Terminology: What is a 'rescue'?

[Rue]

I recently read a blurb that slammed the use of 'rescue' to refer to rehomed birds. I probably agree with that POV, even though I also say 'rescue' (just because it's convenient).

A rescue is an animal is dire straights, who might not survive without an intervention. Typically you would NOT pay to rescue an animal.

If you pay for an animal, you have simply made a purchase. It is not technically a rescue.

So I suppose we should just use the term 'rehome' for older animals that we have purchased? Same goes for my two dogs that are from the SPCA...I have to stop calling them rescues. Neither one was in any danger.

[Michael]

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with money exchange. You could in theory pay money to convince an owner of an abused parrot to let you rescue it. A rescue is coming from life harming abuse or neglect. On the other hand someone getting rid of a parrot cause they are fed up with the noise or bored of it, that would just be called a rehome.

[Azure Hanyo]

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with money exchange. You could in theory pay money to convince an owner of an abused parrot to let you rescue it. A rescue is coming from life harming abuse or neglect. On the other hand someone getting rid of a parrot cause they are fed up with the noise or bored of it, that would just be called a rehome.

Agreed.

[MandyG]

I agree with Michael regarding the money exchange issue.

So I suppose we should just use the term 'rehome' for older animals that we have purchased? Same goes for my two dogs that are from the SPCA...I have to stop calling them rescues. Neither one was in any danger.

I guess it would depend on the circumstance. Most places that you adopt animals from are called 'Animal Rescues', if you are unaware of the animal's past you could call it a rescue if you had adopted it. I refer to my dog as a 'rescue', I adopted him from the animal rescue I volunteer for and I know that him, his 7 siblings, and his parents were seized from their owners when they were being abused and neglected. Almost all adoptions of this type require an adoption fee, but they do specifically sate that you are not purchasing the animal, you are simply helping them cover some of the costs that they incurred.

I consider animals bought from classifieds to be re-homes. I also consider animals that are no longer wanted and are given to someone for free to be re-homes, not rescues.

[Azure Hanyo]

Side-note to Rue- I think arguing the semantics of this is just a little pointless, and if someone bashed my use of the word "rescue" I would tell them so. At the end of the day if the parrot is in a good, loving home, isn't that what matters?

Rescuing something is, as defined by my pal Webster, "To free or deliver from any confinement, violence, danger or evil". An owner that leaves it stuck in a cage? = rescue. Pet-store bird neglected for years without any contact? = rescue. Bird dying, sick, and starving? = rescue.

Just my two cents.

[Rrrma]

As defined by Webster(which the previous poster pointed out), to rescue is to free from confinement, danger, or evil
As defined by the Oxford Dictionary, to rescue is to save (someone) from a dangerous or distressing situation

So I would continue to use the word rescue whenever I believe that I rescued someone or something from a negative situation. Even if I had to use money to achieve that.

My mom paid the store owners of a local petstore full price to bring home 2 budgies that were laying eggs in piles of shit at the bottom of the smallest cage I've ever seen. That petstore was later closed down and seized by the government for all kinds of horrible things. I would absolutely call her budgies rescues, even if she paid for them. She had no intention on purchasing new birds(she already had some), but saw they were in distress and saved them. She wouldn't have been able to take them by force without committing a crime, so what other options were there?

[Rue]

Well yes...it's not a big deal...

But I think the original blurb was getting at the point that if you call all rehomes rescues, you take away from the urgency and life/death situation of true rescues.

Not to mention that there is anything at all 'less' about rehoming! Rehoming is wonderful!

I suppose if the SPCA has taken in an animal from a horrible situation...they've done the actual rescuing...and the new owner is providing the permanent home...not actually doing the rescuing themselves...

I hadn't thought of it before...but I think they have a valid point...and I was just wondering what the rest of you thought.

I agree about the money though...I can't see why if you pay for an animal in dire need, it's not a rescue.

[Michael]

Not to mention that there is anything at all 'less' about rehoming! Rehoming is wonderful!

It may be a fact of life, but why would you call it wonderful???

[Rrrma]

Not to mention that there is anything at all 'less' about rehoming! Rehoming is wonderful!

It may be a fact of life, but why would you call it wonderful???

Because the alternative might be release, neglect, or death. Rehoming when you are no longer able to care for your pets is a wonderful thing, and rehoming when you are in search of a pet and can care for one is a wonderful thing... So it is wonderful, for everyone involved

[Rue]

A lot of people don't want 'used' pets. They assume that they animals all come with health and behavioural issues. They want a baby, or something shiny and new.

Taking in an older animal and giving it a home is a wonderful thing. And of course some of those animals do have issues that need to be dealt with - so there may well be extra work that the new owner will have to deal with. However, I'd guess the majority of 'used' animals fit in to their new homes quite well.

Should I replace the word 'wonderful' with 'good'?

..and yes...what rrrma said!