Your Cart is Empty
There was an error with PayPalClick here to try again
Thank you for your business!You should be receiving an order confirmation from Paypal shortly.Exit Shopping Cart
RSPCA THE FACTS
The facts, videos, audio files, affidavits, statements and documents along with the many truths that are not included are to protect whistle blowers until they can speak freely to a full government Inquiry, then and only then will the whole truth be exposed.
Does animal welfare need reform?
This overview is only a brief, it clearly shows a variety of flaws and corruption from with in the RSPCA who are now responsible for the killing the largest amount of healthy animals in this country. They abuse the law, our court system, and due process, they attack self funded carers, rescue groups and shelters with out regard to genuine animal welfare in every case to increase their own powers and bank accounts.
Once an alleged cruelty report is received and investigated, RSPCA Inspectors may take any of the following actions (from their website):
1. Offer advice and assistance to the owner
2. Issue a warning letter and follow up with spot checks to ensure that the advice/recommendations have been implemented
3.Issue the owner with an animal welfare notice which requires the owner to take action as instructed by the Inspector Official
4.Seize the animal/s and prosecute the owner
SO WHY DO THEY PREFER OPTION 4?
WHAT DO THEY DO? The RSPCA “Royal society for the protection of animals” was all about the promotion of the rights of all animals, as their ad’s say “for all animals great and small”. They are a privately run corporate entity that attract government funding and believe they have powers of prosecution under the “Animal welfare Act” to help police animal abuse cases and administer animal welfare legislation.
This is where the bluff and spin starts, the RSPCA are a private charity, a registered business, and do not have any powers of prosecution, something overlooked too often, the only power they have is that of the courts and the community having been lead to believe they are the ultimate authority.
The only powers awarded by the government are to inspectors, in most states these inspectors have to report to, or apply to prosecute to the minister or the relevant authority, but even these facts are overlooked by all involved. The fact is, every time they bugger up, it is the government who are responsible, and any animals they seize and are ordered by the courts to be kept are forfeited to the crown, not the RSPCA.
Our government allows the RSPCA to ignore compliance, enforcement and prosecution policy, which allows the RSPCA to overstep community expectations and public interest guidelines.
In recent times it appears the RSPCA have their own idea in respect to animal welfare and how it should be run, if not the ideal of taking over everything to do with animal welfare and the companion animal sector.
They abuse their powers
of prosecution, deliberately drawing out court processes to run their victims out of money, and increase the costs they seek, in a recent WA case an experienced rescuer of some 20 years, who has invested tens of thousands yearly on vet bills alone, is facing over 1 million dollars in costs "for saving animals?"
Ex staff that quit or are fired are offered extensive hush money, with regular reports of $10,000 payments to keep quiet about what goes on with in the RSPCA itself.
It has also become apparent by recent actions, that they are willing to step over the law to achieve their will, regardless of genuine animal welfare concerns or community expectations.
Abandoned companion animals must be treated in a certain way according to the RSPCA’s recent conduct; they must be kept in small concrete enclosures and awarded a short life span, with certain breeds and ages being considered undesirable.
They kill health animals to make room, or punish those that dare stand up to them, and then just use the excuse "The animals had behavioral issues" even 6 week old kittens.
In an interview with a top chief inspector, he confirmed that "Dropping of an animal to the RSPCA" in most cases is a death sentence. He is one of many good people wanting to come forward to an inquiry, to expose the massive misuse of powers from with in the charity.
Out of WA alone, the numbers of current and ex workers coming forward are massive, from chief vets, prosecutors, inspectors and even the chief inspector, yet the media and the government are simply too scared to deal with the truth.
Their less than desirable ideals would frown upon most companion animal owners, so if the RSPCA applied their treatment of shelters to every day animal lovers, it would create a situation where the RSPCA can in their eyes prosecute most of us, yet they are presently concentrating on those with larger holdings, like shelters and rescue groups, as well as breeders in what appears an attempt to control the entire industry.
In SA a parliamentary inquiry was stopped by RSPCA legal, so have televised exposes, in Tasmania the truth came out after an inquiry recently, so pressure now my animal lovers is more important than ever.
The RSPCA answer to no one, there is no ombudsman, the respective ministers in charge of animal welfare legislation look to the RSPCA for answers to any questions raised, and police services appear to be convinced these special officers are the law in regards to animal welfare.
The RSPCA's own chief vets are ignored, even court orders to return seized animals are ignored, and the media in most states refuse to accept things are drastically wrong, and support their actions with their silence.
The email on the right makes it clear that the chief vet wanted a animals returned to the owner back in 2011, the animals are still being held 2 and half years later, even against court orders.
The warrant used to seize the animals was corrupt and had never been signed by a magistrate or JP, after the seizure the inspector involved, dodged up a warrant, but the courts through out the case.
The CEO still refused to return the stolen animals, with roomers they were sold for a huge profit.
