update; Staffordshires going to court - rescue still refusing to return

[Andrea]

 

The private registries/databases are all national databases, each of the private registries covers the whole of Australia: you pay fees to list/register your pets microchip with them. The NSW Companion Animal Register is free and only accessible by select recovery agencies in NSW, eg councils. If your pet is listed with one private registry it is the same private registry all over Australia, eg dog living in Qld on AAR database is the same if the dog was moved to Victoria, as in this instance.

 

What I can see is that the Ranger has not found them on the NSW registry, not bothered to look elsewhere, and has released to a interstate rescue (with no Clause 16d) by adding them their microchips to the NSW registry. This does not show ownership (as the rescue seems to think is does), in this case, the dogs microchips were not looked for on any other database and the private registry dates and ownership will take effect if this goes to court. The Council Ranger was neglegent in performing his official duties to the detriment of these two dogs and their family. Heavens knows how many times this has happened before to other families who have just assumed their dogs would 'turn up' eventually because they were microchipped and their details were up to date. This was proven by the rescue being able to call the family and tell them that they werent getting their dogs back!

 

Now in this situation, the private registry cant legally change ownership: the owners were still looking for the dogs and want them back, as the family had not been contacted by the impounding council, and they certainly hadnt surrendered them or given them up. Now add to this the fact that they had not stayed the complete impound period of 14 days, begs to be answered. Why are these dogs even in Victoria??

 

Effectively the 'new families' are holding stolen property!

[asal]

SOUNDS like a scam, sell interstate,  so cant be traced,  wonder how much the pound was paid by the 'rescue' ?

 

although why then call the legal owner just to crow that they will never get them back?  weirder and weirder

[RuralPug]

The states have an agreement between them for license plate recognition, don't they, so that offences committed by a driver in one state are visible to authorities in the driver's home state? Why can't the Federal Government arrange some sort of similar accomodation for microchipping?

There are many examples of NSW dogs lost interstate and never reunited due to the stupid NSW microchipping laws - NSW residents are in fact encouraged to register their dogs also with one of the national databases to overcome this problem.

This instance (and how many more i wonder?) highlights the danger of correctly registered non-NSW dogs being impounded in that state and the register not being accessed by NSW council employees. This leads to the dogs being illegally disposed of without any reasonable attempt to contact the legal owner, as in this case. Now an owner has found out and is taking the matter to justice.

I honestly hope that this leads to a revamp of NSW microchipping laws - at the very least to insist that other registries are checked when no details are on the NSW registry for a chipped animal that has been impounded.

[Diva]

2 hours ago, RuralPug said:

The states have an agreement between them for license plate recognition, don't they, so that offences committed by a driver in one state are visible to authorities in the driver's home state? Why can't the Federal Government arrange some sort of similar accomodation for microchipping?
 

Two reasons I assume. Firstly because the simple and obvious fix is just that NSW require national database to be checked and that doesn't require any national agreement or Commonwealth intervention. And secondly it isn't a Commonwealth responsibility and resources are screwed down too tight in most Commonwealth depts these days to intervene in non core areas unless political will compels it. NSW should just fix its own problem. 

 

 

[Scottsmum]

I don't say things like this often, but I hope those rangers get their arses kicked!

[Loving my Oldies]

21 hours ago, RuralPug said:

Why can't the Federal Government arrange some sort of similar accomodation for microchipping?
 

Considering the Federal Govt wants to screw every last dollar out of already dry stones, I can’t imagine anything like this being even on their list, let alone a priority 

 

Big frogs in small ponds hold on tightly to whatever power they have or think they have.  Just look at the $squillions of rate payers money being squandered on legal fees around the amalgamation of councils debacle.  There are over 40 separate councils in Sydney alone, all jealously hanging onto their little bit of the taxpayer dollar.   And that is OUR money being wasted and greedily gobbled up while people and animals suffer.   

 

And again, look at the often shocking bullying and threatening behaviour that goes on between rescue groups.  

 

To get interstate co-operation??   Tilting at windmills come to mind.  Of course, that doesn’t mean people shouldn’t keep trying while these total stuff ups keep occurring.   

[dogslife]

I am hoping that this link works.

https://www.olg.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/Guideline%20on%20the%20exercise%20of%20functions%20under%20the%20comapnions%20animals%20act%20-%20NOvember%202015.pdf

 

This is the legal direction from the Office of Local Government directing Council on the protocol they MUST follow for the Companion Animal Act. The relevant section is 

6.4.3 When a seized or lost animal is delivered to approved premises or a council pound, the person in charge must do their best to find out who the owner of the animal is and return the animal to that person. To help do this, they may access information on the Register or other private registers or check any identification on the animal.

