animal cruelty Archives | Lawyers for Companion Animals

Proposed laws against farm activists smell fishy says John Kleinig

FLOSS FLOSS — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:29:16 +0000

SEVERAL state and federal politicians have initiated moves to address cruelty to farm animals.

Proposed legislation purports to protect the interests of animals and has been prompted by break-ins at piggeries, ostensibly to photograph and expose animal mistreatment.

As consumers and moral beings we have good reason to be concerned about being the beneficiaries of cruelty.

However, a closer look at such legislation and the motivations behind it reveal a different story.

Its sponsors allege that what is at stake is Australia’s profitable domestic and export meat industry, which is being threatened by allegations of cruelty by groups whose ultimate goal is to make us all vegetarians.

As a meat eater, I suspect that many of those revealing mistreatment in the meat industry do have this as a long-term goal.

But that goal is distant from the much more reasonable goal of combating animal cruelty. Unless, of course, industry representatives want to tell us that cruelty is essential to the viability of their industry.

I suspect they do not but perhaps it is more important to profitability than they wish to let on because diminishing cruelty will be costly.

So they have chosen a strategy to make it much more difficult for animal rights groups to access properties, highlight the privacy invasion, increase penalties for trespass, make it a biosecurity hazard and require the immediate reporting of photographic evidence of mistreatment to authorities, thereby making it difficult to build a solid case against offenders.

As important as the meat industry is to Australia’s economy, the bottom line is whether it is or must be carried on the back of animal cruelty.

As a civilised country we should be opposed to that possibility.

Prof John Kleinig is criminal justice ethics specialist at Charles Sturt Universit

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/opinion/proposed-laws-against-farm-activists-smell-fishy-says-john-kleinig/story-fnkerdb0-1227006131736

Pets caught in divorce fallout as spiteful couples hurt innocent animals

FLOSS FLOSS — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 11:23:29 +0000

BY Ainsley Pavey

LIKE a red rag to a bull, the newly acquired puppy leaps playfully from the car and into the marital version of World War III in suburban Australia.

A jilted ex-wife has just caught her cheating ex-husband and his lover at her house downloading a computer hard drive and has called police.

She pounces on the puppy in the driveway, threatens to throw it over a fence, but in her white-hot rage chooses to punt it a metre into the clutches of her former husband.

When her rage subsides, she recalls only “calmly passing the dog to the husband to ensure it left with him”. Not surprisingly, her argument is found to be “unpersuasive”.

The puppy case is sadly one of the more tame acts of cruelty uncovered by The Courier-Mail, with a rising number of animals ducking for cover in marriage breakdowns.

The threats to kill, strangle and maim pets are becoming part of the regular revenge tactics of warring couples as they share custody of children and animals.

“It happens fairly regularly where couples split up,” Australian Divorce Blog author Stephen Page told The Courier-Mail.

“Many people have pets and it is very easy to fight over animals. There is nothing worse than having a woman and kids in a refuge who go back because the animals are being mistreated.”

The RSPCA’s Michael Beatty said an animal respite service helping pets of women fleeing violence was currently handling more than 100 animals a year.

“When we set up, we expected to have about five dogs a year,” Mr Beatty said.

“Animals have a sixth sense and are very sensitive to the emotions of a marriage break.”

Latest ABS figures suggest Queenslanders are more likely to be childless.

And with one in three Australian marriages ending in divorce, it is perhaps unsurprising that the number of divorce cases involving spats over animals is also rising.

Under the Family Law Act, violence against animals is a form of family violence, empowering judges to take a big stick to litigants who drag animals into a divorce fight.

It is often the case that a badly behaving pooch has driven a disgruntled spouse to the edge.

In one case, a 62-year-old husband was charged with domestic violence when he hit the pet dog with a broom to stop it urinating on the marital bed towards the end of his 15-year marriage.

Queensland-based Federal Circuit Court Judge Michael Burnett said the husband tried to “underplay” his “reprehensible conduct” against the terrier.

“The breed is well known and it’s hardly of the kind to strike terror in the hearts of most able-bodied persons,” Judge Burnett said.

There are plenty of examples in the Family Court of dogs being mistreated, with perhaps the worst being the beating inflicting on a bull-mastiff in 2012.

The dog had ripped some latticework from the side of a house and was beaten by a father in front of a child and mother.

In one case, a 62-year-old husband was charged with domestic violence when he hit the pet dog with a broom to stop it urinating on the marital bed towards the end of his 15-year marriage.

The father threatened to “cut the dog’s neck” while punching it in front of his screaming son.

Another violent ex-husband turned on a dog belonging to his ex-wife’s new partner, attempting to strangle it in front of onlookers.

Another father beat the family dog in earshot of his children to “teach it a lesson”.

According to the Family Court of Australia, animals are regarded as “personal property” in a marital split, which means they have to be valued.

In one valuation in Queensland, receivers were dragged into a dispute to decide on the custodial arrangements of a horse when the couple failed to reach an agreement.

In another recent property fight, an ex-wife walked away with nine pedigree dogs worth $30,000 in her split with her ex-husband after a 24 year marriage.

Animals are also often used in the toxic post-separation games played out by warring spouses.

In one hostile prank, an ex-husband broke into his ex-wife’s home and replaced her couch with the dog bed and placed the television remote control beside it.

Another ex-husband had cried poor to the Family Court with claims he was “trimming the meat of the dog bones” to feed himself. The property pool had included a Volvo and a Range Rover.

According to the Family Court of Australia, animals are regarded as “personal property” in a marital split, which means they have to be valued.

Mr Page said property settlements often involved lawyers and litigants meeting at the marital home to split belongings, including the animals.

“People don’t want to go all the way to court and spent $50,000 to argue over animals, so it is usually decided that one person is closer to the pets,” Mr Page said.

But in some cases, it can all go horribly wrong.

For instance, a Queensland divorcee once organised to get the family dog “put down” before the property settlement, leaving lawyers to break the news to her ex-husband.

Another divorcee was brought to tears after learning of the death of the 16-year-old family dog weeks afterwards when their only child dropped it into conversation.

Pets caught in divorce fallout as spiteful couples hurt innocent animals

Family’s pet shot at tip by council ranger

FLOSS FLOSS — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 02:15:45 +0000

Daily Liberal

By LISA MINNER

PHOTO: CONTRIBUTED" src="http://cdn.fairfaxregional.com.au/preview/c1200x678/silverstone-feed-data/165b32af-ab64-48ea-b1e3-12c0d28fad39.jpg" alt="Much-loved family pet Ninja was shot by a Walgett Shire Council ranger at the local tip after he had been removed from his owners who were unaware they had surrendered him.

PHOTO: CONTRIBUTED" data-media-host="http://cdn.fairfaxregional.com.au/" data-original="/silverstone-feed-data/165b32af-ab64-48ea-b1e3-12c0d28fad39.jpg" data-fixed-size="large" />Much-loved family pet Ninja was shot by a Walgett Shire Council ranger at the local tip after he had been removed from his owners who were unaware they had surrendered him. PHOTO: CONTRIBUTED

See your ad here

A COLLARENEBRI family is devastated after discovering their much-loved dog, Ninja, was shot dead the day he was removed from their backyard by a council ranger.

