Rspca And Policing Dog Laws

[sandgrubber]

I've been reading -- and doing the devil's advocate thing -- on some dominantly anti-RSPCA threads in the last weeks.

It strikes me that breeders relate to the RSPCA like hippies did to cops in my youth. Back then, I was on the hippy side. We all said awful things about cops (ie, 'pigs') and tended to rude, crude anarchist condenation. Looking back over a few decades, I'd say there were some bad cops and some good cops . . . and some hippies who were doing bad things and deserved the hand of the law. I have a lot of problems with a lot of laws, but I've seen too much to think that anarchy would be a better solution. Good enforcement isn't easy to set up and maintain.

The RSPCA has been put in the position (or taken on the role) of dog cops. Some segments of the RSPCA in some regions will take on the role vigorously and some think ill of pedigree dog breeders. Sometimes there will be harsh and unjust application of the law . . . in effect police brutality. Sometimes there will be lax enforcement, or outright corruption. But in my experience, some breeders are pretty cruel, and I think there need to be someone attempting to enforce minimum standards on the breeder community. No argument here, the same standards need to be applied to X-breeds and puppy mills as to registered breeders.

I don't think the situation would be much different if it were left to Rangers or normal police agencies to implement animal cruelty laws. There has to be someone out there doing enforcement. The outcome will be a mixed bag.

[Are You Serious Jo]

The outcome would be different based on the fact that an independent government body would not be allowed to develop and act on their conflicts of interest. When you put the fox in charge of the hen house what do you think will happen?

Are you not aware of all the areas within the rspca regarding conflict of interest recently? Don't you think this makes a huge difference in motivation. To use paraphrase poodlefan, how can you let an organisation run dog training classes for profit, THEN also allow them to develop policy and enforce rules about dog training. This is just one example. Can't you see this sort of thing is a massive issue of ethics?

[poodlefan]

I don't think the situation would be much different if it were left to Rangers or normal police agencies to implement animal cruelty laws. There has to be someone out there doing enforcement. The outcome will be a mixed bag.

Most law enforcement agencies have rigorous checks and balances on their powers.

You'd not see the police getting to advertise on telly or in the papers for the introduction of a law, getting to advise those who draft it, then being allowed to enforce it without rigorous oversight.

I think there is a genuine need to enforce cruelty laws. I'm less than confident though, that a private organisation should be funded to do it, particularly when that function has the potential to conflict with the organisation's other roles.

Do you think one organisation should be able to all those things and not be completely answerable to our elected represntatives?

Edited December 16, 2009 by poodlefan

[Muttaburra]

Well a lot of issues with some state police forces have been investigated and there certainly was problems there. One of the biggest issues being that only the Police investigated other Police, this has changed to some degree I believe.

This same problem is occurring with the RSPCA there is no independent body to investigate complaints. An even greater problem is that in order to have a wide coverage of a spread-out country like Australia there is not always sufficient systems in place to see that all inspectors behave according to best practice.

Some complaints about some actions are cause for grave concern.

Like a lot of organisations, it has grown organically, and grown very large with increased powers. These things need to be constantly reviewed to see that the organisation has it's own checks and balances about practices and monitoring it's own operations.

There is a lot of good done by individuals within the RSPCA, it is not all bad, we need to have a body that can effectively prosecute people, like those who think its fun to inflict dreadful acts on animals.

But, as with any large administration that has the power to Prosecute under the law, it needs to be reviewed by an outside Governmental body from time to time, the same Government that gives them the powers in the first place, also needs to see that those powers are being used and never abused.

[tdierikx]

Well said Muttaburra!

T.

[WoofnHoof]

So how does one go about making animal welfare regulation and enforcement solely a government responsibility? Given the tendency for government to release themselves of responsibility wherever possible, how can we force them to broaden their responsibilities in animal welfare?

[Are You Serious Jo]

Public pressure, it is the only currency they accept.

[WoofnHoof]

It would be good if we had a united domestic animal group to represent owners, something unconnected to wildlife groups but incorporating all uses of domestic animals including livestock and pets. We found this necessary when EI hit there was no one to represent pleasure and performance horse owners, we were completely ignored by policy makers and ministers due to the fragmented nature and while economically signficant we couldn't produce the figures to show the extent of the financial damage which was being incurred by almost all horse owners.

