N A R G A

[Gertrude139]

You can be 100% assured that they probably wouldn't agree with my stance on the topic of reputable rescue practices... for starters, I am strongly in agreeance with euthanaisia of any dog that is not rehomable due to temperament or health issues. I'm also not a fan of the revolving door policies of a large number of smaller rescues - I prefer a dog to be in care for a lot longer than a couple of weeks (or in some cases days) before it is advertised for rehoming - and if that dog is not a candidate for rehoming, I'm not about to keep it in care forever... instead, I will do the responsible thing by easing that dog into the next life with dignity.

T.

I think most groups would agree with that one though, surely.

I don't think most do actually. There are a surprising amount out there with the PR attitude.

[Steve]

You can be 100% assured that they probably wouldn't agree with my stance on the topic of reputable rescue practices... for starters, I am strongly in agreeance with euthanaisia of any dog that is not rehomable due to temperament or health issues. I'm also not a fan of the revolving door policies of a large number of smaller rescues - I prefer a dog to be in care for a lot longer than a couple of weeks (or in some cases days) before it is advertised for rehoming - and if that dog is not a candidate for rehoming, I'm not about to keep it in care forever... instead, I will do the responsible thing by easing that dog into the next life with dignity.

T.

But they arent stating what they think is reputable practices - doesn't seem to matter to them.Membership is about applying - after they get their 300 first names they will start charging for membership there isn't any list of eligibility criteria or code of ethics etc accountability etc all they are doing is offering services to those who join.

[Little Gifts]

HA I'd be happy to contact them and find out more because I believe their goals are good ones but when I tried the contact page last night nothing came up. I might try and put a note on the guestbook and see if I can get contact details that way.

I don't have any issues with anyone on DOL or any particular rescue group but am passionate about this issue and want to know more about who is behind it and what knowledge/skills they have because as I said before not all advocating is good avocating. Imagine the impact on rescue dogs in the public's eye if we have a self appointed national body at odds publicly with the operations of many rescue groups practices.

[Little Gifts]

I've joined up and have put my questions in the guestbook as I don't have full access to the forums yet. I'm not doing this to cause conflict - I genuinly would like to know, especially when they have a couple of goals similar to MDBA Pacers yet it has had to shut down.

[Greytmate]

I don't have any issues with anyone on DOL or any particular rescue group but am passionate about this issue and want to know more about who is behind it and what knowledge/skills they have because as I said before not all advocating is good avocating. Imagine the impact on rescue dogs in the public's eye if we have a self appointed national body at odds publicly with the operations of many rescue groups practices.

That is very true. Not only in regard to the values they are representing, but in how they conduct themselves. There are activists that come across as more loopy and dangerous than the poor dogs they advocate for.

[Maddy]

HA I'd be happy to contact them and find out more because I believe their goals are good ones but when I tried the contact page last night nothing came up. I might try and put a note on the guestbook and see if I can get contact details that way.

I don't have any issues with anyone on DOL or any particular rescue group but am passionate about this issue and want to know more about who is behind it and what knowledge/skills they have because as I said before not all advocating is good avocating. Imagine the impact on rescue dogs in the public's eye if we have a self appointed national body at odds publicly with the operations of many rescue groups practices.

I have one of the committee members on FB, I can PM you her name if you'd like it?

[Little Gifts]

Thank you HA. Not wanting to stir the pot, just interested in knowing more. I've always thought it would be great if we could do things like recruit and train new foster carers collectively as that means more dogs can be saved if there is somewhere suitable for them to transition to. And it is sad that Pacers had to cease given the need still exists. Obviously a lot is linked to money.

[~Anne~]

I'm not sure I'd put much credence in anything the site says. It seems like someone has had an idea and created a web page. Anyone can do it without having any real knowledge of what they are doing, including a school student.

What they hope to develop and offer is a huge ask and they're going to need a lot of knowledge, skill and support to make a success of it. As some already know, there is a lot of work in creating an adviocacy group, offering education and training and supporting others with resources and finances. In fact, it's a littler bit of a joke in my opinion and shows a great deal of naivety the more I see the lack of detail on the site. Pie in the sky stuff really.

The lack of contact details is another big issue. They're asking for members, sponsors and even vets to come on board. If I was a vet and I wanted to ask the what it involved, how would I contact them? I can only find an email which doesn't give me much information as it doesn't give a name even I don't think. A telephone number would be more sensible and a registered business address if they really want to be taken seriously.

I notice that Winterpaws is offered as a source of referral and recommendation.

