Are You Serious Jo

No, that's the beauty of it, they don't need to outlaw owning pets, they just chip away with ridiculous laws until there are no breeders left. It's subtle so people don't take you seriously when you say that the overall aim is to stop pets.

It is from the show your support to Moorook event page, not his FB page. My screenshot sending friend gave it to me. I was speaking to a Moorook supporter who said she was helping out and I said I thought it best they try to rehome those dogs now because there might come a time when they have to do it quickly. Mark A club also think they will put in FOI requests and find the names of the people who have out in complaints. Sorry Paul, those names will be redacted from the documents when you get them, or people would never be able to complain.

Seems they have 5 days to remove 36 dogs, if what Mark A is saying is true of course. He has also changed his dog numbers from can comfortably house 150 to keeping it at 60 to make it easier on the volunteers and Lola.

They look like they been scissored into poodle puppy clips

I haven't seen it yet but it's far from the hard hitting expose that will shatter the rspca.

I've also read that she works two jobs to support the shelter, but as snook explained, working or not both are issues when it comes to either time available or money available.

Sorry, I was a bit spacey this morning, been sleeping at the stables waiting for a donkey to foal so am a bit distracted :laugh:

Ok, I'm not attacking you but have you ever had to clean kennels? I have worked at kennels and catteries during my PhD and there is no way you can fully clean and feed a kennelled dog in 5 minutes. I'm talking hosing the runs and scrubbing the water and food bowls though, plus change bedding if is needs it. On top is socialisation and meds and for some training to deal with problem behaviours. What happens on the days that Lola is at work and there are no volunteers? Or she has to do an emergency run to the vets and there is no one there. There is an ex volunteer coming in that can fill you in on how the dogs were managed, when independent people all say the thing thing and they haven't met you have to ask yourself why. I am happy to stick to what can be shown to be true and what has been publicly said because I cannot tell all due to not being able to name the source.

Well you could always take a tail instead :laugh:

I remembered my coolie will use his nose if he can't see, such as if he thinks there is a mouse or rat around. I'd be trying to get some really strong male cat scent so it really can't be ignored as a cue to sniff. I have no idea about the tracking training specifics, they might have some nifty tricks but I'd take the bladder of a male next time you get one and store it for training.

It might be really difficult to overcome the eye in a coolie and get them to switch to tracking. The tracking people will obviously be able to talk about training a non traditional breed to track, but you might have more success getting a breed that will track. Would be interesting to see if you can do it though.

That's pretty much spot on. I would loved to have seen Lola accept her limitations and come to an agreement to be compliant with the rspca. I'm not sure they could have forced her and the shelter could be fixed and stay open but that chance dissipated when Mark decided to make it his cause of the month.

Really, people asking for clarification on information widely spread on a serious matter is a witch hunt? That is your professional way of dealing with questions? So the question actually might support the reason we have concerns and your response is to personally attack us. It is one of the most relevant factors in this whole case and underpins both the supporters and non supporters arguments. I have been interested in facts from the start yet no supporters are able to provide anything. Mark's posts are not fact until there is independent verification of what he says and so far there isn't any for any of his claims. Do you believe everything you read on the net?

This needs repeating because it one of the core issues at Moorook, neglect because of not enough time and resources for the number taken in. As such it really should be repeatedly ignored if you are going to defend Moorook. So would you like to explain how it is possible to do the above, seeing as you are a professional in dog behaviour? Because as a professional in animal welfare there is no way I can make it work on paper. You came here so how about you discuss the issues instead of making it personal.

The woman has numerous serious cruelty charges hanging over her head, do you really think that means the rspca are ok with the place? It is far more than untidiness that has lead to the seizure of those animals. The others may have been left because they didn't appear to be in imminent need of veterinary care. Doesn't mean the place isn't a disgrace and they won't be seeking to close her down based on the court case. I'm disgusted that people think it's ok to keep dogs in any conditions as long as they are alive. The council dumped animals on Moorook because it saved them from having to deal with the problem and I hope there is also an investigation into their complicity in this. I really find your comments hard to take seriously as you admit you only have the word of a man with an agenda to go by. The many people who support Lola on FB also have never heard of the place before and just want to jump on the bandwagon. I see you still haven't given an explanation of how one old sick woman who works full time can look after 120 animals a day, is it because you'd have to admit that it is impossible to do properly. How can you be so sure the case will be thrown out, is that Mark's word again? Seeing as the rspca haven't actually made public their defence I would think a professional such as yourself would not be so quick to defend a woman who is facing court on many cruelty charges. If she is found guilty will you be back to apologise? Based on what people know from real experience of Moorook she is going to be in a lot of trouble.

