Aphra

For me the flag would be that she's enquired about several dogs without any follow-up. I'd just direct them to your application form and ask them to fill it out - or whatever your next step in the procedure is. "Thank you for your enquiry. If you are interested in adopting our gorgeous Fuzzy please complete our adoption application form" - that normally sorts out the tyre-kickers. There seems to be a little subset of people who have active fantasy lives about adopting pets, but it is just a fantasy. Once they face the reality of actually doing something about it, you don't hear from them until the next dog to take their fancy.

Everyone will have different opinions because different things have worked with different dogs in different situations. Sooner or later something will work, but some dogs just take the time they take - what happens though is when that home arrives, it's the right one.

He's a bit gorgeous! I really like your opening line and have no idea why such an appealing dog hasn't got any interest, but you just have to keep trying. I had a dog in care for nearly two years. In all that time he only had two enquiries and the second time was the charm. He was big, plain and a bit thick, which worked out well for him in the end. :-) Your profile is excellent - engaging and informative - but perhaps because Bandit isn't immediately appealing, people are glossing over the profile - people often don't even read the whole thing. The photos are lovely too and really show his personality as tdierkix said, the picture that gets them is the one looking straight into the camera, big grin and head tilt. So maybe it's time to try something a bit less informative - keep all the good stuff, but make that first couple of sentences really intriguing. I noticed about Pet Rescue the other day that its like a dating site - you get a photo and a line or so to sell yourself. If those aren't immediately appealing then people will probably just go on to the next, prettier dog. So maybe try something a bit silly and intriguing. "Do you believe in fairies and unicorns? I do, and I believe there is a home out there for me". Or, "I know you think I"m just a plain brindle dog, but inside I'm like a rainbow if only people could see it." "I'm like the frog in the fairy tale, kiss me and I turn into a handsome prince". And then go on to explain why he's such a great dog. Sooner or later something will work.

Easy peasy Maree. Send me a PM.

Given the amount of parvo around at the moment, I thought this was interesting. I don't know if these drugs are available in Australia, nor how much they cost. But it might be useful information for vets as well. http://csu-cvmbs.colostate.edu/pages/parvo-puppies-new-protocal.aspx

While I'm on the topic, there are two pieces which might be useful. I'm a big dismayed with at least one "national" group who seem to be organising donations, but also proposing their own version of disaster animal planning without reference to any of the existing agencies, arrangements of principles. I am a huge fan of emergent volunteering and people self-organising to assist each other, but it helps if the help integrates usefully with current arrangement and doesn't cause more trouble than help. I wrote this piece recently because of the huge issues that the donation of goods causes agencies trying to manage response and recovery. Sometimes there is a need for donated goods, but making contact with the recovery agencies (such as the Red Cross) and asking them if they need goods will help everyone. My comments are derived directly from the Community Recovery Handbooks which is national "doctrine" on best practice. Send money, not stuff. http://blackhobyah.net/send-money-not-stuff/ And also, its important that the rest of us start thinking about our own disaster plans. http://blackhobyah.net/animals-and-disaster/

If people are interested, there is a major cross-jurisdicational and national project on managing animals (companion, livestock and other) in disasters. It has been underway for three years now and last month held the third workshop on progress. It is co-ordinated by the Australian Animal Welfare Strategy, which is a national body. Work is going on at a number of levels - but because emergency management is constitutionally the responsibility of states and territories, the project is proceeding differently depending on the context. You can read the 2012 workshop report here: http://www.australiananimalwelfare.com.au/content/pets-and-companion-animals/animals-in-emergenciesCA The 2013 workshop report hasn't been released yet. There are draft national planning principles for animals in disasters which are in the process of being sent up for endorsement to the Australia New Zealand Emergency Management Committee which is the senior advisory body to the ministerial Standing Council on Police and Emergency Management. If the principles are endorsed they will provide a framework for emergency planning and animals nationally. These are the draft principles. http://www.australiananimalwelfare.com.au/content/pets-and-companion-animals/national-planning-principles-for-animals-in-disastersPCA The recently created Bushfire and Natural Hazards CRC has funded a major research project on managing animals in disasters (which has two PhD scholarships attached if anyone is interested) and there is an associated research project which has substantial funding on the issue of human and animal evacuation run out of the University of Central Queensland. The Victorian Government has already gone some way down the track, with about 80% of local government areas already including animals in their emergency planning. You can read the Victorian state plan "Emergency Animal Welfare Plan" here: http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/fire-and-emergencies/animals-in-emergencies/about-the-victorian-emergency-animal-welfare-plan/victorian-emergency-animal-welfare-plan If anyone wants more information about any of this stuff, please let me know and I'm happy to share resources and as much information as I have.

