Dog Rescue Association of Victoria Inc.

17/07/2026

Read Rescued with Love on the Lost Dogs Home https://www.facebook.com/rescuedwithlove/?rdid=EtpABHsjrLi1mhYi The early rescuers all have such bad memories of the Lost Dogs Home under Graeme Smith. He said once - in the middle of yet another controversy about the killing at the Lost Dogs Home - it took a while to turn the Queen Mary around, meaning nothing would change overnight. But more than fifteen years later...
Many of us have volunteers in our organisations who have worked at the LDH in the recent past. They are too frightened to speak publicly because of their non-disclosure agreements. Is the Lost Dogs Home a remnant of a past era of animal management when it was really just about killing? Should consideration be given to setting up a new shelter that does not have this history and seemingly an inability to change their ways.
Graeme Smith boasted of how many bequests he had 'tied' in. Surely those still donating or bequesting money to LDH cannot be aware of their reputation. Consider the uproar when it looked like the Stonnington contract was going to go to Lost Dogs Home rather than Saveadog.
If only whichever government is in power after the next election would look seriously at animal welfare in Victoria. Overall it is dismal. Rather than propping up the Lost Dogs Home and supporting its move, start again, with those who have a compassionate view of pets.
Update the legislation. Stop using rescue as unpaid sub-contractors. If only....

29/06/2026

We have been reading with interest all the comments on various threads about Carolyn Webb's post. What really stands out is that generally those posting have conflated shelters (LDH, RSPCA, AAID) and the rescue sector(VicDRG, RWL) into one body.

Shelters ( an inappropriate word) for the kill centres they were, existed for animal MANAGEMENT. To take dogs and cats off the streets and out of the public's sight.

When the rescue sector, primarily community foster care networks, began, it was for animal WELFARE. They were appalled by the killing of unwanted dogs and cats, and apart from trying to save some of those pets, they worked to make the public aware of what was happening. They were successful.

Please be clear in your posts if you are talking about a shelter or a rescue group. Rescue groups are the ones that most likely will have pre-contact entry forms, telephone chats and with some a property check, usually a meet and greet with the dog with your own dog if that is necessary. The pet is held as long as necessary and there is no killing except on the rare occasion when public safety or health is a risk.

There are lots of posts about what a fabulous individual you are and how you were rejected without cause. We would query how many good adopters are being rejected for multiple dogs, unless they are the ones applying always for those dogs with 50 other applications. Perhaps you should look more carefully at what you are offering in relation to the particular dog or cat you are after.

Of course the rescue sector makes mistakes, and often it is the person who is not overly communicative in their application who misses out. That individual could indeed be better than the one that is ultimately chosen. But to reduce the number of applications that is all the information you have to go on, as at the most the group will contact perhaps two of those applicants.

It is an onerous and intensive process on both sides but it has come about by necessity, and what has happened over the years dealing with different people.

The 'oh you made me go to a breeder' is the most common complaint. No we didn't make you. There was a choice of 175 or so rescue groups. CHOICE being the operative word. Rescues are clear about their processes and if you find one too invasive you are welcome to go elsewhere. And you can go to the pound to adopt your dog or cat. Why don't you? Why is the breeder the next step?

People comment about being rejected at late stages. Think of the involvement by the rescue group to get to that stage. They aren't doing this process for fun. It is time consuming.

You absolutely are entitled to be critical but any rescue group has the right to have the processes they choose, it is your CHOICE if you wish to use them or not. And conversely those few complaints where enough information was provided the rescue groups will pay attention.

Attached is a collage of some of the dogs saved from the Lost Dogs Home that did not 'pass' in the 2006/7 period when they killed two thirds of the dogs left in their care. The early rescue groups such as VicDRG RWL Beagle Rescue with the help of the community would 'adopt' these dogs if they went thru a system where they paid more money to fix a health problem or argued the case for a terrified dog or a dog over six. This was then. Look what you are complaining about now. Is it worse?

