We have continued to correspond with Council since going to media and releasing this petition. We do this because we have still found animal welfare issues (e.g. dogs on wet cement/with no beds) occurring at GRAS, and because we wanted to ensure all our requests made in this petition were met. To date our requests on this petition have not been fully implemented. We have written to the Department of Primary Industries, Office of Local Government and the RSPCA seeking information regarding animal welfare issues at GRAS. Dealing with government bodies (and Council) is very time-consuming and exhausting due to the inconsistencies in their replies or replies that do not answer our questions. We were very surprised that Council had never received a written report from the RSPCA regarding its investigation into GRAS. We contacted the RSPCA and as yet have never received a response. We applied under GIPA (Government Information Public Access Act) for all of Council’s correspondence relating to animal welfare at GRAS. We did this due to the inconsistencies we found in Council’s Open Letter and other responses we had received from Council. Below are just some of the inconsistencies/questions we have asked Council, and we think remain unanswered/superficially answered: Saviour incident: - The Ranger’s Incident Report (which we obtained under GIPA) regarding the Saviour kitten incident did not support statements in Council’s Open Letter. Council’s Open Letter had so much information, but the Ranger’s Incident Report was brief and did not have this level of information – where did Council get all this information from? In the Ranger’s Incident Report the ranger was bitten by the kitten outside the cattery when he was carrying Saviour in his arms. This was not inside the cattery as stated in Council's Open Letter. - Why wasn’t a vet called? - Why were vital signs not checked? - Three versions of this incident have been presented to us by Council: was Saviour “flung”, “knocked out accidentally” or “held by the scruff of the neck until motionless”? Why are there conflicting versions? Frozen Cat incident: - When we asked about the images of the frozen cat, Council’s first response to us was that Council could provide “no context or reasonable answer to those matters”, and in Council’s Open Letter the explanation was that the cat was “road-kill”. - The ranger’s diary notes we obtained under GIPA regarding the frozen cat state that there was a road-kill cat, but that blood was coming from the eyes and imply that the cat was in a grey shopping bag in the freezer. When we observed the frozen cat, it did not have blood coming from its eyes, and it was not in a shopping bag. - Two cats had come to GRAS on Thursday afternoon and were gone by the next day (Friday). The photos of the frozen cat were taken that Friday afternoon. As far as we know, these two cats had no impound numbers. What happened to these two cats? Is one of these cats the frozen cat in the freezer? - What explanation can be given for the deep scratch claw marks in the ice on the walls of the freezer, the blood on the four walls and the strange crouching position of the cat? When we have asked Council for further clarification, we have either been ignored or their answer is “current staff and current sector management were not involved in the incident and are unable to comment on any inconsistencies of past employees related to the matter”. We have difficulty accepting this, as Council records should always support their statements, regardless of who is in management. Staff come and go, but Council should always have some kind of records to refer back to. Otherwise how does Council deal with issues that arise? Council’s voice to the public should present one united statement (not inconsistent statements as we have received) based on factual records, evidence and thorough investigation. Volunteers wrongly accused The Wagga paper The Daily Advertiser published an article in July 2015 called "Pound 'taken off the leash'” (see link http://www.dailyadvertiser.com.au/story/3199408/pound-taken-off-the-leash/), which stated that a volunteer “had taken an image of an animal and posted it online to arrange for its collection”. This article was published after a volunteer helped an owner find their dog. The image referred to in the article was uploaded by the owners looking for their lost dog - no volunteer took the photo. The volunteer was tagged in a photo of a lost dog on social media and recognised that the dog was currently at the pound. She suggested to the owners that they check the pound. The owners had already been to the pound three times in two days and were not shown their dog, despite it being at the pound. Why were the owners not shown their dog by the rangers? We have asked Council for evidence for their statement in the article “Pound ‘taken off the leash’”, and to date none has been provided. We wrote a Letter to the Editor regarding this (see below for a copy of the text that was published in The Daily Advertiser on 28 May 2017): “I read with interest the article in Friday's The Daily Advertiser, "Mayor recalls public attack on watchdog". It states, "council wishes to acknowledge that it was inappropriate for the media release to be issued and now formally retracts its contents." It reminds me of the article in the DA "Pound 'taken off the leash'" published July 2015, where council accused a volunteer and stated, "she had taken an image of an animal and posted it online to arrange for its collection." As no volunteer took this image, where did this information come from? We have repeatedly asked council for the evidence of this statement. Could we please have a copy of the image, the time, date and place that this image was supposedly taken and how council tracked it back to a volunteer. If council cannot support their statement I think it should be retracted. To date council's most recent response has been, "Current staff and current sector management were not involved in the incident and are unable to comment on any inconsistencies of past employees related to the matter." I find this statement unacceptable. There are still many issues that have not been addressed at GRAS.” We have received this statement from Council: “Council will no longer be responding by email on issues that have been explained and responded to”. It is disappointing that we will never receive answers or clarification from Council regarding the above incidents.