Long Wait - 80 Charges.

[Steve]

Interesting that the RSPCA haven't put in their own dibs on this case... all charges are being brought by Council...

T.

Yes that's my question - what's the objective and who is pulling the strings.

[BlackJaq]

I hope everybody who said to hang and quarter her at the beginning of the thread watched the video by her son that has now been posted...

Quick to judge much? It's easy to make pretty much anyone look bad if you take footage at night after breaking and entering their property and only filming what you like and then editing it to suit.

Let's see you find pure bred dogs that do not come from puppy farms when every breeder, no matter how small scale has to have brand new, fully concreted state of the art facilities to even whelp one litter. Who is going to afford that? Will you pay the amount of money for a puppy that it will take to be able to afford to cover those costs?

Edited August 14, 2013 by BlackJaq

[tdierikx]

Casey Council have also been very enthusiastic about enforcing the recent "it looks like a pitbull, and must be dangerous" laws too...

Why am I not surprised that they'd expand their repertoire to registered breeders' facilities?

T.

[WreckitWhippet]

what else are Council going to do with the animal activists jumping up and down and creaming blue murder.

[mita]

Okay the kennels look a bit old and hotch potch, but this is not uncommon on properties where breeders have grown bit by bit over many years,

Personally I have to say there is a lot of dogs..... more than we would find in the average dog enthusiast in Dogs Vic

I have no idea what the specific parts of those 3 laws what this person will be charged with. And I am a great supporter of registered breeders.

But allowing numbers of dogs to outgrow reasonable facilities for them is not on, ethically. I know the Kennel Associations are basically registeries, but I'd like to see them do more professional education among their members on how to manage numbers, basic accommodation & care, and stimulation and socialisation. They've already got loads of members who do these things well.... as mentors.

As others have said, there's no mention yet of vet reports of serious health conditions. Nor was it seen necessary to provide physical care by taking the dogs into care.

Pity there's not a section in the Victorian cruelty laws, like there is in the Q'ld law, which says first intervention by the authorities, like RSPCA, can be on an educational level. That is, helping the person clean up their act in some respects. I think this case fits a category like that.

So this case seems to come down to numbers management, stimulation and socialization issues. But, what is annoying, is that the new draft Victorian Code is full of pie in the sky about managing much larger numbers of dogs... & their provisions for stimulation & socialization are inadequate.

Edited August 15, 2013 by mita

[icedmice]

My comments on AA were before I saw the sons footage. They were a vicious and vindictive bunch. I stopped commenting, apparently if you question their precious AA perspective be prepared to Don a flame suit!

Originally they said they had 50 dogs but I only counted around 30 in the sons shoot. It could have been an exaggeration or maybe she did rehome a few because it was getting a bit much. It didn't need to get blown out of proportion whatever the case.

Cruelty is a bit much to claim considering they're in better condition than most pet dogs that show up at the pound.

Still no news as to what the exact charges are and from one of her daughter's comments on Facebook there is no court case that she knows of.

Maybe they've been a bit slack at raiding properties and so had to drag up an old story?

We might as well just not own any pets or eat any animal products or live in a house because everything is cruelty. Shame some people can't be so passionate about how they treat other people.

It's just a story I've been following for curiosities sake since it first showed on Today Tonight. I might be out of place commenting because I'm not a dog breeder. But thought I'd share some material I've found.

[Leah82]

I may be stepping on a few toes here but to me this is a puppy farm, registered breeder or not. Most puppy farms are registered as there's essentially no law against it.

Just because the dogs appear to be in good health doesn't mean these conditions are not affecting them mentally.

Dogs are designed to be with people, either as a working dog or pet and there's no way this many dogs are getting the necessary exercise and socialisation. Unfortunately the current laws regarding registered breeding facilities in VIC state that the minimum exercise requirements is 10 minutes twice a day, when the dog is spending the rest of it's life in a cage or kennel that's no-where near enough.

I adopted my Poodle x through a rescue that received her from a puppy farm and by the rescue standards the farm was 'one of the better ones'. Apart from a minor ear infection she was in perfect health when we got her but mentally she's got a long way to go. I've heard of many worse situations, Sarah is settling in really well but there are plenty of things that still make her really anxious and confused. If she was raised as a puppy in a loving home she would most likely be confident and easy going like our Cocker.

I'm sure many of you have read the story from Darien who's little Cocker Misty is now on prozac since she's moved from a Kennel situation into a home.

