Sorry, I meant to say that I also did not attend the G2Z conference at the Gold Coast recently. Unfortunately this would not be part of my role to attend conferences in relation to animal management. I am not sure if Council was invited to attend. I will ask around
regards
Michael Phillips
Service Delivery Manager
Compliance & Regulatory Services | Brisbane Lifestyle | Brisbane City Council
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| from: | Michael Phillips <Michael.Phillips@brisbane.qld.gov.au> |
|
|
| date: | 28 June 2013 16:15 |
| subject: | RE: Animal Management in Brisbane |
| mailed-by: | brisbane.qld.gov.au |
Hi
Thank you for your email yesterday.
I was interested to read about your discussions with other local area groups about the issue. I would be interested in getting your website if it is readily available so that I can read more about your organisation.
I have noted that you have raised a number of issues in your emails to me, so I will go through each issue to provide some clarification.
I have spoken to the Operations Manager at the Lost Dogs Home about your latest concerns with the rehoming arrangement with welfare groups. As we have spoken about previously, Council’s intention is that the euthanasia rates are reduced by having a number of measures introduced, including in some cases transferring animals to reputable breed rescue or animal welfare groups to assist in rehoming. The decision to use these groups is made on a case by case basis by the Shelter Manager after consulting with their veterinarian and with any animal behavouralists as required. As we spoke about, Council needs to ensure that the rescue groups are reputable, and LDH have the responsibility to assess these groups. This is to ensure that animals are not simply passed onto “hoarders” or people with other agendas. We want to deliver the best possible outcomes for animals across the city and I understand the role that carer groups and animal welfare organisations can play. The Lost Dogs Home are transferring animals to one of the approved welfare organisations in Brisbane and we are very pleased that this is occuring. I am sure that I could set up a meeting with you, or your organisation and the Lost Dogs Home to discuss rehoming arrangements. Please let me know if you are interested and I will talk to the Operations Manager in Melbourne.
One of the problems that we experienced when Council ran the shelters was that animals were passed onto external groups on a regular basis without us knowing the outcome for the animal, and whether this actually was the best outcome. Whilst this may have kept our euthanisation rates lower at the shelters, I do not agree that it was the best outcome for the broader community or the animals.
I do not agree that the Lost Dogs Home are in breach of their contract with the Brisbane City Council in relation to working with rescue groups. They have implemented a process to assess the credibility or welfare groups / rescue groups before rehoming animals. I can clarify for you that there is definitive arrangement in place for LDH to have to release animals to rescue groups for free. There are no contract provisions that state that the fee is nil for rescue groups.
I acknowledge that you have the right to escalate any of your concerns with Local Councillors or Brisbane's Lord Mayor.
Unfortunately I cannot comment on your suggestion that The Lost Dogs Home have the highest euthanisation rates of all welfare organisations who manage pounds. I do not have any evidence to support this claim. As I have previously stated, the Lost Dogs Home are working hard for Council to reduce euthanasia rates for domestic animals and maximise animal welfare outcomes through rehoming and retraining of animals.
I have noted your suggestion that Council not renew their contract when it comes up for review. I would like to assure you that Council does have formal contract management procedures in place to assess compliance with contracts. Prior to renewing any contracts in Council, reviews are conducted to assess the success in delivering the outsourcing outcomes. This will be no different for the animal management contract where we will pursue the outcome that is most advantageous to Council and the residents.
I await further advice from you in relation to any breaches of the Animal Welfare Act, as I do not believe this to be the case.
In regards to your email of 7 June 2013, I can advise:
- As you earlier agreed, please provide the section of the council contract which specifies release to rescue groups. Or do I have your agreement to forward your email to Debra?
I cannot provide you with a copy of the contract or an extract as it would breach privacy laws. I understand that you can apply under the Right to Information laws if you wanted to look at the actual document. As I have advised previously, there are provisions in the contract that look at strategies that can be implemented to reduce euthanasia rates, including in some cases transferring animals to reputable breed rescue or animal welfare groups to assist in rehoming. These provisions are standard initiatives that I imagine many Councils would use. The decision to use these groups is made on a case by case basis by the Shelter Manager after consulting with their veterinarian and with any animal behavouralists as required. As we spoke about, Council needs to ensure that the rescue groups are reputable, and LDH have the responsibility to assess these groups.
I suggest that the LDH Manager's insistence that the council contract prevents LDH from releasing any pets to any rescue is different to what you have stated. Any reasonable person would find such dishonest non-compliance cause for concern.
- Please take remedial steps to ensure that Debra Bell of LDH complies with release of animals to rescue groups and understand the contract terms in relation to such.
