Steve

Sorry off topic but can anyone else see words underlined in the first post which when you scroll over is an ad or is it something with my computer?

You're no light weight either A nomination in three different categories deserves an extra mention - might add that you talk so much I didnt get a chance to ask you about your broken bones Seriously well done again well deserved.

He's just a straight out nice man too.

Most definitely a worthy nomination Pauline and Pete and Im glad what you do is able to be acknowledged publicly. Well done!

So very sorry to hear this - thinking of you

http://www.ema.europ...b01ac058008d7a8 Thanks... looks like we miss out on that here in Aus... but think how handy it would be for rescue pups... We use Baycox (off label for dogs), and regular worming only stuff for intestinal worms. T. Fenbendazole - Panacur available here which is not available for dogs so if you use it for dogs its off label [ stupid because it is everywhere else] does worms and giardia and coccidia. My vet gave me the dosages etc and its available at all stock feed places. Heaps cheaper than Baycox but you need to give it over two or three days.

Yep agreed.

The foster carers course is short and could easily be done in 2 days but they get a year to do it. So far over 300 people have done the course most of them free of charge and its structured to be able to be done regardless of where someone lives .They still need to be given further instructions from the group they are recruited by re that groups policies and requirements etc. We travel around helping groups in their set up or if they have struck snags because they haven't had their bases covered initially and much is done via email and phone too. Your idea of a group having a recruitment drive and training a group of people in one geographical area has merit and is worthy of greater thought and discussion which I will do when I speak with you this week and at the next MDBA meeting. One massive point is that not all rescue groups are equal and part of educating any foster carer is about helping them to know what their expectations are and to choose a group which matches up to that via their policies and procedures etc. I noticed that NARGA had a blurb on helping in emergencies but then had a look at what they thought was emergencies and how they were structuring it with refunds due after the second lot of help but there were gaping issues there for me some legal and while it appears to be well intentioned Id be surprised if it would float and there are some red lights flashing for me.

Edward St Vet Clinic - Lynne Bodell.

My vet ( wagga) specialises in dogs and actually has some extra initials behind her name for qualifications in canine related areas but she also does cats and horses.I think you would find it hard especially out side of the big cities to find a vet which only worked with one species.

Fenbendazole from memory - only available off label here.

Bit of joke really that ANKC have the monopoly on the assessment when they are assessing dogs which are of a breed they say doesn't exist and they have a bias against cross bred dogs.

Not in NSW

Im against new laws especially when the laws they introduce would be introduced by the main input coming from and policed by a group which has no outside accountability and which in the main could see small private rescue as their competition. All new laws have unintended consequences, usually cant be policed and it makes people do what they want and be more sneaky about it. They usually advantage large groups and disadvantage smaller ones. even the anti pet shop laws being pushed by Clover Moore would have impacted on small rescue groups and when Anne and I sat with Clovers people when they were putting that bill together there was little understanding of how small rescue really operated and how they may be impacted by restrictions on how dogs and puppies could be offered for sale etc. They had come to their position with some pretty big gaps and lots of assumptions. it was difficult for Anne who had first hand knowledge of our rescue members needs and I to believe that their level of knowledge on what registered breeders could and could not do was so ignorant. Then they were surprised when Dogs NSW stood against their bill because they had assumed registered breeders were not able to sell to pet shops?????? All of their input re rescue had come from animal lib and the big rescue groups which had large kennels and the public walking through daily etc and their level of understanding how small rescue operated was at best lacking. Small rescue does need someone to state their case and ensure that their needs are taken into account but this stuff on export and factory farming etc is already covered by other groups and we need another one to be yelling about the same things like we need a hole in the head - it certainly wont gain them any instant credibility or advantage them in any way when it comes to advocating on behalf of anyone let alone canine rescue groups. I am aware of some pretty heavy work being done in the background by some powerful groups which make it difficult to see how rescue will escape without harder and tougher laws but you dont want laws which havent take into account small rescue issues under any condition.

Im with dogmad all dogs regardless of size should have real assessments done on them but I do think that dogs which are bigger and more powerful regardless of what breed they may be need to be really looked at hard simply because if a chi goes nuts it puts a small wound in my child but bigger more powerful dog means potential disaster.

