Pound Rounds

[Katdogs]

Are they still promoting Riley the massive dog brought back from Victoria after mauling another dog?

[Alkhe]

What I find most disturbing about PR is what was demonstrated in the response keetamouse got from them.

They are making the case for dogs that require training and rehabilitation - fine. In theory, I can support that. The problem is that they are not actually PROVIDING training or rehabilitation, and are facilitating the release of dogs that do require those things into the hands of people who aren't qualified or experienced to give those things.

If you want to make the case that dogs that fall through the cracks of the pound-rescue interface are the ones that really deserve 'rescue', fine. If you want to spend your time, effort and money on rehabilitating those dogs - great, more power to you. But they're not. They're just putting them wherever they can. Given that, I doubt anyone with the level of experience required to rehabilitate or address the behavioural issues of a DA or HA dog would actually work with Pound Rounds.

... preaching to the choir, I know.

[Steve]

Yes but PR only took advantage of the list. The fault lies with Hawkesbury for not BCCing.

There seems to be confusion regarding PR. Are they just promoting animals or are they rescuing? Because they are referred to here as a bad rescue because they shift dogs around, they have kennels, but at the same time they are referred to as promotors and mediators.

Yep that's how I see it if I pass on an email list to a third party Im at fault not the person who receives it unless when I took it the other person agreed to me handing around all over the place - though Im not conversant with spam laws and Im guessing as long as they have an opt out they are safe there too.

[Greytmate]

What I find most disturbing about PR is what was demonstrated in the response keetamouse got from them.

They are making the case for dogs that require training and rehabilitation - fine. In theory, I can support that. The problem is that they are not actually PROVIDING training or rehabilitation, and are facilitating the release of dogs that do require those things into the hands of people who aren't qualified or experienced to give those things.

If you want to make the case that dogs that fall through the cracks of the pound-rescue interface are the ones that really deserve 'rescue', fine. If you want to spend your time, effort and money on rehabilitating those dogs - great, more power to you. But they're not. They're just putting them wherever they can. Given that, I doubt anyone with the level of experience required to rehabilitate or address the behavioural issues of a DA or HA dog would actually work with Pound Rounds.

... preaching to the choir, I know.

They also promote the harmful myth that all dogs are inherently good unless mistreated and all psychological issues can be overcome.

[Steve]

It's not just "convention via dogz". I have been a member here for many years and at the same time ran a program for five years. The DOL culture has been influenced by best practices in rescue. We didn't invent our conventions here. Most of us realise that assessment is the one most important part of making sure the wider community isn't put put in danger unnecessarily. Even the big shelters that people 'love to hate' use assessment.

Im not suggesting the convention is only here or that it was invented here however, in the main most people who stay here hold the same beliefs and ethics - its reasonable to say its a convention that most dogz rescue forum users agree with. It is not however, what is necessarily practiced by other rescue people and its not something that has to be practiced in order to be within the law in the state of NSW.

[mixeduppup]

A lot of dogs just aren't worth rehoming and that is the sad reality. They (people promoting and facilitating release, PR, the pounds etc) put people, other animals and the general public perception of rescue dogs at risk when they adopt out these types of dogs. Sure, some dogs can be rehabbed or managed by experienced dog handlers but the general public do not have years of behavioural experience to do this and they end up with a dog that they cannot handle and is potentially dangerous because of a pretty picture with a captioned lie at the bottom.

[Aphra]

PR have kennels don't they? Then if they are advocates for these dogs they should pull them themselves, do the appropriate work and advertise their successes. There are probably many nice dogs who die because most rescues aren't equipped to manage big, strong dogs. If they did the work themselves, honorably and well, I'd happily support them.

Rescues do what they can do, it's not fair laying the guilt on rescues who only have resources and carers for certain kinds of dogs.

[Greytmate]

It's not just "convention via dogz". I have been a member here for many years and at the same time ran a program for five years. The DOL culture has been influenced by best practices in rescue. We didn't invent our conventions here. Most of us realise that assessment is the one most important part of making sure the wider community isn't put put in danger unnecessarily. Even the big shelters that people 'love to hate' use assessment.

Im not suggesting the convention is only here or that it was invented here however, in the main most people who stay here hold the same beliefs and ethics - its reasonable to say its a convention that most dogz rescue forum users agree with. It is not however, what is necessarily practiced by other rescue people and its not something that has to be practiced in order to be within the law in the state of NSW.

No it's not law, it's best practice to assess dogs.

And it's illegal to make false claims.

What are false or misleading representations?

