Don Burke Just Accused Rspca Of Cruelty

[koalathebear]

For a defamation action to succeed, the person complaining of the defamation (the plaintiff) must prove three things:

1. that the communication has been published to a third person (which is the case where it is an internet discussion forum)

2. that the communication identifies (or is about) the plaintiff; and (not really a question here given clear identification of the person in question)

3. that the communication is "defamatory".

Something is defamatory if it could (1) injure the reputation of the individual by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule; (2) cause people to shun or avoid the individual; or (3) lower the individual’s estimation by right thinking members of society.

I will leave it to others to draw their own conclusions about whether this has taken place.

DOL appears to be located in Queensland so the Defamation Act (Qld) (Qld Act)would apply although this is a bit moot given that it's a dissemination over the internet i.e. not restricted geographically and also that Australia's defamation laws were made uniform in 2006.

While the defence of truth does exist, the onus is on the defendant (i.e. those making the allegations) to prove that the defamatory imputations pleaded are substantially true. The plaintiff (person alleging that defamation has taken place) would not be obliged to prove the falseness of the information which means that you have to go through legal proceedings in order to prove that you did nothing wrong - a real pain given that you have to pay money for a lawyer, legal advice and front up to court to defend yourself ...

Section 25 of the Qld provides that it is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true.

Similarly, section 26 (contextual truth) of the Qld Act provides that it is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that--

(a) the matter carried, in addition to the defamatory imputations of which the plaintiff complains, 1 or more other imputations (contextual imputations) that are substantially true; and

(b) the defamatory imputations do not further harm the reputation of the plaintiff because of the substantial truth of the contextual imputations.

Therefore if any of the allegations in this post were defamatory and the posters were unable to prove that they were substantially true, then the defendants in any legal proceedings are likely to be: (1) anyone who made a defamatory comment in this post; and (2) Troy or DOL as the moderator/owner of the forum. It is no defence to argue that you are only repeating comments made by somebody else - you can be liable for a republication of the defamatory remarks.

While section 32 provides a defence of "innocent dissemination" to people like ISPs and newsagents who would argue that they were merely innocent conduits of defamatory remarks made by others etc - that would not apply in this case and someone like Troy is likely to be liable because that defence has 3 limbs. The person:

(a) was not the first or primary distributor of the matter; and

(b) was not the author or originator of the matter; and

(c ) did not have any capacity to exercise editorial control over the content of the matter (or over the publication of the matter) before it was first published.

Because of (c ) i.e. this board is moderated, should the comments in this post be found to be defamatory, then Troy/DOL would also be held to be guilty of defamation.

I've checked the other defence as well but, correct me if I'm wrong, these seem unlikely to apply here. These include, inter alia, qualified privilege or honest opinion/fair comment. On the face of it they sound promising but there are quite a few elements to satisfy before they can be utilised as defences. See here for section 31 (Defences of honest opinion) of the Qld Act.

ETA: Since the above may not be clear. In a nutshell - it would be a really bad idea to be affirming/repeating/agreeing with many of the sentiments expressed in this thread

Edited August 22, 2010 by koalathebear

[Tapferhund]

Cordelia, couldn't agree more with what you have said ! You post is the BEST I have ever seen written on that JERK Burke. :p

[Puppoochi]

Rather than venting here, he has his own site with a forum where we can bombard him with our thoughts there!!!!

Be polite, and make a rational argument, without insults.

HE NEEDS FACTS, not to be berated, even though we disagree with him.

A healthy debate on his site would be much more fruitful

PM me if you can't find it and I'll pm the link

Dont waste your time - if he knows the purebred world is upset with him he will love it - in fact he will use it against us.

The only way he would think that you or I were upset, is if we projected it onto him. This is why I think venting here is fruitless. A rational debate on HIS site, would prove much more effective.

I've already started a thread on his site,click here, if you don't want to ad to it, that's up to you.

