asal

gee steve your game, trying to educate the masses? dont think they are going to like being reminded fur babies arent human

yep i will never stop offering that drink. silly, u just jump em and hold em under the water till u think they swallowed enough, isnt that whats peta doing to the sheep industry, cease museling by 2010 or you cant sell the wool? doent seem to be a problem with em that unless the sheep are born bare breeched a full breeched unmulsed sheep faces being eaten alive by maggots? they didnt get the nickname maggot taxies, by accident but hey its for the GREATER GOOD. n sure one fast way to eliminate full breeched sheep from the gene pool. suffering???? what u say???? they are "sufering" for the GREATER GOOD. SO THEY CAN DIE CONTENT cant they?

AWESOME THANKS SO MUCH

Yes, it is all designed to deter people from breeding dogs. Oscars Law included. We have been branded as lunatics touting conspiracy theories, but we are not. We are thinking people who know that there will be not much other than mutts and generic brown dogs in the future, and probably riddled with inherited diseases that will all be blamed back on to those "terrible dog breeders". Politicians will run with the issue that will sell well on the telly to a believing public. Add plenty of emotion to it and voila, it is a vote winner! They are not interested in the future of good dogs. Well, they might be when they find that they can no longer buy a cocker spaniel, a corgi, or some of the breeds with lesser numbers. Then we dog breeders who still have a couple of specimens of a particular breed can go public, get a high profile person alongside, and raise funds for the endangered species ....... just like the animal libbers are doing right now for their cause. Wonder how much money they collected at the rally ...... Souff I believe Oscars Law was used by animal libbers to try and stop the breeding of ALL dogs. The pet owning public fell for it. With no thought to the fact that they were actually depriving themselves of the very dogs they thought they came to protect. If there are NO breeders of dogs where will YOU get your next dog ?. talking to the organiser of this rally for a long time, no that is not true at all! they target farms and it was about FARMS. registered breeders are not mentioned in all of this. :rolleyes: read prisoner for profit website and you will see what im talking about. prisoners for profit That may have been the original intentions but we are all aware it did not end up that way. ok so where is the evidence then, is there something in the background thats going on that most of us are not aware off???? just asking an question??? ETA: do you mean RSPCA turned it into something else, probably stating the obvious, dn't mean to sound dumb. wasnt the law about prosecuting those who debarked or tail docked supposed to to stop puppy farmers? yet its Judy Guard facing 42 charges for exhibiting? how many puppy farmers exhibit? but hey she's facing what is it? in excess of 84 years in jail? nnnnn if i recall correctly all this came about because she rehomed one of her dogs to a pet home. n the vet the new owner took it too for a check up spotted it was debarked - learned it had been shown----- n the wheels rolled into motion. so! how is this animal loving, sooooo caring vet, reward the whistle blowing pooch? did i not see a post that because said pooch didnt adore said vet on sight, get declared to be unsocalised and pay with its life being terminated?????? anyone know this doggies name? maybe its name should be the one attached to the new law so desperately needed, the appeal process that still 20 years after powers to seize were enacted, forgot the one for an avenue for appeal?? call it after this little dog and maybe in concunction with the names of some of ruth downeys cows. weird isnt it. the right of reprieve is available for a murderer, but not for our animals that fall into the control of the rspca?

