Jump to content
BC Boards

Glen Highland Farm


Recommended Posts

In the Uk of the rescue place i go too they are actually still the legal owners of the dogs i beleive when someone rehomes them. I maybe wrong but am very sure that anyone taking one is under the title of adopter but legally they still belong to home. That said though this does not mean they will come and take the dog at all or that they will be sort of big brother watching you. My uncle has had a few rescues from there and apart form the initial visit to check they were suitable i believe that is all that they here from them.

 

I think it is a bit strange to think you don't legally own your dog but i also think it is there for the protection of the dog. If you are reported and found incapable then they will legally be aloud to just take the dog then without lengthy court cases etc. JMO.

 

I must admit in some ways i think it is very good for the animal but can also understand if you take one you want it to be completely 100% yours. It is just my thoughts though on what i think happens here, i may be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheRuffMuttGang
Makes you wonder though, what if the dog bites someone, and the rescue still technically owns the dog? The rescue would be held responsible?

Julie

 

Quite possibly. Although I doubt the adopters consider that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am the guardian of the stock, including the dogs, that I own. When I bought/adopted them I took guardianship. So I am both! I do not feel that it is exclusive.

I also feel that we are the guardians of the planet as we are here and in possesion of it. That makes us responsible. And we best do a good job as it is in our own interest to care for what is entrusted to us.

In case of my animals, my interest is in joy of partnership, companionship, the return of unconditional love.

I am also the guardian of the horses that are boarded with me or in training. And I do not own them.

That is my philosophy. It works well for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheRuffMuttGang
I am the guardian of the stock, including the dogs, that I own.

 

The fact of the matter is that you do OWN the dogs. Yes, that does make you their sole guardians as well. One can be a guardian without being an owner, though, which is the point that is being argued here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that any particular person should adopt from any particular rescue, but I do know that GHF has adopted out over 800 dogs. I also know that they are pretty much hopping with dogs in their program that are currently up for adoption. They are caring for the dogs in their program. The dogs don't just sit in kennels all day long, either. The dogs are cared for on an individual basis and the needs of each dog is met beyond any rescue facility that I've ever seen in my life. Dogs with emotional needs get help and medical issues are dealt with.

 

My point is that they aren't breathing down the necks of adoptors looking for excuses to take the dogs away - even if they wanted to (which isn't the impression that I, as an adoptor, have at all), they would need a second full-time staff to even attempt it!

 

As far as the contract goes, I would imagine that any good rescue, if made aware of the fact that there was a problem with a dog that was adopted out by them, would investigate the situation and, where a problem was found, would remove the dog from that situation. If there is such a clause in place (I will have to get into my file cabinet and find Dean's contract), I would feel that it's there for the protection of the dog, not to try to police my ownership of the dog.

 

Shoot - the state can do that with the children that we give birth to ourselves!

 

I will qualify my defense of this particular rescue with the fact that I am a volunteer for them and adoptor of one of their dogs. That lends a bias, but it also speaks to the level to which I trust this particular rescue organization. I really do see the "guardian" vocabulary in the happy ending blurbs as being in keeping with the tone of the dog being part of the new family and not an implication that these dogs don't really belong to the people who have adopted them!

 

I think it's a good idea for anyone who is going to adopt a dog from rescue to understand the contract that he or she is signing and be comfortable with the terms. If the terms don't suit you, by all means, go elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheRuffMuttGang

No one said the dogs at GHF are poorly cared for. That's not the point here.

 

After speaking pretty extensively with Lillie, I think the term "guardian" does mean that you simply care for a dog that Lillie truly owns, although I am curious to know what you find on your contract. Hence the reason she decided not to adopt Brock to me so far away. If one little thing went wrong, she couldn't demand he be returned immediately as has already been demanded of him once...*oops*...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hence the reason she decided not to adopt Brock to me so far away. If one little thing went wrong, she couldn't demand he be returned immediately as has already been demanded of him once...*oops*...