[tdierikx]

I'd like to see a little more info on their committee members listed on their pages - what they bring to the table with regards to achieving the goals they are stating are their objective, etc...

The only publically listed email address for the group can be found on their Facebook page, and when you google that email address, she appears to be a palm reader? Then again the email address for the registrant of the site is "rat1bag @ gmail.com", which doesn't exactly inspire confidence...

T.

[Steve]

Thank you HA. Not wanting to stir the pot, just interested in knowing more. I've always thought it would be great if we could do things like recruit and train new foster carers collectively as that means more dogs can be saved if there is somewhere suitable for them to transition to. And it is sad that Pacers had to cease given the need still exists. Obviously a lot is linked to money.

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.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Steve

[Maddy]

Thank you HA. Not wanting to stir the pot, just interested in knowing more. I've always thought it would be great if we could do things like recruit and train new foster carers collectively as that means more dogs can be saved if there is somewhere suitable for them to transition to. And it is sad that Pacers had to cease given the need still exists. Obviously a lot is linked to money.

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..

Why pledge money to a group that claims the money will be spent promoting a cause when that same donation could be used to actually help animals on the ground, to actually contribute to improved welfare?

Does creating awareness of the greyhound racing issue help greyhounds? The answer, bluntly, is no. If raising awareness of an issue fixed the problem, greyhound racing would already be a thing of the past. Fact is, it's not and there are dogs -now- who need the help more than "the cause" does. So, how can you ACTUALLY help greyhounds? For some organisations, the first answer will always be money- throw enough money at the issue and we promise it will go away (hint: it doesn't).

The BEST way to help is to adopt a hound of your own. Each greyhound adopted makes room for another dog to be saved.

If you can't adopt, perhaps you can foster. Fostering allows for higher intake which means less dogs being needlessly destroyed. Foster carers are an incredibly valuable part of the rehoming process and are always needed.

If you can't foster, -then- consider donating. If doesn't need to be money, however- donate your time, your skills, items that are frequently needed (such as food or bedding). Consider donating money directly into a rescue's vet account. A huge portion of the rehoming costs come from vet bills to get dogs ready for adoption. Flea/worm treatments, toys, leads or even other items for fundraising. Every little bit helps and even simple things can improve a dog's life.

Helping -actual- greyhounds should be of greater priority than helping theoretical greyhounds.

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 :/

[Alkhe]

Thank you HA. Not wanting to stir the pot, just interested in knowing more. I've always thought it would be great if we could do things like recruit and train new foster carers collectively as that means more dogs can be saved if there is somewhere suitable for them to transition to. And it is sad that Pacers had to cease given the need still exists. Obviously a lot is linked to money.

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..

Why pledge money to a group that claims the money will be spent promoting a cause when that same donation could be used to actually help animals on the ground, to actually contribute to improved welfare?

Does creating awareness of the greyhound racing issue help greyhounds? The answer, bluntly, is no. If raising awareness of an issue fixed the problem, greyhound racing would already be a thing of the past. Fact is, it's not and there are dogs -now- who need the help more than "the cause" does. So, how can you ACTUALLY help greyhounds? For some organisations, the first answer will always be money- throw enough money at the issue and we promise it will go away (hint: it doesn't).

The BEST way to help is to adopt a hound of your own. Each greyhound adopted makes room for another dog to be saved.

If you can't adopt, perhaps you can foster. Fostering allows for higher intake which means less dogs being needlessly destroyed. Foster carers are an incredibly valuable part of the rehoming process and are always needed.

If you can't foster, -then- consider donating. If doesn't need to be money, however- donate your time, your skills, items that are frequently needed (such as food or bedding). Consider donating money directly into a rescue's vet account. A huge portion of the rehoming costs come from vet bills to get dogs ready for adoption. Flea/worm treatments, toys, leads or even other items for fundraising. Every little bit helps and even simple things can improve a dog's life.

Helping -actual- greyhounds should be of greater priority than helping theoretical greyhounds.

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...

[Steve]

Thank you HA. Not wanting to stir the pot, just interested in knowing more. I've always thought it would be great if we could do things like recruit and train new foster carers collectively as that means more dogs can be saved if there is somewhere suitable for them to transition to. And it is sad that Pacers had to cease given the need still exists. Obviously a lot is linked to money.

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..

Why pledge money to a group that claims the money will be spent promoting a cause when that same donation could be used to actually help animals on the ground, to actually contribute to improved welfare?

