Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
keetamouse

Pound Rounds

700 posts in this topic

Steve   

Ummm... I seem to recall a couple of dogs shipped interstate with no chip detail recorded or transferred to the new "owner"

I'd love to see them get through a Charity Dept audit also...

T.

Granted if they are moving dogs around without paper work etc its a breach of the requirements but you need to look closer at how its all being done to be sure its them that are not doing what is required and that the responsibility isnt being relayed onto someone else and that they arent getting it within the time frames allowed etc. They will get through their audits as far as I can see but they wont do their first audit until late this year anyway.

But in the big scheme of things in my opinion the paperwork and what they do with their money is secondary concerns to how anyone is able to get dogs like this out of a pound without some kind of safety controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

They are not a rescue group and their response says that they find rescue groups to get the dogs into foster care. They are a go between. Things were working OK before they appeared - a rescue group rescued a dog from the pound and placed it with one of their approved carers.

Here we have a group that advertises for foster carers for other groups. Unfortunately not every group is diligent enough to check the suitability of said foster carers and they have never met or assessed the dog that is being sent so may end up with a fence jumping, dog aggressive pitbull.

Yep agreed and it exposes the system which enables them or anyone to be able to do it and not be held accountable.

Their only focus is on getting dogs out of pounds - very noble action theoretically get it out and its got a chance, not much else matters, you have saved a dog and this is a good thing. however, as you know problem is it undermines what a lot of people have worked hard to do - educate the public that there is no risk in taking a second hand dog into their homes and that dogs with problems will be placed only with people who can deal with them.

Its still a systemic issue and one way or another either by lowering of standards seen to be within rescue and takling the PR back a decade or by law changes its pretty hard to see there wont be a long term impact - Ive no doubt they would say its worth it because they have a different philosophy and different focus on whats best for the dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guys and gals here is what I sent them and of course PR's, my comments are of course in bold:

Hi – more than happy to remove you – however bear in mind you didn’t have to deal with anyone other than the pound in the matter of saving these dogs – I was just helping disseminate the info given the short period of time.

“Reputable rescue don’t use the word “kill/killed as you are implying that the vets who have to euthanize the “unrehomable” dogs are killers, they take no joy in doing this”

The word kill is not intended to demonise the individual that does the killing. However it is indeed intended to put back into the process an independent sense of agency and honesty lacking in the alternatives. Animal activists don’t sweeten the deal for council policies that include killing in their mandate. You will also note that neither of the councils that we work with or the people that have historically done the killing take offence – probably because you are right – they didn’t enjoy it and now as a result of honest public discourse for a change they find the community support they have always desired and don’t have to. Like today. No killing too place. People that take no joy in killing – take great comfort in knowing they don’t have to anymore.

“also most of the dogs you have listed are not in the true sense “rehomable” fence jumpers are very hard to rehome, “dog reactive” is not a “rehomable””Almost all of the dogs we list get homes therefore are by accurate definition not only rehomable but in the ‘true sense’ rehomed.

“there are many nice, rehomable dogs that die in pounds all the time so you might be best to advertise these instead”

In the pounds we work with no “nice” subjectively defined as “rehomable” dogs are killed, hence our work on all the dogs without this, in my view fabricated, dilemma of a bygone era. We also believe that is what rescue is for – to help dogs that need help, not simply insert themselves into the rehoming process. Dogs that need training need help, of all dogs these should be top of the list for “rescue”, for without it they are killed. If one only left healthy, dog friendly, calm, placid, super cute dogs of all ages and breeds in the pounds they would become a haven for the average person looking for a pet – and just one third of the cost of a pet shop, with all vetwork done. Alas in your model ‘rescue’ chooses those dogs and leaves behind the ones that need rehabilitation and training. Not only does this but rationalises it as The ‘rescue’ model and demonises those who don’t – without a hint of irony. The dogs that need rescue are the least likely to receive it using your model.

“They are dog reactive BEFORE they hit the pounds that is possibly the reason they are in there in the first place”

Many dogs in fact to the contrary can be deemed aggressive in the pound environment as a direct result of incarceration. Pound dogs are community dogs, they reflect the pets in our community in both breed, temperament and health.

“pulling on the heartstrings of unsuspecting, non rescue people is irresponsible”

Hiding this truth and wishing to be the soul arbiter of pets living or dying is truly irresponsible. Telling the truth to communities whose rates and taxes will fund the killing of community pets is essential both for the short term protection of these pets and the long term education of those in the community who find it unacceptable.

