Steve Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 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. Not sure I agree with you that we dont generally have laws telling people how to conduct their businesses - take a look at the laws affecting rescue in Victoria and then look at the laws a breeder has on them over and above what any pet owner has in the same state we are dealing with here. Most businesses have specific legislation relating to them- motor trades, telecommunications, real estate in fact its hard to think of many which don't. You cant sell someone a litre of goats milk to drink but you can sell them a dog that might rip their throat out dont think arguing that we dont generally have laws for this kind of thing will help prevent it happening. Best practice is way off having no choice but to do it or shut down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 It was said about that council require (through pounds) rescue to adhere to certain conditions in order to continue to work with that pound. It might not be law but if it is up to the discretion of the pound as to whether they work with a particular rescue they have the power to make them comply. I do recognise that PR are making things easier for the pounds but that doesn't mean they can't be chased up to make PR comply with their terms and conditions of taking dogs from the pounds. The reason it hasn't been sorted before now is that it will take a lot of time and energy and also that some people get harassed pretty seriously. It's not an easy job but it's not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 It was said about that council require (through pounds) rescue to adhere to certain conditions in order to continue to work with that pound. It might not be law but if it is up to the discretion of the pound as to whether they work with a particular rescue they have the power to make them comply. I do recognise that PR are making things easier for the pounds but that doesn't mean they can't be chased up to make PR comply with their terms and conditions of taking dogs from the pounds. The reason it hasn't been sorted before now is that it will take a lot of time and energy and also that some people get harassed pretty seriously. It's not an easy job but it's not impossible. If pounds have the motivation to chase up where will they get the resources from to chase them up - would appear in order to do so you have to wait until something terrible happens and then be motivated and have the resources to be fair dinkum. What's stopping them from going to another pound with the same slack policies any way even if you do put enough pressure on Blacktown? You have people like NicB at one pound and its still happening there what of the ones where there is no NicB - you're right its not an easy job with out law changes. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Has anyone approached local councillors and warned them of specific risks to community safety? Not just local government staff, but the politicians? In writing, so if anything does happen, there is proof the council member was well aware and happy to let it continue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Has anyone approached local councillors and warned them of specific risks to community safety? Not just local government staff, but the politicians? In writing, so if anything does happen, there is proof the council member was well aware and happy to let it continue? Yes, It was a formal meeting GM and everything is logged within council chambers. Shmoo was with me at the meeting and we both spent over a month getting everything together. I took it further after that with the CEO and the Mayor etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Has anyone approached local councillors and warned them of specific risks to community safety? Not just local government staff, but the politicians? In writing, so if anything does happen, there is proof the council member was well aware and happy to let it continue? Yes, It was a formal meeting GM and everything is logged within council chambers. Shmoo was with me at the meeting and we both spent over a month getting everything together. I took it further after that with the CEO and the Mayor etc. Good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Has anyone approached local councillors and warned them of specific risks to community safety? Not just local government staff, but the politicians? In writing, so if anything does happen, there is proof the council member was well aware and happy to let it continue? Yes, It was a formal meeting GM and everything is logged within council chambers. Shmoo was with me at the meeting and we both spent over a month getting everything together. I took it further after that with the CEO and the Mayor etc. When was this, Nic.B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 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. Not sure I agree with you that we dont generally have laws telling people how to conduct their businesses - take a look at the laws affecting rescue in Victoria and then look at the laws a breeder has on them over and above what any pet owner has in the same state we are dealing with here. Most businesses have specific legislation relating to them- motor trades, telecommunications, real estate in fact its hard to think of many which don't. You cant sell someone a litre of goats milk to drink but you can sell them a dog that might rip their throat out dont think arguing that we dont generally have laws for this kind of thing will help prevent it happening. Best practice is way off having no choice but to do it or shut down. Most products on the market don't have laws about how they are to be produced. Take the example of a chair. Different retailers will sell different