Puppy-mill Turned Kennel?

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

if the message isnt getting through it's time to try another tactic. sensationalism may be the answer or it may not.

i have seen a lot of things changed with very little press coverage.

depends on how things are managed and what the goals are

asal, i have seen your tactic work well even with just 1 shareholder if all shareholder have a right to go the the AGM. i will try to remember the guy who does this.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[asal]

think about it.

for an organisation that supposedly cares for

"alll creatures great and small" the most noticable thing about many working for it is the almost utter lack of even basic knowledge.... that shit of a tv show displays that in spades every week.

if anyone on a station chased a sheep like those cretins did, and laughing their heads off as the sheep was going dangerously close to in shock, they would have been fired if an employee and in the dreadfully deep pits if a family member.

how that sheep didnt die was no fault of that lot

then the drama of the pony in the hole. grief the hole was in the side of a dam wall????

the very backhoe they lifted the pony out with could have simply opened the hole out from the side and walked the pony out.

no where near as dramatic though.

agonised for the poor pony though if it had slid out the sling a broken leg wouldnt have made the episode as thrilling, and the risk didnt need to have been taken

Edited November 2, 2010 by asal

[asal]

even more damming is the special constables.

they dont want trained in animal care.

they want them ex police with prosecution experience, willing to undergo animal care course.

so all that power in the hands of people who dont even have the knowledge to "form the opinion" to seize and destroy

nor do they have to do any more than attend the course, they dont have to even listen let alone pass.

when im dead and gone, remember THAT. these are the people with the power to destroy lives and the victums pets.

anyway, im out of it. once youve been rolled even if they didnt get anything to destroy me in the courts,I have been smoked n therefore will always be labled, mad, hysterical forget all the other stuff u say to fob off the now tainted fools who KNOW whats waiting for the rest of u when its your turn.

Edited November 2, 2010 by asal

[Tim'sMum]

Every two weeks for the past four years I've driven past this huge trailer-trash looking property, and they've had a big sign {like a church sign or roadworks sign} at the gate advertising a different breed of puppy and kitten every month or sooner.

Surely that alone rings alarm bells....and rather smacks of a puppy mill?

And the problem with this is???? Aside from the fact that most here find it MORALLY reprehensible, it does not make it illegal.

Sure, puppy mills are legal, but it certainly doesn't hurt for the RSPCA to be aware of their existence and to keep periodic checks on the welfare of the animals kept there.

Do you honestly think that if they were doing anything wrong, or are as visible as implied that the RSPCA would NOT be aware of their existence already?

Without marching into the premises, Heavy Paws, or anyone who cares about the welfare of dogs and cats, would have no idea if animals are sufferering there or not, particularly if the premises looks a bit 'feral'...so getting the RSPCA to check is a very sensible option.

ASSUMPTION again. Wasting RSPCA time on a suspicion which is not only a waste of valuable resources but could potentially cause unneccessary distress to somebody who just MIGHT be doing absolutely nothing wrong. Simply having a sign outside your property or a property that isn't maintained in the manner in which you feel is satisfactory does NOT give grounds for a complaint unless you are sure there is something to complain about. If you're THAT keen to find something to dob them in for, then why not enquire about a puppy. That at least gives you legitimate grounds to be on their premises and seeing exactly what it is that you are speculating about.

If the owner has nothing to hide and the animals are kept in good conditions, have adequate food, water, shelter, vet care and exercise...then exactly what harm is done by them being checked out?

Have any of you who say it is fine to call the RSPCA on a whim or suspicion actually have ANY idea what it feels like to have the RSPCA land on your doorstep? Particularly after a complaint from somebody who has no idea what is happening behind closed gates? Well, I can tell you now....I have and it isn't nice. Even if you have done nothing wrong (which I hadn't and have in writing), the RSPCA arrive ready to find ANYTHING that they can ping you on and I mean ANYTHING!! Aside from the stress of having them there and wondering if everything you say and do will be used against you, they invariably arrive at times which are highly inconvenient.

