Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 In terms of PR ethics is not an operational term right now because while they are clearly unethical it won't be on this front that they will be removed. If they are let continue then self determined ethics won't matter because regulation will be forced on everyone and it is likely they won't take submissions. The fact is that they are breaking rules that already exist and people should be working on those. In the main I agree but what "rules" are they breaking ? Do you have a link or similar to these - is there an agreement in existence in writing that they have to sign to operate with council? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Given the fact that PR irresponsibly rehomed a DA dog into an inappropriate home and a little fluffy was killed, would that not be reason enough for the shelters NOT to release dogs to PR? If threatened by MN, they would have legit reason NOT to release dogs to PR for the safety of the community? I personally think the shelter would be somewhat accountable if say a child was killed by a PR dog? Did PR re-home it or did they alert people to it and the pound re homed it ? The DA dog was being fostered for PR's. Pulled out under clause and chipped to MN (I have pics of the foster carers dead dog) This dog has since had her name changed multiple times, shifted through various kennels and was listed for adoption after the dog attack as good with small animals and kids etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Steve, talking about how do we determine what is ethical and how is it policed is moot in this context. What we have is a rescue that does not follow already existing council policy, it's black and white. What is not so easy is to get council to enforce their own policies. PR deliberately have off shoots everywhere and there is a huge amount of information to decipher. But the tools to take them down are there, it's just a matter of finding the best way to use them. Sorry Im not buying it - everything they have been accused of has been presented to council and they continue to operate and whilst they may have done what they are accused of with RTRO dogs and not followed council procedure or policy in reporting back outcomes in the main they are within council policy because anyone can take any dog out of the pound without screening and without proper temp testing - in the main all they do is operate as an agent to let people know where the dogs are. If you are going after changes and accountability council have to be clear about what their policy is which makes a rescue group eligible for certain concessions - to date its nothing more than holding a 16D - and have written policies in place of what constitutes a breach and what they will do about it if a breach is bought to their attention and what they will do about it if they see its guilty - and which will enable them to identify what they consider to be ethical which applies to all rescue groups without exemption. Going after PR or any other person or group until thats in place is doing no one any good in my opinion. Did you see the posts about the conditions of taking RTRO dogs? Just because the council are slack at enforcing those conditions doesn't mean they don't exist. Some pretty cluey people have been working on this for some time and I don't think they are lying about it. Council will be reluctant to act because they don't want to stop PR because they make them look good but doesn't mean they don't have clearly worded polices that other groups already follow. But I'm not going to go into much here because I don't want PR to know what is being done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 If someone goes directly to PR and gets a dog from them and the dog bites a child or another dog, wouldn't that person veto PR not all rescue? A bit of research into other rescue organisations will show that dogs are taken into foster homes and are temperament tested in a home environment, often with children and always with other dogs. Taking a dog straight from the pound and then from a kennel, is a big risk in my eyes and something I wouldn't do...ever. Agree, though it is the difference between responsible ethical rescue and the cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 In terms of PR ethics is not an operational term right now because while they are clearly unethical it won't be on this front that they will be removed. If they are let continue then self determined ethics won't matter because regulation will be forced on everyone and it is likely they won't take submissions. The fact is that they are breaking rules that already exist and people should be working on those. In the main I agree but what "rules" are they breaking ? Do you have a link or similar to these - is there an agreement in existence in writing that they have to sign to operate with council? I think Nic has them, I don't yet but I'm staying home today and chasing up things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Given the fact that PR irresponsibly rehomed a DA dog into an inappropriate home and a little fluffy was killed, would that not be reason enough for the shelters NOT to release dogs to PR? If threatened by MN, they would have legit reason NOT to release dogs to PR for the safety of the community? I personally think the shelter would be somewhat accountable if say a child was killed by a PR dog? Did PR re-home it or did they alert people to it and the pound re homed it ? The DA dog was being fostered for PR's. Pulled out under clause and chipped to MN (I have pics of the foster carers dead dog) This dog has since had her name changed multiple times, shifted through various kennels and was listed for adoption after the dog attack as good with small animals and kids etc. Agreed would appear according to my definition of ethical and to operate with integrity to be a breach of that but the laws in this state ensure that the pound cannot release a declared dangerous dog or one which is being considered for a declaration - still sounds like a council issue to me - if they can legally release it to rescue - rescue in this state can lawfully do what they want with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Steve, talking about how do we determine what is ethical and how is it policed is moot in this context. What we have is a rescue that does not follow already existing council policy, it's black and white. What is not so easy is to get council to enforce their own policies. PR deliberately have off shoots everywhere and there is a huge amount of information to decipher. But the tools to take them down are there, it's just a