Should We Disclose A Foster Dogs Past When Being Rehomed?.

[Greytmate]

Michelle went on to say that in her opinion as the dog has been ok in the 2 foster homes with the small dogs that it is unlikely the dog will attack again.

Wow.

Pin her down and demand this opinion in writing, and if she doesn't, call her out as not doing her job properly, and go over her head. Also demand to know her qualification for making such statements and ask for that in writing too.

Then when you have it, email council CEO and your local member and get them involved. Ask them if they know the risks in having unqualified council staff make public statements as to the safety of individual animals, and warn them they are giving official approval which will make them the target for legal action should the dog bite again.

Sounds to me like Michelle wants it all to go away. Too hard. Well that is too bad for Michelle, because she is at the bottom rung in a chain of responsibility to ratepayers that do not want their council to be sued.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Greytmate

[cryptic]

Doesn't matter if it has not attacked again in another home, this dog has shown what it is capable of.

ETA: I had a foster dog that (I suspected) killed a cat. He lived with my cat just fine. But that doesn't mean I didn't expect that he might one day decide to kill another cat. Obviously he was adopted to a home without cats.

I could not agree with you more shmoo. I also can not believe that after what this organisation knew about the dogs history whether they believed it or not they still placed her with small dogs in 2 foster homes.

[cryptic]

Michelle went on to say that in her opinion as the dog has been ok in the 2 foster homes with the small dogs that it is unlikely the dog will attack again.

Wow.

Pin her down and demand this opinion in writing, and if she doesn't, call her out as not doing her job properly, and go over her head. Also demand to know her qualification for making such statements and ask for that in writing too.

Then when you have it, email council CEO and your local member and get them involved. Ask them if they know the risks in having unqualified council staff make public statements as to the safety of individual animals, and warn them they are giving official approval which will make them the target for legal action should the dog bite again.

Sounds to me like Michelle wants it all to go away. Too hard. Well that is too bad for Michelle, because she is at the bottom rung in a chain of responsibility to ratepayers that do not want their council to be sued.

I will be emailing her to ask for their response in writing Greytmate ASAP. Your points are very valid. Was just discussing this with a rescue colleague on the phone a few hours ago.

Edited May 10, 2012 by cryptic

[Steve]

Its absolutely appalling that they could speak about and treat the foster carer like this - and when the state government brings in laws to regulate rescue we will all be able to understand why.

[_PL_]

On Tuesday i received a call from a Michelle from Parramatta council & this is what has happened in response to the report i filed in regard to the incident.

The dog has been rehomed to a person in Victoria who has no other dogs. Prior to this the organisation placed the dog firstly in kennels ,then in a foster home with other dogs including small dogs & then another foster home with small dogs. Based on this observation they have deemed the dog 100% ok & hence that is why she was advertised as good with all animals There was no mention of a professional assessing the dog.. The person in charge of the organisation was the point of contact with Michelle who stated that Kizzyneo had 2 dogs die in her care one of them being the dog that was attacked & she had changed her story to the original one that was told to her at the time of the incident. So once again the blame has been placed on the carer The other dog that died in Kizzyneos care was from a heart murmur even though on medication. I rescued both these dogs from Renbury & was aware that the other dog had a heart murmur as i was the one that had him vet checked.

.

Michelle went on to say that in her opinion as the dog has been ok in the 2 foster homes with the small dogs that it is unlikely the dog will attack again. Michelle also stated she will be meeting the head of the organisation in the near future & was looking forward to building a relationship with them. Perhaps the organisation head will act as a go between for rescue & council. I am not sure of the role they will be playing .

This stinks. 1 dead dog, 1 questionable staffy x now in a BSL state, 1 traumatised carer.

Awesome.

And the cherry on top is a private rescue-but-not-rescue responsible for this mess comes out squeaky clean and getting more of a foothold "building a relationship" with council. Why? What for?

[tdierikx]

Bloody council staff care little about what happens to a dog once it's left their care... and a certain "rescue" is springing loads of animals that the council now don't have to pay any extra costs for (ie. destruction/disposal)... of course council want to "build a relationship" with this mob... grrr!

T.

[shmoo]

Bloody council staff care little about what happens to a dog once it's left their care... and a certain "rescue" is springing loads of animals that the council now don't have to pay any extra costs for (ie. destruction/disposal)... of course council want to "build a relationship" with this mob... grrr!

T.

Hawkesbury Council care a lot about the animals.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

I cannot believe this.

[Plan B]

Pin her down and demand this opinion in writing, and if she doesn't, call her out as not doing her job properly, and go over her head. Also demand to know her qualification for making such statements and ask for that in writing too.

Then when you have it, email council CEO and your local member and get them involved. Ask them if they know the risks in having unqualified council staff make public statements as to the safety of individual animals, and warn them they are giving official approval which will make them the target for legal action should the dog bite again.

Definitely do this.

I suspect you will see a complete 180 once you point out they could be held liable if/when any future incidents occur.

It's just so sad that a dog, who should have been assessed here in NSW, has now been shipped off to a state that already targets certain bull breeds. Its chances of rehabilitation, if there were any, have dramatically decreased.

[tdierikx]

Bloody council staff care little about what happens to a dog once it's left their care... and a certain "rescue" is springing loads of animals that the council now don't have to pay any extra costs for (ie. destruction/disposal)... of course council want to "build a relationship" with this mob... grrr!

T.

Hawkesbury Council care a lot about the animals.

Staff at Hawkesbury pound definitely care about the animals in their care - that is a given - but those higher up the food chain are all too happy to "work with" anyone who is going to get large numbers of animals out of there so it costs council less in the long run...

T.

[melzawelza]

Just an FYI - Council can't declare the dog dangerous if it's been adopted out to Victoria. Dangerous Dog declarations only apply within NSW.

I would hazard that Pound Rounds know this hence sending the dog interstate.

[Greytmate]

Just an FYI - Council can't declare the dog dangerous if it's been adopted out to Victoria. Dangerous Dog declarations only apply within NSW.

I would hazard that Pound Rounds know this hence sending the dog interstate.

Really? I thought that is was only WA that didn't recognise declarations made interstate, I thought that NSW, VIC, QLD all worked togther to stop people sending dogs across borders to avoid decalaration?

Or does that only work after the dog is declared?

It would be easy for anyone under investigation to send their dog interstate for a short break if that is all it takes to avoid having a dog declared.

Whatever the case, I am just astounded that Parramatta council have a dog expert called Michelle who can seemingly predict the liklihood of this dog attacking again, and has declared the dog risk free. It is worth following that up, just to make sure Michelle's bosses know the risks they are taking in allowing somebody like her deal with the public.

[yellowgirl]

Just came across this by accident

http://www.facebook.com/PoundRoundsDoesNotSupportRescueHatePages

[tdierikx]

I know exactly who set that up... can anyone spell hypocrisy?

T.

[Greytmate]

Just came across this by accident

http://www.facebook....RescueHatePages

That's quite impressively unprofessional. Let's hope that tactic prompts many people to find other rescue groups to support.

[shmoo]

Dunning–Kruger effect

[Blossom78]

(have not read all previous posts)

If I knew of this, I would report them - RSPCA, Council, Rangers, Police.... whoever.

I would also explain to the rescue organisation THEIR liability when negligently misrepresenting a dog.

Scenario:

Someone with the best intentions might adopt that dog, obviously ignorant of any problems.

If that dog attacked and killed my (small) assistance dog, I would be looking for someone responsible.

I would find the responsible people in that rescue organisation and would go after them.

First I would take the (likely limited) fund that rescue has, and if they are incorporated (beauty!),

I would go after the assets of their Board members.

I this scenario, the rescue-person negligently misrepresenting the dog could face civil and criminal charges.

And the civil compensations could be massive and tens of thousands (fully training an assistance dog costs about 30k,

then they are not easy to replace, damages the lost of the assistance dog has cause to the owner by e.g. not working,

emotional damage......)

I think someone shuold point out to that foster carer and the foster organisation that they better tread VERY lightly there.

Killing another animal under whatever circumstances is NOT something irrelevant that need not be disclosed.

And, of course, still report them.

I feel for the dog, but personally, I wouldn't shed a tear if that dog was put down. I think the risk is just too high to take, unless a professional who knows exactly what

they're doing is willing to take that dog and work with them.

This dog should not go to your average, well-meaning, more or less ignorant and ill-informed pet dog owner.

[melzawelza]

Just an FYI - Council can't declare the dog dangerous if it's been adopted out to Victoria. Dangerous Dog declarations only apply within NSW.

I would hazard that Pound Rounds know this hence sending the dog interstate.

Really? I thought that is was only WA that didn't recognise declarations made interstate, I thought that NSW, VIC, QLD all worked togther to stop people sending dogs across borders to avoid decalaration?

Or does that only work after the dog is declared?

It would be easy for anyone under investigation to send their dog interstate for a short break if that is all it takes to avoid having a dog declared.

I'm going by the wording in the CAA which states:

34 Authorised officer may declare dog to be dangerous

(1) An authorised officer of a council may, if satisfied that a dog is dangerous, declare it to be a dangerous dog. It does not matter if the dog is ordinarily kept in another council’s area.

(2) A declaration can be made on the officer’s own initiative or on the written application of a police officer or any other person.

(3) A declaration has effect throughout the State. It is not limited in its operation to the area of the council whose authorised officer made the declaration.

Note. This Part also gives the Local Court the power to declare a dog to be dangerous in certain circumstances.

Different states have different regulations for a dangerous dog and different criteria for declaring them so this would make sense.

I guess they could possibly declare them dangerous and if they re-entered NSW the declaration would come into force? I haven't ever actually dealt with a situation like this so I'm just interpreting the wording of the act.

The other problem here is the Council may not have enough actual evidence for a declaration. It's hard when it's a 'she-said, he-said' investigation and if they don't have proof that this particular dog killed the other particular dog then it'd be hard to go with a declaration.

[Greytmate]

Just an FYI - Council can't declare the dog dangerous if it's been adopted out to Victoria. Dangerous Dog declarations only apply within NSW.

I would hazard that Pound Rounds know this hence sending the dog interstate.

Really? I thought that is was only WA that didn't recognise declarations made interstate, I thought that NSW, VIC, QLD all worked togther to stop people sending dogs across borders to avoid decalaration?

Or does that only work after the dog is declared?

It would be easy for anyone under investigation to send their dog interstate for a short break if that is all it takes to avoid having a dog declared.

I'm going by the wording in the CAA which states:

34 Authorised officer may declare dog to be dangerous

(1) An authorised officer of a council may, if satisfied that a dog is dangerous, declare it to be a dangerous dog. It does not matter if the dog is ordinarily kept in another council's area.

(2) A declaration can be made on the officer's own initiative or on the written application of a police officer or any other person.

(3) A declaration has effect throughout the State. It is not limited in its operation to the area of the council whose authorised officer made the declaration.

Note. This Part also gives the Local Court the power to declare a dog to be dangerous in certain circumstances.

Different states have different regulations for a dangerous dog and different criteria for declaring them so this would make sense.

I guess they could possibly declare them dangerous and if they re-entered NSW the declaration would come into force? I haven't ever actually dealt with a situation like this so I'm just interpreting the wording of the act.

The other problem here is the Council may not have enough actual evidence for a declaration. It's hard when it's a 'she-said, he-said' investigation and if they don't have proof that this particular dog killed the other particular dog then it'd be hard to go with a declaration.

In QLD, a dog that has been declared dangerous in NSW or VIC is considered declared dangerous in QLD too. Don't have time to drag out the act, but I always figured that section was put in to close that exact loophole of sending a dog over the border. I am not sure what Victorian law is. I have been told by various sources that WA is the only state that you can send a dog (from Vic, NSW, or QLD) to to avoid declaration and I know of at least one person that has done this. Sold their declared dog to man in Perth (very good home with references) , rather than keep the dog as a Dangerous Dog in QLD. WA gov don't acknowledge declarations made here in QLD, NSW does.

I would agree that there may not be enough evidence (although I think they have enough if the foster carer provides a written statement) but this doesn't seem to be what was communicated to Cryptic.

[shmoo]

I'd say since the dog has left NSW already, the chip might be marked with a DD impending, but not declared DD until it re-entered the state.