Ridiculous Fees Vent (or, What happens when a dog walks into Kohl's....)

[TheReader]

This isn't quite a JAWM post, but I'm pretty ticked at the moment, so maybe if you think the city is completely, totally fair....try to explain it in a nice way that will help me understand, not a "duh, of course they have to charge that" kind of way. 

So, I was at Kohl's, checking out, and in walks a dog. No human. Just a dog.  Not a small dog, but a "spuds mackenzie" type dog, only black, not white. Muscular, medium sized dog. The kind that looks scary, if you are not a dog person (and to some dog people). 

She was super friendly, very hot (we keep breaking records with our heat, yesterday was officially 104 or something), and the staff got her water while the other shoppers and I kind of all milled around wondering what on earth to do. Doggo kept walking up to people looking for pets/love. 

So, the animal control place (which also happens to be a no-kill shelter) in my area is not entirely out of my way to go home; usually I'd turn left at that exit, to get to them I'd turn right. It's less than 5 miles from the exit to the animal control place. So, because the dog kept coming back inside Kohl's every time they got it outside, and I was leaving, and Animal Control is semi on the way home.....I volunteered to just drop it off vs. them calling, trying to keep the dog secure/the store secure/put the dog back in the heat/etc while waiting on Animal Control to pick it up.  No problem, right??? 

Sure. Except, it's a $35 "stray intake fee" when you do that, and the fee can only be waived in two ways -- call and make an appointment (and the next time would have been tomorrow, and I have 2 dogs and 2 cats and a rabbit, none of whom are likely to get along with a random stray dog of that type), or the Chief of Police can waive it (but he's on vacation until Weds).  

So, because I did a good thing, I also had to pay them $35 to take the dog. Now, the kickers here are:  One - if it had been my dog, it's only $25 to do an owner surrender.  Two - they told me on the phone to go ahead and bring it and they'd check for a chip, and then if there'd been a chip, contact the owner and it wouldn't be my responsibility. But then there was no chip, even though she's clearly someone's pet (so well mannered), and once I was there, if I tried to leave w/o paying, I could be fined/issued a citation, and of course if I tried to take her back to Kohl's and dump her, I could get a fine/citation for that. So now that I just brought her in to check, nope, no option but pay the fee.  Which of course I did, but I find the whole thing annoying and ridiculous. And of course - three - if Kohl's had called to have them pick her up, then no one would be on the hook for the fee (but also then since she was non-aggressive, they might not have picked her up any time soon, and then the dog would be in the heat/parking lot/etc.....). 

(she was so sweet.....in the long run, it likely saved us a ton, b/c if she had come home with me for the day, to make the appt tomorrow, and then she ended up getting along with the dogs & cats in the home already.....probably I'd have talked DH into keeping her......but still)

Anyway, crazy day. DH was not thrilled with the fee, but understands that I did not have a choice, really, so that's good. And now I really want her, but of course we can't have her (b/c, again, cats and dogs already in the home). I hope she gets adopted; she's the type likely to be stuck there a while, which makes me so sad. She was super sweet and well mannered, and clearly someone's pet. Hopefully not just dumped.  

Anyway, just had to get that off my chest....fees are stupid, dogs are great, and people are crazy. 

 

[scholastica]

That’s crazy. It just discouraged people from helping animals in need.

[Arcadia]

I’m so sorry about the fee. Feels like getting fined for being kind. Years ago a neighbor put up an email about a bunny to give away free. My DS16 would loved to have a bunny then and we had space. After many emails, the neighbor told us that there is an adoption fee and she would need to do a house inspection. We gave up since we felt she was being shady.

[heartlikealion]

I would be super annoyed. Next time ditch the dog in front of the animal control place-- if they can't find you, they can't fine you. I'm kidding. 

I'd follow up with the Chief of Police sometime after he returns. 

And tell the place that they ought to advertise their fee policy on the phone/have it posted in front of the building or such. I hate surprise fees so much. Like showing up somewhere and not knowing they add a service fee to a credit card swipe. 

