Steve

Hall a bloody ool ya !!!!!!!!! My link But some of the things that are in that code of ethics could never be laws.

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.

Actually it isn't as simple as you imply - So is that what you mean when you say ethical rescue? Someone who keeps dogs in hygienic conditions and follows local government laws? Is that what council need to know to know who they should approve- is that all the public need to know to go to a rescue group and not worry about hidden risks? I don't think so and before we can get into ethical rescue we need to know what exactly that is AND SO DO COUNCIL. And the reason I don't come in here and tell you all is because usually I know these things via a confidential manner and it would be difficult to have people accept help if they then thought Id blab about them and often permanent solutions can be found easier and more swiftly which are of more benefit to the dogs if it isn't published all over the net first.

I have spoken to several people who feel that this highlights the fact that there is a major risk to them if they take a dog from a pound or rescue generally. But the reality is that there is nothing new here except that PR is actively specifically alerting people to where dogs are at risk and available. This is not much different to sending someone to a pound to find a dog and thats done every single day here and its being pushed worldwide as a preferable option to choose when looking for a dog. All this does is highlight the fact that anyone can get a dog out of the pound and it probably wont be properly assessed and you probably wont be screened. The public dont know the difference between PR and a rescue group And by the way Ive knowledge of at least one other ethical rescue group who say they test and assess dogs and do not and a couple who have no screening process for new owners or foster carers. The word ethical is tossed around all over the place as well but defining ethical is open to many variables so you might know what you mean but no one else does because they assume your definition is like their's and as long as their is not third party accountability process its pretty clear that in some cases what a group says they do isnt necessarily so. I'm most definitely of the educated opinion that several assumed ethical rescues are not ethical according to my definition of ethical rescue including some who have participated in this. I also know of some who take donations under false pretenses, one who has 43 dogs on her property with only approval for two, one who is famous for her filthy house and kennels who has 120 dogs which she clearly cant cope with and numerous other issues which are deliberately happening by some of those who visit here and are assumed to be ethical. How the bloody hell is council or anyone to tell which group is ethical especially when there is no base line for what you mean by ethical. Ive stood in shit up past my ankles in someone's lounge room helping sort out an ethical rescue,helping her to clean up and rehome her animals and puppies which she says came as a result of pregnant puppy farm dogs but the paper work says she has had them much longer than 9 weeks and its clear she is deliberately breeding them - some paperwork even shows some end up in pet shops not desexed - 12 months later even after she signed a contract to say she was finished in rescue before we would help she was back the same again and she is considered ethical when she talks the talk on this forum pumping out over 300 puppies a year - what a bloody angel she is for saving so many pregnant babies. So when you talk about ethical and how a pound should only deal with ethical it may be an idea to be more specific and be clear about how anyone can tell they do what they say they do anyway.

Did PR re-home it or did they alert people to it and the pound re homed it ?

If pounds have the motivation to chase up where will they get the resources from to chase them up - would appear in order to do so you have to wait until something terrible happens and then be motivated and have the resources to be fair dinkum. What's stopping them from going to another pound with the same slack policies any way even if you do put enough pressure on Blacktown? You have people like NicB at one pound and its still happening there what of the ones where there is no NicB - you're right its not an easy job with out law changes. .

Not sure I agree with you that we dont generally have laws telling people how to conduct their businesses - take a look at the laws affecting rescue in Victoria and then look at the laws a breeder has on them over and above what any pet owner has in the same state we are dealing with here. Most businesses have specific legislation relating to them- motor trades, telecommunications, real estate in fact its hard to think of many which don't. You cant sell someone a litre of goats milk to drink but you can sell them a dog that might rip their throat out dont think arguing that we dont generally have laws for this kind of thing will help prevent it happening. Best practice is way off having no choice but to do it or shut down.

