Malti

Did you miss the bit about supply and demand of BYBers? BYBers are only around and commanding prices as high as Registered Breeders ask because there are people out their wiling to pay the crazy price for a desirable BYB dog. People stop buying, they stop breeding because they aren't making money. I like the bit where you missed how rescues put any money back into their dogs in their care unlike BYBers. You have formulated an opinion with little knowledge. You chop and change your statements. Typical trolling behaviour. When are you opening your rescue? Put your money where your mouth is, because rescues do it every day unlike you who do not like how rescue runs yet won't stand up an be counted except for an opinion of little relevance. How are you doing the dog world a favour?

Rescues do not cause the problems, BYBer's and irresponsible owners do. Trying to type the two together is hilariously pathetic. So if a rescue saves a litter from the pound they have endorsed BYBing because they don't allow dogs to die for the simple reason of BYBers not being responsible for the dogs they bred and dumping them. You seem to miss the point rescue did not breed the dogs they save, they rescue them. Handing money over to a BYBer is to endorse BYBers continuing. Paying an adoption fee is endorsing rescues. Who could ever have figured the difference out. Here is the story. BYBers like money for their pups they bred, will ask for money for the breeding stock they no longer have time for. Their money is not exclusively put back into their breeding dogs unlike rescues who put any 'profit' back into saving another dog in existence because of a BYBer Pure breed forum with a rescue section, who knew rescue would have crossbreeds! Hmm I am sure it isn't a 'bargain' for everyone. I never realised rescues were the bargain bin world for dogs! Just because you don't want the 'non bargain' dog it does not quantify that being the case for everyone that doesn't mind a non perfect rescue dog and can give that 'non bargain' dog a great life by paying a small adoption fee (go check out some BYBer fee's you are going into $1000+ for non papered dogs and people are obviously paying that (hence the old supply/demand consumer pattern). Is someone pressuring you to adopt this said 9yr old blind and deaf dog? Is the rescue with that dog ringing you saying you must adopt their dog? If not, chill, breathe, it is okay, no one is asking you to do anything you don't want to do. You will be okay, and so will the dog. So do you kill every 9yr old 'sick' dog or just dogs that find themselves in rescue? Did you just kill your own 9yr old 'sick' dog? What rescues do is their choice. No one requires your endorsement. Endorsement comes from those that support rescues with the dogs in their care. Many a rescue is not killing dogs as you would like. Do you have a scale model of the price you would like rescues to apply to adoption fee's? Is their excluded illnesses that should possibly reduce the adoption fee again? I would love to see it. 'IMO it is understandable that people interested in these kind of dogs might think that the adoption fee asked for is too high.' IMO is in my opinion, hence your personal quality rating, keep your trolling straight please. 'However, if people - count me in - get the feeling that a lot of money is spent on dogs that might be better euthanized (dare that I say this) those people will be likely less supportive.' (personal opinion again, see how you counted yourself in) .Yet rescues who choose not to do as you believe are still around. It is alright for your opinion, it is just funny you think your values and judgement's are some how supposed to shake the rescue world and for you to have opened the world up to the truth. When all it is that you don't like rescues unless they do as your endorse. Yet every day you don't open your own rescue and apply your adoption fees (or zero if you can make that a viable option) only saving under 9yr dogs that do not require vetwork more than the stardard microchip, vacc, desex. Rehome as you please, the world is just not right. How can it be hypocritical of rescues, to rescue dogs already in existence because of BYBers? Whatever way you spin your wisdom it still does not correlate to what rescues are doing and I don't particularly care if you believe it for the rest of your life. Bored on a Thursday, #trolllife

'Flexible' should read 'Easy'. Don't adopt dogs from pet shops as it is impulse buying but you can if it is an open rescue day at a petshop?? I don't see the difference. Petrescue already has an existing field called 'Adoption Details' where rescues can put in their adoption process for adopters to read when they click on a particular dog they are interested in. Lets face it Petrescue has stopped being for rescue a long time ago, they still claim $10 to them saves a life, rescues have been told they are wrong for doing home checks, they now want to cater to adopters and rescues being put in the 'moderate to strict' category is going to be less appealing and rescues that are in those categories aren't turning over adoptions quick enough for Petrescue liking and dogs are being killed because rescues choose not to use the 'flexible' option. No interest in the rescue or the dogs future, just as long as it is a quick as possible rehoming. Petrescue seem to promote puppy flipping rescues now instead of seeing rescue as a responsibility. But hey, Gumtree doesn't seem so dodgy to advertise rescue dogs on now.

