Dog Rescue Association of Victoria Inc.

18/09/2026

Rescued with Love tackles the 'adoption fee' issue so well. We are so tired of hearing but why should we pay $500 for an old dog. What does it matter if your group spent literally thousands bringing them back to good health Well, let's be straight. If that's your attitude we don't want y ou to adopt an older dog. Will you spend the money needed for their dental, their pentosane injections, giving them good food? Probably not. Which is why they came to us in such poor condition to start with. Have you ever seen a dog with oral nasal fistulas (basically a hole that connects the mouth to the nose brought about by rotting teeth. Most rescue groups have. Frequently. Or a dog with untreated perianal tumours so bad they are rupturing and oozing as they come in the door. We have. Frequently. It is not every person's right to have a pet. It is every person's right to have a pet if they can look after that pet properly.

This is Raffy.

Raffy has diabetes and Cushings disease and lives with Mum Jackie as a RWL Foundation Dog.

While we pick up the bills, Jackie is the one doing the hard yards, medicating, monitoring, driving, grooming, feeding and liaising with the Animal Diabetes Australia team.

Raffy if course is just perfection. It took a while to get his levels under control, and it really has been a blessing working with ADA - with both Raffy and Nalo who support the carers in ways I couldn't possible do.

I was struck by a message sent to us overnight about how AAPS are charging $800 for Jessie and Bella's adoption fee.

"$800 for seniors is ridiculous. It's not necessary for a charity to charge so much to successfully re-home seniors 😞.:

When oh when will the Karens of this world stop complaining about costs of adoption?

We charged $2,000 for our poodle puppies. This INCLUDED their desexing cost. Buy a puppy on Gumtree or a Breeder and you will be paying for that yourself on top of the purchase fee.

But shelters and Rescues are providing a service for you. Desex, vaccinate, microchip, flea and worm at the very least.

Add on cost of paying staff in shelters, food, vet consults and additional treatments - $400 for an 11 year old dog who is FULLY vet worked - I can't see what their is to complain about.

We also see "the fee is so expensive, otherwise I could adopt."
A red flag is immediately raised. If you can't afford an adoption fee up front for all of the vetwork already done, how are you going to pay and care for an animal properly in the coming years?

Cat and Kitten adoption fees are SO MUCH LESS. Under $400 for young healthy babies all vet work done.

I was accused the other day of 'gaining coin' for the Charity and I almost spat my coffee out. Dogs like Raffy cost thousands and thousands of dollars and this is offset by a fee for another dog who might be $600 to adopt.

Let it be said, we rescuers are not in the habit of making money in this gig.

It's a very big game of swings and roundabouts. For RWL who take on the sick and elderly, special needs or palliative - what we make on adoption fees would hardly cover a couple of months vet costs.

I know all of you know this. But it still raises it's ugly head. And it does so in Shelters too - where everything has to be paid for. Food, medical treatment, staff - just to stay open.

It is appalling that animal welfare lives on Charity status to help animals but here we are. Our leading organisation RSPCA is a Charity. The Lost Dogs Home is a Charity. Rescues are charities.

We all rely on donors.

Complaining to a sector relying on the goodness of people's generosity over a fee to recoup a tiny part of what is usually a considerable amount is tone deaf.

For heaven's sake. Read the room.

Meanwhile Raffy, our perfect, diabetic, Cushingoid, older dog is getting all the love and care and is alive and loved today because you understood the memo.

It is what society wants.

17/09/2026

Why rescue groups are needed? Why the Approved Pet Rehoming Organisation (APRO) scheme can destroy us?

The original pound/shelter model was based on animal management and keeping people safe from dangerous and sick animals.

Everything in animal welfare since then has really been anchored to this out-of-date system, with companion animals being routed to a bricks and mortar building. It is a model that failed a long time ago. When the rescue sector was established, it showed there was a better alternative.

We established a completely different model: community foster care networks (CFCNs), predominantly working from our homes with our dogs and cats in foster care. This approach allows us to maintain a much more personal relationship with our adopters and foster carers, while networking with each other to maximise our collective impact.

A huge grassroots community of passionate animal lovers has emerged, supporting each other along the way.

This movement grew organically because of the need. Once the public realised how many pets were being killed in major shelters, they welcomed our alternative and gave us their support.

Even the RSPCA shifted away from local pound contracts because they became revenue neutral. To keep up their public image they had to stop killing the dogs and cats, so they no longer made money from the contracts. To feed and care for the dogs and cats properly took away their profit margin.

We firmly believe that the rescue sector’s tireless advocacy is a reason that society values companion animals so highly today. Our push for the public to recognise that the dog or cat in need has just been unlucky, and is no different from their beloved pet, has created a huge turn around. It is now an honour to have a rescue pet.

Yet, now, twenty years after we began, despite so many promises from policy makers, we are again at threat.

We do not know who is driving the current APRO push. Are traditional shelters behind it because their bequest funding is failing? Why would anyone want to dismantle a highly successful, life-saving model?

Make no mistake: the APRO scheme will destroy our sector. As it stands, whether a rescue group joins the APRO scheme or not, they will be unable to operate as they currently do. And yet the APRO scheme will do nothing to identify those who are not operating properly. Instead, it will give them credibility as an approved rehomer.

Rather than amending 30-year-old legislation, the government is attempting to fit us into an archaic, institutional system, historically built around killing.

