Rspca And Policing Dog Laws

[Are You Serious Jo]

Surely mita wasn't referring to writing to the minister as the complaints process? That has already been shown to be ineffective, she would have seen that if she has read enough threads on DOL or tried that herself. Since some very competent legal minds failed to find a way to lodge complaints about the rspca I'll believe their version, and mita hasn't returned to fill us in on her secret either.

Another powerful reason to remove enforcement powers from a business with conflicting interests.

[asal]

How many has it occurred to, that politicions call for! demand! the resignation of any pollie, even the Prime Minister the split second, (or should that be split hairs) of even a whiff of dare we name it????

CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

remember not that long ago when even our present prime minister's head was being called for because his wife had not sold her business when he was elected?

CONFLICT OF INTEREST? OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

yet not a whimper over the so many conflicts of interest to found with who? RSPCA?

[asal]

these are just the cases i know of personally.

HOW MANY OTHERS ARE THERE?

Why the RSPCA MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE BY THE DEPT OF AGRICULTURE.

Only just learned of your website and your agony.

And believe me I know your agony.

My dog stringy was seized in 1999 with no prior warning which is against their very own so called policies.

He was held for 13 days subjected to multiple tests for diseases and conditions he did not have. Subjected to by my vet’s assessment a minimum of 22 needle insertions into a 1.2 kg body, anesestized and had skin scrapings to prove he had flea dermatitis, then skin plugs removed in a vain attempt to prove he had mange. The seizing Constable Coleman Refused at all times to permit the dogs vet to speak to the rspca vet mark lowery. now head of the nsw vet association.

When they finally ran out of ideas they finally phoned me to come pick up my dog. they demanded i pay them over $500 for tests and fees and demanded this be paid even before being allowed to see him, i flatly refused to pay before i saw him to ascertain if he was even still alive. i had good reason to suspect he may not be as he is a very determined little dog and if he does not like whatever food he is offered he will refuse to eat and go into hyperglycemia. being so small he was quite prone to this if he decided he didn’t want or like what was offered. When in these moods he would only accept chicken, a fact i had passed onto an amazingly nice guy who answered the phone in my frantic calls the day he disappeared while I was out. to come home to a piece of paper declaring my dog had been seized due to a skin condition?

it was a Sunday when he was seized and by the time on the paper 1pm I didn’t get home till about 5pm and when i phoned apparently all the staff had left and only the cleaner answered the phone, lucky for me and my dog he was very nice and i explained what my boy looked like, a blue fawn tiny Chihuahua and he said he had seen him in the back room. when i explained if he was distressed or upset he would not eat anything but chicken he assured me not to worry as he had chicken sandwiches and stringy could have his chicken as he didn’t mind and would pass on the information as well. the distress and fear for my boy was impossible to cope with i was so ill as a result, the only good thing about it i lost the 10 kg had been trying to lose since having my daughter by the time he was returned.

Why was this dog STOLEN, and stolen he was make no mistake about that.

My first indication something was afoot was a visit by inspector Donnelly. He was accompanied by a young girl. Yes he said he had received a complaint, BUT he flatly refused to disclose what the complaint was.

This is entirely against the very law this hypocrite is supposed to be working under.

I did not ask who made the complaint; all I asked was what was the complaint. you cant fix something if you don’t know what it is can you?

He then proceeded to demand to inspect every animal on the property; he had his offsider write down how many adult dogs, how many puppies, horses, chooks, even shoved the hen off her chicks to count how many chicks there were?????

His arrogance and disgust and contempt of me he made abundantly clear. Which was very stressful alone even before he began his inspection, when he saw Pearl he enquired why has she not been put down? Considering the dog was in perfect health, a tad overweight and her only problem was she carried her head to one side as the result of a ear infection as a puppy, this observation seemed a bit ruthless of a perfectly happy little dog?

When he spotted Stringy he asked what’s the matter with him?

He is a small fluffy blue fawn Chihuahua with Blue Gene Alopecia running from the back of his shoulders to his rump. He is not bald there just the coat there looks like its been clipped short Bedlington style.

The rest of his coat about half an inch long and soft and fluffy.

No bald skin, no thickening NONE of the signs of allergy or mange.

He didn’t look as if he believed one word of what I had told him, so gave him the name and address and phone number of my vet so he could verify with Richard Miller my vet, who always saw Stringy when I came with puppies to vaccinate as Stringy always came too. He had diagnosed the Blue Gene Alopecia when his adult coat came in and the back hairs didn’t grow back when they fell out, only the soft short fluff most bald men develop when their hair falls out now grew there.

When he prepared to leave I made a point of asking him, was there anything you feel I need to improve to change?

He flatly refused to reply.

When I continued to request a reply, his only reply I could elicit was that he would consult with his superiors and a letter would be in the mail.

I was very, very, aware this guy was breaking every rule of an inspection and was gravely concerned about what this was leading too. (I had friends who used to be inspectors and know the protocols)

At no time did he say he was concerned about Stringys condition. Just asked what it was, it was his body language that frightened me and made me back it up with giving him my vets contact details.