Do you think that is the argument? Don't you think it matters who I let into my home and what they are looking for? btw to inspect you need guidelines right? So if you have an idea about what is an acceptable and unacceptable argument do you have an idea about how to define what a breeders home (nay facility) should look like? and what is okay and not okay to do with my dogs? ie: how I keep them, where they sleep, conditions etc? Also are the dogs inspected? see above come back with a definition for me. + what jdavis said: Would you want the person doing the inspection to belong to an organisation that already thinks you are doing the wrong thing? If it was an independent government organisation doing the inspection it wouldn't be an issue, but the RSPCA have already made their views on breeders clear. The health department sends an inspector to check your bakery you have a way to appeal their decisions. The RSPCA decided you are doing the wrong thing they take your dogs, charge you an arm and a leg, if they get their way you have to pay their kennel fees upfront, and then they injure and kill your dogs and you have no recourse. Would you want that? Imagine someone who doesn't like you has unstoppable power over you, would you give them the ammo to use? of course you would if you dont your "unethical" remember the ones who think they are so ethical are too dumb to realise, not matter how precious and ethical they (think they) are its not going to protect them . to the likes of donnelly, your scum i can remember my mum setting us kids up for our vaccinations. no way she was going to be embarrassed by her kids kicking and screaming they dont want a bloody great needle shoved into them. so what does she do? do you want to get sick? muggins says 'NO" "well this needle will stop you being sick and maybe ending up in hospital." do you want to risk ending up in hospital? muggins say "no" so will u be good and let the nice nurse/doctor give u the needle? n all her little muggins chorus "yes" so there we stand shaking in our boots, not a single one wants that jab, but we'd been primed. we all stood like lambs to the slaugher. ok still get my shots... but its in the butt. no agonised arms for me anymore. well i want the butt shot.....i want accountabality before i stand still for any more "shots" anywere, any way before any power surged mongrel enteres my home again n the only way that can be prevented is? no animals you dont have any other options as it stands now

Well it soon will not be a problem for you, the large scale breeding facilities will be inspected and any small breeders that are still around. Now if you are buying a puppy from an inspected and approved large scale breeding facility, I am not sure if you as the buyer will be able to visit the mum and pups. Play with them, temperament test the litter and have weekly updates and discussions about the pups as they grow with their breeder like you might have done in the past with a home breeders. Which BTW would have given you ample time to scrutinize how the pups and dogs were managed in the breeders home. But I am sure the staff member on duty that day at the facility will be able to answer any questions you have. You will also know that the large scale breeding facility has passed inspection and is approved to breed and sell puppies. So it seems you will have ample opportunity to get a pup from an inspected source. For the greater good. I'm not all that interested in made up hypotheticals...... I was hoping for an answer to the questions posed intersting thinking? so when was the last time Harvey Normans owner had his home inspected, Dick Smith for that matter? or do u mean if a dog owner actually wished their home not to be raided. do not keep your dogs at home? rent a shop? warehouse? industrial area? for the purpose? seems a sensible idea. so if your home is not to be expected to be " transparent, open to scrutiny and open to inspection." you dont keep any or sell anyliving organisms . ie dogs, cats or any other form of animal life? i had already come to that conclusion

ooops forgot, the other despicable crime is like to give newbies a start and let em have main registration so they can hopefully become members and contribute to the future of their chosen breed. as we now know.. ethical breeders dont do that..... only pets on limit now was told recently if i promise to never sell on main register again, n did so, that all will be forgiven... except that conversation took place before i got the warning call all bets are off again.

go back to my rock n wait to see who of the precious ends up here begging for help down the track........lol....you too will have become a witch how sad

what makes me a puppy farmer? i do not show. it is even then the new unwritten law. you must show or you are a puppy farmer. why worry about adding anything else it aint necessary surely thats enough? phil burgess didnt show, she was a puppy farmer, yet decades later the very people who pillaried her were heard boasting they had found an elfreda to add to their kennel. odd it was a good dog when they owned it but not when its breeder did?

you dont get it do u? the knight in shining armour believes i am a puppy farmer. to be destroyed at all costs AND if as u say "it could still happen" why do u need more legislation then? its already useable, to search n seize ?

you dont get it do u? the knight in shining armour believes i am a puppy farmer. to be destroyed at all costs

ok? you are asking the government to enact more and more powers for WHO to close down puppy farms? the department of agriculture? the veterinary association of australia? the relevant canine councils? the police? somehow i suspct the answer to every single one of em is a no? soooo who is going to roll over the bad guys that u have in mind unless it is the rspca already rolling when they choose too?

the relavance is the fact a perfectly healthy dog was taken, no i repeat NO AVENUE OF APPEAL FOR HIS RETURN BEFORE BEING SACRIFICED to a conviction at any cost to the dog. that was 1999. NOTHING HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE SINCE yet you say the RSPCA do not have enough powers of seizure? in 1999 all an inspector has to do IS "FORM THE OPINION" THE DOG NEEDS URGENT VETERINARY CARE AND SIEZE IT. nothing has changed. if they could seize a perfectly healthy dog in 1999 and ignore a decades of experience vet. where is the powers they lack that need beefing up?? yet you and they are seeking MORE power in the name of "protecting" the dogs? there was no "protection" for my dog. what makes u think they need more power? they have it. they just dont use it, unless it suits them at the time. n when you say "hey this place is dreadful do something" get told they cant, they "dont have the power" well they sure did when it was a favor for a friend