Any leading animal welfare expert can tell you the dangers of keeping animals in small cages for extended periods, yet the RSPCA prefer this option, they even prosecute shelters for offering larger enclosures.
So many people wish to come forward, so many professionals, Vets, animal rescuers, animal owners, shelter operators and RSPCA staff both present and past, but who do they come forward to, with it being well known that any challenge will be met with threats of litigation.
In South Australia both the Police commissioner and Sarah Bolt the commissioner of the police complaints authority are on the RSPCA board, and that power ensures the RSPCA can continue to operate like criminals out side the laws of protection.
Regular reports and my own personal experience here in SA and in other states, show the police themselves act subservient to the RSPCA, rather than dare hold them to account, in SA standing against the RSPCA can result in intimidation by SAPOL themselves, this I have recorded as evidence, but with the commissioner and the complaints authority on the RSPCA SA's board, nothing can be done.
I have received a several legal threats and endured many other issues, including false police complaints for simply offering to mediate in a dispute between a shelter and the RSPCA myself.
In other states and countries, the RSPCA have attacked even lawyers and barristers that dare stand up for animal carers, here in SA the same has occurred.
“These points alone open the door to valid requests for a national inquiry.”
RECENT CASE OVERVIEWS; Recent prosecutions, raids and seizures paint a very poor picture of the RSPCA’s use of awarded powers under respective animal welfare legislation.
THE LAW IS CLEAR, yet the RSPCA ignore it, they do not offer support, allow people to make changes or address any minor short comings, they come in strong and hard, seize all animals, and then use the court system as a tool to extort money, even killing healthy animals to increase their position.
The Brink worth case which cost the society and the tax payer a small fortune receive some public scrutiny as to the society’s lack of prosecution skills, where they lost the case though questionable tactics, but the recent inquiry and its associated recommendations into the affair managed to fly under the radar. (I will add the outcomes to this page soon)
When I have asked questions directly during raids, the answers have not been in-line with the legislation, and are usually met with quick calls to their legal advisor's for clarity, and even then, they can get it wrong more often than could be considered acceptable.
The Ruth Downey case is another massive expose, which to date has been silenced by RSPCA litigation against any who dare try and expose the truth. In this case the animals in question, cows, had suffered in the short term by the drought rather than deliberate abuse and the associated lack of feed. Even though feed had been sourced and trucks were delivering more, on the same day the trucks arrived, so did the RSPCA, who started shooting then animals as they grazed, even though the animals by now were in healthy condition.
It was reported that there were issues about the arbitrary nature of the RSPCA’s ruling that the cattle were in fact emaciated, the appropriate course of action and the prevention of a second opinion. There are issues about the independence of the private prosecution and the associated cost order. There are issues about the appeals by Ms Downey’s lawyers.
Around Australia right now there are so many unreported cases going on, but these cases tend to be against private shelters and carers who in the most have the larger animal holdings. I shall not delve into them all, but for the sake of some clarity I will cover a few in this brief, a recent shelter case in SA highlighted a variety of issues with the RSPCA inspectorate.
The May case out of WA, is a perfect example of what the RSPCA do, in WA the Hunter case and several others are all ongoing, years after the initial seizures, the longer the cases are dragged out, the more the RSPCA can charge and the less chance the accused can fund their defenses.
The ministers in WA are presently questioning the new chief inspector, but as usual have their hands tied until court proceedings are over, so the RSPCA now have a strong interest in dragging out the case, which will result in even more animals being killed by them.
As these cases are dragged out deliberately, the animals are killed of to make room, or due to the fact they go stir crazy. Taking animals from secure and happy social settings, and placing them in cramped holding cells, amounts to nothing more than animal abuse by the RSPCA, because hold a court win and the financial rewards above the life of the animals.
"Their appears not a single thing that can be done to stop their abhorrent actions, or to protect healthy animals or those that care for them under the current processes."
This method of abusing the court process to achieve an end result, is more than adequate reason the RSPCA MUST have their powers of prosecution taken from them.
There is a big difference between deliberate cruelty and a lack of resources or education.
In the Moorook case animals were seized for a variety of reasons, none of which appear to be within the powers of the RSPCA or the Act that empowers them.
Of the 9 animals seized, the reasons included; old age, behavioural and ill health, yet none of these complaints were the result of the shelters actions, more so the shelter was in fact doing what we would expect of the RSPCA themselves, looking after, rescuing, vet treating and re-homing the animals, yet the owner is now charged with 10 counts of animal cruelty “for doing the right thing?”
Two of the animals in question had just arrived sick and were being treated, if left at the shelter, they would have been restored to health and re-homed, the RSPCA seized both and killed them, and then proceeded to charge the rescuer.
The question here is what does a rescuer do, ignore a suffering animal, or follow their heart and risk prosecution.
The tactics to have a rescuer sign over their animals into ownership of the RSPCA in itself leaves a lot to be desired, with threats of months of litigation and huge storage costs for holding of any animals seized rather than surrendered.