Personally,I can't see insulting him on here will achieve anything.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

You might want to remove that comment Jaxx.. I certainly can't and won't back that bit up.

.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[percyk]

i remember don walking the audience through a puppy farm on one show...before i knew what farms were

it is scary when he appears to endorse this practice but surely hes not talking about the puppy farms we all know about today

as for pedigree breeders...i have seen two that may as well be lumped in with the puppy farmers ,,,,,too many dogs kept in sheds...or in ridiculously small runs unsuited for the breed

these were dogs that needed exercise and i totally doubt that these dogs ever got the exercise they need....but boy they do well in the ring...they sure do get the attention there

[OSoSwift]

I can't sign on it keeps chucking a wobbly at me.

[Puppoochi]

I can't sign on it keeps chucking a wobbly at me.

maybe that's why the forum is so slow???

I had to register to be able to post.

[OSoSwift]

I can't register, it keep going to a page that tells me the page has expired or something - can't remember now. After 5 times I gave up!

[Puppoochi]

I can't register, it keep going to a page that tells me the page has expired or something - can't remember now. After 5 times I gave up!

bloody glitches grrrr :p

[jacqui835]

Health testing is certainly advisable, but when you elect to buy a pure breed, it seems to become essentially mandatory because the dogs seem to have a much higher inbreeding coefficient and so genetic problems are more likely to arise. That said, you breed two breeds together that both have the same problems, well, 1+1 is never going to equal 0. Hybrid vigour is certainly not guaranteed, but it does exist and there are dog breeds that carry separate conditions that can hence potentially benefit from out crossing.

The bolded bit above is totally wrong.

All dogs can suffer from hereditary problems and registered purebreds as a whole are no more likely than mutts to have problems. The purebreds that are far more likely to suffer genetic problems are the ones from backyard breeders that breed for profit with no regard for health issues and unfortunately these are highly represented in the veterinary statistics of "purebred dogs".

The reason we health test registered purebreds is because we can. The dedicated breeders work very hard to trace problems in their breed and have genetic tests developed to manage these problems. The tests can only be developed when there are are good pedigree records for the geneticists to work with and breeders willing to work with them. We collected blood samples from 600 Border Collies when we started the research into CL. This is simply not possible with crossbred dogs and most people producing them are only in it for profit. They have no interest in improving what they breed in any way.

Purebred dogs are the perfect research candidates for genetic disorders because the generations are short and the pedigree records are extensive. Line breeding and inbreeding actually makes it easier to track and eliminate problems. Having said that, some breeders do take inbreeding way too far and in some breeds, tight inbreeding is so common, it absolutely astounds me. Inbreeding does not actually create defective genes but it does concentrate them in a breed, leading to a sudden increase in dogs affected by those defective genes. This is when dedicated breeders work to get tests developed to counteract the problem thay now know exists.

All dogs can suffer from hereditary problems and registered purebreds as a whole are no more likely than mutts to have problems. I wasn't saying that they were. What I was saying is that if you are going to breed from two very closely related individuals (and all members of a particular breed are very closely related - that's how the breed was initially created and maintained) it is absolutely essential to carry out health testing to ensure that you are eliminating the bad stuff rather than concentrating it as the genes the individuals share are going to be almost all the same. However, if your intention is to breed a husky with a poodle just as a random example, well the offspring are less likely to carry 2 copies of the same gene of a breed specific feature, good or bad for that matter (ie your husky/poodle will probably shed etc). Less likely is the key here - I am not saying that mutts are guaranteed to be more healthy just saying that without health testing you run some very high risks with pure bred dogs.

But my initial point was more concerned with the fact that detrimental features of a breed can be exasperated further by breeding programs and used the examples of the pug, the GSD, the dogs that can't breed or give birth naturally because they're too small, or their skeleton no longer supports it etc. And I wondered that no-one else viewed some of these practices as cruel as stated in the OP. I do not believe though that cross breeding is the answer, or that puppy farms are in any way justifiable and have said my piece on Burke.