The woman, *Kate, said she did not know how to tell her children their much-loved pet was dead.

“They’ll be so upset, they really loved that dog,” she said.

The mother was alerted to the ranger’s early-morning visit when she heard him banging on the side of her house.

She went outside to see what was causing the noise and found him in her yard.

“The dog catcher came out with a rope in his hand and took Ninja out to the tip and shot him in the head,” she said, still upset at the memory.

The woman said she was initially confused by the situation and didn’t know if he was allowed to take their dog or not.

She said the ranger told her to sign something which she later discovered was a form saying she had surrendered the dog.

“I said where are you taking him and he said they would probably take him to Dubbo and he’d end up in a good home with an enclosed yard,” she said

“I was believing what he said, but I still didn’t know if he should be doing that.”

Kate said she had heard Ninja had escaped from their yard and knocked over a couple of bins in the street.

She said it had been seen and noted by the garbage truck driver the day before Ninja was taken away.

A couple of hours after the dog was removed Kate said she felt the situation was not right.

“I rang and said I wanted to know where my dog was because I didn’t think he could do that, and I was told he’d been taken to Sydney.”

She said when she got home she vowed to find her dog and called as many pounds in the Sydney area as she could.

None had been sent a dog from Collarenebri.

After a series of calls she spoke to a woman from Sydney Pet Rescue and Adoption who pursued the matter on her behalf.

Kate had been told the dog had been shot the same day he was taken.

“We wanted the dog, I don’t understand why he didn’t just give me a warning and leave him with me,”?Kate said.

Walgett Shire Council’s director of planning and regulatory services Matthew Goodwin said the incident had been handled correctly as far as procedure went.

He said the dog had been surrendered and therefore did not need to be impounded for the usual seven to 14 days.

“The dog was considered a nuisance dog and was repeatedly found out on the street,” he said.

“She voluntarily surrendered the dog and then changed her mind about it later.”

Mr Goodwin said it was not unusual to destroy animals on the same day as they were collected.

“We have to consider the health and condition of the animal and western areas tend to have more dogs than people,” he said.

When the Daily Liberal asked if Ninja had been shot at the local tip Mr Goodwin said he had.

He added it was not unusual to destroy animals by shooting them, nor was it illegal.

“It is a near instantaneous death from a single bullet,” he explained.

See your ad here

“Every council has their own way of treating a situation but inland the animals tend to be shot rather than given an injection.”

Mr Goodwin said the council ranger did tell Kate her dog had been rehomed but he said the ranger did it to protect her feelings.

“It was not the correct way to handle the situation and that won’t happen again.”

*not her real name

http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1215523/familys-pet-shot-at-tip-by-council-ranger/?cs=112

Showing 5 of 26 comments

Silicozzo

It’s unacceptable.It was an act of cruelty against a defenseless animal.It’s so sad that lately many of these case have been happening in a crescendo.

Dianef26

what!! how can they pick up a dog and kill him same day. There was no time for this error to be rectified or even any chance of him being rehomed, disgusting and heartless

Kayl

There are a few issues going on here. Firstly would this have happened to a wealthy family in town? I think not. Secondly there are either no policies in place to follow or they aren’t being followed! And finally shooting a dog? This is the 21st century!

Lisa Zafar

It is truly sick and disturbing a modern country can have such heinous acts happening with out really a thought about it. And the people who can carry it out obviously have no conscience was is worrysome. We live in sad times….

Geoff

Absolutely disgraceful. Unfortunately, people do not know their rights and can’t stand up to bullies in positions of authority. As pointed out by others, if the ranger had the right to take the dog he would not have needed a surrender form. Statement by Walgett council says the dog was shot about midday same day because it did not have a potential adopter – presumably this about the same time it took the ranger to drive to the tip and pull the trigger, so it’s not as though they tried.

Malber

I have just read Walgett Council’s statement on their website, which details their version of events.I regard this as lacking in
credibility and a poor attempt at risk management.

I do not believe Council’s report of what happened to Ninja and the
little stray collected by council on the same day.

The story the owner told me of how the ranger pressured and coerced her,
into signing surrender papers, which she did not understand, was credible and
consistent over several conversations.

Does this council not understand the concept of “informed consent?”

Whilst Ninja’s owner’s story was consistent and credible, Council is reliant on the the word of a ranger whom they have established to be a LIAR on this matter, for their version of events.

Does anyone believe this statement from Council-

“Given that the animal was surrendered and council could not identify a potential new owner it was euthanased around midday on 21.12.12.”

Consider that they only seized Ninja around 8-8.30am that morning..so they only had him in their possession for literally a couple of hours before they took him to the rubbish tip and shot him.

How hard do you think they tried to find him a home?

Remember also that at the time of seizing Ninja, the ranger first told the owner that Ninja was a lovely Labrador who would easily find a home when they send him to Dubbo, and then when the owner made a follow up call a couple of hours after Ninja had been seized, he told her that he was a lovely dog and had been sent to Sydney for re homing with a Lab breeder.

And now Council is expecting us all to belie

YOUR SAY: Pet lawyer speaks out against domestic animal trapping

FLOSS FLOSS — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 10:59:39 +0000

20 Nov 12 @ 11:32am by Paula Maud

IMAGE ABOVE: Dean Nicholson with Charlie, the son of Bubba, who was euthanised after being trapped in a neighbour’s cat trap. Picture: ANGIE BASDEKIS.

Dean Nicholson with Charlie, the son of Bubba, who was euthanised after being trapped in a neighbour’s cat trap. Picture: ANGIE BASDEKIS.

THE practice of trapping cats on suburban blocks has been caned by a pet defender.

Anne Greenaway, a principal with Lawyers for Companion Animals, said the accidental trapping of an elderly cat in Reservoir in September was an example of how the practice could go wrong.

Dean Nicholson’s 15-year-old cat, Bubba, was desexed and had the tell-tale ear tattoo of a domestic pet, but was neither microchipped nor registered and was not wearing a collar when she was trapped in the yard of a neighbour on September 7.

Mr Nicholson said when he rescued Bubba 15 years ago there had been no legal requirement to microchip pet cats.

Mr Nicholson learned Bubba was collected by a council ranger a day after her disappearance and transported to the Lost Dogs’ Home where she was promptly put down.

http://preston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/comments/pet-lawyer-speaks-out-against-domestic-animal-trapping/

Should residents be allowed to trap cats? Tell us below.

Darebin Council’s manager of economic development and civic compliance, Eddy Boscariol urged residents to microchip and register pets with up-to-date details to prevent such incidents occurring.

He said the council had been advised that the cat had been euthanased for humane reasons as it had been found to be diseased.

Lost Dogs’ Home general manager Sue Conroy said Bubba would have been assessed by two vets before a decision was made about her fate.

“The last thing they (the vets) want to do is to put down someone’s pet,” Ms Conroy said.

But Mr Nicholson insisted his cat had been in good health at the time of her capture.

“She would sleep in my bed and wait for me when I got home,” Mr Nicholson said. “We were really connected.”

Mr Boscariol said cat trapping by residents was permitted in order to catch strays.

“Section 23 of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 allows the owner or occupier of private property to trap cats that trespass on their property,” he said.

