Victoria

[swingin]

It appears costs that may be involved upgrading existing facilities is the main objection to the submission. The conditions so described are what registered breeders adhereing to their CofEs are already expected to provide.

Should a rescue/pound/shelter that houses multiple animals be allowed to keep them in conditions less satisfactory than those who donate to help with their upkeep house & provide for their own pets?

The insurance angle is a no brainer. Anyone who doesn't have a public liability policy is just plain stupid to begin with.

I can see this expanding to envelope all persons who house animals on their property in situations not considered to be the norm for the keeping of your average family pets.

Registered breeders will also come under scrutiny &, more importantly, so will the puppy millers.

Then the thumbs down of the critics will turn to thumbs up.

I can't see anything untoward with the proposal.

That is just my opinion of course.

Bring it on.

[Maddy]

When the points you mention are taken in context they make perfect sense. To isolate bits & pieces is a little careless when dealing with the facts.

People should read the entire proposal before making a decsion on its worth.

for e.g

carer who undertakes foster care must have a written agreement with the establishment.

Foster carers conducting juvenile foster care for an establishment must:

•have the permits, where required by local government, to keep the number of animals at their premises

•keep the animals in accordance with the instructions of the veterinary agreement

•assess and record the weight and condition of the animal in their care on a daily basis

•notify the establishment and present the animal to a veterinary practitioner if symptoms of illness develop

•provide environmental enrichment and socialisation in accordance with the veterinary agreement•not allow animals kept on their premises to leave the premises unless returning them to the establishment; or for veterinary practitioner treatment

•return the animals under foster care to the establishment within the specified time set by the veterinary practitioner or at the end of three months, whichever is sooner

•permit their premises to be audited for compliance with the Act and Code by an authorised officer.

Foster carers conducting veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care for an establishment must:•be trained or experienced to care for and meet the needs of the animals placed in their care for rehabilitation

•not have more animals requiring juvenile, veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care, in their care at any one time, than they can singularly manage

•have the permits, where required by local government, to keep the number of animals at their premises

•record the condition of the animal in their care on a daily basis, and present this to the veterinary practitioner at least every seven days•present the animal to a veterinary practitioner for a health assessment every seven days

•keep the records required by the Code and report to the operations manager on the condition of the animals as required by the Code on a weekly basis•permit their premises to be audited for compliance with the Act and Code by an authorised officer

•return the animals under foster care to the establishment within the specified time set by the veterinary practitioner or at the end of three months, whichever is sooner

Quoting the entire proposal doesn't change what's being suggested any more than taking out bits to use as examples.

The last thing I quoted from that document means foster carers would be unable to exercise their foster dogs outside of their own yard or take them to promotional events. I can see the reasoning behind that (public safety) however.. it's not addressing the actual problems.

[swingin]

It reads that veterinary permission is required before any out of shelter activity can take place.

Obviously to ensure good intentions don't result in bad situations. Health or temperament wise.

If the vet says o.k. it's o.k.

Bring it on.

[Maddy]

It reads that veterinary permission is required before any out of shelter activity can take place.

Obviously to ensure good intentions don't result in bad situations. Health or temperament wise.

If the vet says o.k. it's o.k.

Bring it on.

How does it read that?

Foster carers conducting juvenile foster care for an establishment must:

And then it lists points.. one of those points is..

not allow animals kept on their premises to leave the premises unless returning them to the establishment; or for veterinary practitioner treatment

So, you can remove the animal from the foster carer's premises, but only to either return the dog to the organisation or to take the dog to a vet. It does not say "A foster carer can walk the dog in public, after the vet has given the dog the okay."

If you're referring to this..

provide environmental enrichment and socialisation in accordance with the veterinary agreement

And Table 2, it relates to animals kept on the premises of the organisation, not to foster carers.

[swingin]

•provide environmental enrichment and socialisation in accordance with the veterinary agreement[

[Erny]

I'm still a bit lost on specifically how these proposed regs will affect rescuers/fosters.

[Maddy]

•provide environmental enrichment and socialisation in accordance with the veterinary agreement[

Again.

This does not mean "The point below no longer applies if a vet says otherwise".

not allow animals kept on their premises to leave the premises unless returning them to the establishment; or for veterinary practitioner treatment

It's perfectly clear. If exceptions were to be made, they'd be clearly included in the code, exceptions are not implied. For example..

not allow animals kept on their premises to leave the premises unless returning them to the establishment; or for veterinary practitioner treatment unless determined otherwise by a veterinarian as part of socialisation or enrichment

[swingin]

What you are quoting is animals under medical or temperament supervision listed here

Foster carers conducting veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care for an establishment must:

[Maddy]

What you are quoting is animals under medical or temperament supervision listed here

Foster carers conducting veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care for an establishment must:

No.

