asal

My vet told me this over 20 years ago. yet we still get yearly reminders to re-vaccinate? as well the dose is one ml for all, from great dane to chihuahua and for a six week old chihuahua and so many small breeds its a sentence of death. Try asking a vet to scale down the amount and 99% refuse on the grounds they "have to dose as recommended".... they dont offer to replace or recompense for the then dead puppy/puppies though. https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/why-vets-are-getting-away-with-murder/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork&fbclid=IwAR1pKhcxVwByhtE_6FlcpeyBRdtuMO245ruygwuU21J2KT7J0QqpQzfyR_o

well Barbra Streisand solved her problem, she had her favourite dog cloned, think she has three now? found it https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/style/barbra-streisand-cloned-her-dog.html

Dogs are wonderful companions. the reason so many now are being recognised as "service dogs". except its not a "new thing" as many might think. its no accident that surveys have consistently found people with pets live longer, happier and less stressed. Which is what you too have discovered. Actually for her breed mix she has done very well.. sadly so many of us fervently wish our pets lived much longer. She is not a breed, she is what is called a crossbred. it was the garden knome that I believe decided to rebrand x breds as "designer breeds" in the cattle world, the cross of two different breeds, usually results in the progeny being bigger and tend to fatten faster, than either breed of parent because of "hybrid vigour".... the catch is if you keep the progeny they have to be crossed to another unrelated breed or it fails in the next generation. in dogs, crossing two different pure breeds has been touted for decades now as creating "hybrid vigor" too. the problem is if both breeds carry the same genetic defect then so will the puppies.... so crossing two different breeds that both carry for example, luxating patella, mitral valve, pra, pll. and sorry forget all the others that can be in both, if the parents have not been dna tested..........which does not usually happen if they are intended to produce cross bred puppies. Also there are many defects that there is no dna tests for yet. as recently pointed out there are over 20,000 possibilities compared to, is it less or more than 100 available to date? The problem in dogs, is all are Canis familiaris. With cattle there are two very unrelated lines that can be crossed with far greater hybrid vigour than can ever be achieved with dogs. Bos Indicus – Tropical breeds Bos Indicus cattle are developed from lines of the Indian Zebu, most commonly known as Brahman. Cattle with Bos Indicus bloodlines can be distinguished by a hump on their back. They also have large ears and dewlap (the saggy skin in front of their chest), which help to keep them cool. Bos Indicus cattle are better suited to walking long distances for water and foraging. Tropical breeds are tick resistant and well-suited to the extremes in temperature of Northern Australia. and Bos taurus can be classified into two sub-categories, British breeds and Continental breeds. Continental breeds, also called Exotics, are breeds that originated in Europe. These cattle are known for weight gain and cutability. Bos Taurus breeds are derived from British and European stock, and they are best suited to the cooler regions of Southern Australia. Arguably, the best known Bos Taurus breed is Angus, which originates from Scotland. Bos Taurus cattle have thicker coats which allow them to weather cooler winters, and they do not have the notable ‘hump’ of their bos indicus relatives. There are approximately 100 Bos Taurus breeds in Australia,

sounds like mitral valve, nothing to do with smoke, drugs or anything not inherited, a cavalier trait seems to be almost a breed trait from how many I am hearing have it. There was a breed book at one pet shop I read that said the average life span was 7 years... it did not state why, but that's about the age most die of it. pretty sad considering most toy breeds live well into their teens.

So many adds for RARE BLUES. or lately the newest must have seems to be Blue Merle. there's nothing rare about Blue or Merle coloured dogs. its in many breeds, both pure and X bred. way too little information about the dangers of letting two merles be mated together..(some merles do not show they are carrying it), Just like some horses can carry the overo gene without expressing, but bred to another overo and 25% chance of the foal inheriting two from both parents and you have a lethal white and you can do nothing but watch it die or have it put down to save it suffering. In the case of merle,. the resulting 25% with two merle genes can have a sliding scale of defects to varying degrees right down to born with no eyes at all. At least mating two mexican hairless just means 25% less puppies as all who inherit two patterns never survive to birth. Another inherited defect not much talked about. Is low immune system, regardless of the colour of the pup or adult.. it expresses down the track as Demodectic mange. Its amazing how often some vets fail to diagnose this as the cause of the problem.... but either way, this too is a genetic failing and nothing to do with the actual colour of the dog.... .... Knew a beautiful cavalier which developed it after his second vaccination........vet hoped it may correct as he matured but gradually became even worse after his third vaccination. as he was intended as a stud dog , the breeder was contacted... Amazingly his breeder said this was proof of his fine bloodline? Low immune system a sign of good breeding? You have to be kidding.. .... no wonder so many kennels are known for dog after dog presenting with severe itch. One vet said he could name the breeder without asking who, depending on the condition the dog was suffering from. Decades ago he wanted to create a data base of conditions linked to pups from the breeder........ I thought it was a great idea, breeders would be alerted to what lines carry a problem they would otherwise not be aware of if the puppy buyer did not contact them. but he said the AVA refused, saying the information is confidential and could expose the AVA to litigation by the breeders if they were named... He believed it would help the breeder to know which parents carried a problem. But then if intending purchasers could know before hand which conditions they may have to deal with if they buy a pup from that kennel was probably the sticking point the AVA was worried about. the good news with the cavalier boy, was put on low dose ivermectin, he lived demodectic free for the rest of his life. (although there was an expensive hiccup when rehomed) Although he was desexed to make sure he could not contribute to more puppies with the same problem... given to a relative, along with his medicine... when it ran out they didn't call and get more. so within months his skin went red and glowing hot so they took him to the vet.. their vet did not believe he needed the low dose ivermectin his previous vet had prescribed, so did every test available "just to make sure" Man were they furious? they were slugged $2500 for the testing?. no idea what on earth their vet tested him for. some one made a motza from an already diagnosed condition?. Any one want to contribute to other things a buyer might need to know when looking for their next pet?

