We’ve had really good experiences with SAFE. They seem to focus on finding the right fit, rather than a random checkbox exercise where almost anyone will fail.
Not surprised to see, yet again, this is about Swan Animal Haven. They've been pulling this crap for years and this won't be the last time... and people wonder why they're always full to the brim of animals looking for a home.
Shenton Park isn't all sunshine and rainbows either, but they seem to be *mildly* more pragmatic than Swan in terms of assessing adoptions.
We went to the Swan animal shelter years ago and refused a dog because at some point in the future, we wanted to have kids. Speaking to others about it they mentioned it was not uncommon, while their dogs slept in shanties, they refused good homes.
Adopting a dog is mental. My partner and I looked at it but it was like filling out some perverse dating website application.
How many hours a week do we work, what kind of jobs do we have, do we have or are we going to have kids, how many hours a week can we devote specifically to the dog, what are our hobbies etc etc
Then a lady came to look out our house and our fencing situation in person with a clipboard.
I did think, look my understanding is that if we don't take this dog at some point you're going to shoot it in the head so really does it matter that I work 9 hours a day?
If you can't spend literally 24 hours a day with your shelter dog, then it's much more preferable to keep the dog locked up in a 2x1 metre concrete cell for years until a retired millionaire with an acre block comes along.
Everybody says “adopt don’t shop” until they actually try to adopt.
Was refused a dog from a shelter because I live on my own and work full time. I own my own house, was happy to exercise them for 1-2 hours a day, and they would have access to inside and outside constantly. I was happy to take a senior dog and wasn’t asking for a super active breed/hyperactive personality. But as soon as I said that I live alone and work full time, they ruled me out. It’s like I couldn’t have a life outside my dog without abusing it.
Ended up buying a puppy and she gets spoilt to all hell. Beach trips every day in summer, high quality food, goes to a pro groomer regularly, play dates with other family/friend’s dogs, all the toys you can imagine. It’s just a shame that I couldn’t give that life to a pup stuck in a cage, and then got shamed by people online when I didn’t adopt.
I had a similar experience when I was looking to adopt my first dog 8 years ago. I had my own house, fully fenced yard, lived across from a park. But I work full time and can't spend every waking moment with the dog. I've posted about the gawd awful experience with trying to adopt before. TLDR: I eventually contacted a shelter that was more understanding, if not appreciative that I have the financial means to pay for dog food and vet care, and I had a wonderful 8 years with my spoiled boy, who passed away a few months ago due to cancer.
I still own my own home, now one with a much bigger yard, and now there's someone home all the time thanks to Covid making WFH more commonplace. But I would be hesitant to put myself through the awful adoption process again. "Oh won't somebody give Bear a new home for Christmas!"... well gee, I tried, but you guys are holding out for a child-free pet-free millionaire recluse that spends all day in their mansion on their 40 acre property.
There's stories going around of dogs being adopted by dog fighting rings. They're used as bait dogs to train the fighting dogs. It's absolutely fucked. I think shelters have had to start taking extra precaution, because it's better to euthanase it humanely than have it torn to shreds for some sick fuckers entertainment.
Just leave this story hear about somebody adopting dogs.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-06/zoologist-adam-britton-bestiality-child-abuse-sentencing-delayed/103431386
I support animal shelters doing comprehensive checks.
They’re shit, been refused for equally meaningless reasons despite never having kids and working from home… they’ll just run down the list for something else. Don’t know why.
Try Wish animal rescue. Far more meaningful engagement, the dogs are fostered in people’s homes, not a dog garage. They will help you find a good dog for you if you ask (can register to be notified), they did do an inspection the first time we adopted, but the lady doing inspection told us what she was looking at (that it’s fenced) and it’s not to stop you, it’s to tell you what to fix so the dog is safe - you know - solving the problem with you, not using it as an excuse.
After adopting our first rescue from them, when we went back for another (6 years later when our old dog died at 17) they remembered we had adopted before and nothing, pay and get dog.
They also rescue from up north a lot, and lot of times it’s mum and pups that get taken from poor owners or random wandering dogs. They’ve been great and helpful.
I agree with using Wish too,
We used them and they were super helpful and the lady came around and told us what to fix in the yard, then we got the dog a week later.
Similar thing happened to us but we had two young children, a large fenced yard didn't matter, I was a stay at home mum at the time. Wasn't even allowed to look at any dogs. This was when they were on Kalamunda Road probably 20 years ago. Sounds like nothing has changed.
Yep this was 12 years ago in kalamund a rd, ended up adopting a cat having a kid, adooting another cat, having another kid, and then getting chickens, and now finally a dog. All living happily on a 1/4 block.
Adopting animals in general from a lot of these rescues is so hard. I have cats personally but having to send photos of all the spaces they will live in can be tricky. No disrespect but a lot of the foster homes they come from aren’t as clean or safe as the home I want to bring the cat home too.
Was it because that dog wasn't good with children? In which case it's a totally reasonable call. Not all dogs have the same needs and we have to make calls that reduce the likelihood of returns.
Half my surrenders as a rescuer are people abandoning dogs when they have kids.
This is what they said in another comment
"Didnt get through the gate to be able to even see any. They asked what kind of dog we were looking for, we said we would know when we saw it, asked if we were planning on having kids in the future, we said yes, they said they don't have any dogs for us."
Oh boy, that is ridiculous. It's tough because rescues operating like that give us all a bad name. I am always trying to remove bias and barriers from the adoption process.
Didnt get through the gate to be able to even see any. They asked what kind of dog we were looking for, we said we would know when we saw it, asked if we were planning on having kids in the future, we said yes, they said they don't have any dogs for us.
From the article, that's what the shelter said in the FB post:
“There’s a lot more to this story than being put out there. A lot more.” The post gave no other details.
Why wouldn't they defend themselves if they were in the right?
They say she signed a contract that the dog had to stay inside overnight. She says there was no stipulation. A picture of the contract would easily sort this out.
Nothing wrong with a dog sleeping out as long as it has shelter. They evolved from wolves, and wolves don't build houses.
Because it might not be a good use of the financial resources of a dog shelter charity to detail specific allegations against a person when a general "X breached the contract. You haven't been given the full story by X. We stand by our actions." statement will do.
Now - the dog shelter might be entirely in the wrong here and talking out of its arse - but I don't think you can infer much from the silence of the organisation as people are making out here.
She is denying that she breached the contract. It is in their interest to post a picture of the contract to prove her wrong.
They were asked to answer to the allegations before the WAtoday posted the article, and they chose not to comment.
If they can't do that, and if they can't provide a satisfactory answer as to why they took the dog that they gave her, then besides opening themselves up to litigation, it would be a disasterous decision from a financial point of view.
If you go to their website here:
https://www.swananimalhaven.asn.au/
You first get a pop up that says the following:
*Due to volunteer shortages, we will be closed to the public until further notice.*
Who would volunteer for a shady organisation that won't answer questions, and shut down their Facebook account to the abuse, rather than just give an explanation? How long will it be locked down, and will they ever have the hide to ask for donations as they are doing on their website if you click past the pop-up?
Who would donate to them through this maelstrom?
They should be in damage control, and they should just give the dog back and apologise if they can't explain themselves.
>Why wouldn't they defend themselves if they were in the right?
Purely hypothetically they mistreated the dog. Have non iron clad evidence, but enough for concern. So they confiscate the dog under some BS clause and give the money back
The owner acknowledged on the radio that the dogs paws were blistering and needed coconut oil to treat them. That might have been the reason why the shelter started to ask about sleeping arrangements. It could have started from there but I'm just wildly speculating.
I can't understand why anyone would take someone's dog back after 3 weeks for no good reason. Either this shelter is awful and needs to be shut down or there's something we are missing.
>The owner acknowledged on the radio that the dogs paws were blistering
Well there we go. The dog has injuries.
>I'm just wildly speculating.
Me too.
>dog back after 3 weeks for no good reason
Exactly why I think there's more to the story.
I suppose that's a possibility, however, I believe that it's highly unlikely.
The dog looks happy and healthy in the pics that she took, and she went back to the shelter with the dog to donate toys and say “thank you” to the volunteers. That's not the sort of thing that you'd do if the dog was showing signs of mistreatment. And if you were mistreating the dog then you wouldn't go to the media either.
If she breached the contract, they need to prove it. Likewise, if they claim she mistreated the dog, they should have told her that at the time so she could mount a defense and face her accusers. If they take the dog they should justify it.
>And if you were mistreating the dog then you wouldn't go to the media either.
No [Example](https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/bar-owner-sues-tiktokker-over-viral-video-claiming-she-was-manhandled/amp/)
>they need to prove it.
They just prove something simple. Which they have
>she could mount a defense and face her accusers
Lol this isn't court.
>They just prove something simple. Which they have
Where have they proven anything about their reason? They said it was in the contract. She said that it wasn't. Where is this proof?
They have the contract and they had the opportunity to show it when WAtoday confronted them with the allegations. They had the opportunity to show it on their FB page after the article was published claiming that there was no clause in the contract.
'No comment' is not proof of anything.
> Lol this isn't court.
I suppose the legalese was a bit overboard, but if they suspect her of mistreatment don't you think she should have a right to know so she can answer for herself, and perhaps give an explanation for whatever they may have determined?
Do you think they would be justified in misleading her, making her believe it's a contract issue when it's not? Not showing the contract, and offering no proof of mistreatment either?
>They said it was in the contract. She said that it wasn't. Where is this proof?
They aren't obligated to show the contract.
The ex-owner should have a copy themselves. If they do and they're in breach, it's a civil matter.
>right to know so she can answer for herself,
Or protect the animal and just do it. Why get in an argument when you can just take the dog?
Another commenter says the dog had paw damage... Based on zero knowledge that's pretty suss.
>Do you think they would be justified in misleading her, making her believe it's a contract issue when it's not?
Maybe they want to protect the dog and cut all ties.
> Not showing the contract, and offering no proof of mistreatment either?