IMO BCC. If they are not able to BA the dog they had better make sure the dog goes to a reputable rescue who has the finances, ability and commitment to work through assesments and rehabilitation. Both BCC and HP have enough info and experience to know that PR's will not meet any of the essential requirements. Then that is down to the pounds. PR is simply taking advantage of them not doing their jobs properly. So, my question is, why aren't the pounds being smacked around for allowing DA dogs to be released? No, it all comes down to council. Re your last comment; it is council allowing RTRO dogs going to knowingly an unreputable group. So if we push for laws who and how will they determine which group is or is not reputable unless we also have laws to cover what comes next We don't have to push for laws, we just have to push for PR to comply with their existing conditions and the councils they deal with to enforce it. New laws aren't needed. But how can you do that when they can have any conditions they want - there is nothing compelling them to remain with in what we think is best practice because there are no laws to control it.

I am not familiar with behavioural assesments at BCC though under the circumstances you have mentioned above BCC have a duty of care and responsibility to ensure this dog is pro assesed PRIOR to release. If BCC are unable to assess they may release this dog RTRO. They need to then ensure the rescue group will meet all set criteria in assesment. The group will be forced to report back to council on the otcome of the dog. If councils work with reputable groups they everything is adheard to. If they work with unreputable groups, the group will not get back to them. It should be followed up upon, though often it is not. Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation? Councils have a DOC. RTRO dogs have set conditions and rescue groups must adhere to them. All of the conditions are in writing. Rescue must agree and follow those conditions if they would like to take on these dogs. I may need to speak with you Julie as I am not able to go into the whole lot online. So I assume that if PR have taken on any of these dogs they have complied with the conditions or they would no longer be able to get them is that right??? Agreed though not complied. So if they havent complied and its provable why / how can they continue to do it or dont they care once its changed hands and its no longer their responsibility. If thats the case would seem they benefit a lot by pound rounds.

IMO BCC. If they are not able to BA the dog they had better make sure the dog goes to a reputable rescue who has the finances, ability and commitment to work through assesments and rehabilitation. Both BCC and HP have enough info and experience to know that PR's will not meet any of the essential requirements. Then that is down to the pounds. PR is simply taking advantage of them not doing their jobs properly. So, my question is, why aren't the pounds being smacked around for allowing DA dogs to be released? No, it all comes down to council. Re your last comment; it is council allowing RTRO dogs going to knowingly an unreputable group. So if we push for laws who and how will they determine which group is or is not reputable unless we also have laws to cover what comes next

The part of the problem is any existing requirements are not laws and each pound can have their own policies/requirements. Which is why pounds in NSW can still sell them to the highest bidder entire if they choose to.

My knowledge of this is out of date, but I heard that it depends on whether the org selling the dog is selling it as a pet or whether what they are doing is disposing of a dog. Organisations that sell pets are expected to provide a product that meets reasonable expectations as a pet. That is where a Perth organisation was once found liable for rehoming an aggressive dog that went on to bite a child. No legislation about it, but because they didn't follow best practice in assessment, they lost the case. This is what I have been told, so that's why when I sold dogs I followed best practice for assessment and documentation of assessment and history. So I would want to know does this pound "dispose of dogs" to PR, or do they sell pets to the public? If they are selling pets, they need to follow consumer laws to the letter. Its my understanding that much of the angst is about the fact that people are taking these dogs out in their own names directly from the pound and not just from PR - so are they disposing of the dogs to new owners or are they selling them a pet?

I am not familiar with behavioural assesments at BCC though under the circumstances you have mentioned above BCC have a duty of care and responsibility to ensure this dog is pro assesed PRIOR to release. If BCC are unable to assess they may release this dog RTRO. They need to then ensure the rescue group will meet all set criteria in assesment. The group will be forced to report back to council on the otcome of the dog. If councils work with reputable groups they everything is adheard to. If they work with unreputable groups, the group will not get back to them. It should be followed up upon, though often it is not. Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation? Councils have a DOC. RTRO dogs have set conditions and rescue groups must adhere to them. All of the conditions are in writing. Rescue must agree and follow those conditions if they would like to take on these dogs. I may need to speak with you Julie as I am not able to go into the whole lot online. So I assume that if PR have taken on any of these dogs they have complied with the conditions or they would no longer be able to get them is that right???

