Tranter Stands Down From O L

[mita]

Didn't see any signs that she gave a hoot about her victims and the possible health conditions or the state of their hearts.Do unto others I say and live by the sword you better expect some back.

Really? How harsh you are. The woman presently has a heart condition and I wish her well in taking care.

One of the woman she harassed was also suffering ill health. In fact, if my memory serves me it was also a heart condition.

Tell me more, so I can wish that person well, too.

I note you edited out the rest of my quote where I indicated that I would wish anyone, in that particular health situation, well.

Say what?

I didn't edit anything of yours, Mita. I removed the words "no, not harsh" that I had written.

Why would I edit your words if they already exist in a post that only you can edit? How bizarre.

Really? How harsh you are. The woman presently has a heart condition and I wish her well in taking care. I'd wish you well, too, if it were the case for you.

I originally indicated how I separate my judgment about someone's behaviour from a particular health condition which I now share.

Removing sections from what I said is a form if editing... which you or anyone else is entitled to do.

I reminded you that the empathy I now feel for people with heart conditions, has no connection with my judging a person's behaviour.

Having also recently being diagnosed with breast cancer, I'd feel the same towards any woman with that condition, too. whoever she is.

I have no interest in saying more,

[Steve]

Mita you edited your post - when I saw it it didnt have the extra bit added so if Anne was answering when you edited she wouldn't have seen it either. I was answering at that time too but happened to see your edit in time. Anne didnt change it she simply quoted the original post.

[_PL_]

Well I think it's sad.

And I quite agree. It's funny how on this forum and other internet sites, some people love to cut down those people and organisations who are helping to change the perception and treatment of animals. Let's save our anger for those who mistreat animals and profit from their mistreatment.

Having been one of the targets of social media at one time by someone who didn't even know me, but attacked my efforts to help animals, it is never okay to hide behind a keyboard and sprout venom as some do. They would never say it face to face or without the backup of the anonymous army.

I don't know if Debra Trantor did what some are saying, but I do know she has done a truckload of good for a lot of animals, possibly at the expense of following a better life for herself. Maybe we can celebrate that instead.

Baifra, Stellnme

I'll explain my experience, and I was most definitely not on the receiving end of nasty. Deb was always quite complimentary and very nice. I last saw her in Sydney at that Pet show thingo, she's always been pleasant, supportive and chatty.

But this is what I saw, being on her friends list.

Followers were encouraged to raid pages belonging to members of parliament, perceived puppy farmers, pet retailers etc. And in all honesty it didn't take much more than a simple comment. It was like opening flood gates. There was thousands ready to fight for the cause like an army. Send emails, make calls and in general be an aggressive nuisance.

Random people believed to somehow be involved in ... not sure what.... were named & shamed.

re Breeders, not sure about that one but she did seem to be OK about people buying pedigree from what was a 'responsible ethical' breeder. However most of the followers were absolutely anti so it didn't really matter.

I saw people I knew, like Julie be accused of all sorts of weird stuff and outright lies.

Then a rescue friend also pointed out to me that OL is not registered, not a holder of authority to fundraise, not a charity. Maybe that's relevant, I don't know anything about their fundraising but IMHO it's not right to be 'not for profit' if you haven't done the yards to get your approvals.

BUT above all. Most frightening to me: the rabid crazies...omg, the adulation of Deb, grovel, hanging on every word, their absolute vicious loyalty. Foul language, disgusting abuse, vile accusations, death threats, trespass...not that Deb always gave clear instructions, she really didn't have to, they were ready to attack and really quite scary.

So I went from welcoming the basics of Oscar's Law = puppy farm closures. To that feeling of when you've walked into a room, realised you're in the wrong place and then have to back out silently and slowly. No eye contact.

Trolling is not funny and I know all too well how it affects your health and she is another casualty of FB. So as much as I find her nice, her hands aren't completely clean which is a shame, and I believe she has lost more OL supporters (or potential supporters) than she realises.

[casowner]

A good cause does not excuse awful behaviour. Especially when that same behaviour is now being complained about. As someone said, its pot and kettle, and as much as I abhor internet bullying I don't cry for the pot.

No it doesn't excuse her vigilante actions, trespass, theft and other behaviours she partakes in and encourages others to do the same in the name of "animal rights"

"Oscars Law" is nothing more than a bunch of looney animal rights activists.

Ensuring animals receive and acceptable level of care according to legislation and that they comply with planning is the job of the RSPCA and the Local Councils, not a bunch of nutters lead by Tranter.

I have seen first hand the damage to a business and mental health of two targeted businesses, the online and public harassment was so intense that I feared for the mental and physical health of one of the people. Both targets were lovely people,I don't necessarily agree with how they ran their businesses but one of them has always gotten privately sourced puppies and she was almost driven 6ft under

[~Anne~]

Really? How harsh you are. The woman presently has a heart condition and I wish her well in taking care. I'd wish you well, too, if it were the case for you.

I originally indicated how I separate my judgment about someone's behaviour from a particular health condition which I now share.

Removing sections from what I said is a form if editing... which you or anyone else is entitled to do.

I reminded you that the empathy I now feel for people with heart conditions, has no connection with my judging a person's behaviour.

Having also recently being diagnosed with breast cancer, I'd feel the same towards any woman with that condition, too. whoever she is.

I have no interest in saying more,

If there was still a rolly eye emoticon I'd use it. You've got your nickers in a twist over something that didn't happen.

I did not edit your words!! I removed some of my words.

You must have edited your post AFTER I had already hit the reply button and captured your original text. Then unbeknownst to me, you edited your original text. Because I don't read back over posts I have read I didn't even know you had edited your post until you said something.

