Pound Rounds?

[Nic.B]

Well, my observation of their FB page (and I say hi to them if they're reading this) is that they appear to give the impression of acting as go-betweens, agents if you will, between the pound and a potential adopter. e.g. I read one that gave the impression of dog in pound, person expresses interest in dog, they get dog out, then adopt dog out. Some of the dogs on the HP website seem to be quite cheap. If a dog costs $40 at HP, how much do Pound Rounds then adopt the dog out for? The same amount?

Or have I got the wrong impression of what happens?

Believe it or not, They pull the dog out under clause for members of the public with no checks or temp information on the dogs, send them all over the countryside and the people pay pound rounds the adoption fee of $180.

Even dogs listed as "release to rescue only" are being pulled under clause and put straight into homes.

[SueM]

[k9angel]

We want them to change their ways, how can they if we are all going to stand our ground and not acknowledge when a thing has been done right.

It's too little, too late in my eye's.

This group clearly doesn't care about the welfare of the dogs they pull from pounds. Far from it.

They never have and never will. IMO you either have a conscience or you don't... full stop.

To them it seems to be all about the numbers. How many they can pull and how much $ they can make off these Death row dogs and to me, that is the lowest of the low.

[Sheridan]

1345251175[/url]' post='5932791']

1345248498[/url]' post='5932775']

Well, my observation of their FB page (and I say hi to them if they're reading this) is that they appear to give the impression of acting as go-betweens, agents if you will, between the pound and a potential adopter. e.g. I read one that gave the impression of dog in pound, person expresses interest in dog, they get dog out, then adopt dog out. Some of the dogs on the HP website seem to be quite cheap. If a dog costs $40 at HP, how much do Pound Rounds then adopt the dog out for? The same amount?

Or have I got the wrong impression of what happens?

Believe it or not, They pull the dog out under clause for members of the public with no checks or temp information on the dogs, send them all over the countryside and the people pay pound rounds the adoption fee of $180.

Even dogs listed as "release to rescue only" are being pulled under clause and put straight into homes.

So they don't do what I thought they did?

[juice]

Dog Brokers, under the rescue banner

[Sheridan]

1345262073[/url]' post='5932885']

Dog Brokers, under the rescue banner

That's what I was thinking.

[mita]

Theoretically, every time a pound releases an animal to anyone, the liability for it if it causes carnage is theirs. PR are banking on this fact - especially if they are sending new owners directly to the pound to pick up the animal they are purchasing through PR....

Regulation of rescue isn't going to solve the issue either - there's virtually no policing of current laws and statutes, so adding new laws and statutes would really be pointless IMHO.

T.

I don't know how the law works, but has a pound ever been sued after a dog adopted from there, caused injury?

I thought it'd be held to be the responsibility of the current owner?? Unless there was evidence that the dog was known, in the pound or from temperament testing there, to have seriously 'at risk' behaviours.

If pounds could be sued successfully for what a dog did, after it'd been sold or passed on, then they'd have to seriously consider if they'd sell or pass on any dogs. It'd be good to have proper legal opinion about this matter. I'm just asking questions.

I don't think further regulation in the law would solve any issue. Surely there's sufficient in current laws....like, back we go, to applying the conditions under which the pounds release dogs. Or looking at financial issues, like fund-raising and appeals for donations.

But, from a consumer perspective, it can help for the public to see self-regulation. As when, services who adhere to common ways of working, band together under one association. Only those groups who follow those standards can use the association 'label'. Didn't the Victorian rescue groups do something like that?

Most of the ethical rescue groups already work according to common standards...in all the relevant areas, like testing, monitored fostering, desexing, screening of new homes etc etc etc. And they do those things in real-time, not move around from cyberspace.

[tdierikx]

I understand what you are saying but if people have donated to this dog then the group that rescued it should be getting the funds, isn't this what we all have been complaining about and now they have done it, they still are not right, sorry but we can't have it both ways.

We want them to change their ways, how can they if we are all going to stand our ground and not acknowledge when a thing has been done right.

Until the rest of the stuff they are doing changes for the better, I wouldn't accept one red cent from them - no matter how much they offer. I would feel that it was "Judas" money.

