Pound Rounds?

[Steve]

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.

Thank you.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

One of the requirements of a Clause 16D holder is that they DO NOT get dogs out of the pound for other rescues. This means that when PR does that, they would have to be in breach of the rules.

[JRT RESCUE]

Regarding the 16d you can transfer dogs to another group because in the yearly report that you have to submit there is a space for how many you have transfered to another group.

Also when you apply for a 16d you are asked for your constitution to be supplied which I would think in all rescue groups it would say that all dogs are desexed, which mine does.

And by the way Jack Russell Rescue do not breed their jacks which they get from the pound. We only allow bitches to have puppies when they are rescued so heavily pregnant that is it in the view of the Vet that she should continue with it and have the puppies, otherwise they are desexed and the pregnant aborted.

[tdierikx]

NSWAR also run a community program called Pregnant Paws, where we take in pregnant bitches whose owners are contemplating surrendering because they are worried about the possible costs and medical issues that may arise during whelp. We take in the bitches, whelp them safely, and once the pups are weaned we have mum desexed, microchipped and vaccinated (if needed), then return her to her family. We desex and rehome the pups ourselves which helps cover any costs involved. Sometimes we make a "profit", sometimes we don't - especially if a caesarian is needed.

We could lecture the people who have let their bitch get pregnant in the first place, but we find that by providing the Pregnant Paws service the word gets out there better about desexing your dog before it needs the service we provide.

And on a serious note - it gets a bit rich when one receives death threats from crazy arsed people who have been told all of the crazy rumours going around (and think they are true)... we've had ones that were pretty specific about what they were going to do to us and they knew our address - the Police are very happy to act on those may I add.

As for fellow rescuers spreading false information around about each other... you all should know better! This "game" is NOT a frigging competition as to who is better than who at rescuing - it's about finding homeless dogs new homes for god's sake.

T.

[Ruin Maniac]

One of my friends wanted to adopt a dog from a group that affiliates themselves with PR.

On her first interview, she was told she could take the dog as long as the deposit was sent and they told her it was fine to wait until after her exams to pick up the dog. She called them to confirm when she could pick the dog up, and was hung up on the second she mentioned her name. She rang the head of the rescue and was told they'd taken in too many new fosters and had to rehome him immediately and that he was gone. We thought this was pretty unprofessional of them but begrudgingly accepted it.

She wanted another dog from them, but since I discovered this I've warned her off them altogether. This is crazy.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

One of my friends wanted to adopt a dog from a group that affiliates themselves with PR.

On her first interview, she was told she could take the dog as long as the deposit was sent and they told her it was fine to wait until after her exams to pick up the dog. She called them to confirm when she could pick the dog up, and was hung up on the second she mentioned her name. She rang the head of the rescue and was told they'd taken in too many new fosters and had to rehome him immediately and that he was gone. We thought this was pretty unprofessional of them but begrudgingly accepted it.

She wanted another dog from them, but since I discovered this I've warned her off them altogether. This is crazy.

And was her deposit returned?

[Clyde]

NSWAR also run a community program called Pregnant Paws, where we take in pregnant bitches whose owners are contemplating surrendering because they are worried about the possible costs and medical issues that may arise during whelp. We take in the bitches, whelp them safely, and once the pups are weaned we have mum desexed, microchipped and vaccinated (if needed), then return her to her family. We desex and rehome the pups ourselves which helps cover any costs involved. Sometimes we make a "profit", sometimes we don't - especially if a caesarian is needed.

What a fabulous idea!!!

[Ruin Maniac]

One of my friends wanted to adopt a dog from a group that affiliates themselves with PR.

On her first interview, she was told she could take the dog as long as the deposit was sent and they told her it was fine to wait until after her exams to pick up the dog. She called them to confirm when she could pick the dog up, and was hung up on the second she mentioned her name. She rang the head of the rescue and was told they'd taken in too many new fosters and had to rehome him immediately and that he was gone. We thought this was pretty unprofessional of them but begrudgingly accepted it.

She wanted another dog from them, but since I discovered this I've warned her off them altogether. This is crazy.

And was her deposit returned?