I can assure you that the Lost Dogs Home are well aware of the provisions in relation to rehoming animals, including their Shelter Manager. They are responsible for determining which welfare groups they utilise and Council supports their approach to date. We are satisfied that they have a thorough screening process in place to determine if the welfare group is reputable and credible.
Please ask Debra Bell to provide her criteria in writing for assessment of "these groups... on a case by case basis by the Shelter Manager after consulting with their veterinarian and with any animal behavouralists as required" and how Council ensures "that the rescue groups are reputable" in writing.
- Can the Council ensure that group reps do not continue to be turned away empty handed for reasons that turn out to be untrue while healthy, treatable pets die? What will you do to achieve this?
We have no evidence to suggest that reputable welfare groups are being turned away empty handed for the wrong reasons. Council has entrusted The Lost Dogs Home to deliver the outcomes in the animal maangement contract, and we are satisfied that they are doing this.
The Lost Dogs Home have a policy of not euthanising any healthy, suitable animals and we certainly support this approach. I am happy to meet with any welfare groups who have concerns in this regard. The Lost Dogs Home also have agreed to meet to discuss any issues in relation to rehoming.
It is a sign of some conflict between council expectations and LDH expectations that while "LDH have the responsibility to assess these groups" no groups that I know of have been found suitable to take on animals, even those who once took on animals for the City Council.
- Can you please ask Debra to explain why and provide me with a copy of her response?
I am aware that The Lost Dogs Home are rehoming animals with a reputable animal welfare organisation. As I have previously stated, a new approach was adopted when Council outsourced the management of the animal shelters. Whereas Council used to hand out animals to welfare groups/rescue groups on a daily basis, this was not necessarily the best outcome for the community or the animals. We acknowledge that the process had to change, and Lost Dogs Home have been transitioning over to the new system for us in Brisbane.
I do not think there is any merit in providing explanations from individuals and then passing them on. As I have mentioned, representatives from the Lost Dogs Home and Council are happy to meet with you on this issue.
Community expectation in modern cities like Gold Coast, Brisbane, Moreton Bay, Logan and Redlands is such that Getting To Zero is a priority and it's arguably negligent of Council to have awarded a contract to a company known for it's highest kill rates in the nation when RSPCA and AWL already established and reputable in QLD do a better job.
- Do you believe the Brisbane community would support Getting to Zero and it's therefore worth pursuing contracts with providers who have proven they can achieve that (eg AWL - Gold Coast shelter in cooperation with GCCC)?
We are satisfied that The Lost Dogs were the most meritious applicant in the tender process that we ran when we outsourced the management of the animal shelters. We are dedicated to fulfilling the contractual period with The Lost Dogs. As with any business, we will be reviewing the success of the outsourcing arrangement and making a decision on how we would like to deliver the services in the future.
I agree that reducing euthanasia rates and educating pet owners across Brisbane is a priority. I do not agree that it was negligent of Brisbane City Council to award the contract to the Lost Dogs Home. I cannot comment on whether the RSPCA or AWL do a better job, only that they were not considered the most meritious applicant when we ran the tender process for the animal shelters.
- Do you think that ratepayers money could be better spent on a desexing scheme which reduces the number of impounded pets in the long term?
Thank you for your suggestion that subsided desexing is a good investment. I think everyone would like to see a reduction in the number of animals that reach animal shelters right across the country. We certainly work hard with The Lost Dogs Home to put in place some strong animal management strategies to deliver positive outcomes. I will certainly look into this idea in more detail.
A pound contractor engaging in a contract with a Council who fails to promote and support subsidised desexing ensures that the contractor's business will only grow and be very profitable for years to come, and the council continues to transfer ratepayers money to it's chosen 'business model' (NOT animal welfare group).
- What financial incentives are in the Council contract with LDH to encourage them to reunite pets with owners or re-home healthy pets? Can you please compare this financial incentive with incentives/payments to kill healthy pets in the existing contract?
I cannot comment on any financial incentives in the contract, other than to say that there are none.
- Did you find the section with the kill rates? Do you know how this compares with the rates when Brisbane Council managed the pound?
The rates are comparable to when the Council ran the shelters. The figures can be skewed a little with feral cats, as we now run a separate program through our invasive species team to manage the cats, as opposed to having the shelter manage the program.
I am sorry that you feel that the outsourcing arrangement is not delivering better outcomes in Brisbane. We are committed to working with The Lost Dogs for the remainder of the contractual period to deliver high quality animal management outcomes. We will be reassessing the way forward for the management of the shelters in Brisbane towards the end of the contracted period. I am happy to discuss any of your concerns in person
regards
