What is wrong w/rescues selling horses for their true value?

[mzm farm]

Flame suit on, so don't hold back.
I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this matter.

I am not talking about the starved neglected old horse that needs thousands put in just to get it healthy. What I am interested to know is why you think it is bad or good for a rescue selling/adopting out a horse for $x especially if they have an appraisal stating that is what the animal is worth?

What if they got a young horse and put lots of training in it? Basically assume a usable, show ready/sound animal?

[coloredhorse]

Personally, I have zero problem with that. It's a great idea. I know a few very outstanding horsemen and -women who have been doing that very thing on an individual level for years. The old lady lounging about nibbling alfalfa in my back yard is the fruit of one such woman's efforts.

Caveat: I think it's a great idea, as long as the horse is actually sold to the new owner. I would not ever pay an "adoption fee" equivalent to a fair market price for a horse that I would not own outright, that would come with strings attached as to what I could do with him/her, where the horse could be boarded, etc., including no right to resell the horse later on, as many rescues seem to do.

(Personally, I won't enter any such "adoption" agreement for the smallest fee, for any horse or other animal. I want to own animals, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails, not adopt furbabies. I have no patience with that sort of froofiness. :rolleyes:)

[Bluey]

Flame suit on, so don't hold back.
I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this matter.

I am not talking about the starved neglected old horse that needs thousands put in just to get it healthy. What I am interested to know is why you think it is bad or good for a rescue selling/adopting out a horse for $x especially if they have an appraisal stating that is what the animal is worth?

What if they got a young horse and put lots of training in it? Basically assume a usable, show ready/sound animal?

I don't know where a rescue stands, if they are tax exempt, if they conduct business as a training barn and start selling horses in the regular market?

I guess that you would have to ask the IRS to make a judgement on that one.

I know that some rescues go to a trader, they call the trader pens "feedlot" and buy perfectly good horses out of there and resell them at a profit.
The trader may have told them they were going to ship them to slaughter, but in many cases, those traders were laughing all the way to the bank, the horses were just going on to the next sale and hoping they can sell for a little more and make their cut.
That is the way they make a living, knowing what their markets are, buying cheap and selling higher, hopefully.

The rescues that did that were skirting the line, in fact becoming one more trader.
When confronted, they said that their motives were pure, so I guess that exhonerated them from being called horse traders.:p

CBER is supposed to be one of them, for what I have heard, along with a few others.

There are true rescues out there, that take in horses in real immediate need and those are unquestionable rescuing horses.
How they price the horses they then sell is never in question.

[coloredhorse]

Bluey has a good point: a rescue operating as a licensed non-profit -- or even not-for-profit -- organization must meet numerous conditions. Sales for fair market value might violate some of the financial must-haves for continued licensing as a 501-3(c) or whatever their status might be.

But rescues can be set up as for-profit operations. In that case, the application of the name "rescue" versus "sales barn" or "horse trader" would be more a matter of perception than of any clear definition. The individuals I mentioned earlier who did take in -- by acquiring for free or for a very low price -- various types of "unwanteds," turn them into useful equine citizens, and re-sell them at a fair market price would fall into this category.

[danceronice]

Caveat: I think it's a great idea, as long as the horse is actually sold to the new owner. I would not ever pay an "adoption fee" equivalent to a fair market price for a horse that I would not own outright, that would come with strings attached as to what I could do with him/her, where the horse could be boarded, etc., including no right to resell the horse later on, as many rescues seem to do.

(Personally, I won't enter any such "adoption" agreement for the smallest fee, for any horse or other animal. I want to own animals, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails, not adopt furbabies. I have no patience with that sort of froofiness. :rolleyes:)

IAWTC. I will not "adopt" a horse, I will buy one. And if a rescue has put a lot of money into a horse I will pay fair market value, assuming there is COMPLETE transfer of title. I assume that the profit margin, if any (how many of us really MAKE money on sales unless we're breeding WB babies or TB sales colts?) is going towards the not-insignificant expenses of running a horse rescue.

[grandprixjump]

And this is a known PERSONALLY by me what they did...

A friend of mine was looking at a BIG (17 3 or so) horse they were telling me about. Happen to mention he was a warmblood. brand and all, and a rescue had him for sale for $9k. They had gotten the horse as a give away, and was supposed to find him a good TRAIL home. He had hip problems that would prevent him from ever being a decent show horse.. When my friend told them they knew the story on this horse, the supposed rescue just hung up on them, and refused to answer their calls.

[caffeinated]

I don't think there's anything wrong with selling a horse for closer to market value. Most groups who do this have invested a significant amount of time and money to make a horse worth that much in the first place and probably are not fully covering the costs of doing so.

Not all horses at rescues are washed up and worthless - if one is actually worth more, why not ask more, and have more money in the end to put back into the program? :)

There's sort of a double edged sword with pricing rescue horses (or any sale horse, honestly). Too low, and everyone assumes something is wrong with it. Too high, and people think you have some nerve asking that for a rescue horse (even if it's jumping 3' and been to competitions and would be worth twice as much on the open market)!

[Woodland]

Absolutely! I believe they SHOULD sell the rehabilitated animals for their FULL value so that they can extend their philanthropy to help other animals in danger. And people who TRULY have the animals best interests at heart should be GLAD for it! Even CHAMPION IT!

Rescues should be run like a business with the bottom line in mind. Unfunded philanthropy is a poor excuse for a charity.

Too many good ones go under because they underestimate their VALUE!

Added: There is no way you can tell me you HAVE to sell a horse for a pittance to PROVE it is a rescue or not for profit! The horses I rescue i can spend THOUSANDS on to rehabilitate. Darn straight I want all they are worth so I can offer my home to more that are in dire dire need. A rescue worth it's salt has spent well more than the pitiful adoption price to help this poor critter. To help others they need MONEY! This foolishness of a $300 adoption fee has to end!

[Jleegriffith]

Ditto what caffeinated said. I am involved with the retraining and sales of many of the horses that come through our program and you walk that line between too cheap and to expensive for a rescue. We do allow a horse to transfer ownership and make sure we research the homes they are going to the best of our ability.

I will say we have some very nice horses that come through that are actually quite talented, sound and have no issues. The profit (if you can call it profit) of these horses goes to the horses that may not be able to be rehomed.

For example, the two horses that are currently in retraining at my farm are quite nice and I believe there will be a profit and see nothing wrong with that. We put a lot of time retraining, taking off the farm trips and putting all that initial baby show mileage on them. Then you have teeth, chiro, feet and other expenses plus the cost to board them.
Horses here: http://dixierumble.wordpress.com/
Two lovely 3 yr ottb's that have all the right pieces to exel in the show world. Look at the 3 yr going down to those jumps his second time ever seeing a jump! Both of them were just to slow for racing and donated by trainers who are happy to see them move into new careers. I always feel like we serve the horses better by putting in that retraining so someone else can take them to the next steps but doesn't have to do all the really hard work of the transition from track to riding horse. It is very hard to sell ottb's with no retraining which is why the retraining program was put into place. Ultimately, it better serves the rescue as a whole by creating a bit more money in a time when donations are down.

