stellnme Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 True, LizT, we don't know all the circumstances but the above link with its statement " The process has been reviewed and an immediate decision has been made to cease the practice of euthanising by shooting" indicates that this is their procedure of choice. Too many pounds will not work with any rescue or want to be educated about the options that exist and will euthanise too soon. I know only too well that there are unrehomable animals and not enough homes (and the "right" homes for certain animals are few and far between) but too many are not given any chance. I just can't get my head around a ranger - and do we have a gun licence here? - standing at a public tip and shooting dogs and puppies on the authority of a council with a vet not far away, and yes, I live in the country and am familiar with putting suffering and feral animals down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted July 10, 2012 Author Share Posted July 10, 2012 It appears the owner asked for them to be put down so if that's the case there is no option for re homing etc But this guy shot dogs in a public place when they were not suffering. He is an idiot and he wants to feel bloody lucky it wasn't me or worse me with my kids which were at the tip when he did it. The whole "now we will do it another way " is incredible and makes one wonder do we have to wait for this type of thing to go on everywhere before a reasonable policy is put in place for councils to deal with this type of thing? Its no wonder people are yelling for legislation to cover it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lavendergirl Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Taking dogs somewhere and shooting them obviously is the procedure in place by this Council to put down unwanted animals. To me the issue is not that it was done in a public place - though that is bad enough - but that the dogs were treated as if they were vermin - they are not. This practice is not acceptable in a country like Australia. I am not referring to isolated properties and emergency situations where shooting an animal may be the only practical method to deal with a suffering animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeybun Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Taking dogs somewhere and shooting them obviously is the procedure in place by this Council to put down unwanted animals. To me the issue is not that it was done in a public place - though that is bad enough - but that the dogs were treated as if they were vermin - they are not. This practice is not acceptable in a country like Australia. I am not referring to isolated properties and emergency situations where shooting an animal may be the only practical method to deal with a suffering animal. From my limited knowledge of the case, I believe most were small...Maltese and it was not the owner but a relative of the owner who caused this to happen. The dogs were well cared for.The owners are older people but well able to care for the dogs. There is a pound in Gloucester and a rescue at Taree,if it was considerd the dogs had to be moved.But that is the issue that is in need of clarification as it seems this was done without the owners consent who is now most distressed. More effort should have been made to ensure this is what the actual owner wanted, but then the owner should have been counselled about whether the dogs could have been placed with rescue and been rehomed.Death should not have been the first alternative or only alternative.Plus the method of putting them down was disgusting. There is a local vet close by. Less effort and travelling time for the ranger,so why he made the decision he did is beyond me. I find the whole scenario very disteressing and cannot imagine how the poor dogs must have been feeling, they would have been severely distressed too. The community up there is very upset, as well they should be. Edited July 11, 2012 by honeybun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nawnim Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 This story gets worse every time I look. Those poor dogs, and now the owners too. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 True, LizT, we don't know all the circumstances but the above link with its statement " The process has been reviewed and an immediate decision has been made to cease the practice of euthanising by shooting" indicates that this is their procedure of choice. Too many pounds will not work with any rescue or want to be educated about the options that exist and will euthanise too soon. I know only too well that there are unrehomable animals and not enough homes (and the "right" homes for certain animals are few and far between) but too many are not given any chance. I just can't get my head around a ranger - and do we have a gun licence here? - standing at a public tip and shooting dogs and puppies on the authority of a council with a vet not far away, and yes, I live in the country and am familiar with putting suffering and feral animals down. He'd want to hope he has a firearms licence as it is not even legal to hold a gun for a shooter, say if he was going through a fence UNLESS you yourself have a firearms licence too. But yes, why are things always "under review" when they get caught out or brought beforet he Publics attention? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizT Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Taking dogs somewhere and shooting them obviously is the procedure in place by this Council to put down unwanted animals. To me the issue is not that it was done in a public place - though that is bad enough - but that the dogs were treated as if they were vermin - they are not. This practice is not acceptable in a country like Australia. I am not referring to isolated properties and emergency situations where shooting an animal may be the only practical method to deal with a suffering animal. From my limited knowledge of the case, I believe most were small...Maltese and it was not the owner but a relative of the owner who caused this to happen. The dogs were well cared for.The owners are older people but well able to care for the dogs. There is a pound in Gloucester and a rescue at Taree,if it was considerd the dogs had to be moved.But that is the issue that is in need of clarification as it seems this was done without the owners consent who is now most distressed. More effort should have been made to ensure this is what the actual owner wanted, but then the owner should have been counselled about whether the dogs could have been placed with rescue and been rehomed.Death should not have been the first alternative or only alternative.Plus the method of putting them down was disgusting. There is a local vet close by. Less effort and travelling time for the ranger,so why he made the decision he did is beyond me. I find the whole scenario very disteressing and cannot imagine how the poor dogs must have been feeling, they would have been severely distressed too. The community up there is very upset, as well they should be. Gosh, Honeybun, if this is true, I find the circumstances under which these dogs were decided to be PTS slightly more distressing than the dogs being shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lavendergirl Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Taking dogs somewhere and shooting them obviously is the procedure in place by this Council to put down unwanted animals. To me the issue is not that it was done in a public place - though that is bad enough - but that the dogs were treated as if they were vermin - they