Souff

That is what it might say but in reality that is not how it is. I have it on good authority that they can only enter a residence without a warrant in the 2 circumstances that I previously outlined and even then they prefer to have the warrant first to save the paperwork drama later - this was confirmed to me after POCTA was last amended. Souff

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8185516/u...dden-in-storage A US animal welfare group has rescued 250 cats that were being hidden in a storage unit by a 62-year-old woman. Tanya Regan kept the cats in crates stacked on top of each other and fenced off areas in a 180sqm private storage unit on North Altadena Drive, Pasadena, ABC News reports. Neighbours said they saw Regan visiting the private storage facility after midnight each night to feed the animals. Authorities also discovered 36 dead cats stored in a freezer. "They were found in crates, they were found in containers, there were cats found in a chain-linked area and there were free-roaming cats as well," said Ricky Whitman, from the Pasadena Humane Society. "They were absolutely everywhere ... I really have no idea she got all these cats." Police also seized nine cats and two dogs from Regan's home. Authorities said they were tipped off about the cat stash by people who knew Regan. They said it was one of the worst cases of animal hoarding in Southland history. "The cats had clearly been fed and watered very recently but their litter boxes had not been changed in a very, very long time, and it was a very dangerous situation health-wise," said Ms Whitman. More than 20 Humane Society workers donned masks to rescue the cats on Thursday, which smelt so bad a neighbour built a wall to try and block out the stench. "It was terrible" Rafael Martinez said. "Sometimes I wanted to vomit." But a neighbor who lived next to Regan said they never saw a cat while she lived there. "When she moved here she told us she had only 10 cats, but she came late at night so no one would know," said Wilfred Duran. Authorities have released Regan but Ms Whitman said the welfare organization planned to pursue her for animal cruelty and neglect. The Humane Society is caring for the animals. "This is the most cats we've ever impounded — I've been here 13 years and never seen anything like this" said Human Society CEO Steve McNall. ____________________________________________

Ah yes, I see your problem now. Well, to explain a little further, a police officer in NSW cannot enter your dwelling in NSW unless he/she has a warrant to do so, except in the circumstances where your dwelling is known to them to be premises involved in major drug activity (not just smoking some weed) or if there is activity that falls under the anti-terrorism laws I understand. COnversely an RSPCA inspector has the power to enter a dwelling if believes on reasonable grounds that: (a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and (b) it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment. Now, I have no problem if there is a bushfire roaring up the hill and there are animals in a dwelling which is likely to be in the path of the fire, and there is a team of gallant RSPCA officers on the scene to rescue the doomed animals ..... and they use their powers of entry without a warrant. However, I do have a problem if they are investigating a complaint from someone who has ALLEGED that an activity might be taking place where they feel animals might be going to suffer some physical injury (from a practice that well educated people in the dog world might in fact consider necessary for the long term welfare of an animal) at residential premises and that the powers of entry without warrant are used to enter said premises. It is all a matter of balance, commonsense and rational thinking, as to whether or not the powers of entry without warrant to residential premises would in fact be used. But what I am saying is that an RSPCA officer has these powers, and yet the average police officer cannot do the same thing. And as both Steve has pointed out there is no INDEPENDENT complaints process or ombudsman to which the public can go if they have a complaint about the activity of an RSPCA inspector or officer. If they want to be like a policeman, then they must be subject to the same complaints processes as police officers are subject to and we must have an Ombudsman. btw that is an awful lot of meals for wildlife. A lot of minced meat and fresh worms for injured kookaburras, a lot of gum leaves for injured koalas, etc. Native wildlife should only be with the RSPCA if they are injured I understand. Are you not getting this mixed up with WIRES ? Souff

