asal

You missed the worst part of that story. They took the dog to their vet hospital, put it under a general anaesthetic and x-rayed it all without the owner's permission or knowledge to ascertain whether the dog was a natural bob or had been docked. I was so horrified. The owner had no idea their dog had been taken and it was a brachy breed to top it off. Unnecessary GA and the dog could have died while under and who would be responsible?! Not the RSPCA!! Thats exactly what they did to my dog, exceept while under he had plugs of skin cut out and stitched when even a child could tell the removed skin had no sign of the "mange" they thought he might have. since when was mange and hypathoroydism in breech of the code of practice for breeders? forget theother tests but nope not listed either, since when was invisible mange (proven non existant as well by the skin plugs taken) a life threatening condition?

The RSPCA cannot just do as they like, they are required to get court orders to keep any animal in their care. They can enter to investigate, just like child protection and the police. I wish that were true, but I know first hand it certainly is not. I was NEVERtold the nature of the complaint, I was NEVERtold a thing by the inspector except "you will receive a letter after I have reported to my superior". I NEVERreceived a letter of any kind, I asked Alan Candlish of Dogs NSW to ask for the nature of the complaint on my behalf and if anything concerned the inspector, he too NEVERreceived a reply of any kind. In fact he was so dismayed by his treatment he made comment at the time "Ive never been treated so rudly in my life". my dog was taken 1pm on a Sunday and kept for 13 days. There were no court orders, there were not even any correspondance replied to despite I had sent two registered letters. The then Minister for Agriculture had the hide to explain to me the Whole series was the result of lack of communication on BOTH SIDES up and until the inspector decided to phone me and tell me I could pick him up. AFTER I had paid their invoice. He would not even allow me to see my dog until I refused to pay before I had seen for myself he was still alive. I suggest you read VERY CAREFULLY Leon Mills Letter again if you havent already done so.

Thanks Steve, for those who would like to view the letter, I have copied it from the pdf. as for the hansard wonder how long that would take 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 even makes mention of the lady whose cattle were killed and may or has lost her home to the RSPCA Chairman's law firm at the time.

Yes, that is exactly my vets opinion. So I expect you know what he thinks of the intelligence of the Canine Controlling bodies. But then they are not making the rules for the benefit of the dogs, they are pandering to those they fear will cause them trouble if they dont please the animal libbers and those who consider their dogs to be fur babies. Seems and awful lot of the eticals dont talk much to the repro experts as they seem to always be prattling the dont breed em young n never more than once a year minimum. Yet even gynacologists are agast at how more dangerous it is for both mother and child the older a human mum is before she has her first child, same for the canines too, but hey, to not toe the popularist line is to be automatically "unethical" n thats darned dangerous isnt it fed properly most bitches are fat by the time they are next in heat, but the few that arent then obviously are asking for a break but we surely dont need blanket rules for all like we have now?

</b> or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that: it is necessary to exercise the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical injury to the animal or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary treatment. Yes and there you have it. your child can die in your home and it cannot be entered or broken into by Doc's. Remember the case of the little boy stuffed into a suitcase and thrown into a dam by his own mother, Shillingsworth, Doc's had some half dozen calls the child was in danger, maybe the wrong people have been given the wrong piece of legislation? Yet these people have it all sewn up, when they want to that is. BUT they all to often can and do, choose to keep "their hands tied" as so many have seen with the "cant do anything, it has water and evidance of food". But let em "form the opinion" and your ass is grass, along with the life and well being of your animals as both those cattle and the koala's owners discovered, then they move faster than the storm troopers. Why does this happen? Pretty much many and varied, too many for us to figure, in my friend Marion's case, made the very bad mistakes of thinking she had any 'rights' whatever, worse, offended the Special Constable and ordered him to leave her property. He did along with ten of her 17 horses. Mine, re String , as the letter I finally received from the Dept of Ag, a fellow breeder, called in my chips to someone willing to "form the opinion".

