For Profit Animal Shelter?

I should note that this potential project is not at any means far along production. I would still need to look into areas where a shelter would not just be needed but would flourish. It's at like an infant stage in the process currently.

>dude the jews lmao

what an excellent business proposal

>>2392570
uh huh okay soo......

how the fuck do you expect to make money with dirty street mutts and aggressive pitbulls?

>>2392570
Shelters run as non profits as they regularly operate at a loss. You have to realize that a good shelter, vaccinates, spays/neuters, has good staff and doesn't kill. Shelters aren't the business to get into for profit. Tell your friend to start a puppy mill instead. I'd suggest breeding toadline exotic bullies.

>>2392763
I'll add that most for profit shelters have other services. Such as animal boarding, grooming, veterinary services, training services and food sales. So unless you plan on implementing that shit to don't bother.

>>2392757
Same way non profits do. Can still get grants and now can also have stocks too.

>>2392763
They tend to run as a non-profit because people who start them up tend to lean more as animal people and less as business people. And I admit it also looks really good on paper, it gives one the idea that the people running it must not make money, despite the CEOs having the ability to give themselves a 6 figure salary. Non-profits still need to not run red for too long; they can still go bankrupt. Non-profit doesn't mean the business makes no profit, it means that the business is not meant to maximize a profit. That's where my colleague had an issue, there is no need to limit profit if it means it can help the business.

Basically it would be a shelter that everyone is begging for - one that does not do home visits, one that doesn't require dog to dog meet and greets, one that won't turn someone away just because they have different views. What shelters should have been for, be much less picky. I would still implement the need of an ID for a very fast background check to make sure the person is over 18 and hasn't committed an animal related charge. I do plan on having a little store with it to sell some simple needed shit like carriers, leashes, and some other shelter related items. I'd probably do some low cost dog classes, and a discount for people who adopted at the shelter. And also free animal care classes for anyone to attend, as studies show that people who actually know how to care for an animal are less likely to dump it. As for vet care, I'd like to do low income spay/neuter but it will depend on grants

who will pay you? people willing to put their pet to the shelter?

>>2393279
People adopting. Believe it or not, adopting is becoming the new cool thing. That's why /an/ hates it now.

We get the supply for free, and just like the majority of other shelters, we will deny owner surrendered animals that are not adoptable and instead suggest euthanasia (which will be cheaper than the owner doing it at a vet because there will be no vet charge and there is no exam done, just the injection). There are also grants and donations. But just like any for-profit, we will have to find a place where the shelter is needed (extremely important) and then be better than the competition. Also, advertising. You have to think of it as a public business not a private one. The biggest issue with shelters, and anything selling live animals, is time. The longer the animal stays at the shelter, the more money it costs you and the larger it's chance of becoming ill or having to stay on a bite quarantine. Basically, time is money. So this shelter will be implementing a same-day adoption.

>da jeeeeeews

Oh piss off.

>>2393278
Believe it or not, shelters do all that shit for a reason. After the twentieth instance of "Family takes home a dog only to have it eviscerated by their poorly socialized other dog" or vice versa nobody is going to go to you any more. How about instead of being a racist idiot you go and find out why those procedures were implemented? But that would take a modicum of intelligence and spontaneous thought, which is probably beyond your ability.

>>2393327
>nobody is going to go to you any more
This already happens all the time in other shelters, because people can and will lie. If someone wants to make their own mistake, then they very well can. They have the option to bring in their dog for a meet and greet, and they choose to deny it.

I've worked in the shelter business for several years. I know why it's implemented. But the same people it was meant for will lie to you anyways, unless you feel like doing a home check. Home checks are basically to check for liars and, to a lesser extent, teach people to think more like dog men (short fences, gaps in doors, etc). But, home checks turn a fuck ton of people, even very good people, off. The people that know they have problem dogs but still want the dog will lie. If you catch them in a lie, they will bring in a friend or relative to get the dog for them. I've seen it a hundred times or more. At the end of the day, a shelter wanting to find homes for homeless animals en mass can only screen well if people want to tell the truth. Anyone can lie to a large scale shelter about their fence, their kids (or lack thereof), other pets in the house etc. The best screening is proper education, in my opinion, but no one wants to teach the niggers anything. That's the real racism here.

