Alarge crowd gathered outside the Mount Gambier City Council chambers on Tuesday night to protest against the cessation of animal impound services at the South East Animal Welfare League.

The protest was organised by the Mount Gambier Residents and Ratepayers Association and around 40 people with 20 dogs gathered to show support for the long-running SEAWL, while expressing their disappointment at council’s decision.

The stalemate arose after SEAWL opted not to sign an extension of its tripartite agreement with Mount Gambier City and Grant District councils, prompting the service to cease on July 1.

This led to the councils seeking expressions of interest from alternate operators to provide pound and rehoming services.

Expressions of interest closed on July 13, with the councils to review the submissions in the coming weeks to determine the next steps.

A council spokesperson said until this process was complete, they were unable to disclose how many submissions were received.

Mount Gambier Residents and Ratepayers Association spokesperson Ian was amused with how council prepared for the protest.

“We got there and the council had hired security guards to barricade the front door,” he said.

“And they blocked off the side car park so councillors could sneak in through a back door.

“We were not there to cause trouble, we were just there to let them know that we were unhappy, but they seemed to, one could only say, ‘bunker down’ in preparation for confrontation. It was just absurd.”

Ian said going forward the association would be proposing what they consider to be a solution to the issue.

“We are proposing that in line with the council’s resolution of January, that SEAWL be given their 12-month contract,” he said.

“And in that 12 months that a community reference group, as the council did with Wulanda, can be established, which brings together people from council, from animal welfare groups, from veterinary professionals and the community, who look at the aspects of this and see how we go forward.

“This is really important because the Dog and Cat Management Act is about to be reviewed, so we are now looking at a situation where no-one knows what is going to happen and everybody suspects cats will be brought into the fold.

“That will change everything, absolutely everything. This knee-jerk reaction by council now is just going to have to be changed again.

“The other thing that is really important, we have received via a request from council, council actually gains – just from dogs – $181,000 a year in terms of registration fees.

“They spend $46,000 of that on SEAWL, where does the other money go?

“On top of that, if cats get brought into the fold and there is compulsory registration and things, there are far more cats in town than dogs.

“That amount the council can collect is going to at least double … yet there is no planning.

“We believe that both sides have to enter into discussions in good faith and the community actually needs to be involved so they can give the community’s expectations and demands on how their pets are treated.

“If necessary, we need to have an external moderator.

“That is going to require good faith on behalf of SEAWL, who are very, very hurt, good faith on the part of council who refuse to back down on any decision they make and concerned residents stepping up to sit there in the middle and say, ‘this is what we want’.

“Things always change, that is a fact of life, but we need time to sit down and work out how we are going to move forward, not knee-jerk reactions because the only things that suffer are the pets.”

Late last week council chief executive Sarah Philpott moved to allay any community concern regarding council’s new pound and re-homing procedures.

“The facility provides shelter and protection from the elements with a raised bed off the concrete floor as a requirement for hygiene and sanitising purposes and fresh air and ventilation from mesh that provides natural light,” Ms Philpott said.

The kennel facilities were approved by the Dog and Cat Management Board in accordance with the Dog and Cat Management Act to house up to four dogs at a time for the mandatory 72-hour period.

Ms Philpott said beyond 72 hours, council was exploring various options for re-homing including volunteer-run animal rescue organisations and other local councils with established re-homing programs.

“Our focus is on reuniting and re-homing – we are certainly not just going to euthanise dogs after 72 hours as has been suggested on social media,” she said.

Council is considering multiple agreements to address situations where these organisations reach full capacity and the possibility of re-homing some dogs internally within its own facilities.