“send these dogs out in to the community where they can harm not only humans, children and also kill other animals.”

This is simply alarmist and not based on facts. The data I see is that the tiniest percentage of dogs are not human friendly and better yet the tiniest percentage of people in any given community leave their pets for killing in pounds and shelters – less than 0.05% in both cases. Better studies and sources of information exist that I could ever do justice, this is a breeder based and breeder informed argument annexed by “rescue”. The pets in the pound were in fact in our communities, every single one of them, in most cases not more 14 days ago – all year, every day. It is simply illogical to suddenly demonise them on impound. They were living in homes and on our streets a matter of hours ago in some cases – every single one of them. As newly initiated Satans hounds there is not a spike in human attacks all over the country every minute of every day from our current pets. This is a circular argument I am afraid that does no justice to the pets impounded in these god forsaken places.

See what you think.

Maree

CPR

Edited by keetamouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

Any pound that knowingly allows PR to act as a "broker" to have DA and/or HA (primarily bull breed) dogs released from said pound under the guise of "rescue" needs to be called into account also...

PR are getting dogs out of pounds under their Clause 16D - which seems to show that the DLG sees them as a rescue group, no? Then again the 16D really only covers them not having to council register said dogs for 12 months.

Pounds, however, see the 16D as a legitimiser for rescues, and in most cases, this reduces the cost of release to said rescues - and in some cases, there is NO cost for release under a 16D.

The paperwork for any dog released under a 16D should be going to the owner of that 16D, and that paperwork must be up to date, and any transfer of ownership must be notified within a specific timeframe, yes? An audit of the 16D dogs released to PR would be extremely interesting methinks. Also, once a dog is released from the pound, it means responsibility for said dog falls squarely on the shoulders of the owner of the 16D - if it is rehomed inappropriately and is a public menace, surely there is accountability for that which can be followed up on?

I'm a lover and fairly experienced owner of bull breed dogs myself, yet there is no way on the planet that I would take any of the dogs listed by PR into MY home... some dogs DO need to be given their wings, if only to ensure public safety.

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

How did they get the Hawkesbury list? Does Hawkesbury not BCC?

No - Hawkesbury does not bcc... can see ALL recipients...

T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

Well guys and gals here is what I sent them and of course PR's, my comments are of course in bold:

Hi – more than happy to remove you – however bear in mind you didn't have to deal with anyone other than the pound in the matter of saving these dogs – I was just helping disseminate the info given the short period of time.

"Reputable rescue don't use the word "kill/killed as you are implying that the vets who have to euthanize the "unrehomable" dogs are killers, they take no joy in doing this"

The word kill is not intended to demonise the individual that does the killing. However it is indeed intended to put back into the process an independent sense of agency and honesty lacking in the alternatives. Animal activists don't sweeten the deal for council policies that include killing in their mandate. You will also note that neither of the councils that we work with or the people that have historically done the killing take offence – probably because you are right – they didn't enjoy it and now as a result of honest public discourse for a change they find the community support they have always desired and don't have to. Like today. No killing too place. People that take no joy in killing – take great comfort in knowing they don't have to anymore.

"also most of the dogs you have listed are not in the true sense "rehomable" fence jumpers are very hard to rehome, "dog reactive" is not a "rehomable""Almost all of the dogs we list get homes therefore are by accurate definition not only rehomable but in the 'true sense' rehomed.

"there are many nice, rehomable dogs that die in pounds all the time so you might be best to advertise these instead"

In the pounds we work with no "nice" subjectively defined as "rehomable" dogs are killed, hence our work on all the dogs without this, in my view fabricated, dilemma of a bygone era. We also believe that is what rescue is for – to help dogs that need help, not simply insert themselves into the rehoming process. Dogs that need training need help, of all dogs these should be top of the list for "rescue", for without it they are killed. If one only left healthy, dog friendly, calm, placid, super cute dogs of all ages and breeds in the pounds they would become a haven for the average person looking for a pet – and just one third of the cost of a pet shop, with all vetwork done. Alas in your model 'rescue' chooses those dogs and leaves behind the ones that need rehabilitation and training. Not only does this but rationalises it as The 'rescue' model and demonises those who don't – without a hint of irony. The dogs that need rescue are the least likely to receive it using your model.

"They are dog reactive BEFORE they hit the pounds that is possibly the reason they are in there in the first place"

Many dogs in fact to the contrary can be deemed aggressive in the pound environment as a direct result of incarceration. Pound dogs are community dogs, they reflect the pets in our community in both breed, temperament and health.