It would generally have to be "reasonable belief" ie a belief based on some factual basis or on a report, not pulled out of thin air. "Saw a dog through a window. Could not see any water bowl. Therefore I believe the dog has no water. On this basis I entered the property and seized the dog to prevent an act of cruelty" That is a reasonable belief (within the intent of the act) Doesn't matter that there probably is a water bowl available. But because it can't be seen that is a reasonable belief it doesn't exist. Where does it say anywhere in the act that the reasonable belief must be based on some factual basis or report? As it is not mentioned there is no requirement. If a matter were to get to a court of law all the inspector would have to say is "I thought there was an act of cruelty that had occured, was happening or was about to happen." They would then be protected by the letter of the law. Where in the matter that Steve raises is there any basis of fact or a report. I also watched the RSPCA rescue with the inspector going into a house about a docked dog. There was no factual evidence that the dog was docked illegally or suffered any form of cruelty. The inspector seen the dog through a window with its curtains pulled open. That is a reasonable belief and thats all that is needed. Exactly there was an incident when a homeowner arrived back home to find his front door forced and his "dog" about to be seized. Except his 'dog' was a lifesize statue, the inspector had seen the 'dog' through the window. Apparently a complaint had been lodged there was an unregistered dog on the premisis and it was never allowed out of the house. In that case the home owner was left pretty offronted at the damage to the home but few seemed to realise te inplications of how that can affect anyone with an actual live pet left home alone. wonder where I might find the link?

This is a Stud Jersey Cow you could see at any show one day. If your jersy or any other bovine looks like this, if a Special Constable arrives and sees her, people in australia, have had their stock shot and charged with cruelty. A huge number of Special Constables know nothing of large livestock, horses or catte, let alone dairy breeds,all they have had is book learning. I made the mistake of mentioning lack of knowldege of livestock the different breeds has led to a number of innocent animals being slaughtered. Another reason for my acute nervousness at being inspected. I was asked had I ever seen the animals in question. I fount it is easy to google for the photos. The ones pictured on the net that I have seen are the same condition as cattle I have bid on and bought at the local cattle sales and they were not even shiny coated like the animals listed as having been submitted to the magistrate from the RSPCA files and the ones the family took the same day as well are available for viewing on the net of the animals both before and after they were shot. These are the reasons I am so afraid of being inspected, it is simply a matter of opinion of the Special Constable to form the opinion and you have no avenue of appeal. Even that stupid debarking law in Victoria hasnt been repealed yet. So anyone who lives in another state and has has ever bought a dog born in Victoria and had it debarked in your state, better not move to Victoria if you are still showing, because it is still law that a Victorian resident cannot show a dog born in Victoria and debarked in another state.

I think some of it is impacted by where you live and what breed you are in and what activities you do with your dogs. The RSPCA have no option but to investigate complaints. Thanks Steve. completly correct. so once they are at your property they inspect everything not only on your land but any other livestock you may have anywhere else. three properties down are 5 ponies, she asked do we own them in which case if the answer is yes , they too would be inspected and assessed. That is the law. I am amazed how little people know what will happen if the phone call is about them one day.

I realise I did not explain Marion's horses had been on agistment and when she learned they were starving there she booked two trucks and had them brought back to her property where she lived, they had only been back less than 2 weeks when the complaint was made by someone who noticed them over the fence. She knew there was a chance of that, they were in awful condition when they came back. We both believed that as they all now had access to all they wanted to eat and plenty of water, with the result they were gaining back their weight amazingly fast there would not be a problem. Marion having a short temper and being rude led to the inspector deciding to "form the opinion" immediately. Instead of the normal, will come back to check in two weeks, or the tied hands story's. I think maybe I would have put the sorry tale and the instant seizure down to being Marions fault for her short temper. That day at the Auction and the Inspector told the Auctioneer "no one but the doggers are allowed to bid on these horses" made me realise just how immense the power our politicions have handed over without one single check or balance included to intervene when something goes nasty. It was not until I received Richard Amery's letter years later after it had been my turn to discover normal practice, ie, told the nature of the complaint and 2 weeks to rectify. Is not the the only power they have. Nor do they have to do so. Until I received that letter I had no idea that all an Inspector/Special Constable needs is to "form the opinion" to seize instantly. I also have since learned from watching the experince of others in the news and the press, that if you are charged no matter how you want to fight for your reputation, you need your head read if you do not plead guilty. The old lady with the debarked dog in Victora I belive pleaded guilty, but the magistrate I understand refused to accept the plea and dismissed the case. The rammifications if you do not win will be the awarded legal fees of their solicitors can probably lose you your home even if a conviction brings down a nominal fine.

