Jed

Cocker Spaniel. Good with children, soft mouth, and no inclined to bite kids anyhow. Love to be with you, bred to stride over fields all day, so happy to go for a walk, but bred to be with people, so happy to hang out if there is no walk. They need exercise, but not inordinate amounts, and if you can't walk it today, doesn't matter. Not hugely boisterous, and easily trained not to knock the kids over. Happy to sit on the floor and be dressed in frilly dresses and angel wings. Also happy to wear lipstick, as my toddler demonstrated!! Very trustworthy with children. They love to please, and are smart enough for obedience - once they were hugely popular for obedience, every second dog was a cocker, but flavours have changed, although the dogs havent. There's a rumour out there that they are dumb, but I've never had a dumb one, and I have one who is one of the smartest dogs anyone has ever seen. Small and obedient enough for little kids to walk. Come in a range of colours and shades. They were bred to be with people, so if you go camping, it's unlikely the dog will nick off, his instincts will keep him close to you (most of them, anyhow). He might stray a little, fossicking around, but he wont be far away. Groom every day. Ensure teeth and any folds in the lower lips are clean. Easiest would be to spend $200 on a pair of clippers and learn how to clip - every 6 to 8 weeks, about 1/2 to 1 hour, and a little grooming every week then. Will woof at strangers at the door. Merry engaging personality. Like to please. Soft, outgoing personality. Buy with confidence from a GOOD breeder, from good lines. Parents should be PRA and FN tested, and breeder should be prepared to state whether there is HD in the lines. Not common, but can occur.

What she said. And consider, if you will, the happenings of this nature which never make the papers. I hope this vile story is being considered by ACA or TT

Mita, there is no avenue of appeal.

Absolutely. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. and this is what has happened here. we can watch them but who can or how can we get this sort of thing changed? who do they answer to? Absolutely no one.

Absolutely. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Absolutely not!!

The RSPCA will have right of justification. But, like Clifford who suddenly turned savage,(when they couldn't milk him for more donations), I have no doubt that they will produce some explanations for their actions. I have no knowledge of the townsville RSPCA, but I've seen XXXXX RSPCAs act with extreme malice on more than one occasion, and I know of many more in Q where the goings on would have this entire forum up in arms. Deservedly so. And there are many individual cases in which the behaviour is reprehensible. So my leaning is toward believing what was printed in the paper. On the basis of past cases, and past actions by the rSPCA, most of which never make the papers. I don't think shelters are staffed by loonies. I think most shelter staff work wholeheartedly for the animals. However, management and boards hold another place in my opinions, and my opinions are formed by cold hard facts gathered over time, not from rays beamed down by the mother ship. I always wear my foil hat to prevent that happening. Check the turnover of staff in RSPCAs. Particularly check turnover of vets. Surely it would have been simpler for the RSPCA vet to visit the property were the horse was domiciled than to spend money on transport back to the shelter, particularly in view of the fact that the RSPCA is always hitting the public up for food and blankets, coz they don't have enough money for food? It's not like the shelter had any diagnostic tools which they couldn't take to the property. And if the horse passed the test - and she did - why was she not returned immediately? Particularly as the paper had offered the $500 which was rejected. The fosterer had been coping with colic for the 7 months she had the horse, it obviously wasn't a big deal, or life threatening, (I think the paper beat it up a bit) she wanted the horse returned, they could have had her sign a disclaimer. They do it with dogs which people want. Legally, a horse is the same. Get another vet, there are 3 or 4 excellent ones in your area. With cases of colic, it's practically been the first thing every vet has suggested. That's never been the reason, but questions were asked, and a couple were treated. BTW, what's the current treatment? Just curious. I mentioned what it was last time I did it to someone a couple of years ago, and they scratched their head. It worked. Something with ivermectin now, I guess. Horses only exist to rip themselves to pieces on fences, run sticks into themselves, get colic (because they are badly plumbed) poke their eyes out on blades of grass, slice their legs open on zillion dollar fences, and generally only live to cost their owners an inordinate amount of money. However, even tb horses which are quiet can be contained in moderate fences ... and this horse obviously was, if she hadn't pulled her fetlock joint out, or broken her leg on those fences in 7 months, she wasn't going to. I've had a lot of tb horses. Some were loonies, only safe in the stable (sometimes) and some were safe anywhere. If you listen to the RSPCA spin, they look great. When you scratch the surface, you believe stuff like this. A friend of mine was an RSPCA vet, and was appalled. Other vet friends act as the shelter in country towns. What has happened to this girl and the horse has happened, in different ways, in dozens of RSPCA strongholds in various places. Those cases simply never made the papers. Mita likes Mark Townend. I have a low opinion of him. My experience is that he talks the talk, but I have never seen him walk the walk. He always is able to slide out of walking the walk - it could not be fixed, he was not listened to, the story is untrue. I respect Mita's opinion of him as an all round good guy, my experience is different, so she respects my right to hold that opinion. I see corollaries to every point you raised, and the newspaper articles obviously read differently to both of us. I admit my view of the RSPCA is extremely cynical and jaded, which yours is not. My experience is honed by both first hand and anecdotal cold, hard, heartbreaking experience. My only interest in byb, puppy farms, designer dogs, BSL and the RSPCA is to alleviate or end suffering, to have natural justice for all, and morally correct decisions made for the welfare of animals. My ethos does not agree with the demonstrated ethos of the RSPCA, and as my ethos is not about to change, I will continue to work to change the ethos of the RSPCA. They fail to demonstrate the level of care and desire to make a difference in the lives of animals, which an organisation which is viewed by the public as a premier welfare organisation should be capable of making. The view of every member of this forum who has some inside knowledge of the RSPCA, no matter how it was gathered, is similar to mine. We have disgruntled ex staff - too many to write off as simply angry because they were dismissed. We have people who have first hand knowledge of owners and animals which were seized for paltry reasons and the unhappy outcomes, we have people who attempted to have the RSPCA provide assistance, and failed miserably. So don't think the loony rays are beamed to me alone. This case has nothing to do with animal rights, it has to do with spite and vindication. Which no one in that position should be exercising. They have done themselves so much damage, I don't even know why I am posting!! Nothing I would say could make it worse, they have done that themselves. I hope the fosterer takes it to ACA or TT. And apart from that, if the horse had colic, it would have been a simple matter to phone the carer ( who thought she was getting the horse back ) explain the situation, and ask her if she would like to attend. She'd had the horse for 7 months, she could have been invited. Then when the horse was PTS, she would have been on hand. But, of course, that presumes it did have colic.