27/06/2026

There are interesting discussions on a few dog groups about the article Carolyn Webb wrote as an opinion piece in the Age on the difficulty of getting a dog from a shelter. We commend shelters taking more care rehoming their dogs rather than the way they used to just hand on to the first person or kill them. But just the structure they work within and their role as paid employees in kill shelters who no doubt have signed NDAs makes it harder to do this properly.

Who works in the rescue sector? Generally they are compassionate individuals who have decided this will be their cause. Generally they learn as they go or have the sense to begin in another rescue group before they start their own. Most groups will accept other groups' application forms, even if they ask a few further questions. Initally, the rescue individual begins, perhaps, with a belief in the integrity and honesty of those they deal with. They expect people to be understanding, to know they are volunteers. They expect that the staff in pounds, shelters and those surrendering their dogs also want the best for pets. Then they listen to the stories of cruelty, the abuse, the memories they can't shake of obscene cruelty, that other dog or cat they couldn't help, or the one they killed because he was just too far gone to save.

Then they change, they put up barriers and have less direct interactions as more and more emails come, more and more rude emails, more harrassing telephone calls. They ask more questions that may be seen as invasive. Goodness, most want to check out your home to make sure it is safe for that pet. How cheeky! And they wouldn't let you have that dog just because you laughed at the meet and greet when your three year old tugged the dog's ears. So bizarre! The rescue sector see and hear the worst of it. They do what they can as a bandaid around the edges of a problem that the government will not fix.

In the beginning the sector fought to get dogs and cats. Now the problem is they are having just so many offered to them every week. Do any of those rude adopters think what it has taken the rescue group even to get the dog or cat in their care, transported, vetworked, groomed and taught to feel safe? No? They complain about the cost of adoption, not realising that few pets are adopted out at less than the adoption fee, often thousands more already spent. Sadly too many look at a photo and think it is their right to have that pet. How dare they be rejected for a second-class animal and not patted on the back and told how great they are to 'save' a rescue.

Good rescues and their foster carers have an emotional investment in the dog in their care. They will not pass on unless it is the right home. And they learn to ignore the ego-driven complaints and get on with the job.

Will this get any better? No. Only worse. Till the government, as was posted in an article today about charities and their volunteers, stops treating them like sub-contractors, and fixes the animal welfare problems that 175 rescue groups in Victoria alone are working on every day.

When the rescue sector gets funding, when the breeding is controlled, when you need a licence to get a dog or cat and must show what happened to your last pet, when the Act that will declare dogs and cats sentient beings is finally passed, then maybe we will start smiling more. That is, those that have not left or closed down just by total compassion fatigue, and the inability to keep going in a never improving scenario.

Will we trust you more? Probably not when so many individuals lie to us, particularly the ones that disappear when they hear there is actually a property check. But perhaps you will grow up and accept that we are not rejecting you, we are doing the best we can for a pet in our care.

04/06/2026

Great news that the elphinstone puppy farm application has been withdrawn. BAWCS wrote really well about it as did others but then we saw this post.
All of us who feel strongly about topics have experienced this deflection technique and it's really great to have such a well written comment by BAWCS on this. Please read as it applied to comment on the game management authority - the hunter being given authority to care for the critters they subsequently kill.

