Sharni and Charlie
A last-minute push by animal lovers saw a host of options become available to Frankston City Council in finding a solution to the case of Charlie and Sharni – two dogs alleged to have killed a neighbourhood cat.
First, they had the most straight-forward option. They could have declared the dogs dangerous;
Dangerous dog: a dog that the Council has declared dangerous because it has caused the death of or serious injury to a person or animal by biting or attacking. Councils can also declare dogs to be dangerous if the dog is a menacing dog and its owner has received at least 2 infringement notices for failing to comply with restraint requirements, if the dog has been declared dangerous under corresponding legislation in another State/Territory, or for any other reason prescribed.
This would have imposed on the owners a series of obligations, including confining the dogs behind a prescribed escape-proof fence. In public, the dogs would have needed to be muzzled, and always on lead. They would have been required to wear a thick red and yellow striped collar and post ‘dangerous dog’ signs at their residence.
However, if Council had wanted to make things more complicated, some other avenues had come forward.
First that the RSPCA South Australia would take the dogs interstate and offer them whatever rehabilitation was needed;
RSPCA South Australia chief executive Tim Vasudeva said… the RSPCA has a well-established rehabilitation program and would not release dangerous dogs into the community.
He said the decision to euthanase would be taken if its behaviourists assessed the dogs as not being redeemable.
‘‘That’s our business, assessing and rehabilitating dogs and other animals,’’ Mr Vasudeva said.
‘‘We understood that there was an issue with these dogs in terms of some … cat aggression but that is not unusual for dogs.
‘‘We were happy to take on any liability associated with those dogs and full custody and ownership so there were no residual issues for council.
‘‘Our behavioural evaluation program [is] longstanding and well-developed and we employ three full-time qualified behaviourists to do that work and we were happy to do that over an extended period of time.’’
Which would have been an excellent outcome, as Frankston would have moved the dogs out of their City and into the waiting arms of a fully qualified behavioural team. Good no?
Well no. The City rejected that option. But animal advocates weren’t done.
Two other animal rescue groups were willing and able to invest their services in rehabilitating these dogs;
RSPCA Queensland and the NSW-based DoggieRescue.com and Dog Rescue Newcastle had by Friday morning also made offers to help the dogs, which will be put down at close of business unless a final appeal to the Victorian Supreme Court is launched.
RSPCA Queensland chief executive Mark Townend said the organisation was offering the council a legitimate alternative to euthanasing the dogs.
‘‘If those dogs are properly assessed and there really isn’t an issue with them in the community, we’d certainly look at taking them on and making sure they’re a good community member and rehoming them,’’ Townend said.
THREE animal groups – including two RSPCA’s – were willing to go in to bat to defend these dogs’ right to a fair evaluation, and potentially treatment, to ensure that they were given every opportunity to be saved from unnecessary destruction.
So of all these options at it’s disposal, what did the Frankston City Council choose to do with Charlie and Sharni after eight months of holding them hostage?
Today, it chose to kill the dogs.
In a lengthy statement, mayor Darrel Taylor stated that the dogs had been “humanely euthanised by a qualified veterinary practitioner”.
“This decision was not taken lightly. Our council considers every such case carefully based on all the information available to ensure we act responsibly on behalf of our community,” he said.
….
Cr Taylor said the council reinforced its message of responsible pet ownership, including that dogs must be kept securely on their premises and kept on a lead when outside the premises unless within a designated off-leash area.
If you’re a Frankston ratepayer, this is what you are funding; jack-boot thuggery by your local council who through sheer bloody-mindedness has ignored the wishes of the community, ignored the recommendations of animal welfare professionals, and killed two dogs as a warning to other pet owners in the City. What an absolute violation of everything that is good about pet management.
Shame on you Frankston City Council.
Shameful, just shameful, no words can explain how disgusting Frankston Council is. People offered to help with these two babies, how could you??? Your ratepayers should refuse to pay you, until those responsible for this abhorrent killing resign.
Shame Shame With all those options available and it still chose to take their lives Humans I struggle to understand sometimes
Council has been justifying their actions because the dogs have a ‘History’, The facts are the only history they have is that Sharni escaped once years ago and no other animal was injured, Charlie has never escaped before. They are suggesting that there have been other incidences, which is totally untrue. The council have deliberately manipulated the owners into pleading guilty in court on the promise that the dogs would be returned under certain conditions. This was a blatant lie as we see by the result yesterday. I cannot help thinking that the dogs were put down some time ago and the council had to take the hard line to cover up the truth. To use the word euthanize in regard to the dogs demise is another play on words by council – (Euthanasia (from Greek: ?????????; “good death”: ??, eu; “well” or “good” – ???????, thanatos; “death”) refers to the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering), these dogs were not in pain, they were happy, maybe a little boisterous, but family dogs and hopefully not suffered due to the councils protracted delaying tactics throughout the case, refusing to allow the owners to see the dogs (other than on Christmas eve, and suggesting one of the owners didn’t care because she couldn’t be there at the time nominated by council (she just started a new job, for god’s sake!!!!). “Why” I ask the refusal to see them, what was there to hide? Some obscure comment that it was to protect the keepers, maybe it was that the dogs were in such a bad state after being locked up for so long???!! What did they think the owners were going to do? Were they afraid the truth would come out? Nevertheless, I hope over the next coming weeks the actual truth comes out and hopefully the residents of Frankston show the council at the next election what they think of their inhumane, unjustified actions!
How do you sleep at night.?? What a big fat joke it is, and YOU can publish this and MY words. !!! You cannot even help someone that is being disturbed by a howling dog, BUT you will rush in,take away and kill a dog on the presumption of it “killing”??
Disgusting, all involved with this behaviour exhibited by Frankston Council should be ashamed… We can only hope you are all replaced at an election so this can never happen again.