Here are some the of the achievements for the calendar year 2010:
46 dogs rescued
38 dogs rehomed
50th dog rehomed during the year since we started in 2009
2nd charity shop opened
£114,067.58 raised from all sources
Friday, 31 December 2010
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Plans for 2011
Our short term plans for 2011 currently include:
- introducing a Dog Sponsorship scheme
- moving towards an e-newsletter
- increasing the availability of kennel space so that we can take in more dogs
- opening a third charity shop
- reorganising our welfare systems and processes
No doubt more will come as time goes by, but I am certainly looking forward to the Christmas break.
2010, a year of learning
This has been an interesting, challenging, exciting, stressful, rewarding and sad year. All rolled into one. The theme for me personally is one of learning. The major event for me was without question the preparation of the day to day accounts and the submission of the accounts to the period ending 31 March 2010 to an accountant. This was an extremely nervous time, not because of the accountant - Tim Pearce was simply wonderful and very reassuring, but I had that sense of the unknown, a dread that I must have made a mistake somewhere. As it happened the only thing I think I missed was a trial balance but Tim told me what was required and I quickly added this and have used it ever since.
As the year draws to an end it is useful to reflect on what has gone well and what has not. You hope the former comfortably outweighs the latter but you have to be honest with yourself if you are ever going to learn, progress and excel.
Our Kidderminster charity shop continued to be a little powerhouse of funding for our charitable activities, and its success led us to Stourbridge. Unfortunately it has not been the success I envisaged, though it remains marginally profitable its income is too low to be able to plan for its income.
Our Neutering scheme in the community was launched in the spring and was quickly successful, and a little too popular. We quickly had to scale it back to the point that at one point it was suspended. It is a useful scheme to remain in place and we appreciate that Charnock Shepherd have helped us administrate this scheme.
There is much more to pour through over the coming days as we make formal plans for 2011.
As the year draws to an end it is useful to reflect on what has gone well and what has not. You hope the former comfortably outweighs the latter but you have to be honest with yourself if you are ever going to learn, progress and excel.
Our Kidderminster charity shop continued to be a little powerhouse of funding for our charitable activities, and its success led us to Stourbridge. Unfortunately it has not been the success I envisaged, though it remains marginally profitable its income is too low to be able to plan for its income.
Our Neutering scheme in the community was launched in the spring and was quickly successful, and a little too popular. We quickly had to scale it back to the point that at one point it was suspended. It is a useful scheme to remain in place and we appreciate that Charnock Shepherd have helped us administrate this scheme.
There is much more to pour through over the coming days as we make formal plans for 2011.
The Calendars have arrived!
Two full weeks after they went into production with the printers the calendars have finally arrived. They look great and now Mark and the volunteers are working as fast as they can to get them all enveloped and posted by the First Class post deadline.
Of course it was not our intention for it be this way. We fully expected to have them by 13 Dec so that we could send them second class. But problems in design delayed this process and then when the final design was signed off on 6 Dec it was only then that we found that we may have to wait until 16 or 17 Dec for delivery. That was still within the deadline of Second Class post but the weather would hamper that.
Then on Friday, when they had not arrived it seemed they were still on their way to us and would be with us by 21 Dec. And they were, in the nick of time. We have discovered a lot from this. Not least that we will produce our calendar much earlier in the year than this - and not rely on a company advertising that they would be with us 5-7 days. We will also not sell any of them on order without stock in hand. This had led many people to rightly question where their calendar is.
Now we hope Royal Mail can do their bit and delivery everything First Class by 24 Dec.
Of course it was not our intention for it be this way. We fully expected to have them by 13 Dec so that we could send them second class. But problems in design delayed this process and then when the final design was signed off on 6 Dec it was only then that we found that we may have to wait until 16 or 17 Dec for delivery. That was still within the deadline of Second Class post but the weather would hamper that.
Then on Friday, when they had not arrived it seemed they were still on their way to us and would be with us by 21 Dec. And they were, in the nick of time. We have discovered a lot from this. Not least that we will produce our calendar much earlier in the year than this - and not rely on a company advertising that they would be with us 5-7 days. We will also not sell any of them on order without stock in hand. This had led many people to rightly question where their calendar is.
Now we hope Royal Mail can do their bit and delivery everything First Class by 24 Dec.
Monday, 20 December 2010
Ever felt a little scammed?
Hmmm. I hope this isn't the case, but I feel we are being taken up the garden path a little with a company from which we have procured some items. I will come back to this in another post, but having parted with several hundreds pounds and been promised several things that keep getting changed I only hope tomorrow proves that they honour their word. If not, I fear they will blame the weather and we will then be left to the uncertainty of when.
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Comments activated
I had only just realised that Comments on this blog were disabled. This has now been rectified. All comments are subject to moderation for obvious reasons, and any comment posters will be required to complete the word verification which prevents spam comments. Thanks.
Monday, 13 December 2010
Innuendo and muck spreading is hardly charitable
Innuendo and muck spreading isn't charitable, and yet the insinuation is there, from another local dog rescue charity that people ought to beware of Happy Staffie Rescue.
Their website proudly states:
"As a registered charity we are governed by the Charity Commission, be aware that other rescues may not have charity status or may be registered as a company. You can be sure that 100% of the money you give us goes to helping the dogs."
So why has this got my gander up?
Happy Staffie Rescue after all is a registered charity, gaining charitable status from the Commission in November 2009.
The problem (for them) is our legal framework, the basis around which we legally operate is as a company. However we are not Tesco, BP or Ford. They are companies limited by share capital. We are what is known as a company limited by guarantee (no share capital).
When starting a charity you have to decide what legal framework to use and there are generally three available a) an unincorporated association b) a company limited by guarantee or c) a trust.
A trust is only available to certain organisations. But an unincorporated association or a company limited by guarantee are based on the choices the trustees make and how they see their charity operating.
For example, an unincorporated association generally is useful to smaller charities, particularly those based around a local community issue. Village clubs, affiliates of larger charities and sports clubs are often set up on this basis. There are limitations to what an unincorporated association can undertake, which are not present in a company limited by guarantee. We decided on the latter principally in case we intended to enter into the contracts for services - for example leases on buildings, kennels, insurance, etc. This proved to be the case. This framework also provides a legal identity for the charity, and enables access to more services as time goes by.
So are we alone in this?
Certainly many major charities are registered as a company limited by guarantee. Save the Children Fund is a clear example. And they come in all shapes and sizes - take these three dog-related charities - The Blue Cross, Support Dogs and West Yorkshire Dog Rescue. All three are registered charities, and all three have a legal framework of a company limited by guarantee, just like us.
So let us look at their words again.
"As a registered charity we are governed by the Charity Commission,"
No surprise there. All registered charities in England and Wales are regulated by the Charity Commission regardless of their legal framework. Whether they are an association, a company limited by guarantee or a trust they are all regulated by the Commission.
But, in addition to the Charity Commission we are also regulated by Companies House. This means that not only do we have to comply by the regulations of the Charity Commission we must also comply with the rules and regulations of the Companies Act. This means our accounts are overseen by both government agencies.
And, we have charitable status from HM Revenue & Customs, granted 13 November 2009. This is no mean feat. The application is not straightforward - it isn't simply that you are a charity. You must show them through evidence and accounts that you are charitable. Therefore not only have our accounts been scrutinised by the Charity Commission and Companies House but also HM Revenue & Customs.
Three government agencies watching what you do, ensuring you do the right thing. Our 'friendly' fellow dog rescue is as far as I can see only regulated by the Commission.
Then there is this curious statement:
"... be aware that other rescues may not have charity status or may be registered as a company."
Now there is a real legitimate concern to bogus callers, the sort of people who drop endless clothes bags through your letterbox and in the finest small print you find some charity is getting 5p for every £1 raised. But of course their statement is far too vague to be pinpointed on those charities. It is no coincidence that their statement first appeared as we came together in summer 2009.
In the beginning we had to registered first as a company, then raise £5,000 then apply to the Charity Commission. So their little jibe fitted nicely against us as at one time we were not a registered charity but were a registered company (23 June 2009 to 12 November 2009). This is followed by the final statement:
"You can be sure that 100% of the money you give us goes to helping the dogs."
Following on from the first lines the suggestion is that even as a charity, if your legal framework is a company there may be a doubt as to whether 100% of the money goes to helping the dogs.
It could be that they are trying to suggest that as a company money must be going to shareholdings - but as our legal framework states we are not a company limited by share capital but a company limited guarantee (no share capital). There can be no dividend issued. There are no owners. The directors are the trustees and cannot be paid in any form other than their reasonably incurred expenses - for which no director/trustee has received a single penny from the charity. This is not our choice - it is law. Period.
And finally, as a company limited by guarantee we have to provide complex accounts with a profit and loss statement and balance sheet. We are subject to what is called an Independent Examination, and next year expect it that we shall be subject to an Audit if our income and expenditure reach the required levels.
Therefore in summary, contrary to what is muttered:
We are a Registered Charity
We have gained Charitable Status from HM Revenue & Customs
We have been granted 100% charitable relief against Business Rates
Our accounts and annual report have been submitted to the Charity Commission.
Our accounts and annual return have been submitted to Companies House
Our accounts and annual report have been submitted to HM Revenue & Customs
Our accounts have been scrutinised and given the all clear by an Independant Examination by an accountant.
There can be no doubt about the validity of our charitable status, the aims and purposes of our organisation or the appropriation of funds.
At a time when we have themed our latest newsletter around Transparency and Openness it is a shame others can not be the same.
Their website proudly states:
"As a registered charity we are governed by the Charity Commission, be aware that other rescues may not have charity status or may be registered as a company. You can be sure that 100% of the money you give us goes to helping the dogs."
So why has this got my gander up?
Happy Staffie Rescue after all is a registered charity, gaining charitable status from the Commission in November 2009.
The problem (for them) is our legal framework, the basis around which we legally operate is as a company. However we are not Tesco, BP or Ford. They are companies limited by share capital. We are what is known as a company limited by guarantee (no share capital).
When starting a charity you have to decide what legal framework to use and there are generally three available a) an unincorporated association b) a company limited by guarantee or c) a trust.
A trust is only available to certain organisations. But an unincorporated association or a company limited by guarantee are based on the choices the trustees make and how they see their charity operating.
For example, an unincorporated association generally is useful to smaller charities, particularly those based around a local community issue. Village clubs, affiliates of larger charities and sports clubs are often set up on this basis. There are limitations to what an unincorporated association can undertake, which are not present in a company limited by guarantee. We decided on the latter principally in case we intended to enter into the contracts for services - for example leases on buildings, kennels, insurance, etc. This proved to be the case. This framework also provides a legal identity for the charity, and enables access to more services as time goes by.
So are we alone in this?
Certainly many major charities are registered as a company limited by guarantee. Save the Children Fund is a clear example. And they come in all shapes and sizes - take these three dog-related charities - The Blue Cross, Support Dogs and West Yorkshire Dog Rescue. All three are registered charities, and all three have a legal framework of a company limited by guarantee, just like us.
So let us look at their words again.
"As a registered charity we are governed by the Charity Commission,"
No surprise there. All registered charities in England and Wales are regulated by the Charity Commission regardless of their legal framework. Whether they are an association, a company limited by guarantee or a trust they are all regulated by the Commission.
But, in addition to the Charity Commission we are also regulated by Companies House. This means that not only do we have to comply by the regulations of the Charity Commission we must also comply with the rules and regulations of the Companies Act. This means our accounts are overseen by both government agencies.
And, we have charitable status from HM Revenue & Customs, granted 13 November 2009. This is no mean feat. The application is not straightforward - it isn't simply that you are a charity. You must show them through evidence and accounts that you are charitable. Therefore not only have our accounts been scrutinised by the Charity Commission and Companies House but also HM Revenue & Customs.
Three government agencies watching what you do, ensuring you do the right thing. Our 'friendly' fellow dog rescue is as far as I can see only regulated by the Commission.
Then there is this curious statement:
"... be aware that other rescues may not have charity status or may be registered as a company."
Now there is a real legitimate concern to bogus callers, the sort of people who drop endless clothes bags through your letterbox and in the finest small print you find some charity is getting 5p for every £1 raised. But of course their statement is far too vague to be pinpointed on those charities. It is no coincidence that their statement first appeared as we came together in summer 2009.
In the beginning we had to registered first as a company, then raise £5,000 then apply to the Charity Commission. So their little jibe fitted nicely against us as at one time we were not a registered charity but were a registered company (23 June 2009 to 12 November 2009). This is followed by the final statement:
"You can be sure that 100% of the money you give us goes to helping the dogs."
Following on from the first lines the suggestion is that even as a charity, if your legal framework is a company there may be a doubt as to whether 100% of the money goes to helping the dogs.
It could be that they are trying to suggest that as a company money must be going to shareholdings - but as our legal framework states we are not a company limited by share capital but a company limited guarantee (no share capital). There can be no dividend issued. There are no owners. The directors are the trustees and cannot be paid in any form other than their reasonably incurred expenses - for which no director/trustee has received a single penny from the charity. This is not our choice - it is law. Period.
And finally, as a company limited by guarantee we have to provide complex accounts with a profit and loss statement and balance sheet. We are subject to what is called an Independent Examination, and next year expect it that we shall be subject to an Audit if our income and expenditure reach the required levels.
Therefore in summary, contrary to what is muttered:
We are a Registered Charity
We have gained Charitable Status from HM Revenue & Customs
We have been granted 100% charitable relief against Business Rates
Our accounts and annual report have been submitted to the Charity Commission.
Our accounts and annual return have been submitted to Companies House
Our accounts and annual report have been submitted to HM Revenue & Customs
Our accounts have been scrutinised and given the all clear by an Independant Examination by an accountant.
There can be no doubt about the validity of our charitable status, the aims and purposes of our organisation or the appropriation of funds.
At a time when we have themed our latest newsletter around Transparency and Openness it is a shame others can not be the same.
Saturday, 11 December 2010
Red on his way to a new life
Red, who only came into kennels last week has already secured his loving new home.
Red 2 years of age, was the 58th dog to come into the care of Happy Staffie Rescue and has now become the 52nd rehomed. He needs to be neutered first, but hopefully in just a few days he will begin his new life.
Red 2 years of age, was the 58th dog to come into the care of Happy Staffie Rescue and has now become the 52nd rehomed. He needs to be neutered first, but hopefully in just a few days he will begin his new life.
