Rspca Serves Warrant On Dogs Vic

[SpikesPuppy]

Just on the issue of chipping. For VIC it may be different but in NSW the breeder is responsible for making sure that the microchip papers are transferred into the new owners name. You as the breeder get the new owner to fill in the transfer form and you lodge it with your local council. There are fines for not doing it within 14 days of the puppy/dog changing hands.

Chip papers in the eyes of the law, are the one's that count.

I'm sure just about every breeder out there has dogs under their name with their CC's, when infact they have been with new owners for years.

I'm a little confused, why would the local council be in charge of changing microchip registration?? Doesn't that fall to the microchip registry the dog is registered with (CAR, NPR, etc??).

I don't trust my council to wipe their own rear ends let alone handle change of ownership But if that's what I have to do I will...

[BittyMooPeeb]

Just on the issue of chipping. For VIC it may be different but in NSW the breeder is responsible for making sure that the microchip papers are transferred into the new owners name. You as the breeder get the new owner to fill in the transfer form and you lodge it with your local council. There are fines for not doing it within 14 days of the puppy/dog changing hands.

Chip papers in the eyes of the law, are the one's that count.

I'm sure just about every breeder out there has dogs under their name with their CC's, when infact they have been with new owners for years.

I'm a little confused, why would the local council be in charge of changing microchip registration?? Doesn't that fall to the microchip registry the dog is registered with (CAR, NPR, etc??).

I don't trust my council to wipe their own rear ends let alone handle change of ownership But if that's what I have to do I will...

In NSW, for the NSW chip register, changes have to go through your local council. For 'private' registers like AAR, CAR etc you go though them directly

[SpikesPuppy]

Just on the issue of chipping. For VIC it may be different but in NSW the breeder is responsible for making sure that the microchip papers are transferred into the new owners name. You as the breeder get the new owner to fill in the transfer form and you lodge it with your local council. There are fines for not doing it within 14 days of the puppy/dog changing hands.

Chip papers in the eyes of the law, are the one's that count.

I'm sure just about every breeder out there has dogs under their name with their CC's, when infact they have been with new owners for years.

I'm a little confused, why would the local council be in charge of changing microchip registration?? Doesn't that fall to the microchip registry the dog is registered with (CAR, NPR, etc??).

I don't trust my council to wipe their own rear ends let alone handle change of ownership But if that's what I have to do I will...

In NSW, for the NSW chip register, changes have to go through your local council. For 'private' registers like AAR, CAR etc you go though them directly

Still confused LOL. Will just get the vet to explain it to me when I get them done I would like to go with CAR as that's what the other animals are all with.

[yarracully]

At this point the RSPCA has more powers than the police, god help us all.

That's a pretty inflammatory statement. What is your evidence for this?

BTW, the police/courts issue the warrants for the RSPCA, they don't write them themselves!

Your statement above may be true. but Hastings statement is true to a certain point. Its true that Police etc issue the warrants for the RSPCA but then again the police/courts are not party to making the laws only enforcing, and must use a third party to prosecute under the laws thus providing for accountability. Whereas the RSPCA are a party to making the laws as well as enforcing and prosecuting with no form of accountability.

If a warrant is issued under this Vic law it can be served by either an officer of the law or an RSPCA inspector. To my knowledge this organisation is the only one that does not need a law enforcement officer in attendence to serve and execute a warrant.

So it could be said that the RSPCA does have more power than the police.

[SpikesPuppy]

The RSPCA also has no one to answer to if accused of misconduct etc.

Police officers can be found guilty of misconduct, corruption etc but the RSPCA does not (from my understanding) have any form of Internal Affairs/investigation.

ETA: Basically, if you feel you've been done wrong by the RSPCA, you have to fight your battle on your own.

Edited January 27, 2010 by SpikesPuppy

[Jed]

Souff made the statement I have quoted below on 12 July 2004 on this forum.

I hope breeders, and ANKC members will read it, consider it, and further consider that in the past 5 1/2 years, the RSPCA has become more committed to the ideology Souff has mentoned. And perhaps you will cinsider what can be done about it.

