Urgent - Council Closing Pets Haven - Victoria

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Iv been reading through the pets haven threads and have found that they were shut down for having more animals than their permit allows. This seems to be the only fact in circulation, but its been extrapolated by some as meaning that the animals are being mistreated, overcrowded, rehomed expediently and inappropriately etc. Are there other FACTS to support these charges? Iv read a lot of speculation and hearsay but not many facts.

Plenty of councils have a 2 dog limit (for example) in homes - would we extrpolate then, that if someone had say, four dogs, or even 6 dogs then this MUST mean that the dogs are neglected, overcrowded, poorly managed etc? I think not. We all know Councils can be imperfect in their manmagement of dog related issues, so maybe we should give PH the benefit of the doubt until FACTS show they are as bad as some are assuming they must be.

part of the issue has been PH's own supporters abusing this forum's members thereby diverting focus from the animals

[Ravyk]

Iv been reading through the pets haven threads and have found that they were shut down for having more animals than their permit allows. This seems to be the only fact in circulation, but its been extrapolated by some as meaning that the animals are being mistreated, overcrowded, rehomed expediently and inappropriately etc. Are there other FACTS to support these charges? Iv read a lot of speculation and hearsay but not many facts.

Plenty of councils have a 2 dog limit (for example) in homes - would we extrpolate then, that if someone had say, four dogs, or even 6 dogs then this MUST mean that the dogs are neglected, overcrowded, poorly managed etc? I think not. We all know Councils can be imperfect in their manmagement of dog related issues, so maybe we should give PH the benefit of the doubt until FACTS show they are as bad as some are assuming they must be.

part of the issue has been PH's own supporters abusing this forum's members thereby diverting focus from the animals

+1 It paints the rescue in rather bad light, even if it isn't their fault.

What's that saying? Never bite the hand that feeds you. Same can be applied here. Don't insult those you ask to help your cause.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I did read on FB yesterday that they were asking people to keep foster animal information hidden, before making accusations some people should really check their facts.

[Annie99]

An update from Pet's Haven for people who are thinking of them and supporting them

http://www.petshaven.com.au/?p=2194

[sebastion 2]

Regardless off who is right and who is wrong, opinion wise...in the end it is the animals that suffer

Which is surely that saddest past of this thread.

[Silvawilow]

Regardless off who is right and who is wrong, opinion wise...in the end it is the animals that suffer

Which is surely that saddest past of this thread.

Agree

[MavericksMission]

Very Interesting..

LINK

Media Release - 14 December 2010

Macedon Ranges Shire Council has issued Pets Haven Animal Shelter in Woodend with a Notice to Comply following breaches of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 Code of Practice.

Macedon Ranges Shire Council’s Director Assets and Operations, Dale Thornton said Council has been working with Pets Haven to address numerous outstanding compliance issues that were identified in an audit of the premises in May 2009.

“Over 18 months ago, Council, in partnership with the proprietor, implemented a work plan to address several issues relating to animal handling and housing, facility maintenance and administration procedures,” he said.

“The work plan outlined the compliance issues and requirements that Pets Haven was required to meet; and ongoing inspections and audits were carried out by the Department of Primary Industries (DPI) as part of this process,” he said.

“There were several outstanding compliance issues and Council has been requesting for over 18 months now that these issues be addressed and supporting documentation be provided,” he said.

“Multiple letters and notices were issued to Pets Haven over the last 18 months and the most recent request for information was due in November, but to date we have not received the documentation,” he said.

“Council has been supportive and patient with the owner for a long time, over 18 months in fact, and following consultation with DPI it was felt that it was in the best interests and welfare of the animals to issue the notice to comply,” he said.

The notice informs Pets Haven Animal Shelter that to remedy the breach the shelter must immediately stop selling animals from the premises in High St, Woodend, effective 13 December 2010.

“Council officers have been in contact with the proprietor and outlined what is required in order the meet compliance,” he said.

“Council acknowledges the hard work and effort of Pets Haven and its staff, but in the best interests of the animals, there are certain standards and legislative requirements that must be met,” he said.

“Council will continue to work with the proprietor, focusing on what needs to be carried out in order for the shelter to be compliant in all areas,” he said.

Edited December 14, 2010 by MavericksMission

[Linda K]

one can only feel for the animals - you can't save them all, and this has certainly put multiple animals lives in danger now, not to mention potentially impacted upon other rescue groups being able to get animals released from pounds

[JulesP]

Has anyone been in and seen what condition the animals are living in?

How big is the space?

[Are You Serious Jo]

The place is a shop, not sure how big though, but not huge. Isn't one of the things people don't like about pet shops is that the animals are kept in overcrowded conditions in small cages? Since PH were pinged for too many animals how is that any better than a pet shop? The fast turn over is also a concern. From what I have read from the people who do know the place from the inside it's like a pet shop for pound animals, get them in, keep vet costs down and sell fast. If you replaced the word rescue with breeder or pet shop I wonder how many people who still be supporting them blindly?

[sas]

Sounds as though they were given more than enough opportunities to get themselves sorted.

We love Rescuers but sometimes Rescuers do the wrong thing and we shouldn't protect them when they do, they need to copmply with the orders for the sake of the animals.

[Annie99]

one can only feel for the animals - you can't save them all, and this has certainly put multiple animals lives in danger now, not to mention potentially impacted upon other rescue groups being able to get animals released from pounds

How has this "certainly put multiple animals lives in danger now"???????????? Please explain

Now you seem to have jumped on the bandwagon that PH are wrong in so many ways. If there has been overcrowding, paperwork amiss etc (as alleged) how does this IMPACT on rescue groups doing the RIGHT thing or having animals released from pounds??????? Please explain.

I would have thought COUNCIL would treat each rescue place on its merits. NO??

[Are You Serious Jo]

No, because it makes council reluctant to work with rescue once they get burnt too many times. If they continue to supply a rescue that doesn't do the right thing it reflects badly on the council. I would have thought the chain of consequences would be bleeding obvious

[Shmurps]

Being a pet shop type set up do they have a quarantine area? Where do the animals go if they come straight from the pound?

To me this isn't a shelter I could be wrong.

[Are You Serious Jo]

There was a post about this somewhere on one of the two threads, but from what I gather there isn't quarantine.

[poodlefan]

Now you seem to have jumped on the bandwagon that PH are wrong in so many ways. If there has been overcrowding, paperwork amiss etc (as alleged) how does this IMPACT on rescue groups doing the RIGHT thing or having animals released from pounds??????? Please explain.

It makes arguing to make rescue groups a special case for licensing exemptions very bloody difficult. Lets hark back to the recent 28 day rule thread where this was posted.

Peter Walsh the Shadow Minister for Agriculture released this last week

The Victorian Liberal Nationals Coalition will review the Domestic Animals Act to ensure it defines the role of animal rescue groups.

Making the announcement today, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals Peter Walsh said legislation had not kept pace with the expectations of the community.

“Victorian legislation needs to be clarified to include the role of groups and individuals who foster and rescue animals,” Mr Walsh said.

“The existing regulations are out-of-date as they were designed to meet circumstances as they existed more than a decade ago.

“In Government, the Coalition will revise these regulations to ensure that they are delivering the best outcomes in animal welfare.”

Mr Walsh said many animal rescue groups did a wonderful job caring for and placing unwanted and seized companion animals.

“Animal rescue groups take animals from pounds and shelters, and assess their health and temperament before placing them with people who will give them a new home,” Mr Walsh said.

“They also ensure dogs and cats are de-sexed, microchipped, vaccinated and wormed.

“Under the government’s current code of practice, unless a foster care or rescue program can be found within 28 days, animals must be euthanized.

“The code does not give any definition of foster programs, lumping them in with organisations such as the Lost Dogs’ Home or the RSPCA.

“Animal rescue groups say these regulations are placing an onerous burden on them, preventing them from rehousing animals.

“In Government, the Coalition will clarify the role of these groups so that they can continue with their important work of finding new homes for abandoned and unwanted pets,” Mr Walsh said.

When you've got the likes of PH failing to be able to comply with council requirements after 18 months of council working with them and treating them pretty damn well, then it plays right into the argument that rescue groups need to be regulated because they can't be trusted to do the right thing any other way.