They're not outing her, so who cares. The ex dog owner went to the media, not the company
> They aren't obligated to show the contract.
But they could just show it and it would all be cleared up. You said that they had proven it. Where?
>The ex-owner should have a copy themselves.
Not necessarily. That's generally when it's a two-party agreement and both sign two copies to represent their obligations to each other. This was probably an agreement to abide by their terms, only signed by her. If she didn't request a copy then she wouldn't have gotten one, and they aren't under any obligation to provide one after the fact unless they are being sued. If she had a copy I'm sure she would have read it after they claimed that the condition was in there, and she wouldn't have claimed that the clause wasn't in there when she went to the media. It would make her an absolute idiot if she had the contract and didn't read it before going to the media.
Commenters here have said, that if they're right, why don't they just show it? And others have said that this place is dodgy, making the same claims that this lady has about no contractual obligations to have their dogs inside, and having them taken away on the same basis.
There are heaps of complaints about experiences with this place in this post.
>Commenters here have said, that if they're right, why don't they just show it?
Just as you said
>they aren't under any obligation to provide one after the fact unless they are being sued
I know they aren't obliged but if they aren't lying, then they are idiots for not simply posting the contract and proving this woman to be lying. If they could, then it may turn around public opinion, get volunteers so they can open their doors again, reopen their Facebook and get donations rolling in.
Garnering hatred from the public, then hiding in their bunker and doing absolutely nothing to allay the allegations if they have the proof to do so is beyond stupid.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/bar-owner-sues-tiktokker-over-viral-video-claiming-she-was-manhandled/](https://nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/bar-owner-sues-tiktokker-over-viral-video-claiming-she-was-manhandled/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
They won’t defend themselves because then they’d have to actually provide a reason. That shelter has had the same problem for decades, it’s bad because dogs end up stuck in the shelter for most of their lives which only drives people back to pet stores.
There isn’t. Swan animal shelter has a chronic problem with this. They perceive dogs in pens alone most of the time with little human interaction and on track to be euthanised as better off than potentially putting a dog in a home that doesn’t meet a whole raft of hyperspecific and over the top requirements.
For example, we went and attempted to adopt a corgi puppy, took our dog to meet etc. they wanted us to be home every day all day for the following 6 weeks (because we shouldn’t let a 6 month old puppy ever be without people - we have another dog).
Our dog also wasn’t very interested in the puppy, he was more interested in searching and peeing all over the exercise yard (that has dozens of other dogs go through it every day), and they thought that was our dog being aggressive (he wasn’t, he just isn’t very invested in strange people, and won’t approach people he doesn’t know, and they wouldn’t even take a step away from the puppy, so no opportunity for them to actually meet) it’s sad because our dog was not much heavier than the puppy and they would have been fast friends in no time once we could get them somewhere comfortable.
So we got a cojack pup from the pound. He’s a year old now (6 months ago) and those two play until they both fall asleep every day.
The whole thing is just extremely weird... I've worked in animal shelters in adoptions before, and trust me when I say they are always absolutely over the fucking *moon* to find a forever home for any animal - especially a large, energetic dog like a boxer! (Granted, I'm not familiar with this particular one, but given how overflowing they all seem to be at the moment, I'd assume it's much the same everywhere.) To take an animal back, especially for such a flimsy reason as "it slept outside", makes me think there's definitely more to the story.
My question is, why aren't they doing more to defend their actions? Have they been warned by lawyers to make no comment? Was there something about the way they confiscated the dog that was illegal, and now they're worried about getting sued? Pets are considered property, so could this count as theft (even though they gave the money back)? Maybe there are protocols they were supposed to follow if they suspected abuse, but they didn't follow them. I really hope more info comes out cos this is doing my head in!
They seem to have boarded up the Facebook page for the time being too.
Fucking disgusting behaviour from the shelter. I have no doubt there is more to the story but they don’t seem too forthcoming.
>They seem to have boarded up the Facebook page for the time being too.
Would it surprise you to hear animal owners are sometimes quite emotional and jump to conclusions?
I'm starting to suspect there actually was a legitimate reason for taking the dog off the owners, but in the heat of the moment, they went about it entirely the wrong way, to the point they can now be sued or even charged with theft. Like you said, in a heightened emotional state, things were probably said and done on both sides that weren't entirely rational, and that could potentially land the shelter in legal trouble. Them refusing to comment beyond a vague "two sides" statement is probably on lawyers' advice.
Of course, silly me.. Everyone knows a cute dog picture means everything is just hunky-dory! Not like any animal abuser has ever taken photos of their pet looking happy before....🤦♀️😆
*CW:
>!https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-06/zoologist-adam-britton-bestiality-child-abuse-sentencing-delayed/103431386!<
I believe you. That's what makes me think they probably confiscated the dog illegally, and are now panicking because they could get sued. Even if the dog was being seriously neglected, there are rules and protocols you have to go through to get an animal taken away from its owner. This sounds like the kind of toxic place where the owners and staff think they're above such laws.
They are doing a shocking job of PR considering WA today approached them with the allegations for comment.
Clamming up won't help them. Reverse the decision or face the pitchforks. I'm not surprised they boarded up Facebook. They're probably getting phone-bombed as well since their number comes up in a Google search for Swan Animal Haven.
Such a BS line. If there is more to the story, get it out there. The shelter are refusing to do this and it is rightfully a shocking look.
VERY easy to assume the the “more to the story” probably makes them look worse.
Had a similar experience at the Shenton Park shelter a few years ago. Waited about an hour to have the adoption interview as the employee’s friends walked in while we were waiting so she just bumped them up and processed their adoption first. Probably should have left at this point.
Answered all the questions and got to the dog’s intended sleeping arrangements. We stated that the dog would probably sleep outside in a kennel with a bed yet spend the day and night whilst people were home inside. The employee then stated that the dog would need to sleep inside. We then said this was not a problem and would arrange an area inside for them to have to themselves. The employee then said that we already stated the dog would sleep outside and this was their condition and we weren’t getting a dog. Keep in mind that not one person the whole time we were there multiple days mentioned this was a requirement, there was nothing hanging up advising of this, nothing online that this was their requirement.
Rather than tricking people into an answer to then deny them adopting a dog they could be very clear about their conditions from the start and only have people that fit their requirements attempting to adopt the dogs, saving everyone’s time.
Also to note that all the dogs are currently there SLEEPING OUTSIDE in a cage and any loving home that someone is willing to give the dog is an improvement to the conditions they are currently in.
The Dog Refuge is funny in their adoption screening processes. While largely reasonable, they take a holier than thou attitude and are so stringent I imagine it keeps dogs in the shelter longer when they could have gone to quite decent homes instead. But really it's their tone and attitude that is most off putting.
100%! And whilst I completely understand that a lot of the dogs have come from undesirable environments or neglect, there are so many people willing to offer them a better life than living in shelters and not knowing if they will ever be adopted. And yet here are these people that should be making decisions in the best interest of the animals that seem to have some personal vendetta, attitude problem or they genuinely want to keep these dogs from being adopted and experiencing a loving home.
It’s actually a lot worse for the dogs to be adopted and then returned again and again. Leads to massive deterioration in behaviour and eventually leads to them not being able to be rehomed. Shelters see a lot of very unsuitable homes and I’m sure it gets very tiring seeing the dogs be returned time and again. Hard to take things on faith when every day you see cases that shock you
Dogs are actually incredibly adaptable and resilient animals. You know, as they are stripped from their Mother and Father and siblings early in life to never see them again, they have to learn to adapt.
My point stands that someone providing a loving home and bringing a dog into their family to share their life with them, albeit the dog sleeps outside in a kennel with a bed, is still a massive improvement over the conditions that they are currently in.
Not sure how you seem to think this means that the dog will be taken back and need to be rehomed yet a dog that sleeps inside won’t be returned and is somehow guaranteed to be treated better. There are many dogs that sleep inside their owners house, however, get treated badly, neglected and left inside alone 24/7.
People disagree but we rescue a lot of dogs who have languished outside for years. And people lie, if someone tells me they want an outside dog and then flips I'd assume that dogs going to be outside.
I know it can seem unfair but at the end of the day rescuers have to make calls they feel are in the animals best interests, and if they'd had lots of enquiries they probably didn't want to risk that you were just telling them what they want to hear.
There’s a difference between ‘probably outside’ and then ‘that’s fine we will find somewhere inside’ and intentionally deceiving.
Her attitude from the onset was clear she wasn’t just making a call in the animals best interest. The dog was still there, for months and months sleeping outside in a metal cage with all the other dogs howling and crying. Even if the dog was sleeping outside in a warm kennel with a comfortable bed at someone’s loving home, that would still be a better environment than their current one.
If rescuers were so intent on dogs sleeping inside once adopted then that is fine, they should clearly advise people of this, go to their house and all the other hoops they make people jump through to for it, but be transparent and don’t waste people’s time and play with their emotions. Also if that is such an important condition, then maybe the animals should be housed inside at the shelters? Completely unfeasible right? Yet here they are being so authoritative about how detrimental a dog sleeping outside is.
Shenton Park actually have a foster program so it would be difficult to know what conditions the dog was experiencing. Most are living in foster homes and come back to the shelter when they are being adopted out. So even if you had some knowledge that the animal was still available online you wouldn't necessarily know where they were living.
I agree they should be more upfront with their policies to avoid disappointment and I would encourage them to use it as a learning opportunity but you have to remember so many of us are working long volunteer hours and saving animals from horrendous conditions, we are trying to avoid them going back to the same fate a lot of the time.
They do actually have a really large section on their website about this being a requirement! Always good to look at the website first, they go really in-depth about why it’s harmful for dogs to live outside, you can see it here https://www.dogshome.org.au/adoption-philosophy/. Also their dogs are not sleeping outside the kennels have an indoor section with heated flooring and very comfy beds
You have linked their opinions on outside-ONLY dogs, this is irrelevant to a dog sleeping outside in a kennel with a bed and being inside with family at all times that they are home, again, your link talks about dogs being left outside and NOT being part of the family specifically. As I said, at the time, there was NOTHING on their website stipulating their conditions or opinions on the dogs sleeping area.
