asal

probably off topic but spotted this video. amazing it wasn't cut, one employee quit rather than be involved in what happens next https://www.facebook.com/709019335881463/videos/965234160259978/

it will be interesting to see how long it takes the dog and cat owners to wake up to the elimination of their democratic rights to innocent until proven guilty before or after these laws are passed, won't it? this is a pretty good message although its on a different subject https://scontent-syd1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/11898581_985454184830311_5714031444219459086_n.jpg?oh=fbdcfb1a3c0afd58cb0a8beedbd49408&oe=589D6FB5

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized. They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs. They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized. If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results. If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement. You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders? Actually ALL dog owners need to stand and be counted, I had mine as pets all my life, My Dads dog Blue guarded my cot when I was born and I never went anywhere alone, he was always beside me, it was not until I was nearly 30 I actually bred a litter. All dog owners should have the right to decide if they only want to have theirs as a pet or if they may one day decide to keep their dogs line going. Our politicians want to take that right away. There is not a dog born today that is not the legacy of those who loved and bred its parents and ancestors before it. AR want to break that chain from the past to the future. Yup. Maybe we need a companion Animal enthusiasts Union. As an errosion of rights, at its most basic, we are being denied the right to choose our own companions and act in their best interests, as individuals in our own environments. We are forced to source from a 'standard' list of acceptable candidates and keep them in 'standard' conditions deemed acceptable, but not adaptable. So when either is no longer acceptable in a changing environment, they are gone. This is NOT responsibility. Its a denial of any ability to respond. Its the only reason A.R has any influence worth mention. This is what predictability as the only valid goal does. It removes the ability to respond any other way than the Standard. It comes from recognizing nothing out side of a standard. You lose responsibility. If you lose the ability to respond you lose the ability to adapt. The 'Standard' of available response can only shrink. Hey thats a neat idea. Anyone think of any more ideas to add? I am telling my friends what we have been talking about here and they are very interested, had never thought of it that way before. All you hear is the never ending, Help stamp out puppy farmers. not a whiff about, "Help keep our rights to have our dogs" AR must be beside themselves with glee at how blindly the Victoria Pollies are doing as they are told. the results will be a disaster not only for all dog and cat owners, but income lost to vets, the entire pet industry they haven't factored in at all, they think "rescues" will fill the void. the kill rates will ensure only a fraction they get will become "rescues".

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. They will suck that up too as a 'different' representation of their membership. One thats no longer fit for the self image of a K.C member. While The K.Cs can't recognize diversity they can't support it. If you won't support diversity, you are a barrier to diversity. Which is why we are in this situation that can only get tighter while WE accept a representation from from a group that demands diversity not be recognized. They can't continue to claim they represent the interests of all dog owners if they can't recognize all dogs. They can't expect members to make use of protocols to out cross as a means of improvement, when needed, if their own statement is that such an out cross is not recognized. If you push the idea long enough that breeding dogs is a pursuit for professionals backed by 'standards' only, it should be no suprise when that pursuit becomes industrialized. So we are now an industry. It should be representative. I could support a Union. Maybe over time that could see dogs, with diverse representation, return to some semblance of a community concern with hobby interests proving best results. If you can't support diversity, you can't defend anything that threatens the identity of that statement. You are right Asal, re; professional support. Maybe a broader union definition than dog breeders? Actually ALL dog owners need to stand and be counted, I had mine as pets all my life, My Dads dog Blue guarded my cot when I was born and I never went anywhere alone, he was always beside me, it was not until I was nearly 30 I actually bred a litter. All dog owners should have the right to decide if they only want to have theirs as a pet or if they may one day decide to keep their dogs line going. Our politicians want to take that right away. There is not a dog born today that is not the legacy of those who loved and bred its parents and ancestors before it. AR want to break that chain from the past to the future.

