To the Supporters of George,

Thank you to every single person who signed, shared, called, and emailed on behalf of George. Because our community refused to stay silent and flooded the inboxes of WIRES, AWL, local MPs, and the RSPCA, we forced answers that would have otherwise been hidden forever.

Without this petition and your collective pressure, no information about George’s whereabouts or handling would ever have been disclosed.

👉 To learn more you can view a video overview here: VIDEO - The Truth Behind George’s Removal. <-

1. What Your Pressure Achieved: Uncovering the Rehoming

On 22 July 2026, an anonymous video confirmed George had been privately rehomed. The placement matches a 1 July public comment on the volunteer’s post where a third party offered to take George, and the volunteer replied, "Please DM me."

While a 23 July media article confirmed George is now on a rural property, this outcome occurred despite George’s long-term carers coming forward as early as 29 June to request his return. While we recognize that bringing George back now would cause unnecessary disruption to a senior animal, reaching this clarity was only possible because this community fought for him.

 

2. A Trail of Fabrication and Contradictory Claims

The entire process—from George's capture on Council land to his off-the-books transfer—was marked by shifting narratives and double standards:

Fact vs. "Medical Emergency": For over a decade, George lived healthy and monitored across the river and golf club grounds. The volunteer recorded video post-capture stating George was "in good health." Yet, days later, chronic age-related cataracts and site redevelopment were retroactively used to justify his removal.

The AWL Blame Shift (6 July): WIRES emailed residents stating George was handed to the Animal Welfare League (AWL) and told us to direct all inquiries to them.

AWL’s Outright Denial (19 July): AWL officially confirmed they never had physical custody of George, never examined him, and played no role in his rehoming, revealing WIRES' initial statement was false.

The "Private Citizen" Defense (20 July): 22 hours after AWL exposed the truth, WIRES pivoted, claiming the volunteer acted as a "private citizen" with "owner consent" from the site developer.

The Press Contradiction (23 July): WIRES told local media (The Leader) that they did assist in arranging his care, directly contradicting their claims of non-involvement.

The Jurisdictional Boundary Violation: WIRES defended the capture by claiming retroactive consent from Stockland (the property developer for the former golf course site). However, geotagged evidence and witness statements confirm George was captured on public Council reserve land across the river. Under the Impounding Act 1993 and the Local Government Act 1993, domestic animals on public land fall exclusively under the statutory authority of Local Council Rangers. A private developer has zero legal authority over public council land, meaning WIRES and its volunteer had no legal basis or permit to seize George from a public reserve.

WIRES cannot dispatch volunteers, use official branding, give media statements about arranging care, and then hide behind "private citizen" status to dodge oversight.

 

3. Bullying, Suppression, and Reversing the Victim

Rather than addressing legitimate questions, the response from the volunteer and her online platform turned hostiles toward local residents:

Platform Power Disparity: A prominent content creator used her large audience to control the narrative. Supporters from outside the area entered local community pages to harass residents, drown out local voices, and mock people searching for George.

Silencing Local Carers: Community members who posted about missing George were bullied into deleting their posts out of fear of conflict or legal threats.

Gaslighting the Community: The people who fed, protected, and monitored George for over ten years were suddenly framed as "selfish" or "bad actors" simply for asking where he was taken and demanding proper process.

 

4. The Core Principle: Rehoming Does Not Justify Removal

Putting a stolen animal in a nice location does not erase the act of taking it.

If someone took a family dog that had lived with its owner for a decade, hid its location, and later claimed the dog was now living in a mansion eating steak, it would still be unauthorized removal. Citing "foxes," "cataracts," or "a better farm" after the fact does not rewrite the law, nor does it give anyone the right to bypass Council authority, ignore long-term caretakers, and insult the community.

 

5. Escalation to Regulatory Authorities

Because George is now settled, we are officially closing this petition for physical return, but our compliance complaints remain active. We have formally submitted our evidence portfolio to the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) and the Minister for the Environment to investigate:

Licensing & Jurisdictional Overreach: How a state-licensed wildlife volunteer used official standing to seize a domestic animal off public Council land, completely bypassing Local Council Ranger authority under the Impounding Act 1993.

Chain of Custody Failures: The complete lack of official intake records and physical custody tracking between 26 June and 22 July.

Misleading Public Communications: The official false statements issued regarding AWL's involvement to deflect community inquiries and dodge regulatory oversight.

👉 Link to Updated NPWS & Ministerial Audit Email Template: Email Template Here.

👉 Learn more you can view a video overview here: The Truth Behind George’s Removal.

If an organization can quietly remove a recognized community animal under false administrative pretexts without consequences, it can happen to any local animal. Thank you for standing up for George, exposing the truth, and proving what a dedicated community can achieve.

Thank you again to everyone of you for your support.