Jump to content

Inquiry into animal cruelty laws in New South Wales


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't want to put anyone out to roast but I do want an effective animal protection and welfare agency in this country. If they are found to be too far from the acceptable mark on those two single po

Mine is 5-6 pages long detailing my personal experience regarding how RSPCA inspectors (and others) manipulate the wording of sections of POCTAA to their own requirements, the standard of care of seiz

This is part of the job I don't think they do well either. Lots of people don't seem to understand the difference between discipline and abuse, between meeting basic care needs and neglect or between

Posted Images

Jeebus... I made my submission... and then read some of those already published... dog help us all if that is the quality of response to this opportunity... *sigh*

 

A good 90% appear to be little more than a single paragraph that espouses the animal rights/liberation stance and don't address any of the terms of reference.

 

I spent a good week or so putting my submission together, dragging up very unpleasant memories and putting them to paper as something cohesive and compelling to be read and further investigated. The only other submissions so far that address the terms of reference are from representatives of the current enforcement groups and PETA.

 

Are we all so complacent that we can't take this opportunity to try to make changes for the better... or are we so frightened of any backlash that may occur once our stories become public that we stay silent? Or worse... are we just not bothered?

 

I am so disappointed right now...

 

T.

  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

lol I sent them a copy yesterday

3 hours ago, tdierikx said:

Jeebus... I made my submission... and then read some of those already published... dog help us all if that is the quality of response to this opportunity... *sigh*

 

A good 90% appear to be little more than a single paragraph that espouses the animal rights/liberation stance and don't address any of the terms of reference.

 

I spent a good week or so putting my submission together, dragging up very unpleasant memories and putting them to paper as something cohesive and compelling to be read and further investigated. The only other submissions so far that address the terms of reference are from representatives of the current enforcement groups and PETA.

 

Are we all so complacent that we can't take this opportunity to try to make changes for the better... or are we so frightened of any backlash that may occur once our stories become public that we stay silent? Or worse... are we just not bothered?

 

I am so disappointed right now...

 

T.

think your answers are yes, yes and yes.

after sending mine been ill ever since because I know the risk I have taken in reminding the monster i still exist

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, asal said:

lol I sent them a copy yesterday

think your answers are yes, yes and yes.

after sending mine been ill ever since because I know the risk I have taken in reminding the monster i still exist

 

 

Mine is 5-6 pages long detailing my personal experience regarding how RSPCA inspectors (and others) manipulate the wording of sections of POCTAA to their own requirements, the standard of care of seized animals (or lack thereof), stringing out of the legal process (and late filing of CANs) to maximise financial strain on defendants, and absolute refusal to work WITH animal businesses to ensure all are on the same page with regards to POCTAA and RSPCA welfare requirements.

 

I have over 600 pages of "evidence" from RSPCA that show all that I am claiming is wrong with the system and how they manipulate it to their own ends. That can be produced if/when asked for same.... if I actually get called to give evidence in person...

 

There is always the spectre of possible reprisals once my grievance has been made public... but I'm beyond the point where I might fear that now that I know how that particular system works. Bring it on I say!

 

T.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

bit worrying all right. notice neither yours or mine are there either? wonder whats going on, i received confirmation that they had received it, sent it in same time as Phillip Adams

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

PETA actually sound like a voice you want to get behind there. Proactive rather than reactive is exactly how I feel too. Why all the crazy then? I agree with pretty much everything they said except the underfunding. RSPCA is the only charitable animal welfare organisation in the black and perhaps they should be diverting some of their pennies into prevention and prosecution rather than spending so much on their media and communications budget?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 9:02 AM, Little Gifts said:

PETA actually sound like a voice you want to get behind there. Proactive rather than reactive is exactly how I feel too. Why all the crazy then? I agree with pretty much everything they said except the underfunding. RSPCA is the only charitable animal welfare organisation in the black and perhaps they should be diverting some of their pennies into prevention and prosecution rather than spending so much on their media and communications budget?

RSPCA NSW spent 5 million plus on fundraising last year... and raised 13 million plus from it... that's an 8 million "profit".

 

They report that around 4 million was spent on animals... you do the maths...

 

Of 15,637 cases investigated by 32 inspectors, only 77 prosecutions came about, and fines revenue was 102,110... apparently inspectorate animal care cost 1,120,166 (an estimate according to their own annual report)

 

They hold 110,000,000 (roughly) of non-cash assets...

 

T.

 

 

Edited by tdierikx
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wherever your expenditure is the greatest tells you what a large organisation is really all about. Used to see it in govt all the time. There will be more staff in their media and communications unit than than their will be inspectors, all housed in schmick facilities with modern technology while there are dogs lying in old hot/cold facilities somewhere still.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Little Gifts said:

Wherever your expenditure is the greatest tells you what a large organisation is really all about. Used to see it in govt all the time. There will be more staff in their media and communications unit than than their will be inspectors, all housed in schmick facilities with modern technology while there are dogs lying in old hot/cold facilities somewhere still.

wonder if anyone thought to point that out although I suppose they can say it wasnt in the terms of reference

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Little Gifts said:

Wherever your expenditure is the greatest tells you what a large organisation is really all about. Used to see it in govt all the time. There will be more staff in their media and communications unit than than their will be inspectors, all housed in schmick facilities with modern technology while there are dogs lying in old hot/cold facilities somewhere still.

NSW state govt has already paid for new kennel blocks for the Yagoona shelter... and for the shmick all mod-cons vet clinic... and just been given another 12,000,000 this year for some other upgrade to the place... oh and a nice long extension of the dirt cheap lease of the land it all sits on (which apparently will save RSPCA approx 12 million more over the time period, due to how cheap the rent for said land is).

 

T.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you think on it, it was a bad idea from the start.

Prevention of animal cruelty ,Tied to a duty of prosecution- pretty much dictates the 'method' of prevention that must be relied on as a legal responsibility. It limits those orgs. to a prosecutorial   and legislative role to achieve the intent of prevention. Through punishment after the fact.

 

That actually corrupts the ideal of ' prevention of cruelty to animals' . To something  more like 'punishment and limitation of animal husbandry'. It must do that  if punishment and limitation are are the legal responsibility of 'prevention'.

The legal responsibility precedes their own intent.

Edited by moosmum
Link to post
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...