 

You're not referring to the first adopter who did Frisbee with him until he was injured and then returned him, I take it? Cuz that wasn't one little thing that went wrong there. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheRuffMuttGang
You're not referring to the first adopter who did Frisbee with him until he was injured and then returned him, I take it? Cuz that wasn't one little thing that went wrong there. :rolleyes:

 

I know more about this situation than I care to know so I'm just going to shut up now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one said the dogs at GHF are poorly cared for. That's not the point here.

 

I was not implying that it was. That's taking what I said out of context.

 

The point that I was making was that the staff at GHF are focused on going about the business of caring for the dogs that are in the rescue, not policing all of the hundreds of people who have adopted dogs already.

 

When I get a free 15 minutes at home, I'll hunt up my contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheRuffMuttGang
Maybe she read the girl's blog which I found upsetting to read and I didn't know or place the dog.

 

I have spoken with both Lillie and the adopter directly about this dog and I got two vastly different stories. There were parts of both stories that I did and did not believe and now I've got far more information than any blogs would tell. I can piece together the story enough to know that parts of each person's story (and some other people, too, who were either spectators or acquaintances of the adopter or Lillie) are not true. That's all I'm saying about this particular dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You won't get the direct terms of the contract unless you adopt a dog from GHF. The statement sharkie posted is from the application, I believe, because I remember reading it myself. I doubt Lillie would approve of the direct words from her contract being used here, so even those who have adopted from her probably can't write word-for-word what's on their contract.

 

Why on earth would a rescue not want people to know what the provisions of its contract were? Would she really try to prevent someone from making public what the contract said? Not that she could, but the idea that she would want to or would try to is kinda shocking to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheRuffMuttGang

It's just my assumption, hence the reason I wrote that even those who have adopted from her probably can't write word for word what is on the contract. One would have to actually ask her if she would approve of the provisions of her contract being shared with others since it probably is copyrighted. It's just my hunch that she wouldn't approve but I've been wrong before.

 

Perhaps Root Beer can ask Lillie and then either tell us she doesn't approve or share the provisions of the contract with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why on earth would a rescue not want people to know what the provisions of its contract were? Would she really try to prevent someone from making public what the contract said? Not that she could, but the fact that she would want to or would try to is kinda shocking to me.

 

To my knowledge, the terms of the contract are not a secret. I was never given any admonition to keep the terms of Dean's adoption secret. The contract I signed was very much the standard rescue contract.

 

When I get a chance to clean out my file cabinet and find it in the wrong folder I obviously filed it in, since it's not in my dog folder, I will look to see if the terms are to be kept secret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's just my assumption, hence the reason I wrote that even those who have adopted from her probably can't write word for word what is on the contract. One would have to actually ask her if she would approve of the provisions of her contract being shared with others since it probably is copyrighted. It's just my hunch that she wouldn't approve but I've been wrong before.

 

Perhaps Root Beer can ask Lillie and then either tell us she doesn't approve or share the provisions of the contract with us.

 

Well, if it's copyrighted, I'm not going to write it word for word and post it. Once I find the darn thing. I have to go teach in a little while, or I'd start looking.

 

As for asking permission to post word for word, I'm going to reserve judgment on that until I read it.

 

Here's a couple of quotes from my adoption contract for Maddie, though. Please note everyone, Maddie was not a Glen Highland Farm dog and this is not the GHF contract

 

"I promise to permit follow-up visits and to relinquish this dog if it is determined that I have not abided by any of the terms and/or conditions of this contract"

 

And . . .

 

"I promise to release and hold harmless (names withheld) from any liability whatsoever caused either directly or indirectly by this dog"

 

Aren't such clauses standard?

 

Still looking for Dean's stuff . . . I found a picture of Speedy's parents in the file. They were so beautiful! But Dean's are someplace else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TheRuffMuttGang

Yes, the types of clauses listed are pretty standard but I'm willing to bet there's something a little different on GHF's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have located and re-read Dean's contract. It is 100% standard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Before I discuss the contract, I am going to say this for clarity:

 

I run a program as my professional career, which is not dog related, and I operate on this philosophy: I never, ever take action on a matter based on hearesay. If someone comes to me directly - either by phone, email, or in person, and says "Kristine, I don't understand x, y, z about the way you run this program" I will spend time with the person trying to find out why they are not satisfied and do what I can to rectify the situation. But if a friend of theirs comes to me and says "so and so doesn't understand x, y, z about the way you run this program", all I will do is request that they ask the person who is dissatisfied to come to me directly.

