Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Syndey Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 39,000 times in 2011. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 14 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.

Summary: What happens is this: The State  Government – for political and PR reasons – announces it will “taskforce” the subject and announce a public discussion document. Nothing happens. And so the ACT Greens announce their own animal welfare Bill. The ACT Gov. is indignant that the Greens have trumped them. And so they and the opposition, (fuelled by vested interests who don’t want any change) fail to pass the Bill. The Gov. announces it will table its own public discussion paper. Eight months later : nothing has happened. Once again, a Gov and its AWAC dragging the chain. Time to rattle the cage. Actions to take below text. (NB This is happening in NSW as well…..) 

On 23 June 2010, the ACT Legislative Assembly was informed that the ACT Government would “table a discussion paper examining issues involving the breeding and selling of companion animals in the ACT. The discussion paper will consider a range of issues and will invite comment on a range of options to address community concerns. Feedback from this paper will contribute to the development of a mandatory code for the breeding and selling of companion animals in the ACT.”

The statement went on to say that a “number of proposals will be considered in the discussion paper that will provide an ethical and humane framework to guide the breeding and sale of companion animals in the ACT. Proposals will also be considered to develop a process for information sharing that will support greater compliance in respect of desexing and safeguarding the health and wellbeing of companion animals”.

A further announcement in September 2010 indicated that the ACT Government planned to issue the “Discussion Paper on the Breeding and Selling of Companion Animals” on 22 September 2010.

This never happened. The matter became dormant.

Further developments:

• In April 2011 the ACT Greens announced their own intention to table an Animal Welfare Amendment Bill:

Pet lovers  support Greens Animal  Welfare Bill, April 2011

• The government immediately responded by attacking the intention of the Greens as political manoeuvring and stated that THEIR discussion paper (…that wasn’t even under way…) was the solution:

Political allies clash on reforms  May 4^th 2011

Greens would legislate ahead of consultation May 5^th 2011

• In April, the Greens Animal Welfare Amendment Bill  was defeated by a combined  effort of the Government and the Liberals:

Govt, Libs vote for inaction on animal reforms  May 5^th 2011

• The debate by Government and Liberals, full of spurious and misleading arguments, is recorded by Hansard:

Hansard record – debate Animal Welfare Amendment Bill,  May 2011

• It is interesting to read how most of the opposition arguments are simply parroting of arguments put by the ACAC (Australian Companion Animal Council )  in their “submission” to the Greens public consultation process in February 2011;

ACAC submission to ACT Greens re Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, Feb 2011

It is now a full year since this ORIGINAL Discussion Paper was to have been released. This makes it a year overdue and a year is an inordinately long time for any Discussion Paper to be held up. ( How many animals have suffered as a consequence?)

And 8 months since the government and Lib alliance gazumped the ACT Greens proposed Bill, stating that their discussion paper was on its way.

WHERE IS THAT DISCUSSION PAPER AND WHY IS IT TAKING SO LONG?

It is a matter for enormous frustration and concern to groups involved in the welfare of companion animals that so little progress has been made in such a long time. The logjam would appear to be with AWAC completing its work. Perhaps affected pet shops and pet breeders are holding it up in the hope that it can’t be finalized by the next election.

Whatever the reason, it seems that this significant animal welfare issue has completely fallen off the ACT Government’s agenda, and it seems that it is highly unlikely that processes will be completed and legislation passed before the next election. In the meantime the RSPCA and DAS have to deal with large numbers of unwanted animals.

It is just extraordinary that the process is taking so long.

If the Victorian Government can move on this and bring in legislation, and the issues would be much harder in that much larger State, why not the ACT government?

They haven’t even managed to get to the Discussion Paper stage!!

DRP Comment:

We need to be constantly vigilant on any Govt. PR and spin exercise and hold them to account on their promises. What are your thoughts?

ACTION TO TAKE:

Write to Katy Gallagher, MLA, Chief Minister and ask where is the Discussion Paper?

gallagher @act.gov.au

GPO Box 1020, Canberra, ACT, 2601

02 6205 0840

Summary of links

Pet lovers  support Greens Animal  Welfare Bill, April 2011

Political allies clash on reforms  May 4^th 2011

Greens would legislate ahead of consultation May 5^th 2011

Govt, Libs vote for inaction on animal reforms  May 5^th 2011

Greens proposed Bill and explanation, April 2011

Hansard record – debate Animal Welfare Amendment Bill,  May 2011

Animal Welfare Advisory Commitee  2010 (Members)

Earlier this week, we reported that the Sun rises in New York State as lawmakers introduce shelter reform legislation. Today, Minnesota Representative John Benson has introduced new rescue access and shelter reform legislation, House File 1735, called the Companion Animal Protection Act. The centerpiece of the legislation is a rescue access provision that would make killing illegal if qualified rescue groups are willing to save an animal’s life. But it does so much more.

CAPA would:

• End “convenience” killing when there are empty cages and when animals can share kennels;
• Require transparency in operations by requiring shelters to make their statistics public;
• Provide lifesaving opportunities for “owner-surrendered” animals which are currently killed within minutes of arriving;
• Ban cruel methods of killing; and,
• So much more.

MN CAPA is based on the No Kill Advocacy Center’s model legislation of the same name.

For more information about MN CAPA, click here.

Summit papers are available to download from :   http://www.ndn.org.au/national-summit-2011.html

One must-read and circulate paper describing Getting2Zero is available here.

Download and read papers on a variety of related topics and subjects of interest to those seeking to reduce our unacceptable pound and shelter kill figures.

DRP Comment:
The G2Z summit is the most important annual conference on the subject of stopping pound and shelter killings in Australia. International key note speakers provide excellent contributions  along with many local subject matter experts in diverse fields.

Actions you can take: 

Please download the must read paper above and send it to managers responsible for your local Council pound and Councillors who have an interest in animal welfare. Ask the question: “what interest do you have in introducing stronger life saving methods to your animal welfare practices?”.

