Council ‘kills’ Kids’ Puppy Dog

[Cr Andrew Antoniolli]

The pup was not wearing a collar.

The pup was not microchipped.

It was left in an unsecure backyard.

Whatever people think of 3 day impoundment rules, it seems pretty unfair to dump the entire responsiblity for the pup's death on council.

I agree about not assigning all responsibility to the Council. But I don't blame someone for not leaving collar on at home either. Compulsory (and well enforced) microchipping should be the standard everywhere, IMHO.

Disagree. Dogs are usually at home before they go missing. Tradespeople leaving gates open, wind blowing gates, dogs digging under fences etc etc etc.

So an owner bears full responsibility when their dog manages to get out (or be left out) without their collar showing ID disk, rego tag....& even the tag which shows they're microchipped. What do you expect the council to do.....notice your dog is getting out & come round to your place, find its ID collar & put it on?

I make it a standard practice to put our dogs' collars back on immediately after a bath.

The one occasion when our dogs got out (tradesperson leaving 2 gates ajar), I got a phone call within 5 minutes from a person nearby. She had the dogs safe.

We live near shops which seem to attract lost dogs.....& have found many trotting by over the years. Every one of them had a current Brisbane or Pine Rivers rego tag on their collar. The council then contacted the owners who arrived pretty promptly to collect them.

On another occasion a person from the Caboolture council even helped track down, from an expired rego tag, the owners of a dog, who had moved to Brisbane.

Which is why I'd like to see the system of registration made affordabe & easy for dog owners. I also like the idea of lifetime registration which seems to be available in NSW.

Here! Here! Your comments are so true and I agree wholeheartedly, although not sure of the long term benifits of life-time rego as this fails to assist local councils properly govern or manage their animal population effectively without effecting the bottom-line (therefore increasing burdon on other ratepayers). Interesting though.

[mita]

although not sure of the long term benifits of life-time rego as this fails to assist local councils properly govern or manage their animal population effectively without effecting the bottom-line (therefore increasing burdon on other ratepayers). Interesting though.

Maybe if costs can be modelled to see if, by making dog rego more affordable & a once only matter.....it would eventually lessen dog management expenses?

Just a thought. Coming from someone who's reduced council impoundment costs for quite a pile of dogs....simply because those dogs had a rego tag linked into a current data base. Cost to council.....one phone call to the owners.

It was the same kind of cost modelling that one of the US cities did. They worked out that, by the municipal authorities providing low cost or no cost desexing of pet dogs, their dog management costs were hugely lessened over time. I can look up the reference for that.

That's the same idea behind the 2 councils in central Qld providing for discounted desexing ( for certain categories).

Edited February 16, 2010 by mita

[espinay2]

I can see where Lilli is coming from. Particular science was claimed as a basis for policy. She asked for that science on which the policy was based to be referenced. Not an out there request. As someone who works in Govt myself (policy analysis and development is in fact my field) I don't see the request as being 'out there' at all. Not anti-desexing, just a wish to understand the basis for policy and to be reassured it was based on sound (accountable) information and advice. Govt is accountable afterall. Cr, thank you for coming to this forum. It is nice to see you taking an interest. Be aware that here members are very much prone to questioning and debate not taking things on face value just because someone claims it to be so. A good thing I believe.

[espinay2]

Deleted as was a repeat message

Edited February 16, 2010 by espinay2

[mita]

The policy trend towards 'encouraging' desexing of pet dogs, seems to be, at first base, designed to prevent the dog (& cat) population from increasing at a great rate of knots. Makes for very simple modelling, that one.

There's an excellent overview of research about dogs & regulation....& any effects re neutering or not neutering on behaviour & confinement....in the marsden report prepared for the Dpt of Primary Industries Qld. As the views expressed are based on the research literature....it's a very well balanced report. With information & recommendations that might surprise....because it doesn't fall into black & white positions.

These issues are dealt with mainly ...pp49-52+.

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/documents/Biosec...eport-Part3.pdf

Yes, government is accountable. So it helps greatly for citizens to do some research to get a grasp on what they want the government to be accountable about.

Edited February 16, 2010 by mita

[Pointees]

The pup was not wearing a collar.

The pup was not microchipped.

It was left in an unsecure backyard.

