Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gillbear

What Is The Story With The New Temperament Assessments At Blacktown Po

159 posts in this topic

Katdogs   

I wonder how many keyboard warriors showed up at the 9am protest.

I just saw that on the PR page and was wondering the same. Time for locals to start writing letters to their councils (all those sending to Blacktown Pound) again, and to their local papers, to support the concept of responsible rescue!

Actually, probably time to twit and FB about it too, as social media seems to be the weapon of choice for MN/PR.

Edited by Katdogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

While i understand the concern regarding inappropriate temp testing and certain tests used in pounds and shelters horrify me, i strongly enourage people to not throw all assessments into the same baskets and make generalisations about how you can't assess in a pound environment. Actually you can have a very good success rate with the right skills, training, test and attitude.

I am actually quite sick of pounds releasing dogs and having no responsibility for what happens after that. Just yesterday i spoke to someone (not even a client!) who adopted a 45kg dog from a pound who is both dog aggressive and predatory with livestock. They gave this dog to a lady who is not physically strong enough to handle him, who wants a sociable dog AND has horses.. It's about time the pounds took releasing dogs ALOT more seriously. It has little to do with legal action and EVERYTHING to do with being responsible for both the dogs and people in the community.

Me too and I just don't get what it is people want - any dog PR had organised for released could have been released to anyone .There are complaints they dont temp test that they are putting unsafe dogs in the community but they are released by the pound to ordinary every day people whether they found the dogs via PR or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

I think it's bloody brilliant and long over due. Too many rescues are taking dogs out of pounds that should not end up with inexperienced foster carers or the general public.

I got sick of people attacking us (GDRR NSW) for not taking Danes and Dane x's because their temperament was not suitable to us / our carers / general public, get sick of hearing you can't test a dogs temperament in a pound environment...you 100% can. It's time excuses stopped and rescues such as PR's are stopped dead in their tracks, they make us look bad and the general public won't trust us anymore.

I cannot stand PR's way of dealing with things....

http://www.gumtree.c...ogs-/1016105620

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too and I just don't get what it is people want - any dog PR had organised for released could have been released to anyone .There are complaints they dont temp test that they are putting unsafe dogs in the community but they are released by the pound to ordinary every day people whether they found the dogs via PR or not.

Which is why temp testing these dogs that everyone has backed away from is a step in the right direction.

And the way PR work, the dogs are released to anyone it's just not an adoption at the pound. So even if the pound say 'release to rescue only' on the basis of health or questionable temperament they rely completely on trusting a rescue to do the right thing.

These changes wouldn't have been brought in if everything was roses. There was a post in the BP thread that described the nature of 2 of these dogs. :(

I know a number of rescue groups have been slating Blacktown about the independent temperament testing, but I have to say I am keeping an open mind on this. Blacktown don't put the dogs down for no good reason - they do try to keep the nice ones for as long as is possible (before they start to go kennel crazy). I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement because there always is, but they are trying.

For example, 1390 the Cattle Surrender that was put down - I assessed him earlier this week as we were considering taking him, but having spent time with him, I I wouldn't take him. I didn't trust him, he was unpredicable and his behaviour kept switching from submissive to aggressive. 1219 was a lovely boy with people, but he was very dog-aggressive and had been in dog-fight where staff literally couldn't get him off the other dog. These dogs might be okay in the right home - but equally they might not. We're not all Cesar Milans, and most owners are not hugely experienced with reading/interpreting dog behaviour. Imagine if these dogs were adopted by someone with kids, or other animals - and something set them off. It is not worth the risk. There are lovely dogs at Blacktown that still need rescue - but if there is even the tinest doubt about a dog's temperament, then it should not be rehomed, and the responsible thing is to put the dog to sleep.

ETA: NOT saying PR are the only ones guilty of handling questionable dogs.

Edited by Powerlegs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic.B   

Me too and I just don't get what it is people want - any dog PR had organised for released could have been released to anyone .There are complaints they dont temp test that they are putting unsafe dogs in the community but they are released by the pound to ordinary every day people whether they found the dogs via PR or not.

Which is why temp testing these dogs that everyone has backed away from is a step in the right direction.

And the way PR work, the dogs are released to anyone it's just not an adoption at the pound. So if the pound say 'release to rescue only' on the basis of health or questionable temperament they rely completely on trusting a rescue to do the right thing.

These changes wouldn't have been brought in if everything was roses.

I agree.