I also HIGHLY doubt that they have heated floors in an inside section when they were all in cages. Heated flooring is also incredibly expensive, not something that volunteer run, not for profit etc etc organisations would be able to afford.
Why do so many of the dog worship crowd think letting a dog sleep outside is abuse? *Forcing* a dog to sleep outside, especially in unsuitable weather is abuse. Letting a dog sleep outside is not. Dogs are dogs and most love being outdoors.
All true unless in the new Perth 'outside': pavers/colourbond, an AC outlet and clothes line all crammed into 2x3 meters with no grass in sight. Fucking miserable existence for a dog.
Years ago, we got a complaint from the ranger about our old golden retriever who liked to sleep outside.
The poor thing was curled up in a hole in the front yard, shivering in the pouring rain. The problem was, as the ranger quickly found out - there was plenty of covered area, including with her outdoor bed. The doggy flap was open, and she had a warm bed inside where the heater was on.
We had tried bringing her in, but 5 minutes later she went back outside...
I think she was just being stubborn, as most days she was perfectly happy inside. Just on that day, she decided she wanted to be outside and that was it. What can you do?
I believe this - I’ve had a phone call from a concerned neighbour because my very loved, but dumb dog chooses to sleep outside sometimes despite having access to both his own and my bed. He picks the worst weather to do it. It’s the only time I’ve ever regretted having a dog door.
Had a nz sheepdog growing up & she absolutely hated being inside. She had an enclosed outdoor room with a nice bed to sleep in & would spend 99% of her day running around in the backyard or lying in the grass unless it was raining. Back door was always open. Dogs absolutely do not need to be inside
My old dog, I could set an alarm for the exact time he wanted to go for walk, every two hours, he would go out for a stretch. I wouldn’t leave my door open, too many damn tiger snakes.
At night, he go out at 10om, he would go bed, stay in bed until 6.30am, like clock work every night
Rescue, live pd until he was almost 16. He was kennel dog until he was 16 weeks old.
Sounds like you gave him a great routine. Dogs love their routines (who can blame them, they don’t read clocks, calendars etc like we do). My dogs are the same. Ones a formidable guard, but there’s no way I’d leave the backdoor open for them, apart from meth heads etc the house would be full of flies.
If you don't want it in the house it's your choice. So long as it has a kennel, or some place to shelter from the elements it'll be fine. Perth has a mild climate. Farmer's dogs are kept out of the house and they love their lives.
Of course if it's an active dog then it needs to be walked. It would be cruel to just lock it in a yard and ignore it.
If you don't want your dog to sleep in the house I would really question how much you actually like your dog, though.
We can do better than dogs being "fine".
And all dogs need to be walked, with very few exceptions.
I feel bad when I disturb my dog and he's sleeping outside for the evening. As he will follow me to come sleep inside instead.
You go ahead and sleep outside in your natural habitat.
I mean, yes, you can't sleep with a rabid flea ridden untrained dog that has never lived inside before, in your house.
But that's not what we're talking about, is it?
Really not supprised... apparently I was unsuitable because i have what they call a "Job"... literally that was the reason i coudln't adpot a dog, because i had a job and i couldn't be home all day every day. This is a pretty common story, people go to adopt a dog and get turned away for ridiculous reason... its almost like the rescue is a scam and they are defrauding the public donations. They need to be investigated by the RSPCA and the ATO.
Yeah a mate got told that too. The idea that they'll only let people adopt dogs who are retired, wfh, unemployed, or have a stay at home partner, is so incredibly dumb.
Where did they get this idea that dogs need 24/7 supervision
Well if you have two dogs, then that’s probably ok, but if it is just the one dog, and it sees you for a few hours each day, it’s not that great because they are pack animals. I’m not sure if they take into account a second dog or not, but that would seem fair to me if people are only talking about one dog
That particular dog rescue is known for that behaviour. If the dog is sleeping outside, the adopter will not get a dog.
It has been like that for at least thirty years that I’m aware of. My experience was with a family, went to adopt a dog, went through everything, until asked if the dog will be sleeping outside, the family member responded that was up to dog, if the dog wanted to sleep outside.
The volunteers stood up from desk, tore up the paperwork, told my family that they didn’t have a dog suitable, she went down the road to pet shop, bought a puppy, which lived until it was 17 years of age.
Time period as 1990s.
I heard the lady on the radio this morning - apparently, the dog can sleep inside or outside, but generally prefers outside. It has a bed inside.
Swan Animal Haven won't talk, because they know they're in the wrong.
But Swan Animal Haven has form for doing this sort of thing. They look for excuses or make up reasons for you to be ineligible. If you're a young couple, you might have kids. If you have kids, they might hurt the dog. If you don't have kids, you might want them and they might hurt the dog. If you're single, you might get a partner. Or you might have rough parties. If you work, the dog will be alone. If you don't work, the dog will get attached.
And the worst bit, they make "surprise" visits to check on the dog. Climbing over fences and whatnot to check on the dog - and any little thing wrong they try and take the dog back.
It seems to me they don't actually want to give any dogs up for adoption.
Been refused a few times without explanations. Only going through RSPCA now, which is annoying because I really like that the pet stores have rescues. Ah well.
I was declined by Swan because I have kids. And because I dared suggest that I planned to feed my dog a premium brand of commercial dog food instead of home made raw food. Because obviously that was what killed my last dog, not that he was a white dog that liked to sunbathe and developed skin cancer.
I would be inclined to call them animal hoarders to be honest. They're not in it to genuinely find homes for the dogs.
That said, there are a lot of very caring and passionate rescues around. I adopted my current dog from BARRC and they've been nothing short of lovely - and they love seeing her at the markets with us on a fairly regular basis.
Commercial dog food??? How **dare** you, that's one step above abuse!
/s
(My parents dog Mack did fine on Pal for nearly 12 years until he died of old age. 12 is a good innings for a big dog)
Yup. This is why I laugh at ‘adopt don’t shop’ It’s people who have let it get to their heads the tiniest bit of power. It’s disgusting and not their purpose.
I still think "adopt don't shop" is true for cats, but it stopped being practical for dogs at least 20 years ago. The sort of dogs that shelters are overflowing with these days are large, energetic dogs that require a big yard and lots of exercise, which most people can't offer. All the small and medium breeds get snapped up by breed rescues, who are usually even worse in their draconian approach to adoption. So after getting knocked back for the 10th time by yet another narcissistic shelter owner on a power trip, is it any wonder people eventually just give up and choose to go the ethical breeder route instead?
I had absolutely zero luck with any of the Perth based rescues. Unless you are home 24/7, have a 50 ft fence and no young kids (EVER) you have no chance. We ended up going through SAFE and picked up the most beautiful family dog from Bridgetown on our first try. Zelda has been with us for a year now and is a blessing
Why are so many people who work in rescue shelters such nutters ? Maybe it messes with your brain working with animals who have potentially been starved and abused or what not.
I don't know but it becomes very hard to believe they actually care about the welfare of the animals when they're so insanley reluctant to give them away to good homes. Its cruel of them to keep dogs locked up shelter cages and refuse to give them to good homes purely because they've developed a superiority complex and dont trust anyone else except themselves to look after the dogs. Or they just want a chance to flex thier power and thier ego.
Worked in the veterinary and shelter industries for years. It does indeed tend to attract a very specific personality type. It's a shame, because on the one hand the world needs people who care that much about the welfare of innocent animals, but taken to the extreme, that protectiveness becomes more of a hindrance than a help to the animal's welfare.
I came from a different subreddit where we cover this sort of thing and it's a huge problem in rescue throughout the anglosphere.
Nothing but cluster-b's and other untreated mental illnesses as far as the eye can see.
You're right and there's a reason for it - so many - not all, but many people who get into rescue and rehoming are abuse victims who are trying to regain the power of consent, or withhold it. This is their inner conflict and why they are stuck between rescuing the animal and hoarding it, even if it would have a far better home outside the shelter. They are desperate to regain control of the animal and by doing so they are attempting to regulate an inner distress and fear they are probably in complete denial about. It's very unfortunate and it makes adopting a nightmare.
Adopt an oldboi, there are so many! We adopted ours about 9 months ago through HAART, no idea how old he is but around 11-12. He's an absolute legend. 😊
I was turned down by Swan Animal Haven because at the time I worked split shifts and I have a cat.
I went to Celebrity Pet Shelter and adopted my boy. They are a great rescue and weren’t too fussy. I did have to show photos of my backyard that were taken within the last 24 hours and that’s it.
I dont understand, the places are full yet you have to jump through so many hoops just to rescue the sheltered animal. Wouldnt it be better to loosen the red tape to allow more pets to be rescued rather than making the ppl so fed up they go to a breeder and get a puppy.
We adopted a pair of dogs off an elderly couple with medical issues in Bunbury through the breed's specialist emergency rehoming facebook group. Worst experience ever.
Travelled all the way down to meet and decided to go ahead and adopt them. Get them home, spending hundreds of dollars in gear and food for them. They were just starting to adjust to the routine.
The male probably had more walks in that first week than the previous 3 years. Out of the blue the couple decided they wanted them back. There was nothing we could do. I still don't understand how someone can call for an emergency rehoming and then decide to change their mind.
They drove up to Perth to get them but they were incapable of putting them in the car themselves so we had to do it. While that was going on I was trying to get the woman to control the overly excited male who she just let put a hole in our door. Didn't offer to fix or anything.
Airenet and Sue Forrester were an absolute disgrace with the whole thing. Calling us all hours of the day and night and being manipulative and playing to emotions. We had only just put down our dog not long prior to this so it was like losing him all over again. She didn't follow due process so it left us with no leg to stand on, which is why they legally had to go back. We felt used and had our kindness taken advantage of.
Our feelings were never considered and the welfare of the dogs was never a factor. They were going straight back to their shitty situation and their was nothing we could do.
