Adelaide’s Tea Tree Gully council denies the existence of an ongoing dog problem in suburban Ridgehaven (This page offers the unedited writings of Mr Michal Kinasz of Adelaide, a sensitive, deeply caring and zealous long-term campaigner for social improvement and the relief of human and animal suffering) The government have developed the system of corruption, system which is not accountable and absolutely corrupt openly. There is nowhere the citizens can turn to and complain. I have at number of occasions complained to previous Ombudsman and was disappointed every time by his stupidity and anti social stand. Lately as I remember his answer was in line with: the council have done nothing illegal. I was furious as this was irrational. Now I've discovered that it was only partial truth. In SA it is legal to neglect dogs and subject them to misery and cruelty. But overall the Ombudsman was wrong. It is not just animal which suffer but also human which receive the dog's cry for a long time. Mr Ombudsman, the whole system is sick and need to be refreshed not just one or two officers in one council. All of that is so wrong that it is very sick and I/we hope that you will make a necessary recommendations for change. 1. It is wrong that SA legislation(s) fail to make the unfortunately necessary and obvious requirement that all dog owners must accept full responsibility for the dogs of their choice, the dogs which in 100% depend on their owner. Government refusing to formulate legislations that way in light of current situation is effectively ensuring dog and human negligence and cruelty. Not only owners must assume their natural responsibility but a proper regulations must include the basic list of dog owner duties as well as definition of what is negligence. Negligence will be in basic form the failure to care. This new legislation will be for the first time in SA history a document which requires people to take responsibility for their animals. Obviously only healthy and mature people qualify. Mentally compromised cannot fulfill their obligation. No rational person would object to the legislation which states the obvious - responsibility and is a proper legal base to manage the dogs properly by council officers and other professionals as well as owners. 2. At present the ultimate managers are council officers. They behave most often in very irrational manner and in manner the psychopaths do. Psychopaths notoriously lie, manipulate the people and situation as well as they have inability to understand the cruelty and negligence. Councils and all other officials like Dog and cat management board (no names are necessary as I know no one who is responsible there), ministers and so on, knowing that legislation does not allow officers to do what is necessary to stop dog negligence but they lie to public and give a false hope that if they prove one in thousands neglected dog than they take action against. It never happened nor can happen as it is legal to be a negligent dog owner and council has virtually zero power to manage dogs. There are very serious mental and somatic health problems which stem from the exposure to a chronic dog barking. People are more generally nervous, have sleep problem, weakened immune system (more prone to cancer and infections) and are less productive. They are so irritable that argue at home and within neighbors. The minister for health John Hill, cannot understand nor have sufficient maturity to recognise this and make a necessary recommendation to the relevant ministers and to the big boss to stop this lawlessness. Some people cannot stand this any longer and since there is nowhere to turn to, they take the matter in their hands and end the dogs and own misery. In SA the only sure way to stop notoriously barking dog is to kill one in anger! Mike Rann and his administration refuse to provide an acceptable alternative to that. Mr Richard Bingham this is a very sad situation where the dog killer was so desperate for peace which the government deliberate deprive one of, so he had absolutely no choice but do it him/herself. I imagine it is not easy but this is a situation Mike Rann and his administration push people into. Council officers refuse to accept the video as an evidence, the personal testimony and police testimony and even their own witness is not an evidence that there is a problem. My neighbor mentally ill own two dogs which were barking day and night and council refused to do anything at all. The next night I had no choice but ask friends to have me overnight. The next morning back home I rang ttg council and begged them to come and restore the peace. The lady officer came and asked politely if owner can calm down his dogs. He could not as two local policeman testified, he is not able, but he called an ambulance instead and they took him on stretches. He got a severe shock from the council request to calm his dogs. He gone to hospital for 24 hours and dogs were locked alone inside barking overnight. The man never take dogs for a walk as he never leaves home and he is unable to care for himself, so he cannot care for his dogs. Council still deny knowledge of any problem here. There are plenty of examples of dog causing problems and council deny everything and refuse to request the new, proper legislation. 3. Council refuse to take any action at all, the RSPCA refuse to take any action and even refuse to take report of animal negligence/abuse as the legislation does not give them power to do so. Well everything indicate that in this dictatorial state the proper care for dogs and people around is not allowed. My proposition of legislation amendment would solve this problem and the RSPCA would no longer be disgraced. I have requested my TTG council to remove the 4 dogs locally which are badly neglected. Council totally ignore this request and failed to reply and this does only mean that the dogs are chronically neglected and people around suffer. Often friends tell me that here or there the dogs are always barking because they are neglected. Some owners have an irrational idea that the dog is just for barking. The dogs neglected often have the only attraction in making a big fright when they suddenly bark on unsuspecting bypasser. In some cases people kick injuring the beast. 4. Everyone refuse to take any responsibility as they are scared of the Mike Rann who forbade them to make own judgment and request things to be run properly. People are denied the right to live in peace. Any discussion of this and the dog management turns always irrational. There is no rationality in lies that irresponsibility is a wonderful policy of care. 5. I suggest Mr Ombudsman that while you investigate and make hopefully recommendation to amend the legislation as attached, you actually ask the government to freeze the funds which normally flow to the Dog and cat management board and to coucncils to manage dogs. They fail to manage dogs. Should they still receive the complaints they either tell the truth to public that state no longer support dog management or they press the government to actually make in a hurry the proper legal basis for such management. The relevant officers who misled public should be disciplined or loose their positions. 6. I further suggest that any procedures in dog management must be instant. Current 100% ineffective procedures take weeks and months. A proper management should act withing minutes and at most within days. Normally the inspector in bad cases should arrive to the place within 30 min and deal with the problem weather the owner is home or not. Council inspectors should have much more real power a bit similar to NSW inspectors (read their legislation). Their legislation is still not fully ok but much better than ours. Sure all cost including the night visit of inspector bear the owner even when one did not know that his dog is barking when he take a time away for a long weekend. Well the fine details can be decided by authority but I may suggest that in less serious cases like going shopping for a few hours and dog is madly barking, the first visit of inspector could be paid by society and the subsequent by the owner. In summary, Mr Ombudsman this situation is lose, lose and is absolutely pointless and a great disgrace to the government. My proposition is win, win and cost only the one who decide to have a dog. The health cost is enormous. The officers lie to public and are indifferent to suffering of humans and dogs like psychopaths. All at public money and it is a fraud. The bad owners often tell you when you ask them to control their dog: go to council, they will do nothing, I know... People take the path of easiest resistance, no matter is they are simple or educated. At present people do what they want, so do officials. This is lawlessness and result is a misery and negligence to society. Animal cruelty and negligence to human health and well being and totally corrupt system which leaves nowhere to turn this is classified as a crime against society. Whole corruption and a policy of deliberate negligence is against the society. Mr Ombudsman this message and whole case is to be publicly revealed and debated. LETTER to SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S OMBUDSMAN