They have a big bark, which is sufficient in most situations. Some friends with little kids had one - if the kids screamed, the dog was on full alert. If someone was playing with the kids and they screamed, the dog always got between the kids and the person. Nothing ever happened ............ but I think the kids would have been safe in any situation. I think they are more protective of people than property. But that's my only experience. ...then there is Nana in Peter Pan

I agree with you - assuming this is in fact the whole story. It may not be, but if you precis the story, taking into account the newspaper would be careful about legal liability, the salient facts don't paint a pretty picture. Rozzie springs to mind. Immediately and painfully. Seized the dogs, managed to kill some of them in the dog trailer, put down her own dog, which was not suffering, put her throught months of agony and tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, and produced a charge of "worms" on a dog which was in a shelter the previous day. Or Ruth Downey, where the RSPCA inspector turned away a truck load of feed, and gut shot cattle, leaving them in agony, and leaving their calves to starve. RSPCA should have been prosecuted for that. but there is no one to prosecute them.

She looked after the horse for 7 months & had monthly Vet checks, there is NO reason for that scum organisation to take her away for Vet evaluation, they just had to ask the treating Vet. I can't believe people still defend them. I'm not defending them I'm looking at possibilities. I haven't seen pics of the horse when it was originally fostered out so I can't comment on whether it's condition is good or not in comparison, I do know that fencing is inappropriate though. Lots of vets miss encysted strongyles too so getting a second opinion about the health of the horse could be a perfectly reasonable expectation. To be seized by the RSPCA, it would have had to be in very poor condition, much much worse than that. I thought that horse was in reasonable condition. ANY vet would suspect encysted strongyles with a horse with intermittant colic. Particularly a horse in an emaciated condition. It is possible that the vet missed it, but very few would. It's a well known cause of colic, and given the history of the horse, the vet would have been onto it. But, on the KISS principle, the colic was most likely caused by the windsucking. It is well known that windsuckers are prone to colic. Lots of racing tbs windsuck, and they are carefully watched for colic. Also, I believe the fosterer had 64ha - and I very much doubt that there would be any problem burying a horse on there. Additionally, the fosterer stated she wanted to bury the horse. Apart from anything else, there is a dire shortage of large animal fosterers, and a direr shortage of homes for useless horses. The RSPCA has effectively driven off a fosterer who was prepared to give the horse a lifetime home. No doubt they have effectively driven off many other fosterers, so many more horses will be sent to the meatworks, or knocked off. Fencing is in the mind of the horse ... I have no back fence ... my horses know when they are on a good thing, so they see a four rail white fence when they look there. If they wandered too far, they might miss dinner. And I think that fence, although a injury nightmare to me, was probably adequate for a horse which was happy.

