Opinion Piece In Sydney Morning Herald - Puppy Farms

[Curlybert]

And this is a federal election, is it not?

.....

Isn't Heather FEDERAL President of the RSPCA these days? If so, one would think that she would know that this could not be a topic of Federal elections ...... but then again you know what they say about any publicity .....

sigh

Souff

Actually, I suspect the article was a means of plugging the RSPCA's new website www.politicalanimal.org.au. That website says puppy farms ARE a federal matter in some respects:

What we want

The laws governing puppy factories are a mess and need to be completely overhauled. Every level of government has a responsibility to fix this problem and has the power to make it harder for puppy factories to operate.

Federal Government

Tighten export provisions for the sale of puppies overseas – this is a small but lucrative market for puppy farmers.

Ask the Australian Taxation Office to investigate known individuals involved in puppy farming – our information indicates that puppy farmers favour cash transactions and may not declare their full income.

Work with State/Territory Governments to reform and harmonise animal welfare and consumer protection legislation and processes.

Work with State/Territory Governments to develop national standards for the breeding and selling of companion animals.

[Souff]

Yes, taxation is a federal matter and the laws are already in place, and being used effectively, to catch those who have a cash income and do not declare it.

They might be puppy farmers or they might be top end business operators but the tax man is on their trail .... reds under the bed included.

Export provisions ... now that is interesting. Dept of Trade maybe but they are usually only interested in megabucks transactions that good lobbyists take them out to lunch for. They would probably be lucky to get a decent cup of coffee from the dog world lobbyist, not a good lunch

You could be meaning export quarantine restrictions I suppose .... invent a story that Australian dogs have monkey virus and keep them out of other countries that way. But I understand that has already been done too.

Good luck with the last 2 .... you only have to look at other state laws and the variances between them to see that it is a case of every bunch of state bureaucrats protecting their career 'patch' to understand that this is a big ask.

Getting back to the original call, trying to make out this is a Federal matter and that our federal political aspirants will drop everythig and make some wild promises ..... well, we know all about political promises

Don't we?

Souff

[Curlybert]

You appear to be confused Souff. I have nothing to do with either the Herald article or the Political Animal website from which I extracted some info to demonstrate the federal angle.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Curlybert

[Little Gifts]

"so how come they allow puppy farm dogs to stand in their own filth, day in day out , amongst other things?"

This is also what I can't get my head around RSG. Why does it have to get desperate before they move in and assist or remove? If normal households have minimum standards to meet then why don't puppy farmers facilities? Maybe the secretive nature of them means they can get away with a bit more for a bit longer before the RSPCA can get enough evidence to do something? Maybe they know how to play the system? It's an aspect of this I just don't understand.

[Souff]

You appear to be confused Souff. I have nothing to do with either the Herald article or the Political Animal website from which I extracted some info to demonstrate the federal angle.

No, Souff is not confused at all.

You put forward these aspects from a website and I am telling you that most of these things have already been done.

You could think of it as a service to the community from Souff if you like.

Do you know how many people don't know that legislation about many of these aspects is already in place, often not being used properly, and gthat many f these same people think that all these aspects are new and that some more legislation will "fix" the problem?

It doesnt "fix" anything if you are targetting the wrong area of government, as is likely to happen here if they go down the federal road.

A bit like having the fire brigade on the wrong side of town while your house is burning down.

Souff

[Curlybert]

Ah well, I'm confused then. I guess it's because you refer to yourself in the third person instead of the first, and (at least in relation to your previous post) to third persons (presumably the RSPCA) in the second person. This is why I thought you were referring directly to me.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Curlybert

[Souff]

Ah well, I'm confused then. I guess it's because you refer to yourself in the third person instead of the first, and (at least in relation to your previous post) to third persons (presumably the RSPCA) in the second person. This is why I thought you were referring directly to me.

Gosh, all of that sounds very confusing

Legislation is much easier to understand.

[WreckitWhippet]

I don't see how they can shift the blame to councils or blame the exisiting legislation. If an RSPCA inspector walks into a puppy farm or anyone's house for that matter and finds dogs knee deep in shit, in need of medical attention, malnourished etc, then they have the power to act. They can issue notices stipulating that x y or z be rectified and a time frame in which to comply.

How is this not enough to improve the conditions in which the dogs live and breed ?

Ok, it doesn't shut a farm down straight away, but you know if a puppy farmer has to lift their game and are subject to inspection and follow up, that it gets harder and more costly for them to operate.