qualities of chair, but the bottom line is that if sold as a chair it must be fit for the purpose of sitting on. False claims about the quality of the chair are illegal, even if the retailer makes the claims in ignorant innocence. So what if a chair fails to meet is purpose, and instead of being a comfortable way to prop yourself up, it becomes a device that suddenly drops you on to the ground and breaks your pelvis. The retailer couldn't credibly stand up in court and say " Well we all sat on these cardboard chairs and we survived it". But they could have a qualified engineer say " The loading on these chairs was calculated at 500kg, normal use would not cause it to fail". That's how I see it with selling dogs. We don't need laws to tell us how to prepare dogs for sale. But we do need to be following the (changing) guidelines of those most qualified in the field, to avoid being seen as negligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 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??? No. They have agreed, though have not complied nor advised council of the outcome of the dogs (which they are required to do). Council continue to release them to this group regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 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. Not sure I agree with you that we dont generally have laws telling people how to conduct their businesses - take a look at the laws affecting rescue in Victoria and then look at the laws a breeder has on them over and above what any pet owner has in the same state we are dealing with here. Most businesses have specific legislation relating to them- motor trades, telecommunications, real estate in fact its hard to think of many which don't. You cant sell someone a litre of goats milk to drink but you can sell them a dog that might rip their throat out dont think arguing that we dont generally have laws for this kind of thing will help prevent it happening. Best practice is way off having no choice but to do it or shut down. IMO releasing dogs to PR's (essp RTRO dogs) is a forseable risk. Council are very well aware of the risks . I would not want to be in councils shoes when things go terribly wrong. Just try getting through a simple volunteer OH&S induction! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 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. Law suits initially (simply put) MN has threatened legal action against council and god knows how many others. Law suits were already in place way before I met with them. There is a fine line between where council/pound/rescue care finishes and where it begins. The line appears to be very blurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 On what grounds could she sue them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 On what grounds could she sue them? Are you ready Sheridan...... I can take that dog (even though I am a tosser and have no clue and drug dogs etc, etc, and if you pts this dog all hell will break loose (legally and via the media) So give me the dog or else! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 On what grounds could she sue them? Are you ready Sheridan...... I can take that dog (even though I am a tosser and have no clue and drug dogs etc, etc, and if you pts this dog all hell will break loose (legally and via the media) So give me the dog or else! And they fell for that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparassidae Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I think regardless of the law, ethically, no one should be releasing dogs unsuitable for rehoming. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 On what grounds could she sue them? Are you ready Sheridan...... I can take that dog (even though I am a tosser and have no clue and drug dogs etc, etc, and if you pts this dog all hell will break loose (legally and via the media) So give me the dog or else! And they fell for that? Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 I think regardless of the law, ethically, no one should be releasing dogs unsuitable for rehoming. Ever. Are you talking about pounds and shelters or Rescue? Pounds and shelters run on the smell of an oily rag, they do not have the resources to BA every single dog impounded. At times dogs are released to rescue to afford a dog the chance to be assessed. For me it is which groups you release the dog too. Council are making a big mistake if they release dogs to an unethical rescue. They are liable, and in terms of PR's the proof is on record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 All councils are really seeing is that PR activity has the pounds' dog kill stats down to new lows... and this is what the public has been haranguing them to do. This pretty major fact is why they continue to let PR take dogs - because once they are out of the pound, they are someone else's "problem"... The rescue "fraternity" are up in arms because some pretty big mistakes have been made along the way by PR, and that could bode not well for ALL rescue if enough people are the victims of irresponsible placings of dogs by PR. Joe Blow who approaches PR about adopting or fostering a dog think they are dealing with a RESCUE, not a broker... and PR are only solidifying that particular fact AFTER issues arise with placements. T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Anyone seen the latest pics posted of the kennels at STAR... BIG difference from the ones posted last Friday... here's hoping that the new kennel manager person can stay that motivated... T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puppoochi Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) 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? Edited January 23, 2013 by Puppoochi 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