Foster carers conducting veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care for an establishment must:

•be trained or experienced to care for and meet the needs of the animals placed in their care for rehabilitation

•not have more animals requiring juvenile, veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care, in their care at any one time, than they can singularly manage

•have the permits, where required by local government, to keep the number of animals at their premises

•record the condition of the animal in their care on a daily basis, and present this to the veterinary practitioner at least every seven days

•present the animal to a veterinary practitioner for a health assessment every seven days

•keep the records required by the Code and report to the operations manager on the condition of the animals as required by the Code on a weekly basis

•permit their premises to be audited for compliance with the Act and Code by an authorised officer

•return the animals under foster care to the establishment within the specified time set by the veterinary practitioner or at the end of three months, whichever is sooner.

At this point, I'm going to assume you're just trolling. Welcome to Ignore, please enjoy your stay.

[swingin]

Veterinary rehabilitation foster care: care for an animal, outside of the establishment, whilst it recovers from an illness or disease, until the animal is well enough to return to the establishment for rehoming.

And i'm assuming your powers of comprehension are limited or you don't consider animals in ''care'' are entitled to decent living conditions & responsible, professional care.

[shortstep]

And all this to protect homeless dogs from someone who wants to help them.

[shortstep]

And i'm assuming your powers of comprehension are limited or you don't consider animals in ''care'' are entitled to decent living conditions & responsible, professional care.

Can you tell us how many rescuers have been convicted for animal welfare issues concerning dogs they are attempting to help?

Edited April 6, 2011 by shortstep

[Maddy]

Veterinary rehabilitation foster care: care for an animal, outside of the establishment, whilst it recovers from an illness or disease, until the animal is well enough to return to the establishment for rehoming.

And i'm assuming your powers of comprehension are limited or you don't consider animals in ''care'' are entitled to decent living conditions & responsible, professional care.

[shortstep]

And i'm assuming your powers of comprehension are limited or you don't consider animals in ''care'' are entitled to decent living conditions & responsible, professional care.

Can you tell us how many rescuers have been convicted for animal welfare issues concerning dogs they are attempting to help?

I was sorry to see that the ACT activist? promoting the Vic laws on Animal rescures did not answer my question.

I have googled everything I can think of to bring up any problems that have happened with Animal Rescuer abusing animals in anyway in Victoria or anywhere in Australia.

Can't find a thing.

If there is no history of a big problem (or even a small problem) of rescuers abusing animals in their care, then why is the government spending it's time and money on this when there are real problems that need their attention?

[The Spotted Devil]

And i'm assuming your powers of comprehension are limited or you don't consider animals in ''care'' are entitled to decent living conditions & responsible, professional care.

Can you tell us how many rescuers have been convicted for animal welfare issues concerning dogs they are attempting to help?

I was sorry to see that the ACT activist? promoting the Vic laws on Animal rescures did not answer my question.

I have googled everything I can think of to bring up any problems that have happened with Animal Rescuer abusing animals in anyway in Victoria or anywhere in Australia.

Can't find a thing.

If there is no history of a big problem (or even a small problem) of rescuers abusing animals in their care, then why is the government spending it's time and money on this when there are real problems that need their attention?

As I have said earlier, the COP refers to foster carers who are part of an animal shelter/council pound, not private foster carers. The previous COP actually prevented foster carers from caring for some classes of animals. Some large animal shelters in Victoria have good foster care programs.

[Steve]

And i'm assuming your powers of comprehension are limited or you don't consider animals in ''care'' are entitled to decent living conditions & responsible, professional care.

Can you tell us how many rescuers have been convicted for animal welfare issues concerning dogs they are attempting to help?

I was sorry to see that the ACT activist? promoting the Vic laws on Animal rescures did not answer my question.

I have googled everything I can think of to bring up any problems that have happened with Animal Rescuer abusing animals in anyway in Victoria or anywhere in Australia.

Can't find a thing.

If there is no history of a big problem (or even a small problem) of rescuers abusing animals in their care, then why is the government spending it's time and money on this when there are real problems that need their attention?

This doesnt apply to community rescue groups and foster carers who operate from their own residential zoned homes - in fact it appears that those bigger rescue orgs or even smallish ones who have moved out to larger premises so as not to upset the neighbours etc or who have incoporated and have their own small shelters or holding areas will be the hardest hit.

The real big boys wont be affected adversely as they already have the facilities and if they have these type of policies in place or wanted these type of policies in place they now get to say - its not our fault its the law. Cuts down their expenses and the need to justify why they do some of what they do. Of course how the dogs will be affected is another matter. But dogs cant vote.