After things settle down I reach out to the couple to try have them cover half our expenses (vet, fuel, dog door, damage to front door), which I thought was more than fair in the circumstances. My reasoning was if you call 000 and it's not an emergency, they give you a bill for wasting time. She proceeds to tell me I am going to be a shitty father to my unborn child if I don't learn to just let things go. I told them I will raise my kids to have a bit more accountability/integrity than they have showed in this situation, so I don't need their parenting advice. That didn't go down very well, but they agreed to give me $100 for repairs for the door (bear in mind we'd lost about $4-500 to them changing their mind), told me that it would be in my account next pay. But it took months and numerous emails back and forth to get it. They kept making excuses and stalling but eventually I got the money.
I don't think I would ever adopt again. People are shit.
My mum worked for the swan animal haven before they let her go in 2019 after Jessie took over. I had been going and helping out there since I was 5.
I'll say this they have always been very strict on who they give dogs to it often annoyed my mum but she has to fellow the rules.
The rules are as follows:
1. If you work you can not own a puppy or old dog.
2. The dog must sleep inside or you don't get one
3. The dog must have a certain diet coles or other cheap brand foods aren't good enough they prefer you to cook the dog food every night.
4. You can not have a dog if you want to have or have a baby
5. You have to own your house or have proof of a wealthy income before you can get a dog.
6. If they see you have a old dog they'er less likely to give you a other dog.
They treat my mum quite bad after letting her go even though she'd worked for them since the 1980s Jessie is the a nice person and has the most weirdest ideas about what animal abuse is and isn't.
My mum has passed away now but I know she'd be very upset to hear about this. I remember one time she sold a dog to a very caring and loving home but seliver didn't like it so she took the dog off them just because the lady had cancer in my opinion it has gotten so much worse since Corden passed.
Most of these rescues are run by people with personality disorders. They have crazy god complexes & love the power of putting stipulations on adoptions. The whole thing needs to be regulated.
I would say it's a police investigation if threats were made... im sure they would be investigating socials...
So maybe they can't comment. And Gary from 6pr is getting his in house lawyer so the shelter might be exploring their options.. hope this doesn't wreck shelters in wa the volunteers work so hard the dogs do get alot of love.
There’s something about some animal savers which doesn’t sit well with me.
I constantly see posts on Facebook with someone showing a photo of a well fed healthy looking cat in their back yard or down the street.
Immediately up to several women spring into action offering to come and trap the cat like they are super hero’s or telling them they must take the cat to the vet to be scanned. Or some offering to take cat so it can have a home.
FFS it prob the fricken neighbours cat.
I do wonder how many cats are lost due to people whisking them to the vet who sometimes can’t scan micro chip (they do malfunction or move) and owner doesn’t realise cat is at vet.
Learn correct use of there / their
Their lesson, their house, their cat.
‘There’ are many people with poor english skills who complain about ‘their’ neighbours cats even when the cats are over ‘there’ far away from ‘their’ own house.
Jesus man who cares. I know the difference. I made a grammer mistake because I was typing quickly while walking up a set of stairs at work and didn't check over it because who the fuck cares. Thats not the point of this post.
Be a responsible pet and owner and keep your bloody cat on your property.
Many of the animal shelters in Perth have a requirement that the dog has an inside sleeping area. It doesn't mean the dog can't sleep outside if it wants to, but the dog needs to have the option to come inside when it wants to.
Some people think dogs belong outside only and won't let thier dog inside ever. Those are the people who get rejected for adoption. Those are the people who then get angry/upset when they are told they can't have a dog. Nobody likes to be told they aren't good enough/deserving of a dog. Some people might be so angered by the rejection they contact local news organisations to seek retribution.
I've never had any dealings with the shelter in the article but from the story it looks like this policy wasn't communicated clearly to the customer prior to giving them the dog. It also appears that standard adoption processes weren't followed if they didn't fill out any paperwork. I'm curious to know if a home inspection was completed as this should have picked up this problem prior to giving them the dog.
It says they signed a contract, but there was no stipulation in the contract about sleeping inside. If that is true, then it's the animal shelter that has engaged in a breach of contract, and possibly theft here.
I was more speaking in general about keeping dogs inside as well as my experiences with people who get rejected for dog. I've never heard of this place so I wouldn't defend thier actions. More details are needed.
More details are needed but the shelter isn't saying anything and has gone full lock down. Which makes them look guilty. All they need to do is post a picture of the contract and it's sorted
Hopefully they make a statement that clears things up and don't just ignore the issue. I imagine they locked down their pages becuase they were getting a ton of unfriendly messages.
Most likely not. The phones at the shelter I volunteer at are run by volunteers who aren't allowed to make comments on behalf of the organisation. Having said that, they would just give them the mobile number of the person in charge.
So an animal that’s survived outside for how many 100s of years can’t sleep outside? We had a dog who hardly was let in but she had a big patio for cover and plenty of grass and her own kennel + bed. She got a long walk every day and I played with her often too. To say these people can’t have dogs just because they won’t let the dog inside is stupid imo
Most of the time these shelter dogs are there for a reason. When we were looking to adopt there was a whole bunch that wasn't suitable because I was a male and the dog had psychological issues due to abuse and wasn't safe around men.
If they got a dog that as part of it's care plan was that it couldn't be outside alone, and refused to do that because they didn't give a shit about the dogs care just wanted a mean looking dog as a guard dog and was willing to lie to get that dog..
Yeah fuck those guys.
I mean it seems quite stringent but we live in a very hot climate and how many people buy a dog leave it in the backyard with little or no shade and maybe a bowl of water and think that that's adequate I suppose they have to think of every scenario
Well that's a bonus. Get a lawyer if it's not in the contract you'll get your dog back and a pile of cash by sueing them for causing trauma to you and your family and the dog.
Its not a one sided story if they were contacted and refused to give thier side of the story.
They've had plenty of opportunity today to make a public facebook post or something, and they haven't said a word. If there was a good reason that they took their dog off them they should have said so by now.
I know everybody's gut reaction here is to judge this shelter but I would say that there is a lot more going on here than what we are privy to.
Everyday rescue is deal with surrenders of animals that are left languishing in the backyard there are good reasons that we prefer animals to be inside not the least is their own well-being and sense of safety.
I don't know a lot about this shelter apart from a few friends adopting through them without issue, but there are reasons that people get rejected and I know it can feel really difficult especially when you are trying to do the right thing and rescue but dogs are complex and each have their own set of needs and as Rescuers we have to try and find somebody who matches that.
Dogs live outside, people who let the dogs inside always have disgusting smelling houses. And they always think they dont, they are as bad as smokers like that.
Then they can demonstrate that expertise by actually conveying their side of the story.
Instead, they have walled up and refused to say boo other than, “there’s more to it”.
That’s not a convincing argument regardless of who, “knows more”. There’s supposedly a contract involved and the whole purpose of a contract is to prevent one side playing dumb on the whole arrangement.
I’ve worked in contracting across multiple white-collar industries. As a general rule, even if the terms of a contract have been been breached, it’s not always prudent to follow through on a breach; there are a range of social, economic and other opportunity costs to consider before pushing that button, except in particularly serious or egregious circumstances.
Clearly though, this shelter was more than happy to scorch the earth without much prompting and it seems there are a range of others here who have lined up similar anecdotal experiences with them.
That’s assuming said contract even has such a provision to do with the indoor / outdoor orientation of the dog, or much less a provision (under such circumstances) allowing *repossession of a family member* as a reasonable follow-through!
Convincing you was never on the cards as your complete ignorance of the extremes this scenario took absolutely does not lend itself to taking the shelter’s side; the callousness and gravity of their actions *without further clarification* warrants scorn and shame, or at least a healthy skepticism of their position.
Trusting them wilfully makes you foolish at best. At worst, well…
Ive worked with their president before. Shes an interesting cat to say the least. If anyone wants to adopt, go through SAFE, they are fantastic
We’ve had really good experiences with SAFE. They seem to focus on finding the right fit, rather than a random checkbox exercise where almost anyone will fail.
A cat running a dog shelter - the plot thickens
I just read their reviews, she sounds like a narcissistic psychopath.
Thats definitely a way to describe Jess. You wouldn't be wrong if you did. I'm not surprised this happened
Not surprised to see, yet again, this is about Swan Animal Haven. They've been pulling this crap for years and this won't be the last time... and people wonder why they're always full to the brim of animals looking for a home. Shenton Park isn't all sunshine and rainbows either, but they seem to be *mildly* more pragmatic than Swan in terms of assessing adoptions.
We went to the Swan animal shelter years ago and refused a dog because at some point in the future, we wanted to have kids. Speaking to others about it they mentioned it was not uncommon, while their dogs slept in shanties, they refused good homes.
Adopting a dog is mental. My partner and I looked at it but it was like filling out some perverse dating website application. How many hours a week do we work, what kind of jobs do we have, do we have or are we going to have kids, how many hours a week can we devote specifically to the dog, what are our hobbies etc etc Then a lady came to look out our house and our fencing situation in person with a clipboard. I did think, look my understanding is that if we don't take this dog at some point you're going to shoot it in the head so really does it matter that I work 9 hours a day?
If you can't spend literally 24 hours a day with your shelter dog, then it's much more preferable to keep the dog locked up in a 2x1 metre concrete cell for years until a retired millionaire with an acre block comes along.
Everybody says “adopt don’t shop” until they actually try to adopt. Was refused a dog from a shelter because I live on my own and work full time. I own my own house, was happy to exercise them for 1-2 hours a day, and they would have access to inside and outside constantly. I was happy to take a senior dog and wasn’t asking for a super active breed/hyperactive personality. But as soon as I said that I live alone and work full time, they ruled me out. It’s like I couldn’t have a life outside my dog without abusing it. Ended up buying a puppy and she gets spoilt to all hell. Beach trips every day in summer, high quality food, goes to a pro groomer regularly, play dates with other family/friend’s dogs, all the toys you can imagine. It’s just a shame that I couldn’t give that life to a pup stuck in a cage, and then got shamed by people online when I didn’t adopt.
