Wednesday, February 28, 2024

Dog & Cat Management Board - More Correspondence re Mt Gambier City Council Impound

Howdy dear availees and welcome to the 4th(?) post on this specific issue, and this post follows-on  from the correspondence included in that immediate previous post...to quickly re-iterate, I became aware of issues re the Mt Gambier City Council's appalling Impound Facility and wrote to the Dog and Cat Management Board on Sunday 28th January 2024...(copy there-of in previous post-Ed)...indeed, and then completely unrelated, that Monday arvo (29th Jan) there was the near-infamous 'SAPol Respond To Animal In Distress Report' incident at the MGCC Impound...(and of course SAPol attended 'cos there is no RSPCA in Mt Gambier-Ed)...that's my understanding, certainly, and given that I still hadn't heard anything I emailed the DCMB again that Monday arvo and attached the video footage of the 'Animal in Distress' as posted to Facebook by a concerned citizen...(here's the copy of your email you asked for-Ed)...cheers, just drop it there...(here?-Ed)...right there...***

dcmb@sa.gov.au

Mon, Jan 29, 2024 4:43 PM

Dear Madam/Sir,

As per my unanswered email and attached correspondence yesterday regarding Mt Gambier City Council's appalling treatment of animale especially dogs, here is some footage just taken at the MGCC Works Depot.

I asked you to act immediately this morning and clearly you have not.

MGCC have refused to respond.

SAPol are in attendance for the welfare of the animal.

You are the responsible authority, please act immediately to protect these animals.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1035014950816552/user/1059870374/

Yours Nick Fletcher 

***And roger me with a prize-winning leek (ack BlackAdder) if the DCMB didn't get like right on it, take like totes control, and rectify the situation...(I thought you said that the DCMB are a pack a' mouth-breathing half-wits far more interested in their own precious positions of privilege and alleged influence than the welfare of animals?-Ed)...I gotta' stop tellin' you stuff, clearly...(I don't understand why you do either-Ed)...point being, the DCMB did 'respond', albeit a dismissive, deceitful response sent at 1723hrs...and here 'tis...***

W: Mt Gambier City Council Dog Mistreatment

 DEW:Dog and Cat Mngt Board

Mon, Jan 29, 2024 5:23 PM

OFFICIAL

 Dear Mr Fletcher,

Thank you for your correspondence dated Sunday 28 January and Monday 29 January.

I understand you were seeking immediate action from the Dog and Cat Management Board. Please note, the Dog and Cat Management Board do not have any powers to remove Council’s authority under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995. However, we will review the information and footage you have provided in relation to the detention facility approval and compliance with the Dog and Cat Management Act in detaining and disposing (rehoming) animals.

For immediate action, I encourage you to engage RSPCA to report urgent animal welfare concerns, as they are equipped and have the powers to respond to such concerns.

Contact - RSPCA South Australia (rspcasa.org.au)

Animal cruelty complaints

24-hour hotline: 1300 477 722
Alternatively, fill out our 
online cruelty report form.

Animals in emergencies

24-hour hotline: 1300 477 722
Learn more about our animal rescue team 
here.

Sincerely,

Ann Gee
Manager
 
Dog and Cat Management
81-95 Waymouth Street, Adelaide SA 5000
GPO Box 1047, Adelaide SA 5001
dogandcatboard.com.au

***And I was somewhat less than impressed with that 'response' so I wrote to them again the next day, Tuesday 30th January 2024...again it's pretty much self-explanatory, so, have at it...***

Ms Gee,

I refer to my correspondence to the DCMB (letter 28th January 2024 + supporting documents/letters) and Monday 29th January regarding Mt Gambier City Council's appalling treatment of animals, particularly dogs in their 'care' due to being impounded.

I also refer to my repeated but unsuccessful attempts to contact you, the DCMB, via your phone message service.

Your, the DCMB's, eventual response, received via email at 1723hrs Monday 29th January is entirely unacceptable and inappropriate.

I identified to the DCMB that MGCC were/are keeping dogs in a tin shed and as of last week also a cyclone-wire cage, both located in the asphalt carpark of their Works Depot.

You, the DCMB, already knew/know this though because it was you, the DCMB, who approved this appalling and entirely inhumane 'facility'.

As I understand it, this 'Approval' was granted 'Site Unseen', that is, the DCMB has given MGCC license to operate this 'facility' without actually seeing what it is, where it is, etc.

Is this true, and if so why, and how is this appropriate let-alone lawful?

As you, the DCMB are already aware, because you, the DCMB did it, this 'license' to hold dogs for 72 hours was retrospectively granted to MGCC after they (MGCC) were caught-out deliberately breaching their 12hr-Hold License.

How and why was this 'retrospective approval' given, and why was no action taken against MGCC for this willing breach?

This 'retrospective approval' completely contradicts your (DCMB's) denial of responsibility for the current situation in your response to me;

“...the Dog and Cat Management Board do not have any powers to remove Council’s authority under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 .”

Given what has already transpired, your, the DCMB's, denial and explanation present as a deliberate deceit.

Worse, you, the DCMB, then contradict that statement by saying that you, the DCMB,

...will review the information and footage you have provided in relation to the detention facility approval and compliance with the Dog and Cat Management Act in detaining and disposing (rehoming) animals.”

In one sentence you, the DCMB deny any and all responsibility, but next sentence then identify/define the exact responsibility/authority that the DCMB does have and that I have requested be exercised, that is, remove MGCC's 'license' to hold dogs.

I respectfully request actual answers to these questions because it must be established why this 'Approval' was given; the manner in which it was given; and to ensure that this disastrous result is never, ever repeated.

Your, the DCMB's, refusal to take responsibility for the horrendous circumstances/'facility' that you, the DCMB, have officially approved is unacceptable.

What I cannot figure-out is whether your, the DCMB's, apparent ignorance as regards the absence of the RSPCA in Mt Gambier, is a genuine ignorance or a more cynical denial of your, the DCMB's responsibilities and/or actions.

As you are aware, yesterday Monday 29th January 2024, SAPol were called to that 'facility' by a concerned member of the public, to rescue a dog in great distress.