[mita]

What needs a kick into action, is the state governments.

In particular, the Dpts of Primary Industries orAgriculture which have the job of applying the animal welfare laws. Many of which carry criminal penalties.

BUT the DPI (or DOA) delegates the enforcement of cruelty laws to the RSPCA to carry out.

If you read the animal welfare legislation, it keeps talking about 'the Minister authorises seizure of animals' or whatever.

The responsibility for all these actions re the cruelty laws are with the state Ministers of DPI or DOA. They just make the state RSPCAs their agents. Which is mentioned in the legislation.

Why is the job handed over to an organisation, which is essentially a charity, & an advocate for how they believe animals should be treated?

The Police Dpt doesn't delegate enforcing the criminal law to the Citizens' Against Crime charity. They employ police officers to do it.

The answer is both historical & economical.

The RSPCA is the only charity, that once provided a major community service, which didn't morph into a public service run by a government dpt. And it's cheap for government to make a charity, which has to raise most of its funds, do the work which is actually theirs.

I think it was the CEO RSPCA Qld who was in the news recently for saying he thought their law enforcement role should be taken away. Leaving the RSPCA to be an animal welfare charity & an advocate on welfare matters. Like AWL.

I think he's right.

Animal cruelty law should be policed by officers employed by the Dpt of Primary Industries (or Agriculture). DIRECTLY responsible to the Minister. And in sufficient numbers. Not the handsful of RSPCA Inspectors, as now.

Just like the criminal law is policed by police officers employed by the Police Dpt & DIRECTLY responsible to the Minister.

Won't happen, tho', because the government dpts are happy that someone else is doing the dirty work & actually has to raise most of their own money to do it. And are delighted that most people don't know it really is their job.

Edited December 16, 2009 by mita

[mita]

This same problem is occurring with the RSPCA there is no independent body to investigate complaints.

There actually is. But most people don't know how to use the system.

[WoofnHoof]

Lol Mita the problem with that is that QLD no longer has a department of primary industries, it's very up in the air as to what it's going to be called but now it comes under the Department of employment, economic development and innovation, people are finding it hard enough to fit primary industries into that let alone incorporating pets as well. Personally I think it should be a federal department with state branches because as we see with DPI and DEEDI you've only got to have some pollie feel the need to 'reinvent the wheel' and it throws everything into turmoil

[mita]

Lol Mita the problem with that is that QLD no longer has a department of primary industries, it's very up in the air as to what it's going to be called but now it comes under the Department of employment, economic development and innovation, people are finding it hard enough to fit primary industries into that let alone incorporating pets as well. Personally I think it should be a federal department with state branches because as we see with DPI and DEEDI you've only got to have some pollie feel the need to 'reinvent the wheel' and it throws everything into turmoil

Primary Industries hasn't disappeared, WH. It's carried all its present reponsibilties, including animal welfare law enforcement, under a 'master' dpt. It still has its own Minister.

As in:

The State of Queensland (Primary Industries and Fisheries within the Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation) 1995-2009.

Same in Victoria, animals welfare law is the responsibility of the Dpt of Agriculture & Forestry (is Fisheries in there, too?)....which is under the 'master' Dpt of Primary Industries.

It's not a case of being hard to fit 'pets in'. It's their responsiblitly under the law. But they get off the hook because most of the community don't know that.....& think that it's the reponsibility of the RSPCAs. No....they're only agents.

Your federal idea is interesting. I'll think about that.

Frankly, I think the RSPCAs should walk away from law enforcement. The world is too sophisticated & the laws too all- encompassing now, to be left to a charity with handfuls of inspectors. No way can expectations be met.

Anyway there's present conflict of interest, for RSPCAs, between advocacy (wanting new laws or laws to change) & enforcing current law.

Edited December 16, 2009 by mita

[Trisven13]

I think that there desperately needs to be something else than the RSPCA.

A classic example of how it works in a regional area occurred today here on the Border. We obviously have higher complications because Albury is NSW RSPCA and Wodonga is Victorian.