Yes, that might be a start. Dog knows we aren't getting anywhere concrete now. We wont either if they all want to see only how it affects them as one group and they continue with their arrogance of being untouchable. Effectively now Vicdogs have said to their members who own 10 or more dogs - sucko because if they defend that then they are accused of supporting puppy farms. Why should a low life dog breeder care about their human rights if they are doing the right thing ? The right thing defined by animal rights. Who will stand up for them when their Brachy head breeds are banned because alone with their current defence arguments they don't stand a chance. And that one doesn't even need parliament - all they have to do is add it to the list they started with Scottish fold cats. I dont know how it is to be done, but breeders and reproduction specalist vets really need to get together and brainstorm how to put together an effective package of information explaining the realities of breeding , genetics and optional breeding ages and management of the female canine. What the AR pushed for and the CC's agreed to was not best practice.

talking to a friend this afternoon, her opinion is nothing is going to happen until all rights are lost as happened to the greyhound owners and maybe then someone will take the state to the courts for restriction of trade n maybe then when its taken that far some thing might be achieved? mabye the members of the so far inert kcc's might need to start lobbying their esecutive ? I remember the massive money dogs nsw racked up some time ago to in a court case against a dust up with a elected member of the board access to the records on the excuse I heard anyway," she was wasting staff time"? think it was the board member who took it to court, but it does show the executive will take to the courts if pressed I believe dogs nsw does put the front that it now is representing all dog owners of the state as it accepts all dogs in some sections of its activities aside from the breed rings now

Those that are pushing this movement are not interested in the pedigree - they are only interested in dividing and conquering. What we should have spotted and what we all should be protesting about and sending out petitions for is for people who own an entire dog is to not have to surrender their base human rights. Hansard tells us that they have moved through and admitted what some of the rights are that they want to take off dog breeders. The right to privacy, the right to a presumption of innocence, the right to free enjoyment of our property, the right to be able to purchase a product of our choice from an easily accessible source, the right to free trade, the right to not have our property taken from us without due process, etc. This isnt made up - its in hansard as part of the plan. THIS is the biggest issue that everyone who owns a dog that they want to breed, whether that be one or one hundred, whether they own a purebred or cross bred, registered or unregistered ,whether they want to source a puppy from a breeder or a pet shop are the real issues. They dont just want to limit numbers, take away exemptions make everyone have a licence They want to leave dog breeders with less rights than a pedophile. breeders should be able to have the same human rights as any other person who lives in this country because it is THIS they are trying to take way from them. Even if the number limitation does not fly and I don't believe it will, even if Vicdogs get their exemptions back and I dont believe they will, even if they change requirements for a DAB or change the codes it still leaves the fact that a person who is a dog breeder has their rights removed if these part of this bill are not removed. THIS is what the general pet owing public have no clue is happening. how on earth can we get it into the press and the TV screens of this nation? the AR nutters get free air time with their bodies smeared in fake blood and wrapped in plastic. we the pet owning MAJORITY have no public face or campaign going, never have

