Steve Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Until your friend has had to hold a dog while it is given it's wings due to it being totally unsuitable for rehoming, even after months of rehabilitation efforts, she will never know how reputable rescue REALLY works. There are sound reasons why reputable and ethical rescues opeate the way they do. In rescue there are 2 main truths... 1. Not every pound animal should be "saved". 2. The measure of a reputable and ethical rescue is NOT how many animals they save, but how well they do it. It is never easy for a reputable rescuer to go into a pound and see all the animals there, then leave without taking any of them - but the reality is that is what we must do sometimes. We DO know exactly what happens to those we can't take (for the record), and really don't need armchair "rescue" upstarts preaching at us when they really don't care to understand the consequences of getting it "wrong" (both for the animals AND the public). T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 I can tell you that PR has already had one effect - try and get a Clause 16D, it's extremely difficult now - it isn't just about getting the letters of support from councils and vet and providing certain information, requirements have gone a lot further. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, far from it but it would be good if the DLG backtracked and had a good look at some of those with Clause 16D, I am quite sure they wouldn't be able to get it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schnauzer Posted October 31, 2012 Share Posted October 31, 2012 Pound Rounds is litigation just waiting to happen. I am presuming because dogs are not vet worked/quarantined - that they are also not temperament tested prior to going to foster homes? Terrifying at best. I agree but its systemic not just PR. Hope all of the foster carers have insurance. Steve, surely the foster carer would fall under the umbrella insurance of the rescue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 PR don't have insurance... and they claim to be "facilitators", not an actual "rescue" group. Their site says they will facilitate a foster carer getting a dog from the pound, then put said carer "in touch" with a local rescue group. Basically, they absolve themselves of any and all liability for their actions by doing it that way. Once the animal is out of "their" pound(s), it is someone else's problem... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Pound Rounds is litigation just waiting to happen. I am presuming because dogs are not vet worked/quarantined - that they are also not temperament tested prior to going to foster homes? Terrifying at best. I agree but its systemic not just PR. Hope all of the foster carers have insurance. Steve, surely the foster carer would fall under the umbrella insurance of the rescue? Well Ive done a bit of poking around and it appears the way they operate they are always in the clear.They hand over all responsibility of moving the dog onto the next person from the foster carer to that foster carer - so in PR case foster carers are not attached to that rescue group as they are in ordinary situations.The foster carers are independent. PR dont actually ever interact with the dog so it would fall back on the pound for letting a cranky dog go out or more likely the foster carer who should be assessing the dog and deciding whether it should go home etc.From what I can see the last person whether that be pound staff or foster carer would be held accountable and PR have no need of insurance because they are basically acting as agents. In reality if these foster carers were educated they would see their vulnerability and understand the consequences for themselves, their families and the dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schnauzer Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Pound Rounds is litigation just waiting to happen. I am presuming because dogs are not vet worked/quarantined - that they are also not temperament tested prior to going to foster homes? Terrifying at best. I agree but its systemic not just PR. Hope all of the foster carers have insurance. Steve, surely the foster carer would fall under the umbrella insurance of the rescue? Well Ive done a bit of poking around and it appears the way they operate they are always in the clear.They hand over all responsibility of moving the dog onto the next person from the foster carer to that foster carer - so in PR case foster carers are not attached to that rescue group as they are in ordinary situations.The foster carers are independent. PR dont actually ever interact with the dog so it would fall back on the pound for letting a cranky dog go out or more likely the foster carer who should be assessing the dog and deciding whether it should go home etc.From what I can see the last person whether that be pound staff or foster carer would be held accountable and PR have no need of insurance because they are basically acting as agents. In reality if these foster carers were educated they would see their vulnerability and understand the consequences for themselves, their families and the dogs. Wow. How on earth can they fundraise if they are not a legitimate rescue? Where are the funds going and wouldn't they have to be audited? How did they get a 16D if they are an "agent"? Someone needs to seriously warn their foster carers - dogs going into homes with no vet check/temp test/unquarantined. It is a disaster waiting to happen for some naive, inexperienced foster carer who is trying to help a dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 last time I looked they were not registered as a charity and not registered as a deductible gift recipient - so no audit and basically no accountability . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheyd Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 It would be great to be able to warn the foster carers as mentioned above but PR is like a cult - people get sucked into helping "save" animals at all costs and believe what PR tell them - try and tell them something different and they get all defensive and attack you saying you are killing dogs if your not rescuing like PR Then there are the people who have had a successful adoption through PR and nothing has gone wrong who will just attack you for having a differing opinion to how things were handled or should have been handled - bottom line for PR and their supporters its all about saving the dogs without anything else coming into it - and if your not on board with this, too bad. Even if this means dogs are left in kennels for months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRT RESCUE Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Not all dogs go straight from the pound into carers, they also board a lot of their dogs under their name before sending them into care or interstate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 So, when a dog is released from a pound under the Pound Rounds Clause 16D, whose name is it going into? Theoretically speaking it should be going into the name of whoever holds that 16D, yes? Under that premise, Pound Rounds would/should