Not sure why anyone is shocked, with the way the changes that they have been implementing for a long time now, the writing was on the wall...........

FYI old membership conditions Surely this 'note' works both ways - RescueName does not comprehensively evaluate nor endorse the practices of any other organisation or individual so cannot refer them back to pr?

Nope, I agree with you. I don't begrudge PR employees a wage when they're actually helping rescues- such as the Sensis promotions or with getting donations of pet food to rescues (assuming your rescue is in an eligible area, of course)- but some of the other recent stuff seems to be very expensive busywork. What I'd like to see is PR asking rescues how they would liked to be helped, rather than coming up with endless promotional stuff. It's great to have adoption enquiries but if I can't afford to take on new dogs because I'm completely out of resources.. it's a bit pointless. And that's not a hypothetical if, I am out of resources. And it wasn't for lack of effort on my part, either; I spent hundreds of hours trying to fundraise and came up virtually empty. If I'd worked a minimum wage job for the same period of time, I'd have made more money for the dogs and with that depressing realisation, I'm now back at school, studying to get a decent job so that in future, I can fund my rescue entirely by myself. It's one thing to say "Oh, all rescues can be financially stable if only they choose to" but my question is, how? Where is the information? Where are the resources? PR could be helping us with this but instead, they're spending the money on..? If it seems like people are getting emotional in here, it's because many of us have put so much of our own time and money into rescue and it sort of feels like PR is benefiting from it (and running well enough to pay wages) while we struggle just to keep going. Thanks Maddy I understand this. Im happy to help you with how . Give me a ring when you get a chance we have lots of resources to help you. Once I'm on holidays in a few weeks' time, I definitely will. At the moment, I'm out on placement (35 hours a week) and just don't have the actual time or energy to be trying to start anything else. This is sort of what I'm getting at though- PR have the resources to be offering real help to struggling rescues but instead, they're spending that time/money on stuff like profile makeovers that are available only to a limited few. Rescues need practical help and the biggest struggle for rescues will probably always be sourcing funds. Yes I can see that and I agree but that's nothing new or dishonest. What the???? If you actually understood you may see why people in rescue get frustrated. They spend their time and efforts actually trying to source funds and bring animals into their care while PR move on to raise funds for ineffective campaigns, but claim to save lives. Like I said from the beginning, no lives get saved if rescues didn't exist.PR can spend all the money they like on new 'initiatives', but unless there are rescues to use their listing service, PR doesn't save lives, and you have been given multiple examples of how people think PR are rescue, but no obscure is happening within their marketing -_-

So true Maddy, it is sad that you couldn't keep rescuing and I have also seen so many rescues (new and old) struggle for donations to continue the work that they do as well.

I never implied you had any association with them! I was just unsure of how you have dismissed anyone's thoughts or views, no matter what has been shown. You stated 'I would have thought small rescue would be more concerned about other things they are doing.' Clearly putting the 'small rescue' issue in play. Honestly, this issue is not as big as you are making it out to be, but I do see the frustration at trying to show you anything, because it doesn't matter what is shown or said, you don't agree nor see how anyone could see it differently Then if you don't see a problem with things, you won't explain how you don't see it as a problem all I get is a 'ask them' (for e.g $1000 will save 100 lives, you don't have a problem with it, but won't answer how it saves 100 lives, and don't care, you just agree with the blanket statement made by PR, and that is enough for you). I don't need to ask them, I know it doesn't. Rescues have never been charged $10 per listing, so getting the public to donate that, is not correct at all. But the premise is, you are happy with what you see, and that is fine, I am not here to change your mind. Seriously? I know you never implied I had an association with them I simply made the statement so it was clear that I didnt. The comments re small rescue should still be able to have an opinion were made way before I said anything about small rescue. It wasnt me who put it in play and nothing I said was saying that anyone or any group should not have an opinion. I cant really see what the point is looks to me that you dont agree or see how anyone can see it differently to you which is what you want to tell me. Ive said why I dont think its a problem and and yes Im happy with the blanket statement and so far nothing that has been said convinces me that there is a case for them to answer. I dont think there is a case for me to answer either so Im done. Thanks anyway for keeping us updated. I fully realise you don't see a problem, that has been your entire stance since the start of the thread. I also see why Powerlegs would have gotten frustrated with you. You answer nothing, and have no real care factor in it, the thread just goes around in circles because it can't become any clearer why some people are seeing things a certain way. I don't think I updated you on anything, my points have been made up out of thin air according to you, clearly see your mind has and will be fine with it no matter what.

