Dogs Seized From No Kill Shelter

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yes, have to agree, the advantage lies with the rspca. In which case I'd be a hell of a lot more professional in how I handled this situation. Having your "spokesperson" call them filthy scum publicly and telling lies is not wise.

[kelpiecuddles]

Wow, what a mess! I'm still of the opinion that if you've got nothing to hide it shouldn't matter even if they storm the place. They could storm in to my place and they'd find all sort of weird and wonderful critters but they wouldn't find anything to give me any real grief over.

[Are You Serious Jo]

So there are two videos? I know there is one that I think was the meeting at Waikerie but didn't know about the other one. Will be very interesting to see what's on there.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Ok, I think the one up is the one at Moorook, don't think the Waikerie one is?

[Are You Serious Jo]

You are right, I thought it might have been the other one because it sounded like people were responding to the one where the rspca supposedly said it was fun.

[Sheridan]

Now that's one I would like to see, if it actually exists.

[tdierikx]

Wow, what a mess! I'm still of the opinion that if you've got nothing to hide it shouldn't matter even if they storm the place. They could storm in to my place and they'd find all sort of weird and wonderful critters but they wouldn't find anything to give me any real grief over.

You haven't been on the receiving end of a malicious complaint to them then, have you? If they are hell bent on proving something, they WILL find something that you haven't got right...

T.

[kelpiecuddles]

Not with them but I have with others due to malicious people in a strata situation I have been in(someone reported that I had large numbers of large dogs in my courtyard barking all day when in fact I studied at home all day and had two medium dogs who spent most of their days indoors with me and definately weren't barking, in fact another neighbour hadn't even realised I had dogs they were so quiet!). I get that they have issues though, I do agree with the more bees with honey comment though.

[kelpiecuddles]

Not with them but I have with others due to malicious people in a strata situation I have been in(someone reported that I had large numbers of large dogs in my courtyard barking all day when in fact I studied at home all day and had two medium dogs who spent most of their days indoors with me and definately weren't barking, in fact another neighbour hadn't even realised I had dogs they were so quiet!). I get that they have issues though, I do agree with the more bees with honey comment though.

[Tara and Sam]

You are right, I thought it might have been the other one because it sounded like people were responding to the one where the rspca supposedly said it was fun.

From the video I saw the rspca did actually say it

yes it was good fun mate and was laughing the same time

when asked did they enjoy getting there early to intimidate a old lady

I believe it was the one taken the morning when no one was suppose to be at Moorook

[Sheridan]

Goodness. Ch 7 would love that.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Don't worry I'm not taking their side, just not assuming anything Moorook says is truth till it's proven. My views on the rspca are very dim.

[Steve]

Lots of things to be learned here.

The level of double standards shown by those who agitate for law changes to prevent dogs being kept in these type of enclosures for any length of time. If a dog has ever been homeless it's O.K. for it to potentially suffer indefinitely and that those working in rescue should be immune to being held to account in the same way any other person is who owns an animal is expected to be treated.

the idea that the RSPCA should call first if they have concerns regarding a breeder or any other animal owner would be yelled about and the breeder or owner castigated for even mentioning it yet in this case a big part of the yelling is about how dare they come un announced. OL and similar have been screaming about how they want unannounced and spot checks and logically what is it they are asking for "Hello Mrs Smith, this is the RSPCA we have a complaint that your dog is badly matted, doesnt have water and is full of fleas - we need to come and check out this complaint so when is the best time for you for us to do that? "

"hello Mrs Jones we have a complaint that you have too many dogs on your property, that you are breaching mandatory codes for breeding establishments - when is a convenient time for us to come and inspect you ?"

i guess there is a potential argument for them to operate this way but what then? Dogs suffer all year and every time they get a "when can we come and check - if thats convenient for you ? " they look like they are doing it all right because they only clean up after the phone call each time?

