Jump to content

RSPCA in the news

Two Best Dogs!

Recommended Posts

On 8/26/2019 at 11:22 AM, asal said:

Interesting link.


we are not just getting american tv programs


so much of this has crossed the ocean and now happening here too, interesting to see how worldwide this now is........... posted by a fb group in america 22nd August.



"Just read the beginning of the paragraph. F......... PETA, HSUS, ASPCA! The ASPCA has been a domestic terrorist group since it was founded in 1867 for the sole purpose of BEING a terrorist group!

What You Need To Know - Threats to Animal Ownership

Animal rights organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the American Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) seek to put an end to animal ownership. In their eyes, animals should share rights with humans. They equate animalownership to slavery. Their goals of abolishing animal ownership and animal breeding is an ideology not known by many.

An important part of our mission at Protect The Harvest is to protect the right to own and interact with animals. Pets and livestock enrich the lives of Americans all across the country. Animals also offer assistance to people in several different capacities. They provide us with companionship, resources like food and fiber, a source of recreation, or assist us with our work.

Protect The Harvest and our founder, Forrest Lucas, have been steadfast supporters of both animal breeders and authentic animal shelters and rescue groups. We believe in Americans having options when it comes to adding a new animal to your household. In 2016, the American Kennel Club (AKC) honored Forrest and Charlotte Lucas with its inaugural AKC Award for Outstanding Leadership in Canine Policy. This was a great example of the partnership between one of the largest canine organizations and Protect The Harvest.

Link to article about the Lucas’ AKC award:https://www.akc.org/clubs-delegates/government-relations/government-relations-blogs/forrest-and-charlotte-lucas-akc-award/ 

Since its founding, Protect The Harvest has worked hard to educate the public regarding the threats posed by animal rights organizations to animal ownership.

To read more about threats to animal ownership and what Protect The Harvest is doing to stop them: 

Below, we outline several topics we have engaged in over the past few years.

Pet Ownership in Jeopardy
Pet Breeders and Pet Stores

Pet breeding is facing some serious threats from animal rights groups. In an effort to disguise their true intentions of outlawing animal ownership, animal rights groups have been seeking to both regulate pet breeders out of business and to restrict choices for citizens when it comes to selecting a pet. In doing so, they are not only attacking the breeder’s ability to provide for themselves and their families, but they are targeting your right to raise and care for your family’s pets. These groups continue to spread false information that distorts consumer perception of how pet breeders operate in hopes of forcing the issue.

Link to CA AB485 Articles:



Retail Rescue

Recently, a push to eliminate choices for U.S. residents when it comes to purchasing a new animal has made its way to our ballot. In states like California, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, legislation is being proposed to outlaw selling animals from federally licensed breeders. Instead, the animals must come from a shelter or rescue.

We have several concerns with this type of law. It takes away a buyer’s freedom of choice, as well as any consumer protections previously offered by USDA licensed breeders. These consumer protections include “true to breed” temperaments, health clearances, and some states offer “Pet Protection” policies that refund the purchase price and veterinary care if the dog falls ill immediately after bringing it home. The same cannot be said for animals sourced from rescues or shelters, simply because they, more often than not, come with little knowledge of their history. Some are even being imported from outside the U.S.

For example, “rescuing” animals has become a big business. Groups that “rescue” animals are turning around and selling them to “adopters” at high prices. There’s a name for this recent business trend, “retail rescue”, and it generates a huge income for some so-called rescues that are in it solely for profit.

A recent study (2017) of Southern California rescues and shelters shows some alarming data:
• 643 rescue and shelter groups in Southern California were reviewed.
• Non-reporting, non-registered, delinquent or suspended groups reduced that number to 486.
• 296 organizations showed annual income on their IRS 990 forms over $50,000, for a total of $251,807,644. That number is not a typo. Keep in mind these figures apply to Southern California alone and that number is just a total from the groups that actually filed tax returns.

These big numbers bring up concerns about animal welfare since there is no oversight and there does not seem to be a plan or budget to implement a program that protects the consumer or the animals that are in the “retail rescue” pipeline.

Links to articles:


Importation of Animals

The business of “retail rescue” brings up another topic, the importation of animals. Patti Strand, of the National Animal Interest Alliance, explains that the number of “replacement animals” - the animals wanted by the American public each year to replace deceased or retired animals – is much higher than the number of animals born each year. To fulfill that demand, shelters and rescues are importing animals, usually dogs, from other regions of the country or even outside of the U.S.

Unfortunately, this is a cause for concern; dogs from other countries are, potentially, poorly socialized, aggressive and fearful. Some of these imported dogs are bringing diseases that previously were eradicated from this region. In addition to this, foreign dogs have been imported that have exposed American dogs to new strains of disease. For example, in 2017 there was an outbreak of Asian strains of Canine Influenza in the Los Angeles area and since then, additional dogs have been diagnosed with the disease. There was also a deadly outbreak in the Midwest that was traced back to the importation of Korean dogs.

Importing dogs from outside the country is not the solution to helping abandoned or unwanted dogs find new homes within the U.S. For this reason, Protect The Harvest supports local shelters in their quest to rehome animals in need but also supports the breeding and selling of purpose-bred animals. In short, we support Americans having the right to choose where their next animal comes from.

Links to additional information:




Mandatory Spay-Neuter Regulations

In New Jersey, animal rights groups pushed for legislation that further severely limits the rights of animal owners. The language of S2847 mandated that all dogs and cats 8 weeks of age or older could only be sold or transferred to new owners if they were spayed or neutered. The result is that there would only be animals available in New Jersey that cannot reproduce. Eventually, with this model, there will no longer be pets available to us. Additionally, there are numerous recent studies within the veterinary industry that have examined the impact of early spay – neuter. The results of these studies raised great concerns. There are now many in the veterinary community that believe early spay-neuter, especially at 8 weeks of age, is detrimental to the health and long-term welfare of pets. Large breed dogs are at particular risk of life-long health problems with an early spay-neuter.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) published an opinion in regards to mandatory spay and neuter legislation: “The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences."