its not just dogs, ex told me he would kill me, but that's not considered serious, until he actually does it, why so many have avo's but still terminated. the targets have no rights to protection from either aggressive humans or in that case dogs

trouble is dogs are not fur kids, they have pack attack instincts that kick in when in numbers. one can be fine but the change when a pack is major. love my dogs but know to make sure they cannot roam....EVER come to think of it some kids, human kids are just as capable of horrific acts... dont think I need to remind u of the specifics, so calling them fur kids isn't always referring to the warm and fuzzies as for the aggressive when you just walking or getting your mail as someone said.. accident/POSSIBLE disaster, waiting to happen. its about time they stopped the no action until your bitten.

posted on ANKC Pedigree Dog Community. good advice. Admin · 21 March at 23:11 Because we are an island nation, we are a lucky country. Even today, no matter what mistakes have been made by our Federal and State governments to date (and there have been mistakes), we (as individuals and as citizens) of this country can still make a difference. We can still change our fate if we act now. I am pleading to every Australian. Be responsible. It is up to us - each and every one of you to do the right thing. If you love your country, if you care about your family, your friends and your community (and even if you don’t), unless you have to go out, stay home. Unless it is essential that you travel, for once, stay home. Stop whinging about being bored or your freedom to move around. Watch movies, read a book, and most importantly, look up at our beautiful sky today and our Southern Cross this evening and think how incredibly lucky we are. If you have been lucky enough to return to Australia, this is a privilege. Isolate yourselves. I am disgusted and horrified by those who have not respected this. I am shocked by those of our population who are not taking this seriously. Those pictured dancing in the mall in our CBD or at Bondi Beach. What is wrong with you all? Just look at what is happening elsewhere. Which part of – “we have to choose who to save do you not understand”? Italy lost over 700 people in one day! Our country does not have the resources (medical and otherwise) to handle this. Do what you can to support our doctors and medical people who are putting their lives on the line and help buy time. Australia can still be an outlier. Our borders are closing and we are naturally isolated. Most of us are big on personal space and actually pretty good at social distancing. Let us be different. Each day is critical. Do whatever is in your power to break the infection cycle and flatten the curve. Stop hoarding toilet paper and whatever is next. Think about what really matters. Step up Australia and look after your mates. It is up to each and every one of you. We can actually change the course of fate. Our lives and our economy are dependent upon you. Even today, there is still time to change the course of fate. It is not too late. Each and every one of you consider – what can you do? As a nation, we are not good at doing what we are told (myself included). However, just for once, all of you use the brain you were blessed with. We have been forewarned and have more than enough evidence. Help our government contain this. Stay home unless you have to and persuade your family, friends and neighbours to do likewise. Unless you do, with every passing day, the situation will get worse. It is denial and complacency, that is the biggest problem. Stay home until we are forced to do so. And ... cuddle your dog instead. Sandy , thanks Elisa, to my surprise the endurance forum admin shut down discussion.......all our pets will be loving the extra attention. well not necessarily some cats

Yes, it is well documented now. yet our pollies seem to be listening to the ar nutters who want to eliminate domestic animals, pets first to be eliminated. so strange when the mental health benefits are beyond question now thanks to all the research available