It is unlawful to make false claims or misleading descriptions:

• about the supply or possible supply of consumer goods or services
• when promoting the supply or use of goods or services.

For instance, your business must not make false or misleading representations

• the standard, quality, value or grade of goods or services

And it's illegal to engage in misleading or deceptive conduct as well,

What is misleading or deceptive conduct?

'Conduct' includes actions and statements, such as:

• advertisements
• promotions
• quotations
• statements
• any representation made by a person.

Business conduct is likely to break the law if it creates a misleading overall impression among the intended audience about the price, value or quality of consumer goods or services.

Whether you intended to mislead or deceive is irrelevant; what matters is how your statements and actions - your 'business conduct' – could affect the thoughts and beliefs of a consumer.

I think it could be seen as deceptive to be promoting dogs like the dog aggressive, fence jumping red-nosed amstaff as being suitable for people to take home. I think the dog is faulty goods. It's not illegal not to assess, but it is illegal to make claims that you are not qualified to make that could result in a person being misled.

[~Anne~]

A lot of dogs just aren't worth rehoming and that is the sad reality. They (people promoting and facilitating release, PR, the pounds etc) put people, other animals and the general public perception of rescue dogs at risk when they adopt out these types of dogs. Sure, some dogs can be rehabbed or managed by experienced dog handlers but the general public do not have years of behavioural experience to do this and they end up with a dog that they cannot handle and is potentially dangerous because of a pretty picture with a captioned lie at the bottom.

Semantics I know however the statement I have bolded is so very wrong in my opinion. Perhaps a better way to say it would be "A lot of dogs just aren't suitable for rehoming and that is the sad reality."

[Greytmate]

A lot of dogs just aren't worth rehoming and that is the sad reality. They (people promoting and facilitating release, PR, the pounds etc) put people, other animals and the general public perception of rescue dogs at risk when they adopt out these types of dogs. Sure, some dogs can be rehabbed or managed by experienced dog handlers but the general public do not have years of behavioural experience to do this and they end up with a dog that they cannot handle and is potentially dangerous because of a pretty picture with a captioned lie at the bottom.

Semantics I know however the statement I have bolded is so very wrong in my opinion. Perhaps a better way to say it would be "A lot of dogs just aren't suitable for rehoming and that is the sad reality."

I agree the wording is important, because our words are twisted and spat back at us.

But we can be very clear about what is acceptable in our community as a pet. It should be able to be easily contained by normal suburban fence, it should be a legal breed, it should be able to be taken for exercise on a normal lead. Without threatening or attacking people or other animals.

That is what a reasonable person would desire and expect from a pet dog. It's what the community expects. PR are doing nothing to ensure the dogs they are promoting meet this expectation of a pet.

[~Anne~]

Agree Greytmate.

I can see where Steve is coming from though and I have been amazed really that Blacktown Council aren't stepping in to ensure that this seemingly out of control issue isn't going to affect them legally or have ramifications.

I've stepped back from rescue and haven't spoken to anyone on Council about this for at least a year so I'm a little out of the loop.

Still, it would be very alarming if Blacktown are allowing potentially dangerous dogs to be released to the community via this group. I can see from what has been written on the abundance of FB and forum threads created about this group that it appears to be so but I've learnt to be sceptical with what is written.

Either way, someone somewhere is in for a potential major liability of these stories are true.

[mixeduppup]

A lot of dogs just aren't worth rehoming and that is the sad reality. They (people promoting and facilitating release, PR, the pounds etc) put people, other animals and the general public perception of rescue dogs at risk when they adopt out these types of dogs. Sure, some dogs can be rehabbed or managed by experienced dog handlers but the general public do not have years of behavioural experience to do this and they end up with a dog that they cannot handle and is potentially dangerous because of a pretty picture with a captioned lie at the bottom.

Semantics I know however the statement I have bolded is so very wrong in my opinion. Perhaps a better way to say it would be "A lot of dogs just aren't suitable for rehoming and that is the sad reality."

I agree the wording is important, because our words are twisted and spat back at us.

But we can be very clear about what is acceptable in our community as a pet. It should be able to be easily contained by normal suburban fence, it should be a legal breed, it should be able to be taken for exercise on a normal lead. Without threatening or attacking people or other animals.

That is what a reasonable person would desire and expect from a pet dog. It's what the community expects. PR are doing nothing to ensure the dogs they are promoting meet this expectation of a pet.