Friday, 10 December 2010
Supporters Club goes electronic (well shortly)
The current Supporters Club has two drawbacks. First of all it is very labour intensive and believe it or not can be quite stressful to put together is as short a space as time as possible. Secondly it is relatively expensive because of the printing costs associated with low volume printing. For example the latest edition of the newsletter is expected to cost around £1.40 to produce.
An electronic alternative was expected to be trialled with this third edition of the newsletter, but as the third edition took shape it became a 28-page marathon. When compressed in a PDF file it had a 33MB size. Far too great to be sent by e-mail.
Therefore, without the software, expertise or perhaps the time to find a way of condensing the size to a more manageable 2MB file we may give supporters the option of a smaller monthly newsletter as an alternative to the bi-annual printed version.
The one advantage of the monthly e-mail edition is that it will be up to date with that months news and articles. Another is that it will a smaller, easier to read snapshot rather than one long read. Finally for the charity it will cost zero to produce and distribute as it is written by volunteers.
We have to make the decision in early 2011 on how to move this forward but we have a couple of members of the Supporters Club who have expressed an interest in taking part in a trial. Their views will enable us to determine how useful and interesting the smaller newsletter is.
If anyone has any views regarding this, or want to take part in the trial (you must be a member of the Supporters Club) please feel free to contact me at
jonathan@happystaffierescue.org.uk
An electronic alternative was expected to be trialled with this third edition of the newsletter, but as the third edition took shape it became a 28-page marathon. When compressed in a PDF file it had a 33MB size. Far too great to be sent by e-mail.
Therefore, without the software, expertise or perhaps the time to find a way of condensing the size to a more manageable 2MB file we may give supporters the option of a smaller monthly newsletter as an alternative to the bi-annual printed version.
The one advantage of the monthly e-mail edition is that it will be up to date with that months news and articles. Another is that it will a smaller, easier to read snapshot rather than one long read. Finally for the charity it will cost zero to produce and distribute as it is written by volunteers.
We have to make the decision in early 2011 on how to move this forward but we have a couple of members of the Supporters Club who have expressed an interest in taking part in a trial. Their views will enable us to determine how useful and interesting the smaller newsletter is.
If anyone has any views regarding this, or want to take part in the trial (you must be a member of the Supporters Club) please feel free to contact me at
jonathan@happystaffierescue.org.uk
Sponsor a Dog coming
We will hopefully be launching our Sponsor a Dog scheme in early 2011.
The scheme will sit alongside the existing Supporters Club. The existing Supporters Club starts at £14 per annum. It is a good fundraising area, but is quite labour intensive at the times when the bi-annual newsletters are written, printed and posted. It is our intention to move towards an electronic version of the newsletter, possibly distributed monthly (in a smaller format) with the option of a hardcopy as an alternative.
The Sponsor a Dog Scheme will allow people to donate to the charity with the focus on a particular dog(s). Further details will follow here as they are put together but we expect to start the Scheme at around £1 a week, or £4-5 a month paid by direct debit.
The scheme will sit alongside the existing Supporters Club. The existing Supporters Club starts at £14 per annum. It is a good fundraising area, but is quite labour intensive at the times when the bi-annual newsletters are written, printed and posted. It is our intention to move towards an electronic version of the newsletter, possibly distributed monthly (in a smaller format) with the option of a hardcopy as an alternative.
The Sponsor a Dog Scheme will allow people to donate to the charity with the focus on a particular dog(s). Further details will follow here as they are put together but we expect to start the Scheme at around £1 a week, or £4-5 a month paid by direct debit.
Third charity shop
Our plans for a third charity shop will move forward in January.
It is our intention to a find suitable location in Worcestershire or the West Midlands for opening by the beginning of April. We have to ensure it ticks all the right boxes and can be a fundraising success like Kidderminster.
It is our aim to open two successful shops during 2011 to further support the expanding charitable activities of Happy Staffie Rescue.
It is our intention to a find suitable location in Worcestershire or the West Midlands for opening by the beginning of April. We have to ensure it ticks all the right boxes and can be a fundraising success like Kidderminster.
It is our aim to open two successful shops during 2011 to further support the expanding charitable activities of Happy Staffie Rescue.
Thursday, 9 December 2010
Newsletter 3 shipped
The third edition of Happy Staffie Times has been posted today and hopefully will be with members of our Supporters Club early next week.
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Financial security
The financial security of the charity has been secured in the medium term by a generous donation. The funds came from the estate of a lady who helped Happy Staffie Rescue in our earliest days with a cash donation in 2009. The sum enabled us to buy the basic tools we needed to begin fundraising - a gazebo, tables, collection boxes and buckets, etc. Now, a year after her sad passing her memory will continue to live on with us and in the work we do.
1,000 Christmas cards sold
Our first attempt at Christmas cards have sold over 1,000 copies, and that is just from our Facebook fans and internet followers. We have sold good numbers in both of our charity shops which has confirmed for us that the cards will return in 2011 (with a new design or two).
Thank you to everyone who has helped support a Staffordshire bull terrier in need of a home by buying these cards, all of which were made by our volunteers.
Thank you to everyone who has helped support a Staffordshire bull terrier in need of a home by buying these cards, all of which were made by our volunteers.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Happy Staffie Times Newsletter features
The main theme of the third edition of our newsletter which is now winging its way to members of our Supporters Club is Transparency and Openness.
We strongly believe in the guiding principles of the Charity Commission and strictly adhere (as should all charities) to the guidance they provide and the laws on which charities are allowed to operate.
Therefore, in this edition for the first time we have decided to provide some details about the people behind the charity. You will not find enormous biographies, just their names and the functions they undertake and a small description of their function within the charity.
For example we will list the trustees of the charity (also called directors) by their names. And we will let you know who is managing the day to day functions of the charity.
All the legal information is also contained included our registered charity number, registered company number, registered office and contact information.
Many charities would not believe this is necessary but in the spirit or transparency we think it is important you can see who is behind the charity. We may, in the future provide further information in the form of an informal interview with key people so that you can get to know who they are in more detail.
A further feature is a review of our 2009/10 accounts. Again many smaller charities will consider their accounts sacred and not for the eyes of anyone outside of statutory bodies and their individual boards or committees. Not us. I have provided a short breakdown of how much has been raised, and in what areas and the costs associated with these endeavours.
We will not hide faults, and as we completed the newsletter we were made aware of a mistake in our microchipping system (which has now been rectified). This problem came about because of a change in personnel as the welfare and rehoming role went from volunteer to another volunteer. I was only able to squeeze the information in, but under November on page 3 you see a mention of it. Rest assured we have identified all dogs affected and will be ensuring that all details are in the correct names.
And we will be honest about disappointment - which is why we highlight the disappointing returns from our second shop in Stourbridge. While it remains profitable, the levels are too low for us to effectively plan for the income it raises.
We strongly believe in the guiding principles of the Charity Commission and strictly adhere (as should all charities) to the guidance they provide and the laws on which charities are allowed to operate.
Therefore, in this edition for the first time we have decided to provide some details about the people behind the charity. You will not find enormous biographies, just their names and the functions they undertake and a small description of their function within the charity.
For example we will list the trustees of the charity (also called directors) by their names. And we will let you know who is managing the day to day functions of the charity.
All the legal information is also contained included our registered charity number, registered company number, registered office and contact information.
Many charities would not believe this is necessary but in the spirit or transparency we think it is important you can see who is behind the charity. We may, in the future provide further information in the form of an informal interview with key people so that you can get to know who they are in more detail.
A further feature is a review of our 2009/10 accounts. Again many smaller charities will consider their accounts sacred and not for the eyes of anyone outside of statutory bodies and their individual boards or committees. Not us. I have provided a short breakdown of how much has been raised, and in what areas and the costs associated with these endeavours.
We will not hide faults, and as we completed the newsletter we were made aware of a mistake in our microchipping system (which has now been rectified). This problem came about because of a change in personnel as the welfare and rehoming role went from volunteer to another volunteer. I was only able to squeeze the information in, but under November on page 3 you see a mention of it. Rest assured we have identified all dogs affected and will be ensuring that all details are in the correct names.
And we will be honest about disappointment - which is why we highlight the disappointing returns from our second shop in Stourbridge. While it remains profitable, the levels are too low for us to effectively plan for the income it raises.
Monday, 6 December 2010
Calendar in print
Our 2011 Calendar has gone into print today.
The final design was signed off and given the okay by the printers and we have received word that they went into print today.
We have to allow until 17 December 2010 for receipt, but will send them out so that buyers received them before Christmas.
The final design was signed off and given the okay by the printers and we have received word that they went into print today.
We have to allow until 17 December 2010 for receipt, but will send them out so that buyers received them before Christmas.
58th, 59th dogs in,
We have now taken in our 59th dog in since we began taking in dogs in August 2009.
Red and Buster can both be seen at our web site.
Red and Buster can both be seen at our web site.
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Chester progress update
We have received another update on Chester, who is being rehabilitated by Jo Cottrell of DogTrouble.co.uk.
"He's been living with the pack now and has not shown any signs of aggression. He would be suited to a dog of low to medium energy that does not show signs of dominance."
It shows what you find when an expert gets involved. We always considered Chester could never be rehomed with another dog, but Jo has shown that the opposite is the case, and that he would flourish in a home with another calm dog.
"He's been living with the pack now and has not shown any signs of aggression. He would be suited to a dog of low to medium energy that does not show signs of dominance."
It shows what you find when an expert gets involved. We always considered Chester could never be rehomed with another dog, but Jo has shown that the opposite is the case, and that he would flourish in a home with another calm dog.
Cesar Milan
I have had an on/off admiration for Cesar Milan.
At first, when I saw his earlier shows several years ago I was in naive awe at what he was able to achieve.
Then, the doubt set in. Mutterings and rumours on the internet about using force, and what many considered out-dated methods of training. Then there was incident that led to a legal case and a settlement out of court (never a good sign).
Then I came back to the show, and watched it again and took a different view, not least in his attitude to rescue dogs, banned breeds and puppy farms.
I also have to think about the same people who criticise his methods as often being the same people who perform curiously simple short tests to define if a dog is aggressive, and therefore should live. This was demonstrated graphically in a recent BBC Panorama episode. Here a leading dog welfare organisation decided that because a dog pulled on a lead, and maybe growled (it was inaudible to me) it was dog-aggressive and because of this, and the pressing numbers in their care it could not be kept for rehoming, but destroyed instead. I was horrified.
Cesar Milan would not accept that. Then again the comparison is by default unfair, because Cesar does not have 3,000+ dogs to deal with every year, but his attitude is that no dog is beyond help, even if it means the owners may need to change.
So, is Cesar cruel? Is it cruel to use a choke chain on a strong dominant dog? Well he very rarely uses one. He has developed his own collar that is, from what I can see, a development of the choke principle, but in a slightly different way. More often, for dogs that pull and are intent on taking their owners wherever they please he uses a rope collar (choke principle still applies) and lifts it as high as it can go under the head of the dog. This does work, instantly in controlling the movement of the dog. I have tried it myself. But the trick is to know when to do it, and when to stop doing it. If the lead is held incorrectly the dog will still pull, and the position of the collar could cause considerable suffering even injury. That is why Cesar could cause problems for viewers who attempt these techniques without actually knowing what they're doing.
Cesar has used the body flip, roll and pin to dominate aggressive dogs. For this he has been criticised. Yet I did not see the criticism levied at the BBC when on its Dog Borstal Mick did exactly the same thing. I admire Mick, and I like his style and feel his use of the flip and pin was necessary to establish first dominance, then submission and finally trust in the dog. It worked.
Then there is the back-heel. In the legal case mentioned above it was insinuated that this may have been used to such a degree that the dog in question had bruising in the thigh area. From what I see, Cesar uses a tap of the heel, more a touch and certainly not a kick. I do not like this form of physical technique, but it can work. With my Bo, who can be dog aggressive to strangers the tap on the back leg instantly clicks him out of the prey instinct. However, I choose to avoid those contacts in the first place rather than stress/excite him to the point that I would have to issue some a 'touch'.
The other 'touch' is what he calls the bite or nip, and what I call the claw, as that is what the hand looks like. I can concerned that this technique is not sufficiently explained for ordinary owners to understand. It works part of the time for Cesar, but I think only in those nervous excitable cases where the 'touch' snaps the dog from the mentality of the problem. I have tried the 'claw' and find it marginally effective. For Dolly it has no effect, but she is more confident. I have not needed to use it on Bo. For the old boy Jasper it instantly snaps him out of any barking frenzy, but that I feel is more to do with his nervous disposition. Charlie, the smallest of my wayward pack has no effect.
Finally there is the 'ssssch' command. The sound works. It works for me, although I am not consistent with it, it seems to be a calm command to control the dog and obtain attention.
So while some of what Cesar does may not sit happily with our cosy little view of the dog world, he does not give up on dogs. He rescues many and abhors abuse and violence towards dogs. You will notice also how he instills in his clients the need to remain calm with their dogs, even in the most frustrating circumstances. For this reason, I do admire what he does and continue to watch his shows. He is trying to change the way people view dogs, instilling the need to exercise and reward, to obtain respect through calm confident leadership, by setting the necessary rules, boundaries and limitations, and by trying to get people to stop buying dogs from puppy farms and by extension pet shops.
At first, when I saw his earlier shows several years ago I was in naive awe at what he was able to achieve.
Then, the doubt set in. Mutterings and rumours on the internet about using force, and what many considered out-dated methods of training. Then there was incident that led to a legal case and a settlement out of court (never a good sign).
Then I came back to the show, and watched it again and took a different view, not least in his attitude to rescue dogs, banned breeds and puppy farms.
I also have to think about the same people who criticise his methods as often being the same people who perform curiously simple short tests to define if a dog is aggressive, and therefore should live. This was demonstrated graphically in a recent BBC Panorama episode. Here a leading dog welfare organisation decided that because a dog pulled on a lead, and maybe growled (it was inaudible to me) it was dog-aggressive and because of this, and the pressing numbers in their care it could not be kept for rehoming, but destroyed instead. I was horrified.
Cesar Milan would not accept that. Then again the comparison is by default unfair, because Cesar does not have 3,000+ dogs to deal with every year, but his attitude is that no dog is beyond help, even if it means the owners may need to change.
