Steve

thanks Nic - Quote Dogs declared dangerous by council are moved into another state and rehomed without disclosure of the dangerous dog order nor behavioural issues.end quote. these dogs couldnt be declared dangerous before they get them because if they were the council would be breaking the law . If dogs are being declared dangerous between when they take them and when they re home them then they are breaking the law - not just the 16 D clause but the law .If they are being declared after they go to their new homes they have not broken the law. Quote Dogs deemed "release to rescue only" are pulled out under clause and immediately adopted into homes. PR's have not even met these dogs. One of these dogs was returned to the pound within a week and very sadly was pulled out under clause a second time by pr's and immediately put into another home. By that stage the dogs injured tail ( which was why she was deemed RTRO) was so bad that the lady spent over $2000 on surgery to have part of her tail removed. This dog went on to attack the lady's other dog. Terrible but again this is not breaching any rules or any requirements for holding a 16 D . Quote Dogs chipped to MN and pound rounds have been abandoned and confirmed as euthenised in shelters other states. Dogs chipped to MN and pound rounds have been abandoned and left in shelters in other states.</b> At best they havent changed over the chip details in the prescribed time but legally they are not responsible for what somone who takes a dog does after they rehome it. I believe that based on what we know is going on behind the scenes sooner rather than later there will be harder laws placed on rescue but I don't believe that will stop those who say their ethics and actions are one things but they make some allowances or do what they want. Nor do I believe that harder laws or regs will do that much to prevent dogs suffering . The only answer as far as I can see is a group with a third party accountability process who screens who comes in and who stays in , who investigates and advocates on their behalf if they accused of doing something against the ethics and they are not guilty or who takes action if they are found to be lacking. Any rescue group can say they have particular ethics but unless there is an outside third party accountability process [ which in effect is what laws attempt to do ] no one can trust any one who says what their ethics are.No one can know the difference between gossip and vexatious accusations and what is real. The public needs to be able to trust that rescue isnt putting dogs in their homes without proper screening and assessment. Its not about the third party telling rescue groups what to do its about the third party being able to be a support and offer accountability, To expel those who threaten the integrity of the group by not having the same ethics in practice - not just on a webpage - as the ideology of the group. If the public want to take a dog into their homes which is from a rescue group and know without a doubt that the rescue will do what they should do. I can 100 % guarantee that MDBA rescue members are doing it all according to their code of ethics because if they weren't they wouldn't be there and I would never recommend any other rescue group because sometimes I think their ethics and what they are prepared to compromise on is disgusting, not illegal but not in line with what I believe is ethically and morally right and I believe they put the public trust of all private rescue at risk. Stop giving these cowboys free publicity and use your energy to promote what you do - nominate the good guys for an award and put the public focus on why they should use you and your group because its different and they will see its better for themselves. Given the choice of taking a dog from someone who is doing it right and being held accountable by a third party to what PR is doing which way would you go ? We also need to get as many who think its a good thing to do nothing more than spring a dog from the pound to see the impact this will have on all rescue long into the future to work on getting them educated to understand that there are alternatives which don't require such unethical tactics to save dogs too.

This is not the place for this crap.

I'll try to shorten this a bit and not be too technical. OCD largely results from a chemical imbalance in the brain. Specifically, low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin are linked to the condition, but dopamine and norepinephrine also play a small role. Serotonin is important for mood regulation, sleep, learning and calmness. It is synthesised from the chemical tryptophan, an amino acid derived from foods containing B vitamins. Medications used to treat OCD in humans, called selective serotonin re uptake inhibitors -- or SSRIs -- aim to raise serotonin levels in the brain and reduce the symptoms. The process of neurotransmitter communications can't happen without the assistance of amino acids, which come from proteins in the foods the dog eats and with the help of vitamin nutrients like B-6. For serotonin to form, the amino acid tryptophan has to be present. Tryptophan is formed from precursor coenzymes found in the B vitamins -- specifically vitamins B-6 and B-12. But don't go out and buy tryptophan supplements because it won't work on its own and needs other amino acids and vitamins and minerals to assimilate properly and do what you want it to do - metabolise small enough to get to the brain and change the blood levels. When the amino acids are metabolised into small enough molecules,they are sent to the brain, where they cross the blood-brain barrier and head to their destination for neuron signaling and synthesis into serotonin. For a variety of reason which I won't expand on due to its history this dog may be more affected by this and its why this type of behaviour is often seen in puppies which have been taken off their Mums too early without the necessary love and stimulation replaced by a human. Replace this with the fact it has no teeth and it is more complicated. Of course sometimes dogs can't produce enough serotonin due to a genetic component and why OCD is more common in some breeds than in others. I have seen some miracles occur with a simple change in diet and it would be worth a go. A vet named David Urich has some good results,research and stories to tell as well. What I'm about to suggest won't have any negative side effects so there's nothing to lose if you are prepared to give it a shot. If this were my dog I would give the dog board certified Aloe Vera Juice because among other things Aloe contains all amino acids which are in small amounts and which can interact with each other. It is an extremely effective intracellular antioxidant and free radical scavenger. Is not digested by the enzyme systems,it is taken up into the cell INTACT as it is absorbed through special receptor sites which exist within the digestive tract. It's 100% non-toxic with no negative side effects. Though if you over dose you see some runny poos. It can be used simultaneously with any medication with NO contra-indications. The dog is probably also not getting enough B vitamins which are easily destroyed by heat and storage I would also give it some baby vitamin drops 4 times a day and vitamin C 4 times per day too. If it is an allergy there will be no harm done and the Aloe and vitamins should address that as well with Aloe often being used for this purpose anyway. If you are interested in giving it a go Ill sort out dosages for you if you give me the dog's weight. Julie