The question for me Steve is why are council pounds knowingly releasing dogs under clause, via MN immediately into adopting family homes when knowing very well all normal adoption checks are not achieved and endless serious issues associated with this particular group are evident?

Even when dogs have been deemed RTRO PR's have adopted these dogs into homes straight from the pound. They have been returned from the home due to medical/behavioural issues. Impounded again (third time) and then pulled out under clause AGAIN! via Pr's straight (wait for it!) into another adoptive home! By which stage the medical issues are extensive and very expensive, not to mention what the dog has been through, then there are at times associated behavioural issues.

I spent years and years temp testing HP dogs. Ethical rescues have worked with HP for a very, very long time. The difference is that ethical rescues have the welfare of the animals as their first priority, regardless of circumstance.

Our temp notes were deleted and or edited, MN still used the photos, then she made up her own story without ever having met the dog.

She is a menace and IMO is about to shoot herself in the foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

What normal adoptions checks? They have been releasing dogs to the highest bidder and to anyone who says they will take them .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic.B   

Sorry Steve, are you speaking about BCC or HP? I have not had much to do with BCC.

HP have a set adoption fee, no tender process.

Rescue who have a clause have the dogs via HP released to them almost free of charge aside from a very reduced MC fee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Malti   

Me too and I just don't get what it is people want - any dog PR had organised for released could have been released to anyone .There are complaints they dont temp test that they are putting unsafe dogs in the community but they are released by the pound to ordinary every day people whether they found the dogs via PR or not.

Which is why temp testing these dogs that everyone has backed away from is a step in the right direction.

And the way PR work, the dogs are released to anyone it's just not an adoption at the pound. So if the pound say 'release to rescue only' on the basis of health or questionable temperament they rely completely on trusting a rescue to do the right thing.

These changes wouldn't have been brought in if everything was roses.

I agree.

The question for me Steve is why are council pounds knowingly releasing dogs under clause, via MN immediately into adopting family homes when knowing very well all normal adoption checks are not achieved and endless serious issues associated with this particular group are evident?

Even when dogs have been deemed RTRO PR's have adopted these dogs into homes straight from the pound. They have been returned from the home due to medical/behavioural issues. Impounded again (third time) and then pulled out under clause AGAIN! via Pr's straight (wait for it!) into another adoptive home! By which stage the medical issues are extensive and very expensive, not to mention what the dog has been through, then there are at times associated behavioural issues.

I spent years and years temp testing HP dogs. Ethical rescues have worked with HP for a very, very long time. The difference is that ethical rescues have the welfare of the animals as their first priority, regardless of circumstance.

Our temp notes were deleted and or edited, MN still used the photos, then she made up her own story without ever having met the dog.

She is a menace and IMO is about to shoot herself in the foot.

The reason they can do it as there is no real law on it, 16D's don't mean ethical rescue, all this has just been a ticking time bomb, now it has set off hopefully some good will be come of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic.B   

Me too and I just don't get what it is people want - any dog PR had organised for released could have been released to anyone .There are complaints they dont temp test that they are putting unsafe dogs in the community but they are released by the pound to ordinary every day people whether they found the dogs via PR or not.

Which is why temp testing these dogs that everyone has backed away from is a step in the right direction.

And the way PR work, the dogs are released to anyone it's just not an adoption at the pound. So if the pound say 'release to rescue only' on the basis of health or questionable temperament they rely completely on trusting a rescue to do the right thing.

These changes wouldn't have been brought in if everything was roses.

I agree.

The question for me Steve is why are council pounds knowingly releasing dogs under clause, via MN immediately into adopting family homes when knowing very well all normal adoption checks are not achieved and endless serious issues associated with this particular group are evident?

Even when dogs have been deemed RTRO PR's have adopted these dogs into homes straight from the pound. They have been returned from the home due to medical/behavioural issues. Impounded again (third time) and then pulled out under clause AGAIN! via Pr's straight (wait for it!) into another adoptive home! By which stage the medical issues are extensive and very expensive, not to mention what the dog has been through, then there are at times associated behavioural issues.

I spent years and years temp testing HP dogs. Ethical rescues have worked with HP for a very, very long time. The difference is that ethical rescues have the welfare of the animals as their first priority, regardless of circumstance.

Our temp notes were deleted and or edited, MN still used the photos, then she made up her own story without ever having met the dog.

She is a menace and IMO is about to shoot herself in the foot.

The reason they can do it as there is no real law on it, 16D's don't mean ethical rescue, all this has just been a ticking time bomb, now it has set off hopefully some good will be come of it.