matter of finding the best way to use them. Sorry Im not buying it - everything they have been accused of has been presented to council and they continue to operate and whilst they may have done what they are accused of with RTRO dogs and not followed council procedure or policy in reporting back outcomes in the main they are within council policy because anyone can take any dog out of the pound without screening and without proper temp testing - in the main all they do is operate as an agent to let people know where the dogs are. If you are going after changes and accountability council have to be clear about what their policy is which makes a rescue group eligible for certain concessions - to date its nothing more than holding a 16D - and have written policies in place of what constitutes a breach and what they will do about it if a breach is bought to their attention and what they will do about it if they see its guilty - and which will enable them to identify what they consider to be ethical which applies to all rescue groups without exemption. Going after PR or any other person or group until thats in place is doing no one any good in my opinion. Did you see the posts about the conditions of taking RTRO dogs? Just because the council are slack at enforcing those conditions doesn't mean they don't exist. Some pretty cluey people have been working on this for some time and I don't think they are lying about it. Council will be reluctant to act because they don't want to stop PR because they make them look good but doesn't mean they don't have clearly worded polices that other groups already follow. But I'm not going to go into much here because I don't want PR to know what is being done. Yes I saw the posts but I also want to see where this agreement is which they sign in order to have a RTRO released to them. I want to see in writing what conditions there are and I want to see what they have stated will happen if they don't follow the conditions. Surely they should be easily accessible if all rescue who operate out of Blacktown and HP have to agree to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 As I said, I don't have them, am chasing them up and I believe Nic when she says they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Ethics discussions are moot due to the fact that everybody seems to have a different standard for what they deem "ethical". Some people believe that having extremely invasive application forms asking for financial status, etc, is being "ethical" - some think rehoming dogs to people who can be at home 24/7 is "ethical" - and some who don't ask for that level of "commitment" is "ethical"... So what BASIC "rules" should we set down (amongst ourselves for now) that can be used as a yardstick for what is "ethical" and what isn't? If we may be heading for regulation of our "industry", it may be prudent to have these things worked out in advance, so we have something to put forward if/when the powers that be are looking into regulating us... T. Hall a bloody ool ya !!!!!!!!! My link But some of the things that are in that code of ethics could never be laws. Well met Steve... and apart from the references to the MDBA stuff, it's not all that hard to do all that is listed there. Methinks I likes your "ethics"... *grin* T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Well it's clear to me. When I ran gap I followed all laws and best practice. I kept myself squeaky clean. I followed a procedure meaning all my decisions were approved by qualified professionals.That's my definition and I'm standing behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 If someone goes directly to PR and gets a dog from them and the dog bites a child or another dog, wouldn't that person veto PR not all rescue? A bit of research into other rescue organisations will show that dogs are taken into foster homes and are temperament tested in a home environment, often with children and always with other dogs. Taking a dog straight from the pound and then from a kennel, is a big risk in my eyes and something I wouldn't do...ever. Agree, though it is the difference between responsible ethical rescue and the cowboys. Ummm... responsible rescue can still have/run kennels Nic... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 In terms of PR ethics is not an operational term right now because while they are clearly unethical it won't be on this front that they will be removed. If they are let continue then self determined ethics won't matter because regulation will be forced on everyone and it is likely they won't take submissions. The fact is that they are breaking rules that already exist and people should be working on those. In the main I agree but what "rules" are they breaking ? Do you have a link or similar to these - is there an agreement in existence in writing that they have to sign to operate with council? I think Nic has them, I don't yet but I'm staying home today and chasing up things. I have everything we have presented to council though for personal reasons I am not able to keep up with PR's atm. If you would like to give me a buzz my home is 45736995 and mobile 0408663211. My email is down atm and I have really bad reception on my mobile so if worst comes to worst just text me your number and I will get back to you as I am also outside in the paddocks a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I don't have a phone at home, no mobile reception there either so I'm limited to the net. I'll pm you anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Well it's clear to me. When I ran gap I followed all laws and best practice. I kept myself squeaky clean. I followed a procedure meaning all my decisions were approved by qualified professionals.That's my definition and I'm standing behind it. But you miss the point how is council to define criteria for which group to work with? You know what you did and you know what you feel is ethical but that isnt ever going to be exactly what everyone else thinks - and much of it is about integrity not just what you are seen to agree to. Its about values and the things you do when no one else is watching. Basic human nature tempts people to do things "just once - no one will know " etc What criteria should council have to determine which groups to work with? If they don't have criteria and they cant identify those things which would make a group ineligible then anyone kept out would yell discrimination and threaten legals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Steve, talking about how do we determine what is ethical and how is it policed is moot in this context. What we have is a rescue that does not follow already