“It is the intent of the State of Texas to curtail the killing of savable animals in the State. In order to accomplish this, the State of Texas finds and declares that:

Protecting animals is a legitimate and public interest

The killing of savable animals in shelters is a tragedy………..

http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/txcapa.pdf 

Download the full text of the ACT here

DRP Comment:

We wonder how long it will take for Acts like this to appear here in Australia! Tell us your thoughts!

Firstly I got an email from a person with inside information on a situation in a certain Shelter in Australia. I was given a great deal of information, but was told that this must remain confidential and anonymous. Now, I don’t know how to help change things if people want to remain “anonymous”and not put their name to their claims.

It happens a lot and it’s very frustrating. We are sitting on this mass of information and can do nothing with it. It’s not a good feeling.

Then later that same day I was sent  a link to one of Nathan Winograd’s articles called  ”Courage and cowardice in the fight for a no kill nation”. In this article, expressed better than I could, he says :

“I spend a fair part of my day on the telephone. And when I can help someone reform their local pound or when I can help a shelter manager improve their rate of lifesaving, I find it rewarding. But there is one type of telephone call (and e-mail) that fills me with dread. And that is the person who calls about inhumane treatment or other unethical behavior of a local “shelter” or animal welfare organization, but wants to remain anonymous.”

Read the rest of this excellent article here……..

There are many reasons why people want to remain anonymous. “John Smith” in a comment on one of our blog says “ We all wrote to the committee with our concerns for the cats welfare and incidences of malpractice and were met with threatening letters from their lawyers claiming that if we took the matter any further then legal action against of us would be pursued. None of us were in the financial position to go through this and so we all had to drop our complaints.”

Fear of legal action is a well used big stick, we are discovering. We have had a couple ourselves, so we know the feeling!

Sometimes people are fearful of physical retribution – “they know where I live” has been said to us on more than one occasion.

As hard as we try to change their minds, we have to respect their wishes, but, gee it makes it hard to get change going.

It doesn’t help when some of the press refuse to print a story without a real name – many stories are getting buried before they are born.

When we can influence people to speak up, as in the GAWS matter, then the ball gets rolling, other people climb in and campaigns can gather the  momentum they need.

Winograd’s article says it all …………. please read it and pass it around.

I’ll end with his words:

“The most majestic thing of all is the determined courage of individuals willing to suffer and sacrifice for the freedom and dignity of others. Especially when those others have no voice of their own.

Stand up. Speak out. Fight the power. Without you, the animals don’t stand a chance.”

Please let us know what you think about this subject. It’s not about making people who won’t go public “wrong”or “bad” – for them the fear is real.

We have to make it safe and support them. How can we do that? We need ideas and suggestions please! If you are one of these people, please write and tell us what is stopping you and how we can help you!

Let’s discuss this issue in a practical and unemotional way and come up with solutions.

Until April 2005, the CharlottesvilleAlbemarle SPCA, an agency which contracts for animal control in Charlottesville, Virginia, was the target of criticism for what some in the rescue community saw as unnecessary killing.

But then it all changed. In their search for a new director, agency trustees did not hire someone with years of sheltering experience. In an era which has historically been dominated by reactionary policies, “sheltering experience” often brings a mindset of “how we have always done it.” In other words, it brings an overreliance on killing.

Instead, the Charlottesville Board of Directors sought someone with passion for animals, and specific skills which could be transferred to a shelter environment. They chose a lawyer with a business background. And the results have been dramatic.

Download article here…. Guide to Ideal Director

DRP Comment: a valuable article; download it and forward to all board members you know in shelters and pounds. Relevant in light of recent matters at geelong.

Watch this film here…….

GAWS is a private animal welfare society with a 57 year history,  (although recent events suggest that we use the term “animal welfare” rather loosely.)

Over 12 months ago, when we wrote about incidences of bullying at the RSPCA WA Malaga Shelter, we were contacted by two staff members at GAWS who started to tell us about similar events at GAWS. Since that time other staff members, both current and now departed , have come forward with information.

What has emerged is a story that has to be told. Told for the staff who have suffered and importantly told for the animals that have been subjected to standards of “animal welfare” that are truly out of kilter with community expectations and standards that we should expect today.

These are the people involved:

Ian Walter – President and a vet with business connections to Kardinia Vet Surgery (who provide vet services to GAWS). Conducts the animal killings himself. We understand that he has given himself a seven year Presidentship at GAWS.

David Cecil – Vice President

Mark Osborne    Vice President
Board Members:

Elva Reeves

Helen Sykes

Pam Arnott

Gabi Gerardi
Sandy Murdoch
Denise Civelli
Nadine Williams
Lorna Scanlon
Catherine Gray
Rodney Duggan

• Pound Manager – Robyn Stewart
•  Staff members who for the purpose of this report will remain anonymous
•  Greater Geelong Council

The stated objectives of the Society are:

•  To prevent cruelty to any living creature, and encourage kindness to animals
• To rescue animals from the perils of the streets
• To give food and temporary shelter to lost, abandoned, wandering or starving animals
• To restore lost or wandering animals to their owners
• To endeavour by sale, or other approved means to find good homes for lost or unwanted animals
• To humanely destroy those animals which, owing to old age, injury, disease, vice, being unwanted or unplaceable, or other sufficient reason it may be deemed desirable to destroy
• To educate the general public to a just appreciation of animals and dispel ignorance, apathy and mismanagement likely to be detrimental to their welfare
• To fully co-operate with the appropriate authorities, more particularly the police, in prosecuting the perpetrators of any proven act of cruelty
• To hire or employ secretaries, clerks, managers, servants and workmen and to pay them and other persons in return for services rendered, salaries, wages and gratuities

 The big question is: how does a Society with the above objectives end up with practices like the following:

• Positions not advertised to attract staff with skills and knowledge
• Positions filled by family, friends, friends and family of friends, of management regardless of experience or lack of
• The facility run like a personal family fiefdom with family and ‘friends” employed
• A bullying and intimidating culture and environment
• High staff turnover
• Adequate training not provided
• Volunteers with skills and knowledge turned away
• Stray cats housed in boarding facility with no vaccinations, flea or worm treatments
• Very small percentage of cats given a chance to be rehomed
• Homes not actively sought for animals – no technology solution for marketing needy animals
• Healthy social dogs placed  or ‘hidden’ in aggressive dog area and not made available for adoption
• Healthy rehomable animals killed
• Animals with treatable illness or injuries killed
• Fearful animals killed
• Animals killed to ‘make room’
• no infectious diseases program – parvo constantly rife at GAWS due to lack of cleaning regime
• Dogs with infectious diseases not isolated
• Dogs, puppies, cats and kittens housed together with no vaccination, flea or worm treatments
• Injured and sick animals wait for treatment until Tuesday when vet arrives for euthanasia
• President performs euthanasia on behalf of contracted vet – a possible conflict of interests
• Enrichment and exercise provided very rarely and sporadically, not regularly
• Animals incorrectly assessed – no professional or independent temperament testing
• Offers of free or discounted animal food and assistance from businesses rejected
• Unwanted excess donations of bedding and supplies thrown out, not networked to other shelters and rescue groups
• Cats and kittens killed in full view of other cats and kittens until public awareness recently raised
• Limited involvement with volunteers
• Zero relationship with Rescue Groups ( OK, just starting, as a result of the demonstration )
• A low rehoming rate (ie a high kill rate)
• Decisions to kill made by one person  (Robyn Stewart) – numerous errors made
• Animals to be killed kept in cages with “I have found a home” signs on the door
• Management in the dark ages and uneducated  about the role of rescue groups and volunteers in modern shelter rehoming practices

• Every year GAWS have a public campaign asking the public to dig deep and donate cat and dog food. People donate so much. Children even spend their Christmas money to bring out bags of food. Every year however, considerable quantities of food gets thrown out

These are annual numbers for GAWS:

2009-2010    Dogs Received   2968   Rehomed  487   Killed    852

Cats Received    3141   Rehomed  546   Killed  2426

2008-2009    Dogs Received   2777   Rehomed  466   Killed    972

Cats Received    3729   Rehomed  538   Killed  2949

2007-2008    Dogs Received   2856   Rehomed  429   Killed    850

Cats Received    3401   Rehomed  419   Killed  2849

Earlier this year, 2 dogs were slated by Stewart to be killed. Members of the community intervened and the two dogs were subsequently rehomed.

Case 1) 24/5/11 JackRussellTerrier had been seen for a week in locked area behind chain mesh fence. Appeared friendly and healthy. When questions were asked, found out it had come in with another dog that was euthanised next day because it had mange. People showing interest in JRT told it was very dog aggressive. Homeless hounds made enquiries and were told dog was not available to be rehomed due to aggression. They offered to temp assess (qualified assessor) and were told no.  Public outrage via facebook and contact with council finally saw dog moved to adoption area on Weds 1/6/11.

The reaction by GAWS management? Obviously hiding the animals from the interfering public became more of a priority so they built a 12 ft wall at the end of the facility where there had previously been a chain link fence that people could see through to the kennels holding animals for destruction. Now the animals are out of sight from the road. When questioned about the fence, Council replied that it was to do with “health and safety” reasons.  Question: So there weren’t any H&S issues for the past 20 odd years, and suddenly when the issue of these two dogs came up, there were??

More recently we have been given evidence that dogs to be killed are drugged overnight with sedatives in their food , left unattended and then hauled off to the killing room the next morning semi comatose. We have reports of uneaten food and tablets left in the kennels through to the morning.

“The evidence we have includes copies of dockets requesting supply of phenobarb/phenomav and acp. These dockets are sent to the vet clinic, and bottles of the tablets are sent back. Quite regularly.

We also have images of the ‘toolbox’ used to make the cocktails of these tabs, with written instructions on the lid for staff as to how many tabs to use for which breed of dog, regardless of age or physical condition.

We have videos of dogs taken an hour or two after being fed these cocktails, losing control of their bodies and unable to stand or hold their heads up.

We have videos of dogs laying dead the next morning, surrounded by yellow and white pills, uneaten food in bowls beside them studded with the same pills. These dogs have yet to be seen by a vet.  That happens after they are dead.

We have tried to find out whether these drugs are restricted, whether they are breaking the law by allowing unqualified staff to kill dogs with them, without a vet seeing the animals that are being killed or advising for individual animals what dosage etc to administer.

The dogs are fed these cocktails at the last minute before staff go home and then left alone all night unsupervised while they die of an overdose.

Then there is the issue that there is no record kept of how these tablets are used, no record of which dogs are given how many of each tablet. There is no accountability at all, and I know that one is a barbiturate, I am not sure but think the other is an amphetamine.”

When we reported this matter to authorities,  we received this information  in respect of this practice:

“The Acetylpromazine sedation is used to reduce the number of tablets of barbiturate required to produce unconsciousness and death.

The issue with anaesthetic agents and barbiturates in particular is that if slowly introduced the animal passes through an excitement stage. If left in a very quiet environment occasionally they may not show this excitement however most commonly they show thrashing around and vocalising. This activity is not a result of pain but uncontrolled nervous excitement. During this stage animals might well injure themselves by chomping and biting their tongues, elevating their heads and bang down on the floor etc. As the barbiturate levels increase the animal will cease this excitement period and lapse into unconsciousness and ultimately die.

