Concerns Rspca Is Destroying Pets That Could Be Kept Alive

[VizslaMomma]

......

Edited February 11, 2014 by VizslaMomma

[mita]

Both the OP article & the RSPCA WA update said the matter is still before the courts. One seems to suggest it's the State Administrative Tribunal. Or does that only relate to action by the person from whom the cavs were originally seized?

If that's so, then surely the fate of the mother & puppies, re both their conditions/behaviours during foster-caring... and RSPCA decisions after foster-caring ... should be a specific case to be reported for assessment by the State Administrative Tribunal. That would require evidence & witness statements being presented. Seems to me the sooner it's under review by an independent body that has some judicial clout, the better.

Edited February 11, 2014 by mita

[OSoSwift]

The legal case mentioned is in relation to the puppy farmer and the dogs that were siezed from her property.

[WreckitWhippet]

Nice letter from the RSPCA to the foster carer making threats.

[OSoSwift]

Nice letter from the RSPCA to the foster carer making threats.

Yep really nice

[WreckitWhippet]

Nice letter from the RSPCA to the foster carer making threats.

Yep really nice

The RSPCA must be stupid to think that the public doesn't get to see that kind of thing.

[WreckitWhippet]

RSPCA WA desperately needs the ongoing support of the community, so that we have resources to investigate perpetrators of cruelty to animals that have put us in this difficult position in the first place.

let me rephrase that for folk as what they really mean is

" give us your bloody money, regardless of our actions"

[mita]

The legal case mentioned is in relation to the puppy farmer and the dogs that were siezed from her property.

Yes, that's what I thought.

Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue.

The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents.

Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case.

It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal.

Edited February 11, 2014 by mita

[tdierikx]

Obviously the RSPCA WA think they are untouchable and can make life difficult for anyone whose story does not match their PR line... I'd be stepping up to them Ososwift... bullies need a thorough drubbing in public every now and then.

I'm sure you have plenty of communication evidence between you and the RSPCA - not to mention the very public thread here detailing this little family's early journey with you. The fact that your husband is a vet and would definitely have picked up severe issues (as claimed by the RSPCA WA) with the pups pretty bloody quick smart would be well in your favour too I'd say...

T.

[Donna]

I would heavily dispute the claims of ill health by the RSPCA, hip dysplasia developes over time, all puppies are born with normal hips, they would be too young to display any sort of lameness, same with the knee's! The RSPCA should hang their head in shame AGAIN and I would have battled them in court and made a very big public noise about it!

[Steve]

The legal case mentioned is in relation to the puppy farmer and the dogs that were siezed from her property.

Yes, that's what I thought.

Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue.

The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents.

Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case.

It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal.

Except that a vet has diagnosed a problem with the puppies without a second opinion and the bodies of the puppies are not available for post mortem - what chance do you think the family who raised these puppies have of trying to prove anything was done that shouldn't have been done - and whats more they owned the puppies anyway had every right to do exactly what they did. If a vet tells them the puppies are affected in this way can they make a decision to go against their vet's advice anyway? The system sets up a situation where collusion and corruption are easily imagined and will continue to have people having these type of discussions and bring them bad PR even if all is on the up and up. The system has to allow the owner to be able to have an independent second opinion from someone who isnt employed by the RSPCA .No amount of being able to complain to a tribunal or agenency will help if the internal system is set up to be so one sided .

If a vet is diagnosing these type of issues in brand new baby puppies before they joints and bones have even become mature and still capable of huge changes this is very concerning and I wouldn't want him to be my vet - certainly shudder at the thought of any of my puppy buyers using him for their family vet when they take a puppy home.

[Steve]

The legal case mentioned is in relation to the puppy farmer and the dogs that were siezed from her property.

Yes, that's what I thought.

Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue.

The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents.

Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case.

It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal.

And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused?

[Lhok]

The legal case mentioned is in relation to the puppy farmer and the dogs that were siezed from her property.

Yes, that's what I thought.

Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue.

The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents.

Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case.

It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal.

And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused?

The pups were whelped at a foster carer's house for the RSPCA after the mother was removed from a puppy mill. Once they were returned to the RSCPA for a check up at around 4-6 weeks old the foster carer was told that the RSPCA vet had diagnosed problems with the pups behaviour as well as the mother and she wouldn't be able to have them back. The hips and knees are a new development after the story was aired around the net on savingpets and that's why they are saying the pups were put down they then went and changed the story slightly again and stated that the mother Izzy and one of the pups have been adopted.

It is easy to see how people are concerned about what is going on.

--Lhok

[Steve]

The legal case mentioned is in relation to the puppy farmer and the dogs that were siezed from her property.

Yes, that's what I thought.

Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue.

The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents.

Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case.

It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal.

And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused?

The pups were whelped at a foster carer's house for the RSPCA after the mother was removed from a puppy mill. Once they were returned to the RSCPA for a check up at around 4-6 weeks old the foster carer was told that the RSPCA vet had diagnosed problems with the pups behaviour as well as the mother and she wouldn't be able to have them back. The hips and knees are a new development after the story was aired around the net on savingpets and that's why they are saying the pups were put down they then went and changed the story slightly again and stated that the mother Izzy and one of the pups have been adopted.

It is easy to see how people are concerned about what is going on.

--Lhok

Yep its all pretty emotional as well. One might ask how a vet can diagnose behaviour or health problems of this type especially in this breed at this age especially when the foster carer and their vet qualified hubby didn't pick them up and without transparency the speculation and mistrust continues.