It's not that there is anything to hide, but from past experience, even the most legitimate person has to be on their toes and accompany the inspector around each and every animal and each and every item that is animal-related. It is a COMPLETE pain in the behind and not something that I would wish upon anybody!

Honestly....I wonder if some of you are just posting to start yet another argument?

We weren't......were you? :D

Ellz.....the whole point is that we have no-one else to check on animal welfare other than the RSPCA....there are no alternative organisations with the same policing powers unfortunately.

As I said previously, puppy mills are legal, but that doesn't mean they are all well run. Even breeders of pedigree dogs don't always do it right. There has to be some 'policing' of large scale dog breeding to ensure the 'cowboys' are controlled and doing the right thing ...surely?

The RSPCA have certainly had their moments and been totally unfair in some situations, as some DOLers will attest. I'm certainly not their greatest fan....but we really have no-one else to rely on to check on animal welfare.

What would you suggest someone do, if they see an establishment that looks run down, a bit feral, has a large number of dogs and is constantly advertising puppies and kittens for sale....and have some concerns?

Should they just assume that everything is OK there and just sit on their hands and say nothing? Should they march in and demand to inspect the kennels themselves perhaps?

Or should they call the only legitimate animal welfare organisation (who can legally enter premises), that we have....to check to ensure all is well? You also can't just assume that the RSPCA will know about every dog breeding premises.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

TM i think thats the dilemma..what should be done...i think someone calling the rspca multiple times over a period isnt really going to work.

the rspca have nothing to investogate, there are weeds in the garden, thats a council matter; there are cars on the lawn, its a council matter, etc.

not once did the OP describe any act of animal cruelty or concern.

so what could the rspca investigate...whats got me stumped is what could the rspca do with the info they were given..i suspect nothing

[Tim'sMum]

not once did the OP describe any act of animal cruelty or concern.

The OP, Heavy Paws, saw a premises that looked run-down, overgrown, uncared for....which could correlate to the owner being either just slovenly when it comes to outside maintenance, or they just have little time, or they are struggling due to physical or financial problems...or their attitude is one of not caring, and that could include the animals?

Without being able to go inside or see inside....if someone has concerns....just what do they do?

I think the crux is that no-one from the RSPCA came back to the OP to reassure them that all was well inside the premises. Without communication you would perhaps presume that perhaps nothing was done?

All it would have taken was a phone call from the RSPCA...'Yes, we checked the premises, it's a bit messy but the animals are well cared for.'

eg: Friends live on acreage up the coast. Their next door neighbour is 'different'....possibly mental problems, and is probably an animal hoarder, of horses. She seemingly can't help herself and has far too many horses on her small property. The ones in the front paddock are in reasonable condition but the horses in the back paddocks are in very poor condition. My friends and other locals have all tried to talk to her, in a friendly way about the number of horses she has, their condition, asked if she needed help etc......but she will go inside the house and refuse to discuss it, telling them to b**ger off. She is quite strange at times and once called the police to complain that my friends had stolen her peacock....which just flew over the fence into their property all the time, mainly to raid their vege patch. :D

The locals are a friendly bunch and will pull together to help those in need, even if they are a bit different. You could not see the horses in the back paddocks from the road but both adjoining properties could and anyone going past in a boat on the lake behind could see them.

Their only recourse was to call the RSPCA. Numerous calls, over many months ensued, yet nothing changed and no-one bothered to update anyone about an inspection or what was happening. The locals just wanted to know that the horses would be OK.

It basically took 'nagging' to get the RSPCA Inspector to ring someone who had made a complaint and advise that yes, he had inspected the horses and that due to the drought, their condition was not perfect, but was reasonable. The only problem was that he admitted that he had not seen the horses in the back paddocks. The neighbour had told him that the only animals she had were in the front paddocks.