[ellz]

Rather than venting here, he has his own site with a forum where we can bombard him with our thoughts there!!!!

Be polite, and make a rational argument, without insults.

HE NEEDS FACTS, not to be berated, even though we disagree with him.

A healthy debate on his site would be much more fruitful

PM me if you can't find it and I'll pm the link

Dont waste your time - if he knows the purebred world is upset with him he will love it - in fact he will use it against us.

The only way he would think that you or I were upset, is if we projected it onto him. This is why I think venting here is fruitless. A rational debate on HIS site, would prove much more effective.

I've already started a thread on his site,click here, if you don't want to ad to it, that's up to you.

Personally,I can't see insulting him on here will achieve anything.

Good luck. You aren't doing anything that hasn't already been done in the time he has been around. It is pointless to argue with him or post anything against him or to raise rational debate with him because he is such an egomaniac that the only result is him preening even more because he has our (collectively) attention.

Just like a troublesome child, the best policy is to take the high road and IGNORE, IGNORE, IGNORE.

Kiss him or kick him, he is receiving the attention and that is all that he wants.

[aussielover]

[However, if your intention is to breed a husky with a poodle just as a random example, well the offspring are less likely to carry 2 copies of the same gene of a breed specific feature, good or bad for that matter (ie your husky/poodle will probably shed etc). Less likely is the key here - I am not saying that mutts are guaranteed to be more healthy just saying that without health testing you run some very high risks with pure bred dogs.

So are you saying that if you cross a lab with a GR (both breeds known to be prone to ED and HD) then you are LESS LIKELY to get a dog affected by HD or ED than purebreds of both breeds?

I would say crossbreds (not mutts) have just as many health problems as purebreds in my experience

[asal]

[However, if your intention is to breed a husky with a poodle just as a random example, well the offspring are less likely to carry 2 copies of the same gene of a breed specific feature, good or bad for that matter (ie your husky/poodle will probably shed etc). Less likely is the key here - I am not saying that mutts are guaranteed to be more healthy just saying that without health testing you run some very high risks with pure bred dogs.

So are you saying that if you cross a lab with a GR (both breeds known to be prone to ED and HD) then you are LESS LIKELY to get a dog affected by HD or ED than purebreds of both breeds?

I would say crossbreds (not mutts) have just as many health problems as purebreds in my experience

except the trouble is the person who breeds the x bred isnt attacked as unethical if the pup develops the same problems as the purebred.

the breeder of a purebred even one whose parents n grandparents havent shown any sign of the problem are immediately said by any vet who finds the problem in a pup they bred, the owner is invariably told the breeder was obviously unethical or the puppy would not have been born with the problem when in real fact, nature is unethical in passing these things on.

recessives can survive in a population for generations over even hundreds of years, if you doubt that, think for instance of fresien and angus cattle for starters. for over 1 to 200 years any red calves got the chop....... yet they still turn up.

border collie pups that werent black or black and white have had the chop for how many hundred years???? yet what do we have now they arent being killed at birth now? blue, chocolate and gold. all three recessives have still survived all those generations until the odd oddbod was finally allowed to live and grow. n now even become an aussie champion.

there are tens of thousands of equally recessive genes that we will never be happy to find in our dog,. patella and so on.

yet same as the colours now accepted, the red angus now even has its own registry.

we wont be seeing a patella registry though will we? yet its the same thing that pops up but the owner of the parents is to blame????????

get real. the battle is to try and eliminate the hidden. long as the breeder is accused of being dishonest ect when this happens more and more will give up and why shouldnt they.

does anyone honestly believe the red angus, red fresien n gold, chocolate n blue borders are only born to parents owned by unethical people??????

