Rescue dogs shot to prevent Covid transmission by rescuers...

[persephone]

Rescue dogs shot dead by NSW council due to COVID-19 restrictions

By Angus Thompson

August 22, 2021 — 12.43pm

Save

Share

Normal text sizeLarger text sizeVery large text size

16

View all comments

For our free coronavirus pandemic coverage, learn more here.

 

Several impounded dogs due to be rescued by a shelter have instead been shot dead by a rural council in NSW under its interpretation of COVID-19 restrictions, alarming animal activists and prompting a government probe.

Bourke Shire Council, in the state’s north-west, killed the dogs to prevent volunteers at a Cobar-based animal shelter from travelling to pick up the animals last week, according to council’s watchdog, the Office of Local Government.

 

Several dogs have been shot by a rural pound to due to social distancing.CREDIT:LAURA HARDWICK

“OLG has been informed that the council decided to take this course of action to protect its employees and community, including vulnerable Aboriginal populations, from the risk of COVID-19 transmission,” a spokesman from the government agency said.

The spokesman said the agency was examining the circumstances of the incident to find out whether companion animal and cruelty prevention laws had been broken.

 

The Herald attempted to contact the council administration multiple times, but received no response, and a member of Rural Outback Respite/Rescue – the shelter that was supposed to receive the dogs – declined to comment.

A source who is familiar with the arrangement said the shelter volunteers are distressed and had COVID-safe measures in place to handle the dogs, one of which was a new mother.

According to NSW Health, there have been no recent locally acquired COVID-19 cases in Cobar, although fragments of the virus have been found in the area’s sewerage system.

The Office of Local Government Minister Shelley Hancock, who has previously faced questions in Parliament over the shooting of animals in council pounds, did not comment. However, animal liberation campaigner Lisa Ryan called for an urgent investigation.

“We are deeply distressed and completely appalled by this callous dog shooting and we totally reject council’s unacceptable justifications that this killing was apparently undertaken as part of a COVID- safe plan,” Ms Ryan, Animal Liberation’s regional campaign manager, said.

 

Asked during budget estimates in March whether she knew about councils shooting animals to euthanise them, Ms Hancock said she didn’t.

“If it was a practice, I would be concerned about it — if it was a cat or a dog,” she said, before agreeing to answer questions on notice regarding the practice.

 

The NSW government has encouraged animal shelters to keep operating.CREDIT:PAUL HARRIS

A later answer said councils weren’t required to tell the government how they killed animals under their care.

Ms Ryan said, based on her answers during the hearing, Ms Hancock was “clearly oblivious to the reality of the serious issues involving many NSW council pounds.”

 

Greens animal welfare spokeswoman Abigail Boyd said the government had undertaken no action since the issues had been raised with Ms Hancock during the parliamentary hearing.

“While the Liberal-National government twiddles its thumbs on animal welfare issues, more animals are being killed,” she said.

“Council pounds are paid for by local communities, and it is clear that shooting lost and unclaimed dogs housed in these publicly-funded facilities falls far short of community expectations.”

The OLG spokesman said the agency issued advice to all councils about operating pounds during the COVID-19 outbreak, including changing procedures to ensure those services continued while keeping staff and volunteers safe.

“Councils are also encouraged to continue to work with re-homing organisations and volunteers to care for animals, where that can be undertaken consistent with NSW Health advice,” the spokesman said.

 

 

 

On July 30, the agency said pounds and shelters could remain open to the public, and as people involved in animal welfare, their staff were authorised workers in locked-down areas.

“Accordingly, prospective new owners should still be encouraged to “adopt not shop”, consistent with NSW Health advice,” the OLG stated.

 

 

 

Save

[PossumCorner]

Disturbing.  And makes you wonder what else Councils are not obliged to divulge.

[Pjrt]

While I do think more can probably be done to assist homeless domestic pets………. it’s never the animals fault for ending up in the vulnerable position they do.