Successful rescue isn't measured by how many we can save/rehome, but by how well we do it.

Getting a dog out of a Sydney pound, rehoming it irresponsibly interstate, and having it die in a different pound after it does damage to a person or other animal... just isn't rescue in any sense of the word.

T.

[JRT RESCUE]

I have never found things like this change completely overnight but by little steps and if this is the first one then I am happy that at least they are going in the right direction.

But by not acknowledging it you may only make things worse.

I see no problem in accepting money that decent people have donated to a organisation for a certain dog and if that money is now going to that dog then that is the right thing.

This has all come about because I answered an email to H/P stating I was taking a jack and I received a email from PR stating that if more groups did this then they would be able to list that groups name on the site so people would know who to donate to.

the more I read this thread the more I think of early England when if somebody said it was a witch everybody stoned the person no matter what and didn't give them a chance to clear their name, in this thread it is appearing to me, doesn't matter if they try to do the right thing, nobody wants to know, only wants to condom them even more.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Jill, i think we'd all sleep better at night if we knew that PR only took dogs with good temperament, got to know them over a period of a few weeks during which time all vet work would be done and then matched them carefully into homes that were fully vetted. It's def. not only about the collection of money for dogs they don't take. For me the issue of putting dangerous dogs back out into the community and into the hands of people with NFI is of far greater concern.

[tdierikx]

Jill - just because they gave you some money for the dog you were already committed to taking, doesn't make them "good guys" in any sense of the word...

It's in no way addressing the myriad of other issues raised in this and many other threads on the topic.

PR have the same access to the pound as the rest of us - they can see which dogs are marked as safe - one phonecall or email to find out which group took them on is all it would take to then be able to forward any donations taken for the dog in question, yes? Once they have the name of the group taking the dog, then it's easy enough to find a contact number or email in order to offer the funds... but it ain't happening unless there is dissent in the ranks like this thread - and basically it looks like they are offering you money to stop being "against" them... and it also looks like it's working...

One "right" deed certainly doesn't negate the many bad ones being done by this group in the name of "saving" dogs...

If all they did was fundraise and provide ethical/actual help to other rescues, then they'd be a massive boon to the rescue community - let's face it, they are bloody good at that aspect of the game - but I simply cannot reconcile the occasional few dollars going where the donators think it's going with the immense harm they are doing to the rescue "brand" by their rehoming practices.

T.

[JRT RESCUE]

At no time did I say they were doing all things right and I do not aline myself with them but also if you wish to get people to do things the right way you have to also acknowledge when they do.

What is the point in complaining about them taking money for certain dogs if then when they do offer it to a group for that dog you don't want anything to do with it, sorry but doesn't make sense to me. Also if I was a person that had donated towards a dog in need on their facebook page and then to find out that just because I had done that through that page that the group that had rescued the dog wouldn't accept my donation, would turn me off of donating to rescue and would make me think that the groups in rescue are just there to fight among themselves instead of considering the dogs in need.

I also believe they are now getting a behavourist to assess some of the dogs that need help, another step in the right direction I believe. Again another small step in the right direction.

Unfortunately with the type of dogs they are taking they going to get more problem dogs then most of us would.

And yes I think there is a lot to be corrected in the way they do things but by sitting back and just picking fault will never change things.

[Malti]

Sorry JRT rescue it would take more than that one gesture to undo what has been happening with that group

[Malti]

At no time did I say they were doing all things right and I do not aline myself with them but also if you wish to get people to do things the right way you have to also acknowledge when they do.

What is the point in complaining about them taking money for certain dogs if then when they do offer it to a group for that dog you don't want anything to do with it, sorry but doesn't make sense to me. Also if I was a person that had donated towards a dog in need on their facebook page and then to find out that just because I had done that through that page that the group that had rescued the dog wouldn't accept my donation, would turn me off of donating to rescue and would make me think that the groups in rescue are just there to fight among themselves instead of considering the dogs in need.

I also believe they are now getting a behavourist to assess some of the dogs that need help, another step in the right direction I believe. Again another small step in the right direction.

Unfortunately with the type of dogs they are taking they going to get more problem dogs then most of us would.

And yes I think there is a lot to be corrected in the way they do things but by sitting back and just picking fault will never change things.