As you, the DCMB, are aware, SAPol did attend, and they did so because there is no RSPCA in Mt Gambier.

You, the DCMB, gave MGCC official 'license' to operate this facility, you and you alone are ultimately responsible for what happens there, especially as it relates to the gross inappropriateness/dangerousness of this appalling 'facility'.

That poor dog was locked in that tin garden shed, and the moment MGCC became aware that SAPol had been called, MGCC staffer Derek Ferguson went to the 'facility' and opened the door of the locked shed.

Senior MGCC manager/staffer Jane Featherstonehaugh allegedly attended shortly after to 'inspect' and 'review the situation'.

These extraordinarily cynical actions by MGCC were intended by MGCC to deceive SAPol, the DCMB, and everyone else as to the genuine state of the 'facility'.

These appalling actions yesterday clearly define MGCC's contempt for all involved, including the DCMB and SAPol, and show exactly how cynically and deceitfully they are prepared to conduct themselves, rather than take responsibility for their disgusting decisions/behaviour.

This entire fiasco is purely economics-driven because of MGCC's gross financial mismanagement, and MGCC has acted with definable contempt for Ratepayers, our pets, and for the DCMB, SAPol, etc, but it is the DCMB who have empowered MGCC to act like this.

This 'facility' issue is literally tip-of-the-iceburg as it applies to MGCC's appalling conduct, eg, dogs are disappearing from the MGCC 'facility' and then re-appearing at interstate pounds/shelters.

I repeat my request that the DCMB act immediately, today, and remove MGCC's 'license' to hold animals.

***(Sweet baby cheeses, no wonder these people hate you, you actually 'literally' beat them back into a corner and then metaphorically slap them all-up side the head-Ed)...one does what one can...(in a sortta' "stop hittin' ya'selves" kinda' context-Ed)...if you mean that I cause discomfort for some by pushing their own behaviours back-up into their own faces, then sure, and I'd be more than happy to see any and/or all of these clowns/stooges completely 'dis-arm' me by not being so gourd-awfully incompetent and/or corrupt!...(you say words, but all I hear is 'Slap Slap Slap'-Ed)...well then, hear this, Slap!!!...(ouchhhh!!! aha-Ed)...and for the benefit of dear availees playing-along at home, I just mimed slapping Ed as he clapped his hands together and feigned a re-coil, etc, etc...(purely for comedic effect-Ed)...and just to lighten the mood further, we now return you to our usual programming...(ooo more slapping, I love it-Ed)...well by the Friday I hadn't heard any response from the DCMB re my letter above of the previous Tuesday, etc, and so I wrote again...***

Ms Gee,

As per my previous letters to you, the DCMB, regarding the approval granted by the DCMB to Mt Gambier City Council for their inhumane Dog Pound Facility.

As you, the DCMB, are aware, because I've written to you repeatedly and explained it to you, this 'Pound' is actually a Tin Garden Shed/Cyclone-wire Cage, both on asphalt, jammed into a corner of MGCC's Works Depot carpark.

As you, the DCMB, are also aware, that Cyclone-wire Cage was only added last week as a supposedly appropriate way to address the 36C+ temperatures and resultant extreme stress/injury to the dogs being held there.

You, the DCMB, could apparently be initially, partially forgiven for officially approving this 'facility' because you granted MGCC approval 'Site Unseen', that is, without conducting any sort of site inspection.

It is immediately obvious from the granting of MGCC's approval that this lack of inspection and/or any apparent appropriate oversight by the DCMB is total, that is, the granting of this approval defines that you, the DCMB, have conducted absolutely no 'Oversight Process' at all.

You, the DCMB, have clearly not seen even a basic plan/summary/outline from MGCC as to what it was they intended, and that you, the DCMB, approved.

It is obvious because no-one with a shred of human decency is going to approve that facility if they have the slightest idea what is being proposed.

However, in today's The Border Watch newspaper MGCC is quoted saying that they received DCMB approval after providing “self-assessment, site plans, and photos”.

So you, the DCMB, you are the Dog and Cat Management Board and, apparently equipped with all the information/details you, the DCMB, requires to grant MGCC a 'Pound Approval', have 'licensed' that appalling facility.

And to that specific point, I only found out yesterday that I've grossly underestimated just how vilely callous and inhumane MGCC are, because I didn't realise that the Tin Garden Shed is the entire 'Impound Facility'.

I had thought that a very small section of MGCC's Work Depot carpark had been fenced-off to create a yard, and that the Tin Shed was just the kennels part of the larger 'Pound' for securing dogs at night, etc.

But as you, the DCMB, know, or apparently didn't know at all, the Tin Shed is it, that appalling little Tin Shed sitting in the middle of an asphalt carpark, that is MGCC's Dog Impound.

I respectfully request that you, the DCMB, provide me with any and all detail in your possesion as to what plans/information was provided by MGCC that satisfied you, the DCMB, to approve this appalling 'Impound Facility'.

It is my understanding that several senior MGCC staff attended at their 'Pound' on the Monday afternoon/evening, following SAPol attending the site, and that MGCC have since declared the facility to be 'just fine'.

As you, the DCMB, are also already aware, 1) there is no RSPCA in Mt Gambier and that as a result 2) SAPol attended at the MGCC 'Impound' in response to an 'Animal In Distress' call from the public.

SAPol attended to rescue a dog in distress (the video footage of which I have already provided) from the MGCC 'Impound' that you, the DCMB, approved.

The DCMB should also be aware that at this time some in Mt Gambier are contemplating legal action for the appalling, inhumane conduct on this matter, and that you, the DCMB, are firmly in that frame as being the 'Authority' that not only approved this in the first instance, but now refuses to take responsibility and act to rectify the situation.

Should others proceed with any litigation, I will immediately provide them copies of my correspondence to you, the DCMB, to prove that you, the DCMB, know/knew exactly what is/was happening and that you, the DCMB condone and support it, and outright refused to act.

You, the DCMB, have not just allowed this to happen, by refusing to act to rectify it and therefore effectively protecting MGCC, you define yourself, the DCMB, as being wantonly complicit in the gross abuse of animals.

