melzawelza

The USA has only five states left where greyhound racing is legal and operational. There's no real issue with illegal racing. Imagine the logistics of trying to manage a greyhound track without coming to the attention of the authorities. Much more difficult than setting up a pit in someone's basement.

"Adopt rescue dog" - Petrescue first two links followed by RSPCA "Adopt a dog'- RS first, Petrescue next two "Adopt rescue cat" Petrescue first two links followed by RS "Adopt a cat" - Petrescue is 4th, after RS and CatRescue901 "Rescue dog" first two are Petrescue "Rescue cat" - first two are Petrescue

Interesting! I hear it a lot in the workplace and just dealing with 'the general public' in a pet related role. Many, many people saying they searched Petrescue once deciding they wanted a rescue pet. Not rescue people by any stretch, just ordinary people looking for a new pet. But everyone's experience is different. I'd love to see the study and research you mention! Win the lottery already! :laugh:

I think it's a negative for rescue pets in the overall. Having one, central, Australia-wide listing service that is extremely well known within the general public due to really effective promotion and branding and long standing goes a long way to getting pets adopted. Fractioning off listings in to two separate services and locations doesn't seem to me to be an effective way to get pets seen. Of course people can list with both, but that's just twice the time suck for already resource-thin organisations and I don't really know what the point would be.

All dogs are individuals, so I don't see any reason why two entire breeds of dogs, and all the varied personalities those umbrellas encompass, would be mutually exclusive. It's more a case of finding the right dog within a breed you're after, rather than knocking out whole breeds as unsuitable. Because you're considering adopting as an adult, that makes the process much easier. If you want a Greyhound, seek out a Greyhound with the temperament you need, and just be prepared to be a little patient if needed (or not at all, the first dog you see might be perfect!). Best of luck :)

Totally agree there's always room for improvement, but until TNR is legal and able to be performed by councils and facilities like SDCH, it's almost impossible to achieve the same live release rate as dogs. The vast majority of cats that are killed at SDCH are not able to be rehomed as pets. Without TNR as an option for them, they're limited in their options. I don't think rescues are willing to take a completely unsocialised cat in to their homes, so rescue isn't really a solution.

Yep :) It's always a good idea regardless of the dog.

All dogs are individuals, there is no entire breed that all behaves the same way. Prey drive is a natural and normal instinct in dogs as a species. Some individuals will have very high prey drive, some low to non existent, and some that will come out only when left unsupervised and situations escalate. Your dogs must be separated from your cats when you aren't home, or you are likely to end up with a dead cat one day, given what you have described. I have a dog that is excellent with my cats, but she has a high prey drive. She's never given me cause for concern that she would hurt my cats, but regardless when I leave the house she is either outside, or if inside they're separated in to different sections of the house. I would take these precautions with any dog.

If we're talking about the same place, there was photographs posted last night of a Neapolitan Mastiff that has been kennelled for EIGHT YEARS. She is nine years old. This is *completely* unacceptable and an absolute disgrace. A 1yo purebred dog (of a fairly uncommon breed!) should have been able to be adopted no problems at all in a matter of months. If the dog has significant issues, then behaviour assessment and rehab should have been sought, and if the dog is not adoptable despite that it should have been euthanised. It's horrifying and it's not the only 'shelter' in Sydney that kennels dogs for years on end without much of an effort to advertise and rehome (or, never rehoming them despite interest because no one meets their ridiculous standards).

Yikes, that's scary. Thanks for letting us know. Glad they're all okay.

They don't do much work with rescue because they don't need to - they do the job they are paid to do and don't palm it off to unpaid volunteers in order to keep pets alive. They do both health and behavioral rehab, their live release rate is very high, and their length of stay is short. Rescue is reserved for those few pets who truly need it.

Steve I'd recommend checking out Sydney Dogs and Cats Home in Sydney as far as pounds doing an excellent job. They have very high live release rates, do not place time restrictions on adoptable animals, treat medical and behavioural issues, have a foster care program, run playgroups (despite not having play yards - no excuses!), trial periods on adoptions, well resourced volunteer program and an average length of stay of about 3 or 4 weeks last time I checked. They don't rely on rescue for their stats - they contact rescue when needed for dogs that are truly not coping, but given they do such a great job of running the place and getting them out ASAP that isn't needed too often. They also take pets at risk at other pounds (mostly Campbelltown I think) when they have the ability to do so. They have an excellent open adoption program and work to find ways to say 'yes' to adoptions and make the process enjoyable and supportive for adopters.

If rescues get no benefit from using PetRescue, why do they list with them?

Im not interested in the adjective ethical but I would consider taking a pound dog at around the same level as taking one from a puppy farmer. Both are looking for homes for dogs already here and both could care less about the dogs they have or where they go and both carry higher risks for the new owner. This is not true of *many* pounds.

