Jump to content
Powerlegs

update; Staffordshires going to court - rescue still refusing to return

85 posts in this topic

asal   

so anyone know what has happened? surely this isnt going to have to be dragged through the courts and the dogs die of old age?

 

process was not done so Victoria should be making sure that so called rescue is sending them back to their legal owner?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
valbitz   

I'm not taking sides but something really doesn't add up. In all honesty if your dogs went missing - regardless of having a chip, wouldn't you at least make some effort to ring the pound at least once? By her own admission she never rang the pound, she only rang the council. The pound is on private property with a house at the back and someone lives in it, so if she rang the pound number which is easy to find then she would have known her dogs were impounded the same day they went missing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, valbitz said:

I'm not taking sides but something really doesn't add up. In all honesty if your dogs went missing - regardless of having a chip, wouldn't you at least make some effort to ring the pound at least once? By her own admission she never rang the pound, she only rang the council. The pound is on private property with a house at the back and someone lives in it, so if she rang the pound number which is easy to find then she would have known her dogs were impounded the same day they went missing.

In Qld, where these people and dogs are from, the pounds are council run and the council is who you contact, you can't call the pound directly. It may never have occurred to them that contacting the pound was an option, especially if the council didn't suggest it. In addition, from the sounds of it they should have had 14 days of the dogs being held in the pound according to the law and they didn't so whatever one's personal opinion laws were breached here.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Simply Grand said:

In Qld, where these people and dogs are from, the pounds are council run and the council is who you contact, you can't call the pound directly. It may never have occurred to them that contacting the pound was an option, especially if the council didn't suggest it. In addition, from the sounds of it they should have had 14 days of the dogs being held in the pound according to the law and they didn't so whatever one's personal opinion laws were breached here.

Also, you've got to remember that things are just different in other states. Taree to Gloucester is an hour drive - you might not necessarily realise that they'd been taken over an hour away. (Same in Sydney - Scottie was picked up in Hornsby and taken to Carlton - minimum 90 minutes away and literally on the other side of the city.)

 

I totally agree with Simply Grand, laws were broken and something very fishy has gone on here. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
valbitz   

@Scottsmum by the owner's account she was in Craven which is a 15 minute drive from Gloucester where the dogs were impounded. I have no idea how Taree comes into it.

 

@Simply Grand fair comment.

 

The owner hasn't posted anywhere that the council was called daily/repeatedly/continually, nope only called once. Surely any dog owner that loved their dogs would at least make another call to the council before they left the area and contact the chip registry to have one microchip flagged as missing, since the other dog wasn't in her name I assume the owner would not be able to have the second one flagged as missing.

 

If the dogs were only held for 13 days then the council did do wrong, but considering they wouldn't or couldn't obtain the owners details holding the dogs an extra day would have made no difference in this case.

 

As to when they arrived in Melbourne well that is up for debate. The rescue have representatives in NSW and QLD so their representatives may have had the dogs on the 26th Jan therefore technically in the hands of the rescue but not in Melbourne.

 

I'll reserve any judgement till it goes through the court system and the press release that the council has apparently released (somewhere) and the vet report (somewhere else) are made public.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, valbitz said:

@Scottsmum by the owner's account she was in Craven which is a 15 minute drive from Gloucester where the dogs were impounded. I have no idea how Taree comes into it.

 

 

Sorry my bad - I read " NSW Mid Coast area" earlier in the thread and assumed Taree .  Head's a bit fuzzy at the moment. I stand corrected. 

 

Either way, I stand by my previous comment -  I personally think the rangers / pound were in the wrong in this case. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
asal   

Valbitz, from what you said, you seem to have already made judgement, anyone who doesnt call and continue to call has lost the right to their dog. is what I read you as saying.

 

the dogs were chipped they were paid up, their owners had every reason to believe they would be contacted. I have had a dog disappear in one case two on the same day and although the council was notified it was missing not once was I notified by council. in every instance it was by a vet who someone had taken the dog too, who then phoned me to pick it up. not once was the dog sent to the pound by the vet it was taken too for identification by the finder.

 

As for one I bred who was chipped and fully registered to her owner, she was held for 3 months while they wrote and phoned the owner., I happened to be at the pound that day and my daughter recognised the dog as one we had bred, checked with the office and she was abut to be put down that day at midday, so we bought her and took her home, it was amazing when we let her go, she was 2 years old and ran to the gate to be let in with her mum, never did find her old owner, a neighbour suspected might have died, just never came home and then the house was up for sale, never saw anyone come to the house so had no idea what had happened

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tdierikx   

I had a mower guy let my dog out one day... rang council, eventually got out of them where the pound was, then rang said pound and described my dog - wirey/shaggy coated, border collie marked (black and white), medium sized, and answers to the name Rebel... nope, no dog like that here... so actually go to said pound to check, and there is my dog! And the cage card desciption matched mine almost exactly!

 

Sometimes pound staff aren't all that crash hot at knowing what they have... and don't get me started on councils giving advice as to where their pound facilities are - it took me THREE calls to get that info...

