Council ‘kills’ Kids’ Puppy Dog

[sandgrubber]

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.

In WA (at least Perth) I don't think the RSPCA even handles missing dog reports. My neighbours adopted a stray and called around everywhere they could think of to register the dog as found. I remember being amazed that the RSPCA wasn't interested in missing dog information.

Organisations that use a lot of volunteer help sometimes have procedures that seem strange, as well as people who don't follow procedures.

[Scarlet]

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.

In Qld the RSPCA run the service below,which I think is fantastic.

It is a great back up to doing your own search.

Without the small payment I wouldn't expect the staff to have the time to conduct the searches.

http://lostfound.rspcaqld.org.au/animal/petDTectInfo.asp

What is Pet D Tect

Pet D Tect is a service provided by RSPCA QLD to help owners find their lost pets. It costs $10.00 for 10 days and it has helped hundreds of lost pets find their way home across Queensland. Pet D Tect not only gives the animals of Queensland a much better chance of being found, but it also provides a financial boost to the RSPCA helping to fund the care of animals whose owners could not be located.

If your pet is on Pet D Tect a team of RSPCA Staff and Volunteers will conduct daily searches on our internal database which includes all the found animals called in or logded on the website by members of the public, brought in by our emergency Animal Ambulance and called in by Vet Surgeries. The team will also search pounds local to where your animal went missing and your animal's file will stand out on our website with the special Pet D Tect status jumping to the front.

To have the Pet D Tect team help you with your search call 1300 36 37 36 or email [email protected].

[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! :rolleyes:

Why?

So to *TRY* and prevent BYB/Puppy Farms. I will be desexing my female dog as I don't want her to have puppies...yes I could make good money from her having pups down the track but its not ethical and there are soooooooo many people doing this!!!

[sandgrubber]

So to *TRY* and prevent BYB/Puppy Farms. I will be desexing my female dog as I don't want her to have puppies...yes I could make good money from her having pups down the track but its not ethical and there are soooooooo many people doing this!!!

Good on you for deciding to desex . . . but don't fool yourself that you could make 'good money' from pups. There are people that do so, but most of them have put a lot of study into the exercise and are highly selective about how they do it. There are a lot more people who end out in sad, expensive situations when they decide to have a litter and something goes wrong.

Edited February 19, 2010 by sandgrubber

[sandgrubber]

Now that this one has been thoroughly chewed over and the details are out, I would say the Council would be within its rights to sue the paper for libel. It's definitely inflammatory (not to mention, poorly edited) and misleading in its presentation of the facts.

[Greytmate]

Now that this one has been thoroughly chewed over and the details are out, I would say the Council would be within its rights to sue the paper for libel. It's definitely inflammatory (not to mention, poorly edited) and misleading in its presentation of the facts.

Except it doesn't seem to be a paper, only a website?

[gsdog2]

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.

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

Cr Antoniolli when is the ICC going to do something about the Parvo problem at the pound. I have been informed by someone who has had very close connections with the pound that Parvo will continue to be a problem until more is done in recognising when a dog has Parvo, and how the situation is handled once Parvo is recognised. How many qualified staff (nurses in particular) do you have employed at the pound - people with formal training who can recognise Parvo symptoms as soon as they see them?

I wondered when this thread was started if Parvo would come into it and sadly it has played a large part in this very sad saga.

[NoKillAustralia]

After reading Cr Antoniolli's response it is my considered opinion that:

1. It represents nothing more than media spin to manage the disastrous handling of the killing of a rehomable pup. If the dog was a short-haired stocky built animal then it would simply have been labelled a Pit Bull and killed with the usual "just following orders" excuse. The three day excuse is a little harder to justify to dog lovers.

2. If the honourable councillor is aware of any studies showing mandatory microchipping leads to lower kill rates then he should quote it. To my knowledge none exists and anecdotally on many threads on this site microchipped dogs are regularly killed. The real issue is the killing of the dog, no more no less.

3. Three business days is the minimum, councils can increase it if they choose to see companion animals as other than disposable commodities. The trickle down effect of this helps us understand why we are becoming a more violent society I believe.

4. Killing dogs because of a lack of space is killing dogs because of a lack of space, not because of an oversupply which in reality doesn't exist.

5. If livestock can be held longer without bankrupting the owners then so too can companion animals.

6. How are the animals killed? By vets, gassing drowning, lethal injection, shooting clubbing. We need to know who does it, what training they have etc.

7. Are all the funds raised by Animal Management returned to Animal Management, including fines, or does it simply go to general revenue.

Even the man I believe can only be described as Australia's Great Hater has labelled Queensland Pounds as anti-dog, coming from him that really is saying something.

What has surprised me the most in this thread are supposed dog lovers on this site supporting what is happening to dogs, as long as it isn't theirs of course. It seems that everyone other than themselves is an irresponsible owner. Dogs get out, dogs lose their collars dogs are stolen then dumped. Should the dog have to die for this?