So, is Cesar cruel? Is it cruel to use a choke chain on a strong dominant dog? Well he very rarely uses one. He has developed his own collar that is, from what I can see, a development of the choke principle, but in a slightly different way. More often, for dogs that pull and are intent on taking their owners wherever they please he uses a rope collar (choke principle still applies) and lifts it as high as it can go under the head of the dog. This does work, instantly in controlling the movement of the dog. I have tried it myself. But the trick is to know when to do it, and when to stop doing it. If the lead is held incorrectly the dog will still pull, and the position of the collar could cause considerable suffering even injury. That is why Cesar could cause problems for viewers who attempt these techniques without actually knowing what they're doing.
Cesar has used the body flip, roll and pin to dominate aggressive dogs. For this he has been criticised. Yet I did not see the criticism levied at the BBC when on its Dog Borstal Mick did exactly the same thing. I admire Mick, and I like his style and feel his use of the flip and pin was necessary to establish first dominance, then submission and finally trust in the dog. It worked.
Then there is the back-heel. In the legal case mentioned above it was insinuated that this may have been used to such a degree that the dog in question had bruising in the thigh area. From what I see, Cesar uses a tap of the heel, more a touch and certainly not a kick. I do not like this form of physical technique, but it can work. With my Bo, who can be dog aggressive to strangers the tap on the back leg instantly clicks him out of the prey instinct. However, I choose to avoid those contacts in the first place rather than stress/excite him to the point that I would have to issue some a 'touch'.
The other 'touch' is what he calls the bite or nip, and what I call the claw, as that is what the hand looks like. I can concerned that this technique is not sufficiently explained for ordinary owners to understand. It works part of the time for Cesar, but I think only in those nervous excitable cases where the 'touch' snaps the dog from the mentality of the problem. I have tried the 'claw' and find it marginally effective. For Dolly it has no effect, but she is more confident. I have not needed to use it on Bo. For the old boy Jasper it instantly snaps him out of any barking frenzy, but that I feel is more to do with his nervous disposition. Charlie, the smallest of my wayward pack has no effect.
Finally there is the 'ssssch' command. The sound works. It works for me, although I am not consistent with it, it seems to be a calm command to control the dog and obtain attention.
So while some of what Cesar does may not sit happily with our cosy little view of the dog world, he does not give up on dogs. He rescues many and abhors abuse and violence towards dogs. You will notice also how he instills in his clients the need to remain calm with their dogs, even in the most frustrating circumstances. For this reason, I do admire what he does and continue to watch his shows. He is trying to change the way people view dogs, instilling the need to exercise and reward, to obtain respect through calm confident leadership, by setting the necessary rules, boundaries and limitations, and by trying to get people to stop buying dogs from puppy farms and by extension pet shops.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Ban puppy farms
I believe passionately in the need for stricter controls for the breeding of all animals. For this reason puppy farms or mills should be illegal. What would define a puppy farm or mill? It could be as simple as any place where more than a specified number of breeding bitches are present. This would be decided by discussion which inevitably would probably lead to too high a number.
Any breeder who has more than five breeding bitches is in my opinion a puppy farm. For me that should be limit.
We are often told by legitimate breeders that their purpose in breeding is not financial, but for the dogs and furthering strong pedigree lines. If the former does not apply, then the selective careful breeding should be limited to a minimum number of breeding bitches. Five breeding bitches producing up to 60 puppies a year is way too excessive for me, but I guess that would be a feasible limit to impose.
There is currently no desire to impose such legislation, other than that which is being discussed by the Welsh Assembly. Wales has a particularly problem not least because its great expanses of rural terrain and former farms allow perfect seclusion for the unsavoury savagery of puppy farming.
It is regrettable that today, in 2010 the UK has pet supermarkets and online retailers advertising puppies for sale. Those dumb enough to buy from these sources get what they get in dogs that are likely to have a higher chance of hereditary diseases, disabilities, behavioural problems and even present injuries otherwise hidden from view such as broken or fractured limbs.
It is time for the government to put forward a plan to eliminate these awful places of barbaric practice and in turn further limit the mass production of unwanted dogs.
Any breeder who has more than five breeding bitches is in my opinion a puppy farm. For me that should be limit.
We are often told by legitimate breeders that their purpose in breeding is not financial, but for the dogs and furthering strong pedigree lines. If the former does not apply, then the selective careful breeding should be limited to a minimum number of breeding bitches. Five breeding bitches producing up to 60 puppies a year is way too excessive for me, but I guess that would be a feasible limit to impose.
There is currently no desire to impose such legislation, other than that which is being discussed by the Welsh Assembly. Wales has a particularly problem not least because its great expanses of rural terrain and former farms allow perfect seclusion for the unsavoury savagery of puppy farming.
It is regrettable that today, in 2010 the UK has pet supermarkets and online retailers advertising puppies for sale. Those dumb enough to buy from these sources get what they get in dogs that are likely to have a higher chance of hereditary diseases, disabilities, behavioural problems and even present injuries otherwise hidden from view such as broken or fractured limbs.
It is time for the government to put forward a plan to eliminate these awful places of barbaric practice and in turn further limit the mass production of unwanted dogs.
Monday, 15 November 2010
Christmas fundraising
Our efforts to raise funds during winter have begun in earnest. This time of year is unusual because charity shops (in our experience) see a small increase in average daily sales, but the actual number of trading days available what with holidays means the overal income can fall slightly.
This was further compounded with the bad weather we experienced in January which I estimate cost the charity around £800 in net income, not a small sum for our small organisation.
This Christmas we have two events planned that we launched last year, and two brand new ones.
The two returning are our Grand Winter Raffle and our Christmas Bag Pack once again thanks to the Co-operative group.
Launching this winter as mentioned earlier is our Christmas Cards and 2011 Calendar. The cards are on sale now and available from either our web site or from either of our shops in Kidderminster and Stourbridge.
The calendar being brand new is currently being put together thanks to Priya Dadry who has offered her skills free of charge to design it. We will then pay a printer to produce 150 limited edition copies. Even without sight of it more than a quarter of those copies have been sold. We hope to have the calendar ready and posted out to buyers by the middle of December at the latest. Some will be available for sale in the shops and others via the internet.
This was further compounded with the bad weather we experienced in January which I estimate cost the charity around £800 in net income, not a small sum for our small organisation.
This Christmas we have two events planned that we launched last year, and two brand new ones.
The two returning are our Grand Winter Raffle and our Christmas Bag Pack once again thanks to the Co-operative group.
Launching this winter as mentioned earlier is our Christmas Cards and 2011 Calendar. The cards are on sale now and available from either our web site or from either of our shops in Kidderminster and Stourbridge.
The calendar being brand new is currently being put together thanks to Priya Dadry who has offered her skills free of charge to design it. We will then pay a printer to produce 150 limited edition copies. Even without sight of it more than a quarter of those copies have been sold. We hope to have the calendar ready and posted out to buyers by the middle of December at the latest. Some will be available for sale in the shops and others via the internet.
Chester update
We have received the following update from Jo Cottrell re her work to rehabilitate Chester:
"Chester is doing great, he came out on a pack walk this morning, has been cycling and on the treadmill daily, loves it. Initial thoughts are that he just doesn't know how to be a dog, hence initial panic state when meeting the other dogs but now ok.
"Doesn't seem to have aggressive tendencies as reported yet but will update when I feed him with the pack. He's a case that needs to be immersed into dog pack life as he is very 'needy' with humans at present verging on separation anxiety. So a couple of weeks with them should help with that.
"Will do a full report over the next week for you. He's not got major issues so I would suggest that you start looking for a home for him. I can see if the local rescues here will help advertise. I will put together a video clip and put it on my website so you will then be able to link to it for people to view him...."
Thanks once again to Jo who is working hard to rectify the problems Chester has. Of course he is already available for adoption, however any rehoming would occur after the completion of this period of training and rehabilitation.
"Chester is doing great, he came out on a pack walk this morning, has been cycling and on the treadmill daily, loves it. Initial thoughts are that he just doesn't know how to be a dog, hence initial panic state when meeting the other dogs but now ok.
"Doesn't seem to have aggressive tendencies as reported yet but will update when I feed him with the pack. He's a case that needs to be immersed into dog pack life as he is very 'needy' with humans at present verging on separation anxiety. So a couple of weeks with them should help with that.
"Will do a full report over the next week for you. He's not got major issues so I would suggest that you start looking for a home for him. I can see if the local rescues here will help advertise. I will put together a video clip and put it on my website so you will then be able to link to it for people to view him...."
Thanks once again to Jo who is working hard to rectify the problems Chester has. Of course he is already available for adoption, however any rehoming would occur after the completion of this period of training and rehabilitation.
Sunday, 14 November 2010
Chester progress update
Chester, the poor boy who is struggling so hard with kennel life has begun a period of intensive therapy, training and analysis. Happy Staffie Rescue have engaged the services of Jo Cottrell, a dog behaviourist. You can find out more about Jo and her work and services by visiting her website dogtrouble.co.uk.
e-newsletter coming
We have decided to bring forward our plans for an 'e-newsletter' to work alongside or replace the existing paper version of the Happy Staffie Rescue.
Our research has found some benefits in doing so.
Our research has found some benefits in doing so.
- financial savings of £1.23 per year per supporter
- full colour throughout
- less paper - around 800 pages a year at present
- easier to produce and amend
We have selected several new members to be 'guinea pigs' to test the pdf version of the newsletter.
While at this stage the e-newsletter will be almost identical in content to the paper version the one key difference will be the use of colour throughout, whereas in the paper version due to cost only a few pages are in colour.
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Dangerous Dogs Act - BE AWARE
If you are fortunate enough to own a wonderful Staffordshire bull terrier you need and must be aware of the Dangerous Dogs Act.
This is not because the DDA bans the beloved Staffie, which of course it doesn't, but because the evidence is clear - the police do not know what a Staffordshire bull terrier looks like.
Having checked out the illuminating DDAWatch web site I can across a page that lists some of those dogs seized and killed by the police. It is clear from some of these images that some of these dogs are Staffies or Staffie-crosses.
There are numerous online resources available and I recommend as a Staffie you make yourself aware of them so that should a police officer decide your Staffie is in pact a pit bull, or Tosa or any of the other banned breeds you know what you can do. Be aware, don't panic.
This is not because the DDA bans the beloved Staffie, which of course it doesn't, but because the evidence is clear - the police do not know what a Staffordshire bull terrier looks like.
Having checked out the illuminating DDAWatch web site I can across a page that lists some of those dogs seized and killed by the police. It is clear from some of these images that some of these dogs are Staffies or Staffie-crosses.
There are numerous online resources available and I recommend as a Staffie you make yourself aware of them so that should a police officer decide your Staffie is in pact a pit bull, or Tosa or any of the other banned breeds you know what you can do. Be aware, don't panic.
Dog Owners Voluntary Duty of Care Code
What about a voluntary dog owners Duty of Care Code.
I have been thinking of this as a way of showing others the way in which you can bring a dog up. Of course this is my personal belief, and is open to disagreement and debate, but it is entirely voluntary of course.
So what could go in the code. It could be a series of levels that owners can voluntarily undertake. They come in the following levels, and can be done in any order. You do not for instance have to have done the first listed. Your personal level will be dependant on how many levels you have attained or undertaken.
Here is a short list of the sort of things that could be covered:
Obtain your dog from either of a) a licensed breeder with at the very least the mother present and pups seen interacting with their mother, or b) a dog rescue organisation
Have your dog innoculated at the appropriate earliest opportunity
Have your dog microchipped
Have your dog neutered before any pregnancies
Take your dog to dog training classes
Ensure that your dog is regularly treated for fleas and worms
Exercise your dog at least once every single day
Provide safe warm clean bedding for the dog to sleep in inside the home
Based on the above it is possible to be a Level 8 if you say you do all these things.
I have been thinking of this as a way of showing others the way in which you can bring a dog up. Of course this is my personal belief, and is open to disagreement and debate, but it is entirely voluntary of course.
So what could go in the code. It could be a series of levels that owners can voluntarily undertake. They come in the following levels, and can be done in any order. You do not for instance have to have done the first listed. Your personal level will be dependant on how many levels you have attained or undertaken.
Here is a short list of the sort of things that could be covered:
Obtain your dog from either of a) a licensed breeder with at the very least the mother present and pups seen interacting with their mother, or b) a dog rescue organisation
Have your dog innoculated at the appropriate earliest opportunity
Have your dog microchipped
Have your dog neutered before any pregnancies
Take your dog to dog training classes
Ensure that your dog is regularly treated for fleas and worms
Exercise your dog at least once every single day
Provide safe warm clean bedding for the dog to sleep in inside the home
Based on the above it is possible to be a Level 8 if you say you do all these things.
If dogs had a God
An inadvertent comment I made in my last post brought me to this strange thought. Some will instantly say dogs, and all animals for that matter have a god, and that god is the one that those same people worship.
I would prefer to delve into fantasy and believe that dogs would have their own god, in whatever form it might take. Question is, for an animal that is 'mans best friend', would their god take the form of a dog or a human? And, if it were a dog, what dog would it be.
A human god would satisfy our vanity and belief that dogs serve us and look to us for leadership. The trouble with this theory is that dogs only do so if that leadership is present. If it isn't, problems arise in behaviour that can often be addressed by introducing or reinstating that human leadership role.
Of course the debate on leadership and the role of the human as pack leader is equally debated among some trainers and behaviourists - some believe we humans are firmly part of the dog pack and must assume leadership or face being ousted. Others that humans are not in the pack, but a separate leadership group.
Therefore a dog god must be a dog. Right?
If so, what dog would it be. It has to have a physical presence of some kind to satisfy our idolisation, an image to present and market much in the same way we still present 'our' view of god as an aged man with long white beard and hair wearing white robes.
Many breed-specific fans would no doubt nominate their own type to take the place as god among dogs. I can think of some that would fit the bill - German shepherd perhaps, or a great Dane? But how cute would it be for the god of dogs to be a jack russell? A terrier certainly has the mental capacity to keep all eyes on all things (or as many things) as it possibly can, thereby satisfying the requirement of a dog god to be everywhere.
Or perhaps, more significantly the dog god should be a mongrel, a cross-breed of every breed that has ever existed, a form that continues to slowly change in form as new breeds come into being. Quite what such a dog would look like is beyond description, though my own 17 year old could fit the bill. How would I describe him? Well he's medium sized, long thin legs, with evidence in his back legs of good muscle in his younger days. He has a Mickey Mouse face, white but with brown fur surrounding his eyes. His muzzle is quite long, and his ears half-prick and long. He has a double coat, with a relatively short but soft coat in the summer, blooming into a woolly bush in the winter. He continually sheds. He has a bellowing bark, but can be as quiet as a mouse. He gets all with all dogs and never displays aggression to them. He could be the dog god.