So as an animal carer, you have two options sign over the animals even if you feel the seizure is unwarranted, or face financial ruin, once signed over the animals become the RSPCA's.
Channel 7 Today Tonight - Moorook Animal Shelter v RSPCA
Channel 7 SA segment on Today/Tonight about the Moorook Animal Shelter drama where the RSPCA have charged Lola McLachlan (the owner/operator) with cruelty because she took in several old and abandoned...
The Moorook case which is documented here, is a perfect example of where the RSPCA have gone wrong.
The Hollingsworth case which has been ongoing for some time is also worthy of inclusion, as it mimics many cases, where animals in custody that are not enjoying perfect health or surroundings result in the owner of the property being charged, even if the animals are not theirs, arrived in poor condition or are simply sick.
In this case the RSPCA ignored the facts, the veterinarians and even the ongoing medical treatment, seizing and pressing charges as if a picture paints the full story, which it did not.
In yet another horrific case, an owner was reported to the RSPCA, because his dog lay in pain after an accident, the RSPCA refused to attend, so a rescue group took over, the animal was taken to a vet, thousands of dollars raised to amputate a damaged limb, and they nursed the dog back to health.
I'm a paragraph. Click once to begin entering your own content. You can change my font, size, line height, colour and more by highThe RSPCA seized the animal from its safe enclosure, even though the temporary enclosure being used met with their guide lines, and charged the group with animal abuse under their powers, once seized even calls to adopt were never returned.lighting part of me and selecting the options from the toolbar.
Another case out of WA, exposes further shortfalls in the actions of the Society, where healthy animals were seized at the same time a few elderly ones were, again from an animal lover who had devoted her life to saving animals.
The woman in question had invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into rescuing animals, and being a rescuer myself, this leaves one with those animals that have long term issues.
The RSPCA appear to frown upon the keeping of animals that do not enjoy perfect health, but to be honest, that is none of their bloody business, we all get old, if they are enjoying adequate treatment and support, then let the carer and their professional do their job.
They did not just seize the elderly animals, they took every animal, dogs, cats and birds, once again with an invalid warrant for the wrong address.
The RSPCA are claiming around $65,000 per month for keeping this lady’s animals, yet had to be somewhat forced to press charges, just after the animals were ordered to be returned because no charges had been laid after 4 months, because in essence the RSPCA may not have been able to return them all. The RSPCA had killed over 25 of the animals, even though they were not the legal owners.
By the time charges were laid, and from my point of view, hastily and ill thought charges, the costs being sought from the innocent animal carer, had already exceeded $400,000, if the case proceeds, this ladies life could destroyed, and we would lose another animal rescuer, all over a few elderly animals in care, that the RSPCA believe didn't meet their stringent guidelines rather than applying anything resembling a compassionate or fair approach. Total charges for holding the animals have now exceeded $750,000 and rising, and still no court date set.
Update; The above case had to be dropped by the RSPCA, who then immediately pressed even more charges, meaning the owner will now face costs of well over 1 million dollars, her vets, the president of the animal protection society and the local council, are all bewildered at the actions of the RSPCA.
The lady in question had already bequest her entire holdings to animal care, but not to the RSPCA, yet if they win the case, they get everything, and she will be out on the street.
How much should be charged for storage of healthy budgies?
The RSPCA took all the animals, of which MANY were destroyed, so they kill, and the rescuer gets destroyed financially, this picture is painted over and over all over Australia.
One would expect that the RSPCA, if indeed they were all about animal welfare, would step in to support animals carers and rescue groups, but in every case I have been privy, the opposite seems to be occurring, as if these smaller organisations are indeed considered by them as opposition rather than fellow compassionate animal lovers.
This photo shows a enclosure from a non kill shelter that received an animal welfare notice NOT TO BE USED, because it didn't meet the RSPCA's ideals, you see it is large and is not concreted.
The result of their recent interactions is one of spreading fear within the self funded shelters, sanctuary's and rescue groups, if I were to rescue a dog from death row today, that had an existing medical condition, even if I was attending to the issue and paying for vet treatment for the animal, I could be raided, the animal taken and put down and then charged with animal cruelty, and all the massive costs associated with litigation.
If like many you have an elderly animal, approaching its final years, yet still happy and healthy in your eyes, and the eyes of your vet, while you are at work, the RSPCA could come take your animal, put it down, and then charge you. The big issue here is they will have all the legal resources and your animal will be gone, with it any evidence you might have had in relation to its health.
This is also unacceptable as an enclosure for a dog to live in, the RSPCA can seize and destroy for using such an area for unwanted dogs and rescues.
Animals in "Non kill shelters" need room to move, the RSPCA cant get their heads around this, simply because they do not offer non kill as an option, does that give them the right to shut down those that do?
