Pound Rounds

[Steve]

Does anybody know who local council are answerable to?

State government.

[Steve]

I don't think you can ensure anything with the media. I just struggle to see how else to get the Councils to listen.

Not via the media Plan B

the media is a good idea if its well thought out and used effectively but there is much to loose here if it gives off any impression that there is a risk in taking rescue dog - again if this is a potential tool it needs to fit in with a strategy plan. .

[Steve]

I don't think you can ensure anything with the media. I just struggle to see how else to get the Councils to listen.

Not via the media Plan B

nic I cant send you a PM was attempting to remind you of that other place for discussion on this we spoke about today.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Does anybody know who local council are answerable to?

State government.

But which department?

[Steve]

Does anybody know who local council are answerable to?

State government.

But which department?

department of Local government

[Are You Serious Jo]

Thanks, I'm not as sharp as I usually am so would probably take me a week.

[Steve]

Thanks, I'm not as sharp as I usually am so would probably take me a week.

Its hard to cover it all when every state is different and nothing is ever as simple as it first appears. You have to cover Department of local government, companion animals acts, prevention of cruelty to animals act and planning laws.

[Steve]

also re shock collars - in NSW

Section 13 and Schedule 1 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 and Schedule 1 make the use of electric dog collars illegal. One exception to this rule is electric collars associated with canine invisible boundaries. These are not illegal provided the canine invisible boundary is used to confine dogs, but only used inside a fence through which dogs cannot pass and that is not less than 1.5 metres high.

However it is not illegal to own them or sell them.

[Steve]

Nor is it illegal in NSW to have on the premises or to use veterinary prescription drugs prescribed by and supplied by a qualified veterinarian. In some states only a vet can administer them but in NSW there is no such restriction until it gets over S4 from memory.

My link

[shmoo]

I don't think you can ensure anything with the media. I just struggle to see how else to get the Councils to listen.

Not via the media Plan B

the media is a good idea if its well thought out and used effectively but there is much to loose here if it gives off any impression that there is a risk in taking rescue dog - again if this is a potential tool it needs to fit in with a strategy plan. .

and then MN would just threaten to sue for defamation.

[Steve]

I don't think you can ensure anything with the media. I just struggle to see how else to get the Councils to listen.

Not via the media Plan B

the media is a good idea if its well thought out and used effectively but there is much to loose here if it gives off any impression that there is a risk in taking rescue dog - again if this is a potential tool it needs to fit in with a strategy plan. .

and then MN would just threaten to sue for defamation.

Only if you go after MN or pound rounds and there isnt any need to in order to achieve change.

[Are You Serious Jo]

It was the lies about the drugs that was exposed, she claimed they were vet prescribed (as in only use vet prescribed) and they weren't. She got away with the shock collars because they weren't in use but I think she might have flagged herself now.

[tdierikx]

Actually, you can buy many drugs from sources other than a vet... but then you must ONLY use them under instruction from a vet.

My vet knows that I usually have a well stocked doggy first aid kit, and will tell me what dosages of the stuff I have to give to my dogs if they need it.

T.

[Are You Serious Jo]

What are the chances that she is only using them under vet instruction :laugh:

[amp]

If councils & pounds know PR only broker/facilitate these dogs why not refuse to work with them?

Surely councils have a duty of care to ensure these animals are going to rescues with fosters, back up care etc etc.

[tdierikx]

Councils are seeing their (dog) kill (I prefer the term "euth") stats dropping... which is what the public have been harping at them for years to achieve. PR are instrumental in getting dogs out of the pounds and out of council's responsibility - be that in a good way or not, the effect is the same as far as the councils see it.

MOST of the dogs that PR are getting out of the pounds are available for any member of the public to adopt straight from the pound - so no DOC after they are gone from the pound required really.

For those marked RTRO, then surely the pounds have some sort of formal agreement that rescues taking them must abide by? If not, then what's the point of marking them as RTRO? Do those agreements (if any are in place) get followed up on? What are the consequences listed as reprisal for breaking them?

Councils/pounds do NOT have to work with any rescue if they don't want to - a 16D doesn't automagically give you the "right" to rescue from any pound - it still comes down to council/pound discretion... especially if what that rescue is doing with the dogs they get out comes under scrutiny for poor practices. I know pounds that work really well with rescue, but have precluded certain ones from getting any dogs out.

T.

[Sheridan]

Well, what I'm reading from all of this is forget about going after PR. Go after the pounds that release dogs to them.

[Steve]

It was the lies about the drugs that was exposed, she claimed they were vet prescribed (as in only use vet prescribed) and they weren't. She got away with the shock collars because they weren't in use but I think she might have flagged herself now.

So are you saying the drugs were not dispensed by a vet? How else could she have gotten them?

[Steve]

What are the chances that she is only using them under vet instruction :laugh:

Try proving that and until anyone can she should get the benefit of the doubt.

[Steve]

Councils are seeing their (dog) kill (I prefer the term "euth") stats dropping... which is what the public have been harping at them for years to achieve. PR are instrumental in getting dogs out of the pounds and out of council's responsibility - be that in a good way or not, the effect is the same as far as the councils see it.

MOST of the dogs that PR are getting out of the pounds are available for any member of the public to adopt straight from the pound - so no DOC after they are gone from the pound required really.

For those marked RTRO, then surely the pounds have some sort of formal agreement that rescues taking them must abide by? If not, then what's the point of marking them as RTRO? Do those agreements (if any are in place) get followed up on? What are the consequences listed as reprisal for breaking them?

Councils/pounds do NOT have to work with any rescue if they don't want to - a 16D doesn't automagically give you the "right" to rescue from any pound - it still comes down to council/pound discretion... especially if what that rescue is doing with the dogs they get out comes under scrutiny for poor practices. I know pounds that work really well with rescue, but have precluded certain ones from getting any dogs out.

T.

If they cant justify why some are able to work with them and some are not then its justifiable if those kept out threaten legals action. Without written criteria, written agreements, written explanations as to why they dont accept them the whole system is open to corruption. It means if someone is prepared to take em out for lunch or sleep with them or if someone turns up with a vexatious accusation or gossip even the goal posts could change.Council leave themselves wide open to accusations and they have to either allow everyone with a 16 D have a go or be able to say out loud why one group is not.