 This process occasionally occurs when using injectable barbiturates when an animal struggles or is inadequately restrained and the needle comes out of the vein before the actual anaesthetic overdose is provided and I can assure you it is exceedingly distressing to anyone present. But at least in this circumstance the vet can quickly reposition the needle to produce euthanasia. ( I include this not to distress but to emphasise the distressing nature of the process)

 You may be aware that animals when they come out of an anaesthetic also pass through this excitement stage and it is important to keep them in a quiet space with no sharp noises, movement or handling that might trigger off the thrashing around & vocalising.

 I personally doubt that the Veterinary Board would venture an opinion about the humaneness of this procedure but they would certainly say it was not an appropriate veterinary act of euthanasia unless there were mitigating circumstances.”

(photos at end of this report)

 Is this really an acceptable practice for an “Animal Welfare Society”?

We understand that Geelong Council and the DPI have known about the overnight drugging since April, yet this practice still persists. Why?

Since these issues have emerged, and only since then, GAWS have started to allow some Rescue Groups access to some animals, all of whom wish to remain confidential. Call GAWS and ask them if they work with Rescue Groups and you will likely be told “of course we do”.

Since these issues have emerged and only since then. GAWS have started to publicise selected animals on the PetRescue website. We emailed GAWs to ask why they don’t have animals advertised on their own website and were told “Our IT people are working on it”.

An early meeting between concerned members of the public, Walters, Cecil and Council produced a commitment by GAWS that they would supply rescue groups with a weekly “kill list” of animals at risk. Despite the commitment from Walters, this list never happened, despite regular reminders and requests.

The pound manager is a known bully. Earlier this year a staff member who had been the subject of repeated intimidation by Stewart took out a bullying claim against the manager. The eventual outcome was the payment of a substantial sum of money by the Society in return for a deed of release for the bullying claim.    We have information to know that this deal was brokered by a union official and Geelong Council. This is a very large sum of member-donated money that should have been spent on facilities and the animals.

We have evidence that this character of bullying and intimidation goes back 30 years and we have evidence of other staff who have been the subject of the harassment  by this ‘manager’.

Earlier this year, members of the local community had started to become concerned with the situation at GAWS,  and in May held a public protest outside the gates of the facility

 In May 2011 we wrote to Walter and advised him of our concerns, and also to extend information and an invitation for him to attend the August Getting2Zero workshop in Sydney. This letter, copied to Cecil (and Geelong Council) , was never acknowledged or replied to. This is the letter – download here.

In June 2011, we wrote an extended report to each individual member of the GAWS board advising them that a) they were unlikely to being briefed correctly by management and b) as a board members they have a duty of responsibility for the running of the Society according to its charter.  We have not had the courtesy of a reply from the Board. This is the letter - download here. 

Following is an extract from a  recent letter from a staff member sent to Geelong Council:

“In my time at GAWS, I witnessed days when people ‘cleaning’ cat casualty didn’t feed the animals. I have copies of notes left by staff members that they hadn’t cleaned as it ‘wasn’t dirty’, dogs put in pens that sick animals had been removed from without those pens being cleaned or bedding and water changed.  I have proof of new admissions being placed in pens with dogs suffering from kennel cough, the problems are endless.

 The majority of them are occurring because staff have no training, and so no idea, that poor hygiene is the major cause of disease. If they are aware, then it can only be explained by laziness and lack of concern or supervision by management. The rate of disease at GAWS is very, very high. Not all instances are recorded in the bookwork. Most of the dogs that don’t suffer kennel cough while there, are sent to the vet for treatment after they go to their new homes.

 Puppies are often lost to parvo, and the cat casualty area is a haven for cat ‘flu. The animals at GAWS, because already stressed, are particularly vulnerable and susceptible to these diseases. And yet there is no instruction, no procedure, I believe no understanding, of how to control these disease epidemics. They are much more than outbreaks. At GAWS they are a constant.

 The issue of temperament testing is also an area of grave concern. There is no formal policy or procedure. There is no paperwork that is signed off to show an animal has been tested.

 Why? Because it does not happen. The decision on whether an animal lives or dies is made by one person alone.

 Quite often the way we would find out an animal was to be killed was 5 minutes after it arrived – still suffering from fear, anxiety and stress – and we would be told “That thing’s going nowhere”.

 That is not acceptable to me, to most of society, and I would hope you find it unacceptable too. These animals are not ‘things’, they are individual lives. The taking of one of those lives should never be allowed to be decided in a callous, thoughtless, or nasty way. 

 As a staff member who was subjected to severe bullying, I learned the hard way to keep it secret if there was an animal I felt very strongly about.  That should never, ever be allowed to occur. To kill an animal out of spite or as ‘payback’ is inexcusable and, to me, unforgivable.

 To a lesser degree the problem of staff bullying is also extremely concerning. I was subjected to it for over 18 months, because I spoke up about something that was wrong. I was bullied to the extent of having Robyn walking in to my home and yelling abuse at me. Her son was permitted to follow me, abusing and intimidating me. I was told by other staff members that they were afraid to be seen talking to me in case Robyn saw them.   

 I even had one of council’s officers bullying me and Robyn refusing to do anything to stop it. B and D had to help me get that sorted out. I was spoken about in a very derogatory manner while it was known I could hear. It was a very difficult part of my life. My brother passed away and I was allowed 3 hours off work to spend with my family. 

 GAWS made a large ex gratia payment to me on the signing of a deed of release. I would have preferred to take them to court, to ensure they would never allow Robyn to treat staff that way again. But my union advised me to accept the payment as a court case would be another 12 months of stress, on top of that which I had already suffered.

 I am also writing to the DPI, and making them aware of the evidence I have about many breaches of the code of practice. Cats are still killed in the cat casualty room, and no barrier has been erected to shield the other cats. After 5 months, what possible excuse can pardon that still occurring? Animals are sold with ‘vouchers’ for vaccination, and GAWS have no way of following up if these vaccinations are ever given. In fact, quite a few animals come back and they have not had it done. There is no disease control plan, no attempt ever made to isolate animals with infectious diseases, bookwork is often altered,  cats are left in cat traps and even small carry cages for 3 days or more before being killed. Even something as basic as water bowls – chewed up plastic containers DO NOT comply with the code of practice.