Why can't we get away from accepting what is 'acceptable' standards and start working on giving every dog the best we possibly can, after all we domesticated them in the first place so it's our responsibility to make sure it wasn't to the detriment of future generations.

Primary industries should not exist to provide pets.

[mita]

Leah, how refreshing it is to see someone posting about the central issues of socialisation & stimulation in the breeding/raising of dogs.

[Steve]

Okay the kennels look a bit old and hotch potch, but this is not uncommon on properties where breeders have grown bit by bit over many years,

Personally I have to say there is a lot of dogs..... more than we would find in the average dog enthusiast in Dogs Vic

I have no idea what the specific parts of those 3 laws what this person will be charged with. And I am a great supporter of registered breeders.

But allowing numbers of dogs to outgrow reasonable facilities for them is not on, ethically. I know the Kennel Associations are basically registeries, but I'd like to see them do more professional education among their members on how to manage numbers, basic accommodation & care, and stimulation and socialisation. They've already got loads of members who do these things well.... as mentors.

As others have said, there's no mention yet of vet reports of serious health conditions. Nor was it seen necessary to provide physical care by taking the dogs into care.

Pity there's not a section in the Victorian cruelty laws, like there is in the Q'ld law, which says first intervention by the authorities, like RSPCA, can be on an educational level. That is, helping the person clean up their act in some respects. I think this case fits a category like that.

So this case seems to come down to numbers management, stimulation and socialization issues. But, what is annoying, is that the new draft Victorian Code is full of pie in the sky about managing much larger numbers of dogs... & their provisions for stimulation & socialization are inadequate.

Mita what do you mean by this - there was only one dog in each pen and they had stacks of space to move and run in - Im not sure what you are saying when you say they shouldnt be allowed to out grow the facilities - to be honest based on the codes and legislations etc and what large scale commercial breeders do even what boarding kennels do and very small suburban breeders do there seems loads of space and nothing appears to be un accommodated. People who know the dogs and who have visited and know the breeder report that they are well socialised and not lacking in stimulation.

According to Casey Shire she has 80 charges some from breaches of the code, some under this local council by law - at least one under cruelty to animals legislation -in other words even if she has breached the code for breeding establishments on a trivial issue she goes for this one as a matter of course.

This Local Law is known as the City of Casey Community Local Law 2/ (Incorporating amending City of Casey Local Law 2/2010 (Amendment) Local Law - effective 1 February 2013. The Local Law is made for:

• Provision for peace, order and good government of the municipality
• Protection against behaviour which causes detriment to the amenity and environment of the municipal district
• Controlling activities which may interfere with the comfort and enjoyment of other persons
• Providing for the safety of road users including pedestrians
• Protection of Council and community assets

Click below to download the Local Law as an Acrobat PDF document.

City of Casey Community Local Law No. 2/2010

[alpha bet]

Mita..... could you please be careful how you cut and paste to quote others - you cut two lines of my comment from separate paragraphs which has the potential to completely change the meaning of my words.......This is how shows like Today Tonight can sensationalise because of editing....

thankyou for your future consideration.

[mita]

Okay the kennels look a bit old and hotch potch, but this is not uncommon on properties where breeders have grown bit by bit over many years,

Personally I have to say there is a lot of dogs..... more than we would find in the average dog enthusiast in Dogs Vic

I have no idea what the specific parts of those 3 laws what this person will be charged with. And I am a great supporter of registered breeders.

But allowing numbers of dogs to outgrow reasonable facilities for them is not on, ethically. I know the Kennel Associations are basically registeries, but I'd like to see them do more professional education among their members on how to manage numbers, basic accommodation & care, and stimulation and socialisation. They've already got loads of members who do these things well.... as mentors.

As others have said, there's no mention yet of vet reports of serious health conditions. Nor was it seen necessary to provide physical care by taking the dogs into care.

Pity there's not a section in the Victorian cruelty laws, like there is in the Q'ld law, which says first intervention by the authorities, like RSPCA, can be on an educational level. That is, helping the person clean up their act in some respects. I think this case fits a category like that.

So this case seems to come down to numbers management, stimulation and socialization issues. But, what is annoying, is that the new draft Victorian Code is full of pie in the sky about managing much larger numbers of dogs... & their provisions for stimulation & socialization are inadequate.