True, but I still think that a lot of dogs aren't worth it, the money, the foster homes, the training, management and eventual heartache. If the dog is not suitable than it is ultimately not worth it. There's too many good dogs dying because bleeding hearts are trying to save the unworthy ones.

I know what you're saying though.

[~Anne~]

I think every dog is worth it, but some aren't suitable. :)

[mixeduppup]

I'm a realist and not every dog is worth the effort, time and money to rescue.

[Leema]

I haven't been involved with Pound Rounds, but I do think they are a problematic group. The major issue is placing dogs that often have 'issues' into unskilled and unknowledgeable and unprepared foster homes with little support, to rehome them to unskilled and unknowledgable and unprepared 'forever' homes.

However, I don't think limiting rescue pulls from shelters is the best method. I'm biased, of course, but I've fostered and rehomed (privately or through other groups) about 25 dogs over 5 years, and I'd say that one, maybe two, would've passed RSPCA SA's temperament assessment. Despite this, all the dogs (which have included food aggressive dogs, fear aggressive dogs, dog reactive dogs, and fence jumpers) have stayed in their adoptive homes bar one. They are sold with full disclosure of any issues, and given strategies to deal with the issues, and even given free follow up behaviourist consults if necessary. But almost all of them would've been killed as a result of a temperament test in a shelter.

What I'm saying is, yes, PR's methods are not desirable. But if shelters did start to 'screen' rescues and rehoming, a great number of dogs that ARE suitable for adoption would be destroyed based on their behaviours in a kennel facility.

I don't know what the solution is, but I would hate to see genuine, ethical rescues compromised, and rehomeable dogs killed, because of the actions of a solitary group.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Leema

[_PL_]

I'm a realist and not every dog is worth the effort, time and money to rescue.

With respect, I find that a really awful and insulting comment. I (and many others here) have rescued dogs who were all of the above and very much worth it. That's what rescue does.

'Unsuitable' is more appropriate, because they all go back into society as a representative of all rescue animals.

[Greytmate]

What I'm saying is, yes, PR's methods are not desirable. But if shelters did start to 'screen' rescues and rehoming, a great number of dogs that ARE suitable for adoption would be destroyed based on their behaviours in a kennel facility.

The important thing is how the dogs behave when they are being adopted out. There is no compulsion for rescuers to assess in any particular location as long as they do it before placing that dog in somebody else's home. It's up to the rescue at what stage they decide whether a dog is or isn't suitable to be rehomed or even placed with a carer, and with Pound Rounds there is no stage they make that decision.

[Paganman]

I'm a realist and not every dog is worth the effort, time and money to rescue.

With respect, I find that a really awful and insulting comment.

+1 I was involved in rescue but I wasnt suited to it emotionally and youd definately consider me unrealistic. As far as Im concerned every dog is worthy of effort time and money but unfortunately not all are suitable

[mixeduppup]

I'm a realist and not every dog is worth the effort, time and money to rescue.

With respect, I find that a really awful and insulting comment.

+1 I was involved in rescue but I wasnt suited to it emotionally and youd definately consider me unrealistic. As far as Im concerned every dog is worthy of effort time and money but unfortunately not all are suitable

So a dog that is exhibiting severe aggression towards children or people in general is worth it? I love dogs but realise that some dogs cannot be helped. They are worth your love and compassion of course but not worth the money and time and resources better spent on a more rescue worthy prospect.

[tdierikx]

There are many dogs in pounds that are perfectly well rehomable... and there are some dogs in pounds that aren't.

PR has a habit of advocating very strongly for the general public to take their chances with dogs that clearly fall into the second category. Not to mention the bull breeds they ship off interstate that could very well be subjected to crazy BSL laws based on the fact that they look like a restricted breed.

I have no doubts that if someone in Victoria put up their hand for the red nosed dog "6359 "Rayner" Male Am-Staff 2/4 yrs", he'd be shipped there by PR post haste... what do they think is going to happen to that dog once a "well meaning" member of the public lets the local council know he's in their jurisdiction? Quite frankly, he doesn't have to DO anything untoward while living in Victoria to be declared restricted/dangerous and possibly siezed and destroyed under that state's draconian new laws.

It truly does appear that the goal for PR is to just move dogs out of "their" pounds... and in many cases without a thought as to what happens once they are gone. The pound is happy they don't have to euth them, and if shipped far enough away, the dogs will never be their problem again - but in many cases they have become the problem of the council areas they have ended up in. To me, that is just shifting the "problem" elsewhere...

Mind you - I got a very pleasant reply to my email asking them to take me off their mailing list. No animosity at all... *grin*

T.