Link to guest blog about How Radical Animal Rights Groups Push Their Agenda: https://protecttheharvest.com/news/guest-blog-radical-animal-rights-groups-push-agenda/ 

Anti-Exotic Pet Ownership

Since the animal rights ideology believes that all animal ownership is akin to slavery, their agenda is broad-sweeping. It does not just stop with eliminating animal agriculture or controlling the sale of dogs and cats. Animal rights activists would prefer that no animal, including exotics, be owned by a human. Although there are already laws and regulations in place, these groups believe they do not reach far enough. No matter how they disguise it, the underlying agenda is that animals should be removed from the hands of their owners.

This ideology greatly impacts family businesses like “Bearadise Ranch” owned by the Welde family. The Welde family has been working with bears for over 90 years. At Bearadise Ranch they have created a caring and enriched environment for their bears. The ranch is used as an educational experience for the public to learn about bears and the threats against them in the wild. Even though the Bearadise Ranch bears are healthy, well cared for and live in a model environment, they have become the target of one of PETA’s many harassment nightmares. Their story is just one of many.

Unless animal rights groups are stopped, their beliefs will have significant implications for facilities like zoos and exotic animal parks where our children learn about the animal world around them. At zoos, zoologists, veterinarians, and caring staff members work to improve animal care techniques, exotic animal medicine and are key in furthering wildlife preservation efforts. If animal rights groups get their way, the end result will be detrimental to many species of wildlife.

Animal Entertainment and Competition

For almost half a century, animal rights extremists have put considerable funding behind efforts to end animal entertainment, performances, and competitions. They have pursued legislation, changed municipal codes, deployed propaganda, lobbied Congress, and distorted the truth. Additionally, they continually harass entertainers and animal competition organizations. Rodeo events, circus performances, animals in movies, as well as horse and dog shows, have all experienced the impact of animal rights harassment.

Link to Guest Article by Roni Bell Sylvester: https://protecttheharvest.com/news/mutton-busting-animal-rights-extremist-groups-allowed-to-get-away-with-false-accusations/

More information about Performing Animals: https://protecttheharvest.com/what-you-need-to-know/performing-animals/ 

Racing Greyhounds

Florida voters went to the polls November 6th, 2018 and voted to amend the state constitution with a law prohibiting Greyhound racing. Amendments in Florida can only be reviewed every 20 years by the Constitution Revision Commission and will have to receive 60% approval to be changed at that time. Since Florida was home to the majority of race tracks in the country, this will effectively end the industry. Dogs in this industry are greatly cared for, and live long, happy lives both in racing and their adoptive homes after retirement. Racing is what these dogs are bred to do and enjoy doing. The animal rights groups were able to reach voters with myths about the industry, effectively appealing to the public’s emotions rather than logic based on facts.

As a result of this decision, thousands of dogs will need to be rehomed and many people will be out of work when the law goes into effect in 2021. This doesn’t just impact dog racing; it also opens the door to end other working animal industries. With this amendment, the verbiage is so vague, that it could lead to other industries being negatively impacted. Keep in mind that the ultimate goal of animal rights groups is to make all animal industries comply with their ideology.

To read more about Prop 13:
Article - Animal Rights Agenda Wins in Florida and Greyhounds Lose: https://protecttheharvest.com/news/animal-rights-agenda-wins-florida-greyhounds-lose/ 

Article - Prop 13 in Florida: https://protecttheharvest.com/news/animal-rights-activists-seek-constitutional-amendment-florida-ban-greyhound-racing/ 

Horses and Horse Shows

Animal rights groups attack all animal enterprise and they do so without having any practical experience with the animal sector they are targeting. The performance horse industry is no exception.

Groups like Reining Enigma, attend horse shows to take video content and then heavily edit the footage in order to present horse shows in a negative light. Animal rights groups are doing these things to work towards implementing over-reaching and overbearing regulations. Some animal rights activists and their affiliated groups have even worked to insert themselves within horse industry organizations.


Another method by animal rights groups to impact the performance horse industry was the PAST Act (Prevent All Soring Tactics Act). There are already laws as well as industry rules and regulations in place to protect show horses. Almost every major horse show organization has a published and updated handbook which outline competition rules and how horses are to be treated while at their events. The PAST Act will not improve the welfare of show horses since all soring tactics are already illegal. Instead, it calls for more regulation on common items used for show horses that cause no harm at all – for example, spray to enhance a horse’s coat and sprays to keep flies away. More regulations are not needed when good regulations are already in place. Coming back for more regulations is an angle that animal rights groups are using to get a deeper foothold into the horse industry, via legislation pushed by animal rights groups. Over-reaching laws not only impact the horse industry but also open the door to set precedents which can impact other performing animals.

Horse Processing

The horse population has suffered greatly since the funds for USDA inspectors in horse processing plants were cut from the Federal Government’s budget. Contrary to what animal rights groups have led people to believe, the elimination of USDA inspectors has not stopped horse processing. Instead, horses are now shipped to Canada and Mexico to be processed at facilities not regulated by USDA standards or USDA animal welfare oversight. Traveling to these facilities can be difficult on the horses and cause more harm. Re-funding USDA inspectors for horse processing will improve animal welfare because horses processed in the United States would be monitored by USDA inspectors. This will ensure animal welfare standards are followed and that the horses are being cared for and handled in a humane way. Opening processing in the United States will help curb the problem of unwanted horses being abandoned, starved or shipped long distances outside of animal welfare oversight.

Link to AVMA video response to the HSUS in regard to their position on horse processing:https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=3S1K20EiZmY 


The Safeguarding American Food Exports Act is legislation proposed and supported by animal rights groups. The SAFE Act calls for the prohibition of horse processing for consumption in the United States as well as prohibits the exportation of horses for the same reason.

