Pound Rounds

[Greytmate]

Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation?

My knowledge of this is out of date, but I heard that it depends on whether the org selling the dog is selling it as a pet or whether what they are doing is disposing of a dog.

Organisations that sell pets are expected to provide a product that meets reasonable expectations as a pet. That is where a Perth organisation was once found liable for rehoming an aggressive dog that went on to bite a child. No legislation about it, but because they didn't follow best practice in assessment, they lost the case. This is what I have been told, so that's why when I sold dogs I followed best practice for assessment and documentation of assessment and history.

So I would want to know does this pound "dispose of dogs" to PR, or do they sell pets to the public? If they are selling pets, they need to follow consumer laws to the letter.

[Steve]

Sheridan, a few other runs had "EOI pending behavioural assessment" on them, so I assume so? Unless they only do it for dogs they think need it.

megan_, I mentioned he didn't seem like the friendliest dog in the world - but it's not my place to. You only had to walk past his run to elicit this response. I shouldn't need to inform them.

I am not familiar with behavioural assesments at BCC though under the circumstances you have mentioned above BCC have a duty of care and responsibility to ensure this dog is pro assesed PRIOR to release.

If BCC are unable to assess they may release this dog RTRO. They need to then ensure the rescue group will meet all set criteria in assesment. The group will be forced to report back to council on the otcome of the dog.

If councils work with reputable groups they everything is adheard to. If they work with unreputable groups, the group will not get back to them.

It should be followed up upon, though often it is not.

Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation?

Councils have a DOC. RTRO dogs have set conditions and rescue groups must adhere to them. All of the conditions are in writing. Rescue must agree and follow those conditions if they would like to take on these dogs.

I may need to speak with you Julie as I am not able to go into the whole lot online.

So I assume that if PR have taken on any of these dogs they have complied with the conditions or they would no longer be able to get them is that right???

[Are You Serious Jo]

If the existing requirements were actually followed up then there would be no need for rescue regulation. But really PR are a lawsuit away from bringing down all rescue. Pounds seem to be playing their part though by letting things slide when they should be chasing up paperwork.

The dogs that are RTRO are the ones that are listed on the rescue tab and not also on the adoption tab right on the Blacktown site? I might have to pm you Nic.

[Nic.B]

So tell me this - If we all go mad and start to push for laws to be introduced to prevent DA and HA dogs to be able to be released from pounds unless it is to a rescue group wouldn't that still mean PR could do exactly as they are doing now? It would seem to me any law changes have to in the main put really strict laws and restrictions on small private rescue.

I do not think new laws are the answer at all. It is simply one group flouting every available loop hole available IMO.

Rescue have responsibly taken RTRO dogs for endless years, they ALWAYS follow every single direction.

It is the difference between reputable rescue and the cowboys.

[Steve]

Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation?

My knowledge of this is out of date, but I heard that it depends on whether the org selling the dog is selling it as a pet or whether what they are doing is disposing of a dog.

Organisations that sell pets are expected to provide a product that meets reasonable expectations as a pet. That is where a Perth organisation was once found liable for rehoming an aggressive dog that went on to bite a child. No legislation about it, but because they didn't follow best practice in assessment, they lost the case. This is what I have been told, so that's why when I sold dogs I followed best practice for assessment and documentation of assessment and history.

So I would want to know does this pound "dispose of dogs" to PR, or do they sell pets to the public? If they are selling pets, they need to follow consumer laws to the letter.

Its my understanding that much of the angst is about the fact that people are taking these dogs out in their own names directly from the pound and not just from PR - so are they disposing of the dogs to new owners or are they selling them a pet?

[Steve]

If the existing requirements were actually followed up then there would be no need for rescue regulation. But really PR are a lawsuit away from bringing down all rescue. Pounds seem to be playing their part though by letting things slide when they should be chasing up paperwork.

The dogs that are RTRO are the ones that are listed on the rescue tab and not also on the adoption tab right on the Blacktown site? I might have to pm you Nic.

The part of the problem is any existing requirements are not laws and each pound can have their own policies/requirements. Which is why pounds in NSW can still sell them to the highest bidder entire if they choose to.

[Sheridan]

If the existing requirements were actually followed up then there would be no need for rescue regulation. But really PR are a lawsuit away from bringing down all rescue. Pounds seem to be playing their part though by letting things slide when they should be chasing up paperwork.

The dogs that are RTRO are the ones that are listed on the rescue tab and not also on the adoption tab right on the Blacktown site? I might have to pm you Nic.

The dog that PR took last week (Venna?) was on both.

[Nic.B]

Well, if stories from DOLers are any indication then PR is taking DA dogs that Blacktown have deemed suitable for rehoming. Who's fault is that then? Blacktown's, I think.

IMO BCC. If they are not able to BA the dog they had better make sure the dog goes to a reputable rescue who has the finances, ability and commitment to work through assesments and rehabilitation.

