Interesting Conversation With Rspca Inspector.

[asal]

Some time ago, early this year , I had a puppy I bred last year obviously turning out to be quite small, so at about the four month old stage found a pet home for her.

Some months later received a phone call from the owner she was having difficulty controlling her legs, was fine until then and had never had any problems. As in hypoglycemia or anything thing else, she is a toy breed.

Next I get a call she is at vets and in induced coma to reduce brain swelling?

Last time I heard that one a friends had ran into a chair leg and had severe concussion, in my case I discovered one of mine some years ago had had a stroke. The vet’s procedure was to induce coma to see if the brain swelling would go down.

Swelling's of the brain tends to be serious and offered to take her back for a refund or replacement puppy NO, but they wanted to keep her, even offered a replacement to keep her company both the sick puppy and the owner but this too was refused.

Last call I received was some 2 or 3 months ago, to say was home from the vets and all limbs working fine.

Believed, thank goodness alls finally ok.

Then last week, get a phone call. The dog is relapsing, could they have the other puppy I had offered.

Problem was, I kept that replacement puppy till it was 7 months old and finally found a home for it since I had not heard from them for so long. I have now retired from breeding and rehomed all but my non breeding pets so No longer any available.

Just how long is such an offer supposed to be on the table after two definite, No, from them?

So now I get too yesterday.

It’s the RSPCA on the phone, have received a complaint I am breeding from defective dogs. Have a copy of the owners vet report that the dog examined has brain defect, believed by the vet to be inherited?

Yet they cant say what it is?

So how can they then say its inherited?

Now this is the odd bit.

Soon as I said I was no longer breeding, the inspector was happy?

Will check there is not breeding done anymore and the complainant will be told it’s a civil matter?

Wasn’t interested in the fact that the dog in question had never had a sick day in its life, passed its vet checks fine then it was rehomed at 14 weeks?

AS we all know any pup born with a fluid retention problem in the brain is long dead before then, one of the reason’s no breeder homes a puppy before 8 weeks anyway.

As I tried to explain, in our breed, Chihuahua’s if there is going to be a problem it will invariably surface within 2 weeks of the first vaccination since in the majority of cases the stress of the vaccination will kill any susceptible pups, I remember posting years ago when the “new” improved vaccines came onto the market death rates in a litter zoomed from nil to 7 out of 10 on average didn’t survive their first night after vaccination.

When I queried the manufacturer at the time, the reply I received was “get another breed, its only Chihuahuas that are the problem”.

At the time I asked who else had lost pups after vaccination and the number of different breeds succumbing was amazing not just Chihuahua’s as I had expected.

The owner chose to rack up thousands in vet bills from my first offer to take back the pup and either replace or return the purchase price, even offered a replacement and keep the pup when they refused to return the original pup?

I am so over having anything to do with the general public anymore, been ill ever since that call asking for the replacement pup after all this time then to top it off, that RSPCA call.

If you breed dogs and ever let a pup go you might not be mad, but maybe you need to be

So?

If they have been told to sue me through the courts where on earth do I stand in this mess?

Edited September 22, 2012 by asal

[Rebanne]

if the vet can't say what the problem is then how can the blame be laid at your door?

I'd be writing down everything you can recall from your conversations, how long they had the pup and how old was it before any sign of illness happened.

Do you have any emails or letters from these people? I'd be printing them out if you do.

[Steve]

How long?

I received a complaint about one of our breeders ,owner had purchased the dog 7 years ago and had recently taken it to the vet and the vet said it had an eye condition which was genetic .The owner went back to the breeder and without asking for any kind of proof of the situation from the owner the breeder offered to pay the owner half of the purchase price which was paid for the pup 7 years ago .

Long story short - We requested written report from the vet of exactly what this genetic condition was before we considered what kind of sin the breeder had committed and we asked what outcome would the owner feel was a good outcome - what she wanted us to do to the breeder to punish her if in fact she had bred a dog 7 years ago which now had developed a genetic condition .Answer I want a full refund - the fact the breeder only offered her half was in her opinion evidence that the breeder didn't care. A week later when I followed up I was told that the vet wouldn't write a report and had now said it may not be genetic. the complaint was withdrawn.

