Steve

Because there are no laws which compel councils to have set agreements and follow up or withdraw agreements if conditions are not being met. There are no laws on what dogs can or cannot be sent out to anyone past declared dangerous dogs and you are reliant on council policy to ensure there is even any such thing as RTRO. There are no laws saying a dog has to be assessed by anyone or the owner has to be informed and educated - or have fences. There are no laws restricting dogs going out entire . the agencies who you think CAN probably CANT because it all comes back to council policy. Its why none of us know what any agreement says, what the conditions actually are or what consequences there are for a breach - they are denying such an agreement exists and if its not in writing it doesnt count. The only criteria being used sometimes when they want to determine which group they will work with is a 16 D but they can work with anyone who says they are a rescue group whether they have a 16d or not. None of this is new but the kind of focus thats been put on PR makes it clear that its sucky system and now it has been clear it requires a strategy to clean it up or wait until they bring in laws to do so. There are many sub issues here and much going on behind the scenes - politics and highly emotional players - it requires lots of work which requires logical thought and designing a strategy now.

Dont stay out there too long Nic the fun is only just starting. If I really thought that new laws would stop dogs suffering or make it better for dogs I would be going with that solution but Im not at all anywhere near sure that this is the best outcome for the dogs.

Thats pretty much what it is - so whats the solution?

gertrude - that's an assumption and its just as likely that they don't have any criteria.

Thanks Powerlegs that's about how I see it too.

Thats O.K. Jo I understand but the issue for me isn't PR - its a rotten system and I want to look at solutions for the sake of the dogs. If there are forms and agreements they need to be clearly visible for everyone if they agree to particular policies there needs to be written explanations as to what the consequences are etc. and we should be able to see that. What purpose does it serve council for cloak and dagger stuff on something so basic if its all above board.

Would appear if they have written criteria then that PR fit that criteria as they are still there. No, it could also mean that there has been no follow up. If PR don't report to the council and the council don't chase up reports then they would still be there. Would appear with the evidence that some dogs were not placed in optimal placements that they have already got what they need with no effort to follow up - because its been followed up for them yet they are still there. The only explaination is that its not a breach of their rules. Have you seen these rules written down for perusal you believe they have breached?

Yep Im not sure it means the need for council inspections etc but at the very least we should be able to clearly see what criteria they use for everyone who wants to work with them It appears the only real criteria used is whether they have a 16D and of course part of the issue is that all councils can have their own policies or lack there of in this state. PR have been accused of breaking the rules re receipt and placement of dogs but no one can show us what these rules are - and some deny any such rules even exist - not acceptable. It means anyone or any group can get beaten up if we can't easily clearly see the rules to determine whether they have been broken. This is an emotional issue and most players here only care whats best for the dogs but if any solutions are to be found these things have to be clarified .

Would appear if they have written criteria then that PR fit that criteria as they are still there.

You had no problem convincing them and nor have PR - they are still there even though there have been complaints !!!!! Transparency to whom and what checks - it has to be equal for everyone - as a council you cant determine this unless its a policy for everyone an even playing field.

<br /><br />But you miss the point how is<b> council </b>to define criteria for which group to work with? You know what you did and you know what you feel is ethical but that isnt ever going to be exactly what everyone else thinks - and much of it is about integrity not just what you are seen to agree to. Its about values and the things you do when no one else is watching. Basic human nature tempts people to do things "just once - no one will know " etc <br /><br />What criteria should council have to determine which groups to work with? If they don't have criteria and they cant identify those things which would make a group ineligible then anyone kept out would yell discrimination and threaten legals.<br /><You make it more complicated than it needs to be. Transparency and checks mean that corners were not cut. I had no problem convincing local and state government we were ethical, by the definition supplied above, awl and RSPCA have no problems either. The other issues that you talk about are of no issue to council, the market will decide whether a group's home screening policy is appropriate or not. You still miss the point. If council want to take it upon themselves to work with some rescue and not others they have to have a set criteria on what THEY believe to be necessary policies in a rescue group to enable a rescue group to do what is needed to fit the criteria if they dont already have what is required covered and to ensure that one group isnt giving out favours etc to keep down the opposition or someone they dont like. Without this its open to corruption and accusations or discrimination. Everyone in the whole world should be able to see straight up what their criteria is for allowing one group or another to work with them.

