Rspca Discussion Paper On Puppy Farming

[Howl]

I was thinking about the RSPCA and their desire for increased power. They recently busted a puppy farm in Qld, seized 240 dogs. People have been lodging formal complaints about this operation, to my certain knowledge, for the past SIX years, including 2 pet shops. No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I know about. It took them six years to do anything, and they have always had the power to seize the dogs.

Actually Jed the recent bust you refer to was led by Biosecurity Qld, not the RSPCA, although RSPCA assisted. RSPCA Qld operations do not cover the whole of Queensland - it is a shared responsibility between Biosecurity and RSPCA. The location of the puppy farm made it the responsibility of Biosecurity Qld and not the RSPCA.

And how did you know that it took 'them' (Bio. Qld) six years to do anything? For all you know investigations may have been conducted, maybe an educational approach was attempted first??? Who knows???

I know.

I don't write things unless they are true.

And I know about BioSecurity aka DPI and non metro areas. Do you think I should have given BS some of the kudos for the bust? I said "RSPCA" because that is where the complaints were lodged.

Do you have a problem? Inspector for the RSCPA now?

Do I have a problem? Apart from you going off half cocked that is? Wow, you really can be mean.

As soon as someone tries to correct or look at something from another point you just dig the boot in. You know, people can have different opinions about things, or see things from another side.

The point I was trying to make is that you appeared to be slamming the RSPCA for not acting on the puppy farm for 6 years, but reality was that it was not their position to act.

Now you say that you said RSPCA because that's where the complaints were lodged. So what are you trying to say? That they didn't pass the complaints on?

And please, save the sarcasm. If you can't answer politely then don't bother at all.

[Jed]

I was thinking about the RSPCA and their desire for increased power. They recently busted a puppy farm in Qld, seized 240 dogs. People have been lodging formal complaints about this operation, to my certain knowledge, for the past SIX years, including 2 pet shops. No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I know about. It took them six years to do anything, and they have always had the power to seize the dogs.

Actually Jed the recent bust you refer to was led by Biosecurity Qld, not the RSPCA, although RSPCA assisted. RSPCA Qld operations do not cover the whole of Queensland - it is a shared responsibility between Biosecurity and RSPCA. The location of the puppy farm made it the responsibility of Biosecurity Qld and not the RSPCA.

And how did you know that it took 'them' (Bio. Qld) six years to do anything? For all you know investigations may have been conducted, maybe an educational approach was attempted first??? Who knows???

I know.

I don't write things unless they are true.

And I know about BioSecurity aka DPI and non metro areas. Do you think I should have given BS some of the kudos for the bust? I said "RSPCA" because that is where the complaints were lodged.

Do you have a problem? Inspector for the RSCPA now?

Do I have a problem? Apart from you going off half cocked that is? Wow, you really can be mean.

As soon as someone tries to correct or look at something from another point you just dig the boot in. You know, people can have different opinions about things, or see things from another side.

The point I was trying to make is that you appeared to be slamming the RSPCA for not acting on the puppy farm for 6 years, but reality was that it was not their position to act.

Now you say that you said RSPCA because that's where the complaints were lodged. So what are you trying to say? That they didn't pass the complaints on?

And please, save the sarcasm. If you can't answer politely then don't bother at all.

I dislike you asserting I am lying. I don't need correcting. This is the THIRD time I am telling you that complaints were lodged with the RSPCA over 6 years. I have no idea what happened to them after that.

I know of other people who say they have complained about this or that, but I don't have proof, so I shut up about it.

In this case, I do know that complaints were lodged. And by whom, and when. A business has diary entries about the letters (and copies of the letters) and calls made. I believe they gave up after 2 years. It was all too hard.

If DPI should have acted, the complaints should have been passed to DPI. As far as I am aware, complaints in rural areas have been handled by RSPCA until recently.

And the public has been led to believe that they should report cruelty to the RSPCA. Maybe they need to change the advertising?

After I gave up after the nth complaint about a dog locked in a windowless garden shed 23.5/7. And that was an RSPCA matter.

