Dogs Seized From No Kill Shelter

[Steve]

So - why were the dogs that were seized taken? If its so horrible for dogs to be living here why are they still able to operate at all?

Is it only about numbers?

[Sheridan]

I suspect the place is just run down and messy. No, I haven't been there but the photos I've seen, the dogs look happy enough and I have not heard reports of dogs going kennel crazy. If it was a registered breeder or someone on DOL (let's think of who's had the RSPCA turn up and grab dogs for no apparent reason) people would be up in arms. Because it's a no kill shelter and there are those who don't agree with no kill, it's well deserved and should have happened years ago?

[Are You Serious Jo]

I don't have any current info so can't say what it is like now but when I first found out about it there was more than just mess wrong with the place. The dogs not up for adoption were in a bad way but they had food and shelter so the rspca couldn't do anything. There were people in the Riverland trying to get things under control for years but everyone knows how hard it is to get the rspca to act, unless you show your debarked dog, that gets action. The council don't bother because like PR, it makes them look proactive. This is not just a case of people reacting to no kill, there were things that were very wrong there. It is also harder to get action in a community that overall doesn't value pets, a lot have the philosophy that if your dog or cat that runs around gets killed you just grab another freebie from one of the many BYB litters around.

I really hope things are better because it was pretty dire and I'm not talking about gossip but verifiable facts.

[Greytmate]

I suspect the place is just run down and messy. No, I haven't been there but the photos I've seen, the dogs look happy enough and I have not heard reports of dogs going kennel crazy. If it was a registered breeder or someone on DOL (let's think of who's had the RSPCA turn up and grab dogs for no apparent reason) people would be up in arms. Because it's a no kill shelter and there are those who don't agree with no kill, it's well deserved and should have happened years ago?

Nobody here says it's well deserved?

I would say that RSPCA intervention is a likely consequence of failing to manage a kennel. Worse things have happened in kennels that do not manage their intake of animals.

Regardless of what anyone here suspects, Lola has made a statement about the trouble she has had in managing intake, and the changes she is making now. If she had made those sort of changes years ago, perhaps she would not have consequently had any dogs removed from her.

It's not like Lola has been closed down or charged with crimes. No need to be up in arms about anything, but worth discussing how kennel management and intake policy can help avoid situations like these.

Thanks Nic B and SSM for the design examples. I saw photos of a great rescue shelter in America that not only had great dog environment, but also was designed for the needs of adopters and volunteers. It all contributes to the dogs having the best possible chance for adoption, which I think is a greater goal than just to have a place where it is safe and handy to keep the dogs. :)

[Dame Aussie]

I didn't say it was well deserved. I said I know nothing about this shelter, I just have issues with no kill.

[Sheridan]

I get the impression that people think it's deserved because they're no kill but I said it as a question, hence the question mark.

I realise people have issues with no kill but my view is down to how it's managed. There are plenty of registered breeders that kennel their dogs and plenty of people on DOL who think that's just fine.

[tdierikx]

I have issues when people latch onto the "No Kill" mantra and take it literally. If an animal is not rehomable, then kenneling it for the rest of it's days isn't the answer... that's warehousing.

T.

[Dame Aussie]

Yes, if the dogs have sufficient attention and stimulation/enrichment, I don't necessarily have a problem but didn't they admit they had barely any staff members/volunteers? That was what concerned me.

[_PL_]

Yes, if the dogs have sufficient attention and stimulation/enrichment, I don't necessarily have a problem but didn't they admit they had barely any staff members/volunteers? That was what concerned me.

That's kind of where I'm at with kenneling and what I got from Greytmates post. They need a higher level of everything the longer they are there. And cared for properly, can live happily as many do in racing or breeding facilities.

If you're running on a shoestring and struggling to do the minimum then unrehomeables are not going to have a quality of life at all. Or somebody is missing out while the resident high maintenance animals drain resources.

"No-kill" -- I'm just completely over hearing it. Because people interpret the slogan as gospel. Therefore rescues/pounds must be evil when a dog is PTS and it becomes a life at all cost argument. (Oh but nobody protesting happens to want that dog in their home.)

Again, haven't seen this shelter so no comment there. Just in general.

[Maddy]

Yes, if the dogs have sufficient attention and stimulation/enrichment, I don't necessarily have a problem but didn't they admit they had barely any staff members/volunteers? That was what concerned me.

That's kind of where I'm at with kenneling and what I got from Greytmates post. They need a higher level of everything the longer they are there. And cared for properly, can live happily as many do in racing or breeding facilities.

If you're running on a shoestring and struggling to do the minimum then unrehomeables are not going to have a quality of life at all. Or somebody is missing out while the resident high maintenance animals drain resources.

"No-kill" -- I'm just completely over hearing it. Because people interpret the slogan as gospel. Therefore rescues/pounds must be evil when a dog is PTS and it becomes a life at all cost argument. (Oh but nobody protesting happens to want that dog in their home.)