BAWCS' recent post about the Game Management Authority being exposed as biased unsurprisingly attracted a flood of comments from supporters of duck shooting.
As part of the BAWCS Deflection Series, we've added some of these comments because they provide real-world examples of how deflection is used to avoid addressing uncomfortable issues.
When concerns were raised about bias, accountability, and animal welfare, many responses didn't engage with those concerns at all.
Instead, they followed familiar patterns:
🔄 Whataboutism
- "What about law-breaking activists?"
- "What about giving ducks to restaurants?"
- "What about animal rescuers breaking the law?"
Rather than discussing the issue being raised, attention is redirected elsewhere.
🎯 Attacking the Messenger
- "The ABC reporting on bias 🤡🤡🤡"
- "You are a bunch of lying pricks."
- "Love how you edit it to make it sound like he said that."
Instead of addressing the evidence, the focus shifts to attacking those presenting it.
🙋 Claiming Victimhood
- "This is what they do to hunters and now they cry foul when it gets turned around on them."
- "The antis have been breaking the law and getting away with it forever."
The discussion moves away from animal welfare and becomes about portraying duck shooters as the real victims.
😡 Personal Attacks and Dismissal
- "Blah blah blah, here we go again, greenies have a sook."
- "Hypocrites."
- "So what."
Mockery and insults replace meaningful engagement.
The common thread? None of these responses address the original concern:
- Is the Game Management Authority biased?
- Is it appropriate for a regulator to appear aligned with the industry it regulates?
- What are the animal welfare implications of recreational duck shooting?
Deflection is powerful because it changes the subject without appearing to do so.
The next time you see a debate about animal welfare, ask yourself:
Is this comment addressing the issue, or is it trying to redirect attention somewhere else?
Because discussions about animal welfare should be about the animals, the evidence, and the facts, not distractions, insults, or attempts to change the subject.

BAWCS 'caring with compassion' See less
Bendigo Animal Welfare & Community Services
Charity Organization

26/03/2026

UNBELIEVABLE. The government has paused the new Prevention of Cruelty Bill.
Surely it would not be because Jacinta Allen lives in a rural electorate, supports duck shooting, and is worried about votes in her electorate. Please read this article: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2026/mar/25/victoria-animal-protection-laws-shelved What do you think? Please share and write to the Premier. Remember the old adage: on the end of every lead is a voter - and on the end of every person stroking a cat is a voter too

Exclusive: Labor bill recognising all animals as sentient and raising care requirements won’t be introduced before state election

19/03/2026

What can we say. We too are often asked where should people go to buy a dog. We cannot recommend enough that you visit the property your dog is coming from.
We are sometimes told about dodgy rescue groups but if you cannot trust that dog breeders associations will take responsibility for the actions of their members what exactly is the point of them at all.

22/02/2026

Little Omisha died in 2018. Still we battle unchanged legislation and codes that encourage more killing. This is what the rescue sector has fought since we began twenty years ago. Why does the government want to return us to those dark days? All we want is to be recognised as legitimate - to be recognised as the owners of the pets we save and allowed to save dogs and cats from the pound and shelters. Other aspects are open to negotiation. These are not.
Omisha is dead. How many more must die for no reason while the government keeps referring to outdated legislation that they refuse to change while making other needless amendments.

Another dead dog at Mildura Pound. This time a puppy.

Omisha. All we can do for you is name you. Omisha means the spirit of life and death. You had scarcely lived, Omisha, before they killed you. At least let us give you a name to remember you by rather than just another death at Mildura Pound.
How old were you? Twelve weeks? Fourteen weeks? You came into Mildura Pound on the 28th August and sometimes around Friday 7th September you were killed.

Why? FOR EXCESSIVE BARKING.

Did the pound vet query at all why you were being killed? Did he sedate you? Did you even make it to the vet or were you shot at the back of the pound now there are no volunteers allowed in the pound to witness what is happening? Was the same ranger who participated in the kitten shootings in 2009 on duty that day?

All we have left of you is a blurry photo –– perhaps you were a little border collie cross with a slightly longer coat – your tail is tucked under your legs, you are facing the wall, with your head turned – you seem to be looking at the ranger– did you know what was coming – are you terrified – are you pleading with your eyes. We can’t know because all we have of you is one poor quality photo. Was it like this deliberately because already they knew your fate.

Know that rescue wanted so much to save you.

Yes a good photo is worth a 1000 words. We can’t even give you that. But we will remember you.

If you mourn for Omisha as we do, please write, ring, email to the contact list. There is also a template at the end of the list. https://www.drav.org.au/news-and-updates/contacts-to-express-your-view-of-mildura-pound

It is legal under the Code of Death to kill an animal for excessive barking as the Code is so poorly drafted it can be used for good or evil. Surely the deaths over the past twelve years at Mildura Pound that still continue, the negligence, the casual cruelty, the pretence of an isolation ward, must have their own ripple effect on this so-called ‘tourist’ mecca.