[Alagirl]

I think the problem is that they got them for free, as donation, or surrender.

or that the officers of the rescue profit nicely from the proceeds of the sale.

What I have a problem with - at any price - is the you have all the duties and non of the rights deals they impose on the interested party.

I mean, even as not for profit you can make money, you just can't profit from it, it has to go back into the organization. And I do not know any group that can afford to not get the extra 1k or maybe more dollars to buff their finances.

I just can't stomach 10k 'adoption fees' <insert vomit icon here>

[Trixie]

I always feel like we serve the horses better by putting in that retraining so someone else can take them to the next steps but doesn't have to do all the really hard work of the transition from track to riding horse. It is very hard to sell ottb's with no retraining which is why the retraining program was put into place. Ultimately, it better serves the rescue as a whole by creating a bit more money in a time when donations are down.

I think what you do is great. There's a lot of folks out there who would LOVE an OTTB but are too intimidated to buy one directly off the track, for whatever reason. This way, they have some idea of what the horse is like away from the track, it has a few miles on it, and can therefore be a bit more comfortable with the idea.

[magnolia73]

Honestly- it's a shame there are not more programs to restart and resell ex-racers. Niki was restarted when I got her- I don't think I could have managed a fresh ottb. But she had all the basics in place.

I think they should be marketed at true value- if the non-profit is returning profits to the organization, it makes a lot of sense to profit from the ones that are profitable.... to support the lovable money pits.

I think adoption is different- if there are limits- ie, you can't resell the adopted horse.... then you do need to cut the price somewhat because the horse has a restriction.

[greysandbays]

An "adoption" for which the rescue retains "ownership" (in effect, leasing the horse out) and/or inisists that the horse be returned to the rescue if the "adoptor" can't keep him shouldn't be thinking they can get "true market value" as an "adoption fee".

If it is instead a "purchase price" where ownership truly transfers to person putting up the money, then the rescue should be "selling" for whatever the market will bear.

I'd buy a horse from the latter. I wouldn't adopt from, donate to, or volunteer for in any way shape or form for the former.

[vali]

I had an unpleasant experience recently with a group that takes unwanted horses for a tax donation, then turns around and sells them quickly. I didn't get the sense that they were upfront about the physical or personality issues with each horse, more of a trader type situation.

[cowgirljenn]

I think adoption is different- if there are limits- ie, you can't resell the adopted horse.... then you do need to cut the price somewhat because the horse has a restriction.

Since we do have restrictions on our adopters, we follow this philosophy - we charge fees based on the horses' experience, abilities, training, issues, etc. and we try to set them below 'fair market value'. If a horse doesn't get adopted, we lower his/her fee, too, after a while.

Our guys do go out with current vet work, at a good weight, current farrier care and de-worming. And a 30 day money-back guarantee (can return the horse within the first 30 days for a full refund). We do have to bring in money to help offset expenses, but we realize we have to give something if we want to place restrictions.

I don't think there's any limits/rules governing what a nonprofit can adopt out or sell horses for, as long as they're acting within the scope of their mission. You can make a profit as a nonprofit, and you can pay salaries. However, your founders/employees/whoever can't get dividends or shares of the profit.

[sidepasser]

I have no problem with a rescue selling a horse for it's face value as long as the $$ generated go back to helping the elders or sick/lame etc. at the rescue. Sometimes rescues do get nice horses that their owners just cannot keep anymore and they don't want to send them to auction. Should the rescue just give the horse away or charge a very low donation fee? NO! Rescues need every dime they can gather these days with the flood of horses that come and as long as the money they make (same as a fund raiser in my humble opinion) goes straight back into the rescue and not the pocket of an individual (thinking Celetia/Crossed Sabers here), I have absolutely no problem with it.

Most rescues don't get those caliber of horses in very often, they mostly get the ones no one wants that are ill, lame, starved, wild, etc. But in the event that they do get a nice horse, I want that legitimate rescue to get every dime they can out of the "nice" horse to help the others that aren't "so nice".

Heck - to me the old ones are the nicest anyway..lol..thanks to Lori at Sunkissed Acres, I now have an oldie but goodie that is slightly swaybacked and my grandson thinks she should be up there with Secretariat. He is so excited!~! He will get to take one lesson a week on the old girl and my little girl boarder will take one lesson a week (so she overcomes her fear and timidity and can ride her pony - another Sunkissed baby) and neither will ride the horse more than 20 minutes each on alternating days..so my oldie now has the life of leisure except on Sat. mornings..and she will be cared for here till she goes over the bridge to meet Aloha.

That's my point - most rescues don't get the 10,000 dressage horse, they get the oldies but goodies, or the navicular and lame..

So if they happen to have one that comes in that can continue in a career, what is the harm in the rescue selling the horse to cover the others that can no longer have a career?

[mzm farm]

Wow, I am glad to hear so many reasonable voices out there. I thought perhaps I was alone in my "business" like thinking about rescuing animals and putting the "profits" into helping others.

Thanks for the thoughts!

[Alterrain]

[X= person/ farm/ rescue/ whatever]

I have NO problem with X who gets a horse from the track, slaughter truck, starving backyard, abusive home, uneducated kid, etc (even if said horse is free) and training, feeding, worming, gaining trust, etc and sells it for whatever the market deems it is worth. If they sell a free horse for a million bucks? more power to them! :)

I have a HUGE problem with X who gets the same horse from the same situation and asks the same amount, be it big or small, only calls it an "adoption fee" and attaches a million stipulations to said horses future care.

[snkstacres]

I am a rescue and proud of it but................................I will tell you if you are buying a horse or adopting one from here. There is a difference. I have learned along the way that no one wants to adopt a young horse from me, train it, put tons of time and money into it, and we own it. Heck no. And neither do I want someone who adopts a two year old from me, to come back in 25 years when I am in a wheelchair, and tell me I own this horse and owe it retirement.

So, when people come here to adopt, if they have the ability to train and are so inclined to look at our young horses, then they will purchase that horse. They will own it forever or until they sell it. Our prices for sucha horse will generally be about the same and the reason being, we wont have the same money into it. They generally get adopted quickly and so, it is profitable to a degree or at least more profitable than an oldie.

I have no problem with a rescue selling a good horse. I do if they sell the old folks or the ones with problems who will likely require the services once more. But a young healthy horse, heck, something has to help support those who will never be adopted.

But, just because you have the money to buy a horse, doesnt mean you will get one of mine. I still want the same quality of home. I dont want a horse dealer to purchase and provide horses for that purpose.

[DressageFancy]

Personally, I have zero problem with that. It's a great idea. I know a few very outstanding horsemen and -women who have been doing that very thing on an individual level for years. The old lady lounging about nibbling alfalfa in my back yard is the fruit of one such woman's efforts.