I never implied you had any association with them! I was just unsure of how you have dismissed anyone's thoughts or views, no matter what has been shown. You stated 'I would have thought small rescue would be more concerned about other things they are doing.' Clearly putting the 'small rescue' issue in play. Honestly, this issue is not as big as you are making it out to be, but I do see the frustration at trying to show you anything, because it doesn't matter what is shown or said, you don't agree nor see how anyone could see it differently Then if you don't see a problem with things, you won't explain how you don't see it as a problem all I get is a 'ask them' (for e.g $1000 will save 100 lives, you don't have a problem with it, but won't answer how it saves 100 lives, and don't care, you just agree with the blanket statement made by PR, and that is enough for you). I don't need to ask them, I know it doesn't. Rescues have never been charged $10 per listing, so getting the public to donate that, is not correct at all. But the premise is, you are happy with what you see, and that is fine, I am not here to change your mind.

Both can happen in IMO, everyone is entitled to an opinion rescue or not, and how they see things, I can't speak (or type) for others. Possilby using the website regularly though would bring those who use it, to start seeing change after change when most others would not notice. You have said you don't see that there is an obscurity, or an false pretense, so not sure why a complaint should be lodged after a thread asking what is going on and what do you think? There is clearly two different perspectives. I think we all use a social medium that we don't 100% agree with, why should people who say they see things are changing and don't necessarily agree with it all the things on it? No one would use any social medium then, would they No idea about the link, I honestly couldn't link anything together (not techno-savvy at all). You won't answer how $1000 saves 100 lives though? Nor the stats they use as being correct in being directly correlating to those figures. I guess I see it as Petrescue claims to save lives, when they are a link in the chain and they seem very happy to ignore the chain affect we all have in getting dogs to safety and that is sad, as their site is nothing without rescues, and rescues wouldn't have one central site without them. But no one else is spewing out stats to ask for funds. The error the public make in thinking PR is rescue highlights the confusion. My own personal conscience would not be happy if I was involved with that. Just my own thoughts on a situation that shouldn't be blown up to be bigger than Ben Hur, I guess I would ask, was your posts suppose to be 'The Devil's Advocate'? Because it seemed no matter what was said, nor shown to you, had an legitimacy in your view.

Since you are so clear on it, if I donate $1000 to PR how do I save 100 lives? How $10 every month for 12mths saves 12 lives? This is what PR tells me a donation does. It is done Off Petrescue 'Safe & Sound Pounds Report 2016 The final document will be released at the end of 2016, providing a full report on the overall effectiveness of the Safe & Sound Pounds project to date, and presenting a strategy for the ongoing development of PetRescue and its associated programs.' I am unsure if you remember PR a few years ago, they actually contacted rescues, were interested in how to help them, now they have moved on, they are the own machine and they are going in their own direction and are not afraid to tell rescues how to run, how PR saves lives, and obscuring what they do. Can anyone say how many of the foster carer statistics they quote actually became foster carers? Can anyone say how many animals listed were rehomed by their petrescue advert? How many rescues sent people back to petrescue to look at an animal that may suit their home? I am guessing not............ but Petrescue have no problem quoting the clicks on their site as proof their own success. Why can't a person from a small rescue notice things and have their own opinion? I don't think you have to be a large organisation to have an opinion and be concerned. People may read this and think I don't want Petrescue to succeed in being a great listing site, that would be incorrect, but don't think I can't look at their site and have some questions and concerns about how they now run, because not all of it adds up to be anything but self serving at times, and get that feeling somehow their original objects are being lost in their new ventures. Dog Fan, please read the last 5 pages, if you have no problem with the general public thinking they are rescue, that if you donate $1000 you apparently save lives (yet no one will explain how that bit works to me), and now tell rescues they shouldn't do home checks, and the list just goes on. BTW Symbiotic can mean that it is only one side gets the benefits (like a parasite for example).

