Cr Andrew Antoniolli

Thank you for coming here to clear the air (somewhat) about the situation at Ipswich pound, Cr Antoniolli.

May we ask whether the RSPCA may have a tender pending for the pound service - and if so, will you be recommending that ANY contractor taking on the pound service should attempt to KEEP working with private rescues to maximise the number of animals rehomed from Ipswich pound? You must admit that this is part of why the AWL have had much success with their rehoming rates to date...

T.

Please note that the contract is merely suspended. It is not cancelled or terminated. With respect, the question is moot.

I note the enormous scuttlebutt that has appeared on this forum and others over the past week. This does not assist either the investigation or the AWL.

I would respectfully request that all forum readers give the opportunity to the council to conduct it's investigation before making rash and unjust statements.

Andrew Antoniolli

Councillor

Ipswich City Council

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.

Yes, Thank you. I did not mean to offend. Rumours and innuendo run thick and fast and merely muddy the waters. I will stick to facts and I have outlined the facts as they should be put at this point of an investigation. I do not intend to be drawn into any discussion relating to the matter whilst it is under investigation. I do so as I respect natural justice and as such I would hope that the forum would respect that.

I have been requested to respond to this matter and some of the claims regarding the AWL suspension from the Ipswich Pound.

Please note that this is the subject of an internal investigation therefore, in the interests of natural justice, my response will be brief.

The suspension and investigation relates to claims of animal welfare and matters pertaining to operational management and breach of contract.

The AWL has been suspended with ongoing payment of their contract pending the result of the investigation/inquiry.

The RSPCA will undertake interim management of both the pound and rehoming facility. It is council's intention to continue the rehoming of unclaimed/unwanted pets.

I am a board member of the RSPCA. Does this present a 'conflict of interest'? Yes, and I have declared my COI accordingly to both organisations. I have not been part of the decision process involved in either suspending the contract or appointing the interim provider.

I note the enormous scuttlebutt that has appeared on this forum and others over the past week. This does not assist either the investigation or the AWL.

I would respectfully request that all forum readers give the opportunity to the council to conduct it's investigation before making rash and unjust statements.

Andrew Antoniolli

Councillor

Ipswich City Council

Just providing an update on previous posting on this forum regarding the AWL taking over the pound operations for Ipswich City Council.

The floods certainly delayed the commencement of operations however the AWL are now settled into the pound and have began the role of pound manager and the establishment of a rehousing facility on site.

Please refer to Ipswich City Council media release:

http://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_council/media/view_release/?id=3331&action=viewMediaRelease

and also refer to QT newspaper story:

http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/11/11/endofdog-deathrow-pound-partnership-will-save-pet-/

I look forward to this partnership saving many thousands of dogs from destruction.

In answer to all those questions and statements above. The 'Getting to Zero' (or G2Z) program is quite simple. That said it is not immediate and does take time to reach the full 'Zero' target especially when introduced into a new area such as Ipswich, although once the AWL take over the Ipswich pound operations there will be an immediate improvement in services and outcomes. This will include access to AWL vets who will undertake emergency and regular vet services to pound.

In essence the program is quite simple i.e. All dogs/cats that are surrendered or unclaimed (dumped/unwanted) at the pound will be rehomed. This includes dogs/cats with treatable temperment and/or health issues. Obviously those dogs/cats with untreatable conditions such as very poor or ailing health, aggressive nature etc. will likely be PTS.

Many thousands of dogs/cats are put down nationally each year simply because they are unwanted. The G2Z program aims to change the behaviour of a community towards being proactive towards this social crime towards unwanted dogs and cats. It aims to make a community responsible for the situation and shifts the focus towards the rescue of these innocent victims of irresponsible pet owners.

Some of the statements above are completely inaccurate and only succeed in circulating misinformation. The AWL is a respected animal welfare organisation with a philosophy and doctrine solely focused on the welfare of pets and awareness of improved community values towards animals. They should be commended for their commitment and postive actions and not condemned by armchair generals.

I can comment with a great deal of authority on the service provided by AWL as they have been a partner with council on rehoming many hundreds of dogs/cats for approximately 8 years. The difference being that in this new partnership the AWL will set up formal operations at the Ipswich Pound, whereas in the past they took those other unclaimed dogs/cats to their Gold Coast facility for rehoming.

To paint a very bad picture of the present situation here are some startling facts of dogs/cats impounded at Ipswich (pls be aware that this situation is repeated at many other pounds throughout the country):

Dogs - Approximately 65% of dogs are collected or rehomed through the Ipswich Pound. The remainder are Euthanised.

Cats - Approximately only 10% of cats are collected or rehomed through the Ipswich Pound. That's right!....approx 90% of cats are euthanised. This is an appalling statistic which represents irresponsible pet ownership. Even taking into account the number of strays (unowned) that are impounded this does represent an ugly statistic.

Pls note that at present the IpswichPound rehomes some of these animals itself, however the vast majority of rehomed animals are forwarded to either the AWL or RSPCA for rehoming as the council cannot undertake such a specialised operation itself without assistance from organisations such as the AWL.

Obviously the new partnership to commence 1 July will see the AWL assume full responsibility for turning the present circumstances around and move towards 'getting to zero' euthanasia.

It's good news for those that would normally go on 'death row'.

Thx Poodlefan

This proposal has been on the drawing board with Ipswich for many years and I have been advocating for it's commencement. It's also important to understand and be aware of the feelings of animal lovers such as those involved in this forum.

A few years ago this proposal stalled after the RSPCA annouced that it was moving it's State HQ to Ipswich. We took this news as an opportunity to work with the RSPCA campus, however, some 18 mnths later they were forced to move to Wacol as the land chosen by the State was undermined and unsuitable.

We then went out to tender and were pleased to annouce the successful awarding of the tender to the AWL which will in the end be more like a working partnership towards better outcomes for both animal management and animal welfare.

Bit O/T, Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasle, was a great, down to earth, inspirational leader, during the recent floods. When people in his area had to be evacuated, there was no hesitation about pets being allowed too. While Brisbane Council was first saying No Pets....until someone ( bless 'em!) got that overturned.

And he managed to be funny as well as supportive of his community. When looters got caught, he threatened he'd used them as flood markers. When some shops sold basics at inflated prices, he said they'd find council road/footpath works right outside their stores for the next number of months.

All gloriously politically incorrect...but exactly what people were delighted to hear during those hard times.

There's a can-do, will-do attitude spreading around Ipswich. Looks like pets will benefit, too, from this new partnership with AWL Qld.

That was brilliant!

I can't talk to the AWL proposal but I think a council member putting a proposal like this up for discussion on a popular and passionate dog forum is awesome.

Well done Ipswich - it's where I was born!. ;)

Thx Mita

As part of the preparation/input into the Ipswich Disaster Management Plan, myself and some of the Anaimal Management Staff had successfully advocated for the inclusion of pets at evacuation centres. History of other international disaster events has shown that people are reluctant to leave their pets at time of crisis and emergency, therefore by including pets we remove the hesitation and it worked well. We had in excess of 450 pets temprarily housed at the Ipswich Evac Centre and the help we received from volunteers (including one of my daughters) was exceptional. Not sure whether you saw it but our efforts made it onto Dr Harry's segment on Ch 7's Better Homes & Gardens.

Bit O/T, Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasle, was a great, down to earth, inspirational leader, during the recent floods. When people in his area had to be evacuated, there was no hesitation about pets being allowed too. While Brisbane Council was first saying No Pets....until someone ( bless 'em!) got that overturned.

And he managed to be funny as well as supportive of his community. When looters got caught, he threatened he'd use them as flood markers. When some shops sold basics at inflated prices, he said they'd find council road/footpath works right outside their stores for the next number of months.

All gloriously politically incorrect...but exactly what people were delighted to hear during those hard times.

There's a can-do, will-do attitude spreading around Ipswich. Looks like pets will benefit, too, from this new partnership with AWL Qld.

Thanks Corvus

AWL currently run the Gold Coast pound facility and as a result they have, over time, developed their 'Getting to Zero' (G2Z) initiative to a point where they now have a successful Zero Euthanasia Rate. The initiative is simple......All dogs/cats suitable for rehoming and/or with treatable health/temperament issues are rehomed. In the Ipswich partnership we will be adopting the same initiative, together with other promotion, education and marketing campaigns designed to improve pet ownership responsibilities and therefore improve animal welfare. The partnership formally commences 1 July, 2011.

The small dealings I have had with AWL left a good impression. The small dealings I have had with council shelters suggest those that are trying to reduce the euth rate are still quite new at this? Not sure if it's the same for Ipswich. To me, it makes sense to get someone experienced to manage a shelter, or at least seek help from more experienced people if it is available. I have a great deal of respect for local councils that want to make changes to the status quo. That's where it all starts! I came across some fantastic local councils back in my environmental consulting days. Real leaders instigating useful change. Unfortunately there were many more that didn't have much of an idea what was going on in their environment. Some didn't even have a State of the Environment Report.

IPSWICH City Council is finalising negotiations to form a partnership with the Animal Welfare League of Queensland Inc to manage city's Hooper Street Animal Management Centre.

Health and Regulation Committee Chairperson, Councillor Andrew Antoniolli said a decision from today's Council meeting would lead to formal negotiations for the AWL to run the day to day operations of the Animal Management Centre freeing Council staff up to focus on other animal management duties.

"This is probably the best result we could have achieved to attract the expertise of the AWL with whom we have worked very closely for several years.

"The AWL has been running pound operations for the Gold Coast City Council for the past 20 years and has managed to achieve a zero euthanasia rate for impounded animals there.

"The AWL has an effective re-homing practice which they will now operate in Ipswich as from July this year.

"This signifies a change of era for our pound and perhaps breaks the stereotype that pounds just put down unwanted animals. Ipswich City council has been working with the AWL for many years to reverse this practice, however this partnership will see a dramatic reduction in the number of unclaimed cats and dogs being euthanised at the Ipswich City Council Pound and Animal management Centre. More importantly this sees Ipswich as taking responsibility for it's own problem and not simply passing our unwanted pet problem onto another community."

Councillor Antoniolli said the Animal Welfare League would further develop and deliver effective community education and support programs to the city.

"These programs are designed to promote responsible pet ownership, and teaches people on how to provide for the needs of their pets.

"The programs are also designed to create socially responsible pet owners who are aware of the impact of their choices on the management of animals in the community as a whole."

Cr Antoniolli said the AWL already provide a veterinary clinic within the Ipswich City Council area give the community access to low cost services for de sexing and micro-chipping and therefore reduce the number of unwanted cats and dogs within the community.

"They will also provide veterinary services to the Ipswich City Council Pound and Animal Management Centre."

Mayor Paul Pisasale said the notion of attaining a zero euthanasia rate was most appealing to residents of Ipswich.

"I hope the city embraces this concept and works with the AWL to achieve these goals which will be better for the animals and the people of our city in the long term."

Animal Welfare League of Queensland CEO, Denise Bradley, said she was looking forward to working with Ipswich City Council to achieve even better outcomes for local residents and their pets.

"We will be providing all the four elements of the model for ‘Getting to Zero' of healthy and sociable dogs and cats - rehoming, education, veterinary care for pound and shelter animals and the ongoing provision of a community veterinary clinic.

"We applaud Ipswich City Council's progressive move towards becoming a more compassionate and welfare oriented council and urge other councils to follow their lead."

QT Newspaper Story: http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/02/24/no-m...d-at-the-pound/

It appears that the honourable councillor's media spin has convinced the gullible and nay sayers who blame everything on dog owners, except themselves of course, coz they're perfect. It seems they respect others opinions as long as it doesn't differ from their own. As for the assertions made-

The dog was kept for 10 days not the 3 the pound takes to kill them, probably because it was over the holiday period. I would be surprised if any effort was taken to re-home the dog in the pound's care.

Did a vet diagnose Parvo? Was it simply suffering diahorrea due to a change in diet or stress, or both? It would be informative to see any paperwork on this. What infection control measures does the pound take to prevent these outbreaks?

Australia is one of a handful of countries which even bother to register dogs yet no evidence exists that kill rates are lower here or even in NSW where microchipping is mandatory. It's just another method of control and punishing people by killing their pets. It's illeggal to do it any other way now.

As dogs are considered disposable commodities they are killed on looks and it's the law, something more reminiscent of 1940s Germany than Australia in the 21st century, I would have thought. If it's a sheep, well we can bother to find the owner. Any wonder society is becoming more and more violent the way we view and treat companion animals!

User pays is necessary for dog owners but not livestock owners, library users, pedestrians, cyclists etc. I guess the council has to fund travel junkets in some way.

It seems that dog owners are the biggest contributor to council coffers than any other user of council services by far.

I find it hard to believe people work as ACOs because they love animals, more so because they love the power they have over animals but more particularly their owners. Politicians are renowned for using whatever means available to control people, in this instance I believe they are using their dogs.

Rather than media spin perhaps cr Andrew could tell us how the dogs are killed (simply farming them out doesn't cut the mustard) and what percentage of dogs which come into the pound's care are killed?

Got a problem Mr/Ms NoKillAustralia? Then take the effort to call me rather than make dark accusations as if the world is completely evil. Sometimes, and perhaps this may be difficult for you to accept, things just aren't as twisted as you have been so easily manipulated to believe. I take some of your accusations to heart because they insinuate something that I, like you, take very seriously. It is your right to have an opinion, not to make unfounded accusations or insinuations based on uncommon or past practice. You don't know me, nor I you, so rather than disparage me, call to discuss. Number below.

Still no contact from NKA. It would appear that courage of that kind only extends from a 'keyboard'.

NKA, I think you will find that I'm happy to listen to you and answer rational and reasonable questions. Just leave the hyperbole to one side and we might achieve something.

Ipswich City Council has recently released some new strategies and initiatives designed to improve our service in the Animal Management area and reduce the negative social impacts of animal ownership on the greater community. These initiatives have taken many months to develop to the release stage and include:

1. A data pofile of pet ownership in Ipswich which also includes community understanding and behaviour in relationship to ownership. This will enable council to develop a strategic plan for the management of animals in Ipswich, particularly pet ownership;

2. Continuation of our Active Pets/Active People program which encourages health and wellbeing for both pet and owner;

3. An increase in our 'Pet of the Week' program, in co-operation with the AWL.

Media Releases and links to Media stories are attached below:

http://www.qt.com.au/story/2010/02/27/more...omeone-to-love/

http://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_counci...iewMediaRelease

http://www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/about_counci...iewMediaRelease

Please note that Ipswich City Council has had a very long working relationship with the AWL and as a direct result of that co-operative arrangement many hundreds of pets have been rehoused and avoided the normal grisly fate of most unclaimed pound pets. A number of unclaimed dogs and cats are collected from the pound each week by both the AWL and the RSPCA, however, we also have in conjunction with the AWL a local program where we offer 1 to 2 unclaimed dogs or cats to the public. These dogs/cats are desexed, microchipped and registered and then sold to the community at a price that covers costs only.

Until recently both the pound and the AWL have not been able to provide more than approx. 1 or 2 dogs a week. Due to some co-operative discussions we have been able to increase this to 5 or 6 dogs/cats per week. This might seem like a small number, however the dozens of dogs/cats that are collected by animal welfare agencies each week are taken out of the city and rehoused outside of Ipswich.

This icrease/improvement is designed to take responsibility for our own local problem and rehouse the dog/cat locally.

Council is in current discussions with the AWL to further improve this situation and take full control and responsibility for our local situation. It is hoped that further initiatives will be announced soon.

I look forward to the forums feedback.

A lot of the problem sits with the "breeder". This pup should have been micrchipped before leaving home.

Cr. Andrew you have made some good points. Maybe you could agitate to acheive what I belive is a fundamental ommission with the Microchipp Database.

My discussions with CAR reveal that when an animal is sold and the new owners put their names and the second contact in the breeder as the original details is removed.

I belive that the contactable people should be 3 (three).

1. Owner.

2. Second contact

3. Breeder

The breeder should remain there despite numerous chages of ownership, if this occurs.

Cr. Andrew, younhave not commented on my proposal. I belive that it needs someone higher up to take this issue with CAR and the like.

Bilbo Baggins

Pls ring me, as I'll admit to not being familiar with this issue. I'm familiar with the State Legislation - Animal Management (Cats & Dogs) Act 2008 in that all new dogs are to be micorchipped at POS and that same with existing dogs if changing/transfering ownership, however, the other issue you raise is not familar to me. Again, pls feel free to ring me. Number below.

Got a problem Mr/Ms NoKillAustralia? Then take the effort to call me rather than make dark accusations as if the world is completely evil. Sometimes, and perhaps this may be difficult for you to accept, things just aren't as twisted as you have been so easily manipulated to believe. I take some of your accusations to heart because they insinuate something that I, like you, take very seriously. It is your right to have an opinion, not to make unfounded accusations or insinuations based on uncommon or past practice. You don't know me, nor I you, so rather than disparage me, call to discuss. Number below.

Just make sure you're wearing your tinfoil hat when you call.

Oh and watch out for black helicopters overflying your home.

You don't happen to look like this do you Councillor?

Hah Ha ha ha. Thx for lightening up the moment.

Haven't heard from NKA yet and doubt I will.

It appears that the honourable councillor's media spin has convinced the gullible and nay sayers who blame everything on dog owners, except themselves of course, coz they're perfect. It seems they respect others opinions as long as it doesn't differ from their own. As for the assertions made-

The dog was kept for 10 days not the 3 the pound takes to kill them, probably because it was over the holiday period. I would be surprised if any effort was taken to re-home the dog in the pound's care.

Did a vet diagnose Parvo? Was it simply suffering diahorrea due to a change in diet or stress, or both? It would be informative to see any paperwork on this. What infection control measures does the pound take to prevent these outbreaks?

Australia is one of a handful of countries which even bother to register dogs yet no evidence exists that kill rates are lower here or even in NSW where microchipping is mandatory. It's just another method of control and punishing people by killing their pets. It's illeggal to do it any other way now.

As dogs are considered disposable commodities they are killed on looks and it's the law, something more reminiscent of 1940s Germany than Australia in the 21st century, I would have thought. If it's a sheep, well we can bother to find the owner. Any wonder society is becoming more and more violent the way we view and treat companion animals!

User pays is necessary for dog owners but not livestock owners, library users, pedestrians, cyclists etc. I guess the council has to fund travel junkets in some way.

It seems that dog owners are the biggest contributor to council coffers than any other user of council services by far.

I find it hard to believe people work as ACOs because they love animals, more so because they love the power they have over animals but more particularly their owners. Politicians are renowned for using whatever means available to control people, in this instance I believe they are using their dogs.

Rather than media spin perhaps cr Andrew could tell us how the dogs are killed (simply farming them out doesn't cut the mustard) and what percentage of dogs which come into the pound's care are killed?

Got a problem Mr/Ms NoKillAustralia? Then take the effort to call me rather than make dark accusations as if the world is completely evil. Sometimes, and perhaps this may be difficult for you to accept, things just aren't as twisted as you have been so easily manipulated to believe. I take some of your accusations to heart because they insinuate something that I, like you, take very seriously. It is your right to have an opinion, not to make unfounded accusations or insinuations based on uncommon or past practice. You don't know me, nor I you, so rather than disparage me, call to discuss. Number below.

Cr. I congratulate you on your willingness to discuss and efforts towards a well considered approach to animal management.

Just wanted to give you a bit of background to clear up why people would actually question what the method of euth is. It was not long ago that news came out about a pound vollunteer having witnessed pound staff in-humanely killing cats/kittens. The animals were shot and not in such a way that they died quickly and humanely. There was access to a vet who could have done the job quickly and humanely so the local community and the DOL community was rightly disgusted and horrified. The RSPCA commented on the matter most strongly also.

The days of inhumane euth are unfortunately not long gone in every council. You will find many a council/pound with outdated facilities and animal management practises that are to the detriment of the animals in their care and you will no doubt hear more examples of such by staying on the forum for a while.

It is a sad truth Cr. and one many here strive to improve. You are to be commended in finding the notion of such practises horribly outdated, but do please understand that such sentiments aren't taken for granted as being the case in every council.

Noted. I can assure you that any action of the like by an Ipswich Council employee would be met with dismissal and referral to the authorities. Such action by one of the staff within my portfolio would disappoint and sadden me greatly.

6. All euthanasia is handled by fully qualified staff and conducted humanely. There is no question about that.

What would these qualifications be? Conducted humanely in what way?

It's contracted out to a vet practice.......Any questions?

Really! The days of hitting them over the head with a shovel went out years ago. Let's keep it real and give some respect to Animal Management staff. I think that you would find that 99.9% of them have a real love of animals and despise irresponsible pet owners. Our staff have been very proactive in increasing our rehousing numbers and should be congratulated for being proactive in this regard. Do you really think these people enjoy putting dogs down? If you feel the need to respond to that question with a derogatory comment about these staff then I suggest you take time to really consider your response because you will clearly show yourself to be unreasonable and biased. Put yourself in their shoes. If you wouldn't like PTS unclaimed dogs then where would you get the idea that they would?

This subject/forum discussion I believe is closed and the matter has been well and truly covered, examined and critiqued.

Micro-chip, Registration Tags and ID Tags, together with responsible pet ownership are the solution.

I look forward to being involved in other forum discussions and/or consulting your combined wisdom on other initiatives that Ipswich City Council are considering.

The dog was suitable for rehousing, however due to an outbreak of parvo virus in the pound we could not transfer the dog to a welfare shelter.

I trust that whilst this situation is not a pleasant one, it at least puts the facts on the table.

Cr Antoniolli when is the ICC going to do something about the Parvo problem at the pound. I have been informed by someone who has had very close connections with the pound that Parvo will continue to be a problem until more is done in recognising when a dog has Parvo, and how the situation is handled once Parvo is recognised. How many qualified staff (nurses in particular) do you have employed at the pound - people with formal training who can recognise Parvo symptoms as soon as they see them?

I wondered when this thread was started if Parvo would come into it and sadly it has played a large part in this very sad saga.

Parvo is a regular constant in pounds and despite best intentions can disable a pound operation and cause problems for pets that end up in the pound. Obviously regular vaccination of pets assists, however this cannot be governed.

Ipswich is currently examining some initiatives which we hope will improve our operations with regard to both the discovery and prevention of parvo and also improve our ability to rehouse more unclaimed dogs and cats.

If these initiatives can be developed, we hope to be leaders in Animal Management as well as improve our communities understanding and responsibility to being pet owners.

After reading Cr Antoniolli's response it is my considered opinion that:

1. It represents nothing more than media spin to manage the disastrous handling of the killing of a rehomable pup. If the dog was a short-haired stocky built animal then it would simply have been labelled a Pit Bull and killed with the usual "just following orders" excuse. The three day excuse is a little harder to justify to dog lovers.

2. If the honourable councillor is aware of any studies showing mandatory microchipping leads to lower kill rates then he should quote it. To my knowledge none exists and anecdotally on many threads on this site microchipped dogs are regularly killed. The real issue is the killing of the dog, no more no less.

3. Three business days is the minimum, councils can increase it if they choose to see companion animals as other than disposable commodities. The trickle down effect of this helps us understand why we are becoming a more violent society I believe.

4. Killing dogs because of a lack of space is killing dogs because of a lack of space, not because of an oversupply which in reality doesn't exist.

5. If livestock can be held longer without bankrupting the owners then so too can companion animals.

6. How are the animals killed? By vets, gassing drowning, lethal injection, shooting clubbing. We need to know who does it, what training they have etc.

7. Are all the funds raised by Animal Management returned to Animal Management, including fines, or does it simply go to general revenue.

Even the man I believe can only be described as Australia's Great Hater has labelled Queensland Pounds as anti-dog, coming from him that really is saying something.

What has surprised me the most in this thread are supposed dog lovers on this site supporting what is happening to dogs, as long as it isn't theirs of course. It seems that everyone other than themselves is an irresponsible owner. Dogs get out, dogs lose their collars dogs are stolen then dumped. Should the dog have to die for this?

Although I respect everyone’s right to an opinion, I would like and perhaps would enjoy the opportunity of a right of reply:

1. This quote is cynical to say the least and perhaps biased. Further, the dog was held for 10 days which has been painfully pointed out by myself and other contributors to this forum. This incident is both sad and unfortunate, however it is hard to justify anger at the council for the outcome.

2. Any form of identification assists in the reduction of pets PTS. Surely every right-thinking person would be aware of that. Registration on it’s own does not assist without the rego tag being worn by the dog. Microchipping does assist and we are already seeing an improvement in our own pounds as to the value of compulsory microchipping of new dogs. There are failings with microchips and there are failings with the operation or operator of the scanning wands, however, without a microchip your pet has a greatly reduced chance of being identified.

3. I have explained this in my previous posts on this subject, however, reject the notion that our pound staff treat the impounded pets as disposable commodities. We do get frustrated because we are seeing a large number of pets not being claimed and it is a strong belief that some pet owners believe their pet to be a disposable commodity if it ends up in the pound. We have a very high percentage of registration compliance envied by some other authorities therefore we have a pretty good handle on the attitudes of some irresponsible pet owners.

4. Ipswich Pound has a close working partnership with the AWL and RSPCA with whom we rehouse many hundreds of dogs and cats. We are looking to improve that partnership further. This particular dog would’ve been rehoused if not for the outbreak of parvo.

5. This has also been explained previously in this forum. It is State Legislation that requires livestock to be held for longer periods and also their disposal/resale is governed by legislation.

6. All euthanasia is handled by fully qualified staff and conducted humanely. There is no question about that.

7. Every Council operates differently, however, the new State Legislation requires all funds gathered through registration must be used for Animal Management. That has always been the case in Ipswich. Up until I took over the portfolio of Animal Management, nearly 100% of pet rego was used to fund the service. I have changed the attitude in this regard and put a focus on responsible pet ownership. Now approx 70% of the total cost of Animal Management is recovered through pet rego and I hope to make this fall again in the future. The remainder of the monies required to fund this service is obtained through regulation and fines, particularly on irresponsible and/or unregistered pet owners. I feel that pet registration is a user pay system which benefits both the pet owner and the community, however, our focus should be primarily on those that refuse to pay their way.

http://city-news.whereilive.com.au/your-ne...bred-puppy-dog/

All Lachlan, Jack and Lilly wanted from santa was a Border Collie dog. It was on the christmas list, delivered with bells on and the children were so excited. Little did the kids know that the Ipswich City Council Pound would kill the poor doggy without cross referencing with the RSPCA.

‘Josephine’ was sent to us at Peak Crossing all the way from a reputable Townsvelle breeder. She was wonderful dog for the children, gentle, timid and friendly. Very pretty and clean. We even had her desexed before she was sent to us.

Sadly, the day after boxing day ‘Josephine’ dug under the fence and escaped before we had the chance to register or coller her. The local council and vets were closed over christmas. The children were crushed, but began searching for her.

Quickly we registered Josephine with the RSPCA as a missing pet and put her photo up on their internet site. We checked the Ipswich City Council’s website for any animals matching our dog’s description and posted leaflets around our local community and vet.

To make things worse, the day the dog escaped Mummy was put in hospital due to illness for the 3rd time during that year. So the kids and daddy were doing their best to search as well as driving a hour each way to visit mummy in the hospital.

By chance the local postman told us that a gentleman in Purga handed the dog into the Ipswich City Council Pound on the condition that it would’nt be put down. To our delight we rang the pound to get our dog back, but were horrified with the news that it was put down the day before.

Ipswich City Council Pound did not cross reference with the RSPCA before they put her down otherwise Josephine would have been returned to us.

I would have thought the RSPCA would be the first place they would liase with.

It has been such a horrible experience for the children to have their beautiful dog put down while their mummy was in hospital. It wasn’t fair for our kids or the dog. I don’t think we will be getting another animal for a long time.

Pls find result of enquiry/investigation into the above matter and the original entry to this forum/comment stream:

The said dog was privately impounded on 30 DEC 2009 after being located in Purga (suburb of Ipswich, south/west of the city approx half way between Ipswich Central and the neighbouring Local Governement Area known as Scenic Rim Regional Council).

Dog was listed on council's online 'Lost/Found/Impounded Animals Index' (LFI) on the same day, however, due to the busy time period a photo was not uploaded to the LFI until 4 JAN 2010.

There were no identifying features on the dog that assisted in locating an owner. No rego tag. No microchip etc.

Due to the busy Christmas period the dog, like many others at this time, were held for longer than their normal period.

The dog was suitable for rehousing, however due to an outbreak of parvo virus in the pound we could not transfer the dog to a welfare shelter.

The dog was PTS on 8 JAN 2010. The dog was in the custody of the pound for a total of 10 days (including the day impounded and the day the dog was PTS).

It is always saddening to hear stories such as this, however, it highlights the importance of identifying your pet with rego of ID tags and/or microchip.

The owner contacted the RSPCA to originally list the dog as 'lost' however, did not request the RSPCA to conduct enquiries with local pounds in an attempt to locate the dog.

Councils do not regularly contact the RSPCA as the RSPCA already has a search service that they provide. Ipswich City Council has a web/online listing of all impounded dogs with photos.

I trust that whilst this situation is not a pleasant one, it at least puts the facts on the table.

The pup was not wearing a collar.

The pup was not microchipped.

It was left in an unsecure backyard.

Whatever people think of 3 day impoundment rules, it seems pretty unfair to dump the entire responsiblity for the pup's death on council.

I agree about not assigning all responsibility to the Council. But I don't blame someone for not leaving collar on at home either. Compulsory (and well enforced) microchipping should be the standard everywhere, IMHO.

Disagree. Dogs are usually at home before they go missing. Tradespeople leaving gates open, wind blowing gates, dogs digging under fences etc etc etc.

So an owner bears full responsibility when their dog manages to get out (or be left out) without their collar showing ID disk, rego tag....& even the tag which shows they're microchipped. What do you expect the council to do.....notice your dog is getting out & come round to your place, find its ID collar & put it on?

I make it a standard practice to put our dogs' collars back on immediately after a bath.

The one occasion when our dogs got out (tradesperson leaving 2 gates ajar), I got a phone call within 5 minutes from a person nearby. She had the dogs safe.

We live near shops which seem to attract lost dogs.....& have found many trotting by over the years. Every one of them had a current Brisbane or Pine Rivers rego tag on their collar. The council then contacted the owners who arrived pretty promptly to collect them.

On another occasion a person from the Caboolture council even helped track down, from an expired rego tag, the owners of a dog, who had moved to Brisbane.

Which is why I'd like to see the system of registration made affordabe & easy for dog owners. I also like the idea of lifetime registration which seems to be available in NSW.

Here! Here! Your comments are so true and I agree wholeheartedly, although not sure of the long term benifits of life-time rego as this fails to assist local councils properly govern or manage their animal population effectively without effecting the bottom-line (therefore increasing burdon on other ratepayers). Interesting though.

Okay, so you want to challenge years of well known and practiced research regarding the benefits of desexing. Perhaps you are just anti-desexing.

Well from my local knowledge of roaming dogs (impounded) and dog attacks the majority are not desexed.

That is why the San Diego County have an initiative that gives owners of impounded 'entire' dogs the option of paying for an impoundment fee or paying for an on-site desexing of the dog. The fees for both are comparable/similar. If the owner decides not to accept the desexing offer, then if the dog re-offends and is impounded then the owner is liable for both the impoundment fee and the desexing fee. That's right, the dog is desexed before being re-united with the owner. This initiative has resulted in a better than 50% improvement in repeat impoundments.

You have asked me to produce the science and you wish to challenge years of accepted practice.

You say that there is evidence to the contrary. Well.........pls produce.

Would you like a list of years of accepted practice items that are considered arcane and out-of-date? Just because something has had years of accepted practice (let's pick a favourite: white Australia policy; hardly a Good Thing), it doesn't mean it is best practice now. Open your mind, sir.

I don't think anyone is saying that desexing is a bad thing but it doesn't automatically follow that desexed dogs roam less. And can we not get onto dog attacks because really, do you want an argument about BSL?

BSL?

My mind is a parachute, however, no-one has produced evidence to the contrary. In my defence, not all theories are relevant to all dogs. The evidence/practice is general, I agree, however, people deserve to be informed of the benefits of desexing, not withstanding their right to choice.

This debate has grown to encompass many items outside of the original topic. I'm finding this forum very interesting and informative. My ears are always open to logic and wisdom.

This is a strategy backed by science that shows that desexed dogs wander/roam less and are less aggressive. Whilst the requirement to have a 2 tiered system of dog rego is enforced by State legislation we have perfected a systme of fees that keeps it affordable for desexed dogs and a reminder to entire dogs that they could save money if the dog was desexed.

Ipswich City Council is credited with have one of the best compliance rates for dog registration in Queensland and our fee structure appears to assist that.

Again that said we are always striving to improve our service and provide more initiatives.

I thank the contributors for their comments and suggestions.

Hi Cr Andrew Antoniolli

Are you able to reference the scientific study

council bases its stratefy on

wrt desexed dogs being less aggressive and roaming less.

Thankyou

I don't think any responsible, informed breeder would argue with him on this point. Unneutered dogs, if unsecured, will wander in search of a mate. And if they encounter any competition in the process (ie another unneutered dog) they will fight for the 'right' to mate with a bitch that is in season.

That's great but I'm interested in the science.

Neutered dogs, if unsecured, will wander.

Neutered dogs will fight.

I know in season bitches that will fight males desexed, and entire

and I know neutered dogs that will fight

not to mention entire dogs that wont fight AND will stay home

So yes I'd like the facts maam not creative writing.

I do not possess in my hands the 'science' however, it is certainly well recognised by all leading practitioners and welfare aganecies that this is fact. It refers to tendancies rather than the prospect that 'all' entire dogs will roam and fight. Desexing reduces the want to roam and most aggression.

There are leading practitioners and professionals who will just as readily dispute that claim.

I asked about the 'science' because you said that Council had a strategy in place that was based on Science.

I dont think its unreasonable to then be asked what that science is.

It wasn't a lead in to criticise Ipswich Council; Ipswich is so far away, Councils in QLD and VIC, who can compare.

But now studies on dogs in Australian pounds are another thing altogether.

I seem to be responding to many questions which appear to dispute sound knowledge and reasoning.

Because depending on your poiint of view and experience, 'sound knowledge and reasoning'

can be no more than common misnomer.

I enjoy being part of this forum and answering questions, however, I am not the sole font of knowledge.

I know that.

