Communication Breakdown In Rspca Kills Family's Dogs

[silentchild]

Two dogs were put down on Monday by a NSW RSPCA office because of an apparent break down in communications.

The Jack Russell terriers, Nikki and Rocket, were euthanased because their owner had not been able to pay the almost $1000 fee for their release.

Owner Kylie McCrea had negotiated with Maitland City Council for her pets' release from the Rutherford RSPCA, raising $960 and reaching an agreement on Friday for the dogs to be held.

The decision to put the terriers down was made by a weekend supervisor who was apparently unaware of the agreement between Ms McCrea and the RSPCA.

"I had spoken with staff, and the manager, all last week telling them I didn't have the money and I was told to sort it out with council," Ms McCrea said.

"The manager told me she would hold onto the dogs until I got back to her."

A spokesperson for the RSPCA told the Newcastle Herald that the staff members in question "did not fully investigate" Nikki and Rocket's situation, and hoped an "improvement in process and communication will ensure that this type of incident does not occur in the future".

Ms McCrea was informed by RSPCA management that her dogs had been deemed a "nuisance" because they had escaped three times in the past two years.

The dogs did not, however, fail the controversial "temperament test" which judges the animals' behaviours and social interactions.

The Swayers Gully mother of two is blaming herself for her dogs' tragic circumstance.

"They had escaped from my work, it wasn't their fault," she said.

"Now I'm totally blaming myself."

Rutherford RSPCA was criticised last October for putting down another dog that failed the temperament test before the dog's owner had been contacted.

Source: The Newcastle Herald

ninemsn

[BlackJaq]

"Now I'm totally blaming myself."

And so she should.

[Rebanne]

"Now I'm totally blaming myself."

And so she should.

according to the article she rang the pound once!

ETA I read the full article on line, dogs were in the pound for over 28 days

Edited September 19, 2013 by Rebanne

[Leema]

I account more blame to a shelter who is more willing to kill a pet than let it go to a home, or to a council who is willing to have pets held hostage for ransom, than I would to the owner.

The owner wanted her dogs back, but the pound killed them instead. Sheltering fail.

[Dame Aussie]

They were repeat offenders, obviously this woman had issues containing her dogs.

If she had done so they would never have been at the shelter in the first place.

[Lasareina]

The owner must have called more than once to have negotiated for the dogs to be held while raising the funds ... has anyone ever achieved anything with a council with just one phone call? (jokes) :laugh:

Regardless of why the dogs ended up in the shelter, why was the chosen 'solution' to kill them? Surely this should be a last result due to health issues, aggressive temperments etc. These dogs were young and healthy and did not fail the temperment test. Why were they killed instead of being re-homed?

[Little Gifts]

And again it is the dogs who pay the ultimate price. Sad.

[Everythings Shiny]

There is so much more to this story than the owner is telling people. These dogs were repeat offenders, being out a total of 11 times in the last few months.

[Lasareina]

I lke your icon Everythings Shiny... will admit I watched it for about a rotation and a half haha

[Everythings Shiny]

I lke your icon Everythings Shiny... will admit I watched it for about a rotation and a half haha

Thanks! I made that years ago in High School. I still love it even now :)

[Aphra]

So what would be the minimum number of times the dogs could be out and not be killed? 1? 3? 7? If they were nice dogs of good temperament, then surely there were options other than death. They might have been a nuisance to the council, but the council had many options other than killing them. They could have helped the people fix their fence or gates, held the dogs until the fence was fixed, let them pay off the fine on the condition the dogs weren't out again or rehomed the dogs. Killing them was lazy, cruel and since the story has now gone viral, a terrible piece of public relations for the council.

There is so much more to this story than the owner is telling people. These dogs were repeat offenders, being out a total of 11 times in the last few months.

[Alyosha]

It's all a bit old school. This is RSPCA, not a council pound. It seems an outdated notion for them to put payment of money over an animal's life. I would've thought that some positive interaction with the owner could have had a far better result. Not to mention how much fencing improvement could have happened for that amount of money. Maybe I've just seen too much of RSPCA ACT so have higher expectations.

These were homeable dogs, with a home to go to. So they were killed for what? Out of frustration? Out of bloody mindedness? Out of stubborn administrative drive? Are we still living in the dark ages of shelters here? I thought people in this community would expect a lot more from a modern animal shelter.

[Dame Aussie]

I agree they should have been rehomed if they passed the test.

However, what is the shelter supposed to do, hold the dogs indefinitely while this person sorts themselves out?

I've worked in a large shelter and trust me, if they did this for everyone that walked in the door saying they have no money to get their dogs out, there'd be no room left.

The owners fencing and the way they contain their dogs is not the responsibility of the council or the shelter

So while I don't agree with what has happened, the owner is 100% at fault.

