Pound Rounds?

[Steve]

Rumours are one thing but putting it out in writing is pretty dumb.

[Katdogs]

Actually now I've read that post in context. What she's saying is that all these rumours have been around for years but aren't necessarily true, so why do bad rumours keep being circulated about PR by rescue groups? It's all available on FB, you don't need to make MN a friend.

[tdierikx]

NSWAR >backyard breeder of small fluffies 'rescued' from pounds then bred

Seriously - people are STILL spreading that one around? You'd think they'd get more creative over time, wouldn't you?

All I have to say is that I wouldn't want to be the one who pays our desexing bill at the vet... and it's a bit hard to breed from a dog with no uterus, isn't it?

How about I fuel her fire by saying that I have no hesitation to give a broken dog it's wings... but unlike rehoming it to some other poor sap to take on the burden, I will actually be the one there holding the dog as it goes from this earth.

Rescue is by no means for the faint of heart (or bleeding of heart for that matter) - sometimes the hard decisions need to be made and then acted upon.

There are laws about truth in advertising that PR are blatantly breaking with their "save this particular dog" blurbs pasted all over the internet. Lying by omission is still lying...

T.

[Sheridan]

So, these people are not a rescue yet have a Clause 16D.

They are not a charity yet take charitable donations.

Why do pounds release dogs to them?

And why doesn't every rescue who has picked up after them or had negative interactions with them, and who have evidence against them (which appears to be nearly everyone here) not put in a formal complaint that has to be investigated?

And if that has happened, why haven't the authorities acted?

[Katdogs]

Why do pounds release dogs to them?

I think the discussion has been that the pounds/councils look good with lower pts figures.

[Sheridan]

1351850468[/url]' post='6007386']

1351844321[/url]' post='6007308']

Why do pounds release dogs to them?

I think the discussion has been that the pounds/councils look good with lower pts figures.

Is that just speculation?

[Malti]

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? "

wow that is rather funny considering photo's that she circulates degrading rescues.

It seems her intentions are for things to change and sees herself as a driving force in that but from the day she has started the bitching from her and her supporters has been great and it continues to this day.

One minute she says she believes a few parts of the quote and the next she tries to say she has only heard these from people and doesn't agree with it. She really needs to make up her mind and stop looking to be a victim in a situation she has happily put herself in for her vindictive, egotistical beliefs that she must be obeyed or you will be named and shamed.

They have a 16D but palm dogs off to other rescues, that still makes no sense to me and is a breach of the 16D guidelines as far as I am aware of.

[tdierikx]

So - after my last post here, the jackals have come out on our rescue's Facebook page... funny that...

Spouting all the lovely rumours that PR posted about us no less... lol!

I don't think they'll ever get it.

T.

[Nic.B]

Geez she is a piece of work! Unbelievable!!

MN holds the 16d she also holds the fundraising licence (actually she has two! just in case one is revoked).

There is no doubt the 16d has been breached on multiple occasions. It appears the DLG won’t act, councils are being threatened to be sued if they do not continue to release dogs to this group.

Meanwhile there is a trail of destruction whenever this group raises its ugly head.

It is only a matter of time before someone or a child is killed. You simply cannot operate so carelessly and recklessly without the inevitable occurring.

[Nic.B]

So - after my last post here, the jackals have come out on our rescue's Facebook page... funny that...

Spouting all the lovely rumours that PR posted about us no less... lol!

I don't think they'll ever get it.

T.

[Steve]

O.K. From what I can see they aren't breaching any laws or regs re a 16D . Someone correct me if Im wrong . The purpose of a 16d is to provide an exemption to the group taking responsibility of the dog not to have the registration of the dog in their name and that the onus for the dog to be registered is passed to the new owner. In other words the dog is never registered in that groups name. When animals come into the care of an organisation, the organisation must be listed as the ‘owner’ of the animal, and the secondary contact details should be those of the carer. - And as long as the dog hasn't been declared or proposed declared dangerous they can sell it without breaking any laws.If anyone sues then Im assuming PR have no assets anyway. I guess as long as they have people who only see saving the dog from the pound as the issue and people who are prepared to take them into their families without the dogs being properly assessed, desexed etc they will thrive. I get what they are doing and as far as achieving their goals they appear to be successful, saving dogs.

Here is the clause http://www.dlg.nsw.gov.au/dlg/dlghome/documents/Forms/08-73%20Clause%2016d%20Guidelines.pdf

The intent of clause 16(d) of the Companion Animals Regulation 2008 is to provide financial relief

to animal rescue organisations by exempting them from the requirement to register animals which

are in their temporary care for the purposes of re-housing. This exemption provision was formerly

contained in clause 17 of the old 1999 Regulation.

