[Wags]

Stitch, on 22 January 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

I heard on the news yesterday that Govt. were going to legislate that puppy breeders/farmers were going to be rigorously controlled.....unfortunately I only picked up on the end of the broadcast.

Can anyone fill me in on this? It sounded like it was in Queensland.

There has always been these kind of mutterings about but if this is now going to be definite does anyone know what it is going to cover??? If it is just puppy farmers, that's great!! If registered breeders are going to get caught up in the net...hmmmm???

Qld State Government are introducing legislation to help stamp out Puppy Farmers.

In essence, it is a great piece of legislation, however, it falls short in one area.

Where breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland, this has little impact and in fact, the requirements of breeders is based on the requirements of Dogs Queensland breeder registration. Breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland only require to obtain an ID number with the State Government, which will more than likely be issued to them free - all else remains basically the same. Registered breeders puppies continue to be registered in the same manner as currently required.

Unregistered breeders will be subject to fees and charges to obtain their ID number and register puppies etc. They will be given requirements and regulations to adhere to and will be prosecuted if necessary.

The problem arises with the fact that the proposed legislation only requires breeders with 10 or more dogs to obtain a Breeders ID number and therefore fall under the regulations to be imposed. They've only gone halfway.

Even 9 dogs can contribute greatly to the same problems we have currently with naive or irresponsible backyard breeders and the smaller puppy farms. This leaves plenty of loopholes for the continuation of abhorrent practices and the only way the new legislation can have a proper affect on the overall situation is to delete any reference to the number of dogs owned. Their initial outline of the legislation was to cover 'any breeder, whether acidental or intentional' with no reference to the number of dogs owned or utilised in breeding practices.

If you even remotely care about these poor puppies, please take 5 minutes to have your say on the proposed legislation to regulate the large scale breeding of dogs in intensive breeding establishments. We believe the legislation should cover ALL breeders, accidental or otherwise and there should be no stipulation as to the number of dogs owned, because naive or irresponsible backyard breeders are as much of a problem as puppy farmers. If you agree, you can express your opinion in the comments section of the form. Closes 5th March Follow this link http://www.getinvolv...n/315/view.html

[yarracully]

Wags, on 26 January 2012 - 04:01 PM, said:

Stitch, on 22 January 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

I heard on the news yesterday that Govt. were going to legislate that puppy breeders/farmers were going to be rigorously controlled.....unfortunately I only picked up on the end of the broadcast.

Can anyone fill me in on this? It sounded like it was in Queensland.

There has always been these kind of mutterings about but if this is now going to be definite does anyone know what it is going to cover??? If it is just puppy farmers, that's great!! If registered breeders are going to get caught up in the net...hmmmm???

Qld State Government are introducing legislation to help stamp out Puppy Farmers.

In essence, it is a great piece of legislation, however, it falls short in one area.

Where breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland, this has little impact and in fact, the requirements of breeders is based on the requirements of Dogs Queensland breeder registration. Breeders currently registered with Dogs Queensland only require to obtain an ID number with the State Government, which will more than likely be issued to them free - all else remains basically the same. Registered breeders puppies continue to be registered in the same manner as currently required.

Unregistered breeders will be subject to fees and charges to obtain their ID number and register puppies etc. They will be given requirements and regulations to adhere to and will be prosecuted if necessary.

The problem arises with the fact that the proposed legislation only requires breeders with 10 or more dogs to obtain a Breeders ID number and therefore fall under the regulations to be imposed. They've only gone halfway.

Even 9 dogs can contribute greatly to the same problems we have currently with naive or irresponsible backyard breeders and the smaller puppy farms. This leaves plenty of loopholes for the continuation of abhorrent practices and the only way the new legislation can have a proper affect on the overall situation is to delete any reference to the number of dogs owned. Their initial outline of the legislation was to cover 'any breeder, whether acidental or intentional' with no reference to the number of dogs owned or utilised in breeding practices.

If you even remotely care about these poor puppies, please take 5 minutes to have your say on the proposed legislation to regulate the large scale breeding of dogs in intensive breeding establishments. We believe the legislation should cover ALL breeders, accidental or otherwise and there should be no stipulation as to the number of dogs owned, because naive or irresponsible backyard breeders are as much of a problem as puppy farmers. If you agree, you can express your opinion in the comments section of the form. Closes 5th March Follow this link http://www.getinvolv...n/315/view.html

Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states.

Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity.

A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal.

Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises.

And why does this organisation get this power. Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act.

This means there is no accountability. In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer. The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce.

This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given.

Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability.