I agree, rescue is unregulated clause 16D or not. I am not suprised councils are now trying to use other means to work through serious issues in regard to unreputable rescue pulling dogs out from their facility in multiple numbers and poorly placing them into homes without any assesment. It is incredibly sad for the dogs and for the ethical rescues who have spent endless years working so hard.

Regulation of rescue is needed. Not just for the general public, also for rescues working/networking with each other also for pound staff and councils so that enethical and ethical rescue is able to be identified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:( after reading those FB comments -

It is so sad that so many people seem to not live in the real world , where there are never enough caring homes for pound dogs ....even the stable and healthy ones ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic.B   

While i understand the concern regarding inappropriate temp testing and certain tests used in pounds and shelters horrify me, i strongly enourage people to not throw all assessments into the same baskets and make generalisations about how you can't assess in a pound environment. Actually you can have a very good success rate with the right skills, training, test and attitude.

I am actually quite sick of pounds releasing dogs and having no responsibility for what happens after that. Just yesterday i spoke to someone (not even a client!) who adopted a 45kg dog from a pound who is both dog aggressive and predatory with livestock. They gave this dog to a lady who is not physically strong enough to handle him, who wants a sociable dog AND has horses.. It's about time the pounds took releasing dogs ALOT more seriously. It has little to do with legal action and EVERYTHING to do with being responsible for both the dogs and people in the community.

Me too and I just don't get what it is people want - any dog PR had organised for released could have been released to anyone .There are complaints they dont temp test that they are putting unsafe dogs in the community but they are released by the pound to ordinary every day people whether they found the dogs via PR or not.

If the dog is being adopted Steve families go through the shelter adoption process and they pay the shelter the adoption fee.

If it is being pulled/adopted under pr's 16D (free of charge) the dog is chipped to MN/ pound rounds not the person/family who is then responsible for the dog.

Pound rounds pull the dog out under clause for free (or close to it) the family arrive and pick the dog up without any costs at the shelter after they have paid a $180 adoption fee to pr's (who may not have ever met the dog).

The vetwork for the dog is paid for through donations from the public pr's facebook site. Then pr's collect the adoption fee of $180. All transport, kennelling and even bathing is extra for adopting families and also factored into the adoption fee by pr's. Families must pay these fees if they stumble upon the pr's site, see a dog and decide to assist it via pr's.

As I have already stated over and over again; Dog brokers at the very best :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was emailed this a short while ago, on the Pr's wall(apparently I can't stand looking at the site) after this letter is a photo of a dog being restrained and euthed.

Follows below;

Open letter to Blacktown City Council

17/03/2013

Dear Cr Len Robinson,

... In April 2011, Pound Rounds Inc began working with two pounds in Sydney, Blacktown Pound being one of them, to help them rehome the dogs on their kill lists. Both pounds had already agreed to work with rescue and had very limited restricted rehoming practices. Today is a sad day for all of us. For the reasons below, we are very sad to inform you that, save for the dogs we have already placed holds on, we have decided to suspend our efforts to assist Blacktown Pound in rehoming their kill listed pets effective immediately.

This suspension will remain in place for as long as the pound remain committed to their new temperament testing procedure to decide which pets are killed, not which pets need urgent rehoming or remedial assistance. We have become aware that the new practice is not restricted to human aggression (which Pound Rounds have always supported as a not for release parameter) and goes further to include the presentation of dog reactivity as a reason to kill the dog, rather than release it for rehoming. In a pound environment this is wholly unjust.

For almost two years, we have supported the staff at the pound and the Blacktown City Council in their successful and proactive efforts to help dogs let down by their owners, but no longer let down by their community. These efforts have seen Blacktown Council enjoy the full support of their community due to the record low levels of dog killing in their pound facility (practically "No Kill" levels). This record rehoming rate did not result in any spike in the incidence of dog attacks or anything of that kind in the area, the State of NSW or the country as a whole. In fact it was the most successful period of rehoming and community oriented support these pets have ever enjoyed. Pound Rounds and rescue in general accepted that some (very, very few) pets may have been damaged beyond what was possible to rehome. We trusted the pound's decisions because they were made with care, caution and included an understanding that, on the pound's advice to rescue, some dogs were not immediately rehomed, but kept in care for evaluation/treatment/testing/rehabilitation outside of the horrendously stressful pound environment.

