Update on Tasmanian Labradoodles. ABC News 27/9/24. (Some Readers May Find This Article Distressing).

[Deeds]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-27/tasmanian-labradoodles-breeder-rti-documents/104396414

[Pucapo]

So very heartbreaking.  I cannot understand what laws would have prevented the RSPCA from doing anything for the 3 years they were aware of this immense cruelty. 

 

An out of court settlement is a joke. How can this not deserve jail is beyond me.

[tdierikx]

23 hours ago, Pucapo said:

So very heartbreaking.  I cannot understand what laws would have prevented the RSPCA from doing anything for the 3 years they were aware of this immense cruelty. 

 

An out of court settlement is a joke. How can this not deserve jail is beyond me.

 

Having been up close to how RSPCA operate when they decide to go for someone, I can guarantee that those 3 years were not spent sitting idle. There would have been a lot of back and forth in legal paperwork in order to run up the defendant's legal expenses, which could have been in the hundreds of thousands of dollars over that timeframe. Not to mention that our legal system is in such a state that most cases of this nature will take at least 2 to 3 years before they get to see a court date set... and RSPCA definitely use that fact to their advantage, both behind the scenes and in media releases at regular intervals.

 

I also know how the RSPCA intentionally lie in their briefs of "evidence" with regard to charges they decide to deliver to a defendant, and how their "expert witnesses" are also encouraged to make findings in RSPCA's favour. I have no doubt that there were breaches of standards for breeding dogs at the Tasmanian facility, but some of the claims made by RSPCA have been completely physically impossible - 6 litters delivered by a single bitch in a 23 month period as one such absurd claim.

 

Then we have the fact that RSPCA are claiming all the credit for shutting down this facility and were/are actively touting for donations for the care and rehab of the 200-odd surrendered dogs, which they farmed off to multiple private rescues to do... and you can guarantee that none of the money raised has gone to those rescues who are doing all the actual work here.

 

I wonder how many people are aware that after every "successful" prosecution by RSPCA, defendants are forced into a "non-disparagement" legal clause that precludes them from ever telling their side of the story or to say anything contrary to RSPCA's version of events.

 

T.

[SchnauzerMax]

Do you think that the claim of 6 litters in 23 months by one bitch might have originated with sloppy record keeping by the “breeders”?

From the little I have seen, they don’t seem to have given 2 ****s about anything - food, shelter, anything. So I can easily imagine the breeding records must be lacking veracity. I wonder if trying to disprove that claim would open them up to even more charges.

 

Even so, I can’t get my head around 3 years of hell for those dogs.

[tdierikx]

11 hours ago, SchnauzerMax said:

Do you think that the claim of 6 litters in 23 months by one bitch might have originated with sloppy record keeping by the “breeders”?

From the little I have seen, they don’t seem to have given 2 ****s about anything - food, shelter, anything. So I can easily imagine the breeding records must be lacking veracity. I wonder if trying to disprove that claim would open them up to even more charges.

 

Even so, I can’t get my head around 3 years of hell for those dogs.

 

For sure it could be attributed to a record keeping issue... but sloppy record keeping doesn't always equate to definite animal welfare offences, and would only attract a PIN (infringement notice), rather than a prosecutorial charge of abuse. This is why the legislation is murky, as in NSW for example, recent changes made to our POCTAA and EAPA legislation could be read to mean that PINs may be taken as being charged by RSPCA for an offence, and that can preclude a person from working in the animal industry, and/or loss of license for employers that hire someone who has been charged with an offence. PINs can be given for such trivial matters as not displaying a vet phone number prominently enough, not printing a dog's microchip number on their kennel card, and other non-welfare related paperwork type things.

 

Here's a link to a checklist used by RSPCA NSW to audit a dog/cat breeding facility...

 

https://public-library.safetyculture.io/products/animal-welfare-code-of-practice-breeding-dogs-and-cats

 

Note the following...

 

 

Would there be many people who would give access to 3 years worth of written/digital records to a kennel hand or volunteer helper? Well, if you don't, then you can get a PIN for that.

 

I don't see the relevance of a visitor needing to be able to see the vet contact details, as long as staff have access to it should be sufficient. But you can get a PIN for it not being displayed for all to see.

 

Funnily enough, as I foster mums and pups (including pregnant/whelping bitches) for rescue, being aware of all of the regulations for breeding facilities, I actually apply them all to my care and rearing of those foster dogs/pups. I keep meticulous records of all the checklist requirements, etc... but I can guarantee that many rescue foster carers don't, and funnily enough don't seem to be held to the same account by the authorities in any case... but the circumstances/requirements for care are exactly the same to whelp/raise any litter regardless it be done by a registered breeder or a rescue foster carer, wouldn't you think?

 

T.

[Mairead]

Kids don't seem to have enough people looking out for them, so what chance for companion animals, or even lower on the value scale, livestock?

I read a while ago that one feedlot in Queensland only had a bit of shade provided, and only for the Wagyu animals because buyers made a fuss.

"The law is an ass" (from the 1600s, popularised by Charles Dickens)

 

Edited September 29 by Mairead

[Loving my Oldies]

I have said the exact same thing many times, @Mairead, regarding children known to DOCS.  If the designated department can’t look after the children, what chance do animals have.   Virtually every child/baby who dies at the hands of parents, partner, family member is already known to DOCS.  Sickening.  
 

And I am sick of the excuses EVERY company, institution, or organisation makes.  There is one reason and one reason only:  lack of commitment to the job.