Dogs Seized From No Kill Shelter

[Pailin]

This could have all been done in a more humane and friendly way.. But RSPCA are too power hungry, and in my opinion over step the mark when it suits them.

I actually agree with this to an extent, I would have liked to see the RSPCA trying to work with her to improve the shelter, HOWEVER, we only know from one side's interpretation as to how they were dealt with. How are we to be certain that the RSPCA did not try to get her to improve *this*, cut back on *this* many numbers, comply with *this, this and this* etc and found her to be uncooperative and unwilling to change/bend as it seems many have found her?

Add into an already tense mix, Mark Aldridge, with his expectations of special treatment, ranting, antics and passive aggressive, posturing behavior and it set the entire situation into overdrive.

How do we know that she passed previous inspections with flying colours? How do we know that she has not been given previous chances to fix the place up and failed to do so until the RSPCA felt they had no choice but to go after her legally? How do we know what the previous inspection reports say about the state of the place?

One thing that is abundantly clear is that there is not enough personnel on the property for the number of animals there. This is an absolute no brainer and SHE should be capping her own numbers solely to ensure that the animals already there are getting the care, attention and necessities they need.

If it was a puppy farm being run out of Moorook I can guarantee that NO ONE would be happy with the conditions the dogs are living in and people would be screaming for it to be shut down. Just because it is a rescue and not a puppy farm, does not make the conditions any more acceptable than they would be otherwise.

It is impossible to fully support either side without first knowing ALL the details. Forming opinions and jumping on bandwagons based solely on the say so of one side is naive and pretty ludicrous.

[Are You Serious Jo]

That's pretty much spot on. I would loved to have seen Lola accept her limitations and come to an agreement to be compliant with the rspca. I'm not sure they could have forced her and the shelter could be fixed and stay open but that chance dissipated when Mark decided to make it his cause of the month.

[Red Fox]

120 dogs on the premises - 5 mins per day to clean up after each, change it's water, feed it and give it a pat = 10 hours work per day.

If the dogs are also given the required 20 mins per day exercise and stimulation that blows out to 40 hours of work per day.

Plus whatever time is required to deal with emergencies, administer worming treatments, tend to the cats, vet appointments and so on.

Moorook has 3 part time volunteers and an owner that works full time. There are only 24 hours in a day.

Lola appears to have MORE supporting her than there are detractors like you here. That say's a lot to me.

Mark, in all honesty, look what happens to those that speak up..

Edited June 1, 2013 by RidgieMal

[Are You Serious Jo]

Ok, I'm not attacking you but have you ever had to clean kennels? I have worked at kennels and catteries during my PhD and there is no way you can fully clean and feed a kennelled dog in 5 minutes. I'm talking hosing the runs and scrubbing the water and food bowls though, plus change bedding if is needs it. On top is socialisation and meds and for some training to deal with problem behaviours. What happens on the days that Lola is at work and there are no volunteers? Or she has to do an emergency run to the vets and there is no one there. There is an ex volunteer coming in that can fill you in on how the dogs were managed, when independent people all say the thing thing and they haven't met you have to ask yourself why. I am happy to stick to what can be shown to be true and what has been publicly said because I cannot tell all due to not being able to name the source.

[Linda K]

would also add t that what about the actually checking the dog over, esp in those runs, to ensure there are no cuts, scratchs, and treat those that were having the claimed "ongoing medical treatment". Not to mention then doing the same with whatever number of cats are there as well. And those time limits are a bare minimum, not to mention actually completing paperwork and records etc for each animal, so people know who has had what and what is being done for them, let alone then assessing the newcomers and taking them to the vets for examination and treatment, and looking after actual sales, getting food, disposing of waste etc. The workload there is a staggering amount just for a small number of dogs, let alone 120. Having worked in a kennels before, I also know just how long it takes to do things, and 5 minutes is decidedly generous, even aloowing for the obvious multiple housings they have in the kennels.

Have watched the thing online, and saw it as typical TT hyperbole - the food for instance, no mention was made of exactly why a permit was now being sought so donations could be made (ie that she had up till now illegally being taking them without one, and had been caught out with it), nor showing the pens or mentioning the pens, and noted that they actually showed very few of the pens that we have seen in the photos that had been deemed unacceptable, giving the impression of what it looked like was in fact all big spacious dirt pens like the ones we saw. Also noticed with a shudder the way Lola was shown feeding the dogs that she did feed, and just how messy it looked behind and around her (and remember this is after it was "cleaned up", and how they gave the impression that she runs it with all those volunteers. They also described Mark as running his own no kill shelter - funny, never thought a wildlife sanctuary was the same thing as a no kill dog shelter, but there you go. and apart from dragging up 2 cases of dogs that had no bearing on Moorook, saw none of the "expose" we were promised. I did like Lolas comments though that she would not have minded if she had been charged with either dirty pens or being untidy (so clearly she admits those are problems, even though Mark does not think so), but says she objected to the cruelty charges as she has never hurt an animal. Seems to me she does not get that cruelty to animals is more than just hurting them - keeping them in conditions that are just wrong for their conditions year after year like some of them have been described in is also cruel, as is not properly treating conditions being suffered by them.

Can see a bit why the Moorook adorers liked it, as they would have thought it was so wonderful that Mark and Lola got to say their bit about how she is just a little old lady being picked on by bureaucracy, and it is her against the RSPCA, but I certainly think to anyone looking at that shelter and seeing the conditions that the animals were being kept in, agree that if it was a puppy farmer, the outcry for them to be hanged and get death threats would be all over the internet (in fact it was when the job was done on the breeder earlier this year, when the activists moved dogs and then filmed them in dirty conditions much like these) Amazing double standards being applied that say, as has been said before, that it is OK for a rescuer to have appalling conditions, as she is saving them all and finding them homes, but not OK for a breeder to have even 1 dog in a condition like this

[WreckitWhippet]

Can see a bit why the Moorook adorers liked it, as they would have thought it was so wonderful that Mark and Lola got to say their bit about how she is just a little old lady being picked on by bureaucracy, and it is her against the RSPCA, but I certainly think to anyone looking at that shelter and seeing the conditions that the animals were being kept in, agree that if it was a puppy farmer, the outcry for them to be hanged and get death threats would be all over the internet (in fact it was when the job was done on the breeder earlier this year, when the activists moved dogs and then filmed them in dirty conditions much like these) Amazing double standards being applied that say, as has been said before, that it is OK for a rescuer to have appalling conditions, as she is saving them all and finding them homes, but not OK for a breeder to have even 1 dog in a condition like this

you got it in one. I'm amazed at the double standards, there's all hell to pay for a breeder who dare keep a dog in such conditions but it's all fine and dandy in the name of "rescue"...

[Red Fox]

Ok, I'm not attacking you but have you ever had to clean kennels? I have worked at kennels and catteries during my PhD and there is no way you can fully clean and feed a kennelled dog in 5 minutes. I'm talking hosing the runs and scrubbing the water and food bowls though, plus change bedding if is needs it. On top is socialisation and meds and for some training to deal with problem behaviours. What happens on the days that Lola is at work and there are no volunteers? Or she has to do an emergency run to the vets and there is no one there. There is an ex volunteer coming in that can fill you in on how the dogs were managed, when independent people all say the thing thing and they haven't met you have to ask yourself why. I am happy to stick to what can be shown to be true and what has been publicly said because I cannot tell all due to not being able to name the source.

That was exactly my point - 120 dogs on premises means there would have been less than 5 mins per day allocated to caring for each dog.

Edited June 2, 2013 by RidgieMal

[Are You Serious Jo]

Sorry, I was a bit spacey this morning, been sleeping at the stables waiting for a donkey to foal so am a bit distracted :laugh:

[catsndogs]

As a former supporter of MAS, I can tell you that everything said in regards to what it was like is true. Green water, spoiled bakery goods and flavoured milk being fed as part of their diet. Animal food was not secured from pests. At that point there was 1 regular volunteer who helped Lola on the weekend that I know of. Cats were free range and there were dogs in amongst the debris. The place was a mess and not healthy for the animals there. Offers of help were mostly refused, more due to pride than anything I believe.

I have nothing against Lola, she did what she could and believes she can save them all, but there has to be some sort of limitation in place to stop this from happening again. There will be the same problems once this is over and the helpers start to disappear.

