Jump to content

Council ‘kills’ Kids’ Puppy Dog


Recommended Posts

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.

Yes.

I have always found that Ipswich CC goes to more than the minimum effort to look after dog welfare. I can think of a few examples where they put welfare ahead of the dollar. Not all QLD councils do this.

But there is more that could be done, so please stay around Cr Antoniolli. Not only do we love dogs here, we want to promote responsible dog ownership that benefits the whole community.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 You will find many a council/pound with outdated facilities and animal management practises that are to the detriment of the animals in their care and you will no doubt hear more examples of such by staying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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

;) :eek::hug:

Wholeheartedly agree

--Lhok

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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-

What? What "media spin"?

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.

Minimal effort seems to have been made by the owner to locate it.

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.

It's also another method of identification. What alternate methods of identification do you propose? What do you mean by "illeggal" to do what any other way?

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.

Or maybe some of them are human beings who feel just as disenfranchised by the hoops they have to jump through?

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?

They have a veterinary clinic euth the animals because to do it themselves *would* be inhumane. If the staff trained in humane euthanasia are treating the dogs inhumanely then that's an issue with the clinic.

NKA you seem to be intent on 'discovering' some sort of hidden agenda or drama here - what's yours?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

And perhaps you might read the thread that answers some of these questions and stable your anti-BSL, pro council bashing horse somewhere else. The euthanasia is carried out by a vet. The largest revenue raiser for any council is rates.

Seriously, I support your aim but your methods are akin to clobbering folk with a 4 x 2.

Instead of berating a councillor on a completely unrelated subject, you might actually engage politely and attempt to influence change that way.

Edited by poodlefan
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Take a Bex and have a good lie down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :rofl:

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

dr-evil.jpg

Edited by poodlefan
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :rofl:

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

dr-evil.jpg

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

How many ACOs do you know personally, you have just made a pretty large and totally unfounded assumption.

I could assume lots of things about you from your recent posts. Wonder if they are correct.

I think you need to take a chill pill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NKA that type of response only serves to alienate those that you need to work with, accusations and comments such as yours end up working against animals, not for them.

I personally have worked with and have friends that are ACO's and I find your comment offensive, there are the wrong people in every Industry but I am sure there is a far greater proportion in the position for the right reason.

Please don't forget if there were more responsible owners there wouldn't be so many issues to fix.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had dealings with one of the ACO's in the ICC due to a complaint from one of our neighbours regarding our barking dogs. The cause of the barking was due to the neighbours cat and I found the attitude of the ACO was nothing but helpful. There was no power-hungry treatment, in fact I felt he was sympathetic and wanted to help us resolve the situation without upsetting either our neighbours or ourselves.

We also deal with another ICC ACO through work and he is a down-to-earth gentleman who certainly doesn't have the attitude you're insinuating NKA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have worked with Ipswich Pound in the past when I was running a rescue group, they were great to work with and we helped quite a few dogs into new homes, they do not release dogs for rehoming when their is a Parvo Outbreak at their pound which I think is fair enough,they haven't got the facilities their to hold dogs until the Parvo quarantine period is over, the only thing that would help the pound is to build more kennels, the way they are at present all the dogs are exposed to each other, it would be fantastic if they had kennels like for instance Logan Pound where if a dog does have parvo it is contained and not easily spread to others as is the case at Ipswich. I find Ipswich a very dog friendly place to live, moving myself shortly to the area, for example if you are living in a place with over 2000sqm you can have 4 dogs. I found the staff their great and always willing to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Likewise, i live in the city, and i have a friend who is aACO in Ipswich and she is a wonderful caring human being, and i cant imagine her ever hurting an animal. I have had issues with certain departments, but never them

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...