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/17/dogs-have-a-magic-effect-the-power-of-pets-on-our-mental-health?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Further to the story on Marshmallow. I do appreciate those of you who have been lucky so far would find her story hard to believe. as for me I know differently after all the lies they told about why they took my dog and that was in November 1999 so they have had over 20 years to learn to get better, seems not Posted on Facebook 16/3/2010 Belinda Stevens 9 hrs By way of response to the RSPCA's outrageous lies and accusations, I am requesting the RSPCA publicly release and publish the following documents. I would also like them to provide sufficient answers to my questions and the supporting evidence. 1. Signed surrender form 2. CCTV footage of those pivotal two minutes in question 3. Evidence used to obtain the entry warrant 4. Authority form for the RSPCA inspectorate to open an investigation 5. Results of ALL tests conducted that were used to arrive at the determination that Marshmallow could not be saved and euthanasia was necessary 6. The video & photographic evidence of Marshmallow's alleged seizures, blue lips, etc. 7. Evidence supporting your claims of "alleged deaths" 8. A signed & sworn affidavit from the veterinarian in question which states the facts as they happened 9. All veterinarian notes pertaining to the incident in question Your claim regarding the 4 cats previously surrendered by me is the only true statement you have made. However, you neglected to provide accurate context along with it so I will. As you were made well aware in every one of those instances, 3 of the 4 cats in question were not mine. I took those cats to the RSPCA because I naively believed that you would provide them with a better life than when I found them. There is now little doubt in my mind as to their fate. I brought Marshmallow to you when she got sick because I also naively believed you would help, not crucify me. Since the RSPCA was closest to me, if I'd not taken her in as soon as it became apparent that she wasn't well, travelled to a private veterinarian further away or done nothing at all, would those things not constitute abuse/neglect according to your own standards and expectations? My kitten became sick. I am not an expert which is why I took her to the so-called experts for help.... who killed her, apologised, then immediately turned on me, twisted the truth and made me out to be an animal abuser. It's ironic. If that suggestion and inference contained even a hint of truth, I would not have bothered to seek help for sick animals, whether mine or somebody else's. So instead of my kitten getting the help she needed, she is now dead and I have been falsely and publicly vilified, harassed and threatened, and all without basis. All thanks to the RSPCA. I hate that I ever donated or believed the public facade of the RSPCA; that they are 'experts' in anything other than lying, intimidating and bullying to cover up self-incriminating facts & truths. Your advertising is deceptive and false. Its clear that the RSPCA are about everything BUT the animals. 1. How were RSPCA vets able to obtain my signature, run tests and have the results back in under 2 minutes? 2. How could the RSPCA make a decision regarding the required treatment (and so quickly) if they didn't know Marshmallow's condition at the time of euthanising her; if they did know, surely it would mitigate any NEED for an autopsy....? 3. Why would there be a need to raid me in order to retrieve Marshmallow's body for an autopsy IF they already knew the cause of death? Because, according to their statement, they knew exactly what was wrong with her and stated that she could not be saved. So which is it RSPCA? 4. If the RSPCA have the test results which support their claim that "treatment wasn't an option", why would they STILL require or be demanding her body back for an autopsy? IF they have the results and can prove that is true, why the urgency for an autopsy, but especially one conducted by their own vets? ** The accompanying video taken only minutes prior shows Marshmallow's condition so you can make your own determination. 5. If the RSPCA wanted Marshmallow's body for an autopsy, there would be no need for them to raid me. Why not just ask me and respect my decision as to whether or not I even WANT an autopsy done? 6. Why would the RSPCA suddenly have cause to investigate me immediately after they admitted to screwing up and killing my kitten? If there were legitimate concerns about the welfare of any one of those cats I surrendered over the past 5 years, why wasn't an investigation commenced prior to this incident? 7. What are these alleged "deaths" referred to in the RSPCA's statement? At the time of surrendering each one of the cats since 2015, I was informed by RSPCA staff that they would be rehomed. If they were killed, it was not due to MY negligence. I thought that NOT taking stray cats to the RSPCA was negligent. Ultimately, did the RSPCA raid me due to newly alleged, previous animal 'welfare' concerns or because they wanted Marshmallow's body for an autopsy (which they had no legal right to since I did NOT surrender her)? It can't be both. Again, which is it RSPCA? I'd also really like to know, since when did legitimate (RSPCA) investigations BEGIN with a raid?

i would go online and shop for it, many facebook advertises are scammers and take your money and dont send the item as well a percentage if you pay by card just keep taking money from your account until you cancel the card, then have to apply to get the money back been caught twice so never ever again will buy from a fb add well unless some one recommends one they actually bought from and know its not a scammer. I reported the first and second scammers and fb deleted them but were back advertising within 48 hours so they sure dont keep track of the scammers

Grant Teeboon · 10 March 2019 · Most nationwide organisations get better at what they do over time.... most, not all. . (With thanks to Lindsey for sourcing this item)