are not. This practice is not acceptable in a country like Australia. I am not referring to isolated properties and emergency situations where shooting an animal may be the only practical method to deal with a suffering animal. From my limited knowledge of the case, I believe most were small...Maltese and it was not the owner but a relative of the owner who caused this to happen. The dogs were well cared for.The owners are older people but well able to care for the dogs. There is a pound in Gloucester and a rescue at Taree,if it was considerd the dogs had to be moved.But that is the issue that is in need of clarification as it seems this was done without the owners consent who is now most distressed. More effort should have been made to ensure this is what the actual owner wanted, but then the owner should have been counselled about whether the dogs could have been placed with rescue and been rehomed.Death should not have been the first alternative or only alternative.Plus the method of putting them down was disgusting. There is a local vet close by. Less effort and travelling time for the ranger,so why he made the decision he did is beyond me. I find the whole scenario very disteressing and cannot imagine how the poor dogs must have been feeling, they would have been severely distressed too. The community up there is very upset, as well they should be. So the Council did not even bother to confirm ownership of the dogs? Yes this story is getting worse - hard to imagine I hope the community is giving this Council plenty of grief over this. Poor little dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maryjane Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) [some people who wrote letters to the Gloucester Advocate referred to the dogs as "strays". I was contacted by the owner of the dogs, who told me the ranger came to her home and demanded she surrender the puppies. She had at first refused to surrender the puppies, whose mother had died from a bait, and she was rearing them herself, with the help of one of the dogs destroyed, who had 3 puppies herself. The husband felt the ranger had the right to take them. They assumed they were being taken to the pound, and were trying to find them, and only found out they had been shot when they read the story in the Advocate. These were not savage dogs, and, according to tbe owner, were well cared for. I have advised her to write to the Council, as I will be, as I cannot believe no effort was made to rehome the dogs.quote name=Steve' timestamp='1341471951' post='5887655] http://www.glouceste...ed/2612641.aspx THE RSPCA has confirmed it has launched an investigation into the euthanising of dogs by council staff at the Gloucester landfill last week. Council confirmed that on Wednesday and Thursday last week several dogs were taken to the tip where they were shot and then disposed of on the tip face. The Advocate was made aware of the incident after a resident complained to the paper. Stratford resident Keith Whittall said he was at the tip between 12.20pm and 2pm last Wednesday when the council ranger arrived at the facility with the dogs on the back of his vehicle. "He said he was taking the dogs down the back to shoot them," he said. "He went down behind the rubbish pile and I heard the shots go off from where I was standing at the shed. "Then he threw the carcasses into the general waste." Mr Whittall said it was a "cruel and inhumane" way to dispose of the animals and said he was particularly upset that the incident had occurred during regular tip operating hours. "I never want to see something like that happen again," he said. "It made me feel physically sick. After I left the tip I went and got my daughter and took some pictures. "There were 11 dogs in total, five of them were pups." Director of Planning and Environment Graham Gardner said council had been responding to a request from a local resident who had asked that the dogs be disposed of. Mr Gardner said the RSPCA had contacted council. "On Friday afternoon council was visited by an inspector from the RSPCA who came to interview (the council ranger)," Mr Gardner said. "The background circumstances to this incident are complex but there will likely be a focus on the action of euthanising and disposal of the dogs. "We will review the details of this incident and clarify or adjust any operational procedures as necessary arising from this incident." Edited July 12, 2012 by Maryjane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belljari Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Thank god they won't be doing it again. I hope that ranger is sacked I can't understand why they cannot employ people with some empathy and compassion. http://www.gloucesteradvocate.com.au/news/local/news/general/animal-shootings-will-cease/2616084.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nawnim Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) can't be bothered posting any more Edited July 13, 2012 by padraic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntia Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 This is the latest media release from Gloucester Shire Council. It was put up on their FB page today https://www.facebook.com/#!/GloucesterShireCouncil/posts/417175488324878 Some of the original story rehashed with some new info thrown in. I also see it made it into the Daily Telegraph today along with a picture. RIP puppies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbear Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Why cant they work with rescue??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lavendergirl Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 This is the latest media release from Gloucester Shire Council. It was put up on their FB page today https://www.facebook.com/#!/GloucesterShireCouncil/posts/417175488324878 Some of the original story rehashed with some new info thrown in. I also see it made it into the Daily Telegraph today along with a picture. RIP puppies Even "if" they were put down one by one they would still have been aware of what was happening to their mates. I still don't think this Council gets it at all - that the basic act of shooting the dogs was wrong. At least the procedure has been changed now. Perhaps some rescue groups have contacted the council about future "disposal" requirements - I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
honeybun Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The owners Maltese dogs were not seized and killed.[and hopefully they will not be]It was the Kelpie breed pups, and adult dog.I believe those seized and killed were 3 puppies that were being hand raised,with the help of the other mother dog, as their mother had died and 5 other puppies and their mum...9 in total.All reportedly well cared for by the owner. The owner did not request the dogs be taken and killed. A member of the family did that, and that persons intentions do not seem to be well meaning, or initiated out of concern for the dogs or their welfare. These dogs were not strays and homes had been found for some of the pups for when they were old enough to be rehomed.The Ranger was made aware of that fact when he was seizing the dogs. The owners were not told the dogs would be killed. The same person behind it called in the RSPCA a while ago in relation to the families pets and they came, inspected and left with no complaint. Some families are not all happy and close, loving and caring. Apparently the Council has received a lot of complaints about the actions of the RANGER. Hopefully something like this will never happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now