Dog Removed From Home, Shot By Ranger

[Sheridan]

Story at http://www.dailylibe...council-ranger/

Family's pet shot at tip by council ranger

By LISA MINNER

Jan. 4, 2013, 4 a.m.

Much-loved family pet Ninja was shot by a Walgett Shire Council ranger at the local tip after he had been removed from his owners who were unaware they had surrendered him. PHOTO: CONTRIBUTED

A COLLARENEBRI family is devastated after discovering their much-loved dog, Ninja, was shot dead the day he was removed from their backyard by a council ranger.The woman, *Kate, said she did not know how to tell her children their much-loved pet was dead.

"They'll be so upset, they really loved that dog," she said.

The mother was alerted to the ranger's early-morning visit when she heard him banging on the side of her house.

She went outside to see what was causing the noise and found him in her yard.

"The dog catcher came out with a rope in his hand and took Ninja out to the tip and shot him in the head," she said, still upset at the memory.

The woman said she was initially confused by the situation and didn't know if he was allowed to take their dog or not.

She said the ranger told her to sign something which she later discovered was a form saying she had surrendered the dog.

"I said where are you taking him and he said they would probably take him to Dubbo and he'd end up in a good home with an enclosed yard," she said

"I was believing what he said, but I still didn't know if he should be doing that."

Kate said she had heard Ninja had escaped from their yard and knocked over a couple of bins in the street.

She said it had been seen and noted by the garbage truck driver the day before Ninja was taken away.

A couple of hours after the dog was removed Kate said she felt the situation was not right.

"I rang and said I wanted to know where my dog was because I didn't think he could do that, and I was told he'd been taken to Sydney."

She said when she got home she vowed to find her dog and called as many pounds in the Sydney area as she could.

None had been sent a dog from Collarenebri.

After a series of calls she spoke to a woman from Sydney Pet Rescue and Adoption who pursued the matter on her behalf.

Kate had been told the dog had been shot the same day he was taken.

"We wanted the dog, I don't understand why he didn't just give me a warning and leave him with me,"?Kate said.

Walgett Shire Council's director of planning and regulatory services Matthew Goodwin said the incident had been handled correctly as far as procedure went.

He said the dog had been surrendered and therefore did not need to be impounded for the usual seven to 14 days.

"The dog was considered a nuisance dog and was repeatedly found out on the street," he said.

"She voluntarily surrendered the dog and then changed her mind about it later.''

Mr Goodwin said it was not unusual to destroy animals on the same day as they were collected.

"We have to consider the health and condition of the animal and western areas tend to have more dogs than people," he said.

When the Daily Liberal asked if Ninja had been shot at the local tip Mr Goodwin said he had.

He added it was not unusual to destroy animals by shooting them, nor was it illegal.

"It is a near instantaneous death from a single bullet," he explained.

"Every council has their own way of treating a situation but inland the animals tend to be shot rather than given an injection."

Mr Goodwin said the council ranger did tell Kate her dog had been rehomed but he said the ranger did it to protect her feelings.

"It was not the correct way to handle the situation and that won't happen again."

*not her real name

Edited March 7, 2013 by Sheridan

[Salukifan]

Somewhere in the middle of both sides of the story lies the truth.

I have no idea where. However lying about the fate of the dog was just stupid.

[Sheridan]

Found the statement from Walgett Shire Council:

http://www.walgett.nsw.gov.au/images/documents/walgett/statement%20regarding%20dog%20control%20at%20collarenebri.pdf

Note that the ranger took a whole morning to determine that there was no home for the dog.

[espinay2]

Agree with you HW that the truth probably lies somehwere in between. But for me this raises a lot of issues and questions, mostly about policy but also practice when it comes to managing these types of situations.

Lying was very stupid, I agree there totally. This is not the type of situation to be 'saving peoples feelings' (or avoiding conflict even) through deception. Manage it right, and there would be no need.

The practice of shooting dogs as a form of euthanasia, while valid, is IMO these days moving towards being less publically acceptable and IMO it is something that it would be wise for many councils who employ the practice to review.

While I fully understand and agree with the need for enforcement, there is also the issue of ensuring that people understand the implications of what they are agreeing to, if they are given a 'choice'. In some cases a 'cooling off period' of some sort may be useful to avoid issues of percieved (or actual) coercion.