 

A lot of people don't like that for a lot of different reasons, but I have found that in the cases where people come to me directly they are very surprised by what they find. Most of the time when people come to me with questions, complaints, feedback, they end up satisfied - even if I can't give them what they might want in particular.

 

Due to that philosophy, I am going to encourage any of you who have questions about the use of the word "guardian" on the GHF website to contact Lillie yourself. Her email is listed on the website, or I can PM it to you if anyone would prefer that. I can say that the word "guardian" is used on that page to convey the fact that the dogs are beloved members of their new families, and not to imply that the adoptor is actually just "keeping" one of Lillie's dogs, until the cows come home. But I think that those who doubt that fact need to hear the truth from Lillie herself. KWIM?

 

Also, if you have questions about the GHF adoption agreement, please contact her, as well.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That said, what I will say this . . .

 

I have adopted three dogs over the past 7 years, and purchased one from a breeder.

 

The adoptions took place with the following organizations:

 

Sammie - Hillside SPCA, Pottsville, Pa. (2000)

Maddie - Angel Pet Services, Dauphin, Pa. (no longer in operation) (2002)

Dean - Glen Highland Farm, Morris, NY (2006)

 

I have in front of me Dean's contract from GHF and Maddie's contract from Angel Pet Services. I do not have Sammie's from Hillside, so any reference that I make to that one is from memory.

 

The contract that I signed when we adopted Dean in December was essentially no different than the contracts that I signed for Sammie and Maddie.

 

Dean's contract is not a "secret contract". I was not admonished not to share or print the information written on it. There is no copyright printed on the contract. There is no secret about the adoption agreement. It's completely standard.

 

There is no clause in the GHF contract stating that they can take dogs back at random. In addition to the clause that you must return the dog there if you decide not to keep it for any reason, there is the same clause that was stipulated in Maddie's contract, which I quoted above, but nothing different.

 

In addition, the wording on the contract is not "guardian". It is "adopter". The contract from Angel Pet Services and Glen Highland Farm refer to the adopting party using the exact same verbiage. The person getting the dog is "adopting" the pet. Neither contract says "you OWN this dog and can therefore do anything you like to it whenever you feel like it". Nor does either contract say "this dog isn't really yours, but I'm really just loaning it out to you and can take it back if I see fit".

 

When it comes down to it, the adoption contract from Glen Highland Farm is standard with no secrets or clauses that are not standard to an adoption agreement in my region. I realize that adoption agreements may vary from place to place and between each rescue, but the three that I have adopted from have pretty much had the exact same terms.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Out of professional respect for Lillie and the most excellent work that she does with Border Collies in need of new homes, I ask that any of you who have specific questions about the adoption contract contact her directly. She has not, in any way, asked me not to give out information. It's the principle of the thing for me. If it were me, I would want people with questions to ask the only person who really has the authority to give out the correct information without any room for misinterpretation.

 

Sorry I'm such a stickler when it comes to my personal values, but that's me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curios why GHF refers to all as "guardians" and not owners of either newly adopted or surrender dogs?

 

Karen

 

To take this discussion away from GHF specifically and look at the bigger picture - IMO it is the "animal rights" (American Humane, PETA, etc ) position to change animal ownership to guardianship in general. They are not talking animal welfare - they're talking animals rights. Check out the following links including the AVMA's stand on the detriment of changing the verbage. Although the term "guardian" seems innocuous and interchangeable with owner (or adopter), it could have some very big implications legally. Just food for thought... I wholly applaud rescues and their missions - but I WOULD question the alliances of any that use the term "guardian" in their contract - kind of creeps me out... Laurie

 

American Humane's stance... http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageSer...e=faqs_guardian

AVMA's stance... http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_w...e/ownership.asp

NCRAOA's (North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance) stance... http://www.ncraoa.com/Guardians.html

NCRAOA s' Ten Point list of why Guardian is a bad idea... http://www.ncraoa.com/articles/AR/Guardian...enPointList.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...