When I start reading reports from committees such as NCCAW it becomes clear. Time and again I see the links - the animal liberationist views of PETA, VIVA, and the other big bunches of ratbags, coming through. Dr Worth (representing RSPCA) and others like Animals Australia have been sitting on some pretty powerful committees making some pretty bigtime decisions - and us doggy breeders have been out here thinking that commonsense would prevail and we could safely keep snipping away.

Well it didnt prevail - and I am very firmly of the opinion that it wasnt just Dr Worth's personal opinion that was prevailing (cos I am sure he loved his own docked Airedale Terriers ) but the wishes of the RSPCA to get rid of tail docking. He presented the views of the RSPCA in quite a spectacular fashion and he must have got it right, cos all those politicians believed him !!!

Had the RSPCA spent the same amount of dollars and brain power and scheming on the issues we see raised on DOL, instead of following the ideas of pea brained activists with bags of donated megabucks, who want all dogs to be free and people NOT TO HAVE PETS!!! - yes folks, that's the goals of VIVA and PETA particularly And folks, they have only just started with the tail docking laws - there is more to come.

A charity that likes the thought that it can change decent longstanding laws is a pretty dangerous little machine imho. We must forgive them if they are too busy to attend to the animals, they have laws to change! They must stay true to the path of the PETA mantra, chanting and incense burning I suppose

[Ceilidh]

Ahhhhh Souff, so prophetic all those years ago. There were some of us that kept on harping 'docking is only the start' but still we didn't get the support from many of those that said 'doesn't concern me, I don't have a docked breed' And look what is happening today. Still, there will be those that still don't need to get involved because 'it doesn't concern me, I don't have a big, long eared, snub nosed, long backed etc etc dog'

Has anyone heard anymore on this warrant? Has another breeder been visited yet? What a scary place for dogs to live!!!

[Ceilidh]

Oops, gremlins

Edited January 27, 2010 by Ceilidh

[SpikesPuppy]

If anyone involved in pedigree dogs still believes it doesn't affect them they have their heads in the sand. Likewise, it wont be confined to Victoria if the RSPCA get their wish.

The fact that it is legal, for example, for an RSPCA officer to seize an otherwise healthy, clearly well looked after puppy because it had it's tail docked at the appropriate age (the Bulldog type on the RSPCA program), without a warrant is absolutely terrifying.

I wish I could do more right now but honestly, I have no idea where to start? The best I can muster at the moment is sit here at my computer in fear.

If anyone has any suggestions on who I can write to or something I can DO please share.

However, the other part of me feels that if the breeder DID break the law (and you cannot argue that the tail docking law is not well known, unlike the debarking mishmash), then they have not only done themselves, but all pedigree dogs a huge disservice. I am pro-docking but there are legal ways of doing it. Hopefully this breeder used one of these loopholes.....

[Firestone]

If anyone involved in pedigree dogs still believes it doesn't affect them they have their heads in the sand. Likewise, it wont be confined to Victoria if the RSPCA get their wish.

The fact that it is legal, for example, for an RSPCA officer to seize an otherwise healthy, clearly well looked after puppy because it had it's tail docked at the appropriate age (the Bulldog type on the RSPCA program), without a warrant is absolutely terrifying.

I wish I could do more right now but honestly, I have no idea where to start? The best I can muster at the moment is sit here at my computer in fear.

If anyone has any suggestions on who I can write to or something I can DO please share.

However, the other part of me feels that if the breeder DID break the law (and you cannot argue that the tail docking law is not well known, unlike the debarking mishmash), then they have not only done themselves, but all pedigree dogs a huge disservice. I am pro-docking but there are legal ways of doing it. Hopefully this breeder used one of these loopholes.....

Yes we are bit like you not sure where or how to start but, there was a person on the Oz Show Email Group who is willing to take names and collate all the information on a state by state basis so we can all get together and formulate a plan.

