Steve

Fair enough. Some clearly believe this is a terrible thing for someone and would like to see them punished. I don't agree and I think it's been a good relationship where everyone has benefited and they still do. Cant see any difference between post Shel and when she was there. I think its a great service and I think if people believe there is false pretences etc that they should take it to ASIC and have it addressed. Just goes to show that no good deed will go unrewarded and you cant please all of the people all of the time.

I think taking the fact that the guidebooks have been taken off the site as an indication that there is no longer a dispute over ownership would be folly.

All rescues have choices they can make to get the same financial resources and more that PR have access to. In fact with a good approach small rescue could access better and more funding than they can. If some rescue groups choose not to grow their businesses in this way they can hardly blame PR for that . In fact its quite ridiculous. PR allow anyone who qualifies to advertise for free the ability to do so and utilise their resources [library etc] including those who are not set up as non profits but also those who are for profit and those who are not incorporated as either. Sure their intent is to be a specialty advertising space for rescue only rather than like gumtree that has numerous categories I just went through the process to donate money - its very clear that this money goes only to them and what services they provide using the donations. At no time does it get anywhere near saying the money goes to small rescues who may or may not be incorporated so even if someone does think the button on the right is money for the rescue who is advertising the dog on that page seriously no one could complain that they are taking money under any where near false pretences in my opinion. The things they do sound like a very good thing to me to make donations to and their activities lift the profile and support for rescue in general Looks to me that the rescue world has benefited enormously for a long time and whats more the ads are allowed to solicit for individual donations to the group that is advertising the dog anyway. 7 ways your support makes a difference How your awesome support saves lives Every companion animal has the right to be loved and cared for for life. When you make a donation to PetRescue today, your gift is funding all these life-saving projects in your community – projects that make it possible for all PetRescue pets to find a forever home. Giving pets a free listing on PetRescue.com.au You're enabling rescue groups, pounds and shelters to list their pets for adoption for free and helping pet seekers find their new best friend online. Helping all pets survive the pound system You're supporting our Safe & Sound Pound Program that promotes direct-from-pound adoption and best practice in animal care to help Australia work towards a no-kill future. Finding more foster homes You're supporting our foster campaigns and community events to encourage individuals and workplaces to consider pet fostering, enabling rescue groups to save even more lives. Improving the adoption experience You're helping to develop a faster, more efficient and responsive online adoption process so that all Australian pet seekers can save a life and discover the joy a rescue pet brings. Supporting adoption & foster events Your gift puts homeless pets into the hearts and minds of the community by bringing pets out of the pounds, shelters and foster homes for a friendly meet-and-greet in pet stores nationwide. Offering interstate rehoming You're helping PetRescue and Jetpets to arrange free interstate flights for three homeless pets every month, ensuring distance is no barrier to adoption and happiness. Giving free advice to help all pets You're helping to grow our Library, providing more free resources to pounds, shelters, rescue groups, foster carers and pet seekers that ultimately saves lives and keeps pets happy in their homes. Just like all websites that collect data you get a chance to opt in or out , legally they cant spam you and at any time you get to say take me off your mail list. And Shel at a minimum helped set this up - its not like the donation button is a new addition. Im at a loss to understand what you would do or expect anyone else to do if someone were damaging your rescue service's reputation,taking your programs for their own gain and putting at risk everything you had worked for years to do other than see a legal person to see what could be done with the least amount of pain. The good news is its a free enterprise country and if you don't like PR then you don't have to use it but looks to me that if you dont its throwing away a very good free resource. looks like someone who doesn't want people to know who they are is setting up their competition and soliciting for email contacts without showing any terms and conditions but it still makes no sense for those who don't pay for the service and who don't donate to PR to change anything they are doing as I'm guessing that if some do leave it wont be much skin off their noses financially and those who choose not to advertise are the losers. Great idea to go with the new one but you loose if you also leave the old one not them. For everyone they loose out of this they will some up and Im more likely to donate to them now than Ive ever been before.