Because printed magazines are prepared and printed many weeks before you receive them. A magazine that you received in November was probably prepared in late September, proofed and printed and mailed in October so that you receive it by November. "Clever" politicians and bureaucrats know this, and they also know that you will be totally preoccupied with Christmas and January holidays and that is why they deliberately choose this time of year to call for comment on proposed legislation. It is sneaky and grubby and all of those things, but they know that they CAN do it and this is how they CHOOSE to do it. This is not just something that happened by accident, the timing of this was by design. It is not a coincidence. Remember the sneaky green politicians next time you go to the polling booth and dont vote for them and then later tell them why you didn't vote for them. Don't tell them before you vote, that just gives them a heads up and the opportunity to let people down again. Denying their party a vote on election day is far more productive than attacking canine organisations who are caught in the middle of this like you and me. The ACT Canine Association are on to it, Christmas or no, so that is a good thing. And breeders are making use of the internet, so keep spreading the word. Souff

Well, welcome to DOL I've never used an ignore or block function .... just tend to skip over the boring bits really. I am not sure but there could be something in the site rules that prohibits the asking of age .... some people are very sensitive. Souff

Well yes, we just about were, and then Aiden2 tiptoed back in ... ;) Green? Nice touch. Good luck with your battle. Green is Souff's favourite colour , it is very calming they say.

I'm not sure why you think I'm worried about the politicians? That's not even close! There are a large number of people using these forums, and each will have their own unique perspective. Writing deliberately inflammatory, misleading, and needlessly political views based on a gross distortion of the truth is offensive to anyone who has a different view (or anyone who values integrity). How do you think Greens supporters, or vegetarians feel when they see this? Or Labour party supporters? Should this be a Country Alliance or Liberal only forum? The last time I checked it was a forum for purebred dog owners. If a political party proposes a bill that affects purebred dog owners, let's discuss it - sensibly. Let's not use the opportunity to bash or belittle others with nonsensical, paranoid rubbish. If you think the Greens have put forward a bill that stinks, of course that's fine to say. That's not "needless politicising" nor is it inflammatory, misleading or a gross distortion. Shortstep has a valid point, you just have to look very hard to find it. Aidan2, :p you will upset somebody!

Well yes, we just about were, and then Aiden2 tiptoed back in ... ;)

Aidan2 :p you are almost doing Souff's head in .... I thought I was on a doggy forum, not on the Hush!-how-not-to-talk-about-political-parties forum. They are all big people in those political parties Aidan and they are used to being roughed up verbally, Lord knows they GIVE as good as they GET, and they can certainly dish out far worse than Shortstep's new signature. One day I might tell you a few stories of what some of them get up to and how they talk about the poor suckers who voted for them. Souff

Gold!

Very good advice. ACT residents need to make the comparisons between the existing legislation and the proposed bill. The cost of making new legislation is huge, and ACT voters should be asking the question "Why are you spending our resources on writing more new legislation - what is wrong with the current legislation?" If the money that was being spent on this proposed Bill was applied to a better bus service from Canberra Airport then I would say it was money well spent. Souff

And for all you know, I could live there too. I am not against the ACT's residents. But I am dead against the trickery of political processes in this country. We have seen it before and we will see it again. If you have a beef about the legislation, then lodge a protest to the ACT politicians. If you don't understand what this is really all about, or if you are not bothered by it, then have a lovely ACT Christmas. Souff