My question referred to the science that you said Council's strategies were based upon.

I find scientific studies on the tendencies, history, correllations (thankyou TSD ) of pound dogs interesting.

particularly wrt legistlation.

Studies of an Australian perspective are not that common, so I thought perhaps you might know about the study that you mentioned.

But no biggy.

Perhaps you could investigate these claims yourself via the internet.

Cr are we not on the internet?

Okay, so you want to challenge years of well known and practiced research regarding the benefits of desexing. Perhaps you are just anti-desexing.

Well from my local knowledge of roaming dogs (impounded) and dog attacks the majority are not desexed.

That is why the San Diego County have an initiative that gives owners of impounded 'entire' dogs the option of paying for an impoundment fee or paying for an on-site desexing of the dog. The fees for both are comparable/similar. If the owner decides not to accept the desexing offer, then if the dog re-offends and is impounded then the owner is liable for both the impoundment fee and the desexing fee. That's right, the dog is desexed before being re-united with the owner. This initiative has resulted in a better than 50% improvement in repeat impoundments.

You have asked me to produce the science and you wish to challenge years of accepted practice.

You say that there is evidence to the contrary. Well.........pls produce.

This is a strategy backed by science that shows that desexed dogs wander/roam less and are less aggressive. Whilst the requirement to have a 2 tiered system of dog rego is enforced by State legislation we have perfected a systme of fees that keeps it affordable for desexed dogs and a reminder to entire dogs that they could save money if the dog was desexed.

Ipswich City Council is credited with have one of the best compliance rates for dog registration in Queensland and our fee structure appears to assist that.

Again that said we are always striving to improve our service and provide more initiatives.

I thank the contributors for their comments and suggestions.

Hi Cr Andrew Antoniolli

Are you able to reference the scientific study

council bases its stratefy on

wrt desexed dogs being less aggressive and roaming less.

Thankyou

I don't think any responsible, informed breeder would argue with him on this point. Unneutered dogs, if unsecured, will wander in search of a mate. And if they encounter any competition in the process (ie another unneutered dog) they will fight for the 'right' to mate with a bitch that is in season.

That's great but I'm interested in the science.

Neutered dogs, if unsecured, will wander.

Neutered dogs will fight.

I know in season bitches that will fight males desexed, and entire

and I know neutered dogs that will fight

not to mention entire dogs that wont fight AND will stay home

So yes I'd like the facts maam not creative writing.

I do not possess in my hands the 'science' however, it is certainly well recognised by all leading practitioners and welfare aganecies that this is fact. It refers to tendancies rather than the prospect that 'all' entire dogs will roam and fight. Desexing reduces the want to roam and most aggression.

I seem to be responding to many questions which appear to dispute sound knowledge and reasoning.

I enjoy being part of this forum and answering questions, however, I am not the sole font of knowledge.

Perhaps you could investigate these claims yourself via the internet.

I also live in Victoria, and here owners have 8 days to reclaim their pets. Our registration fees are not 'unaffordable' - we pay about $30 per pet per year (if desexed or chipped). Pound staff will quite often identify a dog as a totally different breed to what the owner describes it as. If the owner cannot visit the pound in person for a few days, the dog may be PTS simply because of a misunderstanding. 3 days is really not enough time - 5 days should be a minimum. Some people also do not like to leave collars on their dogs and cats for safety reasons, or collars can come off when the pet escapes. Microchips have been known to migrate down an animal's leg or rib cage and therefore be missed when being scanned. There are so many possible scenarios and that's why I believe 3 days is not enough time.

yes - and some dogs only turn up to the pounds weeks - months - after they've gone missing. This means that the owner needs to physically visit the pound every few days for months on end, less their dog be PTS.

A good point and I would suspect that aside from the possible migration issue or fault issue of microchips this would be the best solution.

That said, I am looking into our (and RSPCA's) Lost and Found Index (LFI) to see how we can improve.

Hi Andrew, I hope you are taking on board our suggestions on a longer holding period.

We recently discussed this matter at length in council. I appreciate that many have views on this, however, it's hard to dispute facts.

Our research has clearly shown that 3 clear business days (which totals in the end nearly 5 or more holding days) is sufficient. I have previously commented on this forum that approx. 80% (of collected dogs) are collected by or reunited with owners within 2 days.

We also have the ability to hold dogs for longer periods if we have a strong belief that the dog is identifiable (i.e. microchipped, rego tag etc.).

I find it hard to believe that someone who loves their pets requires up to 8 days to collect a dog from the pound. Our research supports this and it is clearly understood by local residents that our policy is 3 days.

I'm not being dogmatic (no pun intended) or indignant, it is clearly supported by our research.

Further to that costs associated with holding dogs for longer means higher rego fees and higher sustenance fees which may not be paid for by dog owners, therefore you run the risk of having higher numbers of uncollected dogs thereby leading to more dogs to rehouse, thereby meaning more stress on animal welfare shelters, thereby leading to more dogs PTS.

Extending the period is not the answer. The solution lies with registration, compulsary wearing of rego tags and microchipping. I am at least admitting that I am dogmatic about that.