MissMolly

Thanks for highlighting these two boys.. Both are great dogs.. The 10 year old just lays on his bed and is a well behaved boy, I do hope that he doesn't get over looked.. Rocky, (surrenedered Kelpie cross) is a great dog, he knows sit, shakes hands and stay.. He is also desexed.. Don't know why his photo is not on the site, he is a chocolate/brown colour and sometines it looks like he has a blue tinge colour through his coat.

This person has claimed to have contacted the DLG about this issue with BP and he claims that the DLG have said that council do not legally own the dogs therefore they can't desex them.. (It doesn't make sense to me, but I do know he wont be giving up this fight and he also claims to have legal advice and is challenging BP.. I just hope no one starts to take him seriously and he doesn't undo what everyone has worked so hard at putting together..

I heard something that I think that those who have worked so hard to make this change at BP should be aware of. As i would hate BP to have to go back on it's decision.. I know this story was a few weeks ago, but just in case it was missed am posting it here, and I have heard this person also has their own website which has more information on it. http://blacktown-advocate.whereilive.com.au/news/story/blacktown-council-desexing-impounded-animals-illegal/ Blacktown Council: Desexing impounded animals 'illegal' Council 28 Jun 12 @ 12:26pm by Ben McClellan John Carr believes it is illegal to desex impounded animals. BLACKTOWN City Council's mandatory desexing policy was hailed as the best way to cut down on the number of animals euthanised at its pound. The motion passed unanimously in May, despite initial opposition from Mayor Alan Pendleton, but one dog lover claims it is illegal for the animals to be desexed. John Carr wrote a lengthy submission to the council outlining why under the Impounding and Companions Acts it didn't "own" the animals it impounded and therefore had no right to desex them. Mr Carr, who worked at several councils in the animal control field, said desexing violated the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. "By desexing these animals prior to sale, I allege the council, and the veterinarians involved, are performing criminal acts and are leaving themselves open to litigation," he said. "Someone may choose to claim their animal between the period of it being on the operating table and prior to the sale." Mr Carr, who has seven pet dogs of his own, said the animals taken to the pound were protected under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and council shouldn't do anything that would prevent them from being rehomed. Blacktown Council has sought legal advice on Mr Carr's claims and a spokeswoman said council was yet to receive that advice. Mr Carr said council may sell or destroy an animal but had no legal right to desex it and the only way it could was with the consent of the owner, regardless of the time the animal had been in the pound. "Any act that a council may do to an animal, which knowingly jeopardises its chance of a sale, is a cruelty offence," Mr Carr said. "This would include the increased sale price."

That is totally untrue, staff were called today as this had been posted elsewhere and the persons who called where told this would certianly not happen.. Makes me shake my head and wonder what sort of people would post that all the dogs would be PTS..

No HP is not limitimg rescuers, photos are taken by volunteers and at the moment it seems to be only kelscats.. Staff do not have time to take photos and list them on DOL or anywhere else. (I would have though you would already know this anne). My knowledge or lack of knowledge is not important. My aim in this thread is to clarify what is happening, not just for me, but for others reading. :laugh: Good grief. What is the point of your comments? Why would I have anything against the pound? I can state here and now that you have very poorly captured my interest in this thread and I feel you need to reconsider your accusations because they're quite off course and I take great exception to them. As I stated above, my intent is to clarify and, perhaps even, assist in some small way to resolve some issues. Once again just pick up the phone and call.. Staff are very helpful and do everything possible to make sure that all dogs that are on the list get adopted or rescue. Why would I do that? Again I'll say, that you've come in guns ablazing, and you're aiming at a target that doesn't exist. You have totally missed my intent and somehow arrived at the incorrect conclusion. My statement, quoted above is an attempt to CLARIFY what the issue is. To have someone state CLEARLY what the issues is. I don't like the confusion and I know, through conversations I have had, that the ongoing and building tensions recently surrounding Hawkesbury and to a lesser extent Blacktown pounds is causing confusion and angst. I understand that you and others want to clarify the issue, but i do not see how this can be done on a forum, the easiest way to to clarify again is to go straight to the source and in this case it would be HP.. I said to pick up the phone and ask staff because you and others were posting questions about how HP are or are not forth coming were on the PTS list and its volunteers. Sorry if it was all guns blazing but I do know who hard staff work at the pound for the animals, and it really upset me that their are people that question how helpful the staff are etc..