Mita what do you mean by this - there was only one dog in each pen and they had stacks of space to move and run in - Im not sure what you are saying when you say they shouldnt be allowed to out grow the facilities - to be honest based on the codes and legislations etc and what large scale commercial breeders do even what boarding kennels do and very small suburban breeders do there seems loads of space and nothing appears to be un accommodated. People who know the dogs and who have visited and know the breeder report that they are well socialised and not lacking in stimulation.

It's not unreasonable to ask for better accommodation than ramshackle conditions as it appears in those photos. If you're going to own dogs.... any number of dogs.... it's reasonable to require that, as numbers grow, the person has the means to provide decent accommodation.

It seems the person had a maximum of 50 dogs at her highest point. That does not fit the level of provision of socialization that would be regarded as standard for someone who will be providing puppies as companion dogs. I don't know what 'people' who visited and said socialization, by their standard, was fine. It would not be likely by mine.

I see it as a matter of ethics, not a matter for prosecution, but of education. And a consumer issue. May well explain why the RSPCA didn't become involved. But rather a hyper-Council.

You appear to think the original situation is fine. I don't. But it does appear that the person has already acted by reducing her numbers.

Which is why I like the Q'ld legislation.... it gives people the opportunity to make adjustments.

Edited August 15, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

I may be stepping on a few toes here but to me this is a puppy farm, registered breeder or not. Most puppy farms are registered as there's essentially no law against it.

Just because the dogs appear to be in good health doesn't mean these conditions are not affecting them mentally.

Dogs are designed to be with people, either as a working dog or pet and there's no way this many dogs are getting the necessary exercise and socialisation. Unfortunately the current laws regarding registered breeding facilities in VIC state that the minimum exercise requirements is 10 minutes twice a day, when the dog is spending the rest of it's life in a cage or kennel that's no-where near enough.

I adopted my Poodle x through a rescue that received her from a puppy farm and by the rescue standards the farm was 'one of the better ones'. Apart from a minor ear infection she was in perfect health when we got her but mentally she's got a long way to go. I've heard of many worse situations, Sarah is settling in really well but there are plenty of things that still make her really anxious and confused. If she was raised as a puppy in a loving home she would most likely be confident and easy going like our Cocker.

I'm sure many of you have read the story from Darien who's little Cocker Misty is now on prozac since she's moved from a Kennel situation into a home.

Why can't we get away from accepting what is 'acceptable' standards and start working on giving every dog the best we possibly can, after all we domesticated them in the first place so it's our responsibility to make sure it wasn't to the detriment of future generations.

Primary industries should not exist to provide pets.

O.K. I agree but how can you or anyone know if the dogs in question here are not getting all they need as far as human interaction and one on one love? There was nothing there that gave any evidence the dogs are damaged or suffering due to lack of socialisation or that they don't receive stimulation. According to reports the dogs are beautiful , well trained , travel to and from shows and shopping etc well groomed which takes hours each week for a Collie and loved so much that they stay into old age rather than having them PTS or moved to new homes.

You cant give dogs the best we possibly can when we cant even agree on what is the best for them and its breed specific what is best for my Maremma working dogs isnt what is best for my beagles. I think walking a dog with a lead on is not what is best for them and Id like to see humans have to be dragged around learning to do as they are told with a choke chain and see how they like it, I hate the use of crates, I think what is best for them is to be given a species appropriate diet , I think what is best for them is to limit their intake of chemicals such as heartworm meds, medicated shampoos and over vaccination ,I cant imagine how any one could consider tethering a dog others think what is best for them is to be led around the block , locked in crates overnight, fed crap commercial food , jabbed and stuffed full of chemicals, given no chance to dig holes,bark and never get a chance to act like a dog. Is a dog sitting on a satin pillow case in suburbia happier than a dog that runs un restrained, allowed to get filthy dirty and to play with lots of other animals as a pack ? Who knows?

Part of this particular case is a horror about her serving raw chicken to her dogs which I happen to think is whats best for them - clearly others dont agree but I promise you Ive got better science to back up why I think its whats is best for dogs than anyone has to show it isnt.

[Maddy]

This is a video Stephen Thompson (son of Carol) submitted on facebook. I found it by chance after commenting on Animals Australia. I actually found some of the horrific comments more offensive than the condition of the dogs. Clearly these people don't have much compassion for human beings.

Yeah it's not how I'd keep my dogs, I don't necessarily think this set up is ideal for collies, but if you use your common sense, they wouldn't win shows if they were that badly neglected.

They aren't a puppy farm like AA is advertising. I don't see rows of kennels with pregnant or nursing bitches with nipples dragging on the ground from being bred over and over.

As I said on AA, I'm not supporting this persons actions. At the same time I don't think she is the spawn of Satan and there is more to the story.

Just a warning (rated 18+): there is pretty crude offensive language in the video.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=650933848250950

Those kennels looked a hell of a lot better than most greyhound kennels I've seen (and the dogs looked far better cared for).

If AA want some sensational footage to drive donations, I could point them in the direction of plenty of greyhound properties that wouldn't require any heavy editing to make them look awful. I guess 70 year old ladies are easier pickings though

[mita]

Mita..... could you please be careful how you cut and paste to quote others - you cut two lines of my comment from separate paragraphs which has the potential to completely change the meaning of my words.......This is how shows like Today Tonight can sensationalise because of editing....

thankyou for your future consideration.

Help me out here. You made a comment about how it appeared the property had grown, like Topsy, over the years.

I picked up on your point because it seemed to describe the situation to me, too.

I expanded on that same notion, .... that if someone's numbers of dogs will grow , then it's reasonable they should consider what that might mean for the accommodation. I made it clear that I owned that expansion, not you.

Your second comment that I agreed with was that you said 'there is a lot of dogs'.... 'more than the average dog enthusiast'.

I picked it up & agreed with it.

I expanded on my agreement that it had implications for socialisation. And made it clear that the expansion was mine.

So, overall, I did not change anything you said. But agreed with 2 points. And expanded with my thoughts.

What consideration do you want in the future?

Edited August 15, 2013 by mita

[WreckitWhippet]

I'm not exactly sure what is wrong with those kennels and yards. The pens were cemented or paved, they had decent sleeping areas, they were clean, there wasn't crap laying every where and those dogs were not covered in pee stains, they had not been laying in their own filth and without putting my hands on them, they did appear to be groomed.

They looked like happy healthy dogs.

[persephone]

Ok, so they made sure there was a fresh & clean look to things for that video - as anyone would do - it still looks perfectly adequate accommodation to me - and the dogs shown looked ok.

[Steve]

Okay the kennels look a bit old and hotch potch, but this is not uncommon on properties where breeders have grown bit by bit over many years,

Personally I have to say there is a lot of dogs..... more than we would find in the average dog enthusiast in Dogs Vic

I have no idea what the specific parts of those 3 laws what this person will be charged with. And I am a great supporter of registered breeders.

But allowing numbers of dogs to outgrow reasonable facilities for them is not on, ethically. I know the Kennel Associations are basically registeries, but I'd like to see them do more professional education among their members on how to manage numbers, basic accommodation & care, and stimulation and socialisation. They've already got loads of members who do these things well.... as mentors.

As others have said, there's no mention yet of vet reports of serious health conditions. Nor was it seen necessary to provide physical care by taking the dogs into care.

Pity there's not a section in the Victorian cruelty laws, like there is in the Q'ld law, which says first intervention by the authorities, like RSPCA, can be on an educational level. That is, helping the person clean up their act in some respects. I think this case fits a category like that.

So this case seems to come down to numbers management, stimulation and socialization issues. But, what is annoying, is that the new draft Victorian Code is full of pie in the sky about managing much larger numbers of dogs... & their provisions for stimulation & socialization are inadequate.

Mita what do you mean by this - there was only one dog in each pen and they had stacks of space to move and run in - Im not sure what you are saying when you say they shouldnt be allowed to out grow the facilities - to be honest based on the codes and legislations etc and what large scale commercial breeders do even what boarding kennels do and very small suburban breeders do there seems loads of space and nothing appears to be un accommodated. People who know the dogs and who have visited and know the breeder report that they are well socialised and not lacking in stimulation.

It's not unreasonable to ask for better accommodation than ramshackle conditions as it appears in those photos. If you're going to own dogs.... any number of dogs.... it's reasonable to require that, as numbers grow, the person has the means to provide decent accommodation.

It seems the person had a maximum of 50 dogs at her highest point. That does not fit the level of provision of socialization that would be regarded as standard for someone who will be providing puppies as companion dogs. I don't know what 'people' who visited and said socialization, by their standard, was fine. It would not be likely by mine.