The introduction of a subjective, draconian and unwieldy instrument such as a so called "temperament test" to simply work out 'who to kill' is the end of the relationship of trust we have enjoyed with the pound for 2 years.

In this case, following requests from rescue groups who were aware that the pound was full to capacity and therefore surprised that a kill list had not yet been disseminated, a kill list was subsequently provided to those rescue groups (including Pound Rounds) on the afternoon of Thursday 14th March. The list stipulated that the dogs were to be rehomed by Sunday 17th March at 11am (and additional to that deadline, there appeared a new 'disclaimer' regarding supposed "temperament testing"). Rescue groups went to work as usual. Homes were lined up and several different rescue groups and people from the community expressed interest in supporting their chosen dogs; warts and all. The next day, Friday 15th March, the pound's rehoming officer invited independent temperament assessors from the NSW Animal Welfare League (AWL) to assess the dogs on the list for rehoming. 5 of the 7 remaining dogs on the list were then killed without warning to the rescue groups.

Most dogs on the list had been held, cuddled, photographed, videoed and walked by several different staff & pound volunteers. The AWL formally used these same temperament tests over 5 years ago to excuse a kill rate of well over 50% (2008/2009- greater than their rehoming rate). The RSPCA still uses these tests, quite infamously, to try and explain away a kill rate of over 50% of unreclaimed pet dogs. Campbelltown Pound still kills 64% of their pets. The Lost Dogs Home's temperament tests are used to excuse killing more than 10,000 pets every - single - year.

These "temperament tests" are widely acknowledged by many as unscientific and out-dated. Under new leadership, not even the AWL uses these tests to simply kill dogs without efforts to rehabilitate or rehome them appropriately (warts and all). Blacktown Pound was, until 48 hours ago, a shining example to other facilities on how to partner with their community to help rehome the forgotten pets in their care. What gave rise to the sudden killing? Was there a sudden and startling increase in the number of independently verified reports of rehomed dogs presenting a greater risk to the community than any other dog? No. There is no probative evidence that makes these pets any less of a community pet just because they are impounded behind a council's brick wall.

We have discussed the recent events amongst ourselves at length. Pound Rounds' mission statement mandates using all measures possible to save life. Unlike policies which utilise proactive measures such as rehabilitation or remedial support, our mission statement is not compatible with policies which allow and see temperament testing resulting in the unnecessary deaths of up to 70% of kill listed dogs tested. This is not least because of the possible (but highly likely) breed discrimination such policies may result in by default. Most kill listed dogs are bull breeds. Furthermore, in practical terms for rescues such as ourselves, such policies also hinder any ability to fundraise for the kill listed dogs, lest they be killed without notice.

Moreover, and let me be personal for a minute - could any human being turn up week after week, year after year, to hold a special brindle dog, cuddle him, photograph him, promise him your help, try with all your heart to help save him, only to have that very boy killed sporadically by some arbitrary ruling? No? Nor can we. Nor, we suggest, can many volunteers who forge similar bonds with these breathing, living beings. The introduction of temperament testing leaves rescue groups, the pound's own volunteers, and the community that watch and support rescue's efforts, heartbroken and frustrated. If council can use the "temperament assessment" technique to mandate a pet's certain death for behaviours as growling at another dog in the pound, we simply cannot.

What protective measures are in place to prevent the killing by law? Subject to exceptions in place for classified "dangerous" or "restricted" breeds, no matter how an animal (or dog in this case) ends up in a council pound, subsections 64(5) and 64A(2) of the Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) stipulate that it is the DUTY of the council concerned to consider whether there is an ALTERNATIVE action to that of destroying the animal and if practicable to adopt any such alternative. It is NSW state law to choose rehoming of these dogs.

The incredibly difficult decision on our part to withdraw our support is not an indictment on the staff at the pound. We acknowledge that we have worked effectively with them for two years to rehome impounded community pets. We also hope this policy is repealed as soon as possible and temperament tests become a tool to help poundies receive the appropriate care, remedial work and homes they need to remain safe and cared for. The pound is full and the only victims will be the poor dogs still left in the facility whose fate is now left to chance or worse - judgement.

However, we simply cannot fly in the face of our own doctrine and stand by and accept a policy which is so poorly implemented that 5 in 7 dogs were killed within hours of its introduction.

It is not easy to turn away from the forgotten beings we have tirelessly sought to promote, save and rehome. The prospect leaves us truly shaken - but - and after much deliberation - we cannot stay silent on this issue and allow indiscriminate killing to occur while we stand by and simply watch. It is beyond what we can take as human beings. History is a great teacher.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing": Edmund Burke, political philosopher (1729 - 1797).