But Ms Greenaway said some people used baits to entice cats onto their property and both loved family pets and stray cats were being caught in the traps.

“There is no way of distinguishing between an unowned cat and a family pet which is what occurred in this case,” she said.

http://preston-leader.whereilive.com.au/news/comments/pet-lawyer-speaks-out-against-domestic-animal-trapping/



COMMENTS

Shari Goodwin writes:
Posted on 27 Nov 12 at 04:27pm

This is horrid! I am in tears! A sad loss! My heart goes out to the owner!

Kathleen Chapman writes:
Posted on 26 Nov 12 at 03:20pm

It is tragic and shameful that the Bubba, a cat who was loved and cared for, was killed within 24 hours of entering the Lost Dogs’ Home I am appalled that Darebin ratepayers’ are paying this organisation for animal management. I would like to see Darebin Council demand that the Lost Dogs Home take action to reduce its extremely high kill rate, and use another contractor for animal management if significant improvement is not made. Other pounds in Australia and overseas, such as the RSPCA shelter in the ACT, and the pound operated by the Animal Welfare League of QLD on the Gold Coast, manage to save more than 90% of all animals entering their shelters. This hasn’t occurred by accident – it has been achieved by implem enting a range of actions that have been proven time and time again to save lives. It involves working in partnership with animal rescue groups, actively promoting animal adoption in local media, doing a high number of desexing surgeries at low cost, and, as the Lost Dogs’ Home should have done in Bubba’s case – doing everything possible to ensure lost animals are reunited with their guardians. The animals of Darebin deserve no less.

Animal Rights and Rescue group writes:
Posted on 25 Nov 12 at 05:11pm

Victoria’s Domestic Animal Act 1994 was from the start was quickly tagged the ‘nuisance dog and cat Act’ due to the overall negatives about pets and the use of employed contractors to pick up stray cats and then target managed and cared for cat colonies. Mr Nicholson claim that older cats were exempt in the Act from chipping correct and same in NSW Companion animal Act 1999 at the start. A later amendment to the Act in NSW also removed this exemption for older cats BUT how is the public to know this, even rescue groups struggle to keep informed. Giving the public or contractors power to trap domestic cats (then present them as stray/feral) to a pound or shelter LDH in this case is a death sentence. But any shelter with knowledge and compassion would recognise a well cared for mature desexed (ear tatoo) as a loved pet and hold for maximum time at least. Large rescue groups could also run a lost/found program and advertise if they really cared. Animal welfare groups acting as pounds is a conflict of interest and the animals always lose.

Carol Cornish writes:
Posted on 23 Nov 12 at 02:27pm

This is so wrong in every way. Can’t imagine the pain of losing a family member of 15 years. Bubba was scared in a storm. What right did they have to kill Bubba?

None… They have no heart, and this makes me sick!

Doug sethton writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 10:59pm

This is an horrific story and I feel so sad for the man who lost his friend. It is awful. But please be careful to understand what or who may be at fault. It is not the practice of trapping stray cats…..nor lost dogs home who are a pound and need to deal with hundreds of stray cats per week that they have no chance of homing. It is the individuals who sometimes do the wrong thing. If some one catches a cat that is desexed they MUST ask around to find out if anyone owns it before taking it to the pound. I do a lot of cat rescue and rehoming in Melbourne and I know that people dump cats, mistreat them and more. The cat overpopulation problem is growing and is a big issue that we need to address. Rescue groups are full and pounds are faced with a difficult situation. There is more to this situation than meets the eye and you have to be careful in judging.

Orlando Browning writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 10:00pm

My heart goes out to the owner of this cat, and I am disgusted by some of the comments which show a lack of compassion. What sort of a society do we live in, when a neighbour is allowed to trap a cat. The neighbour should be prosecuted, and trapping should be a crime, except for TNR. I am tired of the psychotic cat haters in our society, it is well evidenced, that there is a link between animal cruelty and crimes towards humans.

Naomi Steinberg writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 09:05pm

This is so sad….what is wrong with people that they would do this to cats? There was no reason to trap the kitty, and no reason to put it down. If you see a cat in your neighborhood you think might be stray, knock on your neighbor’s doors and ask. If you feel you have to, take it in and put posters up, but for goodness sake, don’t trap it if the end result will be it going to a kill shelter. Trapping cats in anything but the most humane circumstances (any type of cat) should be considered animal cruelty and prosecuted unless conducted in the most humane way (trap watched non-stop and being done for welfare reasons in relation to that cat).

Julie Milne writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 01:49pm

If an animal has the tattoo in their ear surely that is enough to make the powers that be wait at least the 7 day period!! I get requests to support these places monetarily but am having 2nd thoughts now that is for sure!!! Why didn’t the neighbour look for the owner before sending the cat off anyway? SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!

N Miles writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 09:10am

@Christy you need to familiarize yourself with the laws in Victoria instead of being an arm chair critic from Perth Western Australia and making not a lot of sense. Not sure why you are posting shelter phone numbers for Shelters in Western Australia you do realize this is Victoria?

Rachel writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 07:00am

While it is sad that this cat was euthanased it could so easily have been avoided by microchipping it or getting it to wear a collar and tag. Why do owners not get the message, especially with cats. It is not rocket science!! I am sure the Lost Dogs Home has to make some hard decisions at times, and probably are not happy to be in the position where they have to make that decision, it is easy for people to sit back and point the finger! Identification people, do it!!

Steve writes:
Posted on 21 Nov 12 at 06:32am

Short and sweet.

Obviously this is a sad story, and horrible for the owner.

But if the cat was microchipped, he WOULD have been contacted by council/LDH.

End of story.

Cheryl Venables writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 11:54pm

There is a percentage of pets where the microchip is not found although I agree they should be microchipped I have heard some vets don’t actively promote it and I know when I spoke to the Council about my cat who was born before that date they said no need to register???!!!s Therefore what is the message the public is getting here? cat should be allowed in a garden sometimes they go next door – depending on the suburb if there is a lot of bush area or heavy traffic yes agree to have enclosures otherwise why should they not enjoy sunshine in their garden. I have seen many cats on pound websites in western Sydney looking well fed and cared for that are scared and get put down or if kept for a few days the legal 7 in nsw without chips become friendly – something is wrong that so many are being brought into the pounds.

Tashi writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 10:31pm

This man was not irresponsible. His cat escaped during a storm. He did every thing he could to find it. Pity those who found it didn’t do the same to find the owner. Shame on some of the people commenting on here. Yes, she should have been chipped and/or registered but hindsight is a wonderful thing. The fact remains that both the council and the LDH are in the wrong here and should be held accountable. One day it might be your pet.

Kate Fitzhenry writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 09:37pm

Domestic pet trapping should be outlawed, there are far too many animal haters, who willingly trap animals to harm them, or to get rid of them. TNR is different, cats are trapped by qualified rescuers who are trying to save the cats, and prevent litters of stray kittens.

The LDH should be investigated, it should have done everything possible to reunite Bubba with her owner. I feel heartfelt sympathy for the owner of Bubba, I know how I would feel if this had happened to one of my cats.

Tarsha writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 08:39pm

Please all write to Lost Dogs Home and ask why this mans cats will killed. This could be your cat or dog next, your mums cat, your neighbors cat. This is not an isolated case.

