iffykharma

Will update with link when I find it... Doggone hectic - RSPCA gears up to desex 401 seized puppies Brian Williams 14 April 2010 The Courier-Mail Copyright 2010 News Ltd. All Rights Reserved THE RSPCA has started the biggest single animal desexing job in its history, with operations beginning this week on 401 dogs from a puppy farm. Veterinarians are so busy with the desexing, the RSPCA has moved its rural mobile desexing unit back to Brisbane to help out. Most of the dogs will be offered for re-housing two to three days after they are desexed. The RSPCA became overloaded overnight in September last year, when Biosecurity Queensland raided a puppy farm at Wondai in the South Burnett. The dogs were moved to the RSPCA shelter at Fairfield in Brisbane and within days their number had grown by 30 as bitches whelped. Vets found a further 40 dogs were pregnant. Many of the dogs had ear and eye problems, hook worm, ticks and fleas. The nails on some had never been clipped, although they were well fed. Some had to be put down because of health problems. Their arrival prompted an overwhelming response by foster carers, who have been looking after the dogs ever since. The puppy farm owners have since agreed to the dogs' forfeiture, allowing desexing and re-homing to begin. Because the dogs are spread far and wide, people seeking a pet can fill out an expression of interest on the RSPCA website from today, rather than calling at the shelter. Staff will try to place animals directly from foster homes. Although Biosecurity has been paying about $3000 a day for the animals' care, the influx had strained RSPCA resources. RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty said the issue had become a logistical puzzle for staff. ``For starters, we've never had such a huge desexing job,'' Mr Beatty said. ``It's a nightmare and will be going on for months. The mobile unit is normally used for cats but we have brought it back to handle smaller dogs. As well, we have all the other animals to desex and find homes for.'' Puppy farm breeds range from miniature dachshunds to poodles, chihuahuas and labradors. Foster carers have elected to keep about 100 dogs while a further 100 have special needs, such as a lack of confidence, bad eyes, teeth, hips and skin. The RSPCA is picking up the bill for desexing.

Ams, is this by any chance your little foster chap? Zeb

That's the open-ended nature of the present Act in Qld. Which means councils can add what they like in respect to dog breeds. So negotiation with the State Gov Dpt re ensuring Amstaffs don't get caught up in the 'restricted' list....as a result of the Tango Supreme Court decision...doesn't impact on what the councils decide to do. True. Which means the next step must be to get the State Government to legislate that Council's may not ban breeds but must take appropriate action against individual dogs, and their owners, where those dogs present a clear danger to society. By that I mean, take action against individual dogs by declaring them as dangerous in response to specific incidents, and monitoring those dogs and their owners to ensure they cannot cause harm to another animal or human. This of course must be done in conjunction with programs that promote and support responsible ownership, etc, etc, etc.

My understanding from the last newspaper article is that she is at the Dakabin shelter, getting healthy and gaining weight. I don't know whether the woman charged with abuse has, or has to, relinquish ownership, or what Indy's current ownership status is. I don't think the article said anything about it.

I'm sure there must have been more to it, but I just had a vision of a radio segment where all you could hear was a currently popular dance song (or maybe You're the One That I Want from the Grease soundtrack) with the occasional gasp and applause from the audience.

The formal decision has been posted on the Queensland Courts website. I haven't read it in detail yet and will probably have to read it a couple of times to fully understand it. However, I suggest that this is probably the best place to get information about what evidence the judge has relied on in making the decision. It seems that some of what was put forward by those appealing the GCCC's decision may not have actually worked in their favour, but as I said, I haven't read it in detail yet. Here 'tis. http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2010/QSC10-098.pdf

They are all the same. No need to paint them with different brushes, they all like to get money from free advertising when they can. I've been gone from DOL for years and still remember CLifford, but he could have easily have been from QLD - except he would have been deemed a dangerous dog by Logan before he took a second breath. Actually, they really aren't all the same. The recent thread about the RSPCA in ACT is a good example. I wasn't on DOL during the Clifford incident, but I've read and heard enough to have an idea of why he is referenced in these kinds of cases and why people feel so strongly about him and how the RSPCA in NSW misused him. But I would point out that the RSPCA QLD hasn't been out drumming up donations using Indy as poster child. The only reference in the papers has been when she was originally found and when the woman allegedly responsible for her condition, and the condition of a couple of other dogs, was charged. I don't think there isn't even a media release on the RSPCA Qld web site about it. As for whether she will be able to be eventually rehomed, who knows. Given her condition when found, who knows what she has suffered and what her temperament is like. I don't have any first hand knowledge of her and have never even been out to the Dakabin shelter. I am confident though that the behaviourists and animal attendants on staff will do everything they can to help her get well and be rehomed. But if she isn't suitable for rehoming then the right thing and the kindest thing is for her to be given her wings. And at least she will have known some love and security before she goes.

Some very good news. A woman has been changed. And the dog, Indy, is putting on weight. Brisbane Times article. A Petrie woman has been charged over a shocking case of animal cruelty north of Brisbane in February. 'Indy', an 18-month-old female boxer cross, was delivered to the RSPCA's Dakabin shelter on February 25 so badly starved she was hours from death. Lethargic and disoriented, Indy was also excreting milk, suggesting she recently gave birth to a litter of pups. A woman, 36, was charged on Friday with failing to provide food and water to Indy and two other dogs, an adult and a puppy mastiff cross, that were found on her property. She will appear in Pine Rivers Magistrates Court on May 14. RSPCA inspector Travis Cooper said the dogs were recovering well in the Dakabin shelter. "Indy in particular has put on a considerable amount of weight and that's just from being on a good conventional diet and worming program," he said. "She's put on nearly five kilos in the past couple of weeks and I guess that's indicative of the fact that she wasn't receiving that in the past." Mr Cooper said a tip-off from the public led to the charges being laid. "The RSPCA are very grateful for the response that we received and because of some particular information that we did receive, we were able to track down the owners," he said. Mr Cooper said early reports that the dog was thrown from a moving vehicle proved to be incorrect. Mr Cooper said two other cruelty cases in the Moreton Bay area - the shooting death of Doug the joey koala and an attempted castration of a American Staffordshire terrier with a cable tie - remained unsolved. Anyone with information on those cases is asked to phone the RSPCA on 1300 852 188.

Oh my word! I cannot believe that decision. I hope there is an avenue of appeal - and that there are funds to bring it... This is madness. ;) ETA I've just read the article again which says it was the last appeal. I do hope that isn't the case, or that there are grounds to appeal to the full bench of the Supreme Court or something.

Courier Mail article The Court of Appeal in Brisbane was refusing an appeal by Frederick Dart and Megan Ann Hajridin who a magistrate originally fined $12,500 each after pleading guilty to the 131 charges of breaches of care. Dart and Hajridin also were ordered to pay the RSPCA $57,161 for costs incurred in both caring for the seized animals and the cost of the prosecution. It followed a combined RSPCA and police raid on their Calcium property, near Townsville, in July 2008. The court heard 113 dogs, a cat, 488 rats, 73 mice, 12 guinea pigs and 11 birds were taken from the property by RSPCA officers. In the Magistrates Court, the RSPCA alleged the animals were kept in small cages piled up three and four high in the defendants' 12m by 6m shed. It was further alleged many had little or no water and there were faeces and urine on the floor and bedding. Dart and Hajridin appealed to the District Court and a judge found costs were too high and reduced them to $45,000. The judge also reduced each fine to $5000 and directed a two-year probation and prohibition on owning or trading in animals remained in place. However, Dart and Hajridin then went to the Court of Appeal seeking orders the RSPCA be prevented from disposing of the confiscated animals and to stay some orders made in the District Court appeal. They alleged the RSPCA inspectors were acting beyond their powers when executing a search warrant and by bringing the case in the Magistrates Court had acted fraudulently. However, in a unanimous judgment today the Court of Appeal refused the application. Justice Peter Lyons said Dart and Hajridin had failed to establish any real prospect of being successful on appeal and not shown any reason to stay the District Court orders.

Thanks for posting Ams - very well said. I've only had a very small amount to do with the Wondai dogs - I've helped out with grooming the puppies and adults a few times - those residing in the shelter and those on foster who are brought back to the shelter specifically for grooming, which is all done by volunteers, a few of whom are there twice a week, every week to try and keep up with demand.

Doesn't add up does it. The article doesn't say anywhere how old the puppies are. It doesn't say anything about puppies still having to be weaned. It just describes what the process is to demonstrate how many foster homes have been required. ETA The issue really is the number of adult dogs still being housed in the shelter - that they would like to get out into foster homes. Even if they can now be desexed and put up for adoption, they will do much better and be in better condition mentally and physically if they have an opportunity to get out of the shelter and into foster for a period of time.

I want to get some Rear Gear for Charlie - I'm thinking Biohazard, maybe Sheriff...

A daunting situation to be in. I really feel for what you are going through. Contact the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal for advice. Your should be able to go through a mediation process before having to lodge a dispute. This really is worthwhile doing. If you can't reach agreement that way lodge a formal dispute. If it isn't resolved in a way that allows you to keep Coco, do as Mita has suggested and contact PAWS (or whichever rescue Coco came from) as they should help find a new home. They may also be able to arrange foster care while it gets sorted out. Good luck.