You, the DCMB, know the extraordinary trauma and stress this appalling conduct by MGCC is having in the community, and you, the DCMB, know what it is you can do to address that.

Again, there is very hot weather forecast across the weekend, 30C+, and MGCC have just declared that appalling facility to be 'just fine'.

So again I implore you, the DCMB, to act immediately and remove any approval/license from Mt Gambier City Council to operate any sort of 'Animal Impound Facility', and have any and all animals 'Impounded' by MGCC instead taken to the fit-for-purpose South East Animal Welfare League shelter on Penola Rd.

As you, the DCMB, are aware, I have provided the SEAWL a $1,000 surety to cover any immediate costs associated with my request to have any/all animals removed/impounded by MGCC immediately taken to the SEAWL facility.

Mount Gambier City Councillors and senior staff have proven themselves as individuals, let-alone as a Council entity, to be wholly unfit persons to have any animals in their supposed 'care'.

As I conclude this latest correspondence to you, 1315hrs Friday 2nd February 2024, I have still received no response from you, the DCMB, to my letter of *Monday 29th January 2024*, not even a polite 'Email Received'.

All I have is your, the DCMB's, response directing me to call the RSPCA, denying any and all responsibility, but then saying that you, the DCMB, will look into that “approval” if I send more information and/or footage.

This is not just completely self-contradictory, but the statement about 'more footage' is outright offensive, and reeks of bureaucratic indifference and mockery.

Just exactly how many dogs do you, the Dog and Cat Management Board, need to see/hear in high distress in a facility you, the DCMB, have approved, before you, the DCMB, act to rectify the inhumane disaster you, the DCMB, have not only created, but now allow to continue?

Even if you, the DCMB, claim complete ignorance as to what MGCC are doing, I have clearly identified the appalling conditions/situation, for which you, the DCMB, are the 'Oversight Authority', and therefore responsible for both the approval and continued functioning there-of, and I have provided you, the DCMB, with an immediate, viable, and 'paid-for' solution.

Again, please, I formally request that the DCMB act immediately to protect these highly vulnerable dogs because Mt Gambier City Council have indicated that they do not care and intend to continue forward exactly as they have behaved thus-far.

(*Apologies dear availees, doing this post I just realised that should be Tuesday 30th January, not Monday 29th as written which was the email as above.)

 ***So as self-described, that letter was emailed to the DCMB that Friday arvo, and they got right on it again/eventually, but unfortunately couldn't quite get their lengthy response/denial finished and then emailed until 1704hrs, four minutes past the close of business...***

Dear Nick Fletcher, 

I acknowledge the letters you have sent to the Board dated Tuesday 30th January and Friday 2nd February since my previous reply Monday 29th January. 

In response to your questions regarding approval process: 

The Board have an established policy for the Approval of Detention Facilities for Dogs and Cats. The Board ask councils to advise them of new detention facility plans as early as possible, to ensure compliance with the Board’s Detention Facility Guideline. New detention facilities must be inspected and approved prior to use. As you have identified, approval was not attained by the City of Mount Gambier prior to use, and this was rectified.

 Facilities are assessed against the minimum requirements set out in the Detention Facility Compliance Checklist. Inspections may be conducted by DCM Unit Staff, a representative directed by the Board or a council representative. If a self-audit by council has been undertaken, DCM Unit staff will review this for compliance. Assessment can include the provision of supporting evidence of mud maps, photographs and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). 

The Board approved the City of Mount Gambier 72-hr detention facility July 2023. 

Section 32A allows the Board to report Council failure to discharge responsibilities under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 to the Minister to whom the administration of the Local Government Act 1999 has been committed (with a view to that Minister taking action in relation to the council under that Act). As the Council worked quickly with the Board to resolve this matter, and the facilities met the requirements and were approved, escalation of this matter was not warranted. 

Compliance assessments regarding third parties are not publicly available, therefore the Board is unable to fulfil your request to provide any and all detail in possession as to what plans/information was provided by the City of Mount Gambier to approve the facility. Should you wish to pursue access to this information, please consider submitting a Freedom of Information Request through the Department for Environment and Water. 

The Board cannot direct a Council to engage in a service or supply arrangement, therefore the Board is unable to fulfil your request that animals seized by the City of Mount Gambier are taken to the SE Animal Welfare League. 

Questions from previous correspondence you have requested are clarified

You asked that “DCMB act immediately to remove from MGCC any and all approvals/ licenses to 'manage' dogs”. I advised that the Dog and Cat Management Board do not have any powers to remove Council’s authority under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995. I apologise if there was a misinterpretation, and what you were asking was limited to the approved impounding facilities. The Board do not have powers to remove council’s ability to appoint authorised officers to undertake their roles and responsibilities prescribed in legislation. 

You asked “DCMB act immediately, as in, first thing Monday morning 29 January 2024 to allow as much time as possible for other arrangements to be made for the dogs”. I advised that we would review the information and footage you provided in relation to the detention facility approval and compliance with the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 in detaining and disposing (rehoming) animals. I can confirm that on Monday we followed up your report, and throughout the week spoke with the Council, the attending SAPOL officer as well as deploying a staff member to the site to conduct an audit. 

The City of Mount Gambier have been advised of the outcome of this assessment, and the facility remains approved for 72-hour detention. The Board is satisfied that the council has procedures in place to monitor and cater for the health and wellbeing of dogs kept at the facility. I understand that this outcome is not the one you were seeking. 

Under section 270 of the Local Government Act 1999, all councils must have a policy and procedures for reviewing their decisions and actions for decisions. If you feel aggrieved by an action or decision of Council, you may put your concerns or complaint in writing following the council complaint/review process. Complaints of misconduct or maladministration of councils of the public service can be reported to the SA Ombudsman for investigation. 

Yours faithfully 

Ann Gee 

Manager

***And we're gunna' conclude today with an on-line article (link attached) and ask that availees pay special attention to the "Senior Project Officer" MGCC refers to (below) and claims to have asked to inspect, etc, and how that compares to what the DCMB wrote to me (above)...***

 https://www.miragenews.com/impound-facility-approval-reconfirmed-1166595/

Council's impound facility located at the City of Mount Gambier depot has been audited by the South Australian Dog and Cat Management Board, and the existing approval has been reconfirmed.

