Rspca

[_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.

"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.

Yes I believe that is the case. Lots of processing fees.

Begins with a $25 application and goes up from there I suppose rspcavic FOI

ETA: and I'm sure just because you ask, you don't necessarily receive.

Edited May 5, 2013 by Powerlegs

[~Anne~]

In NSW i believe you would be applying under GIPA, not FOI. From memory, I think an application to access under GIPA is approximately $80 isn't it?

[Cat]

It is usually $30

Edited May 5, 2013 by Cat

[inez]

On the subject of freedom of information.

Saw links to this on another forum, if the figures given are correct as the last sentence says "But on the other side whoever is running the financial operations of the RSPCA (NSW) is doing a fantastic job, it won’t be long before they are totally independent from donations."

Wonder if this chap will be the next sued for defamation?

http://judicialwatch.org.au/article/the-mal-davies-e-book-affair

After the quite substantial injustice that was perpetrated on Ms Ruth Downey, the editor of a small country internet blog co-wrote a document in titled "The Ruth Downey Inquisition" in regards to the Local Court action. This self described "E-Book" was written to highlight the action taken by the RSPCA (NSW) and was subsequently the bases of Supreme Court action in defamation.

The 57 page document seems to be written by the editor and founder of the SOSNews.org website under the pseudonym of Mal Davies and with help from Mr Downey's sister – Ellen Ash. This document was obviously written under high emotion stress by someone with little legal knowledge, although Mr Davies claimes to have helped investigate white-collar crime and prepare court briefs, although he has spelt copyright as "copywrite" throughout the document. I sincerely hope it wasn't he who advised Ms Downey to use the legal representative she did.

This document basically blames the RSPCA for the injustice that occurred and uses quite colourful language to describe the actions of the RSPCA. It highlights the high cost of the local court action and dogmatic nature of the RSPCA to unilaterally be the judge, jury and executor of Ms Downey's cattle. As much as I might personally agree that the RSPCA arrived at Ms Downey's farm without a truck to transport the cattle away to another carer, but only with riffles and police with the pre-expectation of destroying the cattle. Against this predetermined outcome, Ms Downey had no chance to review or appeal Inspector Ashton’s judgment, because I certainly believe that only cattle too weak to stand or move should have been destroyed and I don’t think that would have been an unique position.

The document goes into great details about the visits of the RSPCA and mentions very little about the Local Court case or the evidence used against Ms Downey. It goes on to shows some heartbreaking images of sad cows being shot in a manner where other cows could see what was happening, what was going to happen to them and without stunning prior to slaughter. Scenes not that much dissimilar to the video obtained by Lyn White of Indonesian slaughter yards that the RSPCA used to shut down the live trade.

At the end of the document, it goes into the financial dealings of the RSPCA and the high cost of the Local Court action. It looks at another two similar actions taken by the RSPCA and draws the tendency for the RSPCA to use its president's law firm and another of its director as legal counsel. Finally questioning whether or not as a not-for-profit organisation it spending donor's money in a manner in which it has been donated for.

The Defamation Proceedings

The NSW Supreme Court action for defamation was not contested by Mal Davies. It's interesting that it was not in District Court, as it is well within its jurisdiction and additionally as an uncontested matter I would have expected it would have been handled by a default judgement. Also it’s interesting to point out that this Supreme Court matter was handled by one Counsel and not three as the Local Court action.

The matter claimed that the document contained the following defamatory imputations: -

RSPCA NSW needlessly destroys animals;

RSPCA NSW is a cruel organisation in that it executed healthy cows for no reason;

RSPCA NSW killed Ruth Downey's cows in an inhumane manner;

RSPCA NSW has misconducted itself in that it has prosecuted farmers for the purpose of paying legal fees to its own directors and former officers Andrew Wozniak and Paul O'Donnell;

RSPCA NSW is a corrupt organisation that misuses donations made to it by the public;

RSPCA NSW, an organisation established to promote animal welfare, has misconducted itself in that it does not act to promote animal welfare.

From RSPCA 2006 Annual Report In an affidavit by Mr Stephen John Coleman, the Chief Executive Officer of the RSPCA who stated that the plaintiff is a charity funded primarily through bequests and fundraising (point 5 of the judgement). Although the RSPCA's own annual report shows that the majoring of its income comes from its commercial operation of the shelters and members (~46%) and the second major source of funding comes from its investment portfolio and trust funds (legacies) (~42%). In reality only about 12% of the RSPCA's operating expenses are covered by charitable donations and fundraising (~$7.2 million). The organisation grew from $62,812,415 to $74,879,110 in the financial year ending 2011, meaning it bank a profit of $12 million, which shows the RSPCA could have operated without donations and fundraising.

In the financial year ending 2011, the RSPCA had $27.5 million in financial assets (stocks and bonds) and $42 million in property, plants and equipment. Income from investing activities totalled $11.9 million, while income from financing activities was $2.7 million. Sales income from members and customers was $23.5 million. In terms of cash, the RSPCA has more money in financial trading than its annual spend on shelters.