Caveat: I think it's a great idea, as long as the horse is actually sold to the new owner. I would not ever pay an "adoption fee" equivalent to a fair market price for a horse that I would not own outright, that would come with strings attached as to what I could do with him/her, where the horse could be boarded, etc., including no right to resell the horse later on, as many rescues seem to do.

(Personally, I won't enter any such "adoption" agreement for the smallest fee, for any horse or other animal. I want to own animals, with all the rights and responsibilities that entails, not adopt furbabies. I have no patience with that sort of froofiness. :rolleyes:)

I am in total agreement with you. I believe that humane societies hurt more animals than they help due to their "adoption" contracts. I believe that many more people, myself included, would search for their new pet at the local society if they actually received a bill of sale. I have nothing against asking questions about a persons ability to care for/house said animal and/or even ask for vet references, ect. But once I have answered those question to your satisfaction and you accept my money then said animal's ownership transfers to me!

[sadlmakr]

I am in total agreement with you. I believe that humane societies hurt more animals than they help due to their "adoption" contracts. I believe that many more people, myself included, would search for their new pet at the local society if they actually received a bill of sale. I have nothing against asking questions about a persons ability to care for/house said animal and/or even ask for vet references, ect. But once I have answered those question to your satisfaction and you accept my money then said animal's ownership transfers to me!


I have heard of these "Adoption contracts" that were nothing but an agreement that says you can feed and care for the animal but it still belongs to the "Rescue Farm". No way I am going to agree to that.
I got several "rescue " horses back in the 1980s. I fed them and loved them and retrained them and I got good homes for them because they were properly trained.
I would not put that much time and feed into a horse and have it still belong to the "Rescue Farm". I can not invest that much time and money into a horse and and have someone inform me I can't sell the animal because it is not legally mine to sell as per the Rescue Argreement and have them take the horse back after I put the work and feed and vet bills into him.
I haved heard of some cases where the "Rescue Farm" had stolen horses they paid a cheap price for and gelded the stallions and put them up for sale. When the owners finally tracked them down they found their champion stallions were no longer stallions.
At great loss to their breeding program.
There is just too much shady stuff going on today in the horse world, it pays to be very cautious in dealing with these horses.
I was visiting a BLM Holding pens last week and saw some very fine Mustangs that would make great saddle horses. Some were definitely carrying Spanish blood. Solid Mahogany color with dapples, and straight facial profiles. Nice conformation too. There were 3 blacks
that looked like sisters. Two had white on their faces and feet but one was solid black.
They looked like they definitely had Thoroughbred blood somewhere in their family.
THe US Cavalry crossed Mustangs with Thoroughbreds for their remount stock. Hence the appearance of the Hunter look. The mares were very friendly and let us pet them. Those blacks would be fine horses for eventing and cross country.
I wanted to take 3 of them home with me but I do not have the facilities to keep them.
The yearling fillies were very friendly and we got to visit with them for a while.
There were several of the Mahogany dappled Spanish type in there.

There are so many horses needing homes it pays to pick and choose.
Just let the buyer beware. Avoid the "deals " with strings attached. It is just opening the door to lots of problems. I want to buy a horse so it is mine. So no one can come back on me later and demand my horse back.


Regards,
sadlmakr

[vacation1]

I think any rescue organization needs to think through the larger implications of becoming a part-time dealer, both for themselves as an organization and for the rescue movement as a whole. I was looking at Petfinder the other day and came across a dog rescue which appeared to specialize in purebreds. Very few dogs on Petfinder are actually purebreds, as I'm sure everyone here knows - most are 'X mix.' 100% of theirs were obvious purebreds of very desirable breeds. And the 'adoption fees' started at $450. There's a break somewhere in situations like this, between the original purpose of rescue and the conclusion some have drawn that it's ok to play to supply-and-demand while also retaining the right of charitable appeal.

[Saidapal]

I think they should sell rehab horses for closer to their value. Especially after all the time and effort they put into these horses.

That said, I think they need to be very careful and consult with a good tax attorney. It could be the difference between running a charity and having a business. The last thing you want is the IRS breathing down your neck.

Especially now that the brothel tried to get tax exempt status. Heard that the other day and just shook my head.

[caffeinated]

That said, I think they need to be very careful and consult with a good tax attorney. It could be the difference between running a charity and having a business. The last thing you want is the IRS breathing down your neck.


Considering that non-profits can "make" a profit, it's not necessarily that on-the-edge. The profit can't be split or given to individuals running the 501c3, but the organization itself can "make" money (or at least operate on the positive side of things). In a business, profits go back to the individuals running it - as long as a charity isn't doing that, I think they could sell horses for whatever they deem appropriate. Any money "made" just has to go back to the nonprofit rather than into the pockets of the individuals running it.

(I keep putting that in quotes just because even if a rescue sells a horse for thousands of dollars, they've likely put that much in to begin with, or have so many other expenses that it's not exactly a net profit.)

In fact on one website that rates charities, they view a 'profit' as a good thing, and a sign that the charity operators have good business sense and are responsible with money.

[Trixie]

I think any rescue organization needs to think through the larger implications of becoming a part-time dealer, both for themselves as an organization and for the rescue movement as a whole. I was looking at Petfinder the other day and came across a dog rescue which appeared to specialize in purebreds. Very few dogs on Petfinder are actually purebreds, as I'm sure everyone here knows - most are 'X mix.' 100% of theirs were obvious purebreds of very desirable breeds. And the 'adoption fees' started at $450. There's a break somewhere in situations like this, between the original purpose of rescue and the conclusion some have drawn that it's ok to play to supply-and-demand while also retaining the right of charitable appeal.

What's the problem?

If they are a genuine nonprofit, why should they have to operate in the red? $450 is high, sure, but it probably allows them some leeway on some of the less desirable dogs they take in, or some leeway on larger vet bills, or whatever - most rescues, as a general rule, are NOT exactly living the high life. If it's a 501(c)3, they're being monitored.

Further, there are plenty of desirable free dogs. It's not like there aren't more than enough to go around.

[vacation1]

What's the problem? If they are a genuine nonprofit, why should they have to operate in the red? $450 is high, sure, but it probably allows them some leeway on some of the less desirable dogs they take in, or some leeway on larger vet bills, or whatever - most rescues, as a general rule, are NOT exactly living the high life. If it's a 501(c)3, they're being monitored. Further, there are plenty of desirable free dogs. It's not like there aren't more than enough to go around.

The problem is that it's an ethical grey area that has a high potential for damaging the donor support of both the individual rescue and the larger rescue community.

Maybe you don't see a problem, but a lot of people will be made uneasy at the idea of a rescue organization selling a very expensive horse or obviously cashing in on the low availability of purebred dogs of certain breeds. It's not that I think the rescue people are using the extra money to take a cruise, it's that I think their actions, no matter how well-intentioned or justified in their own eyes, are destructive to the whole rescue movement. Sure, they'll rehome some dogs or horses, and have a nice feeling of having done good. But their behavior is not very professional, and that's already a big problem with rescues that don't have any sort of standards about applications, responding to inquiries, dealing with the public, etc.

