Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I get what you mean Steve, I really do.AWL are subject to council inspections all the time here. It's not beyond possibility to require that the organisations adhere to best practice determined by a veterinary behaviorist. Yep Im not sure it means the need for council inspections etc but at the very least we should be able to clearly see what criteria they use for everyone who wants to work with them It appears the only real criteria used is whether they have a 16D and of course part of the issue is that all councils can have their own policies or lack there of in this state. PR have been accused of breaking the rules re receipt and placement of dogs but no one can show us what these rules are - and some deny any such rules even exist - not acceptable. It means anyone or any group can get beaten up if we can't easily clearly see the rules to determine whether they have been broken. This is an emotional issue and most players here only care whats best for the dogs but if any solutions are to be found these things have to be clarified . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I am not sure how they define one from the other and rehome rates come into play as well. I have been told there is a set criteria and I have some experience with that. Would appear if they have written criteria then that PR fit that criteria as they are still there. No, it could also mean that there has been no follow up. If PR don't report to the council and the council don't chase up reports then they would still be there. Would appear with the evidence that some dogs were not placed in optimal placements that they have already got what they need with no effort to follow up - because its been followed up for them yet they are still there. The only explaination is that its not a breach of their rules. Have you seen these rules written down for perusal you believe they have breached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greytmate Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Steve give me a few days. I know somebody who may be able to give me a lot more info about what is happening up here now and how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 I'm working on getting them but I really am not going to discuss much here anymore as I don't want to reveal things being done. Don't take that as an admission that there isn't anything to get them on, just that I don't think they need to know some things till it drops on their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Sorry to interrupt ladies. :) If non rescue people are reading this and finding it hard to follow how this happens in the NSW system this is the general plot: There are welfare aspects and lawful things you definitely agree to when applying to the DLG for a NSW 16D which is purely an exemption from council registration under the Clause 16D of the Companion Animals Act and what you need to get dogs out for a nominal fee. However many other things rely on an unwritten honour system or the facility staff & managers to insist upon. Like if a dog is questionable or 'rescue only' or even if you would like to use the pound as free board while you advertise, you morally shouldn't tell the pound a foster carer is collecting the dog for further assessment, vetwork and rehab under the group: then send in an adopter who is paying you for the animal that day. It's wrong, but not spelled out in the legislation. HP and BP did require clause holders to sign a desex guarantee form once they introduced their own council desex policies. Loophole: That desex agreement fails when those clause holders choose to transfer to anyone else acting as a "rescue" but not recognised and obliged to answer to anyone. Loophole: no 16D required for animals under 6 months or animals already lifetime registered (incl entire animals). No tracking of unchipped neonates leaving pounds. Loophole: out of state groups do not need our NSW regs or their own state's equivalent of a 16D to take any amount of NSW animals they can get. So there is zero tracking once they get out of the NSW system and become another jurisdiction's responsibility. Clear as mud eh. And IMHO 'Ethical' is becoming as meaningless an advertising catchphrase as low-fat or no-kill. It took forever to get the 16D applications reopened again and at this rate it's not looking fantastic for the future. If rescue doesn't self regulate in some way the hammer will fall on the good and the bad. Edited January 24, 2013 by Powerlegs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Thats O.K. Jo I understand but the issue for me isn't PR - its a rotten system and I want to look at solutions for the sake of the dogs. If there are forms and agreements they need to be clearly visible for everyone if they agree to particular policies there needs to be written explanations as to what the consequences are etc. and we should be able to see that. What purpose does it serve council for cloak and dagger stuff on something so basic if its all above board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Sorry to interrupt ladies. :) If non rescue people are reading this and finding it hard to follow how this happens in the NSW system this is the general plot: There are welfare aspects and lawful things you definitely agree to when applying to the DLG for a NSW 16D which is purely an exemption from council registration under the Clause 16D of the Companion Animals Act and what you need to get dogs out for a nominal fee. However many other things rely on an unwritten honour system or the facility staff & managers to insist upon. Like if a dog is questionable or 'rescue only' or even if you would like to use the pound as free board while you advertise, you morally shouldn't tell the pound a foster carer is collecting the dog for further assessment, vetwork and rehab under the group: then send in an adopter who is paying you for the animal that day. It's wrong, but not spelled out in the legislation. HP and BP did require clause holders to sign a desex guarantee form once they introduced their own council desex policies. Loophole: That desex agreement fails when those clause holders choose to transfer to anyone else acting as a "rescue" but not recognised and obliged to answer to anyone. Loophole: no 16D required for animals under 6 months or animals already lifetime registered (incl entire animals). No tracking of unchipped neonates leaving pounds. Loophole: out of state groups do not need our NSW regs or their own state's equivalent of a 16D to take any amount of NSW animals they can get. So there is zero tracking once they get out of the NSW system and become another jurisdiction's responsibility. Clear as mud eh. And IMHO 'Ethical' is becoming as meaningless an advertising catchphrase as low-fat or no-kill. It took forever to get the 16D applications reopened again and at this rate it's not looking fantastic for the future. If rescue doesn't self regulate in some way the hammer will fall on the good and the bad. Thanks Powerlegs that's about how I see it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gertrude139 Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 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. 