There is a history of a problem where private rescue and private foster care dont know when to stop and have been pinged for having too many animals and hoarding - small percentage so its not a big problem though the AVA and RSPCA tell us it is and you can argue that this is covered by laws pertaining to planning and zoning anyway. I could give you dozens of examples and so could anyone active in the rescue world. I know of one right now who has 14 in her home where she has a two dog limit and the conditions deteriorate and vetting requirements etc are skrimped on. Pacers have had to clean up small rescue people who were on the edge of being reported to the RSPCA as well as some breeders. You see dozens of dogs stacked in crates on top of each other in an attempt to save em all and then they get worse and worse about letting them go. About equal figures [breeders and rescue] over 2 years.

There are also some who muck it up a bit for a variety of reasons - fact is anyone can decide to "rescue" as long as it is from their own home and they dont need policies or procedures and they can decide anything they want to in order to "save" animals including using and abusing their foster carers.

So it appears the people who will be most affected by this are those who already have policies and procedures in place and who run at a reasonable professional level

and who are at less risk of over committing and getting it wrong. It is their foster carers who will not be able to hold dogs over a certain period where they can now [because their policies have allowed that] and their costs will escalate due to over servicing with vets etc.

I dont have figures but Im guessing there would be a hell of a lot more who will be flying way way under the radar than those which are going to be under this legislation.

Do I think this legislation will help to prevent more dogs from suffering ? No way.

[Greytmate]

When the points you mention are taken in context they make perfect sense. To isolate bits & pieces is a little careless when dealing with the facts.

People should read the entire proposal before making a decsion on its worth.

for e.g

carer who undertakes foster care must have a written agreement with the establishment.

Foster carers conducting juvenile foster care for an establishment must:

•have the permits, where required by local government, to keep the number of animals at their premises

•keep the animals in accordance with the instructions of the veterinary agreement

•assess and record the weight and condition of the animal in their care on a daily basis

•notify the establishment and present the animal to a veterinary practitioner if symptoms of illness develop

•provide environmental enrichment and socialisation in accordance with the veterinary agreement•not allow animals kept on their premises to leave the premises unless returning them to the establishment; or for veterinary practitioner treatment

•return the animals under foster care to the establishment within the specified time set by the veterinary practitioner or at the end of three months, whichever is sooner

•permit their premises to be audited for compliance with the Act and Code by an authorised officer.

Foster carers conducting veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care for an establishment must:•be trained or experienced to care for and meet the needs of the animals placed in their care for rehabilitation

•not have more animals requiring juvenile, veterinary or behavioural rehabilitation foster care, in their care at any one time, than they can singularly manage

•have the permits, where required by local government, to keep the number of animals at their premises

•record the condition of the animal in their care on a daily basis, and present this to the veterinary practitioner at least every seven days•present the animal to a veterinary practitioner for a health assessment every seven days

•keep the records required by the Code and report to the operations manager on the condition of the animals as required by the Code on a weekly basis•permit their premises to be audited for compliance with the Act and Code by an authorised officer

•return the animals under foster care to the establishment within the specified time set by the veterinary practitioner or at the end of three months, whichever is sooner

Quoting the entire proposal doesn't change what's being suggested any more than taking out bits to use as examples.

The last thing I quoted from that document means foster carers would be unable to exercise their foster dogs outside of their own yard or take them to promotional events. I can see the reasoning behind that (public safety) however.. it's not addressing the actual problems.

Go back and read the original document carefully, I think you are getting confused.

It is only the juvenile foster dogs (baby puppies) that cannot be taken out to places, not dogs under behavioural rehabilitation.

I still can't really see too much wrong with this proposed new law. Perhaps seeing a vet every fortnight rather than week would be appropriate for dogs under behavioural rehabilitation. The average vet is not a dog behaviourist though, so I can see maybe some issues there. But there is a shortage of qualified dog behaviourists, and at least vets have some relevant qualifications.

[Maddy]

Go back and read the original document carefully, I think you are getting confused.

It is only the juvenile foster dogs (baby puppies) that cannot be taken out to places, not dogs under behavioural rehabilitation.

I still can't really see too much wrong with this proposed new law. Perhaps seeing a vet every fortnight rather than week would be appropriate for dogs under behavioural rehabilitation. The average vet is not a dog behaviourist though, so I can see maybe some issues there. But there is a shortage of qualified dog behaviourists, and at least vets have some relevant qualifications.

I've read it very thoroughly and I still disagree. Their definition of a juvenile (as far as I could find) was simply "puppy". At the very least, this needs to be elaborated on.

Even assuming they mean fairly young puppies, I still don't think it's appropriate. Providing the dog has been vaccinated, I don't think there's much benefit to the dog in keeping it locked in someone's backyard for weeks, if not months.

I'm not suggesting that foster carers should be encouraged to toss the puppy in a dog park but there's benefit to be had from positive experiences of the outside world. Puppies go through several important development stages before six months of age and to miss out on important socialisation periods when there are a variety of safe ways to make the most of them just doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Hardy's Angel

[Greytmate]

Go back and read the original document carefully, I think you are getting confused.