I also understand how hard it must be for Shel who has put so much of her life into building it from rock bottom and her continuing passion for how she can best help animals in pounds but come on we all know you cant take contact details with you and use them for your own benefit after you leave your job. Getting into blabbing about their business model and how they operate behind the scenes,how they generate mailing lists etc just makes her appear to be a disgruntled ex employee. Yes she was instrumental with the pound program but when she worked on it and developed it she was an employee and cant expect she can leave and proceed to take it on as her own. Any business in Petrescue's position would need to react to what she is doing as they have done - the board's charter is to make decisions which protect and advance the non profit business. As far as shouting themselves a lawyer - how else can they protect their interests? So far its cost em a couple of hundred bucks - how much business do they stand to loose if it continues?

You cant expect people to work indefinitely with a focus on building the service without payment . Its all good for a minute but You just cant maintain that and you have to have people who work at it as a paid job not just squeezing it all in when they get a minute from their paid employment. Any rescue or any other animal related business will grow and perform so much better the quicker it can pay people for their time and skills. You get more donations, more corporate sponsorship, more income better admin and more reliable services if people are getting paid. Its a great resource - it helps find homes for thousands of dogs and cats and the rescue groups who use it don't have to pay to advertise themselves and the animals available there. As long as there is no confusion about what people are donating to and they understand the money goes to supporting the pet rescue business and funds dont go to individual rescue groups who use the site its the only way it can be reliable and continue to offer the services they do. Non profit simply means that anything left over after expenses are paid including wages isnt distributed to the members or the board and it goes into building the business to help more people and more animals. We have to get over this idea that you need to be poverty stricken and work indefinitely for nothing when you provide services for pets. The copyright thing in my opinion was done while she was working for petrescue and being paid for it so therefore they own it - cant see her winning but dont see why any of that should impact on how people see or wnat to use the service.

Simple In NSW a DogsNSW breeder is not able to register the pedigree in your name .The pup is registered as the breeder being the owner for the purposes of the pedigree registry and if you want to you can pay a fee and have it changed over to your name . This isn't something the breeder is able to do - The breeder has 6 months to put the paperwork in to register the litter with DogsNSW .The breeder cant put one pup in at a time - the whole litter has to go in at once so sometimes the breeder will hold off until all puppies have been named, sold and a determination made as to whether they will be on main or limited. Either way they cant be registered with DogsNSW until they are chipped - so depends on when the whole litter has had its chips inserted. As far as the council is concerned the dog has to be chipped in the name of the person who has it when the chip goes in - usually when the pup gets its first vaccination- because the person who is in attendance has to sign the paperwork and they wont accept names of people who are not there and able to sign. Then when the pup goes home the breeder has 14 days to change the ownership details with council. So by the time you get to paying the registration fees for the dog with your council the dog's chip will already be in your name. if you dont pay the registration fee with council by the time the pup is 6 months old your council will tell you its time to pay the registration fee via mail In NSW The breeder could not register you as owner with DogsNSW - It is not possible even if they wanted to. This is something you must do if you want the pedigree to have your name on it. The breeder could not register the chip straight into your name - its not possible unless you can find a shonky implanter but the breeder must transfer the ownership of the dog to you with council within 14 days. I carefully put all of this in writing because as breeders we do this stuff as a matter of course and we dont always know whats in the buyers mind when they are asking - as its what has happened here .Registration is not the same to all people so easy to get the message scrambled.

