samoyedman Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 (edited) Terrible photos. Given his history this guy should have copped way more than a $5000 fine. Quite a vocal crowd of activists there after his court appearance. He left with a smile on his face. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/illegal-puppy-farmer-convicted-fined-5000-20150518-gh4dyl.html Edited May 18, 2015 by samoyedman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Yep. Another disappointing result Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Unbelievable. No sign of a cruelty conviction either. So I guess we're exactly nowhere after all the Vic Govt puppy farm promises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simply Grand Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 The article says he as selling puppies for $800 each and that he was "living on benefits". He was also banned from running a domestic animal business for 5 years, suggesting they considered his breeding a business. That being the case I wonder if he declared all of the income from selling the puppies to Human Services and the ATO? I hope they investigate that, he'd likely get a much bigger penalty for fraud if he's found to have been claiming benefits and avoiding tax by not declaring income. 15 years, multiple breeding dogs, $800 per puppy, obviously not much expenditure on his "stock" to offset the income could equal a whole lot of undeclared income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stressmagnet Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 This makes me livid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Sickening. There is something sadly lacking in both the scum who did this & the magistrate. It appears they are only concerned with them not being a registered business. Shame they couldn't order him to live in one of his own sheds. A kick in the the guts for all those who care & decent animal loving people. Poor dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malakita Posted May 18, 2015 Share Posted May 18, 2015 Would have liked to back hand that smirk off his unrepenting face. $5000 is no deterrent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steph M Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 5k is one or two dodgy frenchie/oodle puppies. How ridiculous. Argh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 The article says he as selling puppies for $800 each and that he was "living on benefits". He was also banned from running a domestic animal business for 5 years, suggesting they considered his breeding a business. That being the case I wonder if he declared all of the income from selling the puppies to Human Services and the ATO? I hope they investigate that, he'd likely get a much bigger penalty for fraud if he's found to have been claiming benefits and avoiding tax by not declaring income. 15 years, multiple breeding dogs, $800 per puppy, obviously not much expenditure on his "stock" to offset the income could equal a whole lot of undeclared income. You've touched on some of the problems which go on that few are aware of. The Domestic animal business in Victoria is not automatically recognised as a business by the ATO. Just because you have more than 3 fertile dogs doesn't qualify you for an ABN as to do so you have to have an intent to make a profit. If he could claim his breeding activities as a business then he would be able to claim much more than he could make. Many dog breeders would love to be able to claim our expenses such as purchase of our properties, fencing, vetting, phone, electricity, water, rates, internet access, fuel and motor vehicle expenses, stationary, freight and postage, postage and registration and insurance of our vehicles etc etc etc This guy may have made a profit but fact is the system wont find him guilty of fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Im a bit confused by this - Far as I know cruelty charges are not laid by council but rather police and RSPCA and the council can only go after him for running an illegal puppy farm as he didnt have the permits and didnt comply with the code of practice. Maybe things have changed but I dont think council could have made that deal because they cant charge him with those other offences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) They said last night that council had laid charges but then withdrawn them. Maybe that's why. Edited May 19, 2015 by Dame Aussie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Where was the RSPCA ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Good question Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PL_ Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 The RSPCA’s Allie Jalbert said vets had identified minor health problems with some dogs, but no violations under animal cruelty laws. But she said the puppy farm ''certainly did not appear to be code compliant''. RSPCA comment 2014 http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/illegal-puppy-farm-continued-to-operate-despite-reports-to-rspca-wyndham-council-20140617-zs9lx.html As part of the proposed 'smashing' of puppy farms the RSPCA are earmarked for $5mil funding to do inspections but I can't see why this ongoing cruelty needs to go on until 2020 before anyone can touch him with either new legislation or new powers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christina Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 Im a bit confused by this - Far as I know cruelty charges are not laid by council but rather police and RSPCA and the council can only go after him for running an illegal puppy farm as he didnt have the permits and didnt comply with the code of practice. Maybe things have changed but I dont think council could have made that deal because they cant charge him with those other offences. So I wonder why the council did not report him to the RSPCA in. They can. Slack all round really & very callous & inhumane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stressmagnet Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I'm becoming very disillusioned with the RSPCA. Are they in someone's pockets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 They're useless, have been for yonks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HazyWal Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 I so wanted to smack that evil grin right off his face when I saw it on the news last night What a f*cking cretin he is, I hope he rots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) If the RSPCA have inspected them and found they were not guilty of animal cruelty they can hardly charge them. In other words he was never charged with animal cruelty in the first place because from day one the RSPCA said he was not guilty of animal cruelty - there was no deal for him to be let off anything by pleading guilty to breach of the code. Its my experience that if he were guilty they would have charged him. You cant trust anything that is in that story including how many he bred and what prices he got for them or whether the council and RSPCA saw what is presented in illegally obtained photos when they attended the property. Oscars Law should be grateful they cut the deal to stop him for five years because all he needed to do was pay the fine get compliant and continue on. "Quote " The council initially confirmed the facility was under investigation for operating without permits and for breaching breeding guidelines – which set minimum standards for accommodation, health and nutrition – but on Monday issued a statement saying the property’s owner had ''fully complied'' with regulations It would be good if one day we can really talk about what is going on in the dog world and use cases like this to find solutions rather than have it beaten up - and get everyone mad and judging and yelling for a minute,demanding more laws and more regulations and wanting punishment handed out and taking us no where. Is the primary goal to stop dogs suffering or to punish and hate people for things the law says they are not guilty of? Edited May 19, 2015 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stressmagnet Posted May 19, 2015 Share Posted May 19, 2015 How the f*** was that NOT animal cruelty? What the hell do the RSPCA think IS animal cruelty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now