http://www.savingpets.com.au/2014/02/izzy-and-her-little-family/
Izzy (and her little family)
February 5, 201495 CommentsRSPCA, Temperament testing
The RSPCA WA is being questioned by the state government regarding their processes for choosing which pets are treated and which pets are killed…
The WA Government has raised fears the RSPCA is destroying pets that could be kept alive.
Documents obtained by The Sunday Times reveal Agriculture Department boss Rob Delane was told of a case last year where medical histories did not support the destruction of some pets.
“It is unclear whether the RSPCA had sufficient grounds to destroy these animals,” a briefing note for Mr Delane dated May 2013 said
The notes prepared for Mr Delane warn the RSCPA’s processes were “inadequate”.
Even RSPCA staff seemed to have little faith in the ‘system’;
Revelations of the documents come as a former RSPCA regional inspector, who asked not to be named, also expressed concerns about the treatment of animals by the organisation.
The inspector, who resigned last year, said she would regularly try to rehome animals in country areas rather than bring them to the Perth shelter because she feared they would be put down.
“I wouldn’t take my animals up there,” she said.
“Some puppies would get put down at eight weeks and they would say they had behavioural problems,” she said……
The RSPCA remain unapologetic:
RSPCA state chief executive David van Ooren said no disciplinary action had been taken and the allegations in the report had not been substantiated.
An RSPCA spokesman said there were “very clear” and “well-developed” policies relating to the euthanasia of animals.
So how does this “well developed” policy work in practice?
Izzy
This is Izzy. She was a breeding dog seized by the RSPCA under an alleged breach of WA’s animal protection laws. She entered the care of the RSPCA in March 2012. She was only a baby herself (probably less that two years old) but she was heavily pregnant.
Izzy was placed with foster carer, Cath (an experienced human midwife and dog lover) and her husband (a senior vet) so she couldn’t have been in more compassionate, capable hands. It was a new start to a happier life.
Izzy gave birth to four healthy babies; Rueben, Sukey, Polly and Morris
Izzy was ‘typical’ of many neglected dogs; sad, skittish and scared. She was terribly and heartbreakingly under socialised. The family worked hard to make her life peaceful, to give her good food and comfort, and to let her know everything was going to be ok. And under their care, Izzy showed she was a loving and competent mum – working hard to clean and feed her pups, growing them into cute little fat bellies.
Even as the pups grew nearly as large as herself! (15 days old)
Cath’s family worked hard to make sure these pups were getting all they needed to grow into healthy, happy dogs. Her daughter delighted in helping ‘socialise’ these babies and they learned to walk and eat solid food.
Sukey (4 weeks)
Rueben (4 weeks)
Polly Poppit (4 weeks)
Morris (4 weeks)
Not surprisingly, the family fell in love with these guys and considered adopting one themselves, but found that even as volunteers, the RSPCA adoption fees were prohibitive;
“We were going to keep one, but despite the fact I was volunteering my time to look after Izzy when she was pregnant and now raise a litter of puppies for them – they still want to charge me $700 for a puppy!!
Cath kept Izzy, Rueben, Sukey, Polly and Morris for a total of 4 weeks, before taking them back to the RSPCA for their scheduled check up. Cath assumed that she would drop them off in the morning, and pick them up in the afternoon, to continue her fostering.
“They simply wouldn’t give them back after I dropped them all in for a check over. I rang every day asking what was happening and when could I go back and get them. They kept fobbing me off. It was only after I asked for a meeting with the CEO and they realised I wasn’t going away that I was told they were already dead.
I had Izzy behaving and responding to us beautifully after a while. But they killed her and all of her pups. They didn’t indicate to me at all that they were at risk – they did it all without telling me.
My husband is a senior vet. We never saw the pups do anything strange behaviourally. Izzy was timid, but she was really coming good. And those pups were fine.”
Izzy and her pups were given a ‘behavioural assessment’ at the RSPCA kennel facility. All five failed.
Next, as is the procedure, each of these young dogs were held. Their leg was shaved. A syringe of poison was drawn. And then one by one they were injected until their lively, waggling bodies went limp and they were dead.
All under the RSPCA’s “well developed” policies.
The community has the expectation that animals entering RSPCA care will be given every chance to be rehabilitated. Pet lovers give tens of millions of dollars in donations every year believing that they are supporting life affirming processes. I don’t know a single rescue group who, if called, wouldn’t have found a place for these guys. But they didn’t survive being ‘sheltered’ by the RSPCA.
Izzy deserved a second chance. Her babies deserved a first one.