Training for a beagle - you cant beat David Weston's Dog Training the Gentle Modern Method.

Thank you.

Not sure I didnt get to see the emails nor who they were about .

Yes!!!!! Easy wasn't it?

Unethical according to convention however, not illegal. I would prefer them to be up front and say they do this sometimes so people can decide whether they want to deal with them based on the facts, not gossip.If at the end of the day they are doing this and see nothing wrong with it why do they need to hide it? f they see something wrong with it they shouldn't do it. however, if they are taking donations as a rescue group - especially if they have DGR status they need to declare that they also do this and donations wont be used for their breeding activities.

Agreed but how then do you justify a pound letting them out in the first place? Dogs are moved out of NSW pounds everyday to anyone who asks for them with or without a 16 d so ultimately surely they play a role if something goes wrong with or without PR.

Seems to me that the same thing is happening in the rescue world that has happened in the breeding world. Different philosophies and different views on what can or should be compromised on in order to attain a goal. Just as all breeders have a goal of breeding dogs all rescue has the goal of saving dogs. Even if it goes the way breeding has with codes of practice, regs and laws there are still some things which will never be covered by laws which some people will believe are necessary to get the job done and that others are prepared to compromise on. For what its worth I think one of the worst things that has impacted the breeding of dogs has been the need for one group of breeders with a different philosophy to fight against and attack the other group rather than ignoring what others do and promoting what they do. For so much energy used up on asking for new laws and codes rather than telling the community about why its a better deal for them and the dogs they take to go through you, to educate and train your volunteers and treat them well and appreciate them without the need to beat up the groups who do it differently will have a greater impact on the outcome. Sadly not everyone has the same ethics, not everyone is prepared to draw their line on what they compromise on in the same sand but not all those who will take dogs do either. Forget about PR stop giving them so much free publicity and get on with telling the world about the great stuff you do.

According to the regs re 16d they fit the criteria ,they dont take charitable donations they take donations and anyone can do that and they are simply breaching what has come to be conventions with rescue groups they are not breaching any laws. Why do pounds release to them is one major issue . Pounds in NSW can release animals to anyone who puts up their hands for them, there is no laws to say they need to be screened , that the owners need to be screened or that the animals need to be desexed when they are released. The ONLY requirement is that they are microcipped. You could spot a wheaten come here and tell everyone that you have seen it and send people to get it out - which is basically what PR are doing except they help the people who will get it out and part of that is by using their 16 d exemption. To hold a 16 d a council has to say all is good and they are prepared to work with them and its only re assessed every 5 years unless there is a definite breach of the regs. Theoretically an agent for puppy farmers could do the same thing. Spot for entire dogs and move them out to be used for breeding and still qualify as saving them from a pound using a 16d. there is no what comes next except the dog has to be registered into the new owners name with or without a 16d. There is no doubt that the more dogs which are rehomed is a good thing for a pound - you only have to look at the flack the RSPCA get when they have a low rehome rate to see this and many pounds are privately contracted so if the community see that not many are rehomed that impacts their ability to keep the contract. If they are managed by the council everyone feels warm and snuggly because the rehome is good and its a measure of their success and care for animals. If they are working with a group who is helping to radically drop their kill numbers it is difficult to see why it wouldn't be in their best interest. In NSW rescue can breed the dogs they rescue, they don't have to rehome them desexed , they don't have to vaccinate them etc.

