Usually your articles are helpful and enjoyable. Unfortunately, this one makes poor generalizations and overlaps. If I were an average horseman considering rescue, your introduction would be offputting and your article does little to help ease that concern. FIRST - many, many sanctuaries are 501c3. A sanctuary provides a place to finish out an animal's life, and is not looking to adopt. Those animals do NOT have to be able to find a future career or "potential for adoption." SECOND - GFAS acknowledged rescues must first be 501c3. THIS adds credibility to a facility - it shows you meet some VERY high standards, although I wish annual inspection were part of the process. A 501c3 simply says you are willing/able to be run as a charitable business - it provides NO info on level of care, salaries paid to employees, pro or anti-slaughter stance or any of dozens of other things assumed by many but actually not at all accurate. If you were to break out rescues into types, there are so many better ways to do so, such as... sanctuaries that provide lifelong shelter; case-specific rescues such as PMU and OTTB only facilities; breed specific which care for only certain types, with or without help from the breed registries; skill focused such as rescues that focus upon horses capable of going on to careers in therapy, western showing, etc; training-focused rescues which work with difficult cases, rehab, retrain and rehome them; rehab-focused rescues whose strength is in taking severe neglect cases and make them well but may or may not have any focus on training/preparing horses for new lives. Again thank you for your efforts to promote and support rescues. Please consider visiting some of the many fantastic facilities or at least speakign with them and write a new article that will give your readers more help and detail in really making a consideration of what rescue best fits their needs and what to watch for regarding rescues that might be less than reputable.