Judy Gard - All Done

[Moselle]

Moselle:

Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked????

Under Victorian law, they were illegally debarked. Hardly a proportional response to the offence though.

Yes, I know that debarking is illegal in Victoria, the most that should have been done is issue a fine, not seize the dogs. The dogs were not in any form of danger, they were well looked after, there is no justification in seizing them.

[poodlefan]

Moselle:

Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked????

Under Victorian law, they were illegally debarked. Hardly a proportional response to the offence though.

Yes, I know that debarking is illegal in Victoria, the most that should have been done is issue a fine, not seize the dogs. The dogs were not in any form of danger, they were well looked after, there is no justification in seizing them.

You won't get any argument from me on that one.

[TessnSean]

Debarking is not illegal in Victoria. It has been explained so many times what was wrong in this case. Debark and not show and there would not have been any charges.

[poodlefan]

Debarking is not illegal in Victoria. It has been explained so many times what was wrong in this case. Debark and not show and there would not have been any charges.

I didn't say debarking was illegal in Victoria.

I said the dog had been illegally debarked. The process for lawful debarking in Victoria wasn't followed.

[SpikesPuppy]

Moselle:

Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked????

Under Victorian law, they were illegally debarked. Hardly a proportional response to the offence though.

Yes, I know that debarking is illegal in Victoria, the most that should have been done is issue a fine, not seize the dogs. The dogs were not in any form of danger, they were well looked after, there is no justification in seizing them.

Funny isn't it (in a tragic way) that when an animal is in genuine need, starved, abused, overgrown hooves etc that a whole lotta red tape appears and the RSPCA can't intervene but when it's something like this, a technicality arising from a little known new legislation and the dogs can no longer be subjected to the 'abuse', they have the power to seize?????

[Steve]

Judy tells me she has enough money to pay for the expenses for the RSPCA to keep her dogs .She has not yet received an acccount from the legal team so she has promised to let me know when she get the bill.

Could I just point out to you that this is a state law and the RSPCA were simply doing what they have the authority to do under current legislation .Beat up the law - not the RSPCA.

There is an election any minute in Victoria and both parties have pledged more money and more laws with greater power to the RSPCA.

Might I suggest that if you could download our petitions which asks for greater accountability for an agency which is enforcing state animal welfare laws and move them around dog shows and various places that it wont do any harm ?

Petition for Victoria : download here for distribution.

To the Legislative Assembly of Victoria

The Petition of the Master Dog Breeders and Associates, concerned pet owners, companion

animal breeders, animal farmers, animal care industry participants and interested peak bodies

and citizens of Victoria draws to the attention of the House

The need for greater transparency and accountability by all agencies which are given police

and prosecutorial powers under animal welfare legislation.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Victoria (RSPCA) is a private

entity subsidised by taxpayer monies in the form of Government grants, bequests and

charitable donations which amounts to $16,060,007 or 53% of their 2009 – 2010 income of

$30,489,200 (figures taken from the RSPCA 2009-2010 Annual Report) holding much power

under legislation which appears to have no independent complaint process.

Other agencies which have police and prosecutorial powers have an external appeals process

which guarantees they are transparently accountable to the public; able to be scrutinised by

external agencies like an Ombudsman, a Special Appeals Tribunal or the Independent

Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which investigates complaints of corrupt conduct in

accordance with Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 and their officers if

necessary.

This accountability helps ensure agencies and their staff follow the correct procedures and

operate within their legislative or constitutional base.

This external process protects the organisation, any people under investigation and members

of the public from unfair or vexatious notifications or corrupt activities and brings the

RSPCA into line with other organisation’s best practice.

The petitioners therefore request that the Legislative Assembly of Victoria

Establish an external, independent watchdog to be established to investigate complaints

against the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA)

And

Ensure the RSPCA has a transparent complaint and appeals process for any person or group

which is the subject of any RSPCA investigation or action.

And

Encase any complaint and appeals process into legislation.

[mita]

The magistrate was really good and realized that she is not a felon but somebody who did a stupid thing and also went on to say that this would serve to let others know that this cannot not be done any longer

The Victorian law is written in a way that would trip up a Rhodes Scholar. Who would ever think that getting a procedure done, in another State (NSW) & in accordance with the law of that State, would be an offence if you live in Victoria. That's the rub.

Who would ever think, reading the Victorian law, that debarking is actually allowed in Victoria, but under a certain process...when the law initially states that it's a prohibited procedure in Victoria. Someone needs to tell them the wording should have been restricted procedure.

The word RESTRICTED would tell people immediately that there are circumstances & a process which do allow it, legally, in Victoria....so go find it.

Speaking from the safety of the Qld law, which says exactly that, I have an urge to send down some dictionaries to whomsoever framed that law.

You've got a Green in the state Parliament in Victoria...tell them about the need for the Victorian law to be written more clearly.

Edited November 19, 2010 by mita

[TessnSean]

Debarking is not illegal in Victoria. It has been explained so many times what was wrong in this case. Debark and not show and there would not have been any charges.

I didn't say debarking was illegal in Victoria.

I said the dog had been illegally debarked. The process for lawful debarking in Victoria wasn't followed.

I never said you did Poodlefan so I do not understand your correction point.

[raz]

Can we not argue over this, please. This is really important for all of us so let's just have a calm head at this point in time.