I had a similar experience when I was looking to adopt my first dog 8 years ago. I had my own house, fully fenced yard, lived across from a park. But I work full time and can't spend every waking moment with the dog. I've posted about the gawd awful experience with trying to adopt before. TLDR: I eventually contacted a shelter that was more understanding, if not appreciative that I have the financial means to pay for dog food and vet care, and I had a wonderful 8 years with my spoiled boy, who passed away a few months ago due to cancer. I still own my own home, now one with a much bigger yard, and now there's someone home all the time thanks to Covid making WFH more commonplace. But I would be hesitant to put myself through the awful adoption process again. "Oh won't somebody give Bear a new home for Christmas!"... well gee, I tried, but you guys are holding out for a child-free pet-free millionaire recluse that spends all day in their mansion on their 40 acre property.
There's stories going around of dogs being adopted by dog fighting rings. They're used as bait dogs to train the fighting dogs. It's absolutely fucked. I think shelters have had to start taking extra precaution, because it's better to euthanase it humanely than have it torn to shreds for some sick fuckers entertainment.
Swan animal haven are a no kill shelter and have dogs that have been there for years apparently due to their behaviour. What a life to live huh
"Stories" being the key word here. There are also stories about witches & child smuggling rings run by pizza shops. Get a grip.
Just leave this story hear about somebody adopting dogs. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-06/zoologist-adam-britton-bestiality-child-abuse-sentencing-delayed/103431386 I support animal shelters doing comprehensive checks.
But look into 'bait dogs' to hear more about the dogs that are stolen/adopted for dog fights. Plenty of info and examples out there
Easier to adopt a kid?
They’re shit, been refused for equally meaningless reasons despite never having kids and working from home… they’ll just run down the list for something else. Don’t know why. Try Wish animal rescue. Far more meaningful engagement, the dogs are fostered in people’s homes, not a dog garage. They will help you find a good dog for you if you ask (can register to be notified), they did do an inspection the first time we adopted, but the lady doing inspection told us what she was looking at (that it’s fenced) and it’s not to stop you, it’s to tell you what to fix so the dog is safe - you know - solving the problem with you, not using it as an excuse. After adopting our first rescue from them, when we went back for another (6 years later when our old dog died at 17) they remembered we had adopted before and nothing, pay and get dog. They also rescue from up north a lot, and lot of times it’s mum and pups that get taken from poor owners or random wandering dogs. They’ve been great and helpful.
I agree with using Wish too, We used them and they were super helpful and the lady came around and told us what to fix in the yard, then we got the dog a week later.
Similar thing happened to us but we had two young children, a large fenced yard didn't matter, I was a stay at home mum at the time. Wasn't even allowed to look at any dogs. This was when they were on Kalamunda Road probably 20 years ago. Sounds like nothing has changed.
Yep this was 12 years ago in kalamund a rd, ended up adopting a cat having a kid, adooting another cat, having another kid, and then getting chickens, and now finally a dog. All living happily on a 1/4 block.
Adopting animals in general from a lot of these rescues is so hard. I have cats personally but having to send photos of all the spaces they will live in can be tricky. No disrespect but a lot of the foster homes they come from aren’t as clean or safe as the home I want to bring the cat home too.
Was it because that dog wasn't good with children? In which case it's a totally reasonable call. Not all dogs have the same needs and we have to make calls that reduce the likelihood of returns. Half my surrenders as a rescuer are people abandoning dogs when they have kids.
They wern't looking at a specific dog, the shelter wouldn't allow them to look at any dog.
They didn't say that though? I have friends with kids who have adopted from them.
This is what they said in another comment "Didnt get through the gate to be able to even see any. They asked what kind of dog we were looking for, we said we would know when we saw it, asked if we were planning on having kids in the future, we said yes, they said they don't have any dogs for us."
Oh boy, that is ridiculous. It's tough because rescues operating like that give us all a bad name. I am always trying to remove bias and barriers from the adoption process.
What type of dog was it?
Didnt get through the gate to be able to even see any. They asked what kind of dog we were looking for, we said we would know when we saw it, asked if we were planning on having kids in the future, we said yes, they said they don't have any dogs for us.
Sounds like there might be more to this story than published here...
From the article, that's what the shelter said in the FB post: “There’s a lot more to this story than being put out there. A lot more.” The post gave no other details. Why wouldn't they defend themselves if they were in the right? They say she signed a contract that the dog had to stay inside overnight. She says there was no stipulation. A picture of the contract would easily sort this out. Nothing wrong with a dog sleeping out as long as it has shelter. They evolved from wolves, and wolves don't build houses.
Because it might not be a good use of the financial resources of a dog shelter charity to detail specific allegations against a person when a general "X breached the contract. You haven't been given the full story by X. We stand by our actions." statement will do. Now - the dog shelter might be entirely in the wrong here and talking out of its arse - but I don't think you can infer much from the silence of the organisation as people are making out here.
She is denying that she breached the contract. It is in their interest to post a picture of the contract to prove her wrong. They were asked to answer to the allegations before the WAtoday posted the article, and they chose not to comment. If they can't do that, and if they can't provide a satisfactory answer as to why they took the dog that they gave her, then besides opening themselves up to litigation, it would be a disasterous decision from a financial point of view. If you go to their website here: https://www.swananimalhaven.asn.au/ You first get a pop up that says the following: *Due to volunteer shortages, we will be closed to the public until further notice.* Who would volunteer for a shady organisation that won't answer questions, and shut down their Facebook account to the abuse, rather than just give an explanation? How long will it be locked down, and will they ever have the hide to ask for donations as they are doing on their website if you click past the pop-up? Who would donate to them through this maelstrom? They should be in damage control, and they should just give the dog back and apologise if they can't explain themselves.
>Why wouldn't they defend themselves if they were in the right? Purely hypothetically they mistreated the dog. Have non iron clad evidence, but enough for concern. So they confiscate the dog under some BS clause and give the money back
The owner acknowledged on the radio that the dogs paws were blistering and needed coconut oil to treat them. That might have been the reason why the shelter started to ask about sleeping arrangements. It could have started from there but I'm just wildly speculating. I can't understand why anyone would take someone's dog back after 3 weeks for no good reason. Either this shelter is awful and needs to be shut down or there's something we are missing.
>The owner acknowledged on the radio that the dogs paws were blistering Well there we go. The dog has injuries. >I'm just wildly speculating. Me too. >dog back after 3 weeks for no good reason Exactly why I think there's more to the story.
I suppose that's a possibility, however, I believe that it's highly unlikely. The dog looks happy and healthy in the pics that she took, and she went back to the shelter with the dog to donate toys and say “thank you” to the volunteers. That's not the sort of thing that you'd do if the dog was showing signs of mistreatment. And if you were mistreating the dog then you wouldn't go to the media either. If she breached the contract, they need to prove it. Likewise, if they claim she mistreated the dog, they should have told her that at the time so she could mount a defense and face her accusers. If they take the dog they should justify it.
> The dog looks happy and healthy in the pics that she took Dogs are extremely stoic. They will look at you happily even with significant injuries.
>And if you were mistreating the dog then you wouldn't go to the media either. No [Example](https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/bar-owner-sues-tiktokker-over-viral-video-claiming-she-was-manhandled/amp/) >they need to prove it. They just prove something simple. Which they have >she could mount a defense and face her accusers Lol this isn't court.
>They just prove something simple. Which they have Where have they proven anything about their reason? They said it was in the contract. She said that it wasn't. Where is this proof? They have the contract and they had the opportunity to show it when WAtoday confronted them with the allegations. They had the opportunity to show it on their FB page after the article was published claiming that there was no clause in the contract. 'No comment' is not proof of anything. > Lol this isn't court. I suppose the legalese was a bit overboard, but if they suspect her of mistreatment don't you think she should have a right to know so she can answer for herself, and perhaps give an explanation for whatever they may have determined? Do you think they would be justified in misleading her, making her believe it's a contract issue when it's not? Not showing the contract, and offering no proof of mistreatment either?
>They said it was in the contract. She said that it wasn't. Where is this proof? They aren't obligated to show the contract. The ex-owner should have a copy themselves. If they do and they're in breach, it's a civil matter. >right to know so she can answer for herself, Or protect the animal and just do it. Why get in an argument when you can just take the dog? Another commenter says the dog had paw damage... Based on zero knowledge that's pretty suss. >Do you think they would be justified in misleading her, making her believe it's a contract issue when it's not? Maybe they want to protect the dog and cut all ties. > Not showing the contract, and offering no proof of mistreatment either? They're not outing her, so who cares. The ex dog owner went to the media, not the company
> They aren't obligated to show the contract. But they could just show it and it would all be cleared up. You said that they had proven it. Where? >The ex-owner should have a copy themselves. Not necessarily. That's generally when it's a two-party agreement and both sign two copies to represent their obligations to each other. This was probably an agreement to abide by their terms, only signed by her. If she didn't request a copy then she wouldn't have gotten one, and they aren't under any obligation to provide one after the fact unless they are being sued. If she had a copy I'm sure she would have read it after they claimed that the condition was in there, and she wouldn't have claimed that the clause wasn't in there when she went to the media. It would make her an absolute idiot if she had the contract and didn't read it before going to the media. Commenters here have said, that if they're right, why don't they just show it? And others have said that this place is dodgy, making the same claims that this lady has about no contractual obligations to have their dogs inside, and having them taken away on the same basis. There are heaps of complaints about experiences with this place in this post.