[TheReader]

3 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

I would be super annoyed. Next time ditch the dog in front of the animal control place-- if they can't find you, they can't fine you. I'm kidding. 

I'd follow up with the Chief of Police sometime after he returns. 

And tell the place that they ought to advertise their fee policy on the phone/have it posted in front of the building or such. I hate surprise fees so much. Like showing up somewhere and not knowing they add a service fee to a credit card swipe. 

They did warn me on the phone, at least. By that point, the dog was in my car, I was on the way, and really kind of thought once I got there maybe someone else might be able to waive the fee, but nope. Also I honestly thought/hoped they'd find a chip (in which case, it would not have been my fee to pay). 

Oh, and yes, there also was going to be a transaction fee had I paid by cc. Fortunately I had cash, so avoided that at least.  Now, I do wish they had mentioned that it's only $25 to do an owner surrender.....I'd have happily lied and said it was my dog in order to save $10.  That's a little crazy. 

[prairiewindmomma]

Asking….in a not snarky way….Who do you think should bear the cost of maintaining a shelter—providing food, a climate controlled environment, basic vet care, etc.? 
 

I ask because here in my state, we are getting a ton of pets flown in from TX, OK, and elsewhere either from neglect mills or from surrendered pet ownership or the like. We are bearing the cost of others—not even from our area—not being responsible pet owners and chipping/spaying/neutering. I have mixed feelings about it, but it’s clear that the costs are real and the alternative is euthanasia for those pets if they had remained.

[heartlikealion]

1 minute ago, TheReader said:

They did warn me on the phone, at least. By that point, the dog was in my car, I was on the way, and really kind of thought once I got there maybe someone else might be able to waive the fee, but nope. Also I honestly thought/hoped they'd find a chip (in which case, it would not have been my fee to pay). 

Oh, and yes, there also was going to be a transaction fee had I paid by cc. Fortunately I had cash, so avoided that at least.  Now, I do wish they had mentioned that it's only $25 to do an owner surrender.....I'd have happily lied and said it was my dog in order to save $10.  That's a little crazy. 

oh man that's awful.

I don't think I could bear to lie about it. I'd feel like I was seen as a bad pet owner even though it was all a sham LOL 

[heartlikealion]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Asking….in a not snarky way….Who do you think should bear the cost of maintaining a shelter—providing food, a climate controlled environment, basic vet care, etc.? 
 

I ask because here in my state, we are getting a ton of pets flown in from TX, OK, and elsewhere either from neglect mills or from surrendered pet ownership or the like. We are bearing the cost of others—not even from our area—not being responsible pet owners and chipping/spaying/neutering. I have mixed feelings about it, but it’s clear that the costs are real and the alternative is euthanasia for those pets if they had remained.

That's a valid point but I think the point is why is she being penalized for dropping off when there's no fee for pick up? She actually saved them gas money. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 minute ago, heartlikealion said:

That's a valid point but I think the point is why is she being penalized for dropping off when there's no fee for pick up? She actually saved them gas money. 

Then she should have left the dog at the store.  She inserted herself in the situation. 

[stephanier.1765]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Asking….in a not snarky way….Who do you think should bear the cost of maintaining a shelter—providing food, a climate controlled environment, basic vet care, etc.? 
 

I ask because here in my state, we are getting a ton of pets flown in from TX, OK, and elsewhere either from neglect mills or from surrendered pet ownership or the like. We are bearing the cost of others—not even from our area—not being responsible pet owners and chipping/spaying/neutering. I have mixed feelings about it, but it’s clear that the costs are real and the alternative is euthanasia for those pets if they had remained.

I don't think it should be the kind, good person off the street who is just trying to find a safe place for a lost dog, I imagine they started it because people were lying about ownership in order to skip paying the intake fee and started charging everyone, but still it's wrong. I always assumed Animal Control was paid for by the taxpayers. Is it not?

