mita

Note I did not recommend a new dog .... as in ownership.... in the first instance. That is too much of a leap of change ... known as 'flooding' ... for both Roo & her owner. It also risks adding double trouble (as I've already said). I suggested considering a 'day' comfort dog .... that only kept company during the day. That is something which is open to testing, in incremental periods, not 'flooding'.... and not locking in. I've also pointed out the role of 'associations' with the habitual behaviour. Triggers for relaxed behaviour are seen & smelled at daycare. Triggers for the chronic anxiety/frustration behaviours are in her home. There is no way of predicting if the company of another dog would over-ride the latter. Again, it's open to testing, incrementally ... and not locking in. I'm interested in your aim for Roo to be first 'more comfortable in her own home'. Which has been tested for some months now. Jelly has just reported there's no change in the actual targeted behaviours. What are the strategies which are aimed at achieving that level of comfort, apart from the passing of time. And what are the actual behavioral changes that will indicate a level of 'more comfortable' has been reached. Jelly's made an interesting observation that Roo was not as happy at the first daycare she tried. But is happy at this one. Some variables make Roo more or less relaxed around other dogs. Interesting to tease out. Actually Jelly's observations have always been spot on. She's a joy for behaviorists to work with, especially given the 'stubborn' and complex nature of 'home alone' problems. Have been there myself, with 2 'home alone' problems. As I've posted before, a furniture ripping young sheltie benefitted greatly from another sheltie for company ( after a behaviour modification program put in place). Her problem never emerged again. But an elderly tibbie was unchanged when another tibbie came. Nothing tried could modify her problem of pitifully howling.

Where is this 'whether you admit it or not' coming from? It's a given with all tenders that conflict of interest.... and even perceived conflict of interest... can be, & should be called. That call can come from any direction, given transparency required in local government processes. You now want the Council to put it in their policy that the RPSCA will be barred from future tenders for their pound. Why?... when it's already indicated that they have awareness of conflict of interest. Cr Antonielli's described how he distanced himself, as an RSPCA board member, from any Council decisions about the RSCPA coming in with interim service. The same scrutiny should apply if there's a future tender for the Pound service, where there's been a recent event of RSPCA investigation. The discussions about the role of the RSPCA go way back. Even the CEO once went public with a personal wish that it could be a welfare organisation only... and that the policing should be handled elsewhere. I've always believed that the policing role should be a public service. But in an age when governments are reducing public services and encouraging a shift to private providers & charities, it's not likely to take off. Meanwhile in the reality of the present. It's to be hoped that the AWL stands well in the investigation, on its respected record. With natural justice delivered by all concerned. We don't even know what these later complaints are ... after the RSPCA had already passed the AWL shelter care. Nothing more I could add to that. Except lovely message with pic of AWL Ipswich folk on Facebook only 12 hrs ago. (Do they know something we don't?) Makes you want to hug them all. :) It's not goodbye, it's see ya later! Thanks to all our supporters :)

I was thinking the same thing myself mita... T. I can just see Roo's profile on the Pet Partners' website (made up!).... with that last daycare pic showing.. 'Would you love to cuddle up, like this, all day long, with my gorgeous self? I only see Dachie 2 days a week. There's heaps of me to go around.' :) :) :) Of course, there's something to be said for the contexts where habits are formed. The daycare environment only has good associations for Roo. The home environment has things that are associated with being anxious and frustrated. I have no idea if the company of another dog would over-ride that. It worked with our young busybody sheltie who'd had SA. But it didn't work for our elderly tibbie.

Where did I say that the RSPCA wouldn't put in a tender if the AWL is discharged as contractor & new tenders are called? I even said 'if they did'.... Given I haven't a clue what they'd do. I've indicated that, given a number of 'ifs' which take the matter into the future .... usual conflict of interest and perceived conflict of interest 'calls' would apply if new tendering is called. Open tenders have to appear on the Council website, so the public would be aware and could make comment. You are asking the Council to make a pronouncement, now, on a future hypothetical tendering scenario where key participants aren't known. You want the Council to say, now, that the RSPCA will be barred. I'm saying usual tendering processes will be in place, whoever key participants would be. And any relevant 'calls' about conflict of interest can be made. There's nothing wrong in doing so. You're also free to state your concerns about a hypothetical future scenario. Anything less would be censorship. You say I'm 'always saying' how RSPCA officials talk to me. Last time an RSPCA ''official' (Inspector) spoke with me was years ago about a local matter many of us were concerned about. And you say my 'putting forth' an email address for the RSPCA shows I've used it & have some connection. I had to look it up on the RSPCA website for the purpose of the post.