This is the warrant she was served with. notice it gives them the right to seize your mobile phone, tablet and computer. just in case they contain something they can use to convict you. so even if there is nothing on any of them they are gone indefinitely anyway I have heard they do it, just didn't believe it until now its there in black and white. rather totally negates their continuous wailing about lack of power. in 1990 they already had the power to seize any animal they "formed the opinion" should be seized.. note the wording for all your electronic equipment "reasonable suspects" and it too is gone. that is a great deal of power with no need to prove their opinion or suspicion and the target? has no avenue of appeal even today over 20 years later. Not even the police have that unappealable power.

well now has been published and her trial by media began RSPCA investigates woman whose cat was euthanased without consent ABC Radio Brisbane / By Rebeka Powell Posted Yesterday, updated Yesterday Marshmallow was euthanased by the RSPCA on Tuesday night.(Supplied) Share The RSPCA is investigating a woman whose cat was euthanased without consent after reviewing her history of bringing animals in ill health to a facility in Wacol, south-west of Brisbane. Key points: RSPCA has apologised for euthanasing 11-week-old kitten Marshmallow prior to its owner signing paperwork The organisation carried out a search warrant at the owner's home over "concerns in relation to other animals" Belinda Stevens, the owner, alleges the RSPCA is trying to "cover up their wrongdoing" In a statement, the RSPCA said it executed a search warrant on Thursday as part of an investigation into the death of an 11-week-old kitten named Marshmallow. Belinda Stevens told ABC Radio Brisbane on Wednesday that she took the family's kitten to the RSPCA after it became "unsteady on its feet". The RSPCA admitted that a misunderstanding over the cat's ownership led to it being euthanased and apologised for a communication issue with Ms Stevens. Warning: This story contains an image that some readers may find disturbing. Claims of multiple deaths But today the RSPCA said it had come to the organisation's attention that Ms Stevens had five other cats from the same litter in her care at home. "Investigators established that the same kitten owner had previously surrendered four cats to RSPCA on four separate occasions since October 2015," the RSPCA said. "All required urgent veterinary care." The RSPCA said two of the cats were euthanased due to their poor conditions, one died an unassisted death soon after, and the other was treated by the RSPCA and rehomed. On Thursday investigators located four dogs, eight kittens from two litters, and four adult cats at the property — none of which had been desexed, the organisation said. In a text to the ABC, Ms Stevens confirmed the RSPCA had attended her property with a search warrant. The RSPCA entered the property to retrieve the remains of Marshmallow, which Ms Stevens had taken home after the cat was put down. Ms Stevens said Marshmellow was euthanased by RSPCA vets without consent.(Supplied) Child told to flee, RSPCA says The RSPCA said prior to entry inspectors heard Ms Stevens "telling her children to flee over the back fence" with Marshmallow's body. Ms Stevens admitted to the ABC that she had removed Marshmallow from her premises. "I had removed Marshmallow from my premises … [police] stated they would charge me in with obstruction and tampering with evidence," she said. "The officer then stated, as I told my 11-year-old daughter to run and hide with Marshmallow, that they were seizing Marshmallow." The officers did not locate Marshmallow during the search. Ms Stevens alleges the RSPCA is trying to "cover up their wrong doing". The RSPCA Animal Hospital is in Wacol, in Brisbane's south-west.(ABC TV News - File Image) No charges laid The RSPCA said Ms Stevens took the kitten's body with her on Tuesday night, preventing the possibility of an autopsy to determine the cause of the kitten's poor condition. "It was cold, semi-comatose, in lateral recumbency, cyanotic (blue from lack of oxygen), gasping for air with a subnormal temperature, and unresponsive," the RSPCA said. "The owner stated that this had happened previously with the kitten and she had cuddled it and it recovered, but no veterinary attention had been sought." Ms Stevens was issued with a welfare directive requiring her to provide treatment to the animals for fleas and worms, attend to the matting of the coat on one of the dogs, and provide treatment of a skin condition on another dog. She has not been charged with any offences. Posted Yesterday, updated Yesterday Share

