Forums Forums Enthusiast Forums A - Z Pets / Animals stop members from giving animals away

i think it would be good and nice to stop members from giving animals away. i think that if someone really wants an animal off someone else then they will pay.

i think giving away is really open to cruelty. i know free cycle doesnt allow this.

I disagree Monk, if someone needs to get rid of an animal, say they have a new baby and the cat doesn't like it then they should be able to offer said cat 'free to good home'. If a new owner would have to pay it would be a lot more difficult to remove the cat without adding to the strays on the streets or the already over burdened cat homes, then the aforementioned baby may be in more danger.

Also prevents people murdering unwanted puppies/kittens ect and keeps our rivers and lakes free of corpses.

I think the new owners should have a home visit though at least!

Free to good home seems best to me, you don't know me, I don't know you, who's to say the dog/cat/parrot is mine to sell you?

ETA.

And don't for one second think just because I invite you to view and collect from "my" house that I actually livethere!!

Im all for Home checks, perhaps a wiki member can have the job of pet home checker?

Lmao!! Last month some members were crying why sell your pets. Can't win can ye.

I tried to put a dead hamster on freecycle once - as a hand warmer. Needless to say, I didn't get any takers...

Would it not be up to the owner to re-house their pet?
- how about if they "sell" their pet for 10p - just to satisfy the conditions of a "sale" - what good is this?
I gave my cats to a good home with the option of a visit to ensure they would be alright - I never visited as it would be too upsetting. But to have "sold" them - well, I don't put them into a category of "goods". I knew they went to a loving home.

I realise the problem with giving them away, anyone who wants to take a pet should be able to afford to care for that pet, and the costs associated with keeping an animal, and thus should not be put off by having to purchase the animal initally.

However, I also understand the points regarding the situation etc, if you for some reason, do need to give your animal away quite urgently, and you have a price-tag on that animal, then it may take longer than required to sell the animal. I'm sure most people will only give their animals to a fit and proper person and loving home, regardless of the persons financial scenario.

Maybe Tilly could offer some advice with regards doing checks etc, as she reguarly helps to re-home animals iirc? I tried PM'ing her but she is over her PM limit at present.

Strangely, you can OWN a dog, but not a cat, so how can you sell something you don't own.

If we want animals to have free will why should we decide who they live with ?

Free to Good Home - I think that covers it. If you want to check it's a good home, that's your choice.

A good home is worth more than a wealthy owner.

What about a "re-homing" fee to deter freebie hunters who just want a free animal to sell on for a profit?

That way, the said animal isn't actually being sold but not given away free either - obviously only somebody who wants the animal will pay the fee for it.

I'm curious what a "home check" can reveal, it doesn't determine the exercise, love or diet the animal will get, just seems to be a bit of bureaucratic nosiness to me.

I also don't like the idea of a home check. I would be wanting to re-home a pet, doesn't mean I want someone I don't know looking round my home. Just because I live in an untidy house (I don't) doesn't mean I am a bad carer!