Thanks Mita :) She is getting totally tuckered out if this one from today is anything to go by Oh, gawd! Those daycare shots are getting more & more gorgeous. Look how relaxed she is, next to her little friend. That little dog loves her... look how its leaning in. Good judge of character, that Dachie. No wonder you love Roo so much. Jelly, she's telling you heaps. Now I'm not telling you what to do.... you've got enought of that! But is there any way of trying her with another dog for company.

Go to the source of any tender & ask? [email protected] When it was first raised by a poster, I searched the Australian Tenders website. Also the Ipswich Council has a section on its website where (current) open tenders are listed. Well good luck getting a response from any email that isn't offering them money. Since you seem to be on such good terms with them maybe they'll answer your emails because they've never answered mine! Also, asking whether the rspca will be barred from tendering for the contract once this issue is resolved is not a moot point, it's very relevant to the current events. You believe I'm on 'good terms' with RSPCA Qld & that they'd answer my emails. Actually, using what I already knew, I took a more direct public information route to check if there were any pending tenders. So you want the Ipswich Council to announce the barring of the RSPCA from tendering for a service that currently is not up for tender. A service which already has a contractor, the AWL, which is under suspension. After the current investigation, it may be re-instated or it may be discharged If discharged, and if any new tenders are called, and if the RSPCA applies, then there would be Council decision-making that would cover the usual identification of conflicts of interests.... and even of perceived conflicts of interest. Information about any such open tender would appear (as is usual) on the Council's website, so the general public can be aware. I hope the current investigation will reflect natural justice & be as prompt as possible in reaching some decision. Tracey, I also thought it a hopeful sign that the AWL was able to take the animals to another place, for care & adoption. Surely that couldn't be allowed to happen if there was strong evidence of serious mistreatmemt.

Please note that the contract is merely suspended. It is not cancelled or terminated. With respect, the question is moot. Yes, the Q'ld Times reported that on 22 March. THE Animal Welfare League of Queensland began evacuating 140 homeless animals from Ipswich yesterday after the council suspended its contract Explains why, when I double-checked on the sites where current tenders are listed, none showed. I guess any next move would depend on the outcome of the investigation.

Oh, yes you have. You've tested her in daycare with the company of other dogs to distract her from being anxious and frustrated. It's worked brilliantly. Wouldn't have with some dogs with separation anxiety, who are just fixated on their owner, Madam Roo is having a great time in those pics.

Go to the source of any tender & ask? [email protected] When it was first raised by a poster, I searched the Australian Tenders website. Also the Ipswich Council has a section on its website where (current) open tenders are listed.

Why does information have to be documented to be factual? When documented it's no longer hearsay. It has a factual source which is open to investigation/questioning.

Thanks for your response, Cr Antoniolli. It seems you were true to your word in saying you believe in natural justice. A sound basis for any investigation. I have no problem with your use of the word 'scuttlebutt'. It's a slang word for 'hearsay'. And 'hearsay' is passing around information that is not documented as factual.

How's their kill rate? I understand that they do cooperate with rescue on occasion? Not as good as AWL, hope this is just temporary, but as a councillor is on the board of the rspca I doubt it. Time to scream conflict of interest if that's the case and take that one to the media ... or a non-screamer might run this supposition that the RSCPA is tendering for the Ipswich Pound service past the Council for public comment.

That's a fantastic pic. Those dogs just love being together. A good advertisement for daycare! I understand what you mean that it's tricky to sort or try out another dog to be at home with Roo... for company. I've heard that quite a few people try the second dog route .... but it's no quick fix recipe & sometimes makes a second problem. For our young shelite who had separation anxiety, the arrival of a second sheltie (a rescue we adopted) made a huge difference. But she'd already responded to a behaviour training program. She was a real busybody ratbag (but much loved). And I think she hated being alone because she had no one to drive crazy. When the sweet-natured rescue sheltie arrived, she was in heaven. BUT our elderly tibbie who had separation anxiety just ignored the second tibbie we got. Made no impression on her at all. Every situation is so different!

$40 for desexed animals or entire animals owned by a dogs NSW member $150 for an entire animal. I really cant see how yearly rego will change anything- the same people will register their dogs, the same people wont. Only thing is that it rakes in more money.... from those people who register their dogs no matter what. And whose dogs are less likely to contribute to council animal management problems. In Brisbane, it's getting close to $40 to register each of my small dogs, every year. I'd love a lifetime registration of a once only payment of $40.

yep Do you also know something we don't? That the RSPCA is tendering for the Ipswich Pound service?

Got it!

Is the RSPCA tendering for the contract? Only thing I can find from the newspapers was that the RSPCA already came out & passed the AWL operation. But a couple of outstanding things were brought up by those disgruntled ex-volunteers. Papers say they're being investigated by the Council and the RSPCA. BTW I found the old DOL thread where Cr Antonielli came here to announce the relationship the Council was forming with AWL QLD. http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/215758-awl-wins-tender-for-ipswich-council-pound/ I was trying to find if there were any other groups that tendered at that time.

Thanks for clarfying that, Steve. So the discount is based on the p/b dog's owner being a member of the state's kennel association. I was hoping it might apply to p/b dogs that were registered with the state's kennel association so it'd cover dogs bought by pet owners from registered breeders. Agree with you, it'll particularly hit people who bought more than one dog thinking they'd only have to pay the double fee once. Hard to follow the logic except they're hoping to get more money from the dog owners who'll always register their dogs, no matter what. As others have said .... punishing the people who do the right thing.

AWL Qld's army of supporters are sure rallying. Not only to get the pets brought from Ipswich adopted. One person posted on their Facebook page that she'd emailed the Mayor & also Cr Antoniolli. She said the next day she received an 'encouraging response' from them. The addresses are:[email protected] and [email protected] (on Council website).

Good news re heaps of support from AWL Qld Facebook (just 3 hours ago): The Animal Welfare League of Qld would like to send out big hugs to everyone who came and adopted, fostered, volunteered and worked over the weekend and also to the media who helped promote our cause which helped rehome the extra animals that came to the Gold Coast shelter from Ipswich. We could not have asked for a better community spirit where everyone banded together to care for our gorgeous Cats and Dogs and we are proud to announce that we rehomed 151 animals in just 3 days!! The breakdown is as follows 2 birds 33 cats 56 dogs 42 kittens 18 puppies We have had so many heartfelt stories and photos we look forward to seeing updates on our FB feed from everyone who chose to adopt.. THANK YOU!

Now that's in the right direction. The stats back it up. Pigs do fly around your council area. :)

Also, dogs implicated in serious attacks tend to be not registered with local authorities. All this proposed change will do, is make the people who reliably register their dogs.... and are less likely to dump their dogs, or have aggressive dogs ... pay more for doing the right thing. Why don't they look at the statistics before coming up with these 'fixit ideas'? If they did, they'd find that dogs bought from registered breeders are less likely to have socialization problems & less likely to be dumped. If anything, there should be a discount on their registration (while pigs fly).

Thanks for that link. I'd never heard of Noseworks & the site proved a great read. They have a portrait gallery of dogs that've taken part & I was happy to see some smaller dogs in there, too. As you've said, the dogs do the activity on their own, so the smaller ones wouldn't be overwhelmed. While thinking this.... I came upon, a tibbie! http://www.k9nosework.com/photogallery/tustinportraits.html Great it's coming to Australia! I'll spread word.

All those baby puppies you've raised will be sending slobbery birthday kisses. :) Happy birthday!

Socialization needs to be defined & specified. Dog-to-dog socialization, is different from dog-to-human socialization. Dog behaviour & its norms are involved in the first. In the second, dogs are learning to live with another species. Best articles I know of on the issue, point out that human expectations about dog-to-dog socialisation are often totally misguided (from the Animal Humane Society). Humans can project norms for human socialization on to dogs. First article points that out, the second gets down to looking at dogs interacting with dogs. IMO I wouldn't change the label to 'neutralisation' because it's anything but neutral. http://www.animalhumanesociety.org/training/library/socializing-adult-dog and http://www.animalhumanesociety.org/training/library/are-they-having-good-time