Yep, I realise that, and it is possible, but not probable. I also think it may have been picked up earlier by previous vet inspections. If that was the case, the RSPCA would have been trumpeting that, not making lame excuses. I doubt that the leg injury was life threatening - and it it was, the RSPCA would have been on to it like a rat onto cheese. Maybe they'll get to that when they commence the cover up? And if it was not simply wilful spite because she went public, they could have advised her that the horse had colic, needed to be put down, and asked her if she wanted to bury it. I don't have a problem with the dad - except that they lied to her about the disposal of the remains of the horse, which was her friend. A complete lack of respect and human decency. The RSPCA - in all states - has a long and terrible history of threatening people, menancing people, seizing dogs and doing terrible things to those who disagree with them, or go public. There are many many people who are silent because they have been warned that their animals will be seized, and they will be prosecuted if they speak out or criticise. If the RSPCA takes your animals, it could be months or years until the case comes to court, in that time, anything could have happened to the animals. And owners usually don't have any proof of the condition they were in when seized. Additionally, true animal lovers abhor the thought of their beloved animals going to a shelter. I don't think I need to justify my stand anyhow, the news articles are sufficient. This whole story is abhorrent to true animal lovers. I find it totally disgusting, and the behaviour of the RSPCA amoral and extremely distressing. I feel so dreadfully sorry for that poor horse, saved from starvation, and given a good home, but I find the suffering of the poor girl heartrending. She will regret and suffer from this probably for all her life. The horse, at least, knows no more.

Latest update - council has entered a property, seized a schnauzer, and desexed it. This is called stealing. Several dogs have died whilst being desexed. Watch the court lists for more on this!!

Absolutely. You weren't very clear, would you mind pointing out the "self contratulatory posts"? Thanks.

Gawd, I remember that ridiculous story & unfortunately APBT haters keep using that as proof, that they are all deranged dogs & nothing will stop them from killing. Huh, another old person with a good memory, The mother was alleged to have killed the son, wasn't she? Of course, she had his whole life to do it, from when he was whelped, but it was strange that she chose the time when she was incarcerated, and it was nearly impossible to reach him to do it, instead of just tearing his throat out when he was born, or at any time after that, when they were living together, totally unrestrained. Do you remember how wide the gap between the wall and roof was? From memory, I think it was about 10cms? And she looked to be a good 30 - 40 kg dog. The whole thing was rubbish. Impossible to accomplish - except for Spiderman. Same as this current rot.

According to the RSPCA spokesperson, the horse was fine when it was moved. The vet confirmed that. This is a quote from the newspaper article. And it was well before the horse was euthed. The horse, in my experience, is in reasonable paddock condition. Considering that she was apparently very poor 7 months previous, which would have led to muscle wastage, and she was not being worked at the date of the photos, she is well covered, but totally lacking muscle tone, which may be seen from the lack of muscles on the top of the rump, gaskin and neck. Those muscles would not regenerate in a poor horse, despite feeding, without work. Additionally, it can be difficult to condition a windsucker, depending on the severity. According to the report, it was quite severe. Coat is in good condition, and from that, I would doubt that colic from red worms would be a problem. I would also presume that with intermittant colic, veterinary attention would have been sought, and a diagnosis arrived at. And any worm burden would have been treated. That horse could be brought into show condition with proper feed and work within 8 weeks - including it being a windsucker. Probably not. But doggy rehab costs a lot less than horse rehab. And I don't see the RSPCA admitting they donated feed or gave money for rehabilitation, so we have to accept that the fosterer paid $5000 to rehabilitate the horse. Realistically, how much market would there be for a 10 year old mare with no special attributes, which may not have been suitable for riding? The only market, as far as I can tell, would be the meatworks. Realistically, if the RSPCA operated according to its well advertised ethos, they would have given her the horse to prevent it going to the meatworks. And the paper tried to pay the RSPCA $500 anyhow.