What a surpise..NOT! i mean that is just stupidity, these people dont' know what they are talking about, the farm gets inspected by councillors they've all visited the premises and the dogs as far as everyone is concerned are being looked after, well cared for and they are following all legislation. so legislation and more of it will do nothing to help shut down these farms like the one i am talking about. they even invite school groups in there and the schools support them as a good puppy farm and the councillors see nothing wrong with them....there are many photos to prove this is not correct. meanwhile workers have said that all these bad things happens to the dogs behind closed doors. many have witnessed on the open day. so how is legislation going to help the poor little doggies on this farm being bred to buggery. :D n what do u think goes on behind the cosed doors of the RSPCA? no employee can say, they have to sign a non disclosure contract? why? how many of you remember seeing the headlines that live dogs were being thrown into the incinerators? only someone risking huge fines went to the press. its not only puppy farmers that need to be held accountable its the dogs of war too

a 1.2 kg blue fawn long coat chihuahua, who had the misfortune to belong to me. i was the target, the dog was the pawn. he failed his brief, he was supposed to have let them find something chargable wrong with him. because to again quote the letter. "Thank you for your letter of 30 April 2001 regarding the seizure of your dog 'stringy' by the RSPCA. this whole incident has clearly been distressing for you. However, it would seem that the appearance of you dog breeding establishment and several of you animals attracted the attention of at least one other breeder who was concerned about the reputation of the industry, the conduct of your business and the welfare of some of your dogs. the RSPCA is obliged to investigate genuine complaints regarding animal welfare and to pursue what they belive to be the most reasonable course of action given the circumstances" in other words a 'fellow breeder' wanted a conviction and automatic disqualification from the cc. the rspca did their best to comply. i had already been inspected by a committee member of the cc before the dogs of war were set loose and passed inspection. so when that didnt work the big guns were sent. that was 1999, the sender was heard only recently boasting they had not given up. the dogs of war have been set loose again. soo im waiting for em all over again. I had to write to the minister for agriculture for two years to get that reply. at NO TIME DID THE RSPCA ITSELF EVER DELCARE THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT that had them arrive at my door. soo you annoy the wrong person and u too will be on the hit list. how sure are u all u havnt offended someone with friends in VERY HIGH places as i ws advised by Alan Candlish when he tried to find out what the complaint had been two weeks before string was taken. I knew something serious was afoot when the inspector wouldnt even tell me what the complaint was.. u cant fix what u dont know is broke can u or are u confident your psychic?

Mal Davis believes it is this that started the machine rolling There are no words of faith that can be associated with this NSW-RSPCA inspectorate only despicable. From the President of the NSW RSPCA Andrew Wozniak’s control of that organisation, to his multi-million dollar legal feed from that organisation, by assignment of prosecution briefs (only his firms is on the preferred list) the coffers of his legal firm have swelled for over a decade, making “Smythe Wozniak Solicitors” an unaccountable money tree. A public funded organisation, this NSW-RSPCA is involved with legal hijacking of fees and expenses that include a flying Vet who charges for a private aircraft to and from court appearances. Not to mention the massive fees the legal eagles are charging. The “TRUTH RIDER” returns for the cattle Consideration must also be given to the NSW RSPCA footing the bill if, after they have bankrupted a farmer seeking legal costs is still below the memorandum of fees for Smythe Wozniak Solicitors. Without prejudice we considered a scenario based on facts. We discovered hundreds of thousands of dollars being paid from the NSW-RSPCA account in legal fees, nothing to do with the Smythe Wozniak Solicitors submitted court fees to a magistrate. Not wishing to depart from their out of pocket expenses, lavish costs, could we be seeing this original account passing to the NSW-RSPCA boardroom for payment, then the underpayment fall retrieved as original cost is taken by the NSW-RSPCA. Then “All The Presidents Men” get their money every time they strike. Maybe Mr Andrew Wozniak can backtrack 10 years of accounts paid documentation to disprove this theory. Why did the government, back in 2004, not look into the concerns of Green’s Senator Lee RHIANNON who brought to the attention of NSW state parliament, her concerns that were prevalent then as they are now, still with most of the same players? During the Downey court case there was a publication that shows court room juggling by the $4,000 a day (over 4 weeks) RSPCA Senior Council choosing to attack Ruth’s vet, suggesting she lacked experience and this was obtained in court from RSPCA Director and Vet Wright who claimed $4,500 fees and was never called.