Here's a red hot news flash - when the RSPCA get a complaint they get to investigate that and they don't have to give notice the complaint has been received and that they will be around at a certain time if its convenient for you to check on that. When they have to follow up its in the dog's best interest for them to come unannounced so they know what you have been told to get on top of is done all the time not just by appointment.

Not only do the loonies make fools of themselves for banging this drum but it exposes them for the fact that they don't give a shit about the dogs - their aim is to shut down breeders and have anyone accused of cruelty or neglect loose their animals - unless they were once homeless animals of course. For Marook to be the ones saying this - they loose. After all if everything is good and they have nothing to hide what are they worried about? That's what they say to everyone else. they should be grateful that it was the RSPCA and they came in the daylight with credentials and that terrorists didn't creep in the middle of the night and terrorise an old lady with spot lights and cameras to make a TV segment or two to be sure they really ruined her life for punishment - so far they have gotten off lightly.

They had a chance to expose a system that needs outside accountability and instead all they have done is show rescue needs legislation and mandatory codes.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Steve

[WreckitWhippet]

Lots of things to be learned here.

The level of double standards shown by those who agitate for law changes to prevent dogs being kept in these type of enclosures for any length of time. If a dog has ever been homeless it's O.K. for it to potentially suffer indefinitely and that those working in rescue should be immune to being held to account in the same way any other person is who owns an animal is expected to be treated.

the idea that the RSPCA should call first if they have concerns regarding a breeder or any other animal owner would be yelled about and the breeder or owner castigated for even mentioning it yet in this case a big part of the yelling is about how dare they come un announced. OL and similar have been screaming about how they want unannounced and spot checks and logically what is it they are asking for "Hello Mrs Smith, this is the RSPCA we have a complaint that your dog is badly matted, doesnt have water and is full of fleas - we need to come and check out this complaint so when is the best time for you for us to do that? "

"hello Mrs Jones we have a complaint that you have too many dogs on your property, that you are breaching mandatory codes for breeding establishments - when is a convenient time for us to come and inspect you ?"

i guess there is a potential argument for them to operate this way but what then? Dogs suffer all year and every time they get a "when can we come and check - if thats convenient for you ? " they look like they are doing it all right because they only clean up after the phone call each time?

Here's a red hot news flash - when the RSPCA get a complaint they get to investigate that and they don't have to give notice the complaint has been received and that they will be around at a certain time if its convenient for you to check on that. When they have to follow up its in the dog's best interest for them to come unannounced so they know what you have been told to get on top of is done all the time not just by appointment.

Not only do the loonies make fools of themselves for banging this drum but it exposes them for the fact that they don't give a shit about the dogs - their aim is to shut down breeders and have anyone accused of cruelty or neglect loose their animals - unless they were once homeless animals of course. For Marook to be the ones saying this - they loose. After all if everything is good and they have nothing to hide what are they worried about? That's what they say to everyone else. they should be grateful that it was the RSPCA and they came in the daylight with credentials and that terrorists didn't creep in the middle of the night and terrorise an old lady with spot lights and cameras to make a TV segment or two to be sure they really ruined her life for punishment - so far they have gotten off lightly.

They had a chance to expose a system that needs outside accountability and instead all they have done is show rescue needs legislation and mandatory codes.

This response needs to be highlighted in red, bolded and pinned somewhere.

[tdierikx]

You'd be surprised at how many rescues can and do assess their dogs for rehomability - and if not rehomable, do the right thing by the dog and the community.

Warehousing animals for indefinite periods of time is not the answer - even if they appear to be fine/coping in the environment they are warehoused in. It's not healthy for the dog, and it's not healthy for those charged with caring for the dog.

That "perfect home" for a dog with serious issues doesn't come along very often... seriously, who goes looking to adopt a dog with issues? And I don't think too many people are going to trek out to the back of Woop Woop to get a "broken" dog either... not when there are so many perfectly adoptable dogs out there to choose from.