Our shelters should not be this way. They do not have to be. The killing has got to stop.
It’s unacceptable.It was an act of cruelty against a defenseless animal.It’s so sad that lately many of these case have been happening in a crescendo.
what!! how can they pick up a dog and kill him same day. There was no time for this error to be rectified or even any chance of him being rehomed, disgusting and heartless
There are a few issues going on here. Firstly would this have happened to a wealthy family in town? I think not. Secondly there are either no policies in place to follow or they aren’t being followed! And finally shooting a dog? This is the 21st century!
It is truly sick and disturbing a modern country can have such heinous acts happening with out really a thought about it. And the people who can carry it out obviously have no conscience was is worrysome. We live in sad times….
Absolutely disgraceful. Unfortunately, people do not know their rights and can’t stand up to bullies in positions of authority. As pointed out by others, if the ranger had the right to take the dog he would not have needed a surrender form. Statement by Walgett council says the dog was shot about midday same day because it did not have a potential adopter – presumably this about the same time it took the ranger to drive to the tip and pull the trigger, so it’s not as though they tried.
I have just read Walgett Council’s statement on their website, which details their version of events.I regard this as lacking in
credibility and a poor attempt at risk management.
I do not believe Council’s report of what happened to Ninja and the
little stray collected by council on the same day.
The story the owner told me of how the ranger pressured and coerced her,
into signing surrender papers, which she did not understand, was credible and
consistent over several conversations.
Does this council not understand the concept of “informed consent?”
Whilst Ninja’s owner’s story was consistent and credible, Council is reliant on the the word of a ranger whom they have established to be a LIAR on this matter, for their version of events.
Does anyone believe this statement from Council-
“Given that the animal was surrendered and council could not identify a potential new owner it was euthanased around midday on 21.12.12.”
Consider that they only seized Ninja around 8-8.30am that morning..so they only had him in their possession for literally a couple of hours before they took him to the rubbish tip and shot him.
How hard do you think they tried to find him a home?
Remember also that at the time of seizing Ninja, the ranger first told the owner that Ninja was a lovely Labrador who would easily find a home when they send him to Dubbo, and then when the owner made a follow up call a couple of hours after Ninja had been seized, he told her that he was a lovely dog and had been sent to Sydney for re homing with a Lab breeder.
And now Council is expecting us all to believe that they euthanased Ninja because they could not find him a home!
Walgett Council must think we are all stupid!
In relation to the other little dog which council seized as a stray on the same day, and shot on the same day – Council’s statment describes this dog as having been “thin..lethargic..infested with fleas and ticks…diseased and in a distressed state.” Again..council is relying on the word of a Council ranger whom Council themselves have confirmed to have been a LIAR on this matter.
Ninja’s owner spontaneously described this little dog to me as being on the fat side, active and playful and with no obvious evidence of being sick. The dog may have had fleas/ticks – but that is not a sufficient reason to euthanase this little dog. Actually..when I first challenged Council’ s Director about this dog being killed the same day, his first comment to me was that the ranger needed to make decisions about which animals could be re homed and which could not, suggesting to me that what Council did to the little brown and white stray, they routinely did to other animals.
It seems to me, that Council is well aware that they have broken the law in shooting this little dog and not keeping it the minimum 7 days to give it a chance to find its owner..so they have cooked up this story about him being so sick.
This dog’s owner could have easily been found. I know that because I asked Ninja’s owner to ask around, and she found the owner without too much trouble. I hope this owner takes legal action against Walgett Council for what they have done.
It seems that Walgett Council has not complied with the legal requirements, in either Ninja’s case or the case of the little stray brown and white dog, and it seems that they have abused their power.
I will be emailing Council a list of questions to clarify further how they manage companion animal services and I will be taking the matter up with the Dpt of Local Government.
Michelle Alber- President, Sydney Pet Rescue & Adoption “Every life is precious to us.”
I can only hope the Daily Liberal follows up this story and doesn’t just leave at this.
Lost my GSDs to a gun happy ranger they got out in the morning and went across the road to were some sheep were killed the night before (not by them), first response was to shoot one dead and gut shot the other and let him run home to me but not to notify me until 2 hours later or follow the wounded angel to ensure the job was finished. I found my boy outside bleeding to death. Council told me they were within their rights and it was legal but regrettable that the second dog was only injured no apologies though
Inland animals??, another species?, not illegal but immoral and heartless.
Thank you to the Daily Liberal for publishing this article. It brings much needed insight into yet another Council bungle in dealing with companion animals. Does this ranger really believe executing a family pet is part of his duty? Does the Council intend investigating this issue?