[Elizabeth86]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. Bless your heart.

I would be tempted to contact Kohls and tell them what happened and see if they will make it right.

Edited July 12, 2022 by Elizabeth86

[prairiewindmomma]

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

Then she should have left the dog at the store.  She inserted herself in the situation. 

This. She chose to do a kindness for the universe, and like many choices it came with a cost. She could have chosen not to do the kindness by offering to take the dog, to wait to do the kindness by bringing it home overnight, and so on. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Just now, stephanier.1765 said:

I don't think it should be the kind, good person off the street who is just trying to find a safe place for a lost dog, I imagine they started it because people were lying about ownership in order to skip paying the intake fee and started charging everyone, but still it's wrong. I always assumed Animal Control was paid for by the taxpayers. Is it not?

In my area Animal Control is different from the shelter.  The shelters are funded by donations and are a charity not funded by tax payer dollars.  Even the county shelter is funded primarily by fees and donations.  Animal control itself just transports the animals to the shelter. 

[prairiewindmomma]

Here, basic animal control is paid for by taxpayers but taxpayers don’t offer nearly enough funds to pay for the true cost of shelter, food and care. Our shelters rely largely on donations and on fees because they are no-kill.
 

In TX, shelters were high kill shelters. They operated more within the taxpayer funds allotted to them—the trade off being that unadoptable animals were euthanized quickly.

[heartlikealion]

10 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Then she should have left the dog at the store.  She inserted herself in the situation. 

That's not the point, either. Inserting yourself by calling to say "pick them up" vs "I'll drive to you" is still inserting. Why is one penalized but not the other? 

[heartlikealion]

side note, I have heard many times before that no kill shelters are not always no kill. They get overfilled and then the animals can get filtered into a kill shelter or something like that. I take the term "no kill" with a grain of salt. 

[stephanier.1765]

2 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

In my area Animal Control is different from the shelter.  The shelters are funded by donations and are a charity not funded by tax payer dollars.  Even the county shelter is funded primarily by fees and donations.  Animal control itself just transports the animals to the shelter. 

Ours is a shelter. It's huge. I've never seen so many animals in one place before. The cost to adopt an animal is nominal ($20), but they frequently do it for free. They do get receive the cost of rabies tags for the entire area for each pet each year (also $20). I imagine they must receive donations as well but I don't know for sure. I still think charging someone off the street for saving an animal from the heat or being hit by a vehicle is wrong. That's not the way to bring in money, especially when it's more than what an owner would be charged.

[prairiewindmomma]

9 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

That's not the point, either. Inserting yourself by calling to say "pick them up" vs "I'll drive to you" is still inserting. Why is one penalized but not the other? 

One was the penalty of time (waiting until the shelter picked up—paying time but not money), the other choice was the penalty of money (controlling the time spent, but paying the money). Either option had a cost. 
 

Personally, I’d happily pay $35 rather than 3-6 hours, but that’s based on my current circumstances and demands on my time. Her only No-cost options were to have done nothing—and, arguably, even that had a moral cost. The universe generally pays back kindnesses—IME, it’s better to give freely and happily. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by prairiewindmomma

[TheReader]

18 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Asking….in a not snarky way….Who do you think should bear the cost of maintaining a shelter—providing food, a climate controlled environment, basic vet care, etc.? 
 

I ask because here in my state, we are getting a ton of pets flown in from TX, OK, and elsewhere either from neglect mills or from surrendered pet ownership or the like. We are bearing the cost of others—not even from our area—not being responsible pet owners and chipping/spaying/neutering. I have mixed feelings about it, but it’s clear that the costs are real and the alternative is euthanasia for those pets if they had remained.

I definitely think someone needs to help pay for it. 

We have adopted our animals from the shelter in the past, and are happy to pay the fees to do so.  And, if I were a pet owner actually surrendering my dog/cat, again, I'd grumble but pay. Absolutely.  And, I mean, my taxes do go to help run it also (it's funded by the city, so they are benefiting from my exorbitant property taxes). 