'Exemptions' are not not going to save anyone. They are temporary at best. Exemptions don't prevent people doing the wrong thing. If you promote a standardized environment as the only 'correct' method of breeding and raising dogs, any one taking advantage of exemption will not be doing the the right thing. Sooner or later it will be noticed. You have changed the expectation. Only being held to COMMON expectation reduces the incidence of failure. There is nothing common to our expectations ATM > Our expectation depend on what 'group' you are aligned with. Those aren't favorable to groups you aren't aligned with. So outsiders won't look for the benefits of a group that doesn't do anything for them personaly, they will hold that group responsible for its lowest common denominator. If you won't be part of what people share in common, you won't meet common expectations. The K.Cs are not aligned with 'dog breeders' and owners. They are aligned with Pedigrees. The Difference of K.Cs could be accepted as part of diversity in practice. But if they won't practice an acceptance of diversity themselves, they will be rejected or destroy their own purpose. This process gains momentum and theres not much time left. Expectations are almost destroyed. Police, Guide dogs for the visually disabled, Customs breeding centre? Meeting at Bulla tomorrow night will be interesting. If you legislate things be done a certain way to be correct, then yes. Its an environmental 'Standard'. If everyone must do things this way, then they will come to expect that is the only way they should be done. You have created a common expectation. EVERY ONE will be held to that expectation, eventualy. Its accepted as a condition of keeping dogs. what gets me is the assumption only the breeders of registered pedigree dogs should be allowed, there are still recognised breeds and I suspect some in progress of evolution whose owners should have the right to continue. the Jack Russel was not an ankc breed until relatively recently despite it being known for many many decades, as for the Coolie (around Tarana n Bathurst most are called German Coolies) they have been an aussie breed for beyond my lifetime just because they do not have a studbook or an ankc listing does not make them any less to their rights to exist and continue. People should still have the right to keep and breed whatever type of dog they wish, it has been so for thousands of years, why let the AR nutters and the new kid on the block, the ankc which only came into being how long ago? and still accepting "new" breeds that have been known for generations. The show scene didnt create any of the breeds, people around the world created them. like it or lump it the show scene has morphed many beyond recognition to those bred them as early as the 50's and 60's. Not just the dog breeds, my uncle had Persian Cats, there were cat shows in the 50's and hang on to your hat you who were not alive then. They had faces, they had a muzzle, their eyes were half the size of the gargoyles that grace a cat show today. They could actually breathe without drooling and snoring, their eyes didn't look like they might fall out of their face. they didnt have tear streaks running down their faces and they didn't have wrinkled folds for the tears to stagnate in and get sticky and yuky as we see too often now, the standard actually used the words "plesant expression" that was deleted in the 90's when the gargoyles make that obsolete, I know because my friend fought valiantly to prevent its removal but failed. Those like my friend who wish to still breed their pets with functional tear ducts, nostrils and muzzles long enough the owner can keep its tongue in its mouth should have the RIGHT to do so. who knows, some day the registered pedigree world might finally decide they need a gene pool to reintroduce the faces, eyes, tearducts and functions muzzles back onto the squished's. you never know? people should have the right to still keep and breed what they want, dogs and cats with faces if they want and not have to belong to a club or registry . not everyone wants a flat faced version of the show scene today. the livestock industry, (probably next on the elimination hit list) yes has stud books for a plethora of breeds, but livestock owners also like to create their own or cross with various breeds to suit their purpose and their properties. All dogs lovers need to start communicating, not just the PUREBREED REGISTERED people. ALL who have their dogs be it registered or unregistered should have their right to decide what they want to have. Although I just remembered this is a forum for pedigree breeders only isnt it. the Australian Stumpy Tailed cattledog, was in the end bred into a dead end in the ANKC because only one breeder was left. If it were not for the huge gene pool of unregistered but equally loved stumpy's out there, the drive to find and appendix register dogs from that gene pool the breed would have been lost to source unrelated genetics. the assumption that unregistered, un papered pedigreed (many breeders out west of the divide still have their records, I know the breeders of the Coolies ive seen can rattle off their ancestors names just as fast as any ankc registered dog ) automatically means mongrel needs to be amended before its too late. even the chap who created the first labradoodle believed in what he was doing at the time. time will tell if the incredible mix of oodles going into the recipe will one day discover an emerging type some day. all the talk of anti discrimination laws being applied to people really needs to be applied to dogs and their owners too or am I drawing too long a bow ?

spotted this as my hubby is a primary producer we have a $10 million liability policy, u never know when stock will get out onto public roads or someones child will play chicken with a harvester or chaff cutter, . they are not cheap " To give people an idea of what might be required to obtain a DAB Domestic Animal Business permit to breed just one litter; this is the link to the application for the City of Ballarat. It requires an insurance policy with a $10 million liability clause. http://www.ballarat.vic.gov.au/media/2316972/domestic_animal_business_application_form.pdf "