 

T.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a fear of mine, I'm so glad I finally got that damned NSW chip into my (Victorian address) name in addition to the national register. The rangers I called insisted they put a note that she's on another register in the notes and rangers would respect that and left her contact details in her old ?pound? name but I was paranoid and I'm glad a user here helped me to set the account straight so I don't need to worry when I'm in NSW that they'll give her to someone else because they wouldn't accept my VIC address.

 

That NSW chip though...I'm never going to buy another dog that's come by way of NSW, the NSW chip details are too much of a pain to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2017 at 6:37 PM, tdierikx said:

I had a mower guy let my dog out one day... rang council, eventually got out of them where the pound was, then rang said pound and described my dog - wirey/shaggy coated, border collie marked (black and white), medium sized, and answers to the name Rebel... nope, no dog like that here... so actually go to said pound to check, and there is my dog! And the cage card desciption matched mine almost exactly!

 

Sometimes pound staff aren't all that crash hot at knowing what they have... and don't get me started on councils giving advice as to where their pound facilities are - it took me THREE calls to get that info...

 

T.

I know I will be shot down in flames, but I have had first hand experience from all sides and the behaviour, knowledge, care, experience, training, etc etc of pound staff and managers in some cases is gob smackingly bad and downright negligent and, as many procedures are enshrined in law, illegal.  The sad thing is, that the ordinary run of the mill dog owner has no experience of these places.  They take their dogs to the vet for check ups, annual vax, visit a dog park, walk around the neighbourhood and that is about it.  When their dog goes missing, they generally have no idea of what to do.  Their biggest chances are to get onto social media and hopefully someone with a grasp of what goes on behind the scenes will see their pages and respond with advice.  

 

As for the spread of pounds in Sydney, well it is truly a minefield trying to find your dog.  Who, in the general public, would know that Hornsby Council’s pound is the Sydney Dogs and Cats Home in Carlton.  I have it from phoning Hornsby Council one Saturday to report a roaming dog (too aggressive or frightened to get near) that those who take these sorts of calls are instructed NOT to call the rangers.   Because of my long association with pounds, vets, rescue, et al, I know to take a roaming dog (if I manage to secure it) to my local vet and that they are a drop off point for dogs in the Hornsby Council area.  Many vets ( and I also have first hand experience of this) will no longer take dogs and shoo you out the door to manage it all yourself.  

 

It is very easy to criticise those who get caught up in horrible cases like this one when they don’t even know that they were supposed to know something or other.    

Edited by Dame Danny's Darling
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thistle the dog said:

This is a fear of mine, I'm so glad I finally got that damned NSW chip into my (Victorian address) name in addition to the national register. The rangers I called insisted they put a note that she's on another register in the notes and rangers would respect that and left her contact details in her old ?pound? name but I was paranoid and I'm glad a user here helped me to set the account straight so I don't need to worry when I'm in NSW that they'll give her to someone else because they wouldn't accept my VIC address.

 

That NSW chip though...I'm never going to buy another dog that's come by way of NSW, the NSW chip details are too much of a pain to change.

Crazy... i had no issues swapping Scottie NSW to NZ (not quite the same. .. but you know)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dogslife   
5 hours ago, Thistle the dog said:

This is a fear of mine, I'm so glad I finally got that damned NSW chip into my (Victorian address) name in addition to the national register. The rangers I called insisted they put a note that she's on another register in the notes and rangers would respect that and left her contact details in her old ?pound? name but I was paranoid and I'm glad a user here helped me to set the account straight so I don't need to worry when I'm in NSW that they'll give her to someone else because they wouldn't accept my VIC address.

 

That NSW chip though...I'm never going to buy another dog that's come by way of NSW, the NSW chip details are too much of a pain to change.

 

That's interesting because I have sent quite a few kittens interstate over the many years that microchipping has been law in NSW, and never had any problems transferring the microchip details to the new owners.  Also, now, we can do it ourselves online which is even more convenient.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if this info has already been posted, but this is the other side of the story - I was initially aghast at the thought of these two staffies not being returned to their owner, but please have a read of this and you might change your mind - it was from the FB page of All Over Staffy Rescue (1.3.17) -

 

There are some good times in rescue, and there are certainly some bad. Lately the more ugly side of the rescue world has been present for us. Since all previous attempts at providing factual evidence have been blocked, quite literally, we thought we might share them here, where we get to set the record straight without being denied access, and without having our words twisted by someone who does that sort of thing for a living.

As most of you know, we routinely rescue death row dogs from pounds up and down the eastern seaboard, bring them to Melbourne, vetwork them, and then find them new loving families. We have amazing relationships with many people in the rescue world who know the work we do, and the hard cases we take on when nobody else is willing.

We stay away from the catty, or should that be bitchy, people and focus on saving dogs. At least until those people get hold of a half story, concocted by someone wanting to make a name of herself, and begin attacking our rescue without knowing any of the facts. We get hate campaigns when former owners stir up the anti-rescue show dog breeders and don't bother correcting the assumptions of certain hateful people who aren't bothered with contacting us for the facts first.