THE PROTOCOL IS. If he had a concern I should have been told to take my dog and have him seen to and treated by my vet. HE NEVER SAID A WORD TO THAT EFFECT.

If he had, then I would have had 14 days to have done so or face prosecution, ie if the dog had fleas or flea allergy, no treatment then the dog would be seized.

This was NOT DONE OR SAID.

HE LEFT.

I knew in my whole body this guy was up to something but not what.

As a result I called my vet, I called the Canine Council , Richard told me not to worry, the guy obviously had an attitude problem. The Canine council put Alan Candlish on to me and he rang the RSPCA on my behalf and asked for the nature of the complaint.

His call to me half and hour later was to say, “looks like you have upset someone with friends in very high places in the RSPCA. I HAVE never been treated so rudely in my life. They refused to tell me anything.”

So for two weeks I heard nothing. The so called letter never came.

My vet said stop worrying, the guys a nut.

Went out that Sunday and my dog was stolen.

Yes I finally got my very damaged boy back, n damaged he was, mentally and physically. Betty Step had come with me to pick him up as I was too ill and upset to face them alone. My dog when they finally brought him out to me was drooling so badly his entire front and legs were covered in drool.

When I asked Mark Lowery what was the matter with him he offered to do more tests. When I asked had he been exposed to dogs with parvo he again offered to do more tests. He also added that my vet was incompetent since he had not done all the tests he had done to ascertain for sure if his diagnosis was correct in the first place. Considering they had proven beyond doubt his diagnosis was correct I know who I believe is totally incompetent.

I paid them their blood money and fled with my dog.

Although I had a full packet of some 200 kleenex tissues my boy had them all soaked by the time I arrived at Mamre Rd Vet surgery. A quick examination by Richard found his trachea had been torn. Richard belived probably by the insertion of a too large trachel tube when they took the skin plugs. As a result he was now developing pneumonia, as well continual drooling he was now dehydrated so he spent the night with Richard on drips and drugs. Another 600 to save him. That along with the solicitors letter that had been sent requesting his return which cost me another 550. So the entire excersise cost over $1,650 for a dog with nothing wrong with him but an odd coat.

AND WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?

It only took me some two years of writing to the Minister for Agriculture the then Richard Amery to finally elicit the reply that this nightmare was due to “an unfortunate breakdown in communication”

BOLLOCKS!

There was plenty of efforts at communication by, myself, my vet, Alan Candlish and the solicitor. None of whom were treated with civility let alone replied too. BY THE RSPCA OR ANY OF ITS SO CALLED REPRESENTATIVES. THEY WERE THE ONES WHO TOTALLY REFUSED TO COMMUNICATE.

The rest of his letter was even more enlightening.

This whole nightmare had been because “a fellow breeder was concerned my dogs and my establishment may reflect poorly on the reputation of dog breeders”

Trying to hunt up the letter so can make sure it’s wording is exactly right but can’t find it at the moment.

He then went on to assure me that as long as I adhered to the code of practice for dog breeders I had nothing to fear from the RSPCA.

AGAIN BOLLOCKS!

He thoughtfully provided me with a copy of said code of practice, and reading it from cover to cover. NOT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS MY DOG WAS TESTED FOR WAS LISTED AS REQUIRING VETERINARY ATTENTION LET ALONE REQUIRING URGENT MEDICAL ATTENTION!!!!!!!!!

I did politely request since this was the case how was I safe from the RSPCA since according to the very booklet he has sent I was within the said code of practice yet my dog still disappeared.

He never replied to that or any other letters.

So from my experience my advice could only be, GOOD LUCK FOLKS.

N MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A GOOD CASE OF GRAVEL RASH WHEN THEY COME.

Or you will end up like Marion Alcorn

That foolish lady had some 14 or so horses on agistment around Mudgee way. It was drought, well when isn’t Australia in drought any more?

But she thought they were safe since they were the sole occupants of over 600 acres of pasture. Except some weeks later received a phone call, “better check your horses” turned out a neighbor had thoughtfully cut the fences so his cattle wouldn’t starve either. By the time they had left there was nothing but dirt left for her horses and many were very thin. She hired a truck and brought them all home to her 7 acre I think it was block. Where she was handfeeding them, theres plenty of witnesses to attest they were gaining weight. About a week or so later an RSPCA inspector arrived since neighbours had been making comments about their condition the second they arrived she was expecting the visit. But not the attitude of the inspector, who strangely enough she felt to be very arrogant and threatening towards her. She like so many of us stupid people thought she actually had rights and advised him to clean up his attitude or leave her property immediately. FATAL mistake.

He informed her he would show her his rights and made a phone call. A truck duly arrived and since it had capacity for 10 he took 10 horses with him. She was then billed 70 dollars a week per week per horse for 10 weeks, for you who like me cant do maths that $7,000. The court hearing took place 10 weeks later. The hearing was adjourned for 15 minutes, so the RSPCA could make her an offer. Sign all ten over to them and they would drop the charges. She again being stupid, thinking she had any rights in the matter, asked them to promise to find good homes for them. They duly promised. Since I was there present at this, I too heard them make said promise. She signed.

