Steve

Because I don't agree with what they did the first time, and I don't condone it in any situation. I was making a point. Whew - I agree.

Oh definitely. I wouldn't dispute that. I do think that just because a system allows for it, it doesn't mean it should happen (as I know you would too). And the pounds didn't make them do anything that the RSPCA are currently investigating them for. I believe if rescue in general is to have a future and be the growth industry which it could be and really bring down euthanasia rates forever, across the board for the future its going to take in part a deliberate strategy plan and third party accountability. Im very reluctant to push for law changes for several reasons mainly because I dont believe its what is best for the dogs and without law changes there will always be people or groups like PR with their philosophy who believe what they are doing is a good thing and what is an acceptable model to save dogs even though they are aware that there are greater risk factors involved. These are discussions we are having in a different place to this forum where all people with an interest in the future of canine rescue are welcome to participate and work on some real strategy plans. Happy to direct you there if you have anything you would like to contribute.

Yep but I still think that they are simply working within a system which makes it possible and while what PR are doing may have put a greater focus on it - its still the pound who are allowing dogs out to anyone who puts their hand up without proper assessment and without screening those taking them.

It doesn't really matter who wants a tax receipt, with DGR status. Receipts must be sent out to everyone when possible and donations are over $2. Correct but many [most times] when funds are going in via bank deposits who put them in isnt obvious and trying to track them down and issue receipts is more often than not impossible - maybe they are issuing receipts with every donation - Ive no idea but unless the receipts are endorsed with "funds only to be used for toto and if excess funds are raised I request a refund of my donation" there is nothing to be done. Who is to say whether the funds were all used for advertising the dog etc - its still funds used for the dog. I'm not talking about proving it. I'm merely stating what the conditions are. However, many dogs they raise money for, the funds incoming for a specific dog (or, appeal, as OLGR would put it) would far outweigh the outgoing costs of that dog's rescue. I think this is a reason they do not use chip-ins anymore, because the amount raised was transparent and there for people to see. I understand you're not talking about proving it but if people are wanting to look at the accounts whats the point if what they think is happening cant be proven? We all may think they are getting in more than they need for a specific dog but no one can know if they are breaching the conditions or not. Like I said, I was stating the conditions. If anyone did want their donation back because it was not used for the intended cause, then they would be well within their rights. I agree they would have every right to ask for it back if they could prove that THEIR donation wasnt used for the dog but how is that possible ? How could they identify what was their ten dollars or someone else's? I don't think this avenue can be pursued, personally. Although it should be pointed out that Pound Rounds were operating as a group long before they incorporated, got authority to fundraise, or become DGR endorsed. One has to wonder what happened to all that money that is seemingly unaccounted for. And from those volunteers who saw the accounts before they left, at that time, that's a lot of money that nobody is asking about. Agreed but whether its auditored or not a donation is a donation and if someone had evidence that they took a donation under false pretenses they have the same ability to go after them whether they have DGR status or not - the same could be said for numerous rescue groups which have not incorporated or which have opted not to have DGR status which never even keep books.But its even harder to prove because its a no paper trail.

Devils advocate - I think you are going to be disappointed. The audit doesn't have to be done until by March next year and prior to that there are no account to show you.In fact to show you accounts which are not audited would be pretty silly . Also unless someone specifically says Im Jo blow and Im donating this money to only be used for this dog and if you have change I want it back - its simply a donation to be used as they see fit. Usually its a donation paid without the desire for a tax invoice, often the person donating doesn't even properly identify themselves - all you will see is funds donated and how those funds were distributed. Example 100 people donate 10 dollars each and some are specific they want their 10 dollars to be used soley for one purpose and say $150 is used for that purpose - it may even be to pay for advertising for the dog etc. Who is going to identify which person's ten dollars was used for this purpose when only two of them wanted a tax receipt. If you can find someone who has a tax receipt which specifically says that X amount was donated to be used soley for one dog and if its not required for that dog they want a refund and any X amount wasn't you might have a case but if you spot something which you think isn't right in the accounts how on earth will you prove it? Also in any charity they are able to legally take out admin costs up to 40% without question higher if they can justify it. As long as it goes through a meeting and no one on the board takes part of any profit they can pay as much as they want in wages, insurances, phone, rent etc. I understand what you are trying to do but you are going to need something to back up what you may think you see when you eventually get the books. You cant seriously expect they would pay for an audit @ around $3000 plus every time someone wants to challenge what they do with their money and I would be very surprised if anyone gets to look at the books until after their first audit which is due after the 30th June 2013 and they have until march 2014 to get it done. Can you imagine anyone demanding mid year to see the RSPCA or cancer council accounts of the current year before the accounts are properly prepared for an accountant and auditor ? Have you heard from anyone who has evidence they made a donation for a specific dog and that they told them that if it wasnt needed for that dog they wanted it back? If you do How do you know that these specific people wont receive a refund when the accounts are done and all expenses calculated ? If not most people assume/normal convention is if more than is needed it will go toward helping any dog and do not ask they receive a refund if more than enough for that dog is donated or that those taking the dog would receive any excess. When tens of thousands of donations were received for a burned kitten by the RSPCA I'm pretty confident they never expected to have to refund it if they got too much and that they didn't hand over the change to the people who gave it a home. You cant say they had funds donated which they should have handed over to a rescue group for funds to cover the dog when the dog goes to them because you have no idea which funds were donated or how the funds have had to be used including to pay someone wages for the time they put in on it etc or if the donor will receive a refund in due course.

