Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HeelerLove

Dogs Seized From No Kill Shelter

1,607 posts in this topic

Snook   

I've never been to Moorook but have heard some pretty poor things about the conditions there from people who have. Regardless, I think it's appalling that they have had dogs living in kennels there for at least two years (assuming what the OP said is correct) as that is no life for a dog in a situation where it is overcrowded and understaffed, evenif there were no other issues. I am also curious about the OP saying she adopted from their shelter without ever having been there. Is this common practice that adopters are met in another location to handover the dog, presumably without ever having met the dog before if they've not been to the shelter? I'd love to know more about how this works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest crickets   
Guest crickets

I've never been to Moorook but have heard some pretty poor things about the conditions there from people who have. Regardless, I think it's appalling that they have had dogs living in kennels there for at least two years (assuming what the OP said is correct) as that is no life for a dog in a situation where it is overcrowded and understaffed, evenif there were no other issues. I am also curious about the OP saying she adopted from their shelter without ever having been there. Is this common practice that adopters are met in another location to handover the dog, presumably without ever having met the dog before if they've not been to the shelter? I'd love to know more about how this works.

In regards to the dogs being handed over off site, I believe if you are from the metro area you can collect the dog from a location in Adelaides north for a $20 extra fee. Given that the shelter is in the middle of nowhere a couple of hrs from Adelaide, and you couldn't get there for $20 most people would agree that it's a bargain & a time saver.....but yes that would mean taking a dog 'site unseen' ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheridan   

What I remember from the previous thread that there was a lot of huffy puffy outrage from the regular DOL rescue police and absolutely no offers to help get them on track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
minimax   

What I remember from the previous thread that there was a lot of huffy puffy outrage from the regular DOL rescue police and absolutely no offers to help get them on track.

Were your offers to help taken up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest crickets   
Guest crickets

What I remember from the previous thread that there was a lot of huffy puffy outrage from the regular DOL rescue police and absolutely no offers to help get them on track.

Sheridan they really are in a very isolated location and is probably a lot of the reason why finding volunteers is difficult for them. And to be frank from a personal pov it's not the sort of place I would want to volunteer. Not so much because of the conditions but because of the taking everything & anything & keeping anything & everything alive /existing ethic.

I am certain they have saved the lives of many animals, that is without doubt.... If they can pull their sox up, improve conditions to a standard that most people would find acceptable, continue to improve vet care and stop incarcerating dogs just for the sake of keeping them alive...then that would be fantastic. I can only hope that is what might come of this latest intervention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have never described the shelter as ‘The Ritz’. We are aware on first impressions that it looks like a mess but we use and salvage every item possible for the benefit of the animals. What we can’t salvage for our own purposes we sell as scrap, including cans, bottles and scrap steel.

Something which could easily be translated as:

"We don't have the wherewithall to do what we are doing, and we don't realise that we look like hoarders".

Please note I am not saying that they are hoarders, or passing a judgement on a place I've never seen - what I am doing is commenting on the evident lack of realistic self-appraisal in some of these defensive pieces put out by people who are in trouble.

"Hi, we got out of our depth and now we need some help from the community" would be a lot more believable and elicit more sympathy than this bit of insulting self-justification. Now I understand better why the lawyer who ran the legal seminar put on by DogsNSW suggested people in trouble with the RSPCA shut up, say nothing and leave it to their lawyers. They sound like they are away with the fairies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest crickets   
Guest crickets

We have never described the shelter as ‘The Ritz’. We are aware on first impressions that it looks like a mess but we use and salvage every item possible for the benefit of the animals. What we can’t salvage for our own purposes we sell as scrap, including cans, bottles and scrap steel.

Something which could easily be translated as:

"We don't have the wherewithall to do what we are doing, and we don't realise that we look like hoarders".

Please note I am not saying that they are hoarders, or passing a judgement on a place I've never seen - what I am doing is commenting on the evident lack of realistic self-appraisal in some of these defensive pieces put out by people who are in trouble.