Well these days I do take a small deposit with balance payable at home time. Maremma babies are a hell of a lot of work getting them ready for particular situations they will be going home to . At 5 weeks depending on where they are going and what work they will be doing I handle them differently and start them working and bonding with their species they will live with for the rest of their lives. It isnt as easy as taking the pup thats been with sheep and swapping it over to chickens etc . you cant just take a pup thats been inside in front of the fire because thats how the new owner intends to keep it and expect it to go out without stress into a frosty paddock. So once that training has started if the buyer pulls out my chances of selling a pup that someone else wants for what the pup has been training for is reduced In my current litter some are going to sheep, chickens, goats and an autistic child and one as a companion. Each has its training begun at 5 weeks and I replicate the type of living conditions the pup will be going home to as much as I can. Prior to the deposit being attached to a pup I put in hours with them to be sure they know what they will be getting and what its going to take to own one. When that deposit goes on I give them all I have to help them get ready for the pup to come home so they have several weeks to ask questions, read through the training and care notes etc. and for me to build a relationship with them so they are O.K. about coming back for help and calling on me if they need me. Those notes are necessary for people to have way before the pup comes home and its taken me 25 years to develop them so Im not that happy about simply handing them out to people who then go off and buy a pup from a farmer for a couple of hundred bucks or a pet shop either to be honest. I dont advertise I have a litter on the way,dont take a waiting list because I would have a hundred at any given time on it . Now and then I will take a small deposit from someone who pushes me for a particular litter into the future but only after I know I have a pregnancy and usually as soon as I say there is a litter here they are all sold with deposits on them within 2 weeks. My contract says these deposits are non refundable unless its something from my end but I do refund depending on the circumstances and depending on how long between the deposit going on and the pup going home. But if I do refund its because Im a nice lady not because I have to - if you leave it to the last minute without good reason Im keeping it . So I take a small deposit after they have thought about it for 48 hours then after the deposit is received there is another 48 hours cooling off . If they came back before the pup was 5 weeks old I do refund full amount after that - not likely. No one has ever been locked in to taking the pup when they don't want it anymore and Im still able to change MY mind and return the deposit. Couple of litters ago I took a deposit from a registered breeder [ another breed] and the day I rang to say when are you picking your pup up, she said "sorry I should have told you earlier because Ive known for weeks but Ive decided I dont want the pup, we have sold all the ducks so we dont need it anymore, Im happy for you to keep the deposit ,sorry to muck you around" That leaves me an 8 week old pup which I could have sold a hundred times over if there had not been a deposit on it for a variety of different work options that has been bonding with poultry. It means she has had the written information Ive provided and hours of emails and phone calls etc Not only do I then have to go out and re advertise, seeking someone who wants a chook dog, the person who does purchase it arrives to pick it up without the benefit of being able to have the information or long conversations for the length of time my other buyers do and I havent had the ability to build a strong relationship with them so there is a higher risk that they will get into trouble and not come back to me quickly enough for me to help them. So I take deposits because it works best for me and if you are not serious enough about purchasing a pup that you will make a commitment Id rather know straight away than play a game that disadvantages the puppy.

Biased? How is it biased? How is it biased? Because it sees the world through the beliefs of the purebred pedigreed dog breeder who is in the vast minority and completely over looks the tens of thousands of people who breed dogs ,purebred and cross bred for numerous purposes who are not now nor ever want to be members of a voluntary organisation. Sorry? Please explain this? Compare the code of practice for breeding dogs in NSW to the code of ethics for DogsNSW .the only breeding standards that are different is about how to keep the gene pool pure and qualify to be able to register a litter. ALL breeders - that is everyone who breeds a litter of puppies in this state have to comply or face harsher potential penalties than DogsNSW hand out. Yes, you read that correct. lacing comments with insults is not using is a discussion, how about putting forward your arguments against it instead of simply saying…….nuts. Dog breeding is a legal activity and as long as people comply with codes and laws and dont upset the neighbours like it or not everyone has the same right to breed their dog .How do you possibly limit the number of licences issued when that affects property laws and restriction of trade laws? Sorry, should have elaborated…….limit the number of litters a bitch can have…..Isnt the reasons for this obvious? So are you fine with letting a bitch have as many litters in her life as she is capable of? Of course you are not. No of course not but I am fine with a breeder making a decision that their bitch is O.K. to have a litter based on not how many she has had but what condition she is in .If she is in good condition is there any reason why via the science of the species that she should not have as many litters as she is capable of? Great! Glad we agree on something. Not sure what you mean by integral to my argument? You are the one who wants to focus on reducing shelter numbers and increasing registration numbers. That's ok but I also view the issue of licensing an issue of protecting the animals rights and as stated a host of other spinoffs from that. Would not stop people taking their dog to the vets if that's what you're saying. Doctors requirements to report does not stop people taking their children to the doctors vets (like doctors) don't have to agree. I promise you that if vets start reporting breeders lots and lots of breeders will be less inclined to take their dogs to the vet .You dont need to agree but the vets believe this too and have on every occasion that its ever been on the table squashed it

