Greytmate

<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.

Well it's clear to me. When I ran gap I followed all laws and best practice. I kept myself squeaky clean. I followed a procedure meaning all my decisions were approved by qualified professionals.That's my definition and I'm standing behind it.

It's not rocket surgery Steve. Ethical rescue involves following laws about keeping dogs in hygienic conditions. Local government laws. The places you describe are not ethical, and if those people come in here and lie, then why not say something so the rest of us know.

You can look at LDH as an example of a shelter that won't really deal with any rescue, because the unethical ones have broken any trust. That isn't really a good thing overall. Ideally we would have ethical government working with ethical rescue. Both need to put community safety as their first priority.

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. Most products on the market don't have laws about how they are to be produced. Take the example of a chair. Different retailers will sell different qualities of chair, but the bottom line is that if sold as a chair it must be fit for the purpose of sitting on. False claims about the quality of the chair are illegal, even if the retailer makes the claims in ignorant innocence. So what if a chair fails to meet is purpose, and instead of being a comfortable way to prop yourself up, it becomes a device that suddenly drops you on to the ground and breaks your pelvis. The retailer couldn't credibly stand up in court and say " Well we all sat on these cardboard chairs and we survived it". But they could have a qualified engineer say " The loading on these chairs was calculated at 500kg, normal use would not cause it to fail". That's how I see it with selling dogs. We don't need laws to tell us how to prepare dogs for sale. But we do need to be following the (changing) guidelines of those most qualified in the field, to avoid being seen as negligent.

Yes, It was a formal meeting GM and everything is logged within council chambers. Shmoo was with me at the meeting and we both spent over a month getting everything together. I took it further after that with the CEO and the Mayor etc. Good work.

Has anyone approached local councillors and warned them of specific risks to community safety? Not just local government staff, but the politicians? In writing, so if anything does happen, there is proof the council member was well aware and happy to let it continue?

I don't know that we need more laws. We don't generally have laws telling people how to conduct their business, but if they make mistakes that affect others that could have been avoided by following qualified advice, they can be in strife. It's why people get in trouble for taking their kids to quacks instead of doctors. In this case, it is the Veterinary Behaviourists who are most qualified to stand up in court and say "Yes this is how it is" . So best practice would be to run a program approved by a Veterinary Behaviourist.

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? Yes, that's the question. Consumer laws are geared to protect the consumer and put responsibility back on the seller to accurately describe the product. Incompetence is no excuse, sellers have a responsibility to control the quality of what they sell and ensure it is fit for purpose. So if a seller is making either false claims, or claims that they are not qualified to make about the product they sell, they can be reported to the consumer body.

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.

Thanks for sharing them here. He was obviously a lovely old boy.

I think some people do not really understand dogs very well. They believe that every dog, no matter its behaviour, can be placed in a home. They believe that dangerous dog behaviours can be modified and managed if people are prepared to put the effort and love in. This view puts the safety of pets and people in the community at risk. Community standards are that pet dogs should not be dangerous to others. That's why the failure to screen out aggressive dogs (best practice) is unethical. Then there is the issue of long-term kennelling, where you could compare the effects of long term kennelling on dogs with the institutionalisation of people. Unless there is a proper enrichment program going on (fun and games and learning, not shock collars), then the long term kennelling can be very mentally damaging.

I don't expect any sensible answers from somebody that can't count to ten. What a troll.

You mentioned wanting to avoid separation anxiety, so suggestions were made as to how best to avoid it.

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. PR have chosen to do their PR through social media, it is not inappropriate to demand explanations from them through social media.

Clearly my previous posts proved otherwise. Or do you need more screenshots? If you look at Tbroils post count and then try to find them you will see that at least two or three posts have been removed as her count does not tally to the number of posts listed. Thank you for actually having a post that required thought, was about to lose all hope. That is now ten posts and ten search results. Nothing deleted.

Clearly my previous posts proved otherwise. Or do you need more screenshots? If you look at Tbroils post count and then try to find them you will see that at least two or three posts have been removed as her count does not tally to the number of posts listed. I am seeing that as of now, she has made nine posts and they are all still there in the search results. Nothing has been deleted.

Tbroils, what is your role at PR? Is PR a rescue group? What behaviour assessments are done before the dogs are placed in the community?

A lot of people use a radio to mask background noise from outside that might set some dogs barking.

You lie to clients? Its not a lie - if you read what I wrote properly I said its for client protection. If a client trips and falls, we can be sued. Trying to explain to clients that 1) its OH&S, it stirs the grooming dogs, and makes it hard on the groomers, people get annoyed, simply stating the OH&S side of it is simple and most people understand it. Trying to explain to an owner why it upsets the dogs etc can be much harder. They don't seem to understand Also, we've had a client previous to me starting here, complain to the RSPCA as we had a noisy dog in grooming whom was "being abused by the groomer" it wasn't the case, the dog was a naturally vocal dog. After that the vets got very strict on who came into the grooming section. ETA - The OH&S issue is that our grooming section is down a flight of stairs. Definite OH&S issue. I get that it's about OH&S. I don't understand why you say it's about insurance.

You lie to clients?

WOW! That's pretty harsh. What evidence do you have for such a judgement? It's my opinion. What evidence do you have to call it harsh? It's your opinion. Stick to talking about rhe topic and refrain from criticising other posters. Otherwise it starts to seem like a personal attack, which is against forum rules. Nothing to do with a personal attack. I don't care who posted it. It was a harsh judgement without evidence - unless of course you have been consulted by the people . Perhaps you could have prefaced your remark by saying, "In my opinion ....". But you said straight out that it is all about ..... etc etc. And you were wrong as evidenced by TigerJack's story. That said, you could be right regarding some people's motives. Afterall, we see similar in some rescue groups who believe that all dogs should be saved. And I think if you'd bothered to read the rest of my post, I did say that I wouldn't put a dog through it, so I think was was obviously my opinion and evidence that I was sticking to talking about the topic. No, I don't bother reading 99% of what you say, It's not worth the effort to scroll back and look. I'm just telling you to stop quoting me and having a go at my opinions. I don't have to justify what I said. You don't have any evidence that I am wrong, Tiger jack never kept a dog in a wheelchair. Seriously, go and find somebody else to argue with, I'm not interested in your worthless advice on how to write posts on a forum.

WOW! That's pretty harsh. What evidence do you have for such a judgement? So, they are going to have to have a few wheel contraptions until the dog reaches full growth! I can understand people wanting to do this with a dog who has been a family pet for many years and has an accident or something happens to give it paralysis, but I wouldn't put a dog through it. It's my opinion. What evidence do you have to call it harsh? It's your opinion. Stick to talking about rhe topic and refrain from criticising other posters. Otherwise it starts to seem like a personal attack, which is against forum rules.

It's all about people wanting to be seen as more caring and more special than other people. It is cruel.

The laws regarding toilets and stair edges in nursing homes is that there must be a high visual contrast. Two colours, like black and white, have to be used so that it is compliant with AS 1428. So a black and white greyhound meets the standard, if building standards applied to dogs.