LORT SMITH: My letter to the Council.
Dear Councillor,
I am writing in response to the news that the Lort Smith animal hospital has been forced to close its shelter operations due to a council decision, as reported in The Age on Sunday.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/council-pounces-stripping-lort-smith-of-its-pound-status-20081213-6xy5.html
I, like the many others who have written to you since this news came to light, would like to register my absolute disgust that this is the case. Lort Smith has been operating as a shelter for 75 years; it is hard to believe that it is suddenly contravening any existing laws, or that it is causing any sort of inconvenience to local residents in doing so. Quite the opposite; Lort Smith provides a valuable service in taking stray animals off the streets, removing them as a danger to local wildlife, and reducing the risk of any danger they might cause to the public or to council-registered pets. It provides medical care and treats stray and unwanted animals humanely, finding new homes for as many as possible.
It does all this with no government or council funding. It does not cost the council anything to keep it in operation. While I understand that each local council has a contract with one animal shelter to provide pound services, Melbourne City has an extremely high population density, and both Lort Smith and the Lost Dogs' Home, with whom the council holds the contract, are usually full to capacity with stray and unwanted animals needing homes. Last year, statistics revealed that 27 dogs per day were euthanised in shelters in Victoria, and that 5000 per year found new homes. These figures did not include cats or other animals. Lort Smith deals with tens of thousands of animals in need every year - to close their shelter facilities because of some bureaucratic red tape is unthinkable. Expecting the Lost Dogs' Home to cope with the usual numbers of animals on top of the thousands that Lort Smith took in and re-homed, is, frankly inconceivable. To close the shelter down, right before Christmas, the busiest time of the year, displays an ignorance and cruelty that makes me deeply, deeply ashamed of our new council.
Who benefits form this decision? Not the Lost Dogs' Home, who will now be placed under considerable stress as they try to do the work of two shelters. Not local residents. Not the council, who paid nothing for Lort Smith's essential and compassionate services. And certainly not the animals, whose chances of a happy life in a loving home will effectively be halved by this callous decision.
I take my animals to Lort Smith for vet treatment when they need it, and I see first-hand the wonderful work they do, and the struggle they have to do it as well as they do, relying on donations, payment for veterinary services, and sales from their small shop. In my opinion, the council should be making this easier for them rather than taking it away.
I realise that there is an existing precedent for having a single shelter under contract for pound services, but I also see no reason why an exception should not be made for Melbourne, given its population, and the fact that Lort Smith has been operating in this way for the better part of a century.
Given the timing I can only infer that this is a piece of over-enthusiastic bureaucracy from a newly-elected council who want to "make their mark". I'm deeply saddened if this is the case, because destroying something good, necessary and compassionate is an appalling way to go about it and I am deeply, deeply angry about it.
A friend of mine had this to say about the decision, and I couldn't agree more:
"A party that cannot take the time to care for animals in this city, which are ultimately, our responsibility, cannot, in my opinion be trusted to handle the affairs of it's people with the tact, dignity and attention that all living creatures deserve."
It has since come to my attention that not all councillors were informed of this decision. If you are one of them, I urge you, please, to do what you can to fight it. It benefits absolutely no-one, and it has outraged a large number of your constituents. If there is a law in place that has precipitated this decision, then for the good of everyone concerned, it needs to be changed. Otherwise, I lose my faith in this council to provide its constituents with the sort of leadership we need from them. Please, make us proud of you.
Sincerely,