By that logic, the government could institute regular mandatory inspections of all homes for illegal activities. Bottom line – if you are a good citizen who does not break the law, then you have nothing to worry about with home inspections. Right?
This is from a standard pet contract. I edited out the rescue shelter’s name.
It seems plain to me that this clause grants the rescue shelter the right to inspect the premises with or without the adopter’s permission, or rather, this clause is granting open ended permission. I told the rescue shelters I called that I was uncomfortable with this clause and asked if it could be modified. They all categorically said no, and two of them told me they have invoked the clause when the owner was resistant or didn’t answer their calls. So it’s pretty clear what the above clause is intended to convey.
Then your contract is different. All the contracts I’ve seen here make it mandatory. From the same contract as quoted earlier:
One of the things I’ve heard frequently from friends, family, rescue shelters, and posters on here is that “in practice” the shelters are probably not going to be intrusive. They would come once, see how happy my ferrets are in their big comfortable cage or running around their ferretproofed house, thank me, and probably never come again. Well I’m not interested in how things “might” be “in practice.” A contract is an agreement enforceable by law and I don’t intend to be a party to one unless I agree with all the provisions.
By that logic, the government could institute regular mandatory inspections of all homes for illegal activities. Bottom line – if you are a good citizen who does not break the law, then you have nothing to worry about with home inspections. Right?[/quote]
I don’t think signing a contract with a private adoption agency can be compared to allowing the government to enter your home for inspections without just cause. You can get pets anywhere- no questions asked. If you don’t like the rules/fees/quality of pets, etc. that the agency offers, go elsewhere, which is what you did. I just don’t understand why you are complaining about their policies. If home visits after the adoption is in the contract, well, either agree or go elsewhere and don’t bother whining about your dislike of their policies. And don’t compare it to the government- its a contract that you sign voluntarily. Big difference.
It’s hardly whining. He’s stating his opinion – one with which I and many others I know agree. Just because it doesn’t conform to someone else’s opinion doesn’t make it whining.
Such clauses are put in contracts for the protection of the animal. That’s it. We can therefore only adopt to people who agree to allowing a visit once in a while. Anyone who refused this would not meet the requirements for adopting. That doesn’t mean that they would be a bad animal guardian; it just means that we could not adopt out an animal to such a person, as all too many times, adoptions can go bad and animals become unwanted or negelected even by those whose interview and questionnaire results were excellent.
None of us can predict future turns of events; we can, however, take measures to protect the animal as best we can from suffering because of them. That is what the contract is for. If you don’t agree to it, you can adopt an animal from an agency that doesn’t have such a follow-up policy. But you would be ecouraging the kind of ‘adoptions’ that you see at the Jade/Flower Market every weekend, where animals are given away to anyone with a kind face, only to be reported abandoned some time later because the adoption didn’t quite work out.
We are planning a week-long catching up on all Animals Taiwan adoptions very soon, and we will be visiting, wherever possible, all those lucky animals to see how they are doing and make sure that the conditions are as good as we expect of the adopter. Mostly, though, as Bobepine stated, it’s just a great opportunity to catch up with those we consider friends: the adopters and the adopted animals.
[quote]I’m not interested in how things “might” be “in practice.” A contract is an agreement enforceable by law and I don’t intend to be a party to one unless I agree with all the provisions.[/quote]Fair enough, it’s your decision to make, and like many other decisions regarding pet adoption, there are ups and downs to it.
My dear pet Icon was given to me by Havilina, who rescued her from a dumpster. I feel double responsible for my kittykat, and I still voluntarily send pics and status updates to Havilina, because she trusted me to take good care of her. I know how attached you become to a rescued animal, and I understand how you want them to go the best possible place.
Furthermore, who else would understand how I feel when Icon is being naughty or gets sick? Actually, during her first year she got gravely sick with an unforseen condition, and the doctor stated she would not survive six months. That was five years ago. Love and care perform miracles.
In the case of the OP, this concern was enforced too harshly for his taste, and serves as a warning that “soft steps go far”. I agree there should be a measure of vigilance, but not as far as becoming a vigilante.