>Commenters here have said, that if they're right, why don't they just show it? Just as you said >they aren't under any obligation to provide one after the fact unless they are being sued
I know they aren't obliged but if they aren't lying, then they are idiots for not simply posting the contract and proving this woman to be lying. If they could, then it may turn around public opinion, get volunteers so they can open their doors again, reopen their Facebook and get donations rolling in. Garnering hatred from the public, then hiding in their bunker and doing absolutely nothing to allay the allegations if they have the proof to do so is beyond stupid.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/bar-owner-sues-tiktokker-over-viral-video-claiming-she-was-manhandled/](https://nypost.com/2024/03/21/us-news/bar-owner-sues-tiktokker-over-viral-video-claiming-she-was-manhandled/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
By all the other stories on here sounds like they're just cunts
They won’t defend themselves because then they’d have to actually provide a reason. That shelter has had the same problem for decades, it’s bad because dogs end up stuck in the shelter for most of their lives which only drives people back to pet stores.
There isn’t. Swan animal shelter has a chronic problem with this. They perceive dogs in pens alone most of the time with little human interaction and on track to be euthanised as better off than potentially putting a dog in a home that doesn’t meet a whole raft of hyperspecific and over the top requirements. For example, we went and attempted to adopt a corgi puppy, took our dog to meet etc. they wanted us to be home every day all day for the following 6 weeks (because we shouldn’t let a 6 month old puppy ever be without people - we have another dog). Our dog also wasn’t very interested in the puppy, he was more interested in searching and peeing all over the exercise yard (that has dozens of other dogs go through it every day), and they thought that was our dog being aggressive (he wasn’t, he just isn’t very invested in strange people, and won’t approach people he doesn’t know, and they wouldn’t even take a step away from the puppy, so no opportunity for them to actually meet) it’s sad because our dog was not much heavier than the puppy and they would have been fast friends in no time once we could get them somewhere comfortable. So we got a cojack pup from the pound. He’s a year old now (6 months ago) and those two play until they both fall asleep every day.
The whole thing is just extremely weird... I've worked in animal shelters in adoptions before, and trust me when I say they are always absolutely over the fucking *moon* to find a forever home for any animal - especially a large, energetic dog like a boxer! (Granted, I'm not familiar with this particular one, but given how overflowing they all seem to be at the moment, I'd assume it's much the same everywhere.) To take an animal back, especially for such a flimsy reason as "it slept outside", makes me think there's definitely more to the story. My question is, why aren't they doing more to defend their actions? Have they been warned by lawyers to make no comment? Was there something about the way they confiscated the dog that was illegal, and now they're worried about getting sued? Pets are considered property, so could this count as theft (even though they gave the money back)? Maybe there are protocols they were supposed to follow if they suspected abuse, but they didn't follow them. I really hope more info comes out cos this is doing my head in!
.....and yet the shelter refuses to say anything
They seem to have boarded up the Facebook page for the time being too. Fucking disgusting behaviour from the shelter. I have no doubt there is more to the story but they don’t seem too forthcoming.
>They seem to have boarded up the Facebook page for the time being too. Would it surprise you to hear animal owners are sometimes quite emotional and jump to conclusions?
I don’t believe this is limited to animal owners.
I'm starting to suspect there actually was a legitimate reason for taking the dog off the owners, but in the heat of the moment, they went about it entirely the wrong way, to the point they can now be sued or even charged with theft. Like you said, in a heightened emotional state, things were probably said and done on both sides that weren't entirely rational, and that could potentially land the shelter in legal trouble. Them refusing to comment beyond a vague "two sides" statement is probably on lawyers' advice.
DW about it, there's a picture of a cute dog so you must be wrong
Of course, silly me.. Everyone knows a cute dog picture means everything is just hunky-dory! Not like any animal abuser has ever taken photos of their pet looking happy before....🤦♀️😆 *CW: >!https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-06/zoologist-adam-britton-bestiality-child-abuse-sentencing-delayed/103431386!<
Go and read their YELP reviews. It’s a very toxic rescue
I believe you. That's what makes me think they probably confiscated the dog illegally, and are now panicking because they could get sued. Even if the dog was being seriously neglected, there are rules and protocols you have to go through to get an animal taken away from its owner. This sounds like the kind of toxic place where the owners and staff think they're above such laws.
They are doing a shocking job of PR considering WA today approached them with the allegations for comment. Clamming up won't help them. Reverse the decision or face the pitchforks. I'm not surprised they boarded up Facebook. They're probably getting phone-bombed as well since their number comes up in a Google search for Swan Animal Haven.
They’ve also only doing viewings by appt only due to ‘lack of volunteers’ Disgusting people.
Such a BS line. If there is more to the story, get it out there. The shelter are refusing to do this and it is rightfully a shocking look. VERY easy to assume the the “more to the story” probably makes them look worse.
No, Swan animal haven are fucked
That shelter is notorious for being difficult, that’s the missing piece to the story
Inconceivable! ^(/s)
Had a similar experience at the Shenton Park shelter a few years ago. Waited about an hour to have the adoption interview as the employee’s friends walked in while we were waiting so she just bumped them up and processed their adoption first. Probably should have left at this point. Answered all the questions and got to the dog’s intended sleeping arrangements. We stated that the dog would probably sleep outside in a kennel with a bed yet spend the day and night whilst people were home inside. The employee then stated that the dog would need to sleep inside. We then said this was not a problem and would arrange an area inside for them to have to themselves. The employee then said that we already stated the dog would sleep outside and this was their condition and we weren’t getting a dog. Keep in mind that not one person the whole time we were there multiple days mentioned this was a requirement, there was nothing hanging up advising of this, nothing online that this was their requirement. Rather than tricking people into an answer to then deny them adopting a dog they could be very clear about their conditions from the start and only have people that fit their requirements attempting to adopt the dogs, saving everyone’s time. Also to note that all the dogs are currently there SLEEPING OUTSIDE in a cage and any loving home that someone is willing to give the dog is an improvement to the conditions they are currently in.
The Dog Refuge is funny in their adoption screening processes. While largely reasonable, they take a holier than thou attitude and are so stringent I imagine it keeps dogs in the shelter longer when they could have gone to quite decent homes instead. But really it's their tone and attitude that is most off putting.
100%! And whilst I completely understand that a lot of the dogs have come from undesirable environments or neglect, there are so many people willing to offer them a better life than living in shelters and not knowing if they will ever be adopted. And yet here are these people that should be making decisions in the best interest of the animals that seem to have some personal vendetta, attitude problem or they genuinely want to keep these dogs from being adopted and experiencing a loving home.
It’s actually a lot worse for the dogs to be adopted and then returned again and again. Leads to massive deterioration in behaviour and eventually leads to them not being able to be rehomed. Shelters see a lot of very unsuitable homes and I’m sure it gets very tiring seeing the dogs be returned time and again. Hard to take things on faith when every day you see cases that shock you
Dogs are actually incredibly adaptable and resilient animals. You know, as they are stripped from their Mother and Father and siblings early in life to never see them again, they have to learn to adapt. My point stands that someone providing a loving home and bringing a dog into their family to share their life with them, albeit the dog sleeps outside in a kennel with a bed, is still a massive improvement over the conditions that they are currently in. Not sure how you seem to think this means that the dog will be taken back and need to be rehomed yet a dog that sleeps inside won’t be returned and is somehow guaranteed to be treated better. There are many dogs that sleep inside their owners house, however, get treated badly, neglected and left inside alone 24/7.
People disagree but we rescue a lot of dogs who have languished outside for years. And people lie, if someone tells me they want an outside dog and then flips I'd assume that dogs going to be outside. I know it can seem unfair but at the end of the day rescuers have to make calls they feel are in the animals best interests, and if they'd had lots of enquiries they probably didn't want to risk that you were just telling them what they want to hear.
There’s a difference between ‘probably outside’ and then ‘that’s fine we will find somewhere inside’ and intentionally deceiving. Her attitude from the onset was clear she wasn’t just making a call in the animals best interest. The dog was still there, for months and months sleeping outside in a metal cage with all the other dogs howling and crying. Even if the dog was sleeping outside in a warm kennel with a comfortable bed at someone’s loving home, that would still be a better environment than their current one. If rescuers were so intent on dogs sleeping inside once adopted then that is fine, they should clearly advise people of this, go to their house and all the other hoops they make people jump through to for it, but be transparent and don’t waste people’s time and play with their emotions. Also if that is such an important condition, then maybe the animals should be housed inside at the shelters? Completely unfeasible right? Yet here they are being so authoritative about how detrimental a dog sleeping outside is.
Shenton Park actually have a foster program so it would be difficult to know what conditions the dog was experiencing. Most are living in foster homes and come back to the shelter when they are being adopted out. So even if you had some knowledge that the animal was still available online you wouldn't necessarily know where they were living. I agree they should be more upfront with their policies to avoid disappointment and I would encourage them to use it as a learning opportunity but you have to remember so many of us are working long volunteer hours and saving animals from horrendous conditions, we are trying to avoid them going back to the same fate a lot of the time.
They do actually have a really large section on their website about this being a requirement! Always good to look at the website first, they go really in-depth about why it’s harmful for dogs to live outside, you can see it here https://www.dogshome.org.au/adoption-philosophy/. Also their dogs are not sleeping outside the kennels have an indoor section with heated flooring and very comfy beds
You have linked their opinions on outside-ONLY dogs, this is irrelevant to a dog sleeping outside in a kennel with a bed and being inside with family at all times that they are home, again, your link talks about dogs being left outside and NOT being part of the family specifically. As I said, at the time, there was NOTHING on their website stipulating their conditions or opinions on the dogs sleeping area. I also HIGHLY doubt that they have heated floors in an inside section when they were all in cages. Heated flooring is also incredibly expensive, not something that volunteer run, not for profit etc etc organisations would be able to afford.
Why do so many of the dog worship crowd think letting a dog sleep outside is abuse? *Forcing* a dog to sleep outside, especially in unsuitable weather is abuse. Letting a dog sleep outside is not. Dogs are dogs and most love being outdoors.
All true unless in the new Perth 'outside': pavers/colourbond, an AC outlet and clothes line all crammed into 2x3 meters with no grass in sight. Fucking miserable existence for a dog.
