Nic.B

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. Did you see the posts about the conditions of taking RTRO dogs? Just because the council are slack at enforcing those conditions doesn't mean they don't exist. Some pretty cluey people have been working on this for some time and I don't think they are lying about it. Council will be reluctant to act because they don't want to stop PR because they make them look good but doesn't mean they don't have clearly worded polices that other groups already follow. But I'm not going to go into much here because I don't want PR to know what is being done. Yes I saw the posts but I also want to see where this agreement is which they sign in order to have a RTRO released to them. I want to see in writing what conditions there are and I want to see what they have stated will happen if they don't follow the conditions. Surely they should be easily accessible if all rescue who operate out of Blacktown and HP have to agree to them. It will come under FOI Steve via Hawkesbury council.

In the main I agree but what "rules" are they breaking ? Do you have a link or similar to these - is there an agreement in existence in writing that they have to sign to operate with council? I think Nic has them, I don't yet but I'm staying home today and chasing up things. I have everything we have presented to council though for personal reasons I am not able to keep up with PR's atm. If you would like to give me a buzz my home is 45736995 and mobile 0408663211. My email is down atm and I have really bad reception on my mobile so if worst comes to worst just text me your number and I will get back to you as I am also outside in the paddocks a lot.

Agree, though it is the difference between responsible ethical rescue and the cowboys.

Did PR re-home it or did they alert people to it and the pound re homed it ? The DA dog was being fostered for PR's. Pulled out under clause and chipped to MN (I have pics of the foster carers dead dog) This dog has since had her name changed multiple times, shifted through various kennels and was listed for adoption after the dog attack as good with small animals and kids etc.

Are you talking about pounds and shelters or Rescue? Pounds and shelters run on the smell of an oily rag, they do not have the resources to BA every single dog impounded. At times dogs are released to rescue to afford a dog the chance to be assessed. For me it is which groups you release the dog too. Council are making a big mistake if they release dogs to an unethical rescue. They are liable, and in terms of PR's the proof is on record.

Are you ready Sheridan...... I can take that dog (even though I am a tosser and have no clue and drug dogs etc, etc, and if you pts this dog all hell will break loose (legally and via the media) So give me the dog or else! And they fell for that? Yep.

Are you ready Sheridan...... I can take that dog (even though I am a tosser and have no clue and drug dogs etc, etc, and if you pts this dog all hell will break loose (legally and via the media) So give me the dog or else!

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. Law suits initially (simply put) MN has threatened legal action against council and god knows how many others. Law suits were already in place way before I met with them. There is a fine line between where council/pound/rescue care finishes and where it begins. The line appears to be very blurred.

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 releasing dogs to PR's (essp RTRO dogs) is a forseable risk. Council are very well aware of the risks . I would not want to be in councils shoes when things go terribly wrong. Just try getting through a simple volunteer OH&S induction!

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??? No. They have agreed, though have not complied nor advised council of the outcome of the dogs (which they are required to do). Council continue to release them to this group regardless.

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.

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. The Council doesn't release the dogs. The pounds do. Council heads up HP pound, Council call the shots at the end of the day believe me. NOTHING goes through without council approval including RTRO dogs. Everything goes through council. The OH&S induction to volunteer goes half the day!!!!!! I have sat there with council in meetings re PR's. They call the shots.

Sorry have far too much going on at once and have to knick off for a little while. Julie I will give you a call as soon as I can.

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.

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.

I do not think new laws are the answer at all. It is simply one group flouting every available loop hole available IMO. Rescue have responsibly taken RTRO dogs for endless years, they ALWAYS follow every single direction. It is the difference between reputable rescue and the cowboys.

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.

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.

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.

To be fair, a lot of dogs can be rehabilitated as seen by the work done by Best Friends in Utah. That said, Best Friends is a unique set up, with highly experience trainers and behaviouralists specialising in canine behaviour. They have successfully rehabilitated traumatised fighting dogs belonging to Michael Vick, for instance. However, I have seen a number of episodes where they say that because of a dog's issues, it cannot go to a home and will spend the rest of its life at Best Friends. This isn't kennelling, however, as the centre does provide a stimulating pack environment. I think much can be learned by the Best Friends set-up but only by the logical, the clear-headed, and the rational. Anyone else need not apply. Agree (re Best Friends in the UK) though if we decide to take these dogs on a huge amount of pro support, training, exercise, stimulation and enrichment needs to be a priority. Matching the dog incredibly well with a potential new home is also critical along with all support needed.

MN believes she is the answer to no kill in Aust. Getting every single dog out of just two kill pounds in NSW is not the answer. Not only has she gone in with absolutely NO idea and NO experience, it is her way or the highway. Reducing euth rates needs a multi pronged approach, there are so many elements and dynamics in play. She crucifies anyone and everyone in her path, so has no hope in working on a 'proactive' level on the bigger issues or on the "flow" of dogs living in shelters. It has been this way from the start. She reminds me of PETA and Indrid N which is a really worry in this country though also a huge concern OS. She basically moves them from one pound to a PR "pound' (mass kennels), and calls it success. I fail to see how that is success, especially considering blacktown is now apparently a no kill shelter. When did BP become a NO KILL shelter? Didn't know one existed let alone one as big as Blacktown. It's not, but PR have taken credit for turning it into a no kill shelter because they apparently take all the dogs on the kill list. They seem to miss the point that a no kill shelter wouldn't have a kill list in the first place. I wonder if blacktown know PR are going around telling everyone about their no kill status? Yep and more to the point if other rescues or PR's disapeared tomorrow dogs will continue to die. PR's is cleaning up mess which we all do day in and day out and which we have done for years and years. They are just more vocal. BCC nor HP will never be able to state they are no kill until they acheive that ethically and under their own steam.

MN believes she is the answer to no kill in Aust. Getting every single dog out of just two kill pounds in NSW is not the answer. Not only has she gone in with absolutely NO idea and NO experience, it is her way or the highway. Reducing euth rates needs a multi pronged approach, there are so many elements and dynamics in play. She crucifies anyone and everyone in her path, so has no hope in working on a 'proactive' level on the bigger issues or on the "flow" of dogs living in shelters. It has been this way from the start. She reminds me of PETA and Indrid N which is a really worry in this country though also a huge concern OS. She basically moves them from one pound to a PR "pound' (mass kennels), and calls it success. I fail to see how that is success, especially considering blacktown is now apparently a no kill shelter. When did BP become a NO KILL shelter? Didn't know one existed let alone one as big as Blacktown. They are not. MN has laid claim to that though. The thing is, what PR's are doing (poor practice etc) is dangerous for rescue in NSW and as a whole. It is not maintainable long term. More than that, dogs are at serious risk. They do not address the issue of impounded companion animals. If you are serious in efforts to assist impounded companion animals long term you would work very differently and make SURE you knew what the hell you are doing.

So true. The thing is we are not just dealing with a handful of incidents through this groups poor practice, there are endless issues. The issues go on and on and on and keep going for ever and ever. They have impacted enormously upon well meaning people everywhere. The behaviourist who jumped on board when these kennels opened left ages ago (for obvious reason I can gather) Not ONCE have they stepped back and said "Ok, time to have a really good look at things guys"

MN believes she is the answer to no kill in Aust. Getting every single dog out of just two kill pounds in NSW is not the answer. Not only has she gone in with absolutely NO idea and NO experience, it is her way or the highway. Reducing euth rates needs a multi pronged approach, there are so many elements and dynamics in play. She crucifies anyone and everyone in her path, so has no hope in working on a 'proactive' level on the bigger issues or on the "flow" of dogs living in shelters. It has been this way from the start. She reminds me of PETA and Indrid N which is a really worry in this country though also a huge concern OS. She basically moves them from one pound to a PR "pound' (mass kennels), and calls it success. I fail to see how that is success, especially considering blacktown is now apparently a no kill shelter. She moves them anywhere Minimax not just into PR's immediate care. Sadly, the dogs suffer as the only focus is getting dogs off a kill list. PR's is geared for donations and feeds already inflated ego's. Once the dogs leave a shelter is what is incredibly concerning for welfare advocates. There is a lot more to this. If only PR's considered the welfare of the dogs first and formost.

MN believes she is the answer to no kill in Aust. Getting every single dog out of just two kill pounds in NSW is not the answer. Not only has she gone in with absolutely NO idea and NO experience, it is her way or the highway. Reducing euth rates needs a multi pronged approach, there are so many elements and dynamics in play. She crucifies anyone and everyone in her path, so has no hope in working on a 'proactive' level on the bigger issues or on the "flow" of dogs living in shelters. It has been this way from the start. She reminds me of PETA and Indrid N which is a really worry in this country though also a huge concern OS.