Back into the court they went. Told the magistrate they had the horses signed over so were prepared to drop the charges for the agistment. Then the surprise.

BUT they still intended going ahead with the charge of refusing to worm her horses. Just like the TV add the judge said it’s a crime not to worm your horses and fined her……….$7,000. To be paid within I forget how many months (was in as much shock as Marilyn) or serve 6 months in jail.

Since I never found her at home over the ensuing year I strongly suspect she went to jail, I certainly know she had no way of raising that amount of money. For some peculiar reason she now never answers the door or the phone. The only way I can see her is if we run into each other when she does have to go out to get food. Her fear when anyone says hullo is unmistakable she sort of hunches down until she realizes it is a friend talking to her, heartbreaking to see. Pretty much a total recluse now.

Nice one RSPCA.

The horses you ask? What became of the horses. Well, I phone the RSPCA FOR nearly every day after the signing over to ask when people could buy them, remember, they were going to good homes were they not.

Finally day 3 the switch operator was getting a bit miffed at my insisting they were available for sale as I had witnessed the signing over. She sort of “humpthed” and said ‘” Ho I suppose it won’t hurt, they went to McGrath’s Hill Saleyard this morning.

A mad round of phone calls to all those who wanted to help rescue them began and I belted it over there as the sale was due to start within the hour. Even a rep from the Arabian horse society arrived to see if they may be able to help. Into the ring strode the very promiser of good homes for them.

When he opened his mouth what did come out?

“NO ONE BUT THE DOGGERS ARE PERMITTED TO BID ON THESE HORSES” n he strode out and the first one ran in.

Under his breath but still loud enough for most to hear came “n their all mad”.

They sold the lot for something like $1,800 all up.

Now for the dairy farmer.

He and his family went to town, on their arrival home, the front paddock where they had turned some of their best stud cows to graze while they were gone was littered with the dead and dying or about to die as an RSPCA inspector was walking among them shooting them.

Only the wife is left to tell the tale, her husband died of a heart attack not long after his shock and distress was so great. He was trying to find legal counsel to sue them for the value of the murdered cattle, a loss of a lifetimes breeding ,both he and his father before him. None of which was replaceable.

Apparently some passerby had thought they looked thin, so apparently did the inspector who turned up before they arrived home. So he did what he is empowered to do. He shot them.

These were some of the top producing stud Frisian cattle in Victoria. I doubt it would be too hard to find out the names of the victims in this. I don’t remember the lady’s name and have since lost her phone number. But I bet every stud and breeder of top producing Frisian’s knows

Now for Rosemary D’Agostino.

She and her husband Sam bought a top priced young stud bull.

Problem was she soon discovered he had no respect for the fence keeping him from the main interstate highway that ran the length of their property at Gunnedah. So since it was a show bull and trained to lead she and Sam put him on a tether giving him access to a shed and grass so he had both shade and grazing as well as hand fed while they constructed a bull yard for him.

Said yard was not far from completion, when in rocks who?

An RSPCA INSPECTOR, yep someone thought it is cruel to have a bull on a tether, even a calf like this one.

Said inspector tells them to release the bull immediately.

Since they had recently had heavy rain and clover had sprang up literally overnight and to turn him free when he was accustomed to hard dry feed, to do so would have resulted in his death from bloat within an hour or so. They refused.

Said Inspector left. Shortly to return with two very embarrassed police officers in tow.

Release the bull NOW or you both will be arrested.

Both Rose and Sam explained again to do so would kill the bull. Both the police officers being raised on the land were also well aware this would be the result as well, but as they explained.

They had no power to refuse, the law was that the RSPCA inspector could and would demand their arrest and arrest them they had to do even though they knew the inspector was wrong. They were very apologetic but said they had to do because that’s the way the law is now.

Their advice was turn the bull loose and follow him to keep him moving so he couldn’t eat enough fast enough to kill him. If they didn’t she would have them arrested and she would turn the bull loose and Sam and Rose would be in jail for the night and unable to protect him.

So Rose and Sam took the officers advice. They released the baby bull and Rose spent the next 8 hours walking behind him to keep him moving while Sam finished the yard.

The RSPCA INSPECTOR? She left the second the bull was turned loose; well satisfied she had shown this uppity pair who is really boss.

The real cruelty here? Sam was over 75, Rose over 65 and the bull was released about 4pm so Rose and Sam walked and worked most of the night to save THEIR BULL.

Where was the inspector? Safe in bed perhaps???

There was a lady, her name I have forgotten, but Betty Step knows her. She used to take in either rescue dogs or ones with problems that breeders didn’t want to sell.