double post, now removed

I really don't give a rats what people EAT or how they vote. But I do care what politicians do with laws in relation to our dogs ..... AND HOW THEY DO IT. What I see here is a classic piece of political slickness, timed to get the least possible response from the public. Here we are at Christmastime ..... ho ho ho and all that. Politicians and their tacticians KNOW that this is a brilliant time of the year to call for discussion on a proposed bill because they dont really want to read too many replies and golly me, would you believe it, most of the politicians that you dog owners might want to talk to in their offices will probably be away on their January holiday! Goodness gracious me, who ever would have thought of that? That will mean a lesser number of submissions to read through. Who ever would have thought of that? Bureaucrats and politicians, that is who. So when you go off for your Xmas - Jan holiday to the coast, and you get back the grass has grown long again and there is all that back to school shopping to do, and then there is all the fun of the Australia Day weekend ....... oh, were you going to write a submission ? Oh never mind, you will do it later...... but then organising the kids into their new school year, not to mention settling yourself back in at the office routine ...... OMG will you look at the date? Oh dear, no time left to do that submission now, and anywho, everyone else would have done theirs ...... wouldnt they? This is exactly what the Australian political machines rely on, the "busyness" and apathy of those who vote for them. If you have got a bill that might create some disturbing waves, sneak it in at Christmas time. If you have got a concept that is also a bit radical in the animal breeding world and the farmers wont buy it, but you want to set a precedent in Australia, bring it in in the ACT where all the greens will vote for it because, if I am not mistaken, they have the majority. Voila! You have your precedent for other states then to follow. Which Parliament was the first in Australia to enact the tail docking legislation? Yep. you better believe it, that little ole ACT parliament. With a majority of Greens and Labor who usually vote as one. No, not the Federal Parliament on the hill that governs all of Australia's 21 million people - a much smaller parliament down the road that governs the Territory ..... that governs a staggering population of 300,000 people. A "you beaut" place to set a precedent .... easy as!!! Here are those who govern the Australian Capital Territory's population of 300,000 - the politicians who will again be setting a precedent for all of Australia if they get this Bill through unamended: Barr, Mr Andrew Molonglo Australian Labor Party (02) 6205 0011 Fax: (02) 6205 0157 Bresnan, Ms Amanda Brindabella The ACT Greens (02) 6205 0130 Fax: (02) 6205 0777 Burch, Ms Joy Brindabella Australian Labor Party (02) 6205 0020 Fax: (02) 6205 3165 Coe, Mr Alistair Ginninderra Canberra Liberals (02) 6205 0101 Fax: (02) 6205 3002 Corbell, Mr Simon Molonglo Australian Labor Party (02) 6205 0000 Fax: (02) 6205 0535 Doszpot, Mr Steve Brindabella Canberra Liberals (02) 6205 0131 Fax: (02) 6205 0412 Dunne, Mrs Vicki Ginninderra Canberra Liberals (02) 6205 0283 Fax: (02) 6205 3106 Gallagher, Ms Katy Molonglo Australian Labor Party (02) 6205 0840 Fax: (02) 6205 3030 Hanson, Mr Jeremy Molonglo Canberra Liberals (02) 6205 0133 Fax: (02) 6205 3017 Hargreaves, Mr John Brindabella Australian Labor Party (02) 6205 0111 Fax: 02 6205 0427 Hunter, Ms Meredith Ginninderra The ACT Greens (02) 6205 0106 Fax: (02) 6205 0418 Le Couteur, Ms Caroline Molonglo The ACT Greens (02) 6205 0051 Fax: (02) 6205 3000 Porter AM, Ms Mary Ginninderra Australian Labor Party (02) 6205 0100 Fax: (02) 6205 0040 Rattenbury, Mr Shane Molonglo The ACT Greens (02) 6205 0005 Fax: (02) 6205 0007 Seselja, Mr Zed Molonglo Canberra Liberals (02) 6205 0323 Fax: (02) 6205 3001 Smyth, Mr Brendan Brindabella Canberra Liberals (02) 6205 0099 Fax: (02) 6205 0859 Stanhope, Mr Jon Ginninderra Australian Labor Party (02) 6205 0104 Fax: (02) 6205 0433 Good luck Canberrans. Australia will be watching to see if this next precedent, which is in reality the next notch by PETA, is set by your very own ACT Government. Souff

No-one has got a problem with shortstep making honest criticism, kept in perspective. The extra rubbish that has been added and the attack on Mita were out of line. Aidan, I asked what was wrong with giving the publicity ... I never suggested that Shortstep was making "honest criticism". This is a fairly robust forum and you know what they say about the heat in the kitchen ..... Good Golly, all of this fuzzy hypersensitivity in the air could make one suspect that there might be an election coming up soon!