We are presenting our submission to all MPs but none of our members own more than 10 dogs, none of our members can or do sell puppies to pet shops, and every one of our Victorian Members is a Vicdogs member. Its Vicdogs who have the exemptions and stand to loose for their members. The MDBA doesnt have them and didnt want them because we could see the poo starting to hit the fan. In the main its not our fight. We are very concerned about the loss of a person's human rights across the board as described in Hansard and Im personally amazed that there isn't a bigger outcry over it. People have been trained animal rights precede human rights since the 70's. a murderer is innocent until proven guilty as is a pedophile , as is a domestic violence case and any other that does not involve an animal. admit you have been investigated by a complaint to council or an animal welfare officer and the landslide response "is where there is smoke there's fire." No one who does not wish to be guilty until proven innocent would dare speak up. That shows a very successful AR campaign surely? For example this press release "http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-15/rspca-calls-for-tasmanian-abattoir-to-close-over-cruelty-claims/7935546?WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic" yet its ok for a special constable to have cattle chased through a 12 to 14 foot wide gate and shoot at them as they run through, then chase down the ones, the first shot didn't kill, and call it Euthanasia? with no charges laid even though this man shot over 70 by this method? There are photos of this being done on a utube video so its in the public domain. I well remember when I first heard about the need to eliminate puppy farmers and backyarders in the 70's, when I asked how do you intend to define one, the reply was as airy fairy as todays ones. this writer sums up the problems pretty well too. http://leemakennels.com/blog/dogs-and-politics/why-i-dont-want-oscars-law/ I expect the legislators never get the chance to read either the above or the below articles. http://leemakennels.com/blog/dog-breeding/clean-and-kennelled-the-future-of-dog-breeding/ The days are not too far distance when those who own an animal of any kind may be finding themselves lobbying for anti-discrimination laws for animal owners, think I'm joking, think again.

I prefer to spend my money on genetic testing for genes like pra and such since there is no breed test for humans, we all come back homo sapiens,only locality parameters for populations, I really find it a stretch of the imagination there is a valid one for dog breeds http://www.familytreemagazine.com/article/dna-fact-or-science-fiction

no one seems to understand that all these rules are only ever going to apply to the people who are responsible and belong to a breed society, vaccinated and microchip their puppies are are accountable even though it will mean they will be legislated out of being able to keep their dogs anymore. the people who never chip or register their dogs or puppies are safe and can continue their merry way. How many times are we hearing how many dogs are taken in by the pounds and animal welfare that ARE NOT MICROCHIPPED? THOUSANDS, yet all is being done is making it harder and harder for the registered tracable people, All the adverse publicity over the two breeders in Victoria who were members of Dogs Vic who have had their dogs taken as justification for Dogs Vic not being responisble therefor not allowed imput to govt, yet how many thousands members are not breaking any rules yet they are tarred with the same brush. as for the untracables who never chip. nada zilch is going to happen. there are forums on FB with a zillion unregistered puppies for sale of just about every breed imaginable and where is the traceability of those or accountabilty. None. They actually say on some that their puppies are better because they are being bred for pets not the show ring. Ive been sent links to them so they do exist. They dont need to advertise on gumtree or trading post or whatever. the ones I was sent new borns had deposits on them before they were a week old

Looks like the greyhounds arent the only ones tarred with the lowest common denominator tag

unreal, there really needs education . average puppy prices, airline, transport costs etc, gee even a puppy crate shouldnt cost more than $80? I just send a puppy to a nephews friend in Alice Springs The actual cost of the flight including owning the crate it arrives in was $226. Although the cost of pickup from the sender to Mascot varies with the distance to be travelled. the quote for pickup from my place was $180 some 2 hours diving to the airport

Yup that is right, they won't stop. They most certainly won't stop with the close of the greyhound industry either. If you are right and the industry goes in 3-4 years, next it will be horse racing then maybe pets as they have already been clear that they want to stop all animal exploitation. --Lhok noticed the news reporting at the time was saying "there must be an end to animal exploitation". Wondered if those spouting it, knew what they were saying was pure PETA doctrine? Doubt they had a clue what they were repeating really means. Have to give PETA 10 out of 10 for success in getting people to repeat the mantra, even if they haven't a clue as to the meaning or what it entails

I have rehomed (taken in and kept for the rest of their days over the years) two dogs in the past whose owners couldn't keep them, they were welcome to visit whenever they liked. The deal was if I wasnt home and couldnt get me on the phone to leave a note pegged to to gate if they wanted to take their dog out for the day. worked well. In both instances they had had to move into flats and were not allowed to keep their dog. One in the city, the other at the Snowy. He was one of the lucky ones when the landslide hit, His dog Indi was amazing, still miss the old boy although have his descendants to remind me of him. Shame so much pressure is being put on you

I have rehomed (taken in and kept for the rest of their days over the years) two dogs in the past whose owners couldn't keep them, they were welcome to visit whenever they liked. The deal was if I wasnt home and couldnt get me on the phone to leave a note pegged to to gate if they wanted to take their dog out for the day. worked well. In both instances they had had to move into flats and were not allowed to keep their dog. One in the city, the other at the Snowy. He was one of the lucky ones when the landslide hit, His dog Indi was amazing, still miss the old boy although have his descendants to remind me of him. Shame so much pressure is being put on you

oops

Are Bull Terriers included in this 'Pit Bull' umbrella term and do they then also get caught up in some of this terrible BSL? Yes, definitely. My friend has a mini bull terrier who has been called a pit bull and it seems to be a common experience from what I read online from other bully owners. I hear a lot of stories about people being more afraid of bull terriers than they are of staffy type dogs. That said, I love them all! Staffordshire Bull Terriers, a well bred amstaff and mini and standard bull terriers, they're all great! stupid isnt it, my aunt bred Bull terriers, they would help a burgler carry out the loot for a pat n a scratch. although my other uncles fox terriers would tear pieces out of anyone but him and my aunt, even 5 yr old neices n nephews, we lived in terror of visiting them

yes, although it needs to be done, it has to be done properly or a waste of time. • so right. problem is people who learn about the problems tend to have discovered it first hand and arent qualified enough to do it . Although cant feel too badly, when an ex prosecutor even managed to get his letter tabled in parliament it went no further than inclusion in the Hansard. He is still pretty disgusted over the total lack of response. 3rd June 2010 The Honorable Members General Purpose Standing Committee No.5 Inquiry into the R S P C A raid on the Waterways Wildlife Park Dear Members, My full name is Leon Andrew Mills and I have resided in Gunnedah since 1982, I moved to Gunnedah as a result of my applying for the Police Prosecutors position for the Gunnedah Local Court Circuit. I continued in that position until my retirement in 2006. In 2008 I stood in the Local Government elections and was successful in gaining office as a Gunnedah Shire Councillor. I am still in that position today. The two submission I would like the Honorable Committee to consider are that the compliance section of the RSPCA 9RSPCA Inspectors) be disbanded and that all the duties that they try to perform in relation to the investigation and brief preparation for alleged offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the Act), be given to sworn Constables of the NSW Police Force in particular the Rural Crime Unit. My second submission is that all prosecutions under the Act by done by Police Prosecutors in the Local Court jurisdiction. RSPCA Inspectors obtain their powers s a result of being issued an Authority under .section 4D(2) of the Act. In relation to this Inquiry it is clear that Inspectors Prowse and French have no idea of their powers. I say that on this basis, the Act is clear in relation to what an inspector can do and is set out in Division 2 of the Act. On the Friday following the taking of the Koalas a report was broadcast on the 6.30am local A B C News that Officer Prowse said the reason for taking the Koalas was that they were “stressed”. There is no power under the Act to take an animal that is stressed. It alledging distress, as referred to in Section 24H subsection (5) of the Act, there is no evidence at all that any of these animals were suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. To support what I am submitting, the Honorable Committee would note that the Officers examined the Koalas at about 10.30-11am. They gave no treatment to these Koalas from that time until after 4.30pm, why? There was nothing wrong with them, and of course we are talking about Officers that would be expected to take immediate action if an animal was suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. These two Officers had to do something and they illegally removed these Koala for the sole purpose of the T V show R S P C A Animal Rescue. To further support this submission the head of the R S P C A Mr Steve Coleman said no proceedings would be taken against Nancy Small as a result of community outrage. I completely reject this statement. As a former Police Prosecutor of 28 years both in the city and country on rare occasions there is community outrage when some proceedings are taken. I have never before heard of proceedings for a criminal matter being abandoned or not brought because of community outrage. The reason there were no proceedings brought was that there was nothing wrong with these animals. Offences under the act are Criminal. Officers French and Prowse were supposed to be “investigating” this matter. It is interesting to note the quality of this so called investigation. No interview with Nancy Small or any other carers of these Koalas. No exhibits such as, stool samples, feed provided in the Koala enclosure, photos for identifications of each Koala, no tagging for identification. When one looks at the R S P C A Seizure Notice re this matter S N 010 16 the Officers have not even identified the Koalas to the extent of their sex. This so called investigation is absolutely pathetic and shows the quality of how RSPCA inspectors carry out their