I see it as a matter of ethics, not a matter for prosecution, but of education. And a consumer issue. May well explain why the RSPCA didn't become involved.

You appear to think the original situation is fine. I don't. But it does appear that the person has already acted by reducing her numbers.

Which is why I like the Q'ld legislation.... it gives people the opportunity to make adjustments.

There is no evidence to show me that she had 50 dogs and early reports said she didnt either way she didnt have any dogs on her own she had family helping her and I didnt say it was fine or that condone or that I endorse anything she may have done .I said I cant judge and Im trying to be fair.Someone was spending a lot of time with them to have that level of grooming, and training. She rarely had puppies,there were no puppies there and reports tell us she only had a litter every couple of years and how could anyone know based on this information how she managed any litters she had or if she did or didn't raise them under foot - how well socialised her puppies were before they went home etc.

The prevention of cruelty to animals act in Victoria gives them the same options as to whether someone will be charged as queensland and its notable that the RSPCA are not involved in this.

By the way those kennels dont look too bad and dogs cant tell if they need painting - there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of concrete and penning and exercise areas - Ive known humans who lived in worse looking buildings I reckon there would be a dozen families in this town who live in shabbier conditions.

[Steve]

I suppose most of it is about what you are comparing it to http://www.abc.net.a.../15/3716465.htm

Edited August 15, 2013 by Steve

[mita]

The prevention of cruelty to animals act in Victoria gives them the same options as to whether someone will be charged as queensland and its notable that the RSPCA are not involved in this.

By the way those kennels dont look too bad and dogs cant tell if they need painting - there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of concrete and penning and exercise areas - Ive known humans who lived in worse looking buildings I reckon there would be a dozen families in this town who live in shabbier conditions.

I'm being fair, too, based on the physical evidence. And I can only see it as a matter of ethical standards.... & not anything to do with physical cruelty to animals. I also think it's highly significant that the RSPCA was not involved. As I've already said, not a matter for prosecution.

It's not unreasonable to personally expect that breeders keep a balance in the face of expanding numbers. The ones I have respect for....ethically....do so.

A good reason why I own retired showdogs from such breeders. They balance their numbers & keep accommodation stresses in check.... so they can continue developing their breed, but in manageable numbers. which allow close relationships with their dogs & a great amount of freedom & stimulation. As I've said.... it's also a consumer issue.

O/T great rejoicing here. Retired show-dog pet tib next door's 'cousin' just won BOB at Brisbane Royal. But our retired show-dog pet tib answers that her 'aunt' won BOB at Crufts.

Edited August 15, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

The prevention of cruelty to animals act in Victoria gives them the same options as to whether someone will be charged as queensland and its notable that the RSPCA are not involved in this.

By the way those kennels dont look too bad and dogs cant tell if they need painting - there are hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of concrete and penning and exercise areas - Ive known humans who lived in worse looking buildings I reckon there would be a dozen families in this town who live in shabbier conditions.

I'm being fair, too, based on the physical evidence. And I can only see it as a matter of ethical standards.... & not anything to do with physical cruelty to animals. I also think it's highly significant that the RSPCA was not involved. As I've already said, not a matter for prosecution.

It's not unreasonable to personally expect that breeders keep a balance in the face of expanding numbers. The ones I have respect for....ethically....do so.

A good reason why I own retired showdogs from such breeders. They balance their numbers & keep accommodation stresses in check.... so they can continue developing their breed, but in manageable numbers. which allow close relationships with their dogs & a great amount of freedom & stimulation. As I've said.... it's also a consumer issue.

Yes that's what Im saying too but ethical standards according to whom? Hard to see that she would be breaching CC ethics and many people will tell you its more ethical for a breeder to keep their older animals, and take back their animals no matter what. Some breeders wear the fact that they do this as a badge to be proud of. Ive got a 17 year old beautiful bitch here myself who ads to the numbers.

Im am by no means saying that if she has breached the code or been cruel or what ever that she shouldn't be called to task etc what distresses me is the double standards, the lack of the ability for natural justice to be served, the trial by internet and media and public flogging even without those making comment to know what the real issues are or what may have caused it , what appears to be a total lack of empathy or humanity and by the way I feel the same about what has been done to Marook. and Judy Guard.

Is it really O.K. to hound old ladies and break them and ruin them ,is it really O.K. to condone illegal activity used to do this to them.

The punishment for both Carol and Lola seems to me to be way way out of line before they have even had their day in court.