"pulling on the heartstrings of unsuspecting, non rescue people is irresponsible"

Hiding this truth and wishing to be the soul arbiter of pets living or dying is truly irresponsible. Telling the truth to communities whose rates and taxes will fund the killing of community pets is essential both for the short term protection of these pets and the long term education of those in the community who find it unacceptable.

"send these dogs out in to the community where they can harm not only humans, children and also kill other animals."

This is simply alarmist and not based on facts. The data I see is that the tiniest percentage of dogs are not human friendly and better yet the tiniest percentage of people in any given community leave their pets for killing in pounds and shelters – less than 0.05% in both cases. Better studies and sources of information exist that I could ever do justice, this is a breeder based and breeder informed argument annexed by "rescue". The pets in the pound were in fact in our communities, every single one of them, in most cases not more 14 days ago – all year, every day. It is simply illogical to suddenly demonise them on impound. They were living in homes and on our streets a matter of hours ago in some cases – every single one of them. As newly initiated Satans hounds there is not a spike in human attacks all over the country every minute of every day from our current pets. This is a circular argument I am afraid that does no justice to the pets impounded in these god forsaken places.

See what you think.

Maree

CPR

Well I'm convinced - you cant beat these guys. They believe they are doing whats best for the dogs - its not in my opinion about money or anything else. If you don't agree with them best thing to do is promote what you do and why how you do it is better for the dogs and the families who take them and stop giving them any attention and free publicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

Any pound that knowingly allows PR to act as a "broker" to have DA and/or HA (primarily bull breed) dogs released from said pound under the guise of "rescue" needs to be called into account also...

PR are getting dogs out of pounds under their Clause 16D - which seems to show that the DLG sees them as a rescue group, no? Then again the 16D really only covers them not having to council register said dogs for 12 months.

Pounds, however, see the 16D as a legitimiser for rescues, and in most cases, this reduces the cost of release to said rescues - and in some cases, there is NO cost for release under a 16D.

The paperwork for any dog released under a 16D should be going to the owner of that 16D, and that paperwork must be up to date, and any transfer of ownership must be notified within a specific timeframe, yes? An audit of the 16D dogs released to PR would be extremely interesting methinks. Also, once a dog is released from the pound, it means responsibility for said dog falls squarely on the shoulders of the owner of the 16D - if it is rehomed inappropriately and is a public menace, surely there is accountability for that which can be followed up on?

I'm a lover and fairly experienced owner of bull breed dogs myself, yet there is no way on the planet that I would take any of the dogs listed by PR into MY home... some dogs DO need to be given their wings, if only to ensure public safety.

T.

Nup - http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Forms/08-73%20Clause%2016d%20Guidelines.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a lover and fairly experienced owner of bull breed dogs myself, yet there is no way on the planet that I would take any of the dogs listed by PR into MY home... some dogs DO need to be given their wings, if only to ensure public safety.

T.

I have a greyhound in my home at the moment who was 'listed' by PR due to the fact she was in Hawkesbury pound, and she is a loving, sweet natured dog. PR had nothing to do with her adoption from the pound beyond the fact that she was 'listed' by them as my friend purchased her direct from the pound. When PR lists virtually ALL dogs in HP and BP, it is a bit drastic to say that none of them deserve to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

Any pound that knowingly allows PR to act as a "broker" to have DA and/or HA (primarily bull breed) dogs released from said pound under the guise of "rescue" needs to be called into account also...

PR are getting dogs out of pounds under their Clause 16D - which seems to show that the DLG sees them as a rescue group, no? Then again the 16D really only covers them not having to council register said dogs for 12 months.

Pounds, however, see the 16D as a legitimiser for rescues, and in most cases, this reduces the cost of release to said rescues - and in some cases, there is NO cost for release under a 16D.

The paperwork for any dog released under a 16D should be going to the owner of that 16D, and that paperwork must be up to date, and any transfer of ownership must be notified within a specific timeframe, yes? An audit of the 16D dogs released to PR would be extremely interesting methinks. Also, once a dog is released from the pound, it means responsibility for said dog falls squarely on the shoulders of the owner of the 16D - if it is rehomed inappropriately and is a public menace, surely there is accountability for that which can be followed up on?

I'm a lover and fairly experienced owner of bull breed dogs myself, yet there is no way on the planet that I would take any of the dogs listed by PR into MY home... some dogs DO need to be given their wings, if only to ensure public safety.

T.