I would prefer to delve into fantasy and believe that dogs would have their own god, in whatever form it might take. Question is, for an animal that is 'mans best friend', would their god take the form of a dog or a human? And, if it were a dog, what dog would it be.
A human god would satisfy our vanity and belief that dogs serve us and look to us for leadership. The trouble with this theory is that dogs only do so if that leadership is present. If it isn't, problems arise in behaviour that can often be addressed by introducing or reinstating that human leadership role.
Of course the debate on leadership and the role of the human as pack leader is equally debated among some trainers and behaviourists - some believe we humans are firmly part of the dog pack and must assume leadership or face being ousted. Others that humans are not in the pack, but a separate leadership group.
Therefore a dog god must be a dog. Right?
If so, what dog would it be. It has to have a physical presence of some kind to satisfy our idolisation, an image to present and market much in the same way we still present 'our' view of god as an aged man with long white beard and hair wearing white robes.
Many breed-specific fans would no doubt nominate their own type to take the place as god among dogs. I can think of some that would fit the bill - German shepherd perhaps, or a great Dane? But how cute would it be for the god of dogs to be a jack russell? A terrier certainly has the mental capacity to keep all eyes on all things (or as many things) as it possibly can, thereby satisfying the requirement of a dog god to be everywhere.
Or perhaps, more significantly the dog god should be a mongrel, a cross-breed of every breed that has ever existed, a form that continues to slowly change in form as new breeds come into being. Quite what such a dog would look like is beyond description, though my own 17 year old could fit the bill. How would I describe him? Well he's medium sized, long thin legs, with evidence in his back legs of good muscle in his younger days. He has a Mickey Mouse face, white but with brown fur surrounding his eyes. His muzzle is quite long, and his ears half-prick and long. He has a double coat, with a relatively short but soft coat in the summer, blooming into a woolly bush in the winter. He continually sheds. He has a bellowing bark, but can be as quiet as a mouse. He gets all with all dogs and never displays aggression to them. He could be the dog god.
Thursday, 4 November 2010
Fireworks for fun or fear
Firework night approaches and already those that feel the need are having their fun.
As the co-owner of four dogs, two of which have very definite fear of fireworks this time of year is particularly concerning.
There are a number of silent or quieter fireworks now available on the market and it is a shame they are not more popular.
Fireworks are a wonderful spectacle and great fun for kids so no one should want to see this end, but surely some responsibility could be applied.
Why can the sale of fireworks to the public not be limited to a few days, or even one day? Why are very loud fireworks even sold to members of the public at all? And why do so many ordinary folk want to do it themselves when the best displays are those organised by groups (and can usually be seen free of charge from a decent vantage point!).
I am glad that one of the local dog rescues has abandoned their fireworks night. What strange paradox that would have been, an organisation with the best interests of dogs at heart, partaking in an event that would put the fear of god (if dogs have one!) in to so many of them.
As the co-owner of four dogs, two of which have very definite fear of fireworks this time of year is particularly concerning.
There are a number of silent or quieter fireworks now available on the market and it is a shame they are not more popular.
Fireworks are a wonderful spectacle and great fun for kids so no one should want to see this end, but surely some responsibility could be applied.
Why can the sale of fireworks to the public not be limited to a few days, or even one day? Why are very loud fireworks even sold to members of the public at all? And why do so many ordinary folk want to do it themselves when the best displays are those organised by groups (and can usually be seen free of charge from a decent vantage point!).
I am glad that one of the local dog rescues has abandoned their fireworks night. What strange paradox that would have been, an organisation with the best interests of dogs at heart, partaking in an event that would put the fear of god (if dogs have one!) in to so many of them.
Charity Christmas Calendar
We are launching our first Charity Calendar (2011) and are accepting advance orders for what will be a limited 150-print.
You can find more information here.
Priya Dadry, graphic designer has kindly offered to design the calendar for us free of charge.
We hope over the coming weekend to be able to obtain the photographs necessary for the calendar and can then put these on the website to give you a flavour of what the calendar will be like.
You can find more information here.
Priya Dadry, graphic designer has kindly offered to design the calendar for us free of charge.
We hope over the coming weekend to be able to obtain the photographs necessary for the calendar and can then put these on the website to give you a flavour of what the calendar will be like.
Charity Shops update
Our charity shops remain our main source of income. The first, opened in Kidderminster in the summer of 2009 has been a complete success. It has paid for all its start up costs, and delivered sufficient income each month after all operating costs are deducted to support the charitable activities.
The second charity shop, opened in Stourbridge in July has unfortunately not yet delivered what we wanted or expected. While it has remained profitable, in that its sales exceed its operating costs it has yet to repay the cost of acquiring and building it up for opening. The level of income it generates each month is also low, to the point that it is not effective yet in allowing to increase the number of dogs in our care.
This present a conundrum that we must pass in the next six months. Our medium term strategy is to continue to roll out charity shops as these should, in theory deliver income. However the Stourbridge situation has alarmed us. Its operating costs are very low - much lower than Kidderminster but the sales are also a third less than the Kidderminster branch.
With finances tight, the only way we can only a third charity shop is if the second shop repays the costs it took to open. And that seems some way off.
Our retail managers are working at many avenues to try and increase not only customers, but donations without which the shop could not function.
So the risk is there. Charity shops are not a given, and when after we opened Kidderminster we were smarting at how our larger charity chains delivered such low margins, we now realise that the success here was not easily repeatable. But this is short term observations. The Stourbridge branch is not losing the charity money, it just isn't delivering the sort of income we would have liked. Therefore we can persevere with Stourbridge, hoping that the medium term will lead to better awareness of the site.
The second charity shop, opened in Stourbridge in July has unfortunately not yet delivered what we wanted or expected. While it has remained profitable, in that its sales exceed its operating costs it has yet to repay the cost of acquiring and building it up for opening. The level of income it generates each month is also low, to the point that it is not effective yet in allowing to increase the number of dogs in our care.
This present a conundrum that we must pass in the next six months. Our medium term strategy is to continue to roll out charity shops as these should, in theory deliver income. However the Stourbridge situation has alarmed us. Its operating costs are very low - much lower than Kidderminster but the sales are also a third less than the Kidderminster branch.
With finances tight, the only way we can only a third charity shop is if the second shop repays the costs it took to open. And that seems some way off.
Our retail managers are working at many avenues to try and increase not only customers, but donations without which the shop could not function.
So the risk is there. Charity shops are not a given, and when after we opened Kidderminster we were smarting at how our larger charity chains delivered such low margins, we now realise that the success here was not easily repeatable. But this is short term observations. The Stourbridge branch is not losing the charity money, it just isn't delivering the sort of income we would have liked. Therefore we can persevere with Stourbridge, hoping that the medium term will lead to better awareness of the site.
Dog Breeding Act - the Database
As mentioned in previous posts, a new national, free to access, public database would be created to support legitimate breeders, legitimate buyers and the media to adhere to the Act and encourage the good sale of dogs.
Whatever form the database takes it need now be complicated, flashy or expensive. It simply needs to be a database that ANYONE can view, but that only registered and compliant persons can access to amend or add.
Local authorities who administer the licensing and registered will have access designated to certain staff. Veterinary professionals would be allowed one access point per practice. The police may be given access, and the registered animal/dog rescue charities should be given access as well.
Only the local authority would have the power to delete entries.
Access to the Database
Add
Local Authorities, Veterinary Professionals, registered animal/dog rescues
Amend
Local Authorities, Veterinary Professionals (subject to review and acceptance by Local Authorities)
View
Anyone free of charge but at designated times to allow for smooth operation and upgrades and amendments, perhaps between 10am and 4pm or whatever time is designated by the designers.
Delete
Local Authorities
The importance of the database is that it is quick and easy to use.
For example, a veterinary professional is asked to check a pregnant bitch. The dog is identified by her microchip and the dog is Registered Dog. The veterinary professional will then either access the database immediately, or record details on paper or other means so that he/she or another appointed person in the practice can input the information to the database later.
Lets look at it the long way round. The owner brings a dog in that has had a checked history with the vets, perhaps missing booster injections, not being micro chipped and obvious neutered. The vet has the owners details and the dog, name and breed.
They record the details of the pregnancy. They access the database. If the owner is not Licensed (in breach of the DBA) and the dog is not Registered (in breach of the DBA) they will make an entry. No penalty would be given to an owner in this circumstance because we would not want to discourage people obtaining veterinary advice, however they would be liable in the following tax year for the License and Registration.
The simple owner and dog details are entered, and the database undertakes an immediate match with any records held. If none are held the database will send an electronic notice to the local authority to follow up the information and ensure the License and Registration demand is issued in the next tax year, and that the fees are paid (subsequent penalties will arise for late or non-payment).
Whatever form the database takes it need now be complicated, flashy or expensive. It simply needs to be a database that ANYONE can view, but that only registered and compliant persons can access to amend or add.
Local authorities who administer the licensing and registered will have access designated to certain staff. Veterinary professionals would be allowed one access point per practice. The police may be given access, and the registered animal/dog rescue charities should be given access as well.
Only the local authority would have the power to delete entries.
Access to the Database
Add
Local Authorities, Veterinary Professionals, registered animal/dog rescues
Amend
Local Authorities, Veterinary Professionals (subject to review and acceptance by Local Authorities)
View
Anyone free of charge but at designated times to allow for smooth operation and upgrades and amendments, perhaps between 10am and 4pm or whatever time is designated by the designers.
Delete
Local Authorities
The importance of the database is that it is quick and easy to use.
For example, a veterinary professional is asked to check a pregnant bitch. The dog is identified by her microchip and the dog is Registered Dog. The veterinary professional will then either access the database immediately, or record details on paper or other means so that he/she or another appointed person in the practice can input the information to the database later.
Lets look at it the long way round. The owner brings a dog in that has had a checked history with the vets, perhaps missing booster injections, not being micro chipped and obvious neutered. The vet has the owners details and the dog, name and breed.
They record the details of the pregnancy. They access the database. If the owner is not Licensed (in breach of the DBA) and the dog is not Registered (in breach of the DBA) they will make an entry. No penalty would be given to an owner in this circumstance because we would not want to discourage people obtaining veterinary advice, however they would be liable in the following tax year for the License and Registration.
The simple owner and dog details are entered, and the database undertakes an immediate match with any records held. If none are held the database will send an electronic notice to the local authority to follow up the information and ensure the License and Registration demand is issued in the next tax year, and that the fees are paid (subsequent penalties will arise for late or non-payment).
The Dog Breeding Act: summary
So what would be achieved by this proposed (fanciful) piece of legislation.
- No breeder would be allow to produce more than four litters a year
- Veterinary professionals would register on pregnant bitches they come across (the onus will also be on the owner to do so)
- All puppies produced must be registered and micro chipped
- Breeders will be legally responsible to ensure owners are responsible
- Breeders must accept any unwanted pups back within four weeks of sale
- The advertisement of any dog will be restricted only to those dogs registered, and those breeders licenses, or to animal/dog charities and rescues
- The ban on the advertised sale of dogs would extend to all forms of advertising in the UK
- The medium used to advertise the sale of dogs will be required to ensure the license and registration is in place and current
- A free to access online database of licensed breeders and registered puppies will be provided by the government
Dog Breeding Act: Part 3 Control of Breeding
Dog Breeding Act
Part 3
Control of Breeding
The next aspect of legislation is to ban the puppy farm, or any mass production puppy mills.
The level at which a breeder becomes a puppy farm is open to discussion, but I think any person or persons, or any property that breeds more than five litters a year (interestingly this is the current point a which someone is simply classed as a breeder) should be classed as in the mass production puppy farming business.
Legitimate breeders tell us they are not in the breeding business for the money, and therefore are not actually in any business at all. It is a hobby or pastime, an interest to them. Such comments should therefore confirm that they would not oppose a limit on the number of litters produced each year.
Any registered licensed breeder would therefore be limited to four litters a year (from a minimum of four bitches). Above this amount and the breeder is breaking the law. What penalties would apply have to be strong enough to punish those that break the law, and to deter those thinking of it.
By bringing the veterinary industry firmly in with the registering of pregnancies, births and chipping reduces avoidance of the legislation. The openness of the online register encourages responsible buying, and the ban on the advertising for unregistered breeders control those that can breed legitimately.
Therefore the penalty has to be in the form of cash and seizure of dogs and a ban on future dog ownership for a set period of time.
Part 3
Control of Breeding
The next aspect of legislation is to ban the puppy farm, or any mass production puppy mills.
The level at which a breeder becomes a puppy farm is open to discussion, but I think any person or persons, or any property that breeds more than five litters a year (interestingly this is the current point a which someone is simply classed as a breeder) should be classed as in the mass production puppy farming business.
Legitimate breeders tell us they are not in the breeding business for the money, and therefore are not actually in any business at all. It is a hobby or pastime, an interest to them. Such comments should therefore confirm that they would not oppose a limit on the number of litters produced each year.
Any registered licensed breeder would therefore be limited to four litters a year (from a minimum of four bitches). Above this amount and the breeder is breaking the law. What penalties would apply have to be strong enough to punish those that break the law, and to deter those thinking of it.
By bringing the veterinary industry firmly in with the registering of pregnancies, births and chipping reduces avoidance of the legislation. The openness of the online register encourages responsible buying, and the ban on the advertising for unregistered breeders control those that can breed legitimately.
Therefore the penalty has to be in the form of cash and seizure of dogs and a ban on future dog ownership for a set period of time.
Dog Breeding Act: Part 2 Sale of Dogs
Dog Breeding Act
Part 2
Sale of Dogs
The current problem with unscrupulous or 'hobby' breeders is that they can produce litter after litter, without the scrutiny of authorities by simply evading the current licenses and advertising the sale of their dogs in almost any medium available.
Common routes to advertise the sale of dogs include classified advertisements in newspapers and magazine, online advertising, internet forums and chat rooms, cards in shop windows, social networking groups, car boots, friends, family, the local pub and any other meeting place or networking arena.
This part of the 'Act' would limit where unregistered dogs are sold or rehomed but would not make it completely impossible to sell dogs. Pit bulls continue to be bred, bought, sold, imported and exported in the UK. However their activities remain underground and limited to those within that circle. It is not impossible to obtain a pit bull, but you would have to go out and try and find it first. Whereas, for almost any other breed it is simply a matter of checking the local classified ads and biding your time until the breed you want appears.
The Sale of Dogs therefore would prohibit the advertised sale or rehoming or any dog (it could cover any animal if necessary) in any medium in the UK unless from a registered bitch and licensed breeder or a registered dog/animal rescue organisation.
The ban would cover all forms of media - print and online, radio and television (however unlikely), forums, chat rooms, social networking groups, markets, shops, car boots, and so on. The onus of proof is on the advertiser, but the onus to satisfy the proof is on the medium. Therefore the breeder (the advertiser) must prove to the medium (for example the newspaper) that they are licensed (by provision of their license number) and the medium has a onus to satisfy the proof (by checking against a public online register).
The online public register will act as a tool for breeders to advertise their dogs free of charge (they will be paying for it through their license fees), and also prospective owners to source legitimate dogs. The freedom to access the register is essential to allow media and other avenues to quickly, easily and without cost check the validity of a customers request to advertise.
Such restrictions would apply to any source of advertising or sale. So a car boot, where dogs are sold would be the responsibility of the car boot operator to ensure those dogs are licenses.
The penalties for the media breaking this ban should easily exceed the revenue generated from the advertisement. As most adverts in newspapers are small classifieds costing less than £50 the penalty to the media should be in the region of £100 or twice the advertised rate for the space of advert. The penalty could be a fixed issue from a police officer or any authorised agent, including local authorities or designated charitable bodies and must be paid within 28 days to avoid a summons to court, whereby the penalties would rise steeply.
In an instant the unregistered breeder, the unscrupulous breeder and the hobby breeder would cut off from the most popular sources of selling their unregistered litters.
As mentioned above, this would not stop the breeding, or the sale of puppies, but it would limit the avenues people can use. Leaving them few options but to join the underworld associating with pit bull breeders, hidden chat rooms and secret social networking groups.
Part 2
Sale of Dogs
The current problem with unscrupulous or 'hobby' breeders is that they can produce litter after litter, without the scrutiny of authorities by simply evading the current licenses and advertising the sale of their dogs in almost any medium available.
Common routes to advertise the sale of dogs include classified advertisements in newspapers and magazine, online advertising, internet forums and chat rooms, cards in shop windows, social networking groups, car boots, friends, family, the local pub and any other meeting place or networking arena.
This part of the 'Act' would limit where unregistered dogs are sold or rehomed but would not make it completely impossible to sell dogs. Pit bulls continue to be bred, bought, sold, imported and exported in the UK. However their activities remain underground and limited to those within that circle. It is not impossible to obtain a pit bull, but you would have to go out and try and find it first. Whereas, for almost any other breed it is simply a matter of checking the local classified ads and biding your time until the breed you want appears.
The Sale of Dogs therefore would prohibit the advertised sale or rehoming or any dog (it could cover any animal if necessary) in any medium in the UK unless from a registered bitch and licensed breeder or a registered dog/animal rescue organisation.
The ban would cover all forms of media - print and online, radio and television (however unlikely), forums, chat rooms, social networking groups, markets, shops, car boots, and so on. The onus of proof is on the advertiser, but the onus to satisfy the proof is on the medium. Therefore the breeder (the advertiser) must prove to the medium (for example the newspaper) that they are licensed (by provision of their license number) and the medium has a onus to satisfy the proof (by checking against a public online register).
The online public register will act as a tool for breeders to advertise their dogs free of charge (they will be paying for it through their license fees), and also prospective owners to source legitimate dogs. The freedom to access the register is essential to allow media and other avenues to quickly, easily and without cost check the validity of a customers request to advertise.
Such restrictions would apply to any source of advertising or sale. So a car boot, where dogs are sold would be the responsibility of the car boot operator to ensure those dogs are licenses.
The penalties for the media breaking this ban should easily exceed the revenue generated from the advertisement. As most adverts in newspapers are small classifieds costing less than £50 the penalty to the media should be in the region of £100 or twice the advertised rate for the space of advert. The penalty could be a fixed issue from a police officer or any authorised agent, including local authorities or designated charitable bodies and must be paid within 28 days to avoid a summons to court, whereby the penalties would rise steeply.
In an instant the unregistered breeder, the unscrupulous breeder and the hobby breeder would cut off from the most popular sources of selling their unregistered litters.
As mentioned above, this would not stop the breeding, or the sale of puppies, but it would limit the avenues people can use. Leaving them few options but to join the underworld associating with pit bull breeders, hidden chat rooms and secret social networking groups.
Dog Breeding Act: Part 1 Licensing of Breeders and Registration of Dogs
I have decided to call my proposal the Dog Breeding Act. I do not for one minute believe any species-specific legislation would ever be passed to cover breeding of domestic animals other than in an outright ban (Dangerous Dogs Act), so please humour me.
Dog Breeding Act
Part 1
Licensing of Breeders
The current process for licensing breeders is aimed squarely at the legitimate breeder*. Unfortunately the scope is far too weak. First off, it is generally used to describe breeders whose bitches produce a total of five or more litters a year. Many legitimate breeders do not fall into this category, and the hobby breeder is almost totally excluded (as was the intention of the misguided Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, amended in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999.
* I use this term to mean those breeders who currently breed dogs, in limited controlled numbers, who would accept an unwanted pup back in order to rehome it, and who are interested in the mental and physical welfare of the dog as opposed to the appearance-orientated requirements of the KC. These breeders would not abandon their bitches once they have passed their reproductive age, nor would they destroy puppies who did not fit the appearance stereotypes that some in the dog world insist on.
There are many good points in the current legislation. For example:
I believe that most legitimate breeders adhere to the above principles.
Therefore the scope of the existing Act needs to be expanded to include any and all dog breeder, even if it is a hobby breeder, accidental, or a one-off. Every single pregnant bitch must be Registered through their owner and the above criteria met (and expanded on).
The cost of the license varies widely from area to area, I have seen as low as £95 and as much as £270. These fees are however inadequate because they fail to take into account the number of dogs produced. I would introduce fees based on breeding bitches and dogs (those dogs that have not been neutered), and the number of puppies produced.
A basic annual registration fee of £100 for the License
£50 for each unneutered bitch ***
£25 for each male ***
£25 for each puppy born in the previous tax year. ***
*** this is the Registered nature of the dogs
Using the above example, a breeder with two bitches (assuming they use stud dogs) that each had a little with a total of 10 puppies produced in 2009/10 would pay £450 in 2010/11. If during 2010/11 they gave their bitches a rest, and no puppies were produced the license would fall in 2011/12 to £200 or they could simply allow their license to expire and not pay anything in 2011/12. The license would need to be tight to avoid people getting their bitches pregnant in one tax year, but only registering them in the tax year the puppies are born.
In addition to the criteria mentioned above the following should be added or amended:
Dog Breeding Act
Part 1
Licensing of Breeders
The current process for licensing breeders is aimed squarely at the legitimate breeder*. Unfortunately the scope is far too weak. First off, it is generally used to describe breeders whose bitches produce a total of five or more litters a year. Many legitimate breeders do not fall into this category, and the hobby breeder is almost totally excluded (as was the intention of the misguided Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, amended in the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999.
* I use this term to mean those breeders who currently breed dogs, in limited controlled numbers, who would accept an unwanted pup back in order to rehome it, and who are interested in the mental and physical welfare of the dog as opposed to the appearance-orientated requirements of the KC. These breeders would not abandon their bitches once they have passed their reproductive age, nor would they destroy puppies who did not fit the appearance stereotypes that some in the dog world insist on.
There are many good points in the current legislation. For example:
- Bitches are not to be mated until they are at least 12 months old.
- No bitch is permitted to have more than 6 litters in total.
- Bitches must not give birth to puppies within 12 months of producing a previous litter.
- All first time licences must involve the inspection of the premises by a vet and ourselves.
- Subsequent inspections may be by ourselves alone though we may call a vet if we feel the need to.
- A licensed breeder must not sell a dog to a member of the public if he/she believes that person will then sell the dog on to another individual.
- Dogs must not be sold under 8 weeks of age other than to a licensed pet shop.**
I believe that most legitimate breeders adhere to the above principles.
Therefore the scope of the existing Act needs to be expanded to include any and all dog breeder, even if it is a hobby breeder, accidental, or a one-off. Every single pregnant bitch must be Registered through their owner and the above criteria met (and expanded on).
The cost of the license varies widely from area to area, I have seen as low as £95 and as much as £270. These fees are however inadequate because they fail to take into account the number of dogs produced. I would introduce fees based on breeding bitches and dogs (those dogs that have not been neutered), and the number of puppies produced.
A basic annual registration fee of £100 for the License
£50 for each unneutered bitch ***
£25 for each male ***
£25 for each puppy born in the previous tax year. ***
*** this is the Registered nature of the dogs
Using the above example, a breeder with two bitches (assuming they use stud dogs) that each had a little with a total of 10 puppies produced in 2009/10 would pay £450 in 2010/11. If during 2010/11 they gave their bitches a rest, and no puppies were produced the license would fall in 2011/12 to £200 or they could simply allow their license to expire and not pay anything in 2011/12. The license would need to be tight to avoid people getting their bitches pregnant in one tax year, but only registering them in the tax year the puppies are born.
In addition to the criteria mentioned above the following should be added or amended:
- breeders are legally responsible for vetting prospective owners and keeping detailed contact information of those they sell their puppies too
- breeders are under obligation to accept a puppy back from the new owner if within four weeks the new owner wishes to surrender their dog (no refund necessary)
- all puppies produced must be microchipped by a veterinary practitioner
- veterinary professionals are legally required to add pregnant bitches and puppies to the database (mentioned below).
- a free public database will set up linking the breeder, the dogs, their puppies, the microchip numbers and the new owners.
- new owners will be traced via the microchips if their dogs are found, and will be charged any incarceration rates applicable, and should they decide to refuse to accept their dog back shall be liable for all kennel and related expenses up to that point, with an additional fixed penalty. Such payments being made to the authorities are then paid either to the local authority or charitable body caring for the animal. Such persons would also be liable to an immediate ban on buying animals (their details stored on the database).
A difference needs to be made between Licensed Breeder and Registered Dogs. The breeder must be licensed, paying the above fees. The breeder must all ensure their dogs are Registered, this encompasses all their adult dogs, whether owned for pleasure, business or hobby breeding or not AND all the puppies produced and available for sale or rehoming. Failure to comply with any of these measures would face a financial penalty, and possible cancelation of their license.
Now the biggest concern of this is non-compliance, but Part 2 of the Dog Breeding Act deals with this by ensuring that only registered licensed breeders can advertise the sale of dogs (other than dog rescues/charities) in ANY medium.
Could you realitiscally keep all your puppies if you could not sell them?
This was the wise poser raised on our Facebook page a few days ago. The poster raises a valid and interesting point. Only today we had a 'breeder' ring to ask if we could take a puppy off him - the owner had returned it, and it was not getting on with his "bitch".
When people face very real social economic problems that result in the reluctant surrendering of their dog, they will take priority over a arrogant and selfish breeder who cannot accept responsibility for the problem he has caused.
We therefore would decline help in this case. In fact, the only circumstance where we would help is if we received a financial contribution and the bitch being neutered. With over 100,000 stray and unwanted dogs (Animal Madhouse, Channel 4, November 3 2010) in the UK at the moment, and as many 40% of them Staffordshire bull terriers there can be no corner given to the unscrupulous breeder whose sole intention is to make money.
[I stress unscrupulous because I do want to separate those that breed wisely and in limited numbers, who are responsible with those they sell their puppies to, and who willingly accept and attempt to rehome (themselves) those puppies that are returned, from those that have led the recent explosion in Staffordshire bull terriers.]
When people face very real social economic problems that result in the reluctant surrendering of their dog, they will take priority over a arrogant and selfish breeder who cannot accept responsibility for the problem he has caused.
We therefore would decline help in this case. In fact, the only circumstance where we would help is if we received a financial contribution and the bitch being neutered. With over 100,000 stray and unwanted dogs (Animal Madhouse, Channel 4, November 3 2010) in the UK at the moment, and as many 40% of them Staffordshire bull terriers there can be no corner given to the unscrupulous breeder whose sole intention is to make money.
[I stress unscrupulous because I do want to separate those that breed wisely and in limited numbers, who are responsible with those they sell their puppies to, and who willingly accept and attempt to rehome (themselves) those puppies that are returned, from those that have led the recent explosion in Staffordshire bull terriers.]
So what is the answer? It is difficult to see a way of reducing unnecessary or unwanted breeding without tough measures, back by legislation, penalties and a strict licensing regime.
Over the next few posts I will put forward my proposal to control breeding, to allow legitimate breeders to continue to operate and to hopefully inconvenience those others to the point that it no longer becomes a financially beneficial process.
Monday, 1 November 2010
Donation Drive-Thru Sunday 7 November 2010
A major push for donated items will be trailed at Tesco Superstore, Birmingham Road, Dudley on Sunday 7 November 2010.
Thanks to the kind people at Tesco, Happy Staffie Rescue have been given permission to set up a point in the carpark of their store.
Donors can come between 10:30am and 2pm to drop off clothing, shoes, hats, jewellery, handbags, books, videos, DVDs, CDs, records, curtains, wool, kitchenware, housewares, bathroom, gifts, vases, ornaments, pictures, mirrors, toys, games, sports and keep fit equipment, seasonal, DIY, gardening and general bric a brac.
REMEMBER, where fabrics are concerned we can accept damaged goods as we can sell these for recycling.
For more information please go to Donation Drive Thru
Thanks to the kind people at Tesco, Happy Staffie Rescue have been given permission to set up a point in the carpark of their store.
Donors can come between 10:30am and 2pm to drop off clothing, shoes, hats, jewellery, handbags, books, videos, DVDs, CDs, records, curtains, wool, kitchenware, housewares, bathroom, gifts, vases, ornaments, pictures, mirrors, toys, games, sports and keep fit equipment, seasonal, DIY, gardening and general bric a brac.
REMEMBER, where fabrics are concerned we can accept damaged goods as we can sell these for recycling.
For more information please go to Donation Drive Thru
Monday, 4 October 2010
Inter-departmental information sharing
It is such a shame that as yet, the Governments various intertwining bodies do not join up in sharing information.
The Data Protection Act, much like Health and Safety advice can be taken to strictly, resulting in little or no information being shared when it would actually benefit the customer.
An example for us is our accounts. We are a registered charity (England and Wales) so our accounts have to be submitted to the Charity Commission. Our legal framework is a company limited by guarantee (no share capital) so we also have to submit the same accounts to Companies House. In addition, because it is a company (in name) the same accounts also have to be submitted to HM Revenue and Customs.
Each has their own way of doing it.
For the Charity Commission will simply log on and upload a pdf file of the accounts, which over time will then appear on our listing on their web site.
For Companies House the accounts can again be submitted online, though in our case our accountant is sending them direct.
HMRC need the accounts sent as well, and again they can be done online or by post.
What a shame that it cannot be sent to one of them, and the information shared to interested parties.
Of a more frustrating concern is that HMRC does not accept the charity being registered with the Charity Commission as proof it is actually a charity. So we have to complete a form of dozen pages, send them the same Memorandum and Articles of Association that were also sent to both the Commission and Companies House, a copy of our accounts (ditto), and examples of our charitable activities. They then decide whether we charitable and can claim Gift Aid.
I understand both the tax code and the Charity Commission are reviewing practices, but I guess it would somewhat stretching it to believe that joined-up government would come from this.
The Data Protection Act, much like Health and Safety advice can be taken to strictly, resulting in little or no information being shared when it would actually benefit the customer.
An example for us is our accounts. We are a registered charity (England and Wales) so our accounts have to be submitted to the Charity Commission. Our legal framework is a company limited by guarantee (no share capital) so we also have to submit the same accounts to Companies House. In addition, because it is a company (in name) the same accounts also have to be submitted to HM Revenue and Customs.
Each has their own way of doing it.
For the Charity Commission will simply log on and upload a pdf file of the accounts, which over time will then appear on our listing on their web site.
For Companies House the accounts can again be submitted online, though in our case our accountant is sending them direct.
HMRC need the accounts sent as well, and again they can be done online or by post.
What a shame that it cannot be sent to one of them, and the information shared to interested parties.
Of a more frustrating concern is that HMRC does not accept the charity being registered with the Charity Commission as proof it is actually a charity. So we have to complete a form of dozen pages, send them the same Memorandum and Articles of Association that were also sent to both the Commission and Companies House, a copy of our accounts (ditto), and examples of our charitable activities. They then decide whether we charitable and can claim Gift Aid.
I understand both the tax code and the Charity Commission are reviewing practices, but I guess it would somewhat stretching it to believe that joined-up government would come from this.
Sunday, 12 September 2010
GuideStar listing
If you require further information about the charity we have updated our free listing on the GuideStar.org.uk web site.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
What a fantastic month of new homes!
August was a brilliant month for Happy Staffie Rescue.
During those 31 days our small charity was able to successfully rehome eight stray or unwanted Staffordshire bull terriers, arguably one of the most difficult dog to rehome.
It gives a tremendous sense of achievement but no pride, because as eight go out, there is always another eight waiting to come in.
However we can but wonder why some other rescues with much larger resources and with fewer Staffies in their care can struggle to rehome even one.
These wonderful dogs deserve the best of second chances and our brilliant team of volunteers have delivered a super month for Happy Staffie Rescue.
During those 31 days our small charity was able to successfully rehome eight stray or unwanted Staffordshire bull terriers, arguably one of the most difficult dog to rehome.
It gives a tremendous sense of achievement but no pride, because as eight go out, there is always another eight waiting to come in.
However we can but wonder why some other rescues with much larger resources and with fewer Staffies in their care can struggle to rehome even one.
These wonderful dogs deserve the best of second chances and our brilliant team of volunteers have delivered a super month for Happy Staffie Rescue.
Friday, 30 July 2010
Independent Examination complete
The independent examination of the accounts (as required by law) have been completed by our accountants and the final accounts and report for 2009-10 is now complete.
Now that was a journey.
My continued thanks to Tim Pearce and Crump Pearce & Co. for his advice and help.
Now that was a journey.
My continued thanks to Tim Pearce and Crump Pearce & Co. for his advice and help.
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Stourbridge opens its doors
Our second charity has opened its door after Mark led a team of volunteers at breakneck pace to fit the shop out to our standards.
Well done to Mark and his many friends and family, the valued volunteers of Happy Staffie Rescue.
The success of Stourbridge will allow more funds to be put towards the welfare of dogs, part of our long term strategy to have sufficient income to have our own rehoming centre in the future.
Well done to Mark and his many friends and family, the valued volunteers of Happy Staffie Rescue.
The success of Stourbridge will allow more funds to be put towards the welfare of dogs, part of our long term strategy to have sufficient income to have our own rehoming centre in the future.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
We're moving forward - our next charity shop is required
Even before the ink is dry on the completion of the lease for our second charity shop we are searching for the next location for a successful Happy Staffie Rescue charity shop.
Our first charity shop has provided invaluable income for the charity during the course of the last ten months. It is a model we hope to replicate in Stourbridge.
If successful Stourbridge will lead us directly into our third charity shop. Time, funds and the availability of our people to offer their services in their own time and entirely voluntarily will determine whether our third charity shop occurs in the calendar year.
Our aim, if all goes to plan is to open the third shop before the end of September. This is an incredibly tight schedule considering that no site has yet been found. Negotiations can drag on for weeks on end but if we find the right property we will pursue it as swiftly as is reasonable.
Ideally we would like to move into Bromsgrove next. We have good support from within the town and it is an appropriate geographical location from our base in Kidderminster.
Our first charity shop has provided invaluable income for the charity during the course of the last ten months. It is a model we hope to replicate in Stourbridge.
If successful Stourbridge will lead us directly into our third charity shop. Time, funds and the availability of our people to offer their services in their own time and entirely voluntarily will determine whether our third charity shop occurs in the calendar year.
Our aim, if all goes to plan is to open the third shop before the end of September. This is an incredibly tight schedule considering that no site has yet been found. Negotiations can drag on for weeks on end but if we find the right property we will pursue it as swiftly as is reasonable.
Ideally we would like to move into Bromsgrove next. We have good support from within the town and it is an appropriate geographical location from our base in Kidderminster.
2nd charity shop
We have completed our lease for our second charity shop.
The new charity shop will be located at No.7 Market Street, Stourbridge.
We are due to obtain the keys tomorrow and Mark will begin the intense process of fitting the shop out over the next couple of weeks.
Mark is an asset to the charity not least for his enormous retail experience up to various management positions and of course is years of voluntary charity work. His knowledge is essential in this process as he sources the fixtures and fittings required and builds the interior according to his own design and specifications.
Together we are working to ensure that this process is completed for the least amount of money possible and have already sourced products from four separate specialist suppliers to obtain the best value for the charity.
At this early stage we have a target date of 3 July 2010 as our opening. Whether we go for a soft opening before this will depend on the work required to build the shop.
The new charity shop will be located at No.7 Market Street, Stourbridge.
We are due to obtain the keys tomorrow and Mark will begin the intense process of fitting the shop out over the next couple of weeks.
Mark is an asset to the charity not least for his enormous retail experience up to various management positions and of course is years of voluntary charity work. His knowledge is essential in this process as he sources the fixtures and fittings required and builds the interior according to his own design and specifications.
Together we are working to ensure that this process is completed for the least amount of money possible and have already sourced products from four separate specialist suppliers to obtain the best value for the charity.
At this early stage we have a target date of 3 July 2010 as our opening. Whether we go for a soft opening before this will depend on the work required to build the shop.
Friday, 4 June 2010
Charitable Incorporated Organisation
A new format for forming and running a charity could become a reality in 2011 - the Charitable Incorporated Organisation.
This new format gives charities the security of a legal entity while removing the duplication of the reporting requirements of Companies House. This in theory should cut administration and accounting costs.
However, this is yet to be passed through Parliament and with a new Government with what is almost certain to be a busy parliamentary period the chances of the CIO seeing the light of day could be slim.
When I first of the CIO I thought it was a wise idea, simply for removing the reporting requirement to Companies House. However there is the very real concern over whether the CIO will be quickly recognised as the entity it is. CIO's will still be registered charities, but they will be a "CIO" and this might deter some people. It will be particularly problematic for those charities that sources funds from overseas where the CIO entity will be unknown.
While moving the framework of the charity from a company limited by guarantee (no share capital) to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation is very appealing, the manner in which it has to be undertaken is not. To move from one to the other the registered charity cannot simply fill a form in or press a button. They have to register the new CIO, then wind up the existing company and transfer all the assets to the CIO. For amateurs and volunteers such as ourselves this might be a bridge too far. We could probably engage an accountant or a solicitor to do the work for us, but at what cost?
Time will tell whether the CIO does become a reality and at that time we will consider long and hard over the long term benefits of moving to the new structure.
This new format gives charities the security of a legal entity while removing the duplication of the reporting requirements of Companies House. This in theory should cut administration and accounting costs.
However, this is yet to be passed through Parliament and with a new Government with what is almost certain to be a busy parliamentary period the chances of the CIO seeing the light of day could be slim.
When I first of the CIO I thought it was a wise idea, simply for removing the reporting requirement to Companies House. However there is the very real concern over whether the CIO will be quickly recognised as the entity it is. CIO's will still be registered charities, but they will be a "CIO" and this might deter some people. It will be particularly problematic for those charities that sources funds from overseas where the CIO entity will be unknown.
While moving the framework of the charity from a company limited by guarantee (no share capital) to a Charitable Incorporated Organisation is very appealing, the manner in which it has to be undertaken is not. To move from one to the other the registered charity cannot simply fill a form in or press a button. They have to register the new CIO, then wind up the existing company and transfer all the assets to the CIO. For amateurs and volunteers such as ourselves this might be a bridge too far. We could probably engage an accountant or a solicitor to do the work for us, but at what cost?
Time will tell whether the CIO does become a reality and at that time we will consider long and hard over the long term benefits of moving to the new structure.
Learning the ropes of bookkeeping
There are many learning curves to be navigated with setting up and running a charity for the first time. We chose the company framework at the outset because of the benefits this provided for securing contracts, leases, employing staff, etc as well as providing a legal identity in its own right.
The complication for this is the reporting requirements to both Companies House and the Charity Commission. This means the accounts have to be submitted twice.
That said I have to raise my hat to Tim Pearce at Crump Pearce & Co., our accountants. Their reassuring, down to earth and approachable manner has helped us put our first year accounts together. Their advice has been invaluable and I would not hesitate to recommend their services. Their insight has helped shape the format of my books for the 2010/11 accounting period, which despite my earlier concern actually makes them far easier to work through and understand making the analysis far easier to see.
The complication for this is the reporting requirements to both Companies House and the Charity Commission. This means the accounts have to be submitted twice.
That said I have to raise my hat to Tim Pearce at Crump Pearce & Co., our accountants. Their reassuring, down to earth and approachable manner has helped us put our first year accounts together. Their advice has been invaluable and I would not hesitate to recommend their services. Their insight has helped shape the format of my books for the 2010/11 accounting period, which despite my earlier concern actually makes them far easier to work through and understand making the analysis far easier to see.
Second shop approaching...
After a protracted period of negotiations, a period when all bets were off, the negotiations for our second shop are finally nearing conclusion.
What has compounded our attempt to open this shop is mainly the fact that volunteers can only do their thing (me included) when we're not at work, and when we're not at work is usually when those people who need to speak are also not at work. Needless to say this means an e-mail can take 24 hours to reply to, or phone messages a similar time to respond.
This manner of negotiation while having some advantages also can cause confusion. Every lease we negotiate gives us more experience for the next, and there will be more. Our medium term plan is to open several charity shops as these provide a degree of stable income. The retail side of the charity is also linked to our long-term aim of our own kennels which will take a considerable length of time to become a reality.
As of today final terms seem to have been agreed, a schedule of ingoing condition has been prepared and we not await the final go-ahead from the landlord. Obviously all this is still subject to final lease as it has yet to be presented with the last amendments in place. That said, we hope to be signing the lease during the first half of June.
What has compounded our attempt to open this shop is mainly the fact that volunteers can only do their thing (me included) when we're not at work, and when we're not at work is usually when those people who need to speak are also not at work. Needless to say this means an e-mail can take 24 hours to reply to, or phone messages a similar time to respond.
This manner of negotiation while having some advantages also can cause confusion. Every lease we negotiate gives us more experience for the next, and there will be more. Our medium term plan is to open several charity shops as these provide a degree of stable income. The retail side of the charity is also linked to our long-term aim of our own kennels which will take a considerable length of time to become a reality.
As of today final terms seem to have been agreed, a schedule of ingoing condition has been prepared and we not await the final go-ahead from the landlord. Obviously all this is still subject to final lease as it has yet to be presented with the last amendments in place. That said, we hope to be signing the lease during the first half of June.
Sunday, 18 April 2010
Dog Show, Sunday 9 May 2010
Happy Staffie Rescue will be holding a companion Dog Show on Sunday 9 May 2010 in conjunction with Birch Hill Dog Rescue.
The Dog Show is open to all breeds and will be held under Kennel Club rules and show regulations.
There is also a novelty ring and a ring for Staffordshire bull terriers judged by the President of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club.
The event will be held at Riverside Meadow, Stourport on Severn.
Entries can be registered from 10am and we hope to get under way at 11am.
For more information please click here.
The Dog Show is open to all breeds and will be held under Kennel Club rules and show regulations.
There is also a novelty ring and a ring for Staffordshire bull terriers judged by the President of the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club.
The event will be held at Riverside Meadow, Stourport on Severn.
Entries can be registered from 10am and we hope to get under way at 11am.
For more information please click here.
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
HSR welcomes Charnock Shepherd
Happy Staffie Rescue has chosen Charnock Shepherd as our approved veterinary surgeons for the Happy Staffie Rescue Subsidised Neutering Programme.
Agreement on how the process would work administratively was agreed swiftly and we look forward to utilising the expertise of Charnock Shepherd over the coming months.
Thank you Graeme and Louise.
Agreement on how the process would work administratively was agreed swiftly and we look forward to utilising the expertise of Charnock Shepherd over the coming months.
Thank you Graeme and Louise.
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Upcoming car boots
Sunday April 25
Sunday May 23
Sunday June 27
Alveley Recreation Ground
Open to buyers from 11am.
Booters can prepare from 9:30am.
Pitches from £5.00.
Buyer entry by donation.
Please click here for more information
Sunday May 23
Sunday June 27
Alveley Recreation Ground
Open to buyers from 11am.
Booters can prepare from 9:30am.
Pitches from £5.00.
Buyer entry by donation.