Dog Shows

Dog shows have long been an issue with animal rights ideologues. These groups have been known to disregard the well-being of show animals at extreme levels; demonstrating that they don’t care about the animal’s welfare, but rather their agenda to end all use of show dogs. Over the years, there have been reports of animal rights protestors releasing animals from their crates and unplugging air-conditioning units that keep dogs from overheating in their trailers and motorhomes. In an incident in March 2018 at the Crufts Dog Show held in England, protestors stormed the stage as the champions were about to be awarded. Acts like this can be harmful to pets, who may get scared from the violent commotion.

Carriage Horses

Carriage horse businesses are another target of animal rights groups. These groups have been working across the country to eliminate the tradition and heritage of horse-drawn carriages. The Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as well as the ASPCA and other affiliates are involved in these efforts. They have published false information about the welfare of carriage horses to rile up emotions. They have been especially active in New York City but have also pushed banning carriage businesses in other cities as well.

In New York City, a group known as NYCLASS (New Yorkers for Clean and Livable and Safe Streets) has pushed for a ban on carriage horse businesses for several years. These groups have claimed that the horses are mistreated. This couldn’t be further from the truth. The horses have access to clean food and water throughout the day, wear specialized shoes for walking through the streets and rest each night in clean and well-bedded stables within the city. It is important to note that the main supporter of NYCLASS is a real estate developer and the stables where the horses are housed are located on highly desirable properties in NYC.

We support the carriage horse business and will continue to do so. If you would like to know more about this issue and more about the motivations behind NYCLASS’s efforts to eliminate this industry, we recommend watching the movie “The Last Horseman of New York City”.

Links: https://www.lasthorsemenfilm.com/about
You can watch a trailer for the movie here:https://vimeo.com/259671275

County Fairs

Across the country, 4-H and FFA children are now subjected to constant and ongoing harassment by animal rights extremists. So much so that children and their parents are being coached prior to their local state and county fairs on how to deal with animal rights groups. In a number of cases across the country, these extremists have entered fairgrounds late at night and set animals free. They have also engaged in other criminal activities that put the welfare of the animals at risk. This situation has become so problematic that many 4-H and FFA groups are having to post night watch in order to protect the welfare of their animals.

Animal Seizures

As the animal rights agenda presses on, pushing legislation and ordinances on the federal, state and local levels, animal owners across the country have been subjected to unlawful search and seizures and harassment. What happened to Gary Dassinger, a rancher in North Dakota, is an example.

In April of 2017, Dassinger faced charges of “animal abuse and cruelty”. The accusation came from someone out of state that had never even been to his property. This situation was made possible by a new law in North Dakota that changed the Century Code. It was introduced by the Humane Society of the United States and pushed by their Humane Legislative Fund. This newer law is something that has come as a surprise to many North Dakotans because historically, the numbers of animal abuse and neglect cases in North Dakota have been few and far between. The HSUS has trained law enforcement agencies, in North Dakota, on their interpretation of animal law and how to conduct animal seizures.

Over the course of several months, Dassinger dealt with repeated unannounced inspections of his animals and property, and general harassment and defamation from the media and animal rights activists on social outlets. At one point some of his horses were seized by the Sheriff’s Department even though it was known to them that a judge was reviewing a restraining order to prevent their seizing Dassinger’s animals.

In July of 2017, Free Range Report reported that “Judge Rhonda Ehlis, of the Southwest District Court, ruled that there was not clear or ‘convincing evidence’ that on May 18, 2017, the animals of Gary Dassinger met the definition of ‘neglect.’ She further noted that, ‘Therefore, the Petition to Seize Neglected Animals and the Petition for Disposition of Seized Animals are denied.’” It is also important to note that the County Sheriff who was a key player in this case was not re-elected in the following election cycle.

With the help of his daughter, Protect The Harvest, and many others, Dassinger successfully fought to keep his livestock and his 40-year breeding program. However, it was not without great personal sacrifice both emotionally and financially. In order to defend himself and to stop the seizure and sale of his livestock, Dassinger and his daughter made a considerable investment in time and legal fees. Although he was not guilty of the charges, he decided to cut his losses and take a plea deal.

For more information about the Dassinger case and the Open Field Doctrine:

Article - North Dakota Rancher Fighting for His Ranch and Your Rights: https://protecttheharvest.com/news/north-dakota-rancher-fighting-for-his-ranch-and-your-rights/ 

Article - Open Field Doctrine Can Be Used Against Animal Owners: https://protecttheharvest.com/news/open-field-doctrine-can-used-animal-ownership/ 

Link to Support Dassinger Ranch Facebook Group:https://www.facebook.com/groups/280418352430392/ 

Animal Rights Groups Busy in Oregon

On November 14, 2018, an amendment to Oregon’s animal cruelty statute was filed. If passed this amendment will permit anyone to file a civil action complaint against an animal owner. This means that a person can file a complaint outside of the criminal legal system. The amendment states, “plaintiff shall include any person even if the person does not have any legal interest or possessory rights in an animal.” Of additional and grave concern is the fact that the amendment allows the plaintiff unrestricted access to the owner’s home and property. It also allows for the plaintiff to seize the animals and require the owner to post bond and pay board. If the animal owner cannot pay board or post the bond, then the ownership of the animal is transferred to the plaintiff. Of most concern is that the amendment allows for all of this to happen to an animal owner solely based on a complaint from a plaintiff and without any hearing to establish guilt. In short, this would be state-sanctioned extortion and thievery of animals.

