|
Location: gloucestershire
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,432
|
10-06-2007, 06:46 PM
Originally Posted by AnneUK 
I can assure you we have had both pups and adult staffys with very good pedigrees come into rescue
A good pedigree doesn't mean they have come from a good breeder,I'm not saying they don't go into rescue what i'm saying is that the majority are badly bred,usually no papers,not from reputable breeders,and so on.
How many dogs do you get through rescue,that the Breeders are members of Breed clubs?
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
|
10-06-2007, 06:48 PM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
However, when i pointed out the first time owners dont have a vet to get a letter from, you said you only apply that rule to previous dog owners.
Thus, *you* will be making it easier for first time owners
hard days work that 
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
|
10-06-2007, 06:50 PM
Originally Posted by Sal
How many dogs do you get through rescue,that the Breeders are members of Breed clubs?
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
|
10-06-2007, 06:54 PM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
At the moment, on an Irish forum, as a result of the conditions exposed in an English rescue that ships dogs from Ireland, they have started a 'rescue good practices' section.
Sadly with the ADCH they don't inforce their policy of standards, even with their own members, they are only recommendations
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,247
|
10-06-2007, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
You see, my point remains, when citing good practice for other industries, we should first make sure it is actually wide spread good practice in our own industry
cough, cough, my original post....|
|
|
|
Location: uk
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 18,552
|
10-06-2007, 07:34 PM
Originally Posted by Krusewalker
No, i have been member of DP for about 3 yrs, but *never* a member of the private rescue section. But i have still read or posted on threads discussing the worries over the legal enforcement of contracts AND rescues accepting out of area letters from vets or dog wardens, *instead* of homechecks.
I already know i have done my research, but have you?
As well as posting on DP, I have worked in 2 rescues and had working contacts with several, many years before i even posted on dog forums, as it happens.
And as *you* are making the statements, that it is only right and fair that you are the one to back them up with links and evidence.
Can you list which rescues have as pre adoption criteria letters from vets and dog training classes?
Again, by putting the burden back on me, the questioner, you are still dodging the questions asked regarding points you have raised.
[I]So:
1) What if the vet is too busy, unavailable, or disinclined to provide a letter? Or wishes to charge?
If they charge, you say they should change vets - so, how then do they get their letter?
2) What if there is no positive based training class available at all, or for another several months?
3) What if the class is too far away and the applicant cannot get to it?
4) What if the whole adoption process is completed, including homecheck, and the vet or dog training class delays things for another week?
Is it fair to force the dog to spend an extra week to get stressed in kennels, whilst another dog may be PTS because it has lost its rescue place?.
Is it fair on the potential adopter whom has been genuine and committed in all the other pre adoption processes we agree are necessary?
Maybe you misread my post? I agree with the extra cautions for first time owners (although *some* people whom use the phrase "i have owned dogs all my life" can be arrogant and think they dont need advice or assessment).
However, when i pointed out the first time owners dont have a vet to get a letter from, you said you only apply that rule to previous dog owners.
Thus, *you* will be making it easier for first time owners
Besides, what if the 'previous dog owner' had a dog a long time ago, and the vet records no longer exists, the vet has retired, the vet cannot remember them, the vet lives in another part of they country where the applicants moved from????. So on, so on.
You see, my point remains, when citing good practice for other industries, we should first make sure it is actually wide spread good practice in our own industry, and provide evidence to state this.
For example, the ADCH good practice standards do not mention pre adoption vet or dog trainer letters.
At the moment, on an Irish forum, as a result of the conditions exposed in an English rescue that ships dogs from Ireland, they have started a 'rescue good practices' section.
They are using these same ADCH good practice standards as the ideal.
Also, you need to think thru the practicalities of each suggestion, and note the illogical inconsistencies in some of them (as above).
|
|
|
Location: Virtual Showground
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,518
|
10-06-2007, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Hewey
But are all requirements met? I'm no lawyer but I do understand that contracts have to be fair. I seem to remember there was a recent law covering Fair Terms in Consumer Contracts or some such. They cannot favour the seller over the consumers rights as I remember and understand it. I am not convinced that it is enough to put it in writing and get some one to sign it to persuade a court that keeping ownership of a dog when someone else had paid for it, had possession, responsibility and liability for it would be fair.
