Howl

Yes, that's the line I take in those situations then I ask to see a copy of the publication that may be referred to and unless they can justify the order with validity I ignor them. How arrogant. Do you take this line with the police too?

Not sure where in Townsville you were but the Strand is a dog prohibited area, and any area designated as a bathing reserve is a dog prohibited area - refer to Townsville City Council Subordinate Local Law 2.

Actually, if you watch the ad you will see that it is not a comparison with fishing. They are talking about fish that are skinned or gutted while they are still alive. BTW, I'm not a fan of PETA, but what is reported here and what their ad is actually about are two different things.

Steve, you miss the point that DEEDI is subject to the ombudsman. If someone is not happy with DEEDI's review of a situation they do have a further independant avenue of appeal. DEEDI can't sack the Inspector, but they can withdraw the Inspector's appointment so the can't perform that role anymore and RSPCA either has to find somewhere else in the organisation for them, or let them go. DEEDI can also request that the Insepctor be retrained or some other form of performance management. I know, its not the answer you want - but it is a whole lot better than what most people think.

Wrong. No police force anywhere is involved in formulating a law. That is the role of politicians. Politicians create, police enforce, courts prosecute. Its called seperation of powers. What you have here with the RSPCA is Conflict Of Interest. As for the inspectors quote An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds. And that means they can enter property and sieze animals on a suspicion without a warrant. Greater power than the police themselves. Further the RSPCA comes under the umbrella of the RSPCA of Australia. As such the queensland branch is the same as any other. As a charity non government organisation they have no ties to any government. As such a government body may take a complaint but cannot act on any member of the organisation if that person is acting under the powers of that organisation. Members of the RSPCA executive have even admitted there is no accountability to any body outside the RSPCA. And QLD would be no different. However as I have already said I don't live in Qld so this law won't affect me. We already have it in NSW and its caused alot of pain and achieved nothing. I'll just wait and read all the comments about it in time to come- when others realise the mistake these laws, as they stand, have made. I have already seen what can happen when this sort of thing occurs. As it has already happened in NSW. There have already been two large scale incidents that have resulted from this type of legislation. One a cattle farmer who ended up losing an entire herd (all perfectly healthy but never the less shot by the RSPCA inspector) as well as the farm itself, the other involving a wildlife park. And all because of the RSPCA and the abuse of power that these laws brought in. Further the information you claim to be incorrect is based on facts of incidents that have occured in other states by this organisation under similarly worded legislation. Learn from history. If you think the police have no input into developing the laws they enforce then you are kidding yourself. We have experts in policing, years of knowledge and experience - are you saying everyone just ignores what they have to say regarding what works, what doesn't and what is needed, and leaves it up to a politicians who has no idea on the subject, to formulate law? Of course not! Public servants are there to provide "frank and fearless advice" to their elected members, and the police are no different in that respect. RSPCA Qld Inspectors do not have greater powers than the Qld police. In fact, Qld police under the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act have the SAME powers as an Inspector to enter a property without a warrant to take action in specific circumstances. I would familiarise yourself with the whole Police Powers and Responsibilities Act before you make such a ridiculous statement again - you will find Qld police have more powers than you think. Yes RSPCA Qld does come under the umbrella of RSPCA Australia, but it is still a separate organisation AND the law its Inspectorate enforces is different to all the other states. Just because they are part of the RSPCA does not override the fact that the Qld Inspectors appointment comes from the state government and they must abide by the provisions of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and DEEDI guidelines in the course of their duties. If they did not they would be acting outside of the law and there would be no authority to support their actions. I understand there have been problems in NSW but I have tried to make it quite clear that I have been talking about the situation in Qld. Because at the end of the day, this is the state where the proposed legislation is being considered. Not NSW, not Vic. They have different Acts and different lines of reporting. Are you also aware that the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 is not a new situation - it has been enforced by RSPCA Qld Inspectors since its introduction over 10 years ago. So in those 10 years, they have run around unfettered with this great power and the ability to abuse it - and you can only bring up a case in NSW (with different legislation) and a case in Victoria (with different legislation) to say it clearly doesn't work?