Yours in tragedy.

All at Pound Rounds

For Marlon, Zorro, Clint, Ronan and Dignity. In loving memory.See More

.

blah blah blah blah blah.

It's probably because of Pound Rounds this has come about. Mel Norman is powerless to do anything, she's not in control, so she spat the dummy and said I'm not playing anymore.

Shows you how much she cares about the dogs that are left there. It's all a little power trip to her. A way for her to gain notoriety I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

While i understand the concern regarding inappropriate temp testing and certain tests used in pounds and shelters horrify me, i strongly enourage people to not throw all assessments into the same baskets and make generalisations about how you can't assess in a pound environment. Actually you can have a very good success rate with the right skills, training, test and attitude.

I am actually quite sick of pounds releasing dogs and having no responsibility for what happens after that. Just yesterday i spoke to someone (not even a client!) who adopted a 45kg dog from a pound who is both dog aggressive and predatory with livestock. They gave this dog to a lady who is not physically strong enough to handle him, who wants a sociable dog AND has horses.. It's about time the pounds took releasing dogs ALOT more seriously. It has little to do with legal action and EVERYTHING to do with being responsible for both the dogs and people in the community.

Me too and I just don't get what it is people want - any dog PR had organised for released could have been released to anyone .There are complaints they dont temp test that they are putting unsafe dogs in the community but they are released by the pound to ordinary every day people whether they found the dogs via PR or not.

If the dog is being adopted Steve families go through the shelter adoption process and they pay the shelter the adoption fee.

If it is being pulled/adopted under pr's 16D (free of charge) the dog is chipped to MN/ pound rounds not the person/family who is then responsible for the dog.

Pound rounds pull the dog out under clause for free (or close to it) the family arrive and pick the dog up without any costs at the shelter after they have paid a $180 adoption fee to pr's (who may not have ever met the dog).

The vetwork for the dog is paid for through donations from the public pr's facebook site. Then pr's collect the adoption fee of $180. All transport, kennelling and even bathing is extra for adopting families and also factored into the adoption fee by pr's. Families must pay these fees if they stumble upon the pr's site, see a dog and decide to assist it via pr's.

As I have already stated over and over again; Dog brokers at the very best :(

Nic we are talking about Blacktown and I dont know what adoption process you mean the families go through but as far as I know families are not screened in any way - they say they want the dog and they take the dog. Whether the pound or a rescue group gets the money isnt the issue here - any rescue group with a 16D can do the same thing and unless they have a system and process in place to ensure that any dogs they let out to rescue only are treated differently they shouldn't be doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shmoo   

PR have stated time and time again that they take the dogs that are left last on the list. In other words, they take the dogs that no other rescue or adopter wants. Quite often that is due to the nature of the animal, and yes I realise many of those left on the list are large bull breeds, sadly many find these much harder to work behaviourally with than a small terrier type (for example) due to size and strength.

Therefore, shouldn't this magical group have been screening the adopters thoroughly to ensure they are going into the right home? Shouldn't they be working with the dogs behavioural temperaments PRIOR to adoption or placing into a foster home? Shouldn't they be offering support when the dog is placed into foster care/adoption? I believe they should.

Yes both HP and BP are not as strict in their rehoming as private rescues are, unfortunately they don't have that luxury. The staff also have the pressure of either taking a chance and rehoming the animal, or risk euthanasing it a few days later. If push came to shove, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have an easy time euthing the animal when a "what if" situation presented beforehand.

Also, I have said this time and time again. Their are worse places for a dog than death. No animal can be stored indefinitely, and the sad fact is that difficult dogs can take longer to place into a foster or adoptive home... so they end up in a kennel situation for months, even years. I've seen perfectly behaved dogs turn into aggressive, self mutilating, highly strung beings after only months in a kennel. I can't imagine what type of hell that is for them to live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
honeybun   

Off pound rounds FB page again

Statement from Animal Welfare League NSW CEO Tim Vasudeva

AWL NSW is aware of some misinformation which is currently being distributed by social media and other means in relation to AWL and Blacktown Council Animal Holding Facility.

To clarify the facts of the matter: AWL was recently approached by Blacktown Council with a request to assist them in providing training for their shelter staff and volunteers to better understand dog and cat behaviour, and to allow them to progress the development of their own training protocols for staff and volunteers and their own behavioural assessment and rehabilitation programs.