 Very little has changed at GAWS over the last few months, despite what I am seeing publicly stated. They have now made themselves an area where they can hide dogs as well as cats from public view, and never give the public even a description of these animals so that owners can possibly locate them if lost.

 The only reason Robyn wanted that wall erected was because rescue groups managed to get 2 dogs from the area when it had a cyclone mesh fence. There was no public access, it had nothing to do with OHS. It had everything to do with the public finding out she had marked 2 dogs to be killed that were perfectly re-homable. That continues, but she has now ensured the public can never catch her at it again.

 I have only listed some of the serious problems at GAWS. There are many, many more ethically and morally wrong acts being committed on a regular basis. 

 This is not going to go away until Geelong has a facility that cares for the lost, stray and unwanted animals of the community at a standard that is acceptable. It will not go away until COGG is seen to care, is seen to act, and is seen to ensure that if GAWS cannot do this, then the contract is given to someone who will. The community will not give up on this, and I am not going to give up on this.

 There has been too much unaccountability at GAWS for way too long. I have decided to step forward and speak, and I know that there will be others to follow me.

 I hope to hear soon that this is finally being treated with the seriousness and urgency that it requires. Every week animals are dying that should not be. The cats are not all feral, the dogs are not all vicious. A very large number of them are beautiful, loving animals that deserve a life.”

This is a recent communication from another staff member:

 “Work is still the same as you can well imagine. We are still understaffed and it is driving me mad. I have been complaining about the lack of trained staff so tomorrow M is coming out to discuss with us. N and K have had enough too and  I know deep down M feels the same. 

I am so disappointed the way the cats are cleaned on a weekend. There is shit and food all over the place and it just is heartbreaking. In the old days you would be ashamed to clean like that. Actually the cleaning was done 100% better. The workload has increased immensely and we can’t seem to keep up. “

And another:

“Another thing that troubled me immensely was seeing sick dogs with no signage warning staff or the public. While I was there, I had a number of ringworm puppies (4-5 separate occasions), and wasn’t even warned – each time I found out when I was holding a pup and saw the lesion, I would have been furious if I took that home to my animals. I also saw them put a suspected parvo puppy in with another puppy. Naturally when the parvo was diagnosed, both puppies lost their lives. Never did I see a sign posted on the front of the cages warning people not to touch the infected animals, let alone warning staff. I used to work at an animal hospital, so I know I have high standards of cleanliness, but this place would disgust just about anyone I’m sure. I was told to not bother changing water tubs between dogs, only when they were green. There was always a lot of bird poo in water dishes, and toys weren’t cleaned properly so they’d be mouldy. Use of bleach on cages that had held sick dogs was mildly discouraged – the general response was ‘hmmm fiiiiine’, like I was asking for something inappropriate.

The ‘cat casualty’ room is where ferals and sick and injured go straight away (all ferrets, regardless of temperament, go there too), and they are pts in that same room, despite the fact that they could put them in crush cages and take them to the actual euthanasia room. As far as I know, that’s against the code of practice, and I wonder why they’ve not received a hefty fine.

Just remembered – when I suggested again doing PetRescue for them, I was advised that most of the dogs are there only 8 days, if no one expresses interest in that time, they go on the next Tuesday’s cull list. Also, as far as I saw that ‘dangerous dog’ area now hidden by the fence was mostly just old dogs they didn’t think would be adopted. “

 And more…..

 “The next week I refused to take part ( in killing) , I walked away.  That marked me as a target for relentless bullying until the day I left.  Staff are judged on how good they are at destructions. That is when they prove their worth to the manager and the vet/president of the society. 

There was one young girl who could work magic with cats. While she was there, the cats and kittens we were selling were all confident, happy, affectionate cats. But when she left, the only comment uttered by the vet/president was “Good. She was no good at destructions.”

More still….

 “From there things got worse. I really got to see how the place was run. Healthy animals placed in  pens with sick animals, witnessing a small dog being picked up by the collar and thrown a distance of at least 8 feet, being approached by a distraught staff member who had just seen a gravely ill, but still living, dog being placed in a body bag to be put in the freezer.

 Pen floors covered in blood and diarrhoea from a dog with parvovirus left more than 24 hours before being cleaned. Puppies put in with other pups suspected of having Parvo, then all the pups killed when it was confirmed. Vomit containing live intestinal worms left in the animal transport vehicle for 2 days before finally being cleaned – with a dry paper towel. 

 Animals with wounds causing their limbs to swell to twice normal size while waiting 3 days for veterinary care. Animals being killed because the manager became aware that someone she didn’t like was fond of the animal.  Happy, healthy animals secretly marked with a big N/A, and an ‘I have a home’ sign placed on their pen for the 8 days they waited before being killed.  Snap decisions made to kill animals because the manager was in a bad mood, didn’t like the animal, or just didn’t like the owner of the animal.

 Good, caring staff leaving because they just couldn’t cope anymore. The manager deciding to only employ unskilled family and friends because staff started speaking up about what was going on.  The mornings at the shelter/pound/animal welfare society are busy. People who know how, clean. The manager’s family and friends fill in time. Afternoons are spent gossiping, bitching. About staff who aren’t present. About the rescue groups who are trying to save the animals.  

 About the president, and the other directors on the board.  No one is safe from the scathing, bitter tongue of the manager and everyone comes under fire at some stage. Hours, whole afternoons, spent listening – for some participating – while the dogs lay in their pens, filthy, bored, gradually succumbing to depression and anxiety.

 The cats hide in corners and try to make their selves disappear. Because no one is allowed to use this idle time to exercise, soothe, reassure or bathe these animals. They are going to die anyway, it’s a waste of time.”