"Hi, we got out of our depth and now we need some help from the community" would be a lot more believable and elicit more sympathy than this bit of insulting self-justification. Now I understand better why the lawyer who ran the legal seminar put on by DogsNSW suggested people in trouble with the RSPCA shut up, say nothing and leave it to their lawyers. They sound like they are away with the fairies.

spot on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I remember from the previous thread that there was a lot of huffy puffy outrage from the regular DOL rescue police and absolutely no offers to help get them on track.

Can't help someone who doesn't want help. You can't force Lola to change her save them all philosophy and my offers of help were ignored. But at least the DOL rescue police got them to desex more before rehoming, having lived in the area the last thing it needs is more entire pets being practically given away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And please don't take this the wrong way - it is simply a comment to get you and other angered supporters thinking - in the time it takes you to do up and send a letter of complaint to the RSPCA you could've cleaned a couple of those kennels or fed the dogs at that shelter or taken a couple for a walk. It sounds to me like they desperately need more people to volunteer regular time at the shelter and I just wonder if any of you who are angry have thought about how you can assist in a more practical and ongoing way so this never happens again? Volunteering is incredibly rewarding for both the individual and the animals.

No offence taken at all. The shelter is over two hours away from me, so it's a bit hard to get out there to help. If I lived closer I would. I help where I can by sharing profiles of dogs for adoption and trying to get the word out about them etc.

Why were the dogs killed immediately?

Why were the dogs killed immediately?

were thy killed immediately? I'm with HW on this one. 2 sides to the story with the truth somewhere in between

Amendment - three of the seven dogs were pts within the first couple of days of being taken by the RSPCA. They were health and happy and were pts for no reason other than being 'too old'.

Its been a long time coming.

Moorook were borderline hoarders and until we had a massive thread here about them they weren't desexing either. The rspca needed to finally act with this place. One of those places that reminded you there were worse things than being PTS, but I think some of their new vollies were working hard to sort the issues out.

Oh ok I think I found it :)

Any chance you can post the link? Did a quick search but couldn't find anything, would like to read it. In my dealings with them, they were nothing but helpful and professional. As stated in the original post, all photos I have seen (not just of the dogs but also of the shelter) and all comments from other people that have been there have hinted there was nothing to be concerned about. There are not many no kill shelters in Adelaide and this was one of the reasons I support them. If things are not as they seem I will be very wary about recommending/supporting them in the future.

I've never been to Moorook but have heard some pretty poor things about the conditions there from people who have. Regardless, I think it's appalling that they have had dogs living in kennels there for at least two years (assuming what the OP said is correct) as that is no life for a dog in a situation where it is overcrowded and understaffed, evenif there were no other issues. I am also curious about the OP saying she adopted from their shelter without ever having been there. Is this common practice that adopters are met in another location to handover the dog, presumably without ever having met the dog before if they've not been to the shelter? I'd love to know more about how this works.

In regards to the dogs being handed over off site, I believe if you are from the metro area you can collect the dog from a location in Adelaides north for a $20 extra fee. Given that the shelter is in the middle of nowhere a couple of hrs from Adelaide, and you couldn't get there for $20 most people would agree that it's a bargain & a time saver.....but yes that would mean taking a dog 'site unseen' ....

I believe there are only a couple of dogs that have been there for that long. There isn't much of an alternative but to pts. If conditions are as bad as what people are saying maybe pts would be the best option but if the dogs are being cared for correctly wouldn't it be better for them to be given the chance to live?

The shelter is a few hours out of Adelaide, and yes they offer a 'delivery service'. I did pick up my boy sight unseen, but had spent a lot of time both on the phone to them and emailing them and had made sure he would be a good match for our family before I offered to take him on a 2 week trial period. If he hadn't of worked out at any stage in the first two weeks they told me they would take him back and refund the adoption fee. Everything they told me about him was correct and honest and he is the perfect fit for us and our girl.

edited for spelling

Edited by BlueyLove

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were (can't say it is still the case) some dogs that were unrehomable and they were warehoused because of the no kill thing. They should have been PTS for sure, but some people can't do that because they care more about their emotions than the poor dog that sits in substandard kennels for years on end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks BlackJaq. In regards to desexing before rehoming this is definitely being done now. My boy was entire when dumped there and was desexed in the week before I picked him up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not many no kill shelters in Adelaide and this was one of the reasons I support them...