But when the literal options are leave the dog running loose trying to get into the A/C of the Kohl's, attached to a huge shopping area and parking lot, in record-setting heat, with no water or shade, while someone there calls Animal Control to pick up the animal (which then costs them in driving out to get the dog, but it being under their jurisdiction, they'd have to come get it).......or driving it to them, saving them that part of the job/cost.....it just felt like a ridiculous hit. 

Especially once I got home and learned that it would have been *cheaper* if I'd told them it was my dog I just could not keep any longer. 

 

[TheReader]

39 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Then she should have left the dog at the store.  She inserted herself in the situation. 

Yes, and lesson learned, I'll do that in the future. It just seemed so inhumane in the current conditions. 

ETA: actually....probably not. Probably, facing the same situation, in the same heat, in the same circumstances....I'd do the same thing. Now I know the cost and can weigh it ahead of time. It just really annoys me that if it was my actual own dog I was dumping, it would have only been $25, but since it was a random dog found inside a Kohl's store w/o a person, it was $35.  But yes, the cost of being a good human is sometimes just that....a cost. 

Edited July 12, 2022 by TheReader

[heartlikealion]

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

One was the penalty of time (waiting until the shelter picked up—paying time but not money), the other choice was the penalty of money (controlling the time spent, but paying the money). Either option had a cost. 
 

Personally, I’d happily pay $35 rather than 3-6 hours, but that’s based on my current circumstances and demands on my time. Her only No-cost options were to have done nothing—and, arguably, even that had a moral cost. The universe generally pays back kindnesses—IME, it’s better to give freely and happily. 

That's true in the sense of her personal costs. I'm asking what rational the animal control place is using. 

She didn't actually have to wait, either. She wasn't the employee. It's possible the manager could have told animal control to come right away as they could not keep the dog out of their building. I don't know if that would have sped them up, though. 

[prairiewindmomma]

It would have been inhumane—hence my comment about the moral cost.

Someone else’s poor pet management led to a tangible cost to you. That feels unjust, because it was direct. It’s not much different than me—not a pet owner—paying taxes to fund a pet shelter because other people are irresponsible with pet ownership. It’s just less direct…We all pay costs for other people’s choices all of the time—(good—paying to educate kids in school, and bad—foster care, fireworks leading to a fire, etc.) because we are part of society.

I am sorry it hit you directly this time. 

[TheReader]

17 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

In my area Animal Control is different from the shelter.  The shelters are funded by donations and are a charity not funded by tax payer dollars.  Even the county shelter is funded primarily by fees and donations.  Animal control itself just transports the animals to the shelter. 

this one is a animal control/shelter combo, funded through city taxes and I'm sure donations as well. 

14 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Here, basic animal control is paid for by taxpayers but taxpayers don’t offer nearly enough funds to pay for the true cost of shelter, food and care. Our shelters rely largely on donations and on fees because they are no-kill.
 

In TX, shelters were high kill shelters. They operated more within the taxpayer funds allotted to them—the trade off being that unadoptable animals were euthanized quickly.

This one also, fortunately, has in recent years turned itself into a real, valid, no-kill shelter that works with many rescue groups, fosters, etc. It's across the street from the county animal control facility (which would not have taken this dog, anyway, as it was found w/in the city limits), which is a kill facility and likely this dog would be dead the minute the stray hold was over. 

3 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

One was the penalty of time (waiting until the shelter picked up—paying time but not money), the other choice was the penalty of money (controlling the time spent, but paying the money). Either option had a cost. 
 

Personally, I’d happily pay $35 rather than 3-6 hours, but that’s based on my current circumstances and demands on my time. Her only No-cost options were to have done anything—and, arguably, even that had a moral cost. The universe generally pays back kindnesses—IME, it’s better to give freely and happily. 

Morally, correct, I didn't feel right doing nothing, although it was certainly not my responsibility at all. Someone at the store could have handled it. Heck, there's a police office in the same shopping strip; I could have walked over there and asked them to deal with it. 

Time, I have no idea if I'd called from the store, if they'd have asked me to wait there (which no, I don't have time to do) or what. Every time the store tried to shoo her out, she just came back in.  I did have the option, technically, to bring her home w/me, make an appt to surrender her tomorrow, and then take her.  But, while she was super sweet with humans, there's no way to know her demeanor around other dogs/cats, and just guessing by the probable breed, I don't think at least the cats would have been a good mix, and who knows with the dogs. They did offer me a kennel to borrow if I'd needed one, to take her home, crate her the whole time, and bring her back. So, that was technically an option. 

And I did do it, and I do agree, it's generally best to give freely and happily, but.....the absurdity of the situation was just a little much for me. 

[regentrude]

I don't think an intake fee is absurd - it acts as a deterrent to prevent people from dumping the pets they no longer want. I assume if you call animal control/police and notify them of a lose animal, they will come and get it for free.
Just like the adoption fee prevents people from getting free animals for nefarious purposes.

[TheReader]

6 minutes ago, heartlikealion said:

That's true in the sense of her personal costs. I'm asking what rational the animal control place is using. 

She didn't actually have to wait, either. She wasn't the employee. It's possible the manager could have told animal control to come right away as they could not keep the dog out of their building. I don't know if that would have sped them up, though. 

re: their rational  ---  I know that the guy mentioned they've had a huge influx/increase in drop-offs since actually reaching no-kill status. Now, why the stray intake fee is higher than the owner surrender fee, that part makes no sense. At all. 

Why the city limits who can authorize a waiver of the fee, again, makes no sense at all. Someone *at the shelter* should be authorized to do so, for situations like this. IMO, anyway.  

Also, a friend mentioned it likely cuts down over-crowding. You find a stray, find out it's going to cost you $$ to drop it off, so you take it home "until you can find a home for it" or "until you can get an appt to drop it off for free" and in that amount of time, you fall in love with it, and bam, problem solved. :sigh:  I mean, if we'd brought her home until tomorrow's appt time, and she *did* get along with the other dogs/cats, we'd have probably ended up keeping her.  So.....I think it's ridiculous, but I get it. (sort of)  

Still annoyed the crap out of me, though. 😉 

[TheReader]

4 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I don't think an intake fee is absurd - it acts as a deterrent to prevent people from dumping the pets they no longer want. I assume if you call animal control/police and notify them of a lose animal, they will come and get it for free.
Just like the adoption fee prevents people from getting free animals for nefarious purposes.

Right, but did you see the part where the *owner surrender* fee is $25, but the "I picked up a stray dog that was inside Kohl's running around" fee is $35? That's the part that's particularly absurd.  (and yes, if I'd just walked out of the store and called and said there was a stray, it would have "only" cost me the moral cost of leaving a dog running around w/o water in our heat). 

I get it. I do. It's just also annoying. 

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, TheReader said:

Right, but did you see the part where the *owner surrender* fee is $25, but the "I picked up a stray dog that was inside Kohl's running around" fee is $35? That's the part that's particularly absurd. 

yes, that makes no sense.

Kohls should have dealt with the problem; the dog was running around in their store. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

26 minutes ago, stephanier.1765 said:

Ours is a shelter. It's huge. I've never seen so many animals in one place before. The cost to adopt an animal is nominal ($20), but they frequently do it for free. They do get receive the cost of rabies tags for the entire area for each pet each year (also $20). I imagine they must receive donations as well but I don't know for sure. I still think charging someone off the street for saving an animal from the heat or being hit by a vehicle is wrong. That's not the way to bring in money, especially when it's more than what an owner would be charged.

Wow $20?  I paid $350 for my dog from the Humane Society. But we also get dogs from the South and Southwest that are snapped up here. 

[TheReader]

1 minute ago, regentrude said:

yes, that makes no sense.

