inez

I have certainly found taking puppies to the vet for vaccination is a pretty sure way to be bringing home Kennel cough, thats for sure. Most of the dogs there arent there for their vaccinations. Discovered after the event there were 2 dogs with kennel cough out the back and common aircondtining for the entire surgery, how stupid is that? Amazing how many vets wont even consider they might responsible for all the suddenly sick puppies. Only ever use a vet who will do them in your car rather than risk that.

If the poster is incapable of keeping their dog away from tangling someone then they really have a problem with both their eyesight and hands. I love the long lines, they are so easy to not only let the dog run but recall too in an emergancy. all you do is move your hand forward fast then press the button to lock the lead and move hand back to body and repeat. that shortens the lead by 3 foot at a time. Although as others have said, I would never use an off lead park. Especially potentially deadly for toy dogs, as the headlines so love to banner when it happens.

When I was a kid 1080 didnt exist but who ever was the serial baiter certainly had access to something lethal and it sure as eggs wasnt snail or rat bait. One piece of whatever was in that meat (it just looked like chunks of boiled meat. Who ever it was certainly threw it over our fence as well as everyone elses. I dont know if dad ever got it tested for whatever was in them. As I said. The only dogs that survived were the ones like ours, taught not to touch anything unless we gave it to them.

Isnt this a similar mentality to what is happening to registered dog breeders? http://www.farminguk.com/News/Farming-group-attacks-Charity-Commission-on-RSPCA-stance_24558.html Very interesting, so attitude problems among those running this organisation are not just occurring in Australia

Well this is Page 4 of the latest issue of Dogs NSW. Pretty much sums up what happend to the lady I know. Notice it says even 'advertising a single puppy as being commercial'. Council local environment plans (LEPS’s) An increasing number of our members are encountering significant difficulties with their councils in regard to management of their dogs in consideration of local LEP’s. Most of these plans are based on a NSW Government Standard Instrument which, through zoning and development controls, allows councils and other consent authorities to manage the ways in which land is used. Unfortunately the Standard Instrument which is being gradually adopted by most councils, included our hobby in the category of ‘animal boarding or training establishment’ and is defined as meaning a place at which the commercial boarding, breeding, keeping, maintaining, receiving or training of animals or birds is carried on. A key word in there is commercial and, although most of us know that we are not operating commercially, councils deem the whelping or advertising of a single puppy as being commercial. In the Standard Instrument, such activities are not permitted at all in most residential zones or even in rural zones without having lodged a development application. This is totally unrealistic given that hobby dog breeding is a pastime enjoyed internationally and, most certainly, across all of our own local government areas, in both residential and rural allotments. The particular council that has to date been giving members the most grief has recently advised one our members in the following terms. • 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. Isnt it being said the Taskforce hasnt even released its findings? Let alone made law yet? How much worse can it get then?

You really should get it tested. From time immorial there are people who set baits. I well remember as a child and teen we lived in the suburbs and had to train our dogs to never eat anything we did not give them. Our dogs lived long lives. Many of our neighbours dogs were baited and died, whoeveer it was would not just leave baits in the streets and parks but throw them over the fences to the dogs that were kept at home.

Enough toy breed puppies die from the c3, add kennel cough to an under 12 to 16 week toy breed and you double the death rates. But then it does effieciently cull the number of surviving puppies? Is that the idea?

I think you have it.

I agree its VERY bad regulation - best practice is much more about outcome-based regulation, customer focus and cost-effective compliance. Not this tick-the-box input-based crappola. It reads like they want to be able to prosecute anyone at any time, so put a lot of detailed requirements the average person will not keep documentation on - where are your dog feeding receptacles and disinfectants stored? dogs in house? - where is your last carpet cleaning receipt? why wasn't your dietary plan reviewed and signed of by a vet according to schedule? It's rubbish governance, anal-retentive, inefficent and ineffective. love this turn of phrase. Yes. Adorable Isnt it. Havent they been doing that already ?

is confusing me a little because we recently had all our dogs vaccinated for heartworm... Do you mean there is no vaccination available in Vic or we just shelled out about $150 per pop for a non-existent vaccination? The injection your dog recieved is not a vaccination. It is a slow release pellet. It kills a percentage of dogs but who cares about that. certinly culls anything that cant tolerate it. I think? its been banned in the USA for that reason. Trouble is how many of these high brows formulating these laws actually ever bred a dog in their life. Or even have one as a pet?