If you are an RSPCA inspector, I suggest you check the files for written complaints. I can't believe Australia post lost ALL them.

You tell me why RSPCA asking for discussions on yet more laws on puppy farms when they take 6 years to act on complaints about puppy farms, and the existing laws are strong enough for them to gain convictions?

And I realise that people have different opinions. That's why I only argue in the threads that are important to me. And I don't like being called a liar.

[Howl]

I was thinking about the RSPCA and their desire for increased power. They recently busted a puppy farm in Qld, seized 240 dogs. People have been lodging formal complaints about this operation, to my certain knowledge, for the past SIX years, including 2 pet shops. No doubt there are more, but those are the ones I know about. It took them six years to do anything, and they have always had the power to seize the dogs.

Actually Jed the recent bust you refer to was led by Biosecurity Qld, not the RSPCA, although RSPCA assisted. RSPCA Qld operations do not cover the whole of Queensland - it is a shared responsibility between Biosecurity and RSPCA. The location of the puppy farm made it the responsibility of Biosecurity Qld and not the RSPCA.

And how did you know that it took 'them' (Bio. Qld) six years to do anything? For all you know investigations may have been conducted, maybe an educational approach was attempted first??? Who knows???

I know.

I don't write things unless they are true.

And I know about BioSecurity aka DPI and non metro areas. Do you think I should have given BS some of the kudos for the bust? I said "RSPCA" because that is where the complaints were lodged.

Do you have a problem? Inspector for the RSCPA now?

Do I have a problem? Apart from you going off half cocked that is? Wow, you really can be mean.

As soon as someone tries to correct or look at something from another point you just dig the boot in. You know, people can have different opinions about things, or see things from another side.

The point I was trying to make is that you appeared to be slamming the RSPCA for not acting on the puppy farm for 6 years, but reality was that it was not their position to act.

Now you say that you said RSPCA because that's where the complaints were lodged. So what are you trying to say? That they didn't pass the complaints on?

And please, save the sarcasm. If you can't answer politely then don't bother at all.

I dislike you asserting I am lying. I don't need correcting. This is the THIRD time I am telling you that complaints were lodged with the RSPCA over 6 years. I have no idea what happened to them after that.

I know of other people who say they have complained about this or that, but I don't have proof, so I shut up about it.

In this case, I do know that complaints were lodged. And by whom, and when. A business has diary entries about the letters (and copies of the letters) and calls made. I believe they gave up after 2 years. It was all too hard.

If DPI should have acted, the complaints should have been passed to DPI. As far as I am aware, complaints in rural areas have been handled by RSPCA until recently.

And the public has been led to believe that they should report cruelty to the RSPCA. Maybe they need to change the advertising?

After I gave up after the nth complaint about a dog locked in a windowless garden shed 23.5/7. And that was an RSPCA matter.

If you are an RSPCA inspector, I suggest you check the files for written complaints. I can't believe Australia post lost ALL them.

You tell me why RSPCA asking for discussions on yet more laws on puppy farms when they take 6 years to act on complaints about puppy farms, and the existing laws are strong enough for them to gain convictions?

And I realise that people have different opinions. That's why I only argue in the threads that are important to me. And I don't like being called a liar.

Never have I said or inferred that you are lying. You seem to misunderstand what I am trying to get at.

I understand from what you have said that complaints were made to the RSPCA about the puppy farm. I am not disputing that. What I was trying to say is that it's a bit hard to sledge the RSPCA for not investigating those complaints when the RSPCA wasn't responsible for managing that location. It's a bit like a local council being blamed for the poor condition of a state managed road. The council cops a pasting from the public, but at the end of the day, it's not their road to maintain or fix.

If the RSPCA didn't pass the complaints on to Biosecurity then yes, that is shameful, but is that what happened?

It looks like you have had a run around from the RSPCA, so I can understand why you are cranky about them. As for me, I personally haven't had a bad experience with them and I have worked in government long enough to appreciate that there are at least 10 different sides to a story.

I will reiterate - I did not accuse you, nor think, you are lying. If you believe I inferred it, I am sorry.

[Jed]

No, I'm not cranky with you. I probably wrote "cranky", and I do realise what you are saying. I think I have worded my reply badly.

I understand from what you have said that complaints were made to the RSPCA about the puppy farm. I am not disputing that. What I was trying to say is that it's a bit hard to sledge the RSPCA for not investigating those complaints when the RSPCA wasn't responsible for managing that location. It's a bit like a local council being blamed for the poor condition of a state managed road. The council cops a pasting from the public, but at the end of the day, it's not their road to maintain or fix.

Until recently, the RSPCA, to the best of my understanding, and also because of the way things were done, DID investigate larger cases outside the metropolitan areas. I know that for sure, because I know of people who have been visited or busted, depending.

It is only recently that Biosecurity was responsible for larger items. Maybe after EI, maybe when they labelled themselves Biosecurity. The DPI has been relabelled and redirected so many times by the government, it is difficult to know exactly when they took over doing that, and stopped doing whatever they were doing before that!!

Before whenever it was - if there was a complaint in a country area, a DPI stock inspector, versed in the ways of dogs/cattle/horses or whatever, rocked out and sorted it. Any bigger cases seemed to have the RSPCA involved. In some country areas, the police went out, and where there was no RSPCA (or a "designated person", as there was in some country towns, and may still be) the police were the first port of call.

As I understand it, when the complaints were first lodged, the RSPCA would have been calling, not the DPI or biosecurity

[Lhok]

I don't usually post on here and I know that my local members of parliament don't like to give me appointments anymore because I am constantly battering them for animal welfare improvements.

In regards to the posts and the OP I for one do not like the power the RSPCA have, I have volunteered for them and have seen many good dogs go to the Emerald dream and other dogs (due to them being the "right" breeds) go to homes only to be returned for behaviour problems. One case which was terribly traumatic was the death of a beautiful kelpie x pup for jumping a puppy fence during a temperment test and a serial biter being rehomed only to be returned to the RSPCA within 3 days after it had bitten the lady who had bought it.

If they can botch something like that which is important I would hate to see them wield this amount of power. I don't believe it would be the end of dog breeding in general but it will make it very hard to breed dogs in a way that is important for the dog to become a respectable canine citizen. Another thing I don't like these type of blanket proposals and laws is that no matter how you word it, the legitslation is left up to the people inforcing it, in this case it is the RSPCA which has a strong work force of well meaning but mostly ignorant volunteers. ( I for one was one once and still might be completely clueless in some regards). When you have Volunteers working in a organisation it is hard to make sure the information is accurate. I again had the displeasure of having one of the local RSPCA volunteers tell me that a stray dog was a Tosa X when I was working there to me the dog looked like a bloodhound X but then again I could have been wrong it's all a matter of perspective.

As to what I will write about in my submission to my local members and to the RSPCA it will read something like:

1. I would like to see testing done on the for sale puppies for any genetic disease and genetic problems, (most responisble breeders do it before the mating I know) This would let the pet shop and customer know what the actual health of the puppy is and gives them an informed choice about selection. Also price could be based on the actual quality of the pup in the store ( just thought of that bit then so haven't really thought it through)

2. Pet shops would have to refund some of the desexing costs that the puppy buyers pay for so it makes the desexing more of an option.

3. A limit on how many puppies the pet shop could legally hold at any one time.

4. a 7 day cooling off period before the pup actually goes home to make sure the owner is not completely impulse buying. Goes for shelter animals too

These are just some suggestions I have rallied at my local members Because I believe if you make it hurt the hip pocket of the pet shops it will filter on through to the puppy farmers or at least some of them as the demand for them at pet shops will have decrease.

Any way let me know what you think of my suggestions.

--Lhok

[Erny]

Lhok - it seems to me that you and I are like-minded in our grave concern for National power in the hands of the RSPCA.

I am not a breeder so I'm not the ideal person to comment as far as some of the suggestions you make. However, comment I will, but please take into account the fact that I do not believe I am the best qualified (if qualified at all) to do so.