The additional audit was arranged by Council following community concerns shared on social media regarding the welfare of impounded dogs in our care during warmer weather.

"We want to allay any concerns regarding wandering dogs in our care, so we invited a senior officer of the Board to come down from Adelaide to inspect Council's facility and discuss our process and procedures when handling dogs," General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services Jane Fetherstonhaugh said.

"Our facility was already approved to hold dogs for 72 hours in accordance with the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 in July last year, but given recent community concerns we wanted to ensure that we continue to follow the Dog and Cat Management Board's guidelines."

A Dog and Cat Management Board Senior Project Officer inspected Council's temporary impound facility this week and the Board has formally advised Council that it is satisfied with the facility.

"During the visit, we also discussed preliminary plans for future impounding facilities, as we'll also need to consider and plan for the potential requirement to impound cats in the future which is under consideration as part of the current review of the Dog and Cat Management Act," Mrs Fetherstonhaugh said.

Wandering dogs are housed in Council's temporary pound during the 72 hour hold period.

"We keep the dogs as safe and comfortable as possible until we can reunite them with their owner, or transfer them to one of our partner organisations for rehoming."

"During warmer days we visit the temporary kennel frequently to ensure dogs have access to food and water. We also monitor the temperature inside the kennel and if required, hose down the floor, and the dog and enable outside access within an enclosure."

"We have installed shadecloth on the outside enclosure and we have a small plastic children's swimming pool for use on hot days. We continue to investigate making other improvements such as roof ventilation in the kennels and an additional shade sail over the holding pen."

Council's impound facility was constructed in accordance the Dog and Cat Management Board Detention Facility Guidelines which outline that dog pens must be fully enclosed and constructed from impervious, washable and durable materials.

"In comparison to the comforts of home, the facility may appear basic. However, these specific requirements are outlined by the Board to meet health and safety standards for the dogs and our staff," Mrs Fetherstonhaugh said.

***And we're just gunna' pull stumps here 'cos there's a lot to get through and next post we'll be referring back to all of this correspondence in these last 2 posts, etc, so it'll hopefully be easier/possible for dear availees to have these several posts on different 'tabs' of this 'ere blog, and be able to just go 'tab-to-tab-to-tab' where/when necessary rather than trying to go in and out of individual posts...(well that's as clear as mud-Ed)...it's the best I can manage right now...(fair enough-Ed)...

Tomorrow: More Dog Blog Fodder 

I'm Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...


Tuesday, February 20, 2024

My Letters To Mt Gambier City Council & The Dog/Cat Management Board

Howdy dear availees...there's been so much shizzle furiously flyin' into various fans that it's all we can do to keep on ploddin' along...(but that is what we're doin' isn't it-Ed)..well obviously...(I mean, who were we really kidding when we said we were gunna' step-away from all this-Ed)...indeed, indeed...and in a reverse cross-promotion I'd like to alert any availees who aren't already aware that there's a TMGI Facebook page and I've been fairly busy on there, so please to be checkin' that out if ya' haven't already, cheers...and on with the show...

A slight step sideways and vaguely backwards from the 2 most recent posts, but it's all good solid background/foundation and as such entirely relevant...please find attached today copies of various correspondence that is largely self-explanatory, so away we go...this first letter was emailed to the Dog& Cat Management Board on Sunday 28th January 2024 so as to be furtively lurking in the digital darkness awaiting their arrival first thing Monday...***   

Dog and Cat Management Board

GPO Box 1047

Adelaide SA 5001

Email: dcmb@sa.gov.au

Dear Madam/Sir,

Mount Gambier City Council have just submitted a 'Dog and Cat Management Plan' with the DCMB.

I request that the DCMB reject this 'Plan' and any other similar or related 'Plan' produced/supplied by MGCC.

I also request that the DCMB act immediately to remove from MGCC any and all approvals/licenses to 'manage' dogs.

Last week, on a 36C day, Mt Gambier City Council was holding dogs in a tin 'garden shed' and then a cyclone-wire cage, in an asphalt 'carpark' in their Works Depot.

As you are already aware, mid-2023 MGCC were caught-out unlawfully/illegally(?) holding dogs there for 3-days, not the 12-hours they were licensed to, then the DCMB gave them retrospective approval.

As you are also already aware, last year a MGCC officer beat a cat to death with a hammer in a public street and then put it in a private bin.

As you are also already aware, the RSPCA officially censured MGCC regarding this incident, but as I understand it, that person remains employed by MGCC, still in that same position.

In their January 2024 meeting, MGCC specifically discussed 'Public Complaints' relating to the Hastings Cunningham Reserve Dog Parks, but failed to even mention/acknowledge my dog's injury at HCRDP and my related correspondence.

I have attached that correspondence as proof of MGCC's contempt for all involved, it clearly shows that MGCC knew a hazard they had created at one of their 'facilities' had badly injured a dog, and that other dogs were also getting lesser injuries, but MGCC chose to ignore that problem until park patrons, myself included, were forced to act to rectify it.

MGCC took 6 months to respond, and then their bizarre reply deceitfully feigns ignorance of a hazard they have had explained to them repeatedly and thoroughly and in writing, and instead has me 'falling down' and then apparently taking myself to the vet.

MGCC has repeatedly demonstrated that they are entirely callous and inhumane when it comes to the treatment and/or management of 'Dogs and Cats', and shown wilful contempt for any related legislation and the DCMB and Ratepayers.

I respectfully request that the DCMB act immediately, as in, first thing Monday morning 29 January 2024 to allow as much time as possible for other arrangements to be made for the dogs.

This is a particularly time-sensitive issue because we are forecast another burst of 30C+ weather later this week; those poor dogs cannot be allowed to suffer.

I do not claim to speak for anyone else, but the July 2023 50-person, 20-dog demonstration outside MGCC's meeting illustrates the level of concern/interest in the community.

Much of this concern now centres around the deeply opaque network of third parties who MGCC is sending dogs to after the 3-days expires.