[BJean]

If anyone involved in pedigree dogs still believes it doesn't affect them they have their heads in the sand. Likewise, it wont be confined to Victoria if the RSPCA get their wish.

The fact that it is legal, for example, for an RSPCA officer to seize an otherwise healthy, clearly well looked after puppy because it had it's tail docked at the appropriate age (the Bulldog type on the RSPCA program), without a warrant is absolutely terrifying.

I wish I could do more right now but honestly, I have no idea where to start? The best I can muster at the moment is sit here at my computer in fear.

If anyone has any suggestions on who I can write to or something I can DO please share.

SP

I'd like to raise the RSPCA as an item at the upcoming DogsVic AGM -

I will forward you my proposal to read

maybe you will second it

[pebbles]

As a member of the VCA/KCC for over 50 years, I'll 'third' it if you like!

[BJean]

As a member of the VCA/KCC for over 50 years, I'll 'third' it if you like!

okay cool

I have sent you a PM L:)

[wayrod]

The RSPCA also has no one to answer to if accused of misconduct etc.

Police officers can be found guilty of misconduct, corruption etc but the RSPCA does not (from my understanding) have any form of Internal Affairs/investigation.

ETA: Basically, if you feel you've been done wrong by the RSPCA, you have to fight your battle on your own.

Wouldn't the Minister for Agriculture who oversees the relevant legislation have the ability to take away/suspend pending investigation, the powers given to the RSPCA whether it is on a temporary basis or permanent basis. It can occur with the Local Government Minister sacking democratically elected councils so I am sure that the Min of Ag has similar ability.

Ultimately, the State Parliament can review the appropriate sections of the relevant legislation if there is a big enough uproar. The squeakiest wheel receives the most attention.

[BittyMooPeeb]

At this point the RSPCA has more powers than the police, god help us all.

That's a pretty inflammatory statement. What is your evidence for this?

BTW, the police/courts issue the warrants for the RSPCA, they don't write them themselves!

Your statement above may be true. but Hastings statement is true to a certain point. Its true that Police etc issue the warrants for the RSPCA but then again the police/courts are not party to making the laws only enforcing, and must use a third party to prosecute under the laws thus providing for accountability. Whereas the RSPCA are a party to making the laws as well as enforcing and prosecuting with no form of accountability.

If a warrant is issued under this Vic law it can be served by either an officer of the law or an RSPCA inspector. To my knowledge this organisation is the only one that does not need a law enforcement officer in attendence to serve and execute a warrant.

So it could be said that the RSPCA does have more power than the police.

Interesting ..... I think in NSW a police officer must be in attendence to serve and execute the warrant.

I am sure the police union and high ranking police officers have just as much, if not more, of a politicians ear than the RSPCA do. I can think of many recent laws that were changed or introduced at the request of police.

[SpikesPuppy]

If anyone involved in pedigree dogs still believes it doesn't affect them they have their heads in the sand. Likewise, it wont be confined to Victoria if the RSPCA get their wish.

The fact that it is legal, for example, for an RSPCA officer to seize an otherwise healthy, clearly well looked after puppy because it had it's tail docked at the appropriate age (the Bulldog type on the RSPCA program), without a warrant is absolutely terrifying.

I wish I could do more right now but honestly, I have no idea where to start? The best I can muster at the moment is sit here at my computer in fear.

If anyone has any suggestions on who I can write to or something I can DO please share.

SP

I'd like to raise the RSPCA as an item at the upcoming DogsVic AGM -

I will forward you my proposal to read

maybe you will second it

I am very interested to read it When is the AGM???

[BJean]

The AGM is on April 7

but all item agendas must be submitted by Jan 31.

I have sent you a PM

L:)

[Jed]

Lappiemum

it depends on the heritable disease. Late onset PRA is in my breed, and some breeders are breeding carrier to clears, which is legal. I know for a fact one of these breeders has not tested the progeny from the last carrier litter, and this is perfectly fine with the legislation, that only states a breeder should test all the litter, not must. The breeding program for the Vic Breed club states that in terms of carrier to clear matings, only dogs and bitches intended for breeding need to be tested for PRA status, so there is nothing to compell the testing of carrier to clear litters - its up to the breeder.

The thing I find most concerning about this is that you can breed a carrier, sell it on limited register as a pet, provide full disclosure to the buyer, and a couple of years later, they get the s#$ts with you, and complain. Buyers, in my experience are flat out remembering what was in the diet sheet you gave them, never mind some complicated explanation about a hereditary disease where their dog has the genes but not the symptoms.

So, off they go and complain. If I was in Vic, I would make everyone who bought a pup sign a waiver to say that they did know the dog was a carrier, did not want to breed, and accepted that,.

Then, when pushed, they say they were "only a pet owner" and could not be expected to know or understand that. They bought the dog in good faith, they decided to breed with it, and you are in the you know what.

Just the hassle of some official turning up to find out what you did and didn't do puts me off. check through your records (if they don't seize them) find the buyer and the litter, find the signed agreement, find it isn't done properly, even though you thought it was.

And things like this do happen. I've been breeding long enough to know they do. Greyshaft is only one of many people like him who want their pound of flesh.

And the laws are incredibly convolvulted and difficult to understand,. Despite the Gov and RSPCA saying those laws are for puppy farmers, that is not spelled out, so if you have been breeding for 30 years, whelp a perfectly normal litter, the bitch is perfectly normal, but you don' t take her to the vet for a post whelping check, you are in breach of the laws, and liable to a large fine - and again, the RSPCA can seize the bitch and pups.

It's not about doing the crime for me. I am a very law abiding person - it's about the RSPCA seizing my dogs.

Poodlefan

BYBs are caught by the same law. If you can demonstrate that your breeding will not produce dogs with heritable defects, I'd say that's a defence. Time will tell.

If a byb can't test because there is no test developed, they are in the clear. And they are impossible to find anyhow.

And it may not have been a competitor who reported them - as with Judy Gard it may have been some misguided animal rights vet. It seems obvious that they are out to collar people.

It will be interesting to discover the full story behind this.

Jed

no records at an easily accessed place, no pubic addres, no names, no pack drill, happily flying under the radar

Oh, dear, I think that has to be the freudian slip of the year.

This is quite a contentious issue, Jed. I fall on the side that if you breed a carrier litter, you should have the progeny tested gentically. You can have the result registered with the genetic company, provide disclosure to the puppy person in writing (as is required) and that way everyone is covered.

The other danger in not testing a litter is that while breeders try to screen everyone who wants a puppy from their breed, there is still the distinct possibility that one day there will be unregistered litters for sale from back yarders, who have managed to get into the breed though "pet" purchases. Registration and health checks will have no meaning for them, only $$. however, eithout knowing the genetic status of the parents, you could end up with affected litters without ever knowing it.

I was speaking of a litter which has been tested, Lappiemum. I've been breeding for a fair while, and although I haven't had too many problems, I've had few that I shouldn't have had, and I've seen problems my breeder friends have had. I can see someone who decides to breed, despite the dog being on LR and my having disclosed it is a carrier, getting affected pups, and going me. Easy enough for them to say they were a "pet owner" and did not understand.

Whether a carrier is sold with or without full disclosure, and the offspring go to byb who do not test, I see that as their problem. I have sold the dog on limited register, they shouldn't have bred with it, and THEY should have tested, because I;ve lost control. I have had little problem with people saying they want a pet, and then breeding, but it's happened once or twice over a lot of years. People's intentions change. It's been ok with the pups I've sold

Like Oakway, I too wonder about the ability of the CCs to do anything about this. DogsQld is the place all controversial legislation is tested, because they are known to be so weak by gov and animal rights. They haven't shown any signs of growing a backbone either, and I think they and the other state CCs will need a backbone.

I've never yet relinquished a registration cert for a dead dog, so if the RSPCA turns up here,they will be expecting to see about 30 dogs. Oh dear!!