I don't think the problem you had was putting in the complaint - sounds like having the complaint taken seriously? And that's something that needs to be addressed with those reviewing it. The point is, everyone's harping on that there is no outside accountability or channels to appeal. Simple fact is - and again I will stress I am talking about Queensland - there is review and accountability. And dare I say it, some people just don't like to hear the answers. As for not being responsible for enforcing a law that they had a role in formulating - gee I would say the police have a strong role in formulating the law they enforce, DERM has a strong role in formulating environmental protection law, etc, etc. Unless you are trying to say that RSPCA Qld will benefit financially from enforcing the law??? Considering the money they have to put in to having even one Inspector in place, with all costs of office, vehicle and fuel, computer, shelter requirements for animals, etc I really don't think so. If people feel that precious about it maybe they could suggest that the DEEDI Inspectors take on the role of enforcing puppy farm legislation, just as they cover the commercial ventures and animals kept for scientific purposes. As for why DPI (DEEDI) can't take on the entire role - why indeed?. Maybe you should ask them. I would think that the RSPCA would be quite happy to withdraw if DEEDI would put enough officers on to cover the state.

THIS!! I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this. Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders. Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ???? The problem I have and which I was trying to illustrate is that a non government organisation has the power to be involved in creating a law, enforcing the law, and prosecuting the law. An organisation that can allocate power that exceeds that of law enforcement officers. However it gives this extreme power to itself. The same organisation that can set its own costs to be claimed via court and does not have any external body to be accountable to. How much stronger definition of "Conflict Of Interest" do you need? If a member of the police force exceeds their authority there is an ombudsman that is supposed to act as an independant umpire. There are also procedures in place to allow you to appeal their actions. If a solicitor acts wrongly there is an ombudsman that acts as an independant umpire as well as consquences for inappropriate actions. Who does the RSPCA have to answer to? No-one. Thats the problem. They can do what they like and do not have to justify it. Who sets the amounts that the RSPCA can claim in court for costs? The RSPCA. Do you really believe that it costs $85.00 per dog per day to feed a small dog. Of course it doesn't but thats what they have been known to claim. What can you do if you do not agree with an inspectors decision? Appeal to the RSPCA. Thats it. There is no independant body that you can go to. Are there any protocols for dealing with a power hungry inspector. None seen so far. Who deems the RSPCA inspector fit to act in the role? The RSPCA. Reality is any one connected with the RSPCA could be an inspector. Take for example a small branch of the RSPCA in a small country town. Lets say there is a vet and a secretary at this branch. The Secretary could be given the role of an inspector. They do not have to have any specific qualifications. They simply need to be appointed by the RSPCA. They may not even know much about animal welfare. They don't need to. They are now an inspector that has more power than a police officer and with none of the complications of due process and accountablility If you care to do a google search on Ruth Downey and look what the RSPCA did to her on the grounds of what an RSPCA Inspector said. Indeed one of those RSPCA inspectors involved with Ruth Downey was a former police inspector with very little knowledge of animal welfare generally. The RSPCA was not intended to be a law enforcement body. That is the issue I have. Its not specifically the RSPCA its the entire process of a non government charity that was never intended to be a law enforcement now making itself into one. Its not just being given power, it is also creating the power and then giving it to itself and in so doing does not have to justify its actions to anyone. There are several errors in your information. For the sake of clarity please note that I am referring to RSPCA Qld only in my response. Despite what people continually want to sprout on this forum, RSPCA Qld - in terms of its Inspectorate functions - is accountable. It is accountable to the State government department that is responsible for administering the Animal Care and Proection Act 2001 - the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Any complaints made about Inspectors must be reported by the RSPCA to DEEDI, and DEEDI can conduct their own investigation if they deem fit. This is just one of the many reporting arragements that are in place in order for RSPCA Qld to act as an agent for DEEDI in enforcing the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. Inspectors are not appointed by RSPCA Qld. Inspectors are appointed by the chief executive of DEEDI, and only when the chief executive is satisfied that the person has satisfactorily finished training approved by the department. They are required to undergo several modules of study - in law, investigations, and animal welfare - then pass an exam, before they can be appointed as Inspectors. So no, it is not a situation of the local vet making their secretary an Inspector. Decisons made by Inspectors such as to enter a property and seize an animal or issue an Animal Welfare Direction ARE reviewable. The decisions are reviewed by an external authority - DEEDI. Persons subject to such a decison are informed of their right to appeal, as the information is supplied in an information notice given to them by the Inspector at the time. The Inspector MUST show DEEDI the reasoning for the decision, they must demonstrate that it was supported by the law and the DEEDI procedural guidelines for that decision to be upheld. That's right, the procedural guidelines are set by DEEDI - not RSPCA Qld. If the person subject to the decision is not happy with DEEDI's response, then as it is a state government department, they can go to the Ombudsman. If there is any doubt regarding the accuracy of this information then please feel free to do your own research of the Act itself; s114 Appointment of Inspectors, s150, s155, s160 - requirements for information notices about decisions (an information notice means the decision is reviewable). Also the Biosecurity Qld website gives information on how investigations under the Act are conducted.