Please click here for more information
Happy Staffie Rescue Neutering Programme
Happy Staffie Rescue believes the world has enough dogs. There are enough genuine reputable breeders and more than enough puppy-farmers and others in the industry of breeding for the sole purpose of money.
That is why, in tune with many other dog rescue organisations Happy Staffie Rescue neuters (and microchips) all of the dogs in our care. Sometimes if a dog comes in and goes out very quickly it may not be possible to do so while directly in our care but we ensure that the dog does gets its op! We issue a voucher that the new owner can use at an approved veterinary practice.
Now we have our Happy Staffie Rescue Neutering Programme aimed at members of the public who already own a Staffordshire bull terrier but who cannot afford the expensive cost of neutering.
We started this initiative in March partly as a result of limited kennel space impacting our public benefit. We have used funds available to further our charitable objectives by reducing unwanted or unnecessary pregnancies and the associated problems to the wider community that this can cause.
We have had a good start, with five enquiries received and four approved for funding (the fifth is just waiting on the application form to be returned!).
We will continue the Programme for as long as funds permit, even though we have now secured additional kennel space and have begun again to increase the number of dogs in our care. The Programme strengthens our objectives and in a very small way contributes to the community by hopefully avoiding unwanted pregnancies and the litters that follow.
Click here for more information.
That is why, in tune with many other dog rescue organisations Happy Staffie Rescue neuters (and microchips) all of the dogs in our care. Sometimes if a dog comes in and goes out very quickly it may not be possible to do so while directly in our care but we ensure that the dog does gets its op! We issue a voucher that the new owner can use at an approved veterinary practice.
Now we have our Happy Staffie Rescue Neutering Programme aimed at members of the public who already own a Staffordshire bull terrier but who cannot afford the expensive cost of neutering.
We started this initiative in March partly as a result of limited kennel space impacting our public benefit. We have used funds available to further our charitable objectives by reducing unwanted or unnecessary pregnancies and the associated problems to the wider community that this can cause.
We have had a good start, with five enquiries received and four approved for funding (the fifth is just waiting on the application form to be returned!).
We will continue the Programme for as long as funds permit, even though we have now secured additional kennel space and have begun again to increase the number of dogs in our care. The Programme strengthens our objectives and in a very small way contributes to the community by hopefully avoiding unwanted pregnancies and the litters that follow.
Click here for more information.
Monday, 12 April 2010
The importance of the home check
Home checks are essential in finding a new home for a dog looking for second chance. They are a vital check for the charity to ensure it is giving the dog the best opportunity for a happy ever after life.
To this end the checks can seem to those receiving them to be inquisitive and intense, prying and invasion but no one should feel that these checks are in way unnecessary.
Just today I received word that the RSPCA had seized a dog from a man suspected of being a drug addict and of repeatedly physically abusing his dog. The dog - thankfully not from Happy Staffie Rescue - had been rehomed from another dog rescue charity. A charity that I assume operates home checks in most if not all cases.
It is easy from the outside to decry the failings of a system designed to prevent such circumstances but a proper home check should go a considerable way to avoiding them. That said, the information gained at a home check is based almost entirely on what the potential owner says and does.
I remember a very valid point raised by another dog rescue about homes check. They pointed out that you can check that the fence of a garden is secure for the dog in question, but nothing you do at that point will tell you whether if the following week the fence blew down that the owner would repair it. Trust is essential.
As a responsible charity looking to rehome dogs to a loving home as a companion animal minimum requirements would include regular exercised, suitable bedding indoors and a family unit suitable for the dog, i.e. no children beneath a certain age and all members of the household agreeing with the idea of having a dog.
Potential owners should never fear in asking why questions are asked. They should also never feel that questions are chosen specifically for them. Our home-checkers go prepared with a standard form of questions, though naturally issues within the home could lead to further questions.
The very last thing any dog rescue should want is harm coming to the dog, the dog being returned or members of the household being injured by the dog. The home checks goes a large way to ensuring these things do not happen, though they are never watertight.
To this end the checks can seem to those receiving them to be inquisitive and intense, prying and invasion but no one should feel that these checks are in way unnecessary.
Just today I received word that the RSPCA had seized a dog from a man suspected of being a drug addict and of repeatedly physically abusing his dog. The dog - thankfully not from Happy Staffie Rescue - had been rehomed from another dog rescue charity. A charity that I assume operates home checks in most if not all cases.
It is easy from the outside to decry the failings of a system designed to prevent such circumstances but a proper home check should go a considerable way to avoiding them. That said, the information gained at a home check is based almost entirely on what the potential owner says and does.
I remember a very valid point raised by another dog rescue about homes check. They pointed out that you can check that the fence of a garden is secure for the dog in question, but nothing you do at that point will tell you whether if the following week the fence blew down that the owner would repair it. Trust is essential.
As a responsible charity looking to rehome dogs to a loving home as a companion animal minimum requirements would include regular exercised, suitable bedding indoors and a family unit suitable for the dog, i.e. no children beneath a certain age and all members of the household agreeing with the idea of having a dog.
Potential owners should never fear in asking why questions are asked. They should also never feel that questions are chosen specifically for them. Our home-checkers go prepared with a standard form of questions, though naturally issues within the home could lead to further questions.
The very last thing any dog rescue should want is harm coming to the dog, the dog being returned or members of the household being injured by the dog. The home checks goes a large way to ensuring these things do not happen, though they are never watertight.
Sunday, 11 April 2010
Battling families over legacies
I am concerned how some charities seem to take legal action, funded from the proceeds of their hard-earned (surely?) donations. After all, those same hard-fought donations have come from members of the public who believe the money they give, no matter how small will contribute in some way to the good causes the charity is fighting for.
The priority for all charities is a clear public benefit, but for some charities the desire to collect as much as money as easily as possible overrides everything else. No easier way than to unleash a pack of solicitors on the mourning relatives of deceased benefactor.
I am sure there are given situations where as a beneficiary a charity needs to defend its share of the legacy as it could be said that it is in some way protecting its income, having strict financial controls and so on. However there is a question of morality that must also come into it.
The same should be said of course for those 'relatives' of the deceased who having no relationship with the deceased seek then to have slice of the cake that was never intended for them. Entitlement may often exceed intention when it comes to wills and the courts.
It seems strange that the last will and testament of a person can be so dissected in a court.
That said, perhaps some legacies are so poorly written that their ultimate intention is easily undermined by someone with the brain and background of a solicitor.
Still, it amazes me that the RSPCA can spend £1.3 million in legal costs to fight for more money from an estate. Even if it had won (which it didn't), the gains from the estate would not have massively exceeded their legal bill. How did it ever get to the point of spending £1.3 million? I am flabbergasted that no one at no point said 'whoa!' The case of Caroline Gill shows that no one did shout 'whoa!'.
I can fully understand defending a source of income, but clearly the legal advice needs to be balanced somewhat. Last month the RSPCA was again lambasted by a court for pursuing another estate (George Mason). You can read the article in the Daily Mail here.
The priority for all charities is a clear public benefit, but for some charities the desire to collect as much as money as easily as possible overrides everything else. No easier way than to unleash a pack of solicitors on the mourning relatives of deceased benefactor.
I am sure there are given situations where as a beneficiary a charity needs to defend its share of the legacy as it could be said that it is in some way protecting its income, having strict financial controls and so on. However there is a question of morality that must also come into it.
The same should be said of course for those 'relatives' of the deceased who having no relationship with the deceased seek then to have slice of the cake that was never intended for them. Entitlement may often exceed intention when it comes to wills and the courts.
It seems strange that the last will and testament of a person can be so dissected in a court.
That said, perhaps some legacies are so poorly written that their ultimate intention is easily undermined by someone with the brain and background of a solicitor.
Still, it amazes me that the RSPCA can spend £1.3 million in legal costs to fight for more money from an estate. Even if it had won (which it didn't), the gains from the estate would not have massively exceeded their legal bill. How did it ever get to the point of spending £1.3 million? I am flabbergasted that no one at no point said 'whoa!' The case of Caroline Gill shows that no one did shout 'whoa!'.
I can fully understand defending a source of income, but clearly the legal advice needs to be balanced somewhat. Last month the RSPCA was again lambasted by a court for pursuing another estate (George Mason). You can read the article in the Daily Mail here.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
Compare Pet Care
Happy Staffie Rescue welcomes Compare Pet Care and the opportunity to raise vital funds through the services Compare Pet Care can provide.
Rescue centre costs
I would love to have a breakdown of just what it costs to manage a dog rescue centre. Our long term goal is to get a facility where all the dogs we care for are in one place with a visiting centre and possibly a treatment (and possibly even a resident vet, who knows). But it is very difficult to find out exactly what the costs are. I have had a look at the accounts of other dog rescue charities, and those that I have found that give breakdowns seem to spend strange sums of certain areas - for example one spent £3 a day on dog food. That's a premium diet! Surely even if the very best dog food was purchased a discount could be obtained, or even purchased at wholesale price from a warehouse.
Our own rescue centre is of course a long, long term aim. We have very favourable terms with Birch Hill Kennels and for the present time we could not consider anything but using their services. However BHK have their own dogs and are linked to Birch Hill Dog Rescue so space is at a premium. While we remain small, and our funds limited we can only cater for the number of dogs we currently have, but as funds increase as they hopefully will we will need to revisit kennel space again, possibly looking at other kennels to use. This of course is not ideal. We prefer to have all our dogs in one place for a number of reasons but this may not be viable in the short term.
What I am trying to find out is the day to day costs - electric, gas, water, refuge, food, cleaning, salaries, veterinary bills, rates, etc, everything except the actual cost of the land and buildings.
The cost of buildings and land is something altogether different. It seems we have to look at one of several options a) buying an existing boarding kennel b) buying a house with land and renovating, c) buying farm buildings/land or d) a complete new build. Each of the options as pros and cons that I won't labour on about here. Besides it remains a dream for us at this stage, but one that we are nonetheless focused on achieving.
Our own rescue centre is of course a long, long term aim. We have very favourable terms with Birch Hill Kennels and for the present time we could not consider anything but using their services. However BHK have their own dogs and are linked to Birch Hill Dog Rescue so space is at a premium. While we remain small, and our funds limited we can only cater for the number of dogs we currently have, but as funds increase as they hopefully will we will need to revisit kennel space again, possibly looking at other kennels to use. This of course is not ideal. We prefer to have all our dogs in one place for a number of reasons but this may not be viable in the short term.
What I am trying to find out is the day to day costs - electric, gas, water, refuge, food, cleaning, salaries, veterinary bills, rates, etc, everything except the actual cost of the land and buildings.
The cost of buildings and land is something altogether different. It seems we have to look at one of several options a) buying an existing boarding kennel b) buying a house with land and renovating, c) buying farm buildings/land or d) a complete new build. Each of the options as pros and cons that I won't labour on about here. Besides it remains a dream for us at this stage, but one that we are nonetheless focused on achieving.
Reserves policy
Every charity has a reserve policy and every charity should revisit its policy at regular intervals to ensure it remains fit for purpose. Our reserve policy is designed to ensure we have sufficient funds available to continue our charitable activities should funding suddenly come to an end. While such an eventually should be unlikely (because intervention should address funding issues unless the charity depends on a large amount of its annual income from a single source that could be withdrawn at short notice - such as a grant), it is a model used by other charities. Our reserve policy could look like this:
However the above formula does not take into account other costs such as veterinary expenses that may occur. Therefore before a figure for Funds(£)available is given an amount should be deducted to reflect unforeseen veterinary costs. For our purposes we have deducted £1,000 based on the number of dogs in our care.
However the above formula does not take into account other costs such as veterinary expenses that may occur. Therefore before a figure for Funds(£)available is given an amount should be deducted to reflect unforeseen veterinary costs. For our purposes we have deducted £1,000 based on the number of dogs in our care.
Happy Staffie no.13 has started his new life
The 13th successful rehoming from Happy Staffie Rescue has just taken place. Thanks again to our volunteer Welfare Manager Donna. We are very happy that he will be starting a new life in a loving new home and wish his new family all the very best for the future.
Things have certainly moved quickly since we began.
We began our charitable fundraising 31 May 2009, and became registered as a company 23 June 2009. While we were a charity by then we could not register as one until we had raised £5,000. This meant that we had to put up with some sniping from one (and only one I might add) other dog charity who saw us not as a cooperative force in animal welfare but as competition; this despite us forging good links with Blue Cross and Worcestershire Animal Rescue Service.
This strange mentality went as far as to question us because we were a company, ignorant of the fact that a great many charities register as companies because this is a recognised framework for charities that want to enter into contracts for services or acquire land. Now we are registered as a charity their sniping has not ended and they still question giving money to charities registered as companies!! Their stupidity must be to believe that a company charity pays a dividend to shareholders (when of course there are no shareholders, and no share capital).
Still they persist. There are others things they have done, one in particular had a marginal effect in undermining our fundraising which we were successful in reddressing after correcting the lies that had been spun. It amazes me that a "charity" could behave in such a way. We considered taking legal advice but decided that this cost money and use valuable time better spent helping the objects of the charity.
Raising the £5,000 required for registration is what Mark and our team of dedicated worked tirelessly towards during the summer of 2009. The summer also saw us take in our first two dogs. Through the autumn we began to take in more dogs and our first successful rehoming took place. In the last six months 13 dogs have been rehomed, and we have 9 dogs currently in our care making 22 stray and/or unwanted Staffies that have come through our organisation in the last six months or so.
We have also started our neutering programme to assist owners on low incomes get their dogs neutered. We have issued three vouchers in the last few weeks to cover the full cost of neutering and will continue this for as long as funds allow, protecting our community from unwanted pregancies and the problems related to this.
These are small numbers though, and we have a waiting list that needs to be addressed. Our second charity shop should increase income to enable to spend more on our charitable activities and therefore take in more dogs in need of a loving new home and benefit the public who can no longer for whatever reason keep them.
Things have certainly moved quickly since we began.
We began our charitable fundraising 31 May 2009, and became registered as a company 23 June 2009. While we were a charity by then we could not register as one until we had raised £5,000. This meant that we had to put up with some sniping from one (and only one I might add) other dog charity who saw us not as a cooperative force in animal welfare but as competition; this despite us forging good links with Blue Cross and Worcestershire Animal Rescue Service.
This strange mentality went as far as to question us because we were a company, ignorant of the fact that a great many charities register as companies because this is a recognised framework for charities that want to enter into contracts for services or acquire land. Now we are registered as a charity their sniping has not ended and they still question giving money to charities registered as companies!! Their stupidity must be to believe that a company charity pays a dividend to shareholders (when of course there are no shareholders, and no share capital).