[newfsie]

Oh Wow....Only three days and only a puppy, obviously not an aggressive dog. That is so sad....

Sounds like if you loose your dog in the Ipswich area and most likely other areas, you need to physically check the pounds, but three days is so unbelievable. They must have hearts of stone.........

[Are You Serious Jo]

The two posters above should reread the thread, the pup was there for 10 days and PTS because of a parvo issue. Reality is that if all pounds adopted no kill and kept dogs in overcrowded conditions and spent large sums of money keeping dogs in kennels for a long time they would be in trouble with the public. It is all well and good to advocate no kill, but until you are the one raising the money for new facilities and staff to do so then you can't demand things are done to your ideology.

Until the public want to buy more pound dogs then the sad fact is that pounds have to PTS. It is cruel to keep dogs in crowded conditions exposing them to disease for Dog knows how long just so some people don't have to feel bad that dogs get PTS. Put the dogs first, until you have indoctrinated the world into your no kill philosophy the dogs have to be attended too, even if you don't like the outcome.

[sandgrubber]

After reading Cr Antoniolli's response it is my considered opinion that:

1. It represents nothing more than media spin . . . .

3. Three business days is the minimum, councils can increase it if they choose to see companion animals as other than disposable commodities. The trickle down effect of this helps us understand why we are becoming a more violent society I believe. . . .

What has surprised me the most in this thread are supposed dog lovers on this site supporting what is happening to dogs, as long as it isn't theirs of course. It seems that everyone other than themselves is an irresponsible owner. Dogs get out, dogs lose their collars dogs are stolen then dumped. Should the dog have to die for this?

Please don't get strident if you haven't read the posts in full . . . the dog was in the pound for 10 days, the owners hadn't chipped, registered, or put a collar on (or a 'coller', according to the Newspaper article), the dog was put up on the council website, and there was a problem with parvo going around. Dogs shouldn't have to die . . . but the fault is with the owners for not registering and not being more thorough on followup once the dog was lost. Yes. Sad. Very sorry for the kids and the dog. But the owners are to blame. Pound managers have to abide by Council regs and have to make hard choices. Councils must back them when this happens or no one will be willing to take on the job of Ranger.

[Cheyd]

‘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.

Surely if they knew they were getting a puppy they would have brought a collar and tag before hand, I know thats what we did. I loved choosing toys and a collar before Merlin arrived, we even had a tag engraved with our name and phone number, added his name later when we had chosen it but it was all ready for him when he got her.

Still a very sad situation for everyone

RIP little Josephine

[Cr Andrew Antoniolli]

After reading Cr Antoniolli's response it is my considered opinion that:

1. It represents nothing more than media spin to manage the disastrous handling of the killing of a rehomable pup. If the dog was a short-haired stocky built animal then it would simply have been labelled a Pit Bull and killed with the usual "just following orders" excuse. The three day excuse is a little harder to justify to dog lovers.

2. If the honourable councillor is aware of any studies showing mandatory microchipping leads to lower kill rates then he should quote it. To my knowledge none exists and anecdotally on many threads on this site microchipped dogs are regularly killed. The real issue is the killing of the dog, no more no less.

3. Three business days is the minimum, councils can increase it if they choose to see companion animals as other than disposable commodities. The trickle down effect of this helps us understand why we are becoming a more violent society I believe.

4. Killing dogs because of a lack of space is killing dogs because of a lack of space, not because of an oversupply which in reality doesn't exist.

5. If livestock can be held longer without bankrupting the owners then so too can companion animals.

6. How are the animals killed? By vets, gassing drowning, lethal injection, shooting clubbing. We need to know who does it, what training they have etc.

7. Are all the funds raised by Animal Management returned to Animal Management, including fines, or does it simply go to general revenue.

Even the man I believe can only be described as Australia's Great Hater has labelled Queensland Pounds as anti-dog, coming from him that really is saying something.

What has surprised me the most in this thread are supposed dog lovers on this site supporting what is happening to dogs, as long as it isn't theirs of course. It seems that everyone other than themselves is an irresponsible owner. Dogs get out, dogs lose their collars dogs are stolen then dumped. Should the dog have to die for this?

Although I respect everyone’s right to an opinion, I would like and perhaps would enjoy the opportunity of a right of reply:

1. This quote is cynical to say the least and perhaps biased. Further, the dog was held for 10 days which has been painfully pointed out by myself and other contributors to this forum. This incident is both sad and unfortunate, however it is hard to justify anger at the council for the outcome.

2. Any form of identification assists in the reduction of pets PTS. Surely every right-thinking person would be aware of that. Registration on it’s own does not assist without the rego tag being worn by the dog. Microchipping does assist and we are already seeing an improvement in our own pounds as to the value of compulsory microchipping of new dogs. There are failings with microchips and there are failings with the operation or operator of the scanning wands, however, without a microchip your pet has a greatly reduced chance of being identified.