NO it is not cruel to show a debarked dog. It is against the law to show a dog born in victoria and belongs to a Victorian resident to be shown IF it was debarked in another state. Its perfectly fine for the same debarked dog to be showin in Victoria if the owner is resident of another state. OR the victorian dog belonging to the victorian resident was debarked by the RSPCA or prof it was debarked by having its thoat cut to debark it. As for "powerless" give us a break. She showed on that program how "powerless" they are. I bet she will never live that day down. Just as they can "form the opinion" and seize anything. Not supposed to show their hand, it is far better to do nothing and cry "powerless". Look how effective it is in getting even more.

With the recommendations being considered on listings here, you wont be able to sell more than 4 litters in one year so why keep 10? Even if its legal so far. If Troy feels no one other than a puppy farmer would breed more than 4 litters, I expect this will be the opinion across the board in a very short time. It will be interesting to see how fast registrations will fall then. Last I saw, it ways there are only 6,000 members now. Looks what I read is incorrect."If the reference no's on the online response form are anything to go by only 980 people have responded to the taskforce response paper since my son did his over a week ago. Come on people, fill in the form & send them in. With Dogs NSW saying they have 7000 member email addresses, that is not good enough IMHO. Although I'm not a breeder, I don't want my choice of puppy from a pure bred registered dog breeder restricted because most of them can't afford to keep breeding. " If they can only ethically produce 4 litters, the toy breeds only produce 1 to 4 pups, although the big breeds 6 to 16. Might make interesting figures. If out of 6,000 members the year 2012 produced 60,000 pups. so thats 10 pups per member. An awful lot already arent producing even 10 pups in any given year already? Although it certainly will ensure few if any could end up in a pound. Most people wont be able to source one anyway.

here is the video. What isnt on film is described by those who were there, in the Ebook Ruth Downey Inquisition . They were chased around a PADDOCK and shot on the run. They were not yarded and shot in a race where at least a chance of keeping them still for a correctly placed shot. The photo of him shooting the now downed cow is the paddock they were killed in and the remaining cattle to be despatched were out of range whatching. In the case of that cow, she certainly already had a minimum of one shot in her to bring her down before he is preparing another to finish her off. That would not be acceptable overseas. The written account says "Ashton positioned himself at the gate to the YARD with his rifle after they had all the cattle and calves inside. Two of his execution squad, like Nazi storm troopers marching Jews past machine gunners, did the same with each cow for Ashton to shoot it. One cow bolted past Ashton, but he brought her down, with the telescopic sight to assist. The run was a fine effort for a cow that the RSPCA CLASSIFIED as too starved to stand up. Unable to kill the cow with his first shot shown in the picture above, and from such a short distance - ASHTON needed to go over and shoot her in the head with another shot" So that would be the black cow being shown to be dispatched in the video photo. That is totally against recomendations for Humane Slaugher. Let alone calling it Euthanesia. "One Jersey cow, shot by Ashton, was still lifting her hind legs, while trying to lift her head, for around 10 minutes after the first shot. She continued this action as Ashton shot another 4 or 5 cows that lay dead around her. She was still trying to get up; then Ashton shot her again." This again is what was in the Indonesian videos and the Laverton ones. Where is the difference in breaking the law? Yet the CEO is on record as describing them as "walking dead". Not their finest hour. http://cairnsnews.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/the-ruth-downey-inquisition-1.pdf

I wasnt offended I doubt anyone was. Although the blame game is one of the major reasons less and less people are interested in breeding.

And this I agree with, sure. But if there was no merit to the tests, why would they be done? They are the best early indicator available, I assume. Sadly they are the only one. AND now its been discovered beyond doubt that nutrition is very much involved. I will try to find the link, but an experiment proved that low bodyweight in the growing pups and throughout life halves the incidence of HD in full siblings. also significntly prolongs healty life and onset of arthritis in old age.

As quite a few of my friends who have bought or bred their Golden retriever/german shepherd/ labrador, etc have learned, clear hip scored parents do not a clear pup guarantee. Same for Patella. The great news is you can blame the breeder, but which breeder? The one who in many cases bought the mum from another, used a top quality male or had one themselves, either way both parents checked and clear. Some who have generations can show you clear vet checks for up to 3 and 4 generations. Today no one accepts responsiblity for bad luck or bad judgement, eg the husky that was shot. As one vet has put on the net. NO one can guarantee faults cannot appear no matter how well the parents, grand parents and even great grand parents passed their vet checks. Even Clear DNA can still have a mutation. How do you think downes syndrome appears? The aging egg can develop a fault and the downes child is born, the fault is now heridatory, Do you really think dna changes only occured in ageing women? 9,999 deletrius and more genes exist, so far there are how many DNA tests for faulty genes? A dozen? If we expect perfection in any new arrival, the bad news is, an awful lot of people are going to be dissapointed. My friends baby has two holes in its heart and awaiting life saving surgery if they dont close themselves while the baby is being stabalised. If that baby was a pup heaven help the person who bred it, in todays climate. Most DNA damage the embroyo doesnt survive, but when it does, who is unethical? The owner of the mother? Or mother nature? Reality is in very short supply today .