In a present case of a similar background, a lone woman is self represented in a local magistrates court, and the RSPCA have sent in an ex judge/QC against her, what chance does she have of a just outcome?
The RSPCA have also been criticized for doing all in their power to stem any resemblance of capable defenses against their prosecution section, from using friendly lawyers to the intimidation of expert witnesses, this I will cover at another time with credible supporting documents, here is a link that may help.
Another of the hundreds of case studies I have read, was all about the rescue and rehabilitation of a puppy by the wonderful RSPCA foster carers, where after all their heartfelt work, the animal was put down, even though it was nursed back to health and a safe home was on offer.
Another young single mother lost her children’s 2 dogs, they were found and handed into the RSPCA, when she found where they were, the cost to get them back was over $500, while she scraped up the money, it then increased to over $900. She phoned to arrange a payment plan, to be told by the RSPCA to contact the council to see if they would help, a couple of days later when she arranged payment, the RSPCA had put her animals down, even after promising not to, and this is in the best interest of animal welfare?
The above link is a abhorrent, and is about the RSPCA WA seizure of a pregnant young dog, a carer who was a vet, offered to look after Izzy, and she had a gorgeous litter of puppies, when the carer took them into the RSPCA to show then the brilliant progress, guess what happened :(
Once you become an enemy of the RSPCA, your problems won’t stop at litigation, they will call in the council, the office of business and consumer affairs, and coincidentally in many of the larger cases, social networking hate sites will appear and take to attacking the “animal abuser” based on the media releases of the RSPCA, so you will be on the back foot, and in the courts for a very long time.
For added clarity I am involved already in around 14 cases, in all I have read all transcripts, have audio and video proof and witness statements, in every case so far and the 2 or 3 new ones I read each month due to my increased profile in animal welfare, every case is abhorrent in its core values, I doubt there would be one genuine animal lover who would back the RSPCA’s position in any of these cases.
Witnesses available are extensive, with ex officers, present whistle blowers, and numerous RSPCA workers willing to come forward, so the included information in this document is all valid. For reasons of their security, I have left the more extensive evidence out of this expose, but when the time comes for a national enquiry, ensure you have plenty of tissues.
Right now, there is nothing we can do, parliament listen to the RSPCA, the media also, the police are on the board, so it matters not what we can prove or what happens in the future, we are totally helpless to change their actions, or hold them to account, they are seemingly above the law.
One of these officers was sacked when they found out he was smuggling out healthy animals to find homes for them, once the kill order had been made.
KILL RATES; Kill rates or as the RSPCA prefer to call euthanasia rates is a huge topic of concern; from the words themselves issues arise. Euthanasia is the act of relieving untreatable pain, yet the majority of animals put down by the RSPCA can be described as convenience, using the excuse of behavioural issues.
Ask yourself this, a shelter takes in an animal that has been subject to abuse, employs compassionate behaviourists to assist in the animal’s rehabilitation. The RSPCA attend the shelter and take the animal because it jumps at the door of the enclosure, they put the animal down as a result of their ideals in relation to behavioural testing. the rescuer can then be destroyed financially and can even be restricted from ever owning an animal again, Is this genuine animal welfare?
Moving around animals and the dodgy use of the facts being reported, still paint a sad picture, with many articles quoting a dog kill rate of around 50% and cats at over 70%, but these figures are filtered by a very well paid public relations team.
Taking on a single South Australian council’s facts and figures for only one month, we see a much more honest picture, in one month a council took in 55 dogs, the RSPCA or other provider then gets paid $68 for each dog handed over, several other payments for picking them up and feeding them the first day, then another $100 if the kill them, 5 of these animals were reclaimed by their owners, again paying a fee, 12 find new homes and 37 are simply killed.
Interstate pounds are also used to cover up the true facts, killing of those animals that will have less re-homing appeal and passing on only the more adoptable animals and those which have micro chips, so the RSPCA shelter can then re-home easily at a profit and also charge owners to reclaim their pets, while improving their own statistics.
“This is how they show glossy facts and figures, even though the spin results are less than acceptable”
When one does confront the RSPCA’s released facts and figures, those animals reclaimed by using micro chips and the like, are added to the re-homing figures to improve once again the Royal society’s public perception.
The latest published facts on animal re-homing successes, although clouded in PR spin, still leave a lot to be desired, these are the RSPCA SA facts from 2012, these figures relate to animals left in their care after return rates have been taken out;
Dogs adopted out 740 Cats adopted 783
Dogs put down 870 Cats put down 1381
Dogs transferred 323 Cats transferred 105
Dogs left at year’s end 26 Cats years end 119
These facts as bad as they appear, are not supported by the facts reported to the local councils, the amount under the heading transferred is not explained, neither is the very low end of years result.
The self funded shelters and rescue groups have a much larger holdings and higher success rates, even though they receive no government support. It is these grass roots organisations that are under fire by the RSPCA, yet every compassionate animal lover, would reasonably expect the RSPCA to be supporting and helping them.