Yes, to my knowledge (or I'm sure I would have heard about it). It was the unprofessional attitude (just being hung up on) that upset her.

[mita]

NSWAR also run a community program called Pregnant Paws, where we take in pregnant bitches whose owners are contemplating surrendering because they are worried about the possible costs and medical issues that may arise during whelp. We take in the bitches, whelp them safely, and once the pups are weaned we have mum desexed, microchipped and vaccinated (if needed), then return her to her family. We desex and rehome the pups ourselves which helps cover any costs involved. Sometimes we make a "profit", sometimes we don't - especially if a caesarian is needed.

We could lecture the people who have let their bitch get pregnant in the first place, but we find that by providing the Pregnant Paws service the word gets out there better about desexing your dog before it needs the service we provide.

Excellent. Great to see someone being proactive with double benefits. Final litter for the mother dog, and puppies whelped & raised by people who know what they're doing. Hope this service model catches on elsewhere, too.

[tdierikx]

Thank you mita...

It's amazing how much vitriol and untruth a few disgruntled ex-volunteers can spout to all who will listen... and equally amazing how many people will believe things without bothering to check the facts for themselves. Just get out the pitchforks and torches and go on a crusade... *sigh*

Honestly - less Facebook and more reality would be a better course of action for quite a few people... *grin*

T.

[Ruby Jewel]

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.

Is that true tracey...no one cautioned anybody from what i have been told and there are a few volunteers that know the goings on at nswar and they left for no other reason then what was occurring there and the filth, but then again you can only gain entrance by appoinment that suits lyn...the little dog, that came in pregnant? then went onto have 2 other litters...as well as the others kept for breeding, you were right in on that tracey, the only person who harmed the dogs was lyn and you know it...what about the little Bo Jangles is he still being used...a very good disguise ...pregnant bitch programs....that little dog that you speak of was an old one left in a very dark, cold kennel...come on who was sending death threats you and your buddy lyn...oh also you now have cavoodles i hear at the back of nswar...got an answer for that , of course you will...you and lyn have deceived the public far too long, ,,,,,,

[Steve]

This is not the place for this crap.

[tdierikx]

Believe whatever you like Ruby Jewel, but also be aware that your accusations on a public forum could be construed as being very close to libel/defamation...

Obviously no amount of actual truth is going to change the minds of those who are hell bent on believing the worst about others.

The people spreading the current lot of rumours haven't been within cooee of the place in well over 15 months - and the most vocal were actually asked to leave for causing the issues they are screaming so loudly about.

I'll give you a particular truth about a working kennel - when you feed dogs, funnily enough, they will produce poo... and equally funny enough, they will do it a number of times in a 24 hour period. First thing in the morning there will invariably be poo and wee in most kennels - and also funnily enough, someone has to clean that poo and wee up. That takes a bit of time when you have more than a handful of dogs. And it's a longer process when the weather outside is nasty and you can't put all the dogs out in the exercise areas - on those sort of days you are rotaing dogs into clean kennels as you clean their "used" ones. Also, once you've cleaned the kennels on days when the weather is nasty, you still have to get each dog out individually to spend some one-on-one time with them and give them some exercise. Whe you have volunteers who are allergic to a poo scoop, or won't walk a dog in inclement weather, and just want to sit around having coffee and bemoaning that others haven't done all of the hard work with the dogs before they arrive for their feel good "I'm 'helping' at a dog rescue" day... then sorry, we don't need that sort of volunteer at our rescue...

What is wrong with making appointments for people to come and see dogs they are interested in adopting? I challenge you to find many rescues who just fling open their doors to have the general public wandering in willy nilly. We are not a pound, and our premises are private property - so we reserve the right to dictate who can visit and when.

We had well over 30 people visit this past weekend, and they didn't seem to mind that we made specific appointment times for them so that we could give each the time needed to make sure the dogs they came to see were right for them... and give US time to make sure that ALL of the dogs in care were attended to properly (read kennels cleaned, dogs put out in the exercise runs, etc).

But please still feel free to perpetuate the ugly rumours that have no basis in fact... I'm over giving a rats about them...

T.

[JaneH]

^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^

[Nic.B]

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.