I keep saying this. Rescues will be judged by the worst of their number, not the best. Right now, PH appears to be making a very good case for the need for licensing and regular inspection because it appears they cannot be relied on to comply with current requirements on numbers or paperwork. That's not good for the wider rescue scene in Victoria.

If it turns out in the future that the longest PH can house a dog is 28 days before compulsory euthanasia, then the seeds of that situation lie with them.

Edited December 15, 2010 by poodlefan

[Ravyk]

How has this "certainly put multiple animals lives in danger now"???????????? Please explain

Because if PH is closed down permanently, those animals need to find somewhere else to go. In all likelihood they would end up at LDH or RSPCA. Kitten season is not kind to cats and kittens...many of them, if it came to that would be euth'ed on arrival at other shelters.

If there has been overcrowding, paperwork amiss etc (as alleged) how does this IMPACT on rescue groups doing the RIGHT thing or having animals released from pounds??????? Please explain.

Because everyone in rescue gets tarred with the same brush when something goes horrendously wrong. It's the same in the breeding world, one negative media report on breeding practices in the UK has tarred all Australian breeders under the brush that they selectively breed mutant dogs.

And from that statement by the council EIGHTEEN months is plenty of time to comply and find [or reproduce] the missing paperwork. I am not surprised the council is taking such firm action, since by the council's statement, PH seems to have continually flouted their requests.

Play by the rules or don't play at all.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

Now you seem to have jumped on the bandwagon that PH are wrong in so many ways. If there has been overcrowding, paperwork amiss etc (as alleged) how does this IMPACT on rescue groups doing the RIGHT thing or having animals released from pounds??????? Please explain.

It makes arguing to make rescue groups a special case for licensing exemptions very bloody difficult. Lets hark back to the recent 28 day rule thread where this was posted.

Peter Walsh the Shadow Minister for Agriculture released this last week

The Victorian Liberal Nationals Coalition will review the Domestic Animals Act to ensure it defines the role of animal rescue groups.

Making the announcement today, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Deputy Leader of The Nationals Peter Walsh said legislation had not kept pace with the expectations of the community.

“Victorian legislation needs to be clarified to include the role of groups and individuals who foster and rescue animals,” Mr Walsh said.

“The existing regulations are out-of-date as they were designed to meet circumstances as they existed more than a decade ago.

“In Government, the Coalition will revise these regulations to ensure that they are delivering the best outcomes in animal welfare.”

Mr Walsh said many animal rescue groups did a wonderful job caring for and placing unwanted and seized companion animals.

“Animal rescue groups take animals from pounds and shelters, and assess their health and temperament before placing them with people who will give them a new home,” Mr Walsh said.

“They also ensure dogs and cats are de-sexed, microchipped, vaccinated and wormed.

“Under the government’s current code of practice, unless a foster care or rescue program can be found within 28 days, animals must be euthanized.

“The code does not give any definition of foster programs, lumping them in with organisations such as the Lost Dogs’ Home or the RSPCA.

“Animal rescue groups say these regulations are placing an onerous burden on them, preventing them from rehousing animals.

“In Government, the Coalition will clarify the role of these groups so that they can continue with their important work of finding new homes for abandoned and unwanted pets,” Mr Walsh said.

When you've got the likes of PH failing to be able to comply with council requirements after 18 months of council working with them and treating them pretty damn well, then it plays right into the argument that rescue groups need to be regulated because they can't be trusted to do the right thing any other way.

I keep saying this. Rescues will be judged by the worst of their number, not the best. Right now, PH appears to be making a very good case for the need for licensing and regular inspection because it appears they cannot be relied on to comply with current requirements on numbers or paperwork. That's not good for the wider rescue scene in Victoria.

If it turns out in the future that the longest PH can house a dog is 28 days before compulsory euthanasia, then the seeds of that situation lie with them.

and makes it almost impossible to have a no kill shelter

[Shmurps]

I am still confused. Apart from the paperwork, is PH an animal shelter or a pet shop from where they rehome animals.

[Aussienot]

"and makes it almost impossible to have a no kill shelter"

Look on their website on the ways that they are "pro-life". The un-adopted animals are sent to 'Permanant Foster' to get around the 28 day rule. Perhaps one of the supporters will know how many there are of these and what their living conditions are like.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Aussienot