The national published figures are a little more appealing to some, but not to genuine animal welfare, but these also are clouded by what happens at the RSPCA run pounds, before the RSPCA takes these animals into their care, these figures also included animals returned to their owners, which are not genuinely “adopted out”
Dogs adopted 17,975 Cats adopted 20,489 (returned to owner is included as adopted out & animals put down before they officially arrive are also excluded)
Dogs put down 14,211 Cats put down 24,651
Dogs transferred 2,042 Cats transferred 1,419
The RSPCA in SA show the reasons for putting down an animal as;
Infection 159 245
Medical 85 326
Behavioural 593 991
Many non kill shelters actually address infection, medicals and behavioural issues, well if the RSPCA don't dare catch them doing it.
So why would the RSPCA spend a small fortune in front of a national TV camera to rescue one animal, that in essence they could simply destroy, if not for reasons of Public relations?
Also adding doubt to published kill rates is this very sad story, where the RSPCA used pictures of staff, dressed to look like new owners, and bragging the many dogs in the photos had found their forever homes, when at least 2 had been put down. An RSPCA officer stepped forward in this case to expose the truth.
I am well aware of professional animal trainers offering their services for free, to address issues of behaviour and the RSPCA have turned them down, so killing an animal under the excuse of behaviour, is simply that, as excuse.
There are many stories that relate to kill rates, with some recent articles exposing extra wages for the workers who carry out the process, leaked photos show in some RSPCA shelters how to kill is explained on a hand written wall plague, one would have thought it best to have a trained veterinarian carry out such procedures.
THE BOARD; The board of the RSPCA had changed over recent years, in SA it has many professionals most with marketing, finance and spin backgrounds, only one person on the board has an animal care background, an interesting note is the most recent changes after a strong flow of public complaints as to transparency and the ability to police the actions of both the inspectorate and the executive, the new board now includes the South Australian police commissioner and the head of the police complaints authority.
Some might say that this conflict of interests and ensures the actions of the RSPCA inspectorate will never come under adequate scrutiny.
http://www.rspcasa.asn.au/about-us/ourpeople/#Board Link to SA current board members.
So where does one lodge a complaint of any form?
BREEDING; What is a puppy farm is probably the most pertinent question, in recent times any intervention by the RSPCA involving a property that has lots of dogs, or has bread from them is labelled a puppy farm.
In the most my idealism leans towards the ideal of Oscars law, but in saying that, without the vigilante approach (Individuals should never become judge and jury) legislative reforms in relation to the breading of companion animals needs a total overhaul, so that the law itself can address these concerns. Licensing breeders, putting in place safe guards for the animals and addressing important issues like de-sexing and breading habits are all educated ways forward.
The interesting issue of late is the working relationship between Oscars law and the RSPCA, where Oscars law, do the illegal break and entry and help shall we say “ensure the photos tell the story” then send in the RSPCA to prosecute appears to have many shortfalls.
In these cases the word puppy farm is used overtly even when the property has only a hand full of animals, as much as this procures support for Oscars law, and brings attention to a very important issue, in recent cases the breaches of the law don’t finish with the media sell or the criminal trespass.
The on-line exposing of animal welfare prosecutions have in the past have had dire consequences for those labelled “Abusers” which amounts to trial by social networking, the issue here is that many prosecutions are not based on abuse but more so the condition of animals found on a property.
Without a genuine knowledge of any individual case, such a vigilante approach to animal welfare demoralises the hard work of animal welfare activists and has resulted in suicides as a result.
Legislative reforms based on the ideals of both Oscars law, are the most educated way forward as long as they remain accountable and just to all parties involved.
I take note here that PIAA (The pet industry association of Australia) states that it does not support puppy factories yet some of Australia's most intensive puppy factories, with up to 300 breeding dogs onsite, are members of and protected by PIAA, so seeking reform is clouded in spin.
It is not credible to believe any one property can adequately house 300 to 400 dogs for the purpose of supplying puppies and at the same time expect the animals to be socialised to a standard in line with community expectations.
ANIMAL SIEZURE; Most of the recent seizures carried out by the RSPCA are done so from competing shelters and privately run rescue organisations, rather than from those who abuse animals at a personal level. Case studies show the RSPCA have very little success in genuine animal rescue, and tend to favour the most animals they can seize in a single operation to keep their figures worthy of publication.
I note here that during one recent break in and raid by the RSPCA where they had been to a shelter in recent days, they ignored animal safety by wondering through quarantine then into the rest of a shelter, a shelter that unlike the RSPCA had not endured parvo issues.
In most recent cases RSPCA intervention is more so based on their perception of a financial success rather than one of justice, and to repeat, I have yet to see a case where they step in to support any animal rescue or shelter operations.
SHELTERS; Most of the genuine good work by the RSPCA is handled by the many compassionate volunteers, not their overpaid executive, it is here the real work is done, but also it is here the executive spin takes place to cover up the genuine kill rates of the organisation.