Kohls should have dealt with the problem; the dog was running around in their store. 

Yea, that's what DH said. "Why on earth did you volunteer for this?? Let them figure it out...."  :sigh:  

I'm just a softie, and the doggo was so sweet, and the Kohl's people seemed so perplexed, and the shelter is literally the same exit as my house, just a right turn instead of a left, and.....:sigh: ....now I know for next time. 

[cbollin]

53 minutes ago, TheReader said:

This isn't quite a JAWM post, but I'm pretty ticked at the moment, so maybe if you think the city is completely, totally fair....try to explain it in a nice way that will help me understand, not a "duh, of course they have to charge that" kind of way. 

 

 

Where I live, there's call the city animal control for loose dog. No fee. But it's the city shelter.  And then there's the Humane Society (as close to no kill as it can get around here).  They have cameras so don't do the drop and run thing. (I know up the thread was a joke. but saying.. no)

[quote]Now, why the stray intake fee is higher than the owner surrender fee, that part makes no sense. At all.  [/quote]

I agree with you that the level of charges is odd. But I think the idea is that with owner being charged less it's about bringing some medical info and maybe vet records so it's a little less cost ???  that's a guess.   almost like the fee really is 35, but owner gets a discount for knowing something about the pet. ???

and I think their policies with who can waive fees is odd.  I agree with your friend that it's a subtle way to encourage you to keep.  I'd be concerned it keeps someone from finding their missing pet.  So maybe it's encouraging you to find owner? (get the pets chipped, right?)

 

 

[TheReader]

Just now, Jean in Newcastle said:

Wow $20?  I paid $350 for my dog from the Humane Society. But we also get dogs from the South and Southwest that are snapped up here. 

Here it is $99 to adopt a cat, or a dog under 40 lbs, or $25 to adopt a dog over 40 lbs (presumably to entice people to adopt the larger dogs that take up more space/eat more food/etc).  It's very reasonable, and we've gotten both our cats from them (our dogs were an actual stray we found in Brazil, and adopted from a different city shelter). 

[heartlikealion]

16 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

It would have been inhumane—hence my comment about the moral cost.

Someone else’s poor pet management led to a tangible cost to you. That feels unjust, because it was direct. It’s not much different than me—not a pet owner—paying taxes to fund a pet shelter because other people are irresponsible with pet ownership. It’s just less direct…We all pay costs for other people’s choices all of the time—(good—paying to educate kids in school, and bad—foster care, fireworks leading to a fire, etc.) because we are part of society.

I am sorry it hit you directly this time. 

I don't think it being inhumane has anything to do with the rationale of the animal shelter, though. This seems to be more a personal moral compass answer. 

[itsheresomewhere]

Thank you for taking the dog.  I am glad the pup is in a safe spot now and hopefully his owners will find him.
 

Rant- This is why so many dogs are found tied up to or next to shelters.  I have always felt that there should be a sliding scale for this.  People who truly can’t afford their pet can’t pay 100 ( some do charge that amount to “help” people reconsider) to surrender it to a shelter.  

[TheReader]

1 minute ago, cbollin said:

Where I live, there's call the city animal control for loose dog. No fee. But it's the city shelter.  And then there's the Humane Society (as close to no kill as it can get around here).  They have cameras so don't do the drop and run thing. (I know up the thread was a joke. but saying.. no)

[quote]Now, why the stray intake fee is higher than the owner surrender fee, that part makes no sense. At all.  [/quote]

I agree with you that the level of charges is odd. But I think the idea is that with owner being charged less it's about bringing some medical info and maybe vet records so it's a little less cost ???  that's a guess.   almost like the fee really is 35, but owner gets a discount for knowing something about the pet. ???

and I think their policies with who can waive fees is odd.  I agree with your friend that it's a subtle way to encourage you to keep.  I'd be concerned it keeps someone from finding their missing pet.  So maybe it's encouraging you to find owner? (get the pets chipped, right?)