I believe Powerlegs could be getting frustrated because no matter what anyone says, it is either dismissed, or 'no, not possible that people are donating to them thinking they are rescue' and take it up with ASIC or the ACNC if you have a problem. Why can't you just say things as you see them, even if they aren't all good things without someone replying that those people see the whole idea of the organisation as terrible? Why should rescues have to 'revise business and management models'? May be that is not their intent to ever remunerate themselves, or ever want to have a larger organisation, but don't really want a listing site getting confused as rescue. Here is some of the crystal clear understanding of the public and PR role as a listing website. ‘Thank you Pet Rescue for trying to rehome all sorts of Pooches & Kitties! They would be lost without you!’ ‘****** added a new photo to PetRescue's Timeline — feeling blessed. I owe you a massive thank you for the hard work and love you show countless animals day after day, year after year. Without you, this little rascal and I would never have crossed paths, and I just cant imagine life without her waggy tail by my side. She is without doubt, the happiest pup in the world, she makes friends everywhere we go, and has endless love to give’ - PR had to share it and add in the rescue group from where the dog came from “*****‎ to PetRescue Can your rescue help get an owner or foster for Benji at Renbury Farm pound Nsw . Very urgent... Also a white young male too . Both have been there for longer than they will keep them etc . Could you repost to sll groups you know please????’ A response to someone that aimed their comment at a specific rescue, so Petrescue now make adoptions quicker and are going ot make rescues to reply faster? ‘Thank you for taking the time to share your feedback with us and I'm sorry to hear that you didn't have a fantastic experience searching for a new fur baby. Here at PetRescue, we have taken on board the feedback from adopters about the application process and we are on a mission to make it easier for all involved, meaning pets get in to loving homes a lot faster. At the moment we are currently fundraising for our MatchMakers Project in which we aim to build a new communication system that makes it quicker and faster for adopters to apply for a pet, but also to get a faster answer from the rescue groups. We are working hard to have this available over the next 6 months, so hopefully when you are ready to search again for a new family member you will be able to use this system. When you feel ready to start looking again, we would be happy to recommend some groups around you that may be more responsive. Also, you may find that going to a shelter would be beneficial, as you can meet the dog there and then, and they often have very flexible adoption processes. Thank you again for your feedback and opening your heart and home to a rescue pet. Team PetRescue’ ‎’*****‎ to PetRescue Thanks pet rescue! A year ago we adopted 'Charlie Brown' from your site and our lives have changed for the better. This beautiful little boy loves the water, adventuring with his big fur sister Milly and generally loves life. He makes us laugh every day... And has perfected the art of destroying every bed we buy him. It's beautiful to see how in love Charlie Brown is with my fiancé too. We love him dearly and feel extremely privileged to be his forever mum and dad. Thankyou for the amazing work you do Petrescues response PetRescue It looks like Charlie Brown is pretty happy you chose him too! Thank you for giving him so much love <3 Which rescue group did you adopt him from so we can give them a shout out? **New owner** No we don't know what the rescue group are called! It was a lovely lady in Wagga that we got him from..’ These are but a few, should I go on? The onus is not just on prospective owners, nor on the rescue groups, I imagine she would have received paperwork with the dog that would have had the rescue’s name. But people don’t go past the badging all over their website that states PR rehomed 36**** pets. As Petrescue says “PetRescue is a national animal welfare charity enabling all Australians to discover the joy and unconditional love a rescue pet brings. With the awesome support of a growing community of pet lovers, PetRescue.com.au is now Australia’s most visited charity website, helping to save the lives of thousands of homeless pets every month.” They are a listing website just like Gumtree, not rescue. They can't save one life with their website on it's own, they need rescues and pounds to do that. Since you are so clear on it, if I donate $1000 to PR how do I save 100 lives? How $10 every month for 12mths saves 12 lives? This is what PR tells me donation does. You don’t mind that they got $60 000 donated to print safe pound booklets that saw a few pounds sign up? That was a good investment...... There is no limit they are saying they need for their doggy tinder, for an app for phones, they just have both hands out, and as rescues put their animals on there, you now get ANOTHER donation ploy, you have a pop up to donate for 'The Adoptables' which has a corporate sponsor to donate the same amount as the public do.