If I have to engage a trainer or radically change how I live and how my family lives I want to know BEFORE I decide to take the dog and I dont want to take a dog in that needs thousands in health bills or nursing .Sounds terrible I know but that the way it is for me and I dont think Im in the minority. There could be enough good rescuers with good resources its just that this is the focus on how to fix the problem there are other alternatives including the one that Mita just referenced. This entire program came about because it has been decided that private rescue cant double what their contribution is.I think they can if they get the right kind of support and help. Maybe that can happen, but the dogs are in pounds now. I agree that if some radical investment is needed then people should know upfront. However, unless a rescuer does everything like you would, and unless the dog has stayed with them for a significant period of time, how a dog acts in one home can be totally different from how a dog acts in your home. That is always going to be the case, regardless of how good a rescuer is. I'm sure my fearful rescue girl would have turned into a different dog in a more experienced home. That said, from all the trainers I know, the vast majority of dogs out there don't have serious behavioural problems that require significant investment of money, treatment plans, drugs etc. They need help learning basic manners and how to walk on a leash. Again, great if a rescuer can get these down pat, but chances are the dog is going to have to relearn these things with you anyway. Agree with this Megan. The vast majority of dogs in pounds do not have significant behavioural problems that can't be solved with simple obedience training. Most are very physically healthy. On top of that, dogs can behave extremely differently from one home to the next, so there is always a level of unknowns, even with foster-based rescue. I do hear the concerns about pounds that do the bare minimum but in that case surely the answer is for the pounds to improve their processes and start doing the job they're paid for, rather than expecting overworked and underpaid rescuers to bear the brunt of keeping pets alive. There is simply no way for rescues to eliminate the killing of healthy and treatable animals on their own. They do not have the resources available. Pounds need to step up and prioritise adoptions (after reclaims) as the #1 way to get pets out of pounds. Rescues do incredible work and they should be able to do it in a manner that supports pounds and pets, without them either being completely overworked or experiencing compassion fatigue over all the dogs they couldn't help.

As I said earlier in the thread, Petrescue are unlikely to be eligible for 99% of animal welfare grants, which require your organisation to be directly caring for animals. It is you, the rescues, who are eligible for such grants. I'm sorry but the idea of PetRescue paying rescue groups for each pet listing is absurd. You are provided a well designed and frequented website that gives major exposure to the pets in your care for free. The cost involved in running that website is huge, and not once has PetRescue ever attempted to charge rescues to use it. You speak as if rescues are doing PetRescue s favour for using the website and should be somehow compensated for that (???) but if PetRescue wasn't a valuable resource for rescues and pounds to use then they wouldn't use it, simple as that.

I'm all for it and agree with them 100% that there will never be enough foster homes to ensure all adoptable animals are adopted. The pounds and shelters should be the ones doing the brunt of the work and adoptions, with support from rescue to meet that goal. There's plenty of shoddy rescues out there that will happily palm off a dog with known issues without disclosing. In addition, and the thing that so many don't want to talk about, is there's plenty of rescues with a 'dealbreaker' list as long as my arm that will see them refusing the vast majority of good homes that come their way, leading those owners to pet shops and the like instead. Nowadays when people I know are looking to rescue I honestly don't bother sending them to groups other than a select few that I know will treat them properly and not refuse them for arbitrary ridiculousness. If those groups don't have what they're after I send them to our local shelters (one of which is SDCH) who will treat them like human beings and work to find the right dog for them. They find reasons to say yes, rather than reasons to say no. People have been adopting dogs directly from the pound for eons and the vast majority work out beautifully. Of course the second part to what PetRescue are encouraging is for pounds to get out of the dark ages and start resourcing their adoption programs and making lifesaving a priority. Things like foster programs, playgroups (which keep your animals sane and tell you so much about their personalities), customer service, behavioural rehab etc etc

So many welfare issues arise when making profit from dogs. This is just one more amongst a myriad of issues in Greyhound racing.

Pretty disgusting that this has been known about for six years with no action taken.