RSPCA Queensland apologises after euthanasing 11-week-old kitten, Marshmallow ABC Radio Brisbane / By Rebeka Powell Posted 2ddays ago, updated 2ddays ago The RSPCA Animal Hospital is in Wacol, in Brisbane's south-west.(ABC TV News - File Image) Share A woman's decision to take an 11-week-old kitten to an RSPCA hospital facility for treatment after it became ill ended in heartbreak, with the kitten being euthanased without consent. Key points: Belinda Stevens said the RSPCA Wacol hospital thought she was a foster carer and euthanased her son's cat Ms Stevens said by the time she was told the cat was being put to sleep it was too late RSPCA Qld said the organisation would be reviewing its communication processes Brisbane mother Belinda Stevens told ABC Radio Brisbane's Mornings program the family's kitten, Marshmallow, was euthanased at the RSPCA's Wacol facility due to a misunderstanding about its ownership. "Well, I was at work and my son came down with Marshmallow, who was a bit unsteady on her feet," Ms Stevens told Rebecca Levingston. "The kids were a bit worried because they hadn't seen her like that before, but she had been like that before and made a full recovery. "So I'd taken her down to the Wacol RSPCA, obviously to see what was wrong with her." Warning: This story contains an image that some readers may find disturbing. Ms Stevens said after stating her name and address to the receptionist, within minutes the vet informed her they had to "put Marshmallow to sleep". "I didn't even have probably two minutes and the vet came back out," she said. "I was thinking OK … they've obviously had to sedate her because they have to check her out, and I asked if I could go and see her out the back, and they said no, you have to go to the consultation rooms. "And I was like what … as soon as I walked into the room and opened the door there was Marshmallow, dead. "I just broke down in tears, my son broke down in tears. Instead of seeking help we ended up bringing back a dead kitten." Ms Stevens said there was confusion about whether she was the cat's owner or a foster carer. "The vet actually turned around and she said, aren't you the foster carers? And I'm like, what?" she said. "She says, 'I thought you were the foster carers', and I said, 'no, this is my cat and you killed my cat'. "Nobody really spoke to me after that, except for me grabbing my cat and walking out. It took me about half an hour in their reception area to get names and stuff so I could formally make a complaint. "They say to me in phone calls that they definitely stuffed up. "The only thing they're offering at the moment is free cremation or a free adoption later on down the track." Ms Stevens said Marshmellow was euthanased by RSPCA vets without consent.(Supplied) 'It's our fault': RSPCA Qld RSPCA Queensland spokesman Michael Beatty said the RSPCA believed it was necessary to put Marshmallow down but conceded there was a communication issue. "I can totally understand that Belinda is heartbroken. There's no doubt about it," Mr Beatty said. "Basically what happened is, is our veterinary hospital at Wacol is not a public veterinary clinic. It is only for RSPCA animals. "We really wish it could be a public clinic, but sadly we don't have the funds, so it is purely for RSPCA animals." Mr Beatty confirmed the confusion stemmed from a mistaken assumption that Ms Stevens was a foster carer and that Marshmallow was a foster kitten. "When Belinda brought Marshmallow in, the veterinary staff mistakenly assumed that Marshmallow was a foster kitten," he said. "Certainly, she should have been consulted, but it was presumed that she was a foster carer." Mr Beatty said based on the severity of Marshmallow's condition, euthanasia was the only humane option. "To be honest, even if she was a foster carer and Marshmallow was a foster kitten, probably it should have been communicated to her that Marshmallow was going to be euthanased," he said. "All we can do, and we have done so, we've personally rung her and said how sorry we actually are. "Undoubtedly in terms of the communication it's out fault — we should have checked to see if she was a foster carer. "But in terms of Marshmallow needing to be put to sleep, we believe that any other vet would have done exactly the same thing." Mr Beatty confirmed the RSPCA would be reviewing its communication processes following the incident. "We're not just reviewing but making certain that something like that never happens again," he said. "All I can say is, we're sorry." Boy 'not coping well' Ms Stevens said what she wanted was to have been consulted on the health of her cat before any further treatment decisions were made. "They said in order for them to treat Marshmallow I would need to surrender her, and I had not signed any paperwork. No verbal, no written permission, no ID was shown and they went ahead and euthanased her," she said. "I didn't get an explanation until after the fact. They already had euthanased her — that's when I got an explanation that she had diabetes, apparently, and they didn't have the facilities to treat her and basically ended up killing her." She said her son was "not coping well" after the incident. Ms Stevens said if she had been consulted prior to the action being taken, she may have considered consenting to euthanasia. "If I had been informed, possibly. She had been like that once before and she recovered fully by the next day, but I had no explanation of what had happened or what was wrong with her," she said. On whether she would take up the RSPCA's offer of free adoption, Ms Stevens said she was too distraught by the experience to consider it. "I can't, not after this. Not after this. It's like taking away a family member. She was a family member," she said. "With the cremation, every time I'm going to be thinking, here's Marshmallow … this is what I've got to look at every day, an urn. Because they killed her, and it's a reminder of what they've actually done. I can't do that." Posted 2ddays ago, updated 2ddays ago

Well we had to expect it. The other "enqury" "s held in Victoria and WA didn't achieve anything, done just to be seen to be doing something. As for the pending WA legislation, just going to make it all breeders are legal puppy farms just as is for Vic and NSW . just had to hope and pray it would not be so.

