Baxter is a 9 y/o desexed male Cattle X adopted out by LM about 7 years ago. Recently the people asked for help to rehome him. They are leaving their acreage property and claim they can’t take Baxter with them into suburbia, he is very territorial and barking/nipping would be a problem. Moving in May, unhappy at the prospect of having to get Baxter put down if they can’t find a new home for him.

I put Baxter up on the web site under the giveaways, LM put an ad in the weekend shopper.

Get a furious email from the people last night, in the shopper ad we’d published their phone number without their knowledge; said we had no right, invasion of privacy and so on. We’d also listed Baxter’s breed and age incorrectly. They demanded we take down the web site listing (which had the correct details and LM’s phone number, not theirs) and have nothing further to do with them.

In the past LM has seemed willing to respect people’s wishes if they prefer not to have their contact details published. Don’t know why the sudden turn around.

Understood the people’s upset, but hoped to salvage the situation with an apology. Instead LM went on the attack. Never good when an older dog has to be rehomed and it seems to be one of LM’s pet hates, but unfortunately a visceral attitude doesn’t help the dog.

LM is pushing the “dogs from the program belong to us” card. I don’t know how she expects to enforce this. One of the other carers thinks the adoption forms we have are useless and that we need to be getting stat decs signed. It’s an issue that comes up time and time again and all it does is create bad feeling, LM has even had threats made against her.

My thoughts are that if there is a clear case of neglect or abuse we have every right to demand return of the dog; but in cases where an owner’s situation has changed, and they have done the right thing by letting us know about it, we need to be a bit more forgiving. Sure, we may not agree with their decision, but we do more harm than good by going on the offensive. We get them offside, they don’t want to have anything to do with us and suddenly the poor dog has fewer options and everyone has a headache.

We’re making a little progress with the prep for our general meeting next month. Have contacted nearly everyone on my list of eleven names, and Kathryn has also been doing some recruiting. We’ve set a date for the meeting – Saturday March 13th at 2pm. Of course one of the people I spoke to (who also happened to be the most outspoken so far) wanted the time changed to 5pm to suit her. There’s always one in every crowd.

There’s been various discussions about what is to be on the agenda. Obviously, election of committee. So we’re chasing nominees and members (to vote them in). There are a lot of burning issues, which will probably be introduced at this meeting, and addressed at future meetings by the elected committee. Relationship with council, fundraising, support of carers (cost wise), microchipping requirements, adoption paperwork and systems. The list could go on forever.

Finally, we’re still looking for a suitable venue. We approached Laidley Community Centre in Mary St. Perfect venue, inexpensive but they ask for public liability policy to be held. Bit beyond the group’s means at the moment. I’ve asked the LCC to reconsider this requirement for us on this occasion, have to follow this up.

Other venues put forward – training room at work (too far away); Gatton McDonalds; Plainlands Hotel; Plainlands Coffee Club; Hattonvale Golf Club.

I’m not sure a really public place would be desirable, particularly after speaking with a couple of the people yesterday who were particularly vehement in their opinion on what the group should and should not be doing. Can see myself ducking my head out of sight if heated discussion occurs.