Tasmanian Labradoodles shuts down, with RSPCA calling for help to rehome more than 250 dogs

[Redsonic]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-23/tasmanian-labradoodles-shuts-down-250-dogs-needing-a-home/104127300

[tdierikx]

Ummm... reading the linked article about the 70 charges, it states that one bitch had 6 litters in under 2 years... huh?? That is technically impossible...

 

As for asking for donations of 300k to deal with this seizure that they instigated... grrr! They can recoup that in the adoption fees, which you know will be around 1k (or more) each, as the dogs are labradoodles, and 1k is cheap compared to getting them elsewhere.

 

T.

[persephone]

Agree- 6 litters in two years ? I bet a lot of the older breeders will be put down due to them not being socialised etc . 

[Little Gifts]

Makes my blood boil. Not only that this huge puppy farmer business took so long to be shut down (with no financial penalty) but because the RSPCA didn't have any clear plans on how to manage the incoming number of dogs within their own humungous organisation? Also they have their own vets who would be on a salary so why are they including potential vet costs as a reason to seek more money to do what they already get funded to do? Why don't they use the sales from all those pending adoptions to cover it?

 

Instead of this being a good news story about dogs now free from being breeding machines they are using it to be lazy money grubbers, blaming the law that they couldn't do more. Zero respect for them as an organisation.

[Little Gifts]

I just got even madder - I've just seen independent rescue groups in Tassie are also taking on some of the dogs and the cost for veterinary and other work. RSPCA don't tell the public that though do they and they certainly wont be moving any funds over to these rescue groups to help them with the costs they will incur. So people will be donating for work the RSPCA will not even be doing.

[Mairead]

I hope they don't rehome the unsocialized dogs who will endure more stress every remaining day of their lives just so someone can pat themselves on the back because they "saved" them.

[tdierikx]

15 hours ago, Little Gifts said:

I just got even madder - I've just seen independent rescue groups in Tassie are also taking on some of the dogs and the cost for veterinary and other work. RSPCA don't tell the public that though do they and they certainly wont be moving any funds over to these rescue groups to help them with the costs they will incur. So people will be donating for work the RSPCA will not even be doing.

 

They do that everywhere... the rescue I'm with has worked with RSPCA NSW more than once for puppy farmed animals... the most recent being an intake of over 20 oodles. And we weren't the only rescue who took in such numbers, as the farm in question has to remove around 400 dogs as part of their deal with RSPCA to avoid prosecution and fines. 2 of my recent foster mums and bubs also came to us via RSPCA seizures, and my current lot came from AWL, although AWL supplied us with a whole pile of stuff when we took her and the babies in (including that Alice had been desexed when she had her caesarian, she was also vaccinated and chipped by AWL, so we have no actual medical costs to pay for her before rehoming) - RSPCA just hands over the dogs and all the costs relating to their rehab and rehoming fall on the rescues.

 

In the grand scheme of things it's probably better that independent rescues take in animals that RSPCA cannot adequately care for, as at least their chances of survival and responsible rehoming are higher. It would be fair that if RSPCA receives donations for the animals it no longer has, that those donations should be forwarded to those actually incurring the costs, but that is never going to happen... *sigh*

 

14 hours ago, Mairead said:

I hope they don't rehome the unsocialized dogs who will endure more stress every remaining day of their lives just so someone can pat themselves on the back because they "saved" them.

 

This is my concern too... too many animals are rehomed from various sources (including RSPCA) with behavioural issues, which are fobbed off as "it's a rescue and had a hard life before we saved it", rather than making some attempt to rectify the issue... grrr!

 

T.

[Boronia]

Some more: this time from previous buyers about the dogs' health problems

Labradoodles from Tasmanian breeder costing families hundreds of thousands in vet bills

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-07-25/tasmanian-labradoodles-vet-bills-defective-animals/104135504

[JessicaLawrence]

On 25/07/2024 at 1:14 AM, tdierikx said:

 

They do that everywhere... the rescue I'm with has worked with RSPCA NSW more than once for puppy farmed animals... the most recent being an intake of over 20 oodles. And we weren't the only rescue who took in such numbers, as the farm in question has to remove around 400 dogs as part of their deal with RSPCA to avoid prosecution and fines. 2 of my recent foster mums and bubs also came to us via RSPCA seizures, and my current lot came from AWL, although AWL supplied us with a whole pile of stuff when we took her and the babies in (including that Alice had been desexed when she had her caesarian, she was also vaccinated and chipped by AWL, so we have no actual medical costs to pay for her before rehoming) - RSPCA just hands over the dogs and all the costs relating to their rehab and rehoming fall on the rescues.

 

In the grand scheme of things it's probably better that independent rescues take in animals that RSPCA cannot adequately care for, as at least their chances of survival and responsible rehoming are higher. It would be fair that if RSPCA receives donations for the animals it no longer has, that those donations should be forwarded to those actually incurring the costs, but that is never going to happen... *sigh*

 

 

This is my concern too... too many animals are rehomed from various sources (including RSPCA) with behavioural issues, which are fobbed off as "it's a rescue and had a hard life before we saved it", rather than making some attempt to rectify the issue... grrr!