Whatever people think of 3 day impoundment rules, it seems pretty unfair to dump the entire responsiblity for the pup's death on council.

I agree about not assigning all responsibility to the Council. But I don't blame someone for not leaving collar on at home either. Compulsory (and well enforced) microchipping should be the standard everywhere, IMHO.

I tend to have my dogs collars on when we are going out. At home, they are 'naked'.

April ended up in the pound once... I take the blame for being too trusting...

But I was lucky enough to have the pound call me to say my dog was on the way there.

God, when I got there... It was quiet, until April heard my voice. Omg, , she could have brought the house down. She sounded like she was getting tortured. The people at the pound said she hadn't made a sound until I got there. :D

[Howl]

Here! Here! Your comments are so true and I agree wholeheartedly, although not sure of the long term benifits of life-time rego as this fails to assist local councils properly govern or manage their animal population effectively without effecting the bottom-line (therefore increasing burdon on other ratepayers). Interesting though.

And why shouldn't the animal management service be borne by the whole community? After all, it is a service to the community - not just dog and cat owners no matter how much people would say "oh but it's a user pays system". Some of my rates go towards funding libraries and the public pools in my city - but I don't use them. Shouldn't they then be user pays facilities?

Animal management is not a single service product. To quote Dr Dick Murray at last years Australian Institute of Animal Management conference, it is a complex package of different components and these separate components tend to have different customer groupings. The entire community expects a skilled complaint management service to respond to their problems, a visible regulatory presence to maintain public safety and amenity, sound public education about responsible pet ownership, a pound service for straying animals, a prompt public danger incident response for dog attacks or loose livestock, and to provide a pest and feral animal control service.

Pet owners specifically expect a sound information service, a pet owner register to link them with their animals, an animal pound in case their pet gets lost and community amenities such as leash free areas.

To say it is a user pays system begs the question - who is paying for the response to livestock issues? Who is paying for wild dog control or control of other feral animals? Who is paying for response to complaints about noisy birds? I understand that these issues are a minority compared to the issues generated by dogs, but if we are talking user pays then why are dog (and now cat) owners also footing the bill for livestock, bird, and feral animal control?

Any user pays, ie: registration system, is only as good as its compliance. Poor registration compliance obviously results in revenue deficit, introducing a significant inequity factor into the funding process. In a registraton system that delivers less thant 100% compliance, system inequity is a critical issue for 3 reasons - some owners are paying whilst others are not, the pet owners who do pay have to pay extra to carry the ones that don't, and those that don't pay are perhaps more likely to be overrepresented in other aspects of regulatory noncompliance.

Under such circumstances, the term "user pays - pet registration" as a funding description struggles to have credibility. Without 100% compliance it is more "loser pays" than "user pays".

I think it's about time that councils really thought about how they fund animal management activities - activities that exist for the whole community, not just the pet owners.

[Diva]

The pup was not wearing a collar.

The pup was not microchipped.

It was left in an unsecure backyard.

Whatever people think of 3 day impoundment rules, it seems pretty unfair to dump the entire responsiblity for the pup's death on council.

I agree about not assigning all responsibility to the Council. But I don't blame someone for not leaving collar on at home either. Compulsory (and well enforced) microchipping should be the standard everywhere, IMHO.

Disagree. Dogs are usually at home before they go missing. Tradespeople leaving gates open, wind blowing gates, dogs digging under fences etc etc etc.

So an owner bears full responsibility when their dog manages to get out (or be left out) without their collar showing ID disk, rego tag....& even the tag which shows they're microchipped. What do you expect the council to do.....notice your dog is getting out & come round to your place, find its ID collar & put it on?

No, I expect them to scan thoroughly for a microchip. And I mean thoroughly, in case the chip has migrated from the injection site as they sometimes do. Not just wave a scanner over the neck.

I make it a standard practice to put our dogs' collars back on immediately after a bath.

Far, far too dangerous for mine, even with breakaway collars. They way they play I won't take the much greater (compared to the fences and gates failing) risk of one strangled dead dog and one with a broken foot or jaw. Of course we have very different breeds you and I. I'm sure it is safe with some dogs.

Prudent risk management dictates that mine can't wear collars at home when I'm out. That I don't leave them on is responsible, not irresponsible. I won't be the only one in that boat.