An animal is required to be lifetime registered immediately following its release from an

organisation holding a clause 16(d) exemption. However, it is the responsibility of the new owner to

ensure the animal is registered. Organisations operating with a clause 16(d) exemption may

choose to register animals prior to release and include the cost of registration in the purchase price

charged to the new owner.

And

If the animal has an existing microchip then the details for this animal must be changed to be in the

animal rescue organisation’s name or the new owner’s name, within 7 days of receiving the animal.

The secondary contact details section of the C3A form (Change of Owner/Details) MUST be

completed and record the foster carer and their contact numbers in the event that the animal

becomes lost.

In other words its pretty much impossible for them to use the 16d and not to be clasified the owner for at least some period of time

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 7

Meaning of “owner”

7 Meaning of “owner”

(1) Each of the following persons is the

"owner" of a

for the purposes of this Act:

(a)

of the animal (in the sense of being

of the animal as personal

),

(b) the person by whom the animal is ordinarily kept,

© the

of the animal.

(2) A reference in this Act to

"the owner" of a

companion animal is a reference to each and all

of the animal.

Note:

A provision of this Act that makes

of a

guilty of an offence makes each

guilty of the offence.

(5) When a

companion animal

is ordinarily kept by an employee on behalf of his or her employer, the animal is for the purposes of this Act taken to be ordinarily kept by the employer and not the employee. This subsection does not prevent an employee being the

registered owner

of an animal and does not prevent the employee being an

owner

if the employee is the

registered owner

.

(6) In any prosecution of

the owner

of a

companion animal

for an offence against this Act it is a defence if the defendant establishes that:

(a) another

owner

of the animal has been convicted of an offence arising out of the same circumstances, or the commission by another

owner

of the animal of an offence arising out of the same circumstances has been proved but a court has made an order under section 10 of the

Crimes

(Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

in respect of the offence, or

(b) another

owner

of the animal has paid the amount of the penalty prescribed under section 92 (Penalty notices) for an alleged offence arising out of the same circumstances.

And unless the dog is already a proposed or decleared dangerous dog both a pound and a group can re sell it.

COMPANION ANIMALS ACT 1998 - SECT 52A

Prohibition on selling dangerous dog or proposed dangerous dog

52A Prohibition on

selling

dangerous dog

or

proposed dangerous dog

(1) A person who <a href="

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caa1998174/s5.html#sell">sells,

or advertises the sale of, a

dangerous dog

or

proposed dangerous dog

is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 150 penalty units.

Note:

The term “sell” extends to the transfer of

owner

by any means, including by gift.

Abandoning an animal is also an offence-see section 11 of the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979

.

(2) A person does not commit an offence under this section by reason only of surrendering a

dangerous dog

or

proposed dangerous dog

to a

council pound

or an

approved animal welfare organisation

.

Note:

A

dangerous dog

that is surrendered to a

council pound

or an

approved animal welfare organisation

cannot be sold.

(3) In this section and in section 52B,

"proposed dangerous dog" means a dog that is the subject of a proposed declaration under Division 1.

[Steve]

So, these people are not a rescue yet have a Clause 16D.

They are not a charity yet take charitable donations.

Why do pounds release dogs to them?

And why doesn't every rescue who has picked up after them or had negative interactions with them, and who have evidence against them (which appears to be nearly everyone here) not put in a formal complaint that has to be investigated?

And if that has happened, why haven't the authorities acted?

According to the regs re 16d they fit the criteria ,they dont take charitable donations they take donations and anyone can do that and they are simply breaching what has come to be conventions with rescue groups they are not breaching any laws.

Why do pounds release to them is one major issue . Pounds in NSW can release animals to anyone who puts up their hands for them, there is no laws to say they need to be screened , that the owners need to be screened or that the animals need to be desexed when they are released. The ONLY requirement is that they are microcipped. You could spot a wheaten come here and tell everyone that you have seen it and send people to get it out - which is basically what PR are doing except they help the people who will get it out and part of that is by using their 16 d exemption. To hold a 16 d a council has to say all is good and they are prepared to work with them and its only re assessed every 5 years unless there is a definite breach of the regs. Theoretically an agent for puppy farmers could do the same thing. Spot for entire dogs and move them out to be used for breeding and still qualify as saving them from a pound using a 16d. there is no what comes next except the dog has to be registered into the new owners name with or without a 16d.