I believe there are only a couple of dogs that have been there for that long. There isn't much of an alternative but to pts. If conditions are as bad as what people are saying maybe pts would be the best option but if the dogs are being cared for correctly wouldn't it be better for them to be given the chance to live?

Let's look closely at what it means to care for dogs correctly in a shelter.

Dogs living in a shelter are a bit like humans living in an institution. Both dogs and humans thrive in a domestic environment, this is how we like to live, and how we do best. In an institution, there are factors that can contribute to a less than healthy environment that have to be dealt with.

Living in close confines with a changing series of new dogs means that the environment has to be constructed in a way that doesn't harbour bacteria, viruses or parasites. The surfaces need to be very easy to clean and need to be robust as well. This applies to human institutions and to kennels, and there are codes of practice that can be followed to achieve this aim as closely as possible. If this isn't done, then there is a risk of a sudden serious disease outbreak or parasite infestation going through the whole place. It isn't about how it looks (especially not in kennels), but how the place is constructed.

The resources have to be there to do this, it is not good enough to use sub-quality salvaged materials. It's a huge risk of sudden catastrophe, and therefore a welfare concern.

Living in a kennel is like living in an institution in other ways. Enough mental stimulation must be provided for well-being, and this is known as 'enrichment'. Without enrichment in a person or a dog's life, their psychological health will deteriorate, and the effects can be permanent.

So if somebody is managing a shelter or kennel, and has enough money to maintain the physical environment and also to sufficiently enrich the lives of their kennel dogs, they are running the place correctly. The dogs will be healthy and happy. Same as people can be healthy and happy if they are living in a very well run institution. Much easier to run a dog kennel though I think. This forum is full of breeders and others who keep dogs in kennels and who devote the time to enriching the lives of those dogs so that they are well-adjusted and happy dogs.

So, another part of running a kennel or a shelter or an institution for people is having the ability to control how many are admitted in the first place. Knowing what resources are available and matching that to the numbers taken in.

But the problem with dogs is that we are not able to control the numbers of irresponsible people who dump their animals. So it requires shelter people to make hard decisions about which dogs are allowed in or which ones can continue to stay there. They need to make a rational decision based on the resources available to them, because if they don't do that they cannot provide for the needs of each dog they take in.

This is where the label "No Kill" can be a big problem. Nobody in any rehoming shelter wants dogs killed. But well-run shelters ensure that they never have more dogs than they do resources to care for them and that involves either turning some dogs away and/or euthanising those that have little prospect of being rehomed successfully.

Lola didn't turn dogs away and didn't euthanise dogs who could not be rehomed and did not have enough resources to sustain the number of animals she was accepting. This would indicate that she was failing to manage her shelter.

Be very wary of organisations that claim to be No Kill. Either they are turning many dogs away, which is fine, or they are hoarding them. If they are turning dogs away at the door, they are using the term No Kill to give themselves a marketing advantage over shelters that have a council contract to take all surrenders. This marketing advantage is based purely on manipulating emotions and disparaging other shelters, and so I regard it as an unethical management practice.

A good shelter should be able to describe what they do without having a go at what other shelters do. There is never a good reason for using the term No Kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheridan   

What I remember from the previous thread that there was a lot of huffy puffy outrage from the regular DOL rescue police and absolutely no offers to help get them on track.

Can't help someone who doesn't want help. You can't force Lola to change her save them all philosophy and my offers of help were ignored. But at least the DOL rescue police got them to desex more before rehoming, having lived in the area the last thing it needs is more entire pets being practically given away.

As I recall from the old thread, someone from Moorook posted saying dogs were being desexed, unless the thread about the bedding was a newer one and there was a previous one where DOL had a go at them and got them to change their ways? There may well have been. These things tend to go in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember if there was a subsequent thread, but there was one that did result in them changing practice and desexing everything just after that. Some of it was off DOL as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sheridan   

I can't remember if there was a subsequent thread, but there was one that did result in them changing practice and desexing everything just after that. Some of it was off DOL as well.