[chriswiddler]

I don't see how they can shift the blame to councils or blame the exisiting legislation. If an RSPCA inspector walks into a puppy farm or anyone's house for that matter and finds dogs knee deep in shit, in need of medical attention, malnourished etc, then they have the power to act. They can issue notices stipulating that x y or z be rectified and a time frame in which to comply.

How is this not enough to improve the conditions in which the dogs live and breed ?

Ok, it doesn't shut a farm down straight away, but you know if a puppy farmer has to lift their game and are subject to inspection and follow up, that it gets harder and more costly for them to operate.

Well said. "Work with State/Territory Governments to develop national standards for the breeding and selling of companion animals"" is the real agenda of the self-styled animal welfare lobby and it's hangers on. Easy targets first then eventually all breeders. Of course they wont ban breeding outright just make it so expensive no one can comply and the real animal abusers who have the money to fight back will continue on as usual as they pick on the mentally ill and indigent. They in any case will continue to kill by the truckload in the name of saving animals. Hmm reminds me of "special treatment" IN ANOTHER TIME AND ANOTHER PLACE STILL WITHIN LIVING MEMORY!!! Linguists would have a field day with this mobs debasement of the English language.

[Adza]

Well, watching a special episode on DW, he looked at puppy mills in the US and it wasn't a pretty episode, really opened my eyes. So it seems this is a world wide issue, and there are organisations like RSPCA in the US who cannot close them down either, even though they are in bad conditions they still met their regulations (how I don't know).

There has to be more to it, I wouldn't say RSPCA aren't trying...

To think these people can breed these dogs like mad in really bad conditions get away with it, to me animals are so lovable and somewhat like children, what if they had human mills? oh no the politicians would kick up a fuss wouldn't they?

[Souff]

Well, watching a special episode on DW, he looked at puppy mills in the US and it wasn't a pretty episode, really opened my eyes. So it seems this is a world wide issue, and there are organisations like RSPCA in the US who cannot close them down either, even though they are in bad conditions they still met their regulations (how I don't know).

There has to be more to it, I wouldn't say RSPCA aren't trying...

To think these people can breed these dogs like mad in really bad conditions get away with it, to me animals are so lovable and somewhat like children, what if they had human mills? oh no the politicians would kick up a fuss wouldn't they?

Well, there is no reason WHY they should "get away with it".

THE RSPCA ALREADY HAVE THE LEGISLATION THEY NEED .... they just have to USE the legislation that they already have.

Here are some of the powers that the RSPCA has in New SOuth Wales, and this legislation is very similar to the laws in other states of Australia.

Division 2 Powers of inspectors

24D Interpretation and application of Division

(1) In this Division:

inspector means an officer (other than a police officer) who is the holder of an authority issued under subsection (2) that is in force, or a police officer.

land includes premises or a vehicle, vessel or aircraft.

(2) The Minister, or the Director-General or a Deputy Director-General of the Department, may issue an officer with an authority for the purposes of this Division and may revoke any such authority.

(3) An inspector may not exercise powers under this Division in relation to animal research carried out in accordance with the Animal Research Act 1985 on designated land within the meaning of that Act unless the inspector is also an inspector within the meaning of that Act.

24E Power to enter land

(1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any function under this Division.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may exercise a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant or if the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that:

(a) an animal has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires immediate veterinary treatment, and

(b) 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.

24F Search warrant

(1) In this section:

authorised officer has the same meaning as it has in the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002.

(2) An inspector may apply to an authorised officer for a search warrant if the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that there is, in or on any land:

(a) an animal in respect of which an offence against this Act or the regulations is being or has been committed or is about to be committed, or

(b) evidence of an offence against this Act or the regulations that has been committed.

(3) An authorised officer to whom an application is made under subsection (2) may, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for doing so, issue a search warrant authorising an inspector named in the warrant, together with any person so named:

(a) to enter and search the land, and

(b) to exercise any functions of an inspector under this Division in or on the land.

(4) Division 4 of Part 5 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 applies to a search warrant issued under this section.

24G Powers of inspectors in relation to land used for certain commercial purposes

(1) This section applies to the following land:

(a) land used for the purpose of a sale-yard or an animal trade,

(b) land in or on which an animal is being used, or kept for use, in connection with any other trade, or any business or profession (including a place used by a veterinary practitioner for the purpose of carrying on his or her profession).

(2) For the purposes of ensuring that the provisions of this Act or the regulations are not being contravened, an inspector may, in relation to land to which this section applies, do any or all of the following:

(a) inspect and examine the land, any animal that is in or on the land and any accommodation or shelter that is provided in or on the land for any animal,

(b) inspect and examine any register that is kept under this Act or the regulations and that is in or on the land,

© require any person found in or on the land to produce any such register,

(d) take copies of, or extracts or notes from, any such register.