Yes O.K. Of course some people have both but this article is written by someone in the states about what they see as the situation in the states and they clearly feel the push for rescue dogs and cross bred dogs has affected show dog breeder's ability to sell their puppies. They see them as competition. In Australia I dont believe that the fact that their are shelter dogs and cross bred dogs available equals show dog breeders not being able to sell their puppies.Show dog breeders in Australia have no problems in selling a litter of puppies - because in the main when someone comes shopping to a purebred breeder they want a purebred puppy purchased from a breeder with less risk of it being a surprise packet. I agree that some parts of the article make her sound like a ratbag and there are better ways to promote what they do but I didnt see that as the intent of this article. It was more of a vent and a defense against what animal rights have been up to. if they Keep telling the world that if you buy a purebred puppy a shelter dog dies and keep attacking its pretty difficult to stay focused on promoting what you do over having a go back because you feel you are the one under the bus already.

And.. Destroys all the credibility of the article. I think the people who wrote this article should probably be made aware of how it makes them look (crazy and very elitist) and that they are very likely doing damage to their own cause with misinformation- the general public aren't quite as stupid as some groups like to believe. Agreed - its all well and good to have a certain philosophy on what is best but cross the line and sound like a bunch of fanatics who cant see the whole picture and everyone stops listening and know you to be as much loonies as the other side. You see it every day here on this forum and often realise that show breeders are often their own worst enemy. It's not too different to the animal rights people, yeah. Quite ironic. They'd be better served in pointing out to the general public the reasons we don't want to lose good purebred dogs- and there are heaps of very valid reasons- rather than stoop to the "shelter pets are always inferior" bit. Except you have to also understand that to most people who breed registered purebred dogs, who put so much work into trying to get it right its understandable that they would see shelter pets as being an inferior product. We all choose the dogs we do because we think our reasons and our choices are best. I wont take a shelter pet over a purebred puppy because I think they are inferior but I understand that some people think they are not and choose differently to me so Id like to think if they were intending on taking a shelter pet that they were able to source them from reputable rescue. However, people taking shelter pets or cross bred dogs in Australia isnt in my opinion placing purebred breeders in a position where they cant find homes for their puppies.The people who buy Rescue and cross bred dogs are not the same people who buy our puppies.

I agree with this if anything good has come from this dreadful thing you have ensured that its something that I will always remember and its alerted me to something Id never considered might be something I should be aware of.

And.. Destroys all the credibility of the article. I think the people who wrote this article should probably be made aware of how it makes them look (crazy and very elitist) and that they are very likely doing damage to their own cause with misinformation- the general public aren't quite as stupid as some groups like to believe. Agreed - its all well and good to have a certain philosophy on what is best but cross the line and sound like a bunch of fanatics who cant see the whole picture and everyone stops listening and know you to be as much loonies as the other side. You see it every day here on this forum and often realise that show breeders are often their own worst enemy.