Edited August 23, 2010 by asal

[Loraine]

Don Burke was just on 2HD and he accused the RSPCA of cruelty, because they are not doing anything about pedigree breeders, who are breeding dogs and changing their genetics for the sake of creating the right look for the dog, but in fact is causing the dogs stress and pain. He used the DDB as an example saying that the pedigree breeders have bred them to the stage that the dogs bottom teeth protrude out so much that the dog can not chew their puppys umbilical cords.

So now he is picking up on a rather old UK BBC story

He stated that on his many road tests he seen alot of pedigree breeders keep their dogs in shocking conditions.

The RSPCA dude then asked him, well when you seen these dogs in these condition, did you make a report??? Don spluttered that his show helped a horse who was in bad condition?????

Don is furious with the RSPCA because to him they are stating that all puppy farmers are bad (well der) and he thinks there are just as many pedigree breeders as bad.

I dare say that not all pedigree breeders are perfect, that there are the odd ones out there who do the wrong thing. but the majority are all for their particular breed!

The RSPCA told him they are looking into the pedigree genetic breeding problem, and Don kept shutting him down telling him that they are liars.

More UK clap trap

He is a flippin tool. Would not let the RSPCA fella talk. As the RSPCA fella said, why did WE have to ring YOU about this situation. If you were going to have this topic on todays show, why did you not call us for answers? Don said because you have not done anything about it. (idiot)

and what has he done for DD dogs but promote them literally to death

So out of it, the people who are not in the know and believe everything that they are told on the radio, will come out thinking that puppy farms are good and pedigree is bad.

So all the hard work done to educate people has been flushed down the drain by this twit.

[Guest]

As a new visitor to these forums and a pet owner rather than a breeder I can only express my concern with the whole dog breeding question. About 16 years ago I was looking for a new puppy and went to a country property to see some Labradoodles. I was appalled to see rooms full of varios mixed breeds of puppies of different ages and in a smelly old house. Out the back, were concrete runs full of dogs and bitches who were obviously the "parents". Lots of people were there buying pups. I couldn't get out fast enough. Stupidly, I bought a pup from a pet shop. Probably came from a similar puppy farm. Poor little thing spent most of her life suffering from a variety of health problems and poor temperament. I am now looking for a new puppy and am getting a bit worried to be reading about the possible problems a pure bred pup may have as a result of registered breeders breeding for a certain trait. Most people want a puppy as a family pet, bred with health and good temperament as high priority. I'm sure that most of the breeders on this site have the animals best welfare at heart, but how does a person searching for a pet to love find the right breder. I have to say I am stunned at the number of DD for sale in certain newspapers and how many of them are in pet stores, and HOW MUCH they cost.

[tarope]

Don't you people know that Don Jerk is a dog expert, I remember on his TV show Jerks Backyard years ago the gardener claimed in a road test the Dachshund was bred down from the Dobermann because the German foresters were scared their Dobermanns would be hurt by Badgers.

To claim the above just goes to show what a bloody boofhead Don Jerk really is, and of cause the people who worked with him. As no one checked to see if this was even historically correct or not. :D :D Who will ever forget the gardeners 5 dangerous dog breeds.

Those of you who don't know, the Dachshund was developed from the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries onwards, Louis Dobermann only started thinking about this breed in the 1860's. So what Don Jerk claimed and many other things he's said is a load of crap, but we expect that from him.

[poodlefan]

Don Burke is championing the commercial scale breeding of dogs. He has done so for years.

The RSPCA is launching campaigns targetting puppy farms. They want them legislated and regulated out of existence.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see why Don Burke would be embarking on this particular course of action.