So, lack of communication in response to a complaint meant those horses suffered longer than they should have. Quite a few horses were sold off in the end and the ones that remained were given more feed. The owner was not penalised. Hopefully the RSPCA are checking on her periodically to ensure she does not buy more horses.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Tim'sMum

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

TM i agree that the rspca should be contacting people who notify.

i understand the logic re the long grass etc but the rspca must operate under legislation and maybe they cant investigate what was described in the OP :D i dont know enough about this.

it is a really difficult situation because there also needs to be protection for people from vexatious complaints so i suppose the more concrete details that can be provided the more chance of investigation.

maybe the OP could call the rspca and ask them whether this complaint falls under their jurisdiction/policies and if not what do they investigate?

i just cant see there being enough evidence for an investigation...which doesnt mean nothing is happening just that there isnt enough cause to investigate.

i want organisations that have such far reaching powers to be contained to operating within guidelines and legislation because if they don't then it is a slippery slope to personality based "justice" that is ripe for corruption. there are countries where this happens today.

[Tim'sMum]

i just cant see there being enough evidence for an investigation...which doesnt mean nothing is happening just that there isnt enough cause to investigate.

Maybe, maybe not.

I will never knock anyone who is concerned over animal welfare though. We need everyone to be concerned. In a perfect world people would care enough about animals to ensure that there would be no animal abuse, no animals living in squalor or starving. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world and these things happen, far too often, it is reported on the news far too often.

The OP cared enough to want to know that the animals on these premises are OK. I don't think they should be 'drawn and quartered' for caring.

I think the main problem is that the RSPCA are accountable to no-one and have lost their way...lost the direction that they started with.

[~Anne~]

i just cant see there being enough evidence for an investigation...which doesnt mean nothing is happening just that there isnt enough cause to investigate.

Maybe, maybe not.

I will never knock anyone who is concerned over animal welfare though. We need everyone to be concerned. In a perfect world people would care enough about animals to ensure that there would be no animal abuse, no animals living in squalor or starving. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world and these things happen, far too often, it is reported on the news far too often.

The OP cared enough to want to know that the animals on these premises are OK. I don't think they should be 'drawn and quartered' for caring.

I think the main problem is that the RSPCA are accountable to no-one and have lost their way...lost the direction that they started with.

I don't think the OP was being drawn and quartered for caring though. The OP was arguing against common sense and logic.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i just cant see there being enough evidence for an investigation...which doesnt mean nothing is happening just that there isnt enough cause to investigate.

Maybe, maybe not.

I will never knock anyone who is concerned over animal welfare though. We need everyone to be concerned. In a perfect world people would care enough about animals to ensure that there would be no animal abuse, no animals living in squalor or starving. Unfortunately it's not a perfect world and these things happen, far too often, it is reported on the news far too often.

The OP cared enough to want to know that the animals on these premises are OK. I don't think they should be 'drawn and quartered' for caring.

I think the main problem is that the RSPCA are accountable to no-one and have lost their way...lost the direction that they started with.

yes i agree and you are right. i have just realised i am thinking this way because i know the rspca doesnt investigate a lot of complaints.

if i leave this way of thinking out of the equation then yes the rspca should be investigating all complaints to determine whether there is a concern. my way of thinking meant the general public was doing their job.

ty TM i appreciate your insight and i will be thinking about this differently from now on

[~Anne~]

Without being able to go inside or see inside....if someone has concerns....just what do they do?

TM - the indicators here are not evidence enough for serious concern though. Everything you have described and the OP described does not make an animal abuser.

No-one likes a puppy farm, however, like it or lump it there are puppy farms where the animlas are very well cared for.

You can't throw accusations around without any evidence to back them up.

The OP felt concern, she reported it. End of story.

Instead, even though there is no evidence of abuse, she continued to make assumptions and accusations and she reported them another 2 times even though she was again going by an assumption and a possible false accusation in that the RSPCA didn't check out her complaint.

I think the crux is that no-one from the RSPCA came back to the OP to reassure them that all was well inside the premises. Without communication you would perhaps presume that perhaps nothing was done?

All it would have taken was a phone call from the RSPCA...'Yes, we checked the premises, it's a bit messy but the animals are well cared for.'

Once it is in the hands of the RSPCA, I would assume it becomes a confidential matter between the RSPCA and the person they are investigating.