(3) A person must not fail to comply with a requirement made by an inspector under subsection (2) ©.

Maximum penalty (subsection (3)): 25 penalty units.

24H Powers of police officers to detain vehicle or vessel

(1) If a police officer suspects on reasonable grounds that a vehicle or vessel contains an animal in respect of which an offence against section 5, 6, 7 or 8 has been or is being committed and that the animal is in distress the police officer may:

(a) stop the vehicle or vessel, and

(b) enter the vehicle or vessel, and

© enter any land for the purpose of entering the vehicle or vessel, and

(d) examine the animal.

(2) For the purpose of entering the vehicle or vessel or examining the animal concerned, the police officer may direct the person operating the vehicle or vessel to do any or all of the following:

(a) to manoeuvre the vehicle or vessel in a specified manner or to a specified place (including a place that is appropriate for examining the animal concerned),

(b) to park or secure the vehicle or vessel in a specified manner,

© to remain in control of the vehicle or vessel while the police officer is exercising his or her functions.

(3) A person must not fail to comply with a direction given to the person under this section.

Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units.

(4) A direction under this section to stop a vehicle or vessel must be made in a manner prescribed by the regulations by a police officer who is identified in a manner so prescribed.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), an animal is in distress if it is suffering from exposure to the elements, debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury.

24I Powers of inspectors generally to examine animals

An inspector may examine an animal if the inspector suspects, on reasonable grounds, that:

(a) an offence against this Act or the regulations is being, has been or is about to be committed in respect of the animal, or

(b) the animal has not been provided with proper and sufficient food or drink during the previous 24 hours (or, in the case of the provision of food to an animal of a class prescribed by the regulations, during the period prescribed for that class of animal) and is still not being provided with that food or drink, or

© the animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is necessary that the animal be provided with veterinary treatment and the animal is not being provided with that treatment, or

(d) the animal is so severely injured, so diseased or in such a physical condition that it is cruel to keep it alive, and the animal is not about to be destroyed, or is about to be destroyed in a manner that will inflict unnecessary pain on the animal.

24J Powers of inspectors in relation to care of animals

(1) If, after examining an animal in accordance with this Division, an inspector suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the animal is in distress (as referred to in section 24H (5)) or any of the circumstances referred to in section 24I exist in relation to the animal, the inspector may do any or all of the following:

(a) take possession of the animal (or, if the animal is dead, the animal’s carcass),

(b) if appropriate, remove the animal (or carcass) to such place as the inspector thinks fit,

© retain possession of the animal (or carcass),

(d) provide the animal with necessary food, drink or veterinary treatment,

(e) destroy the animal in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain.

(2) An animal (or carcass) to which section 24I (a) applies may be retained by an inspector for a period not exceeding 60 days or where, within that 60-day period proceedings are commenced in respect of the offence concerned, until the proceedings are finally determined (unless the court otherwise directs).

(3) Despite subsection (2), an animal retained under this section that is in distress or to which section 24I (b), © or (d) applies may be retained for such period of time as is sufficient for the animal to be provided with necessary food, drink or veterinary treatment, or to be destroyed in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary pain, as the case requires.

(4) The reasonable expenses incurred by:

(a) an inspector who is a police officer or another person on behalf of the NSW Police Force, or

(b) an inspector who is an officer of a charitable organisation or another person on behalf of the organisation, or

© an inspector who is a member of staff of a Department (within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act 2002) or another person on behalf of the Crown,

in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section in respect of an animal, or in complying with the related duties imposed by this Act or the regulations, may be recovered from the owner of the animal as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction by the inspector or any other person acting on behalf of the NSW Police Force, a charitable organisation or the Crown.

24K Power of seizure of evidence of offences

(1) An inspector who is lawfully on any land investigating a suspected commission of an offence against this Act or the regulations may seize any thing that will afford evidence of the commission of the offence.

(2) An inspector who seizes a thing under this section must provide the occupier of the land with a receipt acknowledging the seizure of the thing if the occupier is present and it is reasonably practical to do so.

(3) If an inspector seizes a thing under this section, it may be retained by the inspector until the completion of any proceedings (including proceedings on appeal) in which it may be tendered in evidence.

(4) However, an inspector may retain seized documents under subsection (3) only if the person from whom the documents were seized is provided, within a reasonable time after the seizure, with a copy of the documents certified by an inspector to be a true copy.