To help facilitate/expedite the removal of MGCC's licenses/approvals to hold dogs, and for the welfare of the dogs, I will attend the South East Animal Welfare League first thing Monday 29th January and provide them a $1,000 surety to have any dogs immediately moved to their appropriate facility.

***And first thing Monday I went to SEAWL and made that offer, and as such they are aware that should it be an issue, that offer/surety exists/remains...I then rang the DCMB several times on Monday 29th January, only to eventually discover that the official number for the DCMB is actually a Message Service and they had no contact details for the actual DCMB...(so you wrote to them again, didn't you-Ed)...ahhh, you know me too well, and we will get to that in the next post 'cos it directly links to the SAPol/Animal In Distress Incident at MGCC's appalling Impound Facility that very Monday...but first, 'cos they are a critical part of this, here's those letters referred to above...(the ones to MGCC about your doggo, Seepin' Sack A' Satanic Gasses, hurtin' his paw?-Ed)...that be they, please, read away...***

Mt Gambier City Council

Watson Ave

Mt Gambier SA 5290

Email: city@mountgambier.sa.gov.au

Dear Madam/Sir,

On Friday 6th January 2023 I was at the Hastings/Cunningham Reserve Dog Park, in the large dog section, and I refer to Councils' notice at the entrance directing patrons to advise Council of any 'incidents'.

My dog was running along the fenceline adjoining the small dog enclosure, toward the Eastern end, when he pulled-up suddenly and started limping. This is not the first time this has happened with my dog, and I am aware of other dogs suffering similar injuries from doing the same thing.

Dogs are hurting their paws on the gravel sticking out of the cement-like sand/gravel mix placed there by Council approx 2 years ago, as I understand it, because one person complained about their dog getting muddy.

I and other owners have repeatedly notified Council about these injuries, including when several of us spoke directly to your 'Works Manager' on site shortly after the lights were installed early in 2022, requesting that heavy builders sand be placed over the gravel/cement.

This time however my dog suffered a very serious injury, ripping the outer layer off his front right paw pad, the main pad in the centre of the foot/paw left hanging by a few centimetres of skin.

He required immediate veterinary attention, including a minor surgery to remove the torn section of pad, antibiotics, etc, treatment totalling $230.00. He has fortunately made an excellent recovery, thanks largely to the prompt veterinary care he received.

I request Council immediately address this ongoing hazard and cover that gravel/cement with several inches of heavy sand, and further request that Council reimburse me for the vets costs incurred from this preventable injury, ie, $230.00.

***That letter to MGCC was emailed 'To Council' 18th January 2023, but also directly to individual Councillors...as identified in my second letter (below, sent 29th June 2023) I received an automated response, but then next day also a specific reply acknowledging my email and saying that it had been forwarded to the relevant but un-named 'Manager'...(and no response at all from any Councillors?-Ed)...not even a polite acknowledgement...anyways, we'll let the letter tell it better...***

CEO Sarah Philpott

Mt Gambier City Council

Civic Centre

Mt Gambier

Email: city@mountgambier.sa.gov.au

Dear CEO Philpott and MGCC Councillors,

I wrote to Council via email on 18th January 2023 regarding an injury suffered by my dog in the large dog area at the Hastings Cunningham Reserve dog park.

I was therefore very surprised to see CEO Philpott quoted in The Border Watch on Friday 31st March 2023, stating that she “...“remained unaware” of specific maintenance issues concerning dog safety.”

In my letter I clearly stated how my dog had been injured, namely, tearing off his front paw-pad on the gravel placed along the fenceline by Council in 2020.

I also identified that Council was aware of the problem because several park users spoke to Council's 'Works Manager' (about the several instances of dogs hurting their paws due to the compacted gravel surface, when he attended HCR to inspect the (then) newly installed lights).

Then I specifically identified the solution by repeating in writing the same request that was made of Councils' 'Works Manager', namely, that sand be placed along the fenceline on top of the gravel.

I was therefore shocked to see CEO Philpott claiming in TBW that “...Council...”ensure proper upkeep” and always “strived to fulfil” it's legal obligations concerning the park's safety.” This has not happened with dog park.

My letter also included my request to be re-imbursed the $200.00* veterinarians fee for my dog's injury, an injury sustained because Council failed to mitigate the identified hazard. (*I originally requested $230.00 but the vets subsequently reduced the charge.)

I received an automated response to my letter/email on 18 Jan 2023;

Thank you for your email. This auto reply is confirmation that your message has been received by the City of Mount Gambier. Your request will be forwarded to an appropriate staff member for a response.

And the next day 19 Feb 2023 received this email from Jasmine Taylor;

Hi Nick,

Thank you for your recent correspondence in regards to the Hastings/Cunningham Dog Park.

Your feedback has been forwarded onto the manager of this department who will be in touch within 14 business days.

The reference number for your feedback is AR23/4220

If you have any further questions please feel free to contact us on 08 8721 2555 or by email city@mountgambier.sa.gov.au as this is a no reply email.

As of today Tuesday 20th June 2023 I am yet to receive the promised response to my letter and attached request for reimbursement.

Council has failed to meet any of the many self-stated obligations, as identified by CEO Philpott in that TBW article, and as specifically set-out in Councils' C200 – REQUEST FOR SERVICE AND COMPLAINT POLICY

By Councils' own definitions my letter/email constitutes both a Complaint and a Request. I refer to C200 Section 3;

A Complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction with a product or service delivered by the Council or its representatives that have failed to reach the standard stated, implied or expected. This includes complaints about a service that has been, or should have been delivered.

A Request for Service is an application to have Council or its representative take some form of action to provide or improve a Council service.

Council has also failed to meet it's self-stated commitment to timely response and/or resolution, eg, under Sec 2 PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING THIS POLICY;

Responsiveness: this will be achieved by providing sufficient resources, well trained staff and review and improvement of the systems

Efficiency: complaints will be resolved as quickly as possible, while ensuring that they are dealt with at a level that reflects their level of complexity

Sections 4.2 Processing a Request for Service and 4.3 Timeframes for Response clearly set-out Councils' obligations as identified by the sections' titles. Again, Council has failed to abide by any and all of these Sections.