I think this would be better addressed straight to Pound Rounds for answering and what their 'new' ways are.

As for the 'type' of dog they take on, that is their decision, rescue groups take on dogs they believe they can responsibly handle, if they are taking on 'types' of dogs that are problematic. That is their responsibility and if a dog is displaying worrying behaviours a behaviouralist should be consulted, as any ethical rescue would. But then that leads to the problem of them not being a rescue group as they regularly state.

It is not about picking fault with them it is the experiences people have had with them are bad, simple as that really. Glad you have had a positive one in dealing with them.

[keetamouse]

It seems to me that maybe they are running scared that they may be shut down and lose all that money and they are "appearing" to do things to get the heat off them, just my thoughts.

Maree

CPR

[Nic.B]

I have to say that Jill has been an enormous support in communicating, identifying and working through issues with this particular group. We are moving through unchartered waters, none of us have ever seen anything like this before. It was bound to happen as it has in the US.

I don’t agree with the statement that because they take a large number of dogs and they are mostly similar breed mixes that they will experience more problems.

We all know and work with ethical rescues who take these dogs week in week out. The difference is they don’t take EVERY SINGLE dog EVERY SINGLE week from TWO LARGE POUNDS kill list . They take what they can RESPONSIBLY manage and are resourced to take on.

Seriously if this was the answer we would all be dancing about and perhaps we would have a life!

I am not able to share the information we have though something will be done. I wouldn’t want to be in Melanie Normans shoes, nor would I want to be associated with the most incompetent “rescue” group in the history of this Nation.

[tdierikx]

Just out of curiosity Jill, how much money have they offered you for taking the dog in question? And how much have they offered to the other place where there are kenneled dogs? PM would be fine...

I think you have missed my point completely though... the odd gesture like they have offered to you are not regular occurrences - and this one in particular seems very much like a reaction to the current debate regarding their practices. It smacks of "shut up" money from this side of the fence...

The fact that PR have the same or more access to the lists at HP that the rest of us have means that they can see exactly which dogs have saves on them. If I (who knows very little about the inner workings of HP) can find out exactly which group has put a save on which dog, then surely PR can do the same... yet they spruik many dogs already safe as being in grave danger of pts. It just seems a little odd that they have just now decided to offer one group (you) some money for one dog on the current list... what about all of the other dogs that have saves on them?

T.

[Chezy]

I hope they are now doing assessments, as they sent several dogs to a girl I know , she offered her stables to help them out , she received no training help or financial help , they kept sending dogs , some of which had very dodgy temps , 1 attacked and killed an animal and she said it was very aggressive and they should pts, they said no theyd move it in and she then told them to take them all, she has small children and lots of smaller animals, they didn't seem to care . I didn't know she was mixed up with them til after , had I known I'd have told her not to . So I truly hope that they are not getting some assessments done on the dogs before they send them out .

It is a shame this happened as she could have been good for rescue for temp care til transport or Foster was arranged, I think now she'd run full pelt if approached

[Nic.B]

I hope they are now doing assessments, as they sent several dogs to a girl I know , she offered her stables to help them out , she received no training help or financial help , they kept sending dogs , some of which had very dodgy temps , 1 attacked and killed an animal and she said it was very aggressive and they should pts, they said no theyd move it in and she then told them to take them all, she has small children and lots of smaller animals, they didn't seem to care . I didn't know she was mixed up with them til after , had I known I'd have told her not to . So I truly hope that they are not getting some assessments done on the dogs before they send them out .

It is a shame this happened as she could have been good for rescue for temp care til transport or Foster was arranged, I think now she'd run full pelt if approached

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Another problem is that the people who have no experience other than being a dog owner are taking on these dogs but when attacks or other incidents happen they need to call the council and the police, not PR.

Dogs that attack need to be dealt with by the authorities - ie taken away. Then the authorities can contact PR and tell them that the dog now needs to be monitored, locked up and kept in an enclosure with very specific requirements.

This is what happened to my neighbour, not a PR dog but an aggressive bull breed that got out and attacked several people and their dogs over the days it was loose. Needless to say they didn't have the ability to comply so the dog was pts. At least it is now safe to walk around again.