Well the rspca has gone on the attack and published this on their facebook page. RSPCA QLD Like Page 1 hr On Thursday, February 27th RSPCA Inspectors executed a search warrant at a property in Redbank Plains as part of an investigation related to a kitten that was brought to RSPCA Wacol on Tuesday night which required urgent veterinary treatment. The kitten was delivered to RSPCA near death. It was cold, semi-comatose, in lateral recumbency, cyanotic (blue from lack of oxygen), gasping for air, with a sub normal temperature and unresponsive. The owner stated that this had happened previously with the kitten and she had cuddled it and it recovered, but no veterinary attention had been sought. Tests ruled out the possibility of treatment, and the kitten was euthanased as death was imminent and inevitable, and the kitten was suffering. The owner was advised of the euthanasia after it had occurred, just as she was signing surrender forms. She became upset and took the kitten’s body, preventing the possibility of autopsy to determine the cause of the kitten’s poor condition. The owner of the kitten advised staff that she had the remaining 5 kittens from the litter at home. The matter was referred to the RSPCA Inspectorate for investigation given the concerns in relation to the other animals at the owner’s home. Investigators further established that the same kitten owner had previously surrendered 4 cats to RSPCA on 4 separate occasions since October 2015, and all required urgent veterinary care. Two of those cats were euthanased due to their poor conditions, one died an unassisted death soon after surrender to RSPCA, and the other was treated by RSPCA and ultimately rehomed. Inspectors executing the warrant this afternoon located 4 dogs, two litters of kittens (8 kittens in total) and 4 adult cats at the property. All animals were not desexed. Prior to Inspectors gaining entry the owner was heard telling her children to flee over the back fence with the body of the deceased kitten, and Inspectors were unable to locate this kitten. When the owner was questioned in relation to the health of the remaining kittens from the deceased kitten’s litter, she indicated that she had rehomed 4 of those kittens recently, however the condition and location of these kittens is unknown to RSPCA. If anybody has any information in relation to these kittens, or has acquired a kitten from a Redbank Plains property and is concerned for the kitten’s welfare, please contact RSPCA on 1300 264 625. Inspectors issued an Animal Welfare Direction pursuant to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to the owner requiring her to provide treatment to the animals for fleas and worms, attend to the matting of the coat on one of the dogs, and provide treatment of a skin condition on another dog. RSPCA Inspectors discussed desexing of animals with the owner and she stated she did not require assistance with desexing. One lady has made this comment below it. Karen Davis I know the lady involved and the facts are nothing like the story the RSPCA is putting across. They are trying to cover their arse for their own stupidity. Their warrant was incorrect to start with.

well its sure in the news now. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8045329/RSPCA-apologies-putting-boys-pet-kitten-Marshmallow-without-consent.html?fbclid=IwAR2nz8fc3VJtRB2DAVByam5NkRCLC6a6SpkOW1dws-s4y9FGmXiDfBL9tyI for a second I thought the story must be from the uk? with that in the link. but it is the Queensland Australia edition.