Gumtree, really? is it not for profit, and just like Petrescue, you can breakdown to a specific area on their website that you want to look at. You failed to mention a significant point on this, and find your own post misleading, if you click on the link, the first thing that pops up is saying if you donate, you can save 'all the adorable things'' and by the amount you donate, increases the lives saved. No one is looking on the lower right hand side down the page while they click on donate with the list of things you say is so clear. Even you seem to have missed how 'You can save all the adorable things" by donating to Petrescue!!!! So Petrescue does seem to save lives, not rescues, unless you read the obtuse ways your support (AKA donation) does. 1) funding life saving projects ???? 2) free petrescue listings (refer back to Shel's whilst she represented Petrescue comment that 'rescues are lucky they aren't made to pay for listings' 3) The safe and sound program, is that the one they got $60 000 of donations and increased pound listings by 6 (that is over $8000 for each of the pounds that joined up) 4) Finding foster carers - umm really? So social media outlets rescues use have no impact that, or the rescues own website asking for carers. Petrescue does all that, gotcha ;)

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. Petrescue needs traffic to their site, if there is none, businesses will not offer sponsorship nor advertising on a site with nothing happening on it. We are a product they sell to make money. Simple as that.

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.

It says right near their donate button they are not for profit

Wow, such different information given than when Shel was with Petrescue. I am sure the legal letter was paid with donations too Amazing how people just blindly believe Petrescue is not a business employing people to do work and claim how hard they work 'with' rescues to have a singular platform for rescues and adopters to go. The only one making money from Petrescue is the people that work for them and rescues are held hostage by only having this one site as the mass platform you can't win either way you go to be honest. Edited to add - reading on their page, people still confuse petrescue as a rescue. The money Petrescue get is huge, and never have animals in their care, just get to sit in an office and run a website.

are Scottish Wolfhound's dogs common? If anyone can help him PM for details

Rescuers can also get one chance to pick the right home for the dog, you can't say it is okay for the dog to be outside and in 10yrs call them and ask them to bring the dog inside, or if the dog is no good with children, no matter how savvy the children are with dogs, if the dog bites or attacks they can put that dog to sleep because they are now the owner of the dog. If their fences are 4ft and has holes in it, the dog can get out and easily end up in a multitude of situations no one wants. As much as the articles talk or rescues being unreasonable, sometimes potential adopters are unreasonable, they want to fit the circle dog into their square shaped home no matter what. From personal experience I have had to pick up the pieces of a rescue dog, four years after adoption, the first rescuer was pay the money, get the dog, so I got a dog that had been an outside dog for 4 yrs, now 14yrs old, totally blind, filthy, rotten mouth of teeth, untreated heart condition. Did I get jaded? I sure did, not with the adopter of this dog (not that I would give them a dog to live its life - outside a small fluffy), but the rescue that rehomed this dog and got cash in their hand whilst I got a huge vet bill with an ancient dog. Rescuers want to rescue, I believe they need to uphold a high standard because if a dog gets in that state, I don't think they are any better than a BYBer, and as soon as the cash goes in their hand, they stop caring. They sure as hell didn't want the dog back 4yrs later. There is a balance in this, it is not one or the other, it is not one size fits all, a no does not mean the applicant shouldn't own a dog, nor does it mean the rescue failed, their first priority is to the dog, not to people pleasing. Often ones run around screaming that rescues should find reasons to say yes, not no, are the ones doing potential adopter studies or don't rescue, because the truth it, it is not easy, and it is much easier to judge on the side line.