It is only the juvenile foster dogs (baby puppies) that cannot be taken out to places, not dogs under behavioural rehabilitation.

I still can't really see too much wrong with this proposed new law. Perhaps seeing a vet every fortnight rather than week would be appropriate for dogs under behavioural rehabilitation. The average vet is not a dog behaviourist though, so I can see maybe some issues there. But there is a shortage of qualified dog behaviourists, and at least vets have some relevant qualifications.

I've read it very thoroughly and I still disagree. Their definition of a juvenile (as far as I could find) was simply "puppy". At the very least, this needs to be elaborated on.

Even assuming they mean fairly young puppies, I still don't think it's appropriate. Providing the dog has been vaccinated, I don't think there's much benefit to the dog in keeping it locked in someone's backyard for weeks, if not months.

I'm not suggesting that foster carers should be encouraged to toss the puppy in a dog park but there's benefit to be had from positive experiences of the outside world. Puppies go through several important development stages before six months of age and to miss out on important socialisation periods when there are a variety of safe ways to make the most of them just doesn't make any sense to me.

There are different categories. They have been elaborated on.

2.8.1 JUVENILE FOSTER CARE

The purpose of juvenile foster care is to allow a healthy kitten or puppy to be cared for off site in preparation for sale: to ensure the kitten or puppy is the health, age and weight required for vaccination and desexing prior to being sold by the establishment.

Kittens and puppies must be returned to the establishment when it is deemed appropriate by the veterinary practitioner to desex the animal post vaccination. The time an animal is in juvenile foster care must not exceed three months.

Juvenile (babies too young to be desexed and rehomed), Behavioural (needs some training before rehoming) and Veterinary (needs treatment for illness or injury before rehoming)

You need to reread the entire document, understand exactly what the three terms mean, and then read and understand the obligations and restrictions applying to each. Don't mix them up.

If a pup is too young, small and lightweight to be desexed, there are problems associated with taking it out in public.

The laws are designed so that dogs cannot just be out in foster homes doing nothing, getting older and less rehomable by the day. Thought will have to be put in to what the goals is for each dog in care, and how to achieve them within a short time. Dogs can't just be left in care for months on end without professional guidance and a professional approach on how to solve any problems. These laws will solve a lot of problems that rescue currently has.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Greytmate

[Steve]

Go back and read the original document carefully, I think you are getting confused.

It is only the juvenile foster dogs (baby puppies) that cannot be taken out to places, not dogs under behavioural rehabilitation.

I still can't really see too much wrong with this proposed new law. Perhaps seeing a vet every fortnight rather than week would be appropriate for dogs under behavioural rehabilitation. The average vet is not a dog behaviourist though, so I can see maybe some issues there. But there is a shortage of qualified dog behaviourists, and at least vets have some relevant qualifications.

I've read it very thoroughly and I still disagree. Their definition of a juvenile (as far as I could find) was simply "puppy". At the very least, this needs to be elaborated on.

Even assuming they mean fairly young puppies, I still don't think it's appropriate. Providing the dog has been vaccinated, I don't think there's much benefit to the dog in keeping it locked in someone's backyard for weeks, if not months.

I'm not suggesting that foster carers should be encouraged to toss the puppy in a dog park but there's benefit to be had from positive experiences of the outside world. Puppies go through several important development stages before six months of age and to miss out on important socialisation periods when there are a variety of safe ways to make the most of them just doesn't make any sense to me.

There are different categories. They have been elaborated on.

2.8.1 JUVENILE FOSTER CARE

The purpose of juvenile foster care is to allow a healthy kitten or puppy to be cared for off site in preparation for sale: to ensure the kitten or puppy is the health, age and weight required for vaccination and desexing prior to being sold by the establishment.

Kittens and puppies must be returned to the establishment when it is deemed appropriate by the veterinary practitioner to desex the animal post vaccination. The time an animal is in juvenile foster care must not exceed three months.

Juvenile (babies too young to be desexed and rehomed), Behavioural (needs some training before rehoming) and Veterinary (needs treatment for illness or injury before rehoming)

You need to reread the entire document, understand exactly what the three terms mean, and then read and understand the obligations and restrictions applying to each. Don't mix them up.

If a pup is too young, small and lightweight to be desexed, there are problems associated with taking it out in public.

The laws are designed so that dogs cannot just be out in foster homes doing nothing, getting older and less rehomable by the day. Thought will have to be put in to what the goals is for each dog in care, and how to achieve them within a short time. Dogs can't just be left in care for months on end without professional guidance and a professional approach on how to solve any problems. These laws will solve a lot of problems that rescue currently has.

Hard to see how they will when they only apply to larger rescue groups.