[asal]

As a new visitor to these forums and a pet owner rather than a breeder I can only express my concern with the whole dog breeding question. About 16 years ago I was looking for a new puppy and went to a country property to see some Labradoodles. I was appalled to see rooms full of varios mixed breeds of puppies of different ages and in a smelly old house. Out the back, were concrete runs full of dogs and bitches who were obviously the "parents". Lots of people were there buying pups. I couldn't get out fast enough. Stupidly, I bought a pup from a pet shop. Probably came from a similar puppy farm. Poor little thing spent most of her life suffering from a variety of health problems and poor temperament. I am now looking for a new puppy and am getting a bit worried to be reading about the possible problems a pure bred pup may have as a result of registered breeders breeding for a certain trait. Most people want a puppy as a family pet, bred with health and good temperament as high priority. I'm sure that most of the breeders on this site have the animals best welfare at heart, but how does a person searching for a pet to love find the right breder. I have to say I am stunned at the number of DD for sale in certain newspapers and how many of them are in pet stores, and HOW MUCH they cost.

before the idea to call them designer dogs you could get your mutt for free or 50 at most.

its a good idea to go to shows and see the breeds you are thinking of first.

then ask your own vet, which breeds he sees with the least percentage of problems. n if hes a nice one he may even tell you which breeders he knows whose parents and pups he thinks have the least number of problems showing up? although its also a good idea to ask the breeders of any puppy you are looking at who is the most respected vets, if you dont have one you know well and trust, some unfortunately can be like don jerk n word does get around. among breeders who they have found they like best.

i know there are breeders who are offering lifetime guarantees, snap them up while they are still around. because you couldnt get a better deal.

fraid im a bit of a cynic these days. how a dog can be compared to a fridge is beyond me. its not "goods" in my eyes its your pet? its a living breathing original no two the same unless it has an identical twin or been cloned?

anyway. i find it fascinating when we havent a clue how our own child will turn out, looks let alone healthwise, today a dog breederis being said, i mean expected to be able too?

even in this incredibly technological age when a racehorse can be worth and win millions, they are still putting the best to the best and hoping for the best.

unlike the dog world yet, if you fork out the million and it doesnt win, they cant take it back and expect a full refund.... YET anyway.

forget where the thread is but the show puppy with the perfect teeth whose adult teeth didnt come through same as his baby teeth so stopped being a winner so was returned for a refund. so why cant the buyer of a top priced yearling get their refund yet?

same scenario surely?

maybe thats the way of the future.

find one or two of each breed with no defects and dont waste time breeding from it. u dont know what may be recessive n isnt showing but its tops for health, longlivity and soundness...

just get heaps of tissue stored and clone em ad infinitum.

its already being done.

theres a wagyu bull in japan his 3rd or is it his 4th generation clone is now standing at stud?

its on google somewhere.

havnt found him yet but heres one bull they have 3 sons of now.

n what they cloned them from defies belief?

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%...ne-0004142-g003

click on where it says (fig 3) in the txt andyou can see the calves photos.

Edited August 23, 2010 by asal

[Henrietta]

Sorry to bump up this old thread, but can someone explain to me (with a PM if they would like) the history behind why DB supports the DD's and puppy farms and why he spends so much time opposing the purebreed dog world? TIA.

[LizT]

Let's face it there will always be issues concerning ALL types of dog breeding. When there are no controlling bodies there will always be those who take things to the extreme...it's human nature to take advantage of something that could be of benefit ($$$) to you. And where there are controlling bodies there will still be people who push the limits, thinking it's okay because they are working inside the rules.

Don Burke is a jerk. I have friends who work in the film industry and they have told me is is very arrogant. This will make him the type of person who sticks to his ideals without any compromise or an open mind.

Whether people are breeding cross breeds that have a myriad of health issues or purebreds (and not addressing their health issues either) then we will have dogs that can't reproduce without the aid of a C-section or shred the umbilical cord themselves and there will be the critics.

Only yesterday my vet was telling me he had just performed a C-section on a Bulldog bitch that has had three done to date (this was the first he'd done, as the owner has had to go Vet shopping as each has told her the bitch has had enough.) He said of course he had to do it for the bitches sake but hopes he has convinced the owner this is her last litter.

He said he is very much against this type of breeding.

My thoughts were he won't see that owner again, she'll just go elsewhere.