MAIN LINE RESCUE INC
July 22, 2010
This charity has unethical and legally questionable practices in the way that it deals with parties surrendering pets, those adopting the pets, and those applying to adopt pets.
My sister adopted a dog from MLAR and subsequently went to China leaving me to care for the dog. When I was unable to keep the pet I called MLAR per the contract my sister signed to request their aid in placing the animal with a new family. Our vet's assistant, when she heard the dog needed a home, expressed a desire to adopt the dog. Despite her relationship with the me and the dog, she went through the proper channels by filling out an application with MLAR. Bill Smith, the director there, assured both my friend and me that she would be given the dog. Then he phoned me and asked me to bring the dog in so their vet could examine him. He said that my friend could pick up the dog the next day and take him home. I delivered the dog to MLAR and asked Bill's assistant Nancy to assure me that we would be able to pick up the dog in the morning. The next day when I went to pick up the dog, they had given him to another family. I was informed that lying to people to confiscate pets was routine and considered necessary. They admitted that I had care well for the dog, but they did not want my friend to adopt him because "they could not verify her vet records because she worked for the vet." Yet they allowed my sister to adopt the dog when neither she not her husband had ever adopted an animal before. Furthermore, they lied by assuring us that my family would be allowed to contact the adopting family for closure and in fact never provided up with that information despite numerous requests both by phone and in person. Finally, I was told that if I continued to request the information that I would be reported for harassment and that I had "no legal standing" in the matter because the contract my sister signed identified that MLAR "owns the animals and they can at any time confiscate them if they deem it necessary." People who adopt pets from MLAR are not adopting animal so much as borrowing them.
In conclusion, the owner and presumable governing body of MLAR condones unethical treatment of humans and rather than considering the best interests of the animal, essentially loans the pets to the highest bidder. Their facility is assuredly palatial, but I did not see a single animal out running in the vast manicured acreage. This organization is not dedicated matching pets and owner it is dedicated to greed and control.
I've personally experienced the results of this organization in...
that they essentially stole the dog I cared for and trained for 2 years. They assumed that they knew what was best for the dog even though they neither knew him not the woman who wanted to adopt him. They condone a policy of dishonesty and threats.
Ways to make it better...
If I had to make changes to this organization, I would...
Remove the CEO. Institute policies against lying to clients. Change the language of the contracts to be reasonable. Work in cooperation with people surrendering animals to find the best homes for them.
What I've enjoyed the most about my experience with this nonprofit is...
The kinds of staff and volunteers that I met were...
directed to lie to me and my child.
If this organization had 10 million bucks, it could...
do a lot of damage.
Ways to make it better...
I had been dealt with honestly and fairly.
In my opinion, the biggest challenges facing this organization are...
Unethical and questionable practices that are perpetuated by founder and CEO.
When was your last experience with this nonprofit?
Client Served & I surrendered an animal for adoption.
Review from Guidestar