Link to article by Nancy Halpern, DVM about the proposed Amendment to Oregon's Animal Cruelty Statute: https://animallaw.foxrothschild.com/2018/12/08/a-proposed-amendment-to-oregons-animal-cruelty-statute-may-permit-anyone-to-file-a-against-the-animals-owner/?fbclid=IwAR3W0nOyX-m3nVtGDAl9CwbWA-LK3adgGTMkY8iaFDC0Rjpj1Exzg7AZAxI 

Habeas Corpus is For Humans, Not Animals

In December 2018, an elephant at the Bronx Zoo in New York has recently made the headlines after the animal rights group Nonhuman Rights Project filed court documents to encourage a judge to award habeas corpus to an animal. This is an unprecedented and alarming event. No non-human animal has ever received habeas corpus.

The ability for an animal to have habeas corpus would imply that they are persons and can participate in a social contract. However, animals are unable to be held legally liable for their actions. Even if an animal, such as a chimpanzee, has some human-like traits, that does not make the animal a person. 
Habeas corpus for animals brings rise to a number of questions:

If an animal were to be awarded habeas corpus, where would the line be drawn for future cases?

What is to stop animal rights extremists from litigating further?

Make no mistake, further litigation is the plan and the result would be devastating to animals. It would cause the closing of every educational zoo, and every laboratory conducting lifesaving research that benefits both animals and humans. It would certainly impact our precious food system and even owning a pet will become a thing of the past.

Habeas corpus is a common law civil right, it was written for and by people. Taking the law out of context to make it fit into the animal world reduces the significance of our human civil rights. Habeas corpus was written into our Constitution by our forefathers to protect human beings.

Article - Habeas Corpus is for Humans, Not for Animals: https://protecttheharvest.com/news/habeas-corpus-humans-not-animals/


Thomas  F every law enforcement authority because they break into people's homes and businesses to do PeTA's dirty work.

And a rancher who had done no wrong having to take a plea deal. Blame the prosecutors and law enforcement for that, too, because they had the power to prevent that from happening, and they sold humanity out.
Hide or report this

If you support PTH you may as well support this mob as well: https://thecavalrygroup.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Finally this video has come back to light.

such a shame I could not find it before the enquiry submissions closed.

was amazed at the time, they did not cut the footage of the inspector so disgusted he resigned on the spot rather than be a party to the slaughter, 



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is in Australia.  wonder why it was fine to kill the quail in their eggs? let alone why seize an incubator full of eggs?


Interesting, but tragic, this is now the second case I have heard of, the other target did not ask for advice until after they learned two of their pets had been killed by the seizing inspectors and the others sold, now facing court charges. they too only have photos of their pets to remember.

The two killed were said to be underweight yet one had just finished laying had their vet said she was in normal condition for just after lay eggs?



so if you have pet reptiles, the eye has turned to include them too now. take care folks



Stormi Michelle Anderson

Hi. I'm Stormi. I am autistic with a PTSD diagnosis and recently finished an honours year / 4th qualification in psychology. Requesting URGENT help.

If you can help please read everything here (or expand this post): https://www.facebook.com/donate/165371678210659/165422614872232/

PLEASE HELP!! My emotional support animals were taken away!!!! And also very loved animals which belonged to two of my housemates. I cannot fight this alone. Please invite, share, or donate if able to. EVERYTHING helps. This situation has sent my anxiety and depression into absolute overload as my animals were and are my family. They have been taken against my will.

All reptiles of mine that were taken were emotional support animals many of which I have owned for 5+ years and helped in managing symptoms of PTSD and anxiety. I am autistic. They also took my animals belonging to my two housemates. They seized an incubator of 70+ fertile quail eggs that I advised needed heat, but they unplugged and took it thereby killing any embryos.

Please help us fight to get back our much loved pets & emotional support animals. We are starting this page to try to raise enough money to help pay for legal fees to help us fight to get back our pets that have been taken by an "animal welfare organisation." We are now being taken to court with the 'statement' from the organisation being based on made up evidence, exaggerations, distortions and misinformation and need to try to raise $3000 to pay for legal representation to fight these charges and have the truth come out. We have been denied video footage of when they took them by the organisation (who had body cameras). They have also advised that they hope to charge me $6000+ in boarding fees after taking them which I plan to fight through court.

All reptiles we owned had been extremely well looked after and handled daily while in our care. I had met all legal requirements and appropriate licensing requirements to have these animals.

We were regularly approached by people from our community when we had the reptiles out exploring our front yard. A lot of people used to stop by and ask to hold our reptiles or ask to take photos of our well-handled animals. A lot of these people are also unable to understand why these animals were taken away and believe the animals should be returned. They took my emotional support animals, nine of one of my housemates animals, and one animal belonging to a separate housemate.

A page dedicated to our pet reptiles had been set up https://www.facebook.com/pg/TempestsSnakes/photos/?ref=page_internal
that shows a number of people from the community holding our animals. We had become somewhat well known as 'the reptile people' by a large amount of people who saw us outside with our reptiles in the sunlight on a daily to almost daily basis.

Background - Early December 2019 just before my birthday (that I didn't want to celebrate after this tragic loss) we had officers from an "animal welfare" organisation come to our property with a warrant containing unfounded and untrue information. This warrant was then used as a reason for these officers to take our animals which were all unharmed and in good health. While attending the property the officers were made aware that we were in the process of cleaning enclosures (which would have been very obvious due to the officers being direct witnesses to the fact my housemate was actually wearing cleaning gloves and a number of other cleaning items that were being used which are actually shown in photos that are trying to be used as evidence against us). We cleaned the reptiles weekly, or fortnightly at the very most. Hours per day was spent handling them and on animal care. One animal was left on an "educational direction" that could have also been used to leave the other animals with us if these officers had any concerns. (It took only a few hours to action the educational direction which requested our galah to eat pellets not bird seed, and two water bowls instead of one), and any other issues would have been able to be changed upon request without the officers using their power to take animals as their first and only option on their first visit).

