Identifying Collection Of Am Bulldogs On Property

[Willem]

Where did you see a picture of a dog with a piglet Willem? These dogs are not used for hunting or fighting.

when I follow the fakebook link Powerlegs provided it is picture 'Chained Dogs Blind Bight 8 of 14' - the dog has something in his mouth and with some fantasy it looks like a piglet head for me - it is not 100% recognizable so.

Eta: ...if the piglet - if it was a piglet - was killed during a hunt and then used as dog food there is nothing wrong with this; doesn't look nice, but why would you waste it?

Edited May 25, 2016 by Willem

[Willem]

That looks like a ruined toy, not a piglet.

one end looks pretty much like a piglet nose to me...

[JulesP]

Reading through the posts under each dogs photo I was rather alarmed by the amount of people that had lost dogs and were hoping it was theirs. So many dogs lost/stolen

[_PL_]

My link

[Steve]

Far as I know under Vic law prevention of cruelty to animals allows dogs to be chained .

So they look like they breached the code of practice and had too many dogs and un chipped unregistered dogs there .They get time to fix it and at most will get a fine unless there is a cruelty case. Food water and shelter appears to be provided.

Like many "rescuers" who dont get it they probably thought they were doing the right thing by saving them. Its certainly not the first time a person who thinks they are helping dogs get it wrong.

How could anyone know if they are stolen and even if they were - stolen by whom ? The people who were looking after them?

Even when I see one dog chained even for short periods each day I think its cruelty but not according to Cruelty laws. As with anything put out by OL expect that at least some of it is sensationalised.

They could have simply followed the law themselves and reported it to council and RSPCA who would have seen what the photos showed without the need for OL to break the law and trespass and be judge a jury.

Ill wait and see what the council and RSPCA determine is the real situation.

[Little Gifts]

Steve from what I read they had reported it and continued to monitor the situation awaiting action that seems to be slow coming (well too slow for my liking).

One of the main issues for me is that these dogs were reportedly rescued from a worse fate and yet this is now where they are stuck in limbo, still without the hope of a home. It would be a highly stressful situation for many dogs who are already dealing with the loss of their original families and not used to existing in such chaos without exercise, attention or relief. Many of those dogs were probably never chained or left to sleep outside overnight before. Then you have the cold temperatures at night and exposure to the weather during the day. Someone has taken these marginalised animals and put them in yet another traumatic situation. That is not ok with me. Some of these dogs will not be good rehoming options after this as they will develop food, dog or human aggression (or perhaps it already existed unchecked because no-one seems to live on site). Some will need specialised care to get them to trust again and be used to living in a family environment. That is going to be a burden that falls on the shoulders of yet another non-profit rescue group. These are companion animals who have been deprived of companionship at a crucial time in their lives. Sure it may not be illegal but it is not in the best interests of these particular dogs who were already at risk. That's the difference for me. How has this type of rescue saved these dogs? It hasn't. They've just replaced one shitty semi-life with another and made these dogs even less likely to find new homes.

If you want to rescue then at least have the decency to improve a dogs situation.

[_PL_]

LG

[Steve]

Steve from what I read they had reported it and continued to monitor the situation awaiting action that seems to be slow coming (well too slow for my liking).

One of the main issues for me is that these dogs were reportedly rescued from a worse fate and yet this is now where they are stuck in limbo, still without the hope of a home. It would be a highly stressful situation for many dogs who are already dealing with the loss of their original families and not used to existing in such chaos without exercise, attention or relief. Many of those dogs were probably never chained or left to sleep outside overnight before. Then you have the cold temperatures at night and exposure to the weather during the day. Someone has taken these marginalised animals and put them in yet another traumatic situation. That is not ok with me. Some of these dogs will not be good rehoming options after this as they will develop food, dog or human aggression (or perhaps it already existed unchecked because no-one seems to live on site). Some will need specialised care to get them to trust again and be used to living in a family environment. That is going to be a burden that falls on the shoulders of yet another non-profit rescue group. These are companion animals who have been deprived of companionship at a crucial time in their lives. Sure it may not be illegal but it is not in the best interests of these particular dogs who were already at risk. That's the difference for me. How has this type of rescue saved these dogs? It hasn't. They've just replaced one shitty semi-life with another and made these dogs even less likely to find new homes.

If you want to rescue then at least have the decency to improve a dogs situation.

