Are Some Things Better Left To The Pros?

[Guest muttrus]

The idea is GREAT but like all things left upto hearsay,word of mouth unconfirmed etc some good intentions lose the plot along the way and can lead to damage some rescue groups which maybe hard to get back .

I know not everyone is a fan of facebook but you must admit it can be a very useful tool .My page is purely bussiness and flooded with our rescue's ins and outs.I came across this new facebook page aimed at helping the public learn/deal/interact with rescue groups.While Im a fan of shop around cover your bases do your homework Im worried that something which allows takes word of mouth literial and relies on peoples say so could in fact be used for the wrong reasons.

We all know without the facts some subjects can turn nasty and with such a public view on things mis understands WILL happen .

Word of mouth is powerful we all know it and yes most of us use it but we also know how the BAD stuff seems to stick.

While I believe the idea is helpful on both sides Im worried because of the way its done that it also scares me. How many of you have had to say no to a would be adopter ? now what if that person took it the wrong way? now that person can twist that story post it and the only way is for you to let it go or defend it which once defended can add up to all sorts of back and forth .We read it on here everyday and while alot of us within the rescue world understand to a high extent how it works what about the average joe blow?

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Support-a-Reputable-Animal-Rescue-Group/168294796603848

I know I maybe reading too much into this and its early days but I did already read a post saying the page was supporting a rescue group someone didn't feel they should be ----so it begins

[tdierikx]

Facebook is the root of all evil IMHO... *sigh*

T.

[Plan B]

I think the page is mainly there to show people who the crooked groups are, as opposed to who the good ones are.

Though when everything comes down to opinion - I'm not sure a page like it can ever really work.

I actually think Facebook is a great resource for rescue. But, like with anything, it can be used to achieve less-than-great things.

[_PL_]

Silly question but how would they know every 'unreputable' unless someone with the poops emails to complain? In which case, everyone will be gradually be removed until all that's left is crickets chirping....

[Aphra]

I sort of commend the impulse but I'm not convinced this is a good idea, starting a Facebook page is not the answer to every issue. What is the definition of a reputable rescue? I suppose if the intention is a kind of "review a rescue" in the same manner as traveller's sites or even Amazon it could build into something useful for the public with enough participation.

I think the progenitors of such a site should provide some transparency about who they are and their background and purpose.

Facebook is a fantastic tool, but that's all it is. It's not a substitute for careful thought, clear aims and intelligible goals.

[lovemymutts]

yep it's a stupid stupid stupid idea. I agree, how will they know who is reputable or not? Many people have had many different experiences with groups. Oh what I have seen . But I think it is poitnless.

And... it's facebook. People will do & believe what they want.

Edited January 3, 2012 by lovemymutts

[mita]

Silly question but how would they know every 'unreputable' unless someone with the poops emails to complain? In which case, everyone will be gradually be removed until all that's left is crickets chirping....

Funny that the same kind of transparency, which is a feature of ethical rescue, doesn't seem to apply on that FB page!

Who's guarding the 'guardian'?

[Maddy]

I can certainly see why someone felt the need to start that page but unfortunately, they're going at the issue wrong and ultimately, rescue will suffer for it.

A better use of their time would be providing some basic information about what to look for in a rescue and encouraging consumers to use common sense.

Sometimes good rescue will stuff up- when you're dealing with living creatures this is inevitable- but the occasional mistake does not make them a shoddy group. The obvious problem is.. the 99 satisfied customers won't be writing emails to FB groups about their experiences but the 1 dissatisfied customer will.

[mita]

There's a Word of Mouth website that takes an approach of consumers posting recommendations from their experiences with all sorts of services.

I stumbled on it and found the local groomers I've taken our dogs to, for years. When I read the posts from clients recommending this service, I couldn't agree more with the content. Only thing that's not up-to-date is fact that the service has moved to next suburb now.

http://www.womo.com.au/reviews/Aunty-Margs-Clipping-And-Grooming-Keperra/

But, even a positively pitched website like this, would need to be used with great caution. Any dodgy business could get their 4 best friends to post glowing recommendations.

So a negatively pitched website would have no credibility at all IMO. If someone has a consumer complaint, they should take it to the state agency which deals with such matters.

I'd agree with HA, that general consumer guidance is a good way to go.

In fact, CHOICE (the Australian Consumers Association) already has a webpage giving such advice on getting a puppy or a dog. They point out all sorts of sources....& hint at pitfalls. Basically, they're pointing people to registered breeders and ethical shelters & rescues (links are provided).

I've often thought that this page should be expanded on the specifics of what to look for when dealing with registered breeders, shelters & rescues.

Best of all, CHOICE is a well-known, highly respected organisation....that operates with transparency.

http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/household/backyard/pets/buying-a-dog.aspx

Edited January 4, 2012 by mita

[westiemum]

Facebook is the root of all evil IMHO... *sigh*

T.

Yep... Avoid it like the plague...

[Maddy]

I noticed this group has had a fair bit of activity and I'm pleased to see they've stuck with just recommending reputable groups rather than posting a list of "dodgy" groups.

That said..

I had a quick look through the list and could only see one Tasmanian group- RSPCA Tas.

I have to assume all the state RSPCAs were added without really any checking because the RSPCA down here has a pretty horrid reputation, especially the Launceston branch.

If each group isn't going to be actually thoroughly checked out, all you really have is a list of groups and that.. well.. plenty of pet directories for finding that sort of thing.

The other issue is with transparency still. Who are these people, are they affiliated with any particular groups in a way that might cause bias, how exactly do they decide on who's good and who's not?

I like the idea of supporting ethical rescues but this info really needs to be supplied. After all, what's to stop someone setting up a group like this and claiming to provide fair and accurate information and then being dodgy themselves?

[lovemymutts]

I noticed this group has had a fair bit of activity and I'm pleased to see they've stuck with just recommending reputable groups rather than posting a list of "dodgy" groups.

That said..

I had a quick look through the list and could only see one Tasmanian group- RSPCA Tas.

I have to assume all the state RSPCAs were added without really any checking because the RSPCA down here has a pretty horrid reputation, especially the Launceston branch.

If each group isn't going to be actually thoroughly checked out, all you really have is a list of groups and that.. well.. plenty of pet directories for finding that sort of thing.

The other issue is with transparency still. Who are these people, are they affiliated with any particular groups in a way that might cause bias, how exactly do they decide on who's good and who's not?

I like the idea of supporting ethical rescues but this info really needs to be supplied. After all, what's to stop someone setting up a group like this and claiming to provide fair and accurate information and then being dodgy themselves?

That's the issue. Some of the groups when I looked last weren't reputable. All groups/shelters that want support need to be totally transparent etc. and shelters need to be open to the public. Anyway the public & supporters deserve to have honest, responsible rescue organisations to support.

[Aphra]

I did ask them on their page what their criteria for deeming a rescue as reputable was. I think the answer is still there.

[Maddy]

I did ask them on their page what their criteria for deeming a rescue as reputable was. I think the answer is still there.

This answer?

WE are a group of woman who have personally rescued and are rescuers ourselves... We research our groups and are advised if they are NOT reputable. This page is new but we have been researching Rescue Groups for many months now.

[mita]

I did ask them on their page what their criteria for deeming a rescue as reputable was. I think the answer is still there.

This answer?

WE are a group of woman who have personally rescued and are rescuers ourselves... We research our groups and are advised if they are NOT reputable. This page is new but we have been researching Rescue Groups for many months now.

I'll write the bleeding obvious. 'We research our groups'....but no criteria given for what factors are researched.

'...and are advised if they are NOT reputable' Advised by whom?

Groups that make evaluations have to be transparent to provide those ratings with credibility.

I'd ignore the ratings of any group which is based on anonymity. And which provides no criteria for their assessments.

[Maddy]

I did ask them on their page what their criteria for deeming a rescue as reputable was. I think the answer is still there.

This answer?

WE are a group of woman who have personally rescued and are rescuers ourselves... We research our groups and are advised if they are NOT reputable. This page is new but we have been researching Rescue Groups for many months now.

I'll write the bleeding obvious. 'We research our groups'....but no criteria given for what factors are researched.

'...and are advised if they are NOT reputable' Advised by whom?

Groups that make evaluations have to be transparent to provide those ratings with credibility.

I'd ignore the ratings of any group which is based on anonymity. And which provides no criteria for their assessments.

With no further information to go on than that one answer I found (I assume it's the one Aphra was talking about, couldn't spot anything else), I don't think I'll be recommending that page to anyone unless the people involved are willing to step up and make the process transparent

If it comes down to "You'll just have to trust us".. erm, no thanks. We all know how that ends.

[tdierikx]

Well, they haven't done much research if some of the groups they are listing are anything to go by... and they've left some VERY reputable groups off their list.

T.

[Bartok]

Who decides what is and isnt "reputable"?

I think some facebook pages are set up by people with to much time on their hands.

they seem more focused on personal vendetta's and getting as many other goonies on

board then doing "rescue" work

I am on a few pages. I dont post, but I do read and there are some ugly things going on out there

and it seems there are more and more new people and groups popping up daily. It isnt nice

to read especially if you have been in and around rescue a long time.

I see people who have no ABN, 16D or CFN take shreds of groups that have all 3

Edited January 13, 2012 by Bartok

[lovemymutts]

Well, they haven't done much research if some of the groups they are listing are anything to go by... and they've left some VERY reputable groups off their list.

T.

This.

And exactly Bartok, who decides if they're reputable or not?

[Maddy]

I think some facebook pages are set up by people with to much time on their hands.

they seem more focused on personal vendetta's and getting as many other goonies on

board then doing "rescue" work

That's how it seems.

I have to say.. I'm curious as to how some of the people in those groups find time to post as much as they do if they are rescuers.

Between my family, my own dogs, my foster dogs and running a small rescue (oh, and the book I somehow started writing for new greyhound owners- so much for.. "I'll just write you up a quick list of basic first aid stuff for your new grey..") I get a bit of DOl time- which is usually while I'm procrastinating over the writing I should be doing- and enough time to quickly browse my FB newsfeed, maybe Vetnpet or Ebay if I'm out of something for the dogs and then updates for the rescue site, if I'm ahead enough with everything else. Also a bit of evening time but that's time I'm taking out of my own sleep- like right now :p

It seems as if some of these people spend literally all day on FB; cross-posting, sharing, liking their friend's cross-posts and shares, posting snarks at enemies, cross-posting said snark to friend, liking friend's share of the snark, rinse, repeat, ad infinitum.