They arrived with small rivers??!! Cow killing rivers - sorry couldn't help self, especially after reading just above about copywrite and copyright Yes. You have an excellnt point. If he cant get the spelling right. Make a joke of the message. I get the idea the person who wrote it, English is not their first language.

On the subject of freedom of information. Saw links to this on another forum, if the figures given are correct as the last sentence says "But on the other side whoever is running the financial operations of the RSPCA (NSW) is doing a fantastic job, it won’t be long before they are totally independent from donations." Wonder if this chap will be the next sued for defamation? http://judicialwatch.org.au/article/the-mal-davies-e-book-affair After the quite substantial injustice that was perpetrated on Ms Ruth Downey, the editor of a small country internet blog co-wrote a document in titled "The Ruth Downey Inquisition" in regards to the Local Court action. This self described "E-Book" was written to highlight the action taken by the RSPCA (NSW) and was subsequently the bases of Supreme Court action in defamation. The 57 page document seems to be written by the editor and founder of the SOSNews.org website under the pseudonym of Mal Davies and with help from Mr Downey's sister – Ellen Ash. This document was obviously written under high emotion stress by someone with little legal knowledge, although Mr Davies claimes to have helped investigate white-collar crime and prepare court briefs, although he has spelt copyright as "copywrite" throughout the document. I sincerely hope it wasn't he who advised Ms Downey to use the legal representative she did. This document basically blames the RSPCA for the injustice that occurred and uses quite colourful language to describe the actions of the RSPCA. It highlights the high cost of the local court action and dogmatic nature of the RSPCA to unilaterally be the judge, jury and executor of Ms Downey's cattle. As much as I might personally agree that the RSPCA arrived at Ms Downey's farm without a truck to transport the cattle away to another carer, but only with riffles and police with the pre-expectation of destroying the cattle. Against this predetermined outcome, Ms Downey had no chance to review or appeal Inspector Ashton’s judgment, because I certainly believe that only cattle too weak to stand or move should have been destroyed and I don’t think that would have been an unique position. The document goes into great details about the visits of the RSPCA and mentions very little about the Local Court case or the evidence used against Ms Downey. It goes on to shows some heartbreaking images of sad cows being shot in a manner where other cows could see what was happening, what was going to happen to them and without stunning prior to slaughter. Scenes not that much dissimilar to the video obtained by Lyn White of Indonesian slaughter yards that the RSPCA used to shut down the live trade. At the end of the document, it goes into the financial dealings of the RSPCA and the high cost of the Local Court action. It looks at another two similar actions taken by the RSPCA and draws the tendency for the RSPCA to use its president's law firm and another of its director as legal counsel. Finally questioning whether or not as a not-for-profit organisation it spending donor's money in a manner in which it has been donated for. The Defamation Proceedings The NSW Supreme Court action for defamation was not contested by Mal Davies. It's interesting that it was not in District Court, as it is well within its jurisdiction and additionally as an uncontested matter I would have expected it would have been handled by a default judgement. Also it’s interesting to point out that this Supreme Court matter was handled by one Counsel and not three as the Local Court action. The matter claimed that the document contained the following defamatory imputations: - RSPCA NSW needlessly destroys animals; RSPCA NSW is a cruel organisation in that it executed healthy cows for no reason; RSPCA NSW killed Ruth Downey's cows in an inhumane manner; RSPCA NSW has misconducted itself in that it has prosecuted farmers for the purpose of paying legal fees to its own directors and former officers Andrew Wozniak and Paul O'Donnell; RSPCA NSW is a corrupt organisation that misuses donations made to it by the public; RSPCA NSW, an organisation established to promote animal welfare, has misconducted itself in that it does not act to promote animal welfare. From RSPCA 2006 Annual Report In an affidavit by Mr Stephen John Coleman, the Chief Executive Officer of the RSPCA who stated that the plaintiff is a charity funded primarily through bequests and fundraising (point 5 of the judgement). Although the RSPCA's own annual report shows that the majoring of its income comes from its commercial operation of the shelters and members (~46%) and the second major source of funding comes from its investment portfolio and trust funds (legacies) (~42%). In reality only about 12% of the RSPCA's operating expenses are covered by charitable donations and fundraising (~$7.2 million). The organisation grew from $62,812,415 to $74,879,110 in the financial year ending 2011, meaning it bank a profit of $12 million, which shows the RSPCA could have operated without donations and fundraising. In the financial year ending 2011, the RSPCA had $27.5 million in financial assets (stocks and bonds) and $42 million in property, plants and equipment. Income from investing activities totalled $11.9 million, while income from financing activities was $2.7 million. Sales income from members and customers was $23.5 million. In terms of cash, the RSPCA has more money in financial trading than its annual spend on shelters. Also within the annual reports, it mentions that there are "transactions between related parties are on normal commercial terms and conditions no more favourable than those available to other parties. Mr O'Donnell provides legal services to the Society. Dr Write, at times, provides veterinary and consulting services." Now the first thing I noticed that this statement has changed to remove the notice given about Mr Andrew Wozniak, and am unsure if this means that the RSPCA has stop using services from Smythe Wozniak Solicitors, or not. This notice conforms to the usual notice given to shareholders about related party transactions, but as a not-for-profit organisation where many of its donors would not read the annual report, it is questionable whether this has discharged the director’s duty to inform related parties. Here I would look towards government protocols about heads of departments and their prohibition on the use of related services. The annual report also lists under the heading "key management personal compensation" of "Post employment benefits" of $187,681. These payments are likely going to ex-directors and ex-senior management for some unbeknown reason. Being paid once employees leave the RSPCA almost seems like a "gray-train" and I would expect more details in an annual report to explain these payments. If any payment is going to Mr Wozniak directly or indirectly through his law firm, then I would expect him to also be listed in the related transactions discloser. This case does leave me wondering if donors knew that the RSPCA spent a quarter of a million dollars on a local court prosecution of a 71 year old single farmer, would they believe it was a good use of their money, or would they have preferred the RSPCA to spend that money on moving the cattle to an additional feed lot - keeping the animals alive. Justice Latham granted $100,000 plus interest in damages and an order to remove the article from the SOSNews.org website, although it has shown up on another site. The judgement does not test the truth of the Mal Davies article or the truth of Mr Coleman&'s affidavit in claiming the reliance of the RSPCA on charitable donations and fundraising. Conclusion This matter is very scary for any internet blogger who criticises the judicial system. Even though the judicial system is part of all State and Federal Constitutions, and as such would be covered by the political free speech – it's still scary. And the fact that Latham J didn't give a default judgment, nor vigorously test the evidence is scary as well. But on the other side whoever is running the financial operations of the RSPCA (NSW) is doing a fantastic job, it won’t be long before they are totally independent from donations.