Both BCC and HP have enough info and experience to know that PR's will not meet any of the essential requirements.

Then that is down to the pounds.

PR is simply taking advantage of them not doing their jobs properly.

So, my question is, why aren't the pounds being smacked around for allowing DA dogs to be released?

No, it all comes down to council.

Re your last comment; it is council allowing RTRO dogs going to knowingly an unreputable group.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I was looking at her and couldn't figure out if she was truly RTRO or someone got that wrong. I can see a dog without a RTRO condition is on both as if not adopted directly could be taken by rescue. But common sense says RTRO dogs should only be under the rescue tab.

[Steve]

Well, if stories from DOLers are any indication then PR is taking DA dogs that Blacktown have deemed suitable for rehoming. Who's fault is that then? Blacktown's, I think.

IMO BCC. If they are not able to BA the dog they had better make sure the dog goes to a reputable rescue who has the finances, ability and commitment to work through assesments and rehabilitation.

Both BCC and HP have enough info and experience to know that PR's will not meet any of the essential requirements.

Then that is down to the pounds.

PR is simply taking advantage of them not doing their jobs properly.

So, my question is, why aren't the pounds being smacked around for allowing DA dogs to be released?

No, it all comes down to council.

Re your last comment; it is council allowing RTRO dogs going to knowingly an unreputable group.

So if we push for laws who and how will they determine which group is or is not reputable unless we also have laws to cover what comes next

[Greytmate]

Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation?

My knowledge of this is out of date, but I heard that it depends on whether the org selling the dog is selling it as a pet or whether what they are doing is disposing of a dog.

Organisations that sell pets are expected to provide a product that meets reasonable expectations as a pet. That is where a Perth organisation was once found liable for rehoming an aggressive dog that went on to bite a child. No legislation about it, but because they didn't follow best practice in assessment, they lost the case. This is what I have been told, so that's why when I sold dogs I followed best practice for assessment and documentation of assessment and history.

So I would want to know does this pound "dispose of dogs" to PR, or do they sell pets to the public? If they are selling pets, they need to follow consumer laws to the letter.

Its my understanding that much of the angst is about the fact that people are taking these dogs out in their own names directly from the pound and not just from PR - so are they disposing of the dogs to new owners or are they selling them a pet?

Yes, that's the question.

Consumer laws are geared to protect the consumer and put responsibility back on the seller to accurately describe the product. Incompetence is no excuse, sellers have a responsibility to control the quality of what they sell and ensure it is fit for purpose. So if a seller is making either false claims, or claims that they are not qualified to make about the product they sell, they can be reported to the consumer body.

[Nic.B]

Sheridan, a few other runs had "EOI pending behavioural assessment" on them, so I assume so? Unless they only do it for dogs they think need it.

megan_, I mentioned he didn't seem like the friendliest dog in the world - but it's not my place to. You only had to walk past his run to elicit this response. I shouldn't need to inform them.

I am not familiar with behavioural assesments at BCC though under the circumstances you have mentioned above BCC have a duty of care and responsibility to ensure this dog is pro assesed PRIOR to release.

If BCC are unable to assess they may release this dog RTRO. They need to then ensure the rescue group will meet all set criteria in assesment. The group will be forced to report back to council on the otcome of the dog.

If councils work with reputable groups they everything is adheard to. If they work with unreputable groups, the group will not get back to them.

It should be followed up upon, though often it is not.

Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation?

Councils have a DOC. RTRO dogs have set conditions and rescue groups must adhere to them. All of the conditions are in writing. Rescue must agree and follow those conditions if they would like to take on these dogs.

I may need to speak with you Julie as I am not able to go into the whole lot online.

So I assume that if PR have taken on any of these dogs they have complied with the conditions or they would no longer be able to get them is that right???

Agreed though not complied.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Well, if stories from DOLers are any indication then PR is taking DA dogs that Blacktown have deemed suitable for rehoming. Who's fault is that then? Blacktown's, I think.

IMO BCC. If they are not able to BA the dog they had better make sure the dog goes to a reputable rescue who has the finances, ability and commitment to work through assesments and rehabilitation.

Both BCC and HP have enough info and experience to know that PR's will not meet any of the essential requirements.

Then that is down to the pounds.

PR is simply taking advantage of them not doing their jobs properly.

So, my question is, why aren't the pounds being smacked around for allowing DA dogs to be released?

No, it all comes down to council.

Re your last comment; it is council allowing RTRO dogs going to knowingly an unreputable group.

So if we push for laws who and how will they determine which group is or is not reputable unless we also have laws to cover what comes next

We don't have to push for laws, we just have to push for PR to comply with their existing conditions and the councils they deal with to enforce it. New laws aren't needed.

[Steve]

Sheridan, a few other runs had "EOI pending behavioural assessment" on them, so I assume so? Unless they only do it for dogs they think need it.

megan_, I mentioned he didn't seem like the friendliest dog in the world - but it's not my place to. You only had to walk past his run to elicit this response. I shouldn't need to inform them.

