Jump to content

Inquiry into the RSPCA Victoria


asal
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/eic/article/3129

 

Judging by the submission so far received, there is pretty few actually addressing the massive problems inherit from a group that are out to end breeding in this country, who do not work with the ANK'S or the owners of animals they treat like criminals.

 

It was reported on a facebook page one CEO envisions them becoming the one stop shop for a pet not only to rehome but breed their own.

 

also hearing they are not just seizing the animals but all the breeders records and pedigrees? since when was a pedigree registration classifyable as an animal in need of seizure and treatment? some even saying their computers were taken? whats going on with rspca inc?

 

apparently people from other states are sending submissions, so if you have a question and want to ask it, now is your chance,  dont let it pass you by.

 

may be too late for a second chance to become available

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they have extended the deadling till this friday.

 

Please dont miss this opportunity.

 

this guy has now learned more about helplessness and like many is not in a fit condition for the lesson.

 

https://www.facebook.com/RSPCAabuse/

 

 

 

 

https://external-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=AQBasTSdsBrRA_JP&w=296&h=222&url=https%3A%2F%2Fscontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fv%2Ft1.0-0%2Fp296x100%2F17522716_1473156686036054_1993805096966997354_n.jpg%3Foh%3D54522d05743da12315e029845762da78%26oe%3D59658CD1&cfs=1&upscale=1&_nc_hash=AQCiotKhUQbMk4qc

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.gofundme.com/litigate-for-release-of-rosie

 

 

 

17457803_1471196379565418_34440492523653

 

 

 

19248928_1490736647.3089.jpg

 

 

 

On the 10th of March 2017, "Rose" a PTSD Therapy Dog & 4 other Maremma Sheep dogs were ILLEGALLY taken from my Friends Property. He caught the Theft on Video. But it wasn't what you may think!! It was an Illegal RSPCA Raid. Now his Dogs are being Ransomed by the RSPCA @ $700 per week, until the LEGAL status of the Dogs is Established. I & many other Friends & Strangers have Supported this cause & now with dwindling resources, need to Seek sufficient Funds to Fight a Battle against what appears to be a Vexatious & Corrupt Organisation, operating under the Banner of a Respecrable Operation. Funds Raise will be used to litigate the matters Raised by the RSPCA Of SA & at conclusion any Residual funds will be Forwarded to Willow Shelter. On the 10th of March 2017, "Rose" a PTSD Therapy Dog & 4 other Maremma Sheep dogs were ILLEGALLY taken from my Friends Property. He caught the Theft on Video. But it wasn't what you may think!! It was an Illegal RSPCA Raid. Now his Dogs are being Ransomed by the RSPCA @ $700 per week, until the LEGAL status of the Dogs is Established. I & many other Friends & Strangers have Supported this cause & now with dwindling resources, need to Seek sufficient Funds to Fight a Battle against what appears to be a Vexatious & Corrupt Organisation, operating under the Banner of a Respecrable Operation. Funds Raise will be used to litigate the matters Raised by the RSPCA Of SA & at conclusion any Residual funds will be Forwarded to Willow Shelter.

 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have your say before it is too late, this is Wednesday, you have until Friday. Dont leave it to so few.

 

 

Friday, 3 March 2017 11:55 AM
To: RSPCA Victoria Inquiry
Subject: Fwd: RSPCA ENQUIRY VICTORIA

 

From Elizabeth chapman
Subject: RSPCA ENQUIRY VICTORIA
The Animal Rights organisations are having their say, we DO NOT want what they are
suggesting. It's imperative you send something in, even if it's only a page full of dot points
stating where you feel they gone in the wrong direction, and how you feel this could be
rectified.
Here are some relative dot points ....
● high kill rates are unacceptable. The rspca have, in the last couple of years, lost several
large and very lucrative Pound Contracts with Local Councils due to their high kill rates.
Glenelg Shire Council rejected rspca's tender for Pound Services in 2016 when their previous
10 year contract expired, due to a 400% increase in costs put forward by the rspca. The
contract has been renegotiated and the rspca still holds the contract for Glenelg, however
several other Pound Contracts have been given to other tenderers due to high kill rates, the
public no longer finds such high kill rates acceptable.
● unacceptable treatment of animals in their care (l have many instances of this reported to
me - cats with cat flu being put in the same area as kittens - actually the list is long and very
sad). Kill statistics show many puppies are put to sleep when they come in with parvo, rather
than attempt to treat them and give them a chance. Many other animals are euthanised for
'behavioural issues' and the rspca's Temperament Testing has been highly criticised as being
unrealistic and unprofessional - a dog who is 'sensitive' and perhaps previously a much loved
pet, will not respond well to being in a pound situation, when forced into confronting
situations with strangers.
● inability to enforce the Animal Act without prejudice. The rspca appear to use their own
Charter to decide whether to prosecute or not. Their Charter has nothing to do with the work
they perform when they are acting as enforcers of POCTA (Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Act). When they are enforcing POCTA, they are acting on behalf of the Crown, NOT on
behalf of the rspca. On the other hand, whilst using their Charter to decide whether to
prosecute or not, they ignore their own Constitution, where it states under Statement of
Purpose 4.1.5 "Providing relief programs to assist people within the community who are
experiencing adverse circumstances, to enable them to care for or manage their animals".
The attitude of rspca Inspectors is in many cases aggressive, with a heightened desire to
prosecute. I have not heard of a single case where the rspca has provided a 'relief program' to
someone experiencing adverse circumstances. They take a hard line once they have selected
a 'target', even when elderly, isolated, mentally ill and/or severely financially compromised
people are involved.
● failure to properly investigate instances of cruelty - the Bulla case was a classic example of
this. Many calls were made to the rspca over many months and all they did was look over the
front fence of the property. On the day the horses were finally rescued, a neighbour got
2
utterly sick of the stench, called them again and was told "we don't work on weekends".
Neighbour then called Police, and horses were finally rescued, by Police, RacingVictoria and
several small horse rescues. The rspca did not turn up until the following day (Monday) to
see the rescued horses. As for their statement they "do not work on weekends" on the Sunday
the horses were rescued, the rspca were actually "working" they were over at the swamps for
the opening day of the Duck shooting season. Laurie Levy and his bunch of animal activists
were there doing their usual crazy antics, "rescuing" ducks that had been shot - or in other
words stealing them from registered licenced hunters, before the hunters could retrieve them.
The rspca had a van there with a vet and two other staff, "saving" ducks. One activists was
seen carrying around the half rotten carcass of a swan which was obviously not killed on the
day, but it was added into the statistics. Statistics used by the rspca and the various activists
group who are trying to get the duck hunting season stopped.
● extremely high turnover of staff suggests that all is not well at RSPCA Vic. Thirteen (13!)
Inspectors have left the employ of rspca Vic in the last 6 months! Two of them were 'career
Inspectors':
1) a Senior Inspector;
2) the Inspectorate Manager who left in December 2016 and is now working in a lesser paid
situation in a small Local Council - this was the worker who started working in this field in
1999 for SPCA in America, and was bought over here by the rspca on a 457 visa.
● lack of training for rspca Inspectors .. they used to attend the same (comprehensive)
training courses as Police Officers, this was abandoned a couple of years ago and training is
now undertaken 'in house'. No 'recognised' animal care or husbandry training is given to
rspca Inspectors yet these are the people who make judgement calls on highly experienced
graziers, dog, cat, and horse breeders, and even Vets in private practice, as to whether or not
a prosecution should be applied.
● inability to complete paperwork properly and poor attention to detail. For example, in
relation to a high profile seizure of pedigreed dogs last April, their 'statement' was compiled
and dated in January 2017. Nine months had passed, and the wrong Police Officer's name
appeared on the statement. People who were in a specific location on the property when the
dogs were seized, were listed as being in another completely different location on the
statement. It is vital that these details be correct on statements, as they are tendered to the
court as evidence.
● given the nature of rspca Inspector's work, which could at times be extremely upsetting,
yearly psychological examinations should be essential, such as those applied to Police
Officers, Ambulance workers etc. No psychological evaluations are ever given to rspca
Inspectors. This would help weed out the ones who may have become 'soured' by the nature
of the duties, who then appear to become hardened and inflexible - these are the people who
are more likely to indulge in bullying and stand over tactics.
● failure to adhere to their own Constitution in relation to working 'with' other bodies who
have similar objectives. Under Section 6, Powers and Duties of the Board 6.c.(ii): effect
affiliations with any other body which has similar objectives, either within Victoria or
elsewhere, upon such terms as it seems fit. The rspca has in the past been notorious for its
unwillingness to work with specific Breed Club Rescues or with DogsVic to achieve a
working relationship which ensures 'best outcome' for the animals who come into their 'care'.
In fact they conduct themselves, via lobbying to politicians, in a way that penalises DogsVic
members by contributing to the creation of oppressive and unworkable legislation with no
exemptions for the responsible bodies ie DogsVic and it's members.
● the rspca has a spiraling member base all over Australia. In Victoria their membership in
2014 was 1,111, in 2015 was 1,048, and in 2016 it was 979. On the other hand, DogsVic has
a membership base in excess of 10,000, with 280 affiliated clubs, and current liquid fixed
assetts of $4.75 million. Proving DogsVic are "here to stay". DogsVic are possibly the
BIGGEST LOBBYING GROUP in Victoria, yet they fail to use their numbers to achieve
better outcomes for their members, and they fail to protect their members when they are
'targeted' by the rspca unfairly. Further, DogsVic and it's members make significant
3
contributions to canine research for specific health issues while the rspca makes no
contribution to research whatsoever. Whilst making no contributions themselves, the rspca
feels it is acceptable to launch continued attacks against DogsVic members, stating we are
breeding animals that are 'riddled with health problems' ie Brachycephalic breeds and short
legged breeds. This is hypocrisy at its very worst.
● the rspca continues to ignore it's MUA (Memorandum of Understanding and Agreement)
between the Dept of Agriculture and rspca Vic, whereby cattle and farm animals should be
dealt with by Agriculture Victoria. The rspca appears to pick and choose cases where it will
act to enforce POCTA, when it should not be involved in any cases in the agriculture sector.
● the rspca believes ALL DogsVic members are breaking the rspca Charter by crating dogs.
Any dog sport is a form of entertainment and this is condemned in the Charter, they say dogs
should be free to develop their inherent qualities. Yet item 2 of the Charter says "no animal
should be used in the production of food or《fibre》", therefore they are saying Maremmas
and other herd guarding breeds should not be used to guard fibre producing animals. The
Charter is at odds with itself and is not based on the reality of hundreds of years of
agricultural traditions. In any case, a written law (legislation) will always take preference
over a Charter, therefore the Charter is not relevant to any prosecution work they may
undertake.
● the rspca heavily promotes the details of its prosecutions on their social media forums then
does not discipline or moderate the comments that are made by their followers. I have seen
such comments as "take her out and hang her from the clothes line" or "lock her up and
throw away the key and don't feed her" and too many more to mention, made in relation to an
accused animal abuser. No attempt is made by the rspca to control these death threats and
horrible remarks in their social media forums. This serves to inflame the Animal Rights
devotees who get whipped up into a frenzy of hatred and vitriol. A responsible organisation
would not allow death threats to stay on its social media.
● when the rspca do a seizure, particularly when pedigreed dogs are involved, they 'cherry
pick' the dogs they seize, taking show dogs in full coat, or in show condition, whilst leaving
old and desexed ones behind. This highlights inconsistencies in their decision making
processes, if one dog is at risk then surely all dogs at that location are at risk.
● in relation to animals used for research, all applications to conduct research are run past an
Ethics Committee, and if that research has been done anywhere else in the world, the
research will not be approved. The rspca does have a Chief Scientific Officer but that person
is not an expert in the field that may be the subject of the research application. The rspca
should leave matters of this nature to the experts who have been dealing with the scenario of
using animals for scientific research purposes for a very long time.
● why is there no ACCOUNTABILITY applicable to the rspca, they are answerable to no
one, even in the area of prosecutions. There is no rspca Ombudsman where you can lodge a
complaint if you feel you have been unfairly treated, or targeted by the rspca. When pursuing
prosecutions rspca Inspectors are Officers of the Crown, and as such, should be accountable
for their actions. Yet they are not. You can't even complain to the Minister. Further, why
aren't the rspca accountable for every animal they seize? Once seized, an animal becomes the
property of the Crown, yet animals are being seized by the rspca and are somehow just
disappearing? Never to be seen again.
● the rspca at Pearcedale recently sold an undesexed pedigree dog, why would they do this?
In the past they have only ever sold desexed dogs, are they cost cutting? or knowingly and
willingly putting dogs capable of being bred from back out into the marketplace?
● why is the rspca allowed to wear their uniform when appearing in court to prosecute a
case? Any prosecution they do, is as a representative of the Crown NOT as a representative
of the rspca. This give a misleading view to the public that the rspca are prosecuting the
accused. They are NOT. The Inspectors are in court as a representative of the Crown and
should be suitably attired. This also serves as a form of 'advertising' for the rspca, and the
privilege of representing the Crown should not be abused.
4
● a registered Charity who is in the 'business' of selling dogs and cats, should NOT have any
powers of prosecution. This is a massive CONFLICT OF INTEREST whereby they can
actually put people or businesses who are also selling cats and dogs, out of business.
● a recent case in Victoria that is going to court involved many pedigreed dogs being seized
by the rspca and kept for 12 months before charges were laid on the alleged offender. When
the charges were finally received by the alleged offender, 12 months after the seizure, they
contained photographic evidence of so-called abuse to dogs. One of the 'offences' was failure
to provide veterinary attention because the dogs had worms. It is not against the law
(POCTA) to not worm your dogs, unless they are at death's door with a massive worm
burden. The photos included with the charge sheet were not dated and could have been taken
at any time in the preceeding 12 months, they could have even been taken the day before the
charges were received by the alleged offender. This is NOT good enough, proceedures must
be followed in such a manner as Police would conduct an investigation. The rspca has the
capacity to ruin people's lives, and these duties should not be taken lightly, or abused or
manipulated.
● a recent rspca "kennel cleanout" was selling all dogs, cats, horses, pigs and goats for $29.
Any animal that was normally priced under $29 was FREE. This category included rabbits,
guinea pigs, roosters, pigeons, pet rats and mice .. how is this "responsible" or ethical when it
incourages "impulse buys" if you can get an small animal for FREE or a horse for $29. Were
the rspca emptying their kennels to sweeten their figures, and make them appear to be more
like a no-kill rescue? and therefore gain more public favour?
● what action can you take when the rspca comes onto your property and is cruel to your
own animals? None. A case going to court very soon in Victoria involves some stray horses
who were in poor condition, being let onto, or breaking into a woman's property. The rspca
arrived to seize the horses, who were now mixed in with her own horses, and as they were
rounding them up, one of the rspca Inspectors belted the woman's own pony across the head,
she had to be forcibly restrained by the Police. She then began videoing everything taking
place and one of the rspca Inspectors said to her "you video this, you will never see your
horses again". Unconsciable.
● in another recent case, the rspca were raiding a property occupied by a woman and her
octogenarian mother. They seized horses, ponies, a couple of pet dogs and some very highly
priced pedigreed cats who were kept in very good accommodation. When seizing the
octogenarian's personal pet cat OFF HER LAP, the old lady lost it and reached up to grab a
handful of the Inspector's hair - could you blame her? - the rspca had her charged with
assault, took her to court and she now has a criminal record. These Inspectors have no
"people skills", that is not a satisfactory way to treat an octogenarian, then to press charges
and make her go through the court system is bullying to the extreme. Especially when the
rspca's own Charter says : Point 11 : The State shall enact and enforce laws, regulations and
codes for protecting animals from exploitation, and for ensuring that their basic individual
needs are maintained at all times and that their environment is kept free from ILLEGAL or
IRRESPONSIBLE INTRUSION (my emphasis/capitalisation). Whilst the rspca Charter
cannot be referred to in any prosecution matter, as all prosecutions are done in the name of
the Crown, it does seem that the rspca are more than happy to act, and are very capable of
conducting themselves in a way that exhibits blatant defiance of the rules they would like us
all to obey ie their rules, their Charter.
● what becomes of the funding the Victorian Government gives to the rspca? In 2015 they
received $3,250,000. In 2016 they received a further $3,000,000 in new funding to be applied
to establishing a Task Force to address Puppy Farms. How many Puppy Farms have been
closed down as a result of this new funding? One has to question the efficacy of the rspca in
achieving their oft stated purpose of closing down Puppy Farms, when we very seldom hear
of any being shut down.
● why is rspca Vic so secretive about their future developments? In their report to the
Charities Commission last year (a report is required to be submitted annually), under the
heading of Future Developments, they stated .. "Disclosure of information regarding likely
5
developments of the consolidated entity (rspca Vic) in future financial years, and the
expected results of those operations IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN UNFAVORABLE
PREJUDICE to the consolidated entity. Accordingly, this information has not been disclosed
in this report". What could the rspca possibly do that would result in unfavorable prejudice
being directed against them?
● how can a "Charity" maintain its Not-For-Profit Charity status with the Charities
Commission (ACNC) when it has so many different business arms? When registering with
the Charities Commission, which is a federal body, an organisation must state it's "main
aim". The Victorian rspca has stated it's main aim under the Entity Subtype as an animal
rescue organisation who is involved in "the prevention and relieving of suffering of animals".
Where do all its other business arms fit into this category ie boarding kennels, grooming
salons, pet insurance, Approved Farming Scheme, and Crown prosecutions. All of these
activities, whilst they are involved with animals, general income, and as such, should be
taxable like any other business activity. These additional business activities are not what the
general public traditionally associate with the functions of the rspca.
● the ATO (Australian Tax Office) says in relation to a Not-For-Profits Animal Rescue
Charity .. Making A Profit "a not-for-profit can make a profit, but any profit made must be
used for its purpose(s). It can keep profits as long as there is a genuine reason for this and it
is to do with its purpose. For example, a good reason to keep profits may be to save up for
starting a new project, building new infrastructure or accumulating a reserve so it continues
to be sustainable. If an organisation continues to hold onto significant profits indefinitely,
without using them for its charitable purpose, this may suggest that the organisation is not
working solely towards it's stated charitable purpose (and is not operating as a not-forprofit)".
RSPCA Victoria in 2015 stated on their financial reports that they held $52,913,000
in total assetts (including plant, equipment and property). In 2016 this had dropped to
$49,612,000. The decrease can be attributed to a court ordered payment of $1.45 million
damages after they were found to be "negligent" in the shooting of 131 purebred Murray
Grey cattle (more about this later). So it can be seen that their enormous reserves of cash,
stocks and other investments, and assetts stay pretty much the same from year to year. Why
does a Not-For-Profit Charity need to accumulate to an enormous amount of reserve, and in
remaining at such a high level consistently, aren't they in violation of the ATO's definition of
a Not-For-Profit Charity?
● how does a Charity, who in pursuit of their duties of enforcing POCTA, and therefore
being a representative of the Crown, when it conducts itself in such a manner that they are
sued, found guilty of NEGLIGENCE, and ordered to pay $1.4 million damages to the owner
of the cattle, SUFFER NO CONSEQUENCE from the Crown, in relation to its behaviour?
Any other public servant, such as Police, Customs Officer or government employee would
surely be dismissed from his position and perhaps lose pension benefits for bringing such
disrepute upon his employer, but not so an rspca employee. How is this so? To tell the whole
story of the shooting of the 131 head of Murray Grey cattle, we must look at the employment
history of the rspca Inspector who shot them, his name is Inspector Jason Nicholls. In June
1999 Inspector Jason Nicholls was at a drought stricken 1,280 hectare property owned by
Victorian farmer Finlay Glynn Robertson. Robertson had already been prosecuted by the
rspca for cruelty and when he came across Inspector Jason Nicholls taking video footage of
his drought affected sheep, he snapped and shot at Nicholls hitting him once and as Nicholls
fled to his vehicle further shots were fired, shattering his windscreen as he drove off. Findlay
Robertson was arrested by Police, charged with attempted murder and jailed. In December
1999 while still in jail awaiting trial Robertson died of a heart attack. The rspca sued Finlay
Robertson's estate and in 2003 were awarded $53,000 damages for economic loss caused by
the shooting. Moving forward to 2005, Inspector Nicholls was responsible for the shooting of
131 purebred Murray Grey cattle who he deemed to have been in emaciated condition.
Various witnesses, including abbatoir workers at the processing facility where the cattle were
taken said that the condition of the cattle did not warrant them being killed.
In 2005 the RSPCA prosecuted the breeders for breaches of the Prevention of
6
Cruelty to Animals Act in the Ballarat Magistrates Court. The magistrate dismissed
the charges. A long battle ensued, resulting in a May 2015 finding that the rspca were
'negligent' in shooting the cattle, and they were ordered to pay the owner $1.45 million
damages. In this case, the rspca attempted to argue that they "were not responsible for tne
actions of its Inspectors". The Judge gave this manouvre short shrift, nevertheless the rspca's
position is disturbing. The rspca enjoys a privileged position, it is a private organisation
which exercises legal powers conferred by the Crown ie the Parliament. The idea that it was
not responsible for the consequences of its employee exercising these powers is one which
out to be of great concern to governments and the community generally. This case against the
owners of a farm in drought conditions, was the first time the rspca was forced to pay for its
abuse of its privileged position. Inspector Jason Nicholls is still currently employed by the
rspca even though he has cost his employer $1.45 million damages and a charge of
negligence in the provision of prosecutor ill services.
● in 2010 rspca Victoria charged Andrew Duff, a barrier stall worker at Warrnambool with
animal cruelty for removing a horse injured in the first lap of a jumps race to prevent the risk
of further accidents when the remaining horses raced around the track for the second lap. If
found guilty, Mr. Duff faced the possibility of up to 12 months jail or a $14,000 fine and
banishment from working with animals for 10 years. The rspca did not charge
Racing Victoria or the Warrnambool Racing Club. The opinion of Professor Paul
McGreevy, a veterinary ethologist at the University of Sydney and well-known antiracing
campaigner upon which the rspca relied, was dismissed by three leading equine
veterinarians. According to journalist Patrick Barley, who won a media award for a story
about this affair, ‘they blasted the rspca’s prosecution brief as curious, obsessive, lacking
serious firsthand experience of handling injured or distressed horses, and a philosophical or
political intrusion'. Two years later the rspca dropped the case, thereby avoiding the
possibility of being required to pay Mr Duff’s legal costs, including the cost of the senior
barrister he had to engage. The rspca did not apologise for the pain and suffering it inflicted
on Mr. Duff or for his face being plastered over hundreds of anti-jumps posters that lined the
entry gates to major Spring Carnival race meetings.
● the time has come for the Dept of Agriculture to take direct control of any prosecution in
relation to POCTA, and set up new systems and structures for the enforcement of POCTA,
because the rspca has a long term history of abusing this privileged position of power. The
rspca has lost credibility across the board, as evidenced by its high levels of staff turnover,
and its ever decreasing membership support, because it does not apply the standards it seeks
to enforce on others, to its own organisation. Rspca Victoria states it's mission as: "to
improve the welfare of animals through leadership, collaboration with stakeholders, and the
provision of quality services". So many of its actions would indicate it is failing badly in
every aspect of its Mission Statement.
Sent from Samsung tablet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well there is a new list of submissions and 8 of them are from the rspca.

 

this one is a doozy considering the dying, dead and rotting horses debacle

 

"
RSPCA Australia submission to the Inquiry into RSPCA Victoria
6 March 2017
Objectives of the RSPCA
The RSPCA in Australia rose out of a need to improve the lives of the thousands of horses literally being
worked to death in the streets of Victoria in the 1870s. It was through RSPCA advocacy (then the Victorian
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) that eventually laws were changed for horses and specific
legislation aimed at preventing animal cruelty was introduced."
 
 
 
 
 
no sense in putting a new post, no one is listening anyway. although the day its there turn they will be far from happy to discover you dont have to be guilty to be rolled by this lot. so just posting this link for my own information so can find it again if I want too.
 
 
 
 
And the lady who lost her old girl because she had long toenails.
 
 
 
 
.
.
.
.
.
Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately some misinformation here concerning the Bulla horses does make me question other anecdotes.  The RSPCA were indeed very involved in all prior planning, the horse rescues taking on the horses (in co-operation with the RSPCA) were most certainly not "small horse rescues".  As an example of extraordinary organisation and co-operation all involved deserve great credit, not criticism, and that includes the part the RSPCA played.

 

I'm not entering into an argument, and I'm not an apologist for the RSPCA.  It just does a case no good when facts are so misrepresented.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.facebook.com/pg/RSPCAabuse/posts/

 

Decided maybe this needs copy and past in case he does let it lapse. what happened to this poor man should not be allowed to be forgotten. I doubt the investigation in Vic will know of this or consider it since it happened in SA. but the problems are Australia wide.

 

 

 

After learning that a representative of Dogs VIC made the comment that they had over 10,000 members and asked why are we being dictated to and not given equal if not greater input into state laws, instead of the government giving preference to the RSPCA VIC with less than 1,000 members. did a little googling.

 

interesting figures can be easily found on the ankc websites.

 

zilch to be found giving RSPCA membership figures, if the figure stated by the Dogs Vic is an indicator VERY FEW people are bothering to join RSPCA yet they are being given minority rule status by our politicians?  why?

 

 

even more interesting, this mans dogs were taken not because they were neglected, or needed food or water, but their yards were messy with numerous holes and shredded bedding.

 

 

 

 

"

On the 10th of March 2017 @ approx 9.30 am, I returned to my home to find People standing in my dog runs, on no less than 6 occasions 5 caught on film, I asked for Identification (which was answered initially with RSPCA, "I'm here to seize your Dogs") after Revoking his Authority & hence in my opinion (His right of Entry, as he came through a double layered fence Iron & Mesh, which required his unscrewing & Cutting to do so). Despite revoking his authority (I had yet not Sighted ID) he was trespassing. I asked a further 3 times (after giving my Name, including Spelling my Surname on his First ask) I finally got Peter Muir (Peiter Mur) as I later found out. (He had not been so courteous as to offer up correct Spelling). As things became tense & I had ushered him back to the Hole in the fence, he signalled for Police attendance, which I insisted he do. Meanwhile whilst awaiting Police attendance, he rounded up my dogs & continued videoing EVIDENCE? Remember at that stage he was Trespassing & had committed Break & Enter to do so, he had left his Authority when he failed to Produce Valid ID. "Simply stating his name is Not what the Act says" see Sec 29, part 3, Animal Welfare Act 1985 SA. In the Action Plenty -v- Dillon, 1991 See High Court Decision, Mr Peiter Mur, RSPCA of SA Inspectorate acted similarly & had his authority / implied right of entry Revoked, He Had not identified himself as required under the act he was relying on. I assert that All testimonial, Photographic, witness & Video evidence was Illegally obtained & inadmissible in a court of law. Mr Mur, wrote to me on the 21st of March & asserted his Right to Extort $700 a week from me in Boarding fees? One of the Dogs Seized was / is a PTSD Therapy Dog. (maremma) as were the other 4. I have had a Running issue with our local council over the Numerous Vehicles and other items on the Property, also Councils actions related to Fire Prevention & Maintenance of a Creek which runs through my Property. Council were Present at the Seizure, despite it being an RSPCA operation.

 

1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart There is not a Prescribed offence under the act for simply having a dirty yard. The solution / Resolution called for on the day was Improvement Notice.
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart
 
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart Since the Seizure, much remedial work has been completed, the runs will be fully ready by the weekend, it remains to be determined how long my Dogs will be kept. ILLEGALLY
Image may contain: tree and outdoor
 
 
 Sounds like you got gang banged by the man hope you get your dogs back
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart
 
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart They used Vicks Vaporub not KY
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart
 
 
 
 Quick look you live rural yes lots of cars big deal dogs look healthy friendly yard could use a clean not terrible though i would say you have a enemy with friends in council good luck
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart
 
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart I have an Enemy within council & have had for the past 17 years. Council are Not Constitutional
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart
 
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart I was supplying the MFS in Port Pirie with Crash Simulation vehicles for their Recruits, then each need to do 6 or 7? Different extraction Cuts / Methods to become Accredited, so as you can only get a few cuts from one car, they need a supply of cars.
Image may contain: car, sky and outdoor
 
 
 
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart Taken at rear of Fire Station
 
 
 Omg i hope you get this sorted . . Just gobsmacked .
Sharing your story to get word out . . Feeling for your family and fur babies
 
 
1 Empty Harness, 1 Empty Heart “The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the crown. It may be frail – its roof may shake – the wind may blow through it – a storm may enter – the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter – all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.”
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

I guess this page is all but Redundant as my dog(s) have now been returned. I will leave it up for awhile as there may be a few developments, legal action pending.

 
 

 

 
 
 Taking it up with the Equal Opportunity Commission
No automatic alt text available.
 
 
 
 good idea. all should be doing it, wonder if the ankc's have a facebook page?
 
 
Write a reply...
 
 
 
 
 
keep it up, we need far more people to speak up about what a monster these people are and what they represent. read recently in Victoria that RSPCA VIC had less than 1000 members yet our stupid politicians allow this rouge organisation to dictate law reform and do not give equal to greater input from Dogs Vic who has over 10,000 members? a rabid AR group is being given priority over the massive majority who actually have the animals.. what ever happened to democracy, now its minority rule? even worse a minority who a significant percentage believe no one should have animals
 
 
 
 be interesting to know how many members they actually have per branch Australia wide?
 
 
 
These are the figures for all registered dog breeders state by state. http://ankc.org.au/media/6597/memberstats_to-16.pdf ..... thanks to the massive pressure mounted against traceable breeders on the charges by RSPCA that they need to be policed out of existence because they are filling their pounds with unwanted dogs, notice how much membership has fallen. Yet they breed only 71,361 puppies in 2016 , to supposedly oversupply Australia population with dogs. get real... no wonder its hard to find a registered purebred puppy to buy... .....Population of Australia (2017 and historical)
Year Population Yearly % Change
2016 24,309,330 1.42 %
2015 23,968,973 1.58 %
2010 22,162,863 1.8 %
2005 20,274,282 1.19 %
 
 
 interesting, no figures available for RSPCA membership, neither state or Australia wide?
 