You get no argument from me and clearly rescue isn't as easy as many think it is - seems dogs are suffering longer at the hands of several of them and its an area that needs to be addressed

however,

Id rather listen to what the council and RSPCA is saying which is "hang on be patient" we are onto it than take even a single scrap of notice of reports from O.L.

[stellnme]

From RSPCA Victoria website - Can dogs be safely confined by tethering:

"Dogs must never be tethered in conditions where they are vulnerable to extreme heat, severe cold, driving rain or predators." It goes on to state that tethering is a short term or temporary solution and that adequate food, water and shelter must be available.

"Short periods of time - length of time tethered should be minimised. When tethered for longer periods (more than a few hours) they must be inspected at least twice a day - three times in very hot weather and be provided with daily exercise off the tether in a safe environment. Must comply with any State/territory laws or regulations."

I think by stating that tethering "is not suitable as a permanent means of containment" it would appear that these dogs are not being looked after as per their guidelines and, as stated above, they have breached council regulations - at the very least.

[Papillon Kisses]

Another thing:

"Food and water appears to have been provided." — Steve

Did you SEE the water?

I know dogs can sometimes dirty their water a little but the water in those buckets is putrid and reportedly never properly changed.

Even if you put aside the issue of the dogs being chained for so long, the state of the water is not ok.

[Willem]

...quoting the whole section gives a more comprehensive picture:

Can dogs be safely confined by tethering?

Tethering is where an animal is fastened by a chain to a central anchor point, causing it to be confined to a specific area. It is sometimes used as a method of confining dogs in conditions which may otherwise endanger them in some way or permit them to stray. Tethers are also often used as a method of confinement for working dogs on farm.

Where dogs regularly need to be confined outdoors, the best way to do this is to provide a secure yard or suitably sized enclosure with access to appropriate shelter, clean water, food and a suitable sleeping area. Where this is not available, or where dogs need to be securely restrained away from their usual home environment, a well-designed and situated tether can provide a secure and humane solution when used for short periods of time.

All dogs should be trained to be tethered before being left alone on a tether. To avoid dogs becoming distressed, frustrated or bored, the length of time the dog is tethered should always be minimised. All tethered dogs must be provided with adequate food, water and shelter from the weather (heat, cold, sun, wind, rain etc). Water should be provided in a heavy container which cannot be knocked over.

Tethered animals require greater supervision than free-roaming animals because of the risk of injury or entanglement. When dogs are tethered for longer periods (more than a few hours) they must be inspected at least twice a day (three times in very hot weather) and be provided with daily exercise off the tether in a safe environment.

Tethering of dogs must comply with any state/territory laws or regulations relating to the tethering of dogs.

Tether design

Swivel tethers on fixed runners are recommended to reduce the likelihood of entanglement and injuries. A leather collar is best and should be fitted to a swivel which is then attached to a tether of approximately three metres in length. Only metal chain tethers should be used as they provide greater security; rope and other tethers may fray, break or tangle. The chain should be of an appropriate weight and strength for the dog but should not be so heavy as to cause a problem in moving normally.

The other end of the tether should be attached via a swivel to a strong wire which should be about 1.5 metres above ground level. The wire should be firmly secured at either end to trees, fences or posts but must have stops at either end to ensure that the running tether cannot become entangled or injure the dog.

Tethering site

A suitable tethering site should be reasonably flat, dry and have an area of shade and some form of shelter when used in hot, windy or wet weather. Tethering sites should be clear of obstructions that may snag or catch on the tether. Dogs can be easily choked if the tether becomes entangled or be hung if they jump over or off obstacles while tethered.

Tethering sites should be situated away from footpaths, roadways where there is fast moving traffic or other hazards such as farm machinery.

When tethering is not suitable

Tethering should only be a short-term or temporary solution to securing a dog. Because of the restriction it places on the movement of the dog, and the risk of injury or entanglement, it is not suitable as a permanent means of confinement.

Dogs must never be tethered in conditions where they are vulnerable to extreme heat, severe cold, driving rain or predators. Young dogs (less than 6 months old), bitches in season and pregnant bitches close to whelping should never be tethered.

.

Eta:...included all sections under 'Can dogs be safely confined by tethering'.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Willem

[Steve]

From RSPCA Victoria website - Can dogs be safely confined by tethering:

"Dogs must never be tethered in conditions where they are vulnerable to extreme heat, severe cold, driving rain or predators." It goes on to state that tethering is a short term or temporary solution and that adequate food, water and shelter must be available.