Also within the annual reports, it mentions that there are "transactions between related parties are on normal commercial terms and conditions no more favourable than those available to other parties. Mr O'Donnell provides legal services to the Society. Dr Write, at times, provides veterinary and consulting services." Now the first thing I noticed that this statement has changed to remove the notice given about Mr Andrew Wozniak, and am unsure if this means that the RSPCA has stop using services from Smythe Wozniak Solicitors, or not. This notice conforms to the usual notice given to shareholders about related party transactions, but as a not-for-profit organisation where many of its donors would not read the annual report, it is questionable whether this has discharged the director’s duty to inform related parties. Here I would look towards government protocols about heads of departments and their prohibition on the use of related services.

The annual report also lists under the heading "key management personal compensation" of "Post employment benefits" of $187,681. These payments are likely going to ex-directors and ex-senior management for some unbeknown reason. Being paid once employees leave the RSPCA almost seems like a "gray-train" and I would expect more details in an annual report to explain these payments. If any payment is going to Mr Wozniak directly or indirectly through his law firm, then I would expect him to also be listed in the related transactions discloser.

This case does leave me wondering if donors knew that the RSPCA spent a quarter of a million dollars on a local court prosecution of a 71 year old single farmer, would they believe it was a good use of their money, or would they have preferred the RSPCA to spend that money on moving the cattle to an additional feed lot - keeping the animals alive.

Justice Latham granted $100,000 plus interest in damages and an order to remove the article from the SOSNews.org website, although it has shown up on another site. The judgement does not test the truth of the Mal Davies article or the truth of Mr Coleman&'s affidavit in claiming the reliance of the RSPCA on charitable donations and fundraising.

Conclusion

This matter is very scary for any internet blogger who criticises the judicial system. Even though the judicial system is part of all State and Federal Constitutions, and as such would be covered by the political free speech – it's still scary. And the fact that Latham J didn't give a default judgment, nor vigorously test the evidence is scary as well. But on the other side whoever is running the financial operations of the RSPCA (NSW) is doing a fantastic job, it won’t be long before they are totally independent from donations.

[tarope]

Slightly off topic...It reminds me about a big campaign that the R$PCA ran some years ago here in NSW....Help us find homes for all these GSDs we have, give as much as you can to help with food and vet care for these poor dogs...make a donation today (words to that effect). So I went to the R$PCA Yagoona shelter to get one (one week later) and couldn't find a single GSD...so I went to the front counter and asked where were all the GSDs.

The response was..."what GSDs" and I said the ones you are asking the donations for...the response..."who are you..why do you want to know...who do you represent". When I said I didn't represent anyone they wouldn't tell me anything...buy were still asking for money weeks later...most likely did the same to them as they did to Clifford, Charlie, Max and many others. It was rumored the GSDs ended up as fertilizer but was never proved as the evidence disappeared of cause. :mad

[Kajirin]

As much as I might personally agree that the RSPCA arrived at Ms Downey's farm without a truck to transport the cattle away to another carer, but only with riffles and police with the pre-expectation of destroying the cattle.

They arrived with small rivers??!! Cow killing rivers - sorry couldn't help self, especially after reading just above about copywrite and copyright

[inez]

As much as I might personally agree that the RSPCA arrived at Ms Downey's farm without a truck to transport the cattle away to another carer, but only with riffles and police with the pre-expectation of destroying the cattle.

They arrived with small rivers??!! Cow killing rivers - sorry couldn't help self, especially after reading just above about copywrite and copyright

Yes. You have an excellnt point.

If he cant get the spelling right. Make a joke of the message.

I get the idea the person who wrote it, English is not their first language.

[Kajirin]

Very easy to make typos, so I tend not to pick on people who do make them. But in this instance I couldn't stop myself, as it was rather ironic.

Most of the time I gloss over them and read errors as the word they're meant to be, but that one just stuck out like veritable dog's jatz crackers :)

[Rosetta]

"Scenes not that much dissimilar to the video obtained by Lyn White of Indonesian slaughter yards that the RSPCA used to shut down the live trade."

An interesting comparison - comparing to the horrors of the live export trade - I doubt it.

I have been a donor to the RSPCA in the past as many here are. What put me off was receiving many phone calls soliciting donations and receiving really upsetting mail outs depicting terrible images of abused dogs. I just felt as if there was an effort to manipulate people into donating and I resented being confronted with such upsetting images. And also I could not reconcile the stories of dogs being brought back from the brink of death - all the work and resources put into one dog who to be honest it would be kinder to PTS. At the same time scores of healthy dogs were put down - just does not make sense to me. I made the decision to support a different animal organisation for those reasons - I appreciate others have different opinions. I don't think the RSPCA are evil but I wish they would rethink their marketing.

[inez]

"Scenes not that much dissimilar to the video obtained by Lyn White of Indonesian slaughter yards that the RSPCA used to shut down the live trade."

An interesting comparison - comparing to the horrors of the live export trade - I doubt it.

