Pound Rounds

[~Anne~]

I prefer the term pragmatic to realist. That's more semantics though.

[mixeduppup]

good for you :)

[_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.

+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.

You're assuming that your comment was only taken as referring to unsuitable (because that's what they are) DA and HA.

Time, expense and effort are put in to many dogs and cats that by your black and white statement, are 'not worth it'. That is the insult.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Powerlegs

[Horsegal98]

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.

I agree with this, there are animals of all types out there who are generally bad tempered, including humans. I think it is rare, and the majority of issues are caused by their treatment, but I don't think it is 'a worthwhile use of time and resources' to try and struggle uphill with an animal with an unfavourable disposition when there are many sweet tempered animals around. I am not talking about easily correctable issues such as toilet training and obedience, I am thinking more of general nature if you know what I mean.

[mixeduppup]

Oh for heaven's sake. I was obviously referring to UNSUITABLE dogs. I own two rescues of my own, I'm a member of the DOl rescue forum and run publicity for the dogs in my local pound, I'm pretty sure I support rescuing the right dogs.

Edited January 5, 2013 by mixeduppup

[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.

I agree with this, there are animals of all types out there who are generally bad tempered, including humans. I think it is rare, and the majority of issues are caused by their treatment, but I don't think it is 'a worthwhile use of time and resources' to try and struggle uphill with an animal with an unfavourable disposition when there are many sweet tempered animals around. I am not talking about easily correctable issues such as toilet training and obedience, I am thinking more of general nature if you know what I mean.

Agreed.

[~Anne~]

:laugh: I'd forgotten how stupid these conversations can get at times and how far off track they can go.

I'm sorry I made comment on the implied worthiness of an animal. I should have just read, muttered to myself, and glossed over it.

I was not discussing the behaviours or health problems in dogs, just commenting on a word that I didn't convey what it was intended.

The greater majority of people involved in rescue know what an inappropriate rehoming is. I'm not sure you need to push a point that isn't being disagreed with. It's semantics as I said on the use of a word, that's all.

[mixeduppup]

:) All good. I'm blaming the heat on my short temper today

[~Anne~]

:) All good. I'm blaming the heat on my short temper today

I understand. We've all been there... And I have a very good history of it, just ask Troy. :laugh:

[Leema]

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.

But plenty of people use foster care networks - effectively, the dogs are 'placed in somebody's home' to be assessed.

Though I agree with you (that assessment of animals should happen before they're permanently placed in a 'forever' home), assessment will pretty much have to take place in a home environment to truly evaluate behaviour.

I know what you're saying, but making practical legislation regarding this is difficult.

[k9angel]

The same info in the opening post was posted on the blacktown pound thread yesterday except in the BP thread, it says to contact the pound, not Melanie or pound rounds...

Post 61.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/244980-blacktown-pound-week-beginning-31122012/page__st__60

[shmoo]

Nobody should be allowed to directly promote a product they don't take responsibility for when things go wrong.

:clap:

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Nobody should be allowed to directly promote a product they don't take responsibility for when things go wrong.

:clap:

Amen to that.

[shmoo]

Pounds have been working along side rescue groups for many years, and have used their relationship with rescue groups to further assess animals. We all know that animals can react differently in a pound environment compared to a home environment, and this is where 'release to rescue only' comes into play. The animal is released by the pound into the care of a rescuer who is then trusted (with a gentlemen's contract) to properly assess and work with the animal. Pound rounds took this trust and ran with it anyway they could to ensure any animal doesn't get the green dream; the green dream is the one thing on their mind, once that is dodged... well there is a new euth list for the week and it all starts again.

Rescue is a round-a-bout that never stops. Unfortunately PR never stopped to think about what happens after the animals have dodged "being killed", because apparently there is no worse life for a dog than no life.

Edited January 5, 2013 by shmoo

[Zug Zug]

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.

Some of the discussion in the Pound Rounds reply quoted earlier in this thread were really disturbing and incredibly naive.

I strongly agree with Alkhe's earlier post above. All people rehoming dogs need to apply a standard of safety and suitability before sending dogs to homes. It is completely irresponsible and very dangerous not to do this appropriately.

I am in favour of re-trainable dogs being rescued for retraining. Then if all goes well, they would need to be assessed again and determined safe and suitable before going to a home. But not all dogs will be realistic candidates for this - I would exclude seriously DA dogs and also any form of HA. There are plenty of other dogs also needing help and I think it is necessary to set priorities based on risk and best chances of a successful outcome.

