|
HOME>CAMPAIGNS>Death at UQ Labs |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CAMPAIGNS >KFC Cruelty >RSPCA Endorses Cruelty >Outlaw the Animal Circus! >EKKA Exposed >Ban Sow Stalls! >Exporting Cruelty >Death at UQ Labs
 Email this Page...
|
|
AAQ Investigation: Cruelty at UQ Vet School
Animal Activism QLD Investigates Allegations of Cruelty at UQ Vet SchoolFollowing the disclosures of animal abuse by staff and students at UQ Vet School by ex students, AAQ began to network with others concerned about the use of live animals by the future vets. This process took many months and involved discussion with a variety of people who had witnessed the barbaric treatment of unwanted greyhounds or pound dogs. Part of the initial investigation was to find if RSPCA dogs were ending up at the laboratory. There was no evidence of this apart from a sign on a door within the laboratory stating: ‘No RSPCA Dogs in Here.’ The kennels are situated at Grey St, St Lucia Campus. The kennels are made up of individual inside pens and cattery and a smaller number of larger sized kennels outside. There are other catteries in other areas of the vet school. On the 12th September 2003 activists filmed cats caged outside the Small Animal Section without water on a very hot day. By law animals are required to be provided with water at all times. This situation was worse still considering the extreme whether conditions. Small dogs were filmed in cages that were being used for testing: ‘Controlling Spread of N.D.R. Using Pro Biotics’. Their length of stay in these cages was four months. The dogs came from the Logan Dog Pound. Footage was taken of dozens of dogs, inside the Vet School, all being used for a variety of tests. On the 30th April 2004 animal activists attended an information session held by Libby Jolly (Acting Manager) on volunteer dog walking. She stated that the dogs came from Caboolture (do not re-home) or Logan dog pound (have re-homing program). She did not state where the greyhounds came from. During the lecture she used the word ‘sook’ when referring to some of the nervous animals a number of times. (‘Sook’ was a word reportedly used by a person questioned by a whistle blower who investigated the continuous screaming of a dog). Jolly stated that greyhounds were not re-homed and were destroyed when they had finished their use as blood donors. The status of the greyhounds was checked following the info session and they were all found to have ‘yellow tags’, which means they are to be re-homed. Their personal documents also stated that they had a home already arranged. Greyhounds International was contacted to update them on the investigation. They stated that they had found that universities have lied about the re homing of greyhounds to prevent people reacting to the fate of these dogs. Page 2 of booklet: ‘Volunteer Dog Walking’ states that: The University of Queensland is one of only a few vet schools in Australia where live animals are used as part of the teaching regime. The vet students are very fortunate to have these animals and treat them with the highest regard and respect and consider it an immense privilege to be able to learn from these animals. As well as this, the vet school is heavily involved in world-class studies involving animals. It is the policy of many of the companies conducting studies with the Vet school that we re-home the animals once the study that they have been involved with is completed. This is the case for many of the dogs in the Animal House at present. On 4th May 2004 the greyhounds were checked: they were friendly and desperately trying to get some attention from the investigators. Records showed they were not being walked often enough to meet RSPCA requirements. On 7th May 2004 one activist walked a German Sheppard, which has since been re-homed by activists and now lives peacefully with a small child, another dog and hens. This dog had come from either Caboolture or Logan dog pound and had been black tagged (‘terminal animal’) meaning she was not suitable to be re-homed according to the committee. She was very skinny with dirty matted hair and long claws. When putting the ‘easy walker’ on her (which none of the dogs seem to like and struggle to get off of their noses) vet staff member Dan came over and slammed her neck and head into the ground stating that: ‘it doesn’t hurt.’ He also stated that she would need her claws clipped. It seemed strange that a university that prides itself on having live animals to manipulate had left this dog in such poor condition and had not used the opportunity to practice such things as cutting her claws. RSPCA “Pound Dogs in Research” There does not seem to be any specific legislation that prohibits the use of pound animals in university research, however the 2004 RSPCA Policy states (on page 104) "1.5.1. RSPCA Australia opposes the use of animals, dead or alive or parts thereof, from any shelter for animal experimentation." and "1.5.2. Animals sheltered or owned by the RSPCA should not be a resource for blood, organs or any other tissue." On 7th June 2004 activists filmed the greyhounds and pound dogs. Forms from the greyhound cages were documented: All the greyhounds seemed to be used for blood donation: ‘Reggie’ came from the UQ hospital on 24/5/04 and had a yellow tag. ‘Polly’ came from UQ hospital on 24/5/04 and had a yellow tag. ‘Amy’ grey and white, coordinator Chris Jenson, yellow tag came from ‘AGEM.’ Both AAQ and Greyhounds International were unable to find out what these dogs were subjected to at UQ hospital or what ‘AGEM’ stood for. If anyone knows, please inform AAQ. A small basset hound had no tag and was destined for: ‘penetration of pharmaceutical agents through the dogs skin’. 'Sandy' a tan and white staffy (svs/348/03 test side effects of tick anti serum) came in on 2/9/03 and was wearing a citronella collar, for barking, that was too tight (could not get one finger between collar and neck). It was noted at a visit in August that ‘Sandy’ had not been walked in 7 months. She had been there almost a year and did not appear to have been walked much before the last bit of exercise. Libby Jolly denied this so activists showed her the UQ record that proved that this dog had not been walked in 7 months. She quickly took the forms from them – unfortunately removing the evidence of extreme cruelty. This interaction is recorded on film. Other records for most dogs will reflect a general lack of exercise for dogs that have either been mistreated by the greyhound industry, or abandoned by irresponsible owners before ending up at council pounds. Or some dogs may have been picked up by the pound and genuinely come from loving homes to find themselves in kennels with constant barking, little quality attention, painful tests and inadequate and inappropriate handling methods as displayed by Dan. The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 has strong penalties for those who are cruel to animals. It is intended to be proactive and focus on improved welfare for animals: protect animals from cruelty and safeguard the welfare of animals used for scientific purposes among others. The DPI, RSPCA and Police can enforce the ACT. Codes of Practice are national welfare standards and outline minimum acceptable animal welfare standards. It is an offence not to comply with the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes. ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT 2001 - SECT 3333 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. ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT 2001 - SECT 1212 Meaning of a "person in charge" of an animal (1) A person is a "person in charge" of an animal if the person-- (a) owns or has a lease, license or other proprietary interest in the animal; or (b) has the custody of the animal; or (c) is employing or has engaged someone else who has the custody of the animal and the custody is within the scope of the employment or engagement. (2) Despite subsection (1)(a), a person who holds a mortgage or other security interest in an animal only becomes a person in charge of the animal if the person takes a step to enforce the mortgage or other security. On 8th February 2005 AAQ was informed that UQ Animal House had stopped volunteer dog walking following the recorded interview that took place with Libby Jolly in August 2004, (informing her that AAQ was aware of the continuous breaches of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and RSPCA’s Five Freedoms). If accurate, the response from this group whose aim is to train professionals to effectively treat animals and inform the public about appropriate care would seem ludicrous. The informer stated that only vet staff and students were now allowed to walk the dogs. The investigation by AAQ showed that even with volunteer dog walkers the animals did not get enough exercise to meet basic standards. A volunteer walker stated in June 2004 that she got the impression from vet students that they did not like to walk the dogs as they became attached and it was too painful when they were killed. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
||||
 |
|||||
|
|