I find every time this issue comes up it comes back to the same thing. Rescues rehome however they see fit, essentially the dog is the rescues dog, and it is not rescues that need to stop people buying dogs off BYBers or petshops. In a way, it always seems these threads are to point some blame towards rescue for people not choosing a rescue dog. Fine, some rescues require more details than others for people to adopt. But I have seen both, ones that you can turn up with the money and the dog is yours, people still return the dog, ones that screen highly and don't always get it right and dogs are returned. But to have to lay blame for who does and does not adopt a dog because of how one rescue chooses to rehome is not the total blame of that rescuer, and they may know the dog better and have valid reasons that others may not see because they don't have the dog in their care. Likewise, the article could be reversed and a rescuer quit because they didn't rehome a dog right once. It doesn't make the failed adopter responsible. All this rescue stuff is not perfect, not one way is right and one way is wrong, that is why there are so many rescues, right? So their is diversity. Otherwise wouldn't we all just rescue for the RSPCA?

The RSPCA in each state has different people running them, so even though they are the same entity as such, they don't all work the same way. That would restrict how they interact with each other.

Country Girl, you are bagging out a rescue for being present at Cowra and hopefully they will be working with Cowra pound, which is suppose to be a good thing. Your other comments are rather personal and political within rescue and that was not misconstrued, so don't pretend you do not have a problem with particular things. As for the vets, perhaps you have not been part of the process and don't actually know what agreements between a rescue (that is not yours) and the vets, to imply they will not be doing vet work because of YOUR experience is. again, not one that is involved in the rescues process in getting this up and running, is a potentially damaging comment with no actual evidence that animals are not getting all appropriate vet work done. So if it is not about your ego, see you are making comments that could be damaging to progress being made. No it is not about you, yet you are intertwined in 3 threads about Cowra, no one is ganging up on you, they are observations that are made by YOUR comments that are crystal clear, because if it wasn't about you, you would be glad there seems some light at the end of the tunnel for the whole Cowra controversy, instead you are fueling it with more controversy. If you do have questions, and actually do have concerns take them into a message to the rescues that are hopefully establishing a working relationship with Cowra pound, because all I can see is you trashing others with nothing but personal issues that have nothing to do with possible progress that can be seen as good for Cowra poundies.

Such good news that something sensible has come out of this Cowra incident, thanks to the rescue that is starting to work with the pound and vice versa under such difficult social media circumstances. Countrygirl, why are you continuing your rants over multiple threads? It seems you have a real grudge and would suggest you take it either privately, or not at all. This is a positive thing for Cowra, and to find even vet clinics get quizzed is disturbing. Honestly, put your ego in check and maybe not let this announcement end up an eye rolling thread any further.

That's good because I wasn't. My response was NOT given in response to rescue dogs but to THIS scenario: I would never deign to tell any rescue what they should and should not do with the dogs they rescue.;However, when it comes to rescuers (or indeed any person) "educating" owners of dogs already in homes, my completely misguided thoughts were that a balanced view of the procedure, rather than scaremongering, was the way to go. The timing of the procedure matters, particularly for giant breeds but also for some others. As i said, I won't be sharing knowledge in this forum again. </div> Please read the post in its entirety, the desexing was not done on the dog because it was a 'man' thing, not due to any concerns over the health implication. Nor did the rescuer force them to desex their dog, they chose with their own free will. Scaremongering works both ways, there is more than just studies to health, it is also population control and behavioural issues. On the health issue, a quarter of undesexed females get pyometra, mammary tumours are common, it is not just about desexing male dogs. Not sure why you will stop sharing any thoughts you have on here, can't people disagree?

I can't believe you are saying if a dog gets desexed you think rescuers should give the adopter a various list of possible health issues that may arise out of desexing. That would be as presumptious as rescue telling a breeder they have to tell them all about pyometra and mammary tumours for female dogs that go undesexed for many years. Do breeders tell the people that buy their dog they are not allowed to desex their dogs due to the risks you are concerned about? There is a discussion on a breeder forum presently that breeders are wondering how they can make the buyers of their pups desex the dog, so go figure. I don't think ethical registered breeders or rescuers need a lecture on if they decide to rehome a dog to people that desex or do not desex their dogs, it comes down to choice. As much as breeders are owners of their dogs, rescuers are owners of their dogs they adopting out, BOTH get to choose without feeling the need to be patronised for having a desexing policy. For every study done there will be one that counteracts it, and it will just go on and on, and actually proves nothing at all, except that people can decide what is the best things for their pets without others criticising their choice.