My apologies Steve, I didn't mean to add Steve wrote there.(fixed) Actually this statement is posted on the DogsNSW site. Meant to post the link but forgot. http://www.dogsnsw.o...-practices.html So what I am saying is that when the debate of licensing first came up, it was opposed with the argument put forward being "our members are already licensed". As stated also on the Dog NSW site. Seems to me that there is some common ground in licensing of non registered breeders by this statement on that same page……. Apology accepted but just because DogsNSW says it on their website doesnt make it so and everyone who is not a DogsNSW member knows that .The big deal for DogsNSW is that they saw the terms of an enquiry and pre empted the probable outcome so introduced new rules and regs to try to get their members exemptions if licences were introduced .they wanted everyone else to be licensed except their members but that argument was pretty much squashed when they were speaking of a breeder who they had found guilty of breach of their rules when asked what was the outcome .Answer she is no longer a member but still breeds hundreds of puppies a year .As you have rightly pointed out the only punishment for a DogsNSW who doesn't follow the rules is expulsion from the group. This can only be done by legislation and I am saying licensing. I am also saying that you cant have one group of breeders following one state legislation and another (registered breeders) exempt from that…..As I said, some of these registered breeders are also puppy mills. Well read the legislation - the ONLY things that are in the DogsNSW code of ethics which are not covered in the code of practice is regarding the protocols for their purebred registry If all breeders had to be licensed (by government) then those dog owners who wanted to breed pedigree (papered) dogs would need to first hold prefix's effectively increasing the registered breeder numbers. Stop and think about what you are saying here.Surely we must be speaking of two different things. Breeders who want to breed pedigree papered dogs already need to hold a prefix. Licensing by government cannot increase the need for people to become ANKC registered breeders. If anything it would have a negative effect rather than a positive one. But puppy farming by licensed breeders is O.K.? Same page same link – Dogs NSW said this as the statement infers. When I say you cant have it both ways…….I am not saying you personally I am saying the idea of separate rules for different groups. There has to be some common ground here. If you want more members who hold the same philosophical POV then you either market for it or encourage people to that way of thinking by legislation. It really is a fine line between the carrot and the stick…..If the carrot doesn't work then the stick needs to be applied in a manner where its not too constrictive. Do you know what I mean by the carrot and the stick? You misunderstand I am against separate rules for different groups and it is the main reason I am opposed to the concept of exemptions for breeders such as those currently in Victoria. In Victoria if you are a Vicdogs member with less than 10 dogs you get to comply only with Vicdogs rules which are miles easier than the code via state government and you dont have to worry about the code of practice via state law including registering as a domestic animal business. I also agree that if you want people with the same POV you market for it which I beleive VICDOGS have done - that hasnt stopped those who get a bigger carrot by joining and who dont have the same base philosophy coming in .

My link The RSPCA has been ordered to pay a couple more than $1.4 million damages after one of its inspectors negligently shot dead 131 pure bred Murray Grey cattle. A judge of Victoria's County Court earlier ruled that the cattle - 126 cows, two bulls and three calves - were shot by an RSPCA inspector with "indecent haste". Judge John Bowman found that the herd, shot on a farm outside Warrnambool in 2003, was put down without consultation of its owners, James Holdsworth and Heather Ellison. They sued the RSPCA for damages after the inspector Jason Nicholls dispatched the cattle in the presence of colleague Mark Roberts following a complaint about starving animals. Mr Holdsworth and Ms Ellison argued the herd were not in a condition that required destruction while the RSPCA denied negligence. In his 258-page decision in August, Judge Bowman said that the "whole operation conducted by Nicholls on behalf of the (RSPCA) ... seems to have been conducted with what could be described as indecent haste." After adjourning the case for argument about the amount of damages, Judge Bowman recently issued judgment, describing the proceedings - which began more than 10 years ago - as "extremely vexed and relentlessly contested". "At times, some issues were contested almost to the point of the absurd," he said. Mr Holdsworth and Ms Ellison were represented by Stratton Langslow and Peter Berman with the RSPCA by Dan Christie. Ms Ellison had described the cattle as her "pride and joy" while Judge Bowman accepted her evidence that the cattle - he accepted that the calves were of commercial value only - were to form the essential foundation of a stud enterprise.Judge Bowman fixed damages at $1.45 million, being $1.24 million lost profit for the stud enterprise and $175,000 for lost profit for an artificial insemination business. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/court-finds-rspca-inspector-negligent-in-shooting-of-131-pure-bred-cattle-20150526-gh9yia.html#ixzz4ANNGV2Cq Follow us: @theage on Twitter | theageAustralia on Facebook

