Jump to content

Australian Working Dog Rescue: Dog Bites Child


Recommended Posts

What I cant work out is that the contract they get potential adopters to sign says that they are given first option on taking the dog back even after its been paid for. There was also something about commenting against them on social media too which seemed a bit odd. The dog we trialled was unsuitable and they took it back - it took a few days but there wasnt a problem. Clearly for us it wasnt a match as it didnt gel with our household - completely different dog appeared when the foster carer picked it up - we gave them suggestions and it was another two months before it was offered again so assumed they did further training etc but that was a different state to the one being discussed. Im just amazed the guy just didnt say they would take the dog back even if it took a few days to sort.

However we then went with a puppy as we didnt want to chance it again with trying another rescue as our older dog is a bit special and took a little to get back to his routine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be interested to know if anyone posting here has received any threatening messages from the founder as that's the style.... :laugh:

I have. This was what I got when I resigned from the organisation. It was a very unpleasant end to what had mostly been pleasant except for interactions with certain individuals. These were emails sent to me directly.

aqyc6xE2v.jpg

aqD5P6pLx.jpg

aqzvmzb0c.jpg

aqzK5Zwzn.jpg

aqyNGEbvN.jpg

Someone made a collage of the inconsistent legal threats here i.e. sometimes your dog can be seized, sometimes it can't be. More here:

I have three friends who adopted dogs and were threatened with having their dog seized back well after adoption:

- 2 for disagreeing with him

- one because he criticised the photos and petrescue profile and she said: "Please refer to original write up already supplied if you don't like my updated version."

The sad thing is that most people are frightened into silence because they think that the legal threats are real ... one of them was even a tough bloke who has no installed security cameras and motion detection sensors :( It's really, really sad ... It as the first group I ever fostered for - it was SUCH a huge relief to me when I finally left and volunteered for other groups to find out that they're not the same and that there are some great groups out there.

Edited by koalathebear
Link to post
Share on other sites

How common is it for rescue groups to require foster carers to assess their dogs for things like resource guarding against humans and/or other dogs, anxiety, reaction to children, reaction to strangers, reactions to other dogs etc?

Do groups generally have a list of situations they require dogs to be tested in?

Just thinking that a dog fostered in a home with adults and one or two other dogs, with a big yard could be perfect in that home, show no signs of aggression towards anyone in the home, be fed each day following a routine where food is presented however and the dog is left alone to eat, outside while humans eat (or all the time), not walked because they get plenty of stimulation playing with the other dogs in the yard... Perfect dog with no apparent issues BUT untested in a wide range of situations.

There would be (are) plenty of lovely foster carers out there who know dogs, take great care of dogs, do the write ups and conduct meet and greets but who do not have the knowledge to do an actual behaviour assessment of a dog, and nor should they be expected to. Denny's foster carer was probably one of them. I'm sure the carer didn't lie in the write up of Denny, presumably Denny just hadn't been tested for resource guarding human food in the vicinity.

I know you can't cover all scenarios, there is always risk, with any dog not just rescue dogs, but it concerns me that people are adopting dogs that have been in foster care based on the belief that have a good idea of what the dog is like from what they are told by the carer and group, when really the dog could be far from actually assessed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How common is it for rescue groups to require foster carers to assess their dogs for things like resource guarding against humans and/or other dogs, anxiety, reaction to children, reaction to strangers, reactions to other dogs etc?

Do groups generally have a list of situations they require dogs to be tested in?

Just thinking that a dog fostered in a home with adults and one or two other dogs, with a big yard could be perfect in that home, show no signs of aggression towards anyone in the home, be fed each day following a routine where food is presented however and the dog is left alone to eat, outside while humans eat (or all the time), not walked because they get plenty of stimulation playing with the other dogs in the yard... Perfect dog with no apparent issues BUT untested in a wide range of situations.

There would be (are) plenty of lovely foster carers out there who know dogs, take great care of dogs, do the write ups and conduct meet and greets but who do not have the knowledge to do an actual behaviour assessment of a dog, and nor should they be expected to. Denny's foster carer was probably one of them. I'm sure the carer didn't lie in the write up of Denny, presumably Denny just hadn't been tested for resource guarding human food in the vicinity.

I know you can't cover all scenarios, there is always risk, with any dog not just rescue dogs, but it concerns me that people are adopting dogs that have been in foster care based on the belief that have a good idea of what the dog is like from what they are told by the carer and group, when really the dog could be far from actually assessed.

I help out with a few groups. It varies across groups and it is left to the discretion of the carers in most instances. I use this socialisation checklist for my foster dogs, and include it in the dog's CV/User Guide when it goes on trial adoption so the adopters know what the dog has/has not been exposed to.

All my foster dogs are assessed against this training table and I won't adopt out before they have mandatory behaviours. Aggression is definitely tested. We have 3 resident dogs plus tonnes of friends with dogs and we take our fosters to obedience class so we are able to test the dogs with lots of different people and dogs. I only adopt dogs to families with small children if the dog is calm and bomb-proof - there have been a few in that category. As mentioned above, where the dog is being adopted to a home with a cat or with a resident dog who is cranky, I engage a behaviourist to help me transition the dog into the new home - I'm lucky to know some very pro-rescue behaviourists/trainers. I also put the new family in touch with the trainer. With our last few dogs, the applicants have come to obedience class and wrangled the dog before the dog goes on trial. With Jerry, we actually took 4 months to transition him into his new home before his formal trial started (lots of sleepovers, visits, taken for walks by applicant) and with Dyson, he had 3 weekend sleepovers and was taken on a few playdates and walks before his trial started. I am mega paranoid though.

Edited by koalathebear
Link to post
Share on other sites
d. Like greyhounds and the purebred dog fraternity - if the rescue movement isn’t willing to expel our bad eggs, we’ll be regulated by outsiders and legislation whether we like it or not.

Above from Shel's blog.

So why isn't rescue regulated? Does it not fall under state jurisdictional codes of practice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's brilliant KTB! I think you are the Gold standard of foster carers!! I wish all groups had a minimum standard at least. And I think it should be the responsibility of the group leaders to set those standards up, not the carers.

Edited by Simply Grand
Link to post
Share on other sites
d. Like greyhounds and the purebred dog fraternity - if the rescue movement isn’t willing to expel our bad eggs, we’ll be regulated by outsiders and legislation whether we like it or not.

Above from Shel's blog.

So why isn't rescue regulated? Does it not fall under state jurisdictional codes of practice?

It's a very thin-almost non-existent layer of regulation that might as well not exist. Seems like anyone can set up a rescue ... You don't actually have to be a fit and proper person as people who have reported the conduct to the regulators have found out. It's very disappointing. I personally think there should be more accountability - and I am very, very pro-rescue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
d. Like greyhounds and the purebred dog fraternity - if the rescue movement isn’t willing to expel our bad eggs, we’ll be regulated by outsiders and legislation whether we like it or not.

Above from Shel's blog.

So why isn't rescue regulated? Does it not fall under state jurisdictional codes of practice?

It's a very thin-almost non-existent layer of regulation that might as well not exist. Seems like anyone can set up a rescue ... You don't actually have to be a fit and proper person as people who have reported the conduct to the regulators have found out. It's very disappointing. I personally think there should be more accountability - and I am very, very pro-rescue.

Especially because they are utilising donated funds, supplies, time, energy and good will, with very very limited accountability to the people providing those resources, let alone anyone else.

ETA - that just made me think of something, do private rescue groups registered as charities have to provide annual reports to anyone?

Edited by Simply Grand
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd be interested to know if anyone posting here has received any threatening messages from the founder as that's the style.... :laugh:

I have. This was what I got when I resigned from the organisation. It was a very unpleasant end to what had mostly been pleasant except for interactions with certain individuals. These were emails sent to me directly.

aqyc6xE2v.jpg

aqD5P6pLx.jpg

aqzvmzb0c.jpg

aqzK5Zwzn.jpg

aqyNGEbvN.jpg

Someone made a collage of the inconsistent legal threats here i.e. sometimes your dog can be seized, sometimes it can't be. More here:

I have three friends who adopted dogs and were threatened with having their dog seized back well after adoption:

- 2 for disagreeing with him

- one because he criticised the photos and petrescue profile and she said: "Please refer to original write up already supplied if you don't like my updated version."

The sad thing is that most people are frightened into silence because they think that the legal threats are real ... one of them was even a tough bloke who has no installed security cameras and motion detection sensors :( It's really, really sad ... It as the first group I ever fostered for - it was SUCH a huge relief to me when I finally left and volunteered for other groups to find out that they're not the same and that there are some great groups out there.

I just properly read your email chain, had to enlarge it on my phone. This guy seems delusional! The privacy act does not cover details of pet ownership and fence height for goodness sake, and of course an adoption application can be shared with a member of the group in question who has a clear need to know the information as the custodian of the dog in question.

So bizarre.

ETA and just looking at the links, UNBELIEVABLE!

Edited by Simply Grand
Link to post
Share on other sites

they've been around for a while, I am surprised they haven't actually been sued by now, with all the dogs that they must have put out to adoption. I cant understand how they are still operating, there's so much bad press going 'round about them. :confused:

WOW! I just read the links, that is appalling! Surely he's found this thread by now. I wonder if he will sue Troy and everyone here.

Edited by Kirislin
Link to post
Share on other sites
they've been around for a while, I am surprised they haven't actually been sued by now, with all the dogs that they must have put out to adoption. I cant understand how they are still operating, there's so much bad press going 'round about them. :confused:

WOW! I just read the links, that is appalling! Surely he's found this thread by now. I wonder if he will sue Troy and everyone here.

I think you've found your own answer to why things aren't more widely known. I think incidents like this will let people know that they shouldn't be afraid to speak up and share their experiences.

As to suing, there's nothing of substance here to sue about.

- the incident happened and this posts links to Jane's account of what happened to Matthew

- the media report on the incident happened and Carey was given a right of reply and they filmed his actual response

- I've reported on things that actually happened to me and Carey's response - people could check my emails to confirm that they are authentic

The links are to external screencaps/emails, but I know the persons to whom those emails/comments were made or who made the screen caps so have stuck within the circle of what I know as a fact. As to finding this thread, I suspect the organisation has more to deal with than a factual account of events in a dog forum ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
d. Like greyhounds and the purebred dog fraternity - if the rescue movement isn’t willing to expel our bad eggs, we’ll be regulated by outsiders and legislation whether we like it or not.

Above from Shel's blog.

So why isn't rescue regulated? Does it not fall under state jurisdictional codes of practice?

I'm a rescuer and I believe rescue should absolutely be regulated.

The money side of it.. :shrug: one person's waste of money is another person's valuable investment. As long as money is not being used for any purchases outside of the organisation's scope, I don't think detailed reporting of finances is all that necessary. Complicated financial reporting requirements take time and energy away from where it's needed and very few small groups have the luxury of handing that stuff off to a professional to manage. Down here, we're required to have a yearly audit to be an incorporated association and they cost ~$500. When your donations for an average year are barely $500, it's impossible to maintain. I ended up just dropping the incorporated association and funding my rescue, myself. Somehow, that actually ended up costing me less of my own money.

The animal welfare side of things, however.. that needs addressing. "Rescue" groups warehousing animals for years, not desexing, not bothering to screen homes for suitability for the breed/individual, not disclosing behavioural issues, and so on and so forth. The whole point of rescue is to improve welfare and I see a lot of cases where the opposite is happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all kinds of weird for me. Some years ago I was part of a Christmas fundraising activity for AWDRI. I met the people who established it and spent half a day side by side with them. They were lovely. I continued being a financial supporter. Then I emailed them for assistance/advice. No response so I sent a second apologetic email and the response I got then was very rude. Even if they didn't remember me there was no need to type what they did. I was really sad. I've avoided them since and no longer suggest them as a rescue option to anyone looking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a nsw rescue that could do with reading Shel's blog from what I've witnessed on fb.

Koalathebear, you handled yourself really well in that email exchange.

As for regulations, in nsw, rescues have to abide by multiple legislation. Most of them simply don't know the legislation they're meant to operate under. I find that only a handful even understand the Companion Animals Act, let alone POCTA or any others.

Edited by ~Anne~
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
×
×
  • Create New...