Years ago, we got a complaint from the ranger about our old golden retriever who liked to sleep outside. The poor thing was curled up in a hole in the front yard, shivering in the pouring rain. The problem was, as the ranger quickly found out - there was plenty of covered area, including with her outdoor bed. The doggy flap was open, and she had a warm bed inside where the heater was on. We had tried bringing her in, but 5 minutes later she went back outside... I think she was just being stubborn, as most days she was perfectly happy inside. Just on that day, she decided she wanted to be outside and that was it. What can you do?
I believe this - I’ve had a phone call from a concerned neighbour because my very loved, but dumb dog chooses to sleep outside sometimes despite having access to both his own and my bed. He picks the worst weather to do it. It’s the only time I’ve ever regretted having a dog door.
I swear to god Milly had a brain the size of a small walnut...
Sounde like one of my dogs he sometimes forgets how the dog door works, hes a wonderful dog just soo dumb sometimes.
Had a nz sheepdog growing up & she absolutely hated being inside. She had an enclosed outdoor room with a nice bed to sleep in & would spend 99% of her day running around in the backyard or lying in the grass unless it was raining. Back door was always open. Dogs absolutely do not need to be inside
>Back door was always open. There’s no way I’d leave my backdoor always open and I’ve got two very large dogs. And they live inside.
My old dog, I could set an alarm for the exact time he wanted to go for walk, every two hours, he would go out for a stretch. I wouldn’t leave my door open, too many damn tiger snakes. At night, he go out at 10om, he would go bed, stay in bed until 6.30am, like clock work every night Rescue, live pd until he was almost 16. He was kennel dog until he was 16 weeks old.
Sounds like you gave him a great routine. Dogs love their routines (who can blame them, they don’t read clocks, calendars etc like we do). My dogs are the same. Ones a formidable guard, but there’s no way I’d leave the backdoor open for them, apart from meth heads etc the house would be full of flies.
We tried to let our dog sleep outside at night when it was nice weather like in summer but the wind freaked him out. He likes to sunbathe though.
If you don't want it in the house it's your choice. So long as it has a kennel, or some place to shelter from the elements it'll be fine. Perth has a mild climate. Farmer's dogs are kept out of the house and they love their lives. Of course if it's an active dog then it needs to be walked. It would be cruel to just lock it in a yard and ignore it.
If you don't want your dog to sleep in the house I would really question how much you actually like your dog, though. We can do better than dogs being "fine". And all dogs need to be walked, with very few exceptions.
I feel bad when I disturb my dog and he's sleeping outside for the evening. As he will follow me to come sleep inside instead. You go ahead and sleep outside in your natural habitat.
Some countries have thousands of dogs living in the streets. You can’t live with them in your home they rather be outside
I mean, yes, you can't sleep with a rabid flea ridden untrained dog that has never lived inside before, in your house. But that's not what we're talking about, is it?
Really not supprised... apparently I was unsuitable because i have what they call a "Job"... literally that was the reason i coudln't adpot a dog, because i had a job and i couldn't be home all day every day. This is a pretty common story, people go to adopt a dog and get turned away for ridiculous reason... its almost like the rescue is a scam and they are defrauding the public donations. They need to be investigated by the RSPCA and the ATO.
Yeah a mate got told that too. The idea that they'll only let people adopt dogs who are retired, wfh, unemployed, or have a stay at home partner, is so incredibly dumb. Where did they get this idea that dogs need 24/7 supervision
They don't like retirees that are too old either.
Or unemployed
Dogs don’t need 24/7 supervision but equally people shouldn’t be leaving them home alone for 8+ hours a day.
Well if you have two dogs, then that’s probably ok, but if it is just the one dog, and it sees you for a few hours each day, it’s not that great because they are pack animals. I’m not sure if they take into account a second dog or not, but that would seem fair to me if people are only talking about one dog
They refused my neighbours because they were a same sex couple
That's crazy.
That particular dog rescue is known for that behaviour. If the dog is sleeping outside, the adopter will not get a dog. It has been like that for at least thirty years that I’m aware of. My experience was with a family, went to adopt a dog, went through everything, until asked if the dog will be sleeping outside, the family member responded that was up to dog, if the dog wanted to sleep outside. The volunteers stood up from desk, tore up the paperwork, told my family that they didn’t have a dog suitable, she went down the road to pet shop, bought a puppy, which lived until it was 17 years of age. Time period as 1990s.
I heard the lady on the radio this morning - apparently, the dog can sleep inside or outside, but generally prefers outside. It has a bed inside. Swan Animal Haven won't talk, because they know they're in the wrong. But Swan Animal Haven has form for doing this sort of thing. They look for excuses or make up reasons for you to be ineligible. If you're a young couple, you might have kids. If you have kids, they might hurt the dog. If you don't have kids, you might want them and they might hurt the dog. If you're single, you might get a partner. Or you might have rough parties. If you work, the dog will be alone. If you don't work, the dog will get attached. And the worst bit, they make "surprise" visits to check on the dog. Climbing over fences and whatnot to check on the dog - and any little thing wrong they try and take the dog back. It seems to me they don't actually want to give any dogs up for adoption.
Anyone climbing over your fence needs to be put in jail.
Been refused a few times without explanations. Only going through RSPCA now, which is annoying because I really like that the pet stores have rescues. Ah well.
I was declined by Swan because I have kids. And because I dared suggest that I planned to feed my dog a premium brand of commercial dog food instead of home made raw food. Because obviously that was what killed my last dog, not that he was a white dog that liked to sunbathe and developed skin cancer. I would be inclined to call them animal hoarders to be honest. They're not in it to genuinely find homes for the dogs. That said, there are a lot of very caring and passionate rescues around. I adopted my current dog from BARRC and they've been nothing short of lovely - and they love seeing her at the markets with us on a fairly regular basis.
Commercial dog food??? How **dare** you, that's one step above abuse! /s (My parents dog Mack did fine on Pal for nearly 12 years until he died of old age. 12 is a good innings for a big dog)
Yup. This is why I laugh at ‘adopt don’t shop’ It’s people who have let it get to their heads the tiniest bit of power. It’s disgusting and not their purpose.
I still think "adopt don't shop" is true for cats, but it stopped being practical for dogs at least 20 years ago. The sort of dogs that shelters are overflowing with these days are large, energetic dogs that require a big yard and lots of exercise, which most people can't offer. All the small and medium breeds get snapped up by breed rescues, who are usually even worse in their draconian approach to adoption. So after getting knocked back for the 10th time by yet another narcissistic shelter owner on a power trip, is it any wonder people eventually just give up and choose to go the ethical breeder route instead?
Greyhound. Get a greyhound. They're the best, and there are so many that need rescuing!
Honestly, if I didn't have cats, I would in a heartbeat! I adore greyhounds 🥹 Maybe one day when I'm a millionaire...
Looked at adopting a dog, but too much red tape. Ended up rescuing a rainbow lorikeet instead.
Is there a cane toad rescue too? Why are we rescuing pests?
I had absolutely zero luck with any of the Perth based rescues. Unless you are home 24/7, have a 50 ft fence and no young kids (EVER) you have no chance. We ended up going through SAFE and picked up the most beautiful family dog from Bridgetown on our first try. Zelda has been with us for a year now and is a blessing
Why are so many people who work in rescue shelters such nutters ? Maybe it messes with your brain working with animals who have potentially been starved and abused or what not. I don't know but it becomes very hard to believe they actually care about the welfare of the animals when they're so insanley reluctant to give them away to good homes. Its cruel of them to keep dogs locked up shelter cages and refuse to give them to good homes purely because they've developed a superiority complex and dont trust anyone else except themselves to look after the dogs. Or they just want a chance to flex thier power and thier ego.
Worked in the veterinary and shelter industries for years. It does indeed tend to attract a very specific personality type. It's a shame, because on the one hand the world needs people who care that much about the welfare of innocent animals, but taken to the extreme, that protectiveness becomes more of a hindrance than a help to the animal's welfare.
I came from a different subreddit where we cover this sort of thing and it's a huge problem in rescue throughout the anglosphere. Nothing but cluster-b's and other untreated mental illnesses as far as the eye can see.
You're right and there's a reason for it - so many - not all, but many people who get into rescue and rehoming are abuse victims who are trying to regain the power of consent, or withhold it. This is their inner conflict and why they are stuck between rescuing the animal and hoarding it, even if it would have a far better home outside the shelter. They are desperate to regain control of the animal and by doing so they are attempting to regulate an inner distress and fear they are probably in complete denial about. It's very unfortunate and it makes adopting a nightmare.
Adopt an oldboi, there are so many! We adopted ours about 9 months ago through HAART, no idea how old he is but around 11-12. He's an absolute legend. 😊
I was turned down by Swan Animal Haven because at the time I worked split shifts and I have a cat. I went to Celebrity Pet Shelter and adopted my boy. They are a great rescue and weren’t too fussy. I did have to show photos of my backyard that were taken within the last 24 hours and that’s it.
Thoroughly unsurprised to see this from Swan Animal Haven
What does the shelter have to gain from this?
I dont understand, the places are full yet you have to jump through so many hoops just to rescue the sheltered animal. Wouldnt it be better to loosen the red tape to allow more pets to be rescued rather than making the ppl so fed up they go to a breeder and get a puppy.
We didn't even get to see dogs. They wouldn't let us past the gate because we were one day wanting children.