http://news.vin.com/vinnews.aspx?articleId=29411

I went today and it was excellent. Bill Bruce gave a terrific outline of why the Calgary model works, by engaging the community and giving them value and attention, not just fines and punitive legislation. The panel afterwards was also excellent. I was heartened also by the range of organisations represented, which included the RSPCA, MAV and AVA. Bill Bruce will appear on the 7.30 report, but I'm not sure what day. He'll be interviewed by Neil Mitchell on ABC radio at 9am on Tuesday. I think there is another presentation in Melbourne tomorrow afternoon as well. I tweeted some highlight comments @Tails_End.

This might be interesting in the context of this conversation. http://www.propublica.org/article/do-these-chemicals-make-me-look-fat

http://www.workingdogalliance.com.au/conference/ Sounds like lots of interesting speakers. Program. http://www.workingdogalliance.com.au/conference/program/

They've been around for a year or so, but they're a bit out of the rescue mainstream. They are a group of university students, not quite doing ordinary rescue, but on the whole from the little I know, they are working pretty hard. Edited to add - they are probably doing the fund raising for a Boxer they brought down from QLD who, I think, bloated. They've spent a shed load on him and worked very hard to save him (which they did), but had a mighty vet bill out of it. The Boxer Rescue Network were working with them, so perhaps contact Dagmar is you want to know more about them?

http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/MCAS-9C48F6?open The draft paper: http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/Attachments/LBUN-9C57GH/$FILE/Dog%20Standards%20Discussion%20Paper.pdf

Yes. I agree totally. Rescues are doing a mighty job saving lives by using their own, and their supporters, limited resources. Councils are then using their improved live release rates to market themselves to their ratepayers, while offering rescues nothing at all in the way of support - across the country a public responsibility is being pushed off onto private resources without any attention at all. If it was anything other than animal rescue there'd be an outcry from the community. I don't think rescues realise how much of the public load they are carrying, while the people with the resources and facilities are making money hand over fist, failing utterly at what they tell the public is their primary objective (protecting animals). It's not a sustainable model, which is why the LDH and, the RSPCA are copping so much well-deserved criticism. They are attracting millions in public donations and council contracts (one contract the NSW RSPCA has with a local council is worth 2.5 million dollars) while actually doing less than many rescue groups who have maybe 1% of their resources. It's not at all uncommon for the LDH in Melbourne to have fewer animals available for adoption than the Lost Dogs Home. I wrote this piece on the 3rd January this year - prime time for adoptions you'd think, when people are on holidays. I counted up the animals the LDH had available on their website for adoption.