So should it be PR who are held accountable for them being released to the public or the pound? Fact is I doubt that it would be PR. Who should decide when to give a dog its wings - is it the pound or someone who advertises the dog is available ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

Again I say if this is something which people don't agree with going after PR isn't the answer because what you are saying is that its a fault in the legislation which enables ANYONE to get a dog out and take it home,or being able to advertise that a dog is on death row regardless of whether it should be able to be taken home according to what has become convention via dogz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a lover and fairly experienced owner of bull breed dogs myself, yet there is no way on the planet that I would take any of the dogs listed by PR into MY home... some dogs DO need to be given their wings, if only to ensure public safety.

T.

I have a greyhound in my home at the moment who was 'listed' by PR due to the fact she was in Hawkesbury pound, and she is a loving, sweet natured dog. PR had nothing to do with her adoption from the pound beyond the fact that she was 'listed' by them as my friend purchased her direct from the pound. When PR lists virtually ALL dogs in HP and BP, it is a bit drastic to say that none of them deserve to live.

We arn't talking about the ones who are "nice" dogs, the bad that PR does in the way they do business far outweighs the good that they "may" do, the general public are not aware of PR's sending dogs all over the place, unsuspecting people who feel sorry for the dogs who have issues, or not being told about their issues thinking they can "fix it" the experienced ethical rescue groups who have been doing this for many years and some for decades will not take these dogs that are fence jumpers, people or dog aggressive as they are hard to rehabilitate and rehome and you never know whether they will revert to their original ways, so we concentrate and move heaven and earth for the really "nice" dogs, and yes the dogs can change once we get them home, we access them and get experts in and I for one will always go with the "experts" advice and yes I have had to PTS a couple of small dogs, one was only 4 kilos and around 12 months of age, his issues were unpredictable and I could not ethicall rehome him.

Maree

CPR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They talk about statistics, I would like to see the percentages of dogs adopted because of PR and then returned because of behaviours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

They talk about statistics, I would like to see the percentages of dogs adopted because of PR and then returned because of behaviours.

You miss their point they would feel that at least the dog had been given a better chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They talk about statistics, I would like to see the percentages of dogs adopted because of PR and then returned because of behaviours.

You miss their point they would feel that at least the dog had been given a better chance.

A better chance to attack or escape. These people are complete idiots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

It is the people who are letting them go to just anyone and the legislation which allows it which is accountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a lover and fairly experienced owner of bull breed dogs myself, yet there is no way on the planet that I would take any of the dogs listed by PR into MY home... some dogs DO need to be given their wings, if only to ensure public safety.

T.

I have a greyhound in my home at the moment who was 'listed' by PR due to the fact she was in Hawkesbury pound, and she is a loving, sweet natured dog. PR had nothing to do with her adoption from the pound beyond the fact that she was 'listed' by them as my friend purchased her direct from the pound. When PR lists virtually ALL dogs in HP and BP, it is a bit drastic to say that none of them deserve to live.

We arn't talking about the ones who are "nice" dogs, the bad that PR does in the way they do business far outweighs the good that they "may" do, the general public are not aware of PR's sending dogs all over the place, unsuspecting people who feel sorry for the dogs who have issues, or not being told about their issues thinking they can "fix it" the experienced ethical rescue groups who have been doing this for many years and some for decades will not take these dogs that are fence jumpers, people or dog aggressive as they are hard to rehabilitate and rehome and you never know whether they will revert to their original ways, so we concentrate and move heaven and earth for the really "nice" dogs, and yes the dogs can change once we get them home, we access them and get experts in and I for one will always go with the "experts" advice and yes I have had to PTS a couple of small dogs, one was only 4 kilos and around 12 months of age, his issues were unpredictable and I could not ethicall rehome him.

Maree

CPR

Just responding to the idea that all dogs listed by PR are 'baddies'-- I think the problem with PR lies in the fact that they do not discriminate, and properly assess, the dogs that they are promoting. Some are good dogs, most likely these will get adopted direct by the public (as in Pearl's case) or go to legitimate rescue. These dogs probably didn't need the PR promotion anyway, but they got it all the same as they advertise basically anything canine that goes through BP or HP.

I don't like PR more than anyone else, their arguments are illogical and designed to appeal to the emotion of the Everyman. What I disagree with is the blanket labelling of every dog advertised them as being dangerous to "public safety" when every single dog that goes through two fairly busy Sydney pounds gets advertised by them in some way.