O.K. From what I can see they aren't breaching any laws or regs re a 16D . Someone correct me if Im wrong . The purpose of a 16d is to provide an exemption to the group taking responsibility of the dog not to have the registration of the dog in their name and that the onus for the dog to be registered is passed to the new owner. In other words the dog is never registered in that groups name. When animals come into the care of an organisation, the organisation must be listed as the ‘owner’ of the animal, and the secondary contact details should be those of the carer. - And as long as the dog hasn't been declared or proposed declared dangerous they can sell it without breaking any laws.If anyone sues then Im assuming PR have no assets anyway. I guess as long as they have people who only see saving the dog from the pound as the issue and people who are prepared to take them into their families without the dogs being properly assessed, desexed etc they will thrive. I get what they are doing and as far as achieving their goals they appear to be successful, saving dogs. Here is the clause http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Forms/08-73%20Clause%2016d%20Guidelines.pdf The intent of clause 16(d) of the Companion Animals Regulation 2008 is to provide financial relief to animal rescue organisations by exempting them from the requirement to register animals which are in their temporary care for the purposes of re-housing. This exemption provision was formerly contained in clause 17 of the old 1999 Regulation. An animal is required to be lifetime registered immediately following its release from an organisation holding a clause 16(d) exemption. However, it is the responsibility of the new owner to ensure the animal is registered. Organisations operating with a clause 16(d) exemption may choose to register animals prior to release and include the cost of registration in the purchase price charged to the new owner. And If the animal has an existing microchip then the details for this animal must be changed to be in the animal rescue organisation’s name or the new owner’s name, within 7 days of receiving the animal. The secondary contact details section of the C3A form (Change of Owner/Details) MUST be completed and record the foster carer and their contact numbers in the event that the animal becomes lost. In other words its pretty much impossible for them to use the 16d and not to be clasified the owner for at least some period of time COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 7 Meaning of “owner” 7 Meaning of “owner” (1) Each of the following persons is the "owner" of a for the purposes of this Act: (a) of the animal (in the sense of being of the animal as personal ), (b) the person by whom the animal is ordinarily kept, © the of the animal. (2) A reference in this Act to "the owner" of a companion animal is a reference to each and all of the animal. Note: A provision of this Act that makes of a guilty of an offence makes each guilty of the offence. (5) When a companion animal is ordinarily kept by an employee on behalf of his or her employer, the animal is for the purposes of this Act taken to be ordinarily kept by the employer and not the employee. This subsection does not prevent an employee being the registered owner of an animal and does not prevent the employee being an owner if the employee is the registered owner . (6) In any prosecution of the owner of a companion animal for an offence against this Act it is a defence if the defendant establishes that: (a) another owner of the animal has been convicted of an offence arising out of the same circumstances, or the commission by another owner of the animal of an offence arising out of the same circumstances has been proved but a court has made an order under section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in respect of the offence, or (b) another owner of the animal has paid the amount of the penalty prescribed under section 92 (Penalty notices) for an alleged offence arising out of the same circumstances. And unless the dog is already a proposed or decleared dangerous dog both a pound and a group can re sell it. COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 52A Prohibition on selling dangerous dog or proposed dangerous dog 52A Prohibition on selling dangerous dog or proposed dangerous dog (1) A person who <a href=" http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#sell">sells, or advertises the sale of, a dangerous dog or proposed dangerous dog is guilty of an offence. Maximum penalty: 150 penalty units. Note: The term “sell” extends to the transfer of owner by any means, including by gift. Abandoning an animal is also an offence-see section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 . (2) A person does not commit an offence under this section by reason only of surrendering a dangerous dog or proposed dangerous dog to a council pound or an approved animal welfare organisation . Note: A dangerous dog that is surrendered to a council pound or an approved animal welfare organisation cannot be sold. (3) In this section and in section 52B, "proposed dangerous dog" means a dog that is the subject of a proposed declaration under Division 1.

these guys won one of our awards last year .Great website - great people too.

does her vulva feel like your lip or your nose with the nostrils flared? You will find that when she smells and feels just right he will have a go. He knows if he tries now she will knock him back .

Rumours are one thing but putting it out in writing is pretty dumb.