Yes they are using their own judgements and ringing rescue groups when needed. If and when dogs photos are removed from the site is because they either have gone home or have been adopted. You don't need a source inside the pound just pick up the phone.. Why is the list unable to be put up by the volunteers that go to Hawkesbury Pound? Kelscats has said her latest experience and that others know that some dogs were at risk of being put to sleep. Who would you be Blacktown List? Are you a representative of the group on the social networking page, as you seem to be able to get the put to sleep list when others on the ground at Hawkebury pound are no longer allowed to see? What happens when you don't have time to do a Hawkesbury Pound list even though Kelscats states she was at the pound and could have met the dogs? This seems to have happened just before Christmas and now the dogs are the ones that are suffering. Exactly what people were worried about in the first place. Putting a hold on a dog to stop he/she being put to sleep is a risky move by whoever does that, they risk pounds refusing to hold dogs over if not collected before pts time, if their hold continually falls through. Where did kelscats say that from her lastes experience at the pound dogs were at risk of been pts.. Once again anyone can get the pts list.. I realise it is the pound that is ultimately responsible, but I think the rescue or whatever they are, have a hand in what is now happening and wish it could be clarified who do people go to, to help with the HP dogs. With what has gone on since Christmas nothing is being achieved and now seems one group of people that say they aren't rescue are now monopolised the situation to where to get any information you need to go through them. Yes again, it is the pound that is failing but I also refuse to believe that it has nothing to do with this group of people wanting it that way too, rather than them doing what they do and the other people who go to HP be allowed to continue what they have done. It is a really sad thing to see what people have worked at for years to be ceased and be told what Kelscats was. I have seen them running after many different names on the social networking site, I have no clue as to why they do this except maybe for people to not know they are working with the one but group with different names. I am just wondering why Blacktown List is now involved again with being able to find out when it seems Kelscats was at HP and was told there was no list. Are they with the rescue/people that has this information? If not I don't think it is appropriate to write under a group name (such as PL or BTL) without identifying it is an individual's opinion rather than implicating other members of that list as it being their opinion too. Just my opinion on it anyway The pound is failing?? Kelscats was told their was no pts list, because there were no dogs pts. No I haven't personally and it seems this is a new thing that has happened. I hope it is addressed and something can be sorted out. There is no reason why the people that have volunteered at HP for many years should now be unable to continue. I guess it is up to the pound to decide that. Unfortunately the antagonism and angst is part of the problem if things were not happening that are stopping people from doing their own thing in rescue, there would be no reason for conflict. It has turned into a really sad situation that is still unfolding and so many people in rescue are being affected, people willing to help but are now being misinformed of what is going on just shows it is worsening rather than finding a happy medium where people are not forced to work with people they choose not to or blocked from volunteering for whatever reason. I suppose my above comment may seem like it is antagonistic but I am just trying to give reasons for the comments made and that it is not just crying over spilt milk, there now seems to be a big problem occurring that is now truly affecting dogs in the pound (two that were at risk of the pts list, but someone was told otherwise). I feel really bad for the person and the dogs and do not understand why a new group appearing is having such a big affect on dogs in a pound, it is truly worrying. I don't think malti has even rang the pound or spoken to a staff member, but she does write that rescuers are been misinformed and volunteers are blocked from volunteering, have you been mis informed by staff at HP, or blocked from volunteering malti??

One group does not have a hold on the pound, anyone, can rescue or adopt straight from the pound. No HP is not limitimg rescuers, photos are taken by volunteers and at the moment it seems to be only kelscats.. Staff do not have time to take photos and list them on DOL or anywhere else. (I would have though you would already know this anne). Sounds like you have an issue with the pound?? No one has stopped it, and as stated about it has always been volunteers that take photos. It looks as though the people (such as Kelscats) were on the ground at Hawkesbury Pound have now no information except all the dogs are safe (which is great). Maybe you could let people know who is conactable regarding the Hawkesbury Pound since you seem to know the people that go there and how rescue can find out the dogs that need help. People do not have to join DOL to see the dogs, but you have to join up to the social networking site. From my understanding as well Blacktown List, the people representing themselves on the social networking site for Hawkesbury Pound have stated some rescues they will not work with. That they have their information as contact as first preference, unlike on DOL it was only pound contact information, not a 16D holder with numerous rescues associated with them that seem to be the same people (from the same social network page) just under a different names and very confusing and no real clarity on what they actually are in rescue. If people are wondering why there are no answers and it all seems to be confusing, that is because it is and the social network group will not clearly tell people who or what they do. They ask for donations, foster carers, transport, vet costs, kennelling costs. But then state they are not a rescue. Malti is is very easy for rescue to find out which dogs as in need, just pick up the phone and call.. 45606444... This girl had a save the day before PTS day.. It was not at the final hour. Once again just pick up the phone and call.. Staff are very helpful and do everything possible to make sure that all dogs that are on the list get adopted or rescue.