be the ones assuming liability from that point on if they "rehome" the dog to someone else, yes? T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Her Majesty Dogmad Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I can't understand how they got a Clause 16d and how they maintain it with the way they operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schnauzer Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 If PR gets the dog out under their 16D is the dog chipped in their name? If so, they are the legal owners of the dog until that dog is adopted and the chip is changed and are therefore liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 Simple answer dogmad? I'd assume that the pounds may be worried about retaliation if they refused or revoked the 16D... You have seen how these people operate, and how fanatical some of their followers are, hven't you? I'd be somewhat worried about their possible reactions if I were to intentionally try to stop them doing what they are doing... errr! T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 And I thought she was a smart educated bussiness woman so it just goes to show anyone can be drawn in She sounds like a very dodgy sort of business person if she is so ignorant about liability and safety issues. As well as not giving a toss about the poor people who want to adopt a nice pet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katdogs Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 I'd be somewhat worried about their possible reactions if I were to intentionally try to stop them doing what they are doing... errr! Anyone noticed a particularly amazingly brilliant rescuer has disappeared? Anna Powerlegs fought them so hard, with logic and common sense and being practical. The PR army just rolls on, strong and stupid as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amp Posted November 1, 2012 Share Posted November 1, 2012 MN quote found on f/b "So although I agree with helping to control the industry - making it personal and doing it for no other reason than they don't operate to your philosophy is a little different - let me give you some examples - and these accusations I have heard ALL in the last 4 weeks: JRT rescue > breeding dogs taken from pounds BDR > stole money and profits from rehoming ARQ > only takes small fluffies to sell to live off proceeds SOS > only takes small fluffies to sell to live off proceeds - also has dog that has killed 4 others still living at kennels - keeps dogs for years - animal hoarder - and abuse NSWAR >backyard breeder of small fluffies 'rescued' from pounds then bred SR > still making all the money rescuing no dogs and not taking back their own dogs rehomed HH > breeding NMR > Animal abuse SHR > dogs killed by negligence HPH > dead dogs and cats bodies last time they moved, hoarding animal abuse RCR > hoarding, dogs killed, undesexed rehoming GR > hoarding, animal abuse P&H > not supporting fosters expecting them to pay for basic vetwork & essential care, only taking saleable rescues J&J > hoarding, dog fights APC > all of the above FFB > parts of all of the above FFR > dogs back in the pound, killed. PR > everything above multiplied by infinity and then by 10 just to be sure you know just how bad they are. SSR > being total bitches & feeding the gossip & hate and the classic "undesexed rehoming" and "only taking saleable rescues"- which every single rescue (except Greyhound Rescue) has been accused of. I am not joking - this is exactly what I have heard in 4 weeks. Have I missed anyone? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 Good Grief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan B Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 MN quote found on f/b "So although I agree with helping to control the industry - making it personal and doing it for no other reason than they don't operate to your philosophy is a little different - let me give you some examples - and these accusations I have heard ALL in the last 4 weeks: JRT rescue > breeding dogs taken from pounds BDR > stole money and profits from rehoming ARQ > only takes small fluffies to sell to live off proceeds SOS > only takes small fluffies to sell to live off proceeds - also has dog that has killed 4 others still living at kennels - keeps dogs for years - animal hoarder - and abuse NSWAR >backyard breeder of small fluffies 'rescued' from pounds then bred SR > still making all the money rescuing no dogs and not taking back their own dogs rehomed HH > breeding NMR > Animal abuse SHR > dogs killed by negligence HPH > dead dogs and cats bodies last time they moved, hoarding animal abuse RCR > hoarding, dogs killed, undesexed rehoming GR > hoarding, animal abuse P&H > not supporting fosters expecting them to pay for basic vetwork & essential care, only taking saleable rescues J&J > hoarding, dog fights APC > all of the above FFB > parts of all of the above FFR > dogs back in the pound, killed. PR > everything above multiplied by infinity and then by 10 just to be sure you know just how bad they are. SSR > being total bitches & feeding the gossip & hate and the classic "undesexed rehoming" and "only taking saleable rescues"- which every single rescue (except Greyhound Rescue) has been accused of. I am not joking - this is exactly what I have heard in 4 weeks. Have I missed anyone? " The kick of it is, Norman is one of the most vindictive, malicious people out there, whose own ramblings about other groups are filled with so much venom. Her constant push for rescue to be all about statistics is both horrifying and predictable. I'd be surprised if, after the latest scandal, her 16d isn't taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowgirl Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 And I thought she was a smart educated bussiness woman so it just goes to show anyone can be drawn in She sounds like a very dodgy sort of business person if she is so ignorant about liability and safety issues. As well as not giving a toss about the poor people who want to adopt a nice pet. No, the people who volunteer are usually not dodgy. I know several lovely, good hearted people who volunteered for Pound Rounds (all are out now). They are regular people who just want to help, and because they're not able to foster or adopt themselves they very much want to help in any way they can. People are very easily drawn in to this kind of thing and the write-ups, guilt trips and desperation to save a dog at any cost does get people emotionally entangled and they feed into the hyperbole of the write-ups. They are not stupid people, they're people with kind hearts who just want to help but have become caught up with the wrong group. Usually this is their first time trying to help a rescue group and they think that this is how rescue works. Until they know differently, they honestly think they are making a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katdogs Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 MN could have been more creative, most of those rumours have whiskers on they're so old. She's wrong about the two groups I know so I expect she's wrong about the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now