top of page

Count 1. Bear (male cattle dog cross bread) charge ill-treatment of an animal, the RSPCA allege, chronic arthritis, some disease to the kidney and liver, internal parasites? Dental disease.(taken by the RSPCA and put down immediately)

Channel 7 Today Tonight - Moorook Animal Shelter v RSPCA

Channel 7 SA segment on Today/Tonight about the Moorook Animal Shelter drama where the RSPCA have charged Lola McLachlan (the owner/operator) with cruelty because she took in several old and abandoned...

What we know, he was a 14 year old red healer, weight 30 to 35kg, eating and socialising well, a resident of Moorook for over 3 years, walking well on lead, enjoyed his pool, he was holding his weight, in a larger enclosure, all 3 vet nurses believed him to be comfortable, initial and subsequent vet checks passed him. He was receiving cartrophin courses every 6 months and diet light and mature, which had fish oil, calcium for the joints ect, sentinel and front line were also provided This was explained to the RSPCA

Bear was brought to Moorook as his owner went into a nursing home, Lola looked after him and the owner would visit from the nursing home, when the owner passed away be bequeathed bear to Lola, who offered him a home for life, vet checks in showed him to be in good condition, lola’s only intent was to love and home him until his end days.

2. Brandy (female staffordshire bull terrier) Charges owner failed to take steps to mitigate harm suffered to the animal, puncture wounds, eye infection, pressure sores on the hocks.

Brandy was seriously injured by mistreatment, RSPCA were called and a complaint laid against the owner, the RSPCA refused to intervene, so Moorook did, they rescued Brandy and raised thousands to have a limb that was damaged beyond repair removed, spending thousands of dollars, the leg was removed, and vet treatment was ongoing, videos and photos confirm the dog was in good condition when taken by the RSPCA, vet reports confirm her good condition.

Sores to the hocks are disputed, and if they were indeed evident, they would be the result of the removal of one leg in any event, no puncture marks were evident and she was not able to interact with other dogs in either of her enclosures, our vets dispute also the lower lid entropian, and confirm a scratch to the eye. This was explained to the RSPCA

This dog was advertised as dog and cat aggressive so volunteers knew not to mix her, the RSPCA took Brandy, so it is probable any dog bites if they existed happened post seizure.

So Where is she now?

3. Brandy again, charge owner failed to provide adequate living conditions. (Current condition unknown)

Brandy lived in a larger enclosure, but missed company, so while workers were cleaning she was brought down from the back into a smaller enclosure the morning of the raid, so he had company, the enclosure he was in when the RSPCA raided Moorook, was an approved design, but one that was not preferred by Moorook for a dog of her size, the enclosure meets all standards, and was 1.2 x 2.4m concrete, but was no longer being used, in any event this was explained to the RSPCA, and the enclosure met with all current legislation

The usual enclosure is a 4 x 5 m concreted area with good fencing a pool, and a kennel (photo to come)

4. Gansta (American bulldog) Demodecosis

Gansta had been dropped off to Moorook 10 days earlier from the Mildura pound, he had mange, as I call it, he was being treated and was in a safe enclosure, treatment details were advised to the RSPCA on the day by Moorooks vet nurse, and the meds were shown. (no photos, but information from the pound that dropped him off, is available, and credible witness statements

Picture to the left, and statements from the pound from here he was rescued show he arrived with the skin disease, the mange was treatable.

5. Tommy (pictured) (male Kelpie cross) charges; Advanced glaucoma, arthritis, dental disease(put down by the RSPCA)

Tommy was active, fit and still enjoying life, photos and videos are available, ongoing treatment to ensure he was comfortable, he could not be adopted out as he did not like being out of his known enclosure due to loss of eyesight. Pictures and videos confirm he was happy and still enjoying life.

6. White kitten, complaints respiratory illness (put down immediately by the RSPCA) 

This kitten was dumped at the shelter the night before, and was quarantined by Lola, and treated immediately with vivabret and eye cleanser and was to be taken to a vet on the morning of the raid by the RSPCA at 8.00 am in the morning. The RSPCA were informed of this fact.