Welcome home Sarbi!

Scoff sometimes I just feel like I am bashing my head agaist a bunch of watermelons, sort of like this http://www.maniacworld.com/Man-Smashes-40-...-with-Head.html Still red on the inside alright..... Souff

Next thing you know people will start to think they have the right to think .....

makes note to self ...... tell political parties to please keep dogs out of their posts ...... .................... and speak out against censorship of any kind Original post..... 'The draft bill was introduced to the Assembly yesterday by the Greens Get it, this is a Greens sponsored bill. Mabye the Greens should leave dogs out of politics if I am not allowed to comment on their bill. Make note to Aussienot...I will respond to post about this legilsation the Greens are introduceing. Unless you are trying to tell me I am not Green enough when it comes to supporting ending dog slavery and dog ownership. Be Green, Go Veg, Vote Green! End dog slavery in ACT today!! :D By jove Shortstep you are right! This bill WAS introduced by THE GREENS. http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/es/db_40...df/db_40363.pdf Animal Welfare Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Exposure Draft) Introduced by Caroline Le Couteur MLA, ACT Greens Consultation period: 8 December 2010 – 22 February EXPLANATORY STATEMENT Contents * So why has anyone got a problem with Shortstep giving THE GREENS all the publicity they deserve? Can't have THE GREENS hiding their light under a bushel now can we? This Bill is a GREENS bill ..... brought to you from THE GREENS ...... fact. Souff

Cant help but wonder what those dog owners and exhibitors would make of today's interference by governments in their hobby. I imagine a few choice phrases just might have been used in the chambers in Elizabeth Street should ever such a notion have been raised. Souff

makes note to self ...... tell political parties to please keep dogs out of their posts ...... .................... and speak out against censorship of any kind