Think she had 6 dogs in her care at the time. She lived in a house, think it was her own. The RSPCA came took all of them. Said she had too many dogs. That she was a collector. Most of these little chihuahua’s were pretty high maintenance, given to her by her breeder friends because they considered them unsuitable for sale. I.e. too tiny and prone to hyperglycemia, too large a fontanel and venerable to concussion or water on the brain from the slightest knock, that sort of thing. She loved them and cared for them. N cried buckets when one died, why anyone would deliberately breed for tea cup Chihuahua’s is beyond me or anyone in the Club that I know? Its tragic enough when one does turn up. Why the general public are so fixated on them is very disheartening. As so many vets say, tea cups, don’t make old bones. Too many things can go wrong.

Obviously none were showable, although she loved to go to the shows with her show and breeder friends.

After they were taken she was refused even visiting rights let alone what fate had been decided for them. Why take them from someone who knew and understood their special needs, n prepared to give it 24/ 7? N was prepared for the heartbreak she knew would be coming because they were frail?

She was pretty stressed out about it. She walked from her home and disappeared.

None of her friends saw her again and no calls from her either. She disappeared as if from the face of the earth, many feared suicide. Some two years later she was spotted living on the streets and fled when she realized she had be recognized.

She never came home to my knowledge. This is the damage these people can cause. Not that they care a jot. No one I know, could find out the fate of her dogs.

Edited December 17, 2009 by asal

[sandgrubber]

When you come into someone's castle and take their family away people are going to get ticked off. When you

put their family to sleep without counsel, any kind of approval or any process or a second opinion, say what you will about their condition and destroy the evidence people are going to get ticked off. When you take away

Give us a system where we FEEL we have the ability to be heard and defend ourselves and our animals and where we dont FEEL threatened and helpless against goliath. Whether we have that already or not it\'s not counted because we dont FEEL like we do and Thats why people get so upset about the RSPCA policing animal welfare. Justified or not - that\'s the way it is and it gets worse every day.

I think the problem in the following statement is in the \'give us\'

Give us a system where we FEEL we have the ability to be heard and defend ourselves and our animals and where we dont FEEL threatened and helpless against goliath. . . . .

Policing seems to be the most difficult area of governance. If you have a stomach for cursing, I'd recommend viewing The Wire (rent the DVD's . . .HBO stuff), a cop show like no other, which deals with the problem of policing in terms of individuals, bureaucracy, education, and the full gamit of complexity.

I see that you (Steve, MDBA, and friends) are working hard and effectively. But no one is going to give provide the dog world with a utopian system for encouraging good practice and cutting back on outright cruelty. It's hard, endless, work to improve the bloody system that has come down to us. Companion animal legislation is every bit as hard as dealing with race, sexual orientation, or drugs . . . and governance systems may be equally as f@$#'ed up. But our budgets are in the hundreds of millions instead of the multi-to-hundreds of billions scale. So it's hard to get attention. Personally, I don\'t think the RSPCA are the bad guys. Not sure 'bad guys' is the problem. It's the lack of a sensible framework for management of a complex problem.

Edited December 18, 2009 by sandgrubber

[Jed]

We shall just have to provide a vigilante system, and continue to provide it, to ensure that animal owners such as Rozzie, Judy Gard and asal and others are not treated undemocratically and unfairly by the RSPCA.

If it is not possible for the RSPCA to make changes for equity and fairness from within.

Vox

[Souff]

It's the lack of a sensible framework for management of a complex problem.

No, I don't see it as this at all. It is because those who make the law lost the plot some years back.

In earlier years there was a law that was called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

It was pretty general in its wording and it still had to be policed.

When cases came to court, a magistrate LISTENED to the case put before him/her by the prosecution,

and then they LISTENED to the defendant's side of the story.

Then the magistrate made formed a JUDGEMENT, did the sentencing etc.

What is wrong with the present law is that those who are given the roles of constables under the law are forming the JUDGEMENT long before the case ever gets to court.

The current system is putting the cart before the horse.

The role of the inspector should be to inspect and educate, and then to warn if things are not improving, and then if that doesn't work,

then do the prosecuting ..... BUT FOR GOODNESS SAKE, LET THE MAGISTRATE DO THE JUDGING!

If a film crew comes along for the ride, fine, but that footage should ONLY be used for the court case. It is not to be used a publicity material - it is merely recording a job that people are paid to do.

This is not about heroics and publicity stunts.

It is supposed to be about animal welfare.

Souff

[asal]

It's the lack of a sensible framework for management of a complex problem.

No, I don't see it as this at all. It is because those who make the law lost the plot some years back.

In earlier years there was a law that was called the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

It was pretty general in its wording and it still had to be policed.

When cases came to court, a magistrate LISTENED to the case put before him/her by the prosecution,

and then they LISTENED to the defendant's side of the story.

Then the magistrate made formed a JUDGEMENT, did the sentencing etc.

What is wrong with the present law is that those who are given the roles of constables under the law are forming the JUDGEMENT long before the case ever gets to court.

The current system is putting the cart before the horse.

The role of the inspector should be to inspect and educate, and then to warn if things are not improving, and then if that doesn't work,

then do the prosecuting ..... BUT FOR GOODNESS SAKE, LET THE MAGISTRATE DO THE JUDGING!