http://www.dailymercury.com.au/story/2010/...en-puppys-eyes/ ANY animal cruelty case makes vet Holly Goldring shudder but when this King Charles cocker spaniel-cross laid on her operating table it took her breath away. Unbelievably the four-month-old had his eyes glued shut. It took Dr Goldring 45 minutes to cut through the glue to get the dog’s eyes open again. “It’s heartbreaking when I have to deal with these sort of incidents – it’s concerning that there are people out there that think they can abuse animals like this,” Dr Goldring said. “Yes, as a vet it is my job to help animals, but it is very hard when animals like this puppy come to you in the state they are in. “It took me 45 minutes to get his eyes open. I then found a haemorrhage on the eyeball, which would have been caused by trauma – he is lucky to be alive. “However, the good thing is we have been able help him out (the cocker spaniel) and he has come around and is healing quiet nicely. “Considering what has happened to this little fellow he is very trusting.” Dr Goldring said the dog had also suffered what appeared to be chemical-like burns. The dog was taken to the vet after two people called police to say they had seen a man abusing it near a walking track on Binnington Esplanade late Monday afternoon. They allege they saw the dog being thrown, kicked and dragged along the path and punched repeatedly. Mackay police acting Inspector Simon Palmer said about 4.30pm on Monday two people observed a man allegedly striking what appeared to be a small dog. “The dog was in distress because of it,” Acting Inspector Palmer said. “Police were called and conducted an investigation with the RSPCA. As a result, yesterday (Tuesday) a 26-year-old man was arrested and charged with two offences – unlawful wounding of an animal and failing to provide suitable care for an animal.” Acting Inspector Palmer thanked the members of the public who informed police and praised the work of police, the RSPCA and Better Vets at Andergrove for their help and time to keep the dog alive. Yesterday, two other people were also charged in relation to the alleged cruelty to the dog.

No, a council trying to foster a harmonious community. Obviously they need some feedback to let them know that not all large bird species are noisy which is why they ask for public comment. Yes, you feel fine in your situation. But you need to consider that they are looking at all types of situations - not just the great owners that are responsible and do nothing wrong.

Rubbish. Local and state government enforce regulations that they themselves create. Local governments lobby state governments for changes in legislation that they enforce. The police lobby for changes to the criminal code. I would hardly place RSPCA, a private organisation, in the same category as elected governments and sworn police officers!!! The statement was that the RSPCA is the ony body that puts forward what rules it would like as legislation so it can then go out and enforce them. It's twaddle, because plainly other bodies do too. I noticed that you stated 'elected' governments - like that makes a huge difference. I mean, who exactly were these governments representing when they brought in legislation such as BSL? Yes, the RSPCA is a private organisation as opposed to the government, but in enforcing legislation they are agents of the government. And what is the problem with a welfare organisation wanting to lobby for legislative change in animal welfare? Would you also not think that the very people who try to enforce animal welfare law and bring positive results for animals would have some idea of what works and what needs changing? Clearly there are problems with what the RSPCA is proposing. Why not then engage with them, put forward other views and suggest alternatives in a positive, collaborative manner? After all it is a proposal - a plan that they are seeking feedback on.