The weather forecast was 39 degrees. One of our contacts received a phone call this morning about a rottweiler tied up in a backyard who was very underweight with no food and no water. Because the dog was in Wodonga there was no point in ringing the RSPCA because the inspector (who has seemed like a nice guy when I've dealt with him before) is based in Wangaratta and wouldn't get up today.

The ADR person went around to the house of the people who rang and saw the dog over the fence - obviously underweight (though we've seen worse) and tied up on a verandah that had shade in the morning but would be in full sun in the afternoon. There was no food and no water.

I knew that there were no more voluntary inspectors here on the Border but I thought I'd ring the Albury President's business (he is a vet) and see if they could suggest what to do. He said that he couldn't do anything because he was in NSW and I had to ring Wangaratta. Ring them and they tell me to ring Melbourne. Ring them and they tell me to leave the dog how he is and they will get an inspector to ring me. I pointed out (very calmly ) that the dog was tied up, the temperature was predicted to be 39 degrees and it was a rottweiler, so therefore black. They finally agreed that he could be given some water which the neighbour then did.

This afternoon the neighbour spoke with the owner who admitted that he hadn't had the money to feed the dog, it had been tied up for a couple of months on the verandah AND he really wanted to give it away. We were contacted and he was signed over to us.

If the police or similar had some powers they could have come over and made sure that the dog at least had water and impound it - much kinder than leaving it in the full sun all afternoon. This is not an isolated incident I'm sure - this will be happening Australia wide but it is exacerbated here by cross-border anomalies.

By the time the inspector was able to actually inspect the premises the dog could well have been deceased.

[Are You Serious Jo]

This same problem is occurring with the RSPCA there is no independent body to investigate complaints.

There actually is. But most people don't know how to use the system.

Care to enlighten us as to how this is done? I believe people with law degrees and those heavily involved in dogs have gone through this before on here and have concluded that that are indeed no body who can investigate the rspca.

[Danois]

I too would be very interested to hear about this Mutta.

[ChristineX]

The affair in Victoria has made me take a closer look at my own state RSPCA. I'm not done yet, (Duke keeps trying to help, and he is a terrible typist), I have found it interesting that Inspectors responsible for policing the animal welfare act are divided between the Govt Department, the RSPCA and the Police. Any of those three can nominate a person to be what they call a General Inspector.

I'll probably be spending the next month looking into how this works, and what sort of checks and balances and accountability is in place, but WA, on my casual glance at the moment, is not straying too far from commonsense policing.

Does Victoria only have the RSPCA being the animal police? If so, would this account for the fact that some cases/inspectors appear to be overviligant in certain areas?

ChristineX

[WoofnHoof]

I know DPI hasn't disappeared (thank god for that since I work there lol), but the name is changing and they are in the process of figuring out what that name will be - the problem is that with name changes comes a great deal of uncertaintly in the public as to what the new department incorporates particularly when employees are told to no longer refer to themselves as DPI&F (I think we are allowed to put QLd Primary Industries & Fisheries in the transition stage). IMO the state governments are far more unstable than federal government I suppose state is better than nothing though.

[mita]

If the police or similar had some powers they could have come over and made sure that the dog at least had water and impound it - much kinder than leaving it in the full sun all afternoon. This is not an isolated incident I'm sure - this will be happening Australia wide but it is exacerbated here by cross-border anomalies.

By the time the inspector was able to actually inspect the premises the dog could well have been deceased.

Which state's law was that situation in? I'm never sure if you're NSW or Victoria. It may say the police can be called in an animal emergency.

The Qld animal welfare law says action can be taken by RSPCA inspectors, DPI inspectors & the police. Police are often the nearest for an emergency.

There's been a couple of posts where Qld'ers have described how police were called to dogs locked in hot cars. They came fast. Tho' in one case a bystanders whacked a window out....the police agreed when they arrived.

[Trisven13]

Wodonga is in Victoria which is why the RSPCA in Albury couldn't help as they are in NSW.

Bloody cross-border anomalies (I'd never heard the term "cross-border anomalies" until I moved to Albury but I sure do hear and use it a lot now!!!).

[mita]

Wodonga is in Victoria which is why the RSPCA in Albury couldn't help as they are in NSW.

But what about the police? Does the Victorian animal welfare law say the police can be called in animal emergencies? Qld law does. Maybe WA, too.