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...***
Sarah Philpott
Chief Executive Officer
City of Mount Gambier
E: city@mountgambier.sa.gov.au
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.
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.
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.
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...
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."...
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment