Steve

Women fined $5,000 for neglecting dog By Russell Varley Posted Thu Sep 9, 2010 7:32am AEST MAP: Tallebudgera 4228 A Gold Coast woman has been fined $5,000 for breaching her duty of care to a kelpie dog under animal protection laws. Helen Susan King, 46, of Tallebudgera, pleaded guilty to breaching her duty of care under animal protection laws. The court was told an RSPCA inspector visited the home in October last year and found a black male kelpie infested with fleas. The dog was suffering severe itching, its teeth were worn down, it had developed thick leathery skin and hair loss from constant scratching. The court also heard that both the dog's eyes were covered with a thick yellow crust from conjunctivitis. The court heard the dog was seized and responded to treatment, although it was later euthanised for an unrelated problem. No conviction was recorded and half the fine will go to the RSPCA. RSPCA regional inspector Sommer Heath-Crilley says she is happy cases of neglect of animals are being brought before the courts. She says the dog was in poor condition when it was seized. "His body, actually the skin was quite thickened and quite rancid in its odour," she said. "His eyes were completely crusted over and from when we actually removed the dog from the property up until about, I think it was three or four months it took, he actually had rejuvenated the majority of the hair on his entire body." Ms Heath-Crilley says eduction is vital. "It's something that we need to continue to bring forth to the community and educate the children when they're quite young that doing these types of things isn't allowed and shouldn't happen," she said.

I would just like to say here that I know of reports from people who have been in this situation who are ready to swear that they asked for the cameras to be turned off and were told that they had no choice and that it would be used in the show.that they never signed anything to say it was O.K. for the filming. Judy Gard is one of them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09...?section=justin The RSPCA has been told to review its agreement with Channel 7 reality TV program Animal Rescue following a New South Wales Government inquiry into a raid on a wildlife park. The RSPCA removed eight koalas from Gunnedah's Waterways Wildlife Park after inspectors found the animals to stressed, dehydrated and malnourished. The raid in February was filmed by an Animal Rescue television crew, raising questions over whether the RSPCA's actions were motivated by self interest. While the organisation was cleared of any wrongdoing, the inquiry found the presence of cameras inflamed emotions about the incident. Nancy Small, one of the owners of the park, says the presence of the film crew made a difficult situation worse. "To me it was just setting up the whole scene for a TV program just to get an expose for the film crew. And really on the day I just couldn't understand the whole thing," she said. Greens Member of the New South Wales Parliament Ian Cohen, who chaired the inquiry, says the incident raised a number of concerns about the RSPCA's involvement with the TV series. "There has been a lot of concern... that the RSPCA came in with more interest in creating a situation so that the filming became a part of a process," he said. The inquiry also scrutinised the financial relationship between the RSPCA and Imagination Television, which produces the series. Mr Cohen says while it was not illegal for the film crew to be on the property, there was some confusion over whether the property owners were actually asked before filming was undertaken. The inquiry has recommended the RSPCA ensure that its contract with Imagination Television requires the Animal Rescue film crew to obtain written consent from property owners prior to the start of filming. Steve Coleman, chief executive of RSPCA New South Wales, says the organisation will look at improving its agreement with Animal Rescue film crews, but says inspectors always put their work ahead of the needs of television. "Their job is to seek permission to go onto people's property and get their consent to take footage. So that's explained at every job the RSPCA attends in company with Animal Rescue and it's a very clearly understood process," he said. Mr Coleman maintains RSPCA inspectors acted properly in conducting the raid, but concedes the presence of cameras aggravated the situation. "We accept that on this occasion the involvement of Animal Rescue in some quarters has been considered salt in the wound," he said. "That is a risk that any organisation takes when they involve shows such as Animal Rescue... and it clearly escalated on this occasion." Ms Small says she wants to put the incident behind her and that she will comply with every necessary regulation to keep the wildlife park open.

Hardly comforting- RSPCA definition of a puppy farmer includes those who are ANKC registered and private rescue are not let off the hook either. Im not suggesting it is anything other than a need to know exactly what it is I'm protesting about before I join the protest. Its not trying to cause anyone from Oscars law any grief or turn anyone off attending - it sounds like its going to be a worthwhile event. There is much that is stated on this website Id love to have the studies for because we could use them in our fight against what we think puppy farmers are. Some contradict some of the studies we have done and have looked at and there's some science which doesn't support what is being said. It looks to me that Oscars Law is protesting against mass produced puppies - puppy factories - which I am also against - yet that is not what has been decided at a meeting attended by RSPCA Australia, NSW, ACT and Queensland, ANKC, Dogs NSW, MDBA ,AAPDB, Young Lawyers, AWL and Deathrow Pets and the AVA as to what a puppy farmer is. My concern is that everybody is on the same page - so we all know exactly what it is we are protesting if we join you and that everybody watching knows what it is you are protesting about. RSPCA official definition of a puppy farm is anyone who breeds a litter of puppies - even one litter of puppies- whether they be ANKC registered or not who breed them in substandard conditions. It makes no reference whats so ever to how many they breed , whether they may own more than one breed [ fact is most of us do] whether they show their dogs [ fact is most of us don't] whether they have people at their homes inspecting their dogs and their property [fact is lots of us don't for a multitude of reasons]. If all you were protesting was battery farming of dogs or puppy farming [ according to the RSPCA definition] thats different to what else you may be protesting [which concerns me due to some things on your website] or the public may think you are protesting and that makes it important for me as to whether or not I want to be seen to be there with you. If the speakers are going to speak about some of the things on your website then they will be speaking against some breeders who I would consider are great breeders.

I have a major issue with the definition of a puppy farmer. that's because at that meeting it was decided what a puppy farmer was - someone including anyone who has even one litter and keeps the dogs in a sub standard condition. So the RSPCA go off and do their anti puppy farm marketing - but problem is everyone else in the world thinks a puppy farmer is someone who breeds dogs for money. So yelling at puppy farming is going on all over the place and the reality is no one is asking first what it is they are supporting or exactly what it is they all think they are fighting against!

I cant imagine why any of us would have any differences but one thing I learned when I attended the round table conference with the RSPCA was that when we speak about puppy farmers not all of us are on the same page.The RSPCA now have a definition of what is a puppy farmer - Im interested to know if that is the same as the one used for the rally. So before I throw my hat in the ring Id like to know what it is exactly that we are protesting.

Great! What is the definition of a puppy farm?

WOW!

Yep and someone had better check what THEIR definition of a puppy farmer is I think.

Id like to take bets on how many people who own entire dogs in the Gold coast shire intend paying their $379 licence fees. I already know of 8 who have decided not to.

No they don't - as it says in the article, this was abolished because only about 50% of owners ever bothered to pay it. I'd be interested to know the % in Australia - in NZ it used to be estimated about 40% of dogs were unregistered, not sure if they've changed their thinking on that, & I don't think it'd be much different here. Yet another tax for the responsible to pay and the irresponsible to avoid. Last time I checked about 4 years ago the figures were estimated at a nearby shire that it was about 12% of dog owners register them.

Are you after an award for bravery?

Have more than five dogs, mate a bitch when you think she's mature or heaven forbid mate her back to back . Oh yeah and just having the pups in the box in your loungeroom turns you into one of those rogue criminal breeders. Or keep your cat feed bowl in the same room as your water bowl!

Well your understanding is VERY wrong . We attended the roundtable discussions and there isnt a hope in hell they are after peopLE who are making big bucks out of breeding dogs. Better take a better look at what they define as a puppy farmer because it has nothing what ever to do with making money.Its anyone - anyone who ever breeds a litter of puppies who keep them in substandard conditions. Then stand back and take a closer look at what they want as standard conditions. Of course its registered breeders.

It would be good if we could say its a simple case of voting them out but problem is the other guys have let all this stuff go through without a whimper so there is no guarantee that this would help at all. However, I think its time we had some meetings with both sides to rattle it a bit and inform people of the most hopeful place to lodge their votes.

Me either. After all its not rocket science to know irresponsible people do what ever they can to duck this kind of thing. I know a hell of a lot of people who are battling poverty and worried about where the money is coming from to feed their dogs who just couldnt afford another expense. Hell MDBA Pacers feeds dozens of dogs each week while their owners struggle to get back to a point where they can afford to feed them again. These people love their animals and having to surrender them is horrible for them but given the choice of feeding your kids or your dog the kids have to win. Many would not be able to cope with this. Bring in new laws and give the people who have pushed for them more money to police them. Then listen to them tell us they cant police them because they dont have enough money to employ more.

http://www.dreamdogs.co.uk/return-of-the-dog-licence-3839.html by Lianne Wilkinson on September 8, 2010 Most dog owners of a certain age can remember having to buy dog licences for each of their pets, or pay the ‘dog tax’ as it was also known. The original dog licence cost just 37p and was abolished way back in 1987, largely due to the fact that only around 50% of dog owners actually bought one. However, in these days of financial hardship and tough talking budgets, the notion of taxing a whole new sector of society could prove too tempting to ignore. The dog licence could be about to return, and it won’t be the nominal 37p of the mid eighties either. Backed by the RSPCA, motions are underway to reintroduce a dog licence to the UK at a proposed cost of between £20 and £30 per year. The RSPCA believes that by introducing a dog licence it would help to raise over £100 million each year and would stop irresponsible dog owners from using their dogs as weapons of status. The RSPCA has already conducted research into bringing back the dog licence and it claims that two thirds of dog owners are more than happy to pay a fee of over £30 per year for their dog… per dog! Although the RSPCA adds that this cost is roughly between 3% and 4% of the cost of owning a dog for a year, so doesn’t represent much of an expense. The RSPCA added that if a dog licence were re-introduced at a cost of £21.50, and if only half of the dog owners in the UK paid for one, the licence would raise an additional £107.4 million that could be used to help the welfare of dogs. The RSPCA’s report suggests that a new scheme be started by the government that would help strays, disease prevention and treating people bitten by dogs. Dog control laws could also be enforced with the added funds created by a dog licence. The UK has a reported 10 million dogs at present, and all would require licences under these new proposals. The RSPCA also suggests that pensioners receive a discount on their dog licence, that discounts are offered for selected dogs (presumably smaller dogs) and discounts for dogs that have been neutered. Some of the money should also help pay for a nationwide database of dogs, with every dog being microchipped. David Bowles, from the RSPCA, commented: “A dog licence would raise money which could be targeted into improving enforcement of laws at a local level, improve the welfare of dogs and reverse the use of certain breeds of dog as a status symbol or weapon.” “The dog licence would achieve three important goals. It would raise money for dog welfare, increase the numbers of responsible dog owners by getting people to think before they get a dog and start to reverse the surplus of dogs on the market by providing incentives such as reduced fees for neutering dogs.” Of course the big worry is simple. If families are ordered to pay for a dog licence costing upwards of £30 per year, how many dogs would simply be cast out onto the street due to their owners being unwilling, or unable, to pay for the licence?

We already have too many laws and regulations now. Only people who are doing the right thing comply with them anyway. We keep saying this but no one listens even though all over the world its being proven every day of the week. Its time to stop and before any more crap is on about what new laws are needed they should do something about enforcing the ones we already have. Wayrod is right all the way and just to demonstrate we are already hearing what people are doing to get around the ewe bewt laws which have been bought in as a pilot program currently being assessed as a model for other places on the Gold Coast. What a joke - all its doing is making small time registered breeders walk away and say it's not worth the crap they have to go through to own a single entire dog. Dog breeding is being hogtied and shackled and stopping puppy farmers is used as an excuse to squash it down even more.

The MDBA were all set to go and one of our members had paid money out of her own pocket for banners etc then they decided we werent allowed to have a stand. They have decided that the MDBA is an alternative to them - Pretty amazing when all we do is encourage more people to join them , that we dont keep a registry and we dont hold dogs shows. We have challenged it but they still say we are not allowed in even though they know one of our breeder members is a DogsNSW director!

No it wont die a natural death at least not for a while. The graphs are easy because all I have to do is download them but most of the other answers are written and take more work for me to pull apart. Hang on Im coming.

God you'd have no hope. You want to pray that its not tru that owners start to look like their dogs :D . Funny thats sort of how I imagined you before I met you. :p ;) Look the multi generations ones are breeding true to type and they really are doing everything right. They test and screen more than most breeders of recognised breeds do. We have to start to get over this type of mentality. The ANKC isnt the bees knees and just because someone is working toward ANKC breed recognition or simply wanting to develop a new breed which they will only ever have on an independent registry that doesnt mean we have to get bent out of shape over it. Multi generational are not mutts and the sooner we start to get our heads around that the better it will be for dogs.

Yousure thats what you're chasing? Sounds like Maremma to me.

MDBA Pacers number is 0269276707 for anyone who is in any kind of trouble.

Would also be interesting to cast the responses wider. Clearly we have gathered in the main registered breeder responses.

We asked why they stopped and so far I can see only two who have given that as a reason.