Still they persist. There are others things they have done, one in particular had a marginal effect in undermining our fundraising which we were successful in reddressing after correcting the lies that had been spun. It amazes me that a "charity" could behave in such a way. We considered taking legal advice but decided that this cost money and use valuable time better spent helping the objects of the charity.
Raising the £5,000 required for registration is what Mark and our team of dedicated worked tirelessly towards during the summer of 2009. The summer also saw us take in our first two dogs. Through the autumn we began to take in more dogs and our first successful rehoming took place. In the last six months 13 dogs have been rehomed, and we have 9 dogs currently in our care making 22 stray and/or unwanted Staffies that have come through our organisation in the last six months or so.
We have also started our neutering programme to assist owners on low incomes get their dogs neutered. We have issued three vouchers in the last few weeks to cover the full cost of neutering and will continue this for as long as funds allow, protecting our community from unwanted pregancies and the problems related to this.
These are small numbers though, and we have a waiting list that needs to be addressed. Our second charity shop should increase income to enable to spend more on our charitable activities and therefore take in more dogs in need of a loving new home and benefit the public who can no longer for whatever reason keep them.
Our next shop
Part of our medium term plans are to open more charity shops to increase fundraising.
Charity shops can deliver healthy levels of income but depend on many factors including location, overheads, recruiting a good manager, access to donated stock, recruiting a dedicated team of volunteers and so on.
But, there is also a risk. The terms need to be sufficient for the charity to exit if things do not work. There is inevitably start up costs that can run in to a low four figure sum (though this depends on the condition and size of the leased property).
We are pleased to have concluded our search for a second shop and have agreed through the agent some major points for a lease subject to a contract. Hopefully this can be resolved quickly over the next few weeks so that we can open our second shop before the end of May.
As a charity becomes established the income from voluntary donations and legacies increases. As a new charity these sources of income are not as common and therefore those incomes classed as Activities for Generating Fund in the SORP are paramount.
Our first charity shop has delivered an excellent return to the charity and we will use a model similar to our Kidderminster shop as we open branches in the future.
Charity shops can deliver healthy levels of income but depend on many factors including location, overheads, recruiting a good manager, access to donated stock, recruiting a dedicated team of volunteers and so on.
But, there is also a risk. The terms need to be sufficient for the charity to exit if things do not work. There is inevitably start up costs that can run in to a low four figure sum (though this depends on the condition and size of the leased property).
We are pleased to have concluded our search for a second shop and have agreed through the agent some major points for a lease subject to a contract. Hopefully this can be resolved quickly over the next few weeks so that we can open our second shop before the end of May.
As a charity becomes established the income from voluntary donations and legacies increases. As a new charity these sources of income are not as common and therefore those incomes classed as Activities for Generating Fund in the SORP are paramount.
Our first charity shop has delivered an excellent return to the charity and we will use a model similar to our Kidderminster shop as we open branches in the future.
Accountants appointed
We are pleased to have appointed Crump Pearce & Co. of Evesham as our chartered accountants to prepare our first annual accounts.
Crump Pearce & Co. were selected partly because of the way they offered help and advice at our initial enquiries and also because of the very generous terms they offered. We were pleased with the help offered by many of the companies we approached and this has reassured us on this next major governance issue.
We look forward to working with Crump Pearce and are excited about the preparation of our first annual accounts and annual report. Our first annual report will appear on our web site in due course.
Crump Pearce & Co. were selected partly because of the way they offered help and advice at our initial enquiries and also because of the very generous terms they offered. We were pleased with the help offered by many of the companies we approached and this has reassured us on this next major governance issue.
We look forward to working with Crump Pearce and are excited about the preparation of our first annual accounts and annual report. Our first annual report will appear on our web site in due course.
Defending MRCTAL?
I have to write something to defend MRCTAL, though it is becoming extremely difficult the more I read.
That organisation has taken a position that it is the leading animal welfare organisation in the country and spends hundreds of thousands of donated pounds reinforcing this view.
They seem to have a rather enthusiastic use of euthanasia for the animals it collects and this in part I believe is because it has allowed itself, in its own words to become the last point of help. Which of course they are not. They want everyone to think that so they get more and more money. Take the case of those ten GSDs - there is a well established GSD rescue that would have been willing to help. They may not have been able to save the dogs but I am sure they would not simply have turned up, written the dogs off and then shot them all.
As anyone in animal welfare will know you will try and help wherever you can, taking in as many animals as you physically and financially can. But, as a charity you have to also ensure you remain solvent and this means ensuring that decisions on charitable activities have to be balanced with the money coming in.
Therefore, as a rescue organisation you have to set limits, and this inevitably means lists of some kind or another. Essentially these are waiting lists, lists for dogs to come in, or people who need financial help with neutering, and so on. The point is there has to be a point at which you have to say no, or at the very least, not yet. It is difficult, can causes arguments, but ensures you can deliver an ongoing service and not simply sink under the burden of charitable activities as the funds dry up.
MRCTAL may still use the no or not yet point, but it seems that if it is destroying so many animals that it is not using no or not yet point enough. They may say in reply that to say no or not yet would undermine its position as the last place people can go to for help. Yet they are not legally bound to take in every animal that they are aware of, simply to do what they can. There are hundreds, probably thousands of small organisations that can help.
Then again, the fact that so many animals are killed every year can also be a vote winner. Such a figure may convince people to donate more and more because of course if MRCTAL had more money they wouldn't need to destroy so many animals. Or would they? Surely they would argue the destruction is necessary due to the state the animal was in? If that is the case then the number of killed would not change if they had more money? If more money would save some of those animals killed then that it is an admission that those animals have been needlessly killed.
This is increasingly not becoming a defence of MRCTAL!
That is why we have a non-destruction policy. We will of course accept veterinary advice for dogs in suffering and beyond help, but thus far, in a short and very small history we have not had to do that. Dogs Trust show that in a very very big way you can save dogs, keep them alive and not have to kill in the many thousands.
That organisation has taken a position that it is the leading animal welfare organisation in the country and spends hundreds of thousands of donated pounds reinforcing this view.
They seem to have a rather enthusiastic use of euthanasia for the animals it collects and this in part I believe is because it has allowed itself, in its own words to become the last point of help. Which of course they are not. They want everyone to think that so they get more and more money. Take the case of those ten GSDs - there is a well established GSD rescue that would have been willing to help. They may not have been able to save the dogs but I am sure they would not simply have turned up, written the dogs off and then shot them all.
As anyone in animal welfare will know you will try and help wherever you can, taking in as many animals as you physically and financially can. But, as a charity you have to also ensure you remain solvent and this means ensuring that decisions on charitable activities have to be balanced with the money coming in.
Therefore, as a rescue organisation you have to set limits, and this inevitably means lists of some kind or another. Essentially these are waiting lists, lists for dogs to come in, or people who need financial help with neutering, and so on. The point is there has to be a point at which you have to say no, or at the very least, not yet. It is difficult, can causes arguments, but ensures you can deliver an ongoing service and not simply sink under the burden of charitable activities as the funds dry up.
MRCTAL may still use the no or not yet point, but it seems that if it is destroying so many animals that it is not using no or not yet point enough. They may say in reply that to say no or not yet would undermine its position as the last place people can go to for help. Yet they are not legally bound to take in every animal that they are aware of, simply to do what they can. There are hundreds, probably thousands of small organisations that can help.
Then again, the fact that so many animals are killed every year can also be a vote winner. Such a figure may convince people to donate more and more because of course if MRCTAL had more money they wouldn't need to destroy so many animals. Or would they? Surely they would argue the destruction is necessary due to the state the animal was in? If that is the case then the number of killed would not change if they had more money? If more money would save some of those animals killed then that it is an admission that those animals have been needlessly killed.
This is increasingly not becoming a defence of MRCTAL!
That is why we have a non-destruction policy. We will of course accept veterinary advice for dogs in suffering and beyond help, but thus far, in a short and very small history we have not had to do that. Dogs Trust show that in a very very big way you can save dogs, keep them alive and not have to kill in the many thousands.
Well done our peeps
I big well done to our volunteers and supportors for completing a gruelling 14 mile sponsored walk from Mid-Counties Co-op, France Road, Kidderminster to the kennels where our dogs are boarded.
Big thanks to Mid-Counties Co-operative for the help they provided with trolleys and space within their Kidderminster store to collect donated foods.
Big thanks to Mid-Counties Co-operative for the help they provided with trolleys and space within their Kidderminster store to collect donated foods.
Hide the truth and keep the wolves at bay
Having written yesterday about the disgusting use of a captive bolt gun by a major animal charity to kill ten GSD I have today come across an indication that the same said charity is using its solicitors to protect its trademark. Therefore I have removed any mention of this organisation in terms of its protected trademark and have replaced it with MRCTAL, which was suggested by Robert Killick
Monday, 5 April 2010
New dog legislation, more wind and red tape
The issue of dangerous dogs has reared itself again in recent weeks. It appears animals are rightly featuring as an issue in the coming election.
Regardless of party politics I do not think anything that any of the political parties are proposing will really make a difference.
What is necessary is a way of controlling the trash-breeders who breed from their bitches over and over again, selling their puppies at whatever price or dumping them on rescue organisations. These people care little where the puppies go, and rarely take them back if things don't work out.
The principle source of customers for these trash-breeders is the classified ad and the pet shop window. This is what should be stopped first. The only people who should be allowed to advertise the sale of any animal should a person licensed to do so (and the license is already there for reputable dog breeders, though it will need to be toughened up a bit), plus charities and rescue organisations. Dog breeders would be required as many of them already do to involve vets in the care of the bitch, chip the puppies and home check the potential owners. The chipping then becomes more effective as this can be linked to any proposed (though ridiculous) insurance database.
Regardless of party politics I do not think anything that any of the political parties are proposing will really make a difference.
What is necessary is a way of controlling the trash-breeders who breed from their bitches over and over again, selling their puppies at whatever price or dumping them on rescue organisations. These people care little where the puppies go, and rarely take them back if things don't work out.
The principle source of customers for these trash-breeders is the classified ad and the pet shop window. This is what should be stopped first. The only people who should be allowed to advertise the sale of any animal should a person licensed to do so (and the license is already there for reputable dog breeders, though it will need to be toughened up a bit), plus charities and rescue organisations. Dog breeders would be required as many of them already do to involve vets in the care of the bitch, chip the puppies and home check the potential owners. The chipping then becomes more effective as this can be linked to any proposed (though ridiculous) insurance database.
Stunned by the "MRCTAL"
I have only just come across the story which worries me. As a news junkie I wonder what bubble I must have been living in to miss this story when it originally broke.
Thanks to this Facebook group I found a link to the Many Tears organisation and on there the news of what the MRCTAL had been doing. You read it in their own words here.
As distressing as the story is I wonder why the MRCTAL has got itself into a position where on the one hand it had rehomed 15,872 stray and unwanted dogs, but on the other had to kill 8,313. I know that among that number there would be those cases that truly are beyond help - and I would expect that most of those are for medical reasons. But when 10 dogs are destroyed in such a brutal manner without any consultation with other rescues it seems the charity has lost its point of being.
Thankfully we are a small charity but we have already experienced a difficult dog. A dog that has displayed aggression and fear and who is requiring intensive therapy and training to get him used to the sights and sounds that had been denied him previously. It is thanks to our dedicated volunteer Donna who has been working with him to get him on the road to recovery. It would sound to me that those 10 GSD's needed similar treatment. Every dog deserves a second chance.
Thanks to this Facebook group I found a link to the Many Tears organisation and on there the news of what the MRCTAL had been doing. You read it in their own words here.
As distressing as the story is I wonder why the MRCTAL has got itself into a position where on the one hand it had rehomed 15,872 stray and unwanted dogs, but on the other had to kill 8,313. I know that among that number there would be those cases that truly are beyond help - and I would expect that most of those are for medical reasons. But when 10 dogs are destroyed in such a brutal manner without any consultation with other rescues it seems the charity has lost its point of being.
Thankfully we are a small charity but we have already experienced a difficult dog. A dog that has displayed aggression and fear and who is requiring intensive therapy and training to get him used to the sights and sounds that had been denied him previously. It is thanks to our dedicated volunteer Donna who has been working with him to get him on the road to recovery. It would sound to me that those 10 GSD's needed similar treatment. Every dog deserves a second chance.
A lot has happened
The charity is now official! The Charity Commission granted registration. The charity has completed its first accounting period (31 March) and as I write the accounts have been closed and sent to an accountant. We have rehomed 12 dogs in the last six months, a small number but we're a small organisation. We've only just started. We have nine in our care at the moment and a long list of people needing our help. We know that the only way we can deliver benefit to the public is to increase fundraising and to this end a second charity shop should hopefully be opening in the next couple of months.
I have devised a strategic plan to fundraising for the next three years which will rely on activities to generate funds until we are established to the point where general donations and legacies become more substantial. The latter form of income is by far the most efficient for a charity because the costs to generate these incomes is minimal. AGF income on the other costs money, though of course provided it is profitable it has much more to offer than just money. It is often a focal point to publicise the dogs and the objects of the charity - to advertise events and request help from volunteers.
I have devised a strategic plan to fundraising for the next three years which will rely on activities to generate funds until we are established to the point where general donations and legacies become more substantial. The latter form of income is by far the most efficient for a charity because the costs to generate these incomes is minimal. AGF income on the other costs money, though of course provided it is profitable it has much more to offer than just money. It is often a focal point to publicise the dogs and the objects of the charity - to advertise events and request help from volunteers.
Monday, 29 March 2010
PAYE End of Year return done
Well that was easy. The HMRC CD-ROM is so easy to use - though having to install the 2010 disk over the 2009 disk just to get to the End of Year bit was a little bizarre. In fact it was so easy it made me a little uneasy - as if I had forgotten something. I think I will give it a few days then ring HMRC just to double-check everything is okay. Thankfully we only have two employees - a shop manager and assistant manager, as I think the HMRC CD-ROM is limited to a small number of employees.
Alverley Car Boot 2010
What a success our first car boot at Alverley has proved to be. A bigger site allowed for a good number of booters and buyers. The day also proved useful in another way in that has provided us with a potential source of income through the Utility Warehouse. Mark was approached by a representative and we will be exploring this in more detail to see what benefit the charity can make from this association.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)