Jaxx'sBuddy

they are but there is the same issues in the usa as there is here over blue staffordshire terriers i have long discussions with red boston breeders but they still don't want to understand that breeding for a colour (that is a disqualifying colour) only is not in the breeds best interests. there is only one red boston that i have seen (pics only) that i would say was even close to the standard.

good post steve. where does it stop if we allow the rspca to investigate anyone for any reason especially if the people being investigated have no way to appeal the process....very scary indeed.

yes i am starting to understand this ellz. the bolded bit above is the most serious aspect.

long haired rottweiler

red boston terrier. the only colours are black, brindle or seal

yes this was my initial issue, if there is no evidence of abuse then how can they investigate but then i got thinking...what if joe blogs doesnt know what he is looking at? and who should be gathering information? if it was a child abuse situation (i am talking about years ago when i worked in that field) a notification is received, the notification is assessed and if the notification information falls within the guidelines an investigation is started. this got me thinking what is the rspca process? i know they investigate animal abuse and neglect but what guidelines/criteria do they follow? This is from their site; The RSPCA is opposed to puppy factories and outraged that this intensive farming of companion animals continues. It is unfortunate that our Inspectors have no power to stop them operating. However, there are legal requirements as to how these puppy factories should operate. Council officers are the legal authority responsible for inspecting these operations to ensure compliance with the code of practice for breeding establishments. RSPCA Inspectors also conduct inspections when cruelty complaints are received. Although this is obviously not an official 'policy or guideline' document, it would seem that there needs to be a complaint made about cruelty. I would assume that you would have to have witnessed this cruelty or that the indications of cruelty (like crying or whimpering dogs, bodies etc or whatever) are evident. In the OPs case, it doesn't appear there was any evidence at all. ty anne. that is good info. so for the rspca to investigate there must be evidence of animal cruelty. given that the OP saw no sighting of animal cruelty the rspca is unable to investigate. that does make sense otherwise they are acting outside their brief which would not be right and quite dangerous. i am happy with that as i wouldnt want the rspca coming to investigate me because i had long grass in my yard and i own a brachy breed (a breed that is targeted by animal right activists)

yes this was my initial issue, if there is no evidence of abuse then how can they investigate but then i got thinking...what if joe blogs doesnt know what he is looking at? and who should be gathering information? if it was a child abuse situation (i am talking about years ago when i worked in that field) a notification is received, the notification is assessed and if the notification information falls within the guidelines an investigation is started. this got me thinking what is the rspca process? i know they investigate animal abuse and neglect but what guidelines/criteria do they follow?

i am now interested in how the rspca makes the call on what to investigate and what to leave because this seems to be at the crux of this issue.

Maybe, maybe not. I will never knock anyone who is concerned over animal welfare though. We need everyone to be concerned. In a perfect world people would care enough about animals to ensure that there would be no animal abuse, no animals living in squalor or starving. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world and these things happen, far too often, it is reported on the news far too often. The OP cared enough to want to know that the animals on these premises are OK. I don't think they should be 'drawn and quartered' for caring. I think the main problem is that the RSPCA are accountable to no-one and have lost their way...lost the direction that they started with. yes i agree and you are right. i have just realised i am thinking this way because i know the rspca doesnt investigate a lot of complaints. if i leave this way of thinking out of the equation then yes the rspca should be investigating all complaints to determine whether there is a concern. my way of thinking meant the general public was doing their job. ty TM i appreciate your insight and i will be thinking about this differently from now on

TM i agree that the rspca should be contacting people who notify. i understand the logic re the long grass etc but the rspca must operate under legislation and maybe they cant investigate what was described in the OP :D i dont know enough about this. it is a really difficult situation because there also needs to be protection for people from vexatious complaints so i suppose the more concrete details that can be provided the more chance of investigation. maybe the OP could call the rspca and ask them whether this complaint falls under their jurisdiction/policies and if not what do they investigate? i just cant see there being enough evidence for an investigation...which doesnt mean nothing is happening just that there isnt enough cause to investigate. i want organisations that have such far reaching powers to be contained to operating within guidelines and legislation because if they don't then it is a slippery slope to personality based "justice" that is ripe for corruption. there are countries where this happens today.

TM i think thats the dilemma..what should be done...i think someone calling the rspca multiple times over a period isnt really going to work. the rspca have nothing to investogate, there are weeds in the garden, thats a council matter; there are cars on the lawn, its a council matter, etc. not once did the OP describe any act of animal cruelty or concern. so what could the rspca investigate...whats got me stumped is what could the rspca do with the info they were given..i suspect nothing

if the message isnt getting through it's time to try another tactic. sensationalism may be the answer or it may not. i have seen a lot of things changed with very little press coverage. depends on how things are managed and what the goals are asal, i have seen your tactic work well even with just 1 shareholder if all shareholder have a right to go the the AGM. i will try to remember the guy who does this.

a well measured effective campaign will have very little dirt

i think you might be onto something PF, i had the same thought

maybe he was just doing his job

Hmmm...they have a picture of him and he has a face I just want to "hug and kiss". oh yes they are stunners here is the dol page http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/commun...hepherd-dog.asp

they are a livestock guardian breed and there are a couple of people here who have them and there is a breeder here as well magnificent dogs

thats why i suggested lobbying (there are professional lobbyists) getting the point across to the right people (not necessarily the pollies but definitely their advisors/chief of staff's) looking at starting a campaign with electronic and print media....and getting those media contacts on side. almost everyone has a pet and they dont understand the issues...remember all the pollies, their families, the journo's potentially have pets...they need to understand what is in the wind...we need to get them engaged in this issue and start a public discussion

are people voted into the ankc? if they are maybe people should be asking tough questions before they vote for them

They don't want to believe it, let alone know about it. To do either would mean they'd have no plausible excuse to not involve themselves in one way or another on behalf of their constituent. I spoke to my local parliamentarian about this and as soon as I informed him what had happened his response was something along the lines of "oh, they must have found some reason for taking the dogs". The inference being that he didn't believe what I was saying; that there must be more to in than what I was saying. Bottom line was that he wasn't interested. that is why organisation and lobbying is vital. this has been done in much more difficult areas and changes have happened. its about starting and keeping moving and sending the same consistent message. we need to come up with the solutions because the pollies advisors have no idea.

exactly. steve it is very scary what os going on. is the mdba trying to influence the system?

yes this is exactly my point. i dont want to be forced to be a vegetarian because some group reckons it bad to breed animals for meat (or profit) people really need to think of the long term consequences of some of the arguments put forward on this forum.

gremlins

i think i have reasoned after reading lots of posts that the issue with rspca involvement is that they believe breeders/pet owners are guilty until proven innocent. the problem with this is it is very hard to prove you HAVE done something. being guilty until proven innocent flies in the face of how our legal system works so therefore it makes it harder to defend yourself against any allegations because the normal legal rules don't quite apply.

i think this is a strategic discussion which is getting drowned in personal experiences and views. this calls for strategic thinking, people must think of the whole not the bits. i want to be able to own dogs of my choice, pedigreed dogs where i can stack the odds in my favour that i will get the temperament and size that i require. i dread if the day comes when we cant have the breed of our choice and we are forced to have either no dog (PETA) or cross bred dogs (RSPCA). i mean really, if there are no entire dogs left where do people think the puppies will come from, the older dogs will dies off then what? if it is a bad as being portrayed then a strategy must be developed and carried out and education of breeders needs to occur. i think in times like this the MDBA will come into its own.