To shorten this letter I will not include a full copy of Secs 4.2, 4.3 or of Section 5 COMPLAINT HANDLING which further covers Councils' obligations, eg;

Complainants will be advised of the likely timeframe required to investigate and resolve a complaint and regularly updated as to progress where necessary.

As included above I did receive a very specific timeframe for response, “within 14 business days”, but then nothing further. Who is the un-named 'Manager' that was/is handling my Complaint/Request?

My request to be reimbursed is covered by Section 5.7 REMEDIES;

As a general principle the complainant should, so far as possible, be put in the position they would have been in, had things not gone wrong.

The $200.00 vets' bill is an insignificant sum relative to Councils' Budget but it is nearly ¼ of my fortnightly income (Disability Support Pension) and therefore meets Councils' qualification under Sec 5.7, namely;

Compensation will only be offered in cases where the loss or suffering is considered substantial.

As Council is aware and as identified in that TBW article, dog park users became so frustrated with Councils' lack of maintenance at dog park and with this specific gravel/sand issue that there was a 'working bee' to remedy the problem.

I look forward to receiving a prompt response from Council and the relevant reimbursement.

***And again, that letter was emailed directly to all Councillors Tuesday 20th June 2023...this time I did get a response, of sorts, that very afternoon...***

Good afternoon Nick

I acknowledge receipt of your email and will speak with the relevant Council Officers and correspond with you when I have further information.

Regards

Lynette MARTIN OAM
MAYOR

***It's 'Mr Fletcher' to you Lynette...and again, emailed to all Councillors, and not a single response...that was the last I heard from Mayor Martin, upto and including today, but then 2 weeks after that email, on Wednesday 5th July 2023, I did get this rather random/bizarre 'response' from MGCC's Jane Featherstonhaugh...(ah, this is the email you refer to at the top there, in that original letter to the DCMB-Ed)...indeed, and I defy dear availees to read what I wrote to MGCC (above) and then draw a cogent, coherent, or even casual link between my correspondence and this bizarre email...(is it mockery? is this person giving you the big ol' bureaucratic 'Sod Off Idiot'?-Ed)...you tell me mate, that's 100% what it looks like...(mmm, that and/or some sad attempt at Plausible Deniability-Ed)...whatevs, it's bollocks, that's what it is... ***

Dear Mr Fletcher

Thanks for your further follow up.  We acknowledge receipt of your correspondence and apologise that we did not respond in a timely manner. 

I have inspected the area today and cannot find any areas of gravel along the fence line. The entrance to the park is a bit gravelly but that is to reduce slippery surface.  However, if you fell there is still an issue, are you able to provide exact location and/or photos of the area.

In relation to your claim for reimbursement of vet bills, could you please send a copy of your vet bill so we can lodge a formal claim through Councils insurers.

 Kind regards

Jane Fetherstonhaugh

General Manager Corporate & Regulatory Services

***Firstly, apology not accepted...secondly, who the schreck is "We"...(is that MGCC's Born To Rule mentality accidentally seepin' through?-Ed)...nice one man, for it surely presents as such...(I mean, when 'we' say 'we', 'we' actually mean 'you'-Ed)...being 'me'...(being 'you' saying 'we' 'cos I'm a confected literary device, so 'I' and 'you' is actually one-and-the-same-Ed)...so, sorry, who am I now?...(no no, 'you' are still 'you'-Ed)...but then who are 'you'?...(well I'm 'you' also-Ed)...I'm gettin' a headache...(me too-Ed)...stop that...and moving onto "further follow up" and "timely manner"...(does that refer to the fortnight since the second letter in June, or the unanswered letter from 6 months before?-Ed)...exactly, more bureaucratic weasel-words defining exactly how insincere that 'apology' is...(well it's an 'apology' designed for the consumption of someone who has no idea what exactly is being referenced-Ed)...spot on, it presents the illusion of 'apology' but deliberately leaves out the specific details, eg, a time-frame of over 6 months...

Jane then claims to have gone to Doggo Park but couldn't find the gravel that I've carefully explained, in writing, has already been buried under the sand that I and another gentleman moved there with our wheelbarrows, etc etc...(well now she's just takin' the piss!-Ed)...settle big fella', you're absolutely right of course, but hold your applause for the big dismount...(oh this bit, I love this bit-Ed)...indeed as do I...having supposedly read my correspondence and allegedly thoroughly investigating, Ms Featherstonhaugh majestically conjures from the ether 'Me Falling Over'...(and the next bit, this is the bit I love-Ed)...and then, having cited myself as the 'Injured Party', then asks that I provide "a copy of (my) vet bill"...(bahahaha, she's sayin' you fell/were injured, and then, took ya'self to the vets for treatment-Ed)...and again, in the absence of any vaguely rational explanation as to how someone could read my letters and then somehow re-iterate that as an injury to moi, that's another big ol' bureaucratic Sod Off Idiot...and the bit about 'send us the vet's bill', that is just hilarious...  

So that 'apology' very carefully avoids and/or denies and/or deliberately feigns ignorance...(and in many ways, is doing all those things at once-Ed)...precisely, all things at once, eg, stating 'I can't see the gravel problem' ignores/avoids my written explanation and denies there is a problem...so there's some solid background/foundation stuff, now I'm off to luxuriate with a freshly brewed hot chokky and a long shower...this is a simple physical mantra I regularly utilise to politely remind myself, should I ever forget or begin to question, that these simple but indicative luxuries are exactly that, modern luxuries that not everyone has access to...but I do, so I quietly celebrate it...

Tomorrow: More Doggos & Puppers Stuff

Hope this post makes reasonable sense...plenty to do from here though so...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...