 

 

That's a good point; maybe with owner surrender, they know if the dog already has been spayed/neutered, already has shots, etc. and so don't have to do those things. That makes me feel better, a little.  Less like I got ripped off, and more like maybe they have a valid reason for that. 

[heartlikealion]

10 minutes ago, TheReader said:

re: their rational  ---  I know that the guy mentioned they've had a huge influx/increase in drop-offs since actually reaching no-kill status. Now, why the stray intake fee is higher than the owner surrender fee, that part makes no sense. At all. 

Why the city limits who can authorize a waiver of the fee, again, makes no sense at all. Someone *at the shelter* should be authorized to do so, for situations like this. IMO, anyway.  

Also, a friend mentioned it likely cuts down over-crowding. You find a stray, find out it's going to cost you $$ to drop it off, so you take it home "until you can find a home for it" or "until you can get an appt to drop it off for free" and in that amount of time, you fall in love with it, and bam, problem solved. :sigh:  I mean, if we'd brought her home until tomorrow's appt time, and she *did* get along with the other dogs/cats, we'd have probably ended up keeping her.  So.....I think it's ridiculous, but I get it. (sort of)  

Still annoyed the crap out of me, though. 😉 

This sorta satisfied my question about their rationale. 

Not to sound awful, but if I found a stray I probably wouldn't take it home as I waited. I mean we have strays all over here. I did get a foster group to take a dog I found under my home, but that was already on my property. 

[prairiewindmomma]

I think the rationale of the shelter is that she had three no-fee options (call for pickup, sheriff, appointment) which offers a variety of options.

I would .02 it is cheaper to do an owner surrender than a direct surrender because it incents owners to be honest and it also prevents pesky neighbors from picking up stray pets from the neighborhood. I have absolutely lived in states (ah, Texas) where neighbors sick of barking dogs who are unchipped, unsocialized, and constantly evading fences would be picked up and dropped off in a not so far shelter. It was the Nextdoor of all Nextdoor threads to read when it happened…. (I would never recommend this or do this, fwiw.)

[stephanier.1765]

11 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Wow $20?  I paid $350 for my dog from the Humane Society. But we also get dogs from the South and Southwest that are snapped up here. 

Shoot, dogs over age 5 are free and kittens are BOGO. I think they just need to move the animals out and into homes to make room for more, so they keep the cost low.

I checked their fees to see their policy on intake and couldn't find any for either owner or rescuer. 

ETA after checking their fee webpage (for clarification)- cats and kittens are BOGO but puppies under 6 months are $40.

Edited July 12, 2022 by stephanier.1765

[Ting Tang]

You are a good person.  It doesn't seem very fair that you had to pay that fee.  Someday, it will come back to you, in a good way! 

[wintermom]

1 hour ago, TheReader said:

I definitely think someone needs to help pay for it. 

We have adopted our animals from the shelter in the past, and are happy to pay the fees to do so.  And, if I were a pet owner actually surrendering my dog/cat, again, I'd grumble but pay. Absolutely.  And, I mean, my taxes do go to help run it also (it's funded by the city, so they are benefiting from my exorbitant property taxes). 

But when the literal options are leave the dog running loose trying to get into the A/C of the Kohl's, attached to a huge shopping area and parking lot, in record-setting heat, with no water or shade, while someone there calls Animal Control to pick up the animal (which then costs them in driving out to get the dog, but it being under their jurisdiction, they'd have to come get it).......or driving it to them, saving them that part of the job/cost.....it just felt like a ridiculous hit. 

Especially once I got home and learned that it would have been *cheaper* if I'd told them it was my dog I just could not keep any longer. 

 

My dh has a saying for these kinds of situations, "No good deed goes unpunished." He deals with it at work (government) everyday. It just sucks. 

Sorry you did a good deed and got punished by having to pay. That shelter''s policy sounds like it's run by some retired public servants (possibly from Ottawa, Canada). It's that kind of completely backward policy that is the norm here. You, by being efficient, took away the opportunity for the shelter employee (and their manager) from being paid to drive out and pick up the animal. 

[ScoutTN]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Wow $20?  I paid $350 for my dog from the Humane Society. But we also get dogs from the South and Southwest that are snapped up here. 

That’s similar to here. The dog adoption fee is $35 and they waive or lower it when the place is full.  

Edited July 12, 2022 by ScoutTN

[ScoutTN]

Sorry for the stupid bureaucracy and the fee! You did a good thing. 

[Wheres Toto]

I feel like the intake fees probably encourage some people to just dump them off in the woods somewhere.   I wonder how often that happens compared to someone "adopting" the pet themselves rather than pay the fee. 

[mommyoffive]

Where I am it is $$ to adopt dogs too.  We have paid $350 or more for dogs from the shelter.  Puppies are the most and older dogs a bit less, but still at least 200.   We get dogs from the South up here and they go fast, even before the Covid spike in adoption

[SKL]

That is crazy.

I'm sure they just really need the funds, and this is one way to get them.

Can you just tell yourself this was a donation for the good of puppy-kind?  And consider itemizing it as a tax deduction ....

I'm guessing that if you'd have left and not paid, they would not have called the cops on you or anything.  But I understand why that would have been difficult.

Edited July 13, 2022 by SKL

[TheReader]

44 minutes ago, SKL said:

That is crazy.

I'm sure they just really need the funds, and this is one way to get them.

Can you just tell yourself this was a donation for the good of puppy-kind?  And consider itemizing it as a tax deduction ....

I'm guessing that if you'd have left and not paid, they would not have called the cops on you or anything.  But I understand why that would have been difficult.

Well, the guy who was helping was a police officer, and of course when I asked he said "uh, no, then I have to write you a citation and that's a lot worse..." but who knows. 

But, also, yes, I'm feeling better about it. It was just highly annoying in the moment, compounded by the fact DH was annoyed I'd stepped in/inserted myself into the situation in the first place. 

[Spryte]

Thank you for helping the sweet doggo. It would have been so hot waiting on a pick up! I’m so sorry you were surprised by the fee. I would really consider calling Kohl’s to let them know, and ask them to reimburse you.

I hope the doggo finds its home soon.

[Spy Car]

@TheReader, you did a very kind thing.

If a karmic universe don't reward you, I hope that after you get over your justifiable irritation you (at least) take some solace in knowing you acted compassionately.

Brava!

Bill

[happi duck]

I want to know if the sweet pup was reunited with family!

[SHP]

5 hours ago, Wheres Toto said:

I feel like the intake fees probably encourage some people to just dump them off in the woods somewhere.   I wonder how often that happens compared to someone "adopting" the pet themselves rather than pay the fee. 

 

If I had to pay $35/animal if I found a mother and pups or kittens and I couldn't afford to take on the cost of fostering them I would probably have to walk away and allow the cycle of uncontrolled stray breeding to continue unchecked, disrupting local ecosystem simply because the cost to take them in would be prohibitive.

As for where shelters get funding, here I see people constantly doing fund raising for local shelters. I am not a fan of the local largest no kill shelter and the one that I see the most fundraising for. It has a level of incompetence that is truly astounding.

[heartlikealion]

23 minutes ago, SHP said:

 

If I had to pay $35/animal if I found a mother and pups or kittens and I couldn't afford to take on the cost of fostering them I would probably have to walk away and allow the cycle of uncontrolled stray breeding to continue unchecked, disrupting local ecosystem simply because the cost to take them in would be prohibitive.

As for where shelters get funding, here I see people constantly doing fund raising for local shelters. I am not a fan of the local largest no kill shelter and the one that I see the most fundraising for. It has a level of incompetence that is truly astounding.

Possibly a TNR option is there but I am not a huge fan of the way they clip the animal’s ear. I know the overall concept is good. I just cringe