Here is a Timeline of recent events and communications with President and Vice President and Council:

April 19th – GAWS public demonstration

April 28th – Meeting, attendees Joyce Doherty, Claudette Hudson, Ian Walter, David Cecil and Shane Scriggins

May 11th – Meeting, attendees Joyce Doherty, Tarsha Andrews, David Cecil, Ian Walter, Shane Scriggins, Steve Sodomaco (20 mins), Susan Taylor & Michelle Cranston (Homeless Hounds); agreement made for GAWS management to provide  a weekly list of animals at risk (“kill list”) For Robyn to provide a kill list on the Friday preceding the kill week (she has never complied and has refused to provide this)

Meeting was set up for Homeless Hounds to meet with Dr. Walter and Robyn for the following Wednesday 18th May (did not go ahead)

Meeting set up for TA and JD to meet with Board on 23rd June at Board Meeting

 Phone calls of relevance

May 18th TA rang IW to discuss and request kill list and temp testing

May 23rd TA rang SS about Doberman (not treated and a clear COP breach, and the heeler that GAWS claim bit someone in which council said unlikely as they would know about it, (see pound email for this conversation content)

June 6th TA rang SS regarding his amendments of GAWS/Council contract and discussed upcoming meeting council has with GAWS to present this; yet to hear feedback

September 9th, phone call from Steve Sodomaco to Deathrowpets – explained that new contractual arrangements would be insisted by Geelong Council

 Communications of relevance

May 7 letter from Deathrowpets to IW, cc DC and SS. No acknowledgement or reply from IW and DC (letter attached along with relevant attachments)

May 10 – email to DC alerting to Gettin2Zero workshop in Sydney with invitation attached – no reply received

May 15th from JD and TA to IW requesting kill list and highlighting the white boxer case

May 16th from JD and TA To IW, discussing qualified temp assessors at GAWS, attached 2 docs regarding this as well

May 16th reply from IW saying thank you and he has circulated the docs amongst staff

May 22nd from JD/TA to Ian Walter again requesting kill list

May 22nd from JD/TA to DC now asking him for kill list

May 23rd, reply from Cecil to us, “will look into this”

May 24th – got reply that via Cecil that Robin won’t produce a kill list for rescue as she says all dogs that are killed are not re-homable for various reasons

May 25th Ian Walter to JD and TA explaining ex employee Dr Nic Brnason has agreed to do temp testing and explaining he’s unsure of where council are at with the S84Y but GAWS have first draft of amendments to their contract

June 10th JD and TA to SS asking him to confirm he witnessed Walter and Cecil agree in our meeting of 11/5/11 to supply kill list

June 12th JD and TA to SS – re-sent above email as no reply yet

June 17th – letter sent to each Board member by Deathrowpets. Response received on 21^st September.

 Note: Deathrowpets have sent 2 polite communications extending our hand of support to Ian Walter and David Cecil and have not had the courtesy of a reply.

At the time of writing, we understand that Geelong Council  are initiating a revised agreement with GAWS, but we are not aware of the detail.

DRP Comment;

What needs to be discussed is “who has the responsibility and accountability to fix things here?

Is it the President and vp? (Ans: Yes)

Is it the Board? (Ans: Yes)

Is it the Council? (Ans: Yes)

The staff members who have spoken up and members of the community who recognised the problem are to be recognised and congratulated. Without them, situations like this will continue and that is unacceptable.

We have seen that many people in situations like this are often reluctant to speak up and expose what is going on.  This is disappointing as that makes them part of the problem. In the case of GAWS 3 staff members have done the right thing and spoken up.

This is not the only shelter we know of where CEOs and Presidents have given themselves a job for life, stacked the Board with friends and supporters, and who “protect” managers who intimidate and bully their staff who disagree with their methods.

The Board will say “we didn’t know”. We know that in cases like this, the president or CEO will often “filter” information they want the Board to see, but it is no excuse. The Board MUST work out what is going on. The GAWS Board replied to our letter, but sadly their reply was all …..”you’ve got it wrong – you’ve been misinformed Deathrowpets”. Zero acceptance of responsibility, zero accountability for fixing the problems.

In 2012 new Australian  legislation is coming in that will make bullying a serious  offence, and management and Boards who are aware of the situation, but do nothing, will be liable for very large fines. GAWS Board and management, and Geelong Council,  take note.

If you have personal experience of the situation at GAWS, or similar situations in other animal welfare shelters, please let us know.

Question for you. If a Council contracts out pound services to a private charity, how much responsibility should the Council have for standards at the facility?

 If you want to write to Geelong Council: the head of the responsible department is Stephen Griffin: SGriffin@geelongcity.vic.gov.au

Notes added 4/10/11

Photo of instructions to staff to sedate animals day before killing   

Photo of source of sedation drugs

Photo of 12 ft wall erected to obscure view of “dangerous dogs”section 

The TV report was screened on Today Tonight  and can be viewed on COMPANION ANIMAL NEWS click here

( Please nb to click at the bottom to go direct to some other Animal Liberation pet shop diary stories.)

In February 2011 she presented this report to the RSPCA NSW:

RSPCA Report

Location: XXXX

Store Owner: XXXXXXX (DRP note: this store is one of a well known  large chain of  Pet Stores across the country)

In efforts to expose how animals suffer in pet stores, this year I took a job working undercover in a XXXX store. I worked approximately 2-3 shifts (approx. 6-8 hours) per week, for approximately three months. I was hired having no formal qualifications in animal care. I recorded everything I saw and heard.

The following encompass some of my experiences and the relevant Animal Welfare Code of Practice: Animals in Pet Shops breaches that I witnessed during every single one of my shifts.

Welfare

Code of Practice Breaches: 7.1.1.4, 7.1.1.5, 7.1.1.6, 7.1.1.2, 8.1.1.1, 8.1.1.3, 8.1.1.4, 8.1.1.5, 8.2.1.3, 12.1.7.

