Red Collar Rescue Being Refused Access To Dogs In The Pound

[Greytmate]

I don't understand why I am being brought into this discussion. Leave me out of it thankyou

My previous post might explain that. Sorry for getting your name confused with somebody else.

[Plan B]

you have it back to front. Ethical rescue is responsible for making sure the dogs that they sell are of adoptable quality. They are not responsible for the dogs they do not have the resources to rehabilitate, the ones they send to be euthanised. The responsibility for that goes to the dogs' original owner or breeder, because these dogs were marked for euthansia before they were made available to rescue. With the numbers now, rescue cannot rehabilitate every dog they take in, as it will result in long-term kenneling for problem dogs, volunteer burn-out and take resources away from rehoming the highly adoptable dogs.

I wasn't talking about rehabilitation.

I was talking about having a dog professionally assessed for any 'issues' (which can include such a wide range of behaviours, it's a bit silly discussing it without knowing what each other is referring to) before deciding to PTS. That qualified opinion could be taken with that dog if/when it goes back to the pound.

And while I somewhat agree with you, I do disagree that Rescues aren't responsibly for the dogs they take into care and claim ownership of. While not every Rescue can rehabilitate a dog, I would be worrying about a Rescue that continuously sends dogs back to the pound or euthanise, without them having the dog assessed by a qualified person.

The blame absolutely does lie on previous owners/breeders. No Rescue should ever be blamed for not being able to 'save' a dog. But I do think Rescues should do whatever is in their power to follow through with the commitment they make by taking a specific dog.

Like someone mentioned before - actually meeting the dog you are planning to rescue beforehand is essential in preventing these dilemmas, though it's obviously not guaranteed issues won't arise.

Anyway, this is way off-topic.

[Greytmate]

While not every Rescue can rehabilitate a dog, I would be worrying about a Rescue that continuously sends dogs back to the pound or euthanise, without them having the dog assessed by a qualified person.

Thanks for explaining.

I think if a rescue is doing it continuously, they are showing that their selection methods are not effective. It isn't good at all. (and is probably off-topic) But I don't think we should be making it harder than it already is to euthanise a dog. We don't need rescues selling problem dogs, or keeping them in risky situations in foster care, because that is cheaper or easier than euthanasia.

[tdierikx]

Running a responsible and successful rescue is bloody hard work... and I tip my hat to all who can do and are doing it "right".

I've always been of the opinion that "success" in rescue should be counted in how many we rehome responsibly and well - not how many we can rehome in the shortest turnaround time (ostensibly so one can "save" more and more). It's not a race or a competition - it's dealing with lives of the animals we take in, and the lives of their new family members. If we get it wrong too often, then the public just won't source their next new best mates from us, will they?

Not every animal in a pound can or should be "saved" - some are best served by being given their wings - and the sooner some people in rescue get that fact into their heads the better IMHO.

Back to the OP - RCR have had their numbers reduced on their license for a reason... which appears to be more related to how many they can care for properly at their premises (most likely due to staffing levels), rather than any bad press they may have had. This isn't actually a bad thing, and may increase the numbers of animals they rehome annually because they will have more time to work on and with each dog before rehoming it.

T.

[Guest Ams]

I don't get to "select" a lot of the dogs I take into rescue, I transport from pounds and take the information from DOL and shelter animal attendants and then hold my breath and hope the dog is able to be rehomed. As a breed shar pei are unpredictable and don't cope in confined spaces aka most pounds and shelters.

I take dogs that have failed behavioural assessments and will put as much time as I have into them to rehab.

I will not place aggressive dogs into foster care and nor will I keep dog aggressive dogs on my property if they show no signs of "getting" it. HA dogs that lunge and attack are pts. As a single female on acreage it is not safe for me to try and rehab these.

I don't have endless resources. These dogs are "dead dogs walking" when they arrive here and I am their last hope of any sort of rehab. I don't "dump" them back into pounds but they are euthanised if I deem them not rehomeable. Only I make that decision although I may discuss things with a few friends.