Please support us by writing or telephoning those listed in this link. Note you do not have to go into Dropbox, choose open in browser.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c6kujvwq62cf2i86uuwgc/APRO-letter-September-2026.docx?rlkey=dg1cgyixga0w8f8hwalyps631&dl=0

14/09/2026

Thank goodness LDH have not got the Stonnington Contract. Saveadog have done a remarkable job for years running the Council shelter. The minutes to the meeting where this was discussed were available online and it was certainly interesting. We particularly like this comment from Council watch about it being all about bureaucracy and ticking the right boxes. It is the same attitude that reinforces APRO. It's not about where animals die or groups/shelters are operating to save maximum lives, it is about ticks on a box.

THE TRUTH FINALLY REVEALED: HOW CLOSE STONNINGTON CAME TO HANDING ITS ANIMALS TO A SHELTER NOW IN CRISIS

The City of Stonnington came perilously close to handing its animal-management contract to the Lost Dogs’ Home - an organisation whose ageing North Melbourne facilities have now been described by The Age as no longer fit for purpose and under immense pressure from soaring animal surrenders.

It casts Stonnington’s extraordinary Council debate of 26 May 2025 in a damning new light.

Council officers recommended awarding the contract to the Lost Dogs’ Home. Councillors Sally Davis, Steve Stefanopoulos and Meghan Hopper defended that recommendation and voted against temporarily retaining Save-A-Dog Scheme while an independent taskforce examined other options.

Cr Hopper stressed that SADS had chosen not to tender. She claimed departing from the tender outcome would be “an abdication of our responsibility”.

Cr Stefanopoulos declared: “We are not here to run a shelter.” He focused heavily on Council’s finances and objected to animals from outside Stonnington being housed at the local facility.

Cr Davis defended the Lost Dogs’ Home and repeatedly emphasised that SADS had not tendered. She assured the chamber: “I’ve done a lot of my research myself.”

The question now is: what exactly were councillors told - and what did Council officers fail to uncover, test or properly explain?

In 2015, a Victorian Government investigation found that the Lost Dogs’ Home could not adequately account for the factors behind euthanasia decisions. Inspectors also identified cracked and unsealed dog-pen floors that risked disease and cat cages that failed legal requirements.

The organisation was supposed to improve.

Yet more than a decade later, The Age reports that its North Melbourne facilities are no longer fit for purpose. Animal surrenders have reportedly surged by 160 per cent over four years, while the Home continues to face uncertainty over its future in the Arden precinct.

These circumstances do not establish wrongdoing by the Lost Dogs’ Home. But they raise glaring questions about capacity, infrastructure, operational resilience and whether it was remotely sensible for Stonnington to pile another council contract onto an already strained organisation.

Residents could see the danger. Why couldn’t Council’s highly paid officers?

Instead of treating community warnings seriously, councillors attacked supposed “misinformation”. Legitimate concerns were dismissed as emotional, exaggerated and unfair. The public was effectively lectured for daring to question the bureaucratic machine.

Now those warnings look less like hysteria and more like foresight.

The councillors defending the recommendation may themselves have been duped by an officer-led process that elevated procurement compliance above common sense. Their speeches reveal an extraordinary dependence on reports, assurances and tender paperwork - as though ticking bureaucratic boxes automatically guaranteed sufficient facilities, capacity and long-term stability.

Where was the serious examination of the North Melbourne site?

Where was the stress testing against rapidly increasing surrender numbers?

Where was the detailed assessment of the unresolved relocation threat?

Where was the contingency plan if the facility reached crisis point?

And why did residents apparently understand the risk better than the officers being paid to protect Council from it?

Fortunately, a majority of councillors found the courage to reject the officer recommendation. Council temporarily retained SADS and established an Animal Management Taskforce to investigate alternative models.

That vote may have saved Stonnington from charging headfirst into an entirely foreseeable operational mess.

The truth is finally emerging: the residents were right to demand caution, transparency and time. The councillors who stopped the tender were right to resist the officer recommendation.

Stonnington Council staff should be ashamed that their advice brought the municipality so close to taking a gamble with vulnerable animals and ratepayers’ money.

The public was never the problem.

The public may have saved Stonnington from one.

11/09/2026

The government as part of the work of the Pet.welfare group has produced modules on rehoming dogs and cats, assessing suitability and so on. What is most noticeable are the references to a dog that has mental or health issues in a shelter should be transferred to a foster care environment and if this cannot be done the 'animal' be euthanased for their own well being!! So yes, foster carers can save many many lives as undoubtedly most dogs and cats are not at their best in shelters. Why then is Pet.Welfare at the same time determined to over regulate and kill off the thousands of foster carers in the current rescue sector? An unanswerable question we know.

The Guides for cats, one for dogs advocate for a holistic behavioural assessment of cats and dogs and the adoption of consistent record-keeping practices.

10/09/2026

Here is a media release headed “Coalition to Review Domestic Animals Act”. Wow.

But look at the date – 24 November 2010.

That’s right, sixteen years ago when the then Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Mr Peter Walsh, said’ legislation had not kept pace with the expectations of the community.

The existing regulation are out-of-date as they were designed to meet circumstances of more than a decade ago’.

Absolute spot on. Only what happened?

The Coalition did put in a definition of CFCNs into the Act(now removed by the current government) and we were allowed to take dogs and cats from pounds without vetwork which was huge as it allowed us to take seniors, the sick, and the young(now denied by the current government).

But these other clauses in the outdated Act still are used against us. So it is fine for an Amendment to be pushed through Parliament that introduces APRO but no government has been prepared to make other Amendments to the DAA to reflect more accurately the work of the rescue sector.

Why? Who is pulling the strings here?

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