 
 
 In 2013 a survey by Galaxy Research for the Animal Health Alliance Publication
“Pet Ownership in Australia Summary”
estimated that the dog population was
4.2 million.
What is the Dog Population of Australia ?
In 2010 research by BIS Shrapnel for the Australian Companion Animal Council
Publication
“The Contribution of the Pet Care Industry to the Australian
Economy”
estimated that the dog population was 3.6 million.
In 2016 a Report by Newgate Research on behalf of Animal Medicines
Australia ,
“Pet Ownership Australia in 2016” *
estimated that the dog
population was 4.8 million.
*This report outlines key findings from a quantitative study of Australian
households and the state of pet ownership in 2016. It also draws on
information from other sources locally and internationally to provide a
comprehensive view of changes in pet ownership in Australia since 2013.
Lets do the Math !
Estimated Australian Dog Population 4.8 million
A conservative estimate is that due to mortality 10% need to be replaced
annually which indicates a demand for 480,000 puppies per year
In 2016 ANKC Ltd Breeders registered 71,361 puppies, so to achieve the estimated number required, approximately 408,639
were bred by people outside the ANKC who have no accountability
for health or welfare
.
ANKC Ltd Registered Breeders
71,361 Puppies*
Unregistered Breeders
408,639 Puppies
.
ANKC Ltd Registered Breeders
71,361 Puppies*
Unregistered Breeders
408,639 Puppies
* Source-
ANKC Ltd Database
ANKC Ltd Breeders 15% Other Breeders 85%
In 2016
– 408,369.00 Puppies were bred with no accountability for health or welfare
BREEDERS
6,525.00
NON BREEDERS
26,816.00
2016 ANKC Ltd Membership 33,341.00
Only 20% of ANKC Ltd Members were Active Breeders in 2016
Lets do the Math Again !
In 2016
– 6,525 ANKC Ltd Breeders produced 14,091 Litters
3,583 Breeders (55%) 0nly had 1 Litter
1,406 Breeders (21%) had 2 Litters
659 Breeders (10%) had 3 Litters
338 Breeders (5%) had 4 Litters
539 Breeders (8%) had 5 to 10 Litters
Only 86 Breeders ( 1.3%) had more than 10 Litters
* Source
- ANKC Ltd Database
3,583.00
1 Litter
1,406
659
338
539
86
54% of ANKC Ltd Breeders only produced 1 Litter in
20

 

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

even more interesting re the 86 who bred more than ten litters, they and the 539 who had from 5 to 10 are the ones who tend to be targeted for shutdown as puppy farmers.

 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many know this?  I didnt.

 

RSPCA RAIDS, Know your rights.
I will use a recent example and attach a video of the raid, and let you all know what should have happened, what did happen, and all the breaches of the law by the RSPCA.
1. Firstly and most importantly, the owner filmed and asked questions. Please make sure all of you do the same.
2. The RSPCA broke and entered through a back fence, to seize the dogs in the hope the owner would not know.
3. To brake and enter, the RSPCA “must” believe the animals are in urgent need, in this case as you can see that was not the case, so they had no right to break in, they needed to serve a warrant.
4. The inspector was asked his name, before that the owner asked who they were, the inspector “Must” show his ID (not all inspectors have the same powers, some have reduced powers) this will be on the ID, same applies to anyone with them, they must identify themselves when asked.
5. The inspectors says he is seizing the animals, well if that is the case, he must issue a seizure notice before he does and specify why the animals are being taken.
6. The inspector was not happy with the conditions of the area the animals were kept, yet they had feed, shelter and water on site, this is not an offence.
7. The inspector ought to have issued a warning or an animal welfare notice, say a notice demanding he gets vet checks or cleans up.
8. After seizure the inspector emailed the owner saying he will not be getting his dogs back, not this is not true, that is a decision for the courts.
9. When an animal is seized, at law it is held by the RSPCA on behalf of the minister, so any cost issues are between the minister and the RSPCA.
10. The inspector in that same email, said after 10 days they will be claiming costs for keeping the animals, in this case $20 boarding per day for the 5 dogs, plus vet bills and added costs, which is $700 per week.
11. Interesting the dogs were seized on the 10th of march, so the inspector in his email said they were seized on the 1st of march, so he could start asking for costs from day one, not legal.
12. The same email states “If the owner signs the animals over to the RSPCA, they will not order costs for keeping the animals” this is extortion from my point of view, and I doubt the power exists to use this action.
13. The owner at this stage has not admitted guilty of any kind and has not been charged, and a court has definitely not adjudicated.
14. My advice to the owner (not legal advice) was to write to the RSPCA and demand the weights of the animals and organise an independent vet check. To demand the return of his animals and to seek legal advice.
15. The best lesson here is that the owner asked questions and recorded what happened.
What I thought should have happened, or what I would have done if I had the same powers as the inspector;
I would attend the property, take photo evidence, knock on the door and introduce myself. I would ask to see the animals, offer advice and judge the reaction, if I was not happy, I would have issued an animal welfare notice to clean up the area, maybe an order to get the animals vet checked, but the dogs did appear to be in good condition.
I would have returned and checked if the orders were complied with in 5 to 7 days, and in this case I know the area was cleaned up. The man had a good reason, not that the RSPCA asked him any questions, as he had been unwell, and had a friend feed his animals, hence the mess.
I will pop back here and update you on where this case goes.
The Animal welfare act is not a huge document to study and sections 28 through to around 35 from memory is easy reading and covers these issues.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so many truths to this story.