While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

[Tralee]

yarracully, on 26 January 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states.
Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity.
A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal.
Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises.
And why does this organisation get this power.
Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act.
This means there is no accountability.
In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer.
The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce.
This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given.
Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability.
While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

Hi yarracully.

I understand you were replying to wags.
However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal.

Quote

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation.
The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency.

Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant.

The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past.

Regards
Px

This post has been edited by Tralee: 26 January 2012 - 10:30 PM

[Steve]

Tralee, on 26 January 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

yarracully, on 26 January 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states.
Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity.
A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal.
Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises.
And why does this organisation get this power.
Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act.
This means there is no accountability.
In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer.
The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce.
This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given.
Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability.
While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

Hi yarracully.

I understand you were replying to wags.
However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal.

Quote

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation.
The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency.

Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant.

The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past.

Regards
Px

Tralee these comments are not anti RSPCA they are anti state law which gives a quasi police force powers without out side accountability.

If a police officer is accused of corruption or misuse of power there is an outside accountability process which is independent with no bias or political stake in covering such things up and until such time that there is the equivalent for any agency given such powers whether that be in animal welfare or any other arena that has to raise red flags.

Try and understand this is proposed legislation in QUeensland and reference to a NSW protection act is useless.

[yarracully]

Tralee, on 26 January 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

Hi yarracully.

I understand you were replying to wags.
However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal.

Quote

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation.
The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency.

Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant.

The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past.

Regards
Px

Tralee

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

I think you might want to re-read your own posting . The wording you have quoted shows that a member of a charitable organisation (RSPCA) can enter premises without a warrant if they suspect anything being done to harm an animal or about to be done. They do not require any proof prior to entering. They only need to suspect you are harming them or are even going to in the future.Police must at least provide some justification prior to obtaining a warrant and must satisfy a judge that the warrant is required.

The inspectors are not independant. How can they be when they operate under the umbrella of a body involved in formulation of the law and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the law.

Recent history has already shown what can happen when a body is involved in formulating and enforceing law. The same body will also be involved in prosecuting this law. There has to be a seperation of power so that some form of accountability can exist.

Under this law (As has already happened in NSW and VIC) an RSPCA inspector can walk past your front gate and hear one of your dogs bark/howl/growl. Under this act they have the right to enter your property and seize your dogs because they "Suspect" harm being done. They will then prosecute you in court and the whole time run up a huge bill for feeding your dogs which if you succeed in court (months later) you will have to pay (I believe at one point they were claiming upto $85.00 per day per dog).

Thats unless they decide to rehome your dogs so that you cannot have them returned or they decide the dogs are not able to be rehomed and are PTS. All before the actual day in court.

Also remember that if you do happen to win in court (Expensive to fight- they have donated money to fight with, do you?) you cannot sue for compensation or return of costs as they are acting within the law.

As I have said before look at the two cases mentioned that have already occured. The new law will not redress the issue of abuse of power as this wording is the same as in the NSW and VIC laws that created the abuse of power. If you care to look at the NSW act you will find the same applies. An RSPCA inspector in NSW has the same power as the QLD law proposes. All power that exceeds any member of the states police (NSW act section 24 Power to enter land- item 2a and 2b)

Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

This post has been edited by yarracully: 27 January 2012 - 10:18 AM

[Wags]

yarracully, on 27 January 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

Tralee, on 26 January 2012 - 10:29 PM, said:

yarracully, on 26 January 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Let me start by saying I don't live in Qld but I do take an interest in the various laws being introduced in all australian states.
Another place you should be concerned about is the power it gives to a non-government charity.
A member of this charity would be able to enter your premises and seize animals without a warrant and without police present, simply because they think something is happening or is about to happen to an animal.
Even police must provide evidence or cause to a judge to get a warrant to enter premises.
And why does this organisation get this power.
Because it is involved in drafting the legislation and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the act.
This means there is no accountability.
In normal circumstances the creators of a law do not enforce or administer.
The enforcers do not create or administer the law. and the administrators of the law do not create or enforce.
This law will place too much power in the hands of an organisation than it should be given.
Want to see a misuse of power that can be created by this law, ask about J. Gard (victoria) or Ruth Downey (New South Wales). Both of these matters were brought about by too much power placed in the wrong hands and no process of accountability.
While I don't support puppy farms and I believe something should be done, be very careful of this law as it stands. You may end up with more than you really wanted.

Hi yarracully.

I understand you were replying to wags.
However, in your zeal to attack the RSPCA you have overlooked important parts of the proposal.