I like to think I have a reasonable balance between wasting money on large medical bills and wasting time on unrehomable dogs v healthy and rehomeable. I have a network of people around me and can tap into a very knowledgeable skills base to get advice but I can't afford to have consults for every dog.

I don't have Dogmad's experience but I grew up on a farm surrounded by animals. I was handraising wildlife and farm animals all through my school years. I volunteered for the RSPCA for a number of years, including foster care (and still do), I have almost completed a Cert IV in Companion Animal Management and live with an every changing pack of dogs (shar pei, mastiff, akita, neo) ranging from 12 - 22 dogs depending on how many are in care. A huge amount of my knowledge has come from reading DOL forums and soaking up all the information and advice given by people way more knowledgeable than I.

I never had any intention of becoming a private rescuer but did so at the behest of Peibe who provided me with her support and advice. I'm not sure I ever want to formalise the rescue side as I have seen first hand what happens when people disagree with the management and direction.

By the standards discussed here I am not "ethical" but some of the many dogs I have managed to coax back into trusting humans may well disagree (as would their new families I am sure).

[yellowgirl]

Running a responsible and successful rescue is bloody hard work... and I tip my hat to all who can do and are doing it "right".

I've always been of the opinion that "success" in rescue should be counted in how many we rehome responsibly and well - not how many we can rehome in the shortest turnaround time (ostensibly so one can "save" more and more). It's not a race or a competition - it's dealing with lives of the animals we take in, and the lives of their new family members. If we get it wrong too often, then the public just won't source their next new best mates from us, will they?

Not every animal in a pound can or should be "saved" - some are best served by being given their wings - and the sooner some people in rescue get that fact into their heads the better IMHO.

Back to the OP - RCR have had their numbers reduced on their license for a reason... which appears to be more related to how many they can care for properly at their premises (most likely due to staffing levels), rather than any bad press they may have had. This isn't actually a bad thing, and may increase the numbers of animals they rehome annually because they will have more time to work on and with each dog before rehoming it.

T.

Every single sentence ... agree ... :)

[Guest Ams]

btw I believe RCR's contract with the Council did not allow them to "pick" dogs either. It was an all or nothing deal.

[HollyMilo]

Back to the OP - RCR have had their numbers reduced on their license for a reason... which appears to be more related to how many they can care for properly at their premises (most likely due to staffing levels), rather than any bad press they may have had. This isn't actually a bad thing, and may increase the numbers of animals they rehome annually because they will have more time to work on and with each dog before rehoming it.

T.

According to Red Collar Rescue, North Burnett council have told them that the reason they reduced the number of dogs to 20 was because that is the number of dogs the council could take into their own pound system if the people running the rescue were to, at any time, walk away from their property and the dogs.

[tdierikx]

Still - less dogs to look after at any given time will mean that each dog will be able to get individual attention more often... just because one has a license for more doesn't mean they should be at capacity all the time...

T.

[LDH]

Still - less dogs to look after at any given time will mean that each dog will be able to get individual attention more often... just because one has a license for more doesn't mean they should be at capacity all the time...

T.

Exactly. And while stating the order has been to reduce the number of dogs from 60 to 20, it has not been uncommon for over 100 dogs to be on the property. And these dogs are cared for by 2 people.

The dog who has been the subject of much of the debate (who was rehomed in Brisbane) arrived with a myriad of health problems – vet records attest to this. Soon after arriving she mauled and nearly killed the adopter’s own dog. The defence was that she had only been in RCR’s care a week before being rehomed and so they were not responsible for her health or other issues – when I understand their own vet records confirm she had been in RCR’s care for over 3 months.

I don’t propose to favour one side or the other – but there are always two sides.

[nawnim]

deleted. Sorry posting is too stressful

Edited June 14, 2012 by padraic