ha now I understand. Totally forgot about that Puppy complaint as it was dropped the second he heard I had thrown in the towel and dispersed my dogs after the "dogs in boxes" complaint. The visit just completed was a follow up of the "boxes" complaint. Pure bad luck that one I suspect, how a vet can decide fluid on or in the brain is inherited yet not occur until the puppy is some 6 or 7 months old is beyond me. the perfect age for lapping the house or anywhere else and running into things occasioning concussion and such. Managed a beauty myself last year, not recommended at all. maybe we are going to learn you cant get concussion unless your parents have a faulty brain one day? so far as I know concussion is cause by the brain being bruised by rapid deceleration of the skull when it hits something, like a solid object for example and since most of it is fluid the impact of the brain with the skull is the problem? Sorry I am just so worried, I am working hard to stay calm and fix any possible imperfection that might be found. In the case of my horse I want the farrier here yesterday so he cant be seized and fixed by them and whatever other costs added like they did with stringy. It only cost me $48 for my vet to diagnose the blue gene alopecia. It cost me $500 for the RSPCA to confirm my vet was telling the truth.

Do you realise that seems as if you wonder if that lady many not have healthy animals either? As I recall not one person who knew this lady believed she was in any way deserving of the nightmare she was dragged through. Will you never believe anyone until the day arrives where you "actually know someone who has well looked after healthy animals who have had the RSPCA called in on them." Is that what is called apathy, untill its your butt in the fire?

why are u using the plural sense? how can you use that term when the first instance I refer to occured 12 years ago and this one just occurred recently? I understand my crime was I parked my station waggon (the back was up and all the windows open because the dogs were in the vehicle) at a fast food outlet and another customer took down my number plate because they believed the three carry cages were boxes. The description the Special Constable read to me said I "had them stuffed into boxes and it appeared they lived permantly in them in the back of the vehicle"? as for the horse I gather you are also unaware that once a complaint has been lodged the special constable then by law has full access to inspect every living creature on the premises for any possible breeche's of care. They do not have to be vets, they do not have to have any completed animal husbandary degrees, they only need to be "enrolled, in an animal care course." Perhaps your tone is unintentioned, you say you have never met anyone with healthy animals had a complaint made against them? Am I or anyone reading that to assume you just may suspect mine were not healthy or I would not have a legal carry crate described as a box ? To both myself and the Special Constable who came as a result of the call and saw for herself what 'boxes' were in the vehicle, came to the conclusion that the 'concerned caller' had no idea that it is illegal to transport a dog or dogs loose in a moving vehicle or have the faintest idea what a legal carry crate is or looks like. So you see there is no friend or neighbour involved. I have not had a Special Constable arrive after a complaint in the last 13 years,(the previous one was 2000 or is two in 13 years constitute me being classed as a repeat offender? I perceive this incident as the day has arrived, if you have more than one dog with you whenever or wherever you go now, you will attract the attention of anyone who watches the programs calling for the public to be on the lookout for collectors, BYB and puppy farmers. I am not afraid of this Special Constable, I actually admire her, she was incredibly nice to a very agitated old duck. Trouble is I am only too aware that all it will take is one to decide to use the power that I learned exists and what it will mean financially, even worse if anthing could be found to charge me, it isnt the fine that will send you bankrupt if a guilty verdict is made, it is the court costs awarded to their legal teams that can amount to hundreds of thousands when they choose to do so.

unfortunately a breed standard is open to interpretation. so yours is right and anyone elses is wrong. bit like how many religions are based on the old testament alone? lot of differing interpretations there too

I do not know the lady in Victoria. It is not just people I know who have learned what I am trying to tell the sceptical. There is a problem. There is an organization in this country with immense powers yet there is absolutely nothing in place in this country to appeal too, either before or after the fact, which you will finally learn once the target is YOU. You have NO avenue of appeal, their employees are totally unaccountable to any law agency in the land. A corrupt police officer can be reported, they can be investigated even be filmed, taped, charged and prosecuted as the ACCC have shown, but there is no such accountabality for any whatsoever in the RSPCA. It is not of my imagination. I wish it was.

Oops Yes I had an Inspector arrive as stated recently due to the "stuffed in boxes" complaint. Since this year to my knowledge is 2012 I think? that means its been 12 years I have lived in fear of the next visit when it comes and what may happen this time. The complaint was about the dogs in boxes. Now although no complaint has been received about my horse his feet are considered cause for concern. Do I fear if I dont have his hooves cut away until all chips are removed and the offending split gone? Before a special constable can walk though our gate at any time I sure do. Because unlike you I KNOW (I learned the hard way, first hand experiance). that once an inspector "forms the opinion" he be seized they can not only take whatever said opinion has been formed about but charge me every single cent for every single test or work it is decided to perform. As marion then a year later I, discovered its not enough to have clean food and water available or no conditions requiring immediate veterinary care as listed in to so oft quoted "Animal Welfare Code of Practice,, Breeding dogs and cats" we found that out prior to 2000. Except most inspectors dont invoke the "forms the opinion" and seize. Too many people finding that out would make joe public realise just how powerful they really are. So it only happens when as in Marions case she offended the specal constable. or in my case as the letter I have from the Minister of Agriculture explained the special constable was sent to find a conviction that day. How many times have I read people fuming over starving animals but the poor special constables "hands are tied" they have fresh water and food can be seen so they can do nothing, the laws need to be changed..... how often have we heard that and how many new ones have slid through parliment since. Look at the poor woman in Victoria whose debarked dog enabled the RSPCA to seize all her debarked dogs and charge her 77 counts for the 77 times she had shown them, because their new law now makes it a chargeable offence to show a Victorian dog if it was debarked in another state. Each charge carried a one year term in jail. Although as the RSPCA at the time explained,"our hands are tied, we must prosecute" its the law you cannot show a Victorian born dog that belongs to a Victorian owner if it has been debarked in another state, we have to prosecute, so a 60 plus pensioner was facing a possible sentance of 77 years jail. Fortunately the presiding magistrate discovered his hands were not tied by the same law and I understand dismissed the case. She was incredibly lucky. Unfortuatley her dog wasn't, the vet who reported her after examining it for a checkup for its new owner, told the new owner the dog was not properly socialised as it did not like the vet and was euthanised, it was an ex show dog, , the breed standard actually does say the breed is suspicious of strangers, in that dogs case, suspicion proved fatal. Mind you you can show that same dog if it had been debarked in Victoria or debarked even by the very same RSPCA . OR if you are a resident of any other state and your dog is debarked in your own state you can still go to a Victorian show and show your dog and it is not breaking the law? go figure. anyone know where to find that thread?

I am not being 'targeted' as you assume. I do talk about he who must not be named. thats all. To admit you have been visited is seen to admit you deserved it. The culture is only bad people are, so to do so is to "have deserved it" like the "uncovered meat" as that darling muslim cleric described women who do no wear hajib. My dog Stringy was taken in 1999 or was it 2000 anyway yes I talk about it, why should I be ashamed? It only cost me $500 in unnecessay (in the minister's and the RSPCA's opinion it was for my dogs benefit he endured 21 needle insertions as my vets diagnos of blue gene allopecia was now officially verified, I was not charged for any offences and now my dog has had a complete workup. how dare I feel anythig but gratitude. My friend Marion Alcorn had ten of 17 her pure arabians, removed without her consent the same day the inspector arrived after receiving a call about their condition. Yes they were thin, they had been removed from a severly drought affected property, when the inspector arrived they all had ample feed available for every one of them, all troughs were full of fresh clean water (how do I know? I helped her fill them all and carry out the feed, I knew and handled every one of them) and she was not given even a day to rectify anything, The foolish woman told the inspector to get off her property thinking 30 years of breeding champion horses gave her the knowledge to care for them. She was given a choice, pay $7,000 in costs to get them back or sign them over to the RSPCA, the one condition she put was they be promised good homes, I was with her every minute of that day including the negotions and signing and witness to the verbal promise. Four days later I was also witness to the now CEO walk into the sale ring at McGraths Hill saleyards and advise the auctioneer that "no one but the doggers are to bid on these horses". I will not crawl into a hole and let no on be aware of the immense power this organisation already had in 1998 and 2000 knowing they are constantly working unceasingly to increase that power through legislation. what was that saying? ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ said by: Edmund Burke Trouble is our population has been trained to belive that no good people attract the attention of the RSPCA so nothing I or marion ever say will be believed, its the same mentally as the "uncovered meat" very effective in shaming into silence, I'm tired of being afraid

Just had a phone call from a friend who called to ask me what I think of the information in the last Canine journal. She said that its been passed that in future there will be a levy on every purebred pup registered which will then be forwarded to the RSPCA. That being a member also means you agree to RSPCA inspection at any time? My membership is still current but I cant remember where I put the latest journal so cant check for myself. Is this correct?

thankyou for taking the time to explain so easily to understand. my learning was with horses and very diffent wording