I have been a donor to the RSPCA in the past as many here are. What put me off was receiving many phone calls soliciting donations and receiving really upsetting mail outs depicting terrible images of abused dogs. I just felt as if there was an effort to manipulate people into donating and I resented being confronted with such upsetting images. And also I could not reconcile the stories of dogs being brought back from the brink of death - all the work and resources put into one dog who to be honest it would be kinder to PTS. At the same time scores of healthy dogs were put down - just does not make sense to me. I made the decision to support a different animal organisation for those reasons - I appreciate others have different opinions. I don't think the RSPCA are evil but I wish they would rethink their marketing.

here is the video. What isnt on film is described by those who were there, in the Ebook Ruth Downey Inquisition . They were chased around a PADDOCK and shot on the run. They were not yarded and shot in a race where at least a chance of keeping them still for a correctly placed shot. The photo of him shooting the now downed cow is the paddock they were killed in and the remaining cattle to be despatched were out of range whatching. In the case of that cow, she certainly already had a minimum of one shot in her to bring her down before he is preparing another to finish her off. That would not be acceptable overseas.

The written account says "Ashton positioned himself at the gate to the YARD with his rifle after they had all the cattle

and calves inside. Two of his execution squad, like Nazi storm troopers marching Jews past

machine gunners, did the same with each cow for Ashton to shoot it. One cow bolted past Ashton, but he brought her down, with the telescopic sight to assist.

The run was a fine effort for a cow that the RSPCA CLASSIFIED as too starved to stand up.

Unable to kill the cow with his first shot shown in the picture above, and from such a short distance - ASHTON needed to go over and shoot her in the head with another shot"

So that would be the black cow being shown to be dispatched in the video photo.

That is totally against recomendations for Humane Slaugher. Let alone calling it Euthanesia.

"One Jersey cow, shot by Ashton, was still lifting her

hind legs, while trying to lift her head, for around 10 minutes after the first shot. She

continued this action as Ashton shot another 4 or 5 cows that lay dead around her. She was

still trying to get up; then Ashton shot her again."

This again is what was in the Indonesian videos and the Laverton ones. Where is the difference in breaking the law?

Yet the CEO is on record as describing them as "walking dead".

Not their finest hour.

http://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-ruth-downey-inquisition-1.pdf

Edited May 5, 2013 by inez

[Rosetta]

"Scenes not that much dissimilar to the video obtained by Lyn White of Indonesian slaughter yards that the RSPCA used to shut down the live trade."

An interesting comparison - comparing to the horrors of the live export trade - I doubt it.

I have been a donor to the RSPCA in the past as many here are. What put me off was receiving many phone calls soliciting donations and receiving really upsetting mail outs depicting terrible images of abused dogs. I just felt as if there was an effort to manipulate people into donating and I resented being confronted with such upsetting images. And also I could not reconcile the stories of dogs being brought back from the brink of death - all the work and resources put into one dog who to be honest it would be kinder to PTS. At the same time scores of healthy dogs were put down - just does not make sense to me. I made the decision to support a different animal organisation for those reasons - I appreciate others have different opinions. I don't think the RSPCA are evil but I wish they would rethink their marketing.

Watch the video. If you can, what isnt on film is described by those who were there, in the Ebook Ruth Downey Inquisition, very upsetting

Not their finest hour.

Chasing and shooting , in many cases three before it went down incuding I understnd, gut shots?

http://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-ruth-downey-inquisition-1.pdf

No I won't watch it - I can't stand it. If that is the case that is very bad

[tarope]

"Scenes not that much dissimilar to the video obtained by Lyn White of Indonesian slaughter yards that the RSPCA used to shut down the live trade."

An interesting comparison - comparing to the horrors of the live export trade - I doubt it.

I have been a donor to the RSPCA in the past as many here are. What put me off was receiving many phone calls soliciting donations and receiving really upsetting mail outs depicting terrible images of abused dogs. I just felt as if there was an effort to manipulate people into donating and I resented being confronted with such upsetting images. And also I could not reconcile the stories of dogs being brought back from the brink of death - all the work and resources put into one dog who to be honest it would be kinder to PTS. At the same time scores of healthy dogs were put down - just does not make sense to me. I made the decision to support a different animal organisation for those reasons - I appreciate others have different opinions. I don't think the RSPCA are evil but I wish they would rethink their marketing.

Watch the video. If you can, what isnt on film is described by those who were there, in the Ebook Ruth Downey Inquisition, very upsetting

Not their finest hour.

Chasing and shooting , in many cases three before it went down incuding I understnd, gut shots?

http://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-ruth-downey-inquisition-1.pdf

No I won't watch it - I can't stand it. If that is the case that is very bad

You should watch it...because that's what the R$PCA are really like and many animals suffer and die at their hands.

Reminds me of a friend who was a R$PCA member (not anymore) showed me a story in her R$PCA magazine a few years ago...the story was about an R$PCA inspector who saved and nursed back to health a GSD...kept this dog with his own family for about 9 mths...then gave the dog to a woman who had lost her own GSD. After 3 mths the woman complained to the inspector that the GSD was too protective of her...so the R$PCA inspector had the poor GSD put to sleep and the bloody R$PCA had the bloody hide to call it a wonderful story. Just goes to show they know nothing about dogs...especially GSDs and kill at the drop of a hat...Bastards. :mad