Rachel writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 08:21pm

I am horrified, but sadly not surprised, that the LDH would flout the law like this. It is a disgrace and it is past time their practises were scrutinised and held to account.

What I am shocked by is the staggering lack of empathy demonstrated by some of the commenters here. Yes, there unfortunately are irresponsible people who allow undesexed animals to roam all over the place. But there is no evidence that Mr Nicholson allowed his cats to roam at will. Bubba escaped during a storm; she was frightened and ended up in a neighbour’s trap. One of my indoor only cats escaped from my mother’s house while I was on holidays last year – tragically she was killed by a car after two weeks on the run (and while we were frantically searching for her). I guess that makes my mum and me “irresponsible pet owners” who deserve what we get too, does it? Taking the argument to its logical extension, maybe Sian the proponent of cat traps is “irresponsible” for keeping her goldfish in an outdoor pond instead of an indoor aquarium! Or maybe don’t assume that the grieving owner and innocent victim of a high kill pound’s policies was somehow at fault, but assign blame where it belongs.

Jennifer Kaschau writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 07:20pm

How wrong to do this!! My cat had FIV but was not sick..so just kill them huh..and insult their owners who love them? No. It is unethical to do this, we look for our pets if they happen to wander…and shame and damn the council to hell for saying whatever they like to get away with killing a family member.

Glenys Wright writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 06:57pm

i find this totally disgusting for a neighbour to intrap a neighbours cat and to have it then picked up by the pound and put down. i bet this neighbour knew who’s cat it was, gone are the days when our dearly loved animals can roam there own propertys or visit the neighbours as well. i have neighbours animals come to my property but not once do i think about calling the pound to come and collect i know who’s animals they are in my street and i am quite happy for them to visit then see them safely back to there home, i too have 2 cats one will not venture out of house into front yard at all, she will stay within my property but her brother will roam, the neighbours and street catching ferral rats bringing them home to be praised, he is much loved, and i would be devasted if he went to go missing, but he always returns home, shame on cruel heartless people who hate animnals that much that take away an elderly person beloved companion

Chinka chink writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 06:27pm

LDH have killed this pet cat before the 8 day holding period stating the cat had cat flu. So LDH don’t have adequate isolation facilities???? $12,000,000 and no isolation facility??? We don’t believe for a minute this cat was sick but if it was, LDH with all it’s millions should be set up to cater for an unwell cat for a few days

leanne writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 06:12pm

Its discusting to say the very least.i have 2cats and 2 dogs all microchipped and desexed..i keep my cats indoors and my dogs in a secure backyard . however there has been a ccupple of times they have escaped the cats sliding thru someones legs or the dogs doin g the same……….only a couple of times a big mistake to say the least…i have also had a car accident no fault of my own!!! If my animals accidently get out id like to think i would sbe able to collect them with out fear of them being put down .being so scared mayb they would bite out of fear which i think is understandable thats why they have muzzles as for my cats they know only me and yes i think they would scratch tooo and be so terrified they would probly say they were feral………when these people meet our maker god will deal out the punishment….. I believe in life after death and reincarnation so what goes around in this life you will pay for in your next because these people that think killing these animals is ok have not evolved from there last visit on earth…

christy writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 04:14pm

Sian there is no laws to say your cat or any other cat is not allowed to wander so there is no justification for trapping a cat. If you have a cat problem it should be handled by an experienced person like the rangers are supposed to be certiified for this job not fob it of to vigilantes and it should be done in accordance with the cat trapping guidelines. You cannot take the law into your own hands and not one person involved in this has acted in accordance with the law. Again Josie it is not up to the public to enforce the law that is why we have people designated to administer the law. Also there is not reason to trap a cat if it is roaming it is quite within the law. A nuisance doesn’t mean death it means you deal with it within the law. If you took all the cats off the street you would have a huge rabbit, rat and mice problem as has been shown in many studies. Cataphobia should not lead to the automatic kill of all cats.

karen writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 03:30pm

No what a horrible person…Don’t tell me the cat dug a hole…Oh my lord how awful!!!!!

N Miles writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:56pm

This owner is clearly irresponsible. What kind of irresponsible owner lets their cat roam the streets? Cats are companion animals and as such deserve to be treated as such. Owners who let their cats roam are putting the cat at risk of being run over, infected with feline aids, cat flu, and or being the target of animal cruelty. Aside from all of these terrible risks it is illegal to let your cat trespass onto other peoples properties. If you love your cat please keep it confined to your premises for not only its own safety and well being but also to protect our native wildlife.

Tarsha writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:35pm

This is a major problem in most pounds, including the no kill/low kill pounds and shelters.I have spoken to numerous staff/volunteers from many pounds who all say a cat that comes in that appears scared, timid, unowned, wild, feral or diseased is not held for 8 days, they are killed upon arrival as it is seen as an occupational health and safety issue for staff to deal with these cats. In Victoria the Code of Practice for the Management of Shelters and Pounds states: 2.2 Admission: unidentified cat that is wild, uncontrollable or diseased may be euthanased in accordance with the Domestic Animals Act 1994. Lost Dogs Home will milk this loophole in the COP as do other pounds. Once the animal is killed they have disposed of all evidence, who is to say the cat was wild or diseased, the pounds don’t have to provide proof. This tragic story from Preston will be one cat owners word against LDH and 2 vets.

CARMEN costello writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:25pm

Oh how I wept for that poor darling cat old, alone, scared and the pain of the injection and the poor dad. We as a people are getting more and more wicked and cruel each passing day. It is like an insanity has taken us over with the killing of animals. Not to wait the 8 days is appalling, but the person probably wanted their ‘fix’ their ‘high’ for the day, that they get from killing the animals. One day these people will have to face all these animals, they think they wont, got news for them. And they will have to get on bended knee to BEG forgiveness. Polish your dancing shoes you b*&^!+>s, as you will be dancing for a long time in hell with the devil!

Renee Robinson writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:20pm

I think this is a lesson for everybody to keep your pets confined to your property. Long gone are the days where cats in suburbia can roam the neighbourhood. Install a cat enclosure, or net the whole backyard in and even safer still is keeping your cat indoors! Another lesson learnt the hard way is for everybody to microchip their animals… dogs and cats lose collars all the time, the only effective means of identification is microchipping. Keeping cats safely confined protects them from costly abscesses (as a result of fighting with other cats), being hit by cars, attacked by dogs, tortured or hurt, reduces the spread and risk of FIV, FeLV and in this case, from being trapped and PTS. All these scenario’s make vets rich and owners poor. Take responsibility for your own animals, don’t look to blame others. A sad story all round and lessons learnt the hard way.