I'm really sorry about your cancer. I hope your treatment is successful.

As for Ms Tranter, I wish her well health wise too but the irony of the situation cannot be ignored. She encouraged and participated in the same behaviour that is now affecting her.

[RuralPug]

So many comments.... Not worth it. Let's just say that things are not always what they seem.

Agreed. More to this than that press release made out.

[megan_]

I'm in two minds about the trespassing. I don't agree with harassment but I do think that she exposed some vile puppy farmers that the RSPCA and councils had approved . There was one in feeling that they broke into and took pics - dead dogs, injured dogs etc. if they hadn't done that, these dogs would still be suffering. They have the pics to a local paper and that shamed the RSPCA into action.

[Steph M]

I agree, Megan. The work done gas a lot of value, and in much the same way I agree if the trespassing didn't happen the dogs would still be there.

Its not even so much her work I have issue with, its the way her and her followers treat people and encourage others to treat people who might question or offer differing ideas. That's not sustainable or a good strategy.

[OSoSwift]

If you cannot take it, do not give it.

Doesn't seem fair to cry foul when you have instigated worse in relation to other people and businesses.

I am quite sure no sane person would wish anyone ill health, however she went into what she did and inviting what she did with open eyes.

That does not mean I condone releasing addresses, hate mail and phone calls.

Seems her organisation was not beyond releasing addresses and personal details themselves.

As I said, don't give it if you can't take it.

[Joany]

http://blogs.abc.net.au/wa/2014/06/oscars-law-advocate-suffers-from-online-trolling.html

If she really thinks the only reason people got mad at her is only because she wanted to help animals she is more nutty than even I believed!

[Joany]

I agree, Megan. The work done gas a lot of value, and in much the same way I agree if the trespassing didn't happen the dogs would still be there.

Its not even so much her work I have issue with, its the way her and her followers treat people and encourage others to treat people who might question or offer differing ideas. That's not sustainable or a good strategy.

Not true.The same laws that got action against those people could have been used whether the trespassing happened or not

RSPCA have to investigate. All they needed to do was remain within the law

Edited June 14, 2014 by Joany

[Linda K]

Karma is a bitch - she has actively encouraged her followers to troll, harass, has allowed others to list names and addresses (and even phone nos) on her page without removing them, and allowed comments such as "lets break in and remove all those dogs" without any cautioning that theft is against the law, and has shown videos and pictures on her sites from breaking into places and taking these - and none of this has led to any action against her - why not? Surely trespass is still a crime. I have been sent abusive messages from both her and one of her friends who runs a shelter in the macedon area, targetting me with all sorts of lovely threats just because they were asked pertinent questions and not someone blowing sunshine up their backsides - yet obviously she feels it is not OK for the same sort of actions to be done against her.

As for the comment someone made about her saying it is OK to buy a purebred from a reputable registered breeder - sorry, they don;t at all believe that - they may say that , but if you dig further, you will discover they think there is no such thing, and that as well, any breeders should not be breeding while there are still dogs and cats in shelters.

The main thing she has done is helped to make the laws in Vic even more in favour of the larger scale operations, removed a lot of the ethical smaller scale breeders, who ironically, did raise kittens and puppies in the way they claim to want, and put in place the fact that animals really can't be raised within the home without being in breech of all the new laws - that is not something I would ever give her thanks for, she has destroyed the very thing most people want - that of a properly socialised kitten or puppy raised within a family home in a non caged environment

[Steve]

Well I reckon her real problems started when she took on people who played the same way that she does and it wasn't breeders.

Dog Breeders are unlikely to go to the extent she claims have been taken.

Better to look among those within her own ranks

http://www.markmaldridge.com/DEBRA-TRANTER-THE-TRUTH.html

Edited June 16, 2014 by Steve

[Are You Serious Jo]

I saw the talk of legal action by Mark last night, well, his alleged legal action because Mark's "stories" are mostly fantasy. Not condoning the action taken by OL, but Mark deserves what he gets as he is definitely not an innocent party. I particularly get a laugh from his web site where he describes himself as a civil rights campaigner and humanitarian, considering how he hounded a woman undergoing chemo and used fake profiles to threaten people repeatedly. Sort of the opposite of compassionate I'd say :laugh:

[Steve]

Thats my point - its not just the obvious suspects = bad bad breeders - that may be tracking her and giving it back.

Enemies in many camps me thinks.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Steve

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yeah, it's a live by the sword die by the sword situation for sure.

[Steve]

Quote from that article "A few inquiries later and most of those I look up to in animal welfare have also fallen victims to Malicious attacks by Tranter, in her latest tirade she attacks The Australian Alliance animal welfare division, other rescuers and a variety of activists, so what is Miss Tranter up to?

In her her most recent tirade, she attacks rally's being held to support children with disability's, as if that offends her, where I have always believed empathy for animals and children went hand in hand. " end Quote

Sounds like lots of enemies to me.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Steve

[Are You Serious Jo]

"The Australian Alliance animal welfare division, other rescuers and a variety of activists"

That's Mark and his friends :laugh: I don't doubt she has a lot of enemies but he's being deceptive.

[casowner]

"The Australian Alliance animal welfare division, other rescuers and a variety of activists"

That's Mark and his friends :laugh: I don't doubt she has a lot of enemies but he's being deceptive.

The same man that posted the real estate ad of the local Riverland dog catcher insinuating how much money they get paid to whip up a public outcry, leech

Edited June 16, 2014 by casowner

[Are You Serious Jo]

Yep, he has posted plenty of things knowing his followers would harass the people involved. That's the thing about ethics, you have to actually be ethical, not just constantly tell people you are.