Greytmate

The puppies-eating-ratbait story doesn't quite ring true to me.

If that is the case, the person who started the thread in general about being randomly photographed has nothing to worry about? I thought they could still assess her dog even though she bought it from the pound as a staffy X. Is a breed assessment from the pound enough proof that it is?

The important thing is how the dogs behave when they are being adopted out. There is no compulsion for rescuers to assess in any particular location as long as they do it before placing that dog in somebody else's home. It's up to the rescue at what stage they decide whether a dog is or isn't suitable to be rehomed or even placed with a carer, and with Pound Rounds there is no stage they make that decision.

Semantics I know however the statement I have bolded is so very wrong in my opinion. Perhaps a better way to say it would be "A lot of dogs just aren't suitable for rehoming and that is the sad reality." I agree the wording is important, because our words are twisted and spat back at us. But we can be very clear about what is acceptable in our community as a pet. It should be able to be easily contained by normal suburban fence, it should be a legal breed, it should be able to be taken for exercise on a normal lead. Without threatening or attacking people or other animals. That is what a reasonable person would desire and expect from a pet dog. It's what the community expects. PR are doing nothing to ensure the dogs they are promoting meet this expectation of a pet.

That is very true. Not only in regard to the values they are representing, but in how they conduct themselves. There are activists that come across as more loopy and dangerous than the poor dogs they advocate for.

Im not suggesting the convention is only here or that it was invented here however, in the main most people who stay here hold the same beliefs and ethics - its reasonable to say its a convention that most dogz rescue forum users agree with. It is not however, what is necessarily practiced by other rescue people and its not something that has to be practiced in order to be within the law in the state of NSW. No it's not law, it's best practice to assess dogs. And it's illegal to make false claims. And it's illegal to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct as well, I think it could be seen as deceptive to be promoting dogs like the dog aggressive, fence jumping red-nosed amstaff as being suitable for people to take home. I think the dog is faulty goods. It's not illegal not to assess, but it is illegal to make claims that you are not qualified to make that could result in a person being misled.

They also promote the harmful myth that all dogs are inherently good unless mistreated and all psychological issues can be overcome.

It's not just "convention via dogz". I have been a member here for many years and at the same time ran a program for five years. The DOL culture has been influenced by best practices in rescue. We didn't invent our conventions here. Most of us realise that assessment is the one most important part of making sure the wider community isn't put put in danger unnecessarily. Even the big shelters that people 'love to hate' use assessment. I see more similarities between Pound Rounds and Pet Rescue site than I do between Pound Rounds and an actual rescue group. List as many dogs as possible knowing that some will be dangerous, write up some bleeding hearts stuff, and then count it as a rehoming (and take the credit) without caring about the return rates. By distancing themselves as the third party mediator rather than doing the actual work themselves, they are just brokers. We need legislation to cover these brokers and get rid of them. Nobody should be allowed to directly promote a product they don't take responsibility for when things go wrong.

Pounds are legally allowed to dispose of dogs however they like (unfortunately). It is Pound Rounds who are making the emotive claims about the dogs and promoting them as pets. The pound should not deal with dodgy orgs like pound rounds. Does any council really want dogs like 6359 jumping fences in their streets and running off lead in their parks?

They describe things differently on FB. And here is a picture of the red-nosed amstaff. How can somebody advertise this dog as a pet? It's false advertising.

Not personally, but have known people who have been successful and people who have been unsuccessful in getting approval for a pet from the strata committee. There is another forum where people talk about their experiences about this, and there are a few experts who give advice to people. It might be worth you looking in there. Flat Chat Please let us all know how you go, and good luck. :)

I think it looks like the start of an aggressive snarl rather than being a smile. You can tell by the base of the whiskers that the lips are going up, where as in the smile type snarls, the lips tend to be drawn backwards. I don't think the dog is fully fired up though. Maybe it was just barking. It looks like it may have been photoshopped onto that background as the dog is not properly in focus as you would expect from a studio shot.