I really hope he settles and gets used to Pepe, he looks like a sad old boy.

I don't know if there really is interest in an rspca shelter up there, Mark claims it is fact but I haven't seen any evidence. I would like to see well run council shelter, but after knowing Lola refuses to do what is best for the animals I don't want to see her do it any more. There are some really good rescues down here, they don't get lots of attention because they just get on with it and aren't caught up in scandals.

Don't forget, that figure of $4000 hasn't been verified either, it might not be true. Mark actually writes a bit then deletes a little later, someone pmed me and told me we were all named on his page again, but this person doesn't know how to get screenshots so we don't have it.

An ex volunteer has joined and is waiting activation, you can get information directly from someone who knows in the inside story.

Oops, I forgot that since they were operating as an animal shelter the ABN doesn't exempt them, so much info my brain is full and I just had a nap. Snook is right.

Christina, people over the years have offered to help, one lady I spoke to offered to replace fencing. Others to to generally help out but Lola turned everyone away. How do you help when you are told to bugger off, literally. I'm not talking about my offer, but others who were weren't critical of her. Why do you think people are shouting, because it has been a disgrace for years and she wouldn't fix it and the rspca wouldn't act. Until this she had very few locals who supported her because they refused to condone what was happening there. Ask yourself why she only has a few regular local volunteers. She only let people in because she was forced to, she NEVER allowed working bees before. Can you work out how one woman can feed, water and clean 120 animals, especially when she is away an entire day going to a vet 3 hours away? She can accept donations, she just can't ask for them or imply she is a shelter or charity. That is the risk you take when you go to TT, they aren't known for their research.

I don't have a vendetta against Mark, I am speaking out about the misinformation and lies he is spreading that affects rescue directly. So what we have established is you don't know Mark, haven't been to Moorook, yet you come here defending him and Moorook based on things you've read on his pages. You tell us, who have proof of the problems at Moorook we don't know what we are saying and it's all just a vendetta. Why did you come here if you cannot back up anything you have said? I haven't seen anything on the alleged rspca shelter for the Riverland yet, can you help me with a link.

Well I only became aware of Mark when he started his disastrous media campaign about Moorook. I'm guessing that the Mark camp have repeated their lie to you that I was thrown out of Moorook by Lola? Except that never happened because I haven't been to Moorook. People here know we had a big thread about Moorook about three years ago. It came out that they weren't desexing and vaccinating all animals before rehoming, didn't have enough money they said. I offered to help by taking a long termer and showing by example how to rehome for a higher price through established rescue resources. I was told they didn't want my help. That has now turned into she is bitter because she was thrown out for being a looney :laugh: I have the pms from the Moorook volunteer tucked away in an archive and when I find it I'll post it. So what reason other than an outright lie would I have for speaking out? That's right, many people told me how bad it was when I lived not far from there. Lots of animal people get to know each other in the Riverland and the conditions at Moorook were no secret. So would you care to talk about any issues that are fact and can be shown to be fact or are you here because Mark needed to send in backup? If you think the things they have done are perfectly ok why are you avoiding talking about them and resorting to mark's tactics of insulting instead? I can keep to the issues, why can't you?

I've been speaking out about the rspca long before I knew about Mark too, so what. So you can't actually address anything I've raised because? You know it's indefensible? You know I will bring out the proof? Why bother coming here if you just wanted to do a cut and paste Mark A propaganda post. The Mark supporters all seem to have one quality in common, they suddenly fall silent when asked specific questions about bad practice that Mark and Moorook themselves posted. It would look bad if you did support the things I've raised. I won't even go into the unprofessionalism you showed by discussing a client. You know I was actually sending people your way, more fool me huh.

I have plenty of people tell me the same thing, people who were volunteers there. You have what, the rantings of a man who is using Moorook to further his political career, or should I say, aspiring career. Would you care to see the screenshot of Moorook admitting to the loose cats? The thing is, we have been working from what Mark or Moorook say, you are working on posts with no evidence. Mark confirmed there were 120 animals at the time of the raid, can you please do a sample routine for caring for that many animals each day? Why are you unable to address specific concerns that we can show proof of?