Edited to add - we have lifetime registration in Canberra too. And higher fees for undesexed dogs that are not show or breeding animals. It's a good system by comparison with many others. Probably the area least well attended to is compliance and enforcement.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Diva

[poodlefan]

And why shouldn't the animal management service be borne by the whole community? After all, it is a service to the community - not just dog and cat owners no matter how much people would say "oh but it's a user pays system". Some of my rates go towards funding libraries and the public pools in my city - but I don't use them. Shouldn't they then be user pays facilities?

Given that only about 50% of Australian dogs ARE registered, the responsible dog owners and the wider community are footing the bill anyway. Most of the money spent by councils on dog control focusses on those dogs owned by people who fail to exercise, train, desex and contain them. I'd love to see a study done on how many dogs that find their way to pounds fit that profile.

I think we've got the system arse about. Licensing of owners would be far more sensible because:

1. Like driving, it allows for compulsory education and knowledge testing prior to granting a license

2. It enables owners, NOT dogs to be penalised for failing to comply with the law.

3. It allows those who demonstrate that they are not responsible enough to own a dog to be prohibited from doing so and fined if they breach the prohibiton.

It's bad dog OWNERs that ruin communities for all of us.

Edited February 16, 2010 by poodlefan

[PoppyDog]

although not sure of the long term benifits of life-time rego as this fails to assist local councils properly govern or manage their animal population effectively without effecting the bottom-line (therefore increasing burdon on other ratepayers). Interesting though.

Maybe if costs can be modelled to see if, by making dog rego more affordable & a once only matter.....it would eventually lessen dog management expenses?

Are you talking about registaring dogs with the council? Have you looked at the costs of this on the Ipswich City Council Website? I don't know how much cheaper it can get...yes complete dogs are more exxy than de-sexed ones but so they should be IMO!

[mita]

No, I expect them to scan thoroughly for a microchip. And I mean thoroughly, in case the chip has migrated from the injection site as they sometimes do. Not just wave a scanner over the neck.

I make it a standard practice to put our dogs' collars back on immediately after a bath.

Far, far too dangerous for mine, even with breakaway collars. They way they play I won't take the much greater (compared to the fences and gates failing) risk of one strangled dead dog and one with a broken foot or jaw. Of course we have very different breeds you and I. I'm sure it is safe with some dogs.

Prudent risk management dictates that mine can't wear collars at home when I'm out. That I don't leave them on is responsible, not irresponsible. I won't be the only one in that boat.

Who's them? The people down the road who come across your dog, newly escaped? Obviously not, because you've said you expect them to run a scanner over the dog.

The Joe Blow Publics who come across that lost dog don't have a scanner. In fact, they have nothing to visually go on re tracing the owner....so either they call the pound or think 'too hard' & leave the dog roaming in the hazards of traffic.

My dog, that I've made certain is wearing a collar with ID disk.....has the first easiest option open. There's the phone no. And that's exactly what happened the one time my dogs went missing. A phone call within 5 minutes. I even make sure my small dogs have brightly coloured, larger than normal disks so a potential finder can see they're ID'd from a distance. Bit more inviting to help.

With the rego tag as well, I'm lucky to live in a council area (& adjacent to council areas), where one phone call from a finder to that council....& they contact me, the owner, to come get the dog. NO stressful trip to pound required for a microchip scanner to need to be used.

If worst comes to worst....& someone has removed the collar....the microchip is a back-up. But involves.....at the best.....a stressful impounding (if the dog hasn't been killed by traffic first).

It's risk management. I label my own behaviours in that context as fully responsible as I can be towards my dog.

Edited February 16, 2010 by mita

[Sheridan]

although not sure of the long term benifits of life-time rego as this fails to assist local councils properly govern or manage their animal population effectively without effecting the bottom-line (therefore increasing burdon on other ratepayers). Interesting though.

Maybe if costs can be modelled to see if, by making dog rego more affordable & a once only matter.....it would eventually lessen dog management expenses?

Are you talking about registaring dogs with the council? Have you looked at the costs of this on the Ipswich City Council Website? I don't know how much cheaper it can get...yes complete dogs are more exxy than de-sexed ones but so they should be IMO!

Why?

[mita]

although not sure of the long term benifits of life-time rego as this fails to assist local councils properly govern or manage their animal population effectively without effecting the bottom-line (therefore increasing burdon on other ratepayers). Interesting though.

Maybe if costs can be modelled to see if, by making dog rego more affordable & a once only matter.....it would eventually lessen dog management expenses?

Are you talking about registaring dogs with the council? Have you looked at the costs of this on the Ipswich City Council Website? I don't know how much cheaper it can get...yes complete dogs are more exxy than de-sexed ones but so they should be IMO!

Brisbane City Council call centre just told me the rego cost for a desexed female is $37 (one year, not lifetime). Still reeling from that shock & we're reasonably well off.

So I'm off to make a comparison of the costs throughout Qld, before getting back to them. I want to double check & to have some other costs to quote.

Costs are relative. I'd like to see some data on owners' income & the cost burden of rego fees. Also the costs to reclaim. From what I've seen so far, they must be beyond low-income earners.

We're always talking about the numbers of dogs PTS in pounds. I'd like to see data collected on how many had a major cost factor looming in the background.

[Diva]

Disagree. Dogs are usually at home before they go missing. Tradespeople leaving gates open, wind blowing gates, dogs digging under fences etc etc etc.

So an owner bears full responsibility when their dog manages to get out (or be left out) without their collar showing ID disk, rego tag....& even the tag which shows they're microchipped. What do you expect the council to do.....notice your dog is getting out & come round to your place, find its ID collar & put it on?

No, I expect them to scan thoroughly for a microchip. And I mean thoroughly, in case the chip has migrated from the injection site as they sometimes do. Not just wave a scanner over the neck.

Who's them? The people down the road who come across your dog, newly escaped? Obviously not, because you've said you expect them to run a scanner over the dog.

You asked if I expected Council to come around to my place and find the dog's collar. I replied that no, I expected them to scan for a chip. Sorry that a direct response to your quoted question was too difficult for you to follow and that you became confused. By 'them' I meant the Council.

My dog, that I've made certain is wearing a collar with ID disk.....has the first easiest option open.

Great. I accept your judgement for your dog. I notice you've edited your original post 91 to remove comments implying I am irresponsible in my choices. Thank you for that, they were unwarranted.

Balancing probability and consequence as per the standard risk management approach, the greater risk for my dogs is leaving collars on at home.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Diva

[sandgrubber]

Personally, I accept the argument that the costs of a longer waiting period are hard to justify, given the stats on people claiming their dogs after 3 days plus. It would make far more sense into putting funds into a RELIABLE record-keeping system that ensures that dogs listed as missing don't get the green dream without their owner's being notified. Preferably, a statewide or national system, cause missing pets sometimes cross shire boundaries. Maybe a system that permits filing an ID photo along with the rego . . .

I'm amazed to hear people complaining about dog registration costs. I spent some time in Germany. There people pay hundreds of dollars a year for dog registration, regardless of whether the dog is entire or desexed. I believe this is the case throughout northern Europe.

Keeping dogs does have social costs, and it's fair that dog owners pay some of those costs.

It would, however, be good to see a better connection between registration fees and services delivered . . . so that there would be a way for councils to say to dog owners "You want more services, are you prepared to pay?' . . . and dog owners to say to councils, "we pay $XXx/yr . .. what are we getting for our dollar?"

[Cr Andrew Antoniolli]

http://city-news.whereilive.com.au/your-ne...bred-puppy-dog/

All Lachlan, Jack and Lilly wanted from santa was a Border Collie dog. It was on the christmas list, delivered with bells on and the children were so excited. Little did the kids know that the Ipswich City Council Pound would kill the poor doggy without cross referencing with the RSPCA.

‘Josephine’ was sent to us at Peak Crossing all the way from a reputable Townsvelle breeder. She was wonderful dog for the children, gentle, timid and friendly. Very pretty and clean. We even had her desexed before she was sent to us.

Sadly, the day after boxing day ‘Josephine’ dug under the fence and escaped before we had the chance to register or coller her. The local council and vets were closed over christmas. The children were crushed, but began searching for her.

Quickly we registered Josephine with the RSPCA as a missing pet and put her photo up on their internet site. We checked the Ipswich City Council’s website for any animals matching our dog’s description and posted leaflets around our local community and vet.

To make things worse, the day the dog escaped Mummy was put in hospital due to illness for the 3rd time during that year. So the kids and daddy were doing their best to search as well as driving a hour each way to visit mummy in the hospital.

By chance the local postman told us that a gentleman in Purga handed the dog into the Ipswich City Council Pound on the condition that it would’nt be put down. To our delight we rang the pound to get our dog back, but were horrified with the news that it was put down the day before.

Ipswich City Council Pound did not cross reference with the RSPCA before they put her down otherwise Josephine would have been returned to us.

I would have thought the RSPCA would be the first place they would liase with.

It has been such a horrible experience for the children to have their beautiful dog put down while their mummy was in hospital. It wasn’t fair for our kids or the dog. I don’t think we will be getting another animal for a long time.

Pls find result of enquiry/investigation into the above matter and the original entry to this forum/comment stream:

The said dog was privately impounded on 30 DEC 2009 after being located in Purga (suburb of Ipswich, south/west of the city approx half way between Ipswich Central and the neighbouring Local Governement Area known as Scenic Rim Regional Council).

Dog was listed on council's online 'Lost/Found/Impounded Animals Index' (LFI) on the same day, however, due to the busy time period a photo was not uploaded to the LFI until 4 JAN 2010.

There were no identifying features on the dog that assisted in locating an owner. No rego tag. No microchip etc.

Due to the busy Christmas period the dog, like many others at this time, were held for longer than their normal period.

The dog was suitable for rehousing, however due to an outbreak of parvo virus in the pound we could not transfer the dog to a welfare shelter.

The dog was PTS on 8 JAN 2010. The dog was in the custody of the pound for a total of 10 days (including the day impounded and the day the dog was PTS).

It is always saddening to hear stories such as this, however, it highlights the importance of identifying your pet with rego of ID tags and/or microchip.

The owner contacted the RSPCA to originally list the dog as 'lost' however, did not request the RSPCA to conduct enquiries with local pounds in an attempt to locate the dog.

Councils do not regularly contact the RSPCA as the RSPCA already has a search service that they provide. Ipswich City Council has a web/online listing of all impounded dogs with photos.

I trust that whilst this situation is not a pleasant one, it at least puts the facts on the table.

[Diva]

If the dog was listed on your site, you held her for ten days, and you were constrained by a parvo outbreak from moving her on for rehoming, it's hard for me to see what blame the Council carries. Just a sad set of circumstances.

[WoofnHoof]

Thanks for updating us Andrew.

On the point of microchips my parents dog escaped from their yard on Monday night during a storm she was taken to the Toowoomba pound where she was scanned for a chip and the chip was found and my mother was contacted. Since my dad is disabled and my mother is away I brought the dog to my place at Ipswich to look after her until my mother gets back, when I went to work the dog promptly escaped from my yard and was rescued by some people down the road. They took her to the Yamanto vet where they scanned her for a chip and didn't find it! I questioned the lady who found her and they said they scanned both sides of the shoulder when in fact my knowledge of chips suggests that a chip can be located anywhere from between the shoulder blades to further up the neck. I intend on going to the vet and alerting them of the possibility that they are scanning incorrectly but I think this incident highlights the fact that no identification method is completely failsafe and that staff need to be effectively trained and performance monitored when scanning for chips.

BTW the dog is now shut inside today!

[Greytmate]

This story is no different to any of the other thousands of pups that were bought home, not adequately fenced, not tagged or chipped (even though it has been law to chip dogs sold since July 09), and not searched for at the local pound when it went missing.

Luckily this dog was euthed painlessly rather than being squashed on the road or, shot by a farmer or being attacked by wild dogs.

Why do we even have this topic here "in the News". It isn't news, it is a whinge on an obscure website by Jen Harris, a person that did not even bother to visit her local pound when her dog 'dug under the fence'. That lack of care is really sad.

[Sheridan]

The owner contacted the RSPCA to originally list the dog as 'lost' however, did not request the RSPCA to conduct enquiries with local pounds in an attempt to locate the dog.

*scratches head*

People actually have to ask the RSPCA to do this? They don't do it automatically? A-mazing.