Plan B

No Kill shelters do not have kill lists. Anyone, everywhere, can also do this. If they believe in warehousing animals, placing animals in incompatible homes, or otherwise giving a bad quality of life.

I don't believe people should shut up and not act, when dogs are being failed by the very groups created to help them, just because some see bickering as a blight. Besides which, until I see a decrease in adoptions or foster carer applications, I would say that discussions like this have no impact on rescue as a whole. The actions of reckless and irresponsible groups, however, do.

When those questions are about their fundraising, it is also against the obligations they agreed to when they got their fundraising license. They must answer these questions.

That post that is right here? http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/245177-pound-rounds/page__view__findpost__p__6096113

Oh definitely. I wouldn't dispute that. I do think that just because a system allows for it, it doesn't mean it should happen (as I know you would too). And the pounds didn't make them do anything that the RSPCA are currently investigating them for.

I agree with you, Steve, on most points. Sadly, it's an incredibly hard thing to pursue and, even if successful in narrowing down anything, it would take an incredibly long time. This avenue is the hardest one to go down. But considering recent events involving the head honcho, it looks like they will at least either face the music or have to buck up their ideas. Either one is fine with me.

It doesn't really matter who wants a tax receipt, with DGR status. Receipts must be sent out to everyone when possible and donations are over $2. I'm not talking about proving it. I'm merely stating what the conditions are. However, many dogs they raise money for, the funds incoming for a specific dog (or, appeal, as OLGR would put it) would far outweigh the outgoing costs of that dog's rescue. I think this is a reason they do not use chip-ins anymore, because the amount raised was transparent and there for people to see. Like I said, I was stating the conditions. If anyone did want their donation back because it was not used for the intended cause, then they would be well within their rights. I don't think this avenue can be pursued, personally. Although it should be pointed out that Pound Rounds were operating as a group long before they incorporated, got authority to fundraise, or become DGR endorsed. One has to wonder what happened to all that money that is seemingly unaccounted for. And from those volunteers who saw the accounts before they left, at that time, that's a lot of money that nobody is asking about.

I don't know too much about the wage side of it, not something I've needed to look into. There's more you need to apply for though, obviously, but I'm not sure if there's a limit to how much a non-profit can pay staff.

That does. But there's also a number of people who do and have donated for specific dogs. If just $1 of that is not reaching the dog it was intended for, they are breaking the terms of conditions. It's also worth noting that, if you haven't been answered anything in regards to their fundraising activities, they are also breaking the terms of conditions.

Funds can be used however the group likes - it can be hoarded till their heart's content. So long as it's used for the dogs and not personal gain (unless they pay wages) then it's all good. The trouble they will have is that they are fundraising for specific (and sometimes invisible) dogs. When fundraising for something specific, people are giving money for that specific thing. If the money is not being used for that dog, and being used for other things, then this could be counted as misleading and deceptive. To fundraise for a rescue facility, they should only be allocating funds that have either come in as generic donations or donations specifically for that cause. Link: Authority Conditions.

Being a DGR, they now have to have a gift fund that all fundraising/donations must go into. This is to make it easier to audit. Money can, however, be moved from that into any other account but all money coming through from the public will be going into there at least.

We had a recent application for any dog and, under their 'best' vet's advice, they should be getting a female at 6 weeks.

I'm just guessing. Might be anyone posting on that Dol Beware page or whatever it's called?

If you can't see a profile, you've been blocked on FB.

Do you have a weight for her?

[ Promise I won't derail anymore, Shmoo ]

Not many dogs have taken offence to my Pug. And if they have, she will let out a war cry that sounds like a chipmunk on acid, hunt them down, and make them like her. And by 'make,' I mean get right in their mouths so she can lick every bit of gum they have, hang off their cheeks, and body-slam them. And it's my Staffy that people cross the road for.

I fostered a litter of Pharoah x Afghans a couple years back. One (DaVinci) stayed longer than anyone else and we had such a huge bond. He was so loyal and unlike any other pup I'd fostered before (or since, pretty much). Although my place isn't suitable to an adult of his size, I would jump at the chance to experience the breed(s) again. Here he is: Sorry to hijack, Shmoo. I wish I could help but my place is full.

I don't know what to say other than, I'm so, so sorry for you.

And to think he wasn't adopted directly from the pound! Oh my days, ridiculous!

Your responses so far, that I've seen, have been great. Very rare these days to find a group that will answer everything as best they can, especially when barrages of questions can seem so hostile (though, they rarely ever are).

I think their reply was a good one - even though I query a lot of it. So many groups these days jump on you the instant you dare ask anything about them, so that's a good thing anyway. It worries me they'd be fundraising without the license, as that means they're breaking the law, but I also don't agree with the idea that Rescue must be out of pocket. I think Rescue Groups should be run as a business and, constantly being in debt, will do nothing for the dogs. If you can run your group with a profit (and by 'profit,' I mean the kind that goes back into the group and not in people's pockets), then you're doing a brilliant job. It means you're prepared for if dogs need extensive surgery in the future, etc. However, the concern comes when that profit isn't accountable - which is exactly why groups need to have fundraising licenses.

I don't recall QANTAS saying Braccy breeds were banned because they were 'historically aggressive' though?

My own dogs are Scrooge, Biscuit, Whiskey, Sushi, and Quidditch. I won't even go into the rescue dogs names [Wasabi, Mazeltov, Zucchini, Azkaban, Tumblr anyone?]. :laugh:

Don't worry, I also read my own link wrong. That shows they are incorporated in QLD but do not hold a fundraising license.