Long Wait - 80 Charges.

[mita]

I've already indicated, Steve, that the original situation did not fit with my ethical standards. Which are informed by the recent US research that found sound companion dogs tend to come from certain kinds of breeding/raising arrangements. And those arrangements just happen to match the personal ethical standards of the registered breeders that I've supported by adopting their dogs. For the reasons I've set out.

Credit should be given where credit is due. This person's animals appear healthy & in well groomed condition. But, it's a free country & commenting about the situation not matching the one that I would support, is fair.

Others may disagree about the situation I'd support. Someone else may say that it's personally unethical for them to rehome one of their showdogs when he'/she retires. And that's fair enough. Ethics are personal decisions about what seems right or wrong.

The real clanger in this case, is that it appears to have become a matter for prosecution, where actual physical evidence would be expected. The kind of evidence that would stand on its own. It hasn't remained in the area of ethical decisions. Where I think it belongs.

Edited August 15, 2013 by mita

[Steve]

I've already indicated, Steve, that the original situation did not fit with my ethical standards. Which are informed by the recent US research that found sound companion dogs tend to come from certain kinds of breeding/raising arrangements. And those arrangements just happen to match the personal ethical standards of the registered breeders that I've supported by adopting their dogs. For the reasons I've set out.

Credit should be given where credit is due. This person's animals appear healthy & in well groomed condition. But, it's a free country & commenting about the situation not matching the one that I would support, is fair.

Others may disagree about the situation I'd support. Someone else may say that it's personally unethical for them to rehome one of their showdogs when he'/she retires. And that's fair enough. Ethics are personal decisions about what seems right or wrong.

The real clanger in this case, is that it appears to have become a matter for prosecution, where actual physical evidence would be expected. The kind of evidence that would stand on its own. It hasn't remained in the area of ethical decisions. Where I think it belongs.

O.K. But how do you know what kind of breeding and raising standards were used by this breeder? She rarely had a litter so how can we know where she bred them, how she bred them, where she whelped them and where and how she raised them? She is pretty famous in the dog world for the quality of dogs she has bred and owned and I havent heard any suggestion that her animals or any puppy she has ever bred is not sound or well adjusted. What is it exactly that we see here and know for sure is telling us that she is doing things differently to thise things the US reasearch said was the better way to go?

Perhaps you could direct me to the research you are speaking of so I can see it myself to help me to understand why you have reached conclusions which you feel tells us her animals were not raised in conditions condusive to the best outcome for the puppies she placed. My problem is that you seem to be speaking of breeding and raising rather than living standards she had for her adult animals most of which were not likely to ever be bred.

Is the basis of you saying what you see is against your ethical considerations based on anything other than she appears to have larger than average numbers?

[mita]

Frankly, Steve, I've made my position clear & indicated why. So I'm leaving the matter here.

[Steve]

Frankly, Steve, I've made my position clear & indicated why. So I'm leaving the matter here.

Fair enough Mita but I'd still like to look at that study if you dont mind and in the mean time I've no clue how she raised and reared her occasional litters over the past 40 years so all I have to go on is assessing the results in that regard.

[BlackJaq]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/leader/south-east/casey-council-swoops-charges-narre-warren-north-puppy-farm-owner-with-80-breaches/story-fngnvmhm-1226692103109

[Steve]

A puppy farm that has no puppies

[WreckitWhippet]

A puppy farm that has no puppies

Perhaps we now have a definition :laugh:

Got dogs = has puppy farm

[icedmice]

The concern here the way the 'evidence' was gathered was unlawful. If she does loose in court what sort of precedence does that set?

Is the AA footage going to be used in court? and even if it isn't, has putting it on national television compromised the integrity of the jury?

I breed small domestic animals, they are kept in my house, does that mean a home invasion is justifiable to provide evidence to court?

A lot of people have puppies raised in the house, would you like people breaking in just to make sure your practice is up to their standard? By the way, their standard is that nobody should breed any animals.