On my first day at work, a colleague casually told me that a kitten had been sick and wasn’t eating, and as no staff had noticed it eventually starved to death and was found dead in its cage in the morning.

Legally, puppies in store must have the opportunity to exercise for at least 20 minutes everyday. In several months of employment, I never witnessed this occurring. The only animals ever taken out of their cages were puppies, where they would be placed in small playpens where they could barely run, largely to entice potential buyers and get customers into the store. In fact, I was actively discouraged from putting the puppies in play pens as they would sometimes urinate on the floor. I never witnessed any other species given the privilege to escape the monotony of their cages.

I was told that employees often did not bother to use proper disinfectant when cleaning out the rabbit and guinea pig cages, which would result in rabbits and guinea pigs dying of ammonia poisoning. I found out that in one week four rabbits had died because of this simple negligence.

‘Dead Fish Runs’ is a daily procedure in which all fish tanks have to be inspected for dead fish and remove them before the customers see, of which there are some everyday. One day I came in to find over 30 fish had died overnight, for which there was no explanation or concern.

Dirty and unsafe cages were very common. One puppy cage had several wires from its electric ceiling hanging down within reach of the puppies (and their water bowl). When I pointed this out I was told not to worry.

Throughout the day, and especially during the mornings during opening, prey and predator animals are often placed next to each other or within olfactory range (for example, Labrador puppies placed centimetres away from baby rabbits). This is a major stressor for prey animals, and just contributes to the overall stress that animals face when living within a pet store.

During the mornings when staff come in before the store opens to clean the animal cages, the animals (puppies, kittens, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters) are all placed in plastic tubs while the cleaning is taking place. These tubs are far too small for more than one puppy- sometimes, up to five puppies would be placed in these tubs, and can be inside for up to forty minutes. They do not have stimulation, food or water while inside. As some of the breeds of puppies (Labradors, for example) can be quite large, it is incredibly cramped and is obviously very stressful for them. The animals cry consistently from the moment they are placed inside until they get out, and constantly try to escape. Furthermore, these tubs are stacked on top of each other, further inhibiting the already limited air supply and circulation. These tubs also do not get adequately cleaned from day to day, making the spreading of viruses across species and different litters/cage mates inevitable. (See photo).

I found out animals had suffered from canine cough, cat flu, hernias, ringworm, worms, vomiting, dehydration, viruses, bloody diarrhea, lack of appetite, ear mites, and more under the care of those working in store.

Conditions

Code of Practice Breaches: 5.1.1.5, 5.1.1.6, 5.2.1.5, 5.2.2.5, 13.1.5.

I twice opened the store in the mornings to find that staff from the night before had neglected to turn off the lights within individual puppy cages, meaning puppies had been under bright, hot lights for over 24 hours, severely compromising their welfare. When I reported this to my manager it was shrugged off. Sometimes the constant light generated so much heat that puppies were given water bottles full of ice within their cages.

Legally, all animals must have a quiet, dark area where they can withdraw from constant human attention. Many of the animals, including puppies and kittens, often did not have this basic privilege.

Legally, the cages in store must be safe and minimise the risk of injury to animals. However puppies, kittens and rabbits placed in the uppermost cages in the store were constantly at risk of falling out of the cages when cage doors were opened, where it was approximately over a 2m drop to the floor. A pet shop colleague recounted to me that on her first day, a Labrador puppy fell out of one of these cages, landing on its head. When I suggested we always place glass dividers in the top cages to prevent this from happening it was dismissed.

Sources

When I asked the staff where the animals came from, they didn’t know, however when I asked what to tell customers who commonly asked this question, I was told the line was to say that all the animals came from “good, local breeders.”

I was never told anything about the breeders, I was never shown any evidence that the animals were coming from “good, local breeders”, however this was the line I had to tell trusting customers.

Customers were not given any information about where their animals had come from, their parents, or their genetic history.

The public was also actively encouraged, through signs throughout the store, to bring in baby animals for the pet shop to sell, thereby potentially giving backyard breeders, and people who don’t desex their ‘pets’ and have accidental litters, an avenue through which to make money.

Selling

Code of Practice Breaches: 4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4, 4.1.1.6, 4.1.2.1, 4.2.2.1, 10.2.2.

I never witnessed staff ever prioritising animal welfare over sales.

Staff were not willing to spend money on fresh food at the expense of the animal’s health. I was specifically told not to dispose of food that had been pest-infested, and found out that it was common occurrence to feed animals food that was past its expiry date. When I inquired to the manager about this, I was casually told to remember to check expiry dates from time to time, as “otherwise we poison our puppies.”

The animals constantly had health problems (diarrhoea, runny eyes, bloody stools, stress behaviour) that are easily treated but were not.

One morning the store opened late, and the manager told me to clean the entire store to make it appealing to customers before I gave any of the animals any fresh water or food, or cleaned their cages of faeces and urine-soaked newspaper.

I was hired with no formal training in animal care and was not properly trained in how to adequately take care of animals or recognise symptoms of disease or ill-health. I was not properly taught species-specific or breed-specific information about animals, and was not taught the most basic animal care.

Responsible ‘Pet Owners?’

In several months of employment, being pushed to sell animals everyday, I was never once briefed on how to ensure customers did not buy animals on impulse, nor was I ever taught how to make certain animals were going home with suitable, compassionate people. I was not aware of any system in place to mediate impulse buying, such as requiring a customer to consider a purchase overnight, or even for an hour. There was no protocol in place to guarantee that animals were being sold to good homes; the impetus was on selling only. The store encouraged the impulse buying of animals in several ways; for example, customers could get “A free rabbit with every hutch.”

Unsanitary Conditions

Code of Practice Breaches: 9.1.4.