No-one actually knows the breakdown of where pound dogs come from, there aren't even any reliable figures about how many pets end up in pounds. The pounds I work with the population is mostly working dogs, poor, bloody staffs and bullbreed xs and large dogs probably bred for hunting. Small fluffies and designer breeds do turn up, but given how many are being churned out by puppy farms, if the common meme about people buying pet shop puppies on impulse and dumping them was true, you'd expect the pounds would be over-run with them, and they're not. Every so often you get a whole lot of little dogs turning up in a pound all at once, and I suspect you're seeing breeding stock getting dumped. On anecdotal evidence, I'd surmise that pet shop puppies go home and probably stay home. Maybe rural pounds are different than more urban pounds. If you have a look at the tables in this article, on the whole, it accords with my experience of the pound population. The dogs labelled mastiff x are not generally any kind of mastiff btw anything tan with a black muzzle gets labelled mastiff, even if it weighs 10 kilos. http://www.savingpets.com.au/2013/09/every-dog-is-an-individual-every-dog-should-matter/ Here's a piece of research attempting to answer some of the questions. http://www.smallanimaltalk.com/2013/09/interview-with-diana-chua-how-many.html

Me three. I've been doing rescue for a decade or more now and I've long ago given up the idea that getting angry about what happened in the past is useful. I don't know the circumstances under which any given dog ends up in the pound. People's capacity for managing varies widely and what I might be able to do, might be impossible for someone else with fewer resources. I've been following a group called Downtown Dog Rescue based in Los Angeles for a while. I am in awe of their commitment and compassion to helping people who feel they have no choices. As a rescuer, that's where I want to be emotionally because rescue is hard enough without carrying bitterness and resentment around with me. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0511-banks-animalshelter-20130511,0,4188550.column

When I arrived in the area I live now, there was a local rescue group who made animals available on a desexing voucher. From memory the system was that you adopted the animal and you had six months to present them to the local vet for desexing (paid for by the rescue group). I adopted two dogs under this system. One was a giant breed so I waited the six months to desex him. I know that the co-ordinator followed up with you if it wasn't done and he was very firm about it. I have no idea what the rate of compliance was, but I suspect that it was probably quite high, given how much the group was respected locally and how thorough they were with the follow-up.

So what would be the minimum number of times the dogs could be out and not be killed? 1? 3? 7? If they were nice dogs of good temperament, then surely there were options other than death. They might have been a nuisance to the council, but the council had many options other than killing them. They could have helped the people fix their fence or gates, held the dogs until the fence was fixed, let them pay off the fine on the condition the dogs weren't out again or rehomed the dogs. Killing them was lazy, cruel and since the story has now gone viral, a terrible piece of public relations for the council.

I would happily leave them alone, except that they are promoting themselves as a group which speaks for rescue, and are representing themselves as such to government, peak organisations and the public. If all they were doing was representing themselves as speaking for their member groups good luck to them. But if they intend to represent themselves as speaking for rescue generally, then as far as I am concerned then they are open to criticism.

If someone wants a pet, they email NARGA, who email the groups who are members of NARGA. Who then presumably email back with a list of pets they have to NARGA, who email them back to the people, who then email back to NARGA saying which ones they're interested in? At which point NARGA point them to the rescue group in question? At which point the person emails the rescue group saying they're interested a a pet and still have to till out an application form and do all rest of the process. If it's a popular pet by the time all this has gone the pet has probably already been rehomed. Which part of that is a helpful process rather than time-wasting? As a rescuer who already struggles to keep up with all the enquries that have to be answered, I'd be more than a bit irritated is some third party started sending me enquiries when we already have Pet Rescue to advertise the animals we have available for adoption.

This CNN report from 2010 suggests that one puppy farm accounts for 98% of puppies in Singapore pets stores: http://travel.cnn.com/singapore/puppy-mills-pet-store-337803 Poor, pitiful creatures, but it looks as if there are a number of groups making an effort to stop the trade.

CLEO aren't known for their investigative reporting, unless it's a comparison of willy size. Australian puppy farms do export puppies overseas and there are puppy farms in Singapore, both of those things have been known for a long time. What Oscar's Law intends to do about it, or why they're raising the issue now in particular I have no idea about.

A Cleo magazine investigation? Really?

Clearly way too much time on their hands - surely it would be just as useful to point people directly to Pet Rescue? http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/rangewood/dogs-puppies/narga-free-pet-finder-service/1027651233