No heathly rehomeable dogs were pts at HP last week..

I'm not sure what the stars mean, but here is what you said. Nowhere in your posts have you been been very clear about anything. You don't make it very clear that the dog you have is not yours or who is responsible for its vet care. It seems as though you chose to take a dog from the pound with health issues, you used a rescue org to obtain it from a pound, the rescue org then spent money on vet bills, and now you are keeping the dog. So you are going to cover all her costs by reimbursing the rescue group for all of the dog's vet costs to date? That is a lot of resources put into one person getting one pet, especially if you are having setbacks. But if it is your own money I have no objections to that. My point is that the same amount of time and effort could have been used to rehome a higher number of healthy dogs. There is a large market of people that want healthy pets. But my guess is that the overall number of dog being PTS is not as important to some people as being needed by one 'special' dog. That is fine for you to feel that way, but I strongly object to you using total numbers of dogs put to sleep as an argument for people to choose to rescue unhealthy dogs ahead of healthy ones. There is no shortage of healthy dogs needing homes and they are not all in HP. There is not an unlimited amount of money that the public will donate to rescue, and not all dogs can be saved. It is beside the main topic which is basically about people taking on way more than they are able to without knowing how they are going to meet their obligations. Putting dogs at risk. Unless you are asking people for donations to help your dog, I am not sure why you are using the dog you have as an example in this thread. Maybe you should read my posts better Greymate, I said that a rescue pulled this girl from the pound, yes at my request due to her health and I was fostering her, I did not just decide to keep her, I spoke to the rescue group and asked if I could adopt her they agreed I also told them that I would cover all her past vet costs and her future vet costs, they did said I did not have to cover costs but I told them I would. I am not asking for donations!! I am not saying all dogs are in HP (what a stupid statement to make) I just said two more dogs would have been pts last week.. I for one am happy that rescue groups with also take those dogs that need a little more TLC as well as those that are healthy.. I am using the dog I have as an example of a rescue group helping an animal regardless of costs.. It is each rescues choice to help whatever dog they wish too, healthy or otherwise..

You said "There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case." I am arguing that fewer dogs would be put to sleep. Not more. In the post where you wrote "Her vet costs are quite high and we are still having set backs every now and again" You said that this dog was your dog, so I assume it isn't a dog that is available for others to adopt. If not you paying the high vet costs, who is? How is this relevant to the topic? Of course. But you can estimate whether you are likely to be able to cover the costs before you choose to take a dog in, and if it is unlikely you will be able to cover the costs, the dog's welfare is very much at risk. Pleading afterwards for funds is not a very efficient way for a rescue to operate. And as PlanB asks, if the fundraising doesn't work, what happens then? HP would have pts two more dogs last week due to heath reasons if rescue didn't take them so yes I think more dogs would be pts.. No where in my posts did I say this dog was my dog***.. A rescue group pulled her from the pound under duty of care as she was very ill and would not have survived if left in the pound. They have been covering her vet costs. It is relevent because she would have been pts if not for a rescue group that does take on dogs that have health issues.. ***But after a couple of weeks I knew she had to stay with me so yes I am adopting her and covering all her vet costs but this is a personal choice.