As I understand it, once a RSPCA Inspector has been sworn in as a Special Constable. A Special Constable does not need to be a vet or any other such degree. All a Special Constable needs is to "form the opinion" an animal should be seized and taken to the RSPCA premises for veterinary appraisal. Once this has been done and the Form of Seizure filled out, and the animal seized and removed, every thing else done after having "formed the opinion" is legal, be it any and all testing done which is fully billable to the owner regardless. All tests are billable even if none of the tests decided on or the original seizing condition, are not listed anywhere in the "Animal Welfare Code of Practice,, Breeding dongs and cats" This is what I was advised by the then Minister for Agriculture at the time of Stringys seizure and when I asked how can this be legal if none of the conditions listed as the reason for seizure or testing was in breech of said "Animal Welfare Code of Practice,, Breeding dongs and cats" remember the reason I was given was this was covered by the fact that all the inspector needed to seize is they "form the opinion" the animals best interests would be best served, etc. He also assured me I had nothing to fear now or in the future as long as I conformed to said "Animal Welfare Code of Practice,, Breeding dongs and cats" I can only conclude he meant that I had nothing to fear in the way of prosecution? Certainly I can still have my animal seized and will be billed for all testing or treatment if a Special Constable does decide to "form the opinion" the animals best interests would be best served etc. Should we as pet/livestock owners instead need to think of these powers as a safety net that Special Constables are there to decide for us that tests need to be done and joyous at the propect of paying bills I never asked for or that my own vet cant do without my consent on the grounds that our and/or my animals health and safety is of far more concern to the RSPCA than its owner or vet ? I was born of a generation that thought our pets were our responsiblity and our vets were who we trusted to care for them? the more I read that Dept of Agriculture letter the more I realised a pet/livestock owner somehow slides into a new category and it scares me

dont worry, it means "a limit register" not unlimited. way back when there was two kinds of puppy sold. Pet, ie all you got was a hand written or typed copy of the puppies parents, grandparents, and great grandparents. Then there Main Registered, the form of Registration for that puppy with its registered name and breeding from the what was then in NSW the RNSWKC now Dogs NSW or whatevr relevant state. without which the dog could not be shown or bred from if you wanted to be able to register the puppies for show and breeding. now days the registering bodies make breeders register every puppy but those sold as pets get an official orange coloured form in the same set out as the offical BLUE one they must have if they are to be shown or bred from. is that any clearer? I hope so

Im only half serious honest injun

and for gods sake dont say you didnt choose him without complete genetic testing of him and her. all xrays done etc. these days choosing a sire because you like him, is parents or his pups, you may as well tie the noose and jump rather than post here

thanks for the explaination. to me chocolate acts a a dilute hence me using that word. same reason I visualise blue as a dilute. in so much that neither can express unless its in double dose what neither can do is express as either chocolate or blue on a non black based dog in any form other than the nose and eye rims. yet on a black based dog the coat will be either blue or chocolate or as stated in conjunction together turn a black based to lilac or what ever word is applicable to the different breeds. as well in the case of a non black based dog the nose and eye rims still show the same nose and eye rim colour seen in the black based dog, only the dd bb cannot influence the coat colour, except in the case of those which also carry the black ticking on the end hairs that is the Sable description. in which case the black ticking is changed to either chocolate ticking, blue ticking or lilac ticking. as well in those with the inheritance of the black mask on and otherwhise red based dog the mask will show the presence being instead chocolate, blue or lilac the way words are used to describe these two genes can be incredibly confusing,, there really needs to be some form of conformity doesnt there.

the dogs for conformity to the code of practice. since the copy I have only talks about dogs and cats. I havent a code of practice for horses any one know if its the rules that horses have to never have chipped or any visable split or splits in their feet? or I gather proof I have a farrier regularly to trim them. I cant recall one ever giving me a recept? scarey isnt it

trouble is an unfortunately large percentage of people tend to be judge jury and executioner with no interest in the how or why. apparently if you are 'ethical' such things dont happen. soo if it does then case closed. I noticed how fast someone got the chop when someone decided the op was not a registered breeder, even though the op said both were registered? although where registered wasnt said. someone just today said their dogs are only registered in the working breeds not the KC and they havent been delete yet so im not sure if the rules are you can only be a member if its an AKC breeder. which the working kelpies and borders are not, weird isnt it, the real working dogs cant be shown, they have to be bench dogs n dont need to be able to do the job they were originaly evolved for?