If a film crew comes along for the ride, fine, but that footage should ONLY be used for the court case. It is not to be used a publicity material - it is merely recording a job that people are paid to do.

This is not about heroics and publicity stunts.

It is supposed to be about animal welfare.

Souff

Hi souf,

thats the one thing missing in every one of the cases i cited.

the actual welfare of the animals wasnt on the radar.

the last instance, of the lady with the chi's, they had come because a neighbour had complained of barking.

no complaints of lack of care or anything like that.

one look and the inspector decided this lady is too old to have 6 tiny dogs. n takes them, all healthy well cared for n hey its a crime to be a collector! handy that one. how can six be a collection?

no suggestions to cut down the noise, well actually complete removal certainly removed the noise?

forgot that bit.

she was in her 70's at the time. must have been pretty healthy, since she later was still alive after 2 years sleeping in the streets with the derelicts?

if some can sleep at night after discovering their pets can be taken with no recourse if they are foolish enough to get past 70 they are certainly resiliant.

[Steve]

When you come into someone's castle and take their family away people are going to get ticked off. When you

put their family to sleep without counsel, any kind of approval or any process or a second opinion, say what you will about their condition and destroy the evidence people are going to get ticked off. When you take away

Give us a system where we FEEL we have the ability to be heard and defend ourselves and our animals and where we dont FEEL threatened and helpless against goliath. Whether we have that already or not it\'s not counted because we dont FEEL like we do and Thats why people get so upset about the RSPCA policing animal welfare. Justified or not - that\'s the way it is and it gets worse every day.

I think the problem in the following statement is in the \'give us\'

Give us a system where we FEEL we have the ability to be heard and defend ourselves and our animals and where we dont FEEL threatened and helpless against goliath. . . . .

Policing seems to be the most difficult area of governance. If you have a stomach for cursing, I'd recommend viewing The Wire (rent the DVD's . . .HBO stuff), a cop show like no other, which deals with the problem of policing in terms of individuals, bureaucracy, education, and the full gamit of complexity.

I see that you (Steve, MDBA, and friends) are working hard and effectively. But no one is going to give provide the dog world with a utopian system for encouraging good practice and cutting back on outright cruelty. It's hard, endless, work to improve the bloody system that has come down to us. Companion animal legislation is every bit as hard as dealing with race, sexual orientation, or drugs . . . and governance systems may be equally as f@$#'ed up. But our budgets are in the hundreds of millions instead of the multi-to-hundreds of billions scale. So it's hard to get attention. Personally, I don\'t think the RSPCA are the bad guys. Not sure 'bad guys' is the problem. It's the lack of a sensible framework for management of a complex problem.

Its not the lack of sensible frame work its the fact that animal rights loonies have been able to dictate animal law.

Because some whacker who happens to be attached to the RSPCA said debarking is a cruel barbaric procedure they all agree and bring in laws to outlaw it.Vet students arent even taught how to debark and they are being educated by animal rights nuts too. Now they run radio campaigns to tell the public the bad bad people who have their animals debarked are horribly cruel people who have to be legislated against to be sure they dont do these terrible things unless its the last resort.Why? What the hell is wrong with a dog owner wanting to have their dog debarked by a vet if they want to? So what if some want to have their dogs debarked by a vet without jumping through hoops with council because they think the dog will be happier barking more softly than being trained to shut up?

It makes no sense - none - not any to advocate and in some places make it law to desex your dog which carries much more serious possible side effects and is much more cruel and barbaric than debarking and yet these laws go ahead and then just to be sure that just in case a cruel purebred show breeder finds a loophole and actually finds a way to do with their dog what they think is best slap another law on them and seize their dogs and turn them into crimminals for taking them to a dog show???????????? In NSW you cant have an electric fence - why? In some states you cant give an injection - why?

They are making laws based on what is said by people who have no experience or real knowledge of the issues or the unintended consequences. They say something is cruel so it must be.

No one can stand up and say bugger off because it makes us look like we do it and we are the bad guys they are talking about "Look at the bad breeders - we have to have laws to stop them" the public sees we need laws to stop us being so cruel.Then they give these people the power to police it all with no accountability.

So the problem begins with animal rights influencing animal law and not just the lack of a sensible framework.Its a lack of sensible anything. If RSPCA says it cruel - it must be.

[Erny]

Personally, I don\'t think the RSPCA are the bad guys.

But it's often the RSPCA who seeks these pieces of legislation in the first place, not necessarily with any evidence that they are required.

And then there are the times when the RSPCA uses its discretion badly - without discourse to consideration of the impact on the dogs by the very fact the RSPCA choses to seize them.

And it is the RSPCA who advertises (coincidentally talking about a Rotty incident) to its adoring public things such as " .... a jealous dog plots and waits for the main chance ....".

And it is the RSPCA who cleverly uses propeganda to help win its adoring but unknowing public over.