And if you were to appeal that fine on those grounds, it would probably be waived.

Such a horrible thing to have happen. Poor Mini. And I really feel for the kids who saw it happen. The truly scary thing is the dog could have gone for the kids instead. But what has really struck me, in this case and in other recent stories about similar incidents, is how much more common sense people are demonstrating in the comments section of stories. I'm seeing a lot less "those dogs should be banned" and a lot more "those owners are responsible". Or is it just me seeing this? Maybe there's hope for us yet.

True. But lots of dog owners, maybe most, don't have half a clue when they bring their dogs home. I include myself among their number. Most people just learn as they go and are lucky if the learning process doesn't cost them thousands in vet bills along the way. You would think that a $4000 vet bill would be a sufficient teaching experience, but then it takes all types to make a world.

We have just had a 16 page discussion on that subject, and it is very clear that the person that started this thread is not at fault. I agree, and RL's neighbours apparently also agree, but at this point I don't think it actually matters much. And I think we have two completely separate issues here now. The first is whether RL feels he should contribute to the Vet bill or offer some other kind of contribution. The second is that the neighbours haven't fixed the gap. I don't think one necessarily has anything to do with the other. If RL feel's that he wants to make a some contribution to the vet expenses, or to toys or whatever to help the puppy through the recovery period, then he should do that. That was RL's initial gut reaction and I think it demonstrates the kind of person and the kind of neighbour he is. It doesn't need to be huge and RL doesn't need to go into hock over it. The fact the neighbours haven't done anything about fixing the gap under the fence shouldn't be a consideration in that. The second issue is that RL's neighbours haven't done anything to block the gap. In the interests of RL protecting his dog from being in a similar situation with the puppy I think RL should just go ahead and try to block any puppy sized gaps from his side of the fence... Is it fair? NO. Should he have to? NO. But that will be small comfort if the puppy goes back over to the fence while not being supervised, RL's dog goes over to investigate, puppy sticks its leg through the gap and RL's dog grabs it in play or whatever... another trip to the Pet ER etc and more worry for RL about whether they will complain about his dog to Council... RottyLover, don't get caught up over their responsibility as dog owners. If you are worried about something happening again, if you can see how another incident may happen and have any concern that it may cause trouble for you and your dog, then you owe it to your dog and yourself to try and prevent it from happening if you can. Hope you can figure it out for yourself and aren't stressing to much about it. Good luck.

Two things 1st - If its the ER at Albany Creek, I think it is also a specialist centre, so a bill like that in a few days wouldn't be unusual. 2nd - being back to his normal self doesn't necessarily mean "healed". I'm sure you've all had a broken bone, or known someone who's had a broken bone, or had a animal with a broken bone, who after the first few weeks are getting around pretty much like normal but with a few restrictions. I don't see this as being suspicious. And in my experience, limited as it may be, animals are far more resilient than people. RottyLover, hope you are able to come to a decision for yourself that feels right. Given what they've said to you they sound like reasonable people. Don't over-think it. If you're a handy sort of person, offer to help them mend the fence. If you feel you really want to contribute some funds towards the bill, write a cheque with a note or card and keep a photocopy of both for your records. Good luck!

Just go to the individual state websites and download their annual reports. All their figures are published for anyone to see.

My aunt was told by her vet last year about a new product available which contains no sedation and acts on the vomit reflex in the brain. It's Called Cerenia. At the time it was via injection, and my aunt was told tablets would be available very soon. Ok, just found this on the Pfizer Animal Health site. Looks like tablets are now available.

I had my dog Charlie done last year. I didn't send a photo and the results came back as Shih tzu / Maltese - but distant (in the second level I think, don't have the results in front of me). Which from the look of Charlie seems pretty accurate - he looks like an oversized Maltese x. I think I paid $125 for it at the time and I note on the BITSA site they donate 20% of all BITSA tests purchased to Lort Smith. I suspect your vet is just a distributor for BITSA so if you want to get it done maybe call BITSA direct and check their current price. Honestly, if you have a cross breed and a spare $140 it is kinda fun to see what might be in him. And who knows, maybe that Dane does have a mini poodle great grandpa!!!

Every state RSPCA operates differently. I would love to see Government take over enforcement and prosecution of the various animal protection acts. I just can't see them being willing to do it (ie front up the money, resources and manpower) without a fight. Hopefully the results of the SA review will lead to some changes being adopted there and in other states.

Iffykarma, Puck was laying out in 50C+ temps. But Whippets DO feel the cold. 50+ for a Whippet is probably like 30 for a normal dog, right

Bloody Victorians. 24 degrees isn't HOT. Now if she was out on a 34 degree day, I might think she was a little feeble-minded!