Susan Taylor writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:13pm

Why wasnt this cat held for the mandatory 8 days? As someone who works rescuing animals from council pounds, I see a lot of beautiful healthy cats, who are clearly loved pets, in pounds. These cats have been trapped by neighbours and taken to the pound. Unfortunately most go unclaimed and are put down. It is difficult for an owner to find a lost cat once it’s in the pound system. In my opinion people shouldn’t be allowed to trap cats either on or off their property, unless they are doing so with their neighbours knowledge and under the supervision of council or another governing body.

christy writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:08pm

continued RSPCA trapping guidelines.CAT TRAPS GUIDE

5. If the cat is not identified endeavour to locate the owner by doorknocking / letterbox drops in your local area. 6. If the owner cannot be located then endeavour to rehome the cat (eg. advertise, contact Cat Haven, contact RSPCA, check your local vet). 7. Ensure that any caught cats are provided with sufficient food and water. 8. Any lactating cat caught in a trap should be released, unless the kittens can also be located and removed as well. 9. In the event the cat needs to be destroyed then take it to your local vet for humane euthanasia. Do not destroy the cat yourself – as techniques such as striking or drowning are unacceptable and may constitute an offence under the Animal Welfare Act. If in doubt – contact the RSPCA for further advice, on 08-9209 9300

christy writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 02:06pm

CAT TRAPS GUIDE

If it becomes necessary to trap a cat then the following procedures should be carefully followed to ensure the cat is treated humanely. Any ill-treatment of cats may be an offence under the Animal Welfare Act and be subject to prosecution. 1. Use only approved cage traps. Do not use leg-hold or body-grip traps or snares. 2. Ensure the cage is suitably covered to provide any contained cats with protection from the elements. 3. Ensure the cage is regularly checked (at least twice per day) so that caught cats are not caged for extended periods. 4. Check any caught cats for identification and contact the owner. Note: Some cats may be identified with a microchip; which can only be read with a scanner – available at most vets and Council / Shire Rangers. continued…

Dean Nicholson writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 01:48pm

The night Bubba ran out the front door was 6th September during a very wild storm.The person that trapped her said that they were after a black cat that had come into her property and was spraying.My cat Bubba was white.They also said that they had never seen my cat before until the day she was trapped.The law says that the cat must`ve entered your property more than once before they can be trapped.

Susan Borg writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 12:53pm

I hope one day that one of u cats doesn’t run out ur door then get trapped, then get PTS..Sian. What ever happened to talking to ur neighbours & saying, Ive got a problem with ur cat, its coming on my property & eating my goldfish etc..then if the neighbour doesn’t do anything then they have the right to trap it. But please its someone loved animal. The poor old girl probably had her little routine everyday went for her little walk & wouldnt hurt a fly..My cat is desexed & he still likes to go out every morning & say hello to the neighbours then sleep on their sunny bit of grass, then at 11 am comes home & sleeps on my sunny step. I thought they had 7days if they’re not Micro/chipped & 14days if M/C…Some humans are awful & cold, its a bloody cat, not a rapist or murder..

Glen writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 12:25pm

Animals are wonderful critters however, you should be responsible for your animals and considerate of your neighbors. I happen to be a dog lover. My neighbor’s cats come on my property and eat my dog food that I put out for my dogs. If the animals are for your enjoyment keep them on your property and take care of them.

Trapping should be allowed and the authorities given the right to ticket any animal owner who cannot control their animals. The neighbor’s cats have scratched my grandchildren in my yard.

Dean Nicholson writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 12:00pm

I`m Dean Nicholson the owner of Bubba and I would like to say that she was a happy healthy cat and therefore should not have been put down the morning that she was brought in to the Lost Dogs Home.They are supposed to have an eight day policy of holding on to a lost cat chipped or not.After eight days they are then put up for adoption.The excuse I was given was she had cat flu.Also why do they not have any record of my cat being brought in by the Darebin Council?From a phone call I made to Darebin Council three days after she went missing I was told no cat was collected in my area on the day that she was collected and taken to LDH.The key point I want to make is the community expects that if their pet disappears and happens to have been taken by the council to the LDH that the owner has eight days to collect their pet.Furthermore,we don`t expect that they will destroy the pet immediately using as their defence that the cat has cat flu or/and that the cat is feral.There is clearly a major problem with the way the LDH process lost animals.Dean Nicholson.

Charlotte Armstrong writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 11:11am

To allow the public to trap animals is totally wrong. Ms Greenaway is correct in saying that this allows neighbours to entice cats into their gardens and then trap them.

The person who trapped the cat should have had the decency to have checked with the neighbours before sending the cat to its death.

As for the Lost Dogs Home trying to justify the killing. They never gave the owner the chance to reclaim the cat. They have been totally irresponsible and negligent in their thoughtless decision. This is not the first time they have killed a family pet and will probably not be the last.

Rose Lloyd writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 10:34am

This is unbelievably tragic. The fact that this lovely pet was wearing a collar should have given the poor cat at least a few days grace, so the owner could have a chance to find her. If the cat was examined by a vet, why didn’t they see the ear tattoo, and therefore wait a while before euthanizing her? This is a perfect example of why people should NOT be allowed to trap animals. New guidelines should be introduced NOW so vets, pounds and shelters must allow mandatory waiting periods before putting animals down. How heartbreaking.

Karina writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 10:15am

This poor elderly cat was killed for no reason,this poor owner must be devastated!!!The Lost dogs home are coming unstuck as i was a supporter until i found out that they kill so many healthy cats and dogs every year!!!Cat trapping is something that is clearly not right,think how this poor old cat must of been so stressed and then died without her owner there,just with strangers!!!It’s heartbreaking and no one has the right to do that,no one!!!!The LDH have alot to answer for!!!

Nichole Helm writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 10:02am

I would like to see photographs, pathology and vet opinions and recommendations on this cat’s “diseased” condition. An elderly cat is EXEMPT from microchipping laws, in which case there should have been a mandatory holding period to allow the LEGAL OWNER of this cat, to find it. The cat was not doing anything it shouldn’t have been, and to be trapped in a neighbors yard would qualify as entrapment in my opinin, or could you take my kids bu putting a display of lollies in my neighbors yard? Lost dogs home… SHAME on you all! I’d like to see this man sue your asses off, how devastating!

Sian writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 09:55am

Yes you should be able to trap animals on your land. As someone who has had their own inside cats terrorised by a neighbour’s cat not to mention it keeps EATING our goldfish in our pond and spraying everything around my house, I think we are totally within our rights to trap it and take it to the authorities. People need to take more responsibility with their pets.

If the owners don’t microchip or tag their pet and let it wander the streets unsupervised then its their own fault if it gets taken to the pound. What happens when it gets to the pound is nothing to do with who trapped it and turned it in and everything to do with the owner and Council policy.

Josie Mcpherson writes:
Posted on 20 Nov 12 at 09:45am

Actually there is Annie – it is called microchipping and registering the pets, which is the law to have a cat – had this cat been chipped, then when it had been caught, it would have been easily detected when the cat was examined, and the cat could quite quickly have been reunited with its owner thanks to the owners details held on the chip register. If anything, this is a call for all pet owners to ensure they have done the right thing in having their cats chipped (many councils have reduced fee days for this to be done, so is very easily arranged), and yearly registration fees should be paid for any cats or dogs kept by a resident, with numbers owned in accordance with council regulations. Whilst I feel for the owner of the cat having lost his girl in this way, the fact remains that it could have been avoided quite easily by him.

The problem though of stray and feral cats roaming, particularly if they are undesexed, is a big one, and disallowing cat traps is not the answer, as these are an important tool in being able to catch these cats that would otherwise avoid capture, and then remain a problem in the area.