That is not to say I do not use contracts in the fond hope that, as mine are almost entirely of benefit to the purchaser, that they will be encouraged to adhere to it but I have never really been at all confident about where I might stand if I wanted to take it to law.
Thats why the one I mentioned doing for a litter of kittens was verified by a solicitor - everyone writing a contract and wanting one checked before they sign, can do the same :smt001
|
|
|
|
Location: Virtual Showground
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,518
|
10-06-2007, 10:58 PM
Originally Posted by Hewey
I think I would find it more encouraging if anyone could point us to a case where such a contract was tested, and stood up, in law.
This one is about a rescue Parrot, its the first one which came up on a search regarding a rescue reclaiming an animal as per breach of adoption contract. I trust irrespective of species that it will suffice as its the contract side you are asking about. [ if not, feel free to google, I`m not going to spoonfeed the stuff
]The main points specifically pertaining to the contract and legal implementations I have copy/pasted below:
---------------------
New Life Parrot Rescue Wins Civil Court Suit
On July 31 2002 New Life Parrot Rescue & Helpline Service won its 9 months legal battle against Ms Stevens and David Fox of Blundeston, Lowestoft for the return of Zac, a blue & gold macaw whom Stevens adopted from the Charity in March 1998.
The hearing took place at Norwich County Court and lasted a whole day. Due to mounting concerns over Zacs deteriorating condition, as seen from photographs featured in a well-known parrot magazine, and the lack of response from Ms Stevens, a spot home-check was carried out on October 17 2001 using clause 9 of the Charitys Adoption Agreement contract. Mrs Pam Fryer, the macaws original owner, Julie and John Hamilton, trustees of the Charity, found that Zac was living in sub-standard conditions which resulted in NLPR filing a civil court suit for Zacs return after a written request for her return had been ignored.
...
The defendants� (Stevens and Fox) barrister argued their case on �The Unfair Terms in consumer Contracts Regulations 1994, S1 1994/3159.
...
Clearly there is a conflict of evidence there as to the provenance and how this adoption agreement came to be signed and the defendant�s prior knowledge of it and having seen and heard the evidence on this aspect I prefer the evidence of the claimants to that of the defendants" said His Honour Judge Philip Curl. He later added, "So it seems to be clear that, and in fact the defendant, Ms Stevens agrees that she clearly understood that Zac, at the time the contract was entered into, remained in the ownership of the claimants. So it seems to me that this agreement was not entered into under pressure or under mistake. I am satisfied, in fact, that the defendant had had a prior copy but if she signed it without having fully considered the terms that fault can hardly be laid at the feet of the claimants."
...
"I do not consider that clause 9 is unfair" added Judge
Clause 9 states: �New Life Parrot Rescue reserves the right to investigate, unannounced, the living conditions of any bird(s) adopted from them and may reclaim any such bird(s) for any reason (including but not limited to New Life Parrot Rescue considering the adopter(s) to be in breach of any terms of this agreement) at their sole discretion.
...
Once the foundation of a standard criteria, rules and conditions have been formulated and implemented, the relationship between a charity and its adoptee relies on and revolves around trust. When a few of these aspects break down they can usually be restored, but when it involves many to the point of being irreparable, then in the interest of the animals� future welfare it is responsible and acceptable to retrieve the animal from the adoptee � hence the verdict of 31st July 2002 which ordered the return of Zac to the NLPR: �Zac do be returned to the Claimant, New Life Parrot Rescue 7 days within the date of refusal of permission to appeal or the appeal is dismissed whichever is the later.� Ref: General Form of Judgement or Order.
Zac was collected from the adoptive home on 24 August 02, 10 days after we were informed that there would be no appeal.