That may be right and more difficult than assumed because Ive just been advised there is no agreement specific to certain conditions on a RTRO dog and as yet no group has said they have ever seen one or signed one. Should be easier to get a look at one if we can find a group who has one.

I assumed because Nic was affiliated with HP that it was also HP and Blacktown tell me there is no agreement.

This is spot on and what I have been advised re clause holders and councils working together. Council are not under any obligation to work with unreputable groups. Pr's and MN threaten legal action/media though which councils avoid at all cost. yes but how do they define what groups are unreputable unless they have a set of criteria without being sued and being accused of corruption or similar? if they had such a thing they wouldnt care about threats of legal action because they would use the same tests or eligibility for all groups and be able to articulate how one group fails that.

So based on this if your rescue group took out a RTRO dog the only condition is the one you agreed to - that you wlll desex and notify them when you do assuming all rescue groups are asked to agree to the same agreement If PR have broken the rules then the only rule they can be guilty of is not notify the pound when the dogs are desexed - but there's no time frame and it might be 6 years before the dog is desexed anyway. They are not asking you to notify them of the outcome for every dog - is that right?

But you miss the point how is council to define criteria for which group to work with? You know what you did and you know what you feel is ethical but that isnt ever going to be exactly what everyone else thinks - and much of it is about integrity not just what you are seen to agree to. Its about values and the things you do when no one else is watching. Basic human nature tempts people to do things "just once - no one will know " etc What criteria should council have to determine which groups to work with? If they don't have criteria and they cant identify those things which would make a group ineligible then anyone kept out would yell discrimination and threaten legals. There is nothing to stop Council setting criteria for what they consider to be a responsible rescue process, making that criteria public and only working with organisations that meet those criteria. It's no different to setting up any other kind of Council policy. You get advice, you assess the advice on a reasonable basis (a simple risk assessment process) and you make your decision in an open and accountable way. No different than selecting a good plumber to do work on Council buildings. You have your criteria, they are reasonable criteria based on a simple risk assessment, you make them public and you invite people to respond to them. Easy. Correct but it would appear that right now no such thing exists - to ensure its a fair system the criteria needs to be decided on , put in writing and adhered to for selection of which groups to work with and procedures and consequences need to be put in writing to treat each equally when someone complains or they fail to comply with conditions.

If I were fronting up to the pound to be a new rescue group wouldnt they make me sign a simple agreement which they keep in their office where it compels my group to know what is required and agree to it.Im not asking to see one thats been signed by any one I want to see the criteria and the blank forms they give rescue groups to determine whether I think PR or anyone hasnt complied with their rules and conditions? How can anyone know they are breaching rules when no one can see what the rules are - why are they a secret - why would they need FOI?

I was thinking about this last night, and thought wouldn't it be wonderful if, at a bare minimum that byb's had to health test the parent dogs for genetic diseases. - would stop a lot dead in their tracks :laugh: They should have something in place for byb'rs - even if it were to follow up ads to see if they had permits to breed(not sure about all councils- but certainly my council you must- but people ignore it...). What would stop them in their tracks is being pulled up and fined under the current laws requiring microchipping and vaccination of pups - not to mention selling them aged under 8 weeks. Not hard to find them - they are advertised all over places like Gumtree - get the rangers out there and fine them. The cost of vaccinating and microchipping an entire litter isn't cheap, and if hit by fines for not doing it, that will hit the hip pocket too. T. Yep agree 100 % all they need to do is police current laws. Easy.