I am certainly no fan of RSPCA, but something had to be done to stop this continuing.

Perhaps if the councils had given her some support, it would not have came to this, I doubt it though due to the feeling Lola has to save every animal that comes to the gate.

There are good reasons why volunteers leave and since many have walked away, maybe it's time to find out the reason why rather than placing blame on them.

I am not having a "go" at anyone here BTW, this is what I have been seeing on Facebook since this whole issue began. People being named in public, their details being posted will not help the shelter stay open. The main one doing and allowing it on the Facebook page this must surely realise that the page will be monitored and everything kept.

[Are You Serious Jo]

I've also read that she works two jobs to support the shelter, but as snook explained, working or not both are issues when it comes to either time available or money available.

[HeelerLove]

Now I've had a chance to watch the Today Tonight segment, my thoughts:

For once a reasonably balanced report from Today Tonight as in it wasn't all one sided which is a nice change from their usual reporting. Although I think they tried to present it in Moorook's favour it didn't really come across that way, but they definitely didn't do any favours for the RSPCA either.

Mark Aldridge's facial hair is NOT cool. :laugh:

"There is no reason anyone should put a cat or dog down unless it's very old and has ill health". What happens if the dog is not very old, but has ill health? Whether that is just a trip up on words or not I don't know but I don't agree with that comment.

Some of those enclosures have loose wire and corrugated sheets. I have seen what the bottom of my corrugated fence did to my dogs nose when she decided to try and dig under it- it wasn't good and resulted in a fairly costly visit to the vet for a GA and stitches. I know the first thing I did was put stuff down so it couldn't happen again, I would have thought things like that would have been addressed at the working bees.

Apparently Mark Aldridge runs a no kill shelter.. I thought it was a 'sanctuary'?

You can clearly see water bowls full of muddy, murky water in some of the pens

Bit dramatic chucking the dog food in the bin at the end lol but that is Today Tonight for you.

Overall, definitely not the big 'expose' Mark A promised it would be.

Edited June 3, 2013 by BlueyLove

[Are You Serious Jo]

I haven't seen it yet but it's far from the hard hitting expose that will shatter the rspca.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Seems they have 5 days to remove 36 dogs, if what Mark A is saying is true of course. He has also changed his dog numbers from can comfortably house 150 to keeping it at 60 to make it easier on the volunteers and Lola.

[casowner]

That, is one long sentence, with, a lot, of commas

[Pjrt]

60 is still way too many on site with one full time carer and a few hopefully reliable vollies!

[HeelerLove]

I can't find that post on his wall, funny how quite a few of his posts seem to disappear!

You would think being a political candidate he would try to use proper grammar. I have seen a few comments from people pointing out spelling mistakes etc in the articles on his website and offer to proof read for him and they are usually shot down pretty quickly and quite rudely. When you are putting yourself in the public eye small things like that are pretty important!

60 is definitely better than 150 but probably still too many for Lola and the volunteers that are left.. The other week there were only 50 dogs there and she was struggling to have all pens cleaned out by the time the council got there at 2.

[Are You Serious Jo]

It is from the show your support to Moorook event page, not his FB page. My screenshot sending friend gave it to me. I was speaking to a Moorook supporter who said she was helping out and I said I thought it best they try to rehome those dogs now because there might come a time when they have to do it quickly. Mark A club also think they will put in FOI requests and find the names of the people who have out in complaints. Sorry Paul, those names will be redacted from the documents when you get them, or people would never be able to complain.

[HeelerLove]

I thought I looked there and another page too but I'm having one of those days- a snake could crawl across my foot and I probably wouldn't even notice it lol.

There is a pretty slim chance they'd get any names, I know when I looked in to it I gave up before I began as was told there's very little chance. What is knowing going to do for them anyway? It won't achieve anything, what's done is done.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Telling all the followers who it is knowing what will happen. I know they won't get them but they think they will. I am really worried about the animals left there now, I hope they do find good homes, not just any homes before there is a council seizure.

[Linda K]

either Mark was doing one of his usual "the sky is falling routines" to stir up the masses, and what he was saying was never the case, or that person on the council has done a backflip worthy of being in Canberra