Greytmate Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Given the fact that PR irresponsibly rehomed a DA dog into an inappropriate home and a little fluffy was killed, would that not be reason enough for the shelters NOT to release dogs to PR? If threatened by MN, they would have legit reason NOT to release dogs to PR for the safety of the community? I personally think the shelter would be somewhat accountable if say a child was killed by a PR dog? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotdogz Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Blacktown can't be a no kill shelter. There is a very human aggressive dog there now. Unsure if it is still there, back block. I'm not a beginner in dog behaviour - this dog was one of the few "red zone" aggressive dogs I have seen. If my finger went through the mesh, I'd have lost it. No idea how it passed the behavioural assessment - but it was up for EOI. The dog you talk about is not HA. Put your finger in I do. If you like I will get it out for you. It is in D block the last kennel row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Anyone seen the latest pics posted of the kennels at STAR... BIG difference from the ones posted last Friday... here's hoping that the new kennel manager person can stay that motivated... T. I saw a photo with some choice shots. Pretty easy to clean up a couple of areas and snap a photo. But agreed, I hope they can remain clean, that dogs get enrichment and any rehabilitation they may need, and the pressure from the public and the RSPCA keeps them on their toes enough to do an above-average job. Edited January 23, 2013 by Plan B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Given the fact that PR irresponsibly rehomed a DA dog into an inappropriate home and a little fluffy was killed, would that not be reason enough for the shelters NOT to release dogs to PR? If threatened by MN, they would have legit reason NOT to release dogs to PR for the safety of the community? I personally think the shelter would be somewhat accountable if say a child was killed by a PR dog? 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. I don't think you can use LDH as any example. They worked with one rescue who pulled out themselves not the other way around. Unethical rescues and other ethical rescues never got a look in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparassidae Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Blacktown can't be a no kill shelter. There is a very human aggressive dog there now. Unsure if it is still there, back block. I'm not a beginner in dog behaviour - this dog was one of the few "red zone" aggressive dogs I have seen. If my finger went through the mesh, I'd have lost it. No idea how it passed the behavioural assessment - but it was up for EOI. The dog you talk about is not HA. Then we agree to disagree :) Assuming we are of course talking about the same dog. Edited January 23, 2013 by NotMidol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochmad Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 If someone goes directly to PR and gets a dog from them and the dog bites a child or another dog, wouldn't that person veto PR not all rescue? A bit of research into other rescue organisations will show that dogs are taken into foster homes and are temperament tested in a home environment, often with children and always with other dogs. Taking a dog straight from the pound and then from a kennel, is a big risk in my eyes and something I wouldn't do...ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Given the fact that PR irresponsibly rehomed a DA dog into an inappropriate home and a little fluffy was killed, would that not be reason enough for the shelters NOT to release dogs to PR? If threatened by MN, they would have legit reason NOT to release dogs to PR for the safety of the community? I personally think the shelter would be somewhat accountable if say a child was killed by a PR dog? Did PR re-home it or did they alert people to it and the pound re homed it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 If someone goes directly to PR and gets a dog from them and the dog bites a child or another dog, wouldn't that person veto PR not all rescue? A bit of research into other rescue organisations will show that dogs are taken into foster homes and are temperament tested in a home environment, often with children and always with other dogs. Taking a dog straight from the pound and then from a kennel, is a big risk in my eyes and something I wouldn't do...ever. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that poochmad... the average Joe will associate their bad experience with "rescue" in general. It's a bit like how the Animal Rights people showing ONE breeder to be a bit "dodgy", and associating that as representative of ALL breeders. T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochmad Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Well, respectable rescue groups should fight fire with fire. At the moment due to all the sharing on Facebook everyone knows Pound Rounds (and think they are great) and if they google PR, they get multiple articles (yes they are the same) of what a good job PR are doing. Why doesn't another rescue group also do an article on the difference they are to 'other' rescue groups in that they foster the dog out to applicable homes and also don't save all dogs due to temperament issues. That safety of people and animals is more important than making rescue numbers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I have spoken to several people who feel that this highlights the fact that there is a major risk to them if they take a dog from a pound or rescue generally. But the reality is that there is nothing new here except that PR is actively specifically alerting people to where dogs are at risk and available. This is not much different to sending someone to a pound to find a dog and thats done every single day here and its being pushed worldwide as a preferable option to choose when looking for a dog. All this does is highlight the fact that anyone can get a dog out of the pound and it probably wont be properly assessed and you probably wont be screened. The public dont know the difference between PR and a rescue group And by the way Ive knowledge of at least one other ethical rescue group who say they test and assess dogs and do not and a couple who have no screening process for new owners or foster carers. The word ethical is tossed around all over the place as well but defining ethical is open to many variables so you might know what you mean but no one else does because they assume your definition is like their's and as long as their is not third party accountability process its pretty clear that in some cases what a group says they do isnt necessarily so. I'm most definitely of the educated opinion that several assumed ethical rescues are not ethical according to my definition of ethical rescue including some who have participated in this. I also know of some who take donations under false pretenses, one who has 43 dogs on her property with only approval for two, one who is