So why would you replace the pup without seeing the vet report yourself and having the opportunity to show the report to your vet for their opinion. Why would you be pressured into admitting you were breeding with defective dogs or accept that you are based on what you have been told and not after some investigation to determine whether the dogs used were in fact "defective" or whether shit just happened as it does sometimes. Did the RSPCA happen to explain to you why in one breath you are breeding with defective dogs yet the person claiming this is wanting another one of your dogs?

Bit of a mute point for you now but you need to put every little thing in writing - if you have a guarantee that says you will replace the pup if something goes wrong with no date on it , no conditions such as having to have the dog examined by two independent vets etc in this day and age you are a sitting duck.

Having said that its unlikely they can sue you via fair trading as you are not an entity via their criteria

Dont speak to anyone whether they claim they are RSPCA or not on the phone request EVERYTHING they have to say to you in writing and respond only in writing after you have someone else look at it for you.

[Fordogs]

Just another thing to consider is to be very careful of what you say on line via a public forum.

I had an absolute terrible time last year and posted here, puppy buyer printed every page and submitted it at mediation.

For me it was a great lesson learned.

Keep a complete record of all emails, letter, conversations ect because you might need them.

So sorry for your trouble I know what you are going through.

[asal]

So why would you replace the pup without seeing the vet report yourself and having the opportunity to show the report to your vet for their opinion. Why would you be pressured into admitting you were breeding with defective dogs or accept that you are based on what you have been told and not after some investigation to determine whether the dogs used were in fact "defective" or whether shit just happened as it does sometimes. Did the RSPCA happen to explain to you why in one breath you are breeding with defective dogs yet the person claiming this is wanting another one of your dogs?

I agree with you its insane

as other breeders ive met who have given back the purchase price or another pup they do so to "keep their reputation"

which i doubt will happen.

Trouble is as my doctor once told me when my twins were autopsied, ( they were identical twins).

one was missing a kidney and most of his diaphram. (he said instead of asking why is one perfect the other missing bits, realise every conception is a miracle that may or may not complete in a functional offspring, congenetial defects are just that, defects present at birth ) but although a parent cannot even be guaranteed a healthy child.

puppy buyers expect and demand what we cannot give our own child?

whats the bets if my babies were puppies some vet would be telling me the missing kidney and diaphram was inherited?

yet both babies were genetically identical?

so where does that put the "expert"? vet opinions?

for the slow learners, if they are identical twins then if one has everythig perfect SO SHOULD THE OTHER the genes are IDENTICAL so somehow other factor or factors, not genetic had to have been at work?

reality went out the window when dogs began to be described as goods like a fridge or a washing machine

somewhere on here i spotted someone saying Hip Displacia is 14%genetic and the rest nutrition yet t the breeder will be the one held solely responsible by both the buyer and the buyers vet, ive seen it heaps over the years happen to those with the breeds that are suspectable and even some that have never seen it before in their breed

Edited October 3, 2012 by asal

[Missymoo]

Ugh, feel for you. Again, good breeders are dragged around and treated like sh** and byb, puppy mills, blue breeders and tea cup crap get away with breeding rubbish....they never seem to be held accountable. Really why does any registered breeder bother.....

[Steve]

But honestly much of this is our own fault and because we have been educated on what should be by a bunch of loonies.

Asal was intimidated just by the fact that the RSPCA were asking questions and not even genetics professors agree on this stuff. Yet we answer to someone on a phone who has no knowledge of our breed or of the issues breeders deal with and face in order to try to breed great dogs and pray we say the "right' thing so they dont come after us. We put our hand up offer refunds, free dogs,and money back when its rarely a situation we could do anything about and basically its just not fair - but we are all worried about the caning we will get if we dont. We take dogs out of the gene pool because "someone" says we should without understanding it all first .

Often one breeder will cheer about another breeder being in the poo - basically because breeding dogs has become such a low life thing to do that they clutch at anything including helping make the other guy look bad to make themselves look better.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Steve

[Alyosha]

Honestly, some of the "genetic condition" labels vets quickly slap on things are a bit scary. I know of a vet who repeat-vaccinated a young pup against advice and manufacturer specifications, it suffered major complications and had to be pts. Said vet conducted PM on pup and was scathing of the breeder as being at fault as the pup was skeletally dysplastic. Which is a medical term for dwarfish. I would hope so, it was a Basset Hound.