Enforcement is also often a 'stepped' system and if prior steps have not been managed well, then implementing the 'final step' without proper 'backup' may not be supportable either administratively or morally. This on the surface and taking both sides into account seems to be a case where there are 'missing steps'.

[_PL_]

Sheridan. re PDF: They took two dogs but she only wanted one back is that the story or am I reading it wrong?

[melzawelza]

I've seen a lot of rangers here throughout Sydney misrepresent the facts to people to get a dog surrendered so I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it was happening in Dubbo. Awful.

[megan_]

Sheridan. re PDF: They took two dogs but she only wanted one back is that the story or am I reading it wrong?

I think you're reading it right .

[HeelerLove]

Sheridan. re PDF: They took two dogs but she only wanted one back is that the story or am I reading it wrong?

Definitely sounds that way

She quotes "I said where are you taking him and he said they would probably take him to Dubbo and he'd end up in a good home with an enclosed yard" that to me sounds like their yard was not enclosed and supports the PDF that the dog has been found wandering numerous times.

Very sad, but proves that it is extremely important to read anything you are given to sign before you sign it and ask questions if you are unsure.

[Dame Aussie]

Who knows who is telling the truth, the whole thing is a mess and the dogs are the ones that suffer

[Sheridan]

From the photo it would appear the dog's owners were aboriginal? If so you would have to view the issue in the context of how councils and rangers perceive the problems of dogs owned by abo households in outback areas.

Outside of this being outer regional NSW not the outback, the cultural background of the family is not relevant to the issue. There is no need for your ridiculousness irrelevance.

[Sheridan]

Sheridan. re PDF: They took two dogs but she only wanted one back is that the story or am I reading it wrong?

Looks like they took two dogs, "euthanised" one immediately and then shot the other at lunchtime. It doesn't say how the first dog was killed.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Sheridan

[Diva]

It doesn't actually say that the dogs belonged to the same person, just that the terrier was picked up at the same house. It might have been hers too, but not necessarily..

Edited March 7, 2013 by Diva

[Sheridan]

It doesn't actually say that the dogs belonged to the same person, just that the terrier was picked up at the same house. It might have been hers too, but not necessarily..

It implies it, I think, by not mentioning another owner.

[Diva]

It doesn't actually say that the dogs belonged to the same person, just that the terrier was picked up at the same house. It might have been hers too, but not necessarily..

It implies it, I think, by not mentioning another owner.

Maybe, but it may not be implying it fairly.

[Winterpaws]

So they shot the dog because he knocked over some bins? Forget who owned him, his crimes according to councils statements was that he was at large and knocked over bins

how fricking backward can they be........... heathens

Yes dogs should be contained on their properties but punish the owners not the dogs

And to shoot it? How terrified must that dog have been. Asshats

[Tralee]

This is just an absolute disgrace.

And, all too common.

[Sabbath]

One could say the dog wasn't being contained and that the problem lies with the owner but surely the solution wasn't appropriate. How is the dog better off dead?

[Rosetta]

There was a case going back some time ago where a Council shot dogs in groups at the local tip as normal procedure. There was an outcry at the time - rightly - and the Council was forced to change its procedure. Obviously the practice is more widespread than you would think.

Absolutely appalling of this Council IMO - they should have a process where the dogs are shipped elsewhere and assessed and humanely PTS if necessary. Imagine if it was normal practice to shoot dogs at the local tip because they strayed from yards and knocked over bins

[Steve]

It is normal procedure to have rangers shoot dogs that the owners have surrendered - shoot them stick a needle in them - same result .

Unless there is a rescue group working from/with the pound most would see this end in pretty quick time in rural communities. Once they are surrendered there is no laws to make them wait to do the job. Surely no one really believes in these communities where there is little demand or care for dumped dogs being saved , where the closest town is hundreds of kilometres away that they would be accepted with open arms and that a ranger would drive them to another larger town where they probably wont find a home or hold them in case someone turns up who will take it home?

If rangers are telling people lies to make them think that dumping them equals a better life for them they should be sued - but prove it.

[GeckoTree]

Shooting a dog for knocking a couple bins over........ Okay then.