existing council policy, it's black and white. What is not so easy is to get council to enforce their own policies. PR deliberately have off shoots everywhere and there is a huge amount of information to decipher. But the tools to take them down are there, it's just a matter of finding the best way to use them. Sorry Im not buying it - everything they have been accused of has been presented to council and they continue to operate and whilst they may have done what they are accused of with RTRO dogs and not followed council procedure or policy in reporting back outcomes in the main they are within council policy because anyone can take any dog out of the pound without screening and without proper temp testing - in the main all they do is operate as an agent to let people know where the dogs are. If you are going after changes and accountability council have to be clear about what their policy is which makes a rescue group eligible for certain concessions - to date its nothing more than holding a 16D - and have written policies in place of what constitutes a breach and what they will do about it if a breach is bought to their attention and what they will do about it if they see its guilty - and which will enable them to identify what they consider to be ethical which applies to all rescue groups without exemption. Going after PR or any other person or group until thats in place is doing no one any good in my opinion. Did you see the posts about the conditions of taking RTRO dogs? Just because the council are slack at enforcing those conditions doesn't mean they don't exist. Some pretty cluey people have been working on this for some time and I don't think they are lying about it. Council will be reluctant to act because they don't want to stop PR because they make them look good but doesn't mean they don't have clearly worded polices that other groups already follow. But I'm not going to go into much here because I don't want PR to know what is being done. Yes I saw the posts but I also want to see where this agreement is which they sign in order to have a RTRO released to them. I want to see in writing what conditions there are and I want to see what they have stated will happen if they don't follow the conditions. Surely they should be easily accessible if all rescue who operate out of Blacktown and HP have to agree to them. It will come under FOI Steve via Hawkesbury council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 In terms of PR ethics is not an operational term right now because while they are clearly unethical it won't be on this front that they will be removed. If they are let continue then self determined ethics won't matter because regulation will be forced on everyone and it is likely they won't take submissions. The fact is that they are breaking rules that already exist and people should be working on those. In the main I agree but what "rules" are they breaking ? Do you have a link or similar to these - is there an agreement in existence in writing that they have to sign to operate with council? I think Nic has them, I don't yet but I'm staying home today and chasing up things. I have everything we have presented to council though for personal reasons I am not able to keep up with PR's atm. If you would like to give me a buzz my home is 45736995 and mobile 0408663211. My email is down atm and I have really bad reception on my mobile so if worst comes to worst just text me your number and I will get back to you as I am also outside in the paddocks a lot. Do you have a copy of the forms/agreements rescue fill out to take dogs from HP council Nic? What about Blacktown do they have an agreement the rescue groups have to agree to with penalties and consequences etc if they don't comply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) If someone goes directly to PR and gets a dog from them and the dog bites a child or another dog, wouldn't that person veto PR not all rescue? A bit of research into other rescue organisations will show that dogs are taken into foster homes and are temperament tested in a home environment, often with children and always with other dogs. Taking a dog straight from the pound and then from a kennel, is a big risk in my eyes and something I wouldn't do...ever. Agree, though it is the difference between responsible ethical rescue and the cowboys. Ummm... responsible rescue can still have/run kennels Nic... T. Seriously T, I don't have the time. You know I care about what you do with the puppies though this is not about you. Edited January 24, 2013 by Nic.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 With so many rescue groups working out of HP and Blacktown over the years surely someone has a copy without needing to go through FOI surely any new group presenting would be given one to sign on the spot. Im advised by a phone call that no form exists for this purpose at Blacktown is this true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zug Zug Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Councils could set criteria however. They can make their own policy decisions on this score, so long as they give everyone an equal opportunity to consider and meet their criteria. The way I see it, this could be treated the same way as selecting any contractor. Set your criteria, make your criteria public (e.g. as part of a competitive public tender process) and invite everyone to respond to your criteria, then select the one that best fits your criteria. Just because no money is changing hands does not mean a public tender process cannot be used. I work in Local Government (not in animal management) and have done this before where no money was changing hands, but where we wanted to ensure we were selecting the best organisation to be involved with us in providing services within our community. If it were done that way, yes a Council could certainly define its criteria and make a selection. They are not compelled to work with dodgy rescue organisations any more than they are compelled to deal with dodgy builders or other tradespeople. It may require them to think a bit differently about how to go about things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 With so many rescue groups working out of HP and Blacktown over the years surely someone has a copy without needing to go through FOI surely any new group presenting would be given one to sign on the spot. Im advised by a phone call that no form exists for this purpose at Blacktown is this true? It will all have to be applied for under FOI Steve, believe me. Not sure about BCC though Hawkesbury Council will not give you anything IMO. 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