.

[melzawelza]

On 04/03/2017 at 3:36 PM, dogslife said:

Here is Renee's facebook page; https://www.facebook.com/groups/390542711327935/

Please share it.

I have spoken with the Council and the dogs were not kept the 14 days as " the registrations were not in NSW so we only kept them for 7 days" .

 

I am following this up as its is a clear breach of the law as intended. The dogs were correctly microchipped and the records were up to date. They were on the Qld register and the national one. Only NSW fails to check the National database.

Ooh, that's bad. 

Firstly, I'm a Companion Animals Officer in NSW, and while our Gov-run registry is the compulsory one I've still got access to all the other registries which I *always* search immediately if a dog is chipped but not on the NSW registry. Most of the time they're on another one. 

The Rangers have really stuffed up on this one because the 7 day hold only relates to a dog that is not microchipped, not a dog that is chipped but not on the register. 

Minimum hold should have been 14 days. They are in clear breach of the Act. That plus not checking all the registries and I'd be pursuing them for sure. 

[_PL_]

10 minutes ago, melzawelza said:

Ooh, that's bad. 

Firstly, I'm a Companion Animals Officer in NSW, and while our Gov-run registry is the compulsory one I've still got access to all the other registries which I *always* search immediately if a dog is chipped but not on the NSW registry. Most of the time they're on another one. 

The Rangers have really stuffed up on this one because the 7 day hold only relates to a dog that is not microchipped, not a dog that is chipped but not on the register. 

Minimum hold should have been 14 days. They are in clear breach of the Act. That plus not checking all the registries and I'd be pursuing them for sure. 

This!  Soooo simple but looking at the fb stuff, very hard to grasp for some. They work with rescue, the releasing rescue would have known too but everyone was in a hurry to get a pair of pedigree blues and vanish them over the border.

[Little Gifts]

This is a fundamental issue I don't understand. You have 2 blue staffords that appear well cared for. When scanned they have chips but the chips don't match up to the register you search. Soooooo. If you were genuinely in the business of reuniting animals with their loved ones wouldn't you either find the time to do more research on those particular dogs or delegate it to someone else? Surely one of the best parts of the job would be happy endings rather than keeping crying dogs in kennels and then killing them when their time is up? Why would you not put energy into a positive outcome for a dog where possible, particularly where there were signs of the dogs in question being valuable and well cared for rather than dumped strays?

 

Councils and holding shelters need to accept they are far from perfect when it comes to creating a space where it is possible to find your lost animal. I went through this with mum's missing cat - terrible photos and repeated, desperate phone calls for more information unanswered. I felt my council were so unreliable that I went in regularly just in case he was there and they hadn't listed him at all or correctly. From comments on FB regarding these dogs people are saying that exact same thing happened to them - they called and also visited and there was their animal, in some cases ready for sale. Where was the phone call or even a match worthy description and photo online? What is the point in chipping our animals if that information is not used to its full potential? Do councils want to reunite or are they just offering a wandering animal removal service?

[melzawelza]

4 hours ago, Powerlegs said:

This!  Soooo simple but looking at the fb stuff, very hard to grasp for some. They work with rescue, the releasing rescue would have known too but everyone was in a hurry to get a pair of pedigree blues and vanish them over the border.

 Totally. 

 

Thinking further, I'd lawyer up and pursue the rescue too if they didn't immediately return my dogs. They did not obtain the dogs legally and in accordance with the legislation in the state they were impounded and therefore they do not legally own those dogs. 

[RuralPug]

13 minutes ago, melzawelza said:

 Totally. 

 

Thinking further, I'd lawyer up and pursue the rescue too if they didn't immediately return my dogs. They did not obtain the dogs legally and in accordance with the legislation in the state they were impounded and therefore they do not legally own those dogs. 

Also thinking further wouldn't the rescue have been sent microchip details before these dogs were placed on transport? Granted they may not have had reason to suspect that the ranger had not checked the national registries, but they should have realised it, being advised of a chip number and not a call name.
So the question is did the rescue proceed with transport and adoption and not until this had been completed check the registry or did they knowingly onsell a dog that came into their possession illegally?

[dogslife]

I think its worth noting here that I am told that the dogs were sold for either $700 or $900 each.  I can't confirm but its seems high for a "rescue". 

[dogslife]

This is a site worth reading: All Over Staffy Rescue - Return Renee's dogs

Its here: https://www.facebook.com/All-Over-Staffy-Rescue-Return-Renees-dogs-1861340607464037/ 

.