Whether or not people agree with what they see and how her establishment is set up is not the issue, if there are problems, there are lawful avenues that can be pursued. Unfortunately, outcomes aren't always what you would have hoped, but the world doesn't revolve around your personal ethical standards.

The issue is the media supporting criminals and what doors this opens for copy cats.

[Alyosha]

The concern here the way the 'evidence' was gathered was unlawful. If she does loose in court what sort of precedence does that set?

Is the AA footage going to be used in court? and even if it isn't, has putting it on national television compromised the integrity of the jury?

Any charges referred to the Courts by a council will be summary offences - will be in the Magistrates court, no jury. But rules of evidence still apply.

I don't know about Vic, but in NSW I don't think that council officers are "authorised officers" under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. So if that was the case any charges referred by council would not be cruelty ones. DOes anyone in Vic know whether council officers are authorised under cruelty legislation down there?

[Aidan3]

The concern here the way the 'evidence' was gathered was unlawful.

I doubt the AA video evidence will have anything to do with the case. For that matter, it's not clear what the charges actually do relate to.

[icedmice]

The concern here the way the 'evidence' was gathered was unlawful.

I doubt the AA video evidence will have anything to do with the case. For that matter, it's not clear what the charges actually do relate to.

True, still, the footage is public now. What has been seen cannot be unseen :/ .

[icedmice]

I also use the term 'evidence' loosely. It's what AA considers to be proof anyway.

[Aphra]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, although I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to anyone who can keep multiple rough collies well groomed.

I loathe, beyond my capacity to express, the trial by Facebook aspect. If someone has done something wrong and face the court and good evidence is produced, that is one thing. But the personal harassment, the defamation of character, the threats and ill-wishes are horrible. The fact that some rescue groups and people like Oscar's Law and Animals Australia think whipping their followers up into a froth of outrage and anger is acceptable behaviour concerns me greatly.

The way that OL and AA characterised the content of the recent draft code for breeding and rearing establishments in Victoria shows that they are willing to use deception to push an agenda (many of the 21,000 responses received by DEPI were from people who believed, sincerely, that the draft code said that breeders were allowed to kill ex-breeding stock by hitting them over the head with a blunt object, because that's what OL and AA told them) and that they are more interested in outrage than they are in reality.

Even if the collie people are found to be entirely innocent of wrong doing, their person lives, their reputations and their sense of safety and security in their own home has been destroyed, and quite deliberately.

[Steve]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, although I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to anyone who can keep multiple rough collies well groomed.

I loathe, beyond my capacity to express, the trial by Facebook aspect. If someone has done something wrong and face the court and good evidence is produced, that is one thing. But the personal harassment, the defamation of character, the threats and ill-wishes are horrible. The fact that some rescue groups and people like Oscar's Law and Animals Australia think whipping their followers up into a froth of outrage and anger is acceptable behaviour concerns me greatly.

The way that OL and AA characterised the content of the recent draft code for breeding and rearing establishments in Victoria shows that they are willing to use deception to push an agenda (many of the 21,000 responses received by DEPI were from people who believed, sincerely, that the draft code said that breeders were allowed to kill ex-breeding stock by hitting them over the head with a blunt object, because that's what OL and AA told them) and that they are more interested in outrage than they are in reality.

Even if the collie people are found to be entirely innocent of wrong doing, their person lives, their reputations and their sense of safety and security in their own home has been destroyed, and quite deliberately.

Yep that's exactly how I feel about it too.

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, although I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to anyone who can keep multiple rough collies well groomed.

I loathe, beyond my capacity to express, the trial by Facebook aspect. If someone has done something wrong and face the court and good evidence is produced, that is one thing. But the personal harassment, the defamation of character, the threats and ill-wishes are horrible. The fact that some rescue groups and people like Oscar's Law and Animals Australia think whipping their followers up into a froth of outrage and anger is acceptable behaviour concerns me greatly.