Dogs declared dangerous by council are moved into another state and rehomed without disclosure of the dangerous dog order nor behavioural issues.

Dogs which have attacked children and other dogs (at least one dog has died from an attack, another badly injured) are also moved into another state and rehomed without disclosure.

Dogs deemed "release to rescue only" are pulled out under clause and immediately adopted into homes. PR's have not even met these dogs. One of these dogs was returned to the pound within a week and very sadly was pulled out under clause a second time by pr's and immediately put into another home. By that stage the dogs injured tail ( which was why she was deemed RTRO) was so bad that the lady spent over $2000 on surgery to have part of her tail removed. This dog went on to attack the lady’s other dog.

Dogs chipped to MN and pound rounds have been abandoned and confirmed as euthenised in shelters other states.

Dogs chipped to MN and pound rounds have been abandoned and left in shelters in other states.

This is just off the top of my head, obviously there are a lot more issues which probably comes down to ethics and morals. The number of issues is staggering, the way people and dogs have been treated is shocking.

There is no complaints process aside from MN herself. The site is heavily moderated, only comments which drag people further into the pr's web are allowed to stay.

Some of the experiences people have been through have reduced me to tears, I constantly find myself appologising on behalf of rescue. These people and families are really lovely people who had the best of intentions.

Rescue seriously needs to be regulated, it is tragic that the hard work and great reputation of rescue is being smashed appart by this group. The public needs help and support in recognising a reputable group from the rest.

[Aphra]

But please still feel free to perpetuate the ugly rumours that have no basis in fact... I'm over giving a rats about them...

T.

I dunno. For my part I always find serious allegations of wrongdoing so much more convincing when presented incoherently, with no attention to spelling, grammar or you know, evidence.

There's just something which makes you go "hey, that accusation is all over the shop, they must have a point". Really.

[minimax]

But please still feel free to perpetuate the ugly rumours that have no basis in fact... I'm over giving a rats about them...

T.

I dunno. For my part I always find serious allegations of wrongdoing so much more convincing when presented incoherently, with no attention to spelling, grammar or you know, evidence.

There's just something which makes you go "hey, that accusation is all over the shop, they must have a point". Really.

The low post count always adds to the convincing nature of the claims!

[Steve]

thanks Nic - Quote Dogs declared dangerous by council are moved into another state and rehomed without disclosure of the dangerous dog order nor behavioural issues.end quote.

these dogs couldnt be declared dangerous before they get them because if they were the council would be breaking the law . If dogs are being declared dangerous between when they take them and when they re home them then they are breaking the law - not just the 16 D clause but the law .If they are being declared after they go to their new homes they have not broken the law.

Quote Dogs deemed "release to rescue only" are pulled out under clause and immediately adopted into homes. PR's have not even met these dogs. One of these dogs was returned to the pound within a week and very sadly was pulled out under clause a second time by pr's and immediately put into another home. By that stage the dogs injured tail ( which was why she was deemed RTRO) was so bad that the lady spent over $2000 on surgery to have part of her tail removed. This dog went on to attack the lady's other dog.

Terrible but again this is not breaching any rules or any requirements for holding a 16 D .

Quote Dogs chipped to MN and pound rounds have been abandoned and confirmed as euthenised in shelters other states. Dogs chipped to MN and pound rounds have been abandoned and left in shelters in other states.</b>

At best they havent changed over the chip details in the prescribed time but legally they are not responsible for what somone who takes a dog does after they rehome it.

I believe that based on what we know is going on behind the scenes sooner rather than later there will be harder laws placed on rescue but I don't believe that will stop those who say their ethics and actions are one things but they make some allowances or do what they want. Nor do I believe that harder laws or regs will do that much to prevent dogs suffering . The only answer as far as I can see is a group with a third party accountability process who screens who comes in and who stays in , who investigates and advocates on their behalf if they accused of doing something against the ethics and they are not guilty or who takes action if they are found to be lacking. Any rescue group can say they have particular ethics but unless there is an outside third party accountability process [ which in effect is what laws attempt to do ] no one can trust any one who says what their ethics are.No one can know the difference between gossip and vexatious accusations and what is real.