Quote

An inspector appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (including an employee of the RSPCA Qld who was appointed as an inspector), would generally need to obtain consent before entering a premise to check compliance with the Act. However, they could enter without consent if they obtained a warrant or if they reasonably suspected there was an imminent risk of an animal welfare offence causing death or injury to an animal or on certain other limited grounds.

So, your point about power being misplaced is a misrepresentation.
The inspectors appointed under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 will be independent and their power will be raised to Law Enforcement, an outside agency.

Unfortunately this makes the remainder of your critique redundant.

The new legislation may in fact redress the abuses of power that have occurred in the past.

Regards
Px

Tralee I think you might want to re-read your own posting . The wording you have quoted shows that a member of a charitable organisation (RSPCA) can enter premises without a warrant if they suspect anything being done to harm an animal. They do not require any proof prior to entering. They only need to suspect. The inspectors are not independant. How can they be when they operate under the umbrella of a body involved in formulation of the law and will also be involved in prosecuting any breaches of the law.

Recent history has already shown what can happen when a body is involved in formulating and enforceing law. The same body will also be involved in prosecuting this law. There has to be a seperation of power so that some form of accountability can exist.

Under this law (As has already happened in NSW and VIC) an RSPCA inspector can walk past your front gate and hear one of your dogs bark/howl/growl. Under this act they have the right to enter your property and seize your dogs because they "Suspect" harm being done. They will then prosecute you in court and the whole time run up a huge bill for feeding your dogs which if you succeed in court (months later) you will have to pay (I believe at one point they were claiming upto $85.00 per day per dog).

Thats unless they decide to rehome your dogs so that you cannot have them returned or they decide the dogs are not able to be rehomed and are PTS. All before the actual day in court.

Also remember that if you do happen to win in court (Expensive to fight- they have donated money to fight with, do you?) you cannot sue for compensation or return of costs as they are acting within the law.

As I have said before look at the two cases mentioned that have already occured. The new law will not redress the issue of abuse of power as this wording is the same as in the NSW and VIC laws that created the abuse of power.

Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repaet it.

There have also been cases where the RSPCA have been called, and they've walked away, finding the report to be bogus. As is normally the case, the focus will lie with the negative. Agreed that some members of any rescue organisation can be so wrapped up in materism that they are unable to see clearly and the situations you describe do occur, but others are more discerning. Unfortunately, the over-zealous situations make more news than the balanced ones.

The question of who would do the policing, other than an organisation like the RSPCA, would seem relevant.

[Crisovar]

Quote

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

THIS!!
I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this.

[Steve]

Note what Mr Mills says about prosecution.

 Submission No 21.pdf (200.99K)
Number of downloads: 36


Then

Hansard Feb 2010 - file too big to attach.

CHAIR: Whatcomplaint or appeal processes are available to people who disagree withdecisions

made by RSPCA inspectors? Perhaps you could relatethat to the current issue at hand with the Waterways

Wildlife Park. How do they deal with it? Is itreasonable to say that they might feel a bit overrun by the process:

being inspected, having a second inspection and havinga lot of officers on site? Do they have adequate

opportunity to defend themselves in this situation?

Mr COLEMAN: Dealingin any animal welfare matter, be it one animal or a thousand animals, is

generally highly emotive. We understand and appreciatethe fact that when an RSPCA inspector knocks on

someone's door, that in itself can incite emotion, andunderstandably so. We are very proud of the fact that when

our inspectors investigate the thousands of calls theydo each and every year, around about 1 per cent of all of

those calls end up as a prosecution. There are manyinterpretations, if you like, of that percentage or statistic, but

the fact is that our inspectors on 99 per cent ofoccasions are able to work with people and negotiate with peopleand find anamicable solution to what started out as a legitimate complaint without itnecessarily being a

prosecution.

Do I understand, or can I understand, when people areconfronted by a number of inspectors or a

number of law enforcement officers? Yes, I can. Inthat regard, in terms of an appeal process, clearly, there are

discussions that need to occur. The inspectors arewell versed on their investigative procedures, including the

rights of individuals, one of them being that they donot have to talk to the officers if they choose not to. If a

person chooses to talk first and foremost and thenproceeds to provide responses to questions by the officers

about the animals, again we respect that person'sright not to talk to us but, again, if they do, we make decisions

and provide direction on some of those responses. Ifan individual considers they have been dealt with unfairly,

we have a grievance procedure in place. That personcan elect to make contact with the office of our chief

inspector. If that cannot be resolved, it getsescalated to my office. If that is not resolved, it can go as far as a

complaint direct to ourboard.

This post has been edited by Steve: 27 January 2012 - 11:09 AM

[Wags]

Crisovar, on 27 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Quote

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

THIS!!
I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders.

[Steve]

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 27 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Quote

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

THIS!!
I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders.

Actually its about accountability for those who are charged with policing all breeders. Breeders already have accountability if the laws which are already there are policed.

[Wags]

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 27 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Quote

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

THIS!!
I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders.

Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ????

[Steve]

The problem lies in the accountability of the charity charged with enforcing the legislation and in what will be done with the information which they, as a charity collect.
If they or anyone can interfere in what a breeder chooses to do in their breeding program they can interfere in ours and they have already started telling us about what we should and shouldnt breed and do.

[Wags]

Steve, on 27 January 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

The problem lies in the accountability of the charity charged with enforcing the legislation and in what will be done with the information which they, as a charity collect.
If they or anyone can interfere in what a breeder chooses to do in their breeding program they can interfere in ours and they have already started telling us about what we should and shouldnt breed and do.

The problem - as you see it - is what you have stated.

Those that choose to focus only on a negative campaign against the RSPCA, who are not perfect admittedly, but I don't see any other suggestions as to who could adequately police the legislation - are of course, free to be tunnel visioned as they choose. But it is not achieving anything proactive so far a I can discern.

I just hope that enough less single focussed people view this post with a more proactive view and focus on the issue of putting ALL breeders in a position of responsible and accountable breeding practices. THIS is the purpose of the legislation.

You all have the ability to express your concerns at the website for the State Government as noted in my first post - I have brought the matter to notice - you have the chance to have your say where it will count, and any concerns can be expressed on that site. I've done my bit, the rest is up to you as individuals to do something proactive - or not.

[Crisovar]

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 27 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Quote

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

THIS!!
I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders.

Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ????

The SYSTEM and those that ENFORCE it needs to be accontable, can't you see that ?
I'm all for ALL breeders being accountable.
Forgive me if I cannot accept that it will be controlled by a body that is accountable to no one.

[yarracully]

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Wags, on 27 January 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

Crisovar, on 27 January 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

Quote

This is not a matter of being anti-RSPCA. Its a matter of having a state law with some form of accountability and equity.

THIS!!
I actually find it hard to understand why so few people fail to recognise this.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for actually seeing the point - it's about accountability and responsibility in ALL breeders.

Look, I'm sorry but for the life of me I can't see why, if breeders are responsible, really responsible, about their breeding practices, are doing the right thing by their dogs and puppies, being traceable, contactable and accountablew is a problem ????

The problem I have and which I was trying to illustrate is that a non government organisation has the power to be involved in creating a law, enforcing the law, and prosecuting the law. An organisation that can allocate power that exceeds that of law enforcement officers. However it gives this extreme power to itself. The same organisation that can set its own costs to be claimed via court and does not have any external body to be accountable to. How much stronger definition of "Conflict Of Interest" do you need?

If a member of the police force exceeds their authority there is an ombudsman that is supposed to act as an independant umpire. There are also procedures in place to allow you to appeal their actions.

If a solicitor acts wrongly there is an ombudsman that acts as an independant umpire as well as consquences for inappropriate actions.

Who does the RSPCA have to answer to? No-one. Thats the problem. They can do what they like and do not have to justify it.

Who sets the amounts that the RSPCA can claim in court for costs? The RSPCA. Do you really believe that it costs $85.00 per dog per day to feed a small dog. Of course it doesn't but thats what they have been known to claim.

What can you do if you do not agree with an inspectors decision? Appeal to the RSPCA. Thats it. There is no independant body that you can go to.

Are there any protocols for dealing with a power hungry inspector. None seen so far.

Who deems the RSPCA inspector fit to act in the role? The RSPCA. Reality is any one connected with the RSPCA could be an inspector. Take for example a small branch of the RSPCA in a small country town. Lets say there is a vet and a secretary at this branch. The Secretary could be given the role of an inspector. They do not have to have any specific qualifications. They simply need to be appointed by the RSPCA.

They may not even know much about animal welfare. They don't need to. They are now an inspector that has more power than a police officer and with none of the complications of due process and accountablility

If you care to do a google search on Ruth Downey and look what the RSPCA did to her on the grounds of what an RSPCA Inspector said.

Indeed one of those RSPCA inspectors involved with Ruth Downey was a former police inspector with very little knowledge of animal welfare generally.

The RSPCA was not intended to be a law enforcement body. That is the issue I have. Its not specifically the RSPCA its the entire process of a non government charity that was never intended to be a law enforcement now making itself into one. Its not just being given power, it is also creating the power and then giving it to itself and in so doing does not have to justify its actions to anyone.