Firstly this article is written by someone re the situation in the states. I dont believe show breeders or registered purebred breeders who dont show in Australia have any difficulty what ever in selling their puppies. I dont believe the sort of person looking for the dogs I breed are the same people who will buy a cheap un papered dog of the same breed, a rescue dog of the same breed or a cross bred dog. However, I do believe in Australia that many of the best breeders are frightened to be too much out in the open and draw attention to themselves or their dogs, that they are too frightened to stand up and say out loud what they feel about laws and legislation and fight for their rights . Animal rights have been able to agitate to have laws and regs and codes introduced but they couldnt have done that as easily if we had been more proactive and were more prepared to have a go and defend ourselves. Theoretically its sounds like a good idea for all breeders to stand together but scratch around a bit and its a really difficult ask. The MDBA was invited a while back to be involved in a group which were aiming to provide a governing body which was promoted as being better than having government involved etc. Sounded feasible until I asked who would be in this group , lots of different representatives from a wide area of thiose involved in dogs - it worked out that purebred breeders ,ANKC and MDBA were in a vast minority. So as the offer was being pressed I began to feel like purebred breeders would be a bit like a couple of sheep sitting at a table with a heap of wolves to vote on what was for dinner but the clincher was when the president of the group instigating the inception of a new group said "and the first thing we will do is cut out line breeding and closed gene pools. Considering this is what we do - because we are purebred breeders we said we werent going to play with them. One argument was but its better to be involved in the decision making than have them make the decisions for you but Ive played this game before and the only difference is that they get to say they consulted with you and do what ever they want anyway and if you are part of it you cant fight it. Id rather fight it. Needless to say if everyone who is likely to be adversely affected is too frightened and more inclined to keep their camp fires low the end result will be about the same anyway. And its not just animal rights who have been instrumental in this. For various reasons some purebred breeders will use any means they can to go after another purebred breeder who they don't like or don't agree with or compete with .The majority of complaints and attacks on registered breeders come from other registered breeders. In every breed there are those who will stick the boot in. Many will say they dont want any more of their breed being bred. There may be one or two breeds which breeders may have a bit more difficulty in finding homes for because there area bunch of cowboys such as staffy's at the moment but in Australia if the purebred puppies were available for sale few breeders would have a problem in finding them new homes in 99% of breeds regardless of how many mutts are being bred.

Im sure he will be all better now - here's hoping.

Yep if the dog is immune its immune - high or low doesn't count. If it were my dog I wouldn't do it.

How is he today?

My link

Odd that they don't test for giardia -

I can get fresh raspberries here. Any reason why you would use frozen? Yep because I cant get them - fresh is good and much better if you can put them through a sieve and take out the lumpy bits if possible

If you are going to use raspberry cordial make sure its at least 35% fruit - hard to find

My link This will explain it all I'm no vet so best to follow what they have said but if it were my dog I would worm him as the vet advised but take a poop in around about 14 days time and check via taking a poop sample to the vet to make sure you got it all rather than wait a month for the interceptor because of the life cycle.

Id speak to the vet via phone and ask if its possible it could be giardia and interceptor wont fix that . When ever you have a dog with runny smelly poos you need to stop and ask what would you do if this were you or a child - no food and fluids only for 24 hours maybe some yakkault or probiotics. You dont want to give stuff that binds them up because this keeps the bugs in and allows them to incubate more until you are sure about what it is thats causing it .If the fluid day appears to have done the trick go slow with introducing solid food for the first few days. Boiled chicken and apple juice is good for the first feed. If it doesn't stop in that 24 hours or it starts again you need a vet and always watch for dehydration especially in this filthy summer weather. Or if it were my dog Id feed it a box of frozen raspberries. My link

Steve that is very generous of you thank you so much, I will send you a PM. Edit: your inbox is full so I will post in the comments box :) I just need your real name so I can put it through with out payment - Ill empty some of my in box

This is usually the kind of stuff you should be able to go back to your breeder and ask about - one of the main reasons for buying from a breeder who is knowledgeable and who will be available after the pup goes home. You need to remember that there are two different types of tape worm - one the flea tape worm - every time you see fleas you can assume the dog might have tape worm ,as the dog is infected when it swallows a flea - the other is unlikely you will ever need to worry about as it is contracted by the dog eating offal from sheep that's not inspected. This is usually only a problem for dogs who are out bush and getting stuck into dead animal bodies or for dogs who's owners feed food which they kill themselves. Its hard for puppies not to have roundworm as they are infected by the larvae crossing the placenta from their Mum's even though Mum had no sign of having worms .The larvea remain dormant in her uterus just waiting for the chance to be shipped into puppies and they get a second hit via her milk. Its hard for a breeder to totally avoid this and all breeders know the risk and always worm puppies even if they see no sign of worms. Your worm meds only cover the worms in a particular life stage so that's why you need to worm them again in 2 weeks after you have seen them as you have. After that you shouldn't need to be so concerned as when the dog gets older especially boys they have a bit more of immunity to them. Im happy to shout you , Ann21, Ruin Maniac,Baby Pepper and Sheenat a free course each - Good Health and the Family dog which should put you at ease a bit and help in future. My link

http://www.thedogpress.com/Editorials/Extinct-Show-Breeders_Editor-131.asp Sorry it wont let me copy the article.

And this one . Asmall business connecting dogs and good owners is sued by HSUS. HSUS Lost this one too. http://www.thedogpress.com/SideEffects/HSUS-Sues-Dog-Breeders_Staff-131.asp Cant copy the article sorry.

Me either KC is a virus and ABs wont help = treat it the way you treat a child with a bad cough - steam and honey. Every dog Ive ever known to get KC had the vacc .