Many whistle blowers have come to me from within the RSPCA sharing what I call horror stories. Some have stepped up and asked questions, they were sacked, others smuggled out healthy animals, again they were also sacked, others remain on the inside praying someone will listen, yet the media appear scared of the consequences of publishing the truth.
The RSPCA do not have very capable holdings in respect to how many animals they can house, in one of the most recent raids on what they described as a “puppy farm” where a animal breeder and rescuer had somewhere between 80 and 100 animals, the RSPCA’s inspectors made mention during the raid, that if they took all the animals, the animals would be in worse situation, than where they presently were.
Yet while under duress they had the owner sign over all the animals in fear of losing everything, even though they had nowhere to house them, the same has occurred in WA.
Rescuing animals, how many an individual or group should be allowed are worthy of debate, but heavy handed tactics that dismiss the best interests of the animals and the carer, are NOT in line with community expectations.
In WA the same situation is apparent, with seizures exceeding their ability to house the animals, begging the question, whom polices the RSPCA in regards to animal cruelty.
9 horses taken from what appears the wrong person and property by the RSPCA into a float designed for 4
The RSPCA are seen here taking animals from a property because a person on the propery has restrictions on how many animals she can own, the animals are owned by two other people
If the same procedural precedents used by the RSPCA on competing animal shelters and rescue groups, were applied to their own conduct, I believe it would be an interesting lesson for them.
The raid in this case, and the animal welfare orders placed on the owner were as usual, frivolous and had no validity, but what would the elderly owner know about the fine points of the law?
While on site, the chief inspector openly made the decision to ask the owner to sign over all the animals, when he knew she was under duress, and even though the RSPCA had no where better to house them.
I note here that in the case of ******** shelter, animal welfare notices were issued relating to larger enclosures (akin to most back yards) because some of the enclosures did not mimic the concrete cells of the RSPCA, yet it is acceptable for the RSPCA to foster out animals into these same conditions. Anyone with animal welfare experience knows all too well, that animals in long term care, need larger areas, surely the RSPCA should respect this?
Interestingly the RSPCA called for foster homes before this even occurred, knowing they were in trouble, yet the owner was restricted from finding homes as she had been. The RSPCA even visited the home she had found for an animal, and took the animal from the safety of their new owners, making the preceding sale of the animals apparently the main reason for the raid? (The animals in question were very expensive breeds)
During the raid, orders for animals not to be removed indefinitely, in any case is not valid use of the law, let alone from a property they had deemed unsuitable?
It is as if the RSPCA have set limits on life and frown upon the concept of non kill, yet to the rest of us as compassionate animal lovers, if a person wants to offer the services to ensure life, we would be behind that.
If an animal shelter, carer or supposed puppy farm needs support or help, then surely that is what the RSPCA should be all about. In every case, even those labelled animal hoarders, the best way forward for the animals is not seizure and death, or prosecution and closure, it should be about support and education!
Some pounds both council run and RSPCA run, put 72 hours on the life of an animal, where this goes wrong, if your pet goes missing and is found by a pound with a 72 hour life expectancy, yet is closed over a week end, you could find your animal put down, before you even have a chance to pay for their release. In these cases there is also a cost to retrieve the body of the animal.
FINANCIALS; The financials are an interesting place to look, when I first reported on the South Australian branches financial position they had accumulated excesses of around 14 million dollars, not bad for a charity that publicly calls on a regular basis for urgent public donations.
Their latest yet to be released 2013/14 financials paint a very interesting change in their position, on a variety of levels.
The estimated income of $5,550,322 will be swallowed up by a wages bill alone of $5,212,716, one of their larger fund raising programs “Friends of the RSPCA” will spend over $235,000 on this telemarketing program, to raise a mere $260,000, so those donating their hard earned money will see very little of that make it to the Society itself, but then with such a huge wages bill alone, I am amazed if any makes it into animal rescue.
The RSPCA in SA are now to front the government for more tax payer funding, to help cover their huge wages bill, I do wonder if the public will be made aware of this, more so because the RSPCA is now loosing around 2 million dollars per year, and are now considering several options including closing their inspectorate that actually attracts government funding to closing rescues and or shelter operations.
Coincidentally since the financials in SA and WA became an issue, the RSPCA have pointed their attention on opposition rescue groups and overzealous prosecutions to enhance their income.
It is an interesting point when a privately run charity can have accumulated excesses over several years, then all of a sudden, they have been running at a loss. Regardless of the reasons, it becomes clear an enquiry at this level alone should take place before any increased taxpayer assistance takes place.
The inspectorate and the prosecution section in SA costs the RSPCA around the same figure they are presently funded by the South Australian tax payers, so any tax dollars offered up as an increase would in the most be covering their increasing costs.
Prosecutions are currently bringing in more money than is expended, confirming it is the bread winner.