Must been older then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not many no kill shelters in Adelaide and this was one of the reasons I support them...

I believe there are only a couple of dogs that have been there for that long. There isn't much of an alternative but to pts. If conditions are as bad as what people are saying maybe pts would be the best option but if the dogs are being cared for correctly wouldn't it be better for them to be given the chance to live?

Let's look closely at what it means to care for dogs correctly in a shelter.

Dogs living in a shelter are a bit like humans living in an institution. Both dogs and humans thrive in a domestic environment, this is how we like to live, and how we do best. In an institution, there are factors that can contribute to a less than healthy environment that have to be dealt with.

Living in close confines with a changing series of new dogs means that the environment has to be constructed in a way that doesn't harbour bacteria, viruses or parasites. The surfaces need to be very easy to clean and need to be robust as well. This applies to human institutions and to kennels, and there are codes of practice that can be followed to achieve this aim as closely as possible. If this isn't done, then there is a risk of a sudden serious disease outbreak or parasite infestation going through the whole place. It isn't about how it looks (especially not in kennels), but how the place is constructed.

The resources have to be there to do this, it is not good enough to use sub-quality salvaged materials. It's a huge risk of sudden catastrophe, and therefore a welfare concern.

Living in a kennel is like living in an institution in other ways. Enough mental stimulation must be provided for well-being, and this is known as 'enrichment'. Without enrichment in a person or a dog's life, their psychological health will deteriorate, and the effects can be permanent.

So if somebody is managing a shelter or kennel, and has enough money to maintain the physical environment and also to sufficiently enrich the lives of their kennel dogs, they are running the place correctly. The dogs will be healthy and happy. Same as people can be healthy and happy if they are living in a very well run institution. Much easier to run a dog kennel though I think. This forum is full of breeders and others who keep dogs in kennels and who devote the time to enriching the lives of those dogs so that they are well-adjusted and happy dogs.

So, another part of running a kennel or a shelter or an institution for people is having the ability to control how many are admitted in the first place. Knowing what resources are available and matching that to the numbers taken in.

But the problem with dogs is that we are not able to control the numbers of irresponsible people who dump their animals. So it requires shelter people to make hard decisions about which dogs are allowed in or which ones can continue to stay there. They need to make a rational decision based on the resources available to them, because if they don't do that they cannot provide for the needs of each dog they take in.

This is where the label "No Kill" can be a big problem. Nobody in any rehoming shelter wants dogs killed. But well-run shelters ensure that they never have more dogs than they do resources to care for them and that involves either turning some dogs away and/or euthanising those that have little prospect of being rehomed successfully.

Lola didn't turn dogs away and didn't euthanise dogs who could not be rehomed and did not have enough resources to sustain the number of animals she was accepting. This would indicate that she was failing to manage her shelter.

Be very wary of organisations that claim to be No Kill. Either they are turning many dogs away, which is fine, or they are hoarding them. If they are turning dogs away at the door, they are using the term No Kill to give themselves a marketing advantage over shelters that have a council contract to take all surrenders. This marketing advantage is based purely on manipulating emotions and disparaging other shelters, and so I regard it as an unethical management practice.

A good shelter should be able to describe what they do without having a go at what other shelters do. There is never a good reason for using the term No Kill.

:worship:

I don't know anything about this organisation but having worked in a large shelter myself, what GM has said above is spot on. It is not acceptable to have dogs kenneled in such an environment for that length of time, especially when they don't have enough volunteers as it is. I've seen dogs in kennels for months on end and it's not good for them. If that's the life they have, PTS is, sadly, the better option.

No kill p*sses me off. A lot can only call themsves no kill because they refuse to accept certain animals, meaning someone else has the hard job of PTS, and the reputation to go with it. Others just take everything, and even with the best of intentions, don't know when to ask for help and can't make those hard decisions.

