Greytmate

Which part? You have said a few times that you agree, but then you do the opposite. In dog rescue things will always go wrong sometimes. We are dealing with animals. When it goes to court, the court looks at whether rescue was following best practice (ie: proper timely assessment, vet checks etc). to try to avoid problems. If one of the dogs you have in foster care does this, you won't be able to show how you did anything to prevent it or assess the dog. You actually had all the info about what needed to be done before you put a dog in another person's home, and chose not to do it. This means that what happens with your dogs wasn't a mistake, you actually chose to put a dog that hasn't been assessed in another family's home. You did nothing to prevent aggression. That means you would be fully liable. You also chose to ignore council laws about how many dog you are allowed to keep. All you did was to fail with the very first dogs you took in. Because you chose to ignore advice that could have seen you avoid problems. When people act selfishly rather than take the effort to do the right thing by the dogs, how are they not scum of the earth? No, we are interested in responsible rescue. It will be our business. Unless you rehome dogs privately under your own name instead of pretending to be rescue group, people will always be keeping an eye on you and warning people about you. Just like Pound Rounds. Pound Rounds don't need to be a part of this forum for us to talk about how their slack practices cause misery. If you advertise your group, have a website or a facebook page, if you communicate with the public in any way, you make it all our business. Your choice. You don't have a direction. You just react to stuff. The only liar here is you. You said you assessed dogs, but you don't. You said you would foster yourself at home, but you don't. You made up a fake rescue group, instead of registering a real one. That is so dodgy and dishonest. All I can say is that I hope you are punished for breaking laws you are too lazy to learn about and I hope you get sued for having no quality control over the pets you put in other people's houses. Although you come across with a 'nothing to lose' person in every way.

If Lucky is not in your home, and you do not have paperwork to say she is yours then why are you saying that she is in your care? The foster carer that has her now can do whatever they like with her. How do you know what will happen to Ina? How long have you known the people that have her? I am not sure how this relates to anything that has happened in another group. This thread is about what you are doing.

You don't know where those dogs are going to end up, and you have no way of controlling whether they go to good or bad homes because you don't have any paperwork to say you own them anyway. This has happened in public, you published requests for help on the internet. Your website and FB can be seen by anyone. Local government now has a complaint about greyhounds on record. When rescues take on too much and then have to desperately ask other rescues for urgent help to take their dogs, its a bad thing, no matter how frequently it happens.

How is your dog cougar? If he got any scratches from the cat, he should be put on antibiotics. They always seem to cause a nasty infection.

That's how Pound Rounds operate and burn people. Nobody ever fosters for them, they have nothing to do with dogs after they have been moved on to another temporary spot. Yet they trusted you enough to give you two dogs without checking that you could keep them legally. They set themselves up nicely to shuffle out dogs and rake in donations, by using people like yourself. We blame them for the many problems this practice creates. We blame you for not taking advice to work only with reputable groups.

No it doesn't make sense. You are saying that you disagree with what you have been told by people here about running a responsible greyhound rescue. You don't want to follow laws and are not afraid of being sued if you don't follow best practice? You want to antagonise people who cross you? Why would you expect us to believe you can be responsible about rescue at all?

very misleading when the FB page states founded in 2011 Unless the organisation is incorporated or registered as a company, it is not a real organisation at all. It's completely dodgy to solicit for public donations under a made-up name instead of through a registered organisation. It could even be regarded as fraudulent behaviour.

You need to check what is in the legislation, not rely on what a ranger says. If you didn't have the dogs there in excess of council limits, why did they have to go? Possibly their yappy little dog is barking more because of the dogs you have running around. Not an excuse, but a reason to be very tolerant of neighbours, to work with them, and to let them know your plans in advance. It was very clearly explained to you the difference between private rehoming (under your own real name, no asking for donations, no publicising on FB, ) and starting a rescue organisation in the public realm. You chose to do this publicly, so you should have realised as explained earlier, that people will be watching what you do as it may affect them. If you delete the website and FB pages that create a perception/expectation that you are a legally formed organisation, few people here will worry about what you do. I am starting to feel as though you take everything you are told and make it your aim to do the opposite, just to spite other people.

Hey it was a learning experience and one I wont make again. I never thought in my mind that the neighbors would kick up a stink. Although I am a live and let live type person but hey they started it so they will be getting nice visits from the council because I am tired of listening to their dog bark all day. So they either shut their dog up or they deal with the rangers. How they can complain about dogs that never barked, we not outside unless supervised and only to play and potty is beyond me but we will see how they like the rangers knocking on their door because their dog is a small yappy dog that barks all day You would be better off putting your energy into learning about greyhounds and looking into laws, regulations and best practices than wasting your time on retribution. Council will require you to provide detailed evidence before they take action on a complaint like that. Other than that, all they will do is inform the dog owners that somebody has made a complaint about them. I thought you were moving anyway? Live and let live only applies when you act within the law. Council permission is required in most areas of Victoria to have more than two dogs.

The tests for small dogs are based on the greyhound's prey drive, not its defence drive. When a dog is acting aggressively through defence it will normally give the intruder an opportunity to retreat. When a dog is acting aggressively through prey drive there is no opportunity to retreat given to the intruder. I can't comment on what happened with this particular dog, but I agree that dogs that show prey drive towards other dogs are not suitable to be offered to the public as pets. All greyhounds need to be carefully tested for prey drive towards small dogs. If they fail, they are a liability, legally and socially, for the owner and for the group that sold it as a pet.