In at least 1 state of Australia the RSPCA can enter premises without a warrant. The police in that same state must get a warrant before they can enter the same premises. Yet, unlike the police, there is no Ombudsman or Tribunal to whom the public can go to about RSPCA matters, and no ICAC for the RSPCA to answer to. Souff To better explain some of the subleties of the law in NSW here is the relevent part of the POCTA Act. Note that a warrant is required to enter "a dwelling". * A warrant is not required for your kennels, your garage, your sheds, your car, your caravan, your boat, your shop, your office etc. They are all part of "land" apparently. However if the inspector believes that an animal might be in imminent danger he/she can enter a dwelling without a warrant anyway! *So much for having to get a warrant for a dwelling. Just when you were feeling all safe and cosy about your dwelling .... sorry about that. As always, the devil is in the detail. Never skim over anything a politician has approved - particularly when it concerns the health of your animals or your rights as a citizen. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 No 200 Current version for 9 July 2010 to date (accessed 15 December 2010 at 18:09) Part 2ADivision 2 << page >> Division 2 Powers of inspectors 24D Interpretation and application of Division (1) In this Division: inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer. land includes premises or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft. (2) The Minister, or the Director-General or a Deputy Director-General of the Department, may issue an officer with an authority for the purposes of this Division and may revoke any such authority. (3) An inspector may not exercise powers under this Division in relation to animal research carried out in accordance with the Animal Research Act 1985 on designated land within the meaning of that Act unless the inspector is also an inspector within the meaning of that Act. 24E Power to enter land (1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any function under this Division. (2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may exercise a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that: (a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and (b) it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment. 24F Search warrant (1) In this section: authorised officer has the same meaning as it has in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. (2) An inspector may apply to an authorised officer for a search warrant if the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that there is, in or on any land: (a) an animal in respect of which an offence against this Act or the regulations is being or has been committed or is about to be committed, or (b) evidence of an offence against this Act or the regulations that has been committed. (3) An authorised officer to whom an application is made under subsection (2) may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, issue a search warrant authorising an inspector named in the warrant, together with any person so named: (a) to enter and search the land, and (b) to exercise any functions of an inspector under this Division in or on the land. (4) Division 4 of Part 5 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 applies to a search warrant issued under this section. 24G Powers of inspectors in relation to land used for certain commercial purposes (1) This section applies to the following land: (a) land used for the purpose of a sale-yard or an animal trade, (b) land in or on which an animal is being used, or kept for use, in connection with any other trade, or any business or profession (including a place used by a veterinary practitioner for the purpose of carrying on his or her profession). (2) For the purposes of ensuring that the provisions of this Act or the regulations are not being contravened, an inspector may, in relation to land to which this section applies, do any or all of the following: (a) inspect and examine the land, any animal that is in or on the land and any accommodation or shelter that is provided in or on the land for any animal, (b) inspect and examine any register that is kept under this Act or the regulations and that is in or on the land, © require any person found in or on the land to produce any such register, (d) take copies of, or extracts or notes from, any such register. (3) A person must not fail to comply with a requirement made by an inspector under subsection (2) ©. Maximum penalty (subsection (3)): 25 penalty units. 24H Powers of police officers to detain vehicle or vessel (1) If a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a vehicle or vessel contains an animal in respect of which an offence against section 5, 6, 7 or 8 has been or is being committed and that the animal is in distress the police officer may: (a) stop the vehicle or vessel, and (b) enter the vehicle or vessel, and © enter any land for the purpose of entering the vehicle or vessel, and (d) examine the animal. (2) For the purpose of entering the vehicle or vessel or examining the animal concerned, the police officer may direct the person operating the vehicle or vessel to do any or all of the following: (a) to manoeuvre the vehicle or vessel in a specified manner or to a specified place (including a place that is appropriate for examining the animal concerned), (b) to park or secure the vehicle or vessel in a specified manner, © to remain in control of the vehicle or vessel while the police officer is exercising his or her functions. (3) A person must not fail to comply with a direction given to the person under this section. Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units. (4) A direction under this section to stop a vehicle or vessel must be made in a manner prescribed by the regulations by a police officer who is identified in a manner so prescribed. (5) For the purposes of subsection (1), an animal is in distress if it is suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. 24I Powers of inspectors generally to examine animals An inspector may examine an animal if the inspector suspects, on reasonable grounds, that: (a) an offence against this Act or the regulations is being, has been or is about to be committed in respect of the animal, or (b) the animal has not been provided with proper and sufficient food or drink during the previous 24 hours (or, in the case of the provision of food to an animal of a class prescribed by the regulations, during the period prescribed for that class of animal) and is still not being provided with that food or drink, or © the animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is necessary that the animal be provided with veterinary treatment and the animal is not being provided with that treatment, or (d) the animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is cruel to keep it alive, and the animal is not about to be destroyed, or is about to be destroyed in a manner that will inflict unnecessary pain on the animal. 24J Powers of inspectors in relation to care of animals (1) If, after examining an animal in accordance with this Division, an inspector suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the animal is in distress (as referred to in section 24H (5)) or any of the circumstances referred to in section 24I exist in relation to the animal, the inspector may do any or all of the following: (a) take possession of the animal (or, if the animal is dead, the animal’s carcass), (b) if appropriate, remove the animal (or carcass) to such place as the inspector thinks fit, © retain possession of the animal (or carcass), (d) provide the animal with necessary food, drink or veterinary treatment, (e) destroy the animal in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain. (2) An animal (or carcass) to which section 24I (a) applies may be retained by an inspector for a period not exceeding 60 days or where, within that 60-day period proceedings are commenced in respect of the offence concerned, until the proceedings are finally determined (unless the court otherwise directs). (3) Despite subsection (2), an animal retained under this section that is in distress or to which section 24I (b), © or (d) applies may be retained for such period of time as is sufficient for the animal to be provided with necessary food, drink or veterinary treatment, or to be destroyed in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain, as the case requires. (4) The reasonable expenses incurred by: (a) an inspector who is a police officer or another person on behalf of the NSW Police Force, or (b) an inspector who is an officer of a charitable organisation or another person on behalf of the organisation, or © an inspector who is a member of staff of a Department (within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002) or another person on behalf of the Crown, in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section in respect of an animal, or in complying with the related duties imposed by this Act or the regulations, may be recovered from the owner of the animal as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction by the inspector or any other person acting on behalf of the NSW Police Force, a charitable organisation or the Crown. 24K Power of seizure of evidence of offences (1) An inspector who is lawfully on any land investigating a suspected commission of an offence against this Act or the regulations may seize any thing that will afford evidence of the commission of the offence. (2) An inspector who seizes a thing under this section must provide the occupier of the land with a receipt acknowledging the seizure of the thing if the occupier is present and it is reasonably practical to do so. (3) If an inspector seizes a thing under this section, it may be retained by the inspector until the completion of any proceedings (including proceedings on appeal) in which it may be tendered in evidence. (4) However, an inspector may retain seized documents under subsection (3) only if the person from whom the documents were seized is provided, within a reasonable time after the seizure, with a copy of the documents certified by an inspector to be a true copy. (5) Subsection (3) ceases to have effect in relation to any thing seized if, on the application of the person aggrieved by the seizure, the court in which the proceedings referred to in that subsection are instituted orders the inspector to return the thing seized.

