Aphra

We routinely take dogs from NSW pounds. I don't think desperate dogs and cats care much about state boundaries. In our case it's because we've found working with Victorian pounds quite difficult, we're a very small group and in the area we are in the pound system is dominated by the RSPCA and the Lost Dogs Home. We have developed a relationship with a handful of rural NSW pounds and have been working happily with them for a couple of years now. Does it really matter where the dogs come from if they are properly looked after and responsibly re-homed? If we have very small puppies or animals which have some issues which make early age de-sexing an issue we just keep them in care until they are old/healthy enough to desex. Just because people like to take puppies and kittens at as young an age as possible, doesn't mean a rescue group has to cater to that. We prefer to re-home our puppies after the 12 week mark anyway, and we've found even older puppies easy enough to re-home. While it would not be illegal for us to re-home any of our animals un-desexed (because they do not come from Victorian pounds under an 84Y agreement), we would never do it. In a case like the one presented we'd probably just keep the puppy in care until it was old enough to desex. Since the puppy came from NSW and was in foster care anyway, there choices could have been to re-home on a desexing agreement if there was reasonable confidence it could be enforced, re-home on a foster care agreement until it was old enough to desex, or just keep the puppy in foster care until it was able to be de-sexed. I know the RSPCA routinely de-sex six week old kittens in full knowledge that they will lose a big percentage of them, but there is no reason for a rescue group to operate like that.

The Pedigree Adoption Drive's Underdog (:laugh:) series: This is the edited version that was shown on TV: The GAWS Exposed videos are distressing: https://www.facebook.com/pages/GAWS-Exposed-Time-for-Change-is-NOW/160656180691344 I think there was a couple of TV series focusing on the RSPCA (Animal Rescue?) and on on the Lort Smith Animal Hospital. I'm vague about those because I don't watch TV.

Facebook is a tool like any other; we've found it an excellent way of building a support base for our rescue. But like any tool it's only as good as the intent and sense of the person using it.

I did ask them on their page what their criteria for deeming a rescue as reputable was. I think the answer is still there.

I have a rescue Pom in foster at the minute and he weighs in at a mighty 2.2 kg. I'm constantly startled at how little he is, and although he's a lovely wee doggie, being used to big dogs I'm a bit freaked out by how tiny he is. I can't even imagine wanting something smaller!

Hi Janey, Drop us a PM, we could do it next weekend.

I sort of commend the impulse but I'm not convinced this is a good idea, starting a Facebook page is not the answer to every issue. What is the definition of a reputable rescue? I suppose if the intention is a kind of "review a rescue" in the same manner as traveller's sites or even Amazon it could build into something useful for the public with enough participation. I think the progenitors of such a site should provide some transparency about who they are and their background and purpose. Facebook is a fantastic tool, but that's all it is. It's not a substitute for careful thought, clear aims and intelligible goals.

The mastiff X label on dogs which haven't been within 300kms of any kind of mastiff makes me all

You're free to do as you wish about where you buy your dogs, and other people are free to have their own opinions about that. If you throw up your hands and say, "well, I won't support rescue because some rescuers don't support registered breeders" because of a couple of people's opionions, you're being about as illogical as they are. There are thousands of rescuers who all have lots of different opinions about things; if you think rescue on the whole is a worthwhile endeavour, then it doesn't make much sense to turn your back on it because you disagree with some people does it? And if you don't think rescue is worthwhile what do you care what some rescuers think?

We have the lovely Nala. I'm on my phone so can't add her picture, but our Pet Rescue site is www.PetRescue.com.au/member/1182 She's on the first page. We're in Victoria. Also, on Facebook there us an Australian acruffer lovers page which a number of rescues are using. I think it's called just that.

I'd want to know what percentage of people overall choose not to redeem their dogs. We remember the bad things, but not the good. We all remember the dog owner who dumps their dog because they can't be bothered paying for boarding, ignoring the thousands who quietly get on with taking care of their animals. Because some people choose not to reclaim their dogs isn't an argument for making it harder for everyone else. That's my argument, we focus so heavily on the people doing the wrong thing all the time on the assumption that they are majority, which is clearly not true.