footnote to the ruth downey case. last week both she and the writer of the Ruth Downey inquisition, were served with a defamation by the firm of solitors representing the rspca. what next? this is the document i think is what the defamation is about in naming the solicitor firm and questioning isnt there a conflict of interest? http://sosnews.org/pdf/The-Ruth-Downey-Inquisition.pdf

and the minister for agricultures response? "Stringy has now been returned and has now undergone a proper diagnostic work up, you have not been charged with any offences, and as a gesture of good will the RSPCA has removed kennel charges from your bill. I do not feel that the RSPCA has acted outside the law or unreasonably in this matter. If you conduct your business as outlined in the Cod of Practice for dog breeding establishments you will have nothing to fear from further visits from RSPCA inspectors. thank your for expressing your concerns." if seized for a normal appearance of blue gene alopecia, ignoring the dogs vet and not having even bent any of the said Code of Practice let alone broken any gets a perfectly healthy animal seized i for one will have every cause to "fear from further visits"

:D While ever people like yourself have this attitude the great divide between animal activists and good dog breeders will continue to widen. The dogs rights are paramount in the minds of good breeders. And good breeders also have rights and these rights need to be respected otherwise you will find yourself living in a world of crook breeders and the dogs will be worse off. The good breeders will be gone - in part because their rights were trashed by over enthusiastic people who have not looked at the bigger picture. A bit of balance and respect please. Souff so aussie3 where was stringy's rights?????? dissappeared a happy healthy little dog. reclaimed 13 days later stuck full of holes and two punched out n stitched back up?, torn trachea n pnemonia????? welllllll where were his rights? his vet said he was nothing wrong with him, return him......... why was a fully qualified vet ignored....why was him writing down his opinion before the dog was seized more important than his opinion the day he rang them? even more chilling, the vet was head of vic rscpa before hughly worthlesss.....so if he cant get a dog out of an rspca jail..... who can?

good grief...... a pure white cavalier???