WAGES; In South Australia 2013/14 rising estimated wages costs for the RSPCA come in at around $5.2 million per year, in 2009 total expenditure of the entire SA RSPCA combined was only reported by them at 6.7 million.
Current figures show their increasing wages bill, is exceeding both donations and government funding, so they are now looking for improved tax payer funding and increased powers.
I am concerned with both ideals, as the more power may help them continue to close down their opposition, and take over completely the companion animal industry.
BENIFICERIES; The RSPCA bring in a very large amount of money through beneficiaries, in recent years it appears the truth about this organisation that at times leaks out, has had a devastating effect on this slice of their money making machine.
Many animal lovers that do will the RSPCA their estates, usually do so in return for the promise their pets will be looked after for life, but reports to me in recent times, does not support this fact, with animals the RSPCA is to care for under these wills, soon meeting their demise, whether or not this fact can be qualified, is yet to be ascertained.
In the most recent reports of the RSPCA SA, it is here they intend to concentrate to increase their income, the bequest events will be all about bringing in those remaining on their lists and asking them to bring their friends, in the hope of securing an increase in promised benefactors, with a hope this ideal will improve their income in 8 to 10 years from now.
ANIMAL RESCUE; If you have ever watched the RSPCA animal rescue shows, you would indeed have reason to reach into your pocket and lend them a hand. However the results beyond their well funded propaganda, may not paint such a cosy picture.
The massive amount of reports to me of calls being answered with “nothing we can do” by the society tend to lead me to believe rescues are only carried out in front of a camera. I have myself attended animal rescues where the police phone the RSPCA first, only to get the “we can’t help” reply, and with such massive euthanasia rates, the societies public perception is all about begging donations rather than a transparent over view of what they actually do on a grass roots level.
This fact is confirmed with a recent campaign exposed in the media, where the RSPCA had a group photo of several people with their new adoptions, older dogs were used in the photo, to show their success in re-homing, but the fact came to light that several of these dogs had been killed the next day. Making matters worse the people used in the photos were in fact RSPCA volunteers and inspectors.
51,961 is the number of complaints of cruelty received by the RSPCA in Australia, of these 266 were prosecuted with 298 convictions, this is a clear indication of their inability to police animal welfare, their reluctance to take on prosecutions that will not wield financial rewards. Couple this with the botched prosecutions and the many dodgy court actions they have initiated and change become’s more than necessary.
RSPCA AS A BUSINESS; RSPCA insurance, approved puppy farms, eggs, chicken, pork& turkey, RSPCA products, prosecution, adoptions, funerals, 52 online pages of products at up to 100 per page, full facts and figures for the RSPCA Australia are not easily available but operating expenses in 2009 are estimated at over 81 million dollars.
Recent conduct appears to also support the ideal of RSPCA approved prosecutions.
PUPPY FARMS; What is a puppy farm is rarely debated, yet the RSPCA back the ideal of RSPCA approved puppy farms, is a breeder a puppy farmer, and who has the right to breed are delicate questions.
At present new legislation has yet to take effect in relation to this topic, so the RSPCA simply hit the larger breeders. In a recent news article, that appeared to cover a raid on a puppy farm, was also a beat up, because the breeder was approved and had passed council scrutiny.
Yet the Society took the opportunity to use the case and their media support, to demand yet more power and tax payer funding, even though the only animal abuse was the fact the animals lived in kennels outside and lived on grass and dirt, which is only their sterile view, and is not backed by legislative powers.
They were unable to prosecute simply because the breeder had done nothing wrong, but presented the case as a need for more money and power.
If the RSPCA were granted amendments to enable them to prosecute under these issues, that would put most animal owners in the firing line, because many animals still live in Aussie back yards, on dirt and grass. (mine sleep in our bed lol)
On the flip side, calls complaints of the conditions in which animals are living to the RSPCA are responded to by the quote “If they have food, water and shelter” there is nothing the RSPCA can do.
Interestingly while the RSPCA are attacking breeders and shelters over the issue of concrete V’s grass and dirt, what they forget is that most of their foster carers offer the very same conditions.
So the RSPCA ideals in relation to the condition allowed for animal housing, does not apply to themselves?
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ANIMALS AFTER THEY ARE KILLED? My investigation on this sad issue is still under way, information before me appears to confirm 2 methods of disposal, one is land fill the other blood and bone, this story also confirms some of these issues.
The animals owners never had a chance to pick up their dog, the RSPCA told them they hadn’t seen the animal, that mistake cost his life, and the animal was already in the land fill.
DONATED FOOD; The RSPCA are contracted to certain sponsors, any food donated beyond that brand, is either dumped or on sold to self funded shelters, my information on this topic is somewhat heresay at this stage. It is well noted that this is the case.