As I said, I don't think the reasons for animals ending up in pounds are the same as the reasons why so many die in pounds. There is quite a lot of good research about why animals end up in pounds; it's often about a misfit between the animal in question and its family, where the animal fails to meet expectations. I am also convinced that there are a lot of animals who die in pounds who actually have homes, but their owners haven't been able to find them, or if they found them can't afford to get them out of the pound. Frankly, I think puppy farm dogs are the least of the problem. While I'm sure its context-specific, pounds are not usually over-run with cute fluffy dogs. In the pounds we work with the majority of dogs are clearly from backyard breeders, either accidental litters or farmers breeding a litter to get a couple of working dogs for themselves. Honestly, if I was going to point the finger at anyone it would be Stafford breeders, registered or otherwise. Some days I want to yell, like Bob Newhart, "JUST STOP IT". In fact the existence of puppy farms is a good argument for the myth of pet over-population. It's clear that there are lots of homes available for dogs or puppy farms wouldn't be in business. As a rescuer I know that I could place many more animals than I do if I had more resources; the homes are there if we could take more animals. I am not a fan of the idea that buying from a pet shop, ipso facto, makes you a bad owner. That flies in the face of all the evidence and in the face of common-sense. Of course some people who buy dogs from pet shops are irresponsible, but then so are some people who buy dogs from shelters or their next door neighbour. I believe that good owners far out-weigh the other kind, and the statistics are there to show us that. We know, for example, that the over-whelming majority of pet owners desex their pets (about 97%); we know that Australians spend billions every year on their pets; we know that rescue is developing an increasingly high profile and more and more rescue groups are placing more and more animals. We know that compulsory desexing leads to an increase in death rates, not a decrease, and those statistics are available from those places who have instuted the legislation. What does work extremely well is heavily subsidised desexing. In Victoria the Mt Alexander Shire has been subsidising desexing for the last couple of years. In that time, the number of kittens being killed at the Castlemaine RSPCA has decreased by an enormous magnitude (somewhere around 80%). Most cats who end up in pounds are not owned cats, they are cats who once had owners but no longer belong to anyone. If you are good person and have such a cat around you might not wish to make a commitment to it in a magnitude of $250 for desexing, but you might be willing to spend $25 to have it desexed; and in fact that's what happens. So those community cats are no longer reproducing, so the numbers of unowned kittens entering the shelter have decreased as well. The answer to the second question about why so many animals die in pounds is a lot easier. It's because as a community we have decided that death is the answer. The death of animals in pounds is the responsibility of the pound; of it's council and of the community. If I am standing in front of you with a gun deciding whether to shoot you or not, how you got there is irrelevent to my decision, I can choose to kill you, or I can choose to keep you alive. I think the numbers of animals dying in pounds could be reduced by at least a quarter if pounds made it easier for people to find their pets and easier for them to get them out. The removal of punitive fines would go a long way to getting more animals home; people who provide very well for their animals can't afford several hundred dollars in fines for a lost dog, so the dog stays in the pound and dies instead of going home. Many council pounds are not open at times which allow people to go and look for their animals; if you're a working stiff and the pound is only open for a couple of hours during the week, how do you go and look? Added to that is the often peculiar breed identifications; irregularly updated (if at all) pound websites and pound services which operate a long distance from the community they serve (such as the Lost Dogs Home having pound contracts with Bendigo). And if those pound websites were frequently updated with good photos and descriptions of the animals looking for homes, more animals might be adopted back into their local communities. And when those measures fail, if more pounds saw working with rescue as a priority, more animals would escape death by green needle. So for my money, all the hand-wringing about the public (people have to realise/if only people would/people are so cruel/greedy/irresponsible) is basically pissing in the wind. Why would we fling resources (including emotional energy) at a problem which is pretty intractable and completely beyond our control, when there are things which are relatively easy to implement which can make a difference. We all live in communities, we all get to influence our local councils, so we can make a difference. When it comes down to it, if our council is killing companion animals if we care enough it's up to us to lobby for change. Whatever the reason for an animal ending up in the pound, the reason it dies in the pound is because the pound decides to kill it. If I had three wishes they would be: Heavily subsidized or even free desexing. Making it easier for animals to return to their homes (no huge fines/improved pound opening hours and services). Pounds working closely with rescue to place all healthy, rehomable animals.