Please do not let Omisha have died in vain. Speak for her.

22/02/2026

We are getting many requests for a draft email/letter and a simple explanation. Here are the two main points.

1. Whether we join APRO or not the rescue group is NOT the owner of the pet they have saved, vetworked and rehomed.

2. If the group joins APRO they are able to have an agreement with the pound whereby they take animals. However it is NOT stated that they can take them WITHOUT vetwork. This means we are back to the early days where the very young, the very old, the sick were killed, any that are not able to have vetwork done at that time.

If the group does NOT join APRO under the current proposal they can NOT take any animals from the pound.

Before we can even think about further negotiations we must own the dogs in our care and be able to have agreements to save any pet from the pound.

Please ask the Minister for Agriculture Ros Spence, the Shadow Minister Emma Kealy and the Greens Ellen Sandell this.

Let the rescue groups own the animals in their care - whether they join APRO or not.
Let all rescue groups have an agreement with the pound. Of course it is still up to the pound as to whom they work with but the right should be there.

The silly part of this is that these are things we have been doing the above for fifteen years and THE GOVERNMENT HAS KNOWN AND ACKNOWLEDGED. But they have never bothered to change the Domestic Animal Act and the Code to reflect this.
We pleaded with them to do this with the recently passed Amendment but they ignored us.

Please make your voice loud so that this time they hear. So many animals are going to die.

Look at groups like Rescued with Love, New Beginnings and Victorian Dog Rescue.
They will no longer be able to save even healthy pets, much less the ones they focus on now.

And what happens if Starting Over Dog Rescue who run the north-west rescue route shut down. So very many dogs and cats are brought to Melbourne every week – close to 5000 per year. Rural pounds will not hold them.

NEW REGULATIONS PROPOSED - Kill those with insufficient quality of life and other reasons

We see a number of queries about the killing of dogs and cats as approved by the pound vet. Pet.Reform says that pound vets will decide who lives and who dies and refer to the Code of Practice for the Management of Shelters and Pounds drawn up in 2010 and commonly known as the kill Code.

It says in one section - the following must not be made available for sale - Aggressive, anti-social animals or an animal with known vices such as excessive barking or habitual escapees. It does not say they can be handed on to rescue to work with them because the rescue sector was still in its infancy 15 years ago, although even then we were taking pets like that.

Guess what, the escapee might have walked through a farm fence when alone for the day. The anti-social cat just wanted to be left in peace in their own home and appeared as aggressive in their cage. The excessive barker didn't like being tied up all day .

And in another section of the same Code it says animals MUST be killed 'because of disease, injury, behaviour, age, unsuitablity for sale'.
It gives a pretty free hand doesn't it.

And note in the same Code it does not say that a vet MUST be used for the killing. It's 'preferred'. And this was written at a time it must have been common knowledge that pounds like Mildura routinely shot pets at the tip.

Judd Falko cannot use his front legs properly, he runs like a rabbit, probably because someone swung him by his front legs as a puppy. The specialist/xrays/follow up confirmed he had no pain and nothing could be done. Judd is incredibly happy in his new home. Would a vet under these enforced rules allow him to live and to go to rescue?

The rescue sector saves, fixes what they can, and rehomes to kind people, or sometimes keeps in their long-term/palliative care program like our Safe Haven. This apparently is not acceptable.

What do y ou think?

18/02/2026

We are getting many queries. Why are we so upset? That non-rescue people don't understand. We live it, but it can be difficult to simplify.

Basically the rescue sector has evolved over twenty years. The government knows what we are doing, have always. We have letters dating back to 2010 from then head of the Bureau of Animal welfare Dr Steven Tate, Liberal-NP Minister Peter Walsh, from Labor Minister Jala Pulford, and others lauding what we do. All saying the same. "We know work has to be done to assist Community Fostercare Networks, to change the legislation, and we will do that".

What happened with legislative changes? Virtually nothing. They allowed us to have Section 84ys, take undesexed dogs and cats as agents for the pound, microchip dogs and cats to us, organise our foster carers. But what they did NOT do, was change the legislation to reflect the changes to animal welfare.