 

T.

Wow you are doing such a nice thing which most of the people don't do these days. I really appreciate you for the bottom of my heart.

[Loving my Oldies]

I've just rehomed my foster from that farm in NSW.  She was very timid, but really really sweet.  The rescue I foster for has a very good working relationship with the RSPCA and I have fostered a few via that connection.  Here is "my" little girl at the lounge room window.  

 

 

[persephone]

Oh, she looks very cute :)Another of your much loved pack ...

[tdierikx]

Our rescue is getting another intake from the puppy farm this coming weekend... *sigh*

 

T.

[Loving my Oldies]

Ditto, the rescue I foster for as well.  I’m not putting my hand up this time.  My littlies need a break.  

[Loving my Oldies]

      When can the ABC get this story correct?   Makes you wonder how much other crap they are sprouting.   Yet another item on the Tasmanian issue wherein it was announced that the last of the dogs was rehomed today. Most of them are still spread around rescue groups.  

[tdierikx]

Farming them out to other rescues to do the hard stuff is counted as rehomed in RSPCA's opinion... their work is done, accolades must be sought, and donations solicited for "all the good work" they do...

 

T.

 

 

[persephone]

It seems the RSPCA have covered their ar$es...it's not fair -on the dogs, or the rescues which are now looking after the dogs 

[Little Gifts]

59 minutes ago, persephone said:

It seems the RSPCA have covered their ar$es...it's not fair -on the dogs, or the rescues which are now looking after the dogs 

This is the part I don't like about them the most. They've made their policies work for them. I agree with T that the dogs are generally much better off with a smaller rescue (especially if breed specific) but honestly it is a bit like a huge hospital getting everyone to go a local doctor instead and claiming they have successfully triaged, treated and discharged x number of patients.

 

And LMO, that would've been new having such a large doggo in the house!

[Loving my Oldies]

51 minutes ago, Little Gifts said:.

And LMO, that would've been new having such a large doggo in the house!

LOL.  She wasn’t large, just long legs.  She weighed only 6.4kg when she arrived, but had put on a bit more than a kilo by the time she left.    

[asal]

On 19/08/2024 at 9:02 AM, persephone said:

It seems the RSPCA have covered their ar$es...it's not fair -on the dogs, or the rescues which are now looking after the dogs 

 

Done and dusted, another mega fundraiser with soooo much free publicity.

[asal]

reference article

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-31/tasmanian-labradoodles-alleged-animal-welfare-breaches/102412630

 

Come to think of it, Why is there no accountability for the outright lies in their story?  ie "

The RSPCA alleges the offending occurred between 5 April 2021 and 13 February 2023.

It will be alleged one of the dogs, listed as Barbie, had six litters between October 2020 and September 2022.

Another, named Chanel, allegedly had four litters, again in just under two years."

 

Why is such drivel allowed to go the print?

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any bitch to produce six litters " between October 2020 and September 2022."  ditto for "Another, named Chanel, allegedly had four litters, again in just under two years."

 

Even when a bitch actually  did cycle six monthly she cant produce 4 litters "in just under two years".  

 

why aren't they held to account for such blatant lies?

why isn't this fact checked by qualified reproduction vets before it gets put out there to completely mislead the general population?   Along with the pollies being spoon fed these lies.

 

as for needing more laws?

 

Also why is it not made public ALL OVER AUSTRALIA.

 

They have been seizing animals based solely on "the inspector formed the opinion the animals best interests  would be best served by immediate seizure and removal to their Yagoona facility"  Quote from a letter from The Honourable Richard Amery, Minister for Agriculture.

 

the animal in question, had food, water, shelter and had not any of the conditions in the pocta listed for immediate seizure. Additionally even though the seizing inspector did put the animal was seized due to "a skin condition"  which the seizing inspector had assumed was slight visible mange. (It actually had very low expression of blue gene alopecia, ie short hair on both ears, short hair along top of tail along rump and back on on otherwise long coat chihuhua, the dogs vet phoned every day for 13 days demanding the dogs return and explaining what he did have was blue gene alopecia, but nup they tested him for both forms of mange, hypothyroidism, for which he had absolutely NO SYMPTOMS.)   MANGE is not listed as grounds for immediate seizure now, let alone in November 1999. NEITHER is hypothyroidism, although neither was even listed as the cause for seizure.

 

they have had such extensive powers already in 1999 to seize solely on deciding to "form the opinion"  that is pretty much absolute power with no avenue of appeal over 24 years ago.

 

what part of that FACT are our politicians missing?????????????????????

As they scramble to be seen to be SAVING our pets from cruelty?

 

considering they stole a perfectly healthy dog and 13 days later all their tests had proven that he was, then  returned that dog now with a torn trachea, pneumonia and dehydration so severe he had to be given antibiotics and a drip to save him within an hour of getting him back to his life time vet???  he was 4 years when stolen.

 

So any of you really think what happened to that dog was a one off example of their incompetence???????

Let alone a wake up call to how much power they already had.

let alone Then  and now STILLL absolutely, NO AVENUE OF APPEAL?

 

 

Lone event, hardly, met so many traumatised. many never see their pet again alive.  

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28 by asal