The way that OL and AA characterised the content of the recent draft code for breeding and rearing establishments in Victoria shows that they are willing to use deception to push an agenda (many of the 21,000 responses received by DEPI were from people who believed, sincerely, that the draft code said that breeders were allowed to kill ex-breeding stock by hitting them over the head with a blunt object, because that's what OL and AA told them) and that they are more interested in outrage than they are in reality.

Even if the collie people are found to be entirely innocent of wrong doing, their person lives, their reputations and their sense of safety and security in their own home has been destroyed, and quite deliberately.

Agree. Well said.

[Crisovar]

I don't know the ins and outs of this case, although I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt to anyone who can keep multiple rough collies well groomed.

I loathe, beyond my capacity to express, the trial by Facebook aspect. If someone has done something wrong and face the court and good evidence is produced, that is one thing. But the personal harassment, the defamation of character, the threats and ill-wishes are horrible. The fact that some rescue groups and people like Oscar's Law and Animals Australia think whipping their followers up into a froth of outrage and anger is acceptable behaviour concerns me greatly.

The way that OL and AA characterised the content of the recent draft code for breeding and rearing establishments in Victoria shows that they are willing to use deception to push an agenda (many of the 21,000 responses received by DEPI were from people who believed, sincerely, that the draft code said that breeders were allowed to kill ex-breeding stock by hitting them over the head with a blunt object, because that's what OL and AA told them) and that they are more interested in outrage than they are in reality.

Even if the collie people are found to be entirely innocent of wrong doing, their person lives, their reputations and their sense of safety and security in their own home has been destroyed, and quite deliberately.

Exactly!!

[Jed]

And the charges that were to be heard in court this week???

As Oscar's Law is not a law, maybe these charges are not charges?

[pebbles]

without wading through all the posts I'm amazed at those who still persist in crucifying this person. Thanks to those with the common sense to see behind the AA agenda. Take aim at the puppy farms and leave genuine dog people alone.

[espinay2]

twodoggies, what did the videos say to you about the conditions the dogs were kept in?

I thought the dogs were in night kennels, which is why they were small .... most of them had a wooden platform to sleep on (ate their beds?) and they were a bit rundown. Oh and some cobwebs. I thought a bit run down and some cobwebs were nothing much. They didn't impact on the way the dogs lived. Dogs chew things, and dogs had chewed some of the kennels too.

How did you see it?

Jed,what I saw were dogs that were circling, and I interpreted to dogs being confined in 'small' spaces for extended lengths of time. I saw in some cases, faeces on what looked like newspaper and it seemed to be not just an overnight use but again perhaps several days worth. I saw sadness in the faces on some of those dogs. My way of thinking is if you can't look after your charges, then cut down on the amount of dogs kept. You have to give them the best of everything, including of yourself. I may be wrong, but it really upset me looking at those faces. To me it looked like they were looking for some kind affection.

How would your dog look if someone strange broke into their sleeping area at night and started filming them? I think most dogs would be pretty stressed and would not act normally in that situation.

Re the water bowls. For years one of the recommendations when house training puppies has been to restrict water access for a certain period overnight to make the process easier. Was the done thing and no one thought much about it. I will admit to having dogs baby gated into the bedroom sleeping with us at night. The water bowl is in the kitchen on the other side of the gate. In summer I may move the bowl but in our cold winters it is never an issue. They don't even look at it in the morning for an hour or two after they have access.

Totally agree with aphra's comment.

Edited August 16, 2013 by espinay2

[disintegratus]

Wow, that IS disgusting. All members of Animals Australia should be banned from owning any kind of recording device. Idiots.

I saw nothing wrong with the dogs in the video, they behaved surprisingly well for dogs who have been woken up in the middle of the night by some dipshit breaking in and shining a light in their face. I urge AA to come to my place and break into where my dogs sleep with their torch and video camera, see if they make it out with enough hands to carry both those things.

Stupid animal rights idiots. Bahhh!!!!