We are not sure why animals had to be taken at all as the vet that attended our property with the officers marked almost all reptiles she accessed as being in reasonable condition (one was marked as underweight who we had recently purchased from another person and we had been taking steps to make sure this snake was gaining weight in our care). This organisation provided little information or reasoning other than saying they wouldn't want to return any of our animals and any legal or human rights I have feel as though they have been taken away. Their only reason for taking them on the form was 'as evidence', yet none of us have been found guilty and we have done nothing.

I have heard horror stories of perfectly health animals being seized then resold and also horror stories from numerous other people after I have open spoken and written about this who have experienced the same thing from the same organisation!! We have been offered very little transparency as to the reasons behind this. We asked for other options. We asked if they wanted changes to state them and we would comply. They refused. We asked if we could transfer the reptiles to family or friends instead of having them taken. They refused. We requested full video footage of them taking them as they had body cams. They refused. I requested to visit my emotional support animals. They refused until I found I had a legal right to inspect. I requested to handle my own animals as part of inspecting/visiting. They've refused. I've requested direct veterinary evidence that makes sense or contains any causal or credible evidence that warrants this. They've refused.

We have to fight this through court, and We NEED HELP. We need to try and raise $3000 to pay for legal representation to fight this. I am doing my best with self-employment, busking, and desperately searching for employment after finishing my honours year in psychology at university. I am living off $10 per week for my own food, and all other money goes towards legal costs. While I've always had enough to afford to care for and feed my animals when they were in my care (they ate first, even if that meant I went to free food places), all my money now needs to go towards getting legal help to fight this so I can have them back in my care. Please help us get back our much loved animals. I will provide invoices and receipts for any legal costs so that people know any money (even the tiniest of donations can help) is going to a genuine cause. This is a very frightening experience, and any help (even in the form of sharing this fundraiser) is appreciated. Thank you again to each and any of you who can help.

I am also looking for employment and willing to do any work I am capable of in the Brissie area if anyone knows of any jobs available through word of mouth (I am also applying for many through the standard channels). Losing my beautiful animals sent me into a spiral of panic and depression, and I need to fight to get them back especially given all are healthy and there is no valid, justifiable reason for them being taken away against my will.

Please SHARE or invite. Or please donate (even $1 can go a long way) if able to.

THANK you   







Image may contain: one or more peopleImage may contain: one or more peopleImage may contain: indoorNo photo description available.Image may contain: outdoor





Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I heard stories they can enter your home and take your mobile, tablet and computer, but didn't believe it. There it is in black and white in the order that had issued against this woman.
the update at the bottom is weird? first the kitten is dead and then it isn't? Oh my, they got the warrant to take her body from her owner because she had taken her body home after they killed her, incredible !



Belinda Stevens

TAKE YOUR FUR BABIES TO RSPCA @wacol.. this is my story...

I took my childrens kitten (marshmellow) down to the rspca at wacol after she was abit lethargic which she was like once before and made a full recovery!
I walked in to their reception are and told the lady behind the counter that she was not feeling the best and was not sure if it was hypothermia?? She took my beloved kitten out the back for the vet to check over....(normal procedure) anyone would think...I had only given the lady my phone number also normal procedure, she said to me if I needed treatment for my kitten I would need to surrender her and if she was to sick I would need to give them (RSPCA) permission to euthanize her .. I refused euthanization and had not signed any paperwork as of yet when all of a sudden the vet has come to talk to me saying that marshmallow had to be put to sleep! I assumed that my kitten had to be sedated in order for them to check her.

I was then led to the consultation room where my childrens kitten lay I noticed she was not moving and as I approached her she was not breathing also.
I screamed "you killed our cat" where then the vet turned and said "arent you the foster caregivers" I replied " NO THIS IS MY CAT"
her instant reply was "OH SHIT" not at any stage did i sign or give permission for them to put my kitten to sleep!!!!! They just stood there dumb founded not even 1 word!! I grabbed my now dead kitten in which they killed and walked out! With my son and I in tears.
I then thought that this was not good enough and went to walk back in but to no despair all of the staff members hid out the back so i still stood there for 30 mins waiting buzzing the bell and still nothing!! It wasnt until someone else walked out that i finally was able to get back in to their reception to ask for numbers and names to make a formal complaint! I will be taking it further believe me I'll have their jobs for it!! And the worst part was telling my children that their beloved kitten was killed by them !!! This is now where our beloved kitten lays due to the hands of RSPCA!!!!!!

RSPCA have now come to my premises with a search warrant!!!
REFUSED TO LET THEM IN....police were called....searched my premises asked where marshmallow was and my daughter ran off with her and hid.... as soon as she did that the inspector said " that's obstruction and we are now seizing marshmallow" I replied " oh no your not I'll fight you on that one"
So they entered my property and looked at my animals told me I needed to clip my Maltese and seek medical treatment for my other dog due to his eczema...in which I replied yes I have cream for that, mind you he didnt inform that he was recording the whole thing?? I lost it after he said " you would have surrendered her anyway" had to walk away after I called him a wanker ! My son then came home from up the shop and turned to me and said "does he have marshmallow" I replied "no" which in return he replied " you sure " so I told him no he doesnt have her.
The only thing they were worried about today was getting marshmallow but guess what they didnt and never will!


Image may contain: cat and indoor




Image may contain: indoor


No photo description available.



No photo description available.


Image may contain: text


Link to comment
Share on other sites

The warrant gives them the right to enter the house and take whatever is listed in that warrant...


As if it isn't bad enough that they killed her kitten without consultation about it's prognosis... now they are resorting to bully tactics to hopefully find something to negate their own negligence in duty of care to the kitten and it's owner.


This is what people are afraid of when publicly telling their horror stories about experiences with the RSPCA... grrr!



Link to comment
Share on other sites

well its sure in the news now.





for a second I thought the story must be from the uk? with that in the link. but it is the Queensland Australia edition.



Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the rspca has gone on the attack and published this on their facebook page.


RSPCA QLD                                                                                        Like Page

On Thursday, February 27th RSPCA Inspectors executed a search warrant at a property in Redbank Plains as part of an investigation related to a kitten that was brought to RSPCA Wacol on Tuesday night which required urgent veterinary treatment. The kitten was delivered to RSPCA near death. It was cold, semi-comatose, in lateral recumbency, cyanotic (blue from lack of oxygen), gasping for air, with a sub normal temperature and unresponsive. The owner stated that this had happened previously with the kitten and she had cuddled it and it recovered, but no veterinary attention had been sought.

Tests ruled out the possibility of treatment, and the kitten was euthanased as death was imminent and inevitable, and the kitten was suffering. The owner was advised of the euthanasia after it had occurred, just as she was signing surrender forms. She became upset and took the kitten’s body, preventing the possibility of autopsy to determine the cause of the kitten’s poor condition.

The owner of the kitten advised staff that she had the remaining 5 kittens from the litter at home. The matter was referred to the RSPCA Inspectorate for investigation given the concerns in relation to the other animals at the owner’s home. Investigators further established that the same kitten owner had previously surrendered 4 cats to RSPCA on 4 separate occasions since October 2015, and all required urgent veterinary care. Two of those cats were euthanased due to their poor conditions, one died an unassisted death soon after surrender to RSPCA, and the other was treated by RSPCA and ultimately rehomed.

Inspectors executing the warrant this afternoon located 4 dogs, two litters of kittens (8 kittens in total) and 4 adult cats at the property. All animals were not desexed. Prior to Inspectors gaining entry the owner was heard telling her children to flee over the back fence with the body of the deceased kitten, and Inspectors were unable to locate this kitten.

When the owner was questioned in relation to the health of the remaining kittens from the deceased kitten’s litter, she indicated that she had rehomed 4 of those kittens recently, however the condition and location of these kittens is unknown to RSPCA. If anybody has any information in relation to these kittens, or has acquired a kitten from a Redbank Plains property and is concerned for the kitten’s welfare, please contact RSPCA on 1300 264 625.

Inspectors issued an Animal Welfare Direction pursuant to the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to the owner requiring her to provide treatment to the animals for fleas and worms, attend to the matting of the coat on one of the dogs, and provide treatment of a skin condition on another dog.

RSPCA Inspectors discussed desexing of animals with the owner and she stated she did not require assistance with desexing.




One lady has made this comment below it.


Karen Davis I know the lady involved and the facts are nothing like the story the RSPCA is putting across. They are trying to cover their arse for their own stupidity. Their warrant was incorrect to start with.





Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites



RSPCA Queensland apologises after euthanasing 11-week-old kitten, Marshmallow

Posted 2ddays ago, updated 2ddays ago
RSPCA Animal Hospital at its headquarters in Qld at Wacol on Brisbane's south-west in December 2012
The RSPCA Animal Hospital is in Wacol, in Brisbane's south-west.(ABC TV News - File Image)

A woman's decision to take an 11-week-old kitten to an RSPCA hospital facility for treatment after it became ill ended in heartbreak, with the kitten being euthanased without consent.

Key points:

  • Belinda Stevens said the RSPCA Wacol hospital thought she was a foster carer and euthanased her son's cat
  • Ms Stevens said by the time she was told the cat was being put to sleep it was too late
  • RSPCA Qld said the organisation would be reviewing its communication processes

Brisbane mother Belinda Stevens told ABC Radio Brisbane's Mornings program the family's kitten, Marshmallow, was euthanased at the RSPCA's Wacol facility due to a misunderstanding about its ownership.

"Well, I was at work and my son came down with Marshmallow, who was a bit unsteady on her feet," Ms Stevens told Rebecca Levingston.

"The kids were a bit worried because they hadn't seen her like that before, but she had been like that before and made a full recovery.

"So I'd taken her down to the Wacol RSPCA, obviously to see what was wrong with her."

Warning: This story contains an image that some readers may find disturbing.

Ms Stevens said after stating her name and address to the receptionist, within minutes the vet informed her they had to "put Marshmallow to sleep".

"I didn't even have probably two minutes and the vet came back out," she said.

"I was thinking OK … they've obviously had to sedate her because they have to check her out, and I asked if I could go and see her out the back, and they said no, you have to go to the consultation rooms.

"And I was like what … as soon as I walked into the room and opened the door there was Marshmallow, dead.

"I just broke down in tears, my son broke down in tears. Instead of seeking help we ended up bringing back a dead kitten."

Ms Stevens said there was confusion about whether she was the cat's owner or a foster carer.

"The vet actually turned around and she said, aren't you the foster carers? And I'm like, what?" she said.

"She says, 'I thought you were the foster carers', and I said, 'no, this is my cat and you killed my cat'.

"Nobody really spoke to me after that, except for me grabbing my cat and walking out. It took me about half an hour in their reception area to get names and stuff so I could formally make a complaint.

"They say to me in phone calls that they definitely stuffed up.

"The only thing they're offering at the moment is free cremation or a free adoption later on down the track."

A dead white kitten lays in a teatowel on a scale at the hospital.
Ms Stevens said Marshmellow was euthanased by RSPCA vets without consent.(Supplied)

'It's our fault': RSPCA Qld

RSPCA Queensland spokesman Michael Beatty said the RSPCA believed it was necessary to put Marshmallow down but conceded there was a communication issue.

"I can totally understand that Belinda is heartbroken. There's no doubt about it," Mr Beatty said.

"Basically what happened is, is our veterinary hospital at Wacol is not a public veterinary clinic. It is only for RSPCA animals.

"We really wish it could be a public clinic, but sadly we don't have the funds, so it is purely for RSPCA animals."

Mr Beatty confirmed the confusion stemmed from a mistaken assumption that Ms Stevens was a foster carer and that Marshmallow was a foster kitten.

"When Belinda brought Marshmallow in, the veterinary staff mistakenly assumed that Marshmallow was a foster kitten," he said.

