Rspca

[minimax]

Where is the evidence that Charlie was PTS? There isn't any so far. Clifford yes, we agree that happened.

"We are sharing a story, told to us, by someone close to Charlie. I believe them more than RSPCA."

That is their "proof" :laugh:

(from

)

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yeah, can't really say much more than that :laugh:

[inez]

If you have a complaint about the RSPCA in NSW then the only recourse you have is lodge a written complaint with the minister concerned who is responsible for them. He is the one that gives them their power to do what they do.

Didnt someone in the past? Do just that and printed the full reply here somewhere on dogzonline? I think? the date on the reply showed it took 2 years to elicit a reply. Is that the standard time frame for government replies?

[Are You Serious Jo]

It's been tried and doesn't work.

[Ringo]

You keep going, and when you start lodging complaints with no reply or inadequate reply from the minister then you start opening up other options that all government departments come under because you are now dealing with the government not a private enterprise granted a right by the minister.

[_PL_]

Look into Freedom of Information but you'd have to have a specific request (like branch, date, ID number) and I don't know if certain information is deemed exempt, I'm not completely familiar with the Act or what the RS is allowed to keep private.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Ringo, the reason that people are so angry about the lack of accountability is that they have tried what you suggest. It just doesn't work. I know it should work but it doesn't.

[Ringo]

Freedom of Information (Government Information Public Access Act - GIPA Act - NSW) only works for government bodies, not private enterprise.

And it doesn't work if you give up - remember there is more than one way to skin a cat (apologies to cat lovers) You keep going until you find the right way - image the uproar in the press/TV if a minister was not responding to such a simple matter - they would draw the line that they would be no better in matters of much greater importance (relevantly speaking)

[Are You Serious Jo]

What happens is the minister talks to the rspca who tell him/her that it is baseless and the minster goes on record as saying the problem is fixed. The rspca is their authority on welfare matters as well so it becomes circular. The papers aren't really interested.

[Ringo]

Like I said you don't give up

[Are You Serious Jo]

Feel free to give it a try then come back and bang your head a bit :laugh:

[WoofnHoof]

Minister for what? Primary industries?

[Jed]

RedAngel - I know - I posted a link to your thread too!! :laugh:

Sheridan - Mantis is following up comments made on whether the Clifford story was correct. At the time it was very sickening, and Mantis was quite distressed as were we all, and she is horrified to think that people don't believe it happened.

Sure did, as noted in the papers.

[Are You Serious Jo]

But nobody said Clifford didn't happen It is the Charlie story that looks to be faked.

[Sheridan]

RedAngel - I know - I posted a link to your thread too!! :laugh:

Sheridan - Mantis is following up comments made on whether the Clifford story was correct. At the time it was very sickening, and Mantis was quite distressed as were we all, and she is horrified to think that people don't believe it happened.

Sure did, as noted in the papers.

I wasn't talking about Clifford, Jed, not until Mantis claimed he was unvetted. I was only talking about Charlie.

[inez]

What happens is the minister talks to the rspca who tell him/her that it is baseless and the minster goes on record as saying the problem is fixed. The rspca is their authority on welfare matters as well so it becomes circular. The papers aren't really interested.

The letter posted (wherever it is in archives around here) the minister gave the reason the rspca saidwhy the dog was seized , the owner of the dog was adamant the rspca reason for seizing the dog was not known, by either the rspca person who took it, or whoever answered the phone when the dogs vet called and asked why was it seized?

The owner queried how can the rspca act before an event occured?

It was a long time ago I read this.

1. the reply from the Minister said the dog was seized because according to the RSPCA the dogs vet did not have any records saying the dog was healty or did not need treatment.

2. The vet did not ring the rspca until AFTER the dog was seized and admitted he did not know he needed to have such information on file.

So the rspca gave the minister as the reason for seizure being information acquired AFTER the dog was seized as the reason for seizing it?

Who wouldnt be confused?

or forget that thread

Edited April 30, 2013 by inez

[Sheridan]

What happens is the minister talks to the rspca who tell him/her that it is baseless and the minster goes on record as saying the problem is fixed. The rspca is their authority on welfare matters as well so it becomes circular. The papers aren't really interested.

The letter posted (wherever it is in archives around here) the minister gave the reason the rspca saidwhy the dog was seized , the owner of the dog was adamant the rspca reason for seizing the dog was not known, by either the rspca person who took it, or whoever answered the phone when the dogs vet called and asked why was it seized?

The owner queried how can the rspca act before an event occured?

It was a long time ago I read this.

1. the reply from the Minister said the dog was seized because according to the RSPCA the dogs vet did not have any records saying the dog was healty or did not need treatment.

2. The vet did not ring the rspca until AFTER the dog was seized and admitted he did not know he needed to have such information on file.

So the rspca gave the minister as the reason for seizure being information acquired AFTER the dog was seized as the reason for seizing it?

Who wouldnt be confused?

or forget that thread

If a dog doesn't need to be taken to a vet because it doesn't need veterinary treatment and is titre tested, why would the vet have any records at all on the state of its health?

[inez]

What happens is the minister talks to the rspca who tell him/her that it is baseless and the minster goes on record as saying the problem is fixed. The rspca is their authority on welfare matters as well so it becomes circular. The papers aren't really interested.

The letter posted (wherever it is in archives around here) the minister gave the reason the rspca saidwhy the dog was seized , the owner of the dog was adamant the rspca reason for seizing the dog was not known, by either the rspca person who took it, or whoever answered the phone when the dogs vet called and asked why was it seized?

The owner queried how can the rspca act before an event occured?

It was a long time ago I read this.

1. the reply from the Minister said the dog was seized because according to the RSPCA the dogs vet did not have any records saying the dog was healty or did not need treatment.

2. The vet did not ring the rspca until AFTER the dog was seized and admitted he did not know he needed to have such information on file.

So the rspca gave the minister as the reason for seizure being information acquired AFTER the dog was seized as the reason for seizing it?

Who wouldnt be confused?

or forget that thread

If a dog doesn't need to be taken to a vet because it doesn't need veterinary treatment and is titre tested, why would the vet have any records at all on the state of its health?

About the time I saw that story, I spoke to a somewhat well known counciler who is also a vet. His reply was . He said that was not the first time he had heard that or the first time it has happened. The only vets he knew who do know you need to record in their records that a dog was healthy when seen and do not require treatment, are the ones who have had clients have this happen. It was many years ago but I am pretty sure he said he too had reason to learn this is necessary if your care and knowledge of the animal is challanged. IE, a verbal diagnosis is not valid. It must be in writing, in the surgery records.

Edited April 30, 2013 by inez

[Sheridan]

That doesn't even make sense.

[Erny]

Look into Freedom of Information but you'd have to have a specific request (like branch, date, ID number) and I don't know if certain information is deemed exempt, I'm not completely familiar with the Act or what the RS is allowed to keep private.

"Freedom of Information" isn't all that easy either. I worked on a matter that required information via Freedom of Information and I had to shell out something in the vicinity of $300.00 (if I remember correctly). It certainly wasn't "free". All well and good if I had a spare several $M dollars to dip into as the RSPCA has.