I can clearly see that you have the best of intentions, but I see some logistical problems with what you have suggested.

1. I would like to see testing done on the for sale puppies for any genetic disease and genetic problems, (most responisble breeders do it before the mating I know) This would let the pet shop and customer know what the actual health of the puppy is and gives them an informed choice about selection. Also price could be based on the actual quality of the pup in the store ( just thought of that bit then so haven't really thought it through)

The issue I see with the above is the simple fact that some genetic diseases aren't going to show up in the young pup.

3. A limit on how many puppies the pet shop could legally hold at any one time.

Could this then not cause the unscrupulous pet shop owner to be a bit more hasty at getting rid of pups that don't 'move' quickly? I don't know what normally happens to pups that are not sold ........ I am only thinking that it is quite possibly an outcome we'd prefer not to think about.

4. a 7 day cooling off period before the pup actually goes home to make sure the owner is not completely impulse buying. Goes for shelter animals too

I think a cooling off period is necessary. Not sure about 7 days, but I think you're on the right track. That is, however, if pet shops should sell them in the first place. I abhore pups being kept in their glass/Perspex tanks. If pet shops are going to be permitted to continue to sell them at all, IMO the perspex tank system of confinement should be banned - forthwith.

Funny - so many other things that actually do have benefit to the welfare of dogs have been banned. Yet nothing about these fish tank type arrangements for the confinement of pups.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Erny

[SpikesPuppy]

4. a 7 day cooling off period before the pup actually goes home to make sure the owner is not completely impulse buying. Goes for shelter animals too

In theory, great idea but as far as practicality- I don't think this is a good idea. The first 4 months or so are the most important in a dog's life in terms of socialisation, pups in pet shops are already at a disadvantage and a further 7 days behind glass could make this even worse If the pup is behind glass at 8 weeks, even if it is purchased the same day it's put up for sale, it will still not get that extra precious week of new experiences. Some pups that aren't chosen until they are older may miss out completely on that 'window' of opportunity

[Lhok]

It's so sad that no matter which way I look at it, the situation is a catch 22

I mean I know education plays a huge part in how the public sees the situation but from what I have seen volunteering at both shelters and Vet clinics it seems so one sided in the favor of unscrupulous people. I have only really just gotten into the whole purebred dog thing (and would love to show and maybe breed dogs one day) and I appreciate the feedback on what I had proposed and looking back over it the points you brought up are all valid one way or another.

I used to try and talk to people at the shelter I used to volunteer at and tell them about the pro's and con's of rescuing older dogs, however mostly people went to the shelter if the local pet shops had no available puppies or kittens and they were only interested if there where puppies and kittens available.

I was also horrified to find out one of the local shelter people were saying come back in September we will have lots of kittens and puppies then.

At the Vet clinic it is no different, the Vet clinic I used to Volunteer at told most people looking for a puppy that cross bred dogs were the best and that pure bred dogs were like mutants so when some one in that position says something like that what do you do?

I am all for education but where do you start when most of the people around you don't want to know or at least to me don't seem to care

(hmm Igot off topic methinks)

[SpikesPuppy]

I don't think that is off topic, Lhok. Not in the scheme of things- education IS the only way we will keep our pure breed (and genuine cross bred mongrels, which personally, I would hate to see disappear ) dogs. I have said it before and I will say it again- I have not seen one law proposed yet by either the RSPCA OR another forum member that will put an end or even a dint in the operation of puppy farms. The current proposal actually puts puppy farmers one step ahead of the responsible ethical ones.

There are laws in place which should see the end to the large scale operations but they are not put to any use??? Instead the RSPCA chases after little old ladies with perfectly healthy and happy dogs all because some were debarked and then exhibited. Or they seize a healthy happy 12 week old puppy with a docked tail, yet they leave another person who is clearly unable to look after (physically or financially) the 100+ animals that they own with a notice to 'improve' or they will seize. WTF???

Welcome to DOL, btw