[JohnDeere]

Theres a program nearby that does this. People doneate their unsold horses (lots right now) and get an "apprasal" that says horse is worth $x. They right off the donation to the program. The program places horses with middlemen trainers who will sell the horse and split the profits. Everyone wins. Several in our barn now are from this program, have papers and ownership is transfered.

[Trixie]

The problem is that it's an ethical grey area that has a high potential for damaging the donor support of both the individual rescue and the larger rescue community.

Um, how exactly? They’re offering a dog for a price, just like everyone else. I fail to see how that “damages” anything.

Further, the price is still generally less than purchasing an animal from a breeder, or buying an expensive horse from a trainer.

Maybe you don't see a problem, but a lot of people will be made uneasy at the idea of a rescue organization selling a very expensive horse or obviously cashing in on the low availability of purebred dogs of certain breeds.

You’re right. I DON’T see a problem. Because I’d rather see a rescue organization sell an animal for it’s market value and be able to rescue five more, then go under or function in the red because someone decided “fair market value” is “unethical” for some unknown reason that they can’t actually tangibly explain.


It's not that I think the rescue people are using the extra money to take a cruise, it's that I think their actions, no matter how well-intentioned or justified in their own eyes, are destructive to the whole rescue movement.

Again, HOW exactly? If they’re a 501 © 3 charity and are turning over all proceeds from the sale of the animal to the rescue, why is this a problem? Would you PREFER they go under and nothing gets rescued?

Secondly, having gotten SEVERAL $450+ plus vet bills on my freebie dog, I’d happily have paid $400+ for an animal that I knew was fixed and didn’t have problems. Hell, the INITIAL vet bill was $400, BEFORE getting him neutered. Plus, I had to like, you know, feed him.

It’s not like they asked for thousands in profit for a purebred – they asked for enough to cover some expenses. Some overheads are higher than others. Further, not every dog is adoptable, not every rescued horse is worth $5K. Perhaps if they have income coming in from the animals that are worth some money, they're able to use funds from that to subsidize the costs and care for animals that are not adoptable or worth anything.

Third, every 501©3 rescue has financial records. It’s possible that they didn’t even ask for enough to make a profit.


Sure, they'll rehome some dogs or horses, and have a nice feeling of having done good. But their behavior is not very professional, and that's already a big problem with rescues that don't have any sort of standards about applications, responding to inquiries, dealing with the public, etc. p

If they’ve rescued some animals, they HAVE done good.

A good 501 © 3 rescue WILL have standards about applications, inquiries, and dealing with the public. And frankly, having a tangible business plan is ABSOLUTELY professional, because it makes the rescue SUSTAINABLE.

Or, would you prefer to see a bunch of broke rescues to suit your particular opinion on “ethics” and "professionalism"?

[magnolia73]

In terms of donations- the rescue that charges more for the animals probably needs less donations. If the dog can cover his expenses through an adoption fee, that is great. If CANTER MA gets in a horse that can cover the costs of 5 other horses- that is even better. IMO, if a program works that well- that they can rehab an animal and fetch a good price, they are effective. I'll donate.

I don't see that as unprofessional- like the unanswered emails or 20 page questionaires that end with NO DOG FOR YOU because in 1978 you kept a dog out in your yard overnight.

[vacation1]

If they’re a 501 © 3 charity and are turning over all proceeds from the sale of the animal to the rescue, why is this a problem?...
Third, every 501©3 rescue has financial records. It’s possible that they didn’t even ask for enough to make a profit. If they’ve rescued some animals, they HAVE done good. A good 501 © 3 rescue WILL have standards about applications, inquiries, and dealing with the public. And frankly, having a tangible business plan is ABSOLUTELY professional, because it makes the rescue SUSTAINABLE. Or, would you prefer to see a bunch of broke rescues to suit your particular opinion on “ethics” and "professionalism"?

:rolleyes: The tax status of a charity is just the tax status. The IRS isn't going around investigating the ethics of all registered 501s out there. And it's not just my opinion that there's an ethical consideration beyond 'give all cash back to the charity,' it's a fact of the nonprofit world. Oh, and YES, I want to see bad rescues go broke and die off. If you can't deal with the rigors of being an ethical charity, you should devote yourself to doing what you can privately, with your own funds, and donate your time to established groups that can deal with it. The second you start soliciting funds, you have a responsibility to every other charity to behave impeccably, not just in accordance to your own standards, so there's the least chance of souring donors.

[Trixie]

The tax status of a charity is just the tax status. The IRS isn't going around investigating the ethics of all registered 501s out there. And it's not just my opinion that there's an ethical consideration beyond 'give all cash back to the charity,' it's a fact of the nonprofit world. Oh, and YES, I want to see bad rescues go broke and die off. If you can't deal with the rigors of being an ethical charity, you should devote yourself to doing what you can privately, with your own funds, and donate your time to established groups that can deal with it. The second you start soliciting funds, you have a responsibility to every other charity to behave impeccably, not just in accordance to your own standards, so there's the least chance of souring donors

I still don't see anything remotely "unethical" about it AT. ALL. Nor, apparently, does the IRS. If a charity was behaving fraudulently, it could be investigated.

Fair market value is fair market value. It's not like they're INFLATING the value of these animals beyond what they're worth. They're trying to get their expenses back and provide for others, who may not be adoptable. How is this unethical? You still haven't answered any of my questions.

Your standards and opinions are what they are, and yes, they're YOUR OPINION. Your personal opinion. Not "fact."

[caffeinated]

I think, vacation, it's just a question of what is unethical.

If a rescue has a purebred (and there's LOTS of rescues that focus solely on individual breeds out there) and the same dog would sell for $800-900 from a breeder, is it actually unethical for a rescue to ask for $450 for it (especially if they've housed the dog, paid for veterinary care, and fixed it up if it was in bad shape coming in, which probably all cost much more than the $450 they're asking for)?

if it's a grey area, I think it's because different people have different opinions about it, and some folks feel that anything coming out of a rescue situation should be free or very cheap.

But from a legal/tax standpoint, it's not a problem if the money is going back to the organization and not lining the pockets of the individuals running it.

That said, there are definitely some shady rescues out there (some 501s, some not) who do exactly that, and operate out of personal bank accounts and pocket the extra, or who price horses very high but don't transfer ownership.

[Laurierace]

There are so many horses needing homes it pays to pick and choose.
Just let the buyer beware. Avoid the "deals " with strings attached. It is just opening the door to lots of problems. I want to buy a horse so it is mine. So no one can come back on me later and demand my horse back.


Regards,
sadlmakr

That is fine for you. I would never work with a rescue that did not retain ownership for life so its not a one size fits all sort of thing. I want to know that the horse I donated to the rescue will be looked after for life, not just for a week or a month or however long it takes to find him a new home. I could sell the horses myself, I chose to donate instead so the horse is covered for life by a contract that has been tested in court and held up. If they take a horse back it is because the contract was not being honored, not because they just wanted to take him back. If you take care of the horse as you are legally obligated to do via the contract you sign, there is nothing to worry about.