May be in another state, but pity didnt think to send a copy of this to the enquiry. note the mental anguish of the targets. perhaps one of the weak links of the human mind, has great difficulty coping with bullying. EWS SPORT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS LIFESTYLE HAVE YOU HEARD? PLACE AN AD SUBSCRIBE BREAKING NEWS WESTERN AUSTRALIA NATIONAL WORLD TECHNOLOGY OPINION WEATHER GALLERIES Greenough vets Matt and Ina Carrick, who argue they were harshly treated by the RSPCA. Credit: Supplied, Richard Rossiter WA News RSPCA accused of abusing power as WA vets ask to appear before parliamentary inquiry JOHN FLINTPerthNow August 10, 2015 6:37PM SCATHING REPORT: Former boss attacks ‘lost’ RSPCA PRIMARY PRODUCERS: RSPCA seen as ‘anti-farming’, inquiry hears INA Carrick remembers her first wedding anniversary in 2010. Instead of being with her vet husband Matt in Darwin for a long-planned romantic getaway, she was in a Geraldton courtroom, having been flown there — at the RSPCA’s expense — from the Northern Territory, via Perth, to be an expert witness for the charity in a horse cruelty case. The equine vet and horse-hospital owner had offered to give evidence via video link from Darwin, but the RSPCA prosecutor felt she would have a bigger impact in the courtroom. Her opinion on all things horse-related was evidently valued. Fast-forward five years and the Carricks are readying to provide different testimony. They have asked to appear before a parliamentary inquiry into the iconic institution they once supported. They now share the view of former long-time RSPCA president Eric Ball that the WA branch of the animal welfare organisation has lost its way. They claim to know too well the culture of “provocation and punishment” that Mr Ball says has replaced “care and compassion”. Dr Ina Carrick said the animal charity chose the big stick over diplomacy in a dispute that flared last year. Without any inspection of her horses, Dr Carrick said she and her husband were hit with a legal order to erect a shelter in their 8ha paddock at Greenough Equine Veterinary Centre. The paddock was home to 24 mares used as part of an embryo transfer program. The mares, most of them rescued from a knackery, were in perfect health, the Carricks say. The order — a Direction Notice issued under Section 40(1)(b) of the Animal Welfare Act — was signed by the RSPCA’s Perth-based chief inspector Amanda Swift and delivered to the horse hospital in March last year. The RSPCA claims it had received three complaints. “The complainants were concerned about the welfare of horses in the yards without shelter when the temperature was in the high 30s and rose to over 41C,” RSPCA chief executive David van Ooran told The Sunday Times. “The site was visited by the local inspector who took photographs and brought the matter to the attention of staff at the clinic. “Attempts to engage with the clinic were unsuccessful.” The Carricks dispute this. They suspect the Direction Notice was retribution for having spoken up for other horse owners in the area, who had been told by the RSPCA to erect shelters. Dr Carrick said horses in the area “don’t need to be provided with shelter 365 days of the year”. “Low humidity and ever- present strong cooling southwest ocean winds means that there are very few days in a year that a horse might feel any ill effect from the sun in this area,” she said. “In our situation we did have the contingencies to move them to paddocks with shelter as well as deploy several 100m x 20m sprinkler systems, if and when the need arose ... We were never asked about our contingency plans.” The order gave the Carricks four weeks to erect a shelter or be prosecuted and face a penalty of up to $20,000 and one year’s imprisonment. Instead they de-stocked the property. It resulted in the temporary closure of the hospital and the shutdown of its embryo transfer business. “We had spent a lot of money developing that business,” Dr Carrick, 34, said. “It’s gone, it’s finished.” They also had to scramble to find alternative properties to agist the 24 mares. The couple said the powerful notice also had implications for Matt’s vet practice, Bos Vet & Rural. Between the two businesses, there were five vets on site, but the RSPCA had overlooked their expertise. Dr Matt Carrick, 37, said the RSPCA wouldn’t tell him what type of shelter he needed to erect, or provide any specifications. “I took a stand because I just couldn’t handle being bullied and intimidated in this way when there was absolutely no welfare outcome to be gained by it,” he said. The Carricks were offended to be sent by the RSPCA “irrelevant” guidelines for running an equestrian event, as well as a dictionary definition of the word “ensure”. “As veterinarians with more than 20 years of combined experience we felt shocked, ” the couple wrote in a submission to the inquiry. “Serving a large veterinary practice with these type of documents (was) provocative.” Horses in a paddock at Greenough Equine Veterinary Centre. Image supplied by the RSPCA. Credit: Supplied To the Carricks, it felt like the RSPCA was throwing its weight around. Though the charity itself has no power, it can nominate staff to be appointed general inspectors under the Animal Welfare Act. The appointments are made by the Director General of the Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA), which is responsible for administering the Act. Dr Ina Carrick said the good health of the mares was pivotal to the success of the embryo transfer business. “I employed a nurse to look after these horses and to make sure they’re fed well, that their feet were looked after, that they’re drenched properly, they’re wormed properly, they’re vaccinated and that there are no mares that are getting bullied,” she said. “I went to a massive effort in order to ensure these mares were absolutely 100 per cent in their prime. The fact that there was no shelter in that paddock did not impair their welfare at all. If any were sick or showing even the slightest effect from heat, of course I would have acted on that because it would also not be in the horse’s welfare interests. It would not be in my interests either.” Even when MP Paul Brown intervened on behalf of the Carricks, the RSPCA refused to revoke the notice. At the crux of the dispute is the fact that a Direction Notice issued under Section 40(1)(b) of the Act cannot be reviewed or overturned by the Agriculture Minister, or the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Had a similar Direction Notice been issued under Section 47 of the Act, the Carricks could have appealed to the Minister or the SAT. The couple were told by DAFWA that Section 40(1)(b) applied to urgent situations. DAFWA investigated and wrote to the Carricks saying it would issue a newsletter to all inspectors to make “a reoccurence of an inappropriate use of Section 40 of the Act unlikely”. The newsletter says: “A direction under Section 40(1)(b) for food, water or shelter is to be used where there is an urgent and immediate need for the provision.” Ina Carrick of Greenough Equine Veterinary Centre with one of the mares on her property. Credit: Supplied Dr Ina Carrick said the RSPCA told her they disagreed with DAFWA’s instruction. And in a response to The Sunday Times, Mr van Ooran defended the use of Section 40(1)(b) over Section 47. “Direction Notices are issued by an authorised inspector who uses the section of the Act they consider most appropriate for individual situations,” he said. “In this particular case, the Direction Notice was complied with and the matter resolved.” Dr Carrick said the whole experience had been emotionally and financially draining. “At one point I stood in the middle of the paddock crying my eyes out while talking to the Department of Agriculture because I didn’t know what to do,” she said. “We were quite naive. We thought, ‘Surely this can’t be happening’. They don’t have any evidence that the horses’ health was compromised. No one to this day from the RSPCA has seen even one of these horses, so therefore they have no evidence ... But I wasn’t aware they didn’t need evidence. “After doing some research we found out that the Direction Notice we were given was irreversible and we could not appeal against it and that not even the Minister for Agriculture could reverse it ... We were informed by the department that it was only to be used for cases of extreme animal welfare problems, but it was it used against us ... We don’t want this to happen to anyone else. “Are all of my clients in breach of the Act because their yards are not under cover and their cattle are exposed?” MLC Paul Brown told State Parliament it was “mind-boggling” that a civilian organisation had such powers. [email protected]