There is no where to go to be heard and have it all exposed and there is nothing to be done to prove they did something shonky and so the people involved will always feel that this is a terrible thing. Without knowing all of the inside factors no one can really say what happened or why but the lack of accountability and transparency make discussions like this common place and one would think over all it would be in their best interests to re consider their policies and procedures. .

[Steve]

The legal case mentioned is in relation to the puppy farmer and the dogs that were siezed from her property.

Yes, that's what I thought.

Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue.

The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents.

Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case.

It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal.

And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused?

The pups were whelped at a foster carer's house for the RSPCA after the mother was removed from a puppy mill. Once they were returned to the RSCPA for a check up at around 4-6 weeks old the foster carer was told that the RSPCA vet had diagnosed problems with the pups behaviour as well as the mother and she wouldn't be able to have them back. The hips and knees are a new development after the story was aired around the net on savingpets and that's why they are saying the pups were put down they then went and changed the story slightly again and stated that the mother Izzy and one of the pups have been adopted.

It is easy to see how people are concerned about what is going on.

--Lhok

Yep its all pretty emotional as well. One might ask how a vet can diagnose behaviour or health problems of this type especially in this breed at this age especially when the foster carer and their vet qualified hubby didn't pick them up and without transparency the speculation and mistrust continues.

There is no where to go to be heard and have it all exposed and there is nothing to be done to prove they did something shonky and so the people involved will always feel that this is a terrible thing. Without knowing all of the inside factors no one can really say what happened or why but the lack of accountability and transparency make discussions like this common place and one would think over all it would be in their best interests to re consider their policies and procedures. .

[Steve]

The legal case mentioned is in relation to the puppy farmer and the dogs that were siezed from her property.

Yes, that's what I thought.

Which is why the other matter of condition/behaviour of puppies observed by fostercarers not matching up with what they believed the later RSPCA decisions to be, should be reported to the WA State Administrative Tribunal. It's a separate issue.

The Qld equivalent of that Tribunal, covers animal management decisions by government bodies.... & their agents.

Seems the WA one does, too. Because the original owner's going thro' it, for her case.

It'd be good if the matter were able to be heard by an independent Tribunal.

And Im not sure it is a separate issue because the terrible health of the puppies this breeder was breeding will be used against her - however, I believe this bitch was pregnant long after the breeder could have had anything to do with it while the dogs were in care - is that right. ? Or do I have the time line confused?

The pups were whelped at a foster carer's house for the RSPCA after the mother was removed from a puppy mill. Once they were returned to the RSCPA for a check up at around 4-6 weeks old the foster carer was told that the RSPCA vet had diagnosed problems with the pups behaviour as well as the mother and she wouldn't be able to have them back. The hips and knees are a new development after the story was aired around the net on savingpets and that's why they are saying the pups were put down they then went and changed the story slightly again and stated that the mother Izzy and one of the pups have been adopted.

It is easy to see how people are concerned about what is going on.

--Lhok

Yep its all pretty emotional as well. One might ask how a vet can diagnose behaviour or health problems of this type especially in this breed at this age especially when the foster carer and their vet qualified hubby didn't pick them up and without transparency the speculation and mistrust continues.

There is no where to go to be heard and have it all exposed and there is nothing to be done to prove they did something shonky and so the people involved will always feel that this is a terrible thing. Without knowing all of the inside factors no one can really say what happened or why but the lack of accountability and transparency make discussions like this common place and one would think over all it would be in their best interests to re consider their policies and procedures. .

[tdierikx]

There is plenty of video footage taken by the foster carer of the pups and mother dog in question whilst they were in her care... I challenge anyone to find anything wrong with them at all from that footage. They looked very healthy and socially adjusted in all those clips...

T.

[Steve]

There is plenty of video footage taken by the foster carer of the pups and mother dog in question whilst they were in her care... I challenge anyone to find anything wrong with them at all from that footage. They looked very healthy and socially adjusted in all those clips...

T.

Yes I know but its still an RSPCA vet word against any other evidence - they win. And even if they are proven to be wrong - virtually impossible - what then? It was their right to make the decisions on what came next for any of the dogs - bad PR but still nothing they can be held accountable for or answerable to. Their system allows a vet employed by them to be able to do as they please without any consultation with anyone including the owners or an independent vet.

They can determine they dont like you ,take your dogs get together with their mate who works with them a vet - and put your dogs down and literally say anything they want ,collude all the way and charge you with all manner of cruelty etc and everything is based on what they say without any way what ever for an owner or anyone else to have a hope of proving they are innocent. Not that Im saying that this is what has happened here or in any other case but the system could enables corruption and collusion without an umpire.

No tribunal or court can discount what the expert vet has said especially when he is backed up by other staff and the owner has no ability to access to the body of the dog or even if the dog lives no ability to have their own vet examine the dog and agree or disagree with what that one vet employed by them says. The system has to change where those accused have the right to have the dogs examined by their own experts before treatments or any action is taken - because the unlevel playing field leaves them open to this kind of discussion and people feeling they have no power .

[Akayla]

Not to mention the fact that a vet diagnosing something like HD or ED at a glance of a young puppy is not rare. Many vets claim they can "just tell" IME. So like others have said without proof its going to seem possible. Video or not. Xrays would be needed to disprove I imagine.

[OSoSwift]

And the RSPCA has said they will not show the foster carers(ie a vet and previous vet nurse) any X-rays etc as it would breach confidentiality. Therefore we will never know if any were ever taken.