The Kittens condition was treatable in any respect and would have been.

7. Wombles (pictured), Cronic hydrocephalus

Wombles (10 years old) was much loved by all the volunteers and photos and videos taken days before show he was still in good spirits, and moving about very well, the volunteers and vet nurses on site, believed in their opinion, he was still enjoying his life without adverse suffering.

Wombles arrived with the loss if 1 eye and one ear, and had passed vet checks, and was a very popular boy indeed.

The RSPCA SA are charging Lola of Moorook shelter for allowing Wombles to live

Charges laid by the RSPCA SA on the owner of Moorook animal shelter include cruelty charges for this dog, he was taken by the RSPCA and put down, and Lola is being charged with cruelty offences by the...

This video link show him a few weeks before the RSPCA raid, Wombles had been at Moorook for around 4 years, so had been seen by the RSPCA on several occasions without any concern for his health, in April 2012 the RSPCA did a full inspection and they visited again in or around November only 4 months before the animal was seized and put down, and the shelter operator then being charged.

Veterinary reports, personal accounts, vet nurses and video and photographic evidence show all the charges against Lola to be frivolous in my eyes. All up 8 dogs were taken, in the most for what the RSPCA deemed behavioural issues,

I am presently unaware of legislation that allows an animal to be taken under this heading, the RSPCA’s own facts and figures clearly show animals in their care with behavioural issues are put down, begging the question “Why take them from a safe home in the first place” some photos of the dogs taken under this heading are below.

Veterinary reports and witness statements will be used in the courts to ensure Lola is cleared of charges, being charged for doing ones best to rescue animals is obscene.

This is buddy taken for behavioural issues? Yet now the RSPCA has him up for adoption it is believed, some how they accessed his behaviour in a matter of minutes yet he was receiving love and support where he was, so what right and under what law can they threaten to seize him?

Consider this, the RSPCA turn up and threaten to take your animals, the threat is "sign them over to us" or we will seize them.

If we are forced to seize them, we will charge you vet bills, storage fees, and feed, which could go on for months, and cost you tens of thousands, so under DURESS, you sign them over.

What if they had no right to seize the animals? and they lie to you and using intimidation to coheres you to sign them over, would that be considered legal?

Or what if they told you of you signed them over, you will not face charges, then after the fact they charged you?

What if they told the public that they cant home the animals, as they have been seized, yet they have been signed over?

If the RSPCA do the wrong thing, who do we make a complaint to?

Should animals be taken from safe enclosures under the heading of behaviour, when the shelter they were taken from had professional behaviourist trainers available?

If a shelter takes in an injured or abused animal and it is being provided with professional care, and is housed in approved enclosure, should the animal be seized and the owner charged?

Another taken from a clean legal enclosure under “Behavioural issues” below, the RSPCA are empowered by the animal welfare Act to police cases of abuse and neglect, yet in this case that does not appear to be the case. When parliament wrote the Act, I seriously doubt it was to undermine the work of other carers and shelters. The general community would prefer to see the RSPCA with their huge multimillion dollar profits (accumulated excesses of over 14 million) step in to support places like Moorook Animal shelter.

After the initial raid on Moorook and after several subsequent could find no fault with the animals in Moorooks care, in fact Moorook has continued to home around 7 dogs a week since, and many cats as well, all in the most death row animals, with out any government or RSPCA support of finances.

The only orders placed on Moorook other than the above charges were simple and very much minor in they included minor maintenance to a hand full of enclosures based around loose wire and fencing the result of jumping dogs, exercise orders that were already being complied with and concrete to 8 enclosures to suit strict shelter guidelines.

When the RSPCA foster out animals, they indeed live in normal back yard environments, which should reflect on the fact the only enclosures that work was ordered on indeed met those same standards in the first place.

The RSPCA have every right to make decisions on animals in their care, like behavioural issues that see thousands of dogs and cats killed by them every year, but that right does not allow them to make that decision for other shelter operations, the dog below was taken from a safe environment under "Behavioural issues" :(

bottom of page