Maybe - but couple of issues 1. Why do some breeders in Australia feel they need to breed their dogs in remote areas - that's a whole new thread 2. the MDBA has breeder members in most European countries and we have also over 300 pet owner members who live in European countries and thats growing every day so I know them - especially the breeders as well as I know our Australian members and its a completely different attitude to breeders and what they breed to what it is here. We issue registered pedigrees for over 100 puppies born each year in Norway and the breeders are not concerned as we are about keeping their camp fires low and staying off the track in fear of being belted. They are seen in high regard and respected for their expertise within the community. They are proud of what they do and not having to constantly defend themselves and being considered pond scum as breeders are here. Some breed dogs as a full time occupation though most are hobby breeders. Their laws and regs are based on science for the species rather than what animal rights have petitioned for. So remoteness may play a role but they don't play the same animal rights games and politics Australia, Canada and the USA do.

There is so much wrong with microchipping laws that you can write a book on it especially when you start comparing systems in different states and I still believe the answer to where do dogs in pounds come from could be answered by appropriate microchip laws. But this requires a government listening to BREEDERS to understand the issues and potential loop holes and closing them,and potential unintended consequences by the small print, it requires enforcement of the laws. it requires the public understanding that purchasing a puppy without a chip is undesirable etc. New amendments come in for NSW July 1st and they sound good until you look at them knowing the politics of the people who will be called on to follow them - the breeders and seeing how they will be understandably circumvented. In my opinion less not more dogs will be chipped in NSW prior to sale due to these introductions. The chances of a fine are negligible and if a fine comes for selling a pup un chipped many breeders are saying its worth the risk .Its worth the risk today and after the 1st of July for many people the risk of being fined for not chipping puppies is preferable to being targeted because they have more than average litters etc. So many things they haven't taken into account which could have given a great resource but in my opinion a negative impact will be seen. You cant make purchasing a dog without a chip illegal unless you want to make more pets homeless and non chipped dogs contraband. But you can reward the public if they purchase a pup that is chipped prior to sale - in other words if it is chipped in someone other than their name before they buy it .You can give them a discount on their registrations just as in the OP we give discounts for desexed dogs and cats.That wont cure the problem but it would raise community awareness of what is required by a seller they are considering buying from. Then you need a system such as car registration transfers in NSW where both the buyer and the seller are responsible for transfer of details. Then you need council to see that if they enforce registration and microchip laws that its not sucking money and resources but bringing more in. Perhaps there is a start up enterprise for someone who subcontracts to council to do their work for them. Walking the streets, door knocking and issuing fines for non registration and non microchipping, directing people to get better fencing to contain their dogs,fining them for having their dogs on the street not leashed etc, picking up puppy sales where the breeder is not complying etc. This frees up their rangers and allows them to continue issue parking fines ,makes someone rich if they get to keep the fines and a percentage of rego fees. Either way wanting more laws and licenses and permits only making one part of the chain [breeders] be seen to be responsible for dogs being dumped etc is not on and only creates scoff laws that only those already doing it alright comply with. You have to consider ALL groups and types of breeders, the politics, culture and you have to work with breeders not just animal rights loonies, rescue and bureaucrats. It has to be about the dogs not just the votes. Licences, permits have been proven not to work - Victoria its given us more huge commercial kennels, less small hobby breeders same numbers dumped . The only way people who are not complying are picked up is after a complaint ,then they are given time to comply ,they comply and continue on. Not having a licence, not microchipping, not registering dogs is not criminal its a warning and at worst a fine

Well, first of all, says who? When the debate of licensing first came up, it was opposed by various state canine associations with the argument being "our members are already licensed". True, but, it would seem that there is some common ground in the licensing of non registered breeders……. Can you show me where I said this? I cant imagine why I would say such a thing and if I did I would like to know where you took that quote from to enable me to retract it. Dogs NSW breeders are not licenced by Dogs NSW though members must pass an examination before obtaining a breeders prefix which enables them to register their puppies.Not all members abide by a strict and enforceable code of ethics and I agree 100% that there are no criminal penalties for non compliance though there is a system which does apply fines. Breach of code of practice via the state for breeding dogs does not carry criminal penalties either . In all states but Victoria the same laws apply to all breeders regardless of which group they are in. In Victoria if you are a Vicdogs member and own under 10 dogs you do not need to comply with the same laws that all other breeders do. So couple of issues here:- First, whilst Dogs NSW breeders (and this applies nationwide) are in a sense licensed and have a requirement to adhere to a code of ethics, the fact is that there are no monetary or criminal penalties for non compliance. Second, is there a suggestion that there is one law for part of the dog breeding industry and exemptions for others? Doesn't make any good sense. The reality is Steve, some of these registered breeders of purebred dogs are in fact puppy mills……Are we suggesting that we ignore these with exemptions? Again Im not sure what you are talking about we seem to be on a different wave lengths . Of course I know some of these registered breeders are doing the wrong thing and how can we ignore the exemptions when they exist? Do I think they should exist? No I dont Exactly! Whenever any sort of license is required there are standards and regulations that apply. We don't simply issue a piece of paper to anyone who wants to breed…..Its not about numbers, its about animal welfare and reducing the numbers in pounds/shelters…..Its never going to be zero its only ever going to be at best reduced. The same codes and standards would apply to all breeders. Dogs NSW have already expressed this sentiment. So if the same codes and standards apply to all breeders what benefit would there be for people who dont want to show their dog or issue DogsNSW registered pedigrees to join DogsNSW and jump through all the hoops , pay all the extra money - how would that increase the numbers of registered DogsNSW breeders? You cant have it both ways…….There has to be some common ground here. If you want more members who hold the same philosophical POV then you either market for it or encourage people to that way of thinking by legislation. It really is a fine line between the carrot and the stick…..If the carrot doesn't work then the stick needs to be applied in a manner where its not to constrictive. So who said this and under what context and how does that have to do with me and what I said ? Actually it is Steve, a license would require the breeder to • Adhere to a code of ethics and a breeding standard similar to that of Dogs NSW and the requirement for owners of dogs issued with papers that are to be bred to hold prefix's before license issue. • Limit the number of licenses issued?? • Limit the number of litters a bitch can have • Increasing the space of confinement • The requirement for vets to report • Etc etc There is scope for more control over the way dogs are treated. The ability to glean data on a host of issues surrounding the entire industry nation wide helping us better the treatment of animals and reduce shelter/pound number further. There would also be added benefits in other areas such as control on taxation/income plus more. To suggest legislating for a biased way of thinking held by a small minority in the land of dog breeding is pretty nutty.And Firstly all breeders in NSW already have to comply with breeding standards similar if not more strict than Dogs NSW secondly are you seriously telling me that you expect legislation to determine whether someone has to join a minority group in order to breed their dog [only if its got papers] to get approval to breed it ? Limit the number of licences issued - nuts . Limit the number of litter a dog can have - why? Im all for increasing the size of confinement but hard to see how that is integral to your argument.Vets reporting stops dogs getting vets to treat them and vets will never agree to this