I am not familiar with behavioural assesments at BCC though under the circumstances you have mentioned above BCC have a duty of care and responsibility to ensure this dog is pro assesed PRIOR to release.

If BCC are unable to assess they may release this dog RTRO. They need to then ensure the rescue group will meet all set criteria in assesment. The group will be forced to report back to council on the otcome of the dog.

If councils work with reputable groups they everything is adheard to. If they work with unreputable groups, the group will not get back to them.

It should be followed up upon, though often it is not.

Is this just wishful thinking or is it legislation?

Councils have a DOC. RTRO dogs have set conditions and rescue groups must adhere to them. All of the conditions are in writing. Rescue must agree and follow those conditions if they would like to take on these dogs.

I may need to speak with you Julie as I am not able to go into the whole lot online.

So I assume that if PR have taken on any of these dogs they have complied with the conditions or they would no longer be able to get them is that right???

Agreed though not complied.

So if they havent complied and its provable why / how can they continue to do it or dont they care once its changed hands and its no longer their responsibility.

If thats the case would seem they benefit a lot by pound rounds.

[Sheridan]

Well, if stories from DOLers are any indication then PR is taking DA dogs that Blacktown have deemed suitable for rehoming. Who's fault is that then? Blacktown's, I think.

IMO BCC. If they are not able to BA the dog they had better make sure the dog goes to a reputable rescue who has the finances, ability and commitment to work through assesments and rehabilitation.

Both BCC and HP have enough info and experience to know that PR's will not meet any of the essential requirements.

Then that is down to the pounds.

PR is simply taking advantage of them not doing their jobs properly.

So, my question is, why aren't the pounds being smacked around for allowing DA dogs to be released?

No, it all comes down to council.

Re your last comment; it is council allowing RTRO dogs going to knowingly an unreputable group.

The Council doesn't release the dogs. The pounds do.

[Sheridan]

I was looking at her and couldn't figure out if she was truly RTRO or someone got that wrong. I can see a dog without a RTRO condition is on both as if not adopted directly could be taken by rescue. But common sense says RTRO dogs should only be under the rescue tab.

I think I posted earlier querying why she was release to rescue because I couldn't see that anywhere.

[Nic.B]

Sorry have far too much going on at once and have to knick off for a little while.

Julie I will give you a call as soon as I can.

[Steve]

Well, if stories from DOLers are any indication then PR is taking DA dogs that Blacktown have deemed suitable for rehoming. Who's fault is that then? Blacktown's, I think.

IMO BCC. If they are not able to BA the dog they had better make sure the dog goes to a reputable rescue who has the finances, ability and commitment to work through assesments and rehabilitation.

Both BCC and HP have enough info and experience to know that PR's will not meet any of the essential requirements.

Then that is down to the pounds.

PR is simply taking advantage of them not doing their jobs properly.

So, my question is, why aren't the pounds being smacked around for allowing DA dogs to be released?

No, it all comes down to council.

Re your last comment; it is council allowing RTRO dogs going to knowingly an unreputable group.

So if we push for laws who and how will they determine which group is or is not reputable unless we also have laws to cover what comes next

We don't have to push for laws, we just have to push for PR to comply with their existing conditions and the councils they deal with to enforce it. New laws aren't needed.

But how can you do that when they can have any conditions they want - there is nothing compelling them to remain with in what we think is best practice because there are no laws to control it.

[Greytmate]

I don't know that we need more laws. We don't generally have laws telling people how to conduct their business, but if they make mistakes that affect others that could have been avoided by following qualified advice, they can be in strife. It's why people get in trouble for taking their kids to quacks instead of doctors. In this case, it is the Veterinary Behaviourists who are most qualified to stand up in court and say "Yes this is how it is" . So best practice would be to run a program approved by a Veterinary Behaviourist.

[Nic.B]

Well, if stories from DOLers are any indication then PR is taking DA dogs that Blacktown have deemed suitable for rehoming. Who's fault is that then? Blacktown's, I think.

IMO BCC. If they are not able to BA the dog they had better make sure the dog goes to a reputable rescue who has the finances, ability and commitment to work through assesments and rehabilitation.

Both BCC and HP have enough info and experience to know that PR's will not meet any of the essential requirements.

Then that is down to the pounds.

PR is simply taking advantage of them not doing their jobs properly.

So, my question is, why aren't the pounds being smacked around for allowing DA dogs to be released?

No, it all comes down to council.

Re your last comment; it is council allowing RTRO dogs going to knowingly an unreputable group.

The Council doesn't release the dogs. The pounds do.

Council heads up HP pound, Council call the shots at the end of the day believe me. NOTHING goes through without council approval including RTRO dogs. Everything goes through council. The OH&S induction to volunteer goes half the day!!!!!!

I have sat there with council in meetings re PR's. They call the shots.