3. I have explained this in my previous posts on this subject, however, reject the notion that our pound staff treat the impounded pets as disposable commodities. We do get frustrated because we are seeing a large number of pets not being claimed and it is a strong belief that some pet owners believe their pet to be a disposable commodity if it ends up in the pound. We have a very high percentage of registration compliance envied by some other authorities therefore we have a pretty good handle on the attitudes of some irresponsible pet owners.

4. Ipswich Pound has a close working partnership with the AWL and RSPCA with whom we rehouse many hundreds of dogs and cats. We are looking to improve that partnership further. This particular dog would’ve been rehoused if not for the outbreak of parvo.

5. This has also been explained previously in this forum. It is State Legislation that requires livestock to be held for longer periods and also their disposal/resale is governed by legislation.

6. All euthanasia is handled by fully qualified staff and conducted humanely. There is no question about that.

7. Every Council operates differently, however, the new State Legislation requires all funds gathered through registration must be used for Animal Management. That has always been the case in Ipswich. Up until I took over the portfolio of Animal Management, nearly 100% of pet rego was used to fund the service. I have changed the attitude in this regard and put a focus on responsible pet ownership. Now approx 70% of the total cost of Animal Management is recovered through pet rego and I hope to make this fall again in the future. The remainder of the monies required to fund this service is obtained through regulation and fines, particularly on irresponsible and/or unregistered pet owners. I feel that pet registration is a user pay system which benefits both the pet owner and the community, however, our focus should be primarily on those that refuse to pay their way.

[Cr Andrew Antoniolli]

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.

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

Cr Antoniolli when is the ICC going to do something about the Parvo problem at the pound. I have been informed by someone who has had very close connections with the pound that Parvo will continue to be a problem until more is done in recognising when a dog has Parvo, and how the situation is handled once Parvo is recognised. How many qualified staff (nurses in particular) do you have employed at the pound - people with formal training who can recognise Parvo symptoms as soon as they see them?

I wondered when this thread was started if Parvo would come into it and sadly it has played a large part in this very sad saga.

Parvo is a regular constant in pounds and despite best intentions can disable a pound operation and cause problems for pets that end up in the pound. Obviously regular vaccination of pets assists, however this cannot be governed.

Ipswich is currently examining some initiatives which we hope will improve our operations with regard to both the discovery and prevention of parvo and also improve our ability to rehouse more unclaimed dogs and cats.

If these initiatives can be developed, we hope to be leaders in Animal Management as well as improve our communities understanding and responsibility to being pet owners.

[sandra64]

If you want revenue towards the 30%, just visit next door to me. Theres 2 fines sitting there. unfenced unregistered. I will e-mail you the address

[gsdog2]

6. All euthanasia is handled by fully qualified staff and conducted humanely. There is no question about that.

What would these qualifications be? Conducted humanely in what way?

[Angelina]

Honestly, I don't know what else the council could have done.

I had a dog, who was the best escape artist known to man.... honestlyl, he was houdini.

But put a collar on, with your mobile, this really works !!!!

register, microchip.

Why are you some of blaming the council. They have said the dog was there for 10 days. Wouldn't you go, back and back to check.

[gsdog2]

Although I respect everyone’s right to an opinion, I would like and perhaps would enjoy the opportunity of a right of reply:

Angelina, I think Cr Antoniolli is "enjoying" the debate.

[blissirritated]

Why is this thread still going? It's not even a 'proper' news article. It's an emotive story, full of omissions and failings, written by the woman who failed to care for her dog and is now looking for someone else to blame.

Steve, as one of the founders of the MDBA I would think you would put a little more thought into the source of the threads you make here. All this thread is doing now is making "us dog people" look like aggressive and gullible idiots, especially in light of the comments and loaded questions being directed at "Cr Andrew Antoniolli" (if he is indeed a member of the Ipswich council and in a position to put forward our comments and ideas for possible change).

[Cr Andrew Antoniolli]

6. All euthanasia is handled by fully qualified staff and conducted humanely. There is no question about that.

What would these qualifications be? Conducted humanely in what way?

It's contracted out to a vet practice.......Any questions?

Really! The days of hitting them over the head with a shovel went out years ago. Let's keep it real and give some respect to Animal Management staff. I think that you would find that 99.9% of them have a real love of animals and despise irresponsible pet owners. Our staff have been very proactive in increasing our rehousing numbers and should be congratulated for being proactive in this regard. Do you really think these people enjoy putting dogs down? If you feel the need to respond to that question with a derogatory comment about these staff then I suggest you take time to really consider your response because you will clearly show yourself to be unreasonable and biased. Put yourself in their shoes. If you wouldn't like PTS unclaimed dogs then where would you get the idea that they would?

This subject/forum discussion I believe is closed and the matter has been well and truly covered, examined and critiqued.

Micro-chip, Registration Tags and ID Tags, together with responsible pet ownership are the solution.

I look forward to being involved in other forum discussions and/or consulting your combined wisdom on other initiatives that Ipswich City Council are considering.