"Certainly, she should have been consulted, but it was presumed that she was a foster carer."

Mr Beatty said based on the severity of Marshmallow's condition, euthanasia was the only humane option.

"To be honest, even if she was a foster carer and Marshmallow was a foster kitten, probably it should have been communicated to her that Marshmallow was going to be euthanased," he said.

"All we can do, and we have done so, we've personally rung her and said how sorry we actually are.

"Undoubtedly in terms of the communication it's out fault — we should have checked to see if she was a foster carer.

"But in terms of Marshmallow needing to be put to sleep, we believe that any other vet would have done exactly the same thing."

Mr Beatty confirmed the RSPCA would be reviewing its communication processes following the incident.

"We're not just reviewing but making certain that something like that never happens again," he said.

"All I can say is, we're sorry."

Boy 'not coping well'

Ms Stevens said what she wanted was to have been consulted on the health of her cat before any further treatment decisions were made.

"They said in order for them to treat Marshmallow I would need to surrender her, and I had not signed any paperwork. No verbal, no written permission, no ID was shown and they went ahead and euthanased her," she said.

"I didn't get an explanation until after the fact. They already had euthanased her — that's when I got an explanation that she had diabetes, apparently, and they didn't have the facilities to treat her and basically ended up killing her."

She said her son was "not coping well" after the incident.

Ms Stevens said if she had been consulted prior to the action being taken, she may have considered consenting to euthanasia.

"If I had been informed, possibly. She had been like that once before and she recovered fully by the next day, but I had no explanation of what had happened or what was wrong with her," she said.

On whether she would take up the RSPCA's offer of free adoption, Ms Stevens said she was too distraught by the experience to consider it.

"I can't, not after this. Not after this. It's like taking away a family member. She was a family member," she said.

"With the cremation, every time I'm going to be thinking, here's Marshmallow … this is what I've got to look at every day, an urn. Because they killed her, and it's a reminder of what they've actually done. I can't do that."

Posted 2ddays ago, updated 2ddays ago













Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well now has been published and her trial by media began


RSPCA investigates woman whose cat was euthanased without consent

Posted Yesterday, updated Yesterday
A white 11 week old kitten sitting on purple bed sheets.
Marshmallow was euthanased by the RSPCA on Tuesday night.(Supplied)

The RSPCA is investigating a woman whose cat was euthanased without consent after reviewing her history of bringing animals in ill health to a facility in Wacol, south-west of Brisbane.

Key points:

  • RSPCA has apologised for euthanasing 11-week-old kitten Marshmallow prior to its owner signing paperwork
  • The organisation carried out a search warrant at the owner's home over "concerns in relation to other animals"
  • Belinda Stevens, the owner, alleges the RSPCA is trying to "cover up their wrongdoing"

In a statement, the RSPCA said it executed a search warrant on Thursday as part of an investigation into the death of an 11-week-old kitten named Marshmallow.

Belinda Stevens told ABC Radio Brisbane on Wednesday that she took the family's kitten to the RSPCA after it became "unsteady on its feet".

The RSPCA admitted that a misunderstanding over the cat's ownership led to it being euthanased and apologised for a communication issue with Ms Stevens.

Warning: This story contains an image that some readers may find disturbing.

Claims of multiple deaths

But today the RSPCA said it had come to the organisation's attention that Ms Stevens had five other cats from the same litter in her care at home.

"Investigators established that the same kitten owner had previously surrendered four cats to RSPCA on four separate occasions since October 2015," the RSPCA said.

"All required urgent veterinary care."

The RSPCA said two of the cats were euthanased due to their poor conditions, one died an unassisted death soon after, and the other was treated by the RSPCA and rehomed.

On Thursday investigators located four dogs, eight kittens from two litters, and four adult cats at the property — none of which had been desexed, the organisation said.

In a text to the ABC, Ms Stevens confirmed the RSPCA had attended her property with a search warrant.

The RSPCA entered the property to retrieve the remains of Marshmallow, which Ms Stevens had taken home after the cat was put down.

A dead white kitten lays in a teatowel on a scale at the hospital.
Ms Stevens said Marshmellow was euthanased by RSPCA vets without consent.(Supplied)

Child told to flee, RSPCA says

The RSPCA said prior to entry inspectors heard Ms Stevens "telling her children to flee over the back fence" with Marshmallow's body.

Ms Stevens admitted to the ABC that she had removed Marshmallow from her premises.

"I had removed Marshmallow from my premises … [police] stated they would charge me in with obstruction and tampering with evidence," she said.

"The officer then stated, as I told my 11-year-old daughter to run and hide with Marshmallow, that they were seizing Marshmallow."

The officers did not locate Marshmallow during the search.

Ms Stevens alleges the RSPCA is trying to "cover up their wrong doing".

RSPCA Animal Hospital at its headquarters in Qld at Wacol on Brisbane's south-west in December 2012
The RSPCA Animal Hospital is in Wacol, in Brisbane's south-west.(ABC TV News - File Image)

No charges laid

The RSPCA said Ms Stevens took the kitten's body with her on Tuesday night, preventing the possibility of an autopsy to determine the cause of the kitten's poor condition.

"It was cold, semi-comatose, in lateral recumbency, cyanotic (blue from lack of oxygen), gasping for air with a subnormal temperature, and unresponsive," the RSPCA said.

"The owner stated that this had happened previously with the kitten and she had cuddled it and it recovered, but no veterinary attention had been sought."

Ms Stevens was issued with a welfare directive requiring her to provide treatment to the animals for fleas and worms, attend to the matting of the coat on one of the dogs, and provide treatment of a skin condition on another dog.

She has not been charged with any offences.