Have you read it fully. Are we talking about the same document the 117 page document. ok shortstep. i'm officially confused. what is the 117 page document you're talking about? because a lot of what you think should be is actually included in the proposed oscar's law. we were asking for legislation to be drawn up, unless you are privvy to information that the rest of us don't know i think you may be confusing what we are proposing in victoria with what is in place in other states. seriously oakway. i'm happy to discuss these issues because they are important. but i can't do that unless i actually know what you're trying to say. and generally, yes. every time anything to do with legislation gets pulled into dol, we have the same argument. the RSPCA is evil, power hungry maniacs. i am getting a bit sick of it, but i will continue to say, i don't agree with the fact that they have a serious conflict of interest but someone needs to act, the state government has decided to give them that job, and they do it. are they perfect, no. do i believe they can fight dirty? yes if they think it is needed, as politicians can too. it is because they can be like a jrt after a rat that i think giving them the opportunity to go after puppy farmers is a good idea-they are waiting to be able to do it. (i'm not persoanlly 'up' on the debarking case you guys have mentioned, so there is no way i could ever make an educated comment on that) BUT if that conflict of interest is your main bugbear then why not prepare a nicely worded and well researched document stating why this is the case and send it to honchos in police, and members of the upper and lower houses, even the mayor's office. nothing gets changed if you don't try, but if you come angry and full of hatred you won't be listened to. we know it is easier to get things done rather than undone, especially in victoria-which is the state we are talking about here, not nsw, qld, tasmania. honestly, a lot of what you guys seem to be arguing about doesn't make sense when we are talking about the rally yesterday. no-one was trying to shut down breeding dogs, just trying to ensure that it occurs in an ethical way. nothing is set in stone and i'm sure that the organisers of the rally would have loved to have practical imput from registered ethical breeders to help define what constitutes unethical and how to shut it down. yes, there is the issue that all breeders may be targeted if the legislation is not drawn up carefully, a point i expressed to ted baillieu and he agreed. but the only way to ensure that the only 'breeders' we catch under the net of any new legislation is by talking and developing it so that it won't, that process should include registered breeders and their governing bodies, if they want to come to the party they are most welcome, even needed. seriously, i've never heard people bashing regsitered breeders. i've only ever heard the fear from registered breeders that this is the case. perhaps i move in very educated circles? though i admit, i am frustrated that some people on dol get so angry and irritated about people buying from oet shops and don't seem to want to change that, in education or in legislation. it baffles me... steve, i'm sorry, but if it takes your sense of justice to be offended to shut down these kinds of operations, then yes. i think a lot of people will have that be the cost. privacy is all very well but we can't fight secrecy and cruelty without dotting 'i's and crossing 't's. would you rather have your privacy and know that the ability to shut down those people in 'the back of boonies' are churning our poorly bred pups, with no thought for the bitch's and dog's welfare? i'm not sure, privacy is valued differently to everyone, but i reckon that having someone come and tick off your dogs conditions (which i don't doubt are fantastic, i'm not saying you don't care seriously for you animals and future homes) is a small price to ensure that sentient animals don't live in cages and unhealthy conditions (mental and physcial). though i'm sure we could have legislation that doesn't include someone ticking you off, as long as you abide by council and state laws, unless you are breeding more than a certain number of bitches/ or have a certain number of entire females-and in that case, a tick would be all that's needed...? phew! sorry it is an essay! I agree. I would be happy to be inspected if it meant places that weren't up to standard were being shut down. I know that breeders feel strongly about their rights, but this isn't about the breeders rights, it's about the dogs rights. are u really thinking this through? what was my dogs rights? to be punched full of holes, trachea torn and nearly die of pnemonia? because some little shit couldnt avail itself of the opportunity to actually dial or punch in the phone number of my vet to ascertain there was nothing wrong with him? let alone believe a fully qualified vet, not unless he had already written in writing first before the conversation finally did take place???????? and that do i have to constantly remind you took place after the dog was taken, despite what the minister for agriculture was told, after the fact. that dog had no rights, he came back such a mess my vet wanted me to sue them for aggravated cruelty.......... these special constables have one and one only qualification..... ex police with prosecution experience.. willing to undergo animal care course, which they dont even have to pass.. just attend no places for anyone with animal care experience willing to undergo prosecution course????? n once siezed the machine rolls on no avenue of appeal to save them from happened to mine. ruths dogs spent how many days in their infection ridden kennels? for what? they took the lot not just the debarked ones. do you really want to see the day when your into one of the cracks to discover i am telling the truth? its a awful place to be and they number hundreds, if only these peole would all turn up at a rally, the stories would curl your hair i didnt ask for the impossible, i asked then and now.. these special constables must have to have PASSED a recognised animal care course. there MUST be a place of appeal. along with oscars law. dont put the above two in and your one day going to risk being in a crack, n then its too late

So you believe that to stop breeders like this one above, the government and the RSPCA need to go after every ANKC breeders who have nothing to do with the above situation? You think that because ANKC breeders do not want to be treated like they are puppy mills that this means they want puppy mills to thrive? There is a town called Lost the Plot, where a person committed murder. The people of the town were shocked and said this was just awful. So the mayor Mr. Watermelon decided to stop murder from every happening again in Lost the Plot. He order the police to randomly enter every home and search for any evidence that might indicate a murder had or could occur. The people in the town began to complain, they said they did not want to be treated like potential murderers when there is no reason to believe they have or will commit a crime. Mr. Watermelon says "Anyone who does not want to be treated like a murder suspect is proving they are just fine with people committing murders!' He goes on to say, while pointing his finger at the complainers, "In Lost the Plot, all people are murder suspects and they shall remain murder suspect until it is proven they are murders"! think you need to rename australia, its already 'Lost the Plot"

