Sheridan Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I admire BFAS a lot. They're firmly of the opinion that the majority of dogs can be retrained into a family situation. They took on the bulk of Vick's dogs, some of whom were in shocking condition mentally and physically. I did stop following them on FB after an anti-AKC rant from their CEO, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 It's harder to disinfect after a disease outbreak on dirt though. The problems at Moorook won't be solved with a change in flooring though, there needs to be a shift in ideology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 It's harder to disinfect after a disease outbreak on dirt though. The problems at Moorook won't be solved with a change in flooring though, there needs to be a shift in ideology. Yep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I admire BFAS a lot. They're firmly of the opinion that the majority of dogs can be retrained into a family situation. They took on the bulk of Vick's dogs, some of whom were in shocking condition mentally and physically. I did stop following them on FB after an anti-AKC rant from their CEO, though. Yes, BFAS is impressive from I've read on that website. It's a shame to see such a sensible rescue making an anti-AKC rant. This opposition between rescue & the p/b world is so unnnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 I admire BFAS a lot. They're firmly of the opinion that the majority of dogs can be retrained into a family situation. They took on the bulk of Vick's dogs, some of whom were in shocking condition mentally and physically. I did stop following them on FB after an anti-AKC rant from their CEO, though. Yes, BFAS is impressive from I've read on that website. It's a shame to see such a sensible rescue making an anti-AKC rant. This opposition between rescue & the p/b world is so unnnecessary. Dunno - apparently there are some issues with the AKC . In the states the big puppy farmers are mostly AKC breeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted April 7, 2013 Share Posted April 7, 2013 (edited) [ In the states the big puppy farmers are mostly AKC breeders. There was an odd paragraph in that excellent article I posted by a US vet about hybrid vigor & she was supporting the efforts of the majority of p/b AKC breeders. It was about how she didn't agree with how the Vice-President had sourced a German Shepherd puppy. It was in the context of the source being a large scale breeder. Made me wonder... Bit O/T, sorry. Edited April 7, 2013 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeelerLove Posted April 7, 2013 Author Share Posted April 7, 2013 She called them "her dogs". I'm wondering if this is a bit of a hoarding tendency. I would not wish a no kill shelter on any dog unsuitable for adoption. My understanding of a hoarder is someone that collects things and does not give them up. The dogs at Moorook at dumped there, either by their 'owners' or the council. I met Lola personally when I picked up my boy and although she was sad to say goodbye to him (as anyone would be saying goodbye to a dog that has been in their care for a period of time), she was also very happy that he was going to a new home and did not have any problems handing him over to me. I don't think hoarder is the correct term here. Dogs shouldn't be living in a shelter long term so concrete wouldn't be an issue if they weren't warehousing. Concrete is essential if you are going to have lots of animals turning over. Would you put your dogs in boarding kennels if they had dirt floors? My dogs have never and will never go into boarding kennels.. I would prefer boarding kennels with grassed runs over concrete though. My girl has severe arthritis and any period of time spent on concrete would not be good for her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 It's hard to disinfect large grassed areas without killing the grass. I wouldn't want a vulnerable dog going into a pen that a lot of other dogs have been into without some sort of disease prevention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 It's hard to disinfect large grassed areas without killing the grass. I wouldn't want a vulnerable dog going into a pen that a lot of other dogs have been into without some sort of disease prevention. Yep. I worked in a big pound and it just wouldn't be feasible to have grassed runs. You need to be able to disinfect properly otherwise you end up with outbreaks of Parvo and the like.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 All that aside unless not being able to house a shelter dog for over 2 months is state law how can they put that on them? As far as I know in the state of SA its perfectly legal to hold a shelter animal indefinitely and council laws cannot be harder than state laws. How would everyone in NSW like it if over night they started picking off some rescue and not others to restrict how long you can keep a dog before you have to put it down.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 The two month thing would be in response to the unrehomable dogs she had out the back tucked away for years. It's just not ethical and her response shows she really puts her emotions before the welfare of the animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) I'm confused by the edict that the RSPCA won't deal with Mark Aldridge or indeed Lola. If they won't deal with the owner of the shelter who do they expect to deal with? The two month thing would be in response to the unrehomable dogs she had out the back tucked away for years. It's just not ethical and her response shows she really puts her emotions before the welfare of the animals. Can they enforce that if the actual law says something else? Edited April 10, 2013 by Sheridan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 The two month thing would be in response to the unrehomable dogs she had out the back tucked away for years. It's just not ethical and her response shows she really puts her emotions before the welfare of the animals. Perhaps thats true but if governments are concerned about this then they need to change state laws and not bully people. If she is guilty of animal cruelty or neglect there are ample laws available to see her shut down and so far I haven't seen any suggestion she is being charged. Sorry I cant just agree that the law can be changed for some and not others and people treated differently. If her facilities are in need of repair or renovation - fair enough but unless its illegal and its not in that state then they don't get to just make up policies for her. Local council don't just get to make up businesses and non profit polices. If she wants to run a no kill shelter in that state she has a legal right to do so if all else is covered. If businesses and non profits got shut down because the people speaking for them were perceived to be putting their emotions first there wouldn't be many left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdierikx Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 They can't just make up new "rules" for a single business, can they? Especially if the law contradicts the "rule" they want to enforce? T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 They can't just make up new "rules" for a single business, can they? Especially if the law contradicts the "rule" they want to enforce? T. No they cant and nor can the RSPCA - if we listen to gossip and determine the laws can be changed for this one because we think there is a sound reason for it then each and every rescue group in this country are sitting ducks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I don't think they can enforce it either right now, just saying I think I know why they said this. I would hate to see something like that come in because you could bet that they wouldn't exempt dogs in foster care. I'm pretty sure things are not the same here as in NSW, where state overrules local because councils are fairly strict about dog numbers here. Why is it different in NSW? Even if Loxton/Waikerie council do start changing their rules the place is pretty sparsely populated so won't affect a huge number of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 If they differentiate between kennels and foster carers and dogs have to be in foster care after a certain time period it might work ok. I don't think you can justify keeping dogs in kennels long term because you have decided to be no kill, the dogs seem to be totally forgotten in the big picture. There will be an overhaul soon in SA of our laws and I'd hate to think there'll be over kill because it's the only way to deal with these sort of issues. That is why I'm vocal about not supporting rescue or breeders who do the wrong thing, there needs to be some community policing instead of sweeping things under a carpet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 A local law can't duplicate or contradict federal or state law.A council must advertise any local law that it intends to make and must consider any public submissions it receives about the local law before implementing it.Copies of all of its local laws must be available for public inspection and/or purchase at the council offices. They could tie them up about the development application - put stupid restrictions on re buildings, sounds , smells, waste removals,parking, etc They can also pull rank with anything that's in state animal cruelty laws or any dealing with rescue shelters at state level but they don't get to determine their policies or how long dogs can stay. While ever running a no kill shelter is legal anyone can run a no kill shelter as long as they fit the environmental requirements and if that means dogs stay longer that's the way it goes. Doesn't matter if some don't like it until it really does become state law and that would take years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 But this isn't council. This seems to be, if accurate, the RSPCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 They might have the wrong information because it does seem a bit odd and since there is so much publicity you think the council and rspca would be careful about their actions. Maybe the rspca can legally restrict them by making approval conditional? But even then don't they have to win a court case before they can place limits on a person or place. Even though I know about the problems at Moorook I would hate to see things done other than by the book. 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