There will never be a situation where you NEED to be registered with an ANKC state body unless you want to show dogs in ANKC recognised events and'/ or if you want to provide ANKC registered pedigrees with your puppies. Both of these are voluntary and always will be. A licence requirement in NSW would never see an increase in registered ANKC breeders. In Victoria exemptions on needing a licence are given to people who are Vicdogs members and who own under 10 dogs [that cant happen in NSW] - sure they may have picked up a few member numbers because of this but why would a group of people want people in that group with them who only joined so they dont have to get a licence rather than because they share their philosophy? Whats the point in having more registered breeders if they are there simply to scam the system? Some dont even own a purebred dog. Take a good look at the number and size of licensed commercial breeders in Victoria - most of who sell high numbers to pet shops - be careful what you ask for if your goal is to have more small breeders breeding purebred registered dogs placed in homes considered to be suited the dog and with after sales support. How do we get more registered breeders and how do we stop dogs being dumped is not about introducing licensing.

I didn't mean council registered breeders. Having a whole bunch of people who are frightened by the scoff laws who get a licence or register as breeders with council doesn't mean you get quality animals being bred sold to those who are most suited to the pup. Licensing can mean huge commercial kennels and less hobby breeders. I meant registered with a canine association breeding purebred pedigreed dogs and as the discussion was about current rules with Dogs NSW about obtaining prefix I assumed the conversation was not around council registered.

40 years always entire girls never once had pyometra. However,after my seventh baby I had a good bout of pyometra myself. Agony and I really did think I might die

I agree except that we have groups who don't accommodate many dogs at all ,they remove them from pounds and they are in their new home straight from the pound - then their followers cheer them - look how many dogs they have saved. I had someone from Victoria ring our office for advice and info on what they could do .They had 20 plus dogs and council had told them to move them out .They were just dog owners not breeding or rescue and weren't they great every one of their dogs had been saved from pounds and given to them via several rescue sources. How could the council be so heartless and what mongrel neighbours and it all started because they had dogs which fought each other separated and some of them got out. they loved their dogs and every cent they had was being spent on feeding them.They truly felt this was a very saintly thing they were doing and were thunder struck about the idea that they had to give their dogs up. So apart from the obvious issues of living in suburbia with more and more dogs which have various health issues and temperament challenges ,they didnt get these dogs out of thin air ,they came from people who felt that the only consideration that was needed to place a dog with someone was for them to put up their hand .Everyone in the chain feels all warm and snuggly because the dog is no longer on death row and that's possibly whats happened here a bunch of dogs have been rescued .So when OL, council and RSPCA come after them they just don't get it.How could they possibly see that anything that happens to the dogs is not preferrable to them being PTS - they did save them and why doesnt everyone see them as saviours? Those who hang out on dogz have the philosophy that rescue should operate in a certain way , owners screened, dogs assessed,desexed before they leave support post sale etc but realistically that's a choice and it comes under criticism from those who simply want to get them out of pounds Both methods are legal,both methods are seen by many in the community as worthy causes and for many the success is based on numbers saved so more donations and acclaim are thrown at them . Until something like this happens no one thinks of it but as always nothing is ever as simple as it sounds.

I know of 4 independent ones off the top of my head that make a fair profit - enough to cover one or two wages and expenses. In fact we helped a couple of them in their set up stage and Im proud to work with them and see them flourish. It makes no sense for people to start a rescue group with no intention of at least having enough to pay them for their work. No one can sustain that indefinitely and its a big part in why there is such a high burnout and turnover within rescue. You get people who come in where money doesn't matter and being poverty stricken is considered the norm. But over time life changes , the time you put in for unpaid work keeps you from being able to participate in paid work, You and your family eventually , sooner or later cant go on with such a huge sacrifice. We see great people who learn the hard way have massive amounts of knowledge and experience and then they are gone. Its a very difficult thing for people to go on indefinitely without financial gain especially when the politics can be ruthless. Run correctly rescue can not only cover expenses but also pay realistic wages for work given and show a profit. Its not how many dogs they may have on their property at any given time but it is about the management and whether its doing the right thing for the dogs,complying with local and state laws etc. Rescue can muck it up just as well if they only have a couple of dogs I have to ask what the base philosophy is of people who consider it O.K. for dogs to be kept with chains around their necks in this manner, I understand that there are some who believe that everything with a heartbeat should be saved and believe that where they live or who they live with how they are treated etc is better than being dead. dogs are moving around going to anywhere that puts up their hands, all expenses paid without anything other than saving them from a pound taken into consideration. Those doing this argue that those who are going slower, being more particular about what they can and cant save,testing temperaments , matching dogs to owners etc and not over extending their resources are wrong . They crusade and bully those who don't agree with them and accept no responsibility when crap like this happens. The dog world can be a pretty scary place.

