Judy Gard - All Done

[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.

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???

I mean that Vic dogs didnt kick and scream when it was being tabled.

[ESCS]

Congratulations to Judy and her support team for a great outcome. If she still need funds to cover legal costs, I would be happy to make a contribution ( not sure where to find her bank details). Our tibbie is from Judy and we will always be grateful to her for our lovely, little guy.

[Sheridan]

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 ?

And we've seen time and time again that the RSPCA uses a lot of discretion in who they decide to put a target on. When I see on their own television progam that they will leave animals in the so-called care of owners who have mistreated them and yet have the utter gall to target Judy Gard whose 'crime' was to show her dogs after they'd been debarked then it indicates that their discretion is badly applied and misused.

[tdierikx]

And we've seen time and time again that the RSPCA uses a lot of discretion in who they decide to put a target on. When I see on their own television progam that they will leave animals in the so-called care of owners who have mistreated them and yet have the utter gall to target Judy Gard whose 'crime' was to show her dogs after they'd been debarked then it indicates that their discretion is badly applied and misused.

... and that is why I'm somewhat sour on them... too much "discretion" when it suits them, and not enough when it should be applied... and no-one to be answerable to... *sigh*

T.

[Tibbiemax71]

I am so, so happy for Judy, I just cant believe that its finally over and with such a great out come!! Judy can finally get on with and enjoy her life with her gorgeous dogs.

[asal]

I cannot believe what this poor woman has been MADE to go through! Totally unjust and unecessary! It is an outrage. Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked???? Pathetic. Were they starved? neglected? was there any act of cruelty? NO, therefore they should NOT have been seized. I haven't heard of this story till this very moment so did a quick search to have a better idea of what has happened and to say that I am reeling is an understatement!!! Glad that things have turned out this way but quite honestly she should NOT have to pay any costs associated with her beloved dogs being seized! I really have little respect for the RPSCA, they need to get their priorities right!

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding.

[asal]

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

yes thats correct

[asal]

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.

they make choices not to every day. for example i know of a case the charges were failure to provide food and a second charge, failure to provide water.

the person pleaded guilty to the first charge and the rspca decided to go with that and didnt press for the second charge.

both were legal charges, they chose not to proceed. their poor liddle hands arent tied after all??

aw shucks

when i asked at the time why was the second charge dropped. to be told, "we have proven our point".

i still have the photos of the animals in question standing round a broken drain pipe licking the dripping morning dew, their only souce of water n they had proved their point? a conviction was what they wanted and once achieved they didnt follow the letter of the law then so why try that excuse now with regard to Judy?

Edited November 19, 2010 by asal

[Missymoo]

:D

[Moselle]

I cannot believe what this poor woman has been MADE to go through! Totally unjust and unecessary! It is an outrage. Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked???? Pathetic. Were they starved? neglected? was there any act of cruelty? NO, therefore they should NOT have been seized. I haven't heard of this story till this very moment so did a quick search to have a better idea of what has happened and to say that I am reeling is an understatement!!! Glad that things have turned out this way but quite honestly she should NOT have to pay any costs associated with her beloved dogs being seized! I really have little respect for the RPSCA, they need to get their priorities right!

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding.

I was not aware that the RSPCA seized all of her dogs including those that were not debarked :D ! It is scandalous and I can only hope that justice will prevail. They may do some good along the way but the bad is starting to outweight the good imo!!!!

[Steve]

I cannot believe what this poor woman has been MADE to go through! Totally unjust and unecessary! It is an outrage. Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked???? Pathetic. Were they starved? neglected? was there any act of cruelty? NO, therefore they should NOT have been seized. I haven't heard of this story till this very moment so did a quick search to have a better idea of what has happened and to say that I am reeling is an understatement!!! Glad that things have turned out this way but quite honestly she should NOT have to pay any costs associated with her beloved dogs being seized! I really have little respect for the RPSCA, they need to get their priorities right!

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding.

No they only took the debarked ones.

[WreckitWhippet]

I cannot believe what this poor woman has been MADE to go through! Totally unjust and unecessary! It is an outrage. Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked???? Pathetic. Were they starved? neglected? was there any act of cruelty? NO, therefore they should NOT have been seized. I haven't heard of this story till this very moment so did a quick search to have a better idea of what has happened and to say that I am reeling is an understatement!!! Glad that things have turned out this way but quite honestly she should NOT have to pay any costs associated with her beloved dogs being seized! I really have little respect for the RPSCA, they need to get their priorities right!

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding.

No they only took the debarked ones.

makes you laugh doesn't it ( well not really ) but the dogs were apparently in such danger that they needed to be seized immediately, yet they left dogs on the property.

The debarked one's must have been the one's without food, shelter and water :D

Edited November 19, 2010 by ReadySetGo

[Moselle]

I cannot believe what this poor woman has been MADE to go through! Totally unjust and unecessary! It is an outrage. Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked???? Pathetic. Were they starved? neglected? was there any act of cruelty? NO, therefore they should NOT have been seized. I haven't heard of this story till this very moment so did a quick search to have a better idea of what has happened and to say that I am reeling is an understatement!!! Glad that things have turned out this way but quite honestly she should NOT have to pay any costs associated with her beloved dogs being seized! I really have little respect for the RPSCA, they need to get their priorities right!

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding.

No they only took the debarked ones.

makes you laugh doesn't it ( well not really ) but the dogs were apparently in such danger that they needed to be seized immediately, yet they left dogs on the property.

The debarked one's must have been the one's without food, shelter and water :D

You beat me to it! That is exactly what I thought upon reading that only the debarked dogs were seized! UNBLOODYBELIEVABLE! :D

[Steve]

I cannot believe what this poor woman has been MADE to go through! Totally unjust and unecessary! It is an outrage. Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked???? Pathetic. Were they starved? neglected? was there any act of cruelty? NO, therefore they should NOT have been seized. I haven't heard of this story till this very moment so did a quick search to have a better idea of what has happened and to say that I am reeling is an understatement!!! Glad that things have turned out this way but quite honestly she should NOT have to pay any costs associated with her beloved dogs being seized! I really have little respect for the RPSCA, they need to get their priorities right!

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding.

No they only took the debarked ones.

makes you laugh doesn't it ( well not really ) but the dogs were apparently in such danger that they needed to be seized immediately, yet they left dogs on the property.

The debarked one's must have been the one's without food, shelter and water :D

You beat me to it! That is exactly what I thought upon reading that only the debarked dogs were seized! UNBLOODYBELIEVABLE! :D

They seized the dogs which had been debarked to allow them to be examined by their expert witness.They shaved their necks and gave them a general to look down their throats. Strange because all of the documentation was available to show who had done the job, where and how. Makes no sense to me but Im not them and they must have had reason for doing it this way.

[Sheridan]

They seized the dogs which had been debarked to allow them to be examined by their expert witness.They shaved their necks and gave them a general to look down their throats. Strange because all of the documentation was available to show who had done the job, where and how. Makes no sense to me but Im not them and they must have had reason for doing it this way.

Remind me, is this the case where a certain vet was handing around misinformation?

[Steve]

They seized the dogs which had been debarked to allow them to be examined by their expert witness.They shaved their necks and gave them a general to look down their throats. Strange because all of the documentation was available to show who had done the job, where and how. Makes no sense to me but Im not them and they must have had reason for doing it this way.

Remind me, is this the case where a certain vet was handing around misinformation?

Yep

[asal]

I cannot believe what this poor woman has been MADE to go through! Totally unjust and unecessary! It is an outrage. Seizing her animals simply because they were debarked???? Pathetic. Were they starved? neglected? was there any act of cruelty? NO, therefore they should NOT have been seized. I haven't heard of this story till this very moment so did a quick search to have a better idea of what has happened and to say that I am reeling is an understatement!!! Glad that things have turned out this way but quite honestly she should NOT have to pay any costs associated with her beloved dogs being seized! I really have little respect for the RPSCA, they need to get their priorities right!

you forget. they took every single one of them debarked or not was my understanding.

No they only took the debarked ones.

makes you laugh doesn't it ( well not really ) but the dogs were apparently in such danger that they needed to be seized immediately, yet they left dogs on the property.

The debarked one's must have been the one's without food, shelter and water

You beat me to it! That is exactly what I thought upon reading that only the debarked dogs were seized! UNBLOODYBELIEVABLE!

They seized the dogs which had been debarked to allow them to be examined by their expert witness.They shaved their necks and gave them a general to look down their throats. Strange because all of the documentation was available to show who had done the job, where and how. Makes no sense to me but Im not them and they must have had reason for doing it this way.

its called "padding the bill" wasnt an interstate vet called for their "expert" opinion? made u wonder a bit, none in victoria good enough? isnt even worthless a vet?

i recall they flew in a vet via private plane for the Ruth Downey ripoff think it was 1,400 or 1,800 applied for to cover the cost? think the magistrate refused to add it to the almost 300,000 in legal fees they asked for anyway. and she wasnt even tried before a jury, just one lone magistrate

Edited November 19, 2010 by asal

[Crazy5]

I had heard of this but didn't realise it was Judy. My Tibbies come from her lines and in my research she was absolutely wonderful. When there is so much true cruelty happening to dogs everyday it make me angry to see that went after someone like her who would never mistreat her dogs.

[Souff]

Well done to Judy's legal team and her supporters, and to the magistrate for allowing justice and commonsense to prevail.

VicDogs, the Victorian Government, and RSPCA Victoria, and that lowlife vet ......... just go away and hang your heads in shame .... you are all by far just too UN-Australian.

Souff

[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

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

What's the daily rate? I remember when Judy's matter first hit General someone mentioned the rate and all I could think was that I can commercially board all of my dogs for less than what they charge for one dog.