Comment that we hear when we refuse to adoption is that

These two pages are legally, but actually three, because adoption is the most important party animal - it is looking for a new home and the person hotol (s) who will love him, and the organization is to provide him the house. I do not like when I read in the paper that the "object" of the contract is the Animal - It is like we have rights, and the first record in the Act of 21 August 1997 on the Protection of Animals says that 'animal, as a living being , capable of suffering, it is not. A man has to respect, protect and care '(http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU20130000856). Unfortunately, the animal is not the subject of any action, because the same law says in the paragraph. 2, that 'in matters not governed by the Act, the animals, the provisions relating to things. However, we can assume that the object of the agreement is so ADOPTION animal, and it is not the same - It sounds a lot better. The truth?
Recently as part of our Foundation (AFN Krakow) had to refuse adoption interested persons because of the mismatch between their place of residence to the adoption. Of course, the person who had to provide the information that their house or apartment does not meet our criteria were for this reason happy and treated the our Foundation in a variety of ways, starting with light epithets, hotol and threats, insulting the volunteers themselves and promises smear our foundation in the newspapers. We understand, of course, resentment of these people, but we want along with the decision to adopt a cat came to the decision to protect the place of his life. Do not judge the place for your cat to the size or material state housing, but above all in terms of Kotu ensure a long and happy life.
Cats that become beneficiaries of our actions are either animals that have been rescued from a life-threatening situation or hit us 'in smallness', because someone wanted to get rid of them or just get rid of the wiper blade tossing one of our volunteers. If we can save the life of such a being, why do not we have to ensure that its future home will be safe for him? Do Manimal release like that without analysis of its future, it would be reckless? But they should be (metaphorically, hotol but the topic by saying), 'like a dog kennel' good home and a great future. They did not have a pleasant and easy start in life or their life suddenly collapsed, causing a lot of stress hotol and confusion. We are here to make him more harm to them is not constant.
Some actors are doing, so that no questions asked seem animal. The question is why? Do you want to 'stick' a statistics by counting of the number issued to house animals? Do you just need to 'get rid' of excess inventory hotol foundational? Unfortunately, after the release of the animal's home, control over his fate will be discontinued. Do not be checked, and if at all animal lives. The checks hotol are random, if ever take place.
The report of the Supreme Audit few days indicates that the SCC controlled by the hostel "No deal (...) the conduct of reliable records rounded up dogs and cats. Only four controlled municipalities have attempted to marking. Also visited shelters in five inspectors discovered the gaps and deficiencies in the records. That's a big omission, because without full documentation, it is impossible to track the fate of the animals that have been placed in a shelter or put up for adoption. Is also difficult to check whether the money spent on protecting animals were actually used (http://www.nik.gov.pl/aktualnosci/nik-o-ochronie-zwierzat-bezdomnych.html). What is there to records? After all, it will force us or to intervene if something goes wrong - and yet we managed to find the pet house.
An example of control, but unfortunately a little too late, is a matter of Wojciech L. from Silesia, which killed 20 cats, adopting them from different sources (http://www.koty.pl/aktualnosci1/art514, student-medicine-adopted-20- cats-to-be-zabic.html). The lack of information about the fate of animals led to a terrible discovery about, what he did with them. Unfortunately, hotol here blame the lack of cooperation between organizations prozwierzęcymi, which should - at least at the city level - have a common register of whom seem to animal - to avoid a situation such as this.
Comment that we hear when we refuse to adoption is that 'after every home is better than the shelter's cages or catteries of foundation'. I would not have been sure whether it is better to have a little animal poczekało for its owner niżby had to go home where he would not be any good. Obviously this is a big dilemma which the organization is when you must refuse