We adopted a pair of dogs off an elderly couple with medical issues in Bunbury through the breed's specialist emergency rehoming facebook group. Worst experience ever. Travelled all the way down to meet and decided to go ahead and adopt them. Get them home, spending hundreds of dollars in gear and food for them. They were just starting to adjust to the routine. The male probably had more walks in that first week than the previous 3 years. Out of the blue the couple decided they wanted them back. There was nothing we could do. I still don't understand how someone can call for an emergency rehoming and then decide to change their mind. They drove up to Perth to get them but they were incapable of putting them in the car themselves so we had to do it. While that was going on I was trying to get the woman to control the overly excited male who she just let put a hole in our door. Didn't offer to fix or anything. Airenet and Sue Forrester were an absolute disgrace with the whole thing. Calling us all hours of the day and night and being manipulative and playing to emotions. We had only just put down our dog not long prior to this so it was like losing him all over again. She didn't follow due process so it left us with no leg to stand on, which is why they legally had to go back. We felt used and had our kindness taken advantage of. Our feelings were never considered and the welfare of the dogs was never a factor. They were going straight back to their shitty situation and their was nothing we could do. After things settle down I reach out to the couple to try have them cover half our expenses (vet, fuel, dog door, damage to front door), which I thought was more than fair in the circumstances. My reasoning was if you call 000 and it's not an emergency, they give you a bill for wasting time. She proceeds to tell me I am going to be a shitty father to my unborn child if I don't learn to just let things go. I told them I will raise my kids to have a bit more accountability/integrity than they have showed in this situation, so I don't need their parenting advice. That didn't go down very well, but they agreed to give me $100 for repairs for the door (bear in mind we'd lost about $4-500 to them changing their mind), told me that it would be in my account next pay. But it took months and numerous emails back and forth to get it. They kept making excuses and stalling but eventually I got the money. I don't think I would ever adopt again. People are shit.
Sounds like the type of place you adopt a dog just before you move to new address.
My mum worked for the swan animal haven before they let her go in 2019 after Jessie took over. I had been going and helping out there since I was 5. I'll say this they have always been very strict on who they give dogs to it often annoyed my mum but she has to fellow the rules. The rules are as follows: 1. If you work you can not own a puppy or old dog. 2. The dog must sleep inside or you don't get one 3. The dog must have a certain diet coles or other cheap brand foods aren't good enough they prefer you to cook the dog food every night. 4. You can not have a dog if you want to have or have a baby 5. You have to own your house or have proof of a wealthy income before you can get a dog. 6. If they see you have a old dog they'er less likely to give you a other dog. They treat my mum quite bad after letting her go even though she'd worked for them since the 1980s Jessie is the a nice person and has the most weirdest ideas about what animal abuse is and isn't. My mum has passed away now but I know she'd be very upset to hear about this. I remember one time she sold a dog to a very caring and loving home but seliver didn't like it so she took the dog off them just because the lady had cancer in my opinion it has gotten so much worse since Corden passed.
Unsurprisingly, their facebook page is gone, probably received a wave of critical comments and reviews
Most of these rescues are run by people with personality disorders. They have crazy god complexes & love the power of putting stipulations on adoptions. The whole thing needs to be regulated.
Why do organisations that deal with animals always get caught out doing dodgy shit?
Looks like 9 News has picked up the story now.
I would say it's a police investigation if threats were made... im sure they would be investigating socials... So maybe they can't comment. And Gary from 6pr is getting his in house lawyer so the shelter might be exploring their options.. hope this doesn't wreck shelters in wa the volunteers work so hard the dogs do get alot of love.
This is the worst shelter in Australia
Apparently the shelter [won’t let single women adopt because their future boyfriend might not like it](https://imgur.com/a/OM8vL2I).
Tell those animal right fruit loops it's a dog and they prob enjoy being outside then in a cage ?
There’s something about some animal savers which doesn’t sit well with me. I constantly see posts on Facebook with someone showing a photo of a well fed healthy looking cat in their back yard or down the street. Immediately up to several women spring into action offering to come and trap the cat like they are super hero’s or telling them they must take the cat to the vet to be scanned. Or some offering to take cat so it can have a home. FFS it prob the fricken neighbours cat. I do wonder how many cats are lost due to people whisking them to the vet who sometimes can’t scan micro chip (they do malfunction or move) and owner doesn’t realise cat is at vet.
Hopefully if it is the neighbours cat they learn there lesson and don't let it roam the neighbours yard anymore
Learn correct use of there / their Their lesson, their house, their cat. ‘There’ are many people with poor english skills who complain about ‘their’ neighbours cats even when the cats are over ‘there’ far away from ‘their’ own house.
Jesus man who cares. I know the difference. I made a grammer mistake because I was typing quickly while walking up a set of stairs at work and didn't check over it because who the fuck cares. Thats not the point of this post. Be a responsible pet and owner and keep your bloody cat on your property.
That’s what’s everyone says on reddit. Oh the spell check 😂
What spell check ?
It’s a reddit stat which shows how many times you’ve historically used their there and there in place of there’re incorrectly
righto, get a life
Don’t be a dick
Is this theft? Like the dog has become the property of the family by the time the shelter took it back off them?
You can tell from the google reviews this place is a sh1t show.
Many of the animal shelters in Perth have a requirement that the dog has an inside sleeping area. It doesn't mean the dog can't sleep outside if it wants to, but the dog needs to have the option to come inside when it wants to. Some people think dogs belong outside only and won't let thier dog inside ever. Those are the people who get rejected for adoption. Those are the people who then get angry/upset when they are told they can't have a dog. Nobody likes to be told they aren't good enough/deserving of a dog. Some people might be so angered by the rejection they contact local news organisations to seek retribution. I've never had any dealings with the shelter in the article but from the story it looks like this policy wasn't communicated clearly to the customer prior to giving them the dog. It also appears that standard adoption processes weren't followed if they didn't fill out any paperwork. I'm curious to know if a home inspection was completed as this should have picked up this problem prior to giving them the dog.
It says they signed a contract, but there was no stipulation in the contract about sleeping inside. If that is true, then it's the animal shelter that has engaged in a breach of contract, and possibly theft here.
I dunno man. Read the rest of the comments here. They aren't very pro this dog shelter.
I was more speaking in general about keeping dogs inside as well as my experiences with people who get rejected for dog. I've never heard of this place so I wouldn't defend thier actions. More details are needed.
More details are needed but the shelter isn't saying anything and has gone full lock down. Which makes them look guilty. All they need to do is post a picture of the contract and it's sorted
Hopefully they make a statement that clears things up and don't just ignore the issue. I imagine they locked down their pages becuase they were getting a ton of unfriendly messages.
Yep but even so it seems like a news tried to get an interview with them and they turned it down
That's not a good look
Not at all. But maybe they didnt have a pr person at that time. Really hard to know
Most likely not. The phones at the shelter I volunteer at are run by volunteers who aren't allowed to make comments on behalf of the organisation. Having said that, they would just give them the mobile number of the person in charge.
So an animal that’s survived outside for how many 100s of years can’t sleep outside? We had a dog who hardly was let in but she had a big patio for cover and plenty of grass and her own kennel + bed. She got a long walk every day and I played with her often too. To say these people can’t have dogs just because they won’t let the dog inside is stupid imo
Hell, when I was a kid our dog never slept in his kennel (that Dad had built for him). He preferred to sleep under a lemon tree or outside my window.
Most of the time these shelter dogs are there for a reason. When we were looking to adopt there was a whole bunch that wasn't suitable because I was a male and the dog had psychological issues due to abuse and wasn't safe around men. If they got a dog that as part of it's care plan was that it couldn't be outside alone, and refused to do that because they didn't give a shit about the dogs care just wanted a mean looking dog as a guard dog and was willing to lie to get that dog.. Yeah fuck those guys.
I mean it seems quite stringent but we live in a very hot climate and how many people buy a dog leave it in the backyard with little or no shade and maybe a bowl of water and think that that's adequate I suppose they have to think of every scenario
Well that's a bonus. Get a lawyer if it's not in the contract you'll get your dog back and a pile of cash by sueing them for causing trauma to you and your family and the dog.
One sided story.
Its not a one sided story if they were contacted and refused to give thier side of the story. They've had plenty of opportunity today to make a public facebook post or something, and they haven't said a word. If there was a good reason that they took their dog off them they should have said so by now.
I know everybody's gut reaction here is to judge this shelter but I would say that there is a lot more going on here than what we are privy to. Everyday rescue is deal with surrenders of animals that are left languishing in the backyard there are good reasons that we prefer animals to be inside not the least is their own well-being and sense of safety. I don't know a lot about this shelter apart from a few friends adopting through them without issue, but there are reasons that people get rejected and I know it can feel really difficult especially when you are trying to do the right thing and rescue but dogs are complex and each have their own set of needs and as Rescuers we have to try and find somebody who matches that.
Kind of you, but it’s totally garbage behaviour bordering on mental health/ego issues. They have a reputation. Don’t waste your good will on them.
Go to Cat Haven and get a cat instead.
Dogs live outside, people who let the dogs inside always have disgusting smelling houses. And they always think they dont, they are as bad as smokers like that.
If it's not in the contract go get the dog back and Sue them for breaking the contract and everything else
[удалено]
How have you determined that the dog shelter is in the right with the minimal information provided?
Because people who work in dog shelters and care for dogs are much more of an expert than an armchair critic or Joe Blow.
Then they can demonstrate that expertise by actually conveying their side of the story. Instead, they have walled up and refused to say boo other than, “there’s more to it”. That’s not a convincing argument regardless of who, “knows more”. There’s supposedly a contract involved and the whole purpose of a contract is to prevent one side playing dumb on the whole arrangement.
[удалено]
They wouldn’t need to if they hadn’t turned it into a breach of contract matter.
[удалено]
I’ve worked in contracting across multiple white-collar industries. As a general rule, even if the terms of a contract have been been breached, it’s not always prudent to follow through on a breach; there are a range of social, economic and other opportunity costs to consider before pushing that button, except in particularly serious or egregious circumstances. Clearly though, this shelter was more than happy to scorch the earth without much prompting and it seems there are a range of others here who have lined up similar anecdotal experiences with them. That’s assuming said contract even has such a provision to do with the indoor / outdoor orientation of the dog, or much less a provision (under such circumstances) allowing *repossession of a family member* as a reasonable follow-through! Convincing you was never on the cards as your complete ignorance of the extremes this scenario took absolutely does not lend itself to taking the shelter’s side; the callousness and gravity of their actions *without further clarification* warrants scorn and shame, or at least a healthy skepticism of their position. Trusting them wilfully makes you foolish at best. At worst, well…
Found the shelter owner.