And it is the RSPCA who pushes for BSL ..... and in Victoria, still pushes it. But wait - that fits in with my first point raised as even back then, reports from around the world showed that BSL did not serve to reduce bite stats. And of course, those reports were submitted (in the due course of the Government "inviting public submission") but seemingly ignored. It was full steam ahead and I don't doubt for a second that it was going to be anything but.

RSPCA aren't the bad guys?

Sorry, but with what I see, hear, perceive and experience, RSPCA are much the 'bad guys' in so many varying ways.

[Jed]

Erny

And it is the RSPCA who pushes for BSL ..... and in Victoria, still pushes it. But wait - that fits in with my first point raised as even back then, reports from around the world showed that BSL did not serve to reduce bite stats. And of course, those reports were submitted (in the due course of the Government "inviting public submission") but seemingly ignored. It was full steam ahead and I don't doubt for a second that it was going to be anything but.

RSPCA aren't the bad guys?

Course they are. And there are the bodies of 10,000+ dogs from Queensland alone to testify to that. How many from other states,I don't know. And 99% of those dogs were nice homey pets. If there were 10,000 pitbulls and pitbull crosses in Queensland, I will eat my akubra.

Sandgrubber

Personally, I don\'t think the RSPCA are the bad guys.

Who are the bad guys then?

The RSPCA frames more and more laws which pass into legislation. The RSPCA employs mostly expolice with little animal knowledge. The RSPCA employs people with bad attitudes and demonstrable power issues. The RSPCA allows a conflict of interest in one state to continue until the whistle is blown in parliament, and in the media. The RSPCA frames unworkable laws which are not necessarily for the welfare of animals. The RSPCA continues to frame more and more draconian laws which will not improve the welfare of animals.The RSPCA endorsed the sale of eggs from the very worst type of factory farm, where fowls were kept in 30cm square cages on wire mesh floors. Because it was paid for the endorsement.

The RSPCA, because it has no checks and balances, has been absolutely corrupted by absolute power.

The citizens have no rights, no right of appeal, apart from the courts, which are generally inclined to made judgements in favour of the RSPCA. "Why would they have seized the XXXX unless there was cruelty?" Because they can.

RSPCA inspectors have shown themselves to be extremely vindictive. There is also evidence that a particular class of person is regularly targetted by vendettas relating to animals with no particular problems. And those vendettas cause the people intense grief, stress and suffering

No matter what anyone thinks of them, they should go and look at the photos of those cattle of Ruth Downeys - and then try to find excuses for the behaviour of the RSPCA. There are NO excuses. In fact, the RSPCA, imho, should have been prosecuted for gut shooting cattle which looked perfectly healthy, and were in remarkably good condition for drought cattle. Even if inspectors made errors classifying the cattle, there is still the question of animal cruelty perpetrated by the very people charged to prevent it.

An organisation which has no checks or balances is a seriously dangerous organisation. This is not a totalitarian country, it is supposed to be a democracy.

If the police force, or a government department, or a minister, or any other organisation did 10% of the things the RSPCA has been proven to do, there would be a Royal Commission, or a court case, yet this charity persists, year after year, doing whatever it bloody well likes. A charity has more power than the police.

What does an organisation have to do for the public to understand they are "the bad guys".

What does the public have to be shown to believe?

Maybe they are better in WA?

And to make Australia wide legislation? Never.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Jed

[hoffpig]

Surely there are enough voices on DogzOnline to mount a challenge to the RSPCA. What if people were to join up and run for office???

[sandgrubber]

Surely there are enough voices on DogzOnline to mount a challenge to the RSPCA. What if people were to join up and run for office???

I agree completely. I'm afraid it's easier to just curse the RSPCA. In WA we don't find the RSPCA much of a problem (or are there people they've bothered who aren't speaking up). I'd guess that's historical accident, not a result of good organisation in the K9 community. I would say it's the VIC and maybe QLD/NSW people who need to mount a a challenge.

Non-governmental organisations with strong opinions have a long history of taking control of relevant policing. Note certain Christian groups getting Harry Potter banned in school libraries and inserting their people as 'abortion councelors' . . . or homophobes in standard police units. It takes a lot of work and effective organisation to prevent this sort of thing.

[Nannas]

Problem isn't the Government or the laws, or that people assume the RSPCA isn't accountable to anyone.

Problem is that RSPCA has millions of supporters and not as many non-supporters.

In a democratic society everything is won on 'votes'

There are more people voting 'for' the RSPCA than 'against"

The Government won't take a couple of hundred people serious when a million people are saying the opposite.

For over 100 years the R/SPCA has been incontrol of animal welfare in Australia, as noone else wanted to do it.

Not the Government, not the community, noone.

The RSPCA have had the right to seize animals, enter properties and lay fines/charges for sooo long, basically without question, that it has just become 'habit'. Laws they wanted introduced have rarely been questioned by anyone for 100 years, so Government just began passing them through without much consideration. Another "bad habit"

The RSPCA doesn't MAKE laws, they just recommend which ones they think will be beneficial. They supply proof of this in the form of 'supporting documents from the veterinary assocciation', 'scientists', 'animal trainers/behavouralists', 'local council issues and public support' plus a whole heap of other stuff depending on what is being asked for.