I am not familiar with behavioural assesments at BCC though under the circumstances you have mentioned above BCC have a duty of care and responsibility to ensure this dog is pro assesed PRIOR to release. If BCC are unable to assess they may release this dog RTRO. They need to then ensure the rescue group will meet all set criteria in assesment. The group will be forced to report back to council on the otcome of the dog. If councils work with reputable groups they everything is adheard to. If they work with unreputable groups, the group will not get back to them. It should be followed up upon, though often it is not. Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation? Councils have a DOC. RTRO dogs have set conditions and rescue groups must adhere to them. All of the conditions are in writing. Rescue must agree and follow those conditions if they would like to take on these dogs. I may need to speak with you Julie as I am not able to go into the whole lot online. 0269276707 when ever you're ready.

So tell me this - If we all go mad and start to push for laws to be introduced to prevent DA and HA dogs to be able to be released from pounds unless it is to a rescue group wouldn't that still mean PR could do exactly as they are doing now? It would seem to me any law changes have to in the main put really strict laws and restrictions on small private rescue.

I am not familiar with behavioural assesments at BCC though under the circumstances you have mentioned above BCC have a duty of care and responsibility to ensure this dog is pro assesed PRIOR to release. If BCC are unable to assess they may release this dog RTRO. They need to then ensure the rescue group will meet all set criteria in assesment. The group will be forced to report back to council on the otcome of the dog. If councils work with reputable groups they everything is adheard to. If they work with unreputable groups, the group will not get back to them. It should be followed up upon, though often it is not. Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation?

Well for what it's worth in my opinion you need to raise the awareness of the great stuff good breeders and good rescue do and that will naturally progress to more promotion of the dogs. Easier said than done and every time its going to be the politics that kill you. Its not so much the crap that's coming from idiots like this its more about how if you are one of the good guys and start to promote that you're likely to be beaten up - breeders have been conditioned to keep their camp fires low and now rescue is working out they need to do similar. You need to be able to see what their policies and codes are that they voluntarily state they work under with a third party accountability system which is 100 % voluntary . You need breeders, rescue and dog owners all working together with a focus on whats best for the dogs and not scared of telling the world how great they are.

I dont see PR or this forum doing great stuff for rescue or themselves lately. Whether some people can see why they do what they do or not isnt their call its up to - PR its their page , its their business and they have to deal with it the way they feel is best.

I cant answer for them or how they should go about setting up their policies to have queries answered and Im not commenting on their systems. Im simply saying that I understand what they are doing and why.

Yes I know and there have been some big mistakes made and probably valid reasons for people to be attacking them but I still get why they dont answer and why they delete and ban.

If they have any insight they will do a FAQ list and then when anyone requires answers they can direct them there but I understand in a small org getting started why they don't have the time to play too much with answering individual questions publicly and why they would choose to ignore those they feel are vexatious.

PR have chosen to do their PR via facebook so have millions of other buinesses but few would allow negative comments to remain which could affect their ability to fundraise. I dont want to be in a situation where Im defending PR Im simply saying that is an acceptable explanation for me and I understand their position.

I guess to the person asking it appears to be rotten but you surely have to understand that as a non profit org they have an obligation to protect their brand and they cant allow such things to stay there.

I dont think you do have to answer them publicly - would the RSPCA answer questions such as this on a face book page or a public forum - and would the RSPCA allow their ability to fundraise be affected by negative comments on a face book page if they could prevent it? However, they should have somewhere documented and policies written up etc to ensure they are trasparent but as for answering critics publicly its a mugs game and no real work would ever get done. Im not sure what you mean by them not being a business - to all intents and purposes they appear to be operating as a non profit business to me.

I understand this and accept it as an understandable situation. Most groups would delete hate posts or those aimed at detracting the good name of their business. Most businesses would not engage with accusers they have no obligation to answer to publicly. Most businesses would have by now demanded that any accusations or defamatory remarks made else where were removed. Julie