Plan B

I'm pretty sure the Pound has been sending application forms to a few groups that hold a Clause 16d.

We have a $400 fee, regardless of age, breed, etc. Sometimes this covers us, other times it doesn't (if those Luxating Patellas get us one more time...!) I generally just have the mentality that, to me personally (and not imposing this on anyone), every dog in our care is worth the same. We've never had a problem with the fee, so haven't needed to lower it for any dog, but wouldn't be against that if it turned out the fee was detrimental to a dog getting adopted. I think keeping the fee reasonable (not too cheap, not too high) ensures that good homes, who may not be made of money but that can support a dog for its lifetime, should always come before trying to making profit on a particular breed.

Source: www.u.tv

I wasn't talking about rehabilitation. I was talking about having a dog professionally assessed for any 'issues' (which can include such a wide range of behaviours, it's a bit silly discussing it without knowing what each other is referring to) before deciding to PTS. That qualified opinion could be taken with that dog if/when it goes back to the pound. And while I somewhat agree with you, I do disagree that Rescues aren't responsibly for the dogs they take into care and claim ownership of. While not every Rescue can rehabilitate a dog, I would be worrying about a Rescue that continuously sends dogs back to the pound or euthanise, without them having the dog assessed by a qualified person. The blame absolutely does lie on previous owners/breeders. No Rescue should ever be blamed for not being able to 'save' a dog. But I do think Rescues should do whatever is in their power to follow through with the commitment they make by taking a specific dog. Like someone mentioned before - actually meeting the dog you are planning to rescue beforehand is essential in preventing these dilemmas, though it's obviously not guaranteed issues won't arise. Anyway, this is way off-topic.

Source. I'm constantly amazed and appalled at the lengths this 'animal welfare' group will go to. Even more amazed at the people who continue to support them.

I do hope Rescues seek a professional assessment in that case, before dumping dogs back at the pound or killing them left, right and center. After all, Rescues should be giving these dogs their best chance at life, and I'd find it highly unethical to be abandoning/killing them without professional assessment.

Which is? Shouldn't this be in the 'News' section?

And in the process making it harder for genuine Rescue to do what they do best. There's a reason some pounds do not want or like to work with Rescue - and it comes from bad experiences. This is leading up to one monumental bad experience.

Definitely do this. I suspect you will see a complete 180 once you point out they could be held liable if/when any future incidents occur. It's just so sad that a dog, who should have been assessed here in NSW, has now been shipped off to a state that already targets certain bull breeds. Its chances of rehabilitation, if there were any, have dramatically decreased.

Of course. Not sure why all this needed to be said as I was just stating that, in reply to your comment, NSW does not have a limit on the amount of dogs someone can have. Therefor, Council do not play a part in stopping someone from fostering here. There's also a lot of people who do not know that Council cannot enforce their policies, so do not actually consider fostering based on that - if more people knew that they could have a foster dog on top of their own two dogs (for example), we may have more people putting their hands up to help.

From the DLG: Link: http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/DLG/DLGHome/Documents/Information/CA_FAQ.pdf EDIT: Basically, the Companion Animal Act states anyone who finds a stray must take it to an approved premises (not all vets are approved). Because some do not come and pick the stray up from you, you must deliver it to the appropriate place. Failing to do so will mean breaking the law and incurring a fine.

In NSW Councils cannot enforce a limit on the amount of companion animals someone owns (within reason, for example, the care provided and safety, etc). The DLG states it on their website: Council Policies are just suggestions on what they would like you to do but they cannot enforce anything unless problems arise due to the number of animals you keep. EDIT: Not sure on other states but this is something that is regularly asked here and not a lot of people know the Council's cannot actually stop them owning more animals than they suggest.

Text on forums is always subjective. You can read it however you like. I did put some question marks in there though, just to clarify I was asking questions.

I think anyone who posts on a public forum should expect to be responded to. And gosh, maybe even questioned. I asked what the damage was, as this is something continuously said by the poster over various threads, even when not really in relation to the thread or adding to it in any other way than purely to state this opinion, again.

What is your damage? Is it the whole of Rescue you dislike or do you just constantly allude to some groups? Every time an opportunity presents itself, you accuse Rescue of hoarding. Just wondering why you feel the need to put us all down here?

Please do. The last thing we need are idiotic, overzealous people causing a scene.

I take on mostly bull breeds and still, the major destructive foster was a border collie who was in isolation. She did not cope at all with missing out on the action. Also had a Foxterrier that pulled my keyboard down and was jumping up and down on it, tearing the keys up. And then a litter of pups that somehow chewed a whole through a cupboard from the bottom, so they could actually go hide in it and freak me out when I couldn't find them.

He would totally be a foster failure if I didn't think he would make a fantastic family dog. But alas, he's just too damn good to keep to myself.

I keep getting asked about Pommie, who was from Renbury and had suspected neurological issues, so figured I'd put a thread up here with an update. We had him checked over and he has a dead nerve in his back right leg. If effects him in that he wobbles and, sometimes, gets caught off balance, but he is mastering his co-ordination very quickly. He actually surprises me with how active he is. And if he falls down, he takes a second, and gets right back up. He'll even break out into runs here and there and was jumping over the rocks when we went to the beach for his photoshoot the other day (video below). He's a very easy dog to have in the house, doesn't (can't) jump up, quiet, and generally just a pleasure. I've definitely fallen in love with him and am dreading any applications we have for him... as I'd love to be able to have him for a very, very long time! Profile: Here.

Oh yes. Bitey Face is like a rite of passage here.

To be fair, you don't need any of this stuff. IF, you are not asking for donations. Plenty of individuals and private groups get by without asking for donations. And there's no regulation saying Rescue needs any of this stuff if they're not. But, I agree. Every Rescue should be taking steps to doing all of this. It actually makes everything so much easier and simpler in the long run. I've seen some people in Rescue moaning that they don't have a Clause 16d so can't easily save from Pounds - a Clause 16d is as easy as getting Westfields Giftcard (wish it wasn't). If they can't even be bothered to take that step, they're not going to take any others.

So what are we, as a community, going to do to ensure these incidents do not happen again?

Clauses, ABNs, and Charity Status' aside, it's the practices of the group I'm more concerned about. This thread highlighting just one of many incidents.

NSW Government Gazette 28 October - Page 6367. :) EDIT: Also here, for those who don't want to search so much!