I had my first compulsory microchipped litter a couple of months ago. I've never microchipped. With this litter, the vet microchipped them, and gave me the paperwork which was not completed. As I sold the pups, I filled out the forms and distributed them as required, so the name on the forms was that of the buyer, not a transfer from me as the breeder to the buyer. that way, I know the chips are in the buyers' names.

In Q. we can register the litter into each individual new owner's name when we do the litter registration. I see this is a more efficient way of doing it - there is no option for the new owner not to register the pup. And they can have the pup in their name without being a DogsQld member. I think other CCs should do the same thing. CCs need to realise that they will have to protect breeders

Edited January 30, 2010 by Jed

[yarracully]

At this point the RSPCA has more powers than the police, god help us all.

That's a pretty inflammatory statement. What is your evidence for this?

BTW, the police/courts issue the warrants for the RSPCA, they don't write them themselves!

Your statement above may be true. but Hastings statement is true to a certain point. Its true that Police etc issue the warrants for the RSPCA but then again the police/courts are not party to making the laws only enforcing, and must use a third party to prosecute under the laws thus providing for accountability. Whereas the RSPCA are a party to making the laws as well as enforcing and prosecuting with no form of accountability.

If a warrant is issued under this Vic law it can be served by either an officer of the law or an RSPCA inspector. To my knowledge this organisation is the only one that does not need a law enforcement officer in attendence to serve and execute a warrant.

So it could be said that the RSPCA does have more power than the police.

Interesting ..... I think in NSW a police officer must be in attendence to serve and execute the warrant.

I am sure the police union and high ranking police officers have just as much, if not more, of a politicians ear than the RSPCA do. I can think of many recent laws that were changed or introduced at the request of police.

I think not: (Taken from the NSW POCTAA)

24F Search warrant

(1) In this section:

authorised officer has the same meaning as it has in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

(2) An inspector may apply to an authorised officer for a search warrant if the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that there is, in or on any land:

(a) an animal in respect of which an offence against this Act or the regulations is being or has been committed or is about to be committed, or

(b) evidence of an offence against this Act or the regulations that has been committed.

(3) An authorised officer to whom an application is made under subsection (2) may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, issue a search warrant authorising an inspector named in the warrant, together with any person so named:

(a) to enter and search the land, and

(b) to exercise any functions of an inspector under this Division in or on the land.

So yes a police officer or court must issue the warrant but under section 3, only the inspector (RSPCA REP) and any others so named on the warrant need be present. There is no requirement for a police officer to be present or named when the warrant is served in NSW either.

Also interesting to note they can serve a warant on the grounds of a belief that a breach of the act is going to happen (at some point in the future)

[yarracully]

Wouldn't the Minister for Agriculture who oversees the relevant legislation have the ability to take away/suspend pending investigation, the powers given to the RSPCA whether it is on a temporary basis or permanent basis. It can occur with the Local Government Minister sacking democratically elected councils so I am sure that the Min of Ag has similar ability.

Ultimately, the State Parliament can review the appropriate sections of the relevant legislation if there is a big enough uproar. The squeakiest wheel receives the most attention.

Local councils still have to report to the Minister for Local Government and therefore are accountable. There really is no one for the RSPCA to be accountable to as they are not a form of government. They are a registered charitable organisation.

Most of the different state acts acknowledge this point (following definitions taken from NSW POCTAA)

charitable organisation means:

(a) the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, New South Wales, and

(b) any other organisation or association which has as one of its objects the promotion of the welfare of, or the prevention of cruelty to, animals, or any class of animals, and which is a non-profit organisation having as one of its objects a charitable, benevolent, philanthropic or patriotic purpose.

and further down in the acts definitions

officer means:

(a) a member of the police force or an inspector within the meaning of the Animal Research Act 1985,

(b) an officer of an approved charitable organisation who is a special constable within the meaning of the Police Offences Act 1901, or

© a public servant who is appointed by the Minister, or by an officer of the Department of Primary Industries authorised by the Minister, as an officer for the purposes of this Act.