(5) Subsection (3) ceases to have effect in relation to any thing seized if, on the application of the person aggrieved by the seizure, the court in which the proceedings referred to in that subsection are instituted orders the inspector to return the thing seized.

24L Period for search limited

(1) An inspector who enters land under this Division must not remain on the land any longer than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose for which the land was entered.

(2) A police officer who detains a vehicle or vessel under this Division must not detain the vehicle or vessel any longer than is reasonably necessary to achieve the purpose for which it is detained.

24M Inspectors may be assisted in exercising powers

An inspector may exercise a power conferred by this Division:

(a) in a place other than residential premises—in the company and with the aid of such assistants as the inspector considers necessary, or

(b) in residential premises—in the company and with the aid of such assistants, being persons of a class prescribed by the regulations, as the inspector considers necessary.

24N Notices in relation to animals

(1) If an inspector is satisfied on reasonable grounds that a person is contravening a provision of this Act or the regulations in relation to an animal, the inspector may give the person a notice in writing requiring the person to take such specified action in relation to the animal as the inspector considers necessary to avoid any further contravention.

(2) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a notice is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: 25 penalty units.

(3) A person cannot be convicted for both an offence against this section and another offence under this Act or the regulations in respect of the same act or omission.

[Angelina]

Look I understand that some of you have seen issues with RSPCA that has left you cyncial, unhappy. And, I do not take that away and actually keep that in mind when I see things about RSPCA.

However, a lot of you, as soon RSPCA appears in an article, you don't look for any merit at all... it is straight away RSPCA bashing...

[chriswiddler]

Look I understand that some of you have seen issues with RSPCA that has left you cyncial, unhappy. And, I do not take that away and actually keep that in mind when I see things about RSPCA.

However, a lot of you, as soon RSPCA appears in an article, you don't look for any merit at all... it is straight away RSPCA bashing...

Because there is no merit. They kill and abuse far more animals than the animal abusers they claim to oppose!!! And that's a fact Jack!

[WreckitWhippet]

Look I understand that some of you have seen issues with RSPCA that has left you cyncial, unhappy. And, I do not take that away and actually keep that in mind when I see things about RSPCA.

However, a lot of you, as soon RSPCA appears in an article, you don't look for any merit at all... it is straight away RSPCA bashing...

what merit ? they are on the whole hopeless and incompetent. Maybe that comes from having their fingers in too many pies.

[Curlybert]

[ They kill and abuse far more animals than the animal abusers they claim to oppose!!! And that's a fact Jack!

What a ridiculous thing to say. Show us yer facts, Max!

[WreckitWhippet]

[ They kill and abuse far more animals than the animal abusers they claim to oppose!!! And that's a fact Jack!

What a ridiculous thing to say. Show us yer facts, Max!

Rozzies dogs are a prime example of how they've killed and injured dogs in their possession. Judy Gard also comes to mind, when they marched in with their steel caps on and took well cared for house dogs out of their loving environment and shoved them in kennels. They killed Clifford when he was no longer usefull to them.

Edited August 10, 2010 by ReadySetGo

[Curlybert]

That's three cases and no doubt very, very distressing for the owners involved. But the sum of those cases does not address Chris Widdlers's preposterous claim that the RSPCA has killed and abused "far more animals than the animal abusers they claim to oppose".

[WreckitWhippet]

That's three cases and no doubt very, very distressing for the owners involved. But the sum of those cases does not address Chris Widdlers's preposterous claim that the RSPCA has killed and abused "far more animals than the animal abusers they claim to oppose".

That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the RSPCA being incompetent

[Curlybert]

That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the RSPCA being incompetent

Does this mean you actually agree with CW's statement that he/she claims is a fact?

[BJean]

That's three cases and no doubt very, very distressing for the owners involved. But the sum of those cases does not address Chris Widdlers's preposterous claim that the RSPCA has killed and abused "far more animals than the animal abusers they claim to oppose".

Oh so you are counting now...

Are you counting the battery hens the RSPCA did a lucrative deal over

or the 'too hard' basket the RSPCA gives a wide berth to while they go after soft targets?

or the animals that suffer while the rspca funnels funds into addressing the heinous accounts of debarking and tail docking.

c'mon curly bertie -

hey maybe you can give us some figures or even an efficiency ratio of how many animals the RSPCA save per dollar donation?

maybe contact Mildura council and find out how well the rspca spent funds there, get a list of all their achievements ...

knock us all over with a swanky rspca feather.

Edited August 10, 2010 by lilli