Again, haven't seen this shelter so no comment there. Just in general.

Exactly. I've been attacked over putting to sleep aggressive dogs instead of keeping but if would any of those attackers put their hand up to take on a dog that attacks any other dog it sees? You can bet your ass that they'd not. Funny how that works.

As for the long-term kenneling issue.. unless quality of life can be assured for the dog, I don't think it's the ethical thing to be doing. Compromising on welfare for the sake of numbers is vanity, not love.

[_PL_]

You can't win :laugh: rescue always gets the pointy end of the stick. Reminds me of Everybody, Somebody, Nobody, Anybody

Edited March 11, 2013 by Powerlegs

[Maddy]

You can't win :laugh: rescue always gets the pointy end of the stick. Reminds me of Everybody, Somebody, Nobody, Anybody

Yep! Exactly that. Somebody else could take the dangerous dogs and keep them forever, it's just that Nobody happens to be that Somebody. Curiouser and curiouser..

[Aphra]

The No-Kill movement is a system of several steps to prevent animals entering shelters and if they do enter shelters, helping them get out alive as soon as possible. For the most part when people are talking about "no-kill" the term does not mean what you think it means, which seems to be eternal kenneling.

The idea is that if you can't prevent animals entering shelters, you should do everything possible to ensure that they get out of them alive and in good shape, unless they are a danger to the community or suffering past the point of treatment. A shelter which warehouses animals (and I'm not talking about Marook because I know nothing about them) isn't a No-Kill shelter, it's a lazy shelter which is not fulfilling some or all of the 11 steps in the No-Kill equation. Apart from TNR which is contentious in Australia, none of the other parts of the No-Kill equation should be either controversial or unachievable.

[Sheridan]

I certainly don't agree with TNR. Those cats still kill.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-31/feral-cats-take-devastating-toll-on-outback-bilbies/4165784

[tdierikx]

No-one likes to have to PTS an animal in care, but sometimes it's the only responsible thing to do. And it's not only shelters that need to understand this fact... rescue does too.

It's bloody soul destroying when you have worked with an animal for months in order to try to make it viably rehomable, and you finally realise that you are never going to be able to responsibly rehome it out into the community. If you've never been there, then please don't start dictating to those of us who have...

I'm well over the armchair warriors that have latched onto the No-Kill Movement as their cause du jour... so until you've walked the walk, I don't think you're overly qualified to talk the talk. (Responsible rescuers exempt)

T.

[*kirty*]

I call myself 'no kill' because I don't PTS rehomable animals. I will, and have, PTS animals that are not suitable for rehoming due to health or temperament. I think the idea of no kill is good unless people take it too literally.

[tdierikx]

The problem is that the term itself doesn't imply the actuality of how it is supposed to work... it's catchy, but way too easy to be misunderstood and taken literally.

Our rescue is no kill also - but as we do take in our share of special needs cases, there will be the occasional one that is just too broken to be able to be rehomed responsibly no matter what we do to try to "fix" it.

Some dogs that we take in end up being palliative care cases also - their time is limited due to things like cancers left untreated until it's too late, etc...

Rescue isn't all sweetness and roses and full of the feelgood vibe - sometimes it's a dirty and thankless job... but with good management, you can make the good times outnumber the not so good times.

T.

[Maddy]

I call myself 'no kill' because I don't PTS rehomable animals. I will, and have, PTS animals that are not suitable for rehoming due to health or temperament. I think the idea of no kill is good unless people take it too literally.

The problem is, many people do take it literally and god help you if you conform to the correct meaning of the term.

To clarify a question I was asked, I wrote a short article explaining no kill and my position (which was that rehomable dogs are kept as long as needed, provided it didn't compromise on their welfare) and I got savaged by people calling me a "kill shelter" - along with the usual lovely abusive emails from fake accounts to call me a monster/murderer/whatever. The hardcore no kill groups are now actively damaging the reputations of other groups, denying them the donations needed to actually save lives. Counter-productive and short-sighted but there you go.

While I agree with no kill as a concept, I think compassion needs to balanced with a little bit of common sense. A dog that can't be rehomed doesn't deserve to languish in a cage until it eventually dies (alone and after years of misery). That death, in my opinion, is far more callous than giving the dog a good feed, a final play and then having the vet put it to sleep while its carer holds it.

[*kirty*]

Agree totally.

[flame ryder]

Oh wow small world. I used to live close to the above mentioned animal shelter. I actually got a dog from her. Giveaway kelpie cross...one of the best dogs I've ever had. Un-desexed. Reason being she hadn't had time to get her de-sexed and vaccinated...yet. So therefor free to me. I reckon it was her lucky day as we had her and spoilt her for 11 years. I don't like to say too much on an open forum. Lets just say if I was to run a shelter it would be a lot different to this one.