From: Paul Cutbush Date: Thursday, 26 October 2017 at 1:54 pm To: Cc: Paul Cutbush Subject: FW: Attention A/CEO Ms Kelly Stigworthy - Day 45 - No Exercise - No Visitations of SRRC Registered Pet - Bandit and exposure to toxic fumes. Dear Mr Bucholz,   I request your urgent assistance and intervention with this matter. I would appreciate a meeting ASAP. In summary, the SRRC seized our dog on 11/9 after he was attacked by a dog from next door on our property and have held him in a 1.2m cell for 46 days. The Pound just down from your office behind the Chanbers! The Mayor and Nadia our Councillor have refused to reply.   The major issues are:   • Declining health of Bandit as no exercise for 46 days • Breaches of the Animal Protection Act 2001 and the Animal Management Act by the SRRC • No communication from the SRRC • No decision as required by the Act. (6 months on last “proposed declaration”) • Mark Duncan, SRRC not fit to be the Decisionmaker on the “proposed” declaration process. • No provision of evidence and refusal by SRRC to process an RTI Application • A history of long term dogs held in the SRRC pound passing away from “snake bites”.     I have 1242 petition signees on change.org and 250 followers on Facebook – Beauy Whispers and 700 followers on Facebook Bandits blog   Regards   Paul Cutbush - 0499504441 TAMBORINE, 4270 QLD     From: Paul Cutbush Date: Wednesday, 25 October 2017 at 2:53 pm To: Scenic Rim Regional Council Mail , Cruelty Complaints Cc: Mailbox Ombudsman , The Premier , Local Government , Paul Cutbush , Beaudesert Electorate Office , Mayor Subject: RE: Attention A/CEO Ms Kelly Stigworthy - Day 45 - No Exercise - No Visitations of SRRC Registered Pet - Bandit and exposure to toxic fumes.   Dear A/CEO,   1. Please advise why visitations have been banned to our pet dog Bandit held at your unsafe and filthy Small Animal Facility at Beaudesert (as pictured) since 11 September 2017 (with 2 weeks at MBRC Dakabin) and then returned mid week last week? Bandit remains in a 1.2m cell covered in his own waste, underfed,no vet access,no sunlight and easy snake access. This is a breach of the Animal Protection Act eg: S33 exercise of closely confined dogs and is further torture.   2. Please desist from having toxic fumes generated by welding (as I witnessed yesterday next to Bandits cell) as Bandit and the other dogs will be impacted by lead/manganese fumes. This is a breach of the Animal Protection Act eg: S17 duty of care and is further torture.   3. Please advise why my request for a photo each day of Bandit has not been supplied given that we now have no “proof of life” as you have blocked visitations since 14/10/17 which is not lawful as per the Animal Management Act.   4. Please advise why the SRRC have not made a “decision” on the “Proposed Declaration” given that you held him for 11 days prior to the “proposed declaration” submissions were provided 3 weeks ago and the Act clearly states a Council “must” make a decision?   5. Please advise why you have afforded Bandit no natural justice as no evidence has been provided eventhough requested eg: photos,statements,tape recording etc given that I have provided extensive details and offered video of the neighbour (Razorbacks bikie - see attached) who opened our front gate and joint fence? The person tried to kill Bandit with a homemade shiv.   6. Please advise why it took 6 months for the SRRC to make a “decision” on the last proposed “declaration” from 5 April 2017. No “decision” was made until its withdrawal on 22 September 2017.   7. Please advise why SRRC Senior Ranger, Kylie Addy advised me on 14 September 2017 that “we can keep him as long as we like. There is no policy”   8. Please advise why you have not replied to any of my requests for information since 11 September 2017 (along with your staff) except to Mr Krause MP to whom you confirmed you had received my letters?   9. Please advise why you have no complaints process or is that just for me?   10. Please advise why you have had a Lawyer state to me that all SRRC communications must be to him when he is not a public servant and is not accountable for keeping communications eg: which are a public record?   In addition to my request above the Scenic Rim Regional Council and the Moreton Bay Regional Council are also in breach of the following.   A.      Summary:  45 days with no exercise, vet access refused, visitations now also refused by the SRRC which all adds up to ongoing cruelty and punitive action. No compliance by the SRRC on Declaration Process as per the Animal Management Act. Bandit goes into Day 45.     B.      Event: SRRC  & MBRC Breach of S33 of the Animal Protection Act 2001. Bandit was unlawfully impounded on 11 September 2017 and for 4 weeks was kept in a 1.2m cell with no exercise at the SRRC in heatwave conditions in his own waste. Bandit then spent a further 2 weeks at Moreton Bay Regional Council with a cell of around 3.5 m with visitations limited and only one ten-minute exercise session with myself. Both Councils have refused access for my 15 year old Daughter to pat/cuddle him.   C.       Outcome: 40 days with no exercise  Bandit has not been provided with exercise even though he is only 18 months old and is an active breed eg: cattle dog. He has now been subjected to close confinement for with no exercise for 45 days. Both Councils have refused regular access for me to exercise him and have no “reasonable excuse” as per the Act.   D.      Relevant Legislation:   Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 Reprint current from 1 July 2016 to date (accessed 20 October 2017 at 10:40)  Timeline s33 Obligation to exercise closely confined dogs (1)A person in charge of a dog that is closely confined for a continuous period of 24 hours must, unless the person has a reasonable excuse, ensure the dog is exercised or allowed to exercise itself for— (a)the next 2 hours; or (b)the next hour and for another hour in the next 24 hours. Maximum penalty—20 penalty units. (2)In deciding whether a dog is closely confined for subsection (1), regard must be had to the dog’s age, physical condition and size.     E.       Event: I requested vet access from the SRRC to have Bandit vaccinated as he was being exposed to stray dogs on 11 September 2017 when placed in the SRRC compound. Access was refused by the SRRC and has continued to be refused since. On 5 October 2017 I requested the Moreton Bay Regional Council allow vet access when he was transferred to their facility. The MBRC agreed but then “forgot” to carry this out on 11 September 2017. No bedding was provided by the SRRC (as per photos provide prior) No exercise and limited visitations.     F.       Outcome: Breach of duty of care as per the Act by SRRC and MBRC No duty of care by the SRRC/MBRC as vet access refused,no exercise,no bedding at the SRRC,no safe living conditions at the SRRC free from snakes as open drain from cell. Refusal of visitations impacting Bandits mental health.     G.      Relevant Legislation: Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 Reprint current from 1 July 2016 to date (accessed 20 October 2017 at 10:40)  Timeline 17Breach of duty of care prohibited (1)A person in charge of an animal owes a duty of care to it. (2)The person must not breach the duty of care. Maximum penalty—300 penalty units or 1 year’s imprisonment. Notes— 1This provision is an executive liability provision—see section 209 . 2See also section 9 (Act does not affect other rights or remedies). (3)For subsection (2), a person breaches the duty only if the person does not take reasonable steps to— (a)provide the animal’s needs for the following in a way that is appropriate— (i)food and water; (ii)accommodation or living conditions for the animal; (iii)to display normal patterns of behaviour; (iv)the treatment of disease or injury; or (b)ensure any handling of the animal by the person, or caused by the person, is appropriate. (4)In deciding what is appropriate, regard must be had to— (a)the species, environment and circumstances of the animal; and (b)the steps a reasonable person in the circumstances of the person would reasonably be expected to have taken. Examples of things that may be a circumstance for subsection (4)(b)— •a bushfire or another natural disaster •a flood or another climatic condition   Regards   Paul Cutbush