Sheer ignorance.

[Steve]

Ive spoken about this before but will again.

About a year ago I sent a Maremma pup home to a lady who I worked with for 7 weeks between when she made her enquiry to home time to be as sure as I could be that the pup was going to a great home and she understood the breed.

It felt good and I was confident the pup was going to the right place - but then the wild card turned up after the pup went home - the owner's partner. An idiot. He knew all about puppies because once he went to Afri bloody ca and helped raise a litter of cougar cubs and all of his mates had dogs. if I had known about the partner before she got the dog she wouldnt have got the dog.

Puppy goes home at 8 weeks and two weeks later I get a phone call from the partner there is something wrong with the puppy's joints .They had taken the pup to an off leash dog park where it had played and beed skittled several times by a pair of adult cattle dogs and it limped for a day or two - then after it stopped limping it still couldnt get up on the couch.It also muct have some kind of brain damage because it wouldnt chase a ball. I explained the breed, told him this was inthe notes his partner had recieved way before the pup got home and the dog was unlikely to ever chase a ball that at this age isnt expected to be able to jump up 30cm to get up on the couch .He said he had mates with dogs this size - labs who could get up and he knows dogs and the vet agrees. Because the vet believed it was a large breed AND PUREBRED it probably had genetic bone or joint issues and its better to have a better look now and PUT THE PUP DOWN if it couldnt be fixed before it got much older. The pup was scheduled in for ALL OF ITS JOINTS to be Xrayed the following week.I said I wasnt worried that I thought the vet was wrong and to get a second opinion - vet told him he couldnt get a valid second opinion without the Xrays first. So the pup had all of its bones and joints Xrayed and the pup was cleared as perfect. So at least if ever in the next 15 years it does get something wrong Im in the clear I guess. Maybe not. The insurance which I put on the dog as it was leaving covered it but if the cattle dogs had done any lasting damage when they bowled the dog over whilst wrestling, if it had done something falling off the couch or the bed , if someone had kicked it or dropped it no doubt about it the breeder would have been the bad guy and breeding with defective dogs!

[asal]

The trouble is you are only a "good" breeder as long as no puppy develops a problem.

Then all bets are off.

as for the welfare groups, no one who breeds is any such thing that was made very very very clear after that interesting conversation. how quickly the tone and attitude slipped gears.

How often have I warned people since the first use of "backyard breeders" came into use in the 70's.

EVERYONE has a backyard, its just the same as the witchhunts and inquisition, all it takes is just one disgruntled person, even a once best friend and you are suddenly, IT.

You can certainly end a long standing friendship instantly as I learned. Gave an adult to a now ex friend. Had a full vet check before as this dog had been attacked by a cat as a pup and one tear duct was destroyed so always has to have drops in the affected eye, as she is now 4 years old the eye had gone cloudy despite the medication so wanted to make absolute sure about that eye first. My vets opinion. Yes eye no problem to the dog no changes in size between the two no pain or discomfort in the damaged eye and no need to remove it even if it obviously does not look normal, can still see through it to a degree. the other eye bright and completely normal appearance but in this instance instead of full normal tear reading came in half way between normal and the cut off for dry eye and advised to keep an eye on it in case somthing was going on there and double the reason not to interfer with the other eye as removing one eye can cause complications with the other eye, that in his opinon an unnecessary risk. All this was relayed to the new owner. Except without saying anything to me took her to another vet who promplty diagosed dry eye in the good eye and took out the cloudy eye and pocketed a motza as well as told my now very ex friend what agony I had kept the dog in the previous 4 years...so who is right? the vet who had known her from the day the feral cat attacked her or this chap fresh out of vet school????????????

In point of fact the real victum in this scenario is the dog. If my vet is right I hate to think

OOPS forgot to explian, the reason was homed with this person they already have one with genuine dry eye so putting the drops in the injoured eye would not have been a problem as they do their other dog anyway. What is is about people when some young fresh out of graduation vet says you need to do mega bucks the more money quoted the more the newbie to dogs believes them? Some of them are charging $99 just for vaccinations for goodness sake? They seem to think the higher the cost the better the vet?