Everything that went wrong could have been totally avoided if advice was followed. But the people who gave the advice were totally dismissed and instead we get insults. And now we are expected to believe it is good that you failed and had to rely on another people to save the dogs? Can you do one single thing that would prove you are more ethical than Pound Rounds? One thing? Because at the moment you are doing exactly what they do, and in some ways you are worse than they are. Asking for money under an assumed name. You were told that you needed to set up a business or incorporation in order to raise funds. But you just made up a name to collect funds, and have asked the public for money. That is unethical. You told us you had the resources to start a group. Did you lie or did you not think you needed no resources in reserve? It takes at least a couple of weeks to properly assess a greyhound. But you have written up descriptions for sale and published them without doing this. On your website you label the dogs as adoptable. On Facebook you ask for a permanent home. Pound Rounds are well known for doing this sort of thing. It's called "revolving door rescue" and it's unethical. It risks burning adopters terribly. Pound Rounds will be sued eventually . Do you want angry people taking legal action against you? You did not have the resources to take care of dogs you took in, in case of an emergency. Ethical rescue is about having a plan B for such emergencies. Instead you placed a burden directly on another group. And because they graciously took a surrender without complaint, you see this as a sign of approval? When rescuers need to have their own dogs rescued, that is a complete fail. It was explained that you need to find out about local laws about running a rescue. Instead you get compliance officers banging on your door within days of starting, and you act as though this is surprising? You were warned. What do you think happens to people that break laws? How long do you think you can keep fundraising under a made-up name? You don't have any paperwork to prove you own the dogs you have put up for sale. You have no insurance to cover any accidents or any damage the dogs may cause. This whole thread has been extremely disturbing. People have put a lot of effort into sharing what they know so that you have the information to run a successful rescue. But you have decided that it is all too much effort to follow laws, or to learn about important things, and you are going to play at being a rescue hero anyway. It is going to take a lot from you to prove to the community here that you are any better than Pound Rounds. If you are not interested in doing that then you will always be regarded as a negative who is damaging the reputation of the rescue world rather than being seen as a positive who contributes to a reduction of the number of dogs being euthanised. And I'm not sure why you keep making that ridiculous statement that the greyhounds in shelters in NSW are "covered". You have not taken any time to find out accurate information about the state of greyhound adoption at all. Your good intentions have brought you a lot of stress and misery. You need to take responsibility for that, as you chose what to do. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail, and that's what has happened so far.

That isn't the point. How can you answer any questions that a prospective adopter asks? Why the rush to advertise her? It would be terrible if a family fell in love with her, but it turned out she wasn't suitable to be taken for walks in suburbia. You could wait to find out more about her before advertising her. This is one of the main criticisms of unethical places like Pound Rounds. They advertise dogs before anyone can be sure what sort of pet they will be.

You have them labelled as adoptable dogs on your website. By what standards are they adoptable? People will want to know information about Lucky, especially how she is with small dogs, before they decide to adopt her, and they need her certificate, and you will be able to provide neither. Why the rush to list her?

You need a desexing certificate not an opinion. It isn't really possible to tell the difference between a ceaser scar and a desexing scar without having the dog ultrasounded. You need to look in the dogs ear for a desexing tattoo. Unless pound rounds have sent you her certificate, you may need to organise this yourself before you advertise her.

No it's quite upsetting to read about because misery could have been avoided. I think you should remove the dogs from sale until they are healthy and ready to be adopted. The dogs haven't had enough time to adjust either. Why the rush to get them into homes?

Only greyhounds that are good with small dogs can pass the green collar test mup. Dogs that fail wear a muzzle.

It takes time to assess and rehab an ex-racer mup. They were never bred or raised to be a pet and some are not suitable to be adopted out. Older greyhounds especially need to be checked out thoroughly by a vet familiar with the breed. They come out of a kennel and can be quite institutionalised. Good greyhound foster programs allow the dog to make the transition with the minimum of stress.

It is concerning to see these dogs being shuffled so soon after arriving and while they both have health issues, but more concerning that they are being advertised as adoptable in this condition, and have not been tested yet with small dogs.

Brisbane council had a team of terriers for ratting. Not sure if they were supposed to kill the rats or just flush them out. The laws don't talk about what the breed of dog is or what the prey is, but they do ban setting a dog onto another animal to kill it. If a pig dog just holds the pig, it's owner isn't breaking the law.

Back in the day, coursing was a rich man's sport in large fenced acreages. Back before fences they rode on horseback to keep up. Coursing live hare is illegal in Australia, and is not a nice experience for the hare. Greyhounds were never expected to come back on command, then or now.

I would work with the three dogs you already have. If your dobes are too rough for a small breed they are too rough for a pup.

Rather than using the term 'cat safe' it can be better to describe the dog as ' shown the ability to live in a home with a cat.' Or words to that effect. Some greyhounds learn to live with a cat and behave respectfully towards it, but fewer will tolerate an unknown cat met outside.

And you are a rude woman to ignore the efforts gone in to providing you with lots of information about running a rescue responsibly and what needs to be considered to avoid problems. You were warned that organisations are held to higher standards and given less privacy than individuals. Get used to it. You have already started making big problems for yourself in your first few days.

When I ran a foster care program we would have the carers get the dogs gradually used to spending time on their own. A dog showing signs of anxiety is not always suitable to be offered for adoption as a pet.

Agree totally with this. If a rescue is knocking back all fulltime workers as being unsuitable to adopt from them I would assume it is because they are adopting out dogs prone to separation anxiety and have no idea how to avoid it other than putting dogs in homes where people are usually home. A good rescue should be able to match a well- adjusted dog with people that work full time, and to know what sort of homes would suit their different dogs. Unless it is a breed where demand outstrips supply in which case the dog will go to the family that most impresses the rescue. Good homes may miss out and that is no reflection on them.