I was thinking about this last night, and thought wouldn't it be wonderful if, at a bare minimum that byb's had to health test the parent dogs for genetic diseases. - would stop a lot dead in their tracks :laugh: They should have something in place for byb'rs - even if it were to follow up ads to see if they had permits to breed(not sure about all councils- but certainly my council you must- but people ignore it...). Well before you can make laws to make cross bred breeders do that you also have to have laws to make purebred breeders do that . The same laws apply to BYB that they do for purebred breeders and in most cases the state laws are much harder than the CC codes.

With so many rescue groups working out of HP and Blacktown over the years surely someone has a copy without needing to go through FOI surely any new group presenting would be given one to sign on the spot. Im advised by a phone call that no form exists for this purpose at Blacktown is this true?

In the main I agree but what "rules" are they breaking ? Do you have a link or similar to these - is there an agreement in existence in writing that they have to sign to operate with council? I think Nic has them, I don't yet but I'm staying home today and chasing up things. I have everything we have presented to council though for personal reasons I am not able to keep up with PR's atm. If you would like to give me a buzz my home is 45736995 and mobile 0408663211. My email is down atm and I have really bad reception on my mobile so if worst comes to worst just text me your number and I will get back to you as I am also outside in the paddocks a lot. Do you have a copy of the forms/agreements rescue fill out to take dogs from HP council Nic? What about Blacktown do they have an agreement the rescue groups have to agree to with penalties and consequences etc if they don't comply?

But you miss the point how is council to define criteria for which group to work with? You know what you did and you know what you feel is ethical but that isnt ever going to be exactly what everyone else thinks - and much of it is about integrity not just what you are seen to agree to. Its about values and the things you do when no one else is watching. Basic human nature tempts people to do things "just once - no one will know " etc What criteria should council have to determine which groups to work with? If they don't have criteria and they cant identify those things which would make a group ineligible then anyone kept out would yell discrimination and threaten legals.

Sorry Im not buying it - everything they have been accused of has been presented to council and they continue to operate and whilst they may have done what they are accused of with RTRO dogs and not followed council procedure or policy in reporting back outcomes in the main they are within council policy because anyone can take any dog out of the pound without screening and without proper temp testing - in the main all they do is operate as an agent to let people know where the dogs are. If you are going after changes and accountability council have to be clear about what their policy is which makes a rescue group eligible for certain concessions - to date its nothing more than holding a 16D - and have written policies in place of what constitutes a breach and what they will do about it if a breach is bought to their attention and what they will do about it if they see its guilty - and which will enable them to identify what they consider to be ethical which applies to all rescue groups without exemption. Going after PR or any other person or group until thats in place is doing no one any good in my opinion. Did you see the posts about the conditions of taking RTRO dogs? Just because the council are slack at enforcing those conditions doesn't mean they don't exist. Some pretty cluey people have been working on this for some time and I don't think they are lying about it. Council will be reluctant to act because they don't want to stop PR because they make them look good but doesn't mean they don't have clearly worded polices that other groups already follow. But I'm not going to go into much here because I don't want PR to know what is being done. Yes I saw the posts but I also want to see where this agreement is which they sign in order to have a RTRO released to them. I want to see in writing what conditions there are and I want to see what they have stated will happen if they don't follow the conditions. Surely they should be easily accessible if all rescue who operate out of Blacktown and HP have to agree to them.

Did PR re-home it or did they alert people to it and the pound re homed it ? The DA dog was being fostered for PR's. Pulled out under clause and chipped to MN (I have pics of the foster carers dead dog) This dog has since had her name changed multiple times, shifted through various kennels and was listed for adoption after the dog attack as good with small animals and kids etc. Agreed would appear according to my definition of ethical and to operate with integrity to be a breach of that but the laws in this state ensure that the pound cannot release a declared dangerous dog or one which is being considered for a declaration - still sounds like a council issue to me - if they can legally release it to rescue - rescue in this state can lawfully do what they want with it.

In the main I agree but what "rules" are they breaking ? Do you have a link or similar to these - is there an agreement in existence in writing that they have to sign to operate with council?