The law it's self would prevent many breeding bearing in mind, not all BYB's are bad people just silly and would abide by such a law. It would be simple to catch illegal breaders as advertising would no longer be possible for unregistered breeders. There will always be black market breeding but I think a general law would help dramatically. I think perhaps the OP's reference would think twice if a law was in place???. At the moment, you can basically breed what you like when you like and is totally an unregulated system. I think Brisbane City Council did this some years ago - 10 maybe? Ads disappeared from the papers. However, they are all back now, so whether the law was rescinded, or whether the BCC stopped policing it, I don't know. I think the microchipping laws should be policed. Anyone breeding any canine should be advised that all pups must be microchipped. First contact is the current owner, second contact is the breeder. And the breeder's name, address, phone number and driving licence number is part of the details If the dog fetches up in the pound, and the owner does not release it, the responsibility falls to the breeder. No fine, just a contact to say "come and collect the dog" withiin ..... (3 maybe?) days. If the breeder does not collect the dog, or make arrangements to take it from the pound, he is fined a substantial amount. $5000? (You said that, I like it ) The breeder can arrange for someone else to collect it, or he can arrange for it to be pts. A lot of "breeders" would opt for the second option. However, puppy farms would be appalled at the number of badly behaved adult dogs which came back to them. Occasional breeders (let the kids see pups)would be horrified when those staffy x mastiff x cattledog pups they gave away at the pub returned to their door step, feral, untrained, and ready to wreck the joint. I really think after a year or two, some of those less responsible about where they home pups would rethink their breeding practices. Responsible breeders, on the other hand, would be delighted. It wouldn't matter where one of ours fetched up, we have a network, someone would get it, and send it back to us - or home it for us from their contacts. I sometimes take dogs which need new homes for friends, until they can collect them. Yep, it does seem unweildy. However, there would be very few dogs in pounds or rescue for weeks, and the time spent caring for them (and euthing and disposing of bodies) could be spent contacting breeders. The problem would reduce over a few years. What do you think? Consider it carefully. I have. Wont happen of course, major pounds are making too much out of their fertilizer contracts. Then people could breed whatever they wanted - but they would have to home it responsibly. this is the problem now, not an oversupply of pups, an over supply of juvenile dogs which "did not meet expectations". Sure, there would still be some dogs which slipped through the system. There always is, but the numbers would be drastically reduced. The problem would be the breeders. Which is where the responsibility should lie.

A report is not a post mortem. I edited my post, btw, as it is now too late for a pm. The poor horse is probably under 100 other animals they've knocked off since anyhow. Colic is basically "a pain in the gut" - the causes of colic are many and varied, and the outcome can range from resolution within hours without any treatment, or death. Depends on why there is "a pain in the gut". Colic is one of the reasons most experienced horse people warn against buying windsuckers. They swallow air, which produces exactly the same results as colic in babies. Usually buscopan and a secondary pain killer, to reduce stress and to relax the gut, as well as a bit of walking to dissipate the air produces a cure. Most horses who do this are relieved by walking alone. It's hardly life threatening. And it would just be too coincidental if the horse developed a gut blockage, or some other life endangering problem under the heading of "colic"

And, Jed, once again, I find Mark Townend to be a fair-minded bloke. I'd expect he'd make a thorough investigation of this case. As I said....I'd like to see the vet's report on the genesis of the horse's condition, treatment measures & reasons for PTS. Mita, my experience was that what he says, and what he does are totally different. King of spin. Always happy to help dogs misidentified as pitbulls, blah blah, so sad, council wouldn't be stopped --- except nothing was done, or council was agreed with. Just a straw man. I too would very much like to see a POST MORTEM, not a report. A report wouldn't cut it with me - nor with anyone else. And the PM done by a totally independent vet. Someone who does not rely on RSPCA business or RSPCA referrals. In fact, a vet not from Townsville. Too late now, of course.

This reminds me about the two pitbulls seized by BCC some years ago. They were in the Fairfield"shelter". The owner, who said they were not pitbulls, went public, with photos of the two dogs, friendly as you like with the baby and each other, on the front page of the paper. I have no idea whether they were pitbulls or not. May have been, may not have been BCC decided they were, owner said they weren't. Whatever they were, they were trustworthy with the family's kids, and got on very well with each other. Neither had been in any trouble for aggressive behavior. They were mother and son. A short time after the article in the paper, one of the dogs scaled a sheer brick wall about 8 - 9 ft high, squashed itself into the tiny gap between the top of the wall and the roof, to the next kennel, where it's friend was, and killed it. About as believable as this story, aRSePCA.