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! To me, if this is true, then it implies that PR don't fit within their criteria and were approached about it but when MN threatened to sue it was all too hard and council gave up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Sorry, I have just come back in and this is insane! This is just my vent; Rescue can do whatever they want! Send out entire females, females in whelp, rehome dangerous dogs, dog aggresive dogs and HA dogs and dogs with serious medical issues. Better still send them all to well meaning people who stumble ONCE upon a facebook site and then use every single bit of emotive manipulative language they possibly can to get people in hook line and sinker. Then dump the dog and dump the families who trusted you! And when kids are attacked and are flown to hospital, dogs are killed/attacked and cats are dead just lay blame upon others. Don't worry about your 16d nor the DLG, DPI, RSPCA, Council or AWL nor the Police. Just do whatever you bloody want. Assholes. Sorry, vent over. I am going back outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 gertrude - that's an assumption and its just as likely that they don't have any criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Sorry, I have just come back in and this is insane! This is just my vent; Rescue can do whatever they want! Send out entire females, females in whelp, rehome dangerous dogs, dog aggresive dogs and HA dogs and dogs with serious medical issues. Better still send them all to well meaning people who stumble ONCE upon a facebook site and then use every single bit of emotive manipulative language they possibly can to get people in hook line and sinker. Then dump the dog and dump the families who trusted you! And when kids are attacked and are flown to hospital, dogs are killed/attacked and cats are dead just lay blame upon others. Don't worry about your 16d nor the DLG, DPI, RSPCA, Council or AWL nor the Police. Just do whatever you bloody want. Assholes. Sorry, vent over. I am going back outside. Thats pretty much what it is - so whats the solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Regulation for rescue Steve and ASAP. The public, pounds/staff, councils, rescues, vets, transport companies etc need to be able to distinguish between the cowboys and reputable groups. IMO there is no other way, I have thought about it no end. I am going out with the chooks :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Katdogs Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Nic, you're a superstar to even be thinking about this stuff after the last few months. And it's nice to read that you have your horses home and the dogs are running outside and it's a nice day to hang out with chooks. That's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Regulation for rescue Steve and ASAP. The public, pounds/staff, councils, rescues, vets, transport companies etc need to be able to distinguish between the cowboys and reputable groups. IMO there is no other way, I have thought about it no end. I am going out with the chooks :) Dont stay out there too long Nic the fun is only just starting. If I really thought that new laws would stop dogs suffering or make it better for dogs I would be going with that solution but Im not at all anywhere near sure that this is the best outcome for the dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmoo Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Personally I think any new laws will just be made a joke of, the same way any current laws are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Nic, you're a superstar to even be thinking about this stuff after the last few months. And it's nice to read that you have your horses home and the dogs are running outside and it's a nice day to hang out with chooks. That's all. Thank you Dad and I spoke a lot before he died and I promised I would battle on and stay strong esspecially for animals which Dad has always been incredibly passionate about. The bandits at home are all good though OMG they exhaust me :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Regulation for rescue Steve and ASAP. The public, pounds/staff, councils, rescues, vets, transport companies etc need to be able to distinguish between the cowboys and reputable groups. IMO there is no other way, I have thought about it no end. I am going out with the chooks :) Dont stay out there too long Nic the fun is only just starting. If I really thought that new laws would stop dogs suffering or make it better for dogs I would be going with that solution but Im not at all anywhere near sure that this is the best outcome for the dogs. Giddy up :) I agree with you and Shmoo, new laws are not the answer. If they just inforce chipping laws I will be thrilled. Why bring in new laws if chipping in NSW is not even inforced? Edited January 24, 2013 by Nic.B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) Councils have always had final say about what leaves their facilities under rescue and where they go. What happened there? The system is being neglected and misused not just by one group, I'm not sure why anyone who can do something about it pretends it's out of their hands. Edited January 24, 2013 by Powerlegs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 T is talking about Hawksbury, and someone correct me if I am wrong, but it is Blacktown that has the RTRO conditions. HP also have RTRO dogs. The dogs are released to 'rescue' under conditions, perhaps medical or behavioural assesments are needed prior to rehome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic.B Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 If I were fronting up to the pound to be a new rescue group wouldnt they make me sign a simple agreement which they keep in their office where it compels my group to know what is required and agree to it.Im not asking to see one thats been signed by any one I want to see the criteria and the blank forms they give rescue groups to determine whether I think PR or anyone hasnt complied with their rules and conditions? How can anyone know they are breaching rules when no one can see what the rules are - why are they a secret - why would they need FOI? Yes, I agree. 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