[danceronice]

*sigh*

Once again, putting on the hat of someone who works in the NFP sector (not animal-related) and who has extensive professional and educational experience with the tax laws regarding 501(c)3s and not-for-profit status, here is the deal:

NFP ORGANIZATIONS CAN AND HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO OPERATE AT A PROFIT.

This was actually hard for some people in my MSTD course Accounting for Non-Profit Organizations to grasp (the teacher was the Comptroller of the National Gallery of Art, an accountant, and taught the course with the object of our being able to read and understand the tax laws and accounting paperwork as museum adminstrators.) The point is NOT for an NFP's balance sheet to come out with income perfectly balancing expenditures. While that's better than having it be a negative number, the object, like any business, is to come out ahead.

Why is this so? Because NFPs, like any other buisness, have operating costs. They can have unexpected expenditures. The difference between an NFP and a for-profit business is the destination of profits. The object of a for-profit business is to make enough money to cover all the costs of doing business and have something left over for the owners and/or shareholders. An NFP's goal is to make enough money to cover operating expenses, with a significant percentage going to the NFP's primary mission, and ideally have enough of a profit to create emergency funds, establish an endowment, expand their mission, improve existing infrastructure, etc. An NFP absolutely can compensate employees if they chose--the biggest can have executives with six-figure salaries because operating a business like that really is a massive full-time endeavor.

Bottom line: it doesn't matter if you're the American Red Cross or Joe's Shelter for Three-Legged Cross-Eyed Pekeapoodledoos, population 1. If you are a tax-exempt not-for-profit organization, you have a duty to your mission, the tax authorities, and especialy to your donor pool, to operate with fiscal responsibility, and that includes operating at a profit and providing a sufficient financial "cushion" to protect your organization and keep it operating when donations aren't coming in. If a non-profit is constantly losing money or operating in the red, then it's going to do the same thing a for-profit business with the same account books does--go under.

[Everythingbutwings]

Clapping hands here! :yes:

Bottom line: it doesn't matter if you're the American Red Cross or Joe's Shelter for Three-Legged Cross-Eyed Pekeapoodledoos, population 1. If you are a tax-exempt not-for-profit organization, you have a duty to your mission, the tax authorities, and especialy to your donor pool, to operate with fiscal responsibility, and that includes operating at a profit and providing a sufficient financial "cushion" to protect your organization and keep it operating when donations aren't coming in. If a non-profit is constantly losing money or operating in the red, then it's going to do the same thing a for-profit business with the same account books does--go under.

[Lildunhorse]

I finally gave up calling myself a 'rescue' and decided I was better off to call myself an honest horse trader. I will definitely sell a horse at fair market value with a contract that includes a buy back clause.
That being said, horses with no market value need to eat too, so the profit goes back into hay, grain, vetting, training, whatever....
It just seems the easier way to operate and I won't find my operation on somebody's 'get even' blog when they don't agree with my rescue practices.
Of course, the market still sucks here, so I have to work to support the horses I have and can't take in too many more until the market improves.

[Lildunhorse]

*sigh*

Once again, putting on the hat of someone who works in the NFP sector (not animal-related) and who has extensive professional and educational experience with the tax laws regarding 501(c)3s and not-for-profit status, here is the deal:

NFP ORGANIZATIONS CAN AND HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO OPERATE AT A PROFIT.

This was actually hard for some people in my MSTD course Accounting for Non-Profit Organizations to grasp (the teacher was the Comptroller of the National Gallery of Art, an accountant, and taught the course with the object of our being able to read and understand the tax laws and accounting paperwork as museum adminstrators.) The point is NOT for an NFP's balance sheet to come out with income perfectly balancing expenditures. While that's better than having it be a negative number, the object, like any business, is to come out ahead.

Why is this so? Because NFPs, like any other buisness, have operating costs. They can have unexpected expenditures. The difference between an NFP and a for-profit business is the destination of profits. The object of a for-profit business is to make enough money to cover all the costs of doing business and have something left over for the owners and/or shareholders. An NFP's goal is to make enough money to cover operating expenses, with a significant percentage going to the NFP's primary mission, and ideally have enough of a profit to create emergency funds, establish an endowment, expand their mission, improve existing infrastructure, etc. An NFP absolutely can compensate employees if they chose--the biggest can have executives with six-figure salaries because operating a business like that really is a massive full-time endeavor.

Bottom line: it doesn't matter if you're the American Red Cross or Joe's Shelter for Three-Legged Cross-Eyed Pekeapoodledoos, population 1. If you are a tax-exempt not-for-profit organization, you have a duty to your mission, the tax authorities, and especialy to your donor pool, to operate with fiscal responsibility, and that includes operating at a profit and providing a sufficient financial "cushion" to protect your organization and keep it operating when donations aren't coming in. If a non-profit is constantly losing money or operating in the red, then it's going to do the same thing a for-profit business with the same account books does--go under.

If you don't mind, I would like to save your quote and use it next time someone yaps about a non-profit actually making a profit.

[LexInVA]

Personally, I'd rather see them making a profit. If an animal is sound, skilled, and overall healthy, sell it for a good amount of money to a good home, and use the money to help take care of the rest. What I don't like are these sods like SWAP who try to sell as many horses as possible under false pretenses and use the money to fund their own wants and needs.

[Bluefish]

If a rescue has a purebred (and there's LOTS of rescues that focus solely on individual breeds out there) and the same dog would sell for $800-900 from a breeder, is it actually unethical for a rescue to ask for $450 for it (especially if they've housed the dog, paid for veterinary care, and fixed it up if it was in bad shape coming in, which probably all cost much more than the $450 they're asking for)?




This actually brought me out of my lurkdom lol.

I think the grey area arises when you have a situation where the "purebred rescues" scour the non-kill shelters where they get first option and discounted rates for cute/adoptable purebreds with no obvious existing medical conditions, then adopt them out for 10x what they were charged from original intake center (usually the local humane society).

I had friends who were looking for a purebred but determined to adopt- so they scoured petfinder for a suitable dog and every time when they called about it, the dog had already been moved to a "rescue". Where I adopted a purebred boxer from a kill shelter, the volunteer told me they had tried calling several of the purebred rescue places thinking surely they would want to help this one. Turned out none were willing to take one on with "obvious issues" (she had prolapsed while whelping and it cost a whopping 320 including the spay to fix).

Charging more for purebreds is one thing - but taking the most adoptable ones from local shelters sort of drops you in the realm of "reseller" not rescuer. Especially when the original shelter is no kill so they were never in any danger- its just who gets the cash from the adopter.

[caffeinated]

Bluefish, I would agree that that sort of situation is pretty much unethical and not really helping anything (although perhaps the breed rescue is simply better able to network the dogs than the shelter is? Or the shelter might be full and looking to move dogs out to breed rescues if they aren't getting homes right away? There might be some grey areas there.)