As far as a business enterprise is concerned. They see lots of donations, and sales income, they can sell merchandise etc .If run properly rescue can be a lucrative business though most are lucky to break even but its a common trap.

the reason is usually simply trying to help them and they get carried away - often they dont understand what it really takes to be a good rescue service and truly help the dogs- and the chances of a rescue selling dogs for pig hunting are so remote I dont think its worth contemplating.

There is no get out of jail free card - if you know there is an issue with a puppy you say so BEFORE THE PUP GOES HOME. If you don't you break the law and its also a pretty shabby way to treat a puppy buyer.

It still comes down to the agreement. If The deposit is non refundable you should be getting that in writing before you place the deposit and a list of things which would see you get a refund regardless. Eg no puppies, the breeder not being able to provide the pup in a certain period of time etc If its non refundable then regardless of what happens to change that form the buyers end unless its spelled out in the contract then its non refundable no matter what sad story is to be told ,If the breeder is going to hold the deposit for a future litter and carry it over this also needs to be in writing before the deposit is paid - anything else means a fight and probably would see the deposit returned . But its still up to the breeder and its still about what the agreement is

You get no argument from me and clearly rescue isn't as easy as many think it is - seems dogs are suffering longer at the hands of several of them and its an area that needs to be addressed however, Id rather listen to what the council and RSPCA is saying which is "hang on be patient" we are onto it than take even a single scrap of notice of reports from O.L. Yes it's hugely complicated in between RSPCA, council, owners, pounds, pound-co ords... transporters could be of help too. I'm sure donors will be after blood when they see where their hard earned money went and that a brand new group appeared with none of these dogs included. And the rescue groups who released some of these dogs and sent them there need to step up as well and take dogs back!! To their credit OL are clearly explaining the law and due process that must be followed amongst the info released but they can't control what their supporters say. No mention of whether they trespassed to get the footage or if neighbours cooperated. That would be a police matter. Yes I admit I have a problem in wanting to belt someone too hard who has tried to do the right thing but it becomes so frustrating when people do this kind of stuff , the dogs are worse off and it brings rescue in general into disrepute. There are so many people who ARE getting it right but this sort of stuff grabs headlines. I assume that part of an investigation will be where the dogs came from but in the meantime if this sort of thing leads to more restrictions and laws on rescue its understandable.

Prevention of cruelty to animals laws in Victoria and State government codes of practice are counted for the purposes of prosecution not RSPCA guidelines though the code of practice guidelines is almost the same as their guidelines anyway. Guidelines don.t get a fine they are just recommendations. If they have breached council regulations there is a procedure for dealing with that which I am absolutely sure the council will follow especially now the spot light is on them. But just because OL are involved doesn't mean people's rights are disregarded no matter how much we think they should be. My quick look at Prevention of cruelty to animals laws in Victoria I don't see tethering as an offence though I may have missed it. The photos show they have shelter and water and they clearly have regular food .This is the code of practice in Victoria re tethering - note when you read it what says should mean its not something you have to do but where it says must its a definite. My link Im not saying its all good etc I agree it looks pretty bad but OL to me says potential a beat up so Ill wait on outcome via council.

You get no argument from me and clearly rescue isn't as easy as many think it is - seems dogs are suffering longer at the hands of several of them and its an area that needs to be addressed however, Id rather listen to what the council and RSPCA is saying which is "hang on be patient" we are onto it than take even a single scrap of notice of reports from O.L.