Is it correct or scare mongering , that the proposed legislation if passed means that the ankc's will hand over all information as to members names, address and all details about their dogs? I know many people feel this is an unacceptable invasion of privacy. Especially laughable after watching the news last night, that a council had to switch off their ctv cameras because one citizen took it to court that they are an invasion of privacy. Particulry in the light of the fact the mongrel who killed the abc lady would never have been caught without the footage showing him acosting her?

As their own TV program showed, they unlike the police do not need a search warrant to enter your property or your house to do so. In that program she found an partly open window, went in and took the dog, leaving a notice of seizure on the door as she left. As I recall, think she explained as long as she believed the dog was in need of rescue or seizure she could enter the house legally as long as she could find an open window. No idea of which episode in question. There sure were some pretty stunned viewers in my neighbourhood, they were far from impressed. Then wasnt there the one where one saw a dog though the window, got in and discovered it was a statue? The Koala Park at forget where, all filmed by their TV crew, was their most famous raid and seizure without warning. Didnt two of them die ? In the case of the taken dog I think it was returned that afternoon or the next day as it turned out to be fine. Anyone else remember the episode? As for the sheep chasing episode, no country kid would be able to sit down to dinner for a week, let alone have dinner before they were sent to bed. If they were filmed chasing a full wool sheep like that pack of complete giggling idiots. What the producers think is acceptable footage could get anyone else charged with aggravated cruelty? I remember there was a whole thread about that one.

Easy to answer, All a special constable needs is to "form the opinion" the animal in question in its "best interests" should be seized and taken to their own vet to be assessed and or treated. Its in the legislation, cant remember the number n such that matches.

I have seen dogs whose owners tell me straight to my eye, are staffordshire bull terriers that come to my knee at the shoulder. I know they are either lying or duped by the puppy seller.

Better 20 calls then none, all thinking someone else has though........dreadful to see, that poor man.

So? Are you comfortable with the RSPCA making sure as many animals as possible are destroyed rather than rehomed? Is that not the original subject of this thread? Inez, I have asked a question. If you don't know the answer, that's fine, but your chest heaving indignation at me asking a question is pointless. Answer it, don't answer it, but ditch the strop. Sincere apologies. I did not realise you never need to answer a question, only to ask them.

Excellent point. One other thing just about completely missing from every puppy add is the price. So without phoning and asking the newbie probably perhaps? Is assuming they are going to cost more than a pet shop or a trading post, gumtree or wherever. Is that a good or a bad omission, never thought of it before your question.