Thursday, February 15, 2024

The South Australian Dog & Cat Management Board; My Correspondence With

Howdy dear availees...still really struggling with getting-goin' again with this 'ere blog...(and 'Drafts' is backing-up with half-finished posts, etc-Ed)...yeah, so we're just gunna' plow forward, here goes...as recently covered on TMGI Facebook page, I've been trying to get the SA Dog & Cat Management Board to take some action to protect dogs from Mt Gambier City Council and their/'our' inhumane Dog Impound Facility...(which is in reality a tin garden shed in the corner of the MGCC Works Depot bitumen/gravel carpark/yard/driveway, to which they've added in the last 2 weeks 1) a cyclone-wire cage and 2) a kiddies clam-shell pool-Ed)...yep, and as it transpires, according to the DCMB, twice, that's all apparently completely and awfully lawful/appropriate...for example, here's the DCMB's willfully complicit 'Re-Approval' of the MGCC Impound Facility...***

02 February 2024
Sarah Philpott
Chief Executive Officer
City of Mount Gambier
E: city@mountgambier.sa.gov.au
 
Dear Sarah Philpot,
 
Re: Dog and Cat Management Board Confirmation Approval of Detention Facilities
 
The Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (the Act) requires the Dog and Cat Management
Board (the Board) to issue guidelines and provide advice to councils about the standard of
facilities used for the detention of dogs and cats under the Act. The Act also requires Councils
to make satisfactory arrangements for dogs seized under the Act, including that they are
detained in a facility approved by the Board.
 
In July 2023, the Board approved the City of Mount Gambier’s 72-hour detention facility at 265-271 Commercial Street West, Mount Gambier.
 
On 1 February 2024 a representative directed by the Dog and Cat Management Board
attended the detention facility to conduct an audit of the facility to review compliance with Board Policy. I can confirm the detention facility meets the policy requirements set by the Board, and the approval for the purpose of detaining dogs seized under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 granted July 2023 remains in place. This approval is for the housing of four (4) dogs at any time.
 
The City of Mount Gambier conveyed they are exploring the option of roof ventilation for the
facility and additional shade sails for the outdoor area. This would be strongly encouraged to
ensure the comfort of dogs during extreme weather conditions. If any improvements or
changes are made to the facility, please advise us as soon as practicable.
 
Council may consider conducting its own annual review of the detention facilities to ensure
they still meet the Board’s requirements. Resources for this are available via the Board’s
Council Secure website.

If you have any questions about this approval, please contact me at **********
Any enquiries about the operational aspects of the facility can be directed to ***********
.
Yours sincerely, Ann Gee   (Manager DCMB)

***(What's "a representative directed by the DCMB"?-Ed)...well spotted, 'cos elsewhere the "DCMB Representative" is described as "a Senior Project Officer"...(yeah well a "representative" could be literally anybody, but "Senior Project Officer" is very specifically a staff member-Ed)...and as approved/allowed by the DCMB DP, page 4...

7. Board approval of facilities - The inspection will be conducted by DCM Unit Staff, a representative directed by the Board or a council representative.

(Well by the language/punctuation that seems to define then that The Inspector is either "DCM Unit Staff" or "a representative directed by the Board", so according to this latest Approval Letter, this specific inspection was not done "by DCM Unit Staff"-Ed)...so who is the "Senior Project Officer" that MGCC refers to, but that the DCMB calls a "representative", 'cos when the DCMB Manager finally replied to my third letter, as emailed to me at 1704hrs Friday 2nd February 2024, she states...***

"I can confirm that on Monday (January 29th 2024) we followed up your report, and throughout the week spoke with Council, the attending SAPol officer as well as deploying a staff member to the site to conduct an audit."

***(Well now I'm really confused, was The Inspector a DCM Unit Staffer or someone else?-Ed)...mate, given the complicit levels of deceit and misinformation from both the DCMB and MGCC, I very much doubt that the DCMB flew someone down here just for this...(but that's what they're both saying, the DCMB and MGCC-Ed)...sure, I just find the apparently conflicting info very suss...I note that at no point in these written DCMB denials and/or various MGCC comments/statements, no-one involved has seen fit to identify that MGCC has a Senior Employee on the Dog & Cat Management Board...(WELL I FAIL TO SEE HOW THAT'S AT ALL RELEVANT-Ed)...ah, I see you're using our new SARCASM font, nice...(I mean, surely not, but is this "representative" that was allegedly 'deployed' by the DCMB, is that person actually "a (DCMB) staff member" or was it the MGCC employee who is also a DCM Board Member?-Ed)...yeah, it's tough to sort the grain from the chaff when ya' don't believe a single word either source is chuckin' at ya'...(well it is repeatedly stated 'sent from Adelaide'-Ed)...yeah but it also says 'staff' repeatedly, but then in that letter above, it states "a representative" which denotes that it wasn't DCMB 'staff'...MGCC actually claim they "invited a senior officer" they then described as "A DCMB Senior Project Officer"...***

“We want to allay any concerns regarding wandering dogs in our care, so we invited a senior officer of the Board to come down from Adelaide to inspect Council’s facility and discuss our process and procedures when handling dogs,” City of Mount Gambier General Manager Corporate and Regulatory Services Jane Fetherstonhaugh said.

A Dog and Cat Management Board Senior Project Officer inspected Council’s temporary impound facility this week and the Board has formally advised Council that it is satisfied with the facility.

***And as y'all will see in the full letter I'm posting Tomorrow, as quoted above, the DCMB write to me stating that their alleged actions were in response to my "report", etc...(and as sent to you at 4 minutes past 1700hrs on a Friday, the same Friday that the DCMB have 're-approved' the MGCC Impound-Ed)...yes, I'm sure that's just a case of unfortunate timing and completely not cynically bureaucratic bastardry bordering on dismissive mockery...(well you keep believing that, and the rest of us 'll look at the reality-Ed)...