Full details here
http://www.nlpr.demon.co.uk/news/pressrelease_zac.htm
----------------------------------------
Next ?
|
|
|
|
Location: dullsville
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,241
|
10-06-2007, 11:49 PM
Originally Posted by AnneUK
Haven't dodged the questions at all I've already answered them...
Why is this different from Nero on the docking threads?
However, as you state you have made the replies, we can only go by what you have - or havent - written.
Therefore, can we take it that you maintain;
VETS LETTERS
1) *No* vets would *ever* charge for a letter?
2) If a vet did not provide a letter, it means the suspicion must fall on the applicant, and that it cannot be equally considered that the vet could be just inefficient, unhelpful, or unavailable?
3) That the applicant whom has owned a dog before has *always* -
a) owned a dog recently enough for the vet to be still practising (if he is retired, why should he provide free services to anyone???)?,
b) owned a dog recently enough for the vet to remember him?
c) to be a recent enough client of the vet for him to still hold records?
d) to be still living in the same part of the world as a vet?
OR, that you do not believe all these points to be *always* attainable for *all applicants* and *all rescues*, but still insist upon them anyway?
Therefore, does this mean you are happy to deny otherwise very good applicants the chance to adopt dogs due to no fault of their own?
And therefore force the dog to still suffer the stress of not having a good home or being stuck in a kennel?
And let the dog that would have had that rescue space to be killed by its current owner as a result of the extra added delay?
Proof Of DOG Training Placement
4) That *every* rescue (even the rural ones) has enough positive based trainers whom run classes OR one to ones to cater for *all* the potential dog owners in the area (not just rescue) so that every person that applies for a rescue can imeadiately present a letter of placement with a trainer *prior* to adoption?
How many million dog owners are there?? How many members of the APDT - 500?.
5) These trainers they are *all* positive training variety, and they *all* do home visits, and are *always* available straight away?
OR...see paragraph above.
Originally Posted by AnneUK
oh please it's not rocket science to phone up your vet and ask them to email a letter of reference
hard days work that
- i said what if the applicant hasnt owned a dog before and doesnt have a vet?
- you reminded me it is only a rule for *previous dog owners*
- i said then you are making it harder for previous dogs owners compared to first time dog owners as they have to do one thing extra.
- you told me of course it is right that it should be harder for first time dog owners
- i said i just said that, so why give first time owners one *less* thing to do?
Again, if they havent owned a dog before, how do they get a letter of referance
Originally Posted by AnneUK
Yes and believe me that's been a long time coming.
Sadly with the ADCH they don't inforce their policy of standards, even with their own members, they are only recommendations
You have now just confirmed my whole point of posting. How can you tell another section of dogdom - reputable breeders - to follow the example of another - reputable rescues - when you state that the object of the example doesnt *always* follow its own good examples?
As i have already posted, I agree with all the rest of your original list of your original post, and therefore its application to breeders.
However, it is still fair to appreciate exceptions to the rules regarding practical problems, ie, "distance to travel", when we allow the same exceptions to the rules for reputable rescues.
For example - Lizzies Barn and Many Tears - distance - drop homecheck - just accept a vets or dog warden letter.
Battersea, Manchester, and Birmingham - huge centres - too many dogs - most dogs *not* homechecked - extensive pre adoption interviews and computer matching only.
See, it pays to examine the workablility, logic, consequences of *every detail* of all your ideas before implementing them.
Also, to research the actual practices of other rescues.
And most importantly, to be fair and balanced with people.
I have received a few message praising me on my reasoned balance postings on here. As a rep of the rescue movement, I am proud to be viewed with these qualities - plus flexibility - when needs be.
This way the public has a better opinion of us and adopts more of our dogs.
As a rule, i believe rescues should do *every other thing on your list*, and so should breeders, and I HAVE been accused - online and at FOAL Farm - of being inflexible and unreasonable by persons objecting to those criteria.
But sod 'em - on those points THEY are the unreasonable ones, and don't qualify for a dog anyway, and on that, I know I have public opinion on my side.
|
|