 

[Scrappi&Monty]

On 05/03/2017 at 3:30 PM, RuralPug said:

The states have an agreement between them for license plate recognition, don't they, so that offences committed by a driver in one state are visible to authorities in the driver's home state? Why can't the Federal Government arrange some sort of similar accomodation for microchipping?

There are many examples of NSW dogs lost interstate and never reunited due to the stupid NSW microchipping laws - NSW residents are in fact encouraged to register their dogs also with one of the national databases to overcome this problem.

This instance (and how many more i wonder?) highlights the danger of correctly registered non-NSW dogs being impounded in that state and the register not being accessed by NSW council employees. This leads to the dogs being illegally disposed of without any reasonable attempt to contact the legal owner, as in this case. Now an owner has found out and is taking the matter to justice.

I honestly hope that this leads to a revamp of NSW microchipping laws - at the very least to insist that other registries are checked when no details are on the NSW registry for a chipped animal that has been impounded.

I'm not 100% sure how finding a microchip works. But I would've thought that if there is a chip it will come up (regardless if the dog is registered with NSW registry) so wouldn't they think "oh it has a microchip, but the microchip doesn't come up on NSW registry so we'll check the others?" 

[JRG]

It can be  more complicated than that because not only are there four other registers in Australia (three when NPR and CAR amalgamate)  but some dogs are microchipped overseas.  Some dogs are on more than one register (and not always with the same contact information) and some are not on a register at all because it is possible for individuals to buy chips (on line) and chip their dogs themselves so side-tracking the system.

nett result, it ought to be easy, but it's not

[Diva]

Being chipped overseas should not be an issue. Quarantine dictate the chip standard so it can be read by Australian scanners, and the owner just adds it to a national database for a small charge. 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Diva

[JRG]

I agree, it ought not to be an issue but it is because people do not realise that they need to add their dog to a register in Australia when they arrive from overseas.  Only last year in DOL there was an example of a chipped dog from overseas found in SA - the chip was read, but could not  be found on any of the Australian registers.  Luckily, dog and owner were reunited but not because it was chipped.

[asal]

2 hours ago, JRG said:

I agree, it ought not to be an issue but it is because people do not realise that they need to add their dog to a register in Australia when they arrive from overseas.  Only last year in DOL there was an example of a chipped dog from overseas found in SA - the chip was read, but could not  be found on any of the Australian registers.  Luckily, dog and owner were reunited but not because it was chipped.

Although in this case the dogs are australian born, were chipped, WERE registered yet  I bet they were sold to the so called rescue and yep on sold for a tidy profit which is exactly what the rspca are into as well these days judging by the increasing number of people complaining their dogs and cats were taken and either sold or destroyed while they were fighting to get them back.

 

all the worry about backyard breeders and the elephant in the room is the the so called welfare industry seizing, buying, getting by whatever means saleable dogs from their legal owners and cough "rehoming" at a profit

 

The list of heartreak storyies is constantly growing on this fb website

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1083536528374841/?multi_permalinks=1348473458547812&notif_t=group_highlights&notif_id=1489291691133802

Edited March 13, 2017 by asal

[_PL_]

On 13/03/2017 at 0:20 PM, asal said:

 

all the worry about backyard breeders and the elephant in the room is the the so called welfare industry seizing, buying, getting by whatever means saleable dogs from their legal owners and cough "rehoming" at a profit

 

Look, no offence but. I have to put my hand up being in the 'so called welfare industry' and say that we've never played outside of the law to obtain desirable breeds. Nor rehome overnight and claim the dog needed masses of rehab which I believe is being claimed in this case. This story is on the doorstep of those involved, not everyone in rescue. We aren't even on the 'favourites' list of some pounds who prefer rescue over reclaim.

Even purebred that come through rescue may need just as much vetwork as everyone else so 'profit' is a myth unless you only deal in 'easy' ones and PTS the expensive ones or just do the desex & vacc only regardless.

Not all owners look after their dogs and although PB can rehome with a great deal of interest, the state some of them come in is as appalling as crossbreeds. Over and above desex, vacc, chip. Dental, hernia, bad skin, undescended testes, pyometra, upper respiratory disease etc etc. I am obviously biased because we do usually stand at the end of the line and accept  neglected/senior pets but referring to all rescue all in one basket as if we're salivating over pedigree (I am also breed specific rescue) and will do anything to part them from their owners is wrong. I hold no ill will towards owners of anything as long as they take care of their pets.

Unfortunately I have to admit in some cases you are correct.