This is after the aggressive, intimidating phone calls of some big shot interstate lawyer woman whose favourite line is "Google me and check out who I am and who you're dealing with". Well....I'm told people have Googled her, and allegedly she ran for Mayor but didn't get in. She has threatened us with legal action, hurled insults and demanded we provide the details of people who have adopted some of our dogs.

You see the dogs she wants to get from us are now in loving, amazing homes. We regularly get photos and videos to prove it. We see how they're now at a healthy weight, and growing back their coats. We see them smiling and running around at the beach, or swimming in dams. What we don't see any more is their ribs poking out, their coat half missing and their sad, scared eyes that they had when they first arrived here. That is all gone now, so we know we have changed their lives for the better.

Yet this lawyer woman, who could be anyone for all we know, claims they came from a loving home, that they were cherished pets, and that their owner actually tried to find them when they ran away from her. Yep, a beloved family pet ran away from its owner the first chance it got. A dog she claims had to travel because it was too sick to leave at home. And they had to get motorbikes to chase it. This dog that was so sick it had to stay with the owner while she was on holidays, it couldn't be caught by motorbikes.

What actually happened was that these dogs ended up in a pound, did their 14 days and were released to us for rehoming. The owner was visiting the town and left the area after 5 days, without her dogs. Left the very same town the pound was in. Left, and went back home without these beloved dogs. One of the dogs, a 5 year old, was never in her name. We were told 2 days ago by the ranger that if we hadn't taken them, they would have been destroyed at the pound. They would be long dead by now, because they were unclaimed after 14 days. It happens all the time, and that's just one of the reasons we are constantly saving poundies.

When a dog does their time in the pound and aren't claimed, they become the legal property of the pound, to do with as they see fit. When a dog gets released to a rescue group, it becomes the property of the rescue. When a dog is rehomed, it becomes the legal property of the new owner. All standard fare. Pretty sure nobody would be screaming if they weren’t purebred dogs. We’ve even been accused of asking for their papers by someone who has no idea of either side of the story. Never happened. We could care less about a desexed purebred’s papers. We usually don’t even bother passing them to the new owners, because they don’t care either.

Now make no mistake, we follow our morals, and our primary concern is ALWAYS the welfare and happiness of the dog. We aren't in rescue for money or friends, so if we thought for a nanosecond that the dogs were better off with the original owner, we would be having discussions with the parties involved about returning them and seeing if that was a possibility. Since they arrived in such shocking condition and we have done nothing wrong legally, we support and protect the adopting families, shield them from the haters and continue on with our lives.

These days, if you've got no legal leg to stand on, the next best thing is a social media hate campaign, right? Of course we have been repeatedly threatened by this lawyer with such campaign. She's even told us that if she files in court, someone will get paid $50 to get the story in the media. This is a woman who herself originally stated in writing that the former owner had no case (we have proof), but she has since turned around and began harassing & attempting to intimidate AOSR staff, their partners, and people's workplaces.

We will probably never know what she's trying to accomplish, but the fact of the matter is that the dogs are no longer the legal property of the original owner. Another fact is the oldest dog was bred 4 times in her 4 years of being alive. Want more facts? She had to have 2 caesareans because the puppies were getting stuck in her uterus. More? The mother had 'uterus issues' from the 2nd litter. She went on to have 2 more 'accidental' litters. Apparently the male was chewing his way out of crates to get to her. Keep going you say? Ok. The owner is a registered breeder. She still has the male and another daughter of the oldest dog. But wait, there's more. I spoke to the owner on the phone for quite some time. The conversation was completely amicable, nobody was pissed off at anybody. The conversation ended with the previous owner stating that she was sad she didn't have her dogs anymore, but she was happy that they were both now desexed and in loving homes. She also requested that I keep her informed of how they are going, and send her photos (which I did). Doesn't sound like someone who really wants their beloved pets back and would go to the pound to find them now does it? In fact until she knew the dogs were desexed, she was offering me money to return them to her. After that, she didn't offer me any money or ask that they be returned. In fact she divulged all the above, that’s how we know. That and the vet’s invoice that states “difficult spey” because of the mess this dog’s insides were in. Now she's a lovely girl, and as far as I was aware the situation was resolved. Until lawyer lady did her turnaround.

So there's the actual FACTS. The haters might spring up here & there, but we will ban and delete, just as they have done to us in their little showdog facebook group. Slander away, we have done nothing wrong and we are sure we’d be being dragged through the courts if we had. But watchout, we might consider getting our own legal advice if this hate campaign continues and dogs start dying because of it.

Edited by Mila's Mum
insert date in opening sentence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diva   

While I accept that there are many sides to a story, I am not at all convinced by tone or content of the rescue's version. And he completely lost me when he said 'she is a registered breeder' as if that itself is a black mark. A 'she said he said' best sorted by the court imho. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he was expecting a higher standard of behaviour/care given she is a registered breeder.  It sounds like the rescue followed the rules, and the dogs ended up in a much better environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Diva   
4 minutes ago, Mila's Mum said:

Maybe he was expecting a higher standard of behaviour/care given she is a registered breeder.  It sounds like the rescue followed the rules, and the dogs ended up in a much better environment.

Only if we take his post as gospel. I don't.

 

 

  • Like 3

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

×