It goes without saying that part of the solution is policing the by laws. The Calgary animal control is self-financed. Not a cent of general ratepayer money goes into it (all comes from registration itself). Our legislation is *OK* but even if rigorously enforced would not necesarily acheive what Calgary has. I say bring in the Calgary Model... ALL OF IT (which includes the fact that it is policed effectively and therefore self-funded). So is part of the plan to introduce licences and still keep dog registrations or to abolish dog registrations and bring in owner licences? There is no ownership licensing in Calgary. Just dog licensing (another word for registrations), same as what we currently have here. It's very strongly policed though, which we don't do here (and therefore don't have the funds to do). O.K. So if licensing equals registration of dogs Im good with that but Im not holding my breath to see them enforcing anything here soon.

It goes without saying that part of the solution is policing the by laws. The Calgary animal control is self-financed. Not a cent of general ratepayer money goes into it (all comes from registration itself). Our legislation is *OK* but even if rigorously enforced would not necesarily acheive what Calgary has. I say bring in the Calgary Model... ALL OF IT (which includes the fact that it is policed effectively and therefore self-funded). So is part of the plan to introduce licences and still keep dog registrations or to abolish dog registrations and bring in owner licences?

Sure - sounds good but in Calgary they police the by laws - Id prefer to see the laws we have enforced before any more nancy laws come in for a just in case a minority are idiots. Alicense is a temporary revocable permit that allows the licensee to havesomething, or to do something that would be illegal to have, or to do withoutthe license. It makes dog ownership illegal. It turns over all ownership, anduse rights to the licensing agency which can at any time, inspect, confiscate,suspend, revoke, or halt issuance of the license. Licensure is a taking bygovernment without compensation. If you live in a city, town, municipality,county, or state that requires dog owner licensing, then the act of dog ownership hasbeen made illegal without permission of government.

Good Grief!

last time I looked they were not registered as a charity and not registered as a deductible gift recipient - so no audit and basically no accountability .

I agree but its systemic not just PR. Hope all of the foster carers have insurance. Steve, surely the foster carer would fall under the umbrella insurance of the rescue? Well Ive done a bit of poking around and it appears the way they operate they are always in the clear.They hand over all responsibility of moving the dog onto the next person from the foster carer to that foster carer - so in PR case foster carers are not attached to that rescue group as they are in ordinary situations.The foster carers are independent. PR dont actually ever interact with the dog so it would fall back on the pound for letting a cranky dog go out or more likely the foster carer who should be assessing the dog and deciding whether it should go home etc.From what I can see the last person whether that be pound staff or foster carer would be held accountable and PR have no need of insurance because they are basically acting as agents. In reality if these foster carers were educated they would see their vulnerability and understand the consequences for themselves, their families and the dogs.

Yes that is what was said but that isnt really relevant - nor could an "expert" be sure anyway - would it have been any different if they had been or resembled a different breed? Several years ago 2 Show Rotties attacked and killed a couple of young girls walking in a park - its still horrible and any dog regardless of what breed it resembles needs to be contained and on leash. making laws for one breed type doesnt do anything to stop other breed types doing exactly the same thing.

If we are going to argue that all dogs are the same, with the same basic instincts and that some are not potentially more likely to do one thing or another then we may as well all simply pack up and let people breed dogs and have a generic animal which all look alike until they really do all act alike. Its a silly argument and one that the public quickly see. If we cant keep this about dogs and not breeds there doesn't seem to much hope that those making laws will.

There have been some pretty low shots at people who have given an opinion in this thread - All of us want the same thing. To be able to move us, our families and our dogs around our neighbourhood without fear of being set upon in any way by dogs which are not contained and especially by dogs which can really hurt us.

Agree 100%, I can guarantee that incidents of this type , as well as a large proportion of the problems facing dog owners today would vastly diminish if there was proper policing and laws introduced, imagine if, To own an undesexed dog you had to be a registered breeder To be a registered breeder you had to be licenced If an injury occurred as a direct consequence of a dogs aggression, both the owner and the breeder received a heavy fine. All dogs (that are not owned and in the possesion of a registered breeder) must be registered and desexed, if not registered or desexed the owner and breeder are fined and they have 7 days to have the dog registered/desexed or it is destroyed, if the owner will not disclose the breeder the dog is destroyed and the fine is quadrupled. Add those kind of things to what you have already stated and I guarantee that in the long run, you will have less problem dogs, less BYB's, more responsible ownership and a much lower rate of euthanasia. Once people are truly help responsible for their dogs (both ones they own and ones they have created, you watch the dog industry clean up its act then. Please note, before shooting me down, I believe that a massive percentage of breeders try and do the right thing and I understand that the above would add to their responsibilities but this is not about whether or not "you" are actually a contributor to the current problems facing dogs, it is a matter of if you want to be a contributor to a better future for them! I'm not so sure of that and I would fight against any more laws but I do think the best place to start is policing the laws we already have.