Now here is part of the problem in NSW you have a whole heap of different people running around saying what is best practice there is no law or mandatory codes on what is best practice for rescue in this state but even if we began advocating for laws and codes for rescue to be introduced PR are not rescuing. Wanting laws which would make someone who is advising people of where they can get a dog from a third party [ pound] to be held responsible for that dog after it goes home is never going to wash. Its akin to a migration agent who helps someone come into the country being held responsible if they later commit a crime or an employment agent being held accountable if the person they send for a job steals form the employer etc. You may be able to go after them on false advertising but that's a hard ask as well. If it were that easy we would have taken on Don Burke when he promoted cross bred dogs to be something they were not . It is the pound's responsibility to ensure anyone taking a dog knows the issues the dog has and if the dog comes home and rips someone child's throat out it is the pound which handles the transaction. If you went through ads on Pet Rescue website many of the ads would be in this category where the wording is designed to make the dog seem more appealing and create a greater interest in the dog. There have been threads on this forum advising rescue on how to write ads like this and there would be more than PR which went down for it. Its still up to the person handing the dog over to ensure it all covered. Let me be clear on this in case it isn't obvious I don't like one little bit what is going on here but there isnt any point in having a hundred threads on this and everyone getting mad about it if the problem isnt clearly identified and solution isnt able to be addressed. ANYONE or ANY GROUP or ANY WEBSITE can advise someone that if they call a specific pound that the dog of their dreams or the dog which will be saved from death by them and make them feel all warm and fuzzy may be able to be their new family member. ZUG ZUG took a dog home from the pound and had a terrible experience without the help of PR and any person going to a pound to seek a new dog could be in the same spot. The community expects that a pound wont allow them to take home a dog which will put them or their family at risk and that they will advise them of issues they may need to manage so they have the ability to make an informed decision on whether they will take the dog home. PR has the right to assume that the pound will do what is required and that anyone taking any dog knows the issues and that the dog is not too bad or surely the pound would never have offered it for sale in the first place?????? Why wouldn't they offer help to someone who wanted to take the dog but couldn't afford it etc as theoretically the dog is only in this spot because those who may be able to take it home don't know its there not because it shouldn't be in someone's home. The problem is that dogs are able to be rehomed without proper assessment and without screening the owner to anyone who says they will take it. These type of dogs should either only be released to rescue groups who will do the hard work or the pound needs to have their own systems in place to ensure dogs and families are not put at risk when they release dogs to new owners. Its highly unlikely that pounds are going to do this without legislation because it will affect the stats and be less cost effective Do we want laws introduced which will ensure any dogs which are saved which are a bit iffy can only be saved by a rescue group which will take over the responsibility, do we want laws which will ensure dogs are better assessed and that certain behaviours are not released to anyone ?Do we want laws which would prevent anyone advertising which dogs are available and how to source them ? Each of these have unintended consequences which would impact on small rescue and more dogs will be PTS. If we dont want law changes and we want it all to say as it is then we need to promote to the public what the difference is and by default advise them not to go to a pound to get a dog because dogs straight from the pound are not as safe as those through a reputable ethical rescue group.If that is to work as well as it can these ethics will need to be transparent and policies and actions accountable to a third party to enable the public to know who is who. This of course will see those who want all dogs saved and everyone racing off to pounds to save them before they get the chop to get pretty mad and start whacking into you. PR isnt the problem its a symptom of the problem and in my opinion it way past time for a solution to be found before it means laws.

Means anyone who is registered as a breeder not just registered with the CCs or the MDBA - in other words it means everyone including large scale commercial breeders. Effectively its a bullshit sentence that means nothing.

Yes agreed. I just see so many issues that are hammering that will eventually impact on small rescue and their ability to survive and none of that is even mentioned.

I gave it fair thought and they almost had me but then we get to this page http://nargainc.com.au/lobbyingforchange.html Same old same old and not addressing the real needs of small rescue at all its just another one wanting to get more bang and re do it all again.

See, this is where I get less supportive. In the case of advocacy groups, where exactly is the money going and who is it -really- helping? I actually had a little bitch/whinge about this on FB a while back, let me see if I can find the post.. Now, that rant was specific to greys but you could apply it to rescue/welfare generally. Do we want to funnel money into an advocacy group when that same money could actually help a dog? What is the advocacy group doing with donated funds, besides raising awareness (which is generally free to do) or promoting the group itself? Those would be my questions. Also, if the group claims donated funds will be used to help members, how are funds distributed? Which also brings up the question of why have the middle man at all, why not direct people to donate to the groups they want to support. There was more but just thinking about it melted a bit of my brain and now the whole thing just seems like a massive potential mess of problems :/ I totally agree with all of that. One particular organisation/cause springs to mind as a classic example of this... If a group claims to only help its members it cannot gain charity status or be eligible for deductible Gift recipient status.

Im not sure where you are coming from on this but Pacers never trained foster carers - all of the courses are done via the MDBA - still are. Edited to add the MDBA is still doing what Pacers did just not under that business entity.

Im not suggesting the convention is only here or that it was invented here however, in the main most people who stay here hold the same beliefs and ethics - its reasonable to say its a convention that most dogz rescue forum users agree with. It is not however, what is necessarily practiced by other rescue people and its not something that has to be practiced in order to be within the law in the state of NSW.

Yep that's how I see it if I pass on an email list to a third party Im at fault not the person who receives it unless when I took it the other person agreed to me handing around all over the place - though Im not conversant with spam laws and Im guessing as long as they have an opt out they are safe there too.

It is the people who are letting them go to just anyone and the legislation which allows it which is accountable.

You miss their point they would feel that at least the dog had been given a better chance.