If you report suspected child absue, you are not given a follow-up on what DOCS found when they invesitgated your complaint. It is a privacy issue.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

i am now interested in how the rspca makes the call on what to investigate and what to leave because this seems to be at the crux of this issue.

[raz]

The RSPCA investigates complaints of animal abuse and neglect. This was not a complaint about animal abuse and neglect - the OP/complainant had never seen any because they hadnt been on the property. Craning your neck as you drive by does not constitute witnessing animal cruelty.

What next - dob in a neighbour whose property Joe Blow has never been on or animal abuse and cruelty never witnessed just because they didnt mow their front lawn every week?

[persephone]

TM - the indicators here are not evidence enough for serious concern though. Everything you have described and the OP described does not make an animal abuser.

No-one likes a puppy farm, however, like it or lump it there are puppy farms where the animlas are very well cared for.

You can't throw accusations around without any evidence to back them up.

The OP felt concern, she reported it. End of story.

Instead, even though there is no evidence of abuse, she continued to make assumptions and accusations and she reported them another 2 times even though she was again going by an assumption and a possible false accusation in that the RSPCA didn't check out her complaint.

X2

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

The RSPCA investigates complaints of animal abuse and neglect. This was not a complaint about animal abuse and neglect - the OP/complainant had never seen any because they hadnt been on the property. Craning your neck as you drive by does not constitute witnessing animal cruelty.

What next - dob in a neighbour whose property Joe Blow has never been on or animal abuse and cruelty never witnessed just because they didnt mow their front lawn every week?

yes this was my initial issue, if there is no evidence of abuse then how can they investigate but then i got thinking...what if joe blogs doesnt know what he is looking at? and who should be gathering information?

if it was a child abuse situation (i am talking about years ago when i worked in that field) a notification is received, the notification is assessed and if the notification information falls within the guidelines an investigation is started.

this got me thinking what is the rspca process? i know they investigate animal abuse and neglect but what guidelines/criteria do they follow?

[~Anne~]

The RSPCA investigates complaints of animal abuse and neglect. This was not a complaint about animal abuse and neglect - the OP/complainant had never seen any because they hadnt been on the property. Craning your neck as you drive by does not constitute witnessing animal cruelty.

What next - dob in a neighbour whose property Joe Blow has never been on or animal abuse and cruelty never witnessed just because they didnt mow their front lawn every week?

yes this was my initial issue, if there is no evidence of abuse then how can they investigate but then i got thinking...what if joe blogs doesnt know what he is looking at? and who should be gathering information?

if it was a child abuse situation (i am talking about years ago when i worked in that field) a notification is received, the notification is assessed and if the notification information falls within the guidelines an investigation is started.

this got me thinking what is the rspca process? i know they investigate animal abuse and neglect but what guidelines/criteria do they follow?

This is from their site;

The RSPCA is opposed to puppy factories and outraged that this intensive farming of companion animals continues. It is unfortunate that our Inspectors have no power to stop them operating. However, there are legal requirements as to how these puppy factories should operate. Council officers are the legal authority responsible for inspecting these operations to ensure compliance with the code of practice for breeding establishments. RSPCA Inspectors also conduct inspections when cruelty complaints are received.

Although this is obviously not an official 'policy or guideline' document, it would seem that there needs to be a complaint made about cruelty. I would assume that you would have to have witnessed this cruelty or that the indications of cruelty (like crying or whimpering dogs, bodies etc or whatever) are evident.

In the OPs case, it doesn't appear there was any evidence at all.

Edited November 2, 2010 by ~Anne~

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

The RSPCA investigates complaints of animal abuse and neglect. This was not a complaint about animal abuse and neglect - the OP/complainant had never seen any because they hadnt been on the property. Craning your neck as you drive by does not constitute witnessing animal cruelty.

What next - dob in a neighbour whose property Joe Blow has never been on or animal abuse and cruelty never witnessed just because they didnt mow their front lawn every week?

yes this was my initial issue, if there is no evidence of abuse then how can they investigate but then i got thinking...what if joe blogs doesnt know what he is looking at? and who should be gathering information?

if it was a child abuse situation (i am talking about years ago when i worked in that field) a notification is received, the notification is assessed and if the notification information falls within the guidelines an investigation is started.

this got me thinking what is the rspca process? i know they investigate animal abuse and neglect but what guidelines/criteria do they follow?