It's a no win situation as far as I'm concerned. Until people start taking responsibility for the animals they own nothing will change, and as long as some shelters/rescues aim for no kill, no matter the cost, the more the animals suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are not many no kill shelters in Adelaide and this was one of the reasons I support them...

I believe there are only a couple of dogs that have been there for that long. There isn't much of an alternative but to pts. If conditions are as bad as what people are saying maybe pts would be the best option but if the dogs are being cared for correctly wouldn't it be better for them to be given the chance to live?

Let's look closely at what it means to care for dogs correctly in a shelter.

Dogs living in a shelter are a bit like humans living in an institution. Both dogs and humans thrive in a domestic environment, this is how we like to live, and how we do best. In an institution, there are factors that can contribute to a less than healthy environment that have to be dealt with.

Living in close confines with a changing series of new dogs means that the environment has to be constructed in a way that doesn't harbour bacteria, viruses or parasites. The surfaces need to be very easy to clean and need to be robust as well. This applies to human institutions and to kennels, and there are codes of practice that can be followed to achieve this aim as closely as possible. If this isn't done, then there is a risk of a sudden serious disease outbreak or parasite infestation going through the whole place. It isn't about how it looks (especially not in kennels), but how the place is constructed.

The resources have to be there to do this, it is not good enough to use sub-quality salvaged materials. It's a huge risk of sudden catastrophe, and therefore a welfare concern.

Living in a kennel is like living in an institution in other ways. Enough mental stimulation must be provided for well-being, and this is known as 'enrichment'. Without enrichment in a person or a dog's life, their psychological health will deteriorate, and the effects can be permanent.

So if somebody is managing a shelter or kennel, and has enough money to maintain the physical environment and also to sufficiently enrich the lives of their kennel dogs, they are running the place correctly. The dogs will be healthy and happy. Same as people can be healthy and happy if they are living in a very well run institution. Much easier to run a dog kennel though I think. This forum is full of breeders and others who keep dogs in kennels and who devote the time to enriching the lives of those dogs so that they are well-adjusted and happy dogs.

So, another part of running a kennel or a shelter or an institution for people is having the ability to control how many are admitted in the first place. Knowing what resources are available and matching that to the numbers taken in.

But the problem with dogs is that we are not able to control the numbers of irresponsible people who dump their animals. So it requires shelter people to make hard decisions about which dogs are allowed in or which ones can continue to stay there. They need to make a rational decision based on the resources available to them, because if they don't do that they cannot provide for the needs of each dog they take in.

This is where the label "No Kill" can be a big problem. Nobody in any rehoming shelter wants dogs killed. But well-run shelters ensure that they never have more dogs than they do resources to care for them and that involves either turning some dogs away and/or euthanising those that have little prospect of being rehomed successfully.

Lola didn't turn dogs away and didn't euthanise dogs who could not be rehomed and did not have enough resources to sustain the number of animals she was accepting. This would indicate that she was failing to manage her shelter.

Be very wary of organisations that claim to be No Kill. Either they are turning many dogs away, which is fine, or they are hoarding them. If they are turning dogs away at the door, they are using the term No Kill to give themselves a marketing advantage over shelters that have a council contract to take all surrenders. This marketing advantage is based purely on manipulating emotions and disparaging other shelters, and so I regard it as an unethical management practice.

A good shelter should be able to describe what they do without having a go at what other shelters do. There is never a good reason for using the term No Kill.

:worship:

x 2. I am going to save this if it's OK with you GM, it's a really good explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

x 2. I am going to save this if it's OK with you GM, it's a really good explanation.

Yes, that's fine to save it. Feel free to fix up grammatical errors. I could have also mentioned drainage, ventilation, etc about kennels. I would like to design some kennels one day. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

x 2. I am going to save this if it's OK with you GM, it's a really good explanation.

Yes, that's fine to save it. Feel free to fix up grammatical errors. I could have also mentioned drainage, ventilation, etc about kennels. I would like to design some kennels one day. :)

Thank you. I am told that the design of the Customs Detector Dog Facility in Melbourne is state of the art with very advanced ventilation systems. I hope I can visit it and take a stickybeak one day.

Share this post


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
Sign in to follow this  

×