From what ive seen that aint necessarily so. most of the good vets have been in practice more than 10 years, as one of mine quipped, "the graduation certification simply means that, gives em the right to now learn at YOUR expense."

wether to or is up to you if you dont do your homework first before shelling out.

Edited September 29, 2012 by asal

[asal]

I can still remember my tearful friend who had given a Lab puppy away at 5 months because she had had a life threatening reaction to her first vaccination so feared she may react just as violently to any vaccinations. Although she had her later booster ok.

made this clear to the new owners, also came with diet sheet and to call if any concerns.

4 months later get a phone call their vet has disgnosed elbow displacia and want her assurnce she will be paying the $3,000 bill. AS their vet said being the breeder she is liable for the costs.

after I managed to calm her down, got her to arrange for her vet to see the pup.

So what does her vet find. Pup is so obese she weighs more than her 5 year old mother.

the elbows do not have displacia, they are both fractured.

questioning revealed she was allowed to jump off their verandah.

That was 4 years ago so this culture of "blame the breeder" regardless, let alone even make sure of your diagnosis.

Has been around a growing time frame now.

You really need to be very brave or very insured maybe?

Edited September 29, 2012 by asal

[asal]

The RSPCA lady came out this week and checked them everyone of the few I still have left passed inspection.

although now she is comming back to check that Ive had the farrier out to trim my old horses feet.

I am still getting my head around chips on the side of his feet is cause for concern?

I know in my head she really is a genuinely nice person and only has their welfare at heart, but knowing what her masters can do to destroy us financially if concern turns to anything considered chargable just utterly freaks me out.

trying very hard to stay calm, but every time I look at his feet, seeing they are perfectly normal horses feet, not long, not deformed no founder but chips have to be removed and a small crack was found, another cause for concern?

how can u prevent chips and cracks in this dry weather? if his feet are cut back to remove them he will be walking on the soles of his hooves?

As he is I can go for a ride with my friends and he is sound as a bell. He wont be if he has to be walking only on the soles of his feet.

Maybe even keeping him is unsafe?

She was very puzzled about my reaction she cant seem to understand I know (just google, let alone the people I know who are hermits now after falling foul of past 'inspectors') that people in the past have had legal bill claims against them in the hundreds of thousands even when the magistrate come down with a token fine . I know of cases where people lose their homes to the legal teams "costs charges" alone.

She did have in interesting perspective on Marions horses being sent only for the doggers to purchase.

"perhaps the RSPCA vet after inspecting them had found they needed to be put down".

I wonder is there any way through the freedom of information act to find out why "no one but the doggers were allowed to bid" on them that day?

I still have nightmares of standing helplessly that day watching them being kocked down to die, three mares with their unweaned foals, one weaned orphan filly and the three yearling colts. the Crenel colt was superb. they were all pure arabians and I knew every one of them, catch lead and load on a float no trouble.

I just cant see how a RSPCA vet could say they needed to die only 4 days after Marion was promised "they would find them good homes"

they looked perfectly normal that day at the sales and none of them appeared sick or lame?

Edited October 6, 2012 by asal

[Steve]

what was she checking them for - is she a vet?

[asal]

what was she checking them for - is she a vet?

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

Edited October 6, 2012 by asal

[asal]

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

Edited October 6, 2012 by asal

[asal]

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?

[OSoSwift]

Asal, I am not trying to be inflammatory but you seem to have had more dealings with the RSPCA than anyone else I have heard of. Does a particular person have a grudge against you or something????

Sorry but I don't understand why you seem to be getting targeted??????

[asal]

Asal, I am not trying to be inflammatory but you seem to have had more dealings with the RSPCA than anyone else I have heard of. Does a particular person have a grudge against you or something????

Sorry but I don't understand why you seem to be getting targeted??????

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

Edited October 6, 2012 by asal

[asal]

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?

Edited October 6, 2012 by asal

[asal]

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.

Edited October 6, 2012 by asal