Does creating awareness of the greyhound racing issue help greyhounds? The answer, bluntly, is no. If raising awareness of an issue fixed the problem, greyhound racing would already be a thing of the past. Fact is, it's not and there are dogs -now- who need the help more than "the cause" does. So, how can you ACTUALLY help greyhounds? For some organisations, the first answer will always be money- throw enough money at the issue and we promise it will go away (hint: it doesn't).

The BEST way to help is to adopt a hound of your own. Each greyhound adopted makes room for another dog to be saved.

If you can't adopt, perhaps you can foster. Fostering allows for higher intake which means less dogs being needlessly destroyed. Foster carers are an incredibly valuable part of the rehoming process and are always needed.

If you can't foster, -then- consider donating. If doesn't need to be money, however- donate your time, your skills, items that are frequently needed (such as food or bedding). Consider donating money directly into a rescue's vet account. A huge portion of the rehoming costs come from vet bills to get dogs ready for adoption. Flea/worm treatments, toys, leads or even other items for fundraising. Every little bit helps and even simple things can improve a dog's life.

Helping -actual- greyhounds should be of greater priority than helping theoretical greyhounds.

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.

[Steve]

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.

[minimax]

What does this mean?

Only registered breeders of pure breed pets and sub-registered breeders of mixed-breed pets should be licensed to have an entire pet on their premises.

[Aphra]

Thanks for finding that Steve. While I would support some of those aims for the sake of general animal welfare, most if them have nothing to do with rescue particularly. And none if the things I think are really important to rescue are mentioned. I think rescues would be more interested in policy to ensure pounds worked with rescue; subsidized desexing; better processes for returning impounded animals to their owners; more research into reproducible temperament testing; support from local and state governments for rescue; small groups representation on legislative committees; affordable insurance; guidance for gaining non-profit status and a dozen other issues which this group haven't listed. And yes, I could suggest them, but if they intend to represent rescue shouldn't they know this stuff already?

It's clear that they don't really understand rescue or any of the new and innovative thinking about rescue which is happening.

From our group's perspective we would be not be at all happy for this group to think they could speak on our behalf.

[Steve]

Thanks for finding that Steve. While I would support some of those aims for the sake of general animal welfare, most if them have nothing to do with rescue particularly. And none if the things I think are really important to rescue are mentioned. I think rescues would be more interested in policy to ensure pounds worked with rescue; subsidized desexing; better processes for returning impounded animals to their owners; more research into reproducible temperament testing; support from local and state governments for rescue; small groups representation on legislative committees; affordable insurance; guidance for gaining non-profit status and a dozen other issues which this group haven't listed. And yes, I could suggest them, but if they intend to represent rescue shouldn't they know this stuff already?

It's clear that they don't really understand rescue or any of the new and innovative thinking about rescue which is happening.

From our group's perspective we would be not be at all happy for this group to think they could speak on our behalf.

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.

[Steve]

What does this mean?

Only registered breeders of pure breed pets and sub-registered breeders of mixed-breed pets should be licensed to have an entire pet on their premises.

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.

[minimax]

What does this mean?

Only registered breeders of pure breed pets and sub-registered breeders of mixed-breed pets should be licensed to have an entire pet on their premises.

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.

Seems to be a common theme on their website!

[Maddy]

Thanks for finding that Steve. While I would support some of those aims for the sake of general animal welfare, most if them have nothing to do with rescue particularly. And none if the things I think are really important to rescue are mentioned. I think rescues would be more interested in policy to ensure pounds worked with rescue; subsidized desexing; better processes for returning impounded animals to their owners; more research into reproducible temperament testing; support from local and state governments for rescue; small groups representation on legislative committees; affordable insurance; guidance for gaining non-profit status and a dozen other issues which this group haven't listed. And yes, I could suggest them, but if they intend to represent rescue shouldn't they know this stuff already?

It's clear that they don't really understand rescue or any of the new and innovative thinking about rescue which is happening.

From our group's perspective we would be not be at all happy for this group to think they could speak on our behalf.

I have to agree with that. Live export is a questionable practice but will banning it help greyhounds or my rescue generally.. no.

Ditto for most of the other stuff, too.

Some things I would like to see would be rescues being legislated (unfortunate but necessary), CoPs for rescue/rehoming organisations and.. databases of rehomed animals (so that animals that end in up in pounds can be checked to see if they came from a rescue, along with temp testing results for each animal- using a standard temp test- making rescues accountable, basically).

There was other stuff but hell if I can remember if now.