In at least 1 state of Australia the RSPCA can enter premises without a warrant. The police in that same state must get a warrant before they can enter the same premises. Yet, unlike the police, there is no Ombudsman or Tribunal to whom the public can go to about RSPCA matters, and no ICAC for the RSPCA to answer to. Souff

I'm with you on this one. Desexing is the only way to stop the unwanted supply of dogs and cats out there. I have no problems with any of the laws wanting to be introduced. Registered breeders should be the only ones allowed to have undesexed dogs. Pounds, rescues, shelters, pet shops (which I wish they could ban from selling puppies and kittens), all should be desexed before going to their new homes. Wait until March-April 2011, when all the Christmas puppies and kittens hit the rescue pages or pounds etc. So very sad. You see to have forgotten another important part of the remedy. Education. Teaching responsibiity to owners, like - "if you OWN AN ANIMAL then you are RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LIFE OF THAT ANIMAL and NO, YOU CANNOT PALM OFF YOUR RESPONSIBILITY OF ANIMAL OWNERSHIP ON TO A RESCUE ORGANISATION OR A POUND. IF YOU own the animal, then YOU TAKE CARE OF IT .... til death do us part". Don't want the dog any more, for whatever reason? Then you be the one to hold the dog in your arms while the vet gives it the final needle. Not an easy task. If pet owners had to ask themselves "Can I do that?" BEFORE they committed to animal ownership there would be very few dogs and cats on death row. Most animals are on death row because they were with the wrong owners. Souff

Dog and cat food... yep. But there are a whole world of animals in their care that don't eat dog and cat food. Thousands of them. All creatures remember?? Now come on Aloysha, you know very well that the greater MAJORITY of the animals in care are dogs and cats. It is written up in the reports for all to see, so don't stretch this debate beyond the bounds of credibility. If staff were going cap in hand to suppliers of rabbit food or for hay/oats for the horses and the goats, then I suggest to you that this happened because of POOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, not lack of funds in the first instance. The good people who innocently donated their hard earned dollars (and their houses when they die) to feed the homeless bunnies and the nags and the goats etc would be shocked if they knew that their money was not being used as it was intended. Blind Freddy can see that the income is more than generous, and is always is well up there in the annual reports. The dollar value of the donated HSD for the cats and dogs is HUGE so this equates to an enormous saving in expenditure. Cats and dogs are their core business. If the RSPCA had to pay for their food then you might have a case for crying poor, but that is not the case at all. Souff