duties. The N S W police have a branch now called the Rural Crime Unit these branches operated both in the city and country. They are staffed by sworn Police who have been fully trained in investigation techniques. Many of these Officers are fully trained Detectives. It would be my respectful submission that these officers should take over the compliance section of the R S P C A. Of course it would require extra staff and resources. It would be my suggestion that appropriate funding could be transferred from the funding the State Government gives to the R S P C A to the Police Budget. Another benefit of a transfer to Police is that all Police investigations are subject to review by independent authorities such as the Ombudsman or I C A C. This is not the case with R S P C A inspectors, they answer to no one other than themselves. On the 18th of February last I attended the local branch meeting of the R S P C A as the head of the organization Mr Steve Coleman was attending. During the course of the meeting he answered a number of questions re the Waterways incident. Mrs. Dodd asked him a question being, “who can I complain to”, Mr Coleman’s response was “the Chief Inspector of the RS S P C A”. From a community point of view in this day and age it is totally unacceptable that we have an organization such as this that when a complaint comes in they investigate themselves. The subject Koalas were living in a happy well cared for environment when they were illegally removed by Inspectors French and Prowse. One of the females had a baby Koala in her pouch that Mrs Small was aware of. I have been told that the R S P C A Inspectors became aware of this fact over the 48 hours following their removal. One of the other Koalas was an elderly female that Mrs Small has described as the “Old Lady”. Mrs Small has never denied that this Koala was elderly and whilst ever in good health could live out her days in the Koala Enclosure. Both these Koalas that were supposed to being cared for by Inspectors French and Prowse are now dead so I ask this question what investigation has the RSPCA done in relation to the deaths of these Koala or am I correct in assuming that when an animal dies because of the ignorance or lack of care by that inspector no investigation takes place. This is another example as to why the Police should take over these responsibilities so that when this type of incident occurs it can be properly investigated or reviewed by an appropriate authority. I referred earlier in this document to the fact that prior to my retirement I was the police Prosecutor for the Gunnedah Court Circuit. During the 1980’s and 1990’s and in some cases still to this day besides representing Police informants in Court Police prosecutors represent many other entities, for example, Probation and Parole, National Parks and Wildlife, D O C S, Roads and Traffic Authority and the RSPCA. Over the years until about 2000, every so often I would receive a brief from an RSPCA Inspector who would be the informant usually in more than one information. If the matter was a “not guilty” plea I would present the case on behalf of the informant. If the offence or offences were proved some costs would be sought by the Informant that would usually be for witness expenses and any fodder that may have been required to give to the animals in question. No Legal professional costs were ever sought. In addition a fact I feel is relevant is that Police Prosecutors DPP Prosecutors and Crown Prosecutors have a duty to place all the evidence before the Court. Each carries a custodial penalty of 2 years imprisonment. True there is a difference in the monetary penalty but goal is the most severe penalty for a Criminal Offence. A common assault is one where the victim suffers no serious injury. For some reason the Parliament does not view aggravated cruelty as a serious offence at law. The RSPCA since about 2000, to my knowledge, have been engaging private solicitors to conduct their prosecutions and one might ask why did they move to this system. It is my submission that this practice should cease and that Police Prosecutors should conduct the prosecutions for the RSPCA. I say that on this basis. By engaging private Solicitors or barristers there is no obligation on them to place before the Court evidence that may disadvantage their case. Legal and Professional Costs come into play. If their prosecution is successful they would ask for these costs. It seems unbelievable that recently in one of their prosecutions at Narrabri an amount in excess of a quarter of a million dollars was sought for costs in a matter heard in the Local Court, and as I said before, an offence not serious at law. In conclusion it is my humble opinion that inspectors French and Prowse have no knowledge in respect to their obligations under the Act and it is clear they see their careers more in the field of TV and to add insult to injury when asked a question by myself about the TV show RSPCA Animal Rescue and their role in this incident when he attended Gunnedah on the 18th February last, Mr Coleman’s explanation was and I quote, “the Officers had been on another job with them and when they said they were going to Gunnedah the crew said we might just tag along” end quote. I informed him that I did not accept that explanation at all. It’s a sad situation when the head of such an organization is trying to assist the coverup. Yours faithfully Leon Mills Councilor Gunnedah Shire Council If an ex public prosecutor cant get it under consideration what hope has anyone else really?