Would you continue to have volunteers doing the heavy lifting while you spend money on lawyers trying to get back something done by another volunteer? I agree that it's nice if people working for charities got paid. But it does start to cause conflicts of interest. Some charities are better at managing the perceived conflicts and actual ones than others. That's when you start to look at the percentage of income (donations) that go to caring for and placing dogs vs that which goes on admin and lawyers. Shel was paid just like everyone else while at PetRescue (barring the start up years where no one was paid), and as far as I know there aren't volunteers doing all the heavy lifting - the staff are paid at PetRescue. We also have no idea whether they paid for the letter to be sent or whether the time was donated or heavily discounted by the solicitor in question. Even if it was paid, it does not cost much to have a cease & desist letter drawn up. I'm not really interested in assessing the merits of the feud between Shel & PetRescue or taking sides - there's clearly plenty going on behind the scenes that none of us know, but I'm getting mighty irritated at the constant stream of people implying that PetRescue are doing the wrong thing by paying their staff. It isn't just 'nice' for employees of charities to be paid, it should be expected and we certainly shouldn't be shooting down those who have worked hard enough and been successful enough to achieve that goal. I completely run myself in to the ground working a full time job to pay my bills and then working for free at another job running my charity. Because of the day job, I cannot dedicate the sort of time to the charity that I know could achieve enormous things if myself and my other volunteers could forget the day jobs and focus on it 100%. It's not sustainable long term and if we do not get to the point of being able to pay staff within the next 5 years then it's likely I will walk away. I'm not ashamed or embarrassed of that. My time is valuable and I do extremely valuable work - I deserve to be remunerated for it and the charity deserves to have a Director that can focus 100% of her working energy on achieving it's goals and isn't completely burnt out. Is your charity going to be relying on other charities to keep yourself afloat, I guess that is what it comes down to. PR do not exist without the rescues putting their dogs on their site, or referring people to their site to look at animals on there. They get so many other financial resources that rescues don't, and I am not sure how many people want to donate to a rescue when their donation will pay wages instead of going to a vet bill except in the larger rescue organisations like the RSPCA. My charity does not rely on other rescues to stay afloat, no. Although I'm not convinced that PetRescue does, either. In regards to some other comments after yours: I don't really agree that PetRescue have more opportunities for grants etc than rescues do. My charity is similar to PetRescue in that we do not physically take animals in to our care. Our focus is on supporting pet owners in need, and keeping pets in their original homes, often through financial assistance. The problem with this is that in order to be eligible for 99% of animal welfare-related grants, you need to be physically caring for animals. This makes us ineligible for many grants that rescues would be eligible for. PetRescue would be in the same boat, I'd imagine. As far as corporate sponsorships and other means of revenue raising go, there's nothing stopping rescues (and my charity) pursuing those. This isn't something PetRescue have a monopoly on. For me, the only thing stopping us going for them is the *time* it takes to seek out and pursue those opportunities. And this of course comes back to the fact that I'm working 38 hours per week already in a full time job, which doesn't leave nearly enough time for the charity. If I could take a wage and do the charity full-time we'd be growing like mad every year. I like Shel, I like PetRescue. There's obviously bad blood between the two and I don't know nearly enough to 'take sides' (or even want to take sides), but I'm very disappointed that it seems that the main conversation that has come out of the response to Shel's post has been to disparage charities that work hard to build themselves up from nothing and pay themselves wages in order to do the best work they can possibly do. I'm sure there's things that can be criticised about PetRescue (as there is with all organisations) but IMO that isn't it.

Well said.

This is worth a watch.

Would you continue to have volunteers doing the heavy lifting while you spend money on lawyers trying to get back something done by another volunteer? I agree that it's nice if people working for charities got paid. But it does start to cause conflicts of interest. Some charities are better at managing the perceived conflicts and actual ones than others. That's when you start to look at the percentage of income (donations) that go to caring for and placing dogs vs that which goes on admin and lawyers. Shel was paid just like everyone else while at PetRescue (barring the start up years where no one was paid), and as far as I know there aren't volunteers doing all the heavy lifting - the staff are paid at PetRescue. We also have no idea whether they paid for the letter to be sent or whether the time was donated or heavily discounted by the solicitor in question. Even if it was paid, it does not cost much to have a cease & desist letter drawn up. I'm not really interested in assessing the merits of the feud between Shel & PetRescue or taking sides - there's clearly plenty going on behind the scenes that none of us know, but I'm getting mighty irritated at the constant stream of people implying that PetRescue are doing the wrong thing by paying their staff. It isn't just 'nice' for employees of charities to be paid, it should be expected and we certainly shouldn't be shooting down those who have worked hard enough and been successful enough to achieve that goal. I completely run myself in to the ground working a full time job to pay my bills and then working for free at another job running my charity. Because of the day job, I cannot dedicate the sort of time to the charity that I know could achieve enormous things if myself and my other volunteers could forget the day jobs and focus on it 100%. It's not sustainable long term and if we do not get to the point of being able to pay staff within the next 5 years then it's likely I will walk away. I'm not ashamed or embarrassed of that. My time is valuable and I do extremely valuable work - I deserve to be remunerated for it and the charity deserves to have a Director that can focus 100% of her working energy on acheiving it's goals and isn't completely burnt out.

Pet Rescue is not now 'for profit'. Paying staff is not only completely acceptable within a not for profit model, it should be the ultimate goal of the vast majority of charities and not for profits, including animal-related ones. Our work is valuable as all hell and we deserve to be remunerated for it as much as any other job (if not more so). On top of that, if we were all able to dedicate 38 hours per week to it, rather than burning ourselves out trying to fit it in around a full time job that pays our bills, imagine what we could actually achieve.

I've just started the dog behaviour questions and the issue I have is that I can't answer as there's not enough context. Punishing for ignoring recall - depends on context. If I've got an e-collar on a dog that knows what the command means and has had heavy repetition of it in the past, and I'm using it at a low stimulus - yes I would absolutely (assuming legal use in a state that permits it). No e-collar and the dog is far away from me? Nope, because there's no way to effectively punish, and I'm certainly not punishing when the dog comes back to me as that's just going to get the opposite of what I want. I have to say I closed it at that point, because if don't have enough context to answer the question fairly, especially when this is a study clearly looking in to punishment in training, I worry my answers will be used not in the way they were intended.