Are You Serious Jo

So they use a greyhound muzzle? Are these really hard dogs or just a bit nippy?

Most people who board their dogs only do so for a short period of time so concrete isn't an issue. No dog should be on concrete permanently whether it's a shelter, boarding kennels or breeder kennels. But it looks like Moorook are being forced to improve things all around which is a good thing.

If you've got a dog that does bite stock a basket muzzle won't stop that, they'd get it off I think. Cattle dogs need to be able to give the cows a small nip too or some won't move or respect the dog. Sheep shouldn't be touched hard though so selection should be for dogs that don't bite.

Dogs shouldn't be living in a shelter long term so concrete wouldn't be an issue if they weren't warehousing. Concrete is essential if you are going to have lots of animals turning over. Would you put your dogs in boarding kennels if they had dirt floors?

We are only talking 5 years, microchips were not some brand new Tom Cruise witchcraft. They clearly didn't do the right thing because if they were clueless they should have asked the council who would have suggested getting the cat scanned. Ignorance is never a defence.

Once you are dead you have no control over how your animal is rehomed so you can't protect them from going to bad home if your relatives don't really care. How many times have we seen ads for dogs needing to be palmed off because the owner died? Yes dogs do adapt pretty quickly to new owners but not all homes are wonderful. We don't advocate letting entire undesexed dogs go to new homes because we can't guarantee that the new owners will do the right thing. So unless you leave enough money for your pet to be cared for for the rest of it's life how do you ensure it won't end up in a shelter gain at some point. Being a guide dog does muddy the waters but as for normal pet owners I don't see how it's cruel or selfish to want to make sure your animals never suffer.

Can someone explain why it's cruel?

But never a mention of making sure that the dog is responsibly rehomed, just THESE BABIES MUST NOT BE KILLED.

Jesus, I hope they didn't cave to her insanity

:cry:

If they'd taken the cat to be scanned in the first place none of it would have happened. A good reminder that you just can't keep an animal you find because you tell yourself it wasn't wanted.

This is why I don't like animal rights people these days, they don't give a toss about whether stock gets injured by doing this. If they really cared more about the animals than their own emotions they'd never do something as stressful as this to them.

People might still feed their snakes live prey but if they get caught they are in trouble. Invertebrates can be fed live I think but definitely no vertebrates.

Feeding live prey is not legal in Australia.

Who knows what the real story is, I'm not a fan of either group.

Plenty of locals have been reporting Moorook for years, there wouldn't be a FB page big enough to name everyone!

It's a hard situation to judge. One big problem is that sometimes the real store price is over double what you can get online and sometimes you just can't justify it. I think modern brick and mortar retailers need to somehow catch up and maybe more need to do online sales as well.

I'd probably stop all the talking too, just basic info and still have people enter.

Ridiculous

There are also some stores that charge $10 to try boots on, because people were getting their sizing then buying online. I can see this woman's point, she spends a lot of time advising people who then go and buy elsewhere. I don't like the idea of a fee but I also don't like to see real stores close.

It's just a mess, what really needs to happen is that policing powers are only available to government who have an accountability process. Right now the rspca have their cake and are eating it too. No organisation should be able to police an industry in which they have financial stakes. The AWL so far have a good record of rehoming so let's hope this is cleared up somehow and they get back into the facility in Ipswich and keep doing a good job.

Is that email address going to be different, because all the other times I've attempted to contact them NO ONE EMAILS BACK. There shouldn't be any ifs about it, there is a very clear conflict of interest that has been going on whether you admit to it or not. It is very unethical to have a private business police an industry in which they also conduct business in. This is already going on and a lot of people know about it, no other industry would tolerate this. Of course the council can make a statement now stating that no parties that have a conflict of interest may tender, it's called policy. I must admit though surely this time they wouldn't be so blatant as to tender once they got their competition out, it may just be the impetus to finally have a investigation into the role of the rspca.

MUP said she was leaving DOL forever and would shun us like the Amish, so surprised to see her back :laugh:

Go to the source of any tender & ask? [email protected] When it was first raised by a poster, I searched the Australian Tenders website. Also the Ipswich Council has a section on its website where (current) open tenders are listed. Well good luck getting a response from any email that isn't offering them money. Since you seem to be on such good terms with them maybe they'll answer your emails because they've never answered mine! Also, asking whether the rspca will be barred from tendering for the contract once this issue is resolved is not a moot point, it's very relevant to the current events. You believe I'm on 'good terms' with RSPCA Qld & that they'd answer my emails. Actually, using what I already knew, I took a more direct public information route to check if there were any pending tenders. So you want the Ipswich Council to announce the barring of the RSPCA from tendering for a service that currently is not up for tender. A service which already has a contractor, the AWL, which is under suspension. After the current investigation, it may be re-instated or it may be discharged If discharged, and if any new tenders are called, and if the RSPCA applies, then there would be Council decision-making that would cover the usual identification of conflicts of interests.... and even of perceived conflicts of interest. Information about any such open tender would appear (as is usual) on the Council's website, so the general public can be aware. I hope the current investigation will reflect natural justice & be as prompt as possible in reaching some decision. Tracey, I also thought it a hopeful sign that the AWL was able to take the animals to another place, for care & adoption. Surely that couldn't be allowed to happen if there was strong evidence of serious mistreatmemt. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Yes, I would expect that the rspca could never tender for a position where there is a real conflict of interest. It shouldn't even have to be said that is how obvious it is. I'm not interested in what current tenders are pending because it should be obvious that the AWL is still under suspension, therefore tenders would not yet be called, hence not on the register. So, since the AWL may not be reinstated and tenders called in the future, it is entirely appropriate to wonder if the rspca might put in a tender, as they have done at other places. Since looking at the tender register is a waste of time due to no tender process yet existing for this case, it doesn't seem a bad idea to email the rspca. The reason I thought you were on good terms with them was you are always saying how officials talk to you, hence your putting forth an email address, presumably you have used. My experience however is that no one ever emails back, so you must have some connection I don't. I believe that the rspca should never tender for the management of a property where they also have the power to police the current tenants of that property.

That's a good point, can't be too serious then if they are allowed to care for the same animals.