"Short periods of time - length of time tethered should be minimised. When tethered for longer periods (more than a few hours) they must be inspected at least twice a day - three times in very hot weather and be provided with daily exercise off the tether in a safe environment. Must comply with any State/territory laws or regulations."

I think by stating that tethering "is not suitable as a permanent means of containment" it would appear that these dogs are not being looked after as per their guidelines and, as stated above, they have breached council regulations - at the very least.

Prevention of cruelty to animals laws in Victoria and State government codes of practice are counted for the purposes of prosecution not RSPCA guidelines though the code of practice guidelines is almost the same as their guidelines anyway. Guidelines don.t get a fine they are just recommendations.

If they have breached council regulations there is a procedure for dealing with that which I am absolutely sure the council will follow especially now the spot light is on them. But just because OL are involved doesn't mean people's rights are disregarded no matter how much we think they should be.

My quick look at Prevention of cruelty to animals laws in Victoria I don't see tethering as an offence though I may have missed it. The photos show they have shelter and water and they clearly have regular food .This is the code of practice in Victoria re tethering - note when you read it what says should mean its not something you have to do but where it says must its a definite. My link

Im not saying its all good etc I agree it looks pretty bad but OL to me says potential a beat up so Ill wait on outcome via council.

[_PL_]

Steve from what I read they had reported it and continued to monitor the situation awaiting action that seems to be slow coming (well too slow for my liking).

One of the main issues for me is that these dogs were reportedly rescued from a worse fate and yet this is now where they are stuck in limbo, still without the hope of a home. It would be a highly stressful situation for many dogs who are already dealing with the loss of their original families and not used to existing in such chaos without exercise, attention or relief. Many of those dogs were probably never chained or left to sleep outside overnight before. Then you have the cold temperatures at night and exposure to the weather during the day. Someone has taken these marginalised animals and put them in yet another traumatic situation. That is not ok with me. Some of these dogs will not be good rehoming options after this as they will develop food, dog or human aggression (or perhaps it already existed unchecked because no-one seems to live on site). Some will need specialised care to get them to trust again and be used to living in a family environment. That is going to be a burden that falls on the shoulders of yet another non-profit rescue group. These are companion animals who have been deprived of companionship at a crucial time in their lives. Sure it may not be illegal but it is not in the best interests of these particular dogs who were already at risk. That's the difference for me. How has this type of rescue saved these dogs? It hasn't. They've just replaced one shitty semi-life with another and made these dogs even less likely to find new homes.

If you want to rescue then at least have the decency to improve a dogs situation.

You get no argument from me and clearly rescue isn't as easy as many think it is - seems dogs are suffering longer at the hands of several of them and its an area that needs to be addressed

however,

Id rather listen to what the council and RSPCA is saying which is "hang on be patient" we are onto it than take even a single scrap of notice of reports from O.L.

Yes it's hugely complicated in between RSPCA, council, owners, pounds, pound-co ords... transporters could be of help too. I'm sure donors will be after blood when they see where their hard earned money went and that a brand new group appeared with none of these dogs included.

And the rescue groups who released some of these dogs and sent them there need to step up as well and take dogs back!!

To their credit OL are clearly explaining the law and due process that must be followed amongst the info released but they can't control what their supporters say. No mention of whether they trespassed to get the footage or if neighbours cooperated. That would be a police matter.

Edited May 26, 2016 by Powerlegs

[Steve]

Steve from what I read they had reported it and continued to monitor the situation awaiting action that seems to be slow coming (well too slow for my liking).

One of the main issues for me is that these dogs were reportedly rescued from a worse fate and yet this is now where they are stuck in limbo, still without the hope of a home. It would be a highly stressful situation for many dogs who are already dealing with the loss of their original families and not used to existing in such chaos without exercise, attention or relief. Many of those dogs were probably never chained or left to sleep outside overnight before. Then you have the cold temperatures at night and exposure to the weather during the day. Someone has taken these marginalised animals and put them in yet another traumatic situation. That is not ok with me. Some of these dogs will not be good rehoming options after this as they will develop food, dog or human aggression (or perhaps it already existed unchecked because no-one seems to live on site). Some will need specialised care to get them to trust again and be used to living in a family environment. That is going to be a burden that falls on the shoulders of yet another non-profit rescue group. These are companion animals who have been deprived of companionship at a crucial time in their lives. Sure it may not be illegal but it is not in the best interests of these particular dogs who were already at risk. That's the difference for me. How has this type of rescue saved these dogs? It hasn't. They've just replaced one shitty semi-life with another and made these dogs even less likely to find new homes.