Here (below) is the link to the DCMB Approval of Detention Facilities for Dogs and Cats Policy...I urge, nay politely insist that dear availees read the 'Approval Policy'...(it's only 16 pages, which ain't alot, really-Ed)...and it's quite shocking, to me anyways, what exactly a Council can get away with under these Swiss Cheese-style guidelines/policies/laws(?)...(well for example, when MGCC began 'unlawfully' holding dogs for 72hrs when they only had a '12hr license', and DCMB "rectified" that by giving MGCC retrospective approval-Ed)...sure, break the law and get an automatic pardon, that's how The Law works for everybody else, so why not for MGCC?...and "rectify" is a word that appears frequently in the 'policy' below... 

https://cdn.dogandcatboard.com.au/dogandcatboard/images/site/Approval-of-detention-facilities-for-Dogs-and-Cats-Policy-2021.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2pNBf6030u6sQfbk85hQIUuw-B1baCfqxW31ur_VzZsnjUUDFxZQmDG-4

Dear availees will also note that a Council may hold a dog for an indeterminate period of time before 'Officially Impounding' it...(and MGCC has already been caught-out doing exactly that, eg, that poor pupper that was in the MGCC Impound when SAPol were called and attended, etc, that dog was in the Impound "for over 20hrs" but had not been posted on the MGCC 'Impounded Dogs' page and MGCC excused that saying that they 'had not Officially Impounded the dog yet'-Ed)...and this week it appears that MGCC have kept a dog at the Impound for 4-5 days, before shipping that poor animal off to Hamilton (Impound?/Foster?)...but we digress...

This (below) is from page 6 of the DCMB 'Approval Policy'...***

Approval of Detention Facilities for Dogs and Cats Policy

Materials and Design
Dog and cat facilities must be separated by an opaque, impervious barrier.
Pens for both dogs and cats must be fully enclosed and constructed from impervious,
washable and durable materials. Impervious partitions at least 1 metre high, sealed to the
ground should separate pens and exercise areas.
Floors must be constructed of impervious materials that are free of cracks or small gaps that
potentially harbour infectious bacteria. The floors must be graded toward the drainage outlet.
Water, wastes or urine must not be able to pass between individual pens. Drainage must be
connected to an enclosed drain or pipe to prevent an animal or person walking through it.

***Now here's the photo, from MGCC's website and as repeatedly used by The Border Watch in their multiple (3+?) front pages and/or related articles this past fortnight...right there, that photo clearly shows that the MGCC Impound Facility does not meet the appallingly pathetic and almost non-existent 'standards' as set by the DCMB...(hey! that 'pen' is not "sealed to the ground" with an "impervious partition" that stops "water, waste, and urine (passing) between individual pens"!-Ed)...my point exactly...and there is no plumbing or even basic drainage, it's just hosed-out into the carpark where other animals/people will be "walking through it."...

A kennel set up for a dog at Council's impound facility.

Also from the DCMB 'Approval Policy': 

Isolation Pens
Detention facilities must have isolation pens or agreed provisions for external isolation of
animals, such as a local vet for sick animals. 

There is no 'Isolation pens' so what are the "agreed provisions for external isolation" that MGCC have provide/documented to the DCMB and that the DCMB have sighted, reviewed, and then 'approved'?...(I'd be very surprised if there's any such "agreed provisions" at all-Ed)...you and me both mate...this (below) refers to a poor li'l doggo with a very major skin "condition", as posted on MGCC's 'Impounded Dogs' page...***

Council officers picked up an approximately 10 to 12 year old eldery girl yesterday. This dog has a severe skin and eye condition and required immediate veterinary assistance. She will be transferred to a Wet Noses Animal Rescue foster carer today and will receive ongoing medical treatment as required.

***Now, please stay with me, we're nearly there...MGCC have stated that the dog at the centre of the SAPol/Animal In Distress Incident at the MGCC Impound Facility on Monday 29th January 2024, that that dog was not on MGCC's Impounded Dogs page because they "had not Officially Impounded it yet"...(but according to a member of the public, it had 'been locked in that facility for at least 20hrs'-Ed)...indeed, and there's so much going-on here too...(fire away-Ed)...the DCMB Detention Guidelines allow a Council to 'hold a dog' for an indeterminate amount of time before the Council has to 'Officially Impound' the doggo...(but to me, to any layperson, both real or confected literary device such as I, anyone looking at that would think 1) you've shut the dog in the tin-shed impound, 2) you've left the site, 3) locking the gate behind you, therefore 4) that dog is 'officially impounded'-Ed)...not according to MGCC or the DCMB...(well I'm sorry, that's just bollocks, MGCC locked that poor dog in there and walked away, that dog is/was Impounded!-Ed)...well of course it was, to say otherwise is just weasel-worded bastardry from low, corrupt people...

So in that context, by their own feeble, weasel-worded excuse/definition, the diseased potentially contagious dog in that photo/post was 'Officially Impounded' by MGCC...(and then another dog not long after-Ed)...exactly, and what measures were taken to sterilise that entire Impound and the vehicles the unwell dog was transported in? was it taken to the pet store associated with Wet Noses? is that the vet involved?...(was there actually a vet involved? I mean, it's MGCC saying it so my automatic, default reaction is that that's a blatant lie-Ed)...fair call mate, all involved, MGCC and the DCMB, liars lying about their previous lies and jointly lying to protect each others lies and best interests...and of course that appalling Impound Facility cannot be sterilised because of the loose corrugated iron internal partition walls...(and no other 'Sterilisation Protocols' can be implemented at that site because it isn't even plumbed to the sewer/storm water, and nor is there even a drain/run-off, so any 'cleaning/sterilisation' will result in disease/contagions/contamination getting washed-out into MGCC's Work Depot carpark, and from there to be potentially stomped/driven all over town-Ed)...indeed, MGCC's entire Impound Facility is a cruel and corrupt joke that fails to meet even the DCMB's appallingly low standards/requirements...  

And everyone involved knows it, MGCC and the DCMB, and they're all denying/lying/weasel-wording about it, and that is Corrupt...and 2 days ago we ran into a gentleman walking said 'another dog' (referred to above) for MGCC, and he stated that the dog was going to be moved "to Hamilton tomorrow", being Wednesday 14th February...I don't know what has happened with that doggo...(and now we're set for another long spell of hot weather, a week of 30C+, and that appallingly inhumane and entirely 'Unlawful' Impound Facility will be a hot-box nightmare-Ed)...and again, for the record, the South East Animal Welfare League facility is 100% fit-for-purpose but the bloody-minded MGCC are more concerned about the money they claim they're saving than with Animal Welfare...

Tomorrow: My Actual Letters To The DCMB

Yeah, got a little side-tracked again, and it's a bit dis-jointed, but decided to just plow-on through with what is some interesting background and fill-in for the next post, which will be just letters...

I am Nick Fletcher and this is my blog...cheers and laters...