There is no doubt that the more dogs which are rehomed is a good thing for a pound - you only have to look at the flack the RSPCA get when they have a low rehome rate to see this and many pounds are privately contracted so if the community see that not many are rehomed that impacts their ability to keep the contract. If they are managed by the council everyone feels warm and snuggly because the rehome is good and its a measure of their success and care for animals. If they are working with a group who is helping to radically drop their kill numbers it is difficult to see why it wouldn't be in their best interest.

In NSW rescue can breed the dogs they rescue, they don't have to rehome them desexed , they don't have to vaccinate them etc.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Steve

[Steve]

Seems to me that the same thing is happening in the rescue world that has happened in the breeding world. Different philosophies and different views on what can or should be compromised on in order to attain a goal.

Just as all breeders have a goal of breeding dogs all rescue has the goal of saving dogs. Even if it goes the way breeding has with codes of practice, regs and laws there are still some things which will never be covered by laws which some people will believe are necessary to get the job done and that others are prepared to compromise on.

For what its worth I think one of the worst things that has impacted the breeding of dogs has been the need for one group of breeders with a different philosophy to fight against and attack the other group rather than ignoring what others do and promoting what they do.

For so much energy used up on asking for new laws and codes rather than telling the community about why its a better deal for them and the dogs they take to go through you, to educate and train your volunteers and treat them well and appreciate them without the need to beat up the groups who do it differently will have a greater impact on the outcome.

Sadly not everyone has the same ethics, not everyone is prepared to draw their line on what they compromise on in the same sand but not all those who will take dogs do either.

Forget about PR stop giving them so much free publicity and get on with telling the world about the great stuff you do.

[schnauzer]

After reading the post here that was swiftly deleted I must say that I had heard these rumours.

The ethos of ethical rescue is to rescue, desex and vet work, temp assess and responsibly rehome.

If a rescue bred a dog it rescued then IMO that makes them no better than a puppy farmer.

efs

Edited November 2, 2012 by schnauzer

[Steve]

Geez she is a piece of work! Unbelievable!!

MN holds the 16d she also holds the fundraising licence (actually she has two! just in case one is revoked).

There is no doubt the 16d has been breached on multiple occasions. It appears the DLG won't act, councils are being threatened to be sued if they do not continue to release dogs to this group.

Meanwhile there is a trail of destruction whenever this group raises its ugly head.

It is only a matter of time before someone or a child is killed. You simply cannot operate so carelessly and recklessly without the inevitable occurring.

Agreed but how then do you justify a pound letting them out in the first place? Dogs are moved out of NSW pounds everyday to anyone who asks for them with or without a 16 d so ultimately surely they play a role if something goes wrong with or without PR.

[Steve]

After reading the post here that was swiftly deleted I must say that I had heard these rumours.

The ethos of ethical rescue is to rescue, desex and vet work, temp assess and responsibly rehome.

If a rescue bred a dog it rescued then IMO that makes them no better than a puppy farmer.

efs

Unethical according to convention however, not illegal. I would prefer them to be up front and say they do this sometimes so people can decide whether they want to deal with them based on the facts, not gossip.If at the end of the day they are doing this and see nothing wrong with it why do they need to hide it? f they see something wrong with it they shouldn't do it. however, if they are taking donations as a rescue group - especially if they have DGR status they need to declare that they also do this and donations wont be used for their breeding activities.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Steve

[minimax]

Why were mel's posts deleted, were they untrue?

[Steve]

Why were mel's posts deleted, were they untrue?

Not sure I didnt get to see the emails nor who they were about .

[Zombie Bait]

I'm guessing the posts were deleted so that Troy doesn't have to deal with possible lawsuits.

[tdierikx]

Just to clear up a few things regarding the posts that were deleted...

1. The person who sent the poster "proof" of certain activities is a disgruntled ex-volunteer who was asked to leave due to compromising the health and welfare of the dogs we had in care at the time. That person also has been cautioned by both the RSPCA and the AWL for her campaign of calling them every day for a number of days claiming that we had 300 breeding bitches here. Both the RSPCA and the AWL came out to inspect the property, and both were more than happy to verify that the accusations were completely untrue.

2. The same ex-volunteer wanted to adopt one of our dogs (at little or no adoption fee) and was rejected as an appropriate home for that particular dog. To say this didn't sit well with her would be an understatement...

3. The dogs mentioned in those emails - which appear to have been doctored up may I add - were all pupy farm evacuees that actually came to us pregnant. All of those dogs were desexed at the same time we desexed their pups, and all bar one have been rehomed - and she's available for adoption right now after being rehbilitated for some behavioural issues she had.

Oh - and feel free to send me your email addresses, and I'll happily send you back a forwarded email that looks a lot like it actually came from you - what would you like it to say you are doing with your rescues?

T.