I have a dog with mobility issues - she is a failed foster. When it came time for her to be up for adoption, I had a serious think about what sort of person would be looking to adopt her, and decided that as I was used to her needs, and she was used to my home, she should stay with me. Basically, once the novelty of her funny walk would have worn off, any prospective new owner would still have had a disabled dog to cope with... but I certainly wasn't looking for a disabled dog to adopt.

T.

[Are You Serious Jo]

People wonder why some cringe when they hear no kill, well this is why. I always get a laugh when Mark starts on about how Lola desexes, vaccinates etc. That only happened a few years ago because she was forced to do it by outing them here. Before that she didn't and used lack of money as an excuse. In an area where not many people desex and disease is prevalent wouldn't you think you'd make sure that you had those covered before you took in so many. She didn't give a toss about desexing because she just wanted them alive, even if it meant sending more breeders out. I'm basically the anti-christ according to them because of that thread a few years ago and I did so much damage (eyerollyman here). If people didn't stick their neck out no one would have a clue how bad some of these places are.

I only wish I could expose more so all the people who blindly support rescue could know the truth. They have no problem rehoming aggressive dogs if they bite adults. One told me that dogs like that one Mucko, who bites men generally go to lesbians. That's right, lesbians never have male visitors and they just hole up in their houses with their dog who never gets exposed to men. If they do go to single women who want a dog that doesn't like men they ask them to think about what happens if circumstances change, so what, they take the dog anyway and a biter from rescue is out there

[Steve]

People wonder why some cringe when they hear no kill, well this is why. I always get a laugh when Mark starts on about how Lola desexes, vaccinates etc. That only happened a few years ago because she was forced to do it by outing them here. Before that she didn't and used lack of money as an excuse. In an area where not many people desex and disease is prevalent wouldn't you think you'd make sure that you had those covered before you took in so many. She didn't give a toss about desexing because she just wanted them alive, even if it meant sending more breeders out. I'm basically the anti-christ according to them because of that thread a few years ago and I did so much damage (eyerollyman here). If people didn't stick their neck out no one would have a clue how bad some of these places are.

I only wish I could expose more so all the people who blindly support rescue could know the truth. They have no problem rehoming aggressive dogs if they bite adults. One told me that dogs like that one Mucko, who bites men generally go to lesbians. That's right, lesbians never have male visitors and they just hole up in their houses with their dog who never gets exposed to men. If they do go to single women who want a dog that doesn't like men they ask them to think about what happens if circumstances change, so what, they take the dog anyway and a biter from rescue is out there

Someone forgot to tell the lesbians I know about this - What a crack up. . Its like saying I dont have any female friends because Im not gay - idiots.

[Are You Serious Jo]

As I said, fleeing SA :laugh:

[Are You Serious Jo]

I don't think he cares as much about the issues as he does wanting to be seen to be the people's champion. They see nothing wrong with piles of crap everywhere that snakes could happily reside in. Lots of browns up there so what you really need is places for them to hide on the property. Once this dies down and the extra vollie leave she'll be back to having more dogs than she can handle. What a joke, best performing shelter in the country, how many people did it take to get to the point where it's not a hideous hell hole, between 300 and 500 depending on who you believe.

Another thing while I remember. I was also smugly told that Mark is going to sort out the rspca, but the minister is ignoring him. I would love to have an investigation into the rspca but their screaming very loudly tactics have failed, despite them telling me that was going to work. Told them so!

Edited May 6, 2013 by Reverend Jo

[Are You Serious Jo]

I think he's a grub. His webpage is one conspiracy short of tin foil hat territory. This is a minor nitpick, but his wife posted a picture of him in the house and he was smoking right near his cat. I'm sure pets suffer the effects of passive smoking too. Once he has effed up rescue here he'll be on to his next cause. I would love to know what the elected pollies think about him. Plus he has a ridiculous boy band bad boy beard :laugh: