Ringo

I've found a lot of councils don't know very much when it comes to the Companion Animals Act and POCTA - they sometimes need to be hit over the head a few times with how procedures outlined in both are to work before they come round.

For all the problems people have listed the use of a video camera to show the behaviour of the people concerned I've found to be useful and usually (not always) has two effects - the behaviour stops/moderates and and is good to show the powers that be what you are complaining about - with a picture worth a thousand words it's a bit hard saying you football club isn't doing anything as they are shown the video recording.

As it stands at the moment the only way for the RSPCA to gain access to a persons records held by Dogs NSW is to serve a search warrant on them specifying what they want. Can't be refused. But they have to get the search warrant first which is usually associated with an investigation of some kind being undertaken by the RSPCA. And the affadavit filed at the court to get the search warrant becomes public information so is viewable by any person to see what information was relied upon to obtain the search warrant. It has already been done once by the RSPCA on Dogs NSW Why they do this when the companion animals act microchip register is the primary proof of ownership for a dog in NSW is a little hard to fathom. And as you are required to microchip your animals that register has the same information. On the other hand some larger breeders do not do what the companion animals act says and register the microchip straight into the details for the new owners, not what the act says. Some designer dog breeders do the same thing as well.

• Council is currently in the process of examining the potential for changes to the current Local Environmental Plan, provisions for ‘animal boarding and training establishments’. • *This project is at ‘research stage’ as Council is seeking to implement a process of prioritization of actions for control this is clear and accountable to the community. • *More specifically, it is seeking to identify the threshold beyond which the keeping of animals requires development consent and is seeking to set minimum standards for the siting, design and operation of animal boarding establishments. • The board of directors has successfully defended several members with regards to their immediate difficulties; however, sadly there are others who have not yet achieved anything like satisfactory outcomes. • We will continue to do our best to work on your behalf to overcome the outrage many of our members are experiencing. Tom Couchman President, Dogs NSW. If this council is seeking to amend their LEP then as every council in NSW has the same LEP to work from now they will have to put a case to the NSW DLG and also NSW department of planning to convince them it should be changed because they have 'special circumstances' One of the reasons the new LEP was created was to make all of NSW come under the same planning structure, not the ad hoc procedure they had before hand. Perhaps they should be again referred to what the NSW LEC thinks, although on the surface this council seems to have some difficulty realising they don't actually make laws they are only a consent authority.

If they don't take notice of the interpretations of the NSW Land & Environment Court on this very subject and follow what they have said then it won't make any difference the legislation has been interpreted by a court who is allowed to set case law ie how they interpret the law is how the people who enforce it must also interpret it from that point onwards. So if the changes don't reflect this above interpretation then they still won't hold up when push comes to shove in the NSWLEC over whether a development application is needed or not ie the council will lose. Hope Dogs NSW are making submissions at the same time on the subject. For those who are interested there is also a revue going on at the moment to the NSW Local Government Act as well & I hope Dogs NSW hae made a submission to this. Now all that needs to happen is for the referendum later this with the federal election to pass and we recognise local government in the Australian Constitution and our worst level of government will become a real monster.

No legislation formed as yet (that we know abt) As to the CCTV surveillance by the local council - you are able read the findings on the case law website if you choose the admin tribunal option - outlines powers available, how they are to be utilised etc The council could not show that by having the CCTV recording in the areas they did it was actually contributing to what they are legally allowed to do, hence no CCTV recording. It was an another example of a local council in NSW interpreting the law one way, someone else interpreting it another and the umpire giving a ruling. Nothing new in that idea, it's how our system works. Pity they don't take notice of all the relevant rulings handed down in other matters though, they might save themselves some money.

Actually inez that's not correct As to the open window go in and take a dog ??? think they were lucky it didn't go further (expecially as the dog was deemed OK !!!! ) Again not quite correct Yes in certain circumstances they do need a search warrant And it is more than 'just an opinion'

Out of curiosity under what conditions do you all think the RSPCA are able to seize an animal and what power are they actually exercising ?

Interesting council giving permission to people to breed puppies on suburban house blocks in NSW (All states have different rules because all councils have different powers across Australia) If they call it a commercial operation then they can't give permission because it is PROHIBITED. For non commercial of the same activity they have no control over it under the LEP as that activity is not mentioned, ie it is an activity/land use they have no control over. Despite what many councils in NSW think they are in these circumstances what is called a consent authority. In other words if they have power over a land activity/development they may approve the activity or not with/without conditions) If they have no control over the activity then they cannot approve/disallow something they have no control over. It is something councils find hard to grasp at times. All LEPs in NSW are now basically the same with the same land zoning and what is allowed in each of these zones, what is prohibited and if it is not mentioned then they have no control of the activity. Sounds like the ranger was talking up what he wanted to do and talking down what he was actually able to do. And the NSW Land & Environment Court has again reinforced this view in regards to what councils may or may not have power over. They just at times have great difficulty grasping the idea that they don't make all the rules all the time and there is actually a higher authority that can over rule them. Comes a lot of the time from the inexperience of the people you deal with.

Steve Without going into the particulars of the particular case I doubt whether most people have permission from their local council to breed dogs where they live as - Unless you live in an area zoned for a '..dog boarding, breeding, training establishment for commercial purposes..' then they are not allowed to and the council cannot give permission for an activity that is prohibited in their land zoning. The DogsNSW code for breeding covers the DPI Code of Management for Cats & Dogs and to comply with one you comply with the other. Then it all comes back to how a '. dog boarding, breeding, training establishment for commercial purposes..' is defined and councils take one definition, the Land & Environment Court has ruled there is a difference between these activities where it is commercial or non-commercial and I know which one the legislation will support.

Like I said you don't give up

Freedom of Information (Government Information Public Access Act - GIPA Act - NSW) only works for government bodies, not private enterprise. And it doesn't work if you give up - remember there is more than one way to skin a cat (apologies to cat lovers) You keep going until you find the right way - image the uproar in the press/TV if a minister was not responding to such a simple matter - they would draw the line that they would be no better in matters of much greater importance (relevantly speaking)

You keep going, and when you start lodging complaints with no reply or inadequate reply from the minister then you start opening up other options that all government departments come under because you are now dealing with the government not a private enterprise granted a right by the minister.

The DoH has an appeal mechanism for all their decisions. She needs to go past the local office about the procedure. Regarding the local council she needs to get some advice regarding the paperwork the council gave her saying she had a limited time to reduce the number of her dogs. Without seeing any of it they would have most likely mentioned the Local Environment Plan to her in the same breath as commercial breeder of dogs because she takes money. They may have mentioned their Local Council Orders saying there was a limit to the number of dogs a person could have - these order don't carry any enforceable restrictions with them in other words they aren't worth the paper they are written on. If they have imposed a limit on her dogs then it may have been done with the Local Government Act using Section 124 or 129 ?? (Can't remember exactly which) but that sets out a strict format that must be followed, they just don't turn up and say this is what is to happen or else.

If you have a complaint about the RSPCA in NSW then the only recourse you have is lodge a written complaint with the minister concerned who is responsible for them. He is the one that gives them their power to do what they do.