It’s astonishing the amount of anger that can be mobilised when a story like this hits the headlines. It’s always directed at the council, the individual who carried out the euthanasia, or the rescue groups ……everyone decrying ‘someone should have done more’

It’s all arse end around though, isn’t it. Where is the outrage and pure vitriol for the OWNERS of these animals. Neither the services tasked with cleaning up the mess, nor the animals themselves, created the mess. 

[asal]

I half agree with you Scratch, but?

We dont know the story behind the owners either and call for "outrage and pure vitriol for the OWNERS of these animals." is too over the top sorry.

 

Where is the  "outrage and pure vitriol for the" nursing homes subjecting our parents and grandparents to immeasurable suffering?

 

What is wrong with the society who will feel  "outrage and pure vitriol for" anyone perceived to have let their pets down, but incapable of equally witch hunting those who do the same to another human being?

 

easier? certainly.

 

Has their owner found themselves gone into hospital, nursing home, developing dementia or Alzheimer's, cancer, lost their home, died?

 

 

 

 

 

[Pjrt]

Asal you’re not telling me anything. I used to run a rescue service with a contract to take, assess, vet & rehome unclaimed strays from 3 rural councils, who after their 72 hrs in the pound would be shot if we didn’t take them. I was the one who had to decide the fate of these dogs, and it was very hard saying no sometimes, knowing exactly what would happen to them next. Some I knew were not rehome prospects but I’d take them in and hold them for their last breath at the vet when we took the others in for their vet work. Just to save them from dying tied up to the back of the council pound to take a bullet. 
I do understand your view of my strong words. I guess what I’m trying to say is people get very emotional over stories like in the OP but I’d like to see more outrage & emotion spent on working with people to make better choices, be assisted to keep their pets, and  frankly not ‘normalise’ the idea that there’s always the pound if things go wrong. 
both sides of the equation need a lot of work

[Dogsfevr]

What does the nsw animal welfare act say about euthanasia of domestic animals .

I’m not going to comment on finger pointing whose at fault BUT I do take issue that in Australia where states are trying to bring in puppy farm laws or the RSPCA can enter your property on a whim that shooting pound animals is an acceptable choice .

 

[tdierikx]

The only caveat in POCTAA is that the method of euthanasia is quick and as painless as possible... still allows scope for shooting an animal as a means to that end.

 

I don't agree with it, but I can see how the powers that be could argue their reason for ordering a single person to shoot the dogs in question, rather than having at least 2 people achieve the same end via the usual/preferred method. It takes a vet to deliver the injection, and another person to restrain that animal in order for the injection to be given - which definitely means those 2 people would be well within each other's personal space. Stupid council regulations in regard to "covid safety" were averse to the presence of a rescuer coming to take the dogs, which would have resulted in less close contact between the parties present for the handover than that required for the general public's preferred method of euthanasia, so you could see the thought process in the order to shoot the dogs instead... however misguided and callous it may look to the outside world.

 

I am in no way condoning the action taken... just posing thoughts on how some public servant came to the conclusion to order these dogs to be shot, rather than allowing rescue to take them, or to be destroyed by more "acceptable" methods.

 

T.

[Pjrt]

The councils out here, and believe me we’re not exactly ‘remote’, choose death by shooting because our town of 3000+ doesn’t have a vet, the nearest vets are 30-40 mins in either direction for euthanasia options, they could drop them at the AWL a or RSPCA shelters (Adelaide only has one of each) but one is over 3hrs return travel, the other over 4hrs. Without private rescue options many of the dogs out here don’t stand much of a chance. To the credit of local rangers they do try to get dogs into homes directly from council impoundment, but a lot fall through the cracks for various reasons. 
Councils don’t ask to be the dumping ground for unwanted animals and often have limits to what they can practically do with them. 

[persephone]

I posted , not because I object to the shooting deaths -it is because rescue was not permitted to take these poor dogs It seemed more a 'convenience act than anything. 

Spoiler

that's how our dogs leave us  and it is, for them less stressful than a vet visit , by our sides ,calm, being spoken to and loved.