DEFENDING CHARGES; Defending any kind of charges in our courts can be an expensive choice, what does pop up and can cause reason for concern in some of the larger RSPCA prosecutions is the offer of free/pro-bono representation from lawyers with connections with the RSPCA themselves.
In one case I was following a lawyer with a strong history in animal welfare cases, immediately recommended pleading guilty, well before all the facts were on the table. In several other cases free support was on offer, but with drawn before trial, leaving the defendant in a perilous situation.
In most cases I have read or followed charges at times are not pressed by the RSPCA until months into the ordeal, meaning costs are indeed much higher, than if they had been dealt with in a timely manner.
Many present cases see most of the defendants endure several changes in legal representation throughout these cases, and every case endures excessive delaying tactics, all designed to wear down or run defendants out of money.
Litigation in respect to charges relating to animal cruelty should be dealt with in a fair and timely manner, but in saying that while the RSPCA a private corporation hold all the cards and have not only the media backing to seemingly always paint themselves in the right light, but also the free support of the legal fraternity, the odds are indeed stack against just outcomes.
A case from just this week shows an interesting outcome, a woman ran out of money before trial, so entered into a plea bargain, and even thought the magistrate made firm orders, the RSPCA appeared not to like the outcome, even though they themselves brokered it.
They then entered the property and took animals of value, even though they had no right to do so, or even a valid warrant.
In fact in this case they took another’s animals by mistake, when this was pointed out, they proceeded anyway, saying the matter was one for the courts, so even when they realise they are buggering up, they fear no accountability.
They proceeded to then transport animals away illegally, and in dangerous circumstances as if they were again above the law.
WHO POLICES THE RSPCA ACTIONS; No one presently polices RSPCA actions, questions of the minster are answered by officers of the RSPCA, SA police are not known to intervene, with the current police commissioner, recently taking up a position on the board of the RSPCA, Sarah Holt the head of the police complaints authority is also now on the board, and there is no ombudsman to vet complaints.
MY EXPERIENCES IN TRYING TO BRING THEM TO ACCOUNT; At first I received legal threats from the RSPCA for the comments of others on my Face Book page, then hate groups were set up attacking my family and friends, that were instigated I believe by a RSPCA employee, his children also attacked my accounts and were founding members of the hate sites.
Then the South Australia police were sent to my home and seized my firearms, including my wife’s sanctuary and animal rescue tools, because an official complaint that I had made threats to the chief inspector, even though my only contact was by emails, of a professional nature as spokesperson of an Animal shelter.
When the police complaints authority investigated, it was found that the complaint had no grounds what so ever.
Other cases of interest are; a sacked worker who was caught smuggling out healthy animals and finding them homes.
An animal carer given a uniform and sent out as an inspector, without official backing, then when they started asking questions relating to conduct issues, they were sacked, even though they were never paid, the notes and information from this person alone is worthy of a full national enquiry.
CEO statements in a recent media article, that were simply dishonest.
In the NT where the RSPCA branch actually started reducing kill rates, just lost the CEO responsible for that huge success.
And to top all this off, I have hundreds of written complaints that in themselves cause reason for concern as to the present direction of the RSPCA, in particular in relation to the powers presently awarded to them under the “Animal welfare Act”.
OVER VIEW; Animal welfare prosecutions ought to be handled by the state governments to ensure procedural fairness.
Any organisation awarded powers or funding under any government legislation must remain transparent and accountable to the public as a consequence.
The RSPCA out of respect for their foundations should have maintained a board that includes at least 50% or members that have experience in genuine welfare and rescue, rather than one that has its foundations in corporate structure and self promotion.
A full parliamentary enquiry at a national level must be implicated to restore accountability and public confidence in animal welfare standards and the Royal society, in line and up to date with community expectations.
In May 2013 I lobbied for and near had the numbers for a state inquiry that was stopped for legal reasons by the RSPCA, so the truth offers more than good enough reason for an inquiry
I now have thousands of documents, witnesses complaints and experienced ex RSPCA staff, and yet with all this nothing can be done, other than court action. I am assembling a legal team to start private prosecutions, but we need your help.
Please forward your complaints in brief to [email protected] and share this article, sign the petition and tell all your friends what is going on, as until this issue is resolved every companion animal is at risk.
THE AUSTRALIAN ALLIANCE, animal welfare division is working to unite animal welfare groups and shelters to find a compassionate way forward, I will add links below as I ensure the information in them will not expose our whistle blowers.
These are not just animals, they are our family, our friends, they have the same right to life as any sentient being, so if you don't own an animal, or understand this, imagine all of the above happened to a loved one sick in a hospital or a nursing home.
The RSPCA SA are charging Lola of Moorook shelter for allowing Wombles to live
Charges laid by the RSPCA SA on the owner of Moorook animal shelter include cruelty charges for this dog, he was taken by the RSPCA and put down, and Lola is being charged with cruelty offences by the...
2; RSPCA workers paid extra to kill; http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1807035/14-euthanasia-allowance-at-rspca/