It might suit both of you if done properly. I think you need to have an agreement in writing similar to what a kennel would have. The best way to try to ensure that she will actually take the dog back on her return is to require she contributes regularly to the dog's expenses while away. Even then there is no guarantee you won't be left holding the dog longer than you originally planned. A contract can spell out exactly what has to happen if payment stops, if she fails to collect, or if something unfortunate happens to the dog. If all goes well then great. If something goes wrong, you need to limit your liability.

I really like Woody's colour. Dilute liver. (known in greyhounds as dun) He looks like a chocolate paddle pop, silvery milky brown. He gets lots of compliments. I also really like red fawn and fawn dogs, and I like them with black masks too.

I wouldn't bother with a FOI request. This is a lesson for breeders not to give dogs to "third parties" and expect to keep legal ownership of them. If the dogs were only leased then draw up some paperwork to make it legal, and don't expect the microchip registry to protect you.

You would be better off staying with the natures gift because it is higher fat than roo. Roo is very lean and wont help dry skin. Natures gift is a good food.

Yeah that's because this is a dog forum. It isn't appropriate to talk about whether people should have children or not in here.

Well said Megan.

Yes. I think a lawyer should be consulted asap. It only takes one phone consultation for them to be able to send an immediate letter by email to the RSPCA. If this is done then the RSPCA will realise there is a serious dispute and not sell or euth the dogs. At the moment there is a danger this will happen.

Then don't buy a pup, because there is no guarantee if how it will turn out when mature. If you want to know exactly what your dog will be like, get an adult that has been thoroughly assessed as a mature dog. My advice for you is to get the pup you are waiting on, and forget getting another dog in the mean time. What's the rush? Every dog regardless if where it is bought from deserves its own time to be settled in to the family. So unless there are really good reasons why you need to get two dogs around the same time, don't go looking for two. Get your collie pup, and have fun with it socialising and training and having friend's dogs visit. Once you've gotten to know your dog well, and it has matured, then decide what traits you want in a second dog.

Can you please refer us to this law. I thought that type of trade restraint was illegal.

Nobody can seem to get it through your head that you are not the legal owner of these dogs in any sense. To keep saying they are your dogs is misleading. Just because you feel responsible for them doesn't mean that you have any rights over them, you are in no position to help them if they are neglected or abused or are seized by authorities. You put the dogs in a situation that you have no legal control over at all, and this is completely unethical to do. An ethical rescue has the dogs signed into their own name as a matter of priority, and then draws up a written contract with any foster carer they place their dogs with. If the dog is not in your name, any contract you have with the carer is invalid. You are completely ignorant of Australian law and community expectations. You are a classic example of dodgy rescue in almost every way.

You still need to identify exactly who you are, keep a separate bank account and follow other rules. You can't just fund raise under a fake name. Yup no problems there we have a seperate account for the dogs. That is only one of many obligations. I'm not really trusting anything you say anymore, you just agree with people and do the opposite. So instead of replying perhaps you should take it as a warning to go and get advice on your responsibilities. You have no legal rights over the two dogs you 'rescued' last week, they are not in permanent homes, and so you had just better hope, like we all do, that nothing bad happens to those dogs. You cannot get them desexed or sell them until they are legally yours, and you should not be listing them for adoption. If Lucky causes any problems, you can expect to be sued personally, as you selected her from a pound and placed her in the community under the guise of an organisation.

You still need to identify exactly who you are, keep a separate bank account and follow other rules. You can't just fund raise under a fake name.

Lucky is not still with you. Your organisation is a pretend one, so it doesn't own any dogs. Just because you have invented a name for your imaginary rescue group, it doesn't mean it is a thing. Lucky is not microchipped in your name, so you don't own her. She is no longer at your house so you don't have her with you. It is untrue to say she is still with you. You have put this dog in the home of another family.