We provided Blacktown with guidance regarding training courses for staff and volunteers, and have provided detailed information regarding AWL's own behavioural assessments and rehabilitation protocols which have made a significant contribution to the dramatic increase in rehoming rates at AWL's three Sydney shelters.

Consistent with its commitment to rehome all healthy or medically / behaviourally treatable animal, AWL have worked very hard on behalf of the animals that come into our care each year, and have improved rehoming rates significantly to 83% of all shelter animals this year, up from less than 50% two years ago. Of the 17% euthansia rate for the current year, approximately half are for medical reasons and half for behaviour reasons. This has been a concerted effort on the part of every member of our Veterinary, Behaviour, Shelter, Foster Care and Volunteer teams. Please also bear in mind that AWL mostly takes in owner-surrendered animals, so unlike pound facilities our reclaim rate for lost animals being returned to owners from our shelters is basically zero.

AWL is happy to provide support to Blacktown Pound in their efforts to provide better training to their staff and volunteers to understand animal behaviour, however as part of that support AWL will not be conducting formal assessments of Blacktown Pound animals and all decisions regarding the rehoming or non-rehoming of Blacktown Pound animals continue to remain with Blacktown Council and their staff. We would continue to encourage Blacktown Council to employ a qualified Behaviourist or Behavioural Trainer to manage and oversee the training and assessment programs put in place for their animals.

AWL has a long history of supporting other animal welfare organisations where we are able to assist. In the case of Blacktown Council Pound this included the formal presentations made by myself and Dr Rob Zammitt to the May 2012 Blacktown City Council meeting on behalf of AWL NSW, RSPCA NSW and a significant number of local veterinarians which resulted in Council voting to introduce compulsory desexing of animals released from Blacktown Pound. More recently we have been holding discussions with Blacktown City Councillors in conjunction with RSPCA NSW in an effort to provide regular low-cost desexing capacity to pet owners of low socio-economic means in the Blacktown area.

AWL will continue to assist other rescue and welfare organisations and their animals where we are able to.

Tim Vasudeva

Chief Executive Officer

I am very pleased to hear that at AWL, rehoming rates have increased and euthanasia rates have decreased following Tim's appointment as CEO of AWL.

I hope this continues to improve and that, in the event of Tim leaving his employ with AWL he has set in place procedures to ensure the good work continues in his absence and AWL does not go back to what it was.

Edited by honeybun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve   

PR have stated time and time again that they take the dogs that are left last on the list. In other words, they take the dogs that no other rescue or adopter wants. Quite often that is due to the nature of the animal, and yes I realise many of those left on the list are large bull breeds, sadly many find these much harder to work behaviourally with than a small terrier type (for example) due to size and strength.

Therefore, shouldn't this magical group have been screening the adopters thoroughly to ensure they are going into the right home? Shouldn't they be working with the dogs behavioural temperaments PRIOR to adoption or placing into a foster home? Shouldn't they be offering support when the dog is placed into foster care/adoption? I believe they should.

Yes both HP and BP are not as strict in their rehoming as private rescues are, unfortunately they don't have that luxury. The staff also have the pressure of either taking a chance and rehoming the animal, or risk euthanasing it a few days later. If push came to shove, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have an easy time euthing the animal when a "what if" situation presented beforehand.

Also, I have said this time and time again. Their are worse places for a dog than death. No animal can be stored indefinitely, and the sad fact is that difficult dogs can take longer to place into a foster or adoptive home... so they end up in a kennel situation for months, even years. I've seen perfectly behaved dogs turn into aggressive, self mutilating, highly strung beings after only months in a kennel. I can't imagine what type of hell that is for them to live in.

Yes of course in my opinion any group which is taking animals should be screening the adopters but the only reason PR has been able to do what they do is because its perfectly legal for them to do it and dogs have been let out to PR, other rescue groups and private individuals which shouldnt have been unless there was a formal agreement with said rescue group to do these things.

If someone is now doing temp testing and as a result some dogs which are determined not good for human companionship and the community don't make it then so be it.

Something had to give you cant have people complaining about how someone or some group can get dogs out of pounds and allow them to go into homes and the community without screening and lament it over and over and over and not expect some kind of action.

The two alternatives are laws which will govern pounds, shelters and small and large rescue groups or a system and protocol which will ensure rescue groups do what we think they should - make it policy. For now having better temp testing is the easiest cheapest option.

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  

×