There's a horse rescue I know of that at one point was doing something similar - asking an "adoption fee" for horses that weren't, in fact, even in their possession (they were still with prior owners who were looking to GIVE them away). nice huh?

[twofatponies]

I think any rescue organization needs to think through the larger implications of becoming a part-time dealer, both for themselves as an organization and for the rescue movement as a whole. I was looking at Petfinder the other day and came across a dog rescue which appeared to specialize in purebreds. Very few dogs on Petfinder are actually purebreds, as I'm sure everyone here knows - most are 'X mix.' 100% of theirs were obvious purebreds of very desirable breeds. And the 'adoption fees' started at $450. There's a break somewhere in situations like this, between the original purpose of rescue and the conclusion some have drawn that it's ok to play to supply-and-demand while also retaining the right of charitable appeal.

This sort of touches on a thought I had on the OPs subject. I think it would be fine/great if rescues sold horses for a fair market price, instead of doing the adoption thing. But then I would expect them NOT to ask for donations.

[Angela Freda]

If a rescue is selling the horses though [market value or not] what protects the horse?
Someone else noted things happen and some people fall on hard times.
Contracts can protect the horses adopted to those people who fall on hard times, or who are not as their references or application indicated.

[JSwan]

I think it would be fine/great if rescues sold horses for a fair market price, instead of doing the adoption thing. But then I would expect them NOT to ask for donations.

Then it's not a rescue. It's a business. Businesses pay taxes, rescue's don't.

There is a big difference between operating a rescue/charity and using the nonprofit status to avoid paying taxes. ;)

Private rescue is just horse dealing with a little halo over it. It's still horse dealing and subject to taxation and other laws and regulations pertaining to businesses.

[caffeinated]

How would that work, twofatponies?

Let's say a rescue gets a nice horse in. It still needs feed and training and work and exposure. It's harder to sell a horse from a rescue regardless of price, because many people automatically assume something wrong with it. By the time the horse is worth, say, $5000, the rescue has probably put nearly that much into that horse. And at the same time has three other horses who are next-to-unadoptable or have much more significant issues (injuries, rehab work, or simply are hard to place due to age or what have you).

Even if they did sell one at $5K, I wouldn't think a good rescue could depend on that to float the entire operation or they'd go under.

Even at CANTER, let's take a horse recently sold through our program - (a simply fabulous horse, by the way). She was with the program for well over a year (those 15.1 hand mares get no respect) - got retraining, was taken to horse shows (on volunteers' dimes, to be clear - no donated money is used for that), then sent for more professional training and more events to get her out and about. She was sold for a price probably considered high for a nonprofit or rescue horse, but it sure didn't cover the amount of time she was with us (let alone the other horses in the program)

In a real business scenario, people can cut their losses - a rescue can't (sure, we can offer them for free or $100 to get them off the payroll, but we have a bunch of those right now too and no one is biting), so I don't think a rescue could adequately rely on horse sales alone to fund itself.

Having a few we can sell for a 'fair' price based on the market does not negate the need for other sources of income, does it? Maybe it's because I'm somewhat close to the situation, but for every one that can be moved for a market price, there might be three or four more that need serious care and money to support - simply selling some isn't going to support all of them with no other source of funding.

It all comes down to what different people think about it, I guess. Like every other aspect of the horse world (or the world as a whole) , two people = three opinions. Some people are comfortable with one arrangement that others may find shady, and vice versa. Essentially, it comes down to investigating the rescues and funding the ones you find responsible and ethical based on your own definition.

:)

[Trixie]

This sort of touches on a thought I had on the OPs subject. I think it would be fine/great if rescues sold horses for a fair market price, instead of doing the adoption thing. But then I would expect them NOT to ask for donations.

In the horse industry, it's extremely rare to get back from a horse's sale price everything that you put into him. Food, training, board, hay, vet, shoes, etc - it all adds up substantially, frequently more than the value of even a horse worth $5-10K. Most of the horses at rescues aren't worth that, although some are.

How do they continue to operate in the black if "Fair Market Value" is, at least half the time, LESS than the cost of expenses, and you feel they shouldn't take donations?

[danceronice]

If you don't mind, I would like to save your quote and use it next time someone yaps about a non-profit actually making a profit.

:blush: Don't mind at all.

The big difference is tax status--anybody can hang out a shingle declaring themselves a "rescue." The issue comes up when you have a tax-exempt status and can tell donors that their donation is tax-deductible. (I don't think that you can ever, regardless of fair market value, deduct the purchase price of a horse as you recieved goods for money.)

I place myself with those who very much dislike 'adoption contracts', especially with overt right to reclaim the animal. This may also be related to my 'day job'--these days in museums, we REALLY try not to accept things like 'indefinite loans' or what are called dead-hand gifts (bequests with ridiculous strings attached) because they are just too big a potential hassle that often result in court cases when you HAVE to sell or move something. It's generally better to just have clear title to something.

[JSwan]

Well - it seems there is a myth that nonprofits aren't allowed to "profit". A good nonprofit is going to have a healthy balance sheet - and for God's sake a good operating reserve. In that sense, nonprofits are every bit a business as any other entity.

But there is a difference between a horse sales business and a nonprofit. The goal of a business is to make money - profit. The means of making that profit is by offering a product or service.

The overriding goal of the nonprofit is to further its mission - and that mission is charitable in nature. Since the intent is charitable, the entity is given extremely favorable tax treatment, as are those who do business with that entity.

That favorable treatment places an obligation upon the nonprofit - it must conform to a high standard of conduct, refrain from certain types of transactions, and puts the entity in the position of being a fiduciary.

None of that means the volunteers must stand on streetcorners begging for change. It also does not mean the employees cannot be paid, or that only old or diseased animals can be helped.

It does mean that certain restrictions are placed upon you, that you must operate with more transparency, and that there is true intent on accomplishing charitable intent - and not just a means of avoiding taxation.

ETA - danceronice - I just read your post on the previous page. Excellent! There are several people on this BB who work(ed) in the nonprofit sector and I wish folks would take this type of information to heart. Knowing how a nonprofit is supposed to work could really help a donor decide where to donate their hard-earned money.

I'll add a thought about animal related nonprofits. I think it's vital that any rescue group that takes in an animal from a private individual make FULL disclosure of their adoptions/sales policies.

If a private individual surrenders their animal to a rescue, with the belief that the animal is now safe from possible harm, the rescue should be able to make that guarantee. Otherwise, decline to accept the animal. And/or refer that individual to a rescue that operates as a sanctuary or only adopts animals out as companions. Basically - rescues should be making FULL disclosure to donors, as well as those in need.

What I would be appalled by is a rescue that took in someone's horse and sold it. And the owner thought their horse, perhaps unsound or aged, was going into a sanctuary or would be protected.

[jetsmom]

Ditto what caffeinated said. I am involved with the retraining and sales of many of the horses that come through our program and you walk that line between too cheap and to expensive for a rescue. We do allow a horse to transfer ownership and make sure we research the homes they are going to the best of our ability.