I fell victim to the lack of thorough temperament assessment when I brought a dog home from the pound last year. He mauled my existing dog - she needed 2 surgeries to repair her face. I returned him to the pound - it was absolutely gut-wrenching for me even though I'd only had him for a few days. He had shown some signs of problems in the temperament assessment, but this reaction came as a surprise to all of us. I wish they had been more careful.

This is a photo of my lovely old dog after the first surgery - I am relieved that she has recovered (although still has some irritation on that side of her face and probably always will):

Result - I would be VERY hesitant to get an adult dog from a pound again. And I have had several pound dogs previously, including the old dog that was injured in this case (she is now 14 years old, brought home from the pound at approx 1 year of age). I have dealt with behavioural issues (she had serious separation anxiety and was a fence jumper/climber), but aggression is altogether different and far worse.

I have also been seriously attacked by a big aggressive dog many years ago. There would have been no way to rehab that dog - he was a very dangerous animal who attacked many people during his life.

So while I love dogs, I am very aware that rehoming dogs like these without highly skilled rehab/reassessment is incredibly naive and very harmful. It undermines the reputation of pound dogs, and can cause serious injury and trauma to the people and dogs they meet once they've left the pound.

It is just not as simple as saying all dogs are 'worth it'. Some dogs are just not safe. To criticise people for 'killing' these dogs is narrow-minded. Of course no-one enjoys doing it, but it is necessary in some cases and shirking this responsibility by handing DA dogs to inexperienced people is quite shocking.

Rant over - but for obvious reasons this really pushes my buttons.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Zug Zug

[melzawelza]

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.

I'm going to preface my comment by saying I can't stand PR tactics just like everyone else and I also don't believe TRULY dog aggressive dogs should be rehomed (i.e dogs that will go after another dog to attack it without provocation).

BUT in regards to you comment that the dogs being rehomed should be a legal breed, I'm assuming you're referring to the appearances of some of the dogs PR were promoting.

Blacktown and all other pounds do not release dogs deemed as a restricted breed as per the Act. But you and I aren't breed assessors, neither are BP staff. Suspect dogs are breed assessed (and temp tested if found to be a cross of a restricted breed) before release, therefore no matter how much you may think the dog is an illegal breed, it actually, legally, is not.

That's not to say that I disagree with everything else you've said, but I felt I needed to make that point.

Edited January 5, 2013 by melzawelza

[k9angel]

I see all of the dogs on that kill list made it out.

Great ( ) *if* they went to genuine rescue, but a real concern if they ended up with PR.

[Greytmate]

Blacktown and all other pounds do not release dogs deemed as a restricted breed as per the Act. But you and I aren't breed assessors, neither are BP staff. Suspect dogs are breed assessed (and temp tested if found to be a cross of a restricted breed) before release, therefore no matter how much you may think the dog is an illegal breed, it actually, legally, is not.

If that is the case, the person who started the thread in general about being randomly photographed has nothing to worry about? I thought they could still assess her dog even though she bought it from the pound as a staffy X. Is a breed assessment from the pound enough proof that it is?

[melzawelza]

Blacktown and all other pounds do not release dogs deemed as a restricted breed as per the Act. But you and I aren't breed assessors, neither are BP staff. Suspect dogs are breed assessed (and temp tested if found to be a cross of a restricted breed) before release, therefore no matter how much you may think the dog is an illegal breed, it actually, legally, is not.

If that is the case, the person who started the thread in general about being randomly photographed has nothing to worry about? I thought they could still assess her dog even though she bought it from the pound as a staffy X. Is a breed assessment from the pound enough proof that it is?

It's not a breed assessment from the pound, blacktown Council issue a Notice of intention to declare the dog to be a restricted breed. An independent breed assessor and temperament tester if needed goes out to the pound and performs the assessment. The results are recorded on DLG paperwork and sent back to Council. The owners get the pink copy of their assessments and the results are recorded on the microchip in a particular section just for that purpose.

If Ziggy went through that same process at his pound he'd be automatically safe from BSL but I'm assuming that isn't the case as it only tends to be done on red nosed dogs, and StaffyLuv would have got paperwork showing the assessment etc.

Basically, there's a difference between pound staff just chipping the dog as 'staffy cross' and actually issuing the NOI and going through the official process. The latter guarantees the dogs safety in NSW from BSL.

Edited January 5, 2013 by melzawelza

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Personally I would prefer to see DNA testing done on dogs rather than have a breed assessor. This of course won't happen as it would cost over $100.

I've seen a number of dogs identified as "Vizsla" crosses. Vizslas are not that common and this could well end up harming the reputation of what is a very good natured breed.