They gain their power from the General Public. The millions of people who support, donate and recommend them highly.

Maybe if you all boycott the companies etc the support them. Get everyone you know to boycott them to. If the companies are losing money, they may pull their financial support. (I know some of you do this but it obviously isn't enough yet, email companies and let them know why you are boycotting)

Pick the laws you really think are excessive: get vets/nurses, animal owners, Local Council Members, feed shops, farmers and everyone else you can to sign petitions stating why those laws are excessive, or none productive.

Petition Local Councils/Government for meetings to be held (in all towns/cities)with public inclusion to debate/discuss any new laws and ATTEND them.

In these threads there are so many issues that keep getting clumped into one theme, but they are issues all maintained, controlled, enforced by different organisations/people.

Seperate them, find which department/area they belong to and delegate someone to be 'head joe' of each area. Head Joe can keep a record of viable comments, thoughts, ideas AND look further into what/where/how to go about furthering action. Each supporter can add to the area they feel more comfortable 'researching or investigating' until you have what you feel is enough to take action.

A bunch of people loosely firing undocumented emails, phone calls and abuse isn't going to put a dent in an organisation that has been running strong for over 100years JUST in Australia. (gosh knows how long it's been in UK)

Take control amd make yourselves an organisation that is organised, IF you really all want to see a change.

Be persistant.The Government knows when something goes wrong a whole bunch of people begin complaining, emailing, calling BUT after a few months it fades away. They aren't so much 'ignoring' people, more like waiting for the storm to pass. They know in a month or two after this whole fuss, everything will fade off and all will be quiet again.

It takes years for RSPCA to be able to get laws passed, be prepared for it to take years to have them un-passed.

Maybe someone could start a site just listing 'honest and true' incidences involving unfair treatment from/by the RSPCA so that the other million people who feel the same could all join or atleast comment on. Make sure it doesn't contain anything 'slanderous' or 'liable' but a place where you can collect and gather stories/information from ALL the other people that don't visit DOL or have any idea that others are upset about the RSPCA. Email the site to 20 of your freinds in chainletter form and ask them to send it to 20 of their freinds etc. Be prepared for alot of nutcases but hopefully you will be able to make a meeting place for all those that feel they have been illtreated.

For the most part it really just is a numbers thing. RSPCA has online meeting places for all their members and supporters, are easily found and have a nice frontage. People are attracted to them.

These threads are really unattractive (for the most part) and I cannot imagine them gaining much outside support.

IF the RSPCA began threads like these on their site (or joined in here) they would LOSE support quickly.

I have seen it quoted in here before, that saying "you catch more flies......"

Somewhere people need to start using 'honey' to attract the communties attention and gain support.

[Erny]

They supply proof of this in the form of 'supporting documents from the veterinary assocciation', 'scientists', 'animal trainers/behavouralists', 'local council issues and public support' plus a whole heap of other stuff depending on what is being asked for.

They don't have to supply "proof". Just letters from other groups who happen to agree with it/him (ie RSPCA/Hugh Wirth). Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness doesn't seem to have to apply when it comes to regulating/legislating.

I agree with you regarding the more -vs - lesser support that the RSPCA gets from the joe public. But that shouldn't stop people from voicing their objections (not that you said it should). And this can be done in the form of : telling people of these factual stories (eg. this one; Ruth Downey; etc. etc.); giving donations to some other charity; letters (they accumulate, over time); engaging in the Christmas Card Challenge suggested by the MDBA with the notation "Concerned about the RSPCA powers" on them; voting with your feet; on the back of your voting slips, writing something similar (ie "Concerned about the RSPCA powers").

Keep letting them know you're not happy.

After all, when you're in trouble, do you only cry out for help once and quit when no one responds?

Edited December 20, 2009 by Erny

[Nannas]

But that shouldn't stop people from voicing their objections (not that you said it should). And this can be done in the form of : telling people of these factual stories (eg. this one; Ruth Downey; etc. etc.); giving donations to some other charity; letters (they accumulate, over time); engaging in the Christmas Card Challenge suggested by the MDBA with the notation "Concerned about the RSPCA powers" on them; voting with your feet; on the back of your voting slips, writing something similar (ie "Concerned about the RSPCA powers").

Keep letting them know you're not happy.

After all, when you're in trouble, do you only cry out for help once and quit when no one responds?

I totally agree.

Thousands of people voice opinions on thousands of issues everyday the world over.

The problem with getting action is how those opinions are voiced, and who to.

When it comes time to vote in Elections (local, state, federal whatever)

Go and speak the the 'contestants (LOL) ask them about their RSPCA stance...Let them if you are not happy and that you will look towards another 'contestant'

Start a site. Run a poll on it. Have a forum where people can talk about problems or ask questions (but keep it monitored)

Geesh, let your kids do a home made print Tshirt for your pet with a "not happy RSPCA on it." os similar. (wear one yourself) Bumper stickers! (all with web addy of your site)

The many millions without pets in Australia would probably have no idea there was an issue with RSPCA. Make it visible to them. (don't give them nagging horrific lectures, point them to your site)

Get ALL the Reg Breeders into it. They would hold alot of pull if they banded together.