Any shelter worth it's salt has contracts to sign that includes shit about not being liable for their animal once they bring it home. Because believe it or not, your concerns happen every single day across shelters that do have mandatory meets. I have not seen a single shelter (that doesn't do mandatory home visits) not have a huge issue with exactly that. Shit like that is why some places do home checks. So the real question is, why do people feel the need to lie about this?

You make quite a lot of assumptions for someone who knows very little of what they are talking about.

>>2393348
You sure love to hear yourself talk. "We don't need to worry about the welfare of animals, people will lie anyways," doesn't need three paragraphs and a line to say.

Also hilarious that you accuse me of making assumptions when your post does nothing except rant against home checks which is something that I never mentioned. Did someone get a stick up your ass? Did da joooos deny you a cute puppy dog? Do these assumptions hit a little close to home?

>>2393360
I brought home checks up because that's the only way to check if people lie. You would know this if you had any experience at all in the field. If you wanted to be really humane, wouldn't you just be PETA and kill them? Humane death is surely far better than what might happen to a dog. Of course welfare matters but you aren't going to get people to make the right decisions by being a cunt, hence the education. Being a cunt just makes people more mad and more determined, which is why blacklisted people are so intent to buy dogs from you even if they have to bed over backwards. It's not my fault you can't read the context of 2 short paragraphs. If that's all you got from it you clearly don't know enough on the subject to be responding to this post

I wanted to have a fair discussion with people who would bring up their concerns to see if I could thwart them or go to the drawing board, but I guess the jews fucked you too hard britbong. Just mentioning jews made you completely useless to me.

>>2393366
Don't come on to /an/, say, "We don't need to worry about the welfare of animals, people will lie anyways," in eight paragraphs, and expect people to fall over themselves to help you match animals with animal abusers.

Feel free to piss right off if the discussion doesn't feel "fair" enough to you, cunt.

>>2393369
>implying
>implying
>implying
Can rebbit please leave?

Thanks for the bumps though.

>>2393371
>people I don't like are reddit
>threads needing bumps
>on /an

May as well have worn a hat saying how much of an idiot cross-boarder you are. I take it you from /pol/? Feel free to crawl back to whatever shithole board you came from.

>>2393373
And oh! my god! I forgot a slash at the end of /an/.

>>2393371
>/an/
>bumps

This could have been a successful troll thread but you got impatient and blew it.

>>2393377
No, it's just another idiot cross-boarder.

>>2393377
>>2393381
/an/ has become quite a bit more popular lately. It's not like the old days where you could forget a thread for a week and revive it with a second bump. It's not a seekrit club anymore.

On-topic bump

What are the chances the ASPCA and HSUS will sue a new shelter into the dust if they are competing with them?

>>2392763

SMASHED

File: 1484977975260.jpg (182KB, 600x576px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 600x576px

>>2392570

This idea you have that making money is evil is very immature and silly. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a profit organization.

>>2392753
>>2393327
He's obviously summarizing the act of being more concerned with money than well being using one single word commonly used on this website, you oversensitive niggers

>>2395324
I suppose that is what my colleague is trying to tell me too. Just like the anons ITT it seems evil to me vs an organization that isn't meant to make money. However, if you try to make money you can put it back into the business (in this case the shelter) and do even more good, whereas the other shelters just want to make enough to pay their own salary and stop there. I have also been told that because the workers aren't being paid well (because they can't) and the CEOs try to make just enough to pay themselves, that the customer service suffers as a result.

It sounds fine and all but I don't see many examples of a public animal shelter.

>>2393446
>HERRAFRUSH