https://www.change.org/p/zachary-relouw-make-the-rspca-accountable-to-a-third-party?recruiter=16448581&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-lg-share_petition-custom_msg&fb_ref=Default I know Rosemary D'Agostino began writing to the NSW Parliament 20 or more years ago requesting just that. There is an Ombudsman for just about any problem but that one? Wonder if the starter of this will have any more luck than Rose?

Except why was he not microchipped? isnt it mandatory in Qld for all puppies to be chipped? adorable as he is, another product of unknown breeder if thats the case

Since unless you live in an apartment with no yard everyone is potentially eligible for the moniker looks like the OP has not bothered to come back, its sad how things have changed so much, people want a puppy but unless they buy it from a rescue, they automatically think the worst if they cant find one in rescue and stoop to phone a breeder, if you bred it, your suspect because thanks to AR everyone is viewed as a backyarder and or puppy farmer now. I remember when the term 'backyard breeder' began to be used as an insulting description, asked then, since everyone has a backyard, do you realise you are all eligible to be called that? Fell on deaf ears

I would not be telling a dog like that "no" and I would not be letting it hump my leg either. The way I deal with most dogs like that now is to grab their collar and hold them away from me - until they notice they can't get where they want to go, when they back off, I let them go to see what their choice is... More humping and I collar grab again. If it gets extreme... I have a spare lead in my bag and the dog would get tied up. The other thing I would recommend trying is more subtle. Get some eucalyptus oil, mix it two drops to 200ml water in a misting bottle - and spray on clothes. It smells pretty nasty and would discourage the sniff before humping and probably the humping. Definitely it's a safety problem for the dog as well as the workers. If they spill paint on the dog or someone gets tripped and falls on it - there's going to be problems for the dog too. I'd be careful trying a collar grab with a dog that has been narky with you. Quite a lot of dogs don't like it and if they haven't been conditioned to it, they may bite you just for trying to get their collar. second that - according to the OP the dog already tried to bite when the poor guy attempted to avoid the humping. While such behaviour can be just play, in this case it looks more like dominance behaviour, which is unacceptable towards a human...and dogs are pretty good in finding out (body language, smell) who is the weakest link in the group (this skill comes from the ancestors that had - and still have - to make the easiest kill and avoiding any risk of injuries to maintain the best chance of survival)- I assume the other colleagues don't get humped?...while this are tough times, and it might cost him his job, considering he is just 17 it is part of the learning - he should stand up, talk to his boss and if required should use aversives to defend himself from being humped (you wouldn't allow such behaviour from a colleague, so why would you accept it from a dog???).... Once he made this decision for himself, it might be that the humping stops as the dog might recognize the changed body language / attitude. If his boss can't sort it out and arrange that the dog gets locked away or controlled by the owner he should be ready to defend himself...and a possible bite hurt less than constant humiliation in the long run. ETA: depending on his physical strength and how familiar he is with 'wrestling' a dog, a pepper spray might be a subtile, but very effective alternative: http://www.wellingtonsurplus.com.au/listProduct/SECURITY/PEPPER+SPRAYS he is in a potentially dangerous situation, this is exactly what our neighbors dog began to do and it quickly escalated into being bitten if you said no. let alone touch it. try the aversion scents by all means but really talk to his boss. its the bosses job to ensure his staff are not at risk and THIS IS A RISK situation.

There are Lap breeds, Toy breeds, giant breeds, herding breeds, guarding breeds, retrieving breeds, earth breeds, hunting breeds, and like it or not, fighting breeds. Its also called accurate reporting and it sure was accurate. Thieves tend to run foul of guard dogs if they enter the wrong factory. There are even Police, drug and sniffer dogs, or should the reporting delete that?