Why Is BAPS not able to rescue Ulsan Pound dogs? Last week, Busan Abandoned Pet Sanctuary decided to rescue ten dogs from the Ulsan pound, under the belief that if we didnt save them, these dogs, along with all but 100 of the dogs at Ulsan Pound were scheduled to be euthanized. EFL was the organization from which the information regarding the Jan 1 euthanasia would happen. We love dogs, and wanted to be part of the massive community effort to save as many dogs as possible from there. We separated a sizeable part of our budget (from funds raised over the Holidays) to pay for the intake, medical testing, and care of these dogs. We purchased antibodies test kits, made vet appointments, and prepared our physical facilities to receive the 10. Even though BAPS is currently at full capacity, we committed to make space for them, again, in the assumption that they would be killed on January 1, as was being said all over the animal rescue community. We went to Ulsan pound multiple times over the past 2 weeks, to select the dogs, separate them for medical testing, and to consult with the Ulsan pound owners. The Ulsan Pound management was extremely keen on us taking the dogs, and went out of their way to help us. We announced last week our intention to rescue this dogs, in order to make sure no one was in the process of adopting them via EFL. Some were, so we were delighted to let those lucky dogs go to adoption, and select more dogs to be saved. We narrowed down our final selected dogs on Monday. The plan was to collect the dogs today, Thursday. As late as last night at 7:30 PM we talked on the phone with the management of Ulsan Pound, and it was all confirmed (they were going to kindly let us borrow some of their cages for transport). This morning (Thursday dec 25) we got an unexpected phone call from Ms Kang, the EFL representative. She informed us that EFL wished to retain control over these dogs, even while they were at BAPS. She declared that EFL would be part of the sear and approval process for adoptions, and indicated that BAPS was to be supervised by her. Please bear with me when I say that this is not a simple matter of being flexible, sharing the work. There are many administrative issues that have real world implications, financial, legal and practical. The question of who is responsible for a dog in a shelter. is a major one, not to be taken lightly. Were talking major issues, such as: 1- Vet support (our vet discounts for BAPS dogs, but not any other. how will these dogs be presented to the vet?). 2- Medical issues. (Who decides/pays for medical care? They would have to buy heartgard/frontilne separately.) 3- Adoption approval (do we not have the right to search/adopt/foster out dogs by our policies?). Will the dogs be denied adoption if EFL rejects a person we approve? 4- Legal liability (If a dog bites a person, who pays? If a dog dies can we be sued by EFL?). 5- Long term responsibility (we keep dogs for their entire life if needed. Will future EFL management take care of them) 6- Cage occupancy (we have limited cage space. I closely control our numbers. If EFL has the authority to pull out a dog at anytime, this affects our plans) 7- Fostering Return (If EFL decides to send dogs to foster, do we have to keep the cage space free? Until when? Wo decides?) Please understand that It is not simply a matter of being flexible. The entire administration of a dog shelter is very complex, and everything needs to be in its place. We have been running BAPS since 2008, and have adopted out over 400 dogs. In short, we know what we are doing, and have evidence to prove it. Why doesnt Ms. Kang accept that BAPS knows what we are doing, and release the dogs fully to us? For her it is a matter of personal preference. For me it is a matter of actual concrete issues of administrating my dog shelter. Should I let the administration of BAPS be severely affected? BAPS can only hold 35 or so dogs at a time. Im sorry, but I am not going to yield nearly ONE THIRD of my rescuing capacity for EFL to be in charge of. BAPS is a privately funded independent shelter, and we value our independence. We are willing to rescue those ten dogs, but it must be in our terms. And out terms are simple: The dogs that enter BAPS become the full property and responsibility of BAPS. I dont think that is unreasonable.
Posted on: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 12:11:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015