The Domestic Animals Act was written before the rescue sector existed - it has had more Amendments than the tax Act - but nothing definite and clear was done to make changes that affect us and allow us 'legal' rights. The Code of Practice for the Management of Shelters and Pounds was rewritten in 2010 and it is known as the 'kill code'. It basically gives pounds and shelters the right to kill any pet they like.

This is the legislation that the current Pet.Reform body is drawing on to bring us under their control. The result is when the government says it is 'voluntary' to join the Approved Pet Rehoming Organisation(APRO) body they are playing with words. They are taking away from us our work of the last decades, and denying that we were ever operating legally.

The Pet.Reform body say that we have no legal rights. This is because the government has chosen not to 'cover' our volunteer groups in the legislation. Instead they have used us; and they have used you, the public, who donate to us; and allowed us to rescue dogs and cats for the last decades. We have propped up a failing welfare system. Now, for their own purpose, they are denying our right to exist.

The result is so farcical that the Pet.Reform body is now saying that even if we join APRO we do not have the right to 'own' the dogs and cats that came to us, that the foster carer owns them and demand that we forward all our foster carers' details on to them. Shelters do not do this but it is asked of us.

If you join APRO you can have a Section 84y Agreement with a pound but it does not say you can take them undesexed and unchipped. This takes us back to the early days with Mildura Pound and watching so many animals die, often shot at the local tip, because we had no right to save them.

And if we do NOT join APRO, we are not allowed to microchip the dogs and cats in our group's name, we are not allowed to register them in our group's name, so we basically cannot exist.

Of course there are more points than this. But perhaps these are the ones that are simplest. We hope that you understand what is happening and like us, query why? How did Dash's petition to save needless killing end in the destruction of a sector. What will happen when all the dogs and cats we currently take are no longer saved. So many deaths to come.

The pups below look hopeful don't they. Well they died many years ago because we were not allowed to take them from the pound undesexed and the pound would not hold them and certainly would not pay to vetwork them.

Please don't send us back to those days. Support us.

Addresses to write to are available on Victorian Dog Rescue, Starting Over Dog Rescue, Rescued with Love and others. So many groups are already saying they will have to close down.

17/02/2026

So the APRO scheme rolls on. What amazes us is that rather than change a few clauses in the Domestic Animal Amendment to make it clear that what we have been doing for the past 15 years is legitimate the government chose to use the outdated Code of Practice and Domestic Animals Act against us. Written at a time we didn't exist, no government has ever bothered to amend it.
The Liberal Party did give us a definition of CFCNs in 2010 and a clause in the DAA that was to allow us to take undesexed and unmicrochipped pets from pounds but unfortunately it was so badly written the current Pet.Reform do not recognise it - even though the then Director of the Bureau of Animal Welfare confirmed its intentions. We have sent a list to the Minister of the number of times we have been told that we are allowed to take undesexed and unmicrochipped pets from pounds. But it doesn't count. What is white only remains white till today's government declares it one day to be black.

Rather then help us they proceed to make it difficult. If we join APRO we are supposed to provide the same information as pounds and shelters and also register our pets and record every move within the scheme in ways that shelters do not.

Where does the time to do this come from when we are on call 24 hours a day.

We have to provide foster carers' names and addresses to the government. How many foster carers will be comfortable with that.
Under their definition of the act the foster carer is the owner. We apparently don't exist. How can we operate like this?

We can't.

Attached is little Bianco Haliwell rescued by VicDRG from a pound at 16 with multiple issues but still desperately wanting to live. Now a pound vet can say no, he is to be killed.

Under the current Code of Practice to which Pet.Reform refer: animals MUST be euthanased becaue of disease, injury, behaviour, age or unsuitability for sale. It leaves it very open doesn't it.

If you believe these plans for the death of our sector - and of so many pets - are wrong we urge you to contact the Minister, Opposition Minister, your politician and whomever you think might care, and protest at the whole scheme and the lack of genuine consultation.