10/01/2026
Can you imagine if a Rancher or Farmer begged for money this way?
Rescues & Scamtuaries are a Business model! Virtual panhandling for money to feed your animals or build a barn on one's own personal property, not belonging to the rescue, is just a scam using other peoples money!
Over the years our farm has taken in many "rescued" animals, all on our own dime and never once asked for sponsorship or money to build facilities!
I keep seeing posts from cattle rescues asking for donations because winter is coming and they need money to buy feed, build shelters, put up windbreaks, or otherwise get their cattle ready for winter. And every time I see one, I have basically the same reaction.
Guys.
Can you imagine if a dairy or beef farmer posted that?
Seriously. Imagine scrolling Facebook and seeing a dairy farmer say, “Winter is coming, and we don't have enough feed to get our cows through it, so please donate money so we can buy hay. We also don't have adequate shelter ready for them, so we're raising money to build that too.”
How exactly do we think that comment section would go?
Would people be sharing it with little hearts saying, “Let's help them keep these sweet cows fed and warm”? Would everyone talk about how compassionate the farmer was for trying to provide for the animals?
Or would somebody have animal control tagged before the farmer finished typing the post?
Because I'm pretty sure we all know the answer.
If a dairy or beef farmer knowingly had more cattle than they could feed through winter, people would call that irresponsible. If they couldn't provide appropriate protection from the weather their cattle were going to face, people would ask why they had the cattle in the first place. If their entire winter feeding plan depended on strangers donating enough money after the animals were already there, I have a feeling words like neglect and abuse would start appearing remarkably quickly.
And yet put the word “rescue” in front of essentially the same situation and somehow the expectations can completely change.
Suddenly not having enough feed isn't necessarily viewed as poor planning. It's a fundraising opportunity.
Not having winter facilities ready isn't necessarily irresponsible. It's “Help us build a shelter for these rescued cows!”
And apparently winter has once again arrived completely without warning, despite its suspicious habit of occurring at approximately the same time every single year.
Meanwhile, farmers are expected to plan.
Feed doesn't magically appear because January showed up. You have to know approximately how many animals you're feeding, what they're going to consume, how much feed you have available, how long it should last, and what you're going to do if conditions change. Hay and silage don't care whether the animal eating them has a touching backstory. A cow still needs calories. Water still needs to be available. Fences still need to function. Bedding still costs money. Veterinary care still costs money. Facilities still have to work. Weather still happens.
And cattle are not exactly inexpensive animals to maintain.
They eat.
A lot.
Repeatedly.
Every single day.
This should not be breaking news discovered sometime around November.
Obviously genuine emergencies happen. A barn can burn down. Flooding can destroy feed. Drought can leave an entire region desperately short of forage. Crops can fail. Something completely outside someone's control can take a responsible plan and destroy it in a matter of hours. Asking for help after a genuine emergency is completely different from routinely taking in animals without already having the resources necessary to provide their basic care.
Because acquiring the cow is the easy part.
Keeping that cow properly fed, watered, fenced, sheltered appropriately for the climate, healthy, and cared for tomorrow, next month, and next February is the responsibility that comes with taking her.
And sometimes the responsible decision is that you cannot take another animal.
That's not as emotionally satisfying. It doesn't produce the dramatic rescue pictures. Nobody gets to announce that another cow has been “saved.” But if you already have all the animals your land, facilities, feed supply, labor, and finances can responsibly support, adding another mouth because you feel bad for it doesn't magically create more resources.
Good intentions don't fill a feed bunk.
Compassion doesn't put hay in a barn.
A Facebook fundraiser doesn't change the fact that winter was coming when the animal was acquired.
And this is where the double standard bothers me, because livestock farmers are constantly expected to meet a very high standard of care. If someone's cattle are thin, people notice. If they don't have adequate access to feed or water, that's a problem. If their environment isn't appropriate, that's a problem. If a farmer continually acquires livestock they cannot afford to maintain, eventually somebody is going to ask whether those animals should even be there.
And frankly, those are reasonable questions.
They don't become unreasonable questions because somebody puts “rescue” on the sign.
If it would concern you to hear a dairy farmer say, “We don't know how we're going to feed our cows this winter unless people donate,” then it should concern you when someone responsible for rescue cattle says essentially the same thing.
If you'd ask a beef farmer why they acquired cattle without having adequate feed for them, it's fair to ask the same question of a rescue.
The cow doesn't know whether she's standing on a dairy, a beef ranch, or a rescue.
She knows whether she's hungry.
She knows whether she has water.
She knows whether she's protected from weather when she needs to be.
She knows whether she's being cared for.
Maybe instead of automatically assuming the word “rescue” means better animal welfare, we should judge livestock care by the same basic standard regardless of what is written on the sign at the end of the driveway.
Because “rescued” describes how somebody acquired the animal.
It doesn't excuse being unprepared to care for her afterward.