I will say we have some very nice horses that come through that are actually quite talented, sound and have no issues. The profit (if you can call it profit) of these horses goes to the horses that may not be able to be rehomed.

For example, the two horses that are currently in retraining at my farm are quite nice and I believe there will be a profit and see nothing wrong with that. We put a lot of time retraining, taking off the farm trips and putting all that initial baby show mileage on them. Then you have teeth, chiro, feet and other expenses plus the cost to board them.
Horses here: http://dixierumble.wordpress.com/
Two lovely 3 yr ottb's that have all the right pieces to exel in the show world. Look at the 3 yr going down to those jumps his second time ever seeing a jump! Both of them were just to slow for racing and donated by trainers who are happy to see them move into new careers. I always feel like we serve the horses better by putting in that retraining so someone else can take them to the next steps but doesn't have to do all the really hard work of the transition from track to riding horse. It is very hard to sell ottb's with no retraining which is why the retraining program was put into place. Ultimately, it better serves the rescue as a whole by creating a bit more money in a time when donations are down.



I've long admired you for what a fantastic job you do w/the OTTB's. You certainly put a great start on them, and have had some REALLY nice horses.
If anyone wants an OTTB that has had some training and been exposed to a lot of things, they definitely should get in touch with you.

[AnnaCrew]

OK, can I speak about my experience? I have small private rescue. Non registered (so nothing to do with taxes).

We are accepting donations :) - like bag of bred or few sacks of carrots - from friends.

We have our own funds that we are putting in so we can not outstretch. We also have limited knowledge and very small experience so we are "picky" - we do not take horses with serious behavioral issues.

So far we had "sold" one horse. Got him for free, with tendon injury, all vetting was done, so we only needed to keep him on stall rest for 6 mo and then another vet check was arranged. Horse healed well, and was suitable for mild work, so we "sold" him to very good home for 200$. Expenses - keeping and feeding him for 7 months, deworming and shots, regular farrier and then vet check with ultrasound. I do not count any of our job like mucking, brushing, entertaining him (which was hardest part) and putting clay/vinegar mix on his front legs 2X week for first 3 months. So - what do you think - it all was covered by these 200$? :)

We have horse now at trainers and we do hope that he will sell for his true market value - about 1000$. We got him in March for 200$, transport was 150$, then he spent a month at trainer (transport, boarding+training), returned, went back to trainer again (transport and so far 2 mo boarding and training). Again - add deworming, shots, farrier and all other little expenses. It will be at least another month and then we do hope to sell him. Only hope. What do you think - add all money spent on him already and say - will this said "market value" will cover all his expenses?

Nope.

I will be happy to see him go to a right home with a right rider. And maybe gong to some ammy shows next season. I will feel very happy knowing that he did not ended at slaughter.

Do I feel bad about hoping to sell him for his "market value"? Not at all. It is not a business - we know from the beginning that there will be no profit. But I will not feel guilty if at least some money we shall get back thus able to take in the next one.

[twofatponies]

How would that work, twofatponies?

Let's say a rescue gets a nice horse in. It still needs feed and training and work and exposure. It's harder to sell a horse from a rescue regardless of price, because many people automatically assume something wrong with it. By the time the horse is worth, say, $5000, the rescue has probably put nearly that much into that horse. And at the same time has three other horses who are next-to-unadoptable or have much more significant issues (injuries, rehab work, or simply are hard to place due to age or what have you).

Even if they did sell one at $5K, I wouldn't think a good rescue could depend on that to float the entire operation or they'd go under.

Even at CANTER, let's take a horse recently sold through our program - (a simply fabulous horse, by the way). She was with the program for well over a year (those 15.1 hand mares get no respect) - got retraining, was taken to horse shows (on volunteers' dimes, to be clear - no donated money is used for that), then sent for more professional training and more events to get her out and about. She was sold for a price probably considered high for a nonprofit or rescue horse, but it sure didn't cover the amount of time she was with us (let alone the other horses in the program)

In a real business scenario, people can cut their losses - a rescue can't (sure, we can offer them for free or $100 to get them off the payroll, but we have a bunch of those right now too and no one is biting), so I don't think a rescue could adequately rely on horse sales alone to fund itself.

Having a few we can sell for a 'fair' price based on the market does not negate the need for other sources of income, does it? Maybe it's because I'm somewhat close to the situation, but for every one that can be moved for a market price, there might be three or four more that need serious care and money to support - simply selling some isn't going to support all of them with no other source of funding.

It all comes down to what different people think about it, I guess. Like every other aspect of the horse world (or the world as a whole) , two people = three opinions. Some people are comfortable with one arrangement that others may find shady, and vice versa. Essentially, it comes down to investigating the rescues and funding the ones you find responsible and ethical based on your own definition.

:)

Good points. :)

[Jleegriffith]

I've long admired you for what a fantastic job you do w/the OTTB's. You certainly put a great start on them, and have had some REALLY nice horses.
If anyone wants an OTTB that has had some training and been exposed to a lot of things, they definitely should get in touch with you.

Thank you! I love what I do and the work that CANTER does. Each and every horse that I have sold through the CANTER program can be accounted for and all are in the same homes I sold them to. I believe that it comes down to knowing the rescue that you donate to and asking what they plan on doing with the horses. When I go to the track and speak to trainers about the benefits of donating horses to us one of the things I tell them is that I guarantee a good home and that I will do the basic retraining to make sure I can match that horse to the right person.

Regarding contracts- I see no difference between a very good sales contract and adoption contract. We do give legal ownership of the horse to the buyers but they are bound by a strict contract which protects the horse and allows us to take the horses back if the contract is not abided by.

I don't think people truly understand what goes into the cost of caring for the horses and doing the retraining. You think that the amount is high that a horse is being sold for but in reality is it?

For example, the horse that I started writing about in the blog was a lovely 16.2 h 5 yr tb quiet, sound but he did stall walk. I had the horse for a year and he fox hunted, trail rode, paper chased, evented and so much more. The amount of mileage he had was impressive and although still green I do feel that mileage counts for something when selling a horse. He was a horse that could be ridden by my hubby and students. Took people out on their first foxhunts while still in his first season of hunting. He was advertised at fair market value but sold for $5k. It was less than orginally advertised for but hey the market is tough right now. All show expenses, trailering, clinics, lessons, hunt fee are things I do as part of the retraining. $5k sounds like a lot of money for a rescue horse and we have sold others for more but many of these horses are really nice horses with a lot of training and time put into them. Despite the higher prices there is still no real profit because of the time you have fed them, shod them, dentist, chiro, vet, shows, clinics, lessons, trailering and so much more.

Sometimes you get really lucky and you get a lovely horse in and that horse finds the perfect match within a few months. That is wonderful and when it happens their is true profit made and it goes back into the general funds to pay for the rest of the horses and help those who come down the pike at a later date.