Edited by Horsegal98

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I say if this is something which people don't agree with going after PR isn't the answer because what you are saying is that its a fault in the legislation which enables ANYONE to get a dog out and take it home,or being able to advertise that a dog is on death row regardless of whether it should be able to be taken home according to what has become convention via dogz.

It's not just "convention via dogz". I have been a member here for many years and at the same time ran a program for five years. The DOL culture has been influenced by best practices in rescue. We didn't invent our conventions here. Most of us realise that assessment is the one most important part of making sure the wider community isn't put put in danger unnecessarily. Even the big shelters that people 'love to hate' use assessment.

I see more similarities between Pound Rounds and Pet Rescue site than I do between Pound Rounds and an actual rescue group. List as many dogs as possible knowing that some will be dangerous, write up some bleeding hearts stuff, and then count it as a rehoming (and take the credit) without caring about the return rates. By distancing themselves as the third party mediator rather than doing the actual work themselves, they are just brokers. We need legislation to cover these brokers and get rid of them. Nobody should be allowed to directly promote a product they don't take responsibility for when things go wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a lover and fairly experienced owner of bull breed dogs myself, yet there is no way on the planet that I would take any of the dogs listed by PR into MY home... some dogs DO need to be given their wings, if only to ensure public safety.

T.

I have a greyhound in my home at the moment who was 'listed' by PR due to the fact she was in Hawkesbury pound, and she is a loving, sweet natured dog. PR had nothing to do with her adoption from the pound beyond the fact that she was 'listed' by them as my friend purchased her direct from the pound. When PR lists virtually ALL dogs in HP and BP, it is a bit drastic to say that none of them deserve to live.

We arn't talking about the ones who are "nice" dogs, the bad that PR does in the way they do business far outweighs the good that they "may" do, the general public are not aware of PR's sending dogs all over the place, unsuspecting people who feel sorry for the dogs who have issues, or not being told about their issues thinking they can "fix it" the experienced ethical rescue groups who have been doing this for many years and some for decades will not take these dogs that are fence jumpers, people or dog aggressive as they are hard to rehabilitate and rehome and you never know whether they will revert to their original ways, so we concentrate and move heaven and earth for the really "nice" dogs, and yes the dogs can change once we get them home, we access them and get experts in and I for one will always go with the "experts" advice and yes I have had to PTS a couple of small dogs, one was only 4 kilos and around 12 months of age, his issues were unpredictable and I could not ethicall rehome him.

Maree

CPR

Just responding to the idea that all dogs listed by PR are 'baddies'-- I think the problem with PR lies in the fact that they do not discriminate, and properly assess, the dogs that they are promoting. Some are good dogs, most likely these will get adopted direct by the public (as in Pearl's case) or go to legitimate rescue. These dogs probably didn't need the PR promotion anyway, but they got it all the same as they advertise basically anything canine that goes through BP or HP.

I don't like PR more than anyone else, their arguments are illogical and designed to appeal to the emotion of the Everyman. What I disagree with is the blanket labelling of every dog advertised them as being dangerous to "public safety" when every single dog that goes through two fairly busy Sydney pounds gets advertised by them in some way.

You weren't the recipient of the list of dogs that our posts are referring to. In some cases there were no descriptions of the breed but were listed as "Fence Jumper, Dog Reactive".

As rescuers, most of us monitor the pound websites closely to see if there are any dogs we would like to take.

Personally, I do object to PR getting a list of our private email addresses from one pound and using it to send lists to us from Blacktown Pound (or anywhere). Not only do they do that, but they resend the list from the first pound - why? What is the point of that - publicity? kudos? attempting to build reputation?

Of course they list good dogs but generally they are highlighting what is left - these are the dogs that rescuers may have considered but rejected for one reason or another - a large powerful dog aggressive breed is going to be dangerous in the wrong hands. Most rescuers have other dogs either in their own places or with their foster carers so can't take a dog like that, let alone rehome it ....

I euthanased a dog of 10 kilos last year, she was dangerous - to strangers and strange dogs and had the ability to escape. I deemed her high risk and was very upset at putting her to sleep but she'd bitten me several times, threatened to attack some children and attacked another foster dog - what would you have done? And PR puts bigger dogs than this out into the community, into places that haven't been assessed for their capabilities or suitability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheridan   

Yes but PR only took advantage of the list. The fault lies with Hawkesbury for not BCCing.

There seems to be confusion regarding PR. Are they just promoting animals or are they rescuing? Because they are referred to here as a bad rescue because they shift dogs around, they have kennels, but at the same time they are referred to as promotors and mediators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×