Steve, I seem to recall when this first happened that someone said that if any of us (animal owners) have our animals seized, that we are liable for day to day impound costs until the animals are released ?

eta regardless of the court outcome

Edited November 19, 2010 by raz

[Moselle]

Could I just point out to you that this is a state law and the RSPCA were simply doing what they have the authority to do under current legislation .Beat up the law - not the RSPCA.

Steve, suffice to say that yes, you are correct in saying that the RSPCA were simply doing what they have full authority to do under current legislation but it was none other than the RSPCA that was wholly responsible for bringing in such a legislation in the very first place.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Moselle

[Erny]

Could I just point out to you that this is a state law and the RSPCA were simply doing what they have the authority to do under current legislation .Beat up the law - not the RSPCA.

Fair enough - but is that to say that the RSPCA had no choice other than to seize Judy's dogs? Genuine question. No digs.

[aussielover]

Debarking is not illegal in Victoria. It has been explained so many times what was wrong in this case. Debark and not show and there would not have been any charges.

I didn't say debarking was illegal in Victoria.

I said the dog had been illegally debarked. The process for lawful debarking in Victoria wasn't followed.

Sorry, isn't it then the vet who did it the one who should be in trouble?

They must have the proper paperwork etc before they proceed.

[poodlefan]

Debarking is not illegal in Victoria. It has been explained so many times what was wrong in this case. Debark and not show and there would not have been any charges.

I didn't say debarking was illegal in Victoria.

I said the dog had been illegally debarked. The process for lawful debarking in Victoria wasn't followed.

Sorry, isn't it then the vet who did it the one who should be in trouble?

They must have the proper paperwork etc before they proceed.

Vet was in NSW - whole different regime there.

[mita]

aussie, the operations were done in NSW where they complied with the law in NSW.

But the Victorian law says that debarking is illegal if it's done outside Victoria, & the owner is a resident of Victoria. (And extra penalty if that 'illegally' debarked dog is shown in Victoria.)

So it's the Victorian owner, not the NSW vet, who has broken a law. The NSW vet is not subject to Victorian law, but the Victorian owner of the dog is subject to Victorian law.

[Steve]

Can we not argue over this, please. This is really important for all of us so let's just have a calm head at this point in time.

Steve, I seem to recall when this first happened that someone said that if any of us (animal owners) have our animals seized, that we are liable for day to day impound costs until the animals are released ?

eta regardless of the court outcome

Thats true but they didnt have Judy's dogs for that long as her legal people went in to help pretty quickly.

[Steve]

Could I just point out to you that this is a state law and the RSPCA were simply doing what they have the authority to do under current legislation .Beat up the law - not the RSPCA.

Steve, suffice to say that yes, you are correct in saying that the RSPCA were simply doing what they have full authority to do under current legislation but it was none other than the RSPCA that was wholly responsible for bringing in such a legislation in the very first place.

However, it was Vicdogs who signed off on it and its their dogs, their members and their dog shows.

[Moselle]

Could I just point out to you that this is a state law and the RSPCA were simply doing what they have the authority to do under current legislation .Beat up the law - not the RSPCA.

Steve, suffice to say that yes, you are correct in saying that the RSPCA were simply doing what they have full authority to do under current legislation but it was none other than the RSPCA that was wholly responsible for bringing in such a legislation in the very first place.

However, it was Vicdogs who signed off on it and its their dogs, their members and their dog shows.

Steve, what you mean in that Vicdogs "signed off on it" ???? Is that to say that they agreed to the debarking law or that they simply "dobbed" the lady in to the RSPCA???

[Bilbo Baggins]

Moselle happy reading

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=184004

[SpikesPuppy]

Could I just point out to you that this is a state law and the RSPCA were simply doing what they have the authority to do under current legislation .Beat up the law - not the RSPCA.

Steve, suffice to say that yes, you are correct in saying that the RSPCA were simply doing what they have full authority to do under current legislation but it was none other than the RSPCA that was wholly responsible for bringing in such a legislation in the very first place.

However, it was Vicdogs who signed off on it and its their dogs, their members and their dog shows.

Steve, what you mean in that Vicdogs "signed off on it" ???? Is that to say that they agreed to the debarking law or that they simply "dobbed" the lady in to the RSPCA???

Dogs Vic did nothing to stop these laws beings passed and they did nothing to inform their members of the legislations.

As far as I am aware they had nothing to do with 'dobbing' Judy in.

[OSoSwift]

Good to hear it is over. I am glad Judy has the money to pay the costs of the RSPCA having her dogs, even though I am sure they are vastly inflated. Hopefully the legal costs are not too large.

All I can say is spread the word. I had a conversation about the RSPCA with a friend last night (who incidentally has a dog who has burned out 2 electric collars as he barks a fair bit even eith them on. The barking is worth it to him) She had no idea wthat the RSPCA is answerable to no-one and their is no watchdog if you have a problem with their dealings with you. She was amazed and more than horrified. I talked to her about the petition and she agreed with me that down here I would be pushing poo up a very large hill with a very skinny stick to get signitures as most people think the RSPCA are all good and have NO IDEA that they are a private notfor profit organisation who have no watch dog. I am printing out the petition and going to make it my mission to get some signitures but I think I will be hoarse from all the explaining. Our closest RSPCA officer is nearly 500kms away so cases are usually dealt with by local rangers and vets with communication with the officer in another who sometimes, not always comes over to see for himself.

Most people have no idea there is no RSPCA watch dog, educate people, try and get this legislation through and hopefully we can stop this kind of rubbish happening again. Many also do not realise with the RSPCA you are guilty until proven innnocent. And this is a PRIVATE organaisation - dog help us is all I can say.