some guy you know said. Just completely ignore the facts if they don't support YOUR OPINION...

I got a chunk taken out of my leg by a Jack Russell, I don't blame the breed and say the whole breed is just a bunch of killing machines because, unlike you, I am not ignorant to the facts and I know an animal is the way it is because of the OWNER... I have owned the brred since I was 8 years old, I know hundreds of people that own them and have NEVER had a single problem. I also know that shit does happen but it is just plain ridiculous for you to say "the whole world (except you of course)" when I guarantee I know a thousand times more about the breed than anyone you "heard shit from"

[sLoWnStEaDy]

Take a look at those stats I posted... if you want to base it on NATION WIDE FACTS and not just "some shit you heard from some guy" a chihuahua is more likely to attack a person than a pit bull...

I was regretting the continuation of this B.S. conversation until you started spewing from the mouth making yourself look like a complete ass and I guarantee the majority of people agree with me. Not just on this board, or in this state but in this entire country.


P.S. I think the earth is round, there is all kinds of data supporting the "round" theory as well. Do you agree? Or did some guy tell you he heard from some guy that it is flat? That's how ridiculous you sound basing your entire argument against FACTS on a "story" you heard from a guy you know or from a single bad experience (or even a hundred bad experiences for that matter).