famous for her filthy house and kennels who has 120 dogs which she clearly cant cope with and numerous other issues which are deliberately happening by some of those who visit here and are assumed to be ethical. How the bloody hell is council or anyone to tell which group is ethical especially when there is no base line for what you mean by ethical. Ive stood in shit up past my ankles in someone's lounge room helping sort out an ethical rescue,helping her to clean up and rehome her animals and puppies which she says came as a result of pregnant puppy farm dogs but the paper work says she has had them much longer than 9 weeks and its clear she is deliberately breeding them - some paperwork even shows some end up in pet shops not desexed - 12 months later even after she signed a contract to say she was finished in rescue before we would help she was back the same again and she is considered ethical when she talks the talk on this forum pumping out over 300 puppies a year - what a bloody angel she is for saving so many pregnant babies. So when you talk about ethical and how a pound should only deal with ethical it may be an idea to be more specific and be clear about how anyone can tell they do what they say they do anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 How the bloody hell is council or anyone to tell which group is ethical especially when there is no base line for what you mean by ethical. Ive stood in shit up past my ankles in someone's lounge room helping sort out an ethical rescue,helping her to clean up and rehome her animals and puppies which she says came as a result of pregnant puppy farm dogs but the paper work says she has had them much longer than 9 weeks and its clear she is deliberately breeding them - some paperwork even shows some end up in pet shops not desexed - 12 months later even after she signed a contract to say she was finished in rescue before we would help she was back the same again and she is considered ethical when she talks the talk on this forum pumping out over 300 puppies a year - what a bloody angel she is for saving so many pregnant babies. So when you talk about ethical and how a pound should only deal with ethical it may be an idea to be more specific and be clear about how anyone can tell they do what they say they do anyway. how sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Just wondering. If a dog (e.g. PCC33) at Hawkesbury isn't on Hawkesbury's dogs available site, and isn't listed on DOL as 'at risk', why would PR be saying 'only young and on a kill list, please share her to save her, she only has until tomorrow to find a home'? Why distract from those who really are at risk? (She's a lovely looking 9mo BC x Kelpie by the way, if anyone's looking!) This morning's update on the HP list is this pup has been sold... yay!! T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paganman Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 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. Yep I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 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. Actually it isn't as simple as you imply - So is that what you mean when you say ethical rescue? Someone who keeps dogs in hygienic conditions and follows local government laws? Is that what council need to know to know who they should approve- is that all the public need to know to go to a rescue group and not worry about hidden risks? I don't think so and before we can get into ethical rescue we need to know what exactly that is AND SO DO COUNCIL. And the reason I don't come in here and tell you all is because usually I know these things via a confidential manner and it would be difficult to have people accept help if they then thought Id blab about them and often permanent solutions can be found easier and more swiftly which are of more benefit to the dogs if it isn't published all over the net first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Steve, talking about how do we determine what is ethical and how is it policed is moot in this context. What we have is a rescue that does not follow already existing council policy, it's black and white. What is not so easy is to get council to enforce their own policies. PR deliberately have off shoots everywhere and there is a huge amount of information to decipher. But the tools to take them down are there, it's just a matter of finding the best way to use them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Ethics discussions are moot due to the fact that everybody seems to have a different standard for what they deem "ethical". Some people believe that having extremely invasive application forms asking for financial status, etc, is being "ethical" - some think rehoming dogs to people who can be at home 24/7 is "ethical" - and some who don't ask for that level of "commitment" is "ethical"... So what BASIC "rules" should we set down (amongst ourselves for now) that can be used as a yardstick for what is "ethical" and what isn't? If we may be heading for regulation of our "industry", it may be prudent to have these things worked out in advance, so we have something to put forward if/when the powers that be are looking into regulating us... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Steve, talking about how do we determine what is ethical and how is it policed is moot in this context. What we have is a rescue that does not follow already existing council policy, it's black and white. What is not so easy is to get council to enforce their own policies. PR deliberately have off shoots everywhere and there is a huge amount of information to decipher. But the tools to take them down are there, it's just a matter of finding the best way to use them. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 In terms of PR ethics is not an operational term right now because while they are clearly unethical it won't be on this front that they will be removed. If they are let continue then self determined ethics won't matter because regulation will be forced on everyone and it is likely they won't take submissions. The fact is that they are breaking rules that already exist and people should be working on those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Ethics discussions are moot due to the fact that everybody seems to have a different standard for what they deem "ethical". Some people believe that having extremely invasive application forms asking for financial status, etc, is being "ethical" - some think rehoming dogs to people who can be at home 24/7 is "ethical" - and some who don't ask for that level of "commitment" is "ethical"... So what BASIC "rules" should we set down (amongst ourselves for now) that can be used as a yardstick for what is "ethical" and what isn't? If we may be heading for regulation of our "industry", it may be prudent to have these things worked out in advance, so we have something to put forward if/when the powers that be are looking into regulating us... T. Hall a bloody ool ya !!!!!!!!! My link But some of the things that are in that code of ethics could never be laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now