Sometimes you win at the game of getting a nice horse on donation and other times you get something that has problems you didn't even expect (read my blog). Donations will always be necessary but a truly responsible rescue will do their best to run with on the principle of making a profit and furthering the mission.

[catknsn]

Flame suit on, so don't hold back.
I would like to hear everyone's opinion on this matter.

I am not talking about the starved neglected old horse that needs thousands put in just to get it healthy. What I am interested to know is why you think it is bad or good for a rescue selling/adopting out a horse for $x especially if they have an appraisal stating that is what the animal is worth?

What if they got a young horse and put lots of training in it? Basically assume a usable, show ready/sound animal?

Nothing wrong with it. In fact, sometimes people donate expensive horses so that they can be sold as fundraisers.

Now, if you're asking $1500 for a PMU foal or an unbroke grade ex-broodmare? You are smokin' crack.

[Alagirl]

How would that work, twofatponies?

Let's say a rescue gets a nice horse in. It still needs feed and training and work and exposure. It's harder to sell a horse from a rescue regardless of price, because many people automatically assume something wrong with it. By the time the horse is worth, say, $5000, the rescue has probably put nearly that much into that horse. And at the same time has three other horses who are next-to-unadoptable or have much more significant issues (injuries, rehab work, or simply are hard to place due to age or what have you).

Even if they did sell one at $5K, I wouldn't think a good rescue could depend on that to float the entire operation or they'd go under.

Even at CANTER, let's take a horse recently sold through our program - (a simply fabulous horse, by the way). She was with the program for well over a year (those 15.1 hand mares get no respect) - got retraining, was taken to horse shows (on volunteers' dimes, to be clear - no donated money is used for that), then sent for more professional training and more events to get her out and about. She was sold for a price probably considered high for a nonprofit or rescue horse, but it sure didn't cover the amount of time she was with us (let alone the other horses in the program)

In a real business scenario, people can cut their losses - a rescue can't (sure, we can offer them for free or $100 to get them off the payroll, but we have a bunch of those right now too and no one is biting), so I don't think a rescue could adequately rely on horse sales alone to fund itself.

Having a few we can sell for a 'fair' price based on the market does not negate the need for other sources of income, does it? Maybe it's because I'm somewhat close to the situation, but for every one that can be moved for a market price, there might be three or four more that need serious care and money to support - simply selling some isn't going to support all of them with no other source of funding.

It all comes down to what different people think about it, I guess. Like every other aspect of the horse world (or the world as a whole) , two people = three opinions. Some people are comfortable with one arrangement that others may find shady, and vice versa. Essentially, it comes down to investigating the rescues and funding the ones you find responsible and ethical based on your own definition.

:)

Not to mention, the 5k pony gets more respect than the 500$ one...

[Ghazzu]

What I am interested to know is why you think it is bad or good for a rescue selling/adopting out a horse for $x especially if they have an appraisal stating that is what the animal is worth?

What if they got a young horse and put lots of training in it? Basically assume a usable, show ready/sound animal?

Nothing, so long as they *sell* the horse, and don't try to call it an "adoption" fee and retain control of the beast.

[vacation1]

I still don't see anything remotely "unethical" about it AT. ALL. Nor, apparently, does the IRS. If a charity was behaving fraudulently, it could be investigated. Fair market value is fair market value. It's not like they're INFLATING the value of these animals beyond what they're worth. They're trying to get their expenses back and provide for others, who may not be adoptable. How is this unethical? You still haven't answered any of my questions.Your standards and opinions are what they are, and yes, they're YOUR OPINION. Your personal opinion. Not "fact."

I guess we're just a couple of opinions, then. Look, something can be unethical and legal. I did not say that this behavior is fraud. You disagree with my comment that these particular actions are unethical, okay. But it is a fact that nonprofits have ethical considerations beyond fulfilling the IRS's demands of their tax status.

[danceronice]

JSwan makes a good point about responsibility to a donor, too! It's an NFP's duty to be very up-front, ESPECIALLY in a situation about donating a live animal, about what the potential uses/outcomes for that animal are.

I happen to have an unrestricted deed of gift on my desk here, and I thought people might be interested it see what one looks like. This is actually one issued to me by another institution for something I gave them:

"I the undersigned to hereby give to (museum name) all title, property rights and copyright to the above described property pursuant ot applicable laws. All items subsequently added to the above described collection become part of that collection under the terms of this Deed of Gift. All supplements and inventories attached or so designated are a part of this Deed of Gift. I hereby represent that I have unencumbered title to this property, free of any conflicting claims or interests. I understand that (museum name) may use this property for any purpose it may consider appropriate and that no promises regarding this property or its uses have been made or implied. It is my intent and understanding that the property may be exhibited, loaned, used for historical research or disposed of by (museum name) at its unrestricted discretion."

I bolded the parts that are most important in making any sort of property donation. I acknowledged that I owned that property, it was mine without any restricted interests to transfer. I also acknowledge that I am transfering that title and all rights to the object to the museum and they can keep, store, use for research, sell or destroy it without my having any further say in it.

If you're donating a horse to a rescue, you need to get IN WRITING a statement showing EXACTLY what conditions exist. Are you transfering ALL legal title to the animal? If not, who has the authority to make decisions about its welfare? (If you ARE transferring title, your interest in the animal ends when you sign. It's now the property of the rescue.) If you are donating on the agreed condition that this is a permanent retirement/sanctuary situation, what provisions are in place if for some reason the organization is no longer able to provide care? Note when I say "agreed condition", that means not only do you the donor THINK that it's a permanent situation, the rescue/sanctuary has presented itself as such and is warrantying that in the transfer of title. If they don't, and the agreement you sign JUST says that you are trasnferring ownership to them, they are not under the obligation to keep the horse for the animal's lifetime. If they REPRESENTED that they would and then did not, then there's a fraud case but if they at no time said they would, it's donor beware.

Oh, if anyone's wondering, the quoted deed of gift I copied above is from a 25-cent porcelain figurine of local manufacture that I found at a yard sale. The cost of the paper to print the gift and the gas to drive it from St. Joe's to here probably exceeds the value of the object.

[JSwan]

JSwan makes a good point about responsibility to a donor, too! It's an NFP's duty to be very up-front, ESPECIALLY in a situation about donating a live animal, about what the potential uses/outcomes for that animal are.




Thank you. I was thinking that could be a separate thread. It's vital that anyone who surrenders their animal to a shelter or nonprofit know exactly what the term "surrender" means. They lose control over that animals fate.

There should be no reason to worry about the animals fate because for God's sake - it's a rescue! What harm is going to come to the animal - it's now safe!

Not true. No one giving up ownership of their animals should be making ANY assumptions about what the rescue is going to do with the animal once it's surrendered. Verify, in writing, exactly what that rescue's policies and procedures are.

We all know of cases where animals were taken in by "rescues", only to suffer a horrific fate, be sold, bred,

Donating a horse is different. Donating a horse, let's say to a riding program or as a fundraiser, restrictions can be placed upon the gift.

But when a person has to give up their horse....they surrender it.