Lifting profile of advocates

FLOSS FLOSS — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:31:50 +0000

Dubbo Daily LiberalBy LISA MINNERIMAGE ABOVE: Companion animal lawyer Anne Greenaway with a much-loved Ziggie, the Dalmation. Photo: LISA MINNER

A CONFERENCE organised by local companion animals lawyer Anne Greenaway is to be held in Newcastle to share knowledege about animal welfare and rescue issues.

The aim of the conference is to lift the profile of animal advocates and to offer practical ways to start rescue groups with the aim of saving more animals from increasing euthanasia rates.

Ms Greenaway said other topics would include how to take high quality photos for rescue groups and shelter websites to increase the animals’ chances of adoption.

Other discussions will include breed-specific rescue groups, setting up animal welfare organisations with low-cost pet desexing, as well as looking at vets who work with rescue groups.

Organisations and individuals from around the state will speak about their experiences in their varying fields and share knowledge to assist other groups.

Guest speakers will include Sue Barker, Barb Steffensen, David Atwell, Olga Parkes, Barbara Trytko, Geoff Davidson and Anne Greenaway.

The lawyer encourages anyone in the region who is interested in gaining more insight into animal welfare and rescue issues to attend the conference which is to be held in Newcastle on February 2.

For further information contact Anne on anneg33@bigpond.com

http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1207918/lifting-profile-of-advocates/?cs=112

Conference tackles animal cruelty

FLOSS FLOSS — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 21:48:45 +0000

By JANEK SPEIGHT

ANIMAL rescue groups from around the state will converge in the Hunter in 2013 to address what they believe are alarming rates of animal cruelty in the region.

The Rescuers and Advocates Companion Animal Conference will be held in February at Warners Bay and aims to educate people on how to participate in animal rescue, how to find foster families for pets and how to work with media, council and vets.

Dog Rescue Newcastle founder Sue Barker, who will speak on the day, said there was a big concern about overpopulation and euthanasia rates of animals in the Hunter.

‘‘Our councils aren’t doing anything to reduce rates, especially concerning backyard breeders,’’ she said. ‘‘We’re constantly busy. Sometimes we’re getting six to eight animals in a day.

‘‘It’s unacceptable and this conference is about figuring out how we can make change.’’

Ms Barker said they wanted a wide range of people to participate in the conference.

‘‘The Hunter is a huge problem area and I’m appalled by the neglect and ignorance here,’’ she said.

‘‘We need to make the public aware of what’s going on.’’ .

Other speakers will include Olga Parkes of Hunter Animal Watch, Dr Cathy O’Neil of Macquarie Road Veterinary Hospital and Barb Steffensen, from Animal Rights and Rescue.

Organiser and lawyer for companion animals Anne Greenaway said the conference was open to anyone, and that speakers would aim to teach people about animal welfare.

The conference will be held on February 2 at the Salas Function Centre, 298 Hillsborough Road, Warners Bay. The cost for the conference is $20 and those interested can email Ms Greenaway at anneg33@bigpond.com for more information.

Showing 17 comments

Sue

Why isn’t Hunter Animal Rescue involved? They are the biggest in the Hunter?.

Jeff Jones

‘Pet Overpopulation’ is a myth. Basing a conference around the idea that breeders or anyone other than the the shelters who implement the policy of killing for convenience or space is setting the industry up for failure.

(Edited by a moderator)

Hecate

Thanks for publicising this important event and drawing attention to the surplus pets in this region. Councils vary widely in how they handle animals and their stewards so I am looking forward to learning how things work outside of the Hornsby Shire, where animals and their stewards are viewed as revenue streams and nothing more.

susanne

This is an excellent initiative. Animal cruelty should be of the utmost concern in any society. May 2013 see serious changes in the law for all animals. Susanne

The
conference shouldn’t be only about puppies and kittens dumped by their owners,
it should address larger scale subjects. Banning live animal exports and
upgrading exports to processed meat that would create added value for the
economy, besides reducing animal cruelty. Illegal breeding of dogs, dog theft to
supply dog fighting. Increasing rate of pet theft from pet shops, houses to
supply 2nd hand pet market, smuggling. Need for tougher enforcement of laws and
tougher regulations. That’s not only about animals, that’s about people, about alarming rate of criminal offences in our society.

Anne Greenaway

It is a ONE day conference FG.

How about you organise one for all the larger scale subjects you mention.

Kathryn Wilberforce

Congratulations, Anne Greenaway, for organising this Conference. We need to lift our game in Australia about animal welfare. It is sad that in an affluent country 250 000 healthy dogs and cats are killed annually in our pounds and shelters. This is especially evident at Christmas and New Year, when our pounds and shelters are overflowing, and the dedicated rescue groups work tirelessly to save animals from being killed.
Many of the animals killed are little puppies and kittens, and animals dumped by their owners. This Conferance has the wonderful potential to address the problems, and develop strategies that will hopefully save innocent lives.

Christy

I agree Kathryn the fact that owners are dumping and the breeders are getting away with horrendous conditions all comes back to the council and their community. We always advocate that people at least visit their local pound once a year and ask questions. If the councils had “community” pounds run by and for the community there would be more accountability. People talking to and helping people in their community one on one. The fact that a lot of very lazy councils choose to waste their rate payers money by contracting out their pound responsiblites maintains the status quo and nobody learns anything and nobody knows anything and big money changes hand which perpetuates the kill cycle. You are right small rescue groups run themselves ragged and get nothing and that is the way the large high kill rescues they like it.They have the big paid PR guns that rake in all the money with soft fluffy stories and the smaller groups doing all the real “rescue work” and non kill get nothing.

Barry

Excellent! If only, at long last, 2013 could be the year when Australia’s appalling record of animal cruelty will be ‘on the agenda’ and politicians finallly respond to what more and more Australians want done – e.g. the banning of live exports and of jumps racing horse-killing; and doing something tangible about the laughable fines and penalties imposed for gross animal cruelty by magistrates (which are usually at the level of minor traffic infringements).

Christy

This is called progress by the people for the people. Well done Anne from Company Animals. The system of animal welfare has broken down and has never worked. Government bodies and council are the biggest contributors to the system failure. They are not proactive and do not keep up with the laws they impliment so the system is always in sytemic failure. Its the old claytons law scenerio “laws you have when you really have no laws”. The councils due to their lazy attitude and not willing to work with their rate payes take the easy way out and contract out their pounds which perpetuates the “breed – kill” cycle that has become a very profitable business for the large rescues and a total waste of rate payers money because it is not a solution it is part of the problem. The Government nor the Councils have ever done a cost benefit analysis on the impounding of dogs and cats to the community and choose to do the same as until somthing like these conferences bring the truth to the people and creat constructive dialogue and collaboration between all those involved.

Michelle

People need to be made aware of what is happening in there “own backyards” we can not leave it to a few very special people to do it all.
Animals give us so much, its about time we realised we are here to share our world, and stopped ‘turning a blind eye’. There is so much we can all do, if it is only having our animal desexed, cared for, and protected it is a start. If anyone can look at the pictures of these animals and not feel something, you have a real problem. We all can’t forster, or rescue, but we can help in any way it is possible for us to do so, write to your local members, contact your council express your concern for their inaction, and the normally callous way they treat the poor animals that do come to their notice. As they say it all starts with one step!