People LOVE sticky beaking and gossip. A new site to read and explore, whether they join or not, they will certainly tell freinds about.

The more people who visit (make sure it has a visitors counter) the more the RSPCA and Government will see how many people are in doubt about certian issues. The more they know people are gathering and becoming unsettled, the more likely they will pay attention.

I really like some of your ideas. If everyone thought seriously about what could be done JUST in their community and listed them here (or on a site) there would be so many ideas that would also benefit similar communities and I bet most areas could be covered fairly quickly. People don't have to feel like it is hopeless because RSPCA is a large nationwide organisation, and we are too small to cover the nation..WE DO!!! Just the people in here cover ALL states and most areas within each state. We already have nationwide coverage. Now all is needed is more members...LOL

There would be hundreds of ways and ideas if everyone could just think and be rational, but it needs to be organised. (not just helter skelter)

I notice a few on here who seem to remain cool and level headed (not let emotions run their posts) that would get my vote for organising the beginning of something that may eventually become the BIG BROTHER of animal laws/welfare organisations.

Why NOT?? There is clearly a NEED for it.

Edited December 20, 2009 by Nannas

[sandgrubber]

They supply proof of this in the form of 'supporting documents from the veterinary assocciation', 'scientists', 'animal trainers/behavouralists', 'local council issues and public support' plus a whole heap of other stuff depending on what is being asked for.

They don't have to supply "proof". Just letters from other groups who happen to agree with it/him (ie RSPCA/Hugh Wirth). Natural Justice and Procedural Fairness doesn't seem to have to apply when it comes to regulating/legislating.

I agree with you regarding the more -vs - lesser support that the RSPCA gets from the joe public. But that shouldn't stop people from voicing their objections (not that you said it should). And this can be done in the form of : telling people of these factual stories (eg. this one; Ruth Downey; etc. etc.); giving donations to some other charity; letters (they accumulate, over time); engaging in the Christmas Card Challenge suggested by the MDBA with the notation "Concerned about the RSPCA powers" on them; voting with your feet; on the back of your voting slips, writing something similar (ie "Concerned about the RSPCA powers").

Keep letting them know you're not happy.

After all, when you're in trouble, do you only cry out for help once and quit when no one responds?

In WA I see the RSPCA as doing more good than harm. May be different in other states. I could well be wrong cause I don't see everything.

In general, I think it's more powerful to take responsibility than to point fingers. All charities have internal politics and many are succeptible to being directed by people with extreme views. Where I grew up (California) there were problems with extreme Christians taking over the PTA (Parents and Teacher's Association) and pushing school prayer, preventing sex education, etc. I don't blame the Christians . . . I blame the non-extreme members for letting extrimists take over.

The RSPCA has built up a well respected brand name. I think it's more effective to work to make the RSPCA respond to genuine cruelty than to bad mouth the organisation.

[Erny]

The RSPCA has built up a well respected brand name. I think it's more effective to work to make the RSPCA respond to genuine cruelty than to bad mouth the organisation.

Perhaps ..... except that telling the truth of what the RSPCA does is not "bad-mouthing". It's evening up the balance of truth.

I hear what you are saying and I agree that is ONE way (not to the exceptions of all other ways) to do things. But one of the things that also needs to occur is for the Government which gives the power that it does to the RSPCA to recognise that not all is good. And one of the ways to encourage the Government to open its eyes is by it understanding that more and more of its public are becoming aware of the issues within the RSPCA.

This, of course, in amongst the usual things such as letters, meetings, websites, submissions, etc.

[bryan_mannix]

I remember watching this sometime ago. Talked about concerns re accountability and ties to big business in RSPCA in WA I think?

[mirawee]

In WA, the RSPCA has made it so that the Police will not involve themselves with anything to do with animals after they were sued! Yes, the cops made a bad judgement, but in doing so they removed a threat that was endangering the lives of people (Very large kangaroo playing chicken on a very busy road).

I haven't heard of any cases about wrongful seizures of animals in WA. It is hard enough to get inspectors out to very obvious cases of neglect even with multiple complaits from several people.

Saying that, we did have an RSPCA inspector our to our property many years ago after our neighbour complained we (or at least my grandparents at that stage) weren't feeding our sheep enough. Inspector came out and told my grandparents to put the sheep on a diet...

So I do think it is the people in the RSPCA that are the problem. But it does seem wrong that such a large area of governance is left to a charity rather than a government organisation.

[Erny]

So I do think it is the people in the RSPCA that are the problem. But it does seem wrong that such a large area of governance is left to a charity rather than a government organisation.

Agree, and in essence this is much of what people in this thread are saying. IE .... that the original "structure" is ok, but due to the actions of those who run it, it has gotten out of hand in more recent years.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Erny