Rubbish. Local and state government enforce regulations that they themselves create. Local governments lobby state governments for changes in legislation that they enforce. The police lobby for changes to the criminal code.

I don't think we'll get a better definition than that! Excellent and succinct. But who decides what a dog's needs are to ensure physical and mental well being? It's all very subjective really.

Umm...Clifford was a Pitbull or Pitbull X was he not? He was certainly not an SBT. I think we all know what happens with Pitbulls at the RSPCA. 'Weak nerves'.....is that a medical condition. I am assuming you mean timid ? Should we PTS every dog that is timid? Thanks for the explanation Iffykharma. Yes we do, although It was very clever of that particular RSPCA to make money off him first before they did the deed, they can also say whatever they want In regards to a dog NOT being suitable to re home as there will always be the gullible who believe them One incident Is one too many, so yes that would be all It takes from me Plenty of other deserving rescues to donate to... different strokes for different folks Fair enough. I guess if you have that view you can't really argue with those who had a bad incident with a pit bull and so now thinks the whole breed should go... I had a bad experience with the checkout operator at Coles once, but I still like to shop there.

Mmmm, so you base your opinion on them on one incident?

Reminds me of a child with her hands over her head saying "I'm not listening, I'm not listening".

Yep thats it, Sheer Malice!! tybrax Oh FFS! It was a Supreme Court case with huge ramifications which ever way it went and most likely tens of thousands of dollars in cost. I don't think malice has anything to do with it. The council even offered the owners to return Tango to his home on the Gold Coast years ago as a restricted dog but the owners cut their noses off to spite their faces and refused. OFF'S ,The council stated if they could prove tango was and amstafff then he could be returned to the Gold Coast, they proved it years ago, council ignored it. So your facts are wrong!! Nose out of joint what a load of rubbish!! You sound like ACO J.T. The costs are huge and the council have to wear the bill, or should i say the poor tax payer. "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." --George Orwell. What facts are wrong? That GCCC didn't offer them to return the dog to the Gold Coast as a restricted dog? In the owners opinion they thought they had proved Tango was an AST. But council wasn't satisfied with the evidence. And that was part of the deal - that the owners provide evidence to the council's satisfaction. Yes, the council/ratepayers have to wear the bill - but remember, it was the owner's that took council to court, not the other way around.

Yep thats it, ;) Sheer Malice!! tybrax Oh FFS! It was a Supreme Court case with huge ramifications which ever way it went and most likely tens of thousands of dollars in cost. I don't think malice has anything to do with it. The council even offered the owners to return Tango to his home on the Gold Coast years ago as a restricted dog but the owners cut their noses off to spite their faces and refused.

None of these are mentioned in the decision. Maybe these were what the case was about to you but it seems the judge wasn't on the same page.

I would think that it is a sensible thing for them to do. It was state legislation in the first place that brought in the restrictions, and state intention that Am Staffs not be thought of as "pit bull type". The GCCC would be aware of the ramifications this could have statewide, even nationwide. Besides Tybrax, do you really want the GCCC to make such a decision??

People lie to law enforcement officers all the time. They're not going to voluntarily get themselves into trouble. While you may expect to be taken at face value, the sad truth is that enforcement officers cannot afford to do that. I know this may be an extreme example but prisons are full of people who say they didn't do it. It's probably what your neighbours said when they were investigated for their dogs attacking your stock!

Maybe something to do with plural?? I know when I talk about the horse feed I am thinking of the whole mob. Same with the chicken feed. But then people often have more than one dog or cat.... Oh well, there's my useless contribution.

What???? After staring at your post for about 20 minutes I think I may get what you are trying to say. The reason they sometimes cut heads off dogs involved in attacks in the US may be because there is no information on the dog's rabies vaccination status, therefore testing of brain tissue needs to be performed to ascertain whether the dog had rabies. Important to know if you were bitten by a dog. And if a dog is not registered, there may be no proof on hand that the dog is vaccinated. I don't understand your dig at "the white Western world" that I am supposed to be so enamoured with. Simply, I am not going to comment on the animal control practices of other countries when I am not familiar with them. The ones I mentioned are the ones I know about. There is no racism intended. I have been to some countries where they don't have registration - but they are third world countries. They have enough trouble with people welfare let alone animal welfare. I don't know anything about correlations between kill rates and not having registration, versus with registration (although I do with cats). But then that was the not issue I was responding to. However, if you do have soundly researched, robust information on that matter please let us know - it would be interesting. You say that if it is made too expensive to own dogs then fewer people will. Although you haven't clarified I think you are referring to the costs governments impose such as registration and fines. But what makes the need for registration and fines in the first place? If there were no problems with animals in the community then there would be no need for a government response. No complaints to be investigated, no roaming animals to impound. But it's not a perfect world, unfortunately some animals are allowed to cause a nuisance that needs to be resolved, some do need to be impounded until their owners can be found. These activities cost money. Registration and fines help to pay for these activities. Unfortunately, some people all too easily acquire pets and all too easily dispose of them when things get a bit rough. It's not about things being too expensive. It's about choice. And if you don't value something you're not going to fight very hard for it are you?

No one here is denying the need for the animals to be looked after but why take it to court? I would think if the matter was frivolous or more of a requirement to get the lady some help, then the magistrate would have ruled so. Obviously there is more to the case then a small newspaper report

No Vendetta, pure and simple lack of confidence in the organisation based on my own personal experiences and their track record. No, of course the animals shouldn't suffer, but fining someone then washing your hands of it saying we have done our job is not good enough. Their job should be starting way back with education and assistance, not simply with prosecution. People in dire straights with their animals should be able to call upon the RSPCA for help and assistance, but all too often when they do they are turned away or charged or have their animals removed. Oh sheesh! And how do you know that the RSPCA didn't try and help her? Where have they washed their hands of it and pronounced the job done???

Excellent suggestion. Many people supporting the governments action don't understand that the more expensive it is to get, keep and maintain a dog, the fewer people will own one. In the end the real victim of the government was the dog. No it isn't an excellent suggestion, although its sounds fair enough. The reality is that it would cost more to organise and supervise community service work than the fine is worth. Justin, if somebody decides that they cannot afford to properly look after a dog, or to pay a small fine if the dog is found out wandering, then they do not deserve to own a dog. This dog wasn't a victim of the government. It was the victim of the owner that decided to get rid of it. Actually it is an excellent suggestion. Australia continues to be one of the world's few countries that even registers dogs yet still kills them in numbers which defy belief, and creates dangerous dogs through enforced isolation, despite massive rates. The cost arguement is as silly when applied to dogs as it is to children or saying people shouldn't get sick if they can't afford health insurance. It is time that the dog killers were held accounntable for their actions. "just following orders" doesn't cut it any more. I know - we'll just send all the homeless dogs to you. You seem to have all the answers to everything, although where you get your facts and figures (and logic) is beyond me. Australia one of the few countries that registers dogs? Gee, don't tell that to the US, Canada, UK, New Zealand, Germany, France, Switzerland, Ireland, etc. They may feel a bit left out... We'll just send all the corpses to you for disposal shall we? Perhaps you'd prefer to kill them yourself? UK and US don't have mandatory registration for a start and the world consists of far more countries than the small numbers mentioned. Check your facts before posting, that way you wont look too much like a goose. Honk, Honk!! Gee, I must have visited different countries to see how they do there animal management... I could have sworn it was the US and the UK, but I must have been wrong...These places had licencing in place - something to do with rabies control... but what would I know? Honk, honk, they must have seen me fly in, dodgied up computer systems and rego forms just for me. Yes, there are other countries out there then the ones I mentioned. Many of them have shocking animal control methods. You should visit the incinerator facilities that they have at Japan. I don't want to see any animals die. But you seem intent on blaming everyone else but the person responsible for it - the owner. Remember, she was the one that decided to leave the dog in the pound rather than pay for its release.