When I would come in for the morning shifts before the shop opened, the cages were usually full of faeces and urine from the night before (the animals are left alone from approximately 8pm-7:30am) which were throughout the cages and on the walls, from which the animals had no escape.

Having to live, eat, drink and sleep in this environment poses grave health threats (both psychological and physical), providing a perfect breeding ground for viruses, bacteria, and fungi that can cause serious illnesses and even death in baby animals. (These health hazards also pose threats to human health; unknowing customers can pick up salmonellosis, ringworm, psittacosis, worms, scabies, and other zoonotic illnesses through contact with pet shop animals). There was often feces and urine in animal’s food, rendering it unfit for consumption, which could remain for hours at a time. Puppies and kittens often had feces-encrusted fur, which could remain untreated for days at a time.

Neglect

Code of Practice Breaches: 5.2.2.2, 5.2.2.3, 12.2.2.

I often witnessed sick and neglected animals, of which the staff and managers were aware of, being refused veterinary treatment when it was clearly needed.
Children and adults constantly wrapped on the cage windows and doors, and I never witnessed staff asking them not to.

When I reported signs of illness to the manager and to fellow employees (such as weight loss, excessive vocalisation, coughing, bloody diarrhoea, animals not eating, vomiting, runny eyes) I was usually told not to worry, and no action was taken.

Sick animals must not be kept in view of customers, so are usually kept in the pet shop back room. Sick animals kept in the back room are often placed on the floor or in precarious, unsafe positions, hidden among clutter, having to be surrounded by stressful loud noises and vibrations all day. I never saw any of these animals ever being given any attention or care.

Once when I was cleaning the back closet, I saw movement behind a huge box and realised there was a sick rabbit in a cage living there, which I hadn’t been told about, and thus hadn’t fed or watered. I didn’t know how long this hidden animal had gone without food and water for. This animal had an ear infection and its neck was twisted, making it difficult for it to eat and drink. When I made inquiries about its health and welfare they were ignored, and the rabbit eventually disappeared.

Hygiene

Code of Practice Breaches: 6.1.1.4, 6.1.2.4, 8.2.1.5.

I had been told by the manager that the shopping centre had a significant rat problem, and they had had problems with pest infestations before. Most of the food for all the animals is in open air containers, or unsealed cans or bags. While I was employed there was a moth infestation, and I asked whether I should dispose of the food that was contaminated and I was told not to. I asked what I should do to ensure the food didn’t get contaminated and was told not to worry. During every single one of my shifts none of the food had been safely stored or sealed to prevent contamination. In my time of employment the only times in which the food preparation and storage area was cleaned was when I did it personally.

Due to the risk of disease transmission (constant presence of food, feces, lots of different species of animals in contact with each other and with humans) the Code of Practise stipulates that staff must wear gloves or constantly sanitise their hands to ensure they are not passing illnesses from one animal to the other every time they clean a cage, touch an animal, pick up a bowl, etc.

This has very serious implications in some cases. For example, if one puppy has Parvovirus (a virus that easily affects and can have grave consequences for puppies), without proper sanitation it can quickly affect an entire pet store.

Due to this, I was wearing gloves and changing gloves between activities, though I was constantly told not to wear gloves as they cost $10 a box, even though without wearing them the health of the animals is compromised. In fact, one day I was purposely left with only three pairs of gloves to clean and feed all the animals in the store, meaning that I would be touching animals with contaminated hands for several hours, putting the health of every animal in store at risk. I was the only employee I ever saw wear gloves, and I seldom if ever saw employees wash their hands.

Food

Code of Practice Breaches: 6.2.1.1, 9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.1.5, 9.1.7, 9.2.4, 13.1.4, 15.1.9, 15.2.8.

Food preparation, and the food preparation area, was completely unhygienic. Employees use their unwashed, glove-less fingers to mash and prepare food. The same fork was used to prepare all the food for all the different species everyday and was seldom washed. I never witnessed gloves being worn during food preparation.

The Code of Practice stipulates that animals must be fed a diet that is varied and suits each species nutritional needs. The rabbits, guinea pigs, and birds all require fresh fruit and vegetables in order to maintain a minimum standard of health. I observed these animals being given carrot on 1-2 occasions within a 2-3 month period.

The degree of unsanitary conditions in relation to food carries significant consequences for animals: given many of the animals are already immuno-suppressed, contaminated or expired food can lead to severe health problems.

The Code of Practice dictates that animals that are co-housed must be monitored during feeding; this is to guarantee that all animals are eating equal amounts, and that all animals are eating (sick animals often will not eat). However unless animals were specifically sick, there was no monitoring of animals to make sure they were eating enough, or to ensure that all had access to food. However I would often notice how within a certain cage some puppies would be much larger, and others much smaller and comparatively thin, so monitoring food was certainly a necessary procedure that was being overlooked. Similarly, despite the Code of Practice, not all food and water containers were cleaned and refilled daily, thus clean water was not always available, another very basic right denied to the animals in store.

DRP Comment:

Despite NSW having a Code of Practice for Pet Shops – the question remains: who is investigating and policing adherence to the COP? Where can we find out what breaches have been prosecuted and the outcomes?

What are the practicalities? How can members of the public even work out what is going on in a store? Does it take undercover investigators who are prepared to devote 3 months of their time to find out what is going on?

What is the point of having COP’s if no one is policing them?

To find out what was the outcome of this investigation and report to the RSPCA , please contact Steve Coleman, CEO RSPCA NSW

If you have direct information yourself, or know of any staff members of pet stores who have information and evidence that contravenes Code Of Practice in pet Shops, please write to us, and comment in the comment section below this post.

The link to Animal Lib website for this story, and more is http://173.236.242.143/news-events/latest-news/295-pet-shop-diaries.html?start=3

Another link to a pet shop dairy story is: http://173.236.242.143/news-events/latest-news/295-pet-shop-diaries.html?start=2