I am not surprised. I felt sick when I read that, and it takes a bit. My take on it, is that the carer spent $5000 getting the horse in good condition (probably more, if it took 7 months), the RSPCA tried to hit her up for a $500 adoption fee, she went to the paper, because she didn't have the dough, and thought it was grossly unfair. It was. aRSePCA then got their skirts knotted, backpedalled as fast as they could, read "Mark Townsend", kept the horse as long as possible and knocked it off to have revenge on this poor person. And serious revenge was sending the body to the dump. And if it is the "normal" dump, and not the dead animal dump, I hope someone reports them for a breach of health regulations. However, it does look like the dead animal dump. Windsuckers are prone to colic, as they swallow air. Any stress exacerbates the windsucking, and it is possible for the horse to wear a strap to prevent it, plus if windsuckers are paddocked, they windsuck less, interact with other horses more, and graze more. Moving the horse from "home" to the RSPCA and into a sparse paddock would trigger an increase in windsucking, due to stress and exciting conditions for windsucking. Treatment for colic caused by windsucking is fairly simple, and the outcome is normally very good.\ I hope the paper pays for an autopsy. The only reason to euth a horse with colic would be a twisted intestine, or something more complicated such as a pendulated lipoma. I'd bet my bottom dollar that if this horse was pm'd by an independent vet, there would be no cause for euthing found. When I read that story, I wondered, when they wanted to keep it to check for colic, if they would bump it off. Yep, sure did. And - there can be NO monitoring for colic. A horse may go years without a colic attack, or have one a day for a week. "Monitoring for colic". What complete rubbish, either their vet is an idiot or was operating under orders. What tripe and rubbish. And people wonder why we want to get rid of them. And Mita, once again, Mark Townend has proved that he is full of wind. He can't even manage his OWN organisation. Yep, good organisation for ripping people off, harrassing breeders, putting out inflammatory and untrue "fact" on their website, not caring about animals, and even ripping off their own carers. Good one Bit like Clifford, really. Just add it to the ever growing file, the blue chi, the arabians sold to the doggers, the horses in WQ, Ruth Downey, Rozzie, Judy Gard - and many many others.

I see where you are coming from - and from one viewpoint, I agree. However, from another, if this was done, it would mean that there would be no cross bred dogs in 5 years - if the law was policed. And it would be difficult to police. Council officers snooping in people's laundries doesn't have a good ring about it, and I very much doubt that it would stand up in court. This takes away the option to own a cross bred dog, and not everyone wants a purebred. I like my microchip idea much better. Wish they'd enforce that.

More pound fodder It's not the vet's job to suggest desexing, and if the owner wants to breed yet more mongrel pups, he's hardly likely to listen to the vet, is he? *Exits thread, shaking head*

Chicken mince is fine. He should be getting some beef and lamb too, and a % of offal in the mix I feed chicken mince which is frames, wings put through a mincer, very roughly, so they actually have to chew the bones. To this is added offal, and I add the rest, ie, vegs blah blah. The dogs also have bones. What you are doing is ok, just give him bones too, and the other things as already suggested.

Unfortunately, advertising from animal rights is everywhere, the propaganda from animal rights is woven into most of the information available to the public. And animal rights and animal welfare equate to the same thing in the opinion of lots of people. Consequently, lots believe what they have read or seen. Including vets. All dogs should be neutered, undesexed dogs are nasty and savage, pit bulls are bad and the cause of all attacks, they eat 400 people and 2000 small dogs a month, breeders are bad, they breed the dogs which end up in pounds, breeders should breed less but they don't care, breeders cause heaps of problems, and they breed unsound and unhealthy dogs, and don't care. All that stuff. Many have come here, interacted with breeders, rescuers, pitbull owners, read first hand accounts of the actions of the rspca and other bodies, and been swayed by the truth and consequently seen the true picture. Some come, argue, cannot see another point of view, and leave. The means for all research is on the forum. Some will read it, some will not. People who want to bicker, argue, insult others, and behave badly from a platform of righteous indignation, are, imho, the worst

Chocolatelover Don't forget to close the door.