Are You Serious Jo Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 My expat QLDer friends all notice it too, we are like shell shocked people dropped into an alien environment :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Begs the question: which is the least crazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Begs the question: which is the least crazy? And who is judging what crazy is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Well maybe they think I'm crazy with all my lardy dar fancy notions of professionalism and accountability I'm an East coast person, it's been real, it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Well maybe they think I'm crazy with all my lardy dar fancy notions of professionalism and accountability I'm an East coast person, it's been real, it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun :laugh: There are lots of rescue groups in SA that have professionalism and accountability - they are MDBA members. You've just been watching the wrong ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 The professionalism extends to everything, not talking about animal related things in particular. That's one area where it seems to be on par with the East coast. I know a few really good rescues down here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeelerLove Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 That is one thing that you and I can agree on Jo... South Australia is too damn small, everyone knows everyone one way or another lol. Another update from Mark Aldridge: "I have to laugh out loud at the RSPCA, they have contact myself, Lola and the Minister and are refusing to deal with me as Moorooks spokesperson lol, and they are refusing to prove they had a vet on hand, because they did not, so all of their inspections were not lawful, neither was the taking of Moorooks animals and the euthanasia of their healthy dogs, interesting indeed" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Far as I know they don't need a vet to inspect the animals - they may need a vet to seize though I believe Moorook handed them over rather than them seizing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 (edited) Well maybe they think I'm crazy with all my lardy dar fancy notions of professionalism and accountability I'm an East coast person, it's been real, it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun :laugh: There are lots of rescue groups in SA that have professionalism and accountability - they are MDBA members. You've just been watching the wrong ones. That's probably a matter of opinion to some people. Far as I know they don't need a vet to inspect the animals - they may need a vet to seize though I believe Moorook handed them over rather than them seizing them. That suggests a choice. Edited April 11, 2013 by Sheridan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Well maybe they think I'm crazy with all my lardy dar fancy notions of professionalism and accountability I'm an East coast person, it's been real, it's been fun, but it hasn't been real fun :laugh: There are lots of rescue groups in SA that have professionalism and accountability - they are MDBA members. You've just been watching the wrong ones. That's probably a matter of opinion to some people. Far as I know they don't need a vet to inspect the animals - they may need a vet to seize though I believe Moorook handed them over rather than them seizing them. That suggests a choice. Thats right from what has been reported they did have a choice - whether or not they felt they did or whether they were bullied etc is speculation and not really relevant as to whether they needed a vet with them. Our rescue members are more accountable - no opinion required its a fact and I have neither seen nor heard any evidence what ever as to why anyone would feel they were unprofessional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeelerLove Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 "A vet must be on hand it they are to evaluate the animals condition, and take them, Lola was forced to sign them over under duress, they were going to take them in any event, but then would have had an avenue to sue her for costs, which they made clear could wipe her out." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I thought they could seize and take back to their vet? The current system is disgraceful and against all other law where you are innocent till proven guilty. How many people could afford the ridiculous costs they have decided you have to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Someone will need to look up prevention of cruelty to animals act and any companion animals state laws in SA as the minor details are different in each state. My personal opinion is that if its true they need a vet to seize there is a hell of a lot of them that arent doing that and in all honesty Id be surprised if that was the case .But she surrendered them whether she says now it was under duress isnt the point. No point in arguingthere was no vet when they seized them if they didnt seize them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aphra Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I think it does matter if someone is forced to do something under duress. It's certainly a legal defence in a number of instances (for example a confession of a crime). An economic threat is still a threat. Someone will need to look up prevention of cruelty to animals act and any companion animals state laws in SA as the minor details are different in each state. My personal opinion is that if its true they need a vet to seize there is a hell of a lot of them that arent doing that and in all honesty Id be surprised if that was the case .But she surrendered them whether she says now it was under duress isnt the point. No point in arguingthere was no vet when they seized them if they didnt seize them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 I think it does matter if someone is forced to do something under duress. It's certainly a legal defence in a number of instances (for example a confession of a crime). An economic threat is still a threat. Someone will need to look up prevention of cruelty to animals act and any companion animals state laws in SA as the minor details are different in each state. My personal opinion is that if its true they need a vet to seize there is a hell of a lot of them that arent doing that and in all honesty Id be surprised if that was the case .But she surrendered them whether she says now it was under duress isnt the point. No point in arguingthere was no vet when they seized them if they didnt seize them. I think an economic threat is one of the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 O.K. Agreed but its also common practice and I would suggest that very few people who surrender their dogs in similar circumstances do so without some kind of duress or percieved threat. Will be intersting to watch this all play out -either way it wont bring the dogs back. Still if there was no vet there and there needed to be one if they seized the dogs the dogs werent seized.If the dogs were inspected and they needed a vet to inspect - unlikely - then thats relavent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 By the way if it was duress and if it was all handled the wrong way - who are they going to complain to and what is going to be done about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 They've always had trouble with volunteers, there just isn't the population to provide enough. The animal people I know up there won't go there anymore either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/ex-police-trainee-denies-horse-cruelty/story-fn3dxiwe-1226618577690 timely reminder of how far it can go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Are You Serious Jo Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Another thing to remember is that what Mark says may not be true, hasn't been verified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now