Posted Yesterday, updated Yesterday
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the warrant she was served with.


notice it gives them the right to seize your mobile phone, tablet and computer.  just in case they contain something they can use to convict you.


so even if there is nothing on any of them they are gone indefinitely anyway


I have heard they do it, just didn't believe it until now its there in black and white.


rather totally negates their continuous wailing about lack of power.  in 1990 they already had the power to seize any animal they "formed the opinion" should be seized.. note the wording for all your electronic equipment "reasonable suspects" and it too is gone.


that is a great deal of power with no need to prove their opinion or suspicion and the target? has no avenue of appeal even today over 20 years later.


Not even the police have that unappealable power.




No photo description available.


No photo description available.

Edited by asal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great lessons being promoted there. Not. 


Seek treatment, or else. 


But if RSPCA delivers that poorly or in poor faith, and you complain, they will drum the message home.  Seeking treatment there was a bad idea.

If seeking treatment so easily turns into a nightmare how does that help in prevention.

Regardless of the person seeking it.


R.S.P.C.A made a mistake. If this woman has any history worth note it should have been 'noted' before their own mistake.

Edited by moosmum
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly does appear that they are retaliating with a witch hunt for any transgressions they can pin on this woman.


Regardless of the fact that she may not necessarily be following best practice with regards to her animals, and seems to be economically challenged (hence fronting up at RSPCA vet)... I'm in agreement with @moosmum that this should have been on their radar BEFORE this incident.



  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This woman had brought 4 other kittens to the RSPCA all very sick.  She knew the RSPCA is not a private practice and could only treat animals surrendered to them.  She knew this because she had done it 4 times previously.... Five sick kittens , rushing into vet at night...  4 out of 5 too sick to save....  If they DIDNT look into her, I would be more annoyed!!!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further to the story on Marshmallow.  I do appreciate those of you who have been lucky so far would find her story hard to believe. as for me I know differently after all the lies they told about why they took my dog and that was in November 1999 so they have had over 20 years to learn to get better, seems not
Posted on Facebook 16/3/2010
Belinda Stevens

By way of response to the RSPCA's outrageous lies and accusations, I am requesting the RSPCA publicly release and publish the following documents.
I would also like them to provide sufficient answers to my questions and the supporting evidence.

1. Signed surrender form
2. CCTV footage of those pivotal two minutes in question
3. Evidence used to obtain the entry warrant
4. Authority form for the RSPCA inspectorate to open an investigation
5. Results of ALL tests conducted that were used to arrive at the determination that Marshmallow could not be saved and euthanasia was necessary
6. The video & photographic evidence of Marshmallow's alleged seizures, blue lips, etc.
7. Evidence supporting your claims of "alleged deaths"
8. A signed & sworn affidavit from the veterinarian in question which states the facts as they happened
9. All veterinarian notes pertaining to the incident in question

Your claim regarding the 4 cats previously surrendered by me is the only true statement you have made. However, you neglected to provide accurate context along with it so I will.

As you were made well aware in every one of those instances, 3 of the 4 cats in question were not mine.
I took those cats to the RSPCA because I naively believed that you would provide them with a better life than when I found them. There is now little doubt in my mind as to their fate.
I brought Marshmallow to you when she got sick because I also naively believed you would help, not crucify me.
Since the RSPCA was closest to me, if I'd not taken her in as soon as it became apparent that she wasn't well, travelled to a private veterinarian further away or done nothing at all, would those things not constitute abuse/neglect according to your own standards and expectations?

My kitten became sick. I am not an expert which is why I took her to the so-called experts for help.... who killed her, apologised, then immediately turned on me, twisted the truth and made me out to be an animal abuser.
It's ironic.
If that suggestion and inference contained even a hint of truth, I would not have bothered to seek help for sick animals, whether mine or somebody else's.

So instead of my kitten getting the help she needed, she is now dead and I have been falsely and publicly vilified, harassed and threatened, and all without basis.
All thanks to the RSPCA.

I hate that I ever donated or believed the public facade of the RSPCA; that they are 'experts' in anything other than lying, intimidating and bullying to cover up self-incriminating facts & truths.
Your advertising is deceptive and false.
Its clear that the RSPCA are about everything BUT the animals.

1. How were RSPCA vets able to obtain my signature, run tests and have the results back in under 2 minutes?

2. How could the RSPCA make a decision regarding the required treatment (and so quickly) if they didn't know Marshmallow's condition at the time of euthanising her; if they did know, surely it would mitigate any NEED for an autopsy....?

3. Why would there be a need to raid me in order to retrieve Marshmallow's body for an autopsy IF they already knew the cause of death? Because, according to their statement, they knew exactly what was wrong with her and stated that she could not be saved.
So which is it RSPCA?

4. If the RSPCA have the test results which support their claim that "treatment wasn't an option", why would they STILL require or be demanding her body back for an autopsy? IF they have the results and can prove that is true, why the urgency for an autopsy, but especially one conducted by their own vets?
** The accompanying video taken only minutes prior shows Marshmallow's condition so you can make your own determination.

5. If the RSPCA wanted Marshmallow's body for an autopsy, there would be no need for them to raid me. Why not just ask me and respect my decision as to whether or not I even WANT an autopsy done?

6. Why would the RSPCA suddenly have cause to investigate me immediately after they admitted to screwing up and killing my kitten?
If there were legitimate concerns about the welfare of any one of those cats I surrendered over the past 5 years, why wasn't an investigation commenced prior to this incident?

7. What are these alleged "deaths" referred to in the RSPCA's statement?
At the time of surrendering each one of the cats since 2015, I was informed by RSPCA staff that they would be rehomed. If they were killed, it was not due to MY negligence. I thought that NOT taking stray cats to the RSPCA was negligent.

Ultimately, did the RSPCA raid me due to newly alleged, previous animal 'welfare' concerns or because they wanted Marshmallow's body for an autopsy (which they had no legal right to since I did NOT surrender her)? It can't be both.
Again, which is it RSPCA?

I'd also really like to know, since when did legitimate (RSPCA) investigations BEGIN with a raid?

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

  • Create New...