I heard stories they can enter your home and take your mobile, tablet and computer, but didn't believe it. There it is in black and white in the order that had issued against this woman.the update at the bottom is weird? first the kitten is dead and then it isn't? Oh my, they got the warrant to take her body from her owner because she had taken her body home after they killed her, incredible ! Belinda Stevens 25 February at 01:57 NEVER!! AND I REPEAT NEVER!!! TAKE YOUR FUR BABIES TO RSPCA @wacol.. this is my story... I took my childrens kitten (marshmellow) down to the rspca at wacol after she was abit lethargic which she was like once before and made a full recovery! I walked in to their reception are and told the lady behind the counter that she was not feeling the best and was not sure if it was hypothermia?? She took my beloved kitten out the back for the vet to check over....(normal procedure) anyone would think...I had only given the lady my phone number also normal procedure, she said to me if I needed treatment for my kitten I would need to surrender her and if she was to sick I would need to give them (RSPCA) permission to euthanize her .. I refused euthanization and had not signed any paperwork as of yet when all of a sudden the vet has come to talk to me saying that marshmallow had to be put to sleep! I assumed that my kitten had to be sedated in order for them to check her. I was then led to the consultation room where my childrens kitten lay I noticed she was not moving and as I approached her she was not breathing also. I screamed "you killed our cat" where then the vet turned and said "arent you the foster caregivers" I replied " NO THIS IS MY CAT" her instant reply was "OH SHIT" not at any stage did i sign or give permission for them to put my kitten to sleep!!!!! They just stood there dumb founded not even 1 word!! I grabbed my now dead kitten in which they killed and walked out! With my son and I in tears. I then thought that this was not good enough and went to walk back in but to no despair all of the staff members hid out the back so i still stood there for 30 mins waiting buzzing the bell and still nothing!! It wasnt until someone else walked out that i finally was able to get back in to their reception to ask for numbers and names to make a formal complaint! I will be taking it further believe me I'll have their jobs for it!! And the worst part was telling my children that their beloved kitten was killed by them !!! This is now where our beloved kitten lays due to the hands of RSPCA!!!!!! ******UPDATE******* RSPCA have now come to my premises with a search warrant!!! REFUSED TO LET THEM IN....police were called....searched my premises asked where marshmallow was and my daughter ran off with her and hid.... as soon as she did that the inspector said " that's obstruction and we are now seizing marshmallow" I replied " oh no your not I'll fight you on that one" So they entered my property and looked at my animals told me I needed to clip my Maltese and seek medical treatment for my other dog due to his eczema...in which I replied yes I have cream for that, mind you he didnt inform that he was recording the whole thing?? I lost it after he said " you would have surrendered her anyway" had to walk away after I called him a wanker ! My son then came home from up the shop and turned to me and said "does he have marshmallow" I replied "no" which in return he replied " you sure " so I told him no he doesnt have her. The only thing they were worried about today was getting marshmallow but guess what they didnt and never will!

Another massive rspca fail. its gaining shares on facebook. pity the press dont do a follow up, only way to shame em though https://medium.com/@ClaireJHarris/the-rspca-has-responded-to-my-recommendations-32cf13c248f5

it was pretty upsetting listening to the representatives from the National Farmers Federation...........they didn't have a clue. were saying what a wonderful working relationship the NFF has collaborating with the rspca. even worse, happy with them doing the prosecuting with not a freaking clue that was not their field at all. Had always been done by the Public Prosecutor until they decided there was more money to be made doing it with their own inhouse team of money gatherers , (and that's literally), he became the President of rspca nsw. Talk about conflict of interest, wasn't even put out for tender

Odd comment The fanaticism to eliminate puppy farms borders on manic, along with the demands government micromanage all owner's. Curiously all it's achieved is the decimation of ANKC member's and the certification of more and more what? Puppy Farms? We live in interesting times. Prime example of be careful what you wish for.