 

and why those who have their pets taken are so traumatised too. quad-triple the distress when there was nothing wrong yet it was still taken.

 

https://markingourterritory.com/2014/12/03/on-losing-a-dog/

 

 

 

 

no sense in putting a new post, no one is listening anyway. although the day its there turn they will be far from happy to discover you dont have to be guilty to be rolled by this lot. so just posting this link for my own information so can find it again if I want too.
 
 
 
 
And the lady who lost her old girl because she had long toenails.
 
 

 

 

 

 

Edited by asal
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2017 at 10:24 PM, PossumCorner said:

Unfortunately some misinformation here concerning the Bulla horses does make me question other anecdotes.  The RSPCA were indeed very involved in all prior planning, the horse rescues taking on the horses (in co-operation with the RSPCA) were most certainly not "small horse rescues".  As an example of extraordinary organisation and co-operation all involved deserve great credit, not criticism, and that includes the part the RSPCA played.

 

I'm not entering into an argument, and I'm not an apologist for the RSPCA.  It just does a case no good when facts are so misrepresented.

The rspca were *not* involved in any prior 'planning' when the Bulla horses were rescued. The rspca had attended the property several times in preceeding months and did not take any action. In fact l believe they had attended a month previous to the rescue, and on that visit looked over the fence then walked away. In their own independent Inquiry the rspca admitted they "had failed the Bulla horses dreadfully". The Bulla horses all went to one rescue - the 'misinformation' you mentioned above is that marked horse floats from other rescues came to help move the Bulla horses, as well as floats from RacingVictoria but yes, the horses did indeed all go to one rescue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is so right, but don't think many are listening or even care unfortunately

 

 

 

ANIMAL RIGHTS CHARITIES HAVE ACHIEVED NOTHING!

 

Animal rights charities such as animals Australia, Animal Liberation, voiceless etc, DO NOT provide any animal care what-so-ever! they're effectively wasting donations on an idealistic crusade to force others onto vegan diet, and to end all human- animal interactions/activities including pet ownership, and especially animal sports,consumption and products.

 

If all of that money went towards groups that provide actual animal welfare, including rehabilitation, shelter, food, and rehoming, just as the law states that they must do to hold charity status... then all animals would be better off, and if these animal rights lobbyists stopped clogging up our politicians emails, and wasting MP's time with their propaganda, then, perhaps we would have less human problems in society.

Animals don't belong in human politics.

 

Animals don't need rights, they need great animal husbandry, and well-balanced regulative bodies if they are within an industry. They need well managed conservation programs if they are in the wild, and with proper protection if required.

They need laws enforced if cruelty occurs, not calls for a ban of anything of that nature! We have laws in place, police at the ready, USE THEM, not your damn keyboards!"

 

 

 

 

the only thing lacking is advice how to get to "USE THEM" to get the police to act?

 

 

 

UNREAL, wonder if the Victorian Inquiry know this little gem?

 

 

This says it all!!

If you ever comment on RSPCA shelters and charity pounds having high kill rates, the first response you'll likely get back is;

"... yeah, but they don't ONLY do animal impoundment - they ALSO do animal cruelty legislation..."

So let's look at that, shall we?

Australia has a human population of more than 23 million. Despite our pretty small population, we gift the national RSPCA more than $141 million dollars a year. We have also gifted them nearly $240m in cash and assets.

For our generous investment we get... drumroll... 104 inspectors.

You read that right. 104 physical inspectors nationally.
Servicing 23 million people.

The average inspector's wage is $55k for a operational inspector, up to $85k for a senior inspector. Making the annual cost to hire inspectors nationally, between $5.2m and $8.8m.

Or between 3% and 7% of the national RSPCA revenue.

There is only two explanations for the discrepancy between the outgoing spend on inspectors vs revenue;

- Either Australian's are actually pretty gosh-darn compassionate with very low rates of animal welfare transgressions; at which point the RSPCA needs much, much less money than we're giving them,

OR

- The RSPCA is desperately underfunding its inspectorate, meaning they're not doing the job we're paying them to do.

But whatever the reason, we need to be asking, where is the rest of the money we're gifting them going, if not into safe shelters or well-resourced inspectorates?

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Watch it, their idea of a well resourced inspectorate is inspectors running around with guns, not even the police carry guns.
 
Adele Culverwell
 
 Only 11 inspectors in w.a four more have quit, obviously saw the writing on the wall.



 

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...