Identifying Collection Of Am Bulldogs On Property

[Guest crazydoglady99]

^^ I was wondering if I was the only one to see the irony T!!

Poor dogs

[Papillon Kisses]

I'm still contemplating about the reasons behind motivating someone to own over 40 dogs - I assume it is not for breeding as they all should be desexed as rescue dogs?...40 dogs are substantial work and will cost some kg of meat each day.

Or collecting many dogs of any type.

I think it can be an animal hording issue combined with a fear of the dogs being in a worse situation, while being blind to the reality that what they're doing is just as bad if not worse. The dog might be alive, but does he have a life worth living?

There is one other rescue where I fear this is the case, and that particular rescue gets a lot of funding and support from the general public and even some government groups.

[Steve]

What kind of rescues are you talking about Steve? Large well known names or small independant groups? I've been involved with several rescue groups over the years and I am yet to see any become lucrative businesses. Even the one I have supported on and off for many years which has grown substantially still can't scrape up enough money to buy a shipping container so they can bulk buy. The rescue is still being essentially run from someone's lounge room. There are never enough volunteers, foster carers or money. Always plenty of cats and dogs in need though. Most just don't have the skilled manpower to seek donations, source and sell merchandise and be a PR machine as well as care for the growing number of animals. Any money they have coming in is spent on vet bills. Any new volunteers or foster carers they source simply means they take on more animals. The only growth is in the number of animals moving through the system.

I must admit that whilst it makes business sense for a rescue org to be 'lucrative' it seems so unlikely that I would be suspicious if they were. Where were they cutting corners? What are their operational goals? What was their admin costs as opposed to what was spent on the animals?

I'd hate to see more laws because people are stupid, selfish idiots but this situation is yet another example of the existing ones being inadequate when it comes to the public expectations of what is acceptable care of a companion animal. For me it boils down to what is in the best interests of these particular dogs and this definately isn't it.

I know of 4 independent ones off the top of my head that make a fair profit - enough to cover one or two wages and expenses. In fact we helped a couple of them in their set up stage and Im proud to work with them and see them flourish.

It makes no sense for people to start a rescue group with no intention of at least having enough to pay them for their work. No one can sustain that indefinitely and its a big part in why there is such a high burnout and turnover within rescue.

You get people who come in where money doesn't matter and being poverty stricken is considered the norm. But over time life changes , the time you put in for unpaid work keeps you from being able to participate in paid work, You and your family eventually , sooner or later cant go on with such a huge sacrifice. We see great people who learn the hard way have massive amounts of knowledge and experience and then they are gone. Its a very difficult thing for people to go on indefinitely without financial gain especially when the politics can be ruthless.

Run correctly rescue can not only cover expenses but also pay realistic wages for work given and show a profit.

Its not how many dogs they may have on their property at any given time but it is about the management and whether its doing the right thing for the dogs,complying with local and state laws etc.

Rescue can muck it up just as well if they only have a couple of dogs

I have to ask what the base philosophy is of people who consider it O.K. for dogs to be kept with chains around their necks in this manner, I understand that there are some who believe that everything with a heartbeat should be saved and believe that where they live or who they live with how they are treated etc is better than being dead. dogs are moving around going to anywhere that puts up their hands, all expenses paid without anything other than saving them from a pound taken into consideration. Those doing this argue that those who are going slower, being more particular about what they can and cant save,testing temperaments , matching dogs to owners etc and not over extending their resources are wrong . They crusade and bully those who don't agree with them and accept no responsibility when crap like this happens.

The dog world can be a pretty scary place.

[Little Gifts]

My personal opinion is that you can/should only rescue as many animals as you can safely accommodate - safely for them and for you. As for outside chaining, if we were talking working dogs then as long as there is protection from danger, the elements and they have regular food and clean drinking water I have no issue. But when we are talking about dogs used to running free in backyards and sleeping inside at night then I don't think this environment is good for that type of dog at all. If land and a few dog houses and some chain is all this rescue could offer then they should've said no. This is no better than the minimal comfort and resources puppy farmers give to their breeding animals. If they are saving dogs for the sake of saving them then they probably aren't quarantining or doing temp tests either and you can just imagine the crazy mix of dogs all in together. Imagine if an aggressive one got loose what might happen. Or what about a contagious one? Undesexed bitch getting loose? So much could go wrong and it would be the dogs paying the price for human stupidity.

[Steve]

5']

My personal opinion is that you can/should only rescue as many animals as you can safely accommodate - safely for them and for you[/b]. As for outside chaining, if we were talking working dogs then as long as there is protection from danger, the elements and they have regular food and clean drinking water I have no issue. But when we are talking about dogs used to running free in backyards and sleeping inside at night then I don't think this environment is good for that type of dog at all. If land and a few dog houses and some chain is all this rescue could offer then they should've said no. This is no better than the minimal comfort and resources puppy farmers give to their breeding animals. If they are saving dogs for the sake of saving them then they probably aren't quarantining or doing temp tests either and you can just imagine the crazy mix of dogs all in together. Imagine if an aggressive one got loose what might happen. Or what about a contagious one? Undesexed bitch getting loose? So much could go wrong and it would be the dogs paying the price for human stupidity.

I agree except that we have groups who don't accommodate many dogs at all ,they remove them from pounds and they are in their new home straight from the pound - then their followers cheer them - look how many dogs they have saved.

I had someone from Victoria ring our office for advice and info on what they could do .They had 20 plus dogs and council had told them to move them out .They were just dog owners not breeding or rescue and weren't they great every one of their dogs had been saved from pounds and given to them via several rescue sources. How could the council be so heartless and what mongrel neighbours and it all started because they had dogs which fought each other separated and some of them got out. they loved their dogs and every cent they had was being spent on feeding them.They truly felt this was a very saintly thing they were doing and were thunder struck about the idea that they had to give their dogs up.

So apart from the obvious issues of living in suburbia with more and more dogs which have various health issues and temperament challenges ,they didnt get these dogs out of thin air ,they came from people who felt that the only consideration that was needed to place a dog with someone was for them to put up their hand .Everyone in the chain feels all warm and snuggly because the dog is no longer on death row and that's possibly whats happened here a bunch of dogs have been rescued .So when OL, council and RSPCA come after them they just don't get it.How could they possibly see that anything that happens to the dogs is not preferrable to them being PTS - they did save them and why doesnt everyone see them as saviours?

Those who hang out on dogz have the philosophy that rescue should operate in a certain way , owners screened, dogs assessed,desexed before they leave support post sale etc but realistically that's a choice and it comes under criticism from those who simply want to get them out of pounds

Both methods are legal,both methods are seen by many in the community as worthy causes and for many the success is based on numbers saved so more donations and acclaim are thrown at them . Until something like this happens no one thinks of it but as always nothing is ever as simple as it sounds.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Steve