Amy

This is a great initiative, Anne, Goodonya! I sincerely hope this conference attracts many animal lovers from the region, not just those already converted.

The media could also help animals by promoting this event more, attending the conference and presenting excerpts from some of the presentations, and interviewing people from local rescue groups who do such a tremendous job under difficult circumstances. The callous cruelty, cold indifference and total lack of responsibility shown by some people towards their animals, is often very stressful and demoralising to those who come to rescue, rehabilitate and comfort those animals. They do this with very limited resources, donating their time and money, just because there is no-one else who will do it.

Please, local people, attend the conference if you can, support Dog Rescue Newcastle, Hunter Animal Watch and Animal Rights and Rescue by volunteering your help – there is much to be done. eg. foster carers are always in short supply.

Fiona kane

every animal organisation should be there , they all should have this as a common interest to try and help theses poor animals ,if they choose to stay away then its obvious they care that strongly about the poor animals that a killed and the ones still waiting to see what there fate will be

Tlouisen

This conference will help bring people together to tackle the problems of dog overbreeding and irresponsible pet owners. It comes at a time when large scale puppy farms continue to thrive in the Hunter. Dog theft to supply dog fighting is also a huge problem in our region which is seldom reported.

(Edited by a moderator)

DMA

This is a very good idea and long overdue. There are a number of issues effecting the community, rescue groups, animal lovers, councils, governments, and other animal welfare organisations. And not everything is good. Whilst Australia destroys over 250 000 unwanted pets every year, most of whom are healthy, new ideas and strategies need to be developed and implemented in order to drastically reduce the numbers killed.

The rescue groups in the Hunter Valley and Central Coast have developed such strategies where we have seen a huge reduction in the kill ratios at numerous council pounds who cooperate with the rescue groups. At Singleton they have a kill ratio of 17.5%, Gosford has one of 15.5%, Wyong has one of 12.5%, and Muswellbrook has one of 8.5%. This success reflects all the hard work and effort put in when the emphasis is place solely upon the saving of lives. Meanwhile the RSPCA has a kill rate of 50.6% whilst they have over $40 million invested in shares and long term investments and they made a further $9 million operating profit last year. Clearly there’s a fundamental difference in the strategies of the two groups: one is about saving lives whilst the other is about making money.

This conference will be thus about demonstrating to the public the greater alternative which the rescue groups have on offer. Given the NSW Government’s Companion Animal Taskforce is supposedly about trying to significantly reduce the number of companion animals killed every year, then they should listen to what these successful groups have to say instead of ignoring them as is usually the case.

Christy

The NSW Government’s Companion Animal Taskforce is seated by members for the very groups and bodies who have for the last 50 years helped get us to where we are today. It is stupidy at its best to load a taskforce with the very same groups and bodies who churn our 250,000 annual pet kill mill. They feed it, they market it and they get money from it. “What kind of vetting was put into this Taskforce? Obviously non the same old people expecting a different outcome.

(Edited by a moderator)

Vinfimoult

Should drag the CEO from RSPCA along as they have the highest kill rates… They need to work with rescue groups and not against them to drop their kill rates …

RSPCA cops a serve over two dead dogs

FLOSS FLOSS — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:00:24 +0000

South Coast Register

A CLAIM by the Nowra RSPCA that two dogs in its care had found homes when in fact they had been put down has upset animal advocates.

On the RSPCA Nowra Facebook page a photo was posted of a group of people with six dogs on July 29.

At least two of those dogs had been euthanased by the RSPCA, bringing into doubt the organisation’s claims of the number of animals it adopts out.

The Facebook issue was raised by Tony Twining, a volunteer with the Nowra branch of the RSPCA shelter between February and May this year.

Mr Twining said the two dogs that he knew about, Reg and Max, had been put down in May.

“When the RSPCA published this on Facebook saying these dogs had found their forever homes they knew those two dogs were dead,” Mr Twining said.

“I’m upset that I’m in that photo, it’s quite offensive, I feel like I’m complicit in that lie.

“I am also concerned that it is still on their Facebook page.

“RSPCA NSW CEO Steve Coleman claims to have investigated the issue but the page is still there,” Mr Twining said.

The Register contacted Mr Coleman who confirmed that photo did appear on the RSPCA Facebook page but believed it had been taken down.

“I understand where he [Mr Twining] was coming from,” he said.

“He’s obviously annoyed we’ve misled people. Some days later one of those dogs had been euthanased. It was never the intent to mislead or misrepresent anything at the time when that photo and caption went up.

“We’re an organisation that isn’t perfect and is striving to do better, but the energy needs to be channelled into reducing the number of animals brought to us,” Mr Coleman said.

Lawyers for Companion Animals principal Anne Greenaway is an animal welfare campaigner who believes the organisation is more concerned with making money than animal welfare.

“This is not the first report I am aware of that the NSW RSPCA has stated that an animal has found a home when in fact the animal has been killed,” Ms Greenaway said.

“RSPCA counselled Tony Twining on his comments on a Facebook page, yet they did not and still have not removed their false comments on that same Facebook page, despite being fully aware that the comments were false.”

http://www.southcoastregister.com.au/story/572739/rspca-cops-a-serve-over-two-dead-dogs/

The bloody truth about live export

FLOSS FLOSS — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:37:39 +0000

By ANNE GREENAWAY

Dec. 1, 2012, 4 a.m.

IN MAY 2011, Four Corners’, A Bloody Business, opened the collective eyes of the Australian public to the horrific way in which Australian cattle ended their lives in Indonesian abattoirs.

These horrific and brutal acts epitomise the cruelty associated with the live export trade.

Australians watched – shocked and distressed as footage of animals’ eyes being gouged, tails being broken and cattle being hit and kicked streamed into Australian living rooms.

Viewers witnessed cattle smash their heads repeatedly on concrete, struggle and vocalize in pain for minutes after blunt knives and inexperienced slaughtermen failed to make clean cuts to the throat.

These horrific acts of cruelty both traumatised and mobilised the nation.

Rallies were held in major capital cities of Australia, politicians’ in-boxes were flooded with emails opposing the live export trade, talkback radio was inundated with calls and MPs called for a conscience vote on the issue.

While for many Australians this story may have been their first exposure to the reality of the live export industry, concerned individuals and animal welfare organisations have been raising concerns to government and industry bodies about the inherent cruelty associated with live export for more than 30 years.

The live export industry and government would have us believe these horrific acts of animal cruelty were isolated incidents. This is not true.

One organisation opposing the live export industry is VALE (Vets Against Live Export). This group of more than 100 veterinarians has spoken out to show the reality behind live export, and expose the people who continue to let it happen despite overwhelming evidence of poor animal welfare at all stages of the live export process.

Despite repeated assurances by government and industry bodies that animal welfare standards were being met, further revelations of animal brutality were revealed in November 2012, this time to sheep exported to Pakistan.

This time, in Another Bloody Business, viewers witnessed sheep being stabbed, clubbed and buried alive in their thousands.

How much suffering must these animals endure for the sake of profit?