This is from their site;

The RSPCA is opposed to puppy factories and outraged that this intensive farming of companion animals continues. It is unfortunate that our Inspectors have no power to stop them operating. However, there are legal requirements as to how these puppy factories should operate. Council officers are the legal authority responsible for inspecting these operations to ensure compliance with the code of practice for breeding establishments. RSPCA Inspectors also conduct inspections when cruelty complaints are received.

Although this is obviously not an official 'policy or guideline' document, it would seem that there needs to be a complaint made about cruelty. I would assume that you would have to have witnessed this cruelty or that the indications of cruelty (like crying or whimpering dogs, bodies etc or whatever) are evident.

In the OPs case, it doesn't appear there was any evidence at all.

ty anne. that is good info. so for the rspca to investigate there must be evidence of animal cruelty.

given that the OP saw no sighting of animal cruelty the rspca is unable to investigate.

that does make sense otherwise they are acting outside their brief which would not be right and quite dangerous.

i am happy with that as i wouldnt want the rspca coming to investigate me because i had long grass in my yard and i own a brachy breed (a breed that is targeted by animal right activists)

[ellz]

But the assumption is then that the RSPCA will actually follow their own brief. And I think many of us here can tell stories of how well the RSPCA can move the goal posts when it suits them. And then, there is no legal recourse for their target because the RSPCA are apparently LITERALLY "beyond the law".

That is what is the saddest thing about the RSPCA. An organisation which is in a position of power, with the capacity to do good things...but more often than not....doesn't.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

But the assumption is then that the RSPCA will actually follow their own brief. And I think many of us here can tell stories of how well the RSPCA can move the goal posts when it suits them. And then, there is no legal recourse for their target because the RSPCA are apparently LITERALLY "beyond the law".

That is what is the saddest thing about the RSPCA. An organisation which is in a position of power, with the capacity to do good things...but more often than not....doesn't.

yes i am starting to understand this ellz.

the bolded bit above is the most serious aspect.

[Steve]

O.K. - Part of what the RSPCA want is to know where people - thats why they are pushing for a licencing system - are who breed dogs and just ringing them means that the fact that these people are breeding dogs will now be logged with them. Currently in no state other than NSW do the RSPCA have the power to police any laws other than those which are under prevention of cruelty to animals acts.Nothing the OP has said in her posts goes anywhere near breaching POCTAA so its not something an inspector is going to race out and jump in their car for to save any animals. They may make some discrete enquiries regarding whether or not they do have planning approvals in place and maybe speak quetly with council to give them a bit of heads up about possible issues which may be breaching council laws but nothing said in the OP would indicate they have a right to investigate or go snooping in case - especially if there are a couple of hundred definite cruelty complaints they need to look into which would take a definite priority.

Around here there are no close inspectors so if its a complaint such as someone is beating a dog to death and its out back suffering, that there's dogs with no water etc the cops turn up to take a look - if its less urgent like a dog has been debarked without the correct paper work then they swing past and call in when they are next in the area.Currently they dont get to just stroll in to see whether or not you are breeding too many puppies - what ever too many is- because the property looks a bit unkempt from the road or because you have a sign up advertising more than one breed of puppies for sale.

they cant come back and tell you the outcome because its logistically illogical and it would mean someone would do nothing else but call back people who do this stuff without evidence and without anything else to indicate that an investigation is even warranted.

Lets be honest about this - based on the fact that the RSPCA can and do sometimes simply sieze animals and there are so many stories around about how people have lost their dogs unfairly, and how hard it is to prove you havent done anything wrong if they say you have do you want them just being able to call in and check you out without fair reason? How many pet owners would be squashed for dogs with bad teeth, not worming them, fleas, dirty water bowls, being fed off the ground etc if they could just decide because you owned a dog they could check you and your dogs out? What are your chook pens like ? How many dogs do you own over your council requirements, where do they sleep / Think it through.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Steve