my complaint is this thread is making the same mistakes of the past. pushing for more controls, before even considering what happens to the bycatch? surely both should be in place? n i certainly have been busy writing and phoning, done so for over 2 years. one voice is ignored as the ranting of the deluded. it needs all of you united, polies do listen, the greenies learned that, dog people just stand aside and think "titch, titch, where theres smoke thers fire you know" bit like the ones the lion brings down for dinner and the rest of the herd watch, relieved its not them when the whole herd could attack and drive the lion away, buffolo do when in the mood. what does it take to get the dog lobby to actually get in the "mood" and supply equal numbers. that rally was marvelous. but sadly no mention also asking for along with the new legislation for any right of appeal set in place?. dont kid yourself the rspca do any but "report" to the minister. he had absolutely no interest in anyone with a problem. learned that well. and dont think the report has to tell the truth either. I was fascinated to learn that the inspector "without proper records of your own or your eterinarian, showing that stringy was under veterinary care, the inspectors could only rely on their own judgement. In this case Inspector donnelly decided that stringy's best interests would be served by a proper veterinary examination and diagnostic work up at the rspca shelter" how sweet. that letter was dated 14 jun 2001. did write a reply pointing out the below, although no reply was ever received to that one, probably went into the tooo hard basket ? gave up aftr that, whats the use when no longer get any response. this is what the minister for agriculture was told... what he was not told was the so concerned inspector was given the dogs vets name, number and addres at the occasion of the first visit to assure himself by speaking personally to the dogs vet that he had blue gene alopecia. HE NEVER CONTACTED MY VET BEFOR SEIZING THE DOG 2 WEEKS LATER. he nver contacted my vet after seizing the dog either. so you tell how he could tell a senior government minister this was the reason he took the dog? the dogs vet did personally call and demand the return of the dog AFTER it was taken, (48 hours after to be precise, he couldnt believe he had not been returned as soon as the rspca vet laid eyes on him). Yes he did admit during that phone call, he never put into writing in the dogs chartes he had blue gene alopecia. he wont make the same mistake again now he knows you have to have that a dog is healthy on its chart now not just when it sick. if he had then he would have been returned (we hope anyway) then n there, instead he was kept for 13 days while they franticly cut and stabbed him repeatedly until the last test came back negative . my vet estimated by the bill and procedures 22 needle insertions into a 1.2 kg dog. in that period. n two skin plugs removed. ive rang many vets, non do this, save those who have had this happen to them.. but it still begs the question,..... the report given to the minister for agriculture for seizing this dog was false. in a court of law that is a chargable offence. i just love the bit from richard amery that long as you adher to the code of practice u have nothing to fear from the rspca. even kindly gave me a copy. not a thing in it mentioned even one of the tests done on my dog as needing urgent veterinary care, not as even needing a vet? sooooooo if your feeling warm and fuzzy that you have nothing they can seize over because theres nothing wrong, some of you will learn some day the truth. but then your friends will quietly wonder," where theres smoke theres fire"

heres 19 pages of puppy farms topic wheres the 19 pages demanding the governement that implimented the net judy is in, to give equal opportunity to judy to appeal too? instead of the present? now where except begging the mercy of a magistrate and facing tens maybe hundreds of thousands in legal fees? if you can apply to ombudsman if your unfairly treated in every dept and walk of life be it work related, purchase of shoddy goods related, discrimination related, but no where no way rspca related? this is descrimination of the worst kind surely

seems to me they did more than look in judys backyard, clean down their thoats wasnt it? you seem to forget the ops were done legally, the charges are for showing them, supposedly the legislation was to stop puppy farmers . is judy bycatch? "Bycatch From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Photo of dozens of dead shellfish lying atop mud. Shrimp bycatch The term bycatch is usually used for fish caught unintentionally in a fishery while intending to catch other fish. It may however also indicate untargeted catch in other forms of animal harvesting or collecting. Bycatch are either of a different species or juveniles of the target species. The OECD (1997) defines bycatch as "total fishing mortality excluding that accounted directly by the retained catch of target species". There are at least four different ways the word bycatch is used in fisheries:[1] * Catch which is retained and sold but which is not the target species for the fishery * Species/sizes/sexes of fish which fishermen discard[2] * Non-target fish whether retained and sold or discarded" so far, seeing she has been charged, doesnt seem this fish is being "discarded" dont see anyone regards this lady, well save for the rspca, a puppy farmer, but she sure is in the "net"