The live export industry does not recognise sheep and cattle as living, breathing, sentient beings capable of feeling pain and experiencing fear.

Instead they are viewed as “commodities” no different to wheat, gold, oil and natural gas. Such sentient beings are regarded as units of production in an industrial process.

It is morally reprehensible the Australian government defends large-scale animal cruelty associated with the brutal live export trade just because it pays someone’s bills.

Similar arguments to those used by the Australian government and the live export industry were used in favour of continuing the slave trade.

Those who view sheep and cattle as units of production are at odds with not only large segments of the Australian population but also, arguably, God.

In 1990 the Pope stated animals “possess(ed) a soul and that men must love and feel solidarity with our smaller brethren.”

According to Nobel Prize winner John M Coetzee: “Something has gone badly wrong in relations between human beings and other animals, and it is not just animal welfare and animal rights organisations that say so. Large swathes of the public are troubled too.”

RSPCA approved farming labels challenged

FLOSS FLOSS — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 23:25:41 +0000

RSPCA approved farming labels challenged
By ANNE GREENAWAY Nov. 24, 2012.

A recent assessment by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) rejected an application by the Australian Egg Corporation relating to a free-range certification trademark.

Public submissions were invited by the ACCC and more than 1700 were received with all but seven opposed to the application.

In light of this decision it is difficult to comprehend an earlier decision of the ACCC with respect to concerns being raised in relation to RSPCA Approved Farming Standards (Paw of Approval) being applied to free range Primo pork products.

The labeling of this product shows a wide open paddock with the words free range displayed in large print. Accompanying the image are the words “This product proudly meets the RSPCA’s independent and animal-welfare friendly practices”.

However close inspection of the RSPCA’s document entitled RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme Standards reveals high stocking densities of about 19,768 pigs per hectare. This concentration is not what the community considers to be free range consumers pay a premium for free range products and are entitled to have confidence in the labels and accompanying logos attached to food products.

The RSPCA standards may cause consumer confusion making it difficult to make an informed choice. The integrity of free range in the eyes of the consumer has the potential to be compromised.

There is increased public awareness and heightened concerns surrounding food production methods and animal welfare.

Consumers purchasing animal products are entitled to truth in labeling.

Greens MP Dr John Kaye has recently introduced a bill into NSW Parliament with respect to truth in labeling. However the Minister for Primary Industries, Katrina Hodkinson, has indicated she will not support this bill.
The Minister for Primary Industries and her department has enforcement powers for animal cruelty matters under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCCTA). Under POCCTA some farming methods are exempt.

An additional difficulty arises in that a Department of Primary Industries views itself as a “friend” of industry or producer interests. There is a conflict of interest with the DPI being responsible for the administration and enforcement of animal protection statutes, such as POCCTA.

In addition to concerns about high stocking densities with respect to RSPCA approval logos as applied to Primo free range pork products, there would appear to be a further conflict of interest as RSPCA derives a commercial advantage from this arrangement due to the RSPCA charging producers 2 per cent of products sold to use their logos.

In the UK, activists from Animal Aid have released shocking footage from piggeries whose pork products carry the RSPCA Freedom Food logo.

A recent 2012 UK report Entitled Farm Assurance Schemes and Animal Welfare (How the Standards Compare) found that there were a number of “key areas for improvement” with the RSPCA Freedom Food scheme which scored poorly in a number of areas against set welfare criteria.

While misleading labeling continues animal welfare will be severely compromised, consumers conned, and farmers providing higher welfare standards with lower stocking densities and higher production costs will be unable to compete with farmers using more intensively-farmed livestock production methods masquerading as free range.

A written request was made to the RSPCA to confirm the stocking density for outdoor pigs as per the RSPCA Approved Farming Scheme was less than one square metre for a 35 kilogram pig.

The RSPCA was also asked to disclose the dollar amount the RSPCA received from royalties from sales of all pork products which carry the RSPCA Approved Farming Paw of Approval. No response was received from the RSPCA in relation to these queries.

http://www.dailyliberal.com.au/story/1141797/rspca-approved-farming-labels-challenged/?cs=120

RSPCA criticised over claims test to decide fate of dogs is misused

FLOSS FLOSS — Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:24:41 +0000

The Sydney Morning Herald

October 9, 2012

Nicole Hasham

Waiting for a new home … Oscar is in need of adoption from the Yagoona RSPCA shelter. Photo: Wolter Peeters

THE RSPCA has been forced to defend a “temperament test” used to decide whether dogs are re-homed or euthanased, amid claims the assessment is being misused and animals are not given the best chance at life.

The RSPCA euthanased more than 4800 dogs in NSW last financial year, about 40 per cent of dogs brought in. More than 60 per cent of those were euthanased due to “behavioural” problems.

The overall rate of dogs killed far exceeds some council pounds that work with “no-kill” animal rescue groups, such as Muswellbrook (3.7 per cent) and Wyong (12 per cent).

Owner wanted … Bella. Photo: Wolter Peeters

Late yesterday, the RSPCA released to the Herald a copy of its behavioural assessments, otherwise known as “temperament tests”, after initially refusing the request on confidentiality grounds.

It showed dogs are scored negatively for behaviour such as barking, trembling and jumping. Those that accrue more than 100 points are deemed “unsuitable for adoption”.

An RSPCA spokeswoman said the document was used as a “guide”, and options such as rehabilitation, behaviour modification and foster care were investigated before euthanasia.

But the Principal of Lawyers for Companion Animals, Anne Greenaway, said so-called aggressive behaviours were often exhibited by animals that were “terrified”.

“It’s a lack of proactive measures to try and save animals, rather than put in the monumental effort that rescue groups do, the RSPCA appears to find it easier to kill [them],” Ms Greenaway said.

She believes the RSPCA was ”threatened” by other animal welfare groups with which it competed for funding and donations, and often would not work in collaboration with them.

She described its approach to animal management and re-homing as “lazy and apathetic compared to other groups”, citing the low numbers of cats and dogs advertised for adoption on its website.

Several animal rescue groups contacted by the Herald reported the RSPCA had not responded to offers to release dogs into their care for potential re-homing. Nathan Barnes, a former RSPCA employee and animal behaviour expert who claimed to have helped devise the behavioural test, said it was used incorrectly.

“The idea of the temperament test was not to fail the dog; it was to discover what the actual true behaviour is,” he said. ”After the results of the test, you need to carry out rehabilitation if it’s required, which is not happening, then reassess the dog.”

Mr Barnes said the tests were often carried out under the wrong conditions, such as assessing a dog before it had adjusted to the pound environment.

The RSPCA NSW chief executive, Steve Coleman, said a dog that displays “overt aggression” towards a person or other animal “will likely be deemed unsuitable for placement”.

He rejected claims the RSPCA was unwilling to collaborate with other animal welfare organisations, adding that “discussions have been undertaken, and continue to be undertaken, with a number of community-based rescue groups”.

He said the organisation relied on shelter staff and volunteers to photograph animals available for adoption, and staff often had more pressing duties.

He denied that behaviour assessments were conducted while animals were still settling in, and said rehabilitation was considered in light of the animal’s background, behaviour in the shelter and “available rehabilitation opportunities”.

The RSPCA also helped dogs find a new home through a state-wide foster care network and other programs, he said.