The public needs to be able to trust that rescue isnt putting dogs in their homes without proper screening and assessment. Its not about the third party telling rescue groups what to do its about the third party being able to be a support and offer accountability, To expel those who threaten the integrity of the group by not having the same ethics in practice - not just on a webpage - as the ideology of the group.

If the public want to take a dog into their homes which is from a rescue group and know without a doubt that the rescue will do what they should do. I can 100 % guarantee that MDBA rescue members are doing it all according to their code of ethics because if they weren't they wouldn't be there and I would never recommend any other rescue group because sometimes I think their ethics and what they are prepared to compromise on is disgusting, not illegal but not in line with what I believe is ethically and morally right and I believe they put the public trust of all private rescue at risk.

Stop giving these cowboys free publicity and use your energy to promote what you do - nominate the good guys for an award and put the public focus on why they should use you and your group because its different and they will see its better for themselves.

Given the choice of taking a dog from someone who is doing it right and being held accountable by a third party to what PR is doing which way would you go ?

We also need to get as many who think its a good thing to do nothing more than spring a dog from the pound to see the impact this will have on all rescue long into the future to work on getting them educated to understand that there are alternatives which don't require such unethical tactics to save dogs too.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Steve

[Nic.B]

Thanks Julie, I agree it is tough.

The dogs declared dangerous have been in new adoptive homes when the attacks have occured. The dogs are then removed by pr's (usually MN herself) before the dogs are seized by rangers.

These dogs are moved into another state and rehomed without disclosure of behavioural issues nor the DD order.

I will add an example:

***name removed*** you want proof I can give you one example where I have proof, reports, and screenshots. A certain dog, was with a foster carer and whilst there it was responsible for attacking and injuring 3 kids. It also was a major escape artist and would then dig under the pens of other dogs to let them out. He killed farm animals, and was moved to kennels. He was reported to the council for the attacks on kids. This dog was advertised on gumtree as the perfect kids dogs, it stated that he loved kids. When I wrote on the crew wall that stated: Please remove my phone number off the advertisement for Milo I will not be associated with rehoming a dog that has bitten a child under any circumstances. Please make sure my phone number is not on any gumtree advertisements.

Mel Norman then arranged I have proof for the dog in question to be sent to QLD before the council could follow up the attacks further. This dog is still in QLD, and it was never assessed by any professionals at all. Thats just one example, and I have many more all with screen shots, and emails and proof that they do not always do the correct thing by the general public

.

There is also a screen dump of the dog listing on gumtree. The dog is being advertised as in QLD.

[Sheridan]

Thanks Julie, I agree it is tough.

The dogs declared dangerous have been in new adoptive homes when the attacks have occured. The dogs are then removed by pr's (usually MN herself) before the dogs are seized by rangers.

These dogs are moved into another state and rehomed without disclosure of behavioural issues nor the DD order.

I will add an example:

***name removed*** you want proof I can give you one example where I have proof, reports, and screenshots. A certain dog, was with a foster carer and whilst there it was responsible for attacking and injuring 3 kids. It also was a major escape artist and would then dig under the pens of other dogs to let them out. He killed farm animals, and was moved to kennels. He was reported to the council for the attacks on kids. This dog was advertised on gumtree as the perfect kids dogs, it stated that he loved kids. When I wrote on the crew wall that stated: Please remove my phone number off the advertisement for Milo I will not be associated with rehoming a dog that has bitten a child under any circumstances. Please make sure my phone number is not on any gumtree advertisements.

Mel Norman then arranged I have proof for the dog in question to be sent to QLD before the council could follow up the attacks further. This dog is still in QLD, and it was never assessed by any professionals at all. Thats just one example, and I have many more all with screen shots, and emails and proof that they do not always do the correct thing by the general public

.

There is also a screen dump of the dog listing on gumtree. The dog is being advertised as in QLD.

Then it sounds like a police matter.

I am tending to agree with Steve. It seems to me that there is a lot of bitching about these people and not a lot of people who have experience with them and the evidence willing to take it to the authorities and then taking it further when the authorities don't do anything. If the council doesn't act take it to the Dept. If the Dept doesn't act, take it to the Minister. If the Minister doesn't work, take it to the press.