The question about why so many dogs and cats are being killed in pounds isn't the same question as why do so many cats and dogs end up in pounds.

http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2011/11/20/273521_ntnews.html The photo is a cracker! LOL

You can get mild cases. We had a puppy who had parvo, was at the vet a couple of times because he wasn't quite right, but because he wasn't particularly sick nobody suspect parvo. He was quite sick for a couple of days and spent that at the vets, but recovered very quickly. There is some new thinking that the most dangerous form of parvo is parvo in association with corona. We've also had a litter of puppies test positive to parvo, but never developed any symptoms at all, so they were probably just indicating exposure with enough resistance to fight infection. I had a litter of new born puppies at home at the time I had the parvo case and was a bit hysterical to put it mildly, but I cleaned as much as I could, isolated the puppies and did reasonable infection control and everyone survived and in fact no-one has got even a bit sick. There are lots of other things that can cause soft stools in puppies, including giardia. The parvo tests are not reliable on their own; from memory clinical diagnosis of parvo is usually from a high positive parvo test, plus symptoms, plus blood test. Dogs who have been exposed to parvo can test positive; as can dogs recently vaccinated.

Ah lilli.

It's typical knee-jerk, please the public legislation. "Illegal" puppy farms already have legislation which could deal with them. Local councils have by-laws; the RSPCA has anti-cruelty legislation to work from; animal business have DPI legislation to follow. All of those organisations could have moved to deal with the problem that haven't for whatever reason. Remember the people crafting this legislation wrote the latest dog laws; in what world of fantasy do people expect this piece of law is going to be more subtle, more reasonable and more effective? As much as I deplore commercial dog breeders, if they are operating within the legislation, local and state, under what system are people proposing they be shut down? Just because we, as a special interest group, disapprove of what they do? I'm a vegetarian and I deplore the commercial breeding of cattle for slaughter, but under Australian law it's a perfectly legal industry. Under what grounds then, would a government be able to out-law legal businesses? And what government, hoping to get re-elected, is even going to try, since the follow-on effect from business generally would be so enormous. And Steve is quite right; legislation isn't interested in intent or purpose, so this is going to affect legitimate breeders and possibly rescue.

I agree. The RSPCA has considerable rights of entry and seizure which they have chosen not to exercise in the past. I have a real concern with the RSPCA having such extensive powers when they are a non-government body and there is no recourse to contest their decisions except through the courts. At least with most government agences there is an Obudsman or other board for investigating complaints. For all those who would like the legislation to also affect dog breeding organisations properly registered with local councils and holding the relevant permits; has it occurred to you what kind of government we would actually have if they introduced legislation to close down legitimate businesses, no matter how distasteful we find them?

I think this might be called having teeth. All dogs are genetically constructed to have teeth, it helps them do simple survival things like eat, now that the population of wild kibble is so much diminished ...

I'm not a supporter of Oscar's Law and I've given my reasons here and elsewhere several times. I'm also about convinced that the battle against puppy farming is probably lost. But as a rescuer I am angry that the PM should choose to ignore the 250,000 companion animals which die in Australia every year, and choose to buy a dog over the internet like an item of luggage. It's not the mutt thing I mind, it's the complete disregard of the work of rescue and everyone trying to save some of those lives. Had she chosen to go the rescue route it would have been such a boost for rescue animals. I'm so disappointed.

I emailed the PM via her website. Here's a copy of my letter, if anyone wants to use it they are welcome.

Keep them separated when you're not around. Feed them separately and don't leave bones or other high value items around. Consult a good behaviourist Whatever has changed the dynamic between them better to be safe until you work it out, if you can. There might be many causes for the fights and only someone with a good eye will be able to tell you.

This is Pippa. I thought I might promote her here because a friend of mine is a USAR trainer and took Pippa for a weekend to trial her. She says that Pippa was really good and she would have taken her if she was looking for another dog. If you'd like more of the specifics (which are beyond me LOL) she'd be happy to provide Pippa with a reference. http://www.petrescue.com.au/view/123298

I know someone who was deployed as a dog handler in Afghanistan with his bomb detection dog. The handlers live 24/7 with their dogs and do as much as they possibly can to look after them. I know how much this handler cared for his dog and had something happened to her he would have been devastated. It's an incredibly dangerous job for dog and human. I truly hate the idea that a dog is put in such a situation when they have no choice; but then, I hate the idea of humans being put in such a situation as well. The hard reality is that in this area the priority is human life over a dog's life, that's why they have front line dogs. I don't know as I'd like to be deciding on who is more important.

The members of the taskforce are the same ones who haven't managed to make a dent in the figures after umpreen years and a lot if public money, why would they be likely to come up with anything useful now? Why not ask AWL to be part of it, or Michael Linke from the R SPCA ACT? Why are no rescue groups represented? Get some new perspectives. Their recommendations will be mandatory desexing and education of the "irresponsible" public I'll bet.