We are living in Australia, 2013, it is not compassionate, intelligent or in the public interest to allow gun toting individuals to flaunt their authority by shooting dogs.
DISGRACEFUL!!!!!!!!!!!
It’s a damn shame people have lost their compassion and care factor and are overcome by power plays. This cannot possibly be “legal” to trick a woman and lie and then “shoot” a dog!! Yes people who aren’t responsible owners need to be told however surely they deserve an opportunity to put things to right. Also what about the dog being impounded and a rescue being able to rehome it? A bullet? Shame on you!!!
Appalling that something like that could happen in this day & age. The ranger should be charged with animal abuse & so should the council that employs him.
I find the use of a bullet to kill a dog totally unacceptable in 21st century Australia. I also question why the woman was told the dog would be re-homed? Is this what councils have come to – killing a dog and giving it no option? I believe in responsible dog ownership and this dog could have been re-homed to a responsible owner.
Act of compassion??? Anyone that can shoot a dog is not someone I would want living near me. Until this council introduces a total ban on back yard breeding thereby reducing the number of dogs they should ensure that any dog taken into their care is re-homed.
Many rescue groups work with regional pounds and the dog can be moved to safety to a metropolitan area where there will be a greater number of adopters.
well is every body with a gun so MACHO? that they have the absurd need to show off they have something that shoot bullets? That isn’t man manhood is coward. You don’t shoot others family’s pets. Same U don’t want people to shoot your loved ones. Don’t do to other what you don’t want people do to you
Why as the ranger banging on the wall of the house, why did he not go to the door. ? What are his authorities to wander around peoples yards and remove their property? If the dog was at home then why was a warning not issues? Why lie? Is there a moral and legal requirement to inform people why you are taking their property and what the consequences will be before manipulating them to sign any forms?
Just as bad as the brax story, he to was shot by rangers because he was out but owner was never told he had been found and then was dumped at the tip, he was microchiped and rangers new he was missing but still chose to shoot think something needs to be done about rangers thinking they are big and mighty
The ranger should of explained clearly what signing the forms meant and should not of lied. If he had told the truth and offered a warning this situation could of been avoided. The ranger is clearly at fault and should be reprimanded.
Actually Mr Goodwin it is a breach of the Companion Animals Act,
“When the Daily Liberal asked if Ninja had been shot at the local tip Mr Goodwin said he had.
He added it was not unusual to destroy animals by shooting them, nor was it illegal.”
(Edited by a moderator)
so can we assume that the dog was not registered and desexed?
loose dogs are a damn pest, upsetting as it is for the children they need to understand that pet ownership carries responsibilities.
I have 2 dogs in the next yard to my house and wish the council would take them
I think your a dam pest! can we collect you and take you to the tip and shoot you? or would you like a second chance, I’m sure the lady and dog in the story would.
This story confused me, I couldn’t see the connection without follow up from our local rangers on the procedures in place here in Dubbo. Also, to balance the story perhaps a follow up on the numbers of dogs and cats causing problems in country areas, I know last year there were a number of stories regarding dog attacks against farm animals.
It’s sad for the girl in the photo, but loose dogs are a pest and an issue of public safety. I don’t know about this dog, but many dogs get extremely aggressive when other dogs on leads with their owners walk past.
The ranger should have told the truth though although I do believe he acted in a mode of compassion. It would not have been easy for him or her.
Come one jack. The dog got out and knocked some bins over. It wasn’t roaming the streets attacking ppl. If you ask the me the ranger has some serious mental issues and should not have access to a gun. If the dog had to be taken it in no way should it have been shot that day. I see plenty of ppl in Dubbo walking their dogs off the leash, responsible looking ppl at that. ( As in middle class, ppl living inthe more affluent areas of town) Should those dogs be whisked away and shot? The dog was in her yard. She should have denied him access, which is within her right.
Monk if you carer to look at the companion animal legislation you will find Council has the power to enter any property (excluding inside the dwelling) when dealing with companion animals. Just because Dubbo Council rangers do not appear to be able to enforce the legislation (maybe due to lack of resources) doesnt mean that other Council’s should do the same. Just remember there is more to this story than what has been published.
They can enter a yard only during an emergency or to investigate a complaint. They cannot just waltz into someones yard and take their property. Which is why he tricked her into signing the papers saying it voluntarily surrendered.
Because otherwise he would not have the right to take the dog. In fact she could have called the police to have him charged with theft
Source for comments: http://lawyersforcompanionanimals.com.au/familys-pet-shot-at-tip-by-council-ranger/