Just because a dog might need costly vet work doesn't mean it is not worth saving.. There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case.. I disagree. I think fewer dogs would be put to sleep, not more. There are finite resources available for rescue, and so if thousands of dollars are spent on costly vet work on a few dogs and extra months of time put into their rehabilitation, many healthy dogs will miss out on a place in foster care. There is also a risk with some health problems that spending money won't fix the problem anyway. There will always be vets willing to take money and offer hope to rescuers. I don't like to see people that have chosen to take on dogs with expensive problems begging the public for help. It promotes the perception that rescue dogs have problems, and that can deter a lot of people who may be looking for a good pet. A dog that is healthy has a much better chance of living a happy pain-free life, and it is these dogs that are being killed if too many resources are directed into treating unhealthy dogs. It's not helpful to use emotive terms like "not worth saving". Rescuers choose who they can save. You choose who you save. Would you describe all of the dogs that you have not rescued as "not worth saving"? Or are there other reasons you have not taken in every single dog from your local pound and found a home for it? Yes rescuers, choose who they save, so if they save dogs that have health issues and the public are willing to help with the costs if the rescue group can not fund it themselves, what is the big issue. The big issue is that the money raised could be used to rehome a greater number of dogs. The big issue is the numbers of dogs being put to sleep. And so that is why I think the available resources should be used to cover as many dogs as possible, and not concentrated on a few unhealthy dogs, while so many more healthy dogs are euthanised. Your argument that a 'lot more dogs would be put to sleep' makes it sound as though you care about numbers being put to sleep, but if you think that taking in unhealthy dogs in favour of healthy dogs is the way to do reduce the numbers PTS overall, you are wrong. Most people wanting a permanent pet do not want an unhealthy dog or a special needs dog, and so if a rescue group is primarily concerned about getting as many dogs into good homes as possible, they will want to put their efforts into taking dogs that have the best chance of being healthy, happy pets. This topic isn't about what you are prepared to spend personally on your own pet, it is about rescueorgs taking on more than they can handle and then desperately begging for outside help in the hope that they can fulfil their own obligation to provide for the dog's welfare and fulfil their own obligation to provide sound and healthy dogs to buyers. It's just irresponsible to take on a dog without knowing in advance whether you are likely to be able to meet all obligations. I did not say that less dogs would be pts, and yes i do care about the numbers that are pts as too many dogs and cats are being pts, I know that most pounds and shelters would not adopt a dog or cat out that has serious/costly heath issues, so yes more animals would be pts if rescue groups did not take on these animals. Where have I refered to what i would spend personally on one of my own pets? I think that in all cases you can not possibly know how much a certian dog or cat will cost before you take it from the pound..

In the state of NSW (because i do not know the law in other states) it is compulsory to have all dogs and cats, mircochipped, before giving them away or selling them.. You can be prosecuted for not doing this in NSW..

Just because a dog might need costly vet work doesn't mean it is not worth saving.. There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case.. I disagree. I think fewer dogs would be put to sleep, not more. There are finite resources available for rescue, and so if thousands of dollars are spent on costly vet work on a few dogs and extra months of time put into their rehabilitation, many healthy dogs will miss out on a place in foster care. There is also a risk with some health problems that spending money won't fix the problem anyway. There will always be vets willing to take money and offer hope to rescuers. I don't like to see people that have chosen to take on dogs with expensive problems begging the public for help. It promotes the perception that rescue dogs have problems, and that can deter a lot of people who may be looking for a good pet. A dog that is healthy has a much better chance of living a happy pain-free life, and it is these dogs that are being killed if too many resources are directed into treating unhealthy dogs. It's not helpful to use emotive terms like "not worth saving". Rescuers choose who they can save. You choose who you save. Would you describe all of the dogs that you have not rescued as "not worth saving"? Or are there other reasons you have not taken in every single dog from your local pound and found a home for it? Yes rescuers, choose who they save, so if they save dogs that have health issues and the public are willing to help with the costs if the rescue group can not fund it themselves, what is the big issue. I have a dog I chose to save from the pound here with me and I was lucky to have a rescue group that put their hand up to pull her from the pound under duty of care.. Her vet costs are quite high and we are still having set backs every now and again, if i knew then what the cost would be I would still have taken her from the pound. Dogs that need costly treatment are not normally adopted straight from the pound, it is mainly thought rescue groups that these dogs make it out of the pounds.

Just because a dog might need costly vet work doesn't mean it is not worth saving.. There are so many dogs that end up at shelters that need some sort of vet work, I would hate to think rescues would stop rescuing them because they might be costly.. I lot more dogs would be PTS if that was the case..

The pup in question came from a pound in Sydney, and was in care with a rescue group in Melbourne that utilises foster carers. The puppy was being desexed prior to being permanently adopted. What do you do? Do you hold the puppy until it is 6 months old, and then rehome? Or is there any way the puppy can be sent to its prospective owner under a temporary foster care arrangement? Lort Smith has refused in the past to desex a 4 month old chihuahua puppy (privately owned) even though it met the 1kg minimum weight, so I think most vets are reluctant to desex these tiny dogs early. Even kittens at 8 weeks are 3 times the size of a chihuahua puppy. I am a little confused if the pup came from a Sydney pound, why did it have to be sexed before it was placed in a home, (just before anyone shoots me down, I think all animals should be desexed before adoption).. Was it not the rescue groups decision??