If you want to rescue then at least have the decency to improve a dogs situation.

You get no argument from me and clearly rescue isn't as easy as many think it is - seems dogs are suffering longer at the hands of several of them and its an area that needs to be addressed

however,

Id rather listen to what the council and RSPCA is saying which is "hang on be patient" we are onto it than take even a single scrap of notice of reports from O.L.

Yes it's hugely complicated in between RSPCA, council, owners, pounds, pound-co ords... transporters could be of help too. I'm sure donors will be after blood when they see where their hard earned money went and that a brand new group appeared with none of these dogs included.

And the rescue groups who released some of these dogs and sent them there need to step up as well and take dogs back!!

To their credit OL are clearly explaining the law and due process that must be followed amongst the info released but they can't control what their supporters say. No mention of whether they trespassed to get the footage or if neighbours cooperated. That would be a police matter.

Yes I admit I have a problem in wanting to belt someone too hard who has tried to do the right thing but it becomes so frustrating when people do this kind of stuff , the dogs are worse off and it brings rescue in general into disrepute. There are so many people who ARE getting it right but this sort of stuff grabs headlines. I assume that part of an investigation will be where the dogs came from but in the meantime if this sort of thing leads to more restrictions and laws on rescue its understandable.

[Willem]

I'm still contemplating about the reasons behind motivating someone to own over 40 dogs - I assume it is not for breeding as they all should be desexed as rescue dogs?...40 dogs are substantial work and will cost some kg of meat each day.

Considering the type of dog I wonder whether some people discovered a new business: gathering rescue dogs suitable for pig hunting for a small rescue fee and sell them (trained?) for a good price to pig hunters?

Note: this comment is not meant to criticize this business idea or pig hunters / potential buyers, and I'm not aware of any evidence that this case is linked to such a business and I'm not saying that it is linked to such a business - I just wonder what could be the reason behind collecting so many dogs of this type?

[Steve]

the reason is usually simply trying to help them and they get carried away - often they dont understand what it really takes to be a good rescue service and truly help the dogs- and the chances of a rescue selling dogs for pig hunting are so remote I dont think its worth contemplating.

[_PL_]

There's already restrictions on NSW 16D i.e. the group that holds it uses it for their own rescuing. One tiny group claims to have rescued 500 animals....except they only ever had around 50. The rescue is Clause sharing.

I've been waiting and waiting for any kind of change. It won't come from within the rescue/welfare/advocate system that's for sure.

Using the word Rescue garners the trust & respect of the public.

Calling for change or scrutiny has to come from the public otherwise it's labeled 'rescue politics'.

But the public trust Rescue. It's a catch 22

[Steve]

As far as a business enterprise is concerned. They see lots of donations, and sales income, they can sell merchandise etc .If run properly rescue can be a lucrative business though most are lucky to break even but its a common trap.

[Little Gifts]

What kind of rescues are you talking about Steve? Large well known names or small independant groups? I've been involved with several rescue groups over the years and I am yet to see any become lucrative businesses. Even the one I have supported on and off for many years which has grown substantially still can't scrape up enough money to buy a shipping container so they can bulk buy. The rescue is still being essentially run from someone's lounge room. There are never enough volunteers, foster carers or money. Always plenty of cats and dogs in need though. Most just don't have the skilled manpower to seek donations, source and sell merchandise and be a PR machine as well as care for the growing number of animals. Any money they have coming in is spent on vet bills. Any new volunteers or foster carers they source simply means they take on more animals. The only growth is in the number of animals moving through the system.

I must admit that whilst it makes business sense for a rescue org to be 'lucrative' it seems so unlikely that I would be suspicious if they were. Where were they cutting corners? What are their operational goals? What was their admin costs as opposed to what was spent on the animals?

I'd hate to see more laws because people are stupid, selfish idiots but this situation is yet another example of the existing ones being inadequate when it comes to the public expectations of what is acceptable care of a companion animal. For me it boils down to what is in the best interests of these particular dogs and this definately isn't it.

[tdierikx]

Of those who have read the articles about this... who else sees the irony in the name of the rescue?

T.