[Rebanne]

The owner must have called more than once to have negotiated for the dogs to be held while raising the funds ... has anyone ever achieved anything with a council with just one phone call? (jokes) :laugh:

Regardless of why the dogs ended up in the shelter, why was the chosen 'solution' to kill them? Surely this should be a last result due to health issues, aggressive temperments etc. These dogs were young and healthy and did not fail the temperment test. Why were they killed instead of being re-homed?

The article states she called once, when they first got out, then she got a letter from the pound/council saying they had her dogs. How soon after she got the letter she started trying to wriggle out of the pound fees the article didn't say.

I suspect they were put down cause they were habitual escapee's

[Everythings Shiny]

So what would be the minimum number of times the dogs could be out and not be killed? 1? 3? 7? If they were nice dogs of good temperament, then surely there were options other than death. They might have been a nuisance to the council, but the council had many options other than killing them. They could have helped the people fix their fence or gates, held the dogs until the fence was fixed, let them pay off the fine on the condition the dogs weren't out again or rehomed the dogs. Killing them was lazy, cruel and since the story has now gone viral, a terrible piece of public relations for the council.

There is so much more to this story than the owner is telling people. These dogs were repeat offenders, being out a total of 11 times in the last few months.

I never said that they should have been killed! All I said was that this woman has made it out like this was not something that happened before, when in fact they've been a general nuisance in this area. And you don't know what these dogs were like at all, so please take that into account.

Yes, maybe the RSPCA should have tried rehoming them, but with a history of repeat escaping amongst other things and the pound beyond full (they are always full as they have 4 council pound contracts) they've done what they have done.

I don't personally like that this has happened. I work minutes away from the shelter in question and there is no way they could hold on to these dogs for an indefinite period of time until the bill was paid. It's the owners responsibility to keep their animals in, not council or RSPCA or anyone elses.

[tdierikx]

The dogs could have been run over by a car instead of being picked up by the rangers too... who's fault would that have been if the dogs have a history of being at large?

There is obviously "fault" on both sides of this particular situation - the owner for not securing their dogs and having them escape numerous times - and the RSPCA for not communicating to ALL staff that those particular dogs were the subject of a negotiation with the owners to pay the fee to get them out. A simple notice on their kennel(s) may have averted the mistaken euthing in this case...

T.

[raineth]

Sounds like they need to implement the tradesman's rule of 'measure twice, cut once'.

You think there would be some double checking of facts before an animal is PTS to prevent problems like this from occurring.

[Alyosha]

Further article:

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1789400/rspca-staff-may-be-disciplined-over-dog-deaths-poll/?cs=2373

Rutherford RSPCA kills family's dogs

THE RSPCA staff who were involved in the decision to euthanise two Jack Russell terriers, despite attempts by their owner to reclaim them, may soon face disciplinary action.

The case has also sparked new calls for a parliamentary inquiry into the animal welfare organisation.

The RSPCA’s executive manager of animal care services, Brendon Neilly, said he was investigating all aspects of the case involving the dogs’ being euthanised.

‘‘At this stage it would appear that it was a genuine error,’’ he said.

‘‘I am focused on getting all of the information that I need to work out what went wrong ... If this means that systems have to change then that will happen.

‘‘If we have staff that need to be disciplined, that will also happen.’’

The Newcastle Herald reported yesterday that the dogs Nikki, 1, and Rocket, 2, were euthanised despite their owner Kylie McCrea negotiating for their release.

She was attempting to raise the $960 fee required, she told the Herald.

Despite not failing any health or temperament tests, the dogs were a deemed a ‘‘nuisance’’ because they had been impounded three times in the past two years, Ms McCrea was told.

Society of Companion Animal Rescuers spokesman David Atwell said a parliamentary inquiry into the RSPCA’s operation was urgently needed because such incidents were not isolated.

‘‘It’s clear there is a cultural problem in the RSPCA; there are serious recurring problems in the organisation that have not been addressed,’’ he said.

The National Party passed a resolution at its state conference in June for a parliamentary inquiry into the ‘‘charter, powers, public accountability of the RSPCA’’.

Mr Neilly said steps had already been taken to ensure this week’s incident could not be repeated.

See your ad here

‘‘We are looking at all of the information that we have available to see how often we are getting animals that have been impounded on multiple occasions,’’ he said.

‘‘The second part is reaching out to those people and say why is [their dog] getting out all time. Is it a training issue, is it a housing issue? What can we do to make sure that doesn’t happen?’’

edit - text didn't all copy in the first time!

Edited September 20, 2013 by Alyosha

[mita]

The article mentioned the Society of Companion Animal Rescuers. I looked up their website:

http://www.socares.com.au/about_us.htm

[_